MINSAS and Kalantak dont fall in the same category, former is an carbine and the latter is an assault rifle. so there is no question of one replacing the other.Rampy wrote: So how will the Minsas and Kalantak be used... meaning operations side. Or is it that one will go and other one will take its place?
Small Arms Thread
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 227
- Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
Anything is better than the Sterling, at even moderate range its not good enough. Its purely a CQB weapon. One guy I spoke to described his "experience" with a Sterling, in combat. He got so frustrated with its inability to even punch through moderate earthenwork before the target, that he said "I wanted to go upto the guy and slap him to death, that would have worked better". Then the rest of his troop joined him and opened up with INSAS - bye bye Paki.
That makes sense. The Sterling is an improvement of the Sten gun. The Sten was invented to make use of the extremely large qty of pistol ammo captured from the Nazi Germans pre-Dunkirk. It uses the 9mm Parabellum cartridge which is good for extremely soft targets like water melons. However gave good rate of fire and was better than any thing in British inventory. British had crappy stuff like Lanchester, and Tommy guns of Al Capone fame. Its a shame that IA still stuck to obsolete stuff in name of economy and tradition.JCage wrote:Anything is better than the Sterling, at even moderate range its not good enough. Its purely a CQB weapon. One guy I spoke to described his "experience" with a Sterling, in combat. He got so frustrated with its inability to even punch through moderate earthenwork before the target, that he said "I wanted to go upto the guy and slap him to death, that would have worked better". Then the rest of his troop joined him and opened up with INSAS - bye bye Paki.
All open-bolt SMGs are inherently unstable designs. A properly manufactured Sterling is no way better or worse than an equivalent Uzi. Sterlings are LOT better than most other weapons of their class when it comes to reliability. You can only hope that the MSMC uses a different and more reliable action.
Pistol-caliber SMGs are not meant for primary combat troops; they are issued to officers, radio operators, drivers, artillery crews etc... as such they not designed for assaulting fixed positions, so no surprise if they fail spectacularly. Officers in COIN ops are best off carrying the same compact AK derivatives their men carry - just as useful but also diminishes their visibility as prime targets. Company and lower-Field grade officers in conventional roles too should carry the regular issue long-arm: It is heavy and cumbersome, but not nearly as much as before... plus with tracers it should help in C&C.
Pistol-caliber SMGs are not meant for primary combat troops; they are issued to officers, radio operators, drivers, artillery crews etc... as such they not designed for assaulting fixed positions, so no surprise if they fail spectacularly. Officers in COIN ops are best off carrying the same compact AK derivatives their men carry - just as useful but also diminishes their visibility as prime targets. Company and lower-Field grade officers in conventional roles too should carry the regular issue long-arm: It is heavy and cumbersome, but not nearly as much as before... plus with tracers it should help in C&C.
OK after wading through pages of nomenclature which were more confusing that Inorganic chemisty -- I have these (I think) valid questions
MSCM and MINSAS are both carbines; they both take the same ammo. 5.56x30; but they are different guns fore sure or are they?
And if they are -- what are the roles for each.
Also what special about the bull-pup Insas? As compared to the TFTA Zittara? The kinds of ammon it can handle? If so whats special about the bull-pup compared to the big long INSAS? When will one be used as opposed to other?
And is Kalantak a upgrade to Excalibur? Was Excalibur ever produced in large numbers and operationalized?
Question questions...
MSCM and MINSAS are both carbines; they both take the same ammo. 5.56x30; but they are different guns fore sure or are they?
And if they are -- what are the roles for each.
Also what special about the bull-pup Insas? As compared to the TFTA Zittara? The kinds of ammon it can handle? If so whats special about the bull-pup compared to the big long INSAS? When will one be used as opposed to other?
And is Kalantak a upgrade to Excalibur? Was Excalibur ever produced in large numbers and operationalized?
Question questions...
