Indian Army SIG Sauer 716 assault rifle.

[Gessler]

Pure speculation by a critic. 203 is a good rifle.

I said anywhere that it wasn't? Kindly quote.

As far as quality is concerned is it manufacturing or design you think are inferior to Sig ?

Both. The AK203 has a stamped-steel receiver which in general have looser tolerances than a milled receiver like SIG, the principle reasoning behind stamped receiver is cost-saving. And the AK203's dust cover, despite the hinge, doesn't retain zero as well as a pin-retained upper receiver like on SIG does. Plus no free-floated barrel on AK, all of which contribute to lowered accuracy and reliability.

Do note that this in no way means AK is bad, it just means SIG is better when compared head to head. Ofcourse like you said we are procuring both for different purposes, the reason for comparison comes because the question has been asked why AK is costing more than SIG.

Are you in defence ? Which one is issued to you ?

I'm not, even if I was, neither would be issued to me because none of the two guns are in service yet. The SIG deal has been signed and I expect first batch within year-end, while as of AK, only the JV company for production (IRRPL) has been established and production facility identified, the actual deal itself has not yet been signed and negotiations are still ongoing.

Speculate too much. The 203 by even western standards is a better rifle. Accessories you talk about are not for battle where enemy is firing at you and very little time to turn on the flash light and also give away your position. The optics which you talk about, in a battle are mounted on DMR and not on a battle rifle which every soldier carries.

 

[rone]

i think ak203 is milled receiver not stamped one .. ut 1k for ak203 bit overpriced we must go for the sig and standardise firearm all along over or it will be like IAF museum IA with thousand colour uniforms thousands of sop and thousand fire arms

 

[vampyrbladez]

i think ak203 is milled receiver not stamped one .. ut 1k for ak203 bit overpriced we must go for the sig and standardise firearm all along over or it will be like IAF museum IA with thousand colour uniforms thousands of sop and thousand fire arms

AK 203 is the most refined version of the AKM yet. Allegedly it has its internals worked out due to which, the accuracy is greater. However SIG 716 G2 is a match grade rifle aka 'state of the art', the only thing you can match up to it us the AK 15 with its free floating barrel but is not worth the cost.

 

[Gessler]

i think ak203 is milled receiver not stamped one

It's stamped for sure.

Modernfirearms.net guys also reviewed the first public showing of 200-series and they also make it a point to mention they are, in fact stamped receivers.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/ak-200-2/

 

[Noname34]

Speculate too much. The 203 by even western standards is a better rifle.

I have a question, are you saying that the Ak203 is a better rifle than what the western powers use? even better than an AR15 pattern rifle?
I don't know the general opinion seems to be that the AR15 platform is a much more refined and better platform.
Then there is the fact that the ARs are made by branded western firms like Sig,Colt,H&K (FN Herstal and Colt make rifles for the US Army) who have an excellent reputation in the firearms market. The only Ak that comes close to that level of "brandedness" would be the valmet series of Aks but then they are not Ak203s.

Anyone is free to correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Pandeyji]

Either we have to buy indigenous sights from likes of BEL (which IMO are crap) or place separate orders from foreign companies.

Tonbo Imaging

Naam to suna hoga?

 

[padmaraj]

Speculate too much. The 203 by even western standards is a better rifle. Accessories you talk about are not for battle where enemy is firing at you and very little time to turn on the flash light and also give away your position. The optics which you talk about, in a battle are mounted on DMR and not on a battle rifle which every soldier carries.

R

Tonbo Imaging

Naam to suna hoga?

tonbo doesn’t make red dots or reflex sights. You need to procure them international for now. BEL has a average reflex sight.

 

[Gessler]

Tonbo Imaging

Naam to suna hoga?

Tonbo Imaging se ek aisa product ka naam sunao that can be regarded as a day sight (collimator with red dot, or optical magnifier).

Ab har gun pe toh Thermal Imager (TI) nahi laga sakte na? Jaante ho uski cost kya hogi?

