Small arms and Light Weapons

[Johny_Baba]

This isn't Excalibur tho...

one of the key differentiator between INSAS 1B series and INSAS Excaliburs is
INSAS 1B etc have that spring-loaded carrying handle, Excalibur doesn't

then there are differences in Gas Block (not so visible here in video), INSAS one has very FN FNC-esque gas block with a regulator + gas cut-off (for rifle grenades) on it, has flat profile too; Excalibur OTOH has got this Angled gas block and no regulator or cut-off switch on it
but since it is too vague here couldn't be said clearly,

then again Excalibur also has got this another differentiator, that is flash hider,
INSAS 1B and so has got this very FN FNC-esque "grenade launching" type flash hider that is much longer than others, While Excalibur had many different flash hiders along with common INSAS 1B pattern (FNC pattern) one to this 3 or 4 Prong pattern one to INSAS LMG one (originally 'Type C' FNC pattern one without Rifle Grenade Launching capabilities, also shorter) which seems to be most common one which has got shorter length than INSAS 1B but of same profile and so,
though this difference also isn't consistent with various sub-models of Excalibur but mostly INSAS LMG pattern flash hider is there on most of them so yeah

(pics credit of course goes to Jay @Unknowncommando 2)

So based on all these points, lets see

>no carrying handle
>on barrel, toward muzzle there is sling swivel, then bayonet lug, then flat profile of barrel upto flash hider which is of INSAS LMG pattern, shorter than INSAS 1B pattern one with rifle grenade launchig capabilities and so
>hard to see gas block here so not counting that part

so at least two differences are clear, which leans me towards believing that it is indeed INSAS Excalibur and not regular black coloured 1B//1B1 INSAS
THOUGH it does have folding stock of typical 1B//1B1 pattern INSAS on it rather than Excalibur pattern one which has different overall shape; but i guess this could be some of prototype Excalibur in service with regular INSAS handguards and folding buttstock, or just jugaad done on it by these guys

postscript - found pic of Nagaland STF personnel with Excalibur Mk-1 with both pattern of buttstocks, also by Jay UnknownCommando2

 

[ketaki]

one of the key differentiator between INSAS 1B series and INSAS Excaliburs is
INSAS 1B etc have that spring-loaded carrying handle, Excalibur doesn't

then there are differences in Gas Block (not so visible here in video), INSAS one has very FN FNC-esque gas block with a regulator + gas cut-off (for rifle grenades) on it, has flat profile too; Excalibur OTOH has got this Angled gas block and no regulator or cut-off switch on it
but since it is too vague here couldn't be said clearly,

then again Excalibur also has got this another differentiator, that is flash hider,
INSAS 1B and so has got this very FN FNC-esque "grenade launching" type flash hider that is much longer than others, While Excalibur had many different flash hiders along with common INSAS 1B pattern (FNC pattern) one to this 3 or 4 Prong pattern one to INSAS LMG one (originally 'Type C' FNC pattern one without Rifle Grenade Launching capabilities, also shorter) which seems to be most common one which has got shorter length than INSAS 1B but of same profile and so,
though this difference also isn't consistent with various sub-models of Excalibur but mostly INSAS LMG pattern flash hider is there on most of them so yeah

View attachment 98919
(pics credit of course goes to Jay @Unknowncommando 2)

So based on all these points, lets see
View attachment 98916
>no carrying handle
>on barrel, toward muzzle there is sling swivel, then bayonet lug, then flat profile of barrel upto flash hider which is of INSAS LMG pattern, shorter than INSAS 1B pattern one with rifle grenade launchig capabilities and so
>hard to see gas block here so not counting that part

so at least two differences are clear, which leans me towards believing that it is indeed INSAS Excalibur and not regular black coloured 1B//1B1 INSAS
THOUGH it does have folding stock of typical 1B//1B1 pattern INSAS on it rather than Excalibur pattern one which has different overall shape; but i guess this could be some of prototype Excalibur in service with regular INSAS handguards and folding buttstock, or just jugaad done on it by these guys

postscript - found pic of Nagaland STF personnel with Excalibur Mk-1 with both pattern of buttstocks, also by Jay UnknownCommando2
View attachment 98922

Any idea why 2 round burst was there in video? Loose finger?

 

[FalconSlayers]

Wish we had this as standard!

 

[Marliii]

Wish we had this as standard!

Should have carried on with the car816 deal.but caracal is a small company if this was during UPA then all deals would have been won by berretta arx160 or 200 just because its italian

 

[Johny_Baba]

Any idea why 2 round burst was there in video? Loose finger?

i dunno bhai probably he's experienced in firing short bursts on full auto mode or just force of habit coming from training on INSAS,

in either case it is a good thing that soldiers are learning about such self-control,

and i personally believe this is how things should've been with INSAS since very beginning, i.e. teach about controlling bursts on full auto instead of mechanically limiting firearms with some 2-3 round bursts, and if such fire mode is given on firearm then do also give them full auto mode as well for various suppressive fire needs...but most importantly teach soldiers for trigger disciplines for bursts on full auto then perhaps you won't need 3-round burst mode on weapons, just simple Safe-Semi-Full Auto is enough,

and if you look in past OFB did produce a special "Assault" variant (don't get into technicalities here i mean it was just named 'Rifle 5.56mm Assault') of INSAS with black furniture (wayyy before 1B1 standardised black furniture on INSAS) which had Safe-Semi-3RB-Full Auto (taken straight from FN CAL//FN FNC) to provide flexibility of fire modes to end user = soldiers,

...but Army had all those Vietnam War + Falklands War ideas in mind (how full auto is a waste of ammo, not so effective yada yada) = ammo conservation, one factor behind elimination of full auto mode on INSAS, then such 4-position arrangement would increased complexity of firearms making it less reliable (prefectly valid point in my view),
now comes phuny part,
So,
>Safe-Semi-3RB-Full Auto is complex,
>Safe-Semi-3RB is ok for muh ammo conservation+increasing effectiveness of bursts+providing controllability on rapid fire and KEEPING IT SIMPLE,
(also keep in mind INSAS trigger group = AK trigger group + 3 round burst mechanism added to it, taken from FN CAL//FN FNC)
so what was don ? they ditched full auto mode WHICH JUST REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ANGLED CUT ON FIRE SELECTOR THAT RETARDS DISCONNECTOR (spring loaded, has opposite-faced hook to grab the hammer so it provides semi-auto firing operation, for firing full auto you 'retard' it i.e. keep it locked on its position and now firearm could provide full-auto fire till trigger is pulled as it won't be able to move with trigger and capture hammer) BUT ALLOWED EXTRA PARTS FOR 3-ROUND BURST
and when kargil happened we all saw in many cases how this 3-Round Burst mechanism on it failed and it just went full auto (i know exact reason(s) behind its causing but maybe will explain it later, for now i'd like it if you guys could search for 'Aberdeen Report on FN CAL' and read through that), so all the "requirements" they set on INSAS went dud with that, and now after going full circles with it all future variants that came out after 1B//1B1 like Excaliburs of different versions, OFB R2 and MSMC/JVPC (offshot of INSAS programs) and even that 5.56mm Carbine by OFB - all have Safe-Semi-Full Auto pattern trigger groups on it

*Sigh* instead of all those reading too much from Vietnam and Falklands (perhaps without reading much about many reasons for failures of M16 and Semi-Auto SLR of Britshits vs Full-Auto FAL of Argentenes) had they worked on our own needs and requiremens before drafing GSQR for INSAS as well as tested all those things for failures then perhaps many things (not talking about OFB imparted QA issues) could have been better with such thought-out INSAS, one of the thing could've been Safe-Semi-Full Auto pattern fire modes and providing soldiers training for better trigger discipline on full auto for firing bursts, then yeah.

There is one very important factor with Americans, Britshits and many NATO participants, that is they have this "Rifleman's Culture" prevalent among them so many basic requirments that they lay out for firearms involve emphasises on Accuracy and related things, suppressive fire is not so desired in such 'culture' or they can have rifle with Full Auto for providing momentary suppresive fire and/or troops equipped with SMG/LMG/SAW/GPMG etc things for desired full auto offensive/suppressive fire, so yeah,
In our case we did emphasise on Accuracy (rightly so) and also had INSAS Carbine in mind for such full auto requirements, but ultimately it never happened due to issues and reasons and we kept using 9mm "Carbines" (and to supplement//de-facto replace it we got various AKs and some other 9mm SMGs lately like MP-9)...but a largely issued ;standard issue; firearm still remained shortfooted in that regard due to...reasons... while it perfectly could've covered all those requirements as well had we thought clearly.
And if we look at Americans-Britshits and others in general,
M16A2/A4 was supplemented by CAR-15//M4A1 (heck M4A1 even became more prevalent than M16s, and even USMC jarheads who once pushed for M16A4 slyly switched to M27 'IAR'),
L85 variants did have full auto mode on it but was also supplemented by L86 LSW (LMG variant) and certain carbine variant L22,
All of them have lots of different SMGs (PDWs too?) like MP5, MP7, P90 etc but YET they give end user ability in one way or otehr to fire their stuff in full auto if needed,
so...yeah...

 

[Whitecollar]

i dunno bhai probably he's experienced in firing short bursts on full auto mode or just force of habit coming from training on INSAS,

in either case it is a good thing that soldiers are learning about such self-control,

and i personally believe this is how things should've been with INSAS since very beginning, i.e. teach about controlling bursts on full auto instead of mechanically limiting firearms with some 2-3 round bursts, and if such fire mode is given on firearm then do also give them full auto mode as well for various suppressive fire needs...but most importantly teach soldiers for trigger disciplines for bursts on full auto then perhaps you won't need 3-round burst mode on weapons, just simple Safe-Semi-Full Auto is enough,

and if you look in past OFB did produce a special "Assault" variant (don't get into technicalities here i mean it was just named 'Rifle 5.56mm Assault') of INSAS with black furniture (wayyy before 1B1 standardised black furniture on INSAS) which had Safe-Semi-3RB-Full Auto (taken straight from FN CAL//FN FNC) to provide flexibility of fire modes to end user = soldiers,
View attachment 98989

...but Army had all those Vietnam War + Falklands War ideas in mind (how full auto is a waste of ammo, not so effective yada yada) = ammo conservation, one factor behind elimination of full auto mode on INSAS, then such 4-position arrangement would increased complexity of firearms making it less reliable (prefectly valid point in my view),
now comes phuny part,
So,
>Safe-Semi-3RB-Full Auto is complex,
>Safe-Semi-3RB is ok for muh ammo conservation+increasing effectiveness of bursts+providing controllability on rapid fire and KEEPING IT SIMPLE,
(also keep in mind INSAS trigger group = AK trigger group + 3 round burst mechanism added to it, taken from FN CAL//FN FNC)
so what was don ? they ditched full auto mode WHICH JUST REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ANGLED CUT ON FIRE SELECTOR THAT RETARDS DISCONNECTOR (spring loaded, has opposite-faced hook to grab the hammer so it provides semi-auto firing operation, for firing full auto you 'retard' it i.e. keep it locked on its position and now firearm could provide full-auto fire till trigger is pulled as it won't be able to move with trigger and capture hammer) BUT ALLOWED EXTRA PARTS FOR 3-ROUND BURST
and when kargil happened we all saw in many cases how this 3-Round Burst mechanism on it failed and it just went full auto (i know exact reason(s) behind its causing but maybe will explain it later, for now i'd like it if you guys could search for 'Aberdeen Report on FN CAL' and read through that), so all the "requirements" they set on INSAS went dud with that, and now after going full circles with it all future variants that came out after 1B//1B1 like Excaliburs of different versions, OFB R2 and MSMC/JVPC (offshot of INSAS programs) and even that 5.56mm Carbine by OFB - all have Safe-Semi-Full Auto pattern trigger groups on it

*Sigh* instead of all those reading too much from Vietnam and Falklands (perhaps without reading much about many reasons for failures of M16 and Semi-Auto SLR of Britshits vs Full-Auto FAL of Argentenes) had they worked on our own needs and requiremens before drafing GSQR for INSAS as well as tested all those things for failures then perhaps many things (not talking about OFB imparted QA issues) could have been better with such thought-out INSAS, one of the thing could've been Safe-Semi-Full Auto pattern fire modes and providing soldiers training for better trigger discipline on full auto for firing bursts, then yeah.

There is one very important factor with Americans, Britshits and many NATO participants, that is they have this "Rifleman's Culture" prevalent among them so many basic requirments that they lay out for firearms involve emphasises on Accuracy and related things, suppressive fire is not so desired in such 'culture' or they can have rifle with Full Auto for providing momentary suppresive fire and/or troops equipped with SMG/LMG/SAW/GPMG etc things for desired full auto offensive/suppressive fire, so yeah,
In our case we did emphasise on Accuracy (rightly so) and also had INSAS Carbine in mind for such full auto requirements, but ultimately it never happened due to issues and reasons and we kept using 9mm "Carbines" (and to supplement//de-facto replace it we got various AKs and some other 9mm SMGs lately like MP-9)...but a largely issued ;standard issue; firearm still remained shortfooted in that regard due to...reasons... while it perfectly could've covered all those requirements as well had we thought clearly.
And if we look at Americans-Britshits and others in general,
M16A2/A4 was supplemented by CAR-15//M4A1 (heck M4A1 even became more prevalent than M16s, and even USMC jarheads who once pushed for M16A4 slyly switched to M27 'IAR'),
L85 variants did have full auto mode on it but was also supplemented by L86 LSW (LMG variant) and certain carbine variant L22,
All of them have lots of different SMGs (PDWs too?) like MP5, MP7, P90 etc but YET they give end user ability in one way or otehr to fire their stuff in full auto if needed,
so...yeah...

But this was the reason behind Excalibur's S, SA, FA modes instead of Burst rounds. After firing 24000 shots, it really came out as a fit contendor to replace the ageing and faulty INSAS.
My take is however the metallurgy of INSAS family. In previous DFI posts, I had seen a lot of complaints about malfunctioning of moving parts due to poor fit n finish plus the metal used for construction of overall Gun parts couldn't really stand thru test of time.

Actually, nothing had stopped DRDO or OFB from modifying INSAS platform and making it into a world class weapon system including LMG, 556 Sniper, carbine and even Bullpup. But as we know, IMPORT lobby would be very very displeased had that happened.

 

[Marliii]

But this was the reason behind Excalibur's S, SA, FA modes instead of Burst rounds. After firing 24000 shots, it really came out as a fit contendor to replace the ageing and faulty INSAS.
My take is however the metallurgy of INSAS family. In previous DFI posts, I had seen a lot of complaints about malfunctioning of moving parts due to poor fit n finish plus the metal used for construction of overall Gun parts couldn't really stand thru test of time.

Actually, nothing had stopped DRDO or OFB from modifying INSAS platform and making it into a world class weapon system including LMG, 556 Sniper, carbine and even Bullpup. But as we know, IMPORT lobby would be very very displeased had that happened.

The army is trying to avoid OFB in small arms as much as possible.INSAS is a dead gun now.its replacements are already on its way.

 

[ALBY]

@Johny_Baba until today i was in the belief that production of SLRs were stopped when the prodcution of insas started. But today i came across one L1 model with OFB 2012 wrotten over it. Also OFB have been producing buttstocks in desert tan colour for SLR unlike the usual orange, plum coloured ones.Also one weapon have green colour paint and sadly it was repainted with orange colour (the very same 'baby poop colour' found in rhodesian Fals which was shown in Larry vickers show).
Couldn't take the pics though due to some reasons.

 

[Whitecollar]

The army is trying to avoid OFB in small arms as much as possible.INSAS is a dead gun now.its replacements are already on its way.

That wasn't my point dude. Fact is: pick any large Army in the world, they will have their own Country's assault rifles as standard.
US: M4A1
Rus: AK-12
China: QBZ 95/191
UK: SA 80

If you see the bigger picture, arming a large army with phoren rifle isn't very good move by any Govt in the world as a lot of funds are given away which are never gonna return back. Another reason is Self Pride. These are particular reasons why India had chosen to go ahead with INSAS.
Now my question: What did we gain with our learnings??
PHASE 1: India adpots INSAS 1A. 1999 Kargil shows INSAS's shortcomings as a poor quality rifle with myriads of issues.
PHASE 2: INSAS 1B gets created that solves most of the issues with 1A instead of jamming and cracking of mags. Root cause: Poor Polymer used for mags that cannot withstand heavy torturous Army usage, poor quality of M85 Ball ammos created by OFB which mostly resulted in failure to feed and eject.
PHASE 3: Ammo quality is improved by OFB and max INSAS rifles are either repaired or replsced by 1B1. No one talks about how much INSAS improved since Kargil and top Army brass cook their Rotis on a false agenda of INSAS being faulty albeit due to phoren maal ka nasha.
PHASE 4: DRDO and OFB improve on INSAS making Excalibur which has vastly improved over INSAS in terms of functionality. Excalibur performs excellently during test but top brass is not impressed.

