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:
View attachment 39589
