New Assault Rifles for Indian Army

Which Contender`s Rifle has more chances of winning than others?


  • Total voters
    390

ghost

New Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,234
Likes
2,455
My wishlist for our 7.62x51mm rifle competition:


AK-12


Sig sauer 716 patrol


KELTEC RFB BULLPUP


Desert Tech MDR rifle


Galil ACE



HK 417



B&T APC308


MSBS-7.62N


Have not included Scar-H . I feel it is too expensive for the whole army,otherwise a great rifle.
 

tharun

Patriot
New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
2,149
Likes
1,377
Country flag
My wishlist for our 7.62x51mm rifle competition:


AK-12


Sig sauer 716 patrol


KELTEC RFB BULLPUP


Desert Tech MDR rifle


Galil ACE



HK 417



B&T APC308

MSBS-7.62N


Have not included Scar-H . I feel it is too expensive for the whole army,otherwise a great rifle.
Even HK-417 cost around 2000-3000$ and you can add that HK stopped selling firearms to non-NATO countries
 
Last edited:

ghost

New Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,234
Likes
2,455
Even HK-417 cost around 2000-3000$ and you can add that HK stopped selling firearms to non-NATO countries
Scar H cost 3000$ upwards.Most important will be to mass produce these guns here ,either by OFB or by a private company.I would have preferred a simple ak 103 in 7.62x39 or ak 109.
 

India22

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
Don't be so over excited. First look at what IA wants and then look at what you are saying. IA wants an Assault Rifle. They don't just want a converted LMG. How much weight reduction you think removing the bipod would result? Hardly 500 gm. Still with a loaded magazine, it would weight 6kg plus. Why? Because it has been designed to support sustained heavy rate of fire. If you know INSAS family, the LMG has been designed to fire only in Auto and Semi auto mode. Now to sustain this volume of fire you need a much more strong and rigid firing chamber and barrel, which result in increment of overall weight.
Along with that a 30 round magazine weights another 500 gm. Why you think designers came up with 20 round magazine instead for AR version? It has been done as per requirement of user as weight is the most important factor in any AR unlike LMG or SR.
Longer barrel sure does mean better accuracy at greater distance, but a effective firing range of 300 metre is good enough for any AR. INSAS 1B1 does have a effective firing range of 500 mtrs. EXCALIBUR does have an effective range of 400mtrs. This range in itself is good enough for these models.
Moreover inducting EXCALIBUR would not pose any problem on spare or logistic part, as it is just an advanced version of INSAS family with much less weight (4 kg with magazine).
There are thus contradictions

5.56mm round was chosen because it is lighter so soldiers can carry more ammunition. 30 round 7.62mm magazine is heavy so soldiers cant carry many 30 round magazines. Now if you say even 5.56mm 30 round magazine too is heavy then I dont know what to say.

What is the firing rate of INSAS LMG? 650 RPM not over 1200+. So within INSAS system it is okay and not extraordinarily heavy. Even INSAS rifle 1B version has fire rate of 650 Rounds.

Choosing Excalibur as assault rifle is certainly good option, but I was concerned about the foreign rifles. Army wants Excalibur as interim assault rifle, not as a fixed one. So in end we produce both Excalibur and other INSAS series rifles and also buy foreign rifles and we end having many.

INSAS should have been designed to fire in full auto mode. After all lighter rounds like 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm were introduced because larger 7.62x51mm and 7.62x39mm rounds were producing bigger recoil in full auto mode. So particularly to use in full auto mode lighter rounds were chosen. If we did it today we would have seen homogeneity in Indian army's weaponry.
 
Last edited:

tharun

Patriot
New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
2,149
Likes
1,377
Country flag
Ak-12 or Ak-Alpha and for designated marksmen SVK rifle for the army
 

sthf

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,329
Country flag
................................................
 
Last edited:

Hari Sud

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,945
Likes
8,863
Country flag
Day 1, INSAS was designed for semi automatic mode and to fire three round burst. That is what Army wanted. The COAS of that era preferred, 3 Round Burst mode. Their views were based on findings of Vietnam War, where a huge amount of ammunition was wasted by the GI(s) firing at the shadows. They emptied their magazines in the general direction of the Enemy. A study later indicated that 1400 bullets killed only one Vietcong. Only America could afford that kind of waste. Hence INSAS right from the day was semi automatic and three round burst to conserve ammunition.

