Thanks for sharing. This is a very good thread with a lot of close up of the Excalibur.
Well...Israeli made Galil assault rifles were made on machinery and by documentation bought from Valmet. I have actually spent a year with then 20 years old RK which is now over forty years old and I bet still feels like new and as accurate. The same rifle will serve 80 years, maybe plastic parts replaced.My two cents. The fit an finish of the INSAS 1B1 is just about the same as the fit and finish of the Finnish copy of the AKM, or the L-85.
Suggestions for improvement are welcome, but from those who are actually capable of doing things better than us.
There are quite a few things you are talking about:
I am sure your INSAS is not as bad as we think, but I just wonder why you are replacing something taken to service only 20 years ago? Short lifespan...There are quite a few things you are talking about:
- Fit and Finish
- Bad Metalwork
- Accuracy
Fit and Finish of INSAS has improved over the years. I have compared the pictures of INSAS 1B1 and that of the Finnish Kalashnikov copy. Both are equally well finished. Proof is here. If you call this a "mess," then your Finnish made rifles are a bigger mess, because, I can see a lot of imperfections in that as well. The older Excalibur was far from perfect, and once it goes into production, its fit and finish will be as good as the INSAS 1B1. Even the INSAS has improved in quality over the years.
Bad Metalwork is highlighted only if the finish is using black glossy paint. If we paint that Finnish AKM clone in black glossy paint, even that would look like a poorly constructed contraption. Even the British L-85 looks shoddy. Moreover, if you want a rifle with excellent finish, then you have to go for cast metal alloy and then have them machined, like Bushmaster or Colt does. Even we have the capability to produce excellent quality weapons that are cast and machined. Proof is provided below. Stamped metal will never be able to match the quality of machined cast metal, and machined cast metal will never be able to be as economical as stamped metal.
Accuracy is one area where there are few rifles in the world that can match the INSAS. Galil, maybe, but certainly not RPK. What exactly is RK?
MCIWS and Colt M-16 are both excellent quality, when it comes to fit and finish. I understand there are few who form their opinion based on whether it is imported or made in India, but I actually compare the products to judge them. Is there any Finnish made rifle that can match the quality of MCIWS?
MCIWS
Colt M-16
It is called continuous improvement.
Another lie!!True,there had been some reliability issues (like magazines developed cracks in them etc) in the freezing cold at such heights,but other than that,it was a big hit.
its same to say daal me namak jayada tha,2 ,4 kankar the, daal kachi thi but baki daal theek thi
Comparing spending 2+ lakh rupees on a single rifle and consdering having an AK and excaliber ,the second one is always better.Coz the price never justifies.Also consdering the nightmare of logistics,AKs are used mainly in kashmr valley and 5.56 are used in peace areas and plains were regular infantry are stationed.So the nightmare thing is over hyped.And buying mult cal rfles meant buyiing two barells ,which was not clearly easing out the problem fully.unless the new weapon had new round incorporating the plus points of both M43 and 5.56.They singing peans now !!
It implies 5.56 X 45 will remain the caliber of LMG or Indian army will continue to use 7.62 X 51..
LMG and Carbines still remain to be cracked... what caliber will it be..
One of the basic idea to adopt 5.56 was to make it common for all varieties of Small Arms.
Logistics will become nightmare with three different calibers.
dont think he is an indian but a pak soldier with G-3...
With all due respect people like you who had experience with fire arms shouldn't post such things like asking about the quality of a finnish rifle.They are the best kalashnikov based weapons available on the whole planetbeaiing even the original russians,but was never famous thanks to the finnish policy of never exportiing RK-62s and also the high price because of the high quality.If you have any doubt just check about valmets in any US based AR-15/Kalashnikov forum.Only civilian variants were exported thats why they were never famous also after SAKO was bought buy beretta RK-95s were never produced as it was not of NATO chamber.There are quite a few things you are talking about:
- Fit and Finish
- Bad Metalwork
- Accuracy
Fit and Finish of INSAS has improved over the years. I have compared the pictures of INSAS 1B1 and that of the Finnish Kalashnikov copy. Both are equally well finished. Proof is here. If you call this a "mess," then your Finnish made rifles are a bigger mess, because, I can see a lot of imperfections in that as well. The older Excalibur was far from perfect, and once it goes into production, its fit and finish will be as good as the INSAS 1B1. Even the INSAS has improved in quality over the years.
Bad Metalwork is highlighted only if the finish is using black glossy paint. If we paint that Finnish AKM clone in black glossy paint, even that would look like a poorly constructed contraption. Even the British L-85 looks shoddy. Moreover, if you want a rifle with excellent finish, then you have to go for cast metal alloy and then have them machined, like Bushmaster or Colt does. Even we have the capability to produce excellent quality weapons that are cast and machined. Proof is provided below. Stamped metal will never be able to match the quality of machined cast metal, and machined cast metal will never be able to be as economical as stamped metal.
Accuracy is one area where there are few rifles in the world that can match the INSAS. Galil, maybe, but certainly not RPK. What exactly is RK?
MCIWS and Colt M-16 are both excellent quality, when it comes to fit and finish. I understand there are few who form their opinion based on whether it is imported or made in India, but I actually compare the products to judge them. Is there any Finnish made rifle that can match the quality of MCIWS?
MCIWS
Colt M-16
No,it's not at all like that. INSAS was a new system at that time and as a result,inadvertently there were some teething problems,as would have been the case with any other system!!And by the way,lets just say INSAS is crap,then how come those ultra modern, super advanced, light-years ahead and out of this world phoren multi cals failed in that same theater very recently,despite of being at least 6 times costlier than the 'crap' INSAS??!!so what do we make of them then??its same to say daal me namak jayada tha,2 ,4 kankar the, daal kachi thi but baki daal theek thi
True that,but despite of their superior quality,the RK 62's accuracy and long distance performance will definitely be much poorer compared to INSAS due to the use of M43 rounds in the former.This round has a trajectory more comparable to a mortar shell than a rifle bullet,the bullets are too slow with so poor ballistic coefficient that they just drop too much even before passing 200 yards,which makes it totally unsuitable for conventional warfare................at least for an army whose training method is predominantly marksmanship oriented,with soldiers being trained to take well aimed shots in semi auto mode.
I have never had the opportunity to use RK-62, so you might as well be right that it is the best Kalashnikov clone out there. I just don't know.
@Bhadra,
@Bhadra,
Oh , it means I have arrived on DFI .... that is good
