DRDO's New Multi-caliber weapon system to replace INSAS

[Arsalan]

look closely if you can see,beside the paper design, the quality is cheap
design is poor 1990s.
and dont hope for durable.

and if you think mcws is better than beretta arx 160.you r a dumb.

OKy, this is an improvement over the previous trait of just calling names, the pictures are good, now if the time to step up i guess.

Can you point to the things you think are "obsolete" in this design?
About durability, i assume your remarks come from the previous experiences with DRDO systems but what about the design? it looks sleek to me. It will be better if you can point out the thing in design that you think make it an obsolete design?
Also if you can share some views about durability that will be great, what makes you say/think so?

About comparing with Beretta, well i never said that this MCWS will be better then Beretta ARX. Some Indian members do claim such things but i think it is patriotism making them say such things more then any actual technological advantage. I am not interested in comparing this with Beretta!
However, even if it is, or it is not, better, what about the price? also the fact that this MCWS will be an Indian product, i think that alone makes it a superior choice if the specs are similar.
Also the most important thing is, will it be an improvement over the not so old INSAS that this gun will replace?

 

[Arsalan]

its good that the old cheap insas is going to replace but replace it with modern one.



want me to point the obsolete.

havent you looked with open eyes or you forgot to were glasses if you do.
the whole gun is a bad quality product.
the whole frame is cheap and poor quality.
and if you think its the best riffle in the world great then i wont argue.
b cause army wants best AR. you dont know what is best. so you are calling it best.
you all dont want the army to get best class future guns. thats all. the point.

i want best gun and you all want cheap old design drdo guns.

Ok, it would have been much better if you can tone down your words a little, still i see no "reasons" even with my eyes open and my glasses own as you suggested.

WHAT is that you think there is that makes it BAD QUALITY
What is definition of cheap frame? what makes you say that it is a cheap frame? i am just interested to know that point!
I NEVER SAID IT IS THE BEST RIFLE AND I AM NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING THAT JUDGEMENT< I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE RELATED TO THE GUN DIRECTLY, THE INDIAN MEMBERS,

My question is a simple one, you say it is old obsolete design, what in this design is old and obsolete and what could make it modern? you say that the frame is cheap, what exactly you mean by that? what exactly is cheap in the frame? you think adding a few ornamental gems and gold platting will make the frame impressive and not a cheap one? or is there any technical issue that you have problem with and you are suggesting that that particular technical aspect makes it a cheap frame?

I REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ALL and point us to these short comings that you suggest.

 

[Arsalan]

even iran makes best riffles and mini guns.



man how many times i tell yo the whole frame is cheap(THE WHOLE BODY FRAME) and the design is not modern,its look like early 1990 design.

havent you seen the quality of the riffle in the images.

take it side by side with others modern guns like 416/417,beretta,tar,FN scar etc you will notice the quality.
all are high quality weapons.

oo bahiiiii,,, that is what i am asking!!

WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THE WHOLE BODY THAT MAKE IT LOOKS 1990 design?? What is your perception of a modern design or reliable and better frame?
It will help if you can put your finger on the PROBLEM you see in this MCWS. For example, if you want to say that an F-7 is no match for an F-16, you talk about the aerodynamics, payload, avionics, the radars, ECM the weapons package of F-16 that make it better then the F-7. What is the thing or things that makes this MCWS an F-7 and not an F-16!!
THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN POINT UNLESS YOU ARE MERELY TROLLING!!

How many times i need to ask you, WHAT YOU MEAN BY WHOLE BODY FRAME IS CHEAP. It is requested that you provide some reason that makes you think that it is cheap. Simple, it is a request!! If you can point out something at least i wont argu any further!

AND please, i am not praising or condemning the gun, I CANNOT UNLESS YOU OR THE OTHER PART PROVIDE ME WITH REASON TO PRAISE OR CONDEMN this weapon system. I cannot condemn this gun and declare it cheap and failure just based on some previous tank or plane of other failed projects of DROD. It is a new project and i just want to know about it. It is up to you to provide some reason for us to believe that it is a cheap frame. you think the shape is not ok (why? how will it effect the performance) you think the trigger mechanism is what makes it obsolete? (how?) the material or metallurgy is what is out dated (How?) WHAT exactly is that make you think it is a shitty gun, help us put finger on that PLEASE!!

