INSAS vs AK47 vs M16?

[alfa]

It seems that FN has updated / modifid its FCR model to FN SCAR. An excellent article is given here http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm.

As INSAS is based on FCR, I wonder whether we can adopt the features of the new rifle?

[cottage cheese]

It seems that FN has updated / modifid its FCR model to FN SCAR. An excellent article is given here http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm.

As INSAS is based on FCR, I wonder whether we can adopt the features of the new rifle?

Huh?? What could you be talking about?

[RUSKIE]

What sir? Im being issued an M16, man this sucks id rather have a ppsh, no id rather have a musket than to go into combat with that plastic peice o' crap

[leib10]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[alfa]

Huh?? What could you be talking about?

Some posts up there was a reference that drdo was not able to incorporate barrel change in INSAS and also that pivoting cover on it (might?) make it loose its zero after field stripping or as play develops in the hinge,

I think FN SCAR address both this issue (?)

[alfa]

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.

I think Excaliber is a intermediate shorty INSAS but does not seem to have got any interest from anywhere (?)

Also it seems that IA is shortly going to issue a tender for new generation 50,000 carbines to SA, Israel, US, germany.

[cottage cheese]

Some posts up there was a reference that drdo was not able to incorporate barrel change in INSAS and also that pivoting cover on it (might?) make it loose its zero after field stripping or as play develops in the hinge,

I think FN SCAR address both this issue (?)

Yeah! the posts are generally right. But the INSAS is basically an FNC (NOT SCAR) grafted onto an AKM based receiver. Barrel change is not suited to the AKM type receiver. The FN SCAR is a totally different weapon and has no commonality of parts/components/concept with the INSAS. An 'upgrade' in a similar direction would in my humble opinion, mean designing a totally new weapon.

[alfa]

Hi Cheese

My understanding was that FCR itself is based on AK mechanism with a more westernised machining and receiver.

And that SCAR is further development of FCR, it primarily allows the lower receiver (trigger magzine group) to fall open and has system for changable barrels. The primary firing mechanism remains the same as FCR (AK?)


While INSAS is also a take off on AK-FCR. So I thought that INSAS can adopted the new arrangement used for field stripping in SCAR that will do away with pivoting top cover. The interesting thing (it seems) from SCAR is that it retains the AK style of barrel screwed/sweated in the lower receiver while backplate & trigger & magzine housing can be opened for field stripping / cleaning.

It does mean substancial changes to the receiver in INSAS but still it will have the same firing mechanism etc, so the changes would not be entirely new gun.

The basic drawings of INSAS are now 25 years old. With increasing importance of optics in new scheme of things, the idea was to update the design of any (perceived?) lacking.

[cottage cheese]

Hi Cheese

My understanding was that FCR itself is based on AK mechanism with a more westernised machining and receiver.

And that SCAR is further development of FCR, it primarily allows the lower receiver (trigger magzine group) to fall open and has system for changable barrels. The primary firing mechanism remains the same as FCR (AK?)


While INSAS is also a take off on AK-FCR. So I thought that INSAS can adopted the new arrangement used for field stripping in SCAR that will do away with pivoting top cover. The interesting thing (it seems) from SCAR is that it retains the AK style of barrel screwed/sweated in the lower receiver while backplate & trigger & magzine housing can be opened for field stripping / cleaning.

It does mean substancial changes to the receiver in INSAS but still it will have the same firing mechanism etc, so the changes would not be entirely new gun.

The basic drawings of INSAS are now 25 years old. With increasing importance of optics in new scheme of things, the idea was to update the design of any (perceived?) lacking.

Hi Alfa,
What is this FCR you keep refering to? I haven't heard of it. If its the FN SCAR youre talking about - Its a world apart. No AK influence at all here. The receiver is a totally new one piece design, while in the first generation (Perhaps parallel development?) rifles the lower receiver was based largely on the FNC, the current ones (Probably due to US preference) have a lower receiver that is configured and contoured very closely to the M16A2 series. The Mechanism is a very Armalite seven-lugged affair- Very closely resembling the HK G36.

So we're not looking at any feasable upgrade from the INSAS.

As I'd mentioned in earlier posts, we could have done a lot better taking into account the ridiculuously long time we took. We ended up with a very lame, mediocre piece. Optics could be a worthwhile update.

[alfa]

Actually I made a mistake in my earlier post, I wanted to write FNC but ended up making it FCR. I made corrections as below:-

Hi Cheese

My understanding was that FNC itself is based on AK mechanism with a more westernised machining and receiver.

And that SCAR is further development of FNC, it primarily allows the lower receiver (trigger magzine group) to fall open and has system for changable barrels. The primary firing mechanism remains the same as FNC (AK?)


While INSAS is also a take off on AK-FNC. So I thought that INSAS can adopted the new arrangement used for field stripping in SCAR that will do away with pivoting top cover. The interesting thing (it seems) from SCAR is that it retains the AK style of barrel screwed/sweated in the lower receiver while backplate & trigger & magzine housing can be opened for field stripping / cleaning.

It does mean substancial changes to the receiver in INSAS but still it will have the same firing mechanism etc, so the changes would not be entirely new gun.

The basic drawings of INSAS are now 25 years old. With increasing importance of optics in new scheme of things, the idea was to update the design of any (perceived?) lacking.

[alfa]

Hi Alfa,
What is this FCR you keep refering to? I haven't heard of it. If its the FN SCAR youre talking about - Its a world apart. No AK influence at all here. The receiver is a totally new one piece design, while in the first generation (Perhaps parallel development?) rifles the lower receiver was based largely on the FNC, the current ones (Probably due to US preference) have a lower receiver that is configured and contoured very closely to the M16A2 series. The Mechanism is a very Armalite seven-lugged affair- Very closely resembling the HK G36.

So we're not looking at any feasable upgrade from the INSAS.

As I'd mentioned in earlier posts, we could have done a lot better taking into account the ridiculuously long time we took. We ended up with a very lame, mediocre piece. Optics could be a worthwhile update.

Actually I made a mistake in my earlier post, Which I have corrected as above. INSAS design needs to be re-worked now as it has run its course for some time.

I understand from you that FN SCAR is pretty different to FNC and more like (heavy metal) version of HK-36. But we still can adopt the lower receiver configuration of FCR-M16 to make putting on the optics easier on INSAS and to do away with the pivoting top dust cover.

Or one go the bullpup way, afterall now a huge number of nations have adopted this configuration.

[lemontree]

If I ever manage to make enough money to invest in a small arms factory - I am hiring cottage cheese to be the chief designer. Its an education for me, reading his posts/ replies. :)

[cottage cheese]

If I ever manage to make enough money to invest in a small arms factory - I am hiring cottage cheese to be the chief designer. Its an education for me, reading his posts/ replies. :)

Heh! Mostly academic :)

[cottage cheese]

Actually I made a mistake in my earlier post, Which I have corrected as above. INSAS design needs to be re-worked now as it has run its course for some time.

I understand from you that FN SCAR is pretty different to FNC and more like (heavy metal) version of HK-36. But we still can adopt the lower receiver configuration of FCR-M16 to make putting on the optics easier on INSAS and to do away with the pivoting top dust cover.

Or one go the bullpup way, afterall now a huge number of nations have adopted this configuration.

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.

[sniperdude411]

If I ever manage to make enough money to invest in a small arms factory - I am hiring cottage cheese to be the chief designer. Its an education for me, reading his posts/ replies. :)

Second that.

Any more stuff that i can learn?