Don't know whether Kalantak is an upgrade of excalibur, but I heard that Excalibur is dead as far as IA is concerned.Sanku wrote:And is Kalantak a upgrade to Excalibur? Was Excalibur ever produced in large numbers and operationalized?
Question questions...
I have my doubts about Kalantak too. Till we get more info about it's advantages, can't say anything.
A bullpup design is almost always shorter and more compact than comparable regular-configuration. The supporters say it should be used always, the detractors say it should never be used.Sanku wrote: If so whats special about the bull-pup compared to the big long INSAS? When will one be used as opposed to other?
The reasonable explanation, I guess, is that bullpups should be used in:
* confined areas (APCs, urban environs),
* where there is likelyhood of getting tangled with other gear (paratroopers), and
* when a long-barrel (more range and accuracy) has to be fit into as little space as possible (snipers).
Where a bull-pup is less than ideal, is:
* when reach (bayonet or butt) is an issue,
* when mass is a positive aspect (accuracy or power),
* when balance and muscle-memory is an issue.
IMHO neither offers a real, all-out advantage over the other... so it is not something to get worked up over.
Some random thoughts/guesses/speculashuns/objervashuns...
So essentially (with due apologies to the GRE Verbal Tests), MINSAS:MSMC = INSAS:B-INSAS*
in the sense that both pairs use the same receiver/mechanism, but with modified layouts.
(* BINSAS = Bullpup INSAS )
MSMC could be a PDW for officers, MPs, Arty/Engrs and other second-line troops. Plus it's more compact and, hence, concealable... ergo, good for undercover ops, say, in COIN.
As far as Kalantak goes, Kalantak:INSAS = M4:M16 ... essentially, a shortened version of the service rifle.
To me it appears that both the MSMC and MINSAS use the same basic (possibly, blowback-, not gas-operated) block/receiver with different trigger mechanisms and other minor mods.Sanku wrote:MSCM and MINSAS are both carbines; they both take the same ammo. 5.56x30; but they are different guns fore sure or are they?
So essentially (with due apologies to the GRE Verbal Tests), MINSAS:MSMC = INSAS:B-INSAS*
in the sense that both pairs use the same receiver/mechanism, but with modified layouts.
(* BINSAS = Bullpup INSAS )
MINSAS could be a CQB replacement for AKs, something like a desi MP38/40 "Schmeisser"... something small and light enough for CQB, but that puts out a powerful (though shorter ranged) round at a high rate of fire. Plus for tank crews, sentry duty, etc.And if they are -- what are the roles for each.
MSMC could be a PDW for officers, MPs, Arty/Engrs and other second-line troops. Plus it's more compact and, hence, concealable... ergo, good for undercover ops, say, in COIN.
I suppose the Zittara cannot handle the special desi INSAS 5.56 round, only the SS109 (NATO) 5.56 round.Also what special about the bull-pup Insas? As compared to the TFTA Zittara? The kinds of ammon it can handle?
It was never ever really clear to me what was special about the Excalibur... is Excalibur just a shorter length INSAS, with a folding stock and black, polymer furniture ?And is Kalantak a upgrade to Excalibur? Was Excalibur ever produced in large numbers and operationalized?
As far as Kalantak goes, Kalantak:INSAS = M4:M16 ... essentially, a shortened version of the service rifle.
Heard similar thing from my relative serving in kashmir in early 90s. He said they use the gun to scatter stray dogs that gather around the garbage dump near the camp. He once hit one dog in the leg and the dog got up and ran back on three legsJCage wrote:Anything is better than the Sterling, at even moderate range its not good enough. Its purely a CQB weapon. One guy I spoke to described his "experience" with a Sterling, in combat. He got so frustrated with its inability to even punch through moderate earthenwork before the target, that he said "I wanted to go upto the guy and slap him to death, that would have worked better". Then the rest of his troop joined him and opened up with INSAS - bye bye Paki.
has the insas been dumped?
