Small Arms Thread

[vaibhav.n]

That fault lies with H&K completely, the auditor reports as early as 6 months ago have noted that.

According to the Court of Auditors' report and the Bundeswehr Research Institute of the Armed Forces found evidence of interest. In the plastics mixture of the housings of the series rifles, the additive polyethylene could be detected, which could promote the deformation of the hot weapon.

Link:http://augengeradeaus.net/2015/04/weite ... ugemischt/

H&K switched to polyethylene which is a cheaper material than the polyamide otherwise used for the weapon for the handguards.

Arguably, the principal reason is when infantry combat takes place at a small team level over extended periods of time and cannot be reinforced. (The German Paratrooper Platoon was cutoff and in contact for 9 hours during the Kunduz firefight).

We have had unfortunately had similar experiences here when own units have had difficulty breaking contact or conducting a breakout and get naturally jittery. Beyond a point of time any rifle will fail, especially the heat and dustbowl that is afghanistan.

Training will only get you that far.

In 2008 several French soldiers in Afghanistan were killed at the end of a firefight with Taliban forces that had lasted for 7 hours, because the French soldiers simply ran out of ammunition firing in full auto.

[Karan M]

The point is that H&K did that despite its huge experience in firearms. They neither predicted or realized the issue.

The Bundeswehr and Germany - generally regarded as the be-all and end-all of mechnical items and reliability testing, plus their renowned ability in small arms employment and tactics, ended up not testing for these weapons in the conditions they would fail in.

And now 1,60,000 rifles in the German Army - not to mention equivalent numbers in service worldwide, need change or remanufacture.

In other news, M4 continues to have issues.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/th ... rsy-03289/

According to briefing documents obtained by Gannett’s Army Times magazine:

“USMC officials said the M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4 during an assessment conducted in late summer 2002 for Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, VA. Malfunctions were broken down into several categories, including “magazine,” “failure to chamber,” “failure to fire,” “failure to extract” and “worn or broken part,” according to the briefing documents. During the comparison, the M4 failed 186 times across those categories over the course of 69,000 rounds fired. The M16A4 failed 61 times during the testing.

The Army conducted a more recent reliability test between October 2005 and April 2006, which included 10 new M16s and 10 new M4s… On average, the new M16s and M4s fired approximately 5,000 rounds between stoppages, according to an Army official who asked that his name not be released.”

In a subsequent letter to the magazine, M4 manufacturer Colt argued that the US Army had disagreed with the USMC study, then added that the Army and Colt had worked to make modifications thereafter in order to address problems found.

2006

Even without those extenuating circumstances, however, there have been problems. A December 2006 survey external link, conducted on behalf of the Army by CNA Corp., conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty. The M4 received a number of strong requests from M-16 users, who liked its smaller profile. Among M4 users, however, 19% of said they experienced stoppages in combat – and almost 20% of those said they were “unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage.” The report adds that “Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached [including via official means like rail mounts].” Since “accessories” can include items like night sights, flashlights, etc., their use is not expected to go away any time soon.

2008

On July 13, 2008, in the battle of Winot [sic] in Afghanistan, 200 Taliban troops attacked the U.S. troops at a remote outpost in Eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban were able to break through our lines… Believe it or not, do you know what killed most of us? Our own rifles. Practically every one of our dead was found with his m-16 torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. That’s occurring now. Except it’s not getting any press.

…You know, a lot of people do a lot of things for our country, but nobody does for our country what the soldier on the frontline does – nobody. Mr. secretary of the Army. This is a moral question. Get the rifle competition going. Members of congress, members of the senate who are on the armed services committee don’t allow this to continue to happen.

etc.

In light of the above, our INSAS story has been fairly remarkable in that we've got to the point that most user accounts now state that the INSAS1B1 is basically reliable & the only real cribs about the rifle are its crude finish, ergonomics & general shoddy half baked OFB interest, which means unit armorers have to occasionally finetune the received rifles and make sure the action is sufficiently smooth.

Noting the huge issues with dirt and mud above, in the M4 tests, the fact the Excalibur cleared those handily - while all 4 of its competitors didn't (Beretta, Colt, Galil Ace and Bren) suggests its design is robust and functional.

So instead of running for an imported rifle, which in all likelihood was designed for much more relaxed conditions and will break down in IA testing, its best to continue to rely on & take the INSAS further.

ARDE should be asked to ensure their technology is available to both private and public firms - not just OFB. Everyone from BHEL to L&T to Mahindra should have the tech and they should have the freedom to continue to innovate.

While it is common to disregard tech at ARDE et al, they actually have a huge leg up given the tech they have access to. DMRL is making high strength alloys for jet engines. ARDE is working on rifled cannons and even smoothbores. ASL has state of the art composites. A company like Bren or H&K or even Colt is limited to what is available from the open market & even collab is limited to traditional suppliers. Point is we clearly have the ability to make decent prototypes, but the design to manufacture stage and mass manufacture can be seriously improved by roping in the private sector.

[Karan M]

Interesting details on INSAS reliability from an insider and a former user:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showth ... post147444

Former user

Originally Posted by lemontree
Guys here is a small essay I have written on the origins of the INSAS concept. Do correct me if I have made any errors. I posted this on another forum some months back to remove many misconceptions about the rifle.
INSAS
Information about the INSAS available in the media is a mix of pessimism and optimism, and none can be blamed for developing a bias either good or bad. I am attempting to dispel a few myths and inform readers about the Indian Small Arms Systems (INSAS).
Development of the INSAS concept
In the mid 80s the Indian Army had decided to switch over from the 7.62 mm NATO calibre to 5.56 mm NATO. It was also decided to switch over from the L1A1 to a more modern and lighter infantry rifle. In 1985, after the trials, the Aug Styr and the H&Ks G41 were short listed for final selection. Both these rifles are excellent weapons in their respective class and both the manufacturers offered transfer of technology and licenses production. But the Indian Army had the following observations for Aug Styr and G41:
Aug Styr
Pros:-
- Inter-changeable barrels for rifle, carbine and LMG.
- Common parts reduced logistics and simplified training of troops.
Cons:-
- Not an ideal infantry battle rifle (but suitable for SOF units).
The term “battle rifle” fits a weapon that has suitable stand off distance for bayonet fighting and the Aug Styr does not allow that due to its compact size. The butt end has to be strong enough to withstand punishment in hand-to-hand combat. The Aug Styr lacked these two quality requirements (QR).
G41
Pros:-
- The weapon fitted all the QRs for a battle rifle.
Cons:-
- The G41 did not offer anything new apart for 5.56 mm calibre. This role could be achieved in the L1A1s by conversion of these rifles from 7.62mm to 5.56mm.
- The G41 did not offer the inter-changeable components as offered by the Aug Styr.
Army HQ asked DRDO if the Aug Styrs’ capabilities could be achieved in a battle rifles design like the G41. It was a challenging task, as DRDO had no experience in development of small arms. Till then the organisation had only made copies of the L1A1 and L4, and a modified L1A1 (heavy barrelled auto) called 1C (for Mech units). It was not a matter of national pride but the development of a concept.
Due to lack of prior experience in rifle design and development, DRDO chose the simplest and proven design for the operating system. Hence, the AK-74 operating system was chosen, giving rise to statements that it is an AK74 copy. The commonality in major components had to be maintained for the rifle, LMG and carbine. The primary feature had be quick change of barrels in all three versions of the weapon system. Features of most successful rifles were incorporated to achieve the desired results. Design features of the M16, G3 and FN were used towards that effect.
After initial trails and errors DRDO produced prototypes of the rifle, LMG and carbine, these were tested and the Army kept pointing out deficiencies and recommended improvements. DRDO however, could not provide quick barrel change facility in the 3 weapon types. This was also one of the reasons for the delay in induction. Each type of weapon had some deficiencies that had to be cleared before being inducted into the 3rd largest army in the world.
INSAS 1B1 Rifle
The INSAS 1B1 rifle looks like an FN FNC on observation. Maximum efforts were put to clear all deficiencies of this weapon since it was the most crucial of the 3 weapons. The delay in induction of the 1B1 rifle forced the army to purchase 100,000 Romanian AKs to equip the COIN units, the non-commando battalions of the Parachute Regiment, and J&K Police during the mid 90s. At the same time captured AKs/ T-56 from militants were recycled (after refurbishment), and issued to police and para-military units as per requirement.
The INSAS rifle was under going user trials since 91-93 and ultimately was inducted in 1997 (13 yrs after initiation). The rifle saw active service in 1999 during the limited war in Kargil sector. The functioning was satisfactory and the users like the weapon. It fulfilled the requirements of a rugged and reliable infantry rifle. Minor complaints get referred to the Ordinance factory through the EME workshops and improvements are made.
It is pertinent to mention that contrary to reports in articles written (by journalists with little or no understanding of small arms), frontline units are using the weapon in operational areas.
INSAS LMG
The highlight of the INSAS LMG is the absence of the spare barrel that is common in most LMGs/ SAWs. This aspect reduces the strength of crew served weapons, eliminates dual role and increases the bayonet strength of the rifle section/ squad. The barrel of the LMG was supposed to withstand continuous firing without the requirement of change of barrel. This problem could only be solved in 2000/01. Prior to that the barrels bulged/ or burst during tests, when the barrels were subjected to continuous firing of hundreds of rounds in a given time frame.
The weapon was inducted 15 years after initiation of development. The problems have been rectified as far as the army is concerned. Improvements are being made, as it is an evolving process.
INSAS carbine
This has been to most trouble prone element of the INSAS family that has not yet reached an acceptable level for induction in the army. Presently IMI of Israel is assisting in its development.
Its was thought that the A-7 the 5.56mm version of the AK that was being planned would fill the void of the carbine and assist in phasing out the Sterling 9 mm carbine. There is not much news about it hence it is only speculation.
One major QR not fulfilled by the INSAS rifle and LMG is the quick change of barrel like the Aug Styr. However, all the criticism related to the delay in 20 years for the INSAS to get inducted is unfounded. The M16A1 had a miserable record due to regular jamming and its reputation suffered. By the time the M16A2 came it was a considerable 20 years till the faults were rectified.
The AK 47 in its present avatar has been around for the past 55 years and still happens to be the most inaccurate rifle around (its ruggedness is unquestionable), and is the last choice for most armies. The PLA too kept is only as an SMG in its squads, and has developed the SKS into a decent T-81/87 battle rifle.

