Small Arms Thread

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shaun » 12 Jan 2015 17:04

^^
I am getting perplexed by the number of articles coming out now , citing IA , the main hindrance when inducting indigenous weapon systems. The whole of army is not responsible , blame game can be squarely put on MOD and Acquisition , testing , quality dept. of IA.
IN is enjoying support from every quarters atleast when it comes with the induction indigenous weapons.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 12 Jan 2015 18:03

The INSAS Family has been a abject failure. The Parliamentary Report just establishes what most know. You cant expect the DRDO to be equally good on all fronts, there are islands of excellence and mediocrity. Like any organisation, they are expected to focus on critical areas and denied techs first.

A rather famous gunwriter once wrote this about the INSAS rather appropriate......

Many nations of the world take up rifle and other small arms development, expecting it to be easy as day. The question is, compared to what? India’s factories and engineers produce nuclear weapons and Mach 2 fighter aircraft. And it’s no exaggeration to say India’s arsenals have built millions of perfectly good weapons before laying the INSAS egg. So what’s the problem? Designing a gun is pretty hard. Designing ones better than the extremely-well-sorted current world leaders, the AR and AK platforms, is extremely hard. Right up there with fighting in those mountains.


As much as about this being a conspiracy, going through S Jha's blog on Small Arms, this is what an Army Officer purportedly wrote...Sheer Anguish....These are some serious design issues exacerbated by quality problems.

Omar Baig • 5 months ago

I was directed to this blog by a friend in olive. As an ex-Infantryman, I would say a good effort on your part. The INSAS however suffers from severe design limitations, which were most likely brought over due to a Copy Paste approach that DRDO followed. This have not changed at all even after successive iterations to the original rifle. As a aside, my troops (Garhwali's) suffered an barrage of problems with the INSAS.

1. Some batches in my Battalion seemed to suffer from Hangfire. Double Feed is fairly common issue to be rectified by the Armourer.

2. The Long Operation Tappet Rod makes it fairly difficult for YS(Young Soldiers) to shoot beyond 150 Mts in a Range Qualification which tests you at twice that range. You need some level of expertise with the weapon and then some more.

3. Poor level of Construction across the Rifle, with Cracked magazines/ Heat Guards/ Cocking Lever,Rear Flip-up cover which causes loss of rear sight by virtue of being improperly seated during construction.

The last time with INSAS the DRDO made a fool out of the Indian Army. I hope they are wiser this time. After 2 decades, the DRDO still has not been able to produce a Carbine Variant and their MG variant has some serious barrel change issues during combat. Across what was envisioned to be a family of weapons INSAS is at best a limp donkey.

Rathiraj
True. I myself was almost killed as the INSAS had 'double-feed' during a fire-fight.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 12 Jan 2015 18:38

Viv S wrote:The MCIWS will be ready for trials in six to eight months according to this report.



Unlikely. ARDE issued tenders for die casts for 7.62x39 mm magazine rather recently.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2682
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby JTull » 12 Jan 2015 18:49

Viv S wrote:The army, said the official, then wanted a rifle that would de-capacitate a solider instead of killing him.


Incapacitate X decapitate = De-capacitate

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby NRao » 12 Jan 2015 20:52

vaibhav.n ji,

Just a question.

Are these problems with the design (as the expert seems to indicate) or with manufacturing (as the second quote in your post seems to catalog).

IF it is the prior then it should mean that it would be more challenging to rectify the situation. If the latter, then some/most problems could be overcome with a less lethargic vendor.

No matter what, what is the MoD doing in all this? They should be the traffic cop - so to speak. Someone has to take the responsibility to make teh ground situation better.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 13 Jan 2015 01:02

NRao,

There is no easy way to answer this. A viable solution would have to be a twin pronged one ie, Where do the fault-lines lines lie with the INSAS Family and more importantly What direction does the IA conceptually see its own Warfighting to take? They are both very difficult to comprehend and hold innumerable issues to the problem.

Taking a shot at the former, the Officer correctly notes that the Rifle is just one of the cogs in the family. We have yet to see a functional carbine even after 20 years and by all accounts ARDE seems to have given up on it. They actually suggested a caliber change to overcome the difficulties!! The LMG was also not correctly thought of, with no Quick change barrel. The Bren that it was supposed to replace carries a spare barrel. I have personally seen good Bren Group do it in seconds. This places serious penalties on an Army where unlike the West with its 'Fireteam' concept, a Rifle Section in the IA provides only one manouvre element and the Bren Group acts as the base of fire using the usual fire and move techniques.

