INSAS Rifle, LMG & Carbine

[Kunal Biswas]

I really doubt that, short stroke has reliability issues, Their used to be plenty of problem with SLR at desert, We have been following long stroke piston for some reason ..

Regarding weight, I don`t expect better here when taking such a caliber in account ..

SHORT STROKE PISTON assembly. SSP based wpns have the same reliablity with less recoil and weight.

Thats the main reason why other vendors have been invited. @Kunal Biswas all INSAS variants including the upgrades utilize the services of a long piston which is ok for a 5.56 considering the weight but ITS NOT OK for a 7.62.

 

[Prashant12]

Army lists improvements needed before Mhow test

BENGALURU: The Indian Army on Wednesday has said that the indigenously developed 7.62mm X 51mm assault rifle developed by the Rifle Factory Ishapore (RFI) still requires comprehensive design analysis before being considered for the trials at Infantry School, Mhow.

The Project Management Team (PMT) had completed demonstrative firing of the rifle last week. Among the things that the Army has pointed out to is "excessive recoil, barrel bulge, and stoppage-free firing."

TOI had reported earlier this week that the rifle had not achieved stoppage-free firing of 2,400 rounds which the army requires. "During the evaluation, the PMT found excessive number of faults and stoppages to the extent more than 20 times, the maximum permissible standard," the army has said.

PK Agarwal, Additional General Manager, RFI had told TOI that the team is confident of achieving stoppage free firing, but had failed to acknowledge some of the other concerns. He did not respond to calls on Wednesday.

The Army has further said: "Excessive flash and sound signature have been observed in the prototype as compared to desired levels...the aspect of interchangeable barrels has not been thought, conceived and thus not incorporated."

Besides, the Army has also said that the weapon needs ergonomics correction, which assume considerable importance.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ded-before-mhow-test/articleshow/59254970.cms

 

[mayfair]

I have loved INSAS my entire life its accuracy In particular but i know what are its short comings and what needs to be done

Exactly. You know this weapon in and out and you know its pluses and minuses. How long would it have taken to come to terms with all of this? A few years at least, perhaps?

Don't you think it would be great if you folks in the army can sit down with folks at OFB and discuss these at length on how to iteratively improve INSAS by getting rid of the shortcomings, while retaining what makes INSAS so good. All of it being in house in the country means that once the solutions are identified, the guns can be quickly upgraded and recycled into the armoury.

Now suppose IA goes in for a wholly new gun and it passes a few trials, but once you start using them in various ops, in various terrains, the gun will start revealing itself i.e. you'll come to understand how the gun performs under various scenarios, in various climes and environs.

Now if there are glitches, you'll have to run to an overseas manufacturer, who may or may not be as receptive to your suggestions. Even if they are, their "experts" will have to fly down to India, sit with officials, not down the kinks, take them to their R&D team, which will most likely be based in their home country. The R&D team will look at your list, maybe start working on some of them, then provide you with hopefully a new improved product, which will need to be tested again to see if the glitches are gone. And the cycle repeats again.

Even assuming that the R&D team based overseas addresses all your concerns, then how long before the solution can be implemented en masse and each and every gun that was issued can be upgraded to the same standards by the local "assembly" unit?

How many years do you think this will take?

With INSAS you have already amassed huge user data. Army and OFB can use this wealth of information to improve and enhance the rifle and develop new generation derivatives.

 

[sbm]

Army lists improvements needed before Mhow test

BENGALURU: The Indian Army on Wednesday has said that the indigenously developed 7.62mm X 51mm assault rifle developed by the Rifle Factory Ishapore (RFI) still requires comprehensive design analysis before being considered for the trials at Infantry School, Mhow.

The Project Management Team (PMT) had completed demonstrative firing of the rifle last week. Among the things that the Army has pointed out to is "excessive recoil, barrel bulge, and stoppage-free firing."

TOI had reported earlier this week that the rifle had not achieved stoppage-free firing of 2,400 rounds which the army requires. "During the evaluation, the PMT found excessive number of faults and stoppages to the extent more than 20 times, the maximum permissible standard," the army has said.

PK Agarwal, Additional General Manager, RFI had told TOI that the team is confident of achieving stoppage free firing, but had failed to acknowledge some of the other concerns. He did not respond to calls on Wednesday.

