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.
ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 24 Nov 2018 12:05

Gyan wrote:
ramana wrote:Before INSAS system the IA had 7.62x51 SLR and LMGs. All using same cartridge.
When 5.56x45 mm was viable, the IA wanted a small arms system that uses the cartridge.
This resulted in INSAS rifle, carbine and LMG.

Carbine failed the IA tests and won't go into it.
Rifle on paper looks good with right barrel length etc.
However design and production glitches caused many frustrations.
- Magazine cracks, hot lubricating oil spray, jamming.
Worst was the impotence against terrorist armed with Ak-47 guns.
Per the theory INSAS should have the stopping power.: barrel length, rifling twist, muzzle velocity etc.

If the bullet did not have stopping power its because of loss of velocity which is cartridge driven as barrel length etc are already set.
Are OFB made cartridges up-to snuff?

All involved parties DRDO, OFB, and IA were not forth coming to fix the problems with MoD a passive overseer.
The press also has DDM who can't ask proper questions to find out answers.

Interestingly not much complaint about the INSAS LMG!

The US Army and Marines have gone for M4 and the heavier 7.62mm cartridge is for specialist role.
in fact the Marines have given up on the pistol armament for the officers.
B_Thakur or Manjgu tell me whats really wrong with the picture.
General rants we can get from the web.
I want real issues.


Ramanna,

One of the problem is to separate propaganda from the actual issues

The second problem is that there are multiple views about the actual issues also

The limitations of 5.56 calibre is inherent in the said calibre and is present in all the bullets. The Indian round designed by DRDO and manufactured by ofb was supposed to be better in some respects compared to NATO around but it fell short. This limitation was not excessive and round continued to be useful and fulfilled the army parameters. as I understand OFB is now able to manufacture nato round and this is no more an issue

There was no problem in LMG because manufacture of LMG was stopped in 2001 :P this manufacturing was restarted in 2012 after the problems in metallurgy of the barrel was solved.

Looking back the design of insas was started in 1975 -80 and manufacturing should have been started year 1985-90 snd completed by 1995-2000. But the production run continued till 2015 and by that time the design was outdated

Lot of abuse of insas is by the import lobby. I have repeatedly pointed out on this forum that DRDO analysed the problems in insas and at least since 2005 their request to design and develop a new rifle has been pending with the Army

Ultimately when Army released the requisite GSQRs to develop a new rifle, DRDO has been able to develop MCI WS which has been forcefully shut down by the army for a quick import. How quick, we all know.

7.62x51 calibre is making a comeback due to battlefield experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.

Due to improvements in a design, propellant and metallurgy a 7.62x51 rifle/gpmg can be made much shorter and lighter. Hence DMRs, GPMGs are being added at section level.

I agree on some aspects..
I disagree a bit on LMG. There are design issues.
MCIWS had problems but could have been pursued.

Unfortunately despite Insas 1C and MCIWS and OFB attemts the DRDO and the OFB have yet to demo any imagination in small arms design.
The INSAS continues to be a mismash of various designs as does the MCIWS.
The army has no confidence in the ability of the combine to design and then maufacture with quality.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 24 Nov 2018 12:07

Thakur_B wrote:Image
Insas Mk-1C with new 30 round polymer magazine. :twisted:

Edit: looks like the handguard design has been improved.

Excalibur now comes with pic rails. With Punjab police SOG.
Image

The top of the handguard is again wasted space as are the sides. Looks like

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Nov 2018 12:22

Thakur_B wrote:Image
Insas Mk-1C with new 30 round polymer magazine. :twisted:

Edit: looks like the handguard design has been improved.



Correction, the above rifle is not Mk-1C but rather 1B1. The mk1c has bayonet lug closer to the gas block and fetures a slightly different flash hider design.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Nov 2018 15:56



Pretty decent discussion regarding replacement of INSAS.
Some takeaways.
INSAS had over 200 issues pointed out while indction, most were sorted out, many persisted.
Excalibur passed all tests except one, army rejected it.
MCIWS had issues (unexplained) and couldn't pass muster. MCIWS should not have been shelved. MCIWS could have been used as stepping platform.
INSAS improvements should have been taken up. GSQR also to blame (an example cited is usability in drills :shock: ).
Deliberate attempt to stop indigenisation of weapons.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2167
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nam » 24 Nov 2018 17:07

The core issues of our Small arms induction is the quality of production from OFB. There is no point inducting good designed rifle, when the quality can only be guaranteed in the design/test example. QC related defects became a design fault, and they become legend.

GoI will not let private industry produce Insas, won't hold OFB for their failures. IA does not want rifles from OFB, does not matter what rifle we design. MCIWS, Excalibur, Insas 1C, whatever it is. Any new rifle, GoI giving away production to private entity means OFB sitting idle.

All in all, we are wasting time discussing designs and blaming IA. The real culprit, MoD does not have the will to hold OFB responsible.

It is better IA buys it from outside. Atleast they can be assured of quality to some extent.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3191
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 24 Nov 2018 19:12

1 Rifle, 2 targets: Industry confused over army move

NEW DELHI: The Army’s search for a new assault rifle to arm its troops has left the private industry utterly confused as two parallel procurement procedures seem to be in play — one a competitive process with the Indian industry in the lead and the second, a direct purchase from Russia for the arms to be made by a public sector unit.

For several months, a series of talks have been on with the Russian government for a direct purchase of AK103 assault rifles to be manufactured by a joint venture firm in India led by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).

However, only last month the Army also received proposals from the Indian industry in response to its request for information to produce 6.5 lakh of the rifles under the Buy and Make (Indian) category.

Interestingly, the AK103 has also been added as a contender to this process too, with a proposal received from the Adani Group to supply the rifles in partnership with the Kalashnikov Concern. While responses from several potential competitors have been received, there has been little clarity to the industry on how and if the process would go on.


I thought the Sig sauer had been selected for the Buy and Make (Indian) category. :-? :-?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Nov 2018 20:22

Kakkaji wrote:1 Rifle, 2 targets: Industry confused over army move

NEW DELHI: The Army’s search for a new assault rifle to arm its troops has left the private industry utterly confused as two parallel procurement procedures seem to be in play — one a competitive process with the Indian industry in the lead and the second, a direct purchase from Russia for the arms to be made by a public sector unit.

For several months, a series of talks have been on with the Russian government for a direct purchase of AK103 assault rifles to be manufactured by a joint venture firm in India led by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).

However, only last month the Army also received proposals from the Indian industry in response to its request for information to produce 6.5 lakh of the rifles under the Buy and Make (Indian) category.

Interestingly, the AK103 has also been added as a contender to this process too, with a proposal received from the Adani Group to supply the rifles in partnership with the Kalashnikov Concern. While responses from several potential competitors have been received, there has been little clarity to the industry on how and if the process would go on.


I thought the Sig sauer had been selected for the Buy and Make (Indian) category. :-? :-?


15% emergency purchase direct procurement in line with DPP (Sig 716)
60% sector through competitive trials (ofb likely to compete with R2 in these) and manufacture.
25% OFB made ( if R2 meets GQSR then these are assured orders)
At least this was the plan earlier. AK103, it seems is going to disrupt this plan. What an absolute shit show.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3191
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 24 Nov 2018 20:37

Thakur_B wrote:15% emergency purchase direct procurement in line with DPP (Sig 716)
60% sector through competitive trials (ofb likely to compete with R2 in these) and manufacture.
25% OFB made ( if R2 meets GQSR then these are assured orders)


Sounds like Quota/ Reservation policy applied to arms procurement. :eek:

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neshant » 25 Nov 2018 02:27

^^ looks like complete chaos in decision making and no proper planning

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 25 Nov 2018 12:05

Neshant wrote:^^ looks like complete chaos in decision making and no proper planning

Our young men and women shed blood while the generals and bureaucrats fiddle like Nero..

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 25 Nov 2018 15:50

INSAS is very bad but compared to what? Has there been comparative trials with Indian ammo of MCIWS & INSAS with foreign contenders?

Fast track procedure means no GSQRs and no formalised trials and no comparitive trials for imports.

Then why same benefit NOT given to INSAS or MCIWS?

Why have all foreign rifles failed formal tests in India? Now we end the tess themselves? To help imports?

Marginal cost of INSAS rifle is Rs10,000, Ghatak 10,000 and of MCIWS Rs. 25,000. Foreign rifles?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 25 Nov 2018 18:12

Gyan wrote:INSAS is very bad but compared to what? Has there been comparative trials with Indian ammo of MCIWS & INSAS with foreign contenders?

Fast track procedure means no GSQRs and no formalised trials and no comparitive trials for imports.

Then why same benefit NOT given to INSAS or MCIWS?

Why have all foreign rifles failed formal tests in India? Now we end the tess themselves? To help imports?

Marginal cost of INSAS rifle is Rs10,000, Ghatak 10,000 and of MCIWS Rs. 25,000. Foreign rifles?

M4, or AK or Tavor or the Caracal, HK416, or.....take your pick.
MCIWS is to far from finished to compare with anything..

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Nov 2018 13:24

Gyan wrote:
Marginal cost of INSAS rifle is Rs10,000, Ghatak 10,000 and of MCIWS Rs. 25,000. Foreign rifles?


