DRDO Multical Rifle Unveiled

[Kunal Biswas]

The lower velocity is abt prototype or early batches, The present once are fast or faster as the NATO once ..

5.56 INSAS is 64 grain, but has a lower velocity at around 890m/sec and lower barrel pressure..

 

[Renegade]

Wait they were to develop a bullpup design right, what happened?

I am unable to insert the image of the bullpup dsign for mciws. from my system.

 

[pmaitra]

I am unable to insert the image of the bullpup dsign for mciws. from my system.

Upload in ImageShack (it is free) and then hotlink it.

Also, it might be that you are new, so you might have restrictions. Can you post the link, or send me a PM with the link? I will embed them in your post.

 

[Shaitan]

I am unable to insert the image of the bullpup dsign for mciws. from my system.

If it's this, we've seen it.

 

[ghost]

 

[cobra commando]

@sob ji @Twinblade :ranger:

India's Prototype MCIWS Rifle In Detail - The Firearm Blog

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Its the comments make things Interesting, The first comment by John is actually an Indian living in India and working or ex - police forces member, He is a lover of G36 ( Never used ) and a hater to an extreme of INSAS ..

Edit : I can be wrong though

 

[ghost]

I would really appreciate if some one does the assessment on these(without being biased and based on only as a product)

1 Aesthetics of the rifle
2 Ergonomics of the rifle
3 Feasibility of the features provided in the rifle
4 Build quality of the rifle
5 *leave the performance as it is yet to be known

In comparison to these or any other modern successful assault rifle as standard

or any other modern assault rifle.

Please do it without being biased (pro india) who would hail anything from india and (anti india) who would hate anything from india.
I want a fair assessment without any prejudice of the "product" and product only.

 

[Twinblade]

@sob ji @Twinblade :ranger:

India's Prototype MCIWS Rifle In Detail - The Firearm Blog

I saw that a while back. I have no idea why he is crediting me

Please do it without being biased (pro india) who would hail anything from india and (anti india) who would hate anything from india.
I want a fair assessment without any prejudice of the "product" and product only.

How many people over here have used any of those rifles to be able to give you a comprehensive review ?

 

[ghost]

I saw that a while back. I have no idea why he is crediting me



How many people over here have used any of those rifles to be able to give you a comprehensive review ?

The points i have mentioned
1 Aesthetics of the rifle
2 Ergonomics of the rifle
3 Feasibility of the features provided in the rifle
4 Build quality of the rifle
5 *leave the performance as it is yet to be known

Do not need one to use the rifle "just good knowledge about rifles" to do assessment on these.

Going by ur reasoning do one have to ride al khalid ,arjun mk 2,tejas etc for their assessment?

 

[Twinblade]

The points i have mentioned
1 Aesthetics of the rifle

Personal preferences.

2 Ergonomics of the rifle

Can't be compared unless you fire a few hundred rounds and lug it around all the time.

3 Feasibility of the features provided in the rifle

Use it to abuse it.

4 Build quality of the rifle

Own one, use it, observe wear and tear, report.

5 *leave the performance as it is yet to be known

Essentially, all the above points.

Do not need one to use the rifle "just good knowledge about rifles" to do assessment on these.

Want to hear my assessment of ARX-160 ? it's a crap rifle. I haven't used it but I can take a look at internet pictures and tell you right away.

Going by ur reasoning do one have to ride al khalid ,arjun mk 2,tejas etc for their assessment?

I reserve utmost contempt for those who compare platforms without specific data points and as a matter of personal principle, I never indulge in them. Sue me.

 

[ghost]

Personal preferences.



Can't be compared unless you fire a few hundred rounds and lug it around all the time.



Use it to abuse it.



Own one, use it, observe wear and tear, report.



Essentially, all the above points.



Want to hear my assessment of ARX-160 ? it's a crap rifle. I haven't used it but I can take a look at internet pictures and tell you right away.



I reserve utmost contempt for those who compare platforms without specific data points and as a matter of personal principle, I never indulge in them. Sue me.

If you do not want to do it it's alright.

Anybody else is most welcome "even if it is his/her personal preference " i am most interested to hear it.:thumb:

Regarding arx 160 it is anything but "crap" but if you want to treat it as crap you are most welcome.
i would like to quote a post from other forum"Apparently, the Beretta went through gaga reviews with troops at the Infantry School, with zero stoppages even after it went through a supposedly a gruesome routine. "

"sue me" I have better things to do.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@ghost, Twinblade is right in his opinion & You are on yours, The difference is his view based on field reports and user trails and your from first look and an analysis based on pictures, My view based on personal experience, i will stick to INSAS

If you do not want to do it it's alright.

Anybody else is most welcome "even if it is his/her personal preference " i am most interested to hear it.:thumb:

Regarding arx 160 it is anything but "crap" but if you want to treat it as crap you are most welcome.
i would like to quote a post from other forum"Apparently, the Beretta went through gaga reviews with troops at the Infantry School, with zero stoppages even after it went through a supposedly a gruesome routine. "

"sue me" I have better things to do.

 

[Twinblade]

If you do not want to do it it's alright.

Don't derail this thread, go start a MCIWS vs XYZ rifle in the land warfare sub forum (not the Indian army sub fora) and see it degenerate to mindless banter.

Regarding arx 160 it is anything but "crap" but if you want to treat it as crap you are most welcome.
i would like to quote a post from other forum"Apparently, the Beretta went through gaga reviews with troops at the Infantry School, with zero stoppages even after it went through a supposedly a gruesome routine. "

Sarcasm detector failure detected.

"sue me" I have better things to do.

Like comparing which rifle is the most tacticool without ever being in a 40 km radius of any ? You do realise how stupid that is. If you really want pertinent opinions, I'd recommend a forum like AR15.net, which although filled with redneck hicks has large number of members vast majority of whom are multiple firearm owners and actually have hands on experience with a gazillion types of accessories and rifles from every stable.

 

[abingdonboy]

Want to hear my assessment of ARX-160 ? it's a crap rifle. I haven't used it but I can take a look at internet pictures and tell you right away.

How can you possibly say that then- having never seen it in person or used it? Just watch this video to see how it is anything but crap:




Look how well thought out the rifle, everything is intuitive and simple- this is no accident, this is the result of years of R&D and decades of expertise from Berreta.


The ultimate proof is the fact that the Italian SFs are using this weapon as will their entire infantry- the Italian army is a professional force, they won't accept a sub-standard rifle.

As mentioned by @ghost, I've heard the ARX-160 blew IA trail teams away during field trials last year- the simplicity and effectiveness of the weapon and its ruggedness were like nothing they'd ever seen before.

 

[Twinblade]

How can you possibly say that then- having never seen it in person or used it? Just watch this video to see how it is anything but crap:

Sarcasm detector failure detected part 2.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I think @arnabmit did a pretty good work here ..

My observations on the MCIWS:

1> Front and rear flip up iron sights. So it seems that IA is now serious about optics on regular issue infantry AR
2> This reflex sight seem to be the same one mounted on the Milap/MSMC. Is this a Meprolight?
3> P-rails finally on 3, 6, 9 & 12 o'clock. Maybe the 12 o'clock rail should have been longer so that a 2/4x magnifier could be attached to the reflex sight?
4> M16 type cocking handle. Ambidextrous, but every time one reloads a mag, the weapon would have to be dismounted from the shoulder to operate it. Also, forward assist is missing. What happens in case of a soft let down of the bolt?
5> Basic cheek rest is ok for standard issue. But in case of larger (higher profile) optics like thermal or one with a laser rangefinder, it would be hard to align sight with eye in the absence of an adjustable cheek rest
6> Telescopic butt stock. How many positions are there? I guess this is not for CQB, else would have been a foldable butt stock (CQB/PDW task delegated to the MSMC?)
7> Only 2 sling points. Maybe a third sling point on the sides would have helped?
8> Bayonet lugs are the same as INSAS 1B1
9> Looks like a good hollow and textured ergonomic pistol grip, with place for a tool kit/cleaning kit inside
10> I would say that it has a gas operated short stroke self regulated action. Doesn't seem to have any gas adjusting mechanism. Definitely a floating barrel design
11> Polymer foregrip, which could be detached by taking out the front take-down pin (12) to reveal the full 6 o'clock P-rail to mount the UBGL
12> Front take-down pin to attach polymer foregrip, UBGL, or to disassemble the upper and lower receivers
13> Closed rotating bolt action. Ejection is not ambidextrous. No forward eject
14> Mag window. More clarity to the soldier to know how many rounds still left in the mounted mag
15> AR-15 style ambidextrous mag release
16> I think they might have placed the bolt release in front of the trigger, inside the trigger cavity, to be operated by the trigger finger, like in the ARX-160. Else, the trigger could be dual action where after cocking, the first short trigger pull releases the bolt
17> Ambidextrous fire selector lever. Standard Safe/Single/Burst modes
18> Rear take-down pin to disassemble the upper and lower receivers
19> Not exactly sure what it is. Most probably just the rivet pin for the hammer. Might also be the bolt release button.
20> Not sure what this polymer piece with 2 allen head screws is for. Maybe just to take off the upper polymer cover.

The receivers are not made out of stamped sheet metal like the AK or INSAS. This looks more like made out of cast lightweight alloy. So, it would be much more expensive than the INSAS and would not be produced as quickly as the INSAS. It would be lighter than the INSAS, but not as light as a gun with a full polymer body like the ARX-160. The metal crafting seems to be immaculate and impressive.

Thanks to @sob for allowing me to edit his picture.

At this point there is very less detailed information to make a detailed comparison.

What I can say from the apparent features are this:

1> Both are based on the AR-15 design philosophy
2> Both use the short stroke gas piston operation, which is way more cleaner and more efficient than the direct gas impingement system of the M16
3> The MCIWS is multical, which means just by changing the barrel and the bolt assembly, you can get a new weapon. HK-416 only has 5.56 capability where you need the HK-417 to fire 7.62
4> 416-A5 has a gas regulator which enables it to be used with a suppressor. We have no idea yet if there is a gas regulator in the MCIWS. In fact it looks like it has a auto regulating gas piston. Anyway, since the MCIWS is an AR and not a carbine, there is no use of a suppressor for it. CQB/PDW roles would be delegated to the MSMC which can be used with a suppressor.
5> The 12 o'clock P-Rail on the MCIWS is not full length like the HK-416, so mounting multiple optics would be an issue (like reflex+magnifier). Then again such situation arises with SF who uses the TAR-21 anyway. MCIWS is an infantry issue AR which would not need multiple optics.
6> I did not see any bolt release or forward assist on the MCIWS (which doesn't mean it is not there), whereas the same on the 416-A5 is pretty ergonomical and ambidextrous.
7> One of the biggest USP of the HK-416 is it's "fire under any condition" (dirt/water/mud/sand). We would have to wait for trials to know where the MCIWS stands.
8> A proprietary feature of the 416 is its burst mode trigger group, where out of a 3 round burst group, if you fire only 1 or 2 rounds with a short trigger pull, on the next trigger pull, instead of firing just the remaining rounds of the earlier burst group, it resets the counting cam and fires a complete burst of 3 rounds. We do not know if such a feature is incorporated in the MCIWS.
9> Both does not have ambidextrous brass ejection, but the 416 has forward ejection (not to be confused with the F2000 type forward ejection channel) which the MCIWS does not. So a hunched up left handed shooter might have hot brass ejecting on his body, or on his buddy next to him.
10> The 416-A5 weighs between 3.5-3.9kg depending on the barrel length. We do not know the weight of the MCIWS.

 

[sayareakd]

Dont go by style go by what will make us win war. It will depend on use in our conditions, cost, simplicity and other things.

 

[abingdonboy]

Sarcasm detector failure detected part 2.

Ah I see- this is awkward

 

[ghost]

Don't derail this thread, go start a MCIWS vs XYZ rifle in the land warfare sub forum (not the Indian army sub fora) and see it degenerate to mindless banter.



Sarcasm detector failure detected.



Like comparing which rifle is the most tacticool without ever being in a 40 km radius of any ? You do realise how stupid that is. If you really want pertinent opinions, I'd recommend a forum like AR15.net, which although filled with redneck hicks has large number of members vast majority of whom are multiple firearm owners and actually have hands on experience with a gazillion types of accessories and rifles from every stable.

You did not get my question .I have not talked about comparison but to assess MCIWS while keeping other rifles as a standard point.
Wanted to know where it stand in international market as a "product"

Let's say i just want to know what "cosmetic" and other improvement would one incorporate in it if one was given the oppurtunity to do it.