INSAS Indian Small Arms System

[Kunal Biswas]

Anyways, Having Bull-pup is good, But it need practice to get used to it..

I assume not very difficult, But IA top brass may not go for Bull-pup for regulars..

 

[Shaitan]

Perhaps you can make a drawing and share with us.

Lucky for me I don't have too.

Already a good specimen.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

That is a very old picture, one that does not show the gun very well, and a specimen that was rejected by the army.

You took the easy way out bud!

 

[Shaitan]

^^

That is a very old picture, one that does not show the gun very well, and a specimen that was rejected by the army.

You took the easy way out bud!

It doesn't matter if its old or if it got rejected. I'm sure the designers kept the barrel length the same. Like all the other assault rifle bullpup conversions, that's the only thing to show, instead of making something.

 

[pmaitra]

It doesn't matter if its old or if it got rejected. I'm sure the designers kept the barrel length the same. Like all the other assault rifle bullpup conversions, that's the only thing to show, instead of making something.

Of course it matters. If it has been rejected, it means it doesn't perform well enough. Who cares what they did with the barrel?

Perhaps that's the difference between the way you and I think. Anything that has been rejected is probably not good enough. So what's the point harping about it? Anyway, IA got the Zitarra.

Do you have any proposals on how to make the INSAS Bullpup, whose picture you posted, actually useful, so that the army accepts it? It's not that the Army is biased against OFB. They are already using the standard INSAS AR and LMG.

 

[Shaitan]

@P

This is what you said, and this is what I was addressing.

Perhaps you can make a drawing and share with us

And I said there is no need to because there is already a real specimen. That's it, simple as that.

All this thing about rejecting blah blah doesn't matter.

 

[pmaitra]

@P

This is what you said, and this is what I was addressing.



And I said there is no need to because there is already a real specimen. That's it, simple as that.

All this thing about rejecting blah blah doesn't matter.

Real rejected specimen, and you posted a picture of that - in other words, you took the easy way out. As simple as that.

At least you could have posted a picture of the Zitarra and said that is good enough for 'your' needs, i.e. compactness.

 

[Shaitan]

Real rejected specimen, and you posted a picture of that - in other words, you took the easy way out. As simple as that.

What does that have to do with anything??

CR-21 prototype remained a prototype like the INSAS-Bullpup too.

Also, many variants of the INSAS have been rejected, does that mean they're all bad?

Most assault rifle bullpup conversions keep the original barrel length instead of elongating it. Whether it's rejected or not doesnt matter to the topic. Unless of course you have a link saying they rejected it because of the barrel length..

 

[pmaitra]

What does that have to do with anything??

CR-21 prototype remained a prototype like the INSAS-Bullpup too.

Also so many variants of the INSAS have been rejected, does that mean they're all bad?

If anything is rejected, INSAS Bullpup in this case, and an alternative is chosen, Zitarra in this case, it means INSAS Bullpup is worse than Zitarra.

The answer to your question is Yes.

Most assault rifle bullpup conversions keep the original barrel length instead of elongating it.

Most people in the US prefer Japanese cars, doesn't mean they are better than BMWs. That's a bad excuse.

It is the user requirement that should dictate design decisions, not what most people do. If that is the logic you go by, you would say most countries don't have nukes, so we should not have it.

 

[Shaitan]

Most people in the US prefer Japanese cars, doesn't mean they are better than BMWs. That's a bad excuse.

What was a sh*t analogy.


If most of these designers, who clearly know what they're doing, keep the barrel length of the converted assault rifle the same. There most be a good reason for it.

If anything is rejected, INSAS Bullpup in this case, and an alternative is chosen, Zitarra in this case, it means INSAS Bullpup is worse than Zitarra.

The answer to your question is Yes.

I don't care if its worse than the M-Tar or not. Btw, show me any proof were the M-tar and the INSAS-bullpop even correlate, other then that they're both bullpops. And show me if they were intended for the same users or not.

And show me why it failed.

 

[Shaitan]

Even the Tavor-21 keeps the same 18.1 barrel length as the Galil ARM 5.56mm.

Similarly the CR-21 keeps the 18.1 of the R-4(license Galil).

 

[pmaitra]

What was a sh*t analogy.

I think you should consider arguing without resorting the expletives. You started it. Stop it now.

If most of these designers, who clearly know what they're doing, keep the barrel length of the converted assault rifle the same. There most be a good reason for it.

And if the army rejected it, there must have been a good reason for it.

I don't care if its worse than the M-Tar or not. Btw, show me any proof were the M-tar and the INSAS-bullpop even correlate, other then that they're both bullpops. And show me if they were intended for the same users or not.

Of course the IA had the requirement for a compact AR. That is why they evaluated the INSAS Bullpup and eventually got the Zitarra. How difficult is this for you to understand?

And show me why it failed.

Why do I care?

My point is not to offer the IA with a compact rifle with the same barrel length of a standard AR. That requirement has already been met. INSAS Bullpup rejected, Zitarra accepted. End of story.

My point is to offer a standard sized rifle with the longer barrel length and range i.e. comparable to the INSAS LMG.

It is you who keeps dragging in this compact bull-pup concept.

 

[Shaitan]

Of course the IA had the requirement for a compact AR. That is why they evaluated the INSAS Bullpup and eventually got the Zitarra. How difficult is this for you to understand?

Give me a link? We don't have NOTHING on the INSAS-Bullpup other than that rare picture. We don't know what the user were going to be or anything.


How many variants of the IMI Tavor TAR-21 are there?? A lot right?? Not even one variant of the assault rifle has a elongated barrel.

 

[pmaitra]

Even the Tavor-21 keeps the same 18.1 barrel length as the Galil ARM 5.56mm.

Similarly the CR-21 keeps the 18.1 of the R-4(license Galil).

And does it offer a range of 700 m? No. What does it do? 500+ m of range, right? Cool. That requirement is addressed. Now get over it.

Try to help out in other ways. I am trying. You are simply arguing on a problem that has been solved.

 

[pmaitra]

Give me a link? We don't have NOTHING on the INSAS-Bullpup other than that rare picture. We don't know what the user were going to be or anything.

Look at your own picture. Do you see IA officers examining the INSAS Bullpup? Do you even look at the pictures you yourself post?

Lucky for me I don't have too.

Already a good specimen.

And this is what was eventually inducted:

 

[Shaitan]

^^^

That's a IA officer, but is that M-TAR in the hands of a regular IA solider??


You said INSAS-bullpup was for regular troops?? Those aren't regular troops.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@pmaitra,
Zittara never materalised it never inducted, India purchased X-95 from IMI for CRPF and IAF SF, Insas Bullpup is rejected coz it was too early before its time the concept of Bullpup is clear within top brass after Indution of TAR-21 in SF..

 

[pmaitra]

^^^

That's a IA officer, but is that M-TAR in the hands of a regular IA solider??

I am sure that is not the INSAS Bullpup. The locally produced version of TAR is the Zittara and the foregrip looks different.

Look at my Avatar. I am holding an AK-47. However, it has a stick that looks like that of the Dragunov. Don't worry about superficial things like foregrip and stocks. The most important mechanisms are the bolt, receiver, barrel, gas pipe/piston, etc.. worry about those.

Here is another picture:

 

[Shaitan]

I know it's not a INSAS bullpop. I have been saying M-Tar the whole time.

Here is another picture:

What? This is a regular TAR-21, not a "Zittara" or M-TAR.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra,
Zittara never materalised it never inducted, India purchased X-95 from IMI for CRPF and IAF SF, Insas Bullpup is rejected coz it was too early before its time the concept of Bullpup is clear within top brass after Indution of TAR-21 in SF..

Kunal,

Zittara is the locally produced version of TAR.

You are right about the specifics about CRPF, IAF and not IA (my mistake).

Compare TAR and X-95 family of weapons:
http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/brochure_2012/IWI_X95_Family.pdf
http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/brochure_2012/IWI_TAVOR_AR.pdf

It's pretty obvious they are variants of each other. The main difference between X-95 family and TAR family is that the former has a very short barrel and a lower muzzle velocity. That is probably why they are issued to IAF SF.

Has Zitarra been inducted? You can tell me better. Is it being produced, well, at least OFB says so:

Ordnance Factory Board

I would also like to point out that IA is more interested in range and accuracy than compactness. That is why Zittara has a longer barrel than the original TAR.

IOFB Zittara

Notes: In 2006, the Indian Army expressed to IMI in Israel their interest in the Tavor series, and specifically the MTAR and MTAR 9mm (though they left the door open for the purchase of other members of the Tavor family). The Indian Army has invested about $20 million in the acquisition of these MTARs and ancillary equipment, and deliveries appear to have begun in mid-2007. These MTAR variants, called the Zittara series by the Indians, are destined to equip the Indian Army's best special operations units.

The Indian variant of the MTAR-21, the Zittara Assault Rifle, is largely the same as the MTAR-21 in most respects: it is topped with a MIL-STD-1913 rail, able to take most underbarrel 40mm grenade launchers (given the right adapters), and equipped under most circumstances with the Israeli-made MARS sight – an integrated unit with a low-magnification sight, a red-dot reflex sight, day/night channels, and a laser aiming module. The sight can also take clip-on NVGs. The barrel of the Zittara, however, is 12.99 inches long – over 3 inches longer than that of its MTAR-21 parent. The flash suppressor is also (very) slightly different, a concession to local manufacturing methods, and the top MIL-STD-1913 rail is a longer than that found on the MTAR-21. Primarily due to the longer barrel and local manufacturing methods, the Zittara assault rifle is also a little heavier than the MTAR-21.

The Zittara shares with the MTAR-21 the ability to use kits to convert the Zittara into a submachinegun; however, the Zittara can also be converted into a sort of PDW/high-power SMG, firing a round based on the Colt's experimental 5.56mm MARS round (no relation to the MARS sight). The 9mm Parabellum version uses the same barrel length as the Zittara assault rifle, but has no flash suppressor, and can use a locally-produced 30-round magazine (rumored to be based upon the Sten magazine) as well as Uzi magazines. The 9mm Parabellum version, like the MTAR 9mm, can also have its barrel replaced with barrel that has an integral silencer.

The High-Power SMG version also uses the same 12.99-inch barrel, but the flash suppressor is retained. The High-Power SMG version is fed by a 30-round magazine designed for the purpose. The cyclic rate of fire is slightly higher than that of the Zittara Assault Rifle, but the increase in cyclic rate is inconsequential for game purposes.

Twilight 2000 Notes: The Zittara Series is not available in the Twilight 2000 timeline.

Merc 2000 timeline: In the Merc 2000 timeline, the Indians have kept their Zittaras quite close, and have never exported them. Of course, some Zittaras have inevitably been captured by the Pakistanis, and the Pakistanis are reportedly working on reverse-engineering them.

Source: Indian Assault Rifles