Commanders of eighties and nineties have long retired. The newer generation of infantry officers either ignore the reasons of that design or supported by "Yellow Journalism " try their best to find faults, everything Indian. They will have difficulty that today's M-16 in American hand was highly unsuccessful during Vietnam War. It jammed often, hence a plunger was attached to clear it and also require multitude of modifications until late eighties before you see today's M-16, all operating nicely. The Yellow Journalists do not award that sort of period for the evolution of INSAS. Today's INSAS/ Excalibur is in the same league but amount of criticism mounted on it for minor deficiencies is used to persuade the import of something which is in a prototype stage and would have same problems as M-16 or others had. Shame on them.


There are thus contradictions

5.56mm round was chosen because it is lighter so soldiers can carry more ammunition. 30 round 7.62mm magazine is heavy so soldiers cant carry many 30 round magazines. Now if you say even 5.56mm 30 round magazine too is heavy then I dont know what to say.

What is the firing rate of INSAS LMG? 650 RPM not over 1200+. So within INSAS system it is okay and not extraordinarily heavy. Even INSAS rifle 1B version has fire rate of 650 Rounds.

Choosing Excalibur as assault rifle is certainly good option, but I was concerned about the foreign rifles. Army wants Excalibur as interim assault rifle, not as a fixed one. So in end we produce both Excalibur and other INSAS series rifles and also buy foreign rifles and we end having many.

INSAS should have been designed to fire in full auto mode. After all lighter rounds like 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm were introduced because larger 7.62x51mm and 7.62x39mm rounds were producing bigger recoil in full auto mode. So particularly to use in full auto mode lighter rounds were chosen. If we did it today we would have seen homogeneity in Indian army's weaponry.
 

India22

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
Day 1, INSAS was designed for semi automatic mode and to fire three round burst. That is what Army wanted. The COAS of that era preferred, 3 Round Burst mode. Their views were based on findings of Vietnam War, where a huge amount of ammunition was wasted by the GI(s) firing at the shadows. They emptied their magazines in the general direction of the Enemy. A study later indicated that 1400 bullets killed only one Vietcong. Only America could afford that kind of waste. Hence INSAS right from the day was semi automatic and three round burst to conserve ammunition.

Commanders of eighties and nineties have long retired. The newer generation of infantry officers either ignore the reasons of that design or supported by "Yellow Journalism " try their best to find faults, everything Indian. They will have difficulty that today's M-16 in American hand was highly unsuccessful during Vietnam War. It jammed often, hence a plunger was attached to clear it and also require multitude of modifications until late eighties before you see today's M-16, all operating nicely. The Yellow Journalists do not award that sort of period for the evolution of INSAS. Today's INSAS/ Excalibur is in the same league but amount of criticism mounted on it for minor deficiencies is used to persuade the import of something which is in a prototype stage and would have same problems as M-16 or others had. Shame on them.
And we ignored our own lessons in Sri Lanka where Indian troops found SLR to be ineffective and RAW had to import 70,000 AK rifles. So the question is why did India forget her own experience and prefer US's experience? Nevertheless very soon Army gave up INSAS in COIN operations and brought Aks, ammunition expenditure again occurred.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
1B1 is not a carbine equivalent but AK is ..

Not because it shoots 7.62 x 39mm but its ability to spare bullet.

Nevertheless very soon Army gave up INSAS in COIN operations and brought Aks, ammunition expenditure again occurred.
 

India22

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
1B1 is not a carbine equivalent but AK is ..

Not because it shoots 7.62 x 39mm but its ability to spare bullet.
Would not it make more sense if INSAS was designed to fire in auto mode? Nepalese army had it. Indian forces suffered huge losses with INSAS 1B as it did not have full auto mode. Excalibur and others have full auto mode, does it mean they also fall in carbine category? Carbines should have been MP 5, Uzi or Sterling.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
In technical context INSAS and AK are Rifles, But in context of tactics full auto AK is equivalent of an Carbine.

Excalibur in that sense is more or less same as AK in context of tactics employed in CT areas call ' spray and pray.

The existing Carbines which is 9mm carbine is ineffective in combat with given velocity of bullets and mid ranges which is under 200ms.

==========

Indian Army itself defended INSAS 1B1, It itself send out its own personal to train Nepalese Army, Who has its own fault and political motives to defame INSAS 1B1, This has been talked abt in past.



Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...rous-Army/articleshow/1203672.cms?referral=PM

Would not it make more sense if INSAS was designed to fire in auto mode? Nepalese army had it. Indian forces suffered huge losses with INSAS 1B as it did not have full auto mode. Excalibur and others have full auto mode, does it mean they also fall in carbine category? Carbines should have been MP 5, Uzi or Sterling.
 

India22

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
I know about Nepalese army's INSAS. My point was Nepalese Army wanted full automatic INSAS. If Indian army took so, then today we wont be needing new rifles. Problem is not INSAS 1B1 but it's lack full auto mode, essential for COIN or anti-Pakistan operations.

In side note, I can say, Indian army's para commandos use Zittara, full automatic not semi-automatic.
 

Hari Sud

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,945
Likes
8,863
Country flag
Guys

There are a few other points coming to mind which may be prompting India Army on go slow on even slower on new GSQR for a 7.62 mm X51 NATO rifle. They changed requirements for the new rifle from 5.56 to 7.62 round for reasons which were not discussed openly least "Yellow Journalists" create a ruckus.

It is Pakistani search for a new rifle in last three years. Their fifty years old H&K rifle with 7.62 caliber is soon going to be replaced. It was comparable to old Indian made FAL rifle. If the press reports are true then a prototype of Barrett's ARX-200 is their choice. This is newest of 7.62 rifle with carbon fibre in most body parts, telescopic sight and under barrel grenade launcher and what not. So far Italian Army has ordered only 400 of these highly modern version of ARX-160 with caliber upgraded to 7.62. Costs fully loaded about $4,000.

Thank God, it is in prototype stage hence it will be about three years before it is exported to Pakistan in large numbers. Or it may fail like their Baretta Multi caliber rifle tested by Indian army three years back failed and found inadequate. Then they will start again.

These developments in Pakistan prompted IA to upgrade their requirements to 7.62mm and wait a while until Pakistan makes their selection. Then only they will go for a superior rifle to match or overtake ARX -200. Hence comes the temporary acceptance of Excalibur for next three or four years.

I may not be right but situation now leads to that. India does not want in five years an inferior rifle in Indian soldiers hands if the enemy is equipped with a sophisticated personal weapon. It also gives additional time for Indian multicaliber rifle under development, more time to get over its bugs.

The above dumps INSAS and Excalibur rifles into a background heap.
 

Chinmoy

New Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,930
Likes
23,094
Country flag
There are thus contradictions
Although @Hari Sud and @Kunal Biswas already replied and mentioned, let me chip in something more for you.

5.56mm round was chosen because it is lighter so soldiers can carry more ammunition. 30 round 7.62mm magazine is heavy so soldiers cant carry many 30 round magazines. Now if you say even 5.56mm 30 round magazine too is heavy then I dont know what to say.
If you don't remember what I mentioned earlier, induction of 5.56 is not on weight basis, rather on doctrine basis. IA wanted this round to mime enemy instead of blowing them off. Their main objective is to mime one enemy soldier and take out four others from battle field by making them help the injured. But this technique doesn't work with Jehadist. So you get to see AK's more in COIN.
Second, please don't, I repeat, please don't compare working principle of IA with any other army of world. Our working principle is unique among all. Which other army has to undertake extensive week long foot patrol? For any soldier engaged in foot patrol at Siachen or Sir creek, even a 500 gm weight matters a lot. Moreover 30 round magazine in longer then 20 round one and it is difficult to fire because of it when you lie flat on your belly.

What is the firing rate of INSAS LMG? 650 RPM not over 1200+. So within INSAS system it is okay and not extraordinarily heavy. Even INSAS rifle 1B version has fire rate of 650 Rounds.
INSAS LMG is designed for longer range and sustained heavy firing for longer duration. Its rate of firing has nothing to do with RPM. If you start firing at the rate of 650 RPM with an AR from a box magazine of 100, your barrel can't even last for two Mags. But with an LMG you could easily fire 5 to 6 mags before you change the barrel.

Choosing Excalibur as assault rifle is certainly good option, but I was concerned about the foreign rifles. Army wants Excalibur as interim assault rifle, not as a fixed one. So in end we produce both Excalibur and other INSAS series rifles and also buy foreign rifles and we end having many.
For the same reason MCIWS was designed. But the drawback which has been popped up by IA now is, they opted for 7.62x51 mm instead of 7.62x39 mm which they are using now.

INSAS should have been designed to fire in full auto mode. After all lighter rounds like 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm were introduced because larger 7.62x51mm and 7.62x39mm rounds were producing bigger recoil in full auto mode. So particularly to use in full auto mode lighter rounds were chosen. If we did it today we would have seen homogeneity in Indian army's weaponry.
INSAS 1B1 is capable to fire in Full Auto Mode....
 

India22

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
Although @Hari Sud and @Kunal Biswas already replied and mentioned, let me chip in something more for you.



If you don't remember what I mentioned earlier, induction of 5.56 is not on weight basis, rather on doctrine basis. IA wanted this round to mime enemy instead of blowing them off. Their main objective is to mime one enemy soldier and take out four others from battle field by making them help the injured. But this technique doesn't work with Jehadist. So you get to see AK's more in COIN.
It neither works with conventional soldiers. Australian soldiers found their 7.62mm to be more effective against Vietcong than US,s 5.56mm. So Indian army took one lesson from Vietnam war that soldiers waste too much ammunition in full auto mode but did not take account of this experience? And maiming? Every country's soldiers are backed by Medics, average soldier does not take too much time to give first aid to an wounded soldier. And killing soldiers also mentally disrupts them. Completely faulty doctrine that's why IA reversed to killing round.

And in 2nd Sino-Japanese war also, Japanese soldiers, Japanese soldiers found 6.5x50mm Ariaska round to be less effective. If you think, lessons of world's other wars dont have any impact on us or we should never learn anything. You are absolutely wrong.

Second, please don't, I repeat, please don't compare working principle of IA with any other army of world. Our working principle is unique among all. Which other army has to undertake extensive week long foot patrol? For any soldier engaged in foot patrol at Siachen or Sir creek, even a 500 gm weight matters a lot. Moreover 30 round magazine in longer then 20 round one and it is difficult to fire because of it when you lie flat on your belly.
A soldier is Siachen should not be necessarily armed like a soldier facing Pakistan in Punjab. M16A2 and M16A4 has 30 round magazines so how US soldiers fought while lying? How NVA soldiers fought with AK 47?

INSAS LMG is designed for longer range and sustained heavy firing for longer duration. Its rate of firing has nothing to do with RPM. If you start firing at the rate of 650 RPM with an AR from a box magazine of 100, your barrel can't even last for two Mags. But with an LMG you could easily fire 5 to 6 mags before you change the barrel.



For the same reason MCIWS was designed. But the drawback which has been popped up by IA now is, they opted for 7.62x51 mm instead of 7.62x39 mm which they are using now.
So I cant really understand, you first said box magazine of 100 round then you said magazines? You mean equivalent of 2 magazines or 60 rounds? An assault rifle is not supposed to fire like a LMG. And that problem is common with air cooled guns. If you guns to fire in sustained mode, give soldiers extra pouches of water. Try a water cooled gun. And still you have not shown any difference between INSAS 1B and INSAS LMG, that INSAS LMG weighs extraordinarily heavy like Bren.

INSAS 1B1 is capable to fire in Full Auto Mode....
INSAS's original version was not.
 

Chinmoy

New Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,930
Likes
23,094
Country flag
It neither works with conventional soldiers. Australian soldiers found their 7.62mm to be more effective against Vietcong than US,s 5.56mm. So Indian army took one lesson from Vietnam war that soldiers waste too much ammunition in full auto mode but did not take account of this experience? And maiming? Every country's soldiers are backed by Medics, average soldier does not take too much time to give first aid to an wounded soldier. And killing soldiers also mentally disrupts them. Completely faulty doctrine that's why IA reversed to killing round.

And in 2nd Sino-Japanese war also, Japanese soldiers, Japanese soldiers found 6.5x50mm Ariaska round to be less effective. If you think, lessons of world's other wars dont have any impact on us or we should never learn anything. You are absolutely wrong.
Every army learns from what they face. When they start copying others doctrine, is not called learning. Why you think multinational countries do undertake joint military exercise?
Indian army didn't took lesson in auto mode from Vietcong. When you dive into history of IA and compare it with present IA, you would find that from British era, importance has been given on accuracy rather then volume. Its the reason for our adopting SLR in the first place instead of AK after Ishapore 2A1.
Any army in world does learn from others regarding doctrine. They don't simply follow those doctrine, rather try to adapt them in their context.

A soldier is Siachen should not be necessarily armed like a soldier facing Pakistan in Punjab. M16A2 and M16A4 has 30 round magazines so how US soldiers fought while lying? How NVA soldiers fought with AK 47?
A soldier in Siachen is much less armed then his Punjab counterpart. But he in turn carries double the total burden of clothing and gear with him. In that case each and every gram of weight matters. M16A2 and A4 both does have 20 as well as 30 rounds mag. Now it depends on the soldier which he prefers. For your information a fully loaded 20 round mag of M16 weights 335 gms against a fully loaded 30 round mag which weights 480 gm. Now ask any soldier patrolling in Siachen or anywhere, which he would prefer weight wise.

ArmPlacement.jpg


article-2528447-005522CC00000258-631_634x454.jpg


Have a look at the firing position in both cases. In which position would you like to see yourself?

So I cant really understand, you first said box magazine of 100 round then you said magazines? You mean equivalent of 2 magazines or 60 rounds? An assault rifle is not supposed to fire like a LMG. And that problem is common with air cooled guns. If you guns to fire in sustained mode, give soldiers extra pouches of water. Try a water cooled gun. And still you have not shown any difference between INSAS 1B and INSAS LMG, that INSAS LMG weighs extraordinarily heavy like Bren.
I mean a box magazine of 100 rounds. INSAS LMG is made to sustain a heavy volume of fire for longer duration. For this purpose it does have an extra strong firing chamber and barrel, which in turn increases its weight.

INSAS's original version was not.
This is what known as development. M16 had been discarded as a toy by US army during Vietnam era when first introduced. Now its one of the most preferred weapon by many armies including India.
 

abingdonboy

New Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,084
Likes
33,803
Country flag
I guess it has been decided that which Rifle will replace INSAS ..
Nope, the 7.62mm rifle the IA is looking for is to replace the AK (obviously) for the units deployed to CT/COIN, the 5.56mm INSAS will be replaced by the MCIWS in time amongst the entire (conventional) army.

The Israeli Kalashnikov looks like a good product but let's see how it performs in the IA's trails.

They have been testing MCIWS for last 8 Years and still going strong
8? The rifle wasn't even ready 6 years ago, it has been in user (Army) trails for only around 2 years.
 

abingdonboy

New Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
8,084
Likes
33,803
Country flag
Guys

There are a few other points coming to mind which may be prompting India Army on go slow on even slower on new GSQR for a 7.62 mm X51 NATO rifle. They changed requirements for the new rifle from 5.56 to 7.62 round for reasons which were not discussed openly least "Yellow Journalists" create a ruckus.

It is Pakistani search for a new rifle in last three years. Their fifty years old H&K rifle with 7.62 caliber is soon going to be replaced. It was comparable to old Indian made FAL rifle. If the press reports are true then a prototype of Barrett's ARX-200 is their choice. This is newest of 7.62 rifle with carbon fibre in most body parts, telescopic sight and under barrel grenade launcher and what not. So far Italian Army has ordered only 400 of these highly modern version of ARX-160 with caliber upgraded to 7.62. Costs fully loaded about $4,000.

Thank God, it is in prototype stage hence it will be about three years before it is exported to Pakistan in large numbers. Or it may fail like their Baretta Multi caliber rifle tested by Indian army three years back failed and found inadequate. Then they will start again.

These developments in Pakistan prompted IA to upgrade their requirements to 7.62mm and wait a while until Pakistan makes their selection. Then only they will go for a superior rifle to match or overtake ARX -200. Hence comes the temporary acceptance of Excalibur for next three or four years.

I may not be right but situation now leads to that. India does not want in five years an inferior rifle in Indian soldiers hands if the enemy is equipped with a sophisticated personal weapon. It also gives additional time for Indian multicaliber rifle under development, more time to get over its bugs.

The above dumps INSAS and Excalibur rifles into a background heap.
Isn't it great the IA is benchmarking itself against the Army of a failed state with 1/6th the budgetary allocation of their's? So they are admitting they have been sat on their fat backsides for the past 2 decades as the PLA has systamatically upgraded, modernised,reformed and transformed itself and thus the IA would stand no chance against them?

And these a$$holes want us to believe they could fight a two-front war?
 

Articles

Top