Small Arms & Tactical Equipment
- Thread starter Parthu
- Start date
We will now see a radical shift in our defence production and equipping philosophy. The nation now knows that it has to fight on every day basis with a rogue nation on the West with a potential in North. (although North is too smart to do that, but they pack a serious punch in terms of capability and numbers, the latter is always the determinant)
The deal is signed!
Big boost for Army's infantry troops as India signs deal with Russian firm for 750,000 units of AK–203 rifle | India News
Kalashnikov AK-203 is coming! The second big firearms deal to be signed & sealed in a short while.
The users of the 750,000 AK-203s will include:
Features we can expect over existing AKs -
A quantum leap over our existing AKs. The things we would have only gotten had we paid for an aftermarket (and pretty expensive) upgrade kit are now standard features on the weapon.
@Falcon @Maximus @Milspec
I'd have preferred a 7.62x51 rifle for rest of infantry as well...but, I'd rather take the hand we're being dealt rather than sit with the usual tendering, cancellations, and re-tendering for the next 10 years. Enough was enough.
Big boost for Army's infantry troops as India signs deal with Russian firm for 750,000 units of AK–203 rifle | India News
Kalashnikov AK-203 is coming! The second big firearms deal to be signed & sealed in a short while.
The users of the 750,000 AK-203s will include:
- Regular non-frontline Infantrymen
- Counter-Insurgency/Counter-Terrorism Units (Rashtriya Rifles & Assam Rifles)
- Central Armed Police Forces (CRPF, CISF, BSF, ITBP, SSB)
Features we can expect over existing AKs -
- Better build quality (hope OFB won't *censored* it up)
- Long 12'o clock rail integrated into dust cover
- Flip-up pivoted dust cover.
- Quad-railed handguard
- Ergonomic Pistol grip
- Improved Fire selector lever
- Folding + Collapsible Lightweight Stock
- Polymer Magazine
- Improved Flash hider
- Redesigned 90-degree gas port
- Original AK sight picture for when using irons is retained, thanks to lack of full-length rail
A quantum leap over our existing AKs. The things we would have only gotten had we paid for an aftermarket (and pretty expensive) upgrade kit are now standard features on the weapon.
@Falcon @Maximus @Milspec
I'd have preferred a 7.62x51 rifle for rest of infantry as well...but, I'd rather take the hand we're being dealt rather than sit with the usual tendering, cancellations, and re-tendering for the next 10 years. Enough was enough.
Last edited:
The deal is signed!
Big boost for Army's infantry troops as India signs deal with Russian firm for 750,000 units of AK–203 rifle | India News
Kalashnikov AK-203 is coming! The second big firearms deal to be signed & sealed in a short while.
The users of the 750,000 AK-203s will include:
...among other possible future users (inevitably they will trickle down to State Police forces, QRT/SWAT units etc. as well).
- Regular non-frontline Infantrymen
- Counter-Insurgency/Counter-Terrorism Units (Rashtriya Rifles & Assam Rifles)
- Central Armed Police Forces (CRPF, CISF, BSF, ITBP, SSB)
Features we can expect over existing AKs -
(No need for stupid riser modules and shoddy tack-ons of sights like BEL does)
- Better build quality (hope OFB won't *censored* it up)
- Long 12'o clock rail integrated into dust cover
(Familiar to use for AK operators, also helps retain sight zero much better than old AK covers)
- Flip-up pivoted dust cover.
(12'o clock for using day+night sight combos, 3 & 9 for flashlights, laser, 6'o clock for grips)
- Quad-railed handguard
(Potentially useful for users of AK who are very accustomed to the current AKM/Eastern European copies)
- Ergonomic Pistol grip
- Improved Fire selector lever
- Folding + Collapsible Lightweight Stock
- Polymer Magazine
- Improved Flash hider
- Redesigned 90-degree gas port
- Original AK sight picture for when using irons is retained, thanks to lack of full-length rail
A quantum leap over our existing AKs. The things we would have only gotten had we paid for an aftermarket (and pretty expensive) upgrade kit are now standard features on the weapon.
@Falcon @Maximus @Milspec
I'd have preferred a 7.62x51 rifle for rest of infantry as well...but, I'd rather take the hand we're being dealt rather than sit with the usual tendering, cancellations, and re-tendering for the next 10 years. Enough was enough.