 

[rockstarIN]

Well about that particular post by @CallofDuty2 co


Actually, NO,
The INSAS mass production only started in 1997 and FIRST rifles got into service in 98. Remember it is the First rifles!! So the first batch is just 14 15 years old, the last batches even much younger. This is NOT a normal life time of the main gun. You do not see them being replaced so early in there service unless there are some issues, some serious issues!

Unfortunately, having this comments coming from a member with Pakistani flag will make it almost impossible for you people to admit, that is a fact and i cannot blame you for that. However, IF you can believe me, i am in no mood to troll or mock, just asking/saying all this to know and learn about the gun.

See I do check the merit of the post, not the flag etc to know the intention.Been here for more than 6 years, I do understand people and their intentions.

The Insas programme starting in 1990 and like you say that it got into service in 1998 is factually wrong (at least IMO). We fought Kargil with this weapon and it is not easy to replace with all units within two years. It was with army before.

There were issues with the rifles and were modified into excalibur and Kalantak. The serious issue is that it has got only 5.56 and no auto fire. excalibur has done very well in trails and may be the replacement of INSAS.

 

[Arsalan]

See I do check the merit of the post, not the flag etc to know the intention.Been here for more than 6 years, I do understand people and their intentions.

The Insas programme starting in 1990 and like you say that it got into service in 1998 is factually wrong (at least IMO). We fought Kargil with this weapon and it is not easy to replace with all units within two years. It was with army before.

There were issues with the rifles and were modified into excalibur and Kalantak. The serious issue is that it has got only 5.56 and no auto fire. excalibur has done very well in trails and may be the replacement of INSAS.

Well it is good to know that you try to judge a post on merit. In that case your only mistake is that you miss judged mine, i was not being sarcastic, if you felt so i am sorry and as requested will like to be pointed to that post.

AS for INSAS, i am sorry but you are wrong again, the first guns were INDUCTED in 1998 only with mass production starting only in 1997.You can search it on google or simply check in Wikipedia (even if wiki is not a very reliable source, it is for contradicting/decisive issue. Things like induction date or mass production time line is not something that someone will want to edit to get it wrong)
INSAS rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good to read about Excalibur and Kalantak. So you think this will be winner over the MCIWS? The report do suggest all the INSAS to be replaced right?
Or is that that this EXCALUBUR will be the gun that will be MCIWS?
They show a different gun under MCIWS, different then this excalibur

 

[Immanuel]

^^^
Well most of the western rifles failed in Indian conditions. The SCAR/HK are nice but are quite expensive to be acquired in large quantities even for India let alone Pak. Basic civil versions in US alone cost upward 2500 bucks. The MCWS whenever it is cleared for production will be made in updated factories, all of OFB's 40 odd factories are being upgraded with cutting edge tech. Over 4-5 Billion are being invested in upgrades of factories. INSAS 1B1 already has a very good build quality and many who use it have never had any issues with it. MCWS will be a reliable domestic weapon. That along with Excalibur will the main stay for the IA.

 

[Not So Good]

oo bahiiiii,,, that is what i am asking!!

WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THE WHOLE BODY THAT MAKE IT LOOKS 1990 design?? What is your perception of a modern design or reliable and better frame?
It will help if you can put your finger on the PROBLEM you see in this MCWS. For example, if you want to say that an F-7 is no match for an F-16, you talk about the aerodynamics, payload, avionics, the radars, ECM the weapons package of F-16 that make it better then the F-7. What is the thing or things that makes this MCWS an F-7 and not an F-16!!
THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN POINT UNLESS YOU ARE MERELY TROLLING!!

How many times i need to ask you, WHAT YOU MEAN BY WHOLE BODY FRAME IS CHEAP. It is requested that you provide some reason that makes you think that it is cheap. Simple, it is a request!! If you can point out something at least i wont argu any further!

AND please, i am not praising or condemning the gun, I CANNOT UNLESS YOU OR THE OTHER PART PROVIDE ME WITH REASON TO PRAISE OR CONDEMN this weapon system. I cannot condemn this gun and declare it cheap and failure just based on some previous tank or plane of other failed projects of DROD. It is a new project and i just want to know about it. It is up to you to provide some reason for us to believe that it is a cheap frame. you think the shape is not ok (why? how will it effect the performance) you think the trigger mechanism is what makes it obsolete? (how?) the material or metallurgy is what is out dated (How?) WHAT exactly is that make you think it is a shitty gun, help us put finger on that PLEASE!!

