Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

INSAS vs AK47 vs M16?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    RE Cheese

    Thanks for an informative and detailed reply. I propose to become the third shareholder in the small arms factory to be opened by lemontree, with you as the MD, Chairman and the chief engineeer.

    Now for the sake of clarificaition, I was not saying that INSAS in service should be modified but that the design should be modified/upgraded for the next follow on series, using the experience as far as possible from INSAS. The development will add to the knowledge base of the nation.

    I think army has already proposed adopting a new design by calling it a carbine. As it is asking for a plastic body, I suppose G-36 will automatically become a front runner (unless IA decides that its concepts are old and even a bullpup is a good idea)

    The point that is not clear to me is whether INSAS is a good design badly executed which needs better manufacturing discipline or it is a shody design altogether or technology has moved on and we need to follow suit?


    Originally posted by cottage cheese
    I'd vote for a thoroughly new weapon or for heavens sake dump pride and license manufacture some good piece. Knowing our politicians, if some one pays them enough money they'll probably try to push for license manufacture of the Sten allover again... (My attempt at a pathetic joke)

    Alfa, I find myself having to disagree. Though the bolt carrier , bolt assembly and trigger of the FNC are loosely based on the AK design (The relationship translating to the INSAS) there are essential differences in how they are housed to make your suggestion largely un-feasable. The FNC receiver is a "tube" design - (NOT necessarily cylindrical) but you get what I mean - The bolt carrier assembly rides inside the receiver. The Trigger pack is housed in a seperate pivoting lower receiver which also integrates the magazine well. The AK receiver is a simple box which acts as the magazine well, trigger housing and also houses the rail on which the bolt carrier assembly reciprocates. The upper half is only a cover - no other structural function. The INSAS does a wee bit better by providing a positive attachment to the main receiver by way of a pivot. to be able to do what you suggest (though theoritically possible)would mean either chopping up the main receiver into two - Total loss of structural integrity. You'd need a new barrel trunnion -It will need to be drastically altered - since the trunnion on the AK/INSAS governs the placement of most of the elements that lie behind the chamber area.
    You'd also need to form a whole new lower receiver section to house the trigger mechanism and the magazine well. You'd end up with an abomination. One may be able to spend big time converting a piece or two to the above configuration... but certainly it would be an insane excercise when you scale it up to millions.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by alfa
      Now for the sake of clarificaition, I was not saying that INSAS in service should be modified but that the design should be modified/upgraded for the next follow on series, using the experience as far as possible from INSAS. The development will add to the knowledge base of the nation.
      I'd say forget modification and simply grab the Newest concepts around. We had the golden chance to make use of the knowledge gained from numerous weapons research and development around the world. We could've just taken a quantum leap and grabbed some new radical design/concept. Instead we chose to stick to tried old designs. I'd have found the HK G11 one such example (though there'd be many who wouldn't agree) Lemontree's case for a proper battle rifle is not without its virtues. Check out some of his posts.

      I think army has already proposed adopting a new design by calling it a carbine. As it is asking for a plastic body, I suppose G-36 will automatically become a front runner (unless IA decides that its concepts are old and even a bullpup is a good idea)
      Personally I like bullpups but they do have their limitations - they are not instantly ambidextrous(except for the P90 and the F2000), lousy battle rifles... etc.

      The point that is not clear to me is whether INSAS is a good design badly executed which needs better manufacturing discipline or it is a shody design altogether or technology has moved on and we need to follow suit?
      Its a subtle combination of all- and the worst of all its the bloody bureaucrats who end up deciding. One thing that must be taken into consideration is that the INSAS is not a total washout. You look after it, its fine. It does have it's defects, poor manufacturing standards here and there... I suspect it's because many of the parts are tendered out to "sub-contractors" (If you keep track of the tenders that are floated on news-papers) - this has potential of leading to inconsistent quality, thus you'd notice the reports of parts breakage and failure. Also i feel its over-engineered - too cluttered with needless parts- it's over-weight.... and of course that silly 20 round magazine and that horrible brick red furniture.

      Comment


      • #93
        RE Cheese

        I off course don’t have that much knowledge about INSAS but my understanding is that 20 round mag is preferred for ease of firing in the prone position. In any case, 30 round mag can be used with any rifle.

        The color of plastic furniture leaves something to be desired but cannot be considered too important an issue.

        If the design per you, is largely ok, then I assume the quality standards of manufacturing will improve, by and by. Perhaps they have already improved as we are speaking.

        I have no quarrel with license manufacture but then it leads to the loss of knowledge base built up in the country. It will be better to start new research for new-improved design. In any case, INSAS design dates back to late seventies and a re-look at its features and concepts is necessary.

