Small Arms & Tactical Equipment
- Thread starter Parthu
- Start date
I fear this might be a chinese inspired/Sourced cheap scope, Truly hope it's not but the similarity is just uncanny.The rear dial is turn on and off, change the intensity of the illuminated reticle.
On the topic of cheap chinese scope, I picked up a cheap chinese red dot, which might not be very practical but is one of the coolest red dots I have come across.
Last edited:
Aren't all Chinese hardware American/Western "inspired" ? Plenty of western manufacturers make scopes with a similar set up. The similarities are prominent but look closely the SSS Defence scope has a more rear set turret as opposed to the Chinese centre set turret. Also I have reasons to believe the SSS Defence scope wasn't Chinese made because a company man talked about the unavailability of high quality Indian made sniper scopes as the reason they decided to make their own scopes. They refuse to use OFB scopes for the quality and can't keep buying German made scopes because of price. Thus making their own was the only way out. Atlest that's what the company man said on another forum.
Position of the turret is determined by the size of the tube, same Chinese mfgs will have multiple variations based on objective sized, tube size as well as, leapers, CV life BSA rtc.
What perplexes me is the exact same serrations for parts, if these are in house made parts, why would one intentionally want to make them look like exact copies of the Chinese ones. If you look at the lip on the Objective lens, its absolutely identical, Power ring is identical, So is the eyepiece ring serrations, If you look at the top-mounted reticle illuminator dial, that too is identical.
The question arises, are they making parts that look exactly like chinese scopes, or are they using chinese parts, that goes to the extreme if they are assembling a scope from all chinese parts and at worst are they just stamping their name on chinese scopes/
That is an excellent question. This is increasingly seeming like the sourcing issue of one of our artillery gun prototypes(I forget which one, ATAGS or Dhanush). Apparently one of the prototype failed because of some Chinese components in it, probably acquired to cut cost. The issue was sorted when the manufacturers went for other suppliers. Is this the same thing happening here ?
The Army just opened their tender for snipers. Given their experience with Chinese parts in the past, they won't be happy about this. We'll know soon.
Could it be that the design is originally from a western manufacturer that the Chinese and the Indians copied off ?
Also @Milspec designing 2 different scopes for two guns is a bit of a tedious task don't you think ? The max range of the two rifles are 1.5 km for the 7.62N and 1.8 km for the 0.338 LM. A scope with magnification to allow shooting at 1.8 km should do the same for 1.5 km too. So why design two scopes ?
Leapers/cvlife is a copy of taiwanese made Bushnell scope which is owned by Vista outdoors.
I hope these are actually made in India, I would love for the manufacturers to show maybe some video of them actually manufacturing this stuff.
@Ashwin @randomradio @Milspec @Parthu
It seems all the talk about India joining the US Army LSAT program under the DTTI is actually going somewhere. From the sound of it it looks like the gun will not be a direct import from Textron but rather a modified MCIWS rifle. I do hope DRDO-ARDE can learn a thing or two about rifle ergonomics design :
Why long stroke piston ? I thought short stroke was better. What mechanism does the Textron prototypes use ?
This is the carbine prototype from Textron :
This of course is the MCIWS first prototype:
Prototype design from around 2015-16, notice the modified front handguard region and shorter barrel. Still no complete rail on top, that came more recently :
Butt folding mechanism similar to a SCAR at a later design, signifying the removal of AR type buffer tube :
Firing mechanism :
Notice how the BCG closely resembles a AR BCG, same with the trigger group.
Also I thought the Caracal carbine deal was scrapped. Is it still on ? Any updates on that ?
It seems all the talk about India joining the US Army LSAT program under the DTTI is actually going somewhere. From the sound of it it looks like the gun will not be a direct import from Textron but rather a modified MCIWS rifle. I do hope DRDO-ARDE can learn a thing or two about rifle ergonomics design :
Why long stroke piston ? I thought short stroke was better. What mechanism does the Textron prototypes use ?
This is the carbine prototype from Textron :
This of course is the MCIWS first prototype:
Prototype design from around 2015-16, notice the modified front handguard region and shorter barrel. Still no complete rail on top, that came more recently :
Butt folding mechanism similar to a SCAR at a later design, signifying the removal of AR type buffer tube :
Firing mechanism :
Notice how the BCG closely resembles a AR BCG, same with the trigger group.
Also I thought the Caracal carbine deal was scrapped. Is it still on ? Any updates on that ?
It should not , Maintain it's own program. Indian conditions are not similar to US requirements, in additional on support levels for US infantry, LMG's, MMG's, HMG's, and dedicated DMR/Sniper systems are of far superior quality as well as available in enormous quantity.
India needs to consolidate its caliber requirements battle rifle to a modern intermediate caliber so it can replace, 5.56 Nato, 7.62 Nato as well as 7.62x39 in one clean phased transition.
Looks damn good. Should have went for this assault rifle in massive numbers instead of Ak-203 assault rifle.