What is clearly evident is a mediocre design with atrocious excuse of OFB level of construction would result in a poor experience for the user. Some IA friends of mine however point that the OFB does a fairly decent job with the other Small Arms it manufactures namely the MAG-58 MMG/Carl Gustav 84mm or the AGL. So where does the exact mismatch lie? Has the DRDO been unable to correctly put the project into production stage from where OFB could take off? Can the OFB only produce license copies when it has been properly spoonfed? Moreover differing Ordinance Factories manufacture the INSAS to their own set of standards with SAF, Kanpur supposedly doing a better job 'relatively'.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 13 Jan 2015 10:49

vaibhav.n wrote:As much as about this being a conspiracy, going through S Jha's blog on Small Arms, this is what an Army Officer purportedly wrote...Sheer Anguish....These are some serious design issues exacerbated by quality problems.

Omar Baig • 5 months ago

I was directed to this blog by a friend in olive. As an ex-Infantryman, I would say a good effort on your part. The INSAS however suffers from severe design limitations, which were most likely brought over due to a Copy Paste approach that DRDO followed. This have not changed at all even after successive iterations to the original rifle. As a aside, my troops (Garhwali's) suffered an barrage of problems with the INSAS.

1. Some batches in my Battalion seemed to suffer from Hangfire. Double Feed is fairly common issue to be rectified by the Armourer.

2. The Long Operation Tappet Rod makes it fairly difficult for YS(Young Soldiers) to shoot beyond 150 Mts in a Range Qualification which tests you at twice that range. You need some level of expertise with the weapon and then some more.

3. Poor level of Construction across the Rifle, with Cracked magazines/ Heat Guards/ Cocking Lever,Rear Flip-up cover which causes loss of rear sight by virtue of being improperly seated during construction.

The last time with INSAS the DRDO made a fool out of the Indian Army. I hope they are wiser this time. After 2 decades, the DRDO still has not been able to produce a Carbine Variant and their MG variant has some serious barrel change issues during combat. Across what was envisioned to be a family of weapons INSAS is at best a limp donkey.

Rathiraj
True. I myself was almost killed as the INSAS had 'double-feed' during a fire-fight.

A few points to note here.

1. Hangfire is an ammunition issue, not a firearm issue. It could be due to poor manufacturing quality of the ammo, or because of improper storage of ammo.

2. Double feed is caused by a number of reasons: (a) Dirt or corrosion in the extractor (which is usually the reason if the gun used to fire fine previously) (b) damaged or bent extractor claw which does not properly pick up the cartridge after it is fired (c) weak extractor spring (d) defective cartridge case, which causes the cartridge to slip off the extraction claw (or if the case is bulged, it sticks to the chamber walls instead of sliding out). Note that reasons (b) and (c) could be due to manufacturing defects or bad design and (d) is because of bad ammo. (a) could be due to poor user maintenance or bad choice of metal treatments of the extractor, causing it to corrode easily (which is a design or manufacturing flaw). The fact that the officer states that armorers can fix the flaw indicates a manufacturing issue.

3. Long tappet rod and long stroke piston action are the same mechanism used by AK family, as well as the Bren. However, since the INSAS rifle only fires in single shot/3 round bursts in the IA model, the extra vibrations caused by long stroke system shouldn't matter that much. That's why I'm a bit puzzled about the range-qualification bit.

4. Re: poor construction -- that is a common complaint and it is true that some OFB factories spend far less time doing QC than others. A couple of other sources have also mentioned that new rifles from the factory needed to be worked on by the IA armorers before they can be used.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 13 Jan 2015 11:04

Viv S wrote:The MCIWS will be ready for trials in six to eight months according to this report.

India-Made Automatic Rifle Production Stuck in Red Tape

"When the INSAS rifle was initially designed, the army wanted rifles with a lower kill capability. Based on that demand the 5.56 mm rifle was designed," a DRDO official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity.

INSAS is a family of infantry weapons consisting of an assault rifle, a light machine gun and a carbine - all of the same calibre.

The official said the first demand for a smaller calibre rifle came in 1982, when the army wanted to replace the 7.62 mm SLR (self-loading rifle) that had been in use for over 30 years.

The army, said the official, then wanted a rifle that would de-capacitate a solider instead of killing him.

