Let us take an overview of service rifles of the other countries.
AR-15 family: In service since 1960s
Galil family: In service since early 1970s
AK family: In service since early 1950s
FN FAL (family): In service since early 1950s
Steyr AUG: In service since 1980s
G3: In service since 1960s
FAMAS: In service since 1980s
G36: In service since late 1990s, around same time as INSAS
Pindad SS1: Since 1990s
And,
INSAS: In service since 1998, now being phased out.
What is the reason everyone's so critical about the INSAS family? Why do we intend to replace a very formidable firearm which has served the forces of our country since two decades and has become prey to politics and agenda?
To understand this, lets study the case of a similar rifle which entered the service at the same time, around 1998, the Heckler & Koch G36, and adoption of the M16 during 60s.
The G36 has been facing issues in the Germany, which turned out to be futile and H&K ended up suing the German Government for the unfair criticism of its product. Since 2010s, the G36 had started being reported as a "cheap rifle" which tended to heat up quickly and had a considerable Point of Impact Shift when subjected to sustained fire. Similar criticisms arose when the M-16 family was adopted, about the weapon's reliability issues and had got a bad reputation because of such reports.
Arguably, when the rifles are issued, they are subjected to extreme conditions and only accepted to service once they meet all the standard requirements. If these rifles performed well during trials, what makes them unsuitable afterwards?
Now let's see how the Bundeshwehr and US forces tackled their problems of G36 and the M16.
The G36 had performed accurately well and the problem was nothing but political; and unlearnt soldiers complaining a standard issue assault rifle should not have a point of impact shift after having dumping 3 to 5 magazines. Well, there is no assault rifle in the world which would not give a larger grouping during sustained fire especially after dumping multiple mags. The G36 was not developed as an LMG; but as an assault rifle. It met the desired accuracy standards of the German Army. For greater accuracy and sustained fire; its LMG variant, the MG36 was produced which was dropped by the german army in trials in favour of the MG3 and the MG4. Still, H&K developed a newer version (practically an upgrade kit) for the German Army, the G36A2 and was adopted in service. For unnecessary harm to the company's image and its product the G36, the company Heckler & Koch sued the German Government, and was brought to justice. For the M16, the problems found were attributed to the improper use of recommended powder in the ammunition which resulted in greater amount of fouling in the gas tube. The problem was solved, and subsequent A3 and A4 models followed, with carbine version developed termed the "M4".
The difference in the US DoD and Bundeshwehr with the Indian Army is significant. We can see that the forces of these countries supported the indigenisation effort and helped extensively their armament companies to manufacture the weapons till the desired result was achieved. Also, private players play a huge role in making a competitive market and get quality products, unlike monopoly of OFB in India until recently.
Now let's see what INSAS has gone through.
The INSAS has been reported with cracking of magazines in high altitude and "cooking" (accidental discharge) of the rounds when the barrel gets heated. There was also a problem of oil being sprayed into the eye of the operator. In response to such problems the OFB introduced the INSAS 1B1 variant and all reported problems had been rectified.
In India, we have a big problem of narrative formation. The INSAS has practically performed well since then, but the wrong narratives formed against the image of the rifle had a negative impact and the army too, was lethargic in giving its support to the OFB for the weapons development programmes. The INSAS is known for its accuracy in the army circles and the only problems left were the only 20 round magazine capacity and weight, to which the OFB offered a new rifle, the upgraded version of the INSAS, the Excalibur. On the other hand, the LMG variant has proved to be quite successful and loved by the Army, which is now being replaced by Negev NG7 LMG, giving hint of change in Army SOP to issue 7.62x51 NATO rounds to frontline troops.
INSAS family of rifles had brought two innovations and upgradations for the Indian Forces compared to the history of firearms around the world, the Magazine-fed LMG and usage of translucent magazines. The compatibility of magazines with the Assault Rifle and LMG variant was also commendable. Now we can see the essence of an LMG compatible with other squad member's rifles also being recognized by the western forces, like the adoption of M27 IAR in the American Forces. However, the Soviets were first to identify the essence of mag fed LMGs and developed the RPK and now adopting the interchangeable magazine variant, the RPK-16.