Thing is, if at all we're intent on following in the US Army's footsteps (which it doesn't really look like we are), then it would serve to strike up a partnership with whoever ultimately wins NGSW.
Textron is only one of the three competitors, each with their own rifle and own ammo tech (General Dynamics is offering fully polymer-cased ammo whereas SIG is offering a hybrid 6.8x51mm round with a steel base mated with the brass). If at all we choose to go ahead with what Textron is offering, and either SIG or GD end up winning NGSW, we risk being stuck at a technological dead-end in terms of what can be brought to the table from the US.
SIG NGSW-R offer:
SIG hybrid ammo:
General Dynamics NGSW-R offer (bullpup):
GD's polymer-cased ammo (collaboration with TrueVelocity):
Personally, I feel that perhaps SIG's offer is the most practical among the three NGSW competitors...partly because their ammo ensures that all the manufacturing infrastructure that's built up & existing as of today doesn't have to undergo significant changes to their production process, incurring substantial cost-savings...and this has to factor into what the US Army finally selects (remember, they might yet again just say screw this and throw NGSW out of the window as happened with multiple programs in the past like HK XM8 or LSAT).
Also, it does appear, at least at first glance of the exterior that both SIG's and GD's offers are at a far more refined stage of design than the admittedly awkward (if you ask me, UGLY)-looking Textron rifle.
Regardless, IA should learn to create a requirement after careful deliberation and study, and just stick with it. The Americans are already sitting on an excellent platform in the M4 which seems to be infinitely upgradable/modifiable so its not such an issue for them if the replacement takes longer to arrive. We don't have this luxury.
And I'm of the firm belief (now more than ever) that getting a GOOD rifle in the hands of the infantryman ASAP is far more productive & important right now than having a supposedly EXCELLENT rifle on the drawing board which may or may not be realized 10 years from now.
As of CAR-816 deal, it's fallen through and the carbine tender (fast-track) is back to square one for all intents & purposes it seems like.
I still don't understand why IA wanted to contract the entire AR tender to AK. If we're not able to induct something as basic as an AR with an indigenous system, achieving even 50% indigenization is a far-fetched dream
Yes. Instead of indeginizing a Russian assault rifle it would have been better if the IA had selected the SS-LMT JV AR rifle. Atleast this would have given much needed confidence to companies like SS defence to develop more weapons in the future and shown that the IA after all these years of buying foreign equipment has finally decided to shift to indigenously developed equipment.
Also, I am highly skeptical of the quality of Ak-203 that is to be produced by OFB given their track record.
What makes you say that ? The program was proposed under the DTTI, which should mean we are going with whatever the US is going with.
Probably due to the unconventional ammo.
Couple things
Right now it's at best conjecture to say what the DRDO (ARDE) is working on is in any way related to DTTI. The 6.8x43mm round isn't a new thing being brought from the US, it was already worked on by ARDE in the MCIWS programme. Whereas what the US is going for appears to be 6.8x51mm (at least what SIG is going for, not sure if the case-length metric has the same connotation when talking about cased-telescoped or just plain telescoped ammo like on Textron gun).
Secondly, from where I'm standing, it doesn't appear like what ARDE is pursuing has anything to do with telescoped (aka caseless) ammo. It appears to be a 6.8mm bullet in a 43mm-long brass casing.
Also - It is just Textron that seems to have made presentations (doesn't necessarily mean they'll get anywhere), so we can't really say we are going with whatever US is going with when clearly the US hasn't decided yet where it is going (Textron way, GD way or SIG way), can we?
With that we come to biggest thing - procurement. When it comes to procurement (getting actual approval, orders), sad to say, DRDO has no power. The agencies with the power are the MoD, OFB and Army HQ. And right now it appears all three are very much intent on AK-203 for the bulk of the Army - so AK203 it'll be. Won't matter if somehow ARDE manages to come up with the best rifle concept in the world.
This is what makes no sense to me. Why would a US manufacturer show off an unconventional prototype weapon to a potential but very very difficult customer ? The US mil is the primary user, where as we are just getting an introduction to the program. The DTTI is merely an extension of the US gov. and I find it a little difficult to believe that the US wouldn't push for joint selection of the same weapon given their penchant of pushing for joint ops capability in everything(remember the foundational agreements ?).
Also, what's to say that Textron isn't in a lead in that program which is why the US gov is allowing them to make presentations to the Indians ?
That's right. But do you really think ARDE/DRDO can come up with a new design in a month as the paper stated ? I don't think so. To me it seems DRDO will use the American help to redesign the MCIWS to make the gun accept Textron's cased ammo. Hence the presentations from the company.
But you are right its all just conjectures. Let's wait a month to see what, if anything, comes up.
Hopefully, they don't make it look like a cheap chinese toy. JVPC, Amogh, Insas all of em have crappy quality and aethetic appeal, let alone their performance in real-time conditions. One aspect I'm skeptical about LMT is they've always catered to civilian markets which makes me question their quality since military rifles might have a different alloy composition and also rigorous testing conditions