Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 252

Thread: INSAS vs AK47 vs M16?

  1. #61
    New Member
    Join Date
    09 Oct 05
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    7
    To para 2 above, add double trigger (front and rear) which gave rise to a very unreliable firing mechanism.

  2. #62
    Bandaid Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,571
    [QUOTE=INSASMAN]
    2. It had lots or other problems like the front pistol grip which interferred with a quick change of magazine, the side folding butt which was not comfortable in carriage, etc etc. But the main problem was the incompatability of the ammunition.
    I never found the foreguard pistol grip obstruct magazine change. I never saw the version which had the side folding butt, I am familiar with the AK type folding butt version.
    4. No, it is not hard to design a muzzle compensator, but how would that eliminate the sound and flash. Agreed, AK fires a high powered round too, but its 7.62x39mm amn had the mv of approx 700 m/s, which is why AK was so effective in close range, burst firing mode.
    The how come the M4 carbine does not face the same problem? It fires the same NATO SS109 5.56 mm round that is used in the INSAS.
    5. All of us want to get rid of 9mm carbine, but there is no viable alternative yet. Let's see if DRDO spins some magic
    To correct you, we hate the Sterling L2A3 that and not the class of 9mm carbines. It fires from the open bolt and is unsafe, as you are aware. The 2B with the double sear tried to address the issue, but we have hade enough of the Sterling. It is better if it is issued for VIP protection of corrupt politions, its unsafe nature will rid us of a few scumbags in khadi.
    If the 5.56 mm carbine is a problem the give us a 9mm gas operated scaled down version of the INSAS. We will be forever grateful.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  3. #63
    New Member
    Join Date
    09 Oct 05
    Posts
    21
    RE INSASMAN

    So apart from cosmetic changes to the design, can the problem not be solved by better propellant or the main problem is in the propellant itself?

    For instance the new US round (MK 262) which is 77 grain and meant to be fired with rifles with shorter barrels, being faster and having flame retardant.

  4. #64
    New Member
    Join Date
    09 Oct 05
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    If the 5.56 mm carbine is a problem the give us a 9mm gas operated scaled down version of the INSAS. We will be forever grateful.


    There seems to be an low powered version of INSAS put out by DRDO, but its round characteristics are not clear, is it a 9mm or a new shorter 5.56mm round that it fires.

  5. #65
    New Member
    Join Date
    09 Oct 05
    Posts
    21
    Further, why not simply go in for a bull-pub version of INSAS, with a full barrel version? which would reduce the need for a carbine length barrel?


    After all the bullpub is again the flavor of the season with SAfrica, Singapore, UK, Austria, Australia, China, Israel, South Korea, not to mention special forces in India and Pak going in for bull-pub style of configeration,

    I also wonder whether the requirements of Indian Army is more stringent then USA etc which are using M4?

  6. #66
    Bandaid Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,571
    Quote Originally Posted by alfa
    Further, why not simply go in for a bull-pub version of INSAS, with a full barrel version? which would reduce the need for a carbine length barrel?
    No that will be against the doctrine of a "battle rifle" for the infantry. Read my essay posted by INSASMAN in the perivious page.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  7. #67
    New Member
    Join Date
    09 Oct 05
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    No that will be against the doctrine of a "battle rifle" for the infantry. Read my essay posted by INSASMAN in the perivious page.

    Then the doctrine has to change, isn't it? A full length barrel bullpub rifle will be around the length of a short barrelled conventional carbine, in any case.

    Also I am talking about using bullpub INSAS as carbine and not replacing the general use of INSAS rifle itself.

    Issue the Bullpub insas to SF, Paras, PM, RR, and Couple per section in general infantry use etc

    Lemontree, Incidentally to ask something pretty basic about INSAS, is the barrel screwed to the upper receiver or the lower receiver? I have always assumed it was lower receiver.

    (edited to remove some needless comments, self)
    Last edited by alfa; 15 Oct 05, at 19:23.