Finally INSAS's image is tarnished as a Global failure. Fun fact: most jamming of INSAS was due to poor maintenance practice by users themselves as they had previously used low maintenance SLRs and AKs.

I would like to bring all ya'll notice towards our rival CHINA here:

PHASE 1: China gets their AKM pattern rifle TOT from Soviet. They call it the Type 56. Mass production is made of this rifle and given to entire PLA.

This serves well for around 20 years but they do not stop.

PHASE 2: Seeing the shortfall of 7.62x39, China tries to modify the Type 56 to get more range by increasing barrel length of existing design alongwith some other mods like retractable stock. They call this Type 81s and intend to use this as their standard rifle.

PHASE 3: Again after few years and running a parallel project of 5.8x42mm cartridge(after getting influenced by 5.45x39mm), China tries their hands on a bullpup design rifle using 7.62x39. Idea here is that it should have interchangeable parts with AK like bolt, mags, bolt carrier, etc. They mostly import this to US and get good feedback(be it in limited numbers). This is called Type 86s. The advent of a very popular bullpup rifle.

PHASE 4: Norinco goes full scale on QBZ development and the new 5.8x42 mm bullet. All sorts of tests are conducted and finally QBZ-95 gets selected as standard assault rifle for PLA and other forces. Also, a civilian version called T-97 NSR is created that chambers 5.56 NATO. Alongwith this, a sniper of same QB family called QBU-88 gets inducted too.

PHASE 5: China again does a lot of R&D( espionage) and finally modifies their existing rifle to now use conventional AR design. Not much is known but the rifle is called QBZ-191 and will replace QBZ-95.

As you can see, at no point did China abandon their rifle project, neither they got inclined towards Phoren rifles like India is doing.
This has saved them millions of dollars infact.
Had INSAS followed the same route and was supported by Army, we could've saved our money and kept our pride.

 

[Marliii]

That wasn't my point dude. Fact is: pick any large Army in the world, they will have their own Country's assault rifles as standard.
US: M4A1
Rus: AK-12
China: QBZ 95/191
UK: SA 80

If you see the bigger picture, arming a large army with phoren rifle isn't very good move by any Govt in the world as a lot of funds are given away which are never gonna return back. Another reason is Self Pride. These are particular reasons why India had chosen to go ahead with INSAS.
Now my question: What did we gain with our learnings??
PHASE 1: India adpots INSAS 1A. 1999 Kargil shows INSAS's shortcomings as a poor quality rifle with myriads of issues.
PHASE 2: INSAS 1B gets created that solves most of the issues with 1A instead of jamming and cracking of mags. Root cause: Poor Polymer used for mags that cannot withstand heavy torturous Army usage, poor quality of M85 Ball ammos created by OFB which mostly resulted in failure to feed and eject.
PHASE 3: Ammo quality is improved by OFB and max INSAS rifles are either repaired or replsced by 1B1. No one talks about how much INSAS improved since Kargil and top Army brass cook their Rotis on a false agenda of INSAS being faulty albeit due to phoren maal ka nasha.
PHASE 4: DRDO and OFB improve on INSAS making Excalibur which has vastly improved over INSAS in terms of functionality. Excalibur performs excellently during test but top brass is not impressed.

Finally INSAS's image is tarnished as a Global failure. Fun fact: most jamming of INSAS was due to poor maintenance practice by users themselves as they had previously used low maintenance SLRs and AKs.

I would like to bring all ya'll notice towards our rival CHINA here:

PHASE 1: China gets their AKM pattern rifle TOT from Soviet. They call it the Type 56. Mass production is made of this rifle and given to entire PLA.
View attachment 99037

This serves well for around 20 years but they do not stop.

PHASE 2: Seeing the shortfall of 7.62x39, China tries to modify the Type 56 to get more range by increasing barrel length of existing design alongwith some other mods like retractable stock. They call this Type 81s and intend to use this as their standard rifle.

View attachment 99038

PHASE 3: Again after few years and running a parallel project of 5.8x42mm cartridge(after getting influenced by 5.45x39mm), China tries their hands on a bullpup design rifle using 7.62x39. Idea here is that it should have interchangeable parts with AK like bolt, mags, bolt carrier, etc. They mostly import this to US and get good feedback(be it in limited numbers). This is called Type 86s. The advent of a very popular bullpup rifle.
View attachment 99039

PHASE 4: Norinco goes full scale on QBZ development and the new 5.8x42 mm bullet. All sorts of tests are conducted and finally QBZ-95 gets selected as standard assault rifle for PLA and other forces. Also, a civilian version called T-97 NSR is created that chambers 5.56 NATO. Alongwith this, a sniper of same QB family called QBU-88 gets inducted too.
View attachment 99040
View attachment 99041

PHASE 5: China again does a lot of R&D( espionage) and finally modifies their existing rifle to now use conventional AR design. Not much is known but the rifle is called QBZ-191 and will replace QBZ-95.
View attachment 99043

As you can see, at no point did China abandon their rifle project, neither they got inclined towards Phoren rifles like India is doing.
This has saved them millions of dollars infact.
Had INSAS followed the same route and was supported by Army, we could've saved our money and kept our pride.

INSAS couldn't move ahead army wants a gun in 7.62x51 OFB R2 was offered but army rejected it.then they went for an RFI OFB could have participated but No they didn't.OFB could have pitted its gin against competition and proved its point.but no they want free pass

 

[Whitecollar]

INSAS couldn't move ahead army wants a gun in 7.62x51 OFB R2 was offered but army rejected it.then they went for an RFI OFB could have participated but No they didn't.OFB could have pitted its gin against competition and proved its point.but no they want free pass

You really think Army would've gone for the RFI 7.62x51mm DMR had it been offered to IA?? We have TAR(Arsenal design copy) and Ghatak (self made) good quality 7.62x39mm rifles reproducing similar accuracy as a 100 series AK but Army still wants a watered down "AK-203".

 

[Marliii]

You really think Army would've gone for the RFI 7.62x51mm DMR had it been offered to IA?? We have TAR(Arsenal design copy) and Ghatak (self made) good quality 7.62x39mm rifles reproducing similar accuracy as a 100 series AK but Army still wants a watered down "AK-203".

Its not about that and army isn't the one pitching ak203 it's OFB with kalaniahkov.they don't even have the guts to push TAR or ghatak so they teamed up with kalanishkov who is trusted by army to get their product through

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

@Johny_Baba until today i was in the belief that production of SLRs were stopped when the prodcution of insas started. But today i came across one L1 model with OFB 2012 wrotten over it. Also OFB have been producing buttstocks in desert tan colour for SLR unlike the usual orange, plum coloured ones.Also one weapon have green colour paint and sadly it was repainted with orange colour (the very same 'baby poop colour' found in rhodesian Fals which was shown in Larry vickers show).
Couldn't take the pics though due to some reasons.

SLR is in limited series production. They are mainly intended for the police forces and few few for the CRPFs.

As per the modernization programmes of Indian police forces, old .303s are replaced by automatic rifles like AK-47, SLR and Insas.
So these rifles will continue to see small production volumes from OFB in years to come.

 

[another_armchair]

@Johny_Baba until today i was in the belief that production of SLRs were stopped when the prodcution of insas started. But today i came across one L1 model with OFB 2012 wrotten over it. Also OFB have been producing buttstocks in desert tan colour for SLR unlike the usual orange, plum coloured ones.Also one weapon have green colour paint and sadly it was repainted with orange colour (the very same 'baby poop colour' found in rhodesian Fals which was shown in Larry vickers show).
Couldn't take the pics though due to some reasons.