INSAS developer/ ex-IA in all probability

1. I say lemontree, you are pretty up and about on these things. I have dealt with this weapon system from the development stage, and I couln't have done a better job. Of course, if I sat down to answer the queries that the guys have posted about this weapon, it will end up in a thesis. So, I shall refrain. suffice it to say that the weapon system has evolved over the years and the current version 1B1 that you have reffered to is pretty rugged.

2. Ruggedness (read manufacturing quality) has been the biggest bane of this weapon, and also the biggest lament of the users. The rifle was inducted around 1996-1997 as you have mentioned and was put through a very severe test during the Kargil war. Troops were unfamiliar with the rifle and I was touring the entire battle zone with a buch of guys from the DRDO, Ordnance Factory, DGQA etc to set things right. 1B1 is a direct result of the data collected during this tour. Later, in the aftermath of the war, I also went to Kargil and Drass and put some more issues in perspective.

3. So, guys, take it easy. Indian Army is in good hands. INSAS is very accurate and has negligible recoil, the two qualities that are very popular with the troops. It is also easily maintained. AK-47 has never been a 'battle rifle' and hence should not be compared to INSAS. The imported AKs were used to arm our counter insurgency forces who are fighting a non-stop unconventional battle in J&K and North-East, and it fits the role.

4. 'Leaf Brown' has always been the colour of Indian small arms. Try firing a black rifle at 55 deg C in the deserts of Rajasthan over a long period and you shall get the answer.

5. Both the Rifle and LMG have successfully undergone repeated sustained firing test beyond the limit laid down for the life of barrels. They do not require a change of barrel. The barrels are Chrome plated like most modern small arms of the world and are easily maintained.

6. The Carbine project has been shelved for technical reasons. It is not feasible to control the fire of a high powered ammunition like the 5.56 NATO when fired from a shortened barrel.

7. I shall be glad to take on technical queries concerning this weapon system.

Why the carbine version did not work out. Simple answer to summarize - ammo issue. So no wonder the new MSMC has a new ammo type.

1. The problem with the carbine is that it fired the same high powered ammunition, with muzzle velocity in excess of 900 m/s, that was used in the rifle and the LMG. The 'pressure-velocity' curve of the ammunition was designed for rifle and LMG barrels. With the shortened Carbine barrel the 'All Burnt Point' went outside the barrel. As a result there was tremendous muzzle jump, unbearable sound and flash, and the weapon just could not be controlled in automatic mode which is what carbines are meant for.

2. It had lots or other problems like the front pistol grip which interferred with a quick change of magazine, the side folding butt which was not comfortable in carriage, etc etc. But the main problem was the incompatability of the ammunition.

2. For the sake of commonality of firing/moving parts with rifle and LMG, DRDO could not mess with the cartridge size, nor could they alter the packing density of the explosive. So they kept quite for a long time till such time there rifle and the LMG were well into acceptance phase of induction, and then raised the bogey of the carbine again last year. I had organized the last trial at the Raj Rif Centre in Delhi which was witnessed by the Deputy (or Vice, I dont remember) Chief, wherein the effort was summarily rejected.

4. No, it is not hard to design a muzzle compensator, but how would that eliminate the sound and flash. Agreed, AK fires a high powered round too, but its 7.62x39mm amn had the mv of approx 700 m/s, which is why AK was so effective in close range, burst firing mode.

5. All of us want to get rid of 9mm carbine, but there is no viable alternative yet. Let's see if DRDO spins some magic

From a Gun forum (Indian for Guns) where civvie street guys dislike the INSAS as its not as good as ze imports with good finish etc etc. However some useful points from actual users:

This weapon system like any other weapon system is still going through its experiment state..in case of India its more because of our lack of interest, attitude and dedication towards our work...but one thing for sure I have been using this weapon from its induction as 1A n its latest avataar 1B1...it is one piece of weapon which is functional from -40 to +48 deg temp...and I hardly have seen any other weapons like them...I have seen beretta carbine with BSF n CRPF and they have their fare share of trouble as well and other foreign carbine/assault rifle with our colleagues in SF's they r good no doubt but no1 is trouble free ...but there is a huge scope of improvement and i sincerely hope that with this make in India drive there will be soon a better and much improved INSAS for us...

I dont know whether this was an actual user. Note the flak DRDO gets when their designs are made by OFB which is least bothered about quality of fit and finish. Thankfully BEL, pvt manufactured DRDO designs are much better in fit and finish. (note:https://i.imgur.com/HNIaY8o.jpg)

Teething problems of INSAS has been mostly resolved. Finish has never been a forte of DRDO with all their products looking remarkably worse than even a cheap chinese toy.
Most stoppage is attributable to piston getting stuck inside the cylinder, locally resolved by removing the upper hand guard.
Overheating.... almost all mil grade wpns including INSAS will continue to fire even when the barrel glows red hot. just have to aim slightly high because barrel droops when red hot.
Jamming of breech block etc is due to very high lvl of dirt/carbon accumulation. No soldier worth his salt would allow his weapon to get so dirty. will always clean the wpn before taking it out for operations, will clean thourougly before putting it for storage.
The requirement of AK 47 during counter terrorist operations especially in Jungles/built up area was felt not because it is better weapon, but mostly due to its compact size and folding butt which makes it easier to carry in restricted space and at the same time provide high fire power that a small carbine cannot.
Poor quality of the wpn is due to "Murphy's Law" which clearly states "Remember, your wpn is made by the lowest bidder"
cost of the rifle is high not because of the complexity of the wpn, but due to corruption.
iNSAS is a good rifle, Accurate, low recoil, high muzzle velocity, Small caliber (which means the rounds are small and light weight, which means a soldier can carry more number of amn into battle).

AK's in the hands of Paramilitary forces/Police is dangerous (except for the well trained cobra/commando, etc). Imagine the ill trained, who hardly get to practice in firing ranges (not their fault) firing full auto, in urban areas, trying to hit a single terrorist who is mixed with a crowd.

[Karan M]

Sandeep on Excalibur - its not the original one as displayed a decade back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bxXTmj2ftg

[ramana]

KaranM For the Carbine the barrel could not be lengthened?
What cartridge muzzle velocity others use when firing 5.56mm?

[vaibhav.n]

Karan,

Completely agree on the H&K issue. Seems along the lines of their VW brethren.

The XM16E1's and its derivatives were the land forces equivalent of the F-35 of the 60's and have always been subjected to fervent criticism. It has its share critics and admirers across the aisle.

The US Army had conducted an extreme dust test and the results of those are rather illuminating.

Link:http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2008 ... thers.html

The INSAS Carbine story was different, there were consistent low accuracy and excess heating issues with the weapon. Length of barrel is a very lousy ARDE excuse the world over assault rifles have been converted to carbines with minimal penalties firing the same ammo.

The problems quite frankly like the M-16's were propellant related, as both rifles could not achieve the desired velocity for quite a while till the Israeli 5.56 ammo ToT happened.

[Karan M]

Karan,

Completely agree on the H&K issue. Seems along the lines of their VW brethren.

It could be that, or just plain "didn't know it will happen"/don't care. The VW case was deliberate. The G36 could have been mere cost driven substitution which is a common practise in complex engineering programs causing a lot of stuff which piles up later.

The XM16E1's and its derivatives were the land forces equivalent of the F-35 of the 60's and have always been subjected to fervent criticism. It has its share critics and admirers across the aisle.

The US Army had conducted an extreme dust test and the results of those are rather illuminating.

Link:http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2008 ... thers.html

That test is interesting but it seems to me its a pretty over the top way to over-stress a device to account for possible conditions, yet it may miss something entirely because the field experience in (say) Afghanistan may be a combination of factors, including cleaned rifles.. IMO, instead of this test procedure, they should have focused more on the individual case studies from Afghanistan or Iraq and built a database out of that. But its clear why they wouldn't do that - the effort & expense required mean they will have to seek a counterpart. Ultimately, it seems after all the tests, only deployment really tests systems like these (high volume mech action, very exposed to environment).

The INSAS Carbine story was different, there were consistent low accuracy and excess heating issues with the weapon. Length of barrel is a very lousy ARDE excuse the world over assault rifles have been converted to carbines with minimal penalties firing the same ammo.

Its not an ARDE excuse since the gent writing those comments was probably IA so lets not dismiss the account out of hand. If ARDE can design a 120mm rifled or put together a MBRL, and it can't manage a carbine then clearly there is something more, which is the exact point that account makes. That they took something they couldn't fix (the ammo, which was designed for an all up rifle) and tried designing around it to make a carbine.

