.
Good question but again I have to rely on guess work here cause I haven't fired the JVPC (or the LMG version of INSAS,but it's quite identical to the assault rifle version from what I've heard).
Ok,now lets get to it,shall we??
For starters,there could be more than one reasons and factors involved behind this apparent high muzzle rise of the JVPC (formerly known as MSMC).
First,I do not know about its gas system,so that would be a problem.But by its looks,the gas system seems to be a long stroke piston and if that is indeed the case,then this can explain your question.Now a long stroke piston is heavy and as you know,it moves back and forth with every cycle,to move the bolt carrier assembly.What it means is that,you have got a heavy chunk of metal moving constantly back and forth,there by shifting the center of gravity of the gun,which in turn make it unstable and make the muzzle to rise up - pure law of physics.
Now the INSAS LMG has got the same internal operating system,but it's also more balanced due to its heavier weight.So the naturally the muzzle rise is significantly lower - again,pure law of physics.
Secondly,the INSAS LMG is of a conventional design.So most of its systems,including the bolt carrier assembly,is place ahead of the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards the front - this also makes it a more balanced weapon,which limits its muzzle rise and that in turn contributes in giving it more stability during long bursts.
But as the MSMC is of a semi bullpup design,its systems are placed behind the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards its rear.Which means,there is nothing in MSMC to counter balance the muzzle rise.
And thirdly,the ammo used in JVPC is much more powerful compared to the 9mm parabellum used in most firearms of its class.So that contributes to its apparent high recoil as well.
But these are all my assumptions,simply because I haven't fired it personally.I would say,you would be better off to ask
@OrionHunter ,he used to be a high ranking infantry officer and definitely has got much much more info and experience in this subject compared to someone like me.
Yes,I have.But this is kinda wrong assumption if you ask me.Because only those who go all the way up to level C,gets to fire the INSAS. Our
@Mike_Brando also happens to be an NCC cadet but didn't finish thecourse and could not get his hands on INSAS.Ain't it so Mikhail??
Yes,I can.Although I've never personally fired the AKM,but I've heard and seen enough of it to be able to get a fair idea about its characteristics.
About the comparisons,lets rate these two in respect to some reference points
1.Operation: AKM - Long stroke piston,rotating bolt.
INSAS - same as above.
2.Weight - AKM is sigficantly lighter than INSAS.
3.Overall length - Again.AKM is ahead due to its shorter overall length,hence more maneuverable in tight spots.
4.Firepower - AKM has got full automatic mode of operation where as INSAS 1B1 has only burst fire mode.So in close quarters,AKM is ahead.
5.Accuracy - In this case,INSAS wins hands down.I have seen my batch mates achieving sum MOA accuracy at 100 meter distance,that they could constantly put bullets in 1 cm grouping,which is basically impossible with AKM.The best AKs can achieve 4-5 MOA at 100 meters,which would be considered sub par in most armies.All this happens due to the sloppy tolerances of AKM,the developers intentionally sacrificed its accuracy for ultimate reliability..........that when ever you pull the trigger,your AK will go boom,now where it will actually hit is a million dollar question in itself.
Watch this following video,especially from 6.50 minute onward to know what I'm saying
6.Range - INSAS has got a an effective range of more than 450 yards without any assault scope (upto 550-600 yards with an assault scope).But with AKM,it is basically very hard to hit a man size target at more than 200 meter distance,because the M43 ammo drops way too faster and its sights are just not made for precise shooting.
7.Bullet trajectory - Again INSAS takes the cake here.The 5.56 NATO has got the flattest trajectory among the small arms bullets,where as the M43 is one of the worse in this regard,it has got more of a parabolic trajectory,the bullets just drop way too faster and earlier due to their heavier weight,slow muzzle velocity (about 700 meter/sec) and its very poor ballistic coefficient.
What it means is that,with INSAS (and any other firearm chambered for 5.56 NATO) a shooter can reliably engage targets at much longer distances,without having to compensate too much for the bullet drop and lose sight of the target.
8.Sights - Again INSAS,hands down.In fact it would be an out right insult for INSAS to be compared with AK in this regard.The AK has got the worst possible sight among assault rifles - a rudimentary open V sight,with nonexistent sight radius and the rear sight being a good 10'" away from the shooter's eye!!Then,the sights can not zeroed in without using specialized tools.Basically,the original sights are just crap.
On the other hand,INSAS sight is basically the same as that of the M16s,totally optimized for long distance precision and best of all,the sights can be manually zeroed in,by turning the elevation and windage knobs, without using any specialized tools.
9.Ergonomics - Again INSAS. Its firing selector and charging handle are much more easily accessible compared to that on the AK.
10. Modularity - Again INSAS. Although being far from ideal,the INSAS has got a rail,which can be used to mount OFB produced optics.Or one could use it to mount a picatinny rail adapter and then use it to mount optics from international market.
11.Balance - INSAS is much more balanced than AK.You already have seen the video of the LMG,so I don't think it needs any further explanation.
12.Reliability - Well,I don't really have to spell it out which one is more reliable.
So as you can see,both has got their pros and cons.It depends on the situation,the terrain and type of enemy you are expected to face etc.
For example,if your area of operation happens to be a dense jungle,where you are not supposed to engage your enemy beyond 40 yards,AK would be your perfect choice.
But if you are to engage your enemy in an open terrain,where there is good visibility and your line of sight is not obstructed by trees or other objects,INSAS would be your choice because you want to kill or incapacitate your enemy before he can do the same to you.
So that's it.Now if you have any trouble understanding anything or you have to ask something on this topic,feel free to ask.
.
And I ask you again,how do you know "
india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date"??How did you come to this conclusion,may I ask??I simply fail to understand,where you are pulling these arguments out from,since according to your own testimony,you have never even come close to a firearm.
And please!!Save your blind patriot nonsense for some one else!!I've been termed as a traitor multiple times,by multiple Indians, in this very forum for supporting the INSAS over foreign rifles and for criticizing the Army higher ups for their love of the same.So as I told you,save those for someone else.
And as for those so called superior rifles,a great many of them,including the Beretta ARX 160 (claimed to be the best in the world by many),IWI Galil ACE and Bren CZ repeatedly failed in Thor desert and high altitudes.............so many times that Army had to scrap the multical rifle tender altogether.But the 'ugly and crude looking inferior' Excalibur Essentially an INSAS 1B1 with full auto mode and different outer furniture) passed the trials,with only 2 failures during continuous firing of a whopping 24000 rounds of ammunition.
You wanna hear more??Fine,then know this - BSF has got 30000 Beretta MX9 Storm sub machine guns,that are now rusting in their storage because they were marred with problems.Now they have got back to their 'inferior and crude' INSAS.
Then there is beloved Tavor,how could I forget??Ask our
@vk17 ,a serving COBRA officer,about his great experience with your Tavors.
