_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
13,760
9,826
Mumbai
good deal...

few hundred bucks here or there but still not overpriced.
Frankly, I'm disappointed. I was expecting this next year. It's payback for Russian generosity & I expect compensation for the Kamov deal not going through. Before you accuse me of pulling things off my hat like you know who, pls be informed that all this is my speculation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,052
2,628
United States
Frankly, I'm disappointed. I was expecting this next year. It's payback for Russian generosity & I expect compensation for the Kamov deal not going through. Before you accuse me of pulling things off my hat like you know who, pls be informed that all this is my speculation.
I am on the same page.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,052
2,628
United States
What's your opinion on this subject when talking about altitudes above 3000m?
Haven't given altitude much thought. Altitude reflects in lower barometric pressure and lower atmospheric temps. Now barometric pressure shouldn't cause much of a problem in a good rifle, freezing can be an issue with polycarbonate magazines, some optics which are battery-powered, lights etc. AKM's variants, Ar15 variants, etc. all should remain completely functional in my opinion.
With a lower density of air some of the trajectories will show marginal change but as soon as a system is zeroed, it should be good to go.
From what I know, the IA evaluators tried and tested every rifle in K's stable very, very extensively before zeroing in on the AK-203.

AFAIK, the AK-109 has not yet been cleared for use as a service rifle. I don't think the IA will want to be a guinea pig for an untested and obviously expensive rifle.

I highly doubt that, I do not think there was any comparative analysis, if there was we would have a different selection. Qualitatively there is very little difference between a modernized AKM and AK203. Even the Galil ACE would be stiff competition to the AK203.

As far AK-109, it's the first actual progressive development of the AKM platform in true sense. I highly doubt Indian army evaluated the ak107/109 package, truly in the Indian sense with it's recoil stabilization system it would have been a game-changer. Probably the only AK that would be able to out shoot an AR platform in full auto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,001
7,640
India
With a lower density of air some of the trajectories will show marginal change but as soon as a system is zeroed, it should be good to go.

As far as I understand it's actually pretty significant. Maybe @Falcon can provide an input.

I highly doubt that, I do not think there was any comparative analysis, if there was we would have a different selection. Qualitatively there is very little difference between a modernized AKM and AK203. Even the Galil ACE would be stiff competition to the AK203.

The decision was political and the choice was only Russian, obviously other countries were not included. They tested all the AK variants being offered by the company, so there's a high probability they checked out the AK-109 as well. I doubt that the IA is interested in taking risk with a new design for support troops.

A tender is yet to be launched for the main infantry rifle, so that's going to be interesting.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
944
1,849
24
Vizag, India
Very interesting assertions, but I am not aware of the price that CRPF acquired thier AKM's for.

Why would you think stuff made in India would be cheaper?

A larger Workshop which has paid off all of it's asset can have much lower overheads, especially private arsenals in eastern Europe which now are part of Europe have excellent manufacturing practices, utilizes automation as well as opex, when you compare that to Indian PSU structure, they are ridiculously overstaffed diminishing any labor advantage it could have, and then have horrible productivity. Such pricing is to be expected. Same reasons Indian MKI's are more expensive than buying directly from Russia.... there is nothing to be surprised about here.

I'm disappointed, not surprised at the prices here.

OFB sells INSAS 1B for $750 to Army and above $1000 for Police. They are notoriously high on overhead charges, and will bleed CAPEX dry if given free reign. Eventually, the only light at the end of the tunnel is Pvt manufacturing like PLR-IWI.

Unfortunately, the whole premise of AK203 deal was to be a two-sided plug that satisfies both Russian lobby and OFB Unions lobby. GOI to the best of my knowledge promised Russians an AK deal early on (and indications are they regretted it afterward like they did Kamov-226 promise, but couldn't avoid it in the end), whereas Unions on the other hand wanted a production order, they couldn't care less if its Indian-design or foreign design as long as they get to keep a factory running with it.

On merit alone, something like a Galil ACE-31 in 7.62x39 manufactured locally by PLR would be both a more modern, ergonomic platform than an AK, and actually cost less to make no doubt thanks to Pvt production line in Gwalior.

But with powerful OFB lobbies in place, such proposals were dead ducks from the start. Nothing will be given to these companies until & unless the OFB monopolies in critical sectors (like ammunition of all calibres) are broken first. As long as they can threaten those supply lines with union strikes, being sole-source suppliers, no GOI/MoD will find the balls to go against OFB Unions.

Haven't given altitude much thought. Altitude reflects in lower barometric pressure and lower atmospheric temps. Now barometric pressure shouldn't cause much of a problem in a good rifle, freezing can be an issue with polycarbonate magazines, some optics which are battery-powered, lights etc. AKM's variants, Ar15 variants, etc. all should remain completely functional in my opinion.
With a lower density of air some of the trajectories will show marginal change but as soon as a system is zeroed, it should be good to go.


I highly doubt that, I do not think there was any comparative analysis, if there was we would have a different selection. Qualitatively there is very little difference between a modernized AKM and AK203. Even the Galil ACE would be stiff competition to the AK203.

As far AK-109, it's the first actual progressive development of the AKM platform in true sense. I highly doubt Indian army evaluated the ak107/109 package, truly in the Indian sense with it's recoil stabilization system it would have been a game-changer. Probably the only AK that would be able to out shoot an AR platform in full auto.

The price could have actually been reduced a fair bit ($700-800 per rifle, will add up to millions over 700k production) if competitive bidding between Kalashnikov-OFB and likes of IWI-PLR and Arsenal-Kalyani took place but Unions don't like competition in industry so that was a non-starter.

And we had an IAS Officer leading the MoD prelim negotiations & evaluation team that went to Izhevsk. Not even an IPS but an IAS, Nuff said. I'm just glad they didn't remove the railed top cover & tri-rail handguard as well in the process of negotiating for reduced price. If what we're paying now is the 'reduced' price I shudder to think what the initial offer was.

As far as I understand it's actually pretty significant. Maybe @Falcon can provide an input.



The decision was political and the choice was only Russian, obviously other countries were not included. They tested all the AK variants being offered by the company, so there's a high probability they checked out the AK-109 as well. I doubt that the IA is interested in taking risk with a new design for support troops.

A tender is yet to be launched for the main infantry rifle, so that's going to be interesting.

They checked everything out, including the new AK-15. In the end the 203 choice was down to cost.

If they had to negotiate to remove such things as an ergonomic fire selector (with that little ledge for a finger to allow for control without removing hand from pistol grip, see pic) and going back to older, simpler AK103 selector, it's plain to see that they were splitting hairs to reduce bits of cost wherever they could. No way they could afford a AK-109 or AK-15.



AK100/older AK-series:

 
Last edited:

raghu1974

Member
Nov 19, 2020
118
92
Phoenix, AZ USA
At this time, all we need is to sign this agreement and start manufacturing the rifle ASAP. Even if we were to sign the agreement in the 3 months, it will take couple of years before the delivery starts (Not sure if the factory in Amethi has been built or the construction has already started). I only wish the government had used this money on buying the extra 21 Mig 29's and had given this contract to a local private player, as long as the per rifle price matches the price of AK-203.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,001
7,640
India
I'm disappointed, not surprised at the prices here.

OFB sells INSAS 1B for $750 to Army and above $1000 for Police. They are notoriously high on overhead charges, and will bleed CAPEX dry if given free reign. Eventually, the only light at the end of the tunnel is Pvt manufacturing like PLR-IWI.

Unfortunately, the whole premise of AK203 deal was to be a two-sided plug that satisfies both Russian lobby and OFB Unions lobby. GOI to the best of my knowledge promised Russians an AK deal early on (and indications are they regretted it afterward like they did Kamov-226 promise, but couldn't avoid it in the end), whereas Unions on the other hand wanted a production order, they couldn't care less if its Indian-design or foreign design as long as they get to keep a factory running with it.

On merit alone, something like a Galil ACE-31 in 7.62x39 manufactured locally by PLR would be both a more modern, ergonomic platform than an AK, and actually cost less to make no doubt thanks to Pvt production line in Gwalior.

But with powerful OFB lobbies in place, such proposals were dead ducks from the start. Nothing will be given to these companies until & unless the OFB monopolies in critical sectors (like ammunition of all calibres) are broken first. As long as they can threaten those supply lines with union strikes, being sole-source suppliers, no GOI/MoD will find the balls to go against OFB Unions.

The price could have actually been reduced a fair bit ($700-800 per rifle, will add up to millions over 700k production) if competitive bidding between Kalashnikov-OFB and likes of IWI-PLR and Arsenal-Kalyani took place but Unions don't like competition in industry so that was a non-starter.

And we had an IAS Officer leading the MoD prelim negotiations & evaluation team that went to Izhevsk. Not even an IPS but an IAS, Nuff said. I'm just glad they didn't remove the railed top cover & tri-rail handguard as well in the process of negotiating for reduced price. If what we're paying now is the 'reduced' price I shudder to think what the initial offer was.

There's no way the govt can control the OFB at this time. But this rifle will likely be the last rifle they ever produce for the army.

They checked everything out, including the new AK-15. In the end the 203 choice was down to cost.

If they had to negotiate to remove such things as an ergonomic fire selector (with that little ledge for a finger to allow for control without removing hand from pistol grip, see pic) and going back to older, simpler AK103 selector, it's plain to see that they were splitting hairs to reduce bits of cost wherever they could. No way they could afford a AK-109 or AK-15.



AK100/older AK-series:


It's best to follow the mantra that the forces know best. I remember Jha claiming 2 years ago that the IA found the AK-203 more suitable than the AK-15, although he didn't elaborate more. There was also a credible report which claimed the AK-203 demonstrated the best accuracy amongst all the variants tested, along with the most reliability.

Another major selling point is the 100% ToT. I don't believe most other companies would have accepted that.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
875
663
Delhi
And we had an IAS Officer leading the MoD prelim negotiations & evaluation team that went to Izhevsk. Not even an IPS but an IAS, Nuff said. I'm just glad they didn't remove the railed top cover & tri-rail handguard as well in the process of negotiating for reduced price. If what we're paying now is the 'reduced' price I shudder
Atleast now we know why the Indian ak203 is such a cock-up...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj and Killbot

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
875
663
Delhi
There was also a credible report which claimed the AK-203 demonstrated the best accuracy amongst all the variants tested, along with the most reliability.
I somehow doubt the accuracy claim since the ak 12/15 has a free floating barrel compared to the ak 200 series. Though it would definitely be more reliable considering the maturity of the design..
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,001
7,640
India
I somehow doubt the accuracy claim since the ak 12/15 has a free floating barrel compared to the ak 200 series. Though it would definitely be more reliable considering the maturity of the design..

It's possible the AK-15 improved overtime since the IA tested the AK-203 years ago.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
875
663
Delhi
It's possible the AK-15 improved overtime since the IA tested the AK-203 years ago.
Nah ak 203 was the right product for the IA ak 15 was too immature and still is although Armenia is license producing both ak 12 and ak15. But IA usually doesn't buy untested systems and for a 7.62x39 rifle there's not much improvement you can do..
Apart from that all the other good russian rifles are in 5.45 except maybe the aek971 version chambered in 7.62x39 called a762. But that would be more expensive than buying scar H considering how unique that gun is..
But it still seems to me a myopic decision of not buying the license for the entire ak200 series considering it can fill every requirement of the IA for the next 20-30 years..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,001
7,640
India
Nah ak 203 was the right product for the IA ak 15 was too immature and still is. A
Apart from that all the other good russian rifles are in 5.45 except maybe the aek971 version chambered in 7.62x39 called a762. But that would be more expensive than buying scar H considering how unique that gun is..

Yeah, there's no point in going for anything new from Russia that's not proven. You only end up as a guinea pig, and even the Syrians have suffered for making such a choice. The AK-203 is cheap, works as advertised, is a familiar product, has full ToT and comes with attachments for all the bells and whistles needed in a modern rifle. So in the end it's all about the training.
But it still seems to me a myopic decision of not buying the license for the entire ak200 series considering it can fill every requirement of the IA for the next 20-30 years..

That's not a good idea. Every type of rifle needs to be tested. Some of the AK variants may not be what we are looking for.

Buying a license for a family of guns is something the private sector should think about, although the better option is to make your own IP instead.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
875
663
Delhi
That's not a good idea. Every type of rifle needs to be tested. Some of the AK variants may not be what we are looking for.
Except maybe the ak308
the 5.56 ak 202 will fill
images (96).jpeg
our need for a 5.56 carbine and no wasting money on some expensive ar 15 ..
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,052
2,628
United States
At this time, all we need is to sign this agreement and start manufacturing the rifle ASAP. Even if we were to sign the agreement in the 3 months, it will take couple of years before the delivery starts (Not sure if the factory in Amethi has been built or the construction has already started). I only wish the government had used this money on buying the extra 21 Mig 29's and had given this contract to a local private player, as long as the per rifle price matches the price of AK-203.
why a couple of years, for a workshop, making setting up such said line should at most take a month or three, and then deliveries should start. After all OFB as an organization has been making guns twice longer than we have been a republic...
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,052
2,628
United States
Nah ak 203 was the right product for the IA ak 15 was too immature and still is although Armenia is license producing both ak 12 and ak15. But IA usually doesn't buy untested systems and for a 7.62x39 rifle there's not much improvement you can do..
Apart from that all the other good russian rifles are in 5.45 except maybe the aek971 version chambered in 7.62x39 called a762. But that would be more expensive than buying scar H considering how unique that gun is..
But it still seems to me a myopic decision of not buying the license for the entire ak200 series considering it can fill every requirement of the IA for the next 20-30 years..

I am quite perplexed about the concept of maturity of rifle. that to a straight AKM variant. I feel sorry for the chap handed a DFMEA for this....
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
875
663
Delhi
I am quite perplexed about the concept of maturity of rifle. that to a straight AKM variant. I feel sorry for the chap handed a DFMEA for this....
Maturity in the sense that product has been battle tested. Ak 203 is basically ak103 with upgraded furniture and grip. And ak 103 comes from the ak74. The system is basically proven since the 1970's and battle tested. Ak 12 is a new system it has a lot of changes and it was still in prototype phase while the selection for the ak203 was in late 2016. Ak 12 passed state trials in 2018 and sanctioned for mass production. So the product was still not ready. So forget the ak15 too. That rifle is still a work in progress. The rest of ak series is niche and unfortunately we standardised around 5.56 when the 5.45 is far superior in performance..
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,001
7,640
India
I am quite perplexed about the concept of maturity of rifle. that to a straight AKM variant. I feel sorry for the chap handed a DFMEA for this....

Maturity mostly has to do with ergonomics, portability etc. It's the small things that forces an army to reject a rifle.

The IA rejected Beretta in the carbine tender due to a technicality.
The MoD’s Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), staffed largely by army officers, curiously objected to a special safety feature installed on Beretta’s basic reflex sights, falling off during a rigorous ‘bump’ test to check the weapon systems ability to withstand varying degrees of juddering.

Industry sources said this feature – a small, screw-like fixture – had been specially incorporated by Beretta to render the sights ‘eye safe’ for the user when employed in low-intensity mode to prevent retina damage. Beretta claimed its inclusion was merely a safety ‘force multiplier’ for soldiers handling the sights, but intransigent DGQA officials dismissed all clarifications and abruptly rejected the ARX-160.

This elimination left just IWI’s ACE carbine in the running for the tender, creating a ‘single vendor’ situation which the MoD normally eschews, preferring two or more suppliers for most tenders to obviate any wrongdoing. Unwittingly or deliberately, the DGQA had further deferred by several years the army’s urgent operational purchase at a critical juncture.


That's how strict/stupid these trials are. It's why out of dozens of competitors only 1 made the cut. That's maturity right there. The carbine was fine, only a screw fell off.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Killbot

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
875
663
Delhi
Maturity mostly has to do with ergonomics, portability etc. It's the small things that forces an army to reject a rifle.

The IA rejected Beretta in the carbine tender due to a technicality.
The MoD’s Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), staffed largely by army officers, curiously objected to a special safety feature installed on Beretta’s basic reflex sights, falling off during a rigorous ‘bump’ test to check the weapon systems ability to withstand varying degrees of juddering.

Industry sources said this feature – a small, screw-like fixture – had been specially incorporated by Beretta to render the sights ‘eye safe’ for the user when employed in low-intensity mode to prevent retina damage. Beretta claimed its inclusion was merely a safety ‘force multiplier’ for soldiers handling the sights, but intransigent DGQA officials dismissed all clarifications and abruptly rejected the ARX-160.

This elimination left just IWI’s ACE carbine in the running for the tender, creating a ‘single vendor’ situation which the MoD normally eschews, preferring two or more suppliers for most tenders to obviate any wrongdoing. Unwittingly or deliberately, the DGQA had further deferred by several years the army’s urgent operational purchase at a critical juncture.


That's how strict/stupid these trials are. It's why out of dozens of competitors only 1 made the cut. That's maturity right there. The carbine was fine, only a screw fell off.
Then we cry when foreign suppliers don't respond to the rfi's..
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,052
2,628
United States
Maturity mostly has to do with ergonomics, portability etc. It's the small things that forces an army to reject a rifle.

The IA rejected Beretta in the carbine tender due to a technicality.
The MoD’s Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), staffed largely by army officers, curiously objected to a special safety feature installed on Beretta’s basic reflex sights, falling off during a rigorous ‘bump’ test to check the weapon systems ability to withstand varying degrees of juddering.

Industry sources said this feature – a small, screw-like fixture – had been specially incorporated by Beretta to render the sights ‘eye safe’ for the user when employed in low-intensity mode to prevent retina damage. Beretta claimed its inclusion was merely a safety ‘force multiplier’ for soldiers handling the sights, but intransigent DGQA officials dismissed all clarifications and abruptly rejected the ARX-160.

This elimination left just IWI’s ACE carbine in the running for the tender, creating a ‘single vendor’ situation which the MoD normally eschews, preferring two or more suppliers for most tenders to obviate any wrongdoing. Unwittingly or deliberately, the DGQA had further deferred by several years the army’s urgent operational purchase at a critical juncture.


That's how strict/stupid these trials are. It's why out of dozens of competitors only 1 made the cut. That's maturity right there. The carbine was fine, only a screw fell off.
Wow, That's the dumbest thing I have read this year, (the IA part not your post).... thanks for that one....