Bharat Rakshak

Some IWI systems images recd from PR.

IWI ACE 52

IWI TAVOR CTAR with MEPRO 21

IWI X95 AR with MEPRO MOR

Israel Weapon Industries to debut UZI PRO at DefExpo

First time the actual weapon will be displayed.

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?p=94020

Don't know if this has been posted here before, Article is from March, 2010. But I leave it to the gentle reader to evaluate the fit and finish of rifles made in GOI owned factories.

What is interesting here is that "babus' are blamed when the blame surely lies with poor quality Indian innovation and engineering.

Actually in this case most of the blame lies with poor quality control at OFB facilities and ancillary suppliers (including the private sector ones mentioned in the article). The QC issue is well known and affects everything from rifles to tanks being locally manufactured.

Some of it is OFB quality issues, a little bit is bad design though. For instance, the flimsy alidade is a design flaw -- they could have designed the lever to be a bit thicker perhaps. Another "flaw" is the inability to fire NATO standard SS109 cartridges (read somewhere that it has a tendency to jam if using SS109 cartridges when firing bursts, therefore the solution was to use cartridges that are a little less powerful than the NATO standard). While the solution of reducing the cartridge power addresses the problem of jamming, it doesn't make it attractive to customers who already have a large supply of NATO SS109 cartridges.

However, you should also read the article posted by the user jonahpach, who actually got to fire the INSAS on a couple of occasions. http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2612 has one of his articles and the review of his experience begins on page 2. The first time he got to shoot them was in 2007 and he also talks about the improved version (black INSAS) that he got to fire in 2010 at around page 8. Problems seen: Poor fit and finish of rifle when coming straight from OFB factories. Armorers have to take many of them apart and hand file some parts for more smoother action. On the other hand, he says that the rifle is actually pretty accurate to shoot with.

or maybe lack of private competition?

Given a choice between a romanian Ak (one of the poorest quality AK's semi-auto) and INSAS (if it was available in semi auto) from what I have read about it, i would never buy the INSAS... even the keltec SU16CA which is a flimsy rifle seems like a better buy

Kindly enlighted the rest of us with the details which led you this conclusion.

ugly furniture, reliability issues brought up by both IA and nepalese conflict with maoists, poor finish, apart from that , I remember hearing that it has cycling issues with Nato std ammo.

If you want an old 70's era rifle, might as well buy the Ak. May be we should learn something from the americans, compare the famous black rifle with the Insas and you will see the difference.

Many of the problems you mentioned have been rectified already (maybe you have a selective memory, wherein you only remember the problems and not the solutions). If its bad finish and quality control that you are complaining about, why don't we get the Romanians to make the INSAS, that would solve the quality problems right ? Surely, the TFTA Romanians (however second rate TFTA they are) should surely are better than SDRE Indian made stuff.

^^^
Wouldn't know if all the problems have been rectified or not. If you look at the link I posted above, one user (jonahpach) who had an opportunity to evaluate it over the years, posted his views in page 8 on the recent INSAS model, which is the improved version (Granted that his views may only pertain to the examples he was shown of course).

The rifle was almost brand-new 2010 model black INSAS straight from the factory. Quoting from jonahpach's views:

This issue seems to have been around for a while. The same problem was seen when he tested the brown INSAS in 2007 as well. And he's not the only one -- a couple of other articles have also mentioned that the IA armorers often have to disassemble factory rifles and hand finish some parts, to make them work properly. While this problem can be rectified by the end-user (i.e. IA personnel), they shouldn't really have to do this extra work, when the responsibility of manufacturing is with the OFB.


Again, sounds like more adjustment issues for the end-user, which should really have been handled by the OFB.


This seems to agree with what was mentioned in other sources as well: the issues with the original plastic magazine have been resolved and some of the finishing issues as well.


Sounds like a quality control issue.

and this on page 9 of the thread:
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2612&start=120

Kinda defeats the purpose of the tool-recess if you need a tool to open it in the first place!

