Top 10 Combat Rifles
-
Originally posted by glock:
I think we need to keep in mind that the SAR-21 is of sorts, an attempt to design a weapon that can be used by as many different users as possible over a single design. Hence everybody from the seasoned soldier to the fei zhai RPs are supposed to have a weapon that does the job for them and yet is standard enough that it was be mass-produced and issued. I would go for the 20' barrel simply because the extra weight isn't that great a liability, and since you already have a bullpup, why not make use of the extra space you have to mount a longer barrel? The extra 15 or so meters in which the round remains lethal is important in 5.56 ammo.
1. All the newer rifles invariable have 16 to 18 inch plus barrels eg TAR21,
F2000, G36 in standard variant. All have built in scopes & all are much
lighter than SAR21. A 20 in barrel is more lethal but a 16 to 18 in one is
sufficient for a normal conscript infantryman up to 300 m ranges. With
modular designs, give the more skilled conscript a 20 to 24 in barrel and 4
X scope & he will take out enemy at 400 to 600 m.
The difference is between giving your enemy an icepick wound or a gaping internal cavity full of bullet fragments. 20' seems a nice compromise on the high side for me.
They do have shorter barreled versions of the SAR in 14 or 16 barrels, but AFAIK they are for specialized applications.2. The aunties / teenagers / kids can hit man sized targets at 100 m with
I believe the justification for it was that for a SAR you can basically pick it off the assembly line and get decent groupings with the whole pakage without much fuss. The whole weapon is in itself that very thing. Mount an LAD and scope on the M-16 you get a system that actually heavier then the SAR, not to mention more expensive and you still have to spend more time to zero the whole thing. In times of war you would like your weapons systems to come in "happy meal" packages with less fuss.
SAR21 without training. They can also do the same with the other rifles
above. They can also do so with a scoped M16.3. SCAR, G36 and F2000 have Safe/Fire & Auto/Single shot controls which are
Granted I never understood why ST in all their wisdom and cunning designs never bothered to fix the whole fire selector/safety issue. Unless they were making it with SAF doctrine in mind where the soldiers would be doing semi most of the time and auto was extremely rare.
similar or better than the ones in M16s which are hard to fault.
Prehaps they figured adding the links to redesign the fire selector in another more egronomic position made the whole system less reliable and added more moving parts. Granted... how often do we rock and roll on anyway? Is the added time to switch to this mode a serious design flaw or just a compromise for reliability. Of course this is just my speculation.4. P rails give flexibility to the normal infantryman. They are not only for Spec
There is a version of the SAR with the P rail, but last I heard no plans in the SAF to extend this to all us conscripts. They didn't do it with the M-16, and so far no plans to do it with the usual SAR. But this is not really the issue of the weapon and that of the SAF. I would prefer a P Rail myself, as I would also like to see things like body armour and what have you not becoming standard. Time will tell, but there's nothing stopping the SAR from becoming P-Railed... and indeed it has.
Ops. When u need a light in urban combat or when u need to configure
rifle for a night battle and need a night sight , the P rail will be needed.5. The sight reticule in the standard optical sight in the SAR21 is hard to see
I believe they never intended for the scope to be used in night conditions, shifting the whole emphasis of night engagements to the LAD. Seems somewhat incomplete to me however, but then again proper night engagements (which do not involve blasting at each other) usually takes place below 100 meters, at which using an LAD in a firefight is probably much better then squinting down a scope. Personally I engaged night targets much faster by point indexing them with the SAR, given a short burst of the LAD to check the aim and squeezing off a round then I could ever do with my M16 night sights. Using a normal scope at night isn't really a good idea.
& is useless in poor light & darkness. It shud not be black but illuminated
to amber or red. There are also no graduations to estimate range - one
only needs to see a G36 standard optical sight to see how simple and
effective a good sight is.
Scope optics let in less light then normal sights and the reduced field of view leaves you even more blind. The best I feel would be a nice dot sight, but I suppose giving the backup sights a glow tip would help a lot in night fighting.
I don't see why you need graduations in the SAR scope. The center dot is zeroed (unless you messed with it) to 200 and the limits of the circle are where you expect your bullets to impact at 100 and 300 respectively. It's an elegant and somewhat idiot-proof sight to use. Point and shoot.
The fancy scopes with the graduations are found in the sharpshooter version of the SAR though, so there you have it. -
steyr aug? LOL. was the list based on the number of armies operating it or what. if it is, i'd say the G3 is a much better choice. -
I think he said devastating.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Erm, an close in burst from an M16 using normal ball ammo is far more lethal then AK burst.
You are talking about lethality. -
The pictures I saw of the recent Chechnya conflict the Russian soldiers are using AK-74 and some Spetsnaz are using I think the AK-101 series.
Scope is still not ususlly mounted, probably because the AK is not good for long range accuracy. But maybe it is because they still emphasise on volume firepower at closer ranges and quick target acquisition as a lot of battles in Chechnya were still fought in FIBUA conditions.
So my question to SAR-21 users or users or other scope weapons is whether the scope is the right thing for FIBUA or not...? -
SAR 21 scope not ideal for FIBUA. Iron sights or 1 X such as EO Tech or 1 X red dot sights much better for 100 m or less. They are fast and you can open two eyes for better situation awareness.
If we have P rails on the SAR 21 , sight can always be changed to suit the situation or upgraded easily. -
(A)Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Erm, an close in burst from an M16 using normal ball ammo is far more lethal then AK burst. ... Hence at FIBUA distances a 5.56 round is actually more dangerous.
Above 100 meters however, the AK round is more dangerous... but this is offset by it being less precise. The real gem of the AK is in its reliability, given an IA in close quarters is death... something that is more likely with an M16.
When I say devastating, I am talking about the kinetic power of the heavier 7.62 AK - or NATO - round. The 7.62 AK or NATO is able to punch through wooden doors, thin walls, vegetation or other obstacles that would otherwise stop or deflect a 5.56mm round.
(B)
The other meaning of "devastating" is the "knock down power" argument favoured by many pro-7.62 foreign soldiers.
APPARENTLY,, the bigger 7.62 AK or NATO round has more "knock down power" than the 5.56mm. If you are interested in this line of thought you can google it.
This is one of the reasons the FN SCAR is preferred in the 7.62 calibre and also one of the reasons - besides reliability - why US troops use captured AKs. -
SAR 21 scope not ideal for FIBUA. Iron sights or 1 X such as EO Tech or 1 X red dot sights much better for 100 m or less. They are fast and you can open two eyes for better situation awareness.
Ney, AFAIK and from personal experience the SAR scope is much more suited to FIBUA then your M16 iron sights. The scope greatly simplifies the extra step of getting your sight picture correct with iron sights and greatly increases your target acquisition time. It is totally possible to use the scope with both eyes open, though it requires some practice to get used to. In fact the reason why 1.5x was chosen for the scope was because this is the limit to which a human operator can use the scope with both eyes open.
If we have P rails on the SAR 21 , sight can always be changed to suit the situation or upgraded easily.
Although the ultimate sight for FIBUA would be the red dot sight. But they arenÂ’t exactly standard issue in the SAF. I suppose it has to do with cost and reliability.
No argument on the P-rails though, itÂ’s part of my dreams for the standard issue SAR.(A)
True enough about the barrier performance of the 5.56, thereÂ’s no such thing as a free lunch when you try to reduce bullet sizes. Unless you are talking about the M995 which has superior penetrative power then the 7.62 (though probably with much less lethal effects then your usual 5.56). So once again, I guess no free lunch.
When I say devastating, I am talking about the kinetic power of the heavier 7.62 AK - or NATO - round. The 7.62 AK or NATO is able to punch through wooden doors, thin walls, vegetation or other obstacles that would otherwise stop or deflect a 5.56mm round.
(B)
The other meaning of "devastating" is the "knock down power" argument favoured by many pro-7.62 foreign soldiers.
APPARENTLY,, the bigger 7.62 AK or NATO round has more "knock down power" than the 5.56mm. If you are interested in this line of thought you can google it.