Your numbers are way off. IIrc, OFB was offering R2 rifle at a cost of ₹60,000/-.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 26 Nov 2018 18:00

Please note the term "marginal" cost. When we manufacture in OFB, basically we are paying "marginal cost" but for imports we pay full cost.

My numbers are not off.

And assuming full cost of Rs. 80,000 for Caracal, was OFB ever presented such an opportunity?

Hint:- Marginal cost in OFB is 25-33% of full price for products

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 26 Nov 2018 18:53

Gyan wrote:Please note the term "marginal" cost. When we manufacture in OFB, basically we are paying "marginal cost" but for imports we pay full cost.

My numbers are not off.

And assuming full cost of Rs. 80,000 for Caracal, was OFB ever presented such an opportunity?

Hint:- Marginal cost in OFB is 25-33% of full price for products

OFB had the opportunity but screwed it up big time with their quality. A 5,000 Rupee rifle was what we got!!!!
The design flaws could have been fixed but the OFB’s exarbated the design issues big time ultimately leading to a complete lack of faith...
Idiots!!!
Even after all that they cannot design a firearm properly. Their 7.62 INSAS was just a copy of the old warts and all.
If they go with milled receivers and other new technologies they cannot produce for 10,000!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Nov 2018 00:58

At Rs 80K/unit then can no?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Nov 2018 01:26

Gyan and others, Did they ever try to fire the INSAS with the imported high energy 5.56 cartridge?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Nov 2018 02:23

ramana wrote:At Rs 80K/unit then can no?

Ramana siir if they are saying 10000 I can see where this is headed.
Let them charge 100000 but come up with a weapon that the boys are comfortqble with.
From a design perspective looks at some newer AK variants. Ultimately stick closer to AK philosophy and make it easy to manifactire as well.
We needlessly complicated the INSAS design.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Nov 2018 02:39

Agree. INSAS had too many features that were sort of best ideas from everywhere.
And don forget till then ARDE had not designed a single rifle.
They did design the 75 mm squeeze bore.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Nov 2018 03:34

ramana wrote:Agree. INSAS had too many features that were sort of best ideas from everywhere.
And don forget till then ARDE had not designed a single rifle.
They did design the 75 mm squeeze bore.

Sir Ramana if they had never designedd they should have kept it simple no?
ARDE also forgot what a grunt goes through.
Not that the GSQRs were a stellar.
But I still feel it can be salvaged

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 27 Nov 2018 09:40

INSAS can fire NATO full power round.

Almost all 5.56mm rifles had huge problems till everyone adopted SIG layout. Rotary bolt, steel metal receiver and lower receiver opening.

Top receiver/dust cover opening & plastic receivers are failed design decisions

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 27 Nov 2018 09:43

Army import Dalals want to do Carl Gustaf to Indian small arms. Theoratically we are manufacturing M3 design for 10 years BUT

only 25% components Indigenization from imported raw material & sub assemblies. Basically we just make the handle of such a basic fire arm requirement is 10%

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Nov 2018 09:49

Gyan wrote:INSAS can fire NATO full power round.

Almost all 5.56mm rifles had huge problems till everyone adopted SIG layout. Rotary bolt, steel metal receiver and lower receiver opening.

Top receiver/dust cover opening & plastic receivers are failed design decisions

What is SiG layout?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Nov 2018 13:18

ks_sachin wrote:
Gyan wrote:INSAS can fire NATO full power round.

Almost all 5.56mm rifles had huge problems till everyone adopted SIG layout. Rotary bolt, steel metal receiver and lower receiver opening.

Top receiver/dust cover opening & plastic receivers are failed design decisions

What is SiG layout?

The rotating bolt was invented more than 120 years ago - before SiG's founders were born.
What is lower receiver opening?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Nov 2018 10:06

SouravB

Do read up on the QBZ 95.

Interesting design

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1744
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 29 Nov 2018 11:15

^ Short video about the internals of the QBZ95/97

Forgotten Weapons - QBZ


ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Nov 2018 16:27

Manish_P wrote:^ Short video about the internals of the QBZ95/97

Forgotten Weapons - QBZ


This video is outdated.
The safety has moved.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1744
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 29 Nov 2018 17:02

OK. Gives an insight into it's design and how iterative changes are common place in small arms.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Nov 2018 18:50

Manish_P wrote:OK. Gives an insight into it's design and how iterative changes are common place in small arms.

Indeed but what was striki g was how unlike the Indian Army the Chinese decided to go their own way with the caliber.
We cannot organise a pi** up in a brewery!!!

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 424
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 30 Nov 2018 05:17

ks_sachin wrote:SouravB

Do read up on the QBZ 95.