India to manufacture Kalashnikovs
http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/20/int3.htm
India to manufacture Kalashnikovs
http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/20/int3.htm
Hmm... Interesting moving.Neshant wrote:India to manufacture Kalashnikovs
http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/20/int3.htm
Not at the same time You can't shove a 9 mm diameter round through a 5.56 mm barrel, not without something giving. Same with 5.56x45 vs. 5.56x30 rounds. You'd have to change the barrel, bolt mechanism and magazine before you can fire a different round. OFB page indicates that the zittara comes with interchangable barrels and magazines, but the end user will dictate which one they want to use.Sanku wrote: Kartman; Zittara can indeed take the INSAS & Nato rounds from OFB page
5.56x45 mm INSAS & NATO 5.56x30 mm 9x19 mm
So Zittara is the superset (in terms of Ammo) as compared to INSAS bullpup (I think)
5.56x45 isnt good enough for shorten barrels. So, in urban combat the shorten barrel M4 is too weak for even unclosed targets. Against havy vested combatants it's totaly uneffective. 5.56 isnt penetrates even light wooden walls. 7.62x39 - is ideal in such circumstances. The americans promote their 7.62x51 for their newest replacement for M4 - shorten barrel SCAR, but 7.62x51 is too powerfull for this i.e. has too high recoil. Even they want to use the Russian 7.62x39 round for chambering SCAR's variant.Rudranathh wrote: Why AK-103 which uses 7.62x39mm caliber?
Why not the AK-101 and AK-102 which use the 5.56x45mm bullets?
Any idea?
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 227
- Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
Umm very did I or Kartman say that it will be at the same time?ArmenT wrote:Not at the same timeSanku wrote: Kartman; Zittara can indeed take the INSAS & Nato rounds from OFB page
5.56x45 mm INSAS & NATO 5.56x30 mm 9x19 mm
So Zittara is the superset (in terms of Ammo) as compared to INSAS bullpup (I think)
Further; looking at the specs on the board; it seems probable that only thing that will need to be changed for 45 and 30 mm (for the 5.56 caliber) ammo will be the magazine. Since all listed parameters are the same. Further in its feature it lists
Interchangeability of barrel and magazine for both calibers
What should we make of this? Interchangeability in the factory? Surely not a feature right? So the person should be able to change the above in the field
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 997
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Do you mean one can change the cartridge ejection on-the-flyArmenT wrote:Not true. The FAMAS is designed for ambidextrous use. So are Tavor and Steyr AUG that I know of.Kartman wrote:Plus, bullpups can be fired off only one (i.e. left) shoulder...
I'd be pretty danged impressed if someone actually made something like that ... I thought FAMAS/Tavor/SteyrAUG could do the ambidextrous thingie after stripping, and then making the (in-field) mod.
Some of the newer bullpups eject the cartridge down or up... but that makes a pretty awkward/unconventional/difficult-to-get-used-to layout !
The Army official round for both assault rifles and hand-handed machine-guns remains 5.45x39 mm. They speak now about changing the weapon but not round. It's very effective round with low weight, flat trajectory, good armor penetration and low recoil. But it has the most of 5.56x41NATO shortages: esp the deficiency of stopping power. And if you are standing against very motivated enemy, it's not enough to bring him to the bleeding he will die in 2 hours. It's important to decapacitate him instantenousely.Rudranathh wrote:^ Thanks Igorr.
At present what does russian forces use? 5.56 or 7.62x39mm?
Currently which is the widely used russian assault rifle in the russian arsenal?
The Chechen War showed sometimes the need for shorter barrel light 'carbine' purpose, and 5.45mm is a bad choice for this, like was said above. For such instance they de-facto came back to use AK's for 7.62x39 intermidiate round in addition to 7.62x54R (squad machingun and SVD). The production of 7.62x39 mm AK-103\AK-104 and AK-203 (light machingun) was reanimated.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 227
- Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
Now this makes sense why the Indian Army wants the Ak-103 which fires the 7.62x39mm round and not the other AK variants which fires the 5.56x45 round.Igorr wrote:The Chechen War showed sometimes the need for shorter barrel light 'carbine' purpose, and 5.45mm is a bad choice for this, like was said above. For such instance they de-facto came back to use AK's for 7.62x39 intermidiate round in addition to 7.62x54R (squad machingun and SVD). The production of 7.62x39 mm AK-103\AK-104 and AK-203 (light machingun) was reanimated.
some questions Igorr.