The Army has further said: "Excessive flash and sound signature have been observed in the prototype as compared to desired levels...the aspect of interchangeable barrels has not been thought, conceived and thus not incorporated."

Besides, the Army has also said that the weapon needs ergonomics correction, which assume considerable importance.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ded-before-mhow-test/articleshow/59254970.cms

This I can accept. To expect immediate perfection is insane. The issues can be resolved but OFB better get its act together. They have been given the first chance and can deliver. The weapon was inadequately tested before trials. More haste less speed.

 

[armyofhind]

@hammer head

I don't see the logic in going behind a 7.62x51mm sir. Had it been 7.62x39mm it would have still been easier to comprehend.

In an Era where the entire world has left behind the battle rifle caliber, why is the Indian Army going back to what the world has discarded?

 

[tharun]

As expected, army is looking for only imported rifles so more commissions are coming.

 

[Kay]

@hammer head
Every weapon system design has trade-offs. Long stroke pistons have higher and need lower maintenance at the cost of higher recoil and greater weight. Short stroke has the opposite. Direct impingement systems are maintenance prone. Same apply for open bolt vs closed bolt systems. There is no perfect system.
Army has to match the design limitations and prioritize it's requirements to compromise and arrive at a solution that fits it's need best. This has to be a tailor-made solution and not a ready-made one.
Also all design features are not equally important - some are nice to have and fancy features - there is always a compromise between cost and complexity.
The requirements for army should come from the field and not based on reviews of private gun owners.

 

[Ashish Tomar]

@hammer head

I don't see the logic in going behind a 7.62x51mm sir. Had it been 7.62x39mm it would have still been easier to comprehend.

In an Era where the entire world has left behind the battle rifle caliber, why is the Indian Army going back to what the world has discarded?

First of all 'entire world' has not left it behind. 7.62 NATO is making a come back in the assault/battle rifle category. US SOCOM has been using it for quite a while now, in the SCAR-H and now you have this new requirement from US Army for a new 7.62 NATO Interim combat service rifle to replace some of the 5.56 M4s of the front line troops. I guess proliferation of cheap personal body armour is making things too hard for 5.56

https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/army-to-gunmakers-show-us-new-762mm-service-rifle.html?variant=mobile.amp

 

[Kunal Biswas]

5.56mm are of many kinds, In Indian context the Indian origin is design to defeat BP vest at combat ranges ..

Such articles only reflect their inaccuracy of information which is being done deliberately to promote sales, US is a place of PR warfare between various firms, best not to bring it up here ..

 

[armyofhind]

First of all 'entire world' has not left it behind. 7.62 NATO is making a come back in the assault/battle rifle category. US SOCOM has been using it for quite a while now, in the SCAR-H and now you have this new requirement from US Army for a new 7.62 NATO Interim combat service rifle to replace some of the 5.56 M4s of the front line troops. I guess proliferation of cheap personal body armour is making things too hard for 5.56

https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/army-to-gunmakers-show-us-new-762mm-service-rifle.html?variant=mobile.amp

There is a difference in having special calibers for special troops.. and having it en masse for the entire infantry.
Indian steel core ammunition has the capability to defeat BPJs.
The rest of the world has indeed left Battle Rifle calibers behind when it comes to infantry's personal weapons.

Best do your research properly first and not quote fanboy articles.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

From personal experience and people before me who used both SLR and INSAS 1B1, there are some points i like to clarifie, In an firefight or even at range, shooting a firearm continuously takes its toll on user, With every shot one feels recoil and he has to re-correct his sights & posture and keep his focus on sights all time, Every time user press the trigger it exhaust him a little physically, larger the recoil quicker the user exhausts his ability to maintain continual fire ..

In a firefight a solider armed with a 5.56mm can shoot more rounds, more accurately without much exhaustion compare to a solider armed with 7.62nato rifle, This is something important in conventional warfare to pin your enemy down and render him inefficient, A single hit will put a solider out of action or degrade him to such an extend that his ability to return fire is more or less futile, This is something a benefit of using 5.56mm in a conventional firefight ..

Regardless how much engineering done to reduce the recoil of a 7.62nato rifle, It won`t be same as 5.56mm rifle, There are reasons we left SLR long ago ..