 

[padmaraj]

I have a question, are you saying that the Ak203 is a better rifle than what the western powers use? even better than an AR15 pattern rifle?
I don't know the general opinion seems to be that the AR15 platform is a much more refined and better platform.
Then there is the fact that the ARs are made by branded western firms like Sig,Colt,H&K (FN Herstal and Colt make rifles for the US Army) who have an excellent reputation in the firearms market. The only Ak that comes close to that level of "brandedness" would be the valmet series of Aks but then they are not Ak203s.

Anyone is free to correct me if i am wrong.

It's stamped for sure.

View attachment 39535

Modernfirearms.net guys also reviewed the first public showing of 200-series and they also make it a point to mention they are, in fact stamped receivers.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/ak-200-2/

it is a stamped reciever. It was displayed at the commanders conference. it doesnt have a retractable butt stock.
only a conventional stock. The build quality is very average.

 

[Hari Sud]

Guys, so far all comparison of Ak -47 and its derivatives have a western input. None of the comparison had Russian input. The American arms analysts surprisingly put the Ak-47 at a higher level of operational readiness, reliability and with 203 at a higher accuracy level. In battlefield the M-16 bullet kills less injures more. The 7.62 with 39 or 51 kills first and then anything else. In Kashmir it is proven that a terrorists hit by INSAS bullet continues to fire as he is injured only. That is reason good enough to switch the bullet and rifle caliber.

 

[binayak95]

Speculate too much. The 203 by even western standards is a better rifle. Accessories you talk about are not for battle where enemy is firing at you and very little time to turn on the flash light and also give away your position. The optics which you talk about, in a battle are mounted on DMR and not on a battle rifle which every soldier carries.

DFI has gone to the dogs. Abandon ship now lest you lose the little rationality you have left.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Guys, so far all comparison of Ak -47 and its derivatives have a western input. None of the comparison had Russian input. The American arms analysts surprisingly put the Ak-47 at a higher level of operational readiness, reliability and with 203 at a higher accuracy level. In battlefield the M-16 bullet kills less injures more. The 7.62 with 39 or 51 kills first and then anything else. In Kashmir it is proven that a terrorists hit by INSAS bullet continues to fire as he is injured only. That is reason good enough to switch the bullet and rifle caliber.

No one is questioning that. Infact Army is trying to use AK 203 butfold with perhaps shorter barrel may be in carbine role too

And AK does have reputation and real advantage to be battle ready with minimal maintenance one of the reason it is procured.

It's the cost which seems pretty high compared to Sig Sauer offered for around the same price.

View attachment 39544 View attachment 39544
View attachment 39544

it is a stamped reciever. It was displayed at the commanders conference. it doesnt have a retractable butt stock.
only a conventional stock. The build quality is very average.

Nothing wrong with stamped receiver both have their advantage.

I think army asked for a lighter rifle to carry around if i am right . And being stamped it must be lighter than milled version ( should have been cheaper too) . Offcourse recoil might be a little high. As far as accuracy is concerned 300 -400 m is a great improvement where earlier AK were meant for 200-300 m .

AK's reliability is its main selling point with minimal maintenance and always battle ready.

Thanks @Gessler bro . So basically it is the cost which doesn't make much sense.

It's a JV cost of TOT setting up manufacturing unit ( I guess machines etc ? ) Training and all Does that justify cost ?

OFB does charge higher anyway. 300 - 400 dollar OFB Tax

I just read Russia has abandoned 200 series rifle due to defects and moved to improved AK 15 ( derivative from Ak 400 series prototype) ?

How costly that would be ?

 

[binayak95]

Guys, so far all comparison of Ak -47 and its derivatives have a western input. None of the comparison had Russian input. The American arms analysts surprisingly put the Ak-47 at a higher level of operational readiness, reliability and with 203 at a higher accuracy level. In battlefield the M-16 bullet kills less injures more. The 7.62 with 39 or 51 kills first and then anything else. In Kashmir it is proven that a terrorists hit by INSAS bullet continues to fire as he is injured only. That is reason good enough to switch the bullet and rifle caliber.