I just gave my opinion, Insas doesn't look like the rifle that a 21'st century armed forces should be equipped with,
But then again, in india we dont have any private competition to ofb

Are there special climate conditions in India which require a barrel length twice the size of the rest of the planet's rifles? I saw pics of an exercise between US and Indian soldiers where the INSAS barrel was literally dragging on the floor outside of the building which the soldiers were about to storm into. Of course these are made by PSUs which come up with names like Humpy and Tuffy for MPVs.

No matter which 21st century rifle is picked for the IA, if the OFB makes them in house they will face all the same QC issues and manufacturing defects that the INSAS faces. Perhaps even more given that the new rifle would be more complex than the INSAS.

From Armen's post, it is clear that unless the problems with the manufacturer are taken care of, changing the rifle might actually increase the headaches for IA armorers rather than reducing them.

So well designed weapons are poorly manufactured in govt owned factories, explode when properly used and are delivered consistently late and over budget... I can't imagine what the solution might be. We need an empowered group of semi-literate ministers to examine the problem and report their findings to the RM.

I think an imported product when made in DPSU's will be less prone to quality issues than indigenous products. Simply because in the case of imported stuff, a mature manufacturing process as well as associated machinery will be given by OEM. Also OEM will have laid out best practices to achieve a good quality control.

But in case of desi products, DPSU manufacturer will be involved in design and optimization of the manufacturing process as well as in creating best practices for good quality control. So, there is much more for DPSU's to mess up in case of desi products.

Maybe the Indian soldiers were short folk (after all, they are SDRE ) and that's why the barrel looked like it was dragging on the floor. The INSAS overall length is actually shorter than its predecessor, the FN FAL (or 1A1 in IA service) and is also shorter than the M16 A2, the HK G3, the HK G36, the SIG SG 550 and the Galil (You know what? I'd posted the same information that the INSAS is one of the smaller rifles of the world a long time ago on page 3 of this very thread and oddly enough, it was you who'd asked the question of why the INSAS barrel length was so long ). The barrel length is also shorter: the barrel length of the std. INSAS is ~ 18 inches, whereas the std. M16 A2 has a 20 inch barrel.

ArmenT, boss, it must be an optical illusion then. I thought way back then you just said the Insas was at least better the FN FAL not shorter than than M-16. Must have read it too fast. And believe me I am far from tall But even looking at the new modern sub machine gun from OFB, the barrel length again looks longer than a comparable Israeli or Heckler and Koch product.

This sort of criticism can be read about almost any rifle on the blog/forum world. The point is that this rifle costs around USD 500 dollars and its finish cannot be compared with western rifles which cost 3 times the amount

Where did you get the cost information for INSAS? FYI, it was known that in 1998, when FN won the contract for manufacturing M16s from Colt Manufacturing, the Colt folks were charging the US military $479 per rifle, so one would presume that FN won by bidding for less. Googling for current prices says that a M16 costs the US military anywhere from $425, $475, $503, $586 etc. (depending on source and various add-ons supplied with the rifle). Note that these prices include the manufacturer's profit + 5% royalty to Colt as well. Therefore, if the INSAS cost information is correct, the price is about the same range as that for an M-16.

Instead of poor fit and finish at a lower price, it would be better if the OFB spent a few bucks more to improve the quality instead. One would think that Indian jawans deserve at least that much.
[edit]I see Lisa beat me to the last point below vvvvv[/edit]

ArmenT, another way of looking at it would be to value the investment that goes into a 20 year old to put him on the front line. A Jawan dead for the want of a $500 investment.

well Iaf can afford rafales and IA can afford a decent rifle... isn't that a shame

+1 Nachiket ji.

Sandeep Ji , Manufacturing High quality firearms require excellent machining skills with high levels of automation for mass production.This is India's achilles heal as of now.Skilled manpower is a big issue in India even for private sector.In govt sector such as OFB/DPSU's it is even more of a problem.But this is one place where I doubt if private sector would be that beneficial.This is not to say that private players should not enter the firearms manufacturing sector.By all means they should participate.More competition can only be better.But emphasis should be on grooming quality gunsmiths and machinists if India has to master Firearms manufacturing.

Again it is highly unlikely that private sector will enter firearms manufacturing sector in India as of now.This applies to manufacture of many other weapon systems as well.The reason is India's convoluted weapons export laws.Until unless laws relating to export of weapons is simplified , I doubt if any manufacturer will set up a firearms manufacturing unit in India .The same goes for many other weapon systems.

And yes if you expect India too come up with American quality weapons any time soon , you will most probably be disappointed.In fact very few countries on this planet can compare with USA when it comes to firearms manufacturing.They have RKBA and the prevailing cultural and market forces have ensured that ecosystem for firearms manufacture is unparalleled anywhere in the world(this includes highly skilled gunsmiths and machinists).Sure there is an Israel/Singapore/Austria/Switzerland/Russia which can come up with excellent guns , but by and large it is USA which provides innovation and market for firearms.Even famed European small arms manufacturers are now dependent on American expertise and market for their business.So there is no point in comparing US with India when it comes to firearms manufacturing.

By the way even if Insas is a mediocre weapon in terms of finish and reliability(which it is) , in hands of a trained soldier it is good enough.Reason being a trained soldier is disciplined enough to take care of his rifle(Regular cleaning etc.) and thus ensure its effectiveness.However if you will substitute the AK 47 of a guerrilla who is not disciplined enough , with an Insas he will most probably get screwed.

This is why Indian Army while not happy with Insas is not unduly perturbed because of it.

Darshanji - with the US being supreme in small arms, how come the standard US infantry weapon is the M-16 which Google tells me costs US $600 or so per unit. I mean with reliable Romanian Kalashnikovs costing US$ 80 surely it would make sense to switch over. I suspect that it it were outsourced to China it would cost US $ 25 apiece.

Shiv ji , I got your point and that is why I support Insas(for the Indian Army) even if it is not the best or cheapest on the market.But the problem is not quality of weapons.The problem is as you have aptly said in one of the threads " Pride has been beaten out of Indian Origin people ".

As a former soldier who had extensive experience in mainly urban combat environment, it greatly offends me when people who have no knowledge or experience in warfare to say that a $hitty rifle in a well trained soldier is alright when facing an enemy with a good rifle. NO IT IS NOT.

A soldier will always try to maintain his weapon in proper working condition. That is his/her job. However, a $hity product not only depends on maintenance but its reliability also depends on the manufacturing. A soldier most often will not know if a part had internal cracks which may break when in use. Bad manufacturing standards and usage of low grade raw materials almost always cause a lot of internal cracks. The temperature in the chamber rises to extreme height and heat effects many parts of the gun. A jammed gun in the middle of combat will not help a well trained disciplined soldier stay alive when facing bogey firing away with a K-latch.

Avram

As Indians it greatly offends us when we are continuously being compared to other countries without taking Indian conditions in account.And if you were responding to my post , then just for your information I was talking about Insas rifle and not some shitty rifle.

Interesting comments on the M249 SAW - TFTAs also like to complain.

makes sense sometimes its better to stick to our old LMGs (not to mention the logistics of supplying ammo being expended at a horrific rate)

http://www.businessinsider.com/m249-saw ... ion-2012-3

From the above post


An American GI can end up dead for want of $5000 investment(or was it $500.whatever). I mean millions of dollars have been invested in him and Uncle Sam is letting it all go waste.America needs to value the lives of its soldiers.

ok I am going be to like Sheldon

Is that sarcasm??

In one Wiki comparison of AK-47 with M-16 I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... 47_and_M16


To me the meaning of that sentence is that the US uses the M-16 because it is made entirely in the US and the uS cannot be "sanctioned" in case or "major conflict".

I suspect that is the reason why the IA uses the INSAS. On the other hand the issue of why private manufacturers are not involved is a different one. I think the reasons have been discussed again and again in the aviation related threads, but the technology constraints for a rifle are lesser than that for an aircraft. It has more to do with government policy regarding arms production.

Taking Indian conditions into account?? What part of poorly fitting parts that require the end-user to put in extra work is necessitated by Indian conditions, I humbly ask?

Another way to interpret it is that since it can be made by many small time manufacturers as well, supply cannot be disrupted by bombing just one or two factories.


