Small Arms Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 16 Mar 2019 06:11

KaranM

So the Army wants 3.5 to 4.5 sec delay. This works out to 3 +/- 0.5 sec.
The fuse achieved 2 to 5 sec. This works out to 3.5 +/- 1.5 sec.
So what's going on? Both nominal and tolerance band are being shifted.
Was Army out of loop when the grenade was being developed?
How could such a big difference crop up in requirements?
Or is this another match fixing by the procurement gang?
Reason is there is a German grenade developed in mid 70s that's has similar requirements. Plastic body with nocked wire sleeve for fragments.
I don't know it's fuze time delay.
I bet it's TBRL numbers.

Thanks for the private sector military explosives makers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 16 Mar 2019 06:40

I think its that TBRL just couldn't work with OFB to get the QA/QC in order. From 2015, CAG.


(i) Development of multimode grenade The work for development of multimode grenade to replace the existing grenade by a lighter version having enhanced capabilities, was assigned to TBRL in 1989 at a sanctioned cost of `98 lakh with the objective of achieving a delay time of fuze for multimode grenade between 3.5 and 4.5 seconds. The first user trial was conducted in December 1997 although the PDC of the project was over in June 1997.

On the basis of successful user trials, a project for Transfer of Technology (ToT) to Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) was sanctionedby DRDO at cost of `19 lakh for production of grenade in May 1998. The project on ToT was completedin May 2000 with the recommendation that a new project be taken up for extended user’s trials.


So, design worked. User trials were a success. Then TOT to OFB and production series to be submitted for extended trials, to check OFB QA/QC clearly and whether pilot production could move onto series.

Accordingly, Ministry of Defence (MoD) sanctioned (June 2000)another project for manufacturing of 2000 grenades after extended user trials at a cost of`24.8 lakh. The project was closed by TBRL in June 2003 after declaring it successful. As per the closure report the users had achieved 95 per centreliability in their trials. There was, however no specific mention about the time delay in the closure report.


KM: 95% reliability in the first pilot batch, IA happy, all is well.

In March 2010, MoD placed supply order on OFB to arrange supply of 10 lakh grenades at a total cost of `193.80 crore. But after receipt of only 35,000 grenades costing `6.78 crore, Army intimated TBRL (November 2011) that the detonating time delay of the grenade was ranging between 2.5 and 5.0 seconds against required/specified delay of 3.5 to 4.5 seconds. As the delaytime was an operational requirement and could not be relaxed, Army imposed ban on use of grenades in November 2011 and progress on the production of grenades is at a standstill as of September 2014.


Boom, trainwreck. They dont mention the distribution of grenades falling outside the normal 3.5-4.5 seconds but was likely greater than 95% which IA was ok with, hence go-ahead for series production. Note however, thankfully, we have learnt from previous OFB gung-ho production debacles and whole batch was not wasted by rejecting it after 10,00,000 units were made (FSAPDS, 155mm ammo etc).

Since TBRLwas Authority Holding Sealed Particulars (AHSP) for production upto first 10 lakh grenades, it was the responsibility of the Lab to ensure that the user’s requirement was fully met, till production of such quantity. However, due to non-achieving of the desired delay of 3.5 seconds to 4.5 seconds, TBRL failed to develop the lighter version of the grenade with enhanced capability ................ Ministry in their reply (August 2015) to the draft report accepted the limitation and stated that it was not possible to get 100 per cent of grenades functioning between 3.5 second and 4.5 second and therefore a case for waiver of 0.5 second has been sent to Competent Authority for approval.


So, a distribution - some grenades are falling outside the stated 3.5 to 4.5 second range.

It was further stated that TBRL was making efforts to resolve the issue of delay time by involving private industry.


This to me, is the killer quote - because if it was a design issue, the production aspect would have been stopped.

Now, after this we have:
1. TOT to Solar.
2. Same as before, 2000 unit trial run at Solar (note, this is the same sampling quantity, 2000 unit which was actually used for extended user trials at OFB series production quality check. This indicates to me, that DRDO accelerated the sequential process and in 1st phase itself wanted to check if production had stabilized.)
3. Clears Internal trials & offered to user (2017)
4. IA User Trials (but haven't found reports yet)
5.? We have reports of the earlier 10,00,000 unit order being reactivate (2019). Remember, it was already cleared but in abeyance.

This is a pretty good overview of the facilities at Solar, their depth etc and the projects they are involved in.
http://www.defproac.com/?p=6806

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 16 Mar 2019 07:06

500 milliseconds tolerance band is very tough with explosives.
Essentially the primer has to be measured precisely, and the key is to tamp with consistent force. Too much force explodes the primer in the mfg process. Too little will lead to delay.
So it's a process problem.

DRDO should work on an electronic version to get timing consistent.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 16 Mar 2019 07:18

Lot sampling comes from MIL-STD-105.
Giving 10 lakh order will cause lot rejection problems.
Better split the lot into 10 lots.

The passing grade is very high for ordnance items

Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Avinandan » 17 Mar 2019 02:02

Good Article with some additional details on AK-203 deal :-

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/ak-203-make-in-india_chinoy-lkbehera-110319
All rifles to be produced beyond the first 120,000 will have 100 per cent indigenous content (see Table 1). More significantly, 100 per cent indigenisation is to be achieved in 32 months from the contract date, and all the future technological upgrades to the rifles, as and when required, will be done by the JV in India. The OFB, which is facing increasing competition from the private sector, could not have asked for more as it is assured of nearly Rs 5,000 crores of order through the production of the AK-203. Moreover, given that the JV is a first involving an ordnance factory, it will open up opportunities for the OFB to explore other international partnerships to stay ahead of its competitors.

Table 1. Planned Indigenisation of AK-203


Phase
No of Rifles

Indigenisation Level (%)

1 20,000 5-15
2 20,000 15-30
3 40,000 30-70
4 40,000 70-100
5 Balance No. 100

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 17 Mar 2019 10:47

So what is LMG and MMG caliber?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 17 Mar 2019 11:48

Avinandan wrote:Good Article with some additional details on AK-203 deal :-

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/ak-203-make-in-india_chinoy-lkbehera-110319
All rifles to be produced beyond the first 120,000 will have 100 per cent indigenous content (see Table 1). More significantly, 100 per cent indigenisation is to be achieved in 32 months from the contract date, and all the future technological upgrades to the rifles, as and when required, will be done by the JV in India. The OFB, which is facing increasing competition from the private sector, could not have asked for more as it is assured of nearly Rs 5,000 crores of order through the production of the AK-203. Moreover, given that the JV is a first involving an ordnance factory, it will open up opportunities for the OFB to explore other international partnerships to stay ahead of its competitors.

Table 1. Planned Indigenisation of AK-203


Phase
No of Rifles

Indigenisation Level (%)

1 20,000 5-15
2 20,000 15-30
3 40,000 30-70
4 40,000 70-100
5 Balance No. 100



Good Find

India’s choice of AK-203 was influenced by the rifle’s modern design and potency. It was selected over other AK series of rifles – AK-103, AK-103 (Modernised) and AK-15 – which were all evaluated by a team of Army officials who, along with OFB officials, visited the Kalashnikov manufacturing centre in Russia in early December 2018. The Army found that the AK-203 has better accuracy, more picatinny rails (required for mounting various types of day/night sights and grenade launcher on the rifle), reduced flash and recoil, better ergonomics and greater ease of operation in combat.

vimal
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vimal » 17 Mar 2019 12:16

Austin wrote:Good Find

India’s choice of AK-203 was influenced by the rifle’s modern design and potency. It was selected over other AK series of rifles – AK-103, AK-103 (Modernised) and AK-15 – which were all evaluated by a team of Army officials who, along with OFB officials, visited the Kalashnikov manufacturing centre in Russia in early December 2018. The Army found that the AK-203 has better accuracy, more picatinny rails (required for mounting various types of day/night sights and grenade launcher on the rifle), reduced flash and recoil, better ergonomics and greater ease of operation in combat.


Wow! So they found the rifle suitable in just one visit, while Indian systems take multi-year effort with trials for winter, summer, desert, sea, air, stratosphere, low altitude, high altitude and everything in between. I hope this gun also shoots plasma rounds.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 17 Mar 2019 13:25

Vimal to be fair this is the AK.
The Insas is not the AK and there is a reason even the COIN troops use AK.
The problem is not the choice of weapon. It is something else...

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 19 Mar 2019 06:09

Joint Next Gen Small arms development between India & US
"Overall, we look at this as a cost-efficient, cost-effective way to provide additional capability to the warfighter. There are three proposed mission scenarios, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, cross border operations and cave tunnel inspection," Lord said.

"There is lightweight, small arms technology project," Lord said. The key is the combined weapons and ammunition offer a 40 per cent weight reduction and improved accuracy.

The ammunition uses full polymer casings that significantly reduced weight and give less heat transfer and recoil.

"This is an area where there's co-development as well as co-production opportunity. What we're interested in technologies, where the US has brought them to a certain level and there's an appetite for more investment and for whatever reason we're not able to get to that in the US right now," the top Pentagon official said.

Good to know that MoD might be treating AK203 deal as stopgap and already thinking about the next evolution in small arms i.e. Cased/Caseless telescopic rounds. DARPA has already started investing and Textron already has a crude prototype.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Mar 2019 00:35

Don't fall for brochures.
That is how INSAS was selected.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2019 01:10

LOL I remember reading about this in one of Craig Thomas's techno-thrillers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 21 Mar 2019 02:04

ramana wrote:Don't fall for brochures.
That is how INSAS was selected.

Sir, not taking them on face value. Probably will take a decade to field telescoped rounds in real combat scenes. But this is where industry is moving for small to medium caliber weapons. BAE has come up with its version for 40mm cannon rounds. We may very well not be looking to small arms but towards developing telescoped versions of different cannon rounds like APFSDS or AirBurst for our FICV guns.
The real problem would be to have a polymer casing that can be used in -ve 40 and still gives a mass advantage over brass.
and I still maintain, INSAS was failed by OFB with it's inadequate ammo, appalling QC and in general not giving a **** about further evolution of product. For joint development with Unkil, hopefully a private co will produce them as has been the trend so far.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Mar 2019 20:26

https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/sta ... 03521?s=19


This thread will explore various Small Arms and Weapon in use and service by Indian Special Forces, Special Operations Forces, Commando Units and other elite forces. https://t.co/LbIKlS2zYx

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby MeshaVishwas » 24 Mar 2019 17:41


Informative

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 188
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Snehashis » 24 Mar 2019 20:23

ramana wrote:https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/status/1108593021799403521?s=19


This thread will explore various Small Arms and Weapon in use and service by Indian Special Forces, Special Operations Forces, Commando Units and other elite forces. https://t.co/LbIKlS2zYx


Goldmine of small arms and other equipment in service with the Indian armed forces.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 25 Mar 2019 16:15

SouravB

Since you have done research on the ballistics of the 7.62X39 could you pen together a little write up on the implications of moving to this caliber.

Pluses in COIN environment vs minuses in traditional battle environments. Happy to assist you with my little knowledge of firearms.

We should them make that a sticky.

Mods - what do you think?

Regards

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby MeshaVishwas » 25 Mar 2019 21:19

The red tape and delay in procuring specialised firepower from the United States
https://www.dailyo.in/lite/politics/para-special-forces-arms-deal-with-usa-american-assault-rifles-ministry-of-defence-indian-army/story/1/30043.html-Sandeep Unnithan
Posting in full as I can't believe the morons in MoD are at it again.
The Indian Army is miffed by delays in Rs 1,000-crore equipment proposal to buy urgently required equipment for its nine Para-Special Forces (Para-SF) battalions from the US. Disagreements within the ministry saw the proposals to acquire new assault rifles, night vision devices and machine guns being dropped from the agenda of a March 20 meeting of the Defence Acquisition Committee.
Top Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials want the equipment to be purchased through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route from the US, to be broken up into smaller procurements of Rs 300 crores and acquired by the Army under its own financial powers. This process, sources say, could further delay acquisitions by another six months.

The shopping list includes 715 Mk 48 Light Machine Guns (LMGs), 1,050 FN Scar (H) 7.62x51 assault rifles, 1,400 FN Scar (L) or HK-416 assault rifles, 110 .50 Cal Browning heavy machine guns (HMG), 400 helmet-mounted night vision systems, 600 combat free fall parachutes, 100 Barret M107 A1 heavy sniping rifles and 20 million rounds of ammunition for all of these small arms. The proposals are part of fast-tracking of Para-SF buys initiated after September 29, 2016, cross-border raids on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). It is the most comprehensive re-equipping of the Para-SF in over two decades.
Indian Army’s SF units drew the list based on evaluations done after joint exercises with the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Each acquisition fulfils a critical void. The .50/ 12.7 mm HMGs are meant to be fitted on the Light Strike Vehicle (LSVs) being procured from Pune-based Force Motors over the next three months.
The 7.62 x 51 mm FN Scar, made by a US unit of Belgium’s FN Herstal, is required to upgrade the firepower of SF operators in dense jungles of the Northeast and Myanmar. The case for a new lightweight belt-fed 7.62 x 51 machine gun to replace 50-year old OFBmade ‘1B’ LMGs, has been pending since 2005. The LMGs are critical squad support weapons giving the small six-unit teams of the Para-SF units heavy firepower.
In their absence, SF units resorted to stripping machine guns from de-commissioned battle tanks or using weapons recovered from militants.
:x This procurement is part of a larger upgrade which includes Finnish Sako sniper rifles, Carl Gustaf Mark-4 rocket launchers and Beretta pistols and LSVs.