Dude‍
No one is questioning the gun and calibre's effectiveness but the gun's manufacturing and PRICE.
An AKM is effective for average infantry as long as you get it for cheap, not when it's more expensive than a Gas Piston 7.62 AR.
And no, stamped doesn't equal milled receivers, nor does the AK offer suitable accuracy compared to the SIG (not that the 7.62X39 ammo can even do what the 7.62 N can)

And as far as your hilarious post on the fallacy of accessories- take a long hard look at what RR uses.
FAB kits for AKMs. Why do veterans of the CI/CT scene use such Gimmicks if they are indeed so cosmetic.

 

[Hari Sud]

Dude‍
No one is questioning the gun and calibre's effectiveness but the gun's manufacturing and PRICE.
An AKM is effective for average infantry as long as you get it for cheap, not when it's more expensive than a Gas Piston 7.62 AR.
And no, stamped doesn't equal milled receivers, nor does the AK offer suitable accuracy compared to the SIG (not that the 7.62X39 ammo can even do what the 7.62 N can)

And as far as your hilarious post on the fallacy of accessories- take a long hard look at what RR uses.
FAB kits for AKMs. Why do veterans of the CI/CT scene use such Gimmicks if they are indeed so cosmetic.

Milled receiver is pure Western marketing of its products. Nowhere in its tests the stamped receiver in Ak-47 proved inferior to expensive milled receiver of AR-15 type of guns.

The other two points you brought forward are more hilarious than my post quoted.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Milled receiver is pure Western marketing of its products. Nowhere in its tests the stamped receiver in Ak-47 proved inferior to expensive milled receiver of AR-15 type of guns.

The other two points you brought forward are more hilarious than my post quoted.

It's not western marketing infact AKs are available with milled receiver too if you want to purchase. Though with new tech most of the issue with stamped are resolved but stamped steel is thinner and of slightly low Q. The recoil is also a little more on stamped one. This is some basic of it not marketing.

But they aren't used for long range shoot and for CQ ops they have been found good enough. The advantage is cost (not in our case ) / light weight and ease of maintenance and ample parts supply .

 

[Gessler]

In battlefield the M-16 bullet kills less injures more. The 7.62 with 39 or 51 kills first and then anything else.

You do realize SIG-716 is in fact a 7.62x51 platform (AR-10) and not a 5.56x45 platform (AR-15)?

In Kashmir it is proven that a terrorists hit by INSAS bullet continues to fire as he is injured only. That is reason good enough to switch the bullet and rifle caliber.

This is a point which has been going around for quite a while (admittedly, its spoken a lot by Armymen) but I seriously have to wonder if the culprit isn't just the smaller round - but poor shot placement, partly due to the lack of any optic issued with INSAS.

I mean, American troops with same 5.56 round in their M16s and M4s fought and destroyed Saddam's conventional armies, as well as brought down Taliban government and its irregular fighters, and till this day continues to use 5.56 as standard issue for riflemen in their ongoing counterinsurgency campaigns. At the shorter ranges, they never complained about lack of ability to kill of 5.56. At longer ranges, sure 5.56 becomes less effective (but so does AK at longer ranges).

I'd read books written by former Australian SOF who served in both Iraq & Afg who would scoff at such an assertion that 5.56 is meant to injure and not kill.

Is it not because Western troops routinely issue with either a CompM2/M4 RDS or better still a TA31 ACOG with 4x magnification allowing them properly-placed center of mass shots that put down targets quickly and efficiently instead of going gung-ho with iron sights and only managing shots in to extremities (legs, arms), which obviously won't kill anyone outright, and thinking this is a fault of calibre?

Or is it that Kashmiri or Pakjabi militants are some type of superhuman and more capable of fighting than Afghan taliban or Iraqi Republican Guards?

This is a topic that deserves careful dissection and understanding, not just throwing around phrases someone heard somewhere.

 

[padmaraj]

Milled receiver is pure Western marketing of its products. Nowhere in its tests the stamped receiver in Ak-47 proved inferior to expensive milled receiver of AR-15 type of guns.