"A low killing capacity made sense because in war, if you kill a soldier you have deactivated only one person. But if a solider is injured, at least two other soldiers will come to his aid and thus three of the enemy will be deactivated," the official said.


Damn straight he's speaking on condition of anonymity, because he's talking BS :). The reason for the 5.56x45 mm. was because it allowed the soldier to carry more of them (weighs around 50% of the weight of 7.62x51 mm. cartridge that it replaced). This low-kill capacity business was pure Macnamara marketing speak added after the cartridge was already chosen.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 13 Jan 2015 13:16

Armen,

Hangfire occurrences could more likely be due to poorly stored/packaged ammunition. Especially incase older rounds were being issued from stocks as they reach the end of shelf life. I would imagine the high temperature & humidity prevalent in India do not help at all. In colder regions and higher elevations, the ammunition could also be more prone to cold soaking.

Ques..Could Double Feed also occur incase the weapons short strokes or that is purely a feeding issue? IIRC there were malfunctions in colder climates which could cause short stroking......the IA recommends re-zero of the Rifle above 10,000ft as the round shoots higher.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Jan 2015 13:39

ArmenT wrote:
India-Made Automatic Rifle Production Stuck in Red Tape

"When the INSAS rifle was initially designed, the army wanted rifles with a lower kill capability. Based on that demand the 5.56 mm rifle was designed," a DRDO official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity.

INSAS is a family of infantry weapons consisting of an assault rifle, a light machine gun and a carbine - all of the same calibre.

The official said the first demand for a smaller calibre rifle came in 1982, when the army wanted to replace the 7.62 mm SLR (self-loading rifle) that had been in use for over 30 years.

The army, said the official, then wanted a rifle that would de-capacitate a solider instead of killing him.

"A low killing capacity made sense because in war, if you kill a soldier you have deactivated only one person. But if a solider is injured, at least two other soldiers will come to his aid and thus three of the enemy will be deactivated," the official said.


Damn straight he's speaking on condition of anonymity, because he's talking BS :). The reason for the 5.56x45 mm. was because it allowed the soldier to carry more of them (weighs around 50% of the weight of 7.62x51 mm. cartridge that it replaced). This low-kill capacity business was pure Macnamara marketing speak added after the cartridge was already chosen.



You may think so based on documentation etc but speak to a bunch of IA officers and 5.56 mm is widely perceived to be "wound not kill". Figures that others associated with the round think likewise. Perception is widerspread.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Jan 2015 13:55

vaibhav.n wrote:NRao,

There is no easy way to answer this. A viable solution would have to be a twin pronged one ie, Where do the fault-lines lines lie with the INSAS Family and more importantly What direction does the IA conceptually see its own Warfighting to take? They are both very difficult to comprehend and hold innumerable issues to the problem.

Taking a shot at the former, the Officer correctly notes that the Rifle is just one of the cogs in the family. We have yet to see a functional carbine even after 20 years and by all accounts ARDE seems to have given up on it. They actually suggested a caliber change to overcome the difficulties!! The LMG was also not correctly thought of, with no Quick change barrel. The Bren that it was supposed to replace carries a spare barrel. I have personally seen good Bren Group do it in seconds. This places serious penalties on an Army where unlike the West with its 'Fireteam' concept, a Rifle Section in the IA provides only one manouvre element and the Bren Group acts as the base of fire using the usual fire and move techniques.

What is clearly evident is a mediocre design with atrocious excuse of OFB level of construction would result in a poor experience for the user. Some IA friends of mine however point that the OFB does a fairly decent job with the other Small Arms it manufactures namely the MAG-58 MMG/Carl Gustav 84mm or the AGL. So where does the exact mismatch lie? Has the DRDO been unable to correctly put the project into production stage from where OFB could take off? Can the OFB only produce license copies when it has been properly spoonfed? Moreover differing Ordinance Factories manufacture the INSAS to their own set of standards with SAF, Kanpur supposedly doing a better job 'relatively'.


OFBs production is the real issue for any small arms manufacture and will remain so.

Carl Gustaf's BTW are still imported. I have severe doubts as to how many OFB made indigenously etc. Whats on their webpage is not really germane.

INSAS design basically is sound..its not cutting edge or any radical advance but its reasonably accurate and works. The only real design complaint that I have heard from a weapons designer who was fairly knowledgeable is that its front heavy and can tire out soldiers. But again, not the only weapon of the sort. A lot of the other issues could have been and should have been sorted out by the manufacturer itself.

But then I hear, unit armorers have to work on every INSAS that comes to them. INSAS markings are oft scribbles like a child would make with a torch. Is this "Quality"?

I have seen the most beaten up Russian gear look better.

And its not a DPSU thing because there are several DPSUs who make much higher standard stuff & have been there when an IAI guy was looking at some stuff and said its as good as they make.

So trained workforce with proper machinery can do a good job.

OFB manufacture being an "excuse" is hardly the case when almost everything made by OFB needs rework. FSAPDS? Need rework. HEAT rounds? Need rework. INSAS? Unit armorers need to fix each rifle in a new batch. AIrcraft ammo? Likewise... the list goes on and on, from T-72 manufacturing to this to that.

There is simply a level of slip shod finishing which is appalling.

Arjun design compares well with many of its class. But look within, and the folks who should be assembling it, have gone and splashed paint everywhere. The seats on which the cushions are there, have been "touched up" on the metal side and have received dibs of paint splashes.

This sort of lackadaisical lack of pride in their finishing seems to be common.

Desi gun enthusiasts who buy OFB civil firearms and they all sit and send it to the local gunsmith to "make it better".

In recent years, the plethora of QA issues have reduced somewhat. But the organization needs a severe overhaul when fairly everything they have has a ~10-20% reject rate and then add the items which make it through testing and fail in service conditions and then are often discarded. The rest may work, but the failure rate is still an issue.

In some items, OFBs QA issues have simply not gone away. There is a basic issue here which marks OFB far different than say a HAL or a BDL. One, OFBs workers simply don't take as much care in their work or are not trained to the level necessary or are not equipped for the task. Second, for whatever reason, OFB has continued on its path without real competition.

Modernisation can matter only if the attitude within changes. I'll believe that is happening when OFB's civil arms etc are also to a standard in terms of manufacturing tolerances, consistently. And INTUC, CPI-M whatever are not rabble rousing the workforce.

Until & unless Mahindra, Tata guns start getting into IA hands, I dont think OFB will change.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Jan 2015 14:04

As to how to fix the INSAS, first the decision should be made.

The M-16 has been in service for what 30-40 years now? In one form or the other. Its still being fixed. The SA-80 was in service for a decade and a half if memory serves before H&K was roped in to drastically address production issues and part swapping for better reliability. Then it went to Afghanistan, and complaints continued, this time that it was a bullpup and hence fundamentally flawed etc etc.

If decision is made INSAS is worth persisting with, then give Indian firms like L&T, Tata a chance to work on it. They can consult with any partner, Steyr/H&K etc to improve it.

If not, then have them lead a local program for a local rifle.

Point is whichever rifle we import and make at OFB, the IA trials process is not going to catch all the issues and it will be flawed in one way or the other. The OEM being outside India & OFB having next to nothing R&D capability in small arms as things stand, mean we are not going to have an easy time.

The IA is choosing the easy way out and time will tell, how a big a boondoggle that easy way out is.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 13 Jan 2015 17:22

Karan,

Couple of points,

1. Broadly agree with you, the OFB is an issue which if left untreated will only serve to exacerbate until we move manufacturing into private hands. However, ThakurB had rightly pointed out that even while holding Arms production licenses private companies did little to move into the vacuum. Given the sheer number of Arms purchases even by paramilitary or provincial units, this would have made a very decent business case on its own feet. With a glut in the global arms market, even very well known brands are going through difficult times (Sig, H&K being a case in point).

2. Considering ARDE's inability to design a Carbine variant, how does this not play into making the same mistakes over again. The IA as is visible wants to standardize on the Assault Rifle and Carbines. The counter argument could be made that the IA choose the hard way the last time and learnt some real lessons as to how big a boondoggle it really was.

One thing i agree completely, the idea to continue with the INSAS and get in something like an H&K to iron out the design problems and if possible guide OFB more gingerly on to take sanctity around QC issues is a rather tempting idea. However, the MultiCaliber Rifle throws this also into question as that might call for a complete new weapon system to be developed. IMO worth pursuing, provides us an insight into modern gun-design and manufacturing. There are a whole host of weapon systems which could be developed after all. For eg: 7.62mm LMG/MMG, 9mm Pistol/Carbine, .50cal HMG/AMR etc.

AFAIK, the Carl Gustav M2 was manufactured by OFB. The newer M3 however has composite inserts to make it lighter and shorter. These could come in from SAAB.

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 899
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Nitesh » 15 Jan 2015 10:04

cross post

This is interesting take, it seems end of road for any small arms of Indian design in the name of speeding things up

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/11907/ ... LdNCnvK3qp



The Indian Army has decided to junk the Future Infantry Soldier As a System (F-INSAS) program in favor of two separate projects.

The new program will have two components: one arming the modern infantry soldier with the best available assault rifle, carbines and personal equipment such as the helmet and bulletproof vests and the second component is the Battlefield Management Systems (BMS).

Observers say that the bifurcation has been done on account of the budgetary convenience.

In the BMS category goes all the communication and optical equipment of a modern soldier which includes palm-top communication equipment and the helmet mounted cameras. The assault weapon field trials are going on: there are four kinds, Baretta (Italy), Colt (USA), Bren (Czech) and Tavor (Israel). The last has already been chosen for Indian Special Forces.

Vice Chief of Army staff, Lt General Philip Campose, told our correspondent at the end of the media interaction, “There is no F-INSAS program any more”.

He detailed how the army adopted the program in a way that keeps the infantry soldier less burdened by technology, and more agile to carry out his tasks.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 16 Jan 2015 14:06

this would have made a very decent business case on its own feet.


Unfortunately private defence Manufacturing in India Does not make for a good business case. In the recent past I have participated in and watched a number private Def Companies get funded or set up JVs and turn up grossly empty. The Lumpy Sale Cycles, dragging payment cycles, Political Risk and inherent corruption in the MoD procurement SOPs simply DO NOT justify the CAPEX> the ROE is extremely poor.

I have seen young start-ups running pillar to post to collect small amount cheques from MoD for products delivered because somebody somewhere wants a %. I have seen these start-ups come back from Tendering processes dejected because the Winner was chosen "before" the tender. the Mahindra and Bae JV also failed because it simply made bad business sense.

So when you say private manufactures never made the small arms its not a simply function of market size. It may simply have not been worth it. Efficient allocation of resources.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2015 18:34

vaibhav.n wrote:Karan,

Couple of points,

1. Broadly agree with you, the OFB is an issue which if left untreated will only serve to exacerbate until we move manufacturing into private hands. However, ThakurB had rightly pointed out that even while holding Arms production licenses private companies did little to move into the vacuum. Given the sheer number of Arms purchases even by paramilitary or provincial units, this would have made a very decent business case on its own feet. With a glut in the global arms market, even very well known brands are going through difficult times (Sig, H&K being a case in point).


Well its chicken and egg. If the MOD under Antony made no real effort to give the private sector tangible orders for entire systems (e.g. see BEML vs L&T on the Sarvatra bridge DRDO developed with L&T but was to be made with BEML), the private sector would hesitate to invest in production lines for entire units. Meanwhile corruption was clearly an issue, the entire MHA procurement of small arms was prominently noted to be compromised as well.

So while DRDO managed to get many partners into most of its core programs as subsystem suppliers, it could not swing the ability to have a production partner of its choice for the entire system itself or for items like small arms.

Now, things can be different and hopefully will be.

2. Considering ARDE's inability to design a Carbine variant, how does this not play into making the same mistakes over again. The IA as is visible wants to standardize on the Assault Rifle and Carbines. The counter argument could be made that the IA choose the hard way the last time and learnt some real lessons as to how big a boondoggle it really was.


MSMC is a carbine is it not and IA devised a new GSQR for MSMC and one set of user trials were done by 2013 while ARDE was asking for parts for further MSMC in 2014 so its an active program. Next, a design cant be called a failure just because a variant can't be developed. A Galil or G3 for instance couldn't be easily made into suitable carbines, but they are fine assault rifles nonetheless.
Also, to ditch an entire design and to go for an uproven one, with a risky two caliber option is not exactly the easy way forward either.

One thing i agree completely, the idea to continue with the INSAS and get in something like an H&K to iron out the design problems and if possible guide OFB more gingerly on to take sanctity around QC issues is a rather tempting idea. However, the MultiCaliber Rifle throws this also into question as that might call for a complete new weapon system to be developed. IMO worth pursuing, provides us an insight into modern gun-design and manufacturing. There are a whole host of weapon systems which could be developed after all. For eg: 7.62mm LMG/MMG, 9mm Pistol/Carbine, .50cal HMG/AMR etc.


The only issue I have is whether any partner can actually make OFB reform (with all its labor issues) and get it to make anything with consistent quality. Reliability engineering is a tough sell when the partner is not upto spec. To make the INSAS reliable, they will have to (my guess):
1. evaluate and change materials
2. evaluate and change suppliers
3. evaluate and change some components

Each of these will require a lot of effort by OFB. If DRDO does it, there is no guarantee OFB can do it on its own going forward.

The Chinese (Norinco) make pistols with better quality than the civil revolvers and what not OFB churns out.

In the same vein, DRDO's partners make everything from Tx/Rx modules to complex INS with gyros and small components galore and all that is reliable enough for the most part.

Yet, somehow TOT/JVs with OFB always run into rough weather.

A spade is a spade and sadly of our DPSU complex, OFB is the serious laggard when it comes to manufacturing. Time was I used to spend time going through their production audits and it made for bizarre reading. Propellants used without QA (to meet production targets) and rounds fail. Factory A supplies stuff to Factory B of wrong quality and so on and so forth.

AFAIK, the Carl Gustav M2 was manufactured by OFB. The newer M3 however has composite inserts to make it lighter and shorter. These could come in from SAAB.


TBH, I have sincere doubts about the quantum of truly indigenous production achieved by OFB in any TOT arrangement. Most of their so called international TOT has been a disaster in one form or the other, either because of their own issues or the partners, or both.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Vipul » 16 Jan 2015 22:16


member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby member_22539 » 17 Jan 2015 12:14

^Funny how some folks are in a rush before this baby gets ready http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Caliber_Individual_Weapon_System.

One can only imagine their motivations. Seems they prefer Made in India to Made for India by India.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Jan 2015 11:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PAHu-5-aUM

Comparison of wounds from various calibers. Warning: Graphic content.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Jan 2015 13:25

Karan M wrote:Reliability engineering is a tough sell when the partner is not upto spec. To make the INSAS reliable, they will have to (my guess):
1. evaluate and change materials
2. evaluate and change suppliers
3. evaluate and change some components

Each of these will require a lot of effort by OFB. If DRDO does it, there is no guarantee OFB can do it on its own going forward.


There are a few changes that can be made to INSAS on the lines of Galil ACE.

1. Sliding cover instead of hinged cover: The rifles with AK style dust cover and sights placed on them have issues with the sights losing zero when the cover is opened, if the dust cover is lose fitting. Valmet is one of the AKM variants that has sights on the dust cover and it uses rather well machined and tight fitting cover to avoid the above issue. OFB's quality control is rather world famous, so even with improvements I see the possibility of this issue rising up. MCIWS won't have this issue because it is modeled on the lines of M-16 family.

2. Instead of using a picatinny rail attachement over the dovetail rail, as is the practice to mount optics, it should have an integrated rail both on dust cover and upper hand guard. The upper hand guard can also feature a 45 degree rail on the right hand side like tavor to mount fire control computer for grenade launcher or flashlight. The left side can't because of cocking handle and the lower hand guard can't because it has to be removable to mount the grenade launcher.

3. Go for injection moulded polymer instead of stamped steel to completely circumvent the poor workmanship and weight issues. A good polymer body is nothing out of the world and can be quite cheap when going for mass production. MCIWS uses milled magnesium aluminium alloy body, which I don't see being cost effective. The rails should also be polymer to cut down weight.

4. Last but not the least, make a decent carbine with a 14 inch barrel. Excalibur has a 16 inch barrel, but it is still longer than M4, not the shortest of carbines.

About MCIWS
- Go for polymer body to reduce costs and increase production speed. It will also circumvent costly CNC machines in favour of injection moulding.
- The receiver should be for 7.62x51 with a removable socket like CM901. That will allow them to push it as a DMR and 7.62 mm lmg as well.
- Ambidextrous ejection port by having a bolt capable of realigning and a removable ejection port dust cover and a dummy cover for the other side.
- The sling should attach to the body instead of the barrel and stock
- Hope they haven't used the buffer tube style of AR-15 family and gone for a spring like INSAS, that should allow them to have a folding stock.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 18 Jan 2015 19:05

DRDO has already come out with MCIWS which is improved copy of HK-416. Note that HK-416 which has been selected as (quasi new) Assault rifle by USA recently. HK-417 is good enough that a standard rifle can be used as carbine, assault rifle, DMR and LMG. While MCIWS goes step further by adding quick change barrel and modular changes across three calibers. So assuming that INSAS is outdated we already have sexy hot new young cousin in town. Though the import lobby is really up and about after Avinash Chander sacking/termination of contract.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 18 Jan 2015 20:47

Gyan wrote:DRDO has already come out with MCIWS which is improved copy of HK-416.

:roll: Has the former been tested? What purpose does this bellicism serve?

Gyan wrote:Note that HK-416 which has been selected as (quasi new) Assault rifle by USA recently.

Factually Incorrect. It is for select units within the SOCOM.

Gyan wrote:HK-417 is good enough that a standard rifle can be used as carbine, assault rifle, DMR and LMG.

No LMG variant to date. Are you refering to the MG4/MG5? The G28 DMR uses a steel upper for rigidity unlike the 416.

Gyan wrote:While MCIWS goes step further by adding quick change barrel and modular changes across three calibers

Please read up on caliber change and quick change barrels. The later has never been proposed on the MCIWS. What use does making up concocted yarn spindles serve?

Look at the gas block in the MCIWS, points to it being a long stroke gun, 416 is a short stroke action. Similar 'looking' guns different action cycles. We are behind as far as Small Arms go...no shortcuts here...we have to learn the hard way...

Cheerio...

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jan 2015 00:26

i thought mciws was piston not direct impingement and hence short stroke??

also it can go for trials only if IA wants it..

will doubtless need refinements but can only happen with IA assist.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 19 Jan 2015 01:25

Karan M wrote:i thought mciws was piston not direct impingement and hence short stroke??

Piston driven systems can be either short stroke or long stroke. And they are both different from direct impingement system.

The difference is that in a short stroke system, the piston moves backwards for a very short distance initially (typically, less than its own diameter) along with the bolt carrier. The piston is then stopped by a fixed projection (or a gas cutoff) in the tube, while the bolt carrier continues backwards on its own due to the momentum imparted by the piston's sharp blow.

In a long stroke system, the piston and bolt carrier move together all the way in the operating cycle.

The two linked pages show the differences + advantages/disadvantages of the two systems.

Incidentally, the AK and Bren are both long stroke systems, but the Czechoslovakian vz.58 is short-stroke, despite looking similar to the AK :).
Last edited by ArmenT on 19 Jan 2015 02:08, edited 2 times in total.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 19 Jan 2015 01:28

Karan, It is Piston driven only.

An educated guess, you can see the actuator rod above the barrel. Nothing wrong with good Long Stroke actions. The AK,Galil, SIG and Tavor all sport a long stroke piston.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jan 2015 02:15

ArmenT wrote:
Karan M wrote:i thought mciws was piston not direct impingement and hence short stroke??

Piston driven systems can be either short stroke or long stroke. And they are both different from direct impingement system.

The difference is that in a short stroke system, the piston moves backwards for a very short distance initially (typically, less than its own diameter) along with the bolt carrier. The piston is then stopped by a fixed projection (or a gas cutoff) in the tube, while the bolt carrier continues backwards on its own due to the momentum imparted by the piston's sharp blow.

In a long stroke system, the piston and bolt carrier move together all the way in the operating cycle.

The two linked pages show the differences + advantages/disadvantages of the two systems.

Incidentally, the AK and Bren are both long stroke systems, but the Czechoslovakian vz.58 is short-stroke, despite looking similar to the AK :).


Thanks as always Armen. Can you take a dekko at the MCIWS and make an assessment, pros, cons, good bad warts and all?

Loads of pics here http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... le-detail/ (comments are the usual rants and back and forth)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jan 2015 02:18

vaibhav.n wrote:Karan, It is Piston driven only.

An educated guess, you can see the actuator rod above the barrel. Nothing wrong with good Long Stroke actions. The AK,Galil, SIG and Tavor all sport a long stroke piston.


Thanks..per memory short stroke had some advantages in reliability ..dunno if correct.
One way or the other the biggest thing for any MICWS should be:
Reliability, Reliability - ease to strip, very less need to strip. No 3 kinds of metals, 4 types of plastics stuff
Ease of HIGH QUALITY manufacture - no fiddly bits which are hard to machine and will be made badly
Choose the right partner to make it and test the heck out of the rifle. If not today, then tomorrow you can sell it to the BSF etc.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jan 2015 02:20

PS learned a new word today "bellicism" from Vaibhav. Now to use it. :mrgreen:
Also concocted yarn spindles are a touch above concocted yarns I presume. Extra emphasis. :mrgreen:

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 19 Jan 2015 07:33

I stand by the statements in my post. As I don't have the capacity of Karen to write long posts to defend indigenous products, Any BRF poster my use Google chacha to do additional reading.

Note:- HK416 was constrained by trying to remain close to M16 but Mciws is free of such constraints

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jan 2015 09:25

Hey gyan wasnt making a jibe at you. Just a light hearted observation at vaibhavs command of english etc.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9630
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Jan 2015 10:56

Mango man post alert:
My mango idea is the weapon should be extremely hardy. We need such system as we have various climatic and other conditions with tropical to Himalayan areas. 7.62 level is required as we need sufficient stopping power. Less recoil is good. Anything which can give all these things is ok. AK74 or any advanced version of it with less recoil like VZ 58 may be a good and cheap system.
Most of the other systems may not be capable of performing in our national conditions. Just look at M16 in Nam.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jan 2015 17:40

MCIWS etc should be
1. User friendly (otherwise it will be rejected on grounds of ergonomics weight imbalance etc)
2. Extremely rugged and reliable (esp. given its compare is the Ak-47)
3. Manufacturing friendly w/minimum parts (esp. where OFB is concerned)
4. Cost effective (otherwise IA will say import)

1,2 are what require endless refinement w/IA input. Irrespective of imports, we should persevere.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Mihir » 19 Jan 2015 23:00

Yagnasri wrote:7.62 level is required as we need sufficient stopping power.

The question is, which 7.62 are we talking about? The 7.62x51mm provides excellent stopping power, but it is a heavy round; about twice as heavy as the 5.56x45mm. The 7.62x39mm has a shorter effective range than the 5.56x45mm; it has a higher parabolic curve, and I'm not sure what the lower velocity (about 150 m/s slower than that of the 5.56) would help with the stopping power either. That's probably one the the reasons the Trichy Assault Rifle isn't finding much traction with the Army.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SaiK » 21 Jan 2015 04:34


ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 21 Jan 2015 10:37


Only thing notable in this article is that the company that is assembling them is the official US distributor of the Kalashnikov company of Russia. There have been plenty of other companies making AK clones in the US already for many years. For example:
http://ak-47.us/ak-47-information/us-ak-manufacturers/

There are also assemblers that buy parts from other countries that make AKs (e.g. Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania etc.) and assemble in the US, such as Century Arms and Arsenal Inc. and plenty of other dealers make AK parts kits available as well.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 21 Jan 2015 13:42

Karan, my post was not in reply to you, I like reading your detailed posts.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 27 Jan 2015 13:49

I think I need to clarify my post/s. The problem with cell phone typing is that one is sometimes too abrupt. In my earlier posts I meant to say that I reiterate my post about MCIWS. But I do not have time to deal with people who have fixed view about Indian products being sub standard. Most of the things which I have said are available online through Google. Only a few posters like "Karan" have time and energy to write detailed posts to defend Indian products but this type of commitment is rare in face of constant astroturfing (sic).

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11445
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Jan 2015 14:05

Is there any prototype 6.8mm tried by us other than the multicaliber rifle. I think US is more worried about a civilian version available in large nos like the AR-15 if adopted by the US miltary. But the round could be much more useful in taking rats in COIN from more stand off ranges.

Also we should have more snipers with thermal scopes to take take on rats in the Jungles of Kashmir rather than close quater battle with AK-47's.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2015 15:48

Thanks Gyan.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Jan 2015 16:20

Gyan wrote:I think I need to clarify my post/s. The problem with cell phone typing is that one is sometimes too abrupt. In my earlier posts I meant to say that I reiterate my post about MCIWS. But I do not have time to deal with people who have fixed view about Indian products being sub standard. Most of the things which I have said are available online through Google. Only a few posters like "Karan" have time and energy to write detailed posts to defend Indian products but this type of commitment is rare in face of constant astroturfing (sic).


MODERATOR NOTE:

First things first - You don't get to pass certificate on people. Don't cross this red-line.

Coming to your post - The gentlemen has presented a pretty detailed reply to your post. And there are others who have engaged in a very civil debate with him on the subject. And we do have a good body of knowledge courtesy this debate.

If you consider it not worth your time and effort to reply to a poster, that is your call. But don't go around making such gratuitous comments. Keep that in mind in future.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests