INSAS Rifle, LMG & Carbine

[cobra commando]

INSAS with UBGL

INSAS LMG

 

[ghost]

"The DRDO/OFB Excalibur assault rifle is only an improved version of the INSAS and does not in any way meet the future requirements of the infantry. This upgraded version of the INSAS was demonstrated to me in 2011, at Rifle Factory Ishapore when I was the director general of infantry (DGI). There is very little to choose between the in-service 5.56 INSAS rifle and the upgraded Excalibur."
Lt Gen. Vinod Bhatia (retd)

http://forceindia.net/ArmingtheArmy.aspx

 

[pmaitra]

"The DRDO/OFB Excalibur assault rifle is only an improved version of the INSAS and does not in any way meet the future requirements of the infantry. This upgraded version of the INSAS was demonstrated to me in 2011, at Rifle Factory Ishapore when I was the director general of infantry (DGI). There is very little to choose between the in-service 5.56 INSAS rifle and the upgraded Excalibur."
Lt Gen. Vinod Bhatia (retd)

http://forceindia.net/ArmingtheArmy.aspx

You might have posted the wrong link.

There is nothing in the link that states what you have posted within quotes.

Here is the article at the link:
________________________
Arming the Army
The armed forces urgently need to modernise the weaponry

By Lt Gen. Vinod Bhatia (retd)

The Indian Army needs almost everything except courage
— Time Magazine, December 1962

Time magazine aptly summarised the operational performance and preparedness of the Indian Army during the 1962 conflict. That may not be true today for the armed forces, but may still hold good to a large extent for the Indian soldier and the infantry. Former army chief, General V.K. Singh, in a much publicised 12 March 2012 letter to the then Prime Minister, painted a grim picture of the operational capabilities of the 1.18-million-strong army. The critical voids highlighted in this letter included ammunition, artillery guns, obsolete air defence systems and above all a lack of adequate weapons for infantry and Special Forces battalions. A major concern expressed in the letter was, ‘large scale voids in essential weaponry as well as critical surveillance and night-fighting capabilities in the over 350 infantry and Special Forces’ battalions.’

After nearly a decade long of ‘marking time’ under the previous regime, defence minister, Manohar Parrikar has demonstrated an urgent and positive response to modernisation and a number of long pending defence acquisitions have been cleared. According to reports, in an unprecedented move, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), the apex body for capital expenditure, has approved projects worth Rs 178,036 crore (USD 28 billion) giving the much needed impetus to the modernisation of the armed forces. However, most of these are high-end, high-visibility projects with long gestation period. The urgency is to sanction long-pending acquisitions of the infantry, which directly enhances the fighting efficacy of the soldiers in contact, ensures success in operations and minimises casualties by provisioning basic small arms, protective gear, enhancing night fighting capability, surveillance and communication.

The Indian infantry is by far one of the most battle-hardened and combat rich force in the world with the best soldiers and leaders at the fighting and functional level. However, it is also one of the most poorly ill-equipped force, lacking even a properly functioning rifle. The basic small arms held by the infantry are also authorised to army, the other two services and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). Hence modernisation of infantry arms and equipment ensures enhanced effectiveness of the armed forces and the CAPF. The modernisation plans of the infantry have been included in the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) of the armed forces, the progress on procurement and acquisitions continues to be at a standstill for over a decade now. The infantry should be given at least the basic small arms to fight effectively ensuring operational readiness across the complete spectrum of conflict from counter terrorism to conventional and NBC.

 

[pmaitra]

Another article on the INSAS and Excalibur from Strategy Page: Weapons: Indian Soldiers Suffer Another Setback

Excerpts:

On paper there are some improvements, like full auto-fire (INSAS can only do single shot or three round bursts), folding butt stock, Picatinny rail (for all manner of accessories), more reliable and effective magazines and more ergonomic design (making MIR easier to handle, clean and use).

Wrong information #1: INSAS can do fully automatic. INSAS supplied to the Indian Army has single and triple burst modes. INSAS supplied to the Nepalese Army has fully automatic mode.
Wrong information #2: INSAS already has folding butt stock. This is nothing new in the Excalibur.