        An important development in, since mid-eighties, i.e. in last twenty years has been that optics and night sights are becoming very important and practically general issue. The point is now, how well INSAS can be adapted to carry optics and stuff. As there were some reports that it has difficulty holding its zero when put to rugged use and when the optics are taken off and re-mounted etc.
        Last edited by alfa; 13 Jan 06,, 18:50.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by alfa
          The point is how well INSAS can be adapted to carry optics and stuff. As there were some reports that it has difficulty holding its zero when put to rugged use and when the optics are taken off and re-mounted etc.
          This problem for "zeroing" getting effected exists in most weapons when the scope is re-mounted. That is one reason most soldiers don't like to take the scope off the weapon.

          Cheers!...on the rocks!!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by scoop
            INSAS vs AK47 vs M16?

            how does INSAS compare to the rest
            Why not compare it to AK-74? Or AK-47B? Either way, i M-16 is worse then both.


            Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

            Comment


            • #96
              You'd feel much differently if a guy with an M-16A2 was shooting at you from 500 meters and all you had was an AK-74.

              Because you'd be totally defenseless, and in short order, wounded or dead.

              The M-16A2 and up are excellent weapons.

              Comment


              • #97
                As with any other weapons system, a very important factor is the shooter. As US soldiers are almost always better marksmen than the men they are facing, this gives them a tremendous advantage in combat. This is part of why the M-16 is a more accurate weapon than the AK series, which wasn't designed for highly trained soldiers but for conscripts with limited markmanship and technical skills. Plus, the M-16 has a longer barrel, a round with a flatter trajectory and less recoil, better sights, and is manufactured to closer tolerances than the AK.

                However, I wouldn't say that the AK is completely ineffective at ranges past 300 yards. The 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 round still definitely have the potential to wound or kill at ranges past 1000 yards, though scoring a hit with any open-sighted weapon at this range is very difficult. Based on my experiences with the AK47 and AK74, I would say the maximum effective range for both weapons is about 500 yards.
                Last edited by leib10; 14 Jan 06,, 03:40.
                "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                Comment


                • #98
                  I would say you are extremely optomistic.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Maybe it's just me. In the semi-automatic mode, I can hit a chest sized target at 400 yards with relative consistency and a man-sized target at 500 yards about the same amount of times. Then again, I'm using a rest, and if there's any wind it's pretty damned difficult...
                    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                      You'd feel much differently if a guy with an M-16A2 was shooting at you from 500 meters and all you had was an AK-74.

                      Because you'd be totally defenseless, and in short order, wounded or dead.

                      The M-16A2 and up are excellent weapons.
                      I've been shooting AK-74 for 2 years (well, 8 months in Chechnya, the rest was on Finnish border and in Novgorod so not much shooting done there except at the polygon), let me tell you there is not a more beuatiful gun on earth, especially the ones with all the plastic parts (the AK-74M, had one for the last 8 months), its so shiny.........either way. You're wrong, at 500 meters AK-74 would do okay, at 600 you start having problems with single bursts, but still lethal, either way, i won't be defensless, if there is no cover insight for either of us i can just switch to the full auto and multi burst the bastard and if he has a cover and i don't then i am dead either way no matter what gun i am holding. Also a 500 meter situation doesn't happen much in modern warfare.

                      Also according to what i read the M-16A2 has an official effective range of 550 meters, while AK-74 a range of 500 meters. Both numbers are of course relatively BS, and are in reality both higher, but still, just wanted to point that out for whoever is interested. Just want to remind everyone, keep in mind that 500 meters doesn't mean that the bullet hits an imaginary wall at 500 meters and drops dead.
                      Last edited by Rusky; 14 Jan 06,, 06:37.


                      Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

                      Comment


                      • i love this man
                        Dont change fact...
                        Scincerely, Napoleon

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RUSKIE
                          i love this man
                          i am sorry, but i do not share the feeling, lets stay friends.


                          Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

                          Comment


                          • by all means
                            Dont change fact...
                            Scincerely, Napoleon

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Rusky
                              Also according to what i read the M-16A2 has an official effective range of 550 meters, while AK-74 a range of 500 meters. Both numbers are of course relatively BS, and are in reality both higher, but still, just wanted to point that out for whoever is interested. Just want to remind everyone, keep in mind that 500 meters doesn't mean that the bullet hits an imaginary wall at 500 meters and drops dead.
                              Increase the sight radius of the AK (any model) and give it an aperture rear sight and you have a good accurate rifle. The short sight radius and "V" sight makes for very poor marksmanship, even the 9 mm Sterling is more accurate at 100 mtrs than the AK.

                              The ranges given are for "effective aimed fire", your bullet will travel beyond 2000 mtrs or 3000 mtrs (depending on the calibre) till it looses velocity and hits terra firma or any other obstical.
                              Last edited by lemontree; 16 Jan 06,, 15:34.

                              Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                              Comment


                              • I agree with that statement. The AK's sights are very inferior to those of the M16's.
                                "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X