I would prefer AK-203 than continuing our INSAS any day. Anyways, I have not found much of a difference in using a 7.62 x 39 mm and a 7.62 x 51 mm in CQB. Both will penetrate armour at the end of the day ... only number of rounds needed may differ
Was just browsing through previous posts and when scrolling fast, my mind registered many images of guns and all was usual...till one point, when I felt this sense of extreme revulsion, I scrolled back slowly to see what caused this feeling of disgust in my mind's deepest corners.
Once I found the culprit image...I thought to myself "Ah. This. No wonder" .........and went my way.
The US Army is Getting a New Combat Helmet
U.S. Army equipment officials will soon begin fielding a new combat helmet designed to give soldiers 100 percent greater protection against head trauma injuries on the battlefield.
This month, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will receive the Army's new Integrated Head Protection System, or IHPS, which will replace the Enhanced Combat Helmet in close-combat units.
"Our next-generation helmet -- the [Integrated] Head Protection System -- it has a 100 percent greater blunt impact protection over the ... Enhanced Combat Helmet," Lt. Col. Ginger Whitehead, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment, said recently. Soldiers from 3rd Brigade Combat Team will receive the IHPS, along with other items in the Soldier Protection System, such as the Modular Scalable Vest and Blast Pelvic Protector, said Col. Steven Thomas, project manager for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment.
The new helmet -- made by Ceradyne Inc., a 3M company -- offers the same ballistic protection against rifle bullets as the ECH but doubles the amount of protection against blunt impact or trauma to a soldier's head, according to Alex DeGroot, lead engineer for head protection. "It's less force on the brain; it's a tremendous increase for us," DeGroot said. "It's actually one of the things that makes this helmet considerably better than the current [helmet]."
The new helmet also features a boltless retention system, which allowed the Army to eliminate the four holes -- two on each side -- that the chin-strap assembly normally attaches to with special bolts, Whitehead said. The new helmet still has one hole in front to attach the night-vision mount. "The challenge with drilling holes in the helmet is that you weaken the material," she said. "With this new helmet, we have gotten rid of the four holes drilled in the side."
Each side of the helmet features removable rail sections, so soldiers can mount lights and other accessories as an alternative to night-vision devices when working in low-light conditions. "You need the flexibility to have accessories on the helmet, particularly at night," Whitehead said.
The IHPS design provides more space inside on both sides of the head to allow soldiers to wear communications headsets more comfortably, DeGroot said.
A fully accessorized IHPS, with applique armor, mandible guard and ballistic visor
Overall, the helmet is "actually slightly bigger than the ECH, a slightly larger amount of area coverage," DeGroot said, but added that the base version of IHPS weighs a little less than the ECH. The ECH averages about 3.33 pounds in size large.
The IHPS also features optional protective add-ons such as a visor, a "mandible" portion that protects the lower jaw, and a "ballistic applique" that is much like a protective layer that attaches over the top of the base helmet.
In addition to the IHPS, soldiers from 3rd BCT will receive the new Modular Scalable Vest and the Blast Pelvic Protector, an optional accessory that provides ballistic protection for the groin and upper thigh area. The Modular Scalable Vest weighs approximately 11 pounds, based on a medium-size vest without ballistic plates. It weighs about 25 pounds when equipped with front and side body armor plates, which is about five pounds lighter than the current Improved Outer Tactical Vest, or IOTV.
The Soldier Protection System -- which, for now, is being fielded only to close-combat units -- also includes the new Ballistic Combat Shirt, or BCS, which has soft armor on the neck, shoulders, high chest and high back to protect against 9mm rounds and shrapnel. The BCS is designed to replace the bulkier Deltoid Axillary Protector, or DAP, which was developed early in the Iraq war to protect the shoulder and upper arm from shrapnel wounds many soldiers were receiving from enemy improvised explosive devices.
However, Bragg units will not receive the new Ballistic Combat Shirt this month because the Army does not yet have all the sizes needed for a full fielding, Whitehead said, adding that the service plans to field the new shirt later this summer.
Army's New Helmet Offers Greater Protection, Rails for Mounting Lights
@Falcon @Maximus
The deal is signed!
Big boost for Army's infantry troops as India signs deal with Russian firm for 750,000 units of AK–203 rifle | India News
Kalashnikov AK-203 is coming! The second big firearms deal to be signed & sealed in a short while.
The users of the 750,000 AK-203s will include:
...among other possible future users (inevitably they will trickle down to State Police forces, QRT/SWAT units etc. as well).