Honestly, I was very excited with MK1C in 5.56mm as its easy and fun to use and i consider it better,Now That heavier round will surly make anyone`s day from good to bad, I remember what is like to use SLR ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

From CT area ..

Army should induct more folded butt-stock 1B1 rather fixed, Its gud for CT ops ..

Glad to see more improved 1B1s .

 

[Prashant12]

Excessive recoil in the rifle is one of the critical gaps listed by the Army

The review of a 'desi' or indigenously-designed assault rifle done by the Army has found the weapon "unsatisfactory" and "unreliable", denting the 'Make in India' mantra for enhancing India's military firepower.

"The weapon in its present form leaves much to be desired, is unsatisfactory and requires comprehensive design analysis," the Army's assessment says.

The weapon being developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) was expected to meet the Army's requirement of nearly 2 lakh assault rifles, and be an alternative for the INSAS (Indian Small Arms Systems) rifles inducted in 1988.

Listing out the limitations in the 7.62 x 51 mm rifle after an internal evaluation, the Army review says that the weapon is a prototype with several faults that go beyond 20 times the maximum permissible limit.

A trial was conducted at the Rifle Factory in West Bengal's Chapore on June 13 and 14 after which it was decided that modifications and rectifications were needed.

An official from OFB said that the Army was satisfied after the first round of testing. "The Army gave a positive report recently," said the official who did not wish to be named.

The rejection of the rifle in its present form has prompted a meeting scheduled for Thursday with representatives from the armed forces, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Department of Defence Production to deliberate on the alternatives.

"After the first trials, certain shortcomings were noticed. Four of the eight rifles were not even fit for firing," Army sources said.

Sources said that the rifle was not fit for the next set of trials to be held in the infantry school in Madhya Pradesh's Mhow.

Excessive recoil in the rifle, redesigning of its magazine, concerns over its safety mechanism and an incompatible sighting system are some of the critical gaps listed by the Army.

"One of the rifles suffered a 'Barrel Bulge' raising concerns over the safety mechanism. The critical aspect of its inbuilt as well applied safety must be and should have been incorporated at the design level," the Army assessment says.

In September 2016, when the Ministry of Defence came out with a Request For Information (RFI) to identify probable vendors, it was stated that out of the total requirement of 1.85 lakh rifles, 65,000 were needed urgently.

The Army's demands for the rifle included an effective range of 500 metres, optimised recoil for comfort and accuracy weighing 4.5 kg that falls in the light category.


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-desi-rifle-not-good-enough-army-2480019

 

[Chinmoy]

Excessive recoil in the rifle is one of the critical gaps listed by the Army

The review of a 'desi' or indigenously-designed assault rifle done by the Army has found the weapon "unsatisfactory" and "unreliable", denting the 'Make in India' mantra for enhancing India's military firepower.

"The weapon in its present form leaves much to be desired, is unsatisfactory and requires comprehensive design analysis," the Army's assessment says.

The weapon being developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) was expected to meet the Army's requirement of nearly 2 lakh assault rifles, and be an alternative for the INSAS (Indian Small Arms Systems) rifles inducted in 1988.

Listing out the limitations in the 7.62 x 51 mm rifle after an internal evaluation, the Army review says that the weapon is a prototype with several faults that go beyond 20 times the maximum permissible limit.

A trial was conducted at the Rifle Factory in West Bengal's Chapore on June 13 and 14 after which it was decided that modifications and rectifications were needed.

An official from OFB said that the Army was satisfied after the first round of testing. "The Army gave a positive report recently," said the official who did not wish to be named.

The rejection of the rifle in its present form has prompted a meeting scheduled for Thursday with representatives from the armed forces, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Department of Defence Production to deliberate on the alternatives.

"After the first trials, certain shortcomings were noticed. Four of the eight rifles were not even fit for firing," Army sources said.

Sources said that the rifle was not fit for the next set of trials to be held in the infantry school in Madhya Pradesh's Mhow.

Excessive recoil in the rifle, redesigning of its magazine, concerns over its safety mechanism and an incompatible sighting system are some of the critical gaps listed by the Army.

"One of the rifles suffered a 'Barrel Bulge' raising concerns over the safety mechanism. The critical aspect of its inbuilt as well applied safety must be and should have been incorporated at the design level," the Army assessment says.