The last major acquisitions for the Para-SF a decade ago were also FMS procurements from the US. :shock:

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 25 Mar 2019 21:26

ks_sachin wrote:SouravB

Since you have done research on the ballistics of the 7.62X39 could you pen together a little write up on the implications of moving to this caliber.

Pluses in COIN environment vs minuses in traditional battle environments. Happy to assist you with my little knowledge of firearms.

We should them make that a sticky.

Mods - what do you think?

Regards

I will start on it. Need some time though. I am a little slow while writing. :rotfl:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2019 00:26

There is misuse of the powers to buy a menagerie of weapons.
Need to caution that.
Years of drought should not be used to procure a catalog of weapons.
Look at that twitter thread?
Does it look like a rational purchase?
Every force has went and bought stuff piecemeal and own requirements.
And all ammo is different.
Should have three cartridges
7.62mmx51
7.62mmx39
9x19mm
5.56 to be relegated to CAPF.
Even the 0.50 caliber round is OFB made.
Yet 20 Million rounds to be imported.

I want to see all special forces under a unified command to rationalize the doctrine.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 26 Mar 2019 20:26

Kalashnikov AK 203 potential new assault rifle of Indian Army


Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Bart S » 26 Mar 2019 20:33

Austin wrote:Kalashnikov AK 203 potential new assault rifle of Indian Army



Pukeworthy comment from the video (have seen many other delusional losers commenting similarly on various sites):
...
Abhisek Ghosh
Abhisek Ghosh
19 hours ago
India is buying like 750000 rifles. I heard that it is going to be a tech transfer also. Thanks for the much needed gift for our armed forces Russian brothers!


:roll: :evil:

Too many Indians are mentally colonized still with no iota of pride or self-worth, not least because of the 50 years of socialist Congress rule.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 26 Mar 2019 22:07

Bart , What value does your post add to this thread by randomly posting some youtube comment and then extrapolating and generalizing it too many Indians having mentally colonized with no iota of pride etc.

That post does not say any thing but show contempt and racism towards we Indians in general.

Please kindly edit your post.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3223
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Mar 2019 23:31

While the reliability of the AK-47 is legendary, how has the reliability of the newer AK models been in the field? I know that the AK-203 is brand new, but what about the AK models other than the AK-47 that have been in service with the Russian and other armies?

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Bart S » 27 Mar 2019 00:04

Austin wrote:That post does not say any thing but show contempt and racism towards we Indians in general.


Not racism or contempt at all, just pointing out facts. Also not really Indians in general just a significant minority (like those who want to thank the British for giving us railways etc), but a surprising number of Russian fanboys seem to have that attitude when it comes to Russian maal. There are such people even with American/French but much fewer by proportion (perhaps the overzealous utterances of Israel-India bhai bhai folks might be the only ones that potentially rival that). I will leave it at that since it is OT.

Kakkaji wrote:While the reliability of the AK-47 is legendary, how has the reliability of the newer AK models been in the field? I know that the AK-203 is brand new, but what about the AK models other than the AK-47 that have been in service with the Russian and other armies?


Yes, the classic Ship of Thesseus problem. When you take a Russian weapon designed for relatively simple manufacturing and rough usage, and add enough bits to it by cherry picking from Western designs that are designed for lower manufacturing tolerances and less forgiving when abused in the field, does it still retain the properties of the original Russian design that made it so popular?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Mar 2019 00:28

ks_sachin wrote:SouravB

Since you have done research on the ballistics of the 7.62X39 could you pen together a little write up on the implications of moving to this caliber.

Pluses in COIN environment vs minuses in traditional battle environments. Happy to assist you with my little knowledge of firearms.

We should them make that a sticky.

Mods - what do you think?

Regards



SouravB, I was reading a book on Israeli Uzi using 9mmx19 and its evolution. It faded away to the Galil as it encountered the Ak-47 with the Arab troops.
The writer makes remarks about the effectiveness of the 7.62mmx39 versus the 9x19.

You can download the book from google etc.

The author name is Chris McNab

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Raveen » 27 Mar 2019 01:34

Kakkaji wrote:While the reliability of the AK-47 is legendary, how has the reliability of the newer AK models been in the field? I know that the AK-203 is brand new, but what about the AK models other than the AK-47 that have been in service with the Russian and other armies?


Its essentially a rebadged 100 series AK - same reliability

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Mar 2019 05:07

Bart S wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:While the reliability of the AK-47 is legendary, how has the reliability of the newer AK models been in the field? I know that the AK-203 is brand new, but what about the AK models other than the AK-47 that have been in service with the Russian and other armies?


Yes, the classic Ship of Thesseus problem. When you take a Russian weapon designed for relatively simple manufacturing and rough usage, and add enough bits to it by cherry picking from Western designs that are designed for lower manufacturing tolerances and less forgiving when abused in the field, does it still retain the properties of the original Russian design that made it so popular?


Bart and Kakkaji,
Nothing really western has been added other then piccatinny rails.
The basic design of crucial parts has not changed.
Bolt, bolt carrier upper and lower receivers, trigger mechanism, safety mechanism, charging mechanism, please show me how these have become western in anyway?
A true copy of say the Western philosophy would be if the AK203 came with DI.
In any case these will be more robust than the Sig.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Bart S » 27 Mar 2019 06:32

^ That is good to know, especially since the OFB or OFB joint venture will be manufacturing them. Given their past history, their QC processes might not be the best suited to a finicky platform that expects precision manufacturing.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 27 Mar 2019 07:10

OFB made Vickers berthier LMG were ok.
OFB made Bren LMG were ok.
OFB made Ishapore 2A were ok.
OFB made Ishapore 2A1 were ok.
OFB made Ishapore 1A1 SLR were ok.
OFB made Inglis Hi-power were ok.
OFB made Fn Mag were ok.
OFB made INSAS 1B / 1B1 / LMG were not ok.

At the height of Insas production, upto 200000 Insas were being made per annum. That is where QC took major hits. Latter model INSAS were decent build quality, but by then the damage was done.


Anyhow, army is going for emergency purchase of LMG in 7.62 NATO now after two failed procurement attempts where Negev was the only LMG left standing.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 27 Mar 2019 07:55

^^ There is a reason for that. During all these productions, the material, equipment and production methodology have hardly changed.
QC is going to take a hit if asked to produce hand-filed bolts and charge handles in a ramp up production during 2000s.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Mar 2019 08:41

There was also the fact that the INSAS was our first attempt at an ab initio design.

The design was complicated and not necessarily production friendly.

Plus the push to drive down costs meant that the OFB screwed an complicated design by using inferior or specs less than what would have been required to make the design robust.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Mar 2019 10:08

How could OFB make changes to ARDE drawings of INSAS?
It's possible build quality was bad due to out of tolerance parts.
Also mfg cannot substitute different specs without concurrence.
So what inferior specs they used to your knowledge?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Mar 2019 10:22

Ramana sir,
They did not change design but some of the design was not necessarily prod friendly I believe.
I think I phrased it wrong but I definitely believe was due to inferior stuff and manufacturing incompetence that created issues in production rifles.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby MeshaVishwas » 08 Apr 2019 23:56


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Apr 2019 00:04

What test after the rifle is chosen? Is this case of locking the barn door after the horse has bolted?
Or in IA the decision will always be undercut to suit their whims of the procurement folks?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Apr 2019 00:35

ramana wrote:What test after the rifle is chosen? Is this case of locking the barn door after the horse has bolted?
Or in IA the decision will always be undercut to suit their whims of the procurement folks?



I jumped the gun too quickly.
The plan is to use the Ak-203 as a carbine by removing the rifle butt.

This will bring commonality to the rifle and carbine versions and same cartridge.
Plan to import 93k carbine model and manufacture rest of 300,000 at the factory.


Thakur_B, Is there a carbine version of the AK-203?

This carbine requirment is due to the pistol being ineffective and the 9mm sub-machine guns/machine pistols not having range nor power.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6836
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nachiket » 09 Apr 2019 00:38

Can't we procure some with a folding butt? How will just removing the butt work? Accuracy will be horrendous while firing without a butt. Folding butt versions of the old AKM have long been in use in COIN ops anyway.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 188
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Snehashis » 09 Apr 2019 02:16

A carbine version of AK-203 already exist in the form of AK-204.

Image

Russia: Rosgvardiya to acquire Kalashnikov AK-204 carbines
The AK-204 carbine is a shortened variant of the AK-203 and has the same empty weight. The firearm features a length varying between 775 mm and 835 mm (depending on the position of the telescopic buttstock) and a barrel length of 314 mm. Like the AK-203 assault rifle, the AK-204 carbine has non-detachable iron sights.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Apr 2019 07:17

What's the barrel length if AK 203?
AK 204 carbine barrel length is noted as 314 mm.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: juvva, Shakthi and 37 guests