- Regular non-frontline Infantrymen
- Counter-Insurgency/Counter-Terrorism Units (Rashtriya Rifles & Assam Rifles)
- Central Armed Police Forces (CRPF, CISF, BSF, ITBP, SSB)
Features we can expect over existing AKs -
(No need for stupid riser modules and shoddy tack-ons of sights like BEL does)
- Better build quality (hope OFB won't *censored* it up)
- Long 12'o clock rail integrated into dust cover
(Familiar to use for AK operators, also helps retain sight zero much better than old AK covers)
- Flip-up pivoted dust cover.
(12'o clock for using day+night sight combos, 3 & 9 for flashlights, laser, 6'o clock for grips)
- Quad-railed handguard
(Potentially useful for users of AK who are very accustomed to the current AKM/Eastern European copies)
- Ergonomic Pistol grip
- Improved Fire selector lever
- Folding + Collapsible Lightweight Stock
- Polymer Magazine
- Improved Flash hider
- Redesigned 90-degree gas port
- Original AK sight picture for when using irons is retained, thanks to lack of full-length rail
A quantum leap over our existing AKs. The things we would have only gotten had we paid for an aftermarket (and pretty expensive) upgrade kit are now standard features on the weapon.
@Falcon @Maximus @Milspec
I'd have preferred a 7.62x51 rifle for rest of infantry as well...but, I'd rather take the hand we're being dealt rather than sit with the usual tendering, cancellations, and re-tendering for the next 10 years. Enough was enough.
Aiight; here comes my rant, but before the rant some disclaimers:
AKM - 7.62x39 AK varaints - I do not not hold anything against the AKM system. love them, own one and have tremendous respect for the system for what it is.
308win- again have nothing against the 7.62x51, love the round.
The above disclaimers were, because I am going to crap on both of them as well as the selection of this AKM.
License production:
To start with IA/MoD again picked the wrong gun that too from kalashnikov. First there is no patent on the AKM platform , thus a bunch of armory's from poland, romania, bulgaria, egypt, china, czech republic, and even US builds them. Emphasis being, you do not need a license to produce the AK platform. and the build setup is so easy that people can actually press their own pieces of 2/4 and bottlejacks to build their own receivers as long as you can get a barrel. So for a country that already produces the AKM, getting a license production line for the same thing it makes is quite astounding. But MoD ka paise , MoD ka decision, who am I to question that.
Selection of the 7.62x39mm cartridge:
Selecting a WWII cartridge as it's main cartridge for it's battle rifle is not a pragmatic step, especially when 6.5 grendel and 6.8spc like intermediate cartridges exist which far exceed the 7.62x39's performance matrix in almost every aspect. Also given the engagement ranges of the IA in the LOC a flatter shooting cartridge would have been preferred, the next argument is having 7.62x 51N, 5.56N, 7.62x54R and 7.62x39 just increases the logistic complications of maintaining the right ammunition. A good example of simplified logistics is right across the border, where the same 7.62x51N goes into the G3 infantry rifle, the MG3 MMG and SSG69 Sniper system. One caliber for three systems.
Selection of the AK platform:
Few serious question arise from the selection of the AK platform, such as which tests were conducted and among which competitive testing did the AK platform emerge victorious. Also What were the benchmarks for range, reliability, terminal ballistics where AK203 could beat Tavor, IWI Galil, SCAR, ACR, Bren etc.
AK203, the wrong AK:
From your post and everything I could find online this is a furniture upgrade on an AKM with a hinge dust cover on the trunnion, and thus out of the Kalashnikov stable they picked the wrong rifle. The biggest issue with standard AK long stroke piston has been the offset mass of the breach which causes barrel flex which in turn effects accuracy of the system. Combined with the 7.62x39's ballistics , its auto mode fire although at an impressive rate , makes into a spray and pray type deal at ranges exceeding 300 yards. The only rifle currently offered that attempted to address this is a truly improved AKM platform from the Kalashnikov stable, it is the AK107 with the balanced counterweight recoil system. (read AK109 for 7.62x39 variant)
Operating Mechanism:
civilian variant
@randomradio @Falcon
Last edited:
Aiight; here comes my rant, but before the rant some disclaimers:
AKM - 7.62x39 AK varaints - I do not not hold anything against the AKM system. love them, own one and have tremendous respect for the system for what it is.
308win- again have nothing against the 7.62x51, love the round.
The above disclaimers were, because I am going to crap on both of them as well as the selection of this AKM.