You are probably right on this one sir. The manufacturing requirements for building firearms are a lot less than building aircraft and startup costs are also on a smaller order of magnitude, so there are private manufacturers in India with the capability to build the INSAS, if they are given the design specs AND authority from the government to build it AND an order of sufficient magnitude that they can make a profit.

The policy constraints on allowing private manufacturers to produce small-arms is much greater than the policy constraints to allow them making warplanes, tanks or warships. A crooked/corrupted private manufacturer can easily run an unaccounted "third-shift" to produce small-arms for criminal/insurgent networks, and our system at local level is lax/perverted enough to allow/exploit it to go on until it becomes a major nightmare for everyone (see Punjab in late 1970s to early 1980s). It is kind of hard to run a "third-shift" of heavy-armor, fighter-jets or destroyer... and even harder to find covert customers for it and sell it under the radar. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20-30 years India becomes an exporter of AFVs and frigates (with major private vendors), but still continues to OFB-produce or import pistols and rifles.

While studying the prevalance of small arms ownership in various countries for the purpose of bashing Pakistan and bashing the US if necessary, I discovered that absolute firearm numers in India are pretty high.

Of course India has many of its own Darra Adamkhels because small workshops can make firearms and such workshops are regularly reported as having been busted in Bihar or UP.

Here is a link indicating gun ownership per 100 population of the countries of the world
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... -ownership

USA: 90 guns per 100 people - which means 280 million firearms
Pakistan: 12 per 100 which is 21 million
India: 4 per 100 which is 44 million

The industrial capacity to produce that many guns has to be significant. But that Wiki link says only 8 million M-16s have been produced compared to 100 million AK-47s.

This is a different issue. If you want to better rifle then one can mandate OFB/DRDO to make it.

As far as quality/design is concerned, google for M-16 problems and you will get lakhs of hits.


INSAS design has run its course, and we need something better does not mean that INSAS is/was bad.


As per my re-collection the latest order for M-4 (carbine of M-16) went for around US$ 1000

AK are ruggged but give up accurancy, range and life for the same. So INSAS can also be rugged if we make the same compromises.

Ruggedness of AK is not just because of stamped steel or a heavy barrel. Its because of its operational mechanism.
New AK's are very much accurate as well as rugged. Asking the same for Insas is not asking much.(Eg:Galil)

Yes and this carbine order came with high-tech optics (which alone costs something like $400-$450), blank attachments, KAC rail system, 7 mags and backup sights included with every carbine. Incidentally, the initial orders that was given was not too big (i.e. 2655 M-4 carbines in 2003 and only 21 carbines in 2005 [1]) and Colt charged some high prices then (it was closer to $1450 per). There was a big stink in the US senate in 2006 because the military threatened to give the 2006 year order to H&K and suddenly Colt dropped its prices substantially to around $1000 per. Incidentally, civilian versions, which don't come with all the accessories can be purchased for around $650-$800 [2][3] and I've seen info on the web that claims that the basic version with just the 7 mags and iron sights costs the US military around $475-$540 per, since they buy in bulk.

References:
[1] http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070221-136.pdf -- pages 167 to 170.
[2] Price of M4
[3] Price of M4


Agree here. The links that were posted above show that the civilian reviewers also said that the INSAS is actually a pretty accurate rifle and fairly reliable once the armorers do their adjustments to the factory-fresh product. The main problem is that the OFB build quality could use some improvement so that the IA armorers do not have to do extra work. And as others have mentioned above, it doesn't matter if the OFB makes INSAS or some other rifle design, because they need to improve build quality.

Mandate OFB/Drdo to make a better rifle, do they really need to be told to make a better rifle in the first place?

With no private gunsmiths there will never be any innovation , it's not just about Insas,

look at the following
Pistols used :
semi auto pistol 9mm 1A made by OFB- Browning hi power variant
Glock 17's, Berreta 92fs, Sig's

Designated marks man rifle;
Dragonuv SVD
Galil 76.2
mauser sp66
Vidhwansak - Denel NTW 20 variant

I am pretty sure we have the ability to come up with a few decent semi auto hand guns, bolt action rifle and semi auto rifle which are reliable and accurate to meet the domestic need.

As stated above that US is pioneer in small arms, i wonder if the civilian small arms companies have any significant contribution to the feat.