What is the future of AN-94 since it too uses the 5.45x39 mm round?
Will it ever replace the AK series in russian inventory?
Is it legal for russian citizens to own an assault rifle? And how much does it cost for a AK-103 rifle along with 100 rounds.
The Sten was invented to make use of the extremely large qty of pistol ammo captured from the Nazi Germans pre-Dunkirk.
when did this happen ? I thought the month prior to dunkirk the wehrmacht
crossed the maginot line and pretty much overran the french, belgian, dutch
and BEF at a rapid pace..when did they lose this huge quantity of ammo ?
when did this happen ? I thought the month prior to dunkirk the wehrmacht
crossed the maginot line and pretty much overran the french, belgian, dutch
and BEF at a rapid pace..when did they lose this huge quantity of ammo ?
The destiny of AN-94 isnt clear yet. The low rate serial production is following for the Russian units and they say even about foreign customers. However, the AN-94 induction in the service is 'side by side with AK-74M' derivates. I know some squad level commanders that are free to choose between them for their units. Now the most units choose AK-74M. Number of 'high preparedness' divisions have both AKs and ANs in their storage. I have some videos, on a part of these the soldiers make exersise with AK-74M and other videos - with AN-94. Some say AN-94 - is very good, another - it's too complex for drafted soldiers. I think, the tendency in Russia is toward more professional units will go with AN-94 or AEK-971, but the remained drafted units who serve only 1 year now - will be enough AK-74M for them. However, those modernised AK's will be with collimator site, Piccatini rails, grips, bipods etc as you saw on the pictures above.Rudranathh wrote: some questions Igorr.
What is the future of AN-94 since it too uses the 5.45x39 mm round?
Will it ever replace the AK series in russian inventory?
Is it legal for russian citizens to own an assault rifle? And how much does it cost for a AK-103 rifle along with 100 rounds.
And yes, like in US the citisens can not buy full automatic variants, but Saiga etc hunting semi-automatic AK derivates.
Last edited by Igorr on 20 Feb 2008 20:58, edited 1 time in total.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 227
- Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
The sten was a post dunkirk development. it was aimed primarily for the french resistance so that they could use ammunition from that machine pistol the germans could carry. The sten was also easily broken down into pieces and hidden .Singha wrote:The Sten was invented to make use of the extremely large qty of pistol ammo captured from the Nazi Germans pre-Dunkirk.
when did this happen ? I thought the month prior to dunkirk the wehrmacht
crossed the maginot line and pretty much overran the french, belgian, dutch
and BEF at a rapid pace..when did they lose this huge quantity of ammo ?
Point well taken, sorry about the confusion .Sanku wrote:Umm very did I or Kartman say that it will be at the same time?ArmenT wrote: Not at the same time
By the way, I remember reading somewhere that the original INSAS carbine was having some technical problems having to do with the shorter barrel not being long enough for the ammo it was using at that time (IIRC, it was the same ammo as the INSAS rifle and LMG) and that this made it hard to control in automatic mode. Have they solved the issue since then or is that why MINSAS is using a smaller round now?
No prob ... just that I'm not that up-to-date on the field for the last few years, so was more than a bit surprised that someone had actually managed to fix this problemArmenT wrote:Point well taken, sorry about the confusion .
That was my understanding, too... too much flash, recoil, etc because of trying to slow down the std. INSAS 5.56X45 ammo with a very short barrel. Would be quite a job even with a NATO std. round, I'd think.By the way, I remember reading somewhere that the original INSAS carbine was having some technical problems having to do with the shorter barrel not being long enough for the ammo it was using at that time (IIRC, it was the same ammo as the INSAS rifle and LMG) and that this made it hard to control in automatic mode. Have they solved the issue since then or is that why MINSAS is using a smaller round now?
