Variety of small arms in SAF infantry platoons
-
In the infantry companies, there are now 3 types of 5.56mm individual arms:
SAR-21
M-16/M203
Ultimax-100
Now that we have switched to the SAR-21, we retain the use of M16/M203.
Why are we not using the SAR-21 with GL mounted as these are available.
-
Another issue is that of magazine compatibility.
SAF's SAR-21 uses a proprietary magazine that is not compatible with the M-16/M203 and Ultimax-100. (Though a version using the M-16 mag is available.)
The logistic side of this situation must be undesirable - especially with SAF penchant for standardisation.
I think it is a great idea to have a translucent plastic magazine for visibility of rounds remaining.
But, with out incredible ability at making arms, isn't it possible to make a plastic mag that is compatible with the M-16? -
I'm sure SAF will soon sort this mess out and a kind of standardisation will occur.
Which direction will it take?
* Will we issue SAR-21/CIS40 to replace M-16/M203?
* Will we ditch the Ultimax for SAR-21 LMG?
* Will we develope an Ultimax that uses SAR-21 magzines?
* Will we convert SAR-21 back to using M-16 magazines?
Or what? -
that GL with handle looks a bit unweldy .... -
Or cheaper still, modify existing M203 to fit the SAR-21.
-
SAR-21 with M-16 mag
-
But as you can see, the barrel of the M203 on this combination is much longer. Will the shorter barrel on the SAR-21 not affect accuracy and range?
-
Actually, the same situation occurred with the Malaysians.
Though they used the Stery AUG for over a decade, they continued to use the M-16/M203 for grenade launching. Wonder why? -
Interesting topic, why aren't the SAR-21 with GL issued?
Anyone? -
Meant for export? Heard it's still under trials..
-
I kinda suspect that SAF wanted to ditch the Ultimax and go for the SAR-21 LMG.Originally posted by moca:Another issue is that of magazine compatibility.
SAF's SAR-21 uses a proprietary magazine that is not compatible with the M-16/M203 and Ultimax-100.
The logistic side of this situation must be undesirable - especially with SAF penchant for standardisation.
And you are probably right about SAF being a.nal about standardisation. They probably want to have ONLY SAR-21 in the platoons from individual arms, carbine, GL to SAW. Maybe even a HB sharpshooter version later.
That's why they boldly went ahead and use a proprietary magazine for the SAR-21 knowing that eventually this platform will replace everything else.
But now that sales of Ultimax is picking up with possible adoption by US, SAF might change its mind about ditching the Ultimax for the SAR-21 LMG. Might be bad for business.
Magazine compatibility issue between the SAR-21 and Ultimax is a hard to solve problem. If they modify the U-100 to use SAR-21 magazines, then they would also have to come up with new 100-round drum that's compatible with the SAR-21 mag. -
The SAR-21 might be a great rifle, and probably reliable as well. But the Utimax must be the more accurate platform for full-auto fire as the recoil is so minimal.Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:I kinda suspect that SAF wanted to ditch the Ultimax and go for the SAR-21 LMG.
And you are probably right about SAF being a.nal about standardisation. They probably want to have ONLY SAR-21 in the platoons from individual arms, carbine, GL to SAW. Maybe even a HB sharpshooter version later.
That's why they boldly went ahead and use a proprietary magazine for the SAR-21 knowing that eventually this platform will replace everything else.
But now that sales of Ultimax is picking up with possible adoption by US, SAF might change its mind about ditching the Ultimax for the SAR-21 LMG. Might be bad for business.
Magazine compatibility issue between the SAR-21 and Ultimax is a hard to solve problem. If they modify the U-100 to use SAR-21 magazines, then they would also have to come up with new 100-round drum that's compatible with the SAR-21 mag.
On another thread, someone mentioned that the SAR-21 had less IA at atp detail (what's that?) - compared to the Ultimax.
This could be several reasons:
* At the time, the SAR-21 was firing semi-auto. The Ultimax was firing full-auto bursts.
* The Ultimax used for training are about 10 over years old. The SAR-21 are brand new.
Still, I agree that the craftsmanship of the Ultimax (I have fired) is really shoddy and leaves much to be desired. And IA like double feeding is very common. And the Ultimax is hopeless at firing blanks so SAW gunners all use "universal rounds" - bang bang bang bang.... -
During our ORD shoot in 1994, all our SAW gunners got Marksman and they are using MK1 and firing at 3 rounds burst.
Live firing at SISPEC, friend were using U100 MK3 providing covering fire. 4 magazine of 30 rounds shooting Fig11 target at 200m....by the end of 2nd magazine, the targets were demolished...fired the balance magazines on the downed target...........comment from him, F**KING SHIOK and accurate!!!!!
My CSM using SAW and adjusting the gas regulator to fire single shot, shot all the targets at 300m, left to right and right to left of the chamber...Shit, us specialists lost a carton of beer to him............
Use in a competent hand, it a frigging awesome weapon!! -
I think our weapons designers (or technopreneurs since they 'borrow' and modify foreign ideas) need to rethink their entire concept.
We cannot possibly match the west in terms of physique and capacity, hence we should be designing weapons which are lighter, more compact and more appropriate to meet our immediate specifications.
The M16S1 was a marvellous weapon. But our conversion to a heavier weapon astonishes me. While definitely more rugged and self-contained, the SAR21 does not have many significant improvements over the M16, apart from the tactical laser-aiming sight and in-built sharpshooter scope, which in my opinion, raises many questions over their supposed greater accuracy over the M16 model. -
I don't like bullpup (like the SAR-21) but one of the reasons for adopting a bullpup is its shortness in length. The SAR-21 overall length is only 80.5cm vs 98.6cm for the M-16S1. It is 18cm shorter.Originally posted by BillyBong:I think our weapons designers (or technopreneurs since they 'borrow' and modify foreign ideas) need to rethink their entire concept.
We cannot possibly match the west in terms of physique and capacity, hence we should be designing weapons which are lighter, more compact and more appropriate to meet our immediate specifications.
The M16S1 was a marvellous weapon. But our conversion to a heavier weapon astonishes me. While definitely more rugged and self-contained, the SAR21 does not have many significant improvements over the M16, apart from the tactical laser-aiming sight and in-built sharpshooter scope, which in my opinion, raises many questions over their supposed greater accuracy over the M16 model.
But is that a lot? I just picked up a ruler and 18cm is about the distance from my wrist to my fingertip. Not a lot.
To give up a good conventional for a heavier, inconvenient to use bullpup... I really don't think it is worth it.
In terms of handling, ergonomics, balance, reloading speed etc bullpups especially the SAR-21 fails.
But, I feel the bigger problem isn't whether the new weapon is a bullpup or not. The big problem is that the new weapon's magazine isn't compatible with the M-16. And as I mentioned, the M-16 magazine continues to be issued for the M-16/M-203 and the Ultimax.
So you have a logistic situation not encountered since the adoption of the M-16S1. -
Yes, single shot very accurate. I tried it too.Originally posted by Slywong:During our ORD shoot in 1994, all our SAW gunners got Marksman and they are using MK1 and firing at 3 rounds burst.
Live firing at SISPEC, friend were using U100 MK3 providing covering fire. 4 magazine of 30 rounds shooting Fig11 target at 200m....by the end of 2nd magazine, the targets were demolished...fired the balance magazines on the downed target...........comment from him, F**KING SHIOK and accurate!!!!!
My CSM using SAW and adjusting the gas regulator to fire single shot, shot all the targets at 300m, left to right and right to left of the chamber...Shit, us specialists lost a carton of beer to him............
Use in a competent hand, it a frigging awesome weapon!!
But on the reverse side of the coin, during one reservist the range results for our SAW gunners firing bursts had to be faked as nearly all bobo.
Could be that they are recent converts to the SAW. -
Even if you are firing burst, the fundamental of shooting should also be apply. breath in then release 3/4 breath, squeeze trigger slowly, dont snap etc etc
Doesnt mean that firing burst will definitely get the target. If lucky, the fist round would hit, the rest would just go shoot aeroplane.....
We loaded a full mag of tracers and shoot at the target. Shiok when you see the rounds going through the targets.
-
my one other beef with the saw, other than it's magazine latch, is that it sucks when firing blanks .....
it's a fantastic weapon when live firing ...... but when you're firing blanks, you'll get all sorts of turd on it .... IAing all the time ...
but of course, it may just be the crappy blanks that we use ... -
Our plastic blanks won't even work well on the M16, where the barrel is shorter than the SAW and the bolt carrier lighter.Originally posted by Fatum:my one other beef with the saw, other than it's magazine latch, is that it sucks when firing blanks .....
it's a fantastic weapon when live firing ...... but when you're firing blanks, you'll get all sorts of turd on it .... IAing all the time ...
but of course, it may just be the crappy blanks that we use ...
I just love the blanks that they use in Hollywood.
First of all, the cartridge is brass, not plastic.
You don't need to use blank attachment, and it seems that can fire full auto no problem. If you watch Austin Powers 2, the opening scene had what's his name dressed as Minime and firing an Ultimax full auto.
Or maybe those guns have already gone through conversions to fire blanks only. -
WOw ! more guns discussion.... I would say lets look at the fundamental flaws of the M16,M4 system... we have a very weak magazine system, the follower and spring and angle makes guns prone to jamming becasue of poor mag design. HK found that out on the SA-80 for the british and basically redsign the M16 magazine! Unless SIngapore adopt the new magazines, I would say SAR21 using a better design magazine may be a good idea.
2ns, M16 direct gas system is a major flaw in the gun systm.. I can attest to this because of the amount of M4/M16 firing in both FA and burst and semi... in lots of competition , if the weapon is not clean after prolong firing, your FA burst can come slower and slower, becasue carbon built up where the dirt foul gas is dumped into the bolt carrier! and my god the crystalized carbon that you have to remove after firing with some wire brush.
SAR21 uses a piston based system thus keeping the rifle relatively easy to maintain! just like my AK74, AUG, FAL etc etc.... Infact the M16A2 and M4 uses in Iraq is REQUIRED to be clean everyday in Iraq! and my freind simply have an AKMS in his humvee! and it pops everytime you pull the trigger ... and the guns have not been clean for months. Not saying AK need not be maintain but the better system would provide an easier maintainance schedule.
IN fact HK redesign the M4 system and here comes HK M416... a piston based M4 with some inetrnal modifications and a new M16 mags!
DaveC! -
Dave
Supply of ammo is not a problem. You are going into battle for unknown length of period. But you can only take one rifle.
Which one would it be? -
Gas blowback and gas operated, piston driven rifle , I will go for piston driven every time.
1)Less cleaning
2) less IA
In fact , with the intro of gas operated, piston driven rifle, M-16 gas blowback design should be obsolete by the 80s.
Heck , dunno why the US still keep on coming out with new variant of an obsolete design. -
Actually because the SAR21 is a bullpup design, the barrel length is similiar to the M16. Hence accuracy is not an issue... except for the scope issues.Originally posted by moca:But as you can see, the barrel of the M203 on this combination is much longer. Will the shorter barrel on the SAR-21 not affect accuracy and range? -
I think he could be refering to the barrel of the grenade launcher itself - not the barrel of the rifle. The barrels of the grenade launchers I've seen on the SAR21 are a little shorter than the standard M203 GL.
-
Har har! Hard choice! but depends on the mission..Originally posted by moca:Dave
Supply of ammo is not a problem. You are going into battle for unknown length of period. But you can only take one rifle.
Which one would it be?
If I have to be in desert or harsh terrain, mostl probably a AK74 M with Elcan 552 or AImpoint 3!
But for all other close range CQB type actions, I would go with a SIG551. Eotech 552 for close range! for extended range ELcan!.... I would chnage this option if I get to play more on a HK M416 or the piston based M16 ... on all I still like the ergonomics of the M16
FOr mission needing longer range engagement, a Inch PAttern L1A1 wuth some modifications to my liking! ( I would put in the bolt hold open device on the last round like the metric, the full auto hammer and sear catch for FA operation .. have learn to control that beast well now ) and bring lots of Bren :L4 magazines! maybe mount a ELcan scope on it
As for SAW, unless U100 come with a belt fed, I will still go with a M249 or te new HK SAW! no can do for me on a SAW with mediocre feeding system ! nothing beats a belt fed for continuious supressive fire.
If 30 caliber is needed ... probbably the new M248 ... the big brother of M249! ..
Pistols, will be my trusty GLock 35 in 40 caliber!
SO! What would you be carrying????
DaveC