Indians For Guns

Would not have the army been better off with something like this (the FAL) instead of the DRDO trying to reinvent the wheel with the INSAS ?

[youtube][/youtube]

But then there would have been no scope for making money for the IOF honchos.

The SLR as I understand it was a knock off of the FAL. The INSAS is a 'better' weapon on paper, given a higher rate of fire. Then again there is little logic in what the guberment types do.

iof is a like a ambassador car company.will not stop at any cost.

dr.jayakumar wrote:iof is a like a ambassador car company.will not stop at any cost.

you are right..

Hello There,

I appreciate everyone's response. I plan to get one if not all, and will research and plan before attempting anything. For the first kit, I was thinking of the assembled lock option. I'm planning to go to the Infantry rifle.

Thanks and have a nice!!
David Charlton

Wasn't the SLR is the Indian clone of FN FAL with some wood thrown in it.

The SLR is FN-FAL 7.62.

I do think the army would have been better off with the 7.62NATO round on a more upto date platform.


Best-
Vikram

It's not really that either the FAL or 7.62x51mm round are no longer adequate and "out of date". It is that tactical concepts and hence requirements have changed. The FAL and 7.62 Nato round cannot be controlled in automatic fire. If you train your soldiers not in individual marksmanship, but develop "pray and spray" tactics, you need a controllable weapon, and be able to carry more ammo. And the tactical situation has changed in most envisioned war scenarios. No one plans on static trench warfare anymore, but the emphasis is on fast moving, mechanized engagement, with air support. "Drive by shooting" on a large scale, of sorts. But, unfortunately, planning for anything does not mean it will happen according to plan. Enemies who can't afford to play by your rules spoil your plans, as can the terrain. As in the Kargil episode. Obsolete in military terms does not mean loss of original capability and value. Cheers.

Vikram wrote:The SLR is FN-FAL 7.62.

I do think the army would have been better off with the 7.62NATO round on a more upto date platform.


Best-
Vikram

Not entirely true. I dont believe the SLR was licensed by FN. Additionally the cocking lever on the SLR is on the right and if I remember correctly folds. On the FAL its on the left. Though the cases still eject left.

surprisingly or not, considering the quality ofworkmanship of the IOF and the differing characcteristics of the two bores, the average indian soldier recalls the SLR with fondness, while the INSAS rifle is not doing a good job of winning jobs.
the SLR was a big heavy rifle with a recoil that you felt all the way down to your knees if you fired it improperly.
but these same characteristics made it a favourite as it was more stable, the enemy was engaged a lot earlier, more damage, a lot of troops talk about militants getting hit by an INSAS round and carrying on in the heat of the battle. the recoil being what it was, you wanted the job done in one shot and not want to fire another one. but it sure as hell wasnt handy. i think of the SAS and paras doing night drops with these personal canons to handle coming down in the dark. whew!
the insas has its own problems which are well known, so its high time the IOF came up with a product which combines the good points of both and gives the man on the ground something reliable and trustowrthy

I believe the Indian Army SLR was basically a copy of the L1A1 which was an "inch-pattern" FN-FAL. However, as MOA states, I don't believe it was ever licensed.
Someone, in a previous post in this forum, stated that some of the original Indian Army SLR's came from Belgium.

David,
Are you going to build one from a kit?
Here in MN, Coonan Arms makes high quality FAL receivers: http://www.coonaninc.com/index.php/cPath,7
I see that Sarco is selling FAL kits for $549 (less receiver).

It's not really that either the FAL or 7.62x51mm round are no longer adequate and "out of date". It is that tactical concepts and hence requirements have changed. The FAL and 7.62 Nato round cannot be controlled in automatic fire. If you train your soldiers not in individual marksmanship, but develop "pray and spray" tactics, you need a controllable weapon, and be able to carry more ammo.

This is the nub of the argument for "assault rifle" (e.g., 7.62 x 39, 5.56 x 45, and the "daddy" of them all, the 7.92 x 33) superseding the "battle rifle" (e.g., 7.62 x 51, 7.62 x 54r, 7.92 x 57, .303, .30-'06, etc). Another issue is range, as most fighting is expected to take place at 400 yards or less. We've seen exceptions in this, which require "battle rifle" cartridges or even the .50 BMG. However, I think it is probably as likely that we'll return to battle rifle cartridges for general battlefield use as it is that we'll return to the percussion cap.

Timmy,

What would you say to an FN FAL in 7.62x39? As an armchair warrior this cartridge appeals to me.

As far as the bastardized SLR made by the IOF is concerned,it was not licensed and more over it consisted of a hodge podge of parts in both inch and metric.

Winnie: I very much like the FN FAL and its "tipping block" action. These weapons have proven themselves over the years. However, my opinion would be that they are too heavy and the action too long for the 7.62 x 39 cartridge. I think that the action could be modified to handle 7.62 x 39, but a more compact action that is shorter and lighter would be more optimal for a standardized weapon that is in general use by field forces. BTW, I also like the 7.62 x 39 cartridge. If I'm not too old to hunt when I return to that Paradise on Earth (otherwise known as New Mexico), I do intend to do some hunting with handloaded 7.62 x 39 ammo.

xl_target wrote:David,
Are you going to build one from a kit?
Here in MN, Coonan Arms makes high quality FAL receivers: http://www.coonaninc.com/index.php/cPath,7
I see that Sarco is selling FAL kits for $549 (less receiver).

David was a spammer ID and has been banned.

Cheers!
Abhijeet