The other two points you brought forward are more hilarious than my post quoted.

picatinny rails milled on dust covers gives stability to the optics mounted. the current AK 203 with its riveted rails on a stamped dust cover gives away very fast in operations conditons. This was one of the main drawback of the INSAS series rifles

 

[samsaptaka]

I seriously have to wonder if the culprit isn't just the smaller round - but poor shot placement, partly due to the lack of any optic issued with INSAS.

How does our armed forces bureaucracy work ?
I am sure many soldiers and commanders would have conveyed the need for optics to the higher ups,
but then why this is not being mass deployed and we only see it piecemeal here and there ?
It should have been a part of the standard equipment by now, not something special !

 

[bose]

You do realize SIG-716 is in fact a 7.62x51 platform (AR-10) and not a 5.56x45 platform (AR-15)?



This is a point which has been going around for quite a while (admittedly, its spoken a lot by Armymen) but I seriously have to wonder if the culprit isn't just the smaller round - but poor shot placement, partly due to the lack of any optic issued with INSAS.

I mean, American troops with same 5.56 round in their M16s and M4s fought and destroyed Saddam's conventional armies, as well as brought down Taliban government and its irregular fighters, and till this day continues to use 5.56 as standard issue for riflemen in their ongoing counterinsurgency campaigns. At the shorter ranges, they never complained about lack of ability to kill of 5.56. At longer ranges, sure 5.56 becomes less effective (but so does AK at longer ranges).

I'd read books written by former Australian SOF who served in both Iraq & Afg who would scoff at such an assertion that 5.56 is meant to injure and not kill.

Is it not because Western troops routinely issue with either a CompM2/M4 RDS or better still a TA31 ACOG with 4x magnification allowing them properly-placed center of mass shots that put down targets quickly and efficiently instead of going gung-ho with iron sights and only managing shots in to extremities (legs, arms), which obviously won't kill anyone outright, and thinking this is a fault of calibre?

Or is it that Kashmiri or Pakjabi militants are some type of superhuman and more capable of fighting than Afghan taliban or Iraqi Republican Guards?

This is a topic that deserves careful dissection and understanding, not just throwing around phrases someone heard somewhere.

I am very curious to know what was thinking of IA of using a 5.56 round against the terrorist ... I can understand there are reason for use against enemy army solders ... Are we in for capturing terrorist alive or eliminate them ... Now we are reverting to 7.62 round after losing so many solders to terrorists ...

 

[Gessler]

I am very curious to know what was thinking of IA of using a 5.56 round against the terrorist ... I can understand there are reason for use against enemy army solders ... Are we in for capturing terrorist alive or eliminate them ... Now we are reverting to 7.62 round after losing so many solders to terrorists ...

Rest assured our CI/CT units have no more intention of taking Kashmiri/Pakjabi militants alive than Americans have of taking Taliban or Iraqi insurgency, unless they come out with arms up by themselves.

The reasons why CI/CT troops much preferred the AK over INSAS are varied, and not limited to just the calibre:

I've said this in the forum before, the principle reason being that we never managed to develop an M4A1 analogue from the INSAS family. The INSAS we use today is an M16A2 analogue.

> No full-auto capability for suppression
> Excessive barrel length and overall length, both of which are battle rifle-category
> Excessive weight (approx 1kg heavier than AK, both while loaded & empty) despite smaller calibre
> Little to no upgradability
> Fewer rounds in magazine (20 rds in rifle mag)

These are all just problems inherent to the design which make it woefully unsuitable for CQC operations of the type CI/CT engages in. On top of these you have the poor workmanship and QA/QC standards of Ordnance Factories leading to unreliable operation and lack of faith in the weapon when your life or death depend on it, made somewhat better in latter variants, but still far from perfect.

Plus, with the enemy toting AKs in close quarters, having the ability to open fire sectors through cover that we cannot return fire through owing to smaller calibre is another disadvantage, but I wouldn't say this is the root cause of the CI/CT's contempt for INSAS, rather, the last nail in the coffin.

AK on the other hand managed to tick all these boxes.

In other words, what OFB is doing now in a bid to take away the IA's carbine deal from Pvt companies (pic below), is something we should have done back in early or mid-2000s itself: