Latest Kalashnikovs to be made in India

[Guest Hiten.]

NEW DELHI: With the 61st anniversary of the famed Kalashnikov AK-47 series around the corner, the Russian manufacturer of the world's best-known assault rifle announced that the latest AK-100 series will be manufactured in India. The Russian arms company, Izhmash, will shortly issue a licence to an Indian private arms manufacturer with whom negotiations are at an advanced stage. Company spokesperson Alexander Xavarzin said assembling of the AK-103 will begin in a year's time and full-scale manufacturing would start once the technology transfer takes place. The company hopes to sell the gun to various police and paramilitary forces in the country as well as the army. It will not be exported. The popularity of the assault rifle can be gauged from the fact that originals account for only 8-12% of the total world sales of the Kalashnikov series - the rest are all Kalashnikov clones being manufactured in several countries, according to the Izhmash spokesperson. Unlike the AK-47 rifle which has a wooden base, the new generation AK-100 series is much lighter and has a body made of plastic. Xavarzin said the plastic component makes it an all-weather rifle, well suited to Indian conditions where soldiers have to trek at high altitudes for a number of days at a stretch. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/AK-100_to_be_made_in_India_soon/articleshow/2793608.cms -- This is a poor move by our government to say the least. Given the corruption in India, anybody could gain access to these guns quite possibly and easily. Wouldn't this move also give a new hope to the Naxalites in this 'arms' race era ?

[The Outsider]

This is a poor move by our government to say the least. Given the corruption in India, anybody could gain access to these guns quite possibly and easily. Wouldn't this move also give a new hope to the Naxalites in this 'arms' race era ?

That's a very valid concern and given how a lot of central India is in turmoil, not to mention the hot spots of Kashmir and North East, the last thing we need is easier access to the militants to weapons.

[CC1981]

A very bad move. Let me explain why ( i have experience with guns) : Kalashnikovs are the PERFECT weapon for insurgents/terrorists/militias but rarely are the choice for weaponry amongst professional armies. The best things about a kalashnikov is that it is indestructable as far as guns go and super-cheap to mass produce. You could use it 8 hours a day and it won't overheat/jam, you could bury it in a sandpit, dig it up 5 years later, wash it and get it firing within the next hour.It is such a hardy gun that you could beat people with the stock and hardly damage the gun. Its not very accurate for assault rifles but it comes with a bigger round than most guns, so you could shoot through bushes and foliage. And it is basic enough a design for a newbie to get really good in using it within a couple of hours of practice. Compare that to the more advanced assault rifles like M-16s, MP4s, FNFALs etc- those guns are nowhere as hardy as Kalashnikovs are ( many of them are made of plastic stock!), you use it for 8 hours straight and it will melt in your hands, you try to beat people with it, it will break into 4 parts after 2 hits and forget burying it for 5 yrs, if its so much as a dusty day in Iraq, your gun will jam/malfunction. But at the same time, these guns have a far higher rate of fire, far more accuracy and are more versatile with the kinds of bullets it can use. Not to mention, many of these guns take practice to get used to and are a bit counter-intuitive in how they work. Its not hard to see then, why Kalashnikovs are hardly used en-masse by modern infantry but favourites of the militias- its cheap, indestructable, easily learnt and very very hardy. If you are a terrorist/militia on a budget, Kalashnikovs are your holy grail. But it is also not hard to see why Kalashnikovs arn't the weapon of choice for most professional militaries- most of Kalashnikov's positives arn't that useful for a military- they don't really need to beat people with their guns, they don't need to bury the gun and dig it up 5 years later and they arn't that worried about it jamming/overheating- they will just issue a new gun if your corporal overheats his gun! And even though its more expensive compared to Kalashnikovs, militaries the world over prefer the 'higher accuracy, more bullet-compatability and higher rates of fire'. So its a bit puzzling why India is so interested in building/buying Kalashnikovs- in the hands of the Maoists/Kashmir terrorists/ULFA/Hinduvtas, its a real menace. And India, a nation thats spending billions on defence, can surely afford a higher price-tag conventional army assault rifle.

[umpire]

Great. Now Govt. can charge excise duty and VAT on these production and make some money. Terrorists do not have to wait for imported guns. swadeshi movement is back.

[Lurker]

So let me get this straight. The critics here want Indian Armed Forces to fight combants, insurgents etc with the good old 0.22 that every Mamu/thulla/sipahi carries??? If the issue is letting the weapons get in the hands of the insurgents surely we need to address that issue and not stop creating them? I mean whats next, stop making N bomb and have latest Air Force Squadron? I am all for Indian Armed forces having the best firepower in the world. Anytime a soldier walks out to fight for his country, and save my a$$, the least I can do is to get him the deadliest weapon in hand.