Afaik, OFB Trichy still makes SLRs.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

INSAS couldn't move ahead army wants a gun in 7.62x51 OFB R2 was offered but army rejected it.then they went for an RFI OFB could have participated but No they didn't.OFB could have pitted its gin against competition and proved its point.but no they want free pass

OFB R-2 was not rejected initially in 2017-18. Army set up a project management team to assist OFB to solve its 'issues'. These issues included recoil management. The project was going smoothly and introduced a muzzle break and collapsible stock on R-2.

In 2018, Army called global RFI for emergence puschase of 66k 7.62*51 battle rifles. OFB became apprehensive. Army assured OFB that since R-2 was in developement, this 66k rifle order is to meet emergence requirement, and assured at least 25% of the total requirement (360K battle rifles).

In 2018-19 Army changed the requirement from 7.62*51 rifle to 7.62*39 mm AK-203 rifle, as a suitable replacement of Insas. Thus R-2 was dropped as hot potato, similar to MCIWS due to change in 'requirement'.

3 years later, we are in middle of 2021 and AK-203 project is in limbo. And R-2 met the same fate as other projects like MK1C, MCIWS etc.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

That wasn't my point dude. Fact is: pick any large Army in the world, they will have their own Country's assault rifles as standard.
US: M4A1
Rus: AK-12
China: QBZ 95/191
UK: SA 80

If you see the bigger picture, arming a large army with phoren rifle isn't very good move by any Govt in the world as a lot of funds are given away which are never gonna return back. Another reason is Self Pride. These are particular reasons why India had chosen to go ahead with INSAS.
Now my question: What did we gain with our learnings??
PHASE 1: India adpots INSAS 1A. 1999 Kargil shows INSAS's shortcomings as a poor quality rifle with myriads of issues.
PHASE 2: INSAS 1B gets created that solves most of the issues with 1A instead of jamming and cracking of mags. Root cause: Poor Polymer used for mags that cannot withstand heavy torturous Army usage, poor quality of M85 Ball ammos created by OFB which mostly resulted in failure to feed and eject.
PHASE 3: Ammo quality is improved by OFB and max INSAS rifles are either repaired or replsced by 1B1. No one talks about how much INSAS improved since Kargil and top Army brass cook their Rotis on a false agenda of INSAS being faulty albeit due to phoren maal ka nasha.
PHASE 4: DRDO and OFB improve on INSAS making Excalibur which has vastly improved over INSAS in terms of functionality. Excalibur performs excellently during test but top brass is not impressed.

Finally INSAS's image is tarnished as a Global failure. Fun fact: most jamming of INSAS was due to poor maintenance practice by users themselves as they had previously used low maintenance SLRs and AKs.

I would like to bring all ya'll notice towards our rival CHINA here:

PHASE 1: China gets their AKM pattern rifle TOT from Soviet. They call it the Type 56. Mass production is made of this rifle and given to entire PLA.
View attachment 99037

This serves well for around 20 years but they do not stop.

PHASE 2: Seeing the shortfall of 7.62x39, China tries to modify the Type 56 to get more range by increasing barrel length of existing design alongwith some other mods like retractable stock. They call this Type 81s and intend to use this as their standard rifle.

View attachment 99038

PHASE 3: Again after few years and running a parallel project of 5.8x42mm cartridge(after getting influenced by 5.45x39mm), China tries their hands on a bullpup design rifle using 7.62x39. Idea here is that it should have interchangeable parts with AK like bolt, mags, bolt carrier, etc. They mostly import this to US and get good feedback(be it in limited numbers). This is called Type 86s. The advent of a very popular bullpup rifle.
View attachment 99039

PHASE 4: Norinco goes full scale on QBZ development and the new 5.8x42 mm bullet. All sorts of tests are conducted and finally QBZ-95 gets selected as standard assault rifle for PLA and other forces. Also, a civilian version called T-97 NSR is created that chambers 5.56 NATO. Alongwith this, a sniper of same QB family called QBU-88 gets inducted too.
View attachment 99040
View attachment 99041

PHASE 5: China again does a lot of R&D( espionage) and finally modifies their existing rifle to now use conventional AR design. Not much is known but the rifle is called QBZ-191 and will replace QBZ-95.
View attachment 99043

As you can see, at no point did China abandon their rifle project, neither they got inclined towards Phoren rifles like India is doing.
This has saved them millions of dollars infact.
Had INSAS followed the same route and was supported by Army, we could've saved our money and kept our pride.

What optic is the QBZ 191 using here?

 

[DEV1729]

India's weapon buying diplomacy must be stopped

 

[Tactical Doge]

What optic is the QBZ 191 using here?

Also the helmet behind has a new version of their single eyepiece NVDs(?)

 

[ketaki]

That wasn't my point dude. Fact is: pick any large Army in the world, they will have their own Country's assault rifles as standard.
US: M4A1
Rus: AK-12
China: QBZ 95/191
UK: SA 80

If you see the bigger picture, arming a large army with phoren rifle isn't very good move by any Govt in the world as a lot of funds are given away which are never gonna return back. Another reason is Self Pride. These are particular reasons why India had chosen to go ahead with INSAS.
Now my question: What did we gain with our learnings??
PHASE 1: India adpots INSAS 1A. 1999 Kargil shows INSAS's shortcomings as a poor quality rifle with myriads of issues.
PHASE 2: INSAS 1B gets created that solves most of the issues with 1A instead of jamming and cracking of mags. Root cause: Poor Polymer used for mags that cannot withstand heavy torturous Army usage, poor quality of M85 Ball ammos created by OFB which mostly resulted in failure to feed and eject.
PHASE 3: Ammo quality is improved by OFB and max INSAS rifles are either repaired or replsced by 1B1. No one talks about how much INSAS improved since Kargil and top Army brass cook their Rotis on a false agenda of INSAS being faulty albeit due to phoren maal ka nasha.
PHASE 4: DRDO and OFB improve on INSAS making Excalibur which has vastly improved over INSAS in terms of functionality. Excalibur performs excellently during test but top brass is not impressed.

Finally INSAS's image is tarnished as a Global failure. Fun fact: most jamming of INSAS was due to poor maintenance practice by users themselves as they had previously used low maintenance SLRs and AKs.

I would like to bring all ya'll notice towards our rival CHINA here:

PHASE 1: China gets their AKM pattern rifle TOT from Soviet. They call it the Type 56. Mass production is made of this rifle and given to entire PLA.
View attachment 99037

This serves well for around 20 years but they do not stop.

PHASE 2: Seeing the shortfall of 7.62x39, China tries to modify the Type 56 to get more range by increasing barrel length of existing design alongwith some other mods like retractable stock. They call this Type 81s and intend to use this as their standard rifle.

View attachment 99038

PHASE 3: Again after few years and running a parallel project of 5.8x42mm cartridge(after getting influenced by 5.45x39mm), China tries their hands on a bullpup design rifle using 7.62x39. Idea here is that it should have interchangeable parts with AK like bolt, mags, bolt carrier, etc. They mostly import this to US and get good feedback(be it in limited numbers). This is called Type 86s. The advent of a very popular bullpup rifle.
View attachment 99039

PHASE 4: Norinco goes full scale on QBZ development and the new 5.8x42 mm bullet. All sorts of tests are conducted and finally QBZ-95 gets selected as standard assault rifle for PLA and other forces. Also, a civilian version called T-97 NSR is created that chambers 5.56 NATO. Alongwith this, a sniper of same QB family called QBU-88 gets inducted too.
View attachment 99040
View attachment 99041

PHASE 5: China again does a lot of R&D( espionage) and finally modifies their existing rifle to now use conventional AR design. Not much is known but the rifle is called QBZ-191 and will replace QBZ-95.
View attachment 99043

As you can see, at no point did China abandon their rifle project, neither they got inclined towards Phoren rifles like India is doing.
This has saved them millions of dollars infact.
Had INSAS followed the same route and was supported by Army, we could've saved our money and kept our pride.

I saw a video somewhere...it said that PLA did not want a notorious AK type rifle to be seen during Hong Kong handover in 90s in the hands of their soldiers... Thus... “cool looking” , “futuristic” QBZ 95

 

[ALBY]

Afaik, OFB Trichy still makes SLRs.

Yes that one had OFT markjng while old ones from 1967 and later ones had RFI markjngs.. Btw one which was from 1998 had bdl or somethjng like that marking. Dont know which ordnance factory is that.