As usual the DRDO has attempted to ‘reinvent the wheel’ instead of going in for licensed production of tried and proven automatic weapons which may have been manufactured at much cheaper costs.
Here's a crosspost, a report from US Marine Corp about the recent Iraq war. Here's a snippet to show that nothing is perfect - this type of $hit is more likely to happen when you are in combat, no matter what weapon you have.
Weapon Take-Down Pins ~ Many weapons, M16 and M249 in particular, were having problems with takedown pins breaking and/or falling completely out of the weapons. Marines held weapons together with duct tape (don't leave home without it) and/or zip ties. The problem seems to be that sand would get into the spaces around the pins, grinding down the metal.
THe article is total trash. Well researched my foot where does he actually talk about specific problems with the INSAS.
''reported to have serious performance drawbacks, particularly in cold conditions.''
is all he has to say abou the INSAS.
Please read the article carefully before posting such trash. Bloody arm chair journalists who write aboot things they know nothing about. The heading si misleading 3/4 of the text is about the evolution of assault rifles and two general paras.
trash.
I dont know much about Mohan Guruswamy but if his attempts at an investigative piece of reportage are anything to go by I am none the worse for that.
‘The development of the light automatic rifle was the consequence to a well-known post WWII study of the pattern of usage of infantry weapons by US infantrymen in combat by Brig.Gen. SLA Marshall, the prominent American military analyst. Marshall’s study revealed that most infantrymen actually used their weapons very little, preferring to take cover for most of the time and firing occasionally. The study also revealed that the infantrymen most likely to fire their weapons were those closest to a soldier firing a Browning automatic rifle. This was because when the BAR man fired, he was able to literally hose down a wide arc in front of him. When he did this the opposing infantry lay low and infantrymen by his side were able to rise from behind their chosen cover and fire their weapons.’
_____________________________
What’s so sensational discovery is this? The fire and move tactics is all about this. The LMG section gives covering fire and the rifles section moves and vice versa.
************************************************
‘Quite clearly this itself suggested a need for greater deployment of automatic weapons, if you had to get more fighting out of soldiers.’
_______________
The Indian Army realised without a Vietnam War that - as the article states ‘The propensity to consume ammunition reached the astounding rate of 50,000 rounds per kill in the Vietnam War’.
_________
Obviously we could not afford the luxury and further our terrain configuration did not have adequate roads that could bring ammunition in the quantity that would require replenishing trigger happy soldiers as the US! Give that much of credit to the Indians.
************************************************
‘The recoil as a result of this explosive charge in the automatic fire mode made the weapon virtually uncontrollable. Not only was the soldier unable to aim properly, but also quite often the recoil caused serious injuries’. What rot! Recoil of the 7.62 caused serious injuries.
______________
I wish he had fired a .303. He might have written that it was firing an artillery gun! Uncontrollable? Come again!
************************************************
‘Given the pattern of recent defence spends it seems our strategists once again seem to have reverted to the old habit of spending all on the big and extravagant and least likely to be used, than on arms for the foot soldier who in the ultimate analysis, even today, still wins or loses battles for his country’.
_____________________
The 7.62 is a good rifle. It required no replacement except that the 5.56 incapacitated the soldier and not kill him outright and thus increase the enemy’s problems. Therefore, the DRDO was tasked to produce a 5.56. On the other hand the arty guns were at max 14,000 yds. More range was required by the operational requirement. Therefore, which was the priority? Replacing a rifle that was performing its task pretty well or having more range and thereby making the infantry man’s task easier?
A sponsored article since I find that there are many rifles are being discussed on this forum and its issue to some units!
Does the INSAS now come with 22 or 30 round magazines?
btw, the main problem with the G41 (apart from the fact that it's out of production) would probably be the price; apparently they cost upto $1700.00 each.
I have heard that the 0.303 had a much meaner kick but was a lot more accurate. the 7.62 tended to jerk to one side. Ofcourse the number of rounds in the latter and the ability to fire quickly were much much superior qualities - which is really what its all about. Again, the 7.62 was supposed to be rather unwieldy in close quarter engagements
i imagine that a lighter, less kicking 5.56 would be highly welcome during those "mindless" uphill running activities that the army seems to favour so much!
I am quite sure about the firing pin. Its quite rugged atleast on the rifle i used it was. So IMO the problem could with the maintainence of the rifle.
About the zeroing of the sights i really would have to go check on this. I cann't say something for sure now. But i am sure the situation won't have been so bad as i had used the same rifle first and then without the scope.
By the way convey the message to the officer that even the CSD canteens have started giving good quality stuff. :p
I started my career with .303, graduated to 7.62 and then used AK 47 and INSAS. I found no difficulty with any weapon. All weapons had glitches and most of it was because of poor firing drills and poor maintenance.
A poor carpenter quarrels with his tools I reckon.
As far as CQB is concerned with the rifle, I have done so much of the 'Bayen dushman, dayen dushman and samne dushman drill' that entering a disco reminds me of the Weapon Training drills and nothing more since dancing as such seems to have gone out of fashion!
one advantage that the 0.303 and 7.62 have over the smaller 5.56's is the dual functionality as a pretty useful club/bludgeoning tool in CQB! Nice weight and balance for swinging around and cracking skulls and smashing noses... not that there is much call for trench clearance these days!
perhaps some hands-on chaps can elaborate on practical usage in the field for non-firing roles!!
Originally posted by Daulat: one advantage that the 0.303 and 7.62 have over the smaller 5.56's is the dual functionality as a pretty useful club/bludgeoning tool in CQB! Nice weight and balance for swinging around and cracking skulls and smashing noses... not that there is much call for trench clearance these days!
perhaps some hands-on chaps can elaborate on practical usage in the field for non-firing roles!!
I am quite sure about the firing pin. Its quite rugged atleast on the rifle i used it was. So IMO the problem could with the maintainence of the rifle.
About the zeroing of the sights i really would have to go check on this. I cann't say something for sure now. But i am sure the situation won't have been so bad as i had used the same rifle first and then without the scope.
By the way convey the message to the officer that even the CSD canteens have started giving good quality stuff. :p
regards
Abhisham
Sure I know I use a canteen regularly. Infact i use three or four of them. hehehe.
Last paras regiment i saw was using the AK-47. As of now i have yet to see the foldable butt insas in service anywhere. When i asked the officers about it he didn't even seem to know about it. So my best bet is that its either in trials or been rejected in favour of AK-47. But good news is that when paras are inducted in mountain terrain they are issued the regular INSAS.
SF mostly uses AK series of weapons. And my friends this may sounds weird but let me tell you all. AK-47s were the intial rifles produced by Russia. Since this rifles were made of good material, they were costly to manufacture. Red Army needed large number of this rifles, so they introduced AKM which is similar to AK-47 in everything except the construction.
AKM weighs about one kilogram less than the AK. The reduced weight results from using thinner, stamped sheetmetal parts rather than machined, forged steel; laminated wood rather than solid wood in the handguard, forearm, pistol grip, and buttstock; and new lightweight aluminum and plastic magazines. Other improvements include a straighter stock for better control; an improved gas cylinder; a rate-of-fire control alongside the trigger.
Our forces have been using AKM & not AK-47 as many of you believe. There may be AKMS which is nothing but a folding butt version of AKM.