as opposed to the aluminium ones being made now,all that I have to say is that a fool and his money are soon parted.
I have read at below mentioned link that IOF wants to bring out .223 rifle for civilian market but is unable to bring it out solely due to arcane/outdated clause Category 1(c) from Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962.
Reference: http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 4&start=30
I would request IOF to take it seriously and contact MHA and get the concerned clause Category 1(c) from Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962 deleted. Probably hundreds of concerned citizens including myself(members of indiansforguns.com) have already written to MHA regarding the same. Please refer http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8412
Please read page number 10 para number 4 with reasons a, b, c at: http://www.indiansforguns.com/draft_objections.pdf
The following are the reasons:
4. Category 1(c) should be deleted from Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962. The restriction on these calibres was initiated under British rule, as the Govt. of the time did not completely trust Indian citizens or it's native soldiers. It was thought at the time that if the Govt. restricted civilian access to firearms in these calibres, even if Govt. arms were captured by rebels, they would be unable to source ammunition for use with them from the civilian population. In the current scenario this is at best a specious argument, it is a fact that anti-national elements have no dearth of ammunition supplies in any and all calibres they so desire. Arms as well as ammunition are illegally smuggled in to India for use by such persons, as well as for sale to all manner of criminal elements. None of these people are queuing up to purchase ammunition legally from licensed dealers. Furthermore, it was also argued in some quarters that civilians owning firearms in these calibres could lead to black marketing of ammunition by native troops. In the present scenario, India is a free country and we have implicit faith in the loyalty of our men & women in uniform, if we cannot trust those who have sworn to lay down their lives to protect us, then who do we trust? Even the parliamentary committee set up to review the proposed Arms Bill which eventually became the Arms Act of 1959 had also envisaged a situation wherein the State could use civilian riflemen as the last line of defence for the country, or has our Govt. of the people, for the people & by the people lost faith in the people? My proposal to do away with category 1(c) of Schedule I, would have the following benefits:
a) The government has a vast surplus of bolt action rifles, pistols and revolvers chambered for the calibres listed under category 1(c), which have been or are in the process of being phased out from service. Ordinarily these would be scrapped, however most of these are serviceable or can be made serviceable for use by civilians for sport as well as for self-defence. Once category 1(c) is scrapped these could be auctioned off by the Govt. and considering the prevailing extortionate prices of legal firearms in India, the sale from these phased out firearms could earn the Govt. enough revenue to reequip every single soldier in the military, para-military and police forces with modern firearms more suitable for use in the current security scenario. Scrapping usable firearms in such large quantities is nothing, if not a huge national waste.
b) A large number of citizens owning firearms in these calibres, would mean that in times of need the State would be able to call on citizens to provide the arms and ammunition held by them in service of the nation, without the associated logistical difficulties of calling into service firearms chambered for all sorts of different calibres, which would literally be impossible to keep supplied with required ammunition. For precisely this reason, many nations actively encourage their citizens to keep firearms chambered for the same calibres as in use by their own forces.
c)A large number of citizens owning firearms in these calibres, would also mean that the military, paramilitary and police forces, could maintain large stores of ammunition in reserve, without incurring the heavy cost of disposing off large quantities of ammunition after their use by date has expired. This would be possible, as expired ammunition could be auctioned off to licensed dealers, for supply to arms license holders. Since expired ammunition is prone to misfire, while it may not be usable for front line use by Govt forces, citizens could put this to use for getting in more practice at the range, at a reduced cost - a scenario in which one may be willing to forgo 100% reliability in favour of a much lower cost. This is a win-win situation for both licensed firearm owners as well as the State.
The marketing departments of IOF might also be interested in reading paragraph numbered 3 on page 10 concerning allowing more than 3 firearms per person. And paragraph numbered 5 on page 11 related to allowing possession of full/semi automatic rifles.
5.56 INSAS is PB.Amit357 wrote:5.56/.223 is technically a PB, because they are stuck with 150,000 barrels of 223s which they had made for the Army and the Army refused to give them an order for the same.T
This is the real problem, why should we settle for inferior loads? If smaller cartridge is made, it will have less charge. The clause Category 1(c) from Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962 is the problem. It is without any basis for a free country. PB/NPB was started by colonial rulers, as the Govt. of the time did not completely trust Indian citizens or it's native soldiers. It was thought at the time that if the Govt. restricted civilian access to firearms in these calibres, even if Govt. arms were captured by rebels, they would be unable to source ammunition for use with them from the civilian population. In the current scenario this is at best a specious argument, it is a fact that anti-national elements have no dearth of ammunition supplies in any and all calibres they so desire. Arms as well as ammunition are illegally smuggled in to India for use by such persons, as well as for sale to all manner of criminal elements. None of these people are queuing up to purchase ammunition legally from licensed dealers. Furthermore, it was also argued in some quarters that civilians owning firearms in these calibres could lead to black marketing of ammunition by native troops. In the present scenario, India is a free country and we have implicit faith in the loyalty of our men & women in uniform, if we cannot trust those who have sworn to lay down their lives to protect us, then who do we trust?So all that is needed for IOF to do is make a smaller cart and inform MHA that it is not service ammo. then it would become NPB.
to truegoodboy_mentor wrote:This is the real problem, why should we settle for inferior loads? If smaller cartridge is made, it will have less charge. The clause Category 1(c) from Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962 is the problem. It is without any basis for a free country. PB/NPB was started by colonial rulers, as the Govt. of the time did not completely trust Indian citizens or it's native soldiers. It was thought at the time that if the Govt. restricted civilian access to firearms in these calibres, even if Govt. arms were captured by rebels, they would be unable to source ammunition for use with them from the civilian population. In the current scenario this is at best a specious argument, it is a fact that anti-national elements have no dearth of ammunition supplies in any and all calibres they so desire. Arms as well as ammunition are illegally smuggled in to India for use by such persons, as well as for sale to all manner of criminal elements. None of these people are queuing up to purchase ammunition legally from licensed dealers. Furthermore, it was also argued in some quarters that civilians owning firearms in these calibres could lead to black marketing of ammunition by native troops. In the present scenario, India is a free country and we have implicit faith in the loyalty of our men & women in uniform, if we cannot trust those who have sworn to lay down their lives to protect us, then who do we trust?So all that is needed for IOF to do is make a smaller cart and inform MHA that it is not service ammo. then it would become NPB.
Amit,Amit357 wrote:Winne thanks for your advice,i dont have much 1st hand knowldge of IOF products,cause i have never owned them {for obious reasons},just what one has seen on a cpl of shoots with a few friends holding IOF espicially the 315s,further all i can say for reasons i dont understand is leaving IOF 315, there is no rifle chambred for 315 made in this world and or if it is such a good caliber i am sure that companies world wide would have worked on it and devolped it..The only reason why the IOF 22 Rifle is OK because one can chamber imported ammo in it,same was the case with the 30-06,as far as the IOF 22 Revolver goes the owners manual state that to use only Eleys tennex cartridges in it,when the ISO 9000 certified IOF is producing 22 LR Ammo,further,this is for your info IOF is launching a 223 Rifle,by 2011 for the civil market with a modification in the case as the 5.56/.223 is technically a PB, because they are stuck with 150,000 barrels of 223s which they had made for the Army and the Army refused to give them an order for the same.The famous INSAS 5.56 rifle jams in Siachen and our boys are left holding their--------------- there.the 32 Revolver/Pistol made by IOF would sell only here for the simple reason that is lack of choice,When IOF had introduced the 315 way back in early 70s,the cost of the rifle was Rs 1100/and the ammo was for Rs 9.00 a box of 10.Nobody was even intrested to look at it,and arms and ammo dealers used to have to give the story of cheap ammo to sell the rifle.If import of firearms is allowed would you still be intrested in keeping your 315,if you would winne sirji i salute you,mera lal salam.
) If you count,the magazine holds seven(7).When I got it,it would not even feed 2 cartridges properly.Will make a video of me shooting it(minus the sticky bolt 
) mundaire wrote:IMHO, for the stated use you have mentioned - the only "unfixable" problem with the IOF .315 is the complete lack of imported (read non-IOF) ammo. That said - in the sort of self/ home defence scenario, on a farm, which would require the use of a rifle as opposed to handgun or shotgun - it would not be a close quarter situation and one should have ample time to cycle the bolt in the case of a misfire. If quality control was not an issue, the IOF .315 would be a fairly decent performing cartridge... it's a long heavy bullet, which works quite well up to 150-200 yards.... it will of course go a lot further!
The .315 is also slightly harder to scope, requiring a visit to a gunsmith to get a purpose built mounting bracket installed... not very expensive or difficult to get done, but not a simple matter of sitting at home and installing scope mounts & rings.
And yes, the bolt on both rifles is steel... though the el cheapo IOF chrome plating on the bolt, may very well make one think otherwise!
Cheers!
Abhijeet
As far as judging the performance of .30-06 cartridge is concerned, it is a well tested cartridge that has been used by U.S Army. It is a very powerful cartridge, it's ballistics performance is almost similar(probably slightly better) to 7.62*51 mm cartridge used in SLRs. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_SpringfieldThe dealer says that he might get some in a month or so and then we will be able to test it personally and judge its performance also.