  8. #68
    Bandaid Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,571
    Quote Originally Posted by alfa
    Lemontree, Incidentally to ask something pretty basic about INSAS, is the barrel screwed to the upper receiver or the lower receiver? I have always assumed it was lower receiver.
    mmm....sorry pal I don't about this aspect. INSASMAN can help you here.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    09 May 05
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    The INSAS 1B1 rifle looks like an FN FNC on observation.
    But reality is - The INSAS rifle is broadly based on the famous Kalashnikov AK-47 action, but with many modifications. Read more - http://world.guns.ru/assault/as67-e.htm - http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm - http://world.guns.ru/assault/as02-e.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    The INSAS rifle was under going user trials since 91-93 and ultimately was inducted in 1997 (13 yrs after initiation).
    And you said - "The AK 47 in its present avatar has been around for the past 55 years" Well could you compare Tanks or aircraft who is 55 and 8 years old??? And How possible you said like - "The AK 47 in its present avatar has been around for the past 55 years and still happens to be the most inaccurate rifle around (its ruggedness is unquestionable), and is the last choice for most armies.
    First of all - AK - machine gun, M16 and INSAS - are rifles. Compare on Google what does it mean. In short words - AK - weapon to kill enemy in short distance - up to 400 - 500 m (which is a real combat distance), two others - rifles - to kill on distance up to 800 - 1000 m. And if you use AK for that distance - I can say just sorry for you. And if AK so bad, why our troops used them in Vietnam and even right now in Iraq??? They used them, not own M16 or INSAS or any others - WHY?
    .[/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    The rifle saw active service in 1999 during the limited war in Kargil sector. The functioning was satisfactory and the users like the weapon. It fulfilled the requirements of a rugged and reliable infantry rifle. Minor complaints get referred to the Ordinance factory through the EME workshops and improvements are made.
    It is pertinent to mention that contrary to reports in articles written (by journalists with little or no understanding of small arms), frontline units are using the weapon in operational areas.
    INSAS LMG
    The highlight of the INSAS LMG is the absence of the spare barrel that is common in most LMGs/ SAWs. This aspect reduces the strength of crew served weapons, eliminates dual role and increases the bayonet strength of the rifle section/ squad. The barrel of the LMG was supposed to withstand continuous firing without the requirement of change of barrel. This problem could only be solved in 2000/01. Prior to that the barrels bulged/ or burst during tests, when the barrels were subjected to continuous firing of hundreds of rounds in a given time frame.
    The weapon was inducted 15 years after initiation of development. The problems have been rectified as far as the army is concerned. Improvements are being made, as it is an evolving process.
    INSAS carbine
    This has been to most trouble prone element of the INSAS family that has not yet reached an acceptable level for induction in the army. Presently IMI of Israel is assisting in its development.
    Its was thought that the A-7 the 5.56mm version of the AK that was being planned would fill the void of the carbine and assist in phasing out the Sterling 9 mm carbine. There is not much news about it hence it is only speculation.
    One major QR not fulfilled by the INSAS rifle and LMG is the quick change of barrel like the Aug Styr. However, all the criticism related to the delay in 20 years for the INSAS to get inducted is unfounded. The M16A1 had a miserable record due to regular jamming and its reputation suffered.
    Well do you have any exerience with shooting rifle? I can tell you that I have a very good experience with AK ~ 1.5 years and I own M4 carabine. And I love both of them
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    By the time the M16A2 came it was a considerable 20 years till the faults were rectified.
    The AK 47 in its present avatar has been around for the past 55 years and still happens to be the most inaccurate rifle around (its ruggedness is unquestionable), and is the last choice for most armies. The PLA too kept is only as an SMG in its squads, and has developed the SKS into a decent T-81/87 battle rifle.

  10. #70
    Bandaid Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,571
    Quote Originally Posted by doctor_vals
    But reality is - The INSAS rifle is broadly based on the famous Kalashnikov AK-47 action, but with many modifications. Read more - http://world.guns.ru/assault/as67-e.htm - http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm - http://world.guns.ru/assault/as02-e.htm
    Thank you so much. I'm forever greatful
    First of all - AK - machine gun, M16 and INSAS - are rifles. Compare on Google what does it mean. In short words - AK - weapon to kill enemy in short distance - up to 400 - 500 m (which is a real combat distance), two others - rifles - to kill on distance up to 800 - 1000 m. And if you use AK for that distance - I can say just sorry for you.
    The difference in effective fire ranges is due to the Aks short sight radius and "v" rear sight.
    And if AK so bad, why our troops used them in Vietnam and even right now in Iraq??? They used them, not own M16 or INSAS or any others - WHY?
    US troops used the Ak in Vietnam only because it did not jam and was more rugged than the M16A1.
    Well do you have any exerience with shooting rifle? I can tell you that I have a very good experience with AK ~ 1.5 years and I own M4 carabine. And I love both of them.
    Read my other posts and get to know me.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  11. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    09 May 05
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree
    Thank you so much. I'm forever greatful

    The difference in effective fire ranges is due to the Aks short sight radius and "v" rear sight.

    US troops used the Ak in Vietnam only because it did not jam and was more rugged than the M16A1.

    Read my other posts and get to know me.
    Completely agree.
    One and another weapon have own ++++ and ------
    And it's depend of person - one like Toyota, another - Caddy

  12. #72
    Bandaid Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,571
    Quote Originally Posted by doctor_vals
    Completely agree.
    One and another weapon have own ++++ and ------
    One prefers a weapon that has more +++ and less --.
    And it's depend of person - one like Toyota, another - Caddy
    Depends if you like driving a car in rough terrain or a Jeep/SUV, you know which vehicle will take you further.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  13. #73
    Patron
    Join Date
    29 Jul 05
    Location
    India
    Posts
    156
    Mistake
    Last edited by cottage cheese; 18 Oct 05, at 08:29.

  14. #74
    Patron
    Join Date
    29 Jul 05
    Location
    India
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by doctor_vals
    But reality is - The INSAS rifle is broadly based on the famous Kalashnikov AK-47 action, but with many modifications.
    Actually, its an FNC crammed into an AKM based receiver- simple as that.

    And all the difficulties that we seem to be having on cobbling together a 'shorty' INSAS is unfathomable. How hard can that be? Wanna talk of short 5.56mm barrels? - There are quite a few around. Look at the G36c - 8.98 inches, AKSU in 5.45 - 8.24inches, Galil MAR - 7.6 inches, to name a few. Dont forget all those fancy snub M16 Custom Jobs. What the hell if I remember right there was super short 7.62mmx51mm version of the G3!! Now how about that?

    A lot of effort and energy is needlessly being expended in ridiculuous exercises like the dual triggers and stock folding system.

    There seem to have been two types of stocks being peddled. A slightly recoutoured AK type which folds up over the receiver and a side folder directly lifted from the East German MPiKMS-72. INSASMAN can confirm this

    I'm kinda wondering if instead of a true 'Shorty' why not go intermediate (Like the M-16/M4 relationship? Can't this be an option, if shorty is too daunting for our establishment.

  15. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    09 May 05
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by cottage cheese
    Actually, its an FNC crammed into an AKM based receiver- simple as that.

    And all the difficulties that we seem to be having on cobbling together a 'shorty' INSAS is unfathomable. How hard can that be? Wanna talk of short 5.56mm barrels? - There are quite a few around. Look at the G36c - 8.98 inches, AKSU in 5.45 - 8.24inches, Galil MAR - 7.6 inches, to name a few. Dont forget all those fancy snub M16 Custom Jobs. What the hell if I remember right there was super short 7.62mmx51mm version of the G3!! Now how about that?

    A lot of effort and energy is needlessly being expended in ridiculuous exercises like the dual triggers and stock folding system.

    There seem to have been two types of stocks being peddled. A slightly recoutoured AK type which folds up over the receiver and a side folder directly lifted from the East German MPiKMS-72. INSASMAN can confirm this

    I'm kinda wondering if instead of a true 'Shorty' why not go intermediate (Like the M-16/M4 relationship? Can't this be an option, if shorty is too daunting for our establishment.
    It is impossible to compare full size rifle with short size of machine gun or something like this. Every item should have some requirements.
    BTW, as you may know - you able to buy any parts of the gun free, nobody ask you for license if you buy a stock or clip and so on. But receiver - you have to have license to buy this one. So, it is main part of any weapon.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nepal says Indian INSAS riffles let it down in rebel battle
    By asdf in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 27 Jan 08,, 17:35
  2. M16 vs G36
    By Mt1 in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 26 Oct 07,, 20:09
  3. ak47 vs m16
    By maersk in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 618
    Last Post: 05 Feb 07,, 19:43
  4. AUG vs. M-4 Carbine
    By troung in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 16 Sep 05,, 05:23
  5. Xm8 Prototypes Surpass M16 ?
    By CenterFire in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 21 Mar 05,, 22:05

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •