Confrontation with DRDO

Confrontation with DRDO

It was the year 1989. The Mechanized Infantry  wanted a shorter rifle for its  troops since the then existing 7.62 Self Loading Rifle was unsuited and clumsy to handle in the closed confines of the Infantry Combat vehicles  involving more time for the soldiers to dismount and mount. This also resulted in more time for the ICV to scoot after disgorging the troops.  

The Rifle 7.62 mm 1A1 which is also known as Ishapore 1A1, is a copy of the UK L1A1 which again is a copy of Belgian original self-loading rifle. It was manufacrured by the Ordnance Factories Board undr license   though DRDO claims that it is their brain child even today. It differs from the UK SLR in that the wooden butt-stock uses the butt-plate from the Lee–Enfield with trap for oil bottle and cleaning pull-through.

A proposal was sent by Army Headquarters for a shorter weapon or a shorter version of the existing SLR for all the troops of Mechanized Infantry Battalions to start with. DRDO and The directorate of EME were tasked to identify and propose how best it could be done without much financial implications.

It is important to know some basic technical specification of the rifle here. Its overall length is 46.46 in or 1180 mm with barrel length of 533 mm without flash eliminator and 616 mm with flash eliminator whose length is 83 mm.  The initial proposal of DRDO to do away with the flash eliminator was quickly set aside for very obvious reasons as it would give away the position of the soldier after the first shot itself!

The DRDO then proposed that they   would modify the existing 7.62 SLR by reducing the length of the barrel to 16 inches. However, they would have to modify the assembly line process to cut off the barrel to reduce its length, cut groves for the flash eliminator and proposed a year for development , trials and testing  and a fancy escalation cost over the current PV rate for the Army.

The Army HQ sent the proposal to the Director General EME for their study and recommendations who in turn forwarded the same to No 1 EME Centre who are the final word in respect of Small Arms. It is the nodal agency for training on repairs of Small Arms of not only Army but also of Police forces. At one time even Naval and Air Force personnel were trained here till they established their own raining facility. The No 3 Training Battalion was and is the agency for Small Arms repairs and maintenance. And I was officiating as the Commanding Officer of the Battalion when this paper was dent for our views. I had a veteran specialist on Small Arms Lt. Col . Birender Singh , a Para trooper as the Chief Instructor .

At the very outset, I was unhappy with the proposal of DRDO as I thought it would be a great fallacy to tamper with technical parameter of any system, more so a weapon where every part is engineered with great precision.  The effectiveness of a rifle is based on its accuracy for a given range.  The range is decided by the muzzle velocity of the bullet as it leaves the barrel. The propellant filled in the cartridge is designed to take the bullet to the designed target to penetrate. Also the rear sight is aligned with the foresight by adjusting the thumb screw to select the range from 200 yds to 600 yds in this weapon.

It immediately occurred to me that by shortening the barrel, the muzzle velocity will reduce, there by its range and unless the rear sight  is calibrated for range , it will lose both accuracy as well as effectiveness. I discussed these aspects with Lt. Col Birender Singh and asked him whether he has any other alternative. He came up with a brilliant idea.

As I said earlier in the Indian version of LIAI , the Butt was modified to accommodate the Oil Bottle and pull through for cleaning the barrel. While it is a necessity for an infantry soldier, a mechanized Infantry soldier has a lot of space to keep them centrally in the Combat Vehicle itself. Since he does not carry his Pack 08 or haversack as these can be held under the seat , we could even make a small pouch to be fastened to the belt if it was found absolutely essential to carry a pull through and oil bottle in combat!  So we proposed to reduce the Length of the Butt to the required overall length asked for by the Army HQ. I sent my observations to EME Directorate and asked them permission to modify a weapon as per our plan. It was agreed and the proposal was approved and sent to Army HQ WE by the Directorate General EME.

Gen BC Joshi then Army Commander Southern Command ( later he became COAS) visited the units and Establishments in Secunderabad. He as an Armoured Corps officer and Army Commander has read these proposals of DRDO and of DGEME.  He visited the 3 Training battalion specifically to see the modified weapon. I briefed him on the pros and cons of DRDO proposal and emphasized that one should not disturb the basic design of a weapon especially the barrel  length which is arrived at based on various other considerations of  range, accuracy and effectiveness of the bullet. In a lighter vein I said only criminals saw off the barrel to hide the weapon for assassinations!  He had a hearty laugh but appreciated our view point. Based on the recommendations sent by HQ Southern Command on the orders of Army Commander, the proposal of DRDO was dropped and Mechanized Infantry was saved from getting sawed off 7.62 SLR .

In a few months time, I was posted and took over as Commanding officer of an EME battalion to convert the Infantry Division EME Bn to EME Battalion Rapid (S) in Western Command and Gen Joshi also moved as Army Commander Western Command! He visited the formation to check on the progress of the raising of the Armoured Brigade and the associated Armoured Workshop.  It is another story 

With this kind of technical expertise at their disposal, they convinced the MoD that they would develop a most modern weapon System and called it INSAS . How much money was poured into its development , production and scrapping it is another story!   One can even read it in Wikipedia by searching for Insas weapon system!