You are banging head to the wall
He is well You know what he is

 

[GURU DUTT]

to bhaiyya ji in short : which assault rifle is coming to IA and in what numbers

 

[Not So Good]

Who said it's better than ARX 160 you fucking piece of crap??And just because they used an existing barrel from an INSAS 1B1 to speed up the process doesn't make it crap.Do you know anything about guns??Anything at all?Have you ever put your hands on even an air rifle you little chicken shit??
And what obsolete design you are talking about??Which feature the MCIWS doesn't have have that is present in your ARX 160??Be specific with your comment rather than your bs rants.
Oh and by the way,that ARX 160has been given a shot by the Artmy and guess what??It failed miserably!!


And how do you know the design is useless??What are the design aspects of this gun??Again,be specific rather than passing sweeping statements like this you ignorant cunt!!

There is no such thing as the best you mofo.It all depends on the perspective.Luckily the Army or the Government isn't stuffed by morons like yourself.


So now you have a fortuyne teller,huh kiddo??And have you ever used the INSAS??Or even just put your hands on it??


And what makes you think they can't make??


I don't see the Army dumping it,it's still their standard issue personal weapon.


Keep your point to yourself and shove it up your place where the sun doesn't shine,and keep it there until you grow a spine and a pair.;




That's now how it works you piece of crap.Go get a decent schooling first.

Relaxe buddy he is just trolling, he doesn't know nothing about guns

 

[rockstarIN]

Well it is good to know that you try to judge a post on merit. In that case your only mistake is that you miss judged mine, i was not being sarcastic, if you felt so i am sorry and as requested will like to be pointed to that post.

AS for INSAS, i am sorry but you are wrong again, the first guns were INDUCTED in 1998 only with mass production starting only in 1997.You can search it on google or simply check in Wikipedia (even if wiki is not a very reliable source, it is for contradicting/decisive issue. Things like induction date or mass production time line is not something that someone will want to edit to get it wrong)
INSAS rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good to read about Excalibur and Kalantak. So you think this will be winner over the MCIWS? The report do suggest all the INSAS to be replaced right?
Or is that that this EXCALUBUR will be the gun that will be MCIWS?
They show a different gun under MCIWS, different then this excalibur

I think the entire idea of multi cal rifles is under review by IA. Mostly Excalibur will get selected and will be two variants one for 7.62 & 5.56.

MCIWS is different.

 

[majid mehmood]

man this weapon has same rpm, same effective range of g3 a3 BUT is light and is multi caliber plus some good sighting system but will not match m4a1 at any stage except sighting

 

[hkdas]

man this weapon has same rpm, same effective range of g3 a3 BUT is light and is multi caliber plus some good sighting system but will not match m4a1 at any stage except sighting

rate of fire is as per army's requirement. effective range is same for M4. MCIWS and G3.
US army's and indian army's requirements are different, M4's performance in sand, snow and muddy water are worse, while indian army want a rifle which can operate in all conditions.. just like AK. so you can't compare M4 with MCIWS because both are made to meet different requirements.

 

[Omega007]

Relaxe buddy he is just trolling, he doesn't know nothing about guns

I'm cool as Coke.I'm just fuckking with him.

 

[Omega007]

man how many times i tell yo the whole frame is cheap(THE WHOLE BODY FRAME) and the design is not modern,its look like early 1990 design.

90s design,yeah yeah,as if outside looks have got anything to with usability of a system.If that's how you think,then I feel sorry for your parents,they have to bear your burden for their entire lives,cause you sure hell can't fend for yourself.You just lack the brain cells needed for that,plain and simple.

havent you seen the quality of the riffle in the images.

We all have.It's a milled system with precision drilling and spot weldings,

take it side by side with others modern guns like 416/417,beretta,tar,FN scar etc you will notice the quality.all are high quality weapons.

By high quality,you mean better and slicker looking outer furniture!!That's how you gauge the quality of a rifle??

compare the images with beretta and 417.you will notice.if not,then you are too paid by drdo to praise the gun.

So,you accept that you are paid by Beretta and HK??

like the arjun.tejas,insas,etc etc. all are low tech and low quality products by drdo.

Yeah,now Arjun.Just get outta here you idiot.Or smell some ***' as you said.

i dont like the barrelcompared to the h&K and beretta

Don't like the barrel,why??Just because it has got some notches on it??Doyou even know that INSAS has got a much longer and heavier barrel than what's on your super sexy ARX 160??And do you know what it means - it means,if I were to engage you in a deathy match,with I carrying an INSAS 1B1 and you an ARX,I could simply empty my whole mag into your *** even before you could reach to a distance from me,that would be within the effective range of your ARX!!

the bullet case ejection hole is looks like 1980 mp5 design

It's called ejection port,not hole,you fuccking piece of crap.And it looks that way because the ejection port cover had been removed from that prototype!!

the hand guard is poor quality and old design

The hand guards are not in anyway built by DRDO,it was bought off the shelf.And it can be replaced with something else in moment's notice if the Army wants.One can not determine whether a rifle design is good or poor by the looks of the hand guards.Only fools of your caliber indulge into such comparison.

the scope is not good as mars sight

So??It's an Israeli design,not a DRDO product.Army can change it if they feel like it.

upper receiver is old design

Prove it prick.

my whole point is about its look

That we all knew from the start,you don't have to say it loud.And that's precisely what makes you the sore loser.Fuckk off you illiterate cunt.

its look like a big mp5.

Far from it.But even if it does,what's wrong with that??

and dont you understand about meaning of quality. the quality of the whole gun is cheap.

Trust me,it's you who haven't got an iota of knowledge or understanding about the quality of a firearm design.Go learn a thing or two first,ignorant prick.

rate of fire is as per army's requirement. effective range is same for M4. MCIWS and G3.

Wrong.M4A1 has got much shorter range and lesser lethality compared to MCIWS due to the former being a carbine and later being a rifle.The M4 has a short,14" barrel,which means,its long distance performance would be poorer.

 

[Omega007]

oh yeah, you are worst than me .look at the mirror and just say 1 good quality about yourself.

One - I can give you many more than that.For starters,my height, higher iq and better command over this language than you have, to name a few.

you are old ,ugly,useless and dumb as the insas.

How do you know??Wait,you are not the illegitimate son to that woman I used to fuckk,are you??Did your mum tell you about me??Was she satisfied??Come on,I wanna know.

as you know all about guns like u r a god.

Ok,first of all,I never have claimed to know 'all' about guns,nobody does.But I certainly know much more than you do,that's for sure.
And second,stop using chat lingo,you little piece of dog shit.Grow up already.

ha.. i accept i know very less about guns,

You do not have to beat your breasts chicka,we all have figured that out by now.

but u, u are a whole peace of crab like the mcws.

Doesn't even make an iota of sense.This is what happens when you do not concentrate in your studies.Go back to your elementary school and get some real education this time,learn to write properly,illiterate sob.

you talk like u were born in drdo lab and pretend like you know everything.

I do not pretend,it's you who's been pretending to be a know all smart *** yet you know next to nothing on this subject.So who's the one been pretending??Don't answer that,it's a rhetorical question.

and what you are by the way. dont give false information to every1.

I'm the guy who screwed your mum,now chew on that and embrace me as your dad!!

here is a drdo's sucker.

And you are a foreign dicck sucker.

pretend that knows every thing about drdo.
your'e born in their lab when they were doing party and the shit in the labs.

Get a life loser.

want to tell the world how good is drdo.i feel laugh at the support of mcws piece of shit.

Again,get an education.You are just making yourself a laughing stock in front of everyone.Just learn the language for fuckk's sake!!

dont waste your time to advertise the mcws.

You are the one who's been advertising for the foreign rifles,on the other hand,I've been merely pointing out and correcting your mistakes.But you are just too dumb to realize that.

its not good nor would in future.bcause its made by drdo.

Yeah,because your mum told you so,right??

these fools are trying to get attention of the world.
they think the mcws is the best weapon.beating beretta and colt m4.

You are not really a current affairs guy,are you??Ok,let me give you a quick update - both of your precious Beretta and Colt have already been defeated by an earlier generation rifle,so there is no reason to compare those to MCIWS.

ok @Omega007 give me a lesson on mcws then.

i will follow your information.

Like what??Be specific wrt what you wanna know and which lessons you wanna learn.

can you tell me if insas supports suppressors.

Of course it can,you have to take out the recoil compensator first though.Now do you even know what a compensator is,kiddo??

i love to suck your moms tits and love to massage her boobs.

Dude,stop copying me and come up with something of your own.

i sorry for your parents they both sucks each other and you suck theirs.

Think about yours.The guy you have been known as your da,isn't really him.That would be me, you prick.

precision drilling have you ever saw a fn scar or the 416.they are preciously build art and a weapon.

First learn to spell that word properly you fucking moron.