Yes, that is what I also said, that the picture is not clear, so I could be wrong.
M4 is a carbine,MCIWS on the other hand,is a full fledged rifle.Try to learn the difference between the two before posting your comment.
Many modern rifles are around the size of M4 with 13-14 inch barrels (Bren Cz 805, Beretta ARX 160, FN SCAR). The modern carbines are even shorter with 10-11 inch barrels. 18-20 inch barrels are no longer good enough.
That's just your opinion,mate,do not shove it down as a fact.Such short barrels on those 'rifles' is exactly what making them totally unsuitable and ineffective for medium range combat.Because the 5.56 was designed to be fired from 20 inch barrels,because of its higher velocity requirement owing to its light weight bullets.
Yes, because some of the biggest arms designers and firms standardising around 13-16 inch barrels for rifles, INSAS Excalibur included, with greater overall gun stability is just my opinion and in no way reflects the modern trends in weapon design (circa 2005 onwards). The fact that most of these guns with shorter barrels have a calibrated range greater or equal the MCIWS with a much larger barrel is totally my opinion as well.
Greater range with shorter barrel and same ammunition - wow!!Awesome!!Brilliant!!Excellent!!Now you should contact the Nobel committee mate,for you have successfully altered the laws of physics!!Bravo!!
I am being rather polite here, I don't think you grasp the concept sufficiently. INSAS bullets have sufficient lethality till 700-800 meters, yet the effective range of the rifle is only 400 meters. Why ? because due to the stability of rifle, sights etc. and the trajectory of the round, the accuracy drops significantly past 400 meters and it is fairly difficult to hit anything. INSAS excalibur achieves the same range with a shorter 16 inch barrel and better gun design. No laws of physics were broken with the above modification. Ditto with M-16, the lethality of the 5.56 ammunition is upto 900 meters yet the effective range is only 500 meters with a 20 inch barrel same as that of m-4.
And so am I,trust me.
Oh please,save it for someone who hasn't fired a rifle.
Stability comes into picture when you are firing in bursts,but that is not the case with semi auto!!Yes,if the gun is less stable,it will take more time to realign your rifle after you fire it,so it will take longer to line up the follow up shots downrange.But stability does not increase range,not in the semi automatic mode at least.
You think??
For once,I've to agree though.But this will apply to any and every rifle,chambered in 5.56X45,more so for the short barrel ones like M4 or SCAR due to their significantly reduced initial muzzle velocity.No matter how much you want to deny this,laws physics simply won't allow them to achive greate ranges to INSAS just because their alleged greater stability.This statement does not make an iota of sense.What do you mean by 'Ditto with M16'?The standard issue M16s still come with a full length 20 inch barrel,obviously they are among the most power rifles,chambered for this particular caliber.
That's nearly impossible.At that range,a regular 5.56 projectile will have lost so much of its energy that it will hardly be able to incapacitate anyone.
Yet there have been instances,where tangos have survived multiple hits on their torsos at less than 300 yard distances,and the bullets had been fired from........................you guessed it correct - M4s!!I do not blame you though,this can be linked to your lack of practical experience and blindly following the wiki or the sales brochures.
Yeah,only in their respective marketing brochures,But in real life,more than often,all those claims are found to be utter hogwash.
And how do you know that tolerances in the MCIWS are kept so much sloppy that it induces rather large and uncontrollable error in the bullet trajectory,compared to the likes of ARX or Bren CZ??Do you have any evidence to actually base your hypotheses on or you is it just your faith,like that of those gullible religious fools,who have no evidence to support the existence of their Gods but still believe in it anyway just because they have got FAITH.So which one is it??
The best way to compare is to use the same type of ammunition (grain wise, not just calibre wise) on INSAS and M-16.
It is hard to imagine how a shorter barrel of the Excalibur can match the accuracy of the slightly longer barrel of the INSAS, but in this thread, when we are talking about the MCIWS, all discussion is moot unless we know what specific barrel is fitted to the MCIWS when observing the accuracy.
True.But I think the standard issue ammo for both US Army/USMC and Indian Army regular infantry is the M885/SS109,so the we can definitely draw a conclusion without having any doubt about leaving out any details,or the comparison being unfair to one of them.
True.But all the reports.......all the complains I've seen of tangos not dying even after getting mid body shots,have been from the US Army personnel,but not one from the USMC yet.And there lies the answer - it's the barrel length that is making the difference.The 5.56 had been designed to be fired from 18"+ long barrels.....you cut the barrel short..............well,we all know what will happen.
Precisely my point,but some people seems to think otherwise.That's why blindly following Wikipedia or those glossy sales brochures is always counterproductive.
Yes,but I just wanted to know how that member had reached to his conclusion that MCIWS is any less stable and accurate than other modern rifles??Did he compared all those rifles by himself or was it from Wiki??That's all.
I doubt it. There is an interview given by Gen. V. K. Singh on the INSAS. There, he made a comment about the INSAS rounds having a very straight trajectory. I suspect the rounds used by Indian infantry is somewhat equivalent to US civilian ammo, and more powerful than US military ammo.
USMC and US Army, if considered separately, then I agree with what you say.
Yeah, there is a lot of speculation.
If all they did is cut short the barrel, then there is no way the accuracy can be improved. If they did something else along with cutting short the barrel, then yes, it is a possibility. I will await more information.
I've watched that interview and the only conclusion I can draw at this moment is that,the General was talking about M193 rounds.Those things are quite a bit faster and has got straighter trajectory as a result.And as far as I know,M193 has largely been withdrawn from US service,owing to its alleged 'inhuman' wounding effects,but here, it still continues to remain in production and active in front-line service.So that might be the reason.
Well,separate in the sense,that USMC does a lot of things smarter than US Army does - plain and simple,the prime example being retaining and improvement of the full length M16A4s by the USMC instead of mindlessly replacing it with its shorter barreled cousin.
True,that's the reason I was saying to him that it was too early to jump to conclusions.We do not have full data,to be honest,we do not have much of data regarding the MCIWS.............heck,even the user trials are not yet complete!!
Well,the 5.56 barrel on MCIWS appears to be the same one from the 1B1.And in my opinion,the 1B1 has a solid heavy barrel,and I don't think that there really is a necessity to change it.But lets see what happens.
This author, Danvir Singh, does a better job than the other colonel (look at the comments on the article).
Please read:http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/multi-calibre-assault-rifle-make-in-india-vs-made-in-india/
=================================================================================
Indian army should immediately stop wasting its time and energy on testing other assault rifles .It should depute a committee specially comprising of SF members who have worked in desert, siachen, kashmir and all other areas which India and a combat field has to offer .This committee should work along with ARDE in development of MCIWS and provide their input for improvement .If Indian army wants a world class product it should stop whining and be prepared to contribute to make mciws a world class product in itself. If you put work and effort anything can be achieved ,Indian army should put in active efforts in development of mciws and work in collaboration with ARDE .This is what Israeli army did during the development of Tavor and same is expected from Indian army. Instead of complaining afterwards of what you got, participate in developing what you want.
I love the new flash hider/muzzle brake, 90 degree gas block and the fact that stock in not only retractable but also foldable. It would be nice if they also include an adjustable cheek rest and aluminium receiver is painted in black colour matching handguard. Assault rifle procurement kept aside Indian army should make holographic sight standard issue ,it is important for enhance reflex shooting in combat situation.
yeah man the hand guard cover should have railing,
So you mean,Army should also reject this MCIWS on the grounds of it not having a continuous top rail??Is that what you mean??If that's how your mind rolls,then nothing really remains left to discuss with you.