If the one on the top right is the Klantak (Sp?) and the one on the bottom is the Excalibre.
What is the designation of THIS rifle?
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8462 ... 012di8.jpg
I remember someone once told me how the fire mode selector was better positioned in the M16 than in the AKs. He showed how the M16 selector can be operated by the firing hand's thumb, making switching between Safe, Single Shot and Auto much easier and quicker.
Whereas in the AK, one would require to use the other arm to access this switch. Can the gurus please advise as to how the INSAS compares in this regard?
Sorry if this has been discussed before.
Whereas in the AK, one would require to use the other arm to access this switch. Can the gurus please advise as to how the INSAS compares in this regard?
Sorry if this has been discussed before.
From DN
[quote]
Feb 25, 2008
India Boosts Spending on Infantry Equipment
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
NEW DELHI — While the Indian military has long focused on acquisition of major weapons, the challenges of low-intensity warfare increasingly have occupied strategists, and more funds now are being funneled into small arms manufacturing.
The driving force behind this move is the $2 billion Futuristic Soldier System program, designed to equip Indian infantry soldiers with most modern weaponry and equipment, including an advanced lightweight rifle, GPS receiver, helmet-mounted night-vision devices and handheld computers.
“There is hardly any research or attention in the military on small arms, though this should be one of the key areas of focus given the type of engagements that the Indian forces have been undertaking in the past two decades,â€
[quote]
Feb 25, 2008
India Boosts Spending on Infantry Equipment
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
NEW DELHI — While the Indian military has long focused on acquisition of major weapons, the challenges of low-intensity warfare increasingly have occupied strategists, and more funds now are being funneled into small arms manufacturing.
The driving force behind this move is the $2 billion Futuristic Soldier System program, designed to equip Indian infantry soldiers with most modern weaponry and equipment, including an advanced lightweight rifle, GPS receiver, helmet-mounted night-vision devices and handheld computers.
“There is hardly any research or attention in the military on small arms, though this should be one of the key areas of focus given the type of engagements that the Indian forces have been undertaking in the past two decades,â€
the person at Tavor stall showed how the default tavor optical sight is
affixed a bit further up the barrel. for nightsight, there is a clip behind this
wherein it is just slid into the bracket. when not needed it is slid out. so
the daysight can always remain in place.
all the modems of Tavor looked quite well made.
affixed a bit further up the barrel. for nightsight, there is a clip behind this
wherein it is just slid into the bracket. when not needed it is slid out. so
the daysight can always remain in place.
all the modems of Tavor looked quite well made.
INSAS selector is similar to the M16 selector. Here are 3 pics to show you who has what:sombhat wrote:I remember someone once told me how the fire mode selector was better positioned in the M16 than in the AKs. He showed how the M16 selector can be operated by the firing hand's thumb, making switching between Safe, Single Shot and Auto much easier and quicker.
Whereas in the AK, one would require to use the other arm to access this switch. Can the gurus please advise as to how the INSAS compares in this regard?
Sorry if this has been discussed before.
M16 - Note that the selector switch is on the left side of the weapon and is north east of the trigger. For a right hander who has the gun on their right shoulder, it can easily be controlled from the hand holding the rear grip by simply moving the thumb.
AK-74 - Note the selector is on the right side, which makes the lever face away from you if you're a right hander. For those who don't know it, the selector is the long nearly horizontal lever above the trigger. You can tell from the picture that it isn't easy to manipulate the lever. You'd have to take your hand off the trigger just to move it.
INSAS - It is hard to see the selector switch in this picture, but it can be seen on the top image just above and to the right of the trigger (the oval knob with the white line). Similar to the M16, it is on the left side of the weapon, so it can be controlled easily by a right-hander. It is also close to the trigger and the rear grip, just like the M16, so it can be manipulated without taking your hand off the grip.