The government weapons design capability has a long and consistent history of failure and disappointing promises.

Creating the 7.62 mm NATO SMLE and creating a local clone of the FN-FAL are hardly disappointments, leave alone failures.

In the decade following the Kargil debacle INSAS rifles also malfunctioned in several highly publicized incidents involving the leftist (Maoist) rebels increasingly active in eastern India.

This is news to me. The full auto capable INSAS rifles supplied to the Nepalese Army were used, well, in full auto, by the Nepalese Army, against the Maoists, and the barrels suffered overheating and jamming. Eventually, the Nepalese Army was handed down a humiliating defeat by the Maoists. The Maoist went on to capture several such INSAS rifles. There is no news of those captured fully automatic INSAS rifles jamming. Apparently, the Maoists knew better than the Nepalese Army how to operate weapons. This claim that INSAS rifles malfunctioned against Maoists in India is untrue. Yes, there were reports that AKM might be more suitable than the INSAS in anti-Maoist operations, and it is well acknowledged that AKM is better in COIN, but the INSAS was used effectively during Operation Green Hunt in WB and Jharkhand.

Strategy Page needs to do its research more carefully.

 

[ghost]

You might have posted the wrong link.

There is nothing in the link that states what you have posted within quotes.

Here is the article at the link:
________________________
Arming the Army
The armed forces urgently need to modernise the weaponry

By Lt Gen. Vinod Bhatia (retd)

The Indian Army needs almost everything except courage
— Time Magazine, December 1962

Time magazine aptly summarised the operational performance and preparedness of the Indian Army during the 1962 conflict. That may not be true today for the armed forces, but may still hold good to a large extent for the Indian soldier and the infantry. Former army chief, General V.K. Singh, in a much publicised 12 March 2012 letter to the then Prime Minister, painted a grim picture of the operational capabilities of the 1.18-million-strong army. The critical voids highlighted in this letter included ammunition, artillery guns, obsolete air defence systems and above all a lack of adequate weapons for infantry and Special Forces battalions. A major concern expressed in the letter was, ‘large scale voids in essential weaponry as well as critical surveillance and night-fighting capabilities in the over 350 infantry and Special Forces’ battalions.’

After nearly a decade long of ‘marking time’ under the previous regime, defence minister, Manohar Parrikar has demonstrated an urgent and positive response to modernisation and a number of long pending defence acquisitions have been cleared. According to reports, in an unprecedented move, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), the apex body for capital expenditure, has approved projects worth Rs 178,036 crore (USD 28 billion) giving the much needed impetus to the modernisation of the armed forces. However, most of these are high-end, high-visibility projects with long gestation period. The urgency is to sanction long-pending acquisitions of the infantry, which directly enhances the fighting efficacy of the soldiers in contact, ensures success in operations and minimises casualties by provisioning basic small arms, protective gear, enhancing night fighting capability, surveillance and communication.

The Indian infantry is by far one of the most battle-hardened and combat rich force in the world with the best soldiers and leaders at the fighting and functional level. However, it is also one of the most poorly ill-equipped force, lacking even a properly functioning rifle. The basic small arms held by the infantry are also authorised to army, the other two services and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). Hence modernisation of infantry arms and equipment ensures enhanced effectiveness of the armed forces and the CAPF. The modernisation plans of the infantry have been included in the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) of the armed forces, the progress on procurement and acquisitions continues to be at a standstill for over a decade now. The infantry should be given at least the basic small arms to fight effectively ensuring operational readiness across the complete spectrum of conflict from counter terrorism to conventional and NBC.

Sir ,

I have quoted from the same article which you have posted.What you have posted is not the complete article ,for it you will have to buy subscription of Force.Anyhow another link

 

[tharun]

which round is better 5.56 or 6.5 or 7.62

 

[The enlightened]

which round is better 5.56 or 6.5 or 7.62

Depends upon the 7.62. If you are talking 7.62 Jihadi aka 7.62x39mm, 6.5 picks up an easy win. If you are talking 7.62 NATO i.e 7.62x51mm i.e .308 Win, 7.62 wins purely on energy retained.