Interesting design

Sirji, I admire this rifle since I saw some videos of it. It is a nice rifle which is perfect for it's intended use i.e. crowd control where you can shoot indiscriminately and not bother where your bullet stops.
Chinis did the basic pretty well. The caliber was selected first and the gun was developed around it which is how it should be done.
The bullet has a very high energy (velocity of 3000ft/s) which leads me to wonder whether it will pass through clean of the target and hit something behind. For normal Tienanmen sq. scenario it is not a problem, but in wars the target might not be down and CQC is particularly dangerous where friendlies are pretty close by.
There are a few minor gripes that I can find with the design are the large moving bolt carrier, plasticky look. There are two springs which make it one point more for failure in cold.
But overall they made a cheap and effective for its role system which shoots straight that could be fielded in millions. Also I admire the fact they went with a caliber that suits their use case and not what others use.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 19 Dec 2018 09:14

Image

Scar-17 and Scar-16 in NSG service.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1127
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 19 Dec 2018 09:40

Thakur_B wrote:Image

Scar-17 and Scar-16 in NSG service.


Not to forget the FN2000 - earlier the FN series was only found with the SPG and SG.

Even some para units have received the SCAR now

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 424
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 01 Jan 2019 21:03

This is a good news to start of the year
Private Industry on ammo manufacturing
Stumpp Schuele Casings (SSC) Private Limited has decided to set up an ammunition manufacturing unit in Anantapur with an investment of Rs 1,020 crore.
Stumpp Schuele & Somappa Springs has established a joint venture with Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (CBC) to manufacture small and medium calibre ammunition for the Indian defence forces and military markets worldwide. CBC is the world’s second largest ammunition producer with facilities in Brazil, Czech Republic, the US and Germany.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6983
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jan 2019 03:44

https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/sta ... 8224491520 ---> Jat Regiment Gunner with a NTW-20 Anti-Materiel Rifle looking through a 8X magnification, long eye relief telescopic sight.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6983
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jan 2019 03:45

https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/sta ... 6487519232 ---> 21 PARA SF operative armed with M4A1 SOPMOD Block 1 with EOTech 512 Holographic Sight, AN/PEQ-2 Illuminator, M203 40mm Under Barrel Grenade Launcher and AC556 Surefire Suppressor.

Image

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 04 Jan 2019 10:25

In recent news, the Caracal procurement which was put on hold has been greenlighted.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 424
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 06 Jan 2019 01:45

Two RFIs has been released yesterday
One for additional .223 carbines issued after AON for 350K numbers. These will be made in India as per the RFI and must complete the delivery within 5 years.
Second for 40K numbers of .308 LMG. This is not going anywhere again since only two LMGs are available in this caliber, Negev and OFB LMG.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 424
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 06 Jan 2019 02:11

There has been another RFI issued for 7.62x39 rifles where the tentative RFP date was 30 December. Hence all the halla of AK-103 deal with Russia.
7.62x39 RFI
here are some points in the RFI which makes me think atleast IA is thinking straight
(d) Accuracy. The rifle should be capable of achieving accuracy
better than 03 Minutes of Angle (MOA).
--snip--
(g) Modular design.
(h) Sight. The rifle should have integrated open sight.
(j) Compatibility with all modern day and night sights, and
accessories and provision for mounting the same on Mil Std 1913
compliant 360° Picatinny Rails.
(k) In terms of design, metallurgy and performance parameters, the
rifle and sight shall be ‘State of the Art’.
--snip--
(m) The rifle shall comply with the laid down MIL Standards and other
International Standards in vogue.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 424
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 06 Jan 2019 07:26

Caracal car816 carbine

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Jan 2019 17:28

souravB wrote:There has been another RFI issued for 7.62x39 rifles where the tentative RFP date was 30 December. Hence all the halla of AK-103 deal with Russia.
7.62x39 RFI
here are some points in the RFI which makes me think atleast IA is thinking straight
(d) Accuracy. The rifle should be capable of achieving accuracy
better than 03 Minutes of Angle (MOA).
--snip--
(g) Modular design.
(h) Sight. The rifle should have integrated open sight.
(j) Compatibility with all modern day and night sights, and
accessories and provision for mounting the same on Mil Std 1913
compliant 360° Picatinny Rails.
(k) In terms of design, metallurgy and performance parameters, the
rifle and sight shall be ‘State of the Art’.
--snip--
(m) The rifle shall comply with the laid down MIL Standards and other
International Standards in vogue.

Treason!!!!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anandsgh, Google Feedfetcher, Indranil, M_Joshi, mmasand, Shakthi, uskumar and 90 guests