However, the Army dropped the induction of Excalibur rifles calling them "unreliable" and having "less firepower", even after the fact it used the same cartridge and had reduction of overall length and foldable buttstock. (however later regular INSAS also came with folding butt variants, but isn't widely used; the soldiers use the rifles for transportation with stock removed), and having the selector for a good semi and full auto mode, compared to INSAS's semi-auto and 3-round burst. (the 3-round burst is only so that soldiers don't waste much ammo, all the forces around the world and firearms experts can tell that a burst mode is not at all required). It is interesting to note that Excalibur was adopted by State and Central Police forces and has been doing relatively well and soldiers actually like it over their INSASes. The carbine variant, the Amogh with a specially developed MINSAS cartridge was deemed to be "too expensive" for the army to acquire [is in good service with Coast Guard], whereas the things could have got lot better if support was given to indigenous product development over fancies that western guns are always the best. Even the JVPC which was selected over it hasn't completed trials with the Army although orders for it have been received by CAPFs. Lack of such interest by the Army in development and acceptance also made OFB babus lethargic and lack of investment and ignorance by the government didn't help the OFB to modernise to be comparable to their western and even, Pakistani counterparts to deliver the of quality which the forces expect (detailed analysis: https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9131 )
Furthermore, the so-ambitious project of the ARDE and OFB to develop the MCIWS (renamed AAR) which was a revolutionary concept concerning the scenario of South Asia, that rifle was in its advanced stages of development and more funds allocation could have made it the standard issue next gen assault rifle for the defense forces. According to sources, the rifle failed "miserably" in the trials and thus this project was abandoned by the OFB and ARDE due to lack of funding and further interest. However, in 2017 INDRA Reported " The ARDE's Advanced Assault Rifle (AAR) , previously known as MCIWS, is going to be inducted into Indian Armed Forces within just 6-10 months if any further problem doesn't arise. All modifications, suggested and demanded by army, have been done. All trials have been conducted successfully. The new model has reduced the weight further, means AAR is lighter than early MCIWS. It can accept 5.56, 6.8 and 7.62 mm ammo, giving an edge. AK magazines can be used in 7.62mm configuration. Weapon rate of fire is 600-650 RPM with 500m range. More than 250 models have been evaluated and more than 25000 rounds have been fired till now from each rifle." The indigenously developed 7.62 NATO chambered OFB R2 was dropped in favour of foreign vendor Sig Sauer for their Sig 716 (AR-10 based) on pretext of "high recoil", which is natural when you fire a 7.62 NATO chambered rifle with a lightweight stock. The stoppage and jamming problems is promised to be sorted out by OFB in near future. To compare, the higher weight of INSAS gave it a remarkable ability to manage recoil and maintain accuracy and ease of controllability. INSAS is a formidable weapon, and contrary to the popular belief, is liked and known for its accuracy by the soldiers. But OFB ruined it with their cheap quality, and as said, "anything is better than OFB".
The OFB does not generally proceed with development of its new offerings as it fears that the lack of orders will make it economically unviable and putting hours of hardwork in development will eventually go in vain. However, the OFB has assured that they will make the R2 "up to the army's standards" .
The Israelis made their own weapon family on the AK. So did Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine, Finland , especially Chinese and many other nations in the world. But in India, we chose to get the same AK system imported, the AK-203, even when we have been manufacturing and working on the AK platform since years, and eventually dropping the 22 calibre weapons in favour of the 30 calibre. (Although we too did develop our own INSAS family, but eventually put down by the army and OFB). If cost were an issue, we know that the Russians make the costliest AKs on the market, and there is a serious question upon even IF you had to import an AK platform, why not from the Bulgarians or, our own GHATAK rifles and TAR: Trichy Assault Rifle, clone of AR-M1, which are eventually similar to the AK-203, lighter than it and in essence the same system. The new INSAS Mk-1C is in service, but could Army have placed order for more of its upgrade kits and accessories is a topic experts are still debating upon. The reason not having more INSAS Mk-1Cs can be attributed to switching to 30 calibre, which is a topic of debate in itself. The only hope for OFB now lies in its upgradation of tools and machinery and the new carbine, the JVPC.
According to experts, the AK-203 deal raises serious questions. The AK-203 which is being adopted and produced in India lack the telescopic retractable buttstock and rails on upper handguard, and would have the traditional AK-103 folding stock.
During an interview with Eugene Stoner, developer of AR platform and Mikhail Kalashnikov, the developer of AK platform, Stoner cited:
"They wanted a weapon that would weigh just 6 pounds with 20 rounds of loaded magazine, (besides) the weight of the weapon was a driving force behind whole design otherwise there are many things that you would like to do (with the firearm) but couldn't do because of weight restraints"
Kalashnikov- "The Army people are same everywhere... they want you to come with weightless weapons, but there is a limit to everything"
Stoner- "Yeah they like to defy the laws of physics.." (both laughing on it)
One must remember, each firearm is unique in itself and always has a purpose behind its development. If one takes it away from the purpose it was built for, malfunctions are bound to happen.
Comments