License production:
To start with IA/MoD again picked the wrong gun that too from kalashnikov. First there is no patent on the AKM platform , thus a bunch of armory's from poland, romania, bulgaria, egypt, china, czech republic, and even US builds them. Emphasis being, you do not need a license to produce the AK platform. and the build setup is so easy that people can actually press their own pieces of 2/4 and bottlejacks to build their own receivers as long as you can get a barrel. So for a country that already produces the AKM, getting a license production line for the same thing it makes is quite astounding. But MoD ka paise , MoD ka decision, who am I to question that.
Selection of the 7.62x39mm cartridge:
Selecting a WWII cartridge as it's main cartridge for it's battle rifle is not a pragmatic step, especially when 6.5 grendel and 6.8spc like intermediate cartridges exist which far exceed the 7.62x39's performance matrix in almost every aspect. Also given the engagement ranges of the IA in the LOC a flatter shooting cartridge would have been preferred, the next argument is having 7.62x 51N, 5.56N, 7.62x54R and 7.62x39 just increases the logistic complications of maintaining the right ammunition. A good example of simplified logistics is right across the border, where the same 7.62x51N goes into the G3 infantry rifle, the MG3 MMG and SSG69 Sniper system. One caliber for three systems.
Selection of the AK platform:
Few serious question arise from the selection of the AK platform, such as which tests were conducted and among which competitive testing did the AK platform emerge victorious. Also What were the benchmarks for range, reliability, terminal ballistics where AK203 could beat Tavor, IWI Galil, SCAR, ACR, Bren etc.
AK203, the wrong AK:
From your post and everything I could find online this is a furniture upgrade on an AKM with a hinge dust cover on the trunnion, and thus out of the Kalashnikov stable they picked the wrong rifle. The biggest issue with standard AK long stroke piston has been the offset mass of the breach which causes barrel flex which in turn effects accuracy of the system. Combined with the 7.62x39's ballistics , its auto mode fire although at an impressive rate , makes into a spray and pray type deal at ranges exceeding 300 yards. The only rifle currently offered that attempted to address this is a truly improved AKM platform from the Kalashnikov stable, it is the AK107 with the balanced counterweight recoil system. (read AK109 for 7.62x39 variant)
Operating Mechanism:
civilian variant
Agreed, however these are the same MoD guys who were initially totally unaware that even a cosmetically modernized variant (let alone a much improved) of the gun they were out to get existed prior to setting out on their expeditions. Even after witnessing the modernized variants in display at Izhevsk, I don't think our intentions changed of our own volition. We set out to buy this, the basic AK-103, which many units in India already use -
So even the fact that we are going with the AK-203 would have been a tall order for the MoD delegation to figure out on their own if it wasn't for the fact the Russians went out of their way to tell us that we ought to buy the 203 instead.
That's the standpoint we're coming from. And to think, the MoD delegations included heavyweights like the DG Acquisitions.
As of the cartridge selection, I wasn't impressed with the choice from the beginning (said as much in the forum multiple times), but then again, its not like better sense had a chance to prevail anyway. I also did think (still do think) that neither the Army nor the MoD/OFB had what it takes to experiment with such intermediary cartridges of the ilk you are mentioning. I believe, equipping the bulk of Army & CAPFs with a cartridge no one had used or played with in India before was another tall order**. The Army had changed their cartridge requirements three times in a short span of a few years, there is that too to keep in mind.
** Don't know where ARDE/OFB got with their 6.8mm variant of MCIWS.
All in all, in my honest opinion, it would either have to be AK-203, or it would have to be us playing around with multiple RFIs, multiple cancellations and multiple re-tendering for at least the next 5 years. Things like this require a lot of thought especially considering the cartridge we're selecting will end up being in use for at least a few decades, I understand that. However, I think I'm (and many others, I reckon) are now at the position where they'd rather have a bird in hand than two in the bush.
I don't think the IA wants to rely on the OFB's production processes and quality control anymore. The license will bring in Russian production and quality control processes.
Agree with it. But I guess the operational requirements have outweighed logistics requirement. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal considering we plan on operating 3 different types of tanks (T-90, Arjun, FRCV) and 3 different types of IFVs (BMP-2, FICV, FRCV) by 2030-35.
AFAIK, the requirements for the non-frontline rifles were reduced, perhaps even changed to suit the Russian rifle.
I don't think accuracy is that important when you consider you are not likely to see your opponent at those ranges anyway.
@Falcon, Don't you guys shoot in the general direction where you presume your enemy is rather than try to specifically target each individual soldier at long distances? I don't know anything about this though.
I, of my own volition, have never discharged a weapon when the bullet is not likely to hit the intended target.