 

[tharun]

Depends upon the 7.62. If you are talking 7.62 Jihadi aka 7.62x39mm, 6.5 picks up an easy win. If you are talking 7.62 NATO i.e 7.62x51mm i.e .308 Win, 7.62 wins purely on energy retained.

why didn't our army use 6.5 or 6.8 instead of 5.56X45mm

 

[ezsasa]

why didn't our army use 6.5 or 6.8 instead of 5.56X45mm

The nature of war has changed since 9/11 attack. some of the defence doctrines around the world has been revised from traditional war to Hybrid war. Hybrid war means soldiers will be fighting both traditional uniformed soldiers and terrorists at the same time,and type of combat is expected to be fluid on the ground.Even now 6.8 mm is not operational in IA, it will come only along with MCIWS not INSAS variants.

 

[pmaitra]

That's right. That's what make it, as per my thinking a competitive assault rifle. So I think on field its not that a bad rifle as it seems to be on paper (media). Moreover the real constraint of weight is been addressed in Excalibur. So if we need an AR to defend our borders, I think we need to bank on our indigenous models and try to optimize it as per our requirement and environment. But yeah, if we are planning to raid on someone, then ..............

Moreover could anyone update on the MCIWS?

The Indian Army has adopted the techniques of the British Indian Army, that focuses on marksmanship. There is a saying - one bullet, one enemy.

The INSAS Rifle was built as per the requirements of the Indian Army that holds onto the doctrine of marksmanship, over spray fire that is employed by certain countries. The accuracy of the INSAS rifle is well acknowledged.

Very recently, I am noticing a sudden spurt in a number of articles pointing to the INSAS not being suitable for COIN. Well, it was not designed for COIN. It was designed for regular infantry. If Army officials are issuing INSAS rifles to COIN forces, then whose fault is it? And this sudden spurt in articles about INSAS allegedly malfunctioning or being inefficient in COIN seems to be closely timed to the rejection of several foreign weapons after they failed their trials.

Coming to weight reduction of the Excalibur, does anyone have the details on where and how the weight was reduced? If they are banking on a light barrel, then I am afraid, a lot of these rifles will likely overheat and jam, and lot more jawans will get killed.

Let us not forget that OFB offered INSAS rifles in two variants; one with fully automatic, and one semi-automatic and triple burst. The Army stuck to the semi-automatic and triple burst, because they knew the dangers of issuing fully automatic INSAS to the troops. They let the INSAS LMG do the fully automatic SAW job.

Coming to MCIWS, we have a separate thread on it. Let's discuss MCIWS there. We can discuss INSAS and Excalibur here, and if required, I'll fork a thread on it.

Sir ,

I have quoted from the same article which you have posted.What you have posted is not the complete article ,for it you will have to buy subscription of Force.Anyhow another link

Thank you Sir. Appreciated.

I am also interested to know what the improvements are in the Excalibur over the newest INSAS rifles.

 

[jouni]

Interesting how you adopt and appreciate British traditions and doctrines and at the same time despises them for colonizing India. Well, that is human.

 

[ALBY]

The Army stuck to the semi-automatic and triple burst, because they knew the dangers of issuing fully automatic INSAS to the troops.

What dangers ??? What about the whole point of IA being a professional army who upholds marksmanship ?
You expect a trained soldier to do some rambo style full auto fire in real scenarios? :/
No only a ill trained person will imitate Rambo or a gangster in actual battles.
Also how many US/russian military soldiers with full autoo rifles had been seen spraying their assault rifles?
It was a dumb idea to restrict the full auto fire.

it was not designed for COIN

Gone are the days of self loading battle rifles.In 21st century a weapon should be suitable for every situation.
INSAS was developed in 1980s to cope up with the changing war fare where fightings occuring were of low intensity and mostly CT ops.Thats why SLR was replaced.
So please dont tell that INSAS was not developed foor COIN ops.It was developed for the same puropose.
And some should give a cookie to the one who decided INSAS needs only 22 round Mag,and not 30 round.
Also in CQB where you may had to engage multiple enemies ,full auto only will come to aid.

 

[pmaitra]

What dangers ???

Read. Not the part you have quoted, but the part you have not quoted.

What about the whole point of IA being a professional army who upholds marksmanship ?

Don't know. I did not make these decisions.

I will add, being a professional army and upholding marksmanship are two different things. Armies that do not uphold marksmanship are not necessarily unprofessional.

You expect a trained soldier to do some rambo style full auto fire in real scenarios? :/

I don't expect. I fear.

No only a ill trained person will imitate Rambo or a gangster in actual battles.

Depends on the level of training.

Also how many US/russian military soldiers with full autoo rifles had been seen spraying their assault rifles?

Many. Read on Vietnam War. Read why the US restricted fully auto in their service rifles. Read how the Argentinians pulled off a Rambo with their FN-FALs and performed poorly in comparison with their enemies who had FN-FALs with only semi auto.

It was a dumb idea to restrict the full auto fire.

It was a smart idea to restrict full auto for regular infantry. Read the entire sentence before responding.

Gone are the days of self loading battle rifles.

Ok.

In 21st century a weapon should be suitable for every situation.

There is no weapon suitable for every situation. Not gonna happen. Sorry.

INSAS was developed in 1980s to cope up with the changing war fare where fightings occuring were of low intensity and mostly CT ops.Thats why SLR was replaced.

Nope. INSAS was developed for regular infantry, not for COIN.

So please dont tell that INSAS was not developed foor COIN ops.It was developed for the same puropose.

Nope. INSAS was developed for regular infantry, not for COIN.

Sorry, I had to tell you what you did not want me to tell you.

And some should give a cookie to the one who decided INSAS needs only 22 round Mag,and not 30 round.

It was decided by the Army. OFB offered both 20 round and 30 round magazines and both the magazines can be used in both the INSAS AR and LMG.

Also in CQB where you may had to engage multiple enemies ,full auto only will come to aid.

I agree.

 

[Blood+]

What dangers ??? What about the whole point of IA being a professional army who upholds marksmanship ?
You expect a trained soldier to do some rambo style full auto fire in real scenarios? :/
No only a ill trained person will imitate Rambo or a gangster in actual battles.
Also how many US/russian military soldiers with full autoo rifles had been seen spraying their assault rifles?
It was a dumb idea to restrict the full auto fire.

Gone are the days of self loading battle rifles.In 21st century a weapon should be suitable for every situation.
INSAS was developed in 1980s to cope up with the changing war fare where fightings occuring were of low intensity and mostly CT ops.Thats why SLR was replaced.
So please dont tell that INSAS was not developed foor COIN ops.It was developed for the same puropose.
And some should give a cookie to the one who decided INSAS needs only 22 round Mag,and not 30 round.
Also in CQB where you may had to engage multiple enemies ,full auto only will come to aid.

You definitely have a great many things to learn yet.

 

[ALBY]

So how come US army re inducted full auto in M4s and discarded the 33 round bursts in latest models?
Today there is no distinction between rifles meant for regulars and ct forces.Only in india there is such distinction.
And how come army just wanted full auto in ex caliber instead of 3 round?Where the whole theory of bullet wastage went away?
In vietnam war most of the soldiers were not young men fresh out of boot camps.So spraying of bullets in full auto was an issue.
@Blood+ I am learning though slowly.but that doesn't mean you have to suppress your thoughts and opinions.

 

[ezsasa]

Hey @ALBY

if i remember correctly, you posted a link last year of approved defence purchases from commerce ministry with SF/SFF inventory and excalibur guns. can you check similar order has been issued for this year.

 

[pmaitra]

So how come US army re inducted full auto in M4s and discarded the 33 round bursts in latest models?
Today there is no distinction between rifles meant for regulars and ct forces.Only in india there is such distinction.
And how come army just wanted full auto in ex caliber instead of 3 round?Where the whole theory of bullet wastage went away?
In vietnam war most of the soldiers were not young men fresh out of boot camps.So spraying of bullets in full auto was an issue.
@Blood+ I am learning though slowly.but that doesn't mean you have to suppress your thoughts and opinions.

