My comments on INSAS Mk.1 (compared to current variant)
first please refer the pic here,
View attachment 176618
>regd 1.
i remember talking about this once here
guess what our ARDE and OFB nibbas already had done it before on INSAS Mk.1A itself in past but then army asked for return of older style of magazine locking/release ?
>regd 2. (also taking 4, 5 in account)
so most striking difference is totally different gas block, probably taken from 1A SLR or FN CAL (reminder, INSAS took so many design features from both FN assault rifles of past, CAL and FNC, as evident from MK.1A and MK.1B designs, plus there is one FN CAL showcased in Rifle Room of Ishapore Rifle Factory - further cementing the hypothesis)
View attachment 176628
this may or may not have differen gas settings on it, and judging from Muzzle Device (refer 4) that is again from later designs of FAL and FNC style muzzle devices sans any slip-rings for grenade launching; i also believe that Mk.1A did not have any intended Rifle Grenade Launching capability, also evident from lack of separate top cover locking tab on sides (at least that is what seems to me) as well as lack of longer magazine spring tab (refer 5 for locking the top cover with main receiver - some features that are needed//useful on rifle grenade launching AKs
>regd 3.
hhmm this is one of the most bugging thing i saw on Mk.1A INSAS, i mean this was actually better design than what we have on current INSAS huh, like instead of putting a mass-ful (i.e. having extra weight) front trunnion housing for gas tube they are (seemingly, to me at least) just using gas tube itself and locking it directly with front trunnion,
now the way they did it could be either of this
- using top cover and spring tension from recoil spring to keep it pushed forward, just similar to Valmet//Galil
- using spring loaded lock to retain it, not exactly same but AKS-74U kinda has this; on AKS-74U that lock is depressed using the top cover that is also hinged, here top cover seems separate
why i said this was actually better design is because it actually sheds some unnecessarly mass-weight off the centre part of rifle, is simpler; if not spring loaded then either cross-pin or AK styled locking tab that you rotate before taking off gas tube - but point is it was simplified here
ALSO they probably (seems to me) integrated entire assembly for charging handle with the gas tube itself, somewhat similar to what was there on
FARA-83 of Argentina i.e. this way i believe
View attachment 176623
(FARA-83 disassembly, will talk about it later, don't mix up other parts like gas block and that muzzle device with MK.1A INSAS here, those were taken from Beretta AR-70/90 design)
too long; didn't read conclusion yada yada is, MK.1A actually had simpler design (probably better too) of Gas Tube plus Charging Handle Assembly than MK.1B INSAS and successors...how come army rejected this one...i have no idea
>regd 4, 5
already covered
>regd 6.
read from image, nothing else
>regd 7.
what else to say, it's signature feature of stamped sheet receiver INSASes to have their inner bolt carrier guide rails riveted to the receiver instead of how AK does it by using spot-weldings...they also riveted a separate (in-line with left side bolt carrier rail) ejector piece to the receiver - this design is straight from FNC (probably intentions in mind that if ejector needed maintenance they can just drill off those rivets and replace it with newer one...but such situation rarely arises and you can rather just hammer any deformity back to intended shape
)
>regd 8.
read from image, seems they had different bayonet design in mind initially but reverted to what we have now
apart from all these,
- wooden furniture on INSAS ? (handguards and front grip at least - buttstock seems polymer one or also could be wooden one who knows) to be honest it looks much cool than those overly flashy orange oil-painted polymer stuff
- no spring loaded carrying handle here ? i mean it is present in those tiny pics so must be there, there also is an etching on right side of handsguards for alloting space for carrying handle rod but it seems previously it was just simple carrying handle affixed on that side of rifle, much similar to what FAL//SLR has...so...army asked for carrying handle to be spring-loaded one ? (so it snaps down on its own while not in use ?)
this is complicating simpler things at its best...
- shape of iron sights protective 'ears' are different from current one, most likely taken from FN CAL
- no top mounted rail, not even dovetail piece; also top seems much ;flatter; than regular AK's - as if they had plans for putting a long rail of whatever kind army preferred on later versions (it is also possible that they had later era FN FNC's optical scope mount in mind that utilised entire free-flat top and affixed with front trunnion and rear iron sight's base, but it required a unique shape of notches on both sides to do so - not present here so most likely not the case)
at maxx some supplementation by those B&T MP-9, Micro-Uzi etc in some counter terrorism and such units
who personally tested the JVPC complained about its buttstock a lot, citing how it is shaky, not comfortable to use and in poorly manufactured/managed weapons one can easily pull it out of the weapon itself...