[The Outsider]

No, I am not saying we should not have modern weaponary for our armed forces, but if the potential downside of manufacturing them in the country might turn out to be higher than the upside of saving a few dollars to import them, then why not consider that as an option as well? Having an entire set up to manufacture such weapons in a corrupt country like India can have it's downfalls. If the government is confident that corruption will not lead to the misuse of these facilities, that's fine but I highly doubt that scenario.

[Lurker]

No' date=' I am not saying we should not have modern weaponary for our armed forces, [b']but if the potential downside of manufacturing them in the country might turn out to be higher than the upside of saving a few dollars to import them, then why not consider that as an option as well? Having an entire set up to manufacture such weapons in a corrupt country like India can have it's downfalls. If the government is confident that corruption will not lead to the misuse of these facilities, that's fine but I highly doubt that scenario.

I would like to think that such issues with only continue to grow. The fact is that India is on the up, both as an economic power as well as military. Atleast now we have money to afford buying top weapons. Now dont get me wrong I am not advocating an Arm race but merely stating that factually we will see more issues like this. So why not use this as a good example to set up our system? Surely we can not, and should not, push this issue on back burner? If we have license to produce our weapons surely then in events of distress we can produce as much of it as we want without being dependent on any other country.

[kumble_rocks]

A very bad move. Let me explain why ( i have experience with guns) : Kalashnikovs are the PERFECT weapon for insurgents/terrorists/militias but rarely are the choice for weaponry amongst professional armies. The best things about a kalashnikov is that it is indestructable as far as guns go and super-cheap to mass produce. You could use it 8 hours a day and it won't overheat/jam, you could bury it in a sandpit, dig it up 5 years later, wash it and get it firing within the next hour.It is such a hardy gun that you could beat people with the stock and hardly damage the gun. Its not very accurate for assault rifles but it comes with a bigger round than most guns, so you could shoot through bushes and foliage. And it is basic enough a design for a newbie to get really good in using it within a couple of hours of practice. Compare that to the more advanced assault rifles like M-16s, MP4s, FNFALs etc- those guns are nowhere as hardy as Kalashnikovs are ( many of them are made of plastic stock!), you use it for 8 hours straight and it will melt in your hands, you try to beat people with it, it will break into 4 parts after 2 hits and forget burying it for 5 yrs, if its so much as a dusty day in Iraq, your gun will jam/malfunction. But at the same time, these guns have a far higher rate of fire, far more accuracy and are more versatile with the kinds of bullets it can use. Not to mention, many of these guns take practice to get used to and are a bit counter-intuitive in how they work. Its not hard to see then, why Kalashnikovs are hardly used en-masse by modern infantry but favourites of the militias- its cheap, indestructable, easily learnt and very very hardy. If you are a terrorist/militia on a budget, Kalashnikovs are your holy grail. But it is also not hard to see why Kalashnikovs arn't the weapon of choice for most professional militaries- most of Kalashnikov's positives arn't that useful for a military- they don't really need to beat people with their guns, they don't need to bury the gun and dig it up 5 years later and they arn't that worried about it jamming/overheating- they will just issue a new gun if your corporal overheats his gun! And even though its more expensive compared to Kalashnikovs, militaries the world over prefer the 'higher accuracy, more bullet-compatability and higher rates of fire'. So its a bit puzzling why India is so interested in building/buying Kalashnikovs- in the hands of the Maoists/Kashmir terrorists/ULFA/Hinduvtas, its a real menace. And India, a nation thats spending billions on defence, can surely afford a higher price-tag conventional army assault rifle.

Good informative post !:two_thumbs_up:

[The Outsider]

I would like to think that such issues with only continue to grow. The fact is that India is on the up, both as an economic power as well as military. Atleast now we have money to afford buying top weapons. Now dont get me wrong I am not advocating an Arm race but merely stating that factually we will see more issues like this. So why not use this as a good example to set up our system? Surely we can not, and should not, push this issue on back burner? If we have license to produce our weapons surely then in events of distress we can produce as much of it as we want without being dependent on any other country.

Fair point and I am in agreement with you in principle. My concern comes about due to the practical, on ground situation and while the article mentions the news of Kalashikovs making there way to India, I would have been happy to see : 1. The journalist keeping this point in mind while reporting and try to get a government official to comment on it. 2. The government official telling the public of the extra security measures they intend to take in this case and further such weapons factories, which you point out will be more frequent.

[CC1981]

Lurker, the only reason i am against this move is because i think this will hurt India in the long run. Our government/police/military are all pretty corrupt and a lot of the weapons the terrorists/insurgents get are from corrupt police/military/govt. Now, if India is manufacturing Kalashnikovs en masse, then some of these will end up in the hands of the insurgents very easily. Given how indestructable AKs are, it will be manna for the militias If India were to make M-16s or MP4s en-masse, then it would be better, because while these guns serve the purpose of the military/police very well, the stolen/illegally smuggled ones won't be as useful to the terrorists/insurgents- as i mentioned before, these guns require a lot more TLC (Tender love and care) than AKs.