@ALBY, I will try to touch all the points.

• Indian Army is a volunteer force with well trained troops. Hence, more accurate weapons and marksmanship was stressed upon. India needed the FN-FAL and the INSAS. The Soviet Army was a largely conscripted force with a small number of volunteers. They needed a simpler weapon, and they got it in the Kalashnikov.
• It is not true that there is no distinction between COIN and regular infantry battles. The Indian Army would have taken more casualties if it were equipped with the AKM during Kargil War. The Russians could afford to go with the Kalashnikov because their idea was to pin down the enemy with rapid fire and pummel them with artillery. Said that, the newer AK-74s are far more accurate and have lower tolerances than the AKM. If the indian Army wants to change its doctrine, then it should state so.
• The 5.56 mm round was selected because of the same reason cited by NATO, i.e., with a lighter round, a soldier could carry more rounds, a lighter round would tend to cause internal tissue damage at medium distances and at large distances, injure the enemy, if not outright kill them, and a large number of injured casualties will tend to bog down an enemy nation more than dead casualties. In case of COIN, when fighting irregular jihadis, these points became invalid. Hence, INSAS was inappropriate for COIN.
• It is necessary to focus on marksmanship because, in a conventional warfare, logistics is a problem. Take Kargil for example. More wasted bullets means more stress on logistics. Now compare that with a firefight happening in Srinagar or Udhampur. Even if they waste bullets, it causes less stress on logistics.
• Fully automatic works in hand held weapons that use smaller rounds, like the 9 mm rounds. It is stupid to use 7.62 mm NATO or 5.56 mm NATO in fully automatic in hand held weapons. Such rounds, in rapid fire, tend to make it difficult for the user to point the rifle accurately. Bullets don't hit the enemy, but are wasted. More bullets need to be pumped out to have any useful effect. This is because these are very powerful rounds. Moreover, assault rifles that are designed to be accurate, have lower tolerances, which will cause the barrel to overheat when too many bullets are pumped out. This has been proven time and again, with the Americans, Argentinians, Nepalis, etc..
• Bottom line is: COIN forces and regular forces are different. One weapon system cannot do different tasks effectively. Using INSAS in unsuitable situations is not the fault of INSAS. As long as Indian Army prefers marksmanship, INSAS and INSAS variants are the best choice for regular infantry. I need to stress a bit more on the Excalibur, given I have little information as to what is being done with it.

On the Excalibur: It is lighter, has full auto, and is apparently better. I hope so. I have my concerns.

• A rifle meant for fully automatic will heat up the barrel faster, which will cause the rifle to jam. To prevent jamming, two things can be done: make the barrel heavy, or make the tolerances greater.
  • If the barrel is made heavy, the rifle will no longer be light.
  • If the tolerances are increased, the rifle will no longer be as accurate.
• The 5.56 round is a powerful round, and its effectiveness is doubtful in fully automatic mode. It is unclear who in the Army, in their wisdom decided to go for this for their regular infantry. Are they trying to suggest the Army officials two decades ago were not as wise?

 

[blueblood]

So how come US army re inducted full auto in M4s and discarded the 33 round bursts in latest models?
Today there is no distinction between rifles meant for regulars and ct forces.Only in india there is such distinction.
And how come army just wanted full auto in ex caliber instead of 3 round?Where the whole theory of bullet wastage went away?
In vietnam war most of the soldiers were not young men fresh out of boot camps.So spraying of bullets in full auto was an issue.
@Blood+ I am learning though slowly.but that doesn't mean you have to suppress your thoughts and opinions.

You wouldn't say this had you talked to some Afghanistan veterans. They hate their 5.56 and longed for the 7.62 NATO. So distinction is for the good.

One of them also stated that in three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, he only used full auto just once. But IMO that option should be there.

@pmaitra The "ek goli ek dushman" was a necessity because of the highly strained logistics in the mountainous area. But this is no longer the 80s. Albeit, it is an excellent policy to have.

 

[ALBY]

Shit ..I think there is some misunderstanding between the ides of ours.May be because of my faulty language.
My whole point was that instead of restricting INSAS in just 3 round fire an addition of Full auto for emergency could have added.
First I didn't advocate for use of 7.62x39 caliber in regular infantry use who in conventional battles had to engage foes from long distance compared with urban or jungle CT ops.
Please quote where i said some thing like advocating M43 rounds in regular use.
My whole opposition was against restriction of the INSAS as just a mere defence weapon like M-16 where as a INSAS could have been made suited for both CT ops and Regular ops by the addition of full auto,like rest of the current main battle rifles of all other armies like G-36,AUG,FN-FNC,or AK-74.
Even in regular conventional battles there would be times when you would have to engage enemies from close range,and war will not be always fought over from a range of 200 or 300 mts.So an addition of full auto could have come handy .

You wouldn't say this had you talked to some Afghanistan veterans. They hate their 5.56 and longed for the 7.62 NATO. So distinction is for the good.

Buddy it was true that there was a problem of Tangos surviving after getting shot,but introducing heavy 7.62x51 would neither have improved the situation as soon the fighting will start they would have complained of weight of the weapon,less amount off ammo carriage,extremely hard to mount an offensive using self lading weapons against enemy with assault rifles.
Perfect examples were when IA engaged the LTTE in the initial days of srilankan ops with semi auto SLRs against AKMs of LTTEs,as a result 66000 second hand Mpi72s from east germany were bought very soon and were distributed to IPKF,also many FnFALS were converted into full auto.
Another case is the Arab israeli 6 day war in which israelis were utterly disappointed with their Fnfals against AKs which eventually led to the development of Galil.
And now there are more heavier rounds in 5.56 developed to tackle the problem of enemies surviving even after getting shot.

On the Excalibur: It is lighter, has full auto, and is apparently better. I hope so. I have my concerns.

• A rifle meant for fully automatic will heat up the barrel faster, which will cause the rifle to jam. To prevent jamming, two things can be done: make the barrel heavy, or make the tolerances greater.
  • If the barrel is made heavy, the rifle will no longer be light.
  • If the tolerances are increased, the rifle will no longer be as accurate.
• The 5.56 round is a powerful round, and its effectiveness is doubtful in fully automatic mode. It is unclear who in the Army, in their wisdom decided to go for this for their regular infantry. Are they trying to suggest the Army officials two decades ago were not as wise?

Similar thing is done to 3 burst M4s of US army to convert it to full auto M4A1 recently.
Here the barrel is made heavier.But a heavier barrel adds up only some ounces of weight.And not pounds.
But the current INSAS is super bulky at 4.1kg so there is scope for serious weighht reduction by replacing the bulky fixed butt by light weight polymer folding butts.
Also a slightly heavier barrel means more service life and more resistance against getting heating up in prolonged fightings.
Also there is scope for changing the metallurgy of weapons which drastically cuts down thhe weight,like it had been done in the case US army's M240 recently.
Also 5.56 is much accurate and has a range of 400+ mts,even if there iis loose tolerence.Eg: AK74,Beryl,are having some what loose tolerance than western ARs yet their accuracy is good.And such loose tolerance means more reliability like AK74 and Beryl are having against M4s in harsh conditions.
Plus ex caliber is in full auto doesn't means every one is going to fire full auto every time.
Its just an option addition.

The Indian Army would have taken more casualties if it were equipped with the AKM during Kargil War.

Well the pics shows that 9TH PARA and other PARA units and SFF used AKs and VZ58s instead of INSAS even at that heights even though they have access to each and every weapon available for forces.
Not posted the last one for a debate.But as a result of seeing the whole units with AK and VZs.

 

[ALBY]

Hey @ALBY

if i remember correctly, you posted a link last year of approved defence purchases from commerce ministry with SF/SFF inventory and excalibur guns. can you check similar order has been issued for this year.

I think it is yet to be released as the info was from the minutes of some annual report.