Sometimes you end up with something that is ok in one form but ends up completely different when you try to accommodate something else. For instance, by stating the world over assault rifles have been converted to carbines with minimal penalties firing the same ammo - that completely depends on the design of those guns & the ammo involved.

If you have experience & you accounted for it & were lucky (eg not like H&K with the G36 one-off despite all its experience), then yes, you are home safe. Otherwise, you will have to re-engineer. All this can take a fair bit of time. http://www.janes.com/article/50424/g36- ... vice-rifle

In the G36s case, they first thought it was the ammo. Then they noted it was the rifle. Things came to a head when it was deployed to Afghan etc.

What that INSAS carbine account states or rather implies, is the requirements should have been reset when they realized the common logistics/ammo part would not be met. They basically tried making a "short INSAS" around an ammo which would not have allowed it.

Be practical, get a new round in. Redesign the gun accordingly or do a brand new design. Figure out the cost impact - you already have the rifle in. Will keeping a second line of ammo and gun, break your budget? Probably not. After all, you had the Sterling and SLR co-exist.

What they clearly did though was persist with the original round and try to get a carbine around it, when the round itself was over-powerful for the carbine which is indicated by the fact that the JVPC round today is 5.56x30mm. The INSAS is 5.56x45mm. And now they have a brand new gun.

This seems to have been driven by the fact that when they signed off on the INSAS they thought they could do both, and later on they persisted till they finally gave up. When they finally decided to go a different part, its turned out better.

Unfortunately, in India, it seems the services/R&D/DPSU don't have this sort of setup at all. Nobody to sit down and say, OK looks like sticking with the same round and a short gun won't work. Lets do something different. Lets sign up for a different proposal right now. This should be MODs job to push things if IA is too stuck in its ways to take a call. Or R&D is dancing around and unwilling to admit the issue. Or OFB won't admit its mfg is an issue.

Hence it takes a Defence Minister or somebody higher up to make everyone sit down at the same table and decide things or revise things. Or after a decade of mucking about, a new IA chief decides he wants a local rifle to tie in with GOI's objective of Make in India and a local program gets impetus, pulled out of limbo.

There is no coordination to account for reality. We keep looking for 155mm imports when Bofors drawings are lying around to be leveraged. Good versus the "best" or ideal solution.

This sort of stuff is enough to make anyone cynical or nuts.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-c ... R-30.3.pdf

Col. Danvir Singh notes:
On the other side, braving all criticism of an inefficient INSAS rifle to its credit, unbelievably though, the ARDE has simultaneously developed a Multi-Calibre Individual Weapon System (MCIWS) as a technology demonstrator. The Indian Army, however, did not support this project and went ahead hunting in foreign
lands for a dream assault rifle, thus ignoring the indigenous effort outright. [/quote]

Notwithstanding the fact that the hardy Indian Infantry soldier’s torturous wait for a new-generation assault rifle may now get even longer; the movers and shakers remain unfazed, caught in bureaucratic tangles probably set up by the Army itself

In a country where the caste, creed and corruption form the backbone of our democratic system, the Indian Army cannot be kept isolated. No wonder, the 1.18-million strong Army’s quest for 66,000 new rifles for its 382 Infantry battalions becomes a super lucrative deal (an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion) rendering indigenisation unattractive. It should come as no surprise if probed, that there are forces supported by the politico-bureaucratic-military nexus
serving the designs of the arms mafia, who deliberately want this indigenous effort quashed. It may be surprising, but not really though, that our scientists
can develop and launch a probe to Mars but fail to produce an assault rifle.

Which is why all this ARDE, OFB etc stuff misses the point. So ARDE can make 120mm rifled gun designs, put together a MBRLs and suddenly the same IA which can work with them on both, can't work with them on this? Similarly, when the problem of OFB manufacture is well known, yet L&T or Bharat Forge can't be roped in for that part? All this stuff is plain and simple "artificial scarcity". And BSF's Beretta's are reportedly facing issues. How exactly did they clear trials?

The bigger issue is exactly this seesaw between "vested interests" and ad hocism.
We now have a lot of feedback stating that many troops in India too are unhappy with 5.56mm. Why are we still persisting with it?

In contrast, Turkey:

After the first prototypes were built in 2008 as the Mehmetçik-1 in 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, rifle received negative feedback from Turkish
soldiers testing it who reported that they preferred the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO round used in their G3 service rifles with far greater
knock-down power and range. The proposed Mehmetcik-1 was cancelled after the first prototype and engineers started over again with
a battle rifle design instead.

We even have this option, has it even been explored?
Indian scientists keeping pace with the latest trends; the ARDE, Pune has developed an indigenous 6.6 x 43 mm calibre round compatible to the best in the world. These rounds are surprisingly close in basic ballistic properties to century-plus old warhorses such as 6.5 x 50 SR Arisaka, except that modern rounds have shorter and lighter cases (due to improvements in propellant chemistry) and bullets with better shape.

We seem to be making the same mistakes all over again. Why not a rechambered INSAS/Excalibur with a more powerful round? In Afghanistan, US was using Javelins to reach out and hit. Good luck with that.

We are just copying whatever other folks do whilst admitting its not met our needs so far. Meanwhile looks like MCIWS may enter service with paramils.
JVPC is set for further trials.

Another ARDE official, meanwhile, informed that apart from MCIWS Assault Rifle, other weapons and weapons system are also being worked on including
a Joint Venture Protective Carbine (JVPC). The user trials of which were recently conducted involved the German MP-7 and Belgium P-90, our JVPC fared better than the other two.

Bottomline, imported rifles are not going to hack it in our environmental conditions unless they are Ak-47s.

The MCIWS is a highly impressive weapon system. On July 13, 2015, a composite team comprising Director General of Para Military
and representatives of various forces under the Additional Home Secretary visited ARDE. This weapon had impressed the visiting team and
they are now willing to induct MCIWS for use by the BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF and the SSB as soon as possible. The strength of Indian paramilitary
forces outnumber that of the Indian Army.

The problems quite frankly like the M-16's were propellant related, as both rifles could not achieve the desired velocity for quite a while till the Israeli 5.56 ammo ToT happened.

Which is the point, the round was probably too powerful for the gun without changing both. I haven't heard about the Israeli 5.56 mm TOT and whether it was carried out. IIRC pretty much all our so called TOT with Israel for the OFB has been a flop. 125mm FSAPDS, 130mm Cargo shells and so forth. After IMI got blacklisted everything stopped.

[vaibhav.n]

Its not an ARDE excuse since the gent writing those comments was probably IA so lets not dismiss the account out of hand. If ARDE can design a 120mm rifled or put together a MBRL, and it can't manage a carbine then clearly there is something more, which is the exact point that account makes. That they took something they couldn't fix (the ammo, which was designed for an all up rifle) and tried designing around it to make a carbine.

That is baseless, pretty much the same ammunition does duty on carbines the world over with barrels length as less as 11 inches.

There are examples galore for that.

We both know that.

What that INSAS carbine account states or rather implies, is the requirements should have been reset when they realized the common logistics/ammo part would not be met. They basically tried making a "short INSAS" around an ammo which would not have allowed it.

Be practical, get a new round in. Redesign the gun accordingly or do a brand new design. Figure out the cost impact - you already have the rifle in. Will keeping a second line of ammo and gun, break your budget? Probably not. After all, you had the Sterling and SLR co-exist.

There is no use sagging a infantry unit with another type of ammunition to cater for.

I don't know why they allowed to in the first place. A better way would have been to tinker around the 5.56mm carbine as they seem to have now done rather than inserting a new ammunition category. The situation was completely different as the 7.62mm M80 round did duty on everything from our SLR, LMG and MMG. Similarly the 9mm round on the Pistol and Carbine both.

They will now look at each others faces for the MSMC to be inducted waiting for the chap who twitches his face first.

[Thakur_B]

MSMC can only be the replacement of Sterlings and MP-5, but doing so will introduce one more ammo type. The only work around is to introduce a pistol in the same category like Fn five seven. As far as regular carbine is considered, I agree with Vaibhav. The barrel length of carbine cannot be an excuse.

[Karan M]

That is baseless, pretty much the same ammunition does duty on carbines the world over with barrels length as less as 11 inches.

There are examples galore for that.

We both know that.

Again, it seems you are not getting my point at all. The INSAS team basically made a combat rifle and designed a cartridge to meet that requirement. They managed to get this through trials, worked it out, all and well (which trials were also limited, since it was only in Kargil/J&K deployment that the plastic mags started cracking up). When they attempted a carbine, it didn't work. Yet they have managed a MSMC and a MCIWS, rifled guns and all sorts of complex systems which dwarf the firearm.

What does this tell us??

This should tell us that the design teams original INSAS + ammo combination, designed way back in the 80's, was NOT suitable for a carbine conversion. Simple as that. They have access to improved metallurgy, DMRL can make turbine blades, their own prototype shops can turn out complex guns like MCIWS (leaving aside the fact that OFB will struggle to make it), but their attempt to make a carbine out of INSAS did not work out. The design worked as a rifle with the chosen ammo, but the INSAS design was not suitable to be cut down barrel size wise and reused with the same ammo.

This is fundamentally IT. The simple option of mucking about with the barrel length and keeping the basic INSAS mechanism + ammo constant did not work out.

Now at this point you have TWO options.

1. Reject a working rifle design which may meet your efforts with some finetuning, has a LMG variant which too can be leveraged & design an entirely new carbine, ammo combination. Since your original design + ammo combination cannot meet the need for a carbine. Again, its irrelevant whether Colt or H&K succeeded with THEIR designs. Their materials, their mechanism, their ammo designs were different. If you do this, you have nothing. Besides, before INSAS as the posts I quoted from the IA side showed, the import options failed the trials. In service rifle is the SLR. Limitations already in SL ops and elsewhere.

2. This second thing is what happened in reality. All stakeholders are working at cross purposes, and hence the designers continue to try and make a carbine out of the original design and say "ok it isn't happening" and finally move to MSMC. ARDE is afraid that if it doesn't get the carbine conversion to work, INSAS program will be dropped. IA instead of making a choice & saying heck with it, move on - waits and watches. OFB - no R&D worth the name till recently and didn't even fix the INSAS issues (or any small arms issues) proactively. MOD, fiddled while Rome burnt.
So MSMC - but after much time wasted & first, trying to shorten the INSAS barrel and retain the same ammo, basic design with some minor fixes here and there. Finally, now in IA trials for the past few years.

Its not really that relevant to say that the world over many rifles have been converted to carbines with their ammo. Yes, good that it happened. Those teams were far more experienced, perhaps chose the right ammo-rifle combination right at the beginning & they were also lucky.

The G36 example, the Colt example shows how experienced designers have missteps.

In our case, none of that matters, because you play the hand you are dealt with. In the INSAS case, you have a working gun, build on that if you chose to stick with 5.56mm*45. Do something else for the Carbine. Yes, you lose out on logistics but its a price you can pay - because you saved a ton of money with the basic gun done locally.

Why the INSAS is important, is because whether it be serendipity (aka LUCK) or judicious focus on the rifle design at least, you have an accurate, low recoil, simple gun which works.

Modified Insas Rifle passed mud & dirt tests which all 4 MCIWS did not. This is a big thing.

What this means is that with some improved manufacturing processes and focus, you can actually have a battle rifle which works in Indian conditions ready today. As versus imports which will take the next 5-10 years to have their issues ironed out (if at all).

G36 took that much time to be acknowledged. MCIWS trials have been going on for 3 years.

There is no use sagging a infantry unit with another type of ammunition to cater for.

They already have that today. An infantry unit today or yesterday is carrying a 5.56mm assault rifle. An officer is either carrying a 9mm Sterling type SMG which may or may not work. He may or may not have a sidearm too. In some cases, we are deploying Tavors & M-4s & mini-Uzis. If money is an issue, IA needs to take it to MOD using "Make in India" or any other head. If we want to retain 5.56mm yet "reach out and kill", then what other options do we have?

I don't know why they allowed to in the first place. A better way would have been to tinker around the 5.56mm carbine as they seem to have now done rather than inserting a new ammunition category. The situation was completely different as the 7.62mm M80 round did duty on everything from our SLR, LMG and MMG. Similarly the 9mm round on the Pistol and Carbine both.

So today the 5.56mm*45 will be on the INSAS rifle, LMG and a 5.56x30 will be on the MSMC.

I'd argue its a huge problem anyhow since the IA jawan is clearly happy with the 5.56x45mm (and we are still sticking with it), so its probably best to move to a common 7.62 or 6.6 etc round for a new class of firearms - AR/LMG and perhaps even a MMG.

Today anyhow the MMG is a different ammo type, so any commonality will be a plus.
Keep the MSMC at 5.56*30 if you must.

In which case the MIR/Excalibur is NOT the answer in all likelihood. Has it ever been chambered for a 7.62 mm or tested in that configuration? This is where the basic issue is. The lack of planning and coordination. Kneejerk move to MCIWS (without budgeting the costs and complexity) and now a relook at Excalibur. The IA should have done exactly what the Turks did. Said ok - re-examine from the basics up.

Regarding the carbine, anyways, they have done enough "tinkering with the INSAS 5.56mm rifle". Clearly, we know they did everything and threw the kitchen sink at it. But it did not work out.

If its not working out, yet they can develop a MSMC and a MCIWS plus all the other stuff they have developed, the base issue is with the original INSAS design + ammo combination, that it was clearly unsuitable for a carbine to begin with. Tinkering with it to make a carbine will not work out now or in the future.

The MIR aka Excalibur seems to be nothing but a basic INSAS modified for extra reliability with some mechanical changes (i.e. full auto) & metallurgy improvements. You will not be able to make it into a carbine. Heck, I am not sure whether it can be made into a 7.62mm either.

But you do have a 7.62mm capable MCIWS. Use it with full optics as a dedicated marksman rifle or issue it to a few troops. Experiment. The IA has no shortage of units deployed in COIN.

Take the proposal to MOD, ask them to fund it as a concession to "Make in India" and then see what happens. Or the MOD should break the logjam.

This is what should be happening in our system but till date it wasn't, because clearly there were "other issues". (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bill ... 21665.html)

In the German example above, when the G36 came out with issues, the Bundeswehr promptly deployed substantial numbers of additional support weapons. They are maintaining an expeditionary force, albeit small with huge costs. In our case, having a "non standard" SMG and MMG won't bankrupt us.

They will now look at each others faces for the MSMC to be inducted waiting for the chap who twitches his face first.

Which is the issue. There is ZERO proactiveness in the system.

This is a game of "chicken".

Army vs R&D vs OFB all seeing who will budge first or will admit there needs to be a solution found.

Our fundamental problem in India is "hanker for the ideal solution" as versus accepting the "good solution", in the process we really don't make any headway.

Just take a look at the melange of small arms employed by the paramils and increasingly the IA (hopefully only the SF). Its a complete mess.

[member_22539]

That is baseless, pretty much the same ammunition does duty on carbines the world over with barrels length as less as 11 inches.

Apparently, that is not true. The 5.56 round produced by OFB has a slower burning propellant that continues combustion well past the normal length of a carbine barrel, causing excessive kick and flash as well as overall impossibility to control the weapon on automatic mode. Seems like the IA prefers it like this, as it gives the round more stopping power, hence no move to change this and match the propellant burn profile of the Indian round to something found in NATO.

This what I know, but frankly cannot find a link to substantiate it. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can provide something more detailed with references.

[Karan M]

MSMC can only be the replacement of Sterlings and MP-5, but doing so will introduce one more ammo type. The only work around is to introduce a pistol in the same category like Fn five seven.

Yes but the only other option you have is to make a 9mm design from scratch which meets the IA requirements or license produce the MP-5 (and given H&K was not even part of IA tender, that likelihood is low).

As far as regular carbine is considered, I agree with Vaibhav. The barrel length of carbine cannot be an excuse.

Again, guys think, if they have designed more complex guns and the original gun, ammo combination cannot be modified as a carbine, then clearly its not suitable for a conversion to begin with. You play the hand you have. The posts above show that ARDE basically was asked by IA to make up for lack of import options. They, with zero experience at the time, managed to use a mix of FN-FAL/SLR and Ak-variant understanding etc to come up with a functional rifle design which works as a rifle and met OFB manufacturing capabilities. Accurate enough, light, most importantly, works across our environments in 1B1 version. But clearly, it was not good enough or simply couldn't be fixed as a carbine. So, either you keep it or chuck the design.

In our case, the modified INSAS is showing its a very reliable design. Not like the S/A-80 (before H&K stepped in). The INSAS issues are around manufacturing QA. So until and unless you have a decision to change ammo types (7.62 or 6.6 or whatever), you retain what works & use it to the maximum extant possible. Not chase after unicorn which may or may not lead you to a pot of gold.

[Thakur_B]

That is baseless, pretty much the same ammunition does duty on carbines the world over with barrels length as less as 11 inches.

Apparently, that is not true. The 5.56 round produced by OFB has a slower burning propellant that continues combustion well past the normal length of a carbine barrel, causing excessive kick and flash as well as overall impossibility to control the weapon on automatic mode. Seems like the IA prefers it like this, as it gives the round more stopping power, hence no move to change this and match the propellant burn profile of the Indian round to something found in NATO.

This what I know, but frankly cannot find a link to substantiate it. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can provide something more detailed with references.

That is supposed to be true, however short barrel rifles with as short at 10 inch barrels have been made compatible with SS109 and M193. Recoil, flash etc. et al are kept in control with clever muzzle designs. Hell, Galil ACE 21 comes with an 8.5 inch barrel. To say that it is beyond expectations to create a 13-14 inch barrel with 5.56INSAS is incredulous.

[Karan M]

That is baseless, pretty much the same ammunition does duty on carbines the world over with barrels length as less as 11 inches.

Apparently, that is not true. The 5.56 round produced by OFB has a slower burning propellant that continues combustion well past the normal length of a carbine barrel, causing excessive kick and flash as well as overall impossibility to control the weapon on automatic mode. Seems like the IA prefers it like this, as it gives the round more stopping power, hence no move to change this and match the propellant burn profile of the Indian round to something found in NATO.

This what I know, but frankly cannot find a link to substantiate it. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can provide something more detailed with references.

The tests suggest the automatic mode issue is for a shorter rifle. Its working with the Excalibur! It only has full auto. So unless they changed the 5.56mm ammo (no reports suggest that), your info may explain why its an issue for carbines and why it was discovered late.

DRDO's 2010 brochure states:

5.56 mm InSAS AMMunITIon

The indigenous 5.56mm ammunition is more
effective in terms of range and lethality as
compared to standard NATO ammunition i.e
Belgium SS 109 type 5.56mm ammunition.
Because of its higher bullet mass, higher
remaining velocity, ballistic shape, the INSAS
ammunition has flat trajectory, increase in hit
probability, higher remaining energy, better
penetration capability as compared to NATO
5.56mm. The tracer round is also developed
for trajectory tracing in the night firing. The
development of both the ammunition and
Blank, Proof & Drill has been completed and
are in bulk production at OF’s

Logic suggests that if you have higher bullet mass, for same range performance, you'd need more propellant. And not necessary, you'd have the same propellant as other countries either.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... n/sc/1.htm

Bullet mass: 4.16gm

https://ammunitionstore.com/content/5.5 ... 20NATO.pdf

Bullet weight/type

4 g (62 gr) SS109 FMJBT
4.1 g (63 gr) DM11 FMJBT

So it seems higher than either.

Having said that, what you are referring to is primarily the propellant. Need to dig more into that. FN Herstal pages have little on it.

[Thakur_B]

5.56INSAS is 64gr, heavier than SS109/M193 rounds. However there are specialised rounds available for much longer that are compatible with standard rifles and carbines.

For eg: IMI 77gr ammo.
http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/77grain.pdf

[Karan M]

That is supposed to be true, however short barrel rifles with as short at 10 inch barrels have been made compatible with SS109 and M193. Recoil, flash etc. et al are kept in control with clever muzzle designs. Hell, Galil ACE 21 comes with an 8.5 inch barrel. To say that it is beyond expectations to create a 13-14 inch barrel with 5.56INSAS is incredulous.

This is the sort of armchair quarterbacking which is pointless.

Do we have information on the 5.56mm ammo used in India @ made at OFB including its velocity/distance/burn characteristics as versus what we use with our imported rifles? No.
Do we use the same ammo on our imports? No. Enough reports note when we import guns we have to import those rounds too.
Do we have information that the INSAS is suited for ammunition changes without any shortfalls in performance? No.
Do we have information that "clever muzzle designs" can somehow compensate for the above two aspects OR not impose a performance penalty which meet IA GSQR? No.
"Made compatible with". Is this compatibility, suitable to meet IA GSQRs, are we aware of what they are? No.

Yet somehow the existing INSAS can be modified into a carbine when the actual designers have not been able to do so, despite the availability of consultant expertise which DRDO has availed of in the past (including ARDE) & we are busy comparing other folks "designs" and saying the local one should be A-ditto or modifiable.

This is as pointless as stating that since the Russians have a PESA system on the S-300 which can range 200km +, we should be able to do the same with the existing Rajendra without any mitigating circumstances.

[Karan M]

5.56INSAS is 64gr, heavier than SS109/M193 rounds. However there are specialised rounds available for much longer that are compatible with standard rifles and carbines.

For eg: IMI 77gr ammo.
http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/77grain.pdf

That is the weight of the entire bullet, grains of sand vs ounces and all that. It speaks nothing in specific of the type of propellant within, apart from the common sense assumption that a heavier bullet may need more propellant and what the differences are versus the one we make locally and what they may be using. Its like saying 125mm FSAPDS worldwide does X so the Indian one should do X too. Apples to oranges!

For all we know the above IMI 77gr bullet may be completely different performance wise to an Indian one made using the INSAS 5.56mm round tech.

[Thakur_B]

^^ Sure, probably IA's QSR were out of the world. Imported rifles are used with standard NATO ammunition. Somehow INSAS carbine didn't past muster with 5.56INSAS doesn't make sense because 5.56INSAS was yet to be introduced and IA was using SS109 around the period INSAS carbine was scrapped (early 2000s).

[Thakur_B]

5.56INSAS is 64gr, heavier than SS109/M193 rounds. However there are specialised rounds available for much longer that are compatible with standard rifles and carbines.

For eg: IMI 77gr ammo.
http://www.imi-israel.com/vault/documents/77grain.pdf

That is the weight of the entire bullet with casing IIRC, grains of sand vs ounces and all that.

Actually, no, if you include the casing, the weight cannot be less than 200 grains.

For all we know the above IMI 77gr bullet may be completely different performance wise to an Indian one made using the INSAS 5.56mm round tech.

Yes, the IMI ammunition has a lower velocity (from unknown barrel length, usually its 20 inches) compared to 5.56INSAS with almost 22 inch barrel length. One on one ammunition comparisons are difficult with lack of clear data on similar metrics.

[Karan M]

^^ Sure, probably IA's QSR were out of the world. Imported rifles are used with standard NATO ammunition. Somehow INSAS carbine didn't past muster with 5.56INSAS doesn't make sense because 5.56INSAS was yet to be introduced and IA was using SS109 around the period INSAS carbine was scrapped (early 2000s).

IA QSRs were probably just based on what they could determine from the cabines they tested or some more they evaluated. At that time, I know M16 variants were in limited service and would have been used. ARDE could/would have imported other units to strip down and examine.

ARDE would have tested the Carbine with the round that would be bulk produced for INSAS. There is nothing to suggest that in this case the QRs were out of the world though the MSMC in all probability is being built to the same QRs and they are facing issues. IA has asked for 99.7% reliability and so far that is the final thing to be demo'ed in January 2016.

All reports suggest that the carbine had excessive flash and control issues and the carbine had a short barrel as well. What this tells me is the INSAS design which by all accounts came out of a mix of FN-FAL and AK-evaluation was designed first and foremost for a rifle and didn't pass the transition. And it makes more sense to fix something that can be fixed from basics (i.e. new design) than stick with what's not working.

[Karan M]

Actually, no, if you include the casing, the weight cannot be less than 200 grains.

Yes, I edited that once I opened the link and saw the exact details.

Yes, the IMI ammunition has a lower velocity (from unknown barrel length, usually its 20 inches) compared to 5.56INSAS with almost 22 inch barrel length. One on one ammunition comparisons are difficult with lack of clear data on similar metrics.

Which is the fundamental problem here. All this stuff of "making a carbine out of INSAS is easy" is based on the working assumption that since others did it with their ammo and gun design combinations we will be lucky enough to do it with our own. Basic fact of life is an inexperienced design team looked at various WW designs and came up with a functional rifle design, which could be manufactured in OFB's mostly limited tech environment, which per reports, is reliable across India's varied climes and works ok. That's the good part. Unfortunately, it cannot be made into a carbine. The not good part. We have to explore alternatives. In an ideal world, we would have it, but we don't.

Can we call H&K to examine the INSAS in detail and make a carbine out of it leveraging the belief that they are far more experienced? Sure. But I suspect the final design will have little to do with the INSAS as H&K runs into similar issues and decides a clean sheet is better or changes both the gun and ammo.

[Thakur_B]

Well, look at it this way, DRDO kickastarted MCIWS into top gear when IA didn't want anything to do with them. They should have done this with INSAS carbine as well. It's not as if ARDE's small arms team was super busy in the noughties

Anyhow remember Kalantak? The illegitimate child of INSAS carbine ? It had a discharge expansion chamber to manage recoil. That can be considered trying to fix a failure. ARDE should revive it just like they are reviving 'Excalibur' keeping in view that the carbine procurement is close to being scrapped.

[Karan M]

Well, look at it this way, DRDO kickastarted MCIWS into top gear when IA didn't want anything to do with them. They should have done this with INSAS carbine as well. It's not as if ARDE's small arms team was super busy in the noughties

Again, look at the evidence! They dropped the INSAS carbine and designed the MSMC. This tells me they said "heck with it, we need to start from basics, the INSAS/ammo combo is not going to work for this application.

Basically ARDEs design team hit the wall with the carbine, and went with MSMC now JVPC or whatever its called.

The MCIWS is all good till a CAG report appears they did it without IA sanction. Wait for it. It will say the rifle did not meet IA GSQR (no accounting for development), accuse ARDE of wasting money, state IA didn't want it and so forth.

This is a country where CGDA accuses the DRDO head of being improper when he funds a math institute since "when did a math institute make radars and oh wait you have LRDE". Where CAG is upset at risk mitigation saying "why did you order the same LRU twice from two teams for the LCA".. and so forth.

Anyhow remember Kalantak? The illegitimate child of INSAS carbine ? It had a discharge expansion chamber to manage recoil. That can be considered trying to fix a failure. ARDE should revive it just like they are reviving 'Excalibur' keeping in view that the carbine procurement is close to being scrapped.

Actually Excalibur is a perfect example of "sticking with it". The original Excalibur was a failure - its export to Nepal attracted bad press when the Nepalese used the black furniture rifles on full auto, in the disastrous attack wherein they lost so many people.
Sandeep Unnithan, FWIW, mentions the Excalibur development was continued and now its clearing IA trials - more like IA didn't show interest but the program continued (see 125mm FSAPDS Mk2) and with IA user trials, its got kicked into high gear.

In short, during the 2000's, ARDE small arms team has developed INSAS variants, cleared production/design issues with INSAS (hence 1B1 appearing), made umpteen variations of the carbine (which didn't work out), got the MSMC developed and also the MCIWS.

And if the Excalibur enters service & the MCIWS (with the paramils apparently), its worth it.

[member_22539]

DRDO kickastarted MCIWS into top gear when IA didn't want anything to do with them.

But for how long? The MCIWS has impressed the paramilitary chaps and they are gunning to have it bought in bulk the moment it can be done. When this comes to pass, how long do you think the IA will be satisfied with the Excalibur? When the paramils are carrying around a M4 grade weapon that is just as reliable as the Excalibur, will they be able to give anything less to their soldiers?

Also, the OFB 5.56 round was given more range and stopping power to cater to the INSAS LMG requirement. I guess either the LMG was a priority compared to the carbine or the problem only came to light/revealed further down the road, when the cabrine variant was really focused on. This is probably the reason why they cannot go back to NATO rounds, as the LMG would be underpowered (as per IA standards).

There is also a rumor that the ARDE guys did this on purpose, knowing that if they revealed the carbine problem early on, the IA who was hellbent on having common family of guns for AR, LMG and carbine use would abandon the INSAS program and go for an import (which one, God only knows). By the time the ARDE guys came clean about the carbine impossibility with the current round, the AR and LMG variants were on front-line use for years and there was no scope of a draw back. This could also explain the animosity IA has for the ARDE weapons. But all of this is speculation and rumor, so take it with a pinch of salt.

[Karan M]

Arun, that makes sense. A LMG with an even longer barrel than an INSAS.

Quoting the original post again

Hi guys,

1. The problem with the carbine is that it fired the same high powered ammunition, with muzzle velocity in excess of 900 m/s, that was used in the rifle and the LMG. The 'pressure-velocity' curve of the ammunition was designed for rifle and LMG barrels. With the shortened Carbine barrel the 'All Burnt Point' went outside the barrel. As a result there was tremendous muzzle jump, unbearable sound and flash, and the weapon just could not be controlled in automatic mode which is what carbines are meant for.

2. It had lots or other problems like the front pistol grip which interferred with a quick change of magazine, the side folding butt which was not comfortable in carriage, etc etc. But the main problem was the incompatability of the ammunition.

2. For the sake of commonality of firing/moving parts with rifle and LMG, DRDO could not mess with the cartridge size, nor could they alter the packing density of the explosive. So they kept quite for a long time till such time there rifle and the LMG were well into acceptance phase of induction, and then raised the bogey of the carbine again last year. I had organized the last trial at the Raj Rif Centre in Delhi which was witnessed by the Deputy (or Vice, I dont remember) Chief, wherein the effort was summarily rejected.

4. No, it is not hard to design a muzzle compensator, but how would that eliminate the sound and flash. Agreed, AK fires a high powered round too, but its 7.62x39mm amn had the mv of approx 700 m/s, which is why AK was so effective in close range, burst firing mode.

5. All of us want to get rid of 9mm carbine, but there is no viable alternative yet. Let's see if DRDO spins some magic

[Thakur_B]

Actually Excalibur is a perfect example of "sticking with it". The original Excalibur was a failure - its export to Nepal attracted bad press when the Nepalese used the black furniture rifles on full auto, in the disastrous attack wherein they lost so many people.
Sandeep Unnithan, FWIW, mentions the Excalibur development was continued and now its clearing IA trials - more like IA didn't show interest but the program continued (see 125mm FSAPDS Mk2) and with IA user trials, its got kicked into high gear.

In short, during the 2000's, ARDE small arms team has developed INSAS variants, cleared production/design issues with INSAS (hence 1B1 appearing), made umpteen variations of the carbine (which didn't work out), got the MSMC developed and also the MCIWS.

And if the Excalibur enters service & the MCIWS (with the paramils apparently), its worth it.

Nepal bought the regular '5.56 mm Assault Rifle (Fixed Butt)' (18 inch barrel INSAS with single/3burst/Auto selection), not the original INSAS or the Excalibur (16 inch barrel single/Auto selection).

Basically ARDEs design team hit the wall with the carbine, and went with MSMC now JVPC or whatever its called.

MSMC/JVPC/Milap can at best be used as a PDW and replace sterlings and MP5s and be given to tankers, pilots, guards and such. Not that we don't have a requirement of massive numbers of PDWs, but it won't be a standard infantry man's weapon, ever. It's a specialised weapon for specialised role.

[vaibhav.n]

Arun, that makes sense. A LMG with an even longer barrel than an INSAS.

Quoting the original post again

Hi guys,

1. The problem with the carbine is that it fired the same high powered ammunition, with muzzle velocity in excess of 900 m/s, that was used in the rifle and the LMG. The 'pressure-velocity' curve of the ammunition was designed for rifle and LMG barrels. With the shortened Carbine barrel the 'All Burnt Point' went outside the barrel. As a result there was tremendous muzzle jump, unbearable sound and flash, and the weapon just could not be controlled in automatic mode which is what carbines are meant for.

2. It had lots or other problems like the front pistol grip which interferred with a quick change of magazine, the side folding butt which was not comfortable in carriage, etc etc. But the main problem was the incompatability of the ammunition.

2. For the sake of commonality of firing/moving parts with rifle and LMG, DRDO could not mess with the cartridge size, nor could they alter the packing density of the explosive. So they kept quite for a long time till such time there rifle and the LMG were well into acceptance phase of induction, and then raised the bogey of the carbine again last year. I had organized the last trial at the Raj Rif Centre in Delhi which was witnessed by the Deputy (or Vice, I dont remember) Chief, wherein the effort was summarily rejected.

4. No, it is not hard to design a muzzle compensator, but how would that eliminate the sound and flash. Agreed, AK fires a high powered round too, but its 7.62x39mm amn had the mv of approx 700 m/s, which is why AK was so effective in close range, burst firing mode.

5. All of us want to get rid of 9mm carbine, but there is no viable alternative yet. Let's see if DRDO spins some magic

I really don't know who will buy this bogey that ammunition was for rifle when ARDE well knew they were required to produce three variants firing the same round.

This when they themselves increased the cartridge length and in effect created a mess for themselves as they now had to not only design the rifles but its rounds too...Then spend 10 years in unnecessary effort to design the rounds all the while OFB cant procure machinery for it and the Army HQ cant predict how many rounds it would require.

[Thakur_B]

Speaking of carbines, going by m-16/m-4 example and the choice of body and furniture by ARDE, this is what MCIWS carbine version should look like (photo chop onlee)

[Thakur_B]

Cz Bren 806 has been released to fix the problems of Cz 805, which was offered in Indian multi cal rifle competition. (stuff the dalal's would try their best to hide)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... ult-rifle/

[Karan M]

I really don't know who will buy this bogey that ammunition was for rifle when ARDE well knew they were required to produce three variants firing the same round.

Its not a question of buying it or not. That is the "lets win the argument" business, which is a waste of all our time, as versus understanding what went wrong based on what folks involved with the development are openly stating (whilst we have noone from the ARDE side to state their POV, mind). Does what the former group say make some sense given the history of how INSAS developed. More or less. One has to fix the issue or work within the bounds of what we know and what has gone wrong. ARDE was inexperienced with regards to rifle design. OFB limitations are well known.

INSAS is stated to have a variant of FN-FAL mechanism with borrowed elements from the Ak-series, and the reasons for these choices would have been driven by practical reasons and do seem to have worked out, when the rifle is made well. Its reliable and accurate, something we are seeing many big name marquees fail at.

ARDE, if we accept what the IA side guys say, designed a solution that worked for the LMG & the INSAS rifle well, and didn't work for the carbine. So we have to deal with it, given its what we have, and the overall design does work if made properly.

The first program in such a scenario, produces a workable rifle, a workable LMG and fails the carbine. That's 2/3. Either you accept that, or junk the entire program and go back to square 1 - imports which is what the MCIWS was. Till some chief thought different and asked for a MIR & the local carbine (with its different logistics) is in trials.

Its really not that surprising TBH. What's actually surprising is that the basic rifle design, LMG & ammo have held up well, in an era where DRDO's investments and tech were a fraction of what they have access to today & even prototyping would have been (mostly) at the mercy of the OFB till ARDE ramped up.

This when they themselves increased the cartridge length and in effect created a mess for themselves as they now had to not only design the rifles but its rounds too...Then spend 10 years in unnecessary effort to design the rounds all the while OFB cant procure machinery for it and the Army HQ cant predict how many rounds it would require.

Which also depends on what the IA asked of them in terms of requirements for the INSAS. There are multiple statements noting the INSAS requirements were unrealistic as was the MCIWS. If the INSAS requirements specified performance more than the original SS109, then a new round with more performance would have to be designed which could be the genesis of the entire ammo-gun issue. Why would ARDE design a new round if SS109 was the standard and not reverse engineer it?

The INSAS requirements were around a rifle with the simplicity that OFB could make it in bulk cheaper than imports. Had to be as accurate as a FN-FAL. Had to be as rugged as possible etc. And from the looks of the round probably outperform the M-16s etc or whatever the IA got in trials.

All boils down to the lack of a systematic (as in separate, well staffed, supported) weapons directorate in military & long term planning and coordination on R&D side. So what else is new. We have seen this in multiple programs.

[Karan M]

There is a good discussion on INSAS here in years past. Folks may want to go through it. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=101

About the GSQRs:

From the BR Discussion: ks_sachin

the LMG version of the SA-80 which the Brits have is designated as the Squad Support Weapon. I believe they also have another LMG which has the barrel change capability. Correct me if I am wrong.
This thing about killing power of the INSAS and the belt fed rounds discussion is old hat. I am amazed that people are still not looking at the way weapons requirements are drawn up and put up to the DRDO / ARDE.
The DRDO designed the weapon keeping the GSQR's in front of them. Delays happen because GSQR's kept shifting. I men a Lt Gen who was commanding the COllege of Combat where some of the INSAS rifles were tested and he was amazed when he say the GSQR ask for a effective range (not max range) of in excess of 600 mtrs for the 5.56 mm rifle.

After sometime, I think reality kicked in and the LMG exceeded that requirement, with the basic rifle outperforming the NATO round at 500mtrs+.
Also, for engagements beyond 400mtrs as a given (or even 400 mtrs), optics on the INSAS would have to be standard, driving up costs, so the IA probably changed its mind.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 20Services

The family comprises Rifle (fixed and folding butt) effective up to 400 m, Light Machine Gun (fixed and foldable butt) effective up to 700 m, and Carbine effective up to 200 m range. The hallmark of the system is a large number of common components between the weapons of the family, all firing the same common ammunition. The ammunition with its superior ballistic design has better penetration capability than standard NATO rounds at ranges more than 500 m


Explains why we got the SS109 and why weight was critical for the INSAS.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 75552.html

Soldiers were equipped with the single-shot, unwieldy 7.62-mm self-loading rifle (SLR), which weighs more than 5 kg. Many were dead in the split-second it took to raise their guns and aim-torn apart by bullets from the lighter, automatic AK-47 assault rifles that the enemy carried. With a lighter weapon capable of quicker fire, many of those men may have lived. What they needed was something like the Indian National Small Arms System (INSAS) 5.56-mm rifle - the weapon the IPKF never got.

It's taken the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) well over a decade to build the INSAS rifle; the first prototype underwent tests in March 1986. But in many ways, it is the perfect rifle. It is as good as the AK range in terms of assault capabilities for close combat and shoot-from-the-hip situations, yet has a longer range.

At just over 4 kg with a much shorter barrel, it is far more manageable than the SLR. And, more important, it is an Indian rifle. As an official of the army's Weapons and Equipment Directorate puts it, "We asked for the moon - and got it."

Why then has the army imported one lakh AK-47s to replace the SLR for its counter-insurgency operations in Kashmir? Aided by bureaucratic indecision, the arms factories just can't meet the army's demand for the basic rifle. "We should have got the army equipped by now," says former deputy chief of the army, Lt-General (retd) Satish Nambiar.

Other critical problems: there's no ammunition for the rifles; and other arms in the INSAS family - the light-machine gun (LMG) and the carbine-haven't yet overcome design defects. The ordnance factory in Ichapur, West Bengal, has promised to produce 74,000 INSAS rifles by next March, and is projected to deliver 60,000 rifles a year from then onwards. At this rate, it could take up to a decade for the army to replace its antiquated 7.62-mm SLRs. "The delay is a shame, and it's demoralising," says Nambiar.

The first rifles are ready but the ammunition isn't. The machine tools required to produce the cartridges have to be imported from Poland.

Although the order was placed two years ago, the equipment has only just arrived. It will take one more year to set up the plant once construction starts. The result: the rifles cannot be issued to the army until ammunition is imported.

Mohan Guruswamy - who is firmly of the Rahul Bedi ilk when it comes to local design and development, so by no means pro-DRDO, OFB etc:

In India a decision was taken way back in 1980 to switch to the 5.56 mm assault rifle and steel core ammunition. It took the Army two years after that to ask for weapons for trials from all over the world. The Army tried out these weapons for three years. They then short-listed the Austrian Steyr AUG and the German Heckler and Koch G-41. Of these the Steyr AUG was considered the best suited as its modular design enables it to be converted from a carbine to an assault rifle to a light machine gun by merely inter-changing barrels. It has an effective range of 600 meters and fires 850 rounds per minute. It incorporates the innovative Bullpup design, which makes it the shortest weapon with the longest barrel, besides giving it the best ergonomics because it can be fired from either shoulder. It has a larger 42 round magazine and a telescopic sight fitted into the carrying bracket.

Both manufacturers offered us licensed production. However, we decided to develop an automatic rifle of our own, the INSAS 5.56, with INSAS standing for a very grandiloquent Indian National Small Arms System. The INSAS has not only been very late in coming and that too not in enough numbers, but is reported to have serious performance drawbacks, particularly in cold conditions. The Indian Army’s Performance Quality Requirements have typically been unrealistic and have hindered the development of an effective basic combat rifle. Among the PQR’s was a requirement that it should also be capable of being swung by its barrel like a club when ammunition runs out!

Why do I quote this? Because it matches the specific points in the prior "insider account".

So now you have the genesis of how one single rifle had to be a) Rifle b ) Carbine c) LMG as the Steyr was the benchmark.

And that Steyr was tried and rejected and in part because it was unsuitable for use with the bayonet (Guruswamy refers to the "clubbing").

For folks thinking now things are different, we still benchmark vs what we get off of imports and cobble together things. IAF's MMRCA ASRs for instance based off in part from the Mirage 2000.

[Karan M]

Cz Bren 806 has been released to fix the problems of Cz 805, which was offered in Indian multi cal rifle competition. (stuff the dalal's would try their best to hide)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... ult-rifle/

Ha! Worth quoting how the TFTA Bren fared in reality. This is the rifle IA would have had to deploy as MCIWS and then pay through its nose for Bren to modify:

Already in 2011, the first CZ 805 went with Czech soldiers to Afghanistan, where the weapon was tested in combat conditions. That testing also revealed problems in childhood, modified in real time by specialists sent from the country. Complained about the high price of weapons (How much is the CZ 805 BREN?, 2014-08-16), a very large mass, poor ergonomics, as well as the bad balance of the gun during firing. CZ 805 first series production also had a very long, steady flask with uncomfortable cheek pad. Soldiers also drew attention to the negative shaped handle and tensioning levers switch. Worse yet, in contrast to almost all modern construction, the cocking lever would not stop in a rear position after using all of the cartridges in the magazine. User can also easily distribute gas system for cleaning weapons. - See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... SjZsV.dpuf

What would the IA have to pay for? "Minor changes". The entire article is about the near complete redesign of the rifle.

The armed forces of the Czech Republic, which next year are going to buy the next batch of military weapons from Ceska Zbrojovka, probably decide to purchase a new variety CZ 806. Just Czech defense minister and the generals are perfectly aware that the early adoption of weapons to arm increases its export opportunities.

However, if such a decision will be made, it will mean that by the time a major overhaul, the Czech soldiers will be well until three versions rifles Brennan: CZ 805 Bren one of the chambers drain to the Czech magazines, CZ 805 Bren 1 of chambers trigger for magazines of M16 and modified CZ 806 Bren 2, in many ways different from the original model. That may create in the future a number of logistical problems associated even with the supply of spare parts. In practice, during renovations a few years, the older models will probably adapted to the latest standard.
- See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... SjZsV.dpuf

[Thakur_B]

^^ You are right.

Bren Cz 805 - ergonomics issues and teething problems, unbalanced.
Beretta Arx 160 - super heavy trigger pull, not "soldier proof", poor accuracy.
Colt Cm905 - Based on CM 901, interesting concept (that magazine well should have been adopted for MCIWS), heavier than INSAS and almost as much as Fn FAL, carries problems of M-16/M-4 platform as it is essentially the same except a different magazine well.

The Galil ACE did better in the carbine competition but didn't pass the muster in the rifle competition.

[Karan M]

Oh BTW, the interesting things in the India Today article! Looks like the LMG/INSAS were fixed but here is the interesting part about IA specs and what not.

Despite the delays, the INSAS rifle has passed the stringent user trials conducted by the army, but the shift to the 5.56 ammunition system may be further stalled because of the problems that have arisen in the other weapons of the INSAS family: the carbine, which is a light, close-combat gun; and the bipod-mounted light machine gun, which engages targets at distances of over 600 m. The same bullet, therefore, has to travel effectively over varying distances. That is the fundamental problem that the gun's designers have to resolve.

A longer range means higher explosive content in the cartridge. And soldiers testing the LMG found that the cartridge case was bursting. The gases produced in the cartridge, which propel the bullet, were dispersing, affecting accuracy and f range. And the gun overheated - a phenomenon called the cook-off effect - which could result in the gun going off on its own.

In the case of the carbine, there are design problems as well: the army hasn't yet decided whether to order a gun with a single butt fired from the shoulder - which soldiers are accustomed to or a double-butt version, that can be fired from the hip as well. Trials have also shown that the weapon isn't capable of handling the shock of discharge.

The gun has a range of 300 m, which is thrice that of the 9-mm carbine now in use. For that range, the gun needs a heavier barrel to absorb the vibrations caused by firing. But while the rationale behind adopting the 5.56 small-arms system is to reduce the burden of the infantryman, the purpose seems to have been defeated by opting for longer ranges than required for both the rifle and the carbine. Why then did the army ask for the increased range? Mann is just as mystified. "You tell me," he says.

Who is this Mann? An ARDE guy?

says Lt-General K.S. Mann, director-general of the infantry.

In short, here is the genesis of the ammo-INSAS issue - the IA asked for a battle rifle, carbine and LMG all with substantial range plus a common family which basically meant we kept the same ammo and gun design (as common as possible) and had to play around the peripheries.

This was in part based on the Aug-Steyr experience and claims.

The rifle also had to be produced by OFB - technology had to be robust enough for mass manufacture at lower cost. So only selective gold plating - eg autofrettaged barrel etc and robust firing mechanism. Rest, fit & finish, least bothered. OFB anyhow is "famous" for that.

The gun ended up being of conventional design (used in CQB and tough enough to take punishment - an all composite bull pup would simply not do).

Note: MSMC aka JVPC carbine or whatever we are calling it now, has an effective range of two hundred mtrs. Twice that of the original 9mm per the article above, but a full 100 mtrs less than the original carbine requirement.

https://i.imgur.com/MtNytg7.jpg

H&K MP-5 effective range is claimed to be upto 100mtrs
http://www.military-today.com/firearms/hk_mp5.htm

Which is why I kept stressing that without knowing the specifics of IA GSQR for the INSAS family and the specific attributes for each component ie rifle, LMG and carbine, claiming the INSAS Carbine was an easy proposition, was meaningless

Meanwhile Aug-Steyr - PR apart:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/def ... 70799.html
http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive ... 33649.html

However, a Defence Force officer who contacted smh.com.au but did not wish to be named said the Steyr rifle was "just not reliable".

"There's a problem with the rifle and there's always been a problem with the rifle," he said.

"The real problem is the fact it ... double feeds, misfeeds, fails to eject."

The rifle would occasionally fail to fire, he said.

"When you're out in the field the last thing you need is for your weapon system to stop ... when it stops, you've just got a stick."

From 2nd link

Personally, I can tell you I have a friend (Special Air Services Regiment) who tells me the AUG Steyr is a "heap of sh*t". They refuse to use them. Why? A couple of reasons. One: They dunked them in seawater and they refused to fire. Two: After "2 or 3" (he wouldn't be more specific) magazines on full auto, they experienced overheating problems which caused binding of some of the plastic (nylon, I believe) parts and even evidence of melting. They will stick to their H&K MP5s.

As an aside, at the Perth Royal Show I went to the Army stand. They had one Steyr AUG "skeletonised". The young "grunt" (he couldn't have been more than 19) assured me that it was "deadly" out to 600 metres! When I politely enquired if it wasn't just a .223 loaded back to 2900 feet per second, he said "Huh? -- No, mate, it's deadly out to 600 metres".

Note the reference to "600 meters effective range" claims.

Also what the G36 experienced years later - composites and metal barrels in warm climes. H&K similarly designed the G36 for Europe. When it has been deployed to sunny Australia, Afghanistan, East Timor, tropical climes - in extended usage, the gun starts having issues. As versus being in Europe or well maintained civilian collectors hands.

In short, if we had bought the AUG as well, we would be trying to fix it.

At the end of the day, make your own, fix your own is the way to go.

Its a tough, demanding task which many of the best manufacturers in the world are still struggling with. But we have no other alternative.

Those in the IA experienced with the firearms development part, admit it.

Those who didn't understand the rigors of the process, promptly launched the MCIWS which couldn't meet what we needed.

And per reports, the INSAS is reliable if made well, so we have to focus on iterative improvement and production engineering (IF we choose to retain the 5.56mm) which is a whole different issue.

Otherwise, we have a MCIWS and even that should be focused on.

[vaibhav.n]

The first program in such a scenario, produces a workable rifle, a workable LMG and fails the carbine. That's 2/3. Either you accept that, or junk the entire program and go back to square 1 - imports which is what the MCIWS was. Till some chief thought different and asked for a MIR & the local carbine (with its different logistics) is in trials.

Its really not that surprising TBH. What's actually surprising is that the basic rifle design, LMG & ammo have held up well, in an era where DRDO's investments and tech were a fraction of what they have access to today & even prototyping would have been (mostly) at the mercy of the OFB till ARDE ramped up.

It's more like 1/3. Which is still not bad...

LMG's were stopped after a 5000 unit odd strong production run due to recurring issues. ARDE sold the LMG as ''Does not need to change barrel''....much like when Colt introduced said M16 was a ''Self-cleaning weapon''.

That ARDE did not have competency around metallurgy/ ballistics or propellant issues in the 90's is a possibility.

However, when this spin is being imparted that the round was high velocity or higher pressure is to blame for its ills is plain silly.

Which also depends on what the IA asked of them in terms of requirements for the INSAS. There are multiple statements noting the INSAS requirements were unrealistic as was the MCIWS. If the INSAS requirements specified performance more than the original SS109, then a new round with more performance would have to be designed which could be the genesis of the entire ammo-gun issue. Why would ARDE design a new round if SS109 was the standard and not reverse engineer it?

The current 5.56 INSAS round is a lower velocity one than even a vanilla M855. So this impression that it has great range is false. Energy was traded off with a steel insert for reduced range.

The next generation of the 5.56 rounds are here..........

The M855A1 features a steel penetrator on top of a solid copper slug, making it is more dependable than the current M855, Army officials have maintained. It delivers consistent performance at all distances and performed better than the current-issue 7.62mm round against hardened steel targets in testing. It penetrated 3/8s-inch-thick steel at ranges approaching 400 meters, tripling the performance of the M855, Army officials said.

Now, range requirement for 600 meters is neither unrealistic nor silly.

What happens is people forget that all machine guns have different ranges for Point ie. (individual targets) and Area targets eg: bunkers or any small body of troops in the open. Naturally, one can provide more support for a bigger target at longer ranges. Machine Guns also have a desirable dispersion area, as they are primarily required to make sure that heads remain down.

On a side-note, the Bren is supposed to be very accurate and is considered not ideal for pure infantry combat. However that very same accuracy is valued in Jungle/COIN Ops and is one of the reasons the INSAS LMG even when its lighter is ignored.

What is also being referenced to is the importance for 5.56 rounds to maintain their velocity.

To generate a lethal wound channel, the M855 projectile must have a velocity of at least 2,500 ft/sec on impact with the target. Below that critical velocity, the M855 bullet simply drills a 1/4 inch hole in the target, which too frequently is not lethal unless it passes through a vital structure. Some of this limitation is being addressed with newer projectiles not available to the authors at the time of the study. In the longer barrels, the maximum velocity of 2,979 ft/sec was in the 20-inch barrel with a velocity of approximately 2,700 ft/sec in the 14.5-inch barrel. The critical velocity of 2,500 ft/sec was in a barrel between 9 and 10 inches in length, which further shows the folly of considering a 7-inch barrel for this cartridge.

-------------------------------------------------------
Now as far as this Clubbing requirement is concerned.

It is part of a drill conducted as a Bayonet Charge. Recruits are taught to use the weapon's butt as a defensive/offensive tool during close combat with the enemy.

In 2004, with ammunition running low, a British unit launched a bayonet charge toward a trench outside of Basra, Iraq, where some 100 members of the Mahdi Army militia were staging an attack. The British soldiers later said that though some of the insurgents were wounded in the bayonet charge itself, others were simply terrified into surrender.

Here is the British Army at it too.

[Thakur_B]

^^ Vaibhav, as per the OFB website, the difference in velocity between SS109 (from a "standard" test barrel, most likely 20 inches) and 5.56INSAS Ball ammo (from a 22 inch barrel) is only marginal. But I agree with you, in retrospect, 5.56INSAS cartridge instead of SS109 doesn't seem like a brilliant move if that was the deciding factor in the death of carbine. After all, we needed a quarter million carbine for the army alone.

[ArmenT]

^^^
The M855 / SS109 bullet has a hardened steel tip and can penetrate 3 mm. thick steel plate (which was the standard thickness of Soviet helmets and body armor at that time) at 600 meters. That's why it was chosen over the older M193 cartridge that the US used with the M16A1 previously. The interesting thing is that the M193 was more prone to fragmentation and produced more lethal wounds over soft tissue, so some countries (esp. Sweden) considered it inhumane and went with the Belgian designed SS109.

The issue with the M855/SS109 is that when its velocity falls below about 2500 feet/sec (762 m/sec), the bullet doesn't fragment or yaw reliably on penetration because of the steel tip. Since the bullet is pretty small (5.56 mm. diameter), this lack of fragmention or yawing produces only a small wound. However, if the velocity is higher than this on impact, then it produces a much bigger wound than its diameter due to the fragmentation and yawing, which gives it a better chance to hit a vital organ. Incidentally, the lethal range[1] of the M855 is about 880 meters, but hitting an enemy at this range with one bullet will not necessarily stop him because the wounds produced will be smaller and may not hit a vital spot.

Improvements of the M855A1 bullet are improved accuracy, better penetration and also most importantly, reliable fragmentation at lower velocities.

[1] Lethal range is defined as the distance at which the bullet can still deliver the minimum kinetic energy to put a man out of action (commonly considered to be 15 kg m/sec^2). For the M855 out of a standard M16A2, this is about 880 meters. Of course, hitting the target at this range with iron sights is a completely different matter, as is the build of the man concerned and where it hits.

[vaibhav.n]

^^ Vaibhav, as per the OFB website, the difference in velocity between SS109 (from a "standard" test barrel, most likely 20 inches) and 5.56INSAS Ball ammo (from a 22 inch barrel) is only marginal. But I agree with you, in retrospect, 5.56INSAS cartridge instead of SS109 doesn't seem like a brilliant move if that was the deciding factor in the death of carbine. After all, we needed a quarter million carbine for the army alone.

Thank you for the correction.

Agree.

Look for better or worse 5.56 is the NATO standard, we are stuck with it. There is no point in having newer calibers which have to extensively tested and continuously upgraded to ever increasing client demands.

Preference should be to build and design small-arms to suit us.

[Gyan]

IIRC the Indian round is also heavier 65 grains vs NATO 62 grains. We also don't know about construction and aerodynamics differences. Lastly, if the shorter barrelled INSAS does not work with Indian Round then even "imported" carbines will not work. This apart, I believe that work on work on Indian Round has continued and Newer rounds with better propellants may emerge.

[ArmenT]

Lastly, if the shorter barrelled INSAS does not work with Indian Round then even "imported" carbines will not work.

And you know this, how exactly?