I tried out the SAR-21 at the Singapore air show, and had to say, was kinda disappointed, although, to be fair, it was the second rifle I tried, after the SLR (havent fired any though, and certainly havent disassembled a rifle).
First, the foregrip is kinda flimsy, and shook a bit like a loose tooth when holding it. This is where the Insas, with the more rugged furniture probably has an edge. Still ok though. Its not too heavy either, at 4 kg, about the same as the Insas, which surprised me since I'd have expected the bullpup to be lighter.
The weight and balance of the rifle is excellent, especially the carbine version, and the 1.5X integral sight is great to use. As a result, its easy to hold and move. The grip is also well fitted ergonomically, and shouldn't be a problem to hold. However, the distance between the it would get pretty uncomfortable to hold with a magazine in place, and may cause a bad wrist pain after a while.
However, this rifle cannot be fired from either shoulder (its only fired from the right shoulder), and even lacks a brass deflector that would help deflect the rounds downwards. The trigger pull is around 4 kg, which is kinda on the heavier side, and the bolt is a bit sluggish. However, I do think the recoil will be managed extremely well.. didnt move a bit when I released the bolt. The sgt there mentioned that the recoil on this rifle was far better than on the M-16s, and it wasnt as error prone (although it too needs as much maintenance as the M-16s).
My biggest beef though is with the fire selector switch, which is in an extremely awkward position, on the butt, instead of the selector switch on the Pistol grip like on most rifles. The safety is just in front of the trigger, while the selector switch is on the butt, which means that if you want to change the firing from semi to full auto, you'll have to remove the magazine from your shoulder, remove one of your hands, and change the setting by depressing the button... not very good.
Still, have heard a lot of good things about this rifle, at least wrt firing accuracy.
There was also the sharpshooter and carbine variants. Checked out the red dot reflex sights, and man, they're really something.. all Insas's should have them, if possible.
Overall, I'd say that Insas isn't as bad as people think it is (wrt high tech and space agey-ness criteria). Its probably one of the best rifles out there.
First, the foregrip is kinda flimsy, and shook a bit like a loose tooth when holding it. This is where the Insas, with the more rugged furniture probably has an edge. Still ok though. Its not too heavy either, at 4 kg, about the same as the Insas, which surprised me since I'd have expected the bullpup to be lighter.
The weight and balance of the rifle is excellent, especially the carbine version, and the 1.5X integral sight is great to use. As a result, its easy to hold and move. The grip is also well fitted ergonomically, and shouldn't be a problem to hold. However, the distance between the it would get pretty uncomfortable to hold with a magazine in place, and may cause a bad wrist pain after a while.
However, this rifle cannot be fired from either shoulder (its only fired from the right shoulder), and even lacks a brass deflector that would help deflect the rounds downwards. The trigger pull is around 4 kg, which is kinda on the heavier side, and the bolt is a bit sluggish. However, I do think the recoil will be managed extremely well.. didnt move a bit when I released the bolt. The sgt there mentioned that the recoil on this rifle was far better than on the M-16s, and it wasnt as error prone (although it too needs as much maintenance as the M-16s).
My biggest beef though is with the fire selector switch, which is in an extremely awkward position, on the butt, instead of the selector switch on the Pistol grip like on most rifles. The safety is just in front of the trigger, while the selector switch is on the butt, which means that if you want to change the firing from semi to full auto, you'll have to remove the magazine from your shoulder, remove one of your hands, and change the setting by depressing the button... not very good.
Still, have heard a lot of good things about this rifle, at least wrt firing accuracy.
There was also the sharpshooter and carbine variants. Checked out the red dot reflex sights, and man, they're really something.. all Insas's should have them, if possible.
Overall, I'd say that Insas isn't as bad as people think it is (wrt high tech and space agey-ness criteria). Its probably one of the best rifles out there.
An interesting video about the visit of Nikonov to US and his meeting with Stoner and the comparative trials between their M16 and AN-94. The last was 10 time more accurate than M16.
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZuT3gi7jc
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZuT3gi7jc