Small arms and Light Weapons

[Whitecollar]

Isn't optical surface bit larger
Not criticizing that could be our force's requirement

Holographics have larger optical surface by design so that they can produce bigger reticle and still allow operator lesser overall distortion in view.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

View attachment 128255View attachment 128256
BEL Holographic Sight, designed by IRDE lab of DRDO and manufactured by BEL at their Machilipatnam facility.
View attachment 128259

Also note, this sight has undergone some improvements from its initial variants like improved buttons similar to EOTECH ones, rather than the old crude ones.

 

[India Super Power]

Holographics have larger optical surface by design so that they can produce bigger reticle and still allow operator lesser overall distortion in view.

I was comparing to eotech types

 

[Whitecollar]

View attachment 128262

Wait...is that pic rail "welded" onto the top cover?? The finish looks slightly off

 

[Aditya Ballal]

Apologies if this has been posted before
OFB 0.338 Lapua Sniper with a Supressor.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Apologies if this has been posted before
OFB 0.338 Lapua Sniper with a Supressor.View attachment 128386View attachment 128388

Or may be a mockup

 

[Aditya Ballal]

Or may be a mockup

Why do you feel so?

 

[Lonewarrior]

Why do you feel so?

Don't know why, but that gloss of that suppressor looks weird.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Don't know why, but that gloss of that suppressor looks weird.

What I have found most bizzare is that we often seen sights such as falke ones and others in IA when perfect indigenous analogues such as drdo holographic sight and multi purpose reflex weapon sight trinetra exists. It's like people in procurement having no brain where they buy the whole upgrade package instead of only the parts whose local analogues are not available.

 

[Lonewarrior]

What I have found most bizzare is that we often seen sights such as falke ones and others in IA when perfect indigenous analogues such as drdo holographic sight and multi purpose reflex weapon sight trinetra exists. It's like people in procurement having no brain where they buy the whole upgrade package instead of only the parts whose local analogues are not available.

As long as local manufacturers will keep giving even a single reason to not be at par with foreign competitors, army will keep finding 99 reasons to reject them.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

-> nibbar again asks people that why not order more 7.62nato sigs as they are almost the same price as that of ak 103

Agree on everything except above point. AK is Far, Far cheaper than sig. The cost per rifle that people quote also includes setting up factory, machines etc- Which can be used later to make other rifles(hopefully in better caliber). In per rifle cost after setting up production AK is cheaper

 

[Kuldeepm952]

As long as local manufacturers will keep giving even a single reason to not be at par with foreign competitors, army will keep finding 99 reasons to reject them.

Damn, if this is so, chinese seem much more sensible than us.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Agree on everything except above point. AK is Far, Far cheaper than sig. The cost per rifle that people quote also includes setting up factory, machines etc- Which can be used later to make other rifles(hopefully in better caliber). In per rifle cost after setting up production AK is cheaper

Have money transfer buy 6 Apaches at 940million$ but don't have money to equip entire IA infantry which would cost less than above deal. Pfffttttt...... I have already dealt with this money argument, sounds pure BS to me. Atleast they could have ordered proper flight of Apaches with 11 to 18 on order, rather we will destroy entire Pak with 6 Apaches.
Money isn't the issue at all here, ak deal is purely political, if 7.62 ak round rifle was needed, why not global competition, there are equally good ak based plats like Finnish ones, galil and many more. And just don't tell me it's Ak 103 and hence 7 murders are forgiven.
Frome a logical point of view, it doesn't makes sense. Also people must understand that local production of any rifle is supposed to balance out cost of machinery imported for rifles in our case due to cheap labour and raw materials are also supposed to be cheaper here, right? And what exactly so suber expensive are we importing?? Not like making a plane, right?? Out of the many weapons and platforms, rifle manufacturing machinery is not that uber expensive. Cost of ak we are getting is not justified.
Someone has peddled this idea of ak being expensive coz of setting of plants and whatnot.
Well why don't that Sherlock break it down step by step?

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Have money transfer buy 6 Apaches at 940million$ but don't have money to equip entire IA infantry which would cost less than above deal. Pfffttttt...... I have already dealt with this money argument, sounds pure BS to me. Atleast they could have ordered proper flight of Apaches with 11 to 18 on order, rather we will destroy entire Pak with 6 Apaches.
Money isn't the issue at all here, ak deal is purely political, if 7.62 ak round rifle was needed, why not global competition, there are equally good ak based plats like Finnish ones, galil and many more. And just don't tell me it's Ak 103 and hence 7 murders are forgiven.
Frome a logical point of view, it doesn't makes sense. Also people must understand that local production of any rifle is supposed to balance out cost of machinery imported for rifles in our case due to cheap labour. And what exactly so suber expensive are we importing?? Not like making a plane, right?? Out of the many weapons and platforms, rifle manufacturing machinery is not that uber expensive. Cost of ak we are getting is not justified.

You seem to have missed the core of my comment:-

"Agree on everything except above point"

Meaning that I agree AK was a bad buy.

However, pricing is fair from a rifle standpoint. Whether or not the purchase was needed is anyones guess.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

You seem to have missed the core of my comment:-

"Agree on everything except above point"

Meaning that I agree AK was a bad buy.

However, pricing is fair from a rifle standpoint. Whether or not the purchase was needed is anyones guess.

It's just that this whole equipping army with these whole zoo of calibres has robbed me of my sanity. Instead of reducing logistics, we seem to enjoy having everything on our table. IA has time and time proven that logic and senses doesn't mean much.

 

[Lonewarrior]

People here often try to make a point by saying some technical stuffs and then never replying again.
One such famous line is, "We DoN't HaVe ThE mEtAlLuRgY tO mAkE rIfLeS vRo!". And then when I ask him to name that alloy which we don't posses, he vanishes in thin air.

Anyways, the point was; transfer of technology and machinery.

Let's start.
- Take 0.8 and 1.5mm thick sheet of 4140 steel.
- Put it in a punching press.
- Then in a bending press.
- Forge front and rear trunnions.
- Investment cast every small bits like FCG parts.
- And CNC machine every other component.
- Harden and then temper.
- Maybe you want to do some kind of surface treatment. But who cares, afterall it's just an AK.
- A barrel.
- Injection mould few glass reinforced polyamide pieces.
- Rivet down everything.

According to my 2 cents of firearm expertise, you don't need anything more than this to make a f*cking AK.

Now my question is; which one of these aforementioned processes were so technological advanced for us that we weren't having them here!?

Fun fact : Ghatak was made without any transfer of technology or "machinery". And so were all the other AKs manufactured before AK-203.

 

[Whitecollar]

People here often try to make a point by saying some technical stuffs and then never replying again.
One such famous line is, "We DoN't HaVe ThE mEtAlLuRgY tO mAkE rIfLeS vRo!". And then when I ask him to name that alloy which we don't posses, he vanishes in thin air.

Anyways, the point was; transfer of technology and machinery.

Let's start.
- Take 0.8 and 1.5mm thick sheet of 4140 steel.
- Put it in a punching press.
- Then in a bending press.
- Forge front and rear trunnions.
- Investment cast every small bits like FCG parts.
- And CNC machine every other component.
- Harden and then temper.
- Maybe you want to do some kind of surface treatment. But who cares, afterall it's just an AK.
- A barrel.
- Injection mould few glass reinforced polyamide pieces.
- Rivet down everything.

According to my 2 cents of firearm expertise, you don't need anything more than this to make a f*cking AK.

Now my question is; which one of these aforementioned processes were so technological advanced for us that we weren't having them here!?

Fun fact : Ghatak was made without any transfer of technology or "machinery". And so were all the other AKs manufactured before AK-203.

Infact my friend...where was ToT when we first made MRF 91?? OFB telling us they couldn't perfect and modernize an AK design despite making AKs since the 90s?

Biggest problem with OFB afaik is that they never upgrade their own shitt. They knew INSAS had a lot of faults but never really came out of "nyet riful is fine" mentality. They never tried to bring a modern improved iteration of Ghatak whereas TAR and Trica were simply copied to the fuckin pistol grip. OFB Gobbled up tax payer's money all these years and made shitty guns like Amogh carbine, Kalantak, etc. DRDO had to fukin enter the scene just because these uppity ash nibbas couldn't imagine a modern iteration of UZI or MP7...

This brings me to a good suggestion posted by me sometime back: OFB's whole design team should be ousted and DRDO should be given that job.

 

[Whitecollar]

People here often try to make a point by saying some technical stuffs and then never replying again.
One such famous line is, "We DoN't HaVe ThE mEtAlLuRgY tO mAkE rIfLeS vRo!". And then when I ask him to name that alloy which we don't posses, he vanishes in thin air.

Anyways, the point was; transfer of technology and machinery.

Let's start.
- Take 0.8 and 1.5mm thick sheet of 4140 steel.
- Put it in a punching press.
- Then in a bending press.
- Forge front and rear trunnions.
- Investment cast every small bits like FCG parts.
- And CNC machine every other component.
- Harden and then temper.
- Maybe you want to do some kind of surface treatment. But who cares, afterall it's just an AK.
- A barrel.
- Injection mould few glass reinforced polyamide pieces.
- Rivet down everything.

According to my 2 cents of firearm expertise, you don't need anything more than this to make a f*cking AK.

Now my question is; which one of these aforementioned processes were so technological advanced for us that we weren't having them here!?

Fun fact : Ghatak was made without any transfer of technology or "machinery". And so were all the other AKs manufactured before AK-203.

Also, here's a poor man's manual how to go about making an AK...

 

[Vayuputra]

People here often try to make a point by saying some technical stuffs and then never replying again.
One such famous line is, "We DoN't HaVe ThE mEtAlLuRgY tO mAkE rIfLeS vRo!". And then when I ask him to name that alloy which we don't posses, he vanishes in thin air.

Anyways, the point was; transfer of technology and machinery.

Let's start.
- Take 0.8 and 1.5mm thick sheet of 4140 steel.
- Put it in a punching press.
- Then in a bending press.
- Forge front and rear trunnions.
- Investment cast every small bits like FCG parts.
- And CNC machine every other component.
- Harden and then temper.
- Maybe you want to do some kind of surface treatment. But who cares, afterall it's just an AK.
- A barrel.
- Injection mould few glass reinforced polyamide pieces.
- Rivet down everything.

According to my 2 cents of firearm expertise, you don't need anything more than this to make a f*cking AK.

Now my question is; which one of these aforementioned processes were so technological advanced for us that we weren't having them here!?

Fun fact : Ghatak was made without any transfer of technology or "machinery". And so were all the other AKs manufactured before AK-203.

had i known all this i would have patented it and sold to comaonies at good price. whenever you get hold of an ofb make ak and russian made ak with 10 mags , just do this experiment, discharege 4 mags back to back and then shoot a target located at 100 metres, do 5 rounds grouping and measure grouping of each gun you would know qhat im talking about. you seems to have great knowledge on metalkurgy, try your carreer in this field,

 

[Lonewarrior]

had i known all this i would have patented it and sold to comaonies at good price. whenever you get hold of an ofb make ak and russian made ak with 10 mags , just do this experiment, discharege 4 mags back to back and then shoot a target located at 100 metres, do 5 rounds grouping and measure grouping of each gun you would know qhat im talking about. you seems to have great knowledge on metalkurgy, try your carreer in this field,

Sadly no one is going to buy a patent for a 80 year old technology.

Now coming back to the issue you mentioned.
- "Who's going to bother with 0.001mm tolerances of barrel and trunnion! Make it 0.1mm. It'll work perfectly"
- "Why buy 4150 stock for barrels! Use 4140, those are cheaper"
- "Naaa, we don't have time to use a borescope to check the rifling of each barrel. We'll do a batch inspection"

These are the sole reasons why OFB manufactured AKs will have a problem in accuracy. And as far as I can tell none of these is technological or even metallurgical problem.

And moreover, in military testing assult rifles are never tested on the basis of more accurate or less accurate.
As long as they can shoot under 4 MoA, they are good to go.