Government dissolves Ordnance Factory Board

[timmy]

When I was young, my older brother subscribed to "Scientific American" Magazine. There was an article in there, of which I wish I had a copy, of John Moses Browning's gun designs. Almost every one of them was planar: you could draw them on a sheet of paper and not miss an operating detail. Everything moved only in an X and y axis world. Many designs today also rotate: they have motion in the z axis. Very few of Browning's designs ever did. The Remington Model 8 rifle is one of those few that comes to mind.

(Before you think of the BAR, the rifle Browning sells today called the BAR is nothing like the one he designed for the US Army during WW1, other than that the two of them were both gas operated.)

Browning also paid a lot of attention to leverages and motions in his design. Compare a Marlin lever action with a Winchester M92 or M94, and you will instantly see why people love to operate Browning's designs -- they have a pleasant tactile feel. He paid attention to ergonomics before most.

Likewise, if you ask most folks who like shooting old military weapons about shooting an AK or an SKS, most will tell you that the SKS is a very fun gun to shoot. They are a tipping block action, like I said, which operate similarly to the Winchester Model 12 shotgun and the Savage 99 rifle. There is a pleasantness about the SKS that's missing in an AK-type action.

(I have both, and the SKS is much more pleasing to me, as well.)

The AK is a major design, and has a lot of advantages, don't get me wrong, especially for folks who don't have a lot of resources -- like asymmetrical warfare. Yes, the INSAS does have various refinements, especially those associated with the gas block. And these do owe something to the FN FAL.

But the large bolt carrier with its rotating bolt, the ~45* rotation of that bolt to disengage, and that sort of stuff -- the heart of the action that locks it up -- that's AK design.

[Kittu]

Sir i Said INSAS is copy of FN CAL not FN FAL.FN CAL have rotating bolt. Few years ego we have discussed about it in length. If you search you can find it in forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_CAL

[mundaire]

https://theprint.in/opinion/i-suffered- ... 0s/746433/

The INSAS rifle, a poor copy of the AK-47, splattered oil into the eyes when fired even five years after its introduction. In 2005, in my formation, we had to fix a rexine eye patch to prevent the same.

There will be many such articles in coming days to justify selling IOF factories to private firms.This person writes utter nonsense you can guess
his knowledge when he says INSAS is copy of AK47?.almost every fellow member here knows insas is copy of FN.CAL not AK47 but mr panag doesn't knows this.When a rifle is splattering oil in eyes it is because of over lubing.will a commanding officer will order eye patches to prevent this or just tell
soldiers to apply a very thin coat of lubricant on moving parts?if a soldier dips a rifle in oil drum for oiling then uses it rifle will throw back oil.In army officers frequently inspects rifles of soldiers and they will find a way to march a soldiers 10,15km if they don't find weapon cleaned and lubed to their satisfaction sometime they will make soldiers run even when everything is fine so out of fear soldiers starts lubing rifle heavily.Oil used by army is very good i have a bottle of it i once applied a thin coat to my pistol and after six month oil was still there.INSAS was a failed project we all know that.IOF employs are worse they do not like to work but same IOF produced world class and every kind of arms and ammo which is still operational today under British rule.most rifle parts are not made by iof they are made under contract by others.to get these work contractor pays heavy bribe to officials otherwise he will not get the contract.to earn some profit contractor makes low quality parts so whole thing produced is inferior in quality. Make strict laws to curb corruption in iof quality will increase itself. handing them over to private firm is not good thing it will increase army budget.Indian army last year purchased 1.50lakh rifle in 7.62x51 from US it was need of hour at that time but if you want bigger caliber revert back to FN FAL what's wrong in that rifle? Dissolving IOF board was good thing board was reeking of corruption. Now out of fear of loosing jobs employees will start working hard.
When Kesari movies was released this Mr panag even after being a army officer was first to criticize it claiming it was myth whereas every scholar in world believes it was greatest last stand taken by Indian soldiers of all time non less then spartan last stand at battle of Thermopylae. But mr panag have different view.read it you will know caliber of this man.His Criticism was for other reason which i shall not discuss here or anywhere.
https://theprint.in/opinion/what-akshay ... hi/213646/

I don't disagree with most of what you've written.

INSAS, as with most of recent IOF products is a mix of more than just one design for "inspiration". I think, they took it to heart when FN took them to court for blatantly copying the FN FAL, without even a thank you sir. it uses elements from both AK and FN designs, as were very nicely listed by cottage cheese, in his post on the INSAS.

The corporatisation (and eventual privatisation) of IOFB assets, should be considered fait accompli, so no point debating the ifs.

But would this translate into innovation and/ or better products, remains to be seen.

On one hand, irrespective of who is running the government, we have been seeing a consistent squeeze on civilian firearms ownership, especially for the past 20 years. On the other side, our governments are expecting innovation in small arms... out of a vacuum?!

I may have mentioned this before, but it bears repetition. Many years ago, maybe 10+ years now, I had the opportunity to meet the researcher at the Small Arms Survey (Geneva), who'd come up with the figure of 40+ million civilian firearms in India (estimated at that time).

Interestingly, he was an American, who had also served some time in the US military. I won't get into the accuracy of that estimate, as it's not relevant to this thread. What I'd like to share is a more personal anecdote.

While chatting over a cup of tea, I asked him about his experience with firearms, and he very casually said, "oh, I'm not much of a shot. I'm just OK out to about 300 yards with a rifle, so I'd say I can just about get by".

That's a very telling statement... for those who are open to reading what is so obviously behind it. For those who fail to see the obvious, it underlines the simple fact that he came from a country of gun owners and shooters! Where "just being able to shoot out to 300 yards" which is almost 1/3rd of a kilometre, was per him, an ordinary skill level, nothing special... and this is not a "gun nut", far from it! In fact in USA, he'd be labelled as "anti-gun".

We've been disarmed as a nation for more than 170 years now. Several generations have grown up, taking this lack of liberty as "normal". It will take a lot more than just getting private companies bidding for government contracts to take us from the abyss towards becoming a nation where there is real innovation in small arms and quality products are produced.

[timmy]

Mr. ashokgodara:

I do apologize misquoting you and not noticing that you had referred to the FN CAL, rather than the FN FAL, as I incorrectly thought.

You are correct, the FN CAL does have a rotating bolt, and not a tipping one, like the FN FAL.

almost every fellow member here knows insas is copy of FN.CAL not AK47 but mr panag doesn't knows this.

Sir i Said INSAS is copy of FN CAL not FN FAL.FN CAL have rotating bolt.

I would note here, however, that the INSAS has a long stroke action, where the gas piston assembly is part of the bolt carrier, and follows the bolt carrier all the way back in the carrier's travel. The FN CAL is a short stroke action, where the piston operates a tappet that "knocks" a two piece carrier back, but does not travel with it.

Again, here's a picture of the major parts of the INSAS:



And here is one of an FN CAL:



(unfortunately, the bolt and bolt carrier in this photo are reversed, i.e., facing the opposite way of the rest of the gun.)

For comparison, here is an AK 47:



Also, here are a couple of youtube videos of the INSAS and the FN CAL. Note the bolt carrier of the INSAS pictured, beginning at 3:19



and here is the FN CAL. The bolt and bolt carrier ae shown here, beginning at 5:40



A better view of the actions of both the INSAS and the FN CAL can be derived from these videos. As to the "lineage" or influences of the INSAS design, we can all draw our conclusions from these photos and videos.

mundaire has, however, reinforced the overriding issue here: as gun rights have been steadily curtailed, is it reasonable to expect that innovative designs and manufacturing methods can be obtained from society, or will the need to rely on foreign technologies for modern, effective firearms not only remain, but grow in an inverse proportion to the curtailment of firearms rights?

The same goes for skills in using firearms, another point which mundaire properly raises. While some individual Americans might view themselves as John Wayne, and a number of Indians can demonstrate proficiency at the range, from an overall population perspective, he is correct. Gun proficiency was encouraged in the national interests in both the USA and the UK in the 19th Century, and in the USA in the 20th. The basis for the Army in new, free Poland was begun in the Austrian-occupied area of that nation by sporting rifle clubs, where future soldiers learned familiarity and handling of firearms. Is this something that is wisely left to action movies?

[SMJ]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... ory-board/

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[timmy]

I am reading all of these articles, and coupling it with this idea of bringing in foreign-based competition to the Indian commercial arms market.

But, I've just read this speech given by the External Affairs Minister. I will not quote it all, but here is the link to the whole speech, if you care to read it:

https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Stateme ... n+Dialogue

The parts that confused me, with respect to having foreign competion were points 8, 9, 10, and 11, quoted here:

8. An honest self-assessment of our economic performance must begin with the recognition that it was not our karma to see the state of our manufacturing today. Far from being an inevitability, this is the result of policies, preparations, assessments and course corrections; and their lack. The question after 1992 was never of an open or a shut economy. It was one of negotiating an optimal engagement with the world. And success in that regard should not have been determined by GDP growth rate only. It should have equally taken into account the sustainability of the processes we had entered, the employment consequences thereof and the all-round development of our society. We not only failed to develop the deep strengths that a large industrial economy like ours should have; we actually created an employment challenge by becoming over-dependent on imports. And in doing so, we neglected what is my principal message to you today: adequate awareness of the world.

9. In the name of openness, we have allowed subsidized products and unfair production advantages from abroad to prevail. And all the while, this was justified by the mantra of an open and globalized economy. It was quite extraordinary that an economy as attractive as India allowed the framework to be set by others. With the passage of time, our predicament became increasingly serious. The choice was to double down on an approach whose damaging consequences were already apparent; or to have the courage to think through the problem for ourselves. We chose the latter.

10. This is not an issue of just trade or even of economics. As the world of technology applications and global production becomes more integrated, choices today have a much deeper strategic implication. The limited progress we have made and the gap with our real potential puts us in an especially difficult position. As it is, the effect of past trade agreements has been to de-industrialize some sectors. The consequences of future ones would lock us into global commitments, many of them not to our advantage. Those who argue stressing openness and efficiency do not present the full picture. This is equally a world of non-tariff barriers of subsidies and state capitalism. Without exaggeration, what we will be deciding now will determine whether India will become a first class industrial power or not.

11. And that is why, the outlook of Atmanirbhar Bharat is so crucial. This approach, instead of allowing others to decide our future prospects, is a case for building strong national capabilities and deep strengths. It is far from turning our back on the world; in fact, it is to enter the global arena with cards to play, not just to provide a market for others. This is really about seriously building comprehensive national power. Our success in doing so will determine future terms of engagement and our standing with the world.

Atmanirbhar Bharat as described in the speech doesn't sound to me like a new policy headed in the direction of allowing more foreign competition. Am I missing something here? Is is premature to begin expecting foreign arms to be available in the future?

[mundaire]

It's old wine in a new bottle. During the 1970's, the slogan was "self reliance", "atmanirbhar" is literally just a translation of that old slogan with all the inward looking it implies.

[revolver]

A nice article I thought worth sharing..

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... ory-board/