This is one of the reasons the FN SCAR is preferred in the 7.62 calibre and also one of the reasons - besides reliability - why US troops use captured AKs.
On “knockdown power” while the 7.62 AK imparts more energy to the target, it has been long established that no small arm fired round actually imparts enough energy to physically knock a person down (or even trip him up for that matter). I think they convincingly demonstrated that on Mythbusters some time back as well when they used a number of different firearms to abuse pigs.
Granted, itÂ’s still not fully understood what is truly behind knockdown power, but it has been speculated that the temporary cavity generated in the tissues by the penetrating round, while causing no actual physical damage has the ability to shock nerve bundles and create a stunning effect on the victim. There may also be psychological reasons behind this (perhaps people are conditioned to fall when hit) and an AK round is certainly more felt at generating these effects.
But itÂ’s a mixed bag I suppose. At the end of the day the most reliable way to damage your target is to leave a permanent hole in itÂ… especially if that target is a person. But then again itÂ’s good to have a round that you know has a higher chance of stopping a person charging at you.
Though personally IÂ’ll go for the reliable kill methodÂ… if you hit a person with a fragmenting 5.56mm in the gut, chest or CNSÂ… or even the legs, he will still go down pretty reliably most of the time and is more likely to die from those injuries. If we really wanted knockdown power in those close in situations I think nothing really beats an auto shotgun.
On trading weapons: In Vietnam this probably happened quite a bit due to the reliability issues then, but AFAIK, US troops use captured AKs are often those who are not issued enough personal weapons (like convoy units). And besides it doesn't hurt to have more guns around in such a place. But so far this pratice isn't widespread in the units that actually do combat on a regular basis... This apparently isn't a big issue or else we would have seen quite a lot of that in Fallujah where there were plenty of chances to use captured AKs if knockdown power was a pressing issue. -
The Mythbuster demo was to debunk the Hollywood myth that "someone getting shot can be knocked A FEW FEET BACKWARDS".
What we are talking about is someone getting shot and then collapsing backwards or forwards or sideways from the pain, the shock and the impact.
This is knock down power - it is not about something or someone flying several feet backwards.
Besides...
A living human needs a constant conscious effort to balance and stand upright. A living human feels pain. A living human feels shock.
So if a big impact hits you like an AK round, the chance of you collapsing from the force is higher. -
Aye no argument there, and as you have seen I've already noted the effects and implications of knockdown power.
It has been noted however that knockdown power is not a reliable means of stopping people, as by and by it relies a lot on the mental condition of the person. Some people have fallen or fainted when they have taken a slight graze from a bullet or were completely missed altogether.
On the other hand there have been known cases where a sufficently motivated/enraged person could easily shrug off even after taking several mortal hits that would have brought down anybody. There was this case where a guy took a shotgun slug to the chest, leaving a gaping hole but yet was able to chase his shooters and empty a magazine at them before running out of gas.
While having knockdown power is useful, I'm not entirely sure is that big of an issue except when you need to stop people charging at you. In many cases in Iraq many of the Yanks who were wounded by AK 7.62mm still managed to carry on with purposeful actions and kill their enemy. Had the same area been hit by a fragmenting 5.56mm they would almost certainly been out of action.
In the end the most reliable method of stopping someone is still taking a chunk out of them. A person stunned or wounded by an AK round may drop to the ground but still be a threat moments later when they recover enough to get by to the fight. Being shot in the same area with fragmenting 5.56mm provides a higher probability of putting that person out of the fight for good. So in the end it's still a mixed bag of the pros and cons of various rounds.
You can drive NATO 7.62mm with sufficent modifications to get the same fragmenting effect that is native to 5.56mm (but this is not possible with the AK round), but of course in many cases it turned out that it was decided that it was far cheaper and more useful to carry more of a smaller caliber that gives just about the same effect. -
Use a hollow point 5.56 & you get the knockdown power you need ; but is is banned by Geneva Convention.
-
Technically the fragmenting effects of the usual 5.56 is disallowed under the Geneva conventions as well, and in fact some have tried to introduce 5.56 rounds that do not fragment. But that would make the round very much less lethal.Originally posted by glock:Use a hollow point 5.56 & you get the knockdown power you need ; but is is banned by Geneva Convention. -
yes! the 5.56 fragmentation that thumble and create that temporary cavity than the permanent cavity on the target will greatly increase the lethality of the round ! As we know, the new 1:7 twist barrel use by most M4, M16A2 ,3 that stabalize the SS109 or M855 and the black tip M955! with a long enough barrel, the KE and the hi velocity of the 5.56 will actually create a much devastating effect than a std ball M43 7.62x39mm ammo. MOst AK round will just go right thru the target!
We experiment by putting jeans cloths and behind it a 2 liter bottle with water! the AK round would simply go thru the target! but a 5.56 or the AK74 5.45x39mm would blast the bottle .. the bottle pretty much exploded when hit while the 7.62x39 merely punch a hole thru.
for 7.62x51 NATO.. they do have their purpose at longer range since the 5.56 pass 300 meter already lose so much velocity that it will not fragment and thumble and thus losing the magic of the round! need to look at the German 7.62 round, they have a much thinner metal jacket and when hit the target ! it would fragment becasue of the thin walled jacket ! how nasty is that!
DaveC! -
What is your preferred assault rifle calibre? 5.56mm, 7.62mm NATO, or 7.62mm AK?
For me, it is definitely 5.56mm as the whole package including the weapon is lighter and easier to handle. Knockdown power or not, fragmentation or not, it is always safer to shoot someone several times if you can.
Some people die faster, some die slower, whatever the calibre. Some people are killed by one .22 round, while others survive horrendous wounds.
Unfortunately, dying is not yet scientific whatever the test results show. -
double
-
For general purpose rifle engagement of not more than 400 yds! I would go with the 5.56 ! but it will be the M855 which is the 62 grain or the 77 grain ammo and not the 55 grain M193 we use in Singapore! these have low impulse and very controllable in Full auto ... and acccuracy with a 16 or 20" barreld rifle! probably a piston base M4 or SIG type riflle! ( have not use the SAR21! so cannot comment on that) .. Used the AUG but find the bullpup to be quite akward when changing mags and clearing weak side corners! but if I have to be engaging distnace beyond that! than I will go with a 7.62x51mm . probably a SCAR H , or L1A1.
DaveC -
Don't forget the newer Mk 262, which is prehaps the ultimate expression of the 5.56mm so far, with more violent fragmentation and retaining this preformance over a longer distance. My dream mag load would be alternating Mk 262 with M955 penetrators, that'll be a nasty load to throw at anybody.
-
Sorry ah glock, I post our PM here for everybodyÂ’s benefit. Well I had a unique position in NS in which I had a lot of time with both rifles. I spent my SISPEC and Guards days playing and shooting with the SAR a lot and later in BMTC exclusively with the M-16. As I loved firearms, I did investigate and play with both weapons a lot more then your typical conscript grunt that expects his firearm to behave like his PS2 Controller
. Though I didnÂ’t train until so high level like my friend who managed to strip to SAR down to nearly nothing.Originally posted by glock:
Actcherly hor, itÂ’s pretty much taught in SAR technical handling. As far as I have known and experienced, a factory zeroed SAR-21 will hit at 200 meters on the centre dot (though in practice few scopes actually hold this zero by the time the rifle gets to you and you have to adjust it a few clicks but itÂ’s more or less there). But yes, the little circle that surrounds the dot and the space between them are more or less your aim points for 100 and 300. But actually itÂ’s good to have, though for most targets the flat trajectory of 5.56mm means that even if you have the dot on them youÂ’ll most likely hit for a man sized target.
[b]You apparently have used SAR21 or are more familiar with SAR 21 than me. I handled SAR21 on two or three ocassions only.
Need you to clarify the following - Are you saying that outer circle on SAR 21 sight fits a 1.7 m standing man at 100 m and that inner smaller circle is for standing man at 300 m ?