In September 2016, when the Ministry of Defence came out with a Request For Information (RFI) to identify probable vendors, it was stated that out of the total requirement of 1.85 lakh rifles, 65,000 were needed urgently.

The Army's demands for the rifle included an effective range of 500 metres, optimised recoil for comfort and accuracy weighing 4.5 kg that falls in the light category.


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-desi-rifle-not-good-enough-army-2480019

Its high time that IA should sit around with all the responsible entity and fix what they need. They asked for a 7.62NATO round firing weapon and as expected it do have some short comings. But instead of cribbbing on those, they should sort out the issues with meaningful discussion with people responsible. Giving DRDO or OFB infinite timeline is not something they should look after, but a meaningful timeline of 6months is what required for a practical TD. Moreover IA, DRDO and OFB should have a SPOC responsible for any development for project undertaken. These unnamed sources are no good.

 

[Shaitan]

This thing is basically made to fail, who really expects this thing to ironed out without faults in 6 months?

Well, better expect a Galil or AR type or something.

 

[ezsasa]

The fact that OFB tried to bring out a new weapon within 6 months, is itself an indication that there are some sort of change of management style in the background.

i doubt if it has happened before.

 

[Heavenshaker]

The fact that OFB tried to bring out a new weapon within 6 months, is itself an indication that there are some sort of change of management style in the background.

i doubt if it has happened before.

Sir but I feel it is barely a new weapon. How much difference is there between the Excalibur and this rifle? Making changes to a calibre requires simple things like changes to the weight of the bolt assembly, barrel etc. Which is why I said small backyard companies make these changes in lesser time. I was not talking about finish and fancy features.

 

[ezsasa]

Sir but I feel it is barely a new weapon. How much difference is there between the Excalibur and this rifle? Making changes to a calibre requires simple things like changes to the weight of the bolt assembly, barrel etc. Which is why I said small backyard companies make these changes in lesser time. I was not talking about finish and fancy features.

when an organisation which is known for it's lethargic approach does something which is out of it's comfort zone, let's atleast appreciate the effort.

The point is, such things were unheard of in the past.

when any simple decision within PSU/DPSU takes months to come out, they went ahead and finished an full re-design and prototype and internal testing cycle. give some credit to them.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You hardly know about the improvement to talk about it, Give a read from beginning you will get the whole picture..

A someone wise said, We need something new, not the same chain of claims and counterclaims going around in circles. When readers come to this thread, they should not have to go page after page seeing the same thing being repeated like a broken record..

As you are a newbie here, I suggest you to look at the thread before making your conclusions ..

Of course after pushing so much there will be some improvements. But compare the minor improvements made to the time taken. One would think that after so many years of experience they will be able to rectify the problems in at least the later designs. take for example the handguard cover. It is so flimsy, yet that has persisted in later designs. Another thing is, something as simple as labelling. Still labeling is done I by scratching on the surface of the reciever. The gun I may fire but when you see such things you lose hope that the manufacturer is capable of making changes, adapting in the case of a high pressure situation like a war. It take a rocket scientist to rectify such a minor problem. The truth is that nobody really at OFB and DRDO has shown any promising improvement.
And you say 'But the rest of the shortcomings are acceptable'
Sorry lost you at that. What shortcomings in a rifle are perfectly acceptable? Also whether or not there is a larger game at play is open to interpretation. But what is crystal clear is that the rifle is not at all acceptable neither is the organisation capable to make changes.

And no sane person would accept a faulty product with the deluded fantasy that in the future an organisation that you know to be lethargic will fix it.

Sir but I feel it is barely a new weapon. How much difference is there between the Excalibur and this rifle? Making changes to a calibre requires simple things like changes to the weight of the bolt assembly, barrel etc. Which is why I said small backyard companies make these changes in lesser time. I was not talking about finish and fancy features.

The reason I compared to the small backyard company is - if a small company is able to rapidly make changes to it's next product according to demand, why is an organisation like DRDO , ofb not able to make even minor changes that anyone that makes firearms should be able to make, even after so many years?
Instead of printing fingers at army who are just reacting to this message, should we not question the ones actually responsible? Tell me do you actually get the feel that ofb is a firearms , small arms manufacturer? Also if you have ever spoken to anyone at OFB you will see that they don't know their job. The people on this forum itself would be more informed about firearms than them.

 

[Heavenshaker]

Appreciate the feedback from you sir!