As for the specific context you have spoken above, that shall happen only in the undermentioned cases:
1. Poor fire discipline. That is prevalent in quite a few armies the world over. And also you waste ammunition, which is usually limited while operating.
2. What IA calls 'speculative' firing, undertaken in LC region when you notice a movement/hear a sound. Rationally well spaced shots are effective at times in dissuading/nailing the offending living being. This, when you have tonnes of ammunition lying. Usually, that marked as training, is quite useful for such activities, as it has to be expended in the given year.
Coming back to the three posts by milspec, parthu and you, took me time to read and understand what each one of you is saying. Let me address this by going in decreasing order of import (as per me) as under :
1. Requirement of meeting political objectives.
2. Ease of handling/maintenance in field conditions.
3. Familiarity with choice of weapon (as not much difference except cosmetically) and the caliber.
4. Supposedly less costly per unit than providing all with standard 7.62 x 51 as aimed to be brought into Infantry units.
5. Existence of the necessary logistics set up for the caliber in India's Security ecosystem.
6. Assessment that the arms and services (as also air force/navy and other security forces) other than Infantry will not need to engage enemy at ranges exceeding 300 yards.
7. But the coup de grace, inability to update and keep abreast with technology by those who are involved in actual decision making, because of the lack of exposure to the sector itself (includes the bureaucrats, ministers, and sometimes, those formulating the GSQR of the Army itself, who have never seen an engagement in their career and are rising up because of being 'paper tigers' aka great in professional courses and confidential reports).
On a very personal note, have managed to keep a 2 round fire in auto mode (not the so called double tap) within a 2 cm spread on a 1 x 1 target at 40 meters (had only 50 meters space in the makeshift range at a high altitude location) with a Vz 58. If the number of rounds fired was taken to 3, had the tendency of the third round to spread to about 3 to 4 cms from either of the two rounds at that range. So, extrapolating it to longer ranges, I found a two round burst to be more sensible to kill/injure a person but a three round burst useful to scare the hell out of another one (achieves objective if your intent is to cause him/her a heart attack and die of that, rather your fire
). But this is when I am firing relaxed at a firing range, actual combat; the results can be radically (and at times, fatally) quite varied.
Last edited:
I, of my own volition, have never discharged a weapon when the bullet is not likely to hit the intended target.
As for the specific context you have spoken above, that shall happen only in the undermentioned cases:
1. Poor fire discipline. That is prevalent in quite a few armies the world over. And also you waste ammunition, which is usually limited while operating.
2. What IA calls 'speculative' firing, undertaken in LC region when you notice a movement/hear a sound. Rationally well spaced shots are effective at times in dissuading/nailing the offending living being. This, when you have tonnes of ammunition lying. Usually, that marked as training, is quite useful for such activities, as it has to be expended in the given year.
Coming back to the three posts by milspec, parthu and you, took me time to read and understand what each one of you is saying. Let me address this by going in decreasing order of import (as per me) as under :
1. Requirement of meeting political objectives.
2. Ease of handling/maintenance in field conditions.
3. Familiarity with choice of weapon (as not much difference except cosmetically) and the caliber.
4. Supposedly less costly per unit than providing all with standard 7.62 x 51 as aimed to be brought into Infantry units.
5. Existence of the necessary logistics set up for the caliber in India's Security ecosystem.
6. Assessment that the arms and services (as also air force/navy and other security forces) other than Infantry will not need to engage enemy at ranges exceeding 300 yards.
7. But the coup de grace, inability to update and keep abreast with technology by those who are involved in actual decision making, because of the lack of exposure to the sector itself (includes the bureaucrats, ministers, and sometimes, those formulating the GSQR of the Army itself, who have never seen an engagement in their career and are rising up because of being 'paper tigers' aka great in professional courses and confidential reports).
On a very personal note, have managed to keep a 2 round fire in auto mode (not the so called double tap) within a 2 cm spread on a 1 x 1 target at 40 meters (had only 50 meters space in the makeshift range at a high altitude location) with a Vz 58. If the number of rounds fired was taken to 3, had the tendency of the third round to spread to about 3 to 4 cms from either of the two rounds at that range. So, extrapolating it to longer ranges, I found a two round burst to be more sensible to kill/injure a person but a three round burst useful to scare the hell out of another one (achieves objective if your intent is to cause him/her a heart attack and die of that, rather your fire
Thanks for the write-up sir ji! You managed to awaken a question I had for a long time but forgot to ask -
Can you explain what was our forces' rationale behind acquiring the Vz 58? From what I've heard, its a pretty well-liked rifle, but other than the fact they shoot the same round, the Vz 58 actually has no single part in common with the AKs, even the magazines are not interchangeable. Yet, it's not hard to come across Paras and other units (and whichever unit you were part of
) using this Czech gun, especially the Vz. 58V variant (folding stock).Did we buy it solely on its merit or because we just picked up whatever Eastern European rifles were available back in the day (that's how RR came into possession of most of its Romanian/East German AKs) and then all the units came in and took their pick? Because it really doesn't offer much in the way of helping logistics...because AFAIK, at least the Tavor magazines are STANAG and can be shared among guys armed with M4A1s as well.