If so, that's great as it is similar to G36 but G36 is at 400 m. G36 sight has simple graduations for range estimation up to 800 m and for aiming off left & right for moving target. They also have aim points for other ranges also. Not really difficult to use and I think our guys are smart enough to use them - they are great for range estimation.The lines in the scope on SAR 21 are very difficult to see as there is little contrast. If a different color such as amber is used it wud have been a great improvement. It illuminated using tritium, even better. Also, back up front sight shud have illum.
No issues with the scope lines from me anyway, so I guess itÂ’s a personal thing. I had no issues using it in foliage when everything was green and black. ItÂ’s only an issue when it gets dark but itÂ’s pretty moot because the scope was never intended for night fighting.
Tritium would be a good idea, and thereÂ’s really nothing stopping it from being implemented in the SAR-21 scopeÂ… except the idea that perhaps SAF is trying to cut costs here and there and hence ST has to follow suit. Perhaps they ruled that the LAD would make up for it. I would prefer both tritium and LAD though.
But the scope improves shooting for any shooter over iron sights, no doubt. I am a decent shot with the M-16, but shooting the SAR lead to a dramatic improvement in my ability to find and hit the target. ItÂ’s pretty amazing that at 300 meters you are taking a lot less time to aim at and hit the target. Of course to some users anything but iron sights are heresy
[/quote]I think that a really serious issue with SAR 21 is weight. ST shud have ensured that the weapon was in the 3.5 kg ( with scope ) & not 4 plus kg. After all, all the new rifles in past 10 years complete with scope are way below 4 kg. [/quote]
Not so sure about that. A lot of the so called “extra weight” comes from the added barrel length and hence systems. Pound for pound the lethality of the SAR-21 is unlikely to be deficent, given we are paying the weight to get the best ballistic qualities out of the 5.56mm, which in my opinion is a good move. And more importantly one also needs to know that the SAR-21 , being kiasu and having to consider the mothers of conscripts in mind, comes with the added weight of a Kevlar armour plate to tahan the force of a chamber explosion to prevent the typical bullpup fault of tending to drive metal into your head when it decides to fail. I mean did you see a chamber exploded Styer Aug before? You don’t want your face to be there.
So all in all I donÂ’t think thatÂ’s an issueÂ… the weight is being used for something useful. Given how the yanks like to slap so much ninja stuff on their firearms which cranks up the weight up a lot, unless the rifle weighted 6-8 kilos or something itÂ’s pretty much a moot issue.The current Safe/Fire and Auto/Single Shot on SAR 21 really sucks. When u need Auto NOW, u need it NOW and to use your other hand to activate is crazy. In life and death situation every miliisecond counts !
Once again itÂ’s a tough call and dependent on tactics. Sometimes in FIBUA we go into a room already set on full auto and sometimes we go in on semi. Depending on the situation I guess. But in practice I never figured out a situation in which I suddenly had to switch to auto to save my life. If there was a guy charging me and I had a SAR or an M-16Â… my instinct would not be to go auto and pump him full of rounds. It would be to put as many rounds into him as I can semi. Maybe the Russians might disagree but I suppose itÂ’s tactics once again. Even on the M-16 when I was contacted at close quarters it never crossed me mind to go auto and blaze away (given there were no superiors around it would be easy to do).
So as a feature IÂ’m not sure if itÂ’s really as useful, or a big an issue as it is made out to be. It depends on the soldier and frankly a deliberate double or triple tap seems as dangerous (if not more so) then spraying on full auto and turning the weapon into the MA5B Assualt Rifle from Halo. Not all of us carry 10 mags of 60 rounds and have energy shields like the Chief -
I am personally not in favor of using LAD unless in very special circumstances. I cannot imagine in a night fight with a battalion of infantryman all using LADs for aiming even momentarily - I don't think it will work - how can you distingusih whose target is whose when everyone uses the LAD ?
I put it down to an issue of training. The LAD is extremely useful when you learn how and how NOT to use it. The key advantage it gives over the red dot is its ability to shoot from bizzare positions without ever needing any sight picture. At least the way I was trained was to acquire your target first before using your LAD to confirm the aim. ItÂ’s quite different from activating your LAD, seeing the spot and trying to use it like a ray-o-death and sic it on the target. Yah if your entire battalion do that then confirm buang one. So, back to the proper method: if your instinctive shooting is decent, your LAD will more or less appear where you expect it to and you can use it pretty well. I never had any issues with this method discovering which was my dot and used it very well during section life fire. Actually I appreciate this feature because it allows me to keep my face off the rifle and see where all the men in my section are while I engage the target.
And given the Yanks in Iraq are using their LADs WITH NVGs (which no doubt would be even more confusing) and are getting in kills with it during night engagements… so much so until usage of the “death dot” is pretty much SOP… I don’t think it’s a great issue once you realize how to use the system. It’s very, very useful.
My main compliant is that the grunts are not getting enough time towards knowing their weapon better, and sometimes I think that might be the fault of us instructors and the SAF at large who havenÂ’t figured a more robust system of firearm training. I mean BTP and ATP are cool but beyond that we need to know the practical by and bys of using the weaponsÂ… especially in situations very different from range. Our grunts just donÂ’t spend enough time with the weapons and are never taught beyond the basics. The yanks actually make their recruits keep their rifles in bunk WITH blanks when first introduced to the weapon to engineer misfires to teach them how to use the weapon properly. -
During my time with the M-16, the SOP was (then) to switch between Semi or Full as the situation dictates. In other words, during FIBUA or FOFO, we are pretty much on Semi as you approach the objective.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Once again itÂ’s a tough call and dependent on tactics. Sometimes in FIBUA we go into a room already set on full auto and sometimes we go in on semi.
But once you are IN the objective, example inside the house/room, or inside the comms trench/bunker, it is (or rather, WAS...) SOP to switch to Full.
Perhaps it is different, now?
If switching is inconvenient with the SAR-21, I would put to Full in these close combat situations.
Question: On the SAR-21, can u regulate a full-auto mode to fire single shots if you squeeze but don't hold down the trigger? I think the Steyr AUG has this ability...
Dangerous? Why so?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:... a deliberate double or triple tap seems as dangerous (if not more so) then spraying on full auto ...
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in SAF Cdo double tap during CQB is SOP. -
Originally posted by moca:
Well double or triple taps allow for a more precise placement of shots on the target. In many situtations getting in the rounds where they matter is a lot more useful then sending lots of rounds downrange in the hope that they hit. The grunts in Vietnam were well known for using their M-16s like personal machine guns before proper fire disciple was taught.
During my time with the M-16, the SOP was (then) to switch between Semi or Full as the situation dictates. In other words, during FIBUA or FOFO, we are pretty much on Semi as you approach the objective.
But once you are IN the objective, example inside the house, or inside the comms trench, it is (or rather, WAS...) SOP to switch to Full.
Perhaps it is different, now?
If switching is inconvenient with the SAR-21, I would put to Full in these close combat situations.
Question: On the SAR-21, can regulate a full-auto mode to fire semi if you squeeze but don't hold down the trigger? I think the Steyr AUG has this function... [quote]
I think the "according the situtation" as to choosing what firing mode to choose still applies. But now clearing rooms in semi-auto is taught, and in fact the whole thing now leans towards the use of semi-auto (delibrate double taps to aquired targets (or blind spots) in the room) to do the bulk of clearing in FIBUA.
The obvious justification is that no soldier really carries enough ammunition to sustain auto-clearing for more then a couple of rooms. But then again it is possible to fire bursts on the auto function which would be useful in FIBUA (which is what I would do)... so it depends on what you are trained in. I never tried firing single shots on the SAR while on auto, but given the bullets come out so fast I wonder if this is possible... it could be done but it would probably involve a lot of trigger snatching which is bad marksmanship... but in CQB I guess that doesn't matter.
[quote]Dangerous? Why so?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in SAF Cdo double tap during CQB is SOP.[/b]
I read in this sniper book once that one Vietnam unit never bothered to teach their men proper marksmanship at all, and during a demostration on how actually to use their M-16, a visiting instructor managed to get their most hopless soldier to hit a target more times then the entire company combined who shot at it from the hip or on full auto.
