What I ment was that India could have replaced INSAS with AK201 if they liked 5.56.
Well then say so. I don't read minds.
However I say not nessisarily.
1) at the time of those reports AK201 didn't exist. They could have gone to AK101.
2) being blunt 5.56x45mm AK suck. As does the rail system on an AK.
So although they could doesn't mean they should.
Why do 5.56Ak suck? Ak as a whole is a dated platform it has undergone tweaks and improvement to be sure but it's still a product of the late 1940s early 1950s. It was then revolutionary but when 5.56x45mm NATO appeared on the scene it came with the AR15 series. AR do a number of things far better. First is recoil.
AR rifles are a continuous line from butt pad to muzzle and the stock contains the recever extension. What this means is that when firing the bolt cycles back and has more space of movement inside the recever meaning the bolt can use up excess momentum against the springs. the impulse is directed straight back with less muzzle rise.
The 5.56x45mm round farther sweetens this by being a fairly soft shooter. Because of the small size.
Where on an AK the bolt moves back then hits the recever box the stock is angled down. For felt recoil the impact of the bolt hitting the end of the recever has less space then on the AR so more felt recoil and by being directed into the shooter at an angle the rifle wants to pivot up.
Farther exasperating this is the AK has system. The Long stroke has system was designed to use the maximum possible amount of gas to cycle the bolt. This "over gassing" means that AK can somewhat clear some issues but at the cost of increased bolt momentum meaning increased felt recoil and muzzle climb. Many people who have hands on with a wide range of AK types prefer the AK74 type with 5.45x39mm as the high velocity small diameter round was similarly to the AR designed for reduced recoil force.
AR rifles were not created with rail system. Neither were AK rifles however the "coach gun" style break open of the AR proved advantageous for mounting rails as the upper recever shell doesn't shift and provides a solid housing for the barrel and trinion meaning that optics mounted to it don't loose zero. The AK doesn't have a upper recever it has a top cover that was designed just to keep larger debris out of the action for ease of maintenance it's removable and to allow silt and dust to exit the weapon it's designed loosely as such mounting sights on the top cover has proven difficult. Because though firing and maintenance The the sights loose zero. The AK designer infact was well aware of this fact and mounted the original hard sights on the barrel trinion a more solid component of the rifle.
AK200 series rifles attempt to fix this with a hinged top cover, but that still means some degree of walking zero that is less when new more when old.
The result of this is that 5.56x45mm has far more available rifles designed to get more from it than the AK 5.56x45mm. AK types in this caliber are actually a bit of a novelty. Sure you have AK101, the Polish AK rifles and some Bulgarian types the IWI ACE. Mostly you find AR15, G36, Tavor, AR18 clones, AUG ecta ecta.
7.62x39mm was a bit of a weapon of a captive audience so to speak. Those who had it had it for a long time normally had there own production or easy access and not to many other options. It's a weapon of convenience that can be fielded in numbers cheaply and without needing to give large amounts of training. For it the 5.45x39mm round was tailored to get the best from the platform. But that round really don't catch on the way 7.62x39mm did. And by the time The ol'Warsaw pact was ready to field wider batches the wall had fallen most of the pact joined NATO.
It's because Indians don't know what they are doing and that fact becomes crystal clear if you look at any of their modernization programs.
In this case the point was India sees Military procurement programs as a state run social program.
IE there weapons were meant to keep people employed more than procurement.
INSAS was such. Like the old Maoist Steel forge in every backyard.
Quality was less important than production. And quality control suffered. They attempted to create a modern rifle. But it was already a generation behind when it entered service. They wanted indigenous manufacturing but more to keep employees than product. They wanted to export but basically had to give the rifles away to do that.
When it faced issues they attempted to cover it up when it became clear it was still troubled they actually finally tried to make fixes but still were left with a obsolete rifle that had issues.
So they opened a "modernisation project". Yet the results were still iffy or unrealistic. So they broke down and had to enlist foreign assistance.
This is where AK203 comes in and the Sig716 and the Caracal.
An improved AKM, a modified AR10 and a Piston AR15.