I keep hearing this but I don't buy that one bit. The same OFB produces all the ammunition from 22lr to 155mm shells, the same ofb builds t90 to mobility system, the same ofb builds the 30mm Gsh to medak gun. And iirc both icq and copq for ofb factories is one of the lowest among the DPSU.
That's not true; you can very well hit human targets upto 500 yard sizes open sights, with optics you can hit upto 500 yards on a 6.5 gren, 6.8spc, 7.62x51and even 5.56nato all day long.
Thanks for the write-up sir ji! You managed to awaken a question I had for a long time but forgot to ask -
Can you explain what was our forces' rationale behind acquiring the Vz 58? From what I've heard, its a pretty well-liked rifle, but other than the fact they shoot the same round, the Vz 58 actually has no single part in common with the AKs, even the magazines are not interchangeable. Yet, it's not hard to come across Paras and other units (and whichever unit you were part of
Did we buy it solely on its merit or because we just picked up whatever Eastern European rifles were available back in the day (that's how RR came into possession of most of its Romanian/East German AKs) and then all the units came in and took their pick? Because it really doesn't offer much in the way of helping logistics...because AFAIK, at least the Tavor magazines are STANAG and can be shared among guys armed with M4A1s as well.
Most likely because it was picked by a rifleman and not a bureaucrat. Vz58 is an amazing rifle. The build quality of the rifle is fantastic and is a better shooting system that the AK. Lot of people think that the CZ Bren is a bootleg version of the SCAR, but in reality its roots lie in this gun, i.e it's short stroke heritage.
I personally do not know. But the army has been complaining about quality of the OFB for decades now.
I am pretty sure I was not even born when the weapon was tested by Indian Paracommandos
But what the old hands said was that apart from being lighter in comparison to the Ak-47, accuracy was slightly better. Of course, there are some who swear that you can bury it, leave it in damp and moist soil, flood the area after that, retrieve it and still fire it. Anecdotal evidence has the weapon firing without any complaints after a particularly horrendous night crawling in a half filled sewer, immersed in the aromatic deluge that was in it .... the weapon was not averse to being immersed and firing subsequently. Apart from that, I think primarily it was weight and as you said, what we had on offer.
Every gram, in higher reaches of Himalayas and the particularly hot weather of Jaisalmer, makes a difference
This discussion is concerning...I'm lead to question certain things:
The retired Maj. Gen. seems to be unaware of certain things - most important being that he does not distinguish between the SLR 7.62 and the AK 7.62, is he (or even the people responsible for choosing the AK-203) aware that not all 7.62s are the same and that at longer ranges, the 7.62x51mm Nato outclasses the 7.62x39mm M43? One might say I'm being ridiculous in suspecting this but from where I'm standing, it seems a very real possibility. The majority of action seen by the Army nowadays is in counter-insurgency...I hope the AK's performance in close(r) quarters does not cloud people's thought processes and lead to the higher-ups viewing peer-to-peer infantry combat through the lens of CI/CT ops.
Additionally, he raises the point about AK-203 being able to accommodate an under-barrel grenade launcher while at the same time saying that INSAS is not capable of this, and attributes this to the lack of a P-rail. Thing is, the INSAS CAN take a UBGL, but it requires removal of the lower handguard in order to seat the OFB-made 40mm UBGL, this is akin to how the M4/M16 require removal of their respective lower handguards in order to seat the M203.
Granted, the AK does not require removing the handguard for its GP-25/34 launchers but the point remains, the presence or lack of a 6'o clock rail has never been a hindrance for mounting UBGLs.
Have only watched half the video, I'll view the rest and come back with some comments if I have any.
If the AK203 is better than the INSAS and 7.62x39 is better than 5.56x45 , then for the moment, untill we do equip our strike corps with 7.62NATO rifles, i think its fine.
Also, anything on the cost of rifles yet to be manufactured at Amethi?