There is a chance that in auto most of the rounds go wide or are wasted. In fact I was studying this Brit infantry combat manual once and it does not recommend auto unless on a bunch of charging infantry at less then 20 meters, at which there is a higher chance of more bullets connecting.
Yeah, I think it's pretty SOP for the Cdos to do douple tap in CQB... given that this is also becoming SOP SAF-wide. It is useful when you are in a place that might have hostages or non-combatants, where spraying might be a bad idea. But once again, it depends on what is really happening on the ground. -
With all the better modern assault rifles all having very simple switching from single shot to auto & vice versa, I don't see why we can't have it for our SAR21s too. We then leave it to the tactical situation for soldier to use either auto or single shot. The point is that the single shot /auto switching feature on our rifles must be made to work quickly & easily.
When a 1/2 dozen of enemy drops in 20 m in front of you , you wud not want to fiddle around with the single shot/auto before opening fire on auto. You will need to do it at a flick of a switch - in a tenth of of a second ! -
Well dude, as I said it's a matter of personal training and what tatics your troops are going to use. The M-16s the Yanks use can't even manage auto fire, having limited themselves to burst mode for various justifications... at the end of the day it depends on how you are going to use the weapon and the way you have been trained to do so.Originally posted by glock:With all the better modern assault rifles all having very simple switching from single shot to auto & vice versa, I don't see why we can't have it for our SAR21s too. We then leave it to the tactical situation for soldier to use either auto or single shot. The point is that the single shot /auto switching feature on our rifles must be made to work quickly & easily.
When a 1/2 dozen of enemy drops in 20 m in front of you , you wud not want to fiddle around with the single shot/auto before opening fire on auto. You will need to do it at a flick of a switch - in a tenth of of a second !
Having said that, from my personal military experience and training I have not come across a situtation that really struck me as a requirement to switch immediately from semi to auto. Often it's either a case of going in already on semi or auto, or taking a breather during a situtation to switch.
And more so it's not as if switching to auto takes that much more time (just take your non master hand off to the rear as if exceuting a mag change and tap the fire selector) it does not even take a second and certainly well within the time frames that would be considered useful for combat. You can do it certainly well within the time frame it takes to change a mag or take cover.
The same argument could be made for the notion that conventional layouts change mags marginally faster then bullpups. But going by that logic it could be argued that a belt-fed system is the best as it requires the least mag changes of all.
At the end of the day I'm not arguing that the SAR-21 couldn't be improved by giving it an M-16 style fire selector. I am just pointing out that it is not as big an issue as people might put it out to be. If I had my way the SAR-21 would be able to take all kinds of mags (not just its own), have an M-16 style fire selector, tritum tipped backup sights, IR LAD, a ease spring lever and all that other stuff that I could think off. But at the end of the day all weapons are designed with many considerations in mind.
There is certianly nothing in the design of the SAR that prevents it from being given an M-16 style selector. As I have speculated some posts before, it is likely that ST designed the SAR with SAF doctrine of mostly semi operations in mind, and decided that adding the extra linkages for the fire selector to be in the master-hand postion (given this is a bullpup) was edged out for making a more robust, and simpler system.
My take on this? It is an acceptable compromise. Your weapon is pretty much screwed if the fire selector is broken. In a bullpup this would be a system consisting of linkage rods and plates more complex then your conventional design. Not to mention this is a feature that at best has dubious need to be used that quickly and the current feature in the rifle still does its function at an acceptable speed.
I would have an issue if the safety was in the fire selector position, but this is not the case. -
edit
-
But do you know this for a fact? Or just speculation?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There is certianly nothing in the design of the SAR that prevents it from being given an M-16 style selector.
Pure speculation...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:As I have speculated some posts before, it is likely that ST designed the SAR with SAF doctrine of mostly semi operations in mind...
Are there any bullpups out there that has solved this problem by having the selector switch at the pistol grip? If others can, I wonder why STK didn't?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:and decided that adding the extra linkages for the fire selector to be in the master-hand postion (given this is a bullpup) was edged out for making a more robust, and simpler system