Top 10 Combat Rifles
-
Selector switches on the bullpups FAMAS, TAR21, F2000 are all located near trigger area without having to use other hand to activate - excellent ergonomics.
AUG does not even have selector. Just pull trigger for single shot and hold trigger for auto - however I personally do not like this feature.
L85 A1/2 - I think has similar selector as SAR 21. Anyone can think who else uses this weapon besides the Brits ? -
But do you know this for a fact? Or just speculation?
Mostly fact where I come from. If you open up the SAR lower receiver group, you can see that the fire selector is a very simple and direct system that involves sliding a cam into (or out of the way) via the button (which is directly part of the system itself). It's a simple matter to add the linkage plate or rods to activate it from near the handgrip.
Actually it's a moot observation, it's pretty standard to most bullpup designs. To make the fire selector work you have to make a linkage between a hand-sited switch which is far ahead of the firing mechanics of the weapon. The only difference is that for some reason they decided to leave it out of the SAR, not that it could not be done.
It's a bit like saying that the standard SAR does not have a P-Rail hence it cannot be done at all. But in reality there's really nothing stopping the SAR from having a working P-Rail... and it has been done.
Of course IÂ’m no weapons engineer nor do I work for ST. But this is a reasonable observation on my part having opened the weapon and examined the firing mechanism for quite a lot of time during my NS.
ThereÂ’s a way to do an ease spring on the SAR as well, making it possible to combat load it without touching the charging leverÂ… but it isnÂ’t taught in TH. ItÂ’s something the grunts of my batch discovered after using the weapon for a whileÂ… the ones who were interested to figure out how the weapon works.
Pure speculation...
as I already said it's just an educated guess on my part. For some reason ST determined the fire selector position wasn't a big issue... and I seriously doubt it's a simple oversight given how much was put into designing this weapon, and not from imcompetent quarters as well.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?
I heard the AUG had issues with its firing system; something to do with unreliable safeties and it was never really ironed out.
Selector switches on the bullpups FAMAS, TAR21, F2000 are all located near trigger area without having to use other hand to activate - excellent ergonomics.
AUG does not even have selector. Just pull trigger for single shot and hold trigger for auto - however I personally do not like this feature.
L85 A1/2 - I think has similar selector as SAR 21. Anyone can think who else uses this weapon besides the Brits ?
At the end of the day we can only speculate, but the raw facts we do have is that in some areas a bullpup is a more vulnerable design then the conventional as it involves a lot of linkages between the trigger and firing mechanism. Obviously you could get a thumb selector to work, and maybe itÂ’ll work pretty reliably as well. But in the end we donÂ’t know the real reason behind the mysterious choice of ST to choose a slightly-slower switching mechanism and we can only speculate. All I can tell you is that it was well within their means and ability to produce a SAR with a thumb switch, but they didnÂ’t. And there has to be a reason.
Combat wise, I donÂ’t think itÂ’s really a big issue at all. Mostly a mountain out of a molehill. We should really be more concerned with the lethality, accuracy, and reliability of the weapons system then nick nacs like this. These are just, as my SSM would say, the 5-cent and 10-cent quirks between different systems. ItÂ’s bizarre to base an entire opinion of a weapon on it. -
ST shud start cracking on bringing the weight of the SAR 21 down to those of the latest bullpups - all are around =< 3.5 kg complete with scope.
The weight of the SAR 21 is a pain. If had a choice of standard modern assault rifle , I will take the G36C complete with P rail & red dot sight. -
ST shud get feedback from combat veterans eg Spec Ops personnel from US,UK etc on what features they will like to see in SAR 21 to make it a truly great rifle. Maybe shud give them a 100 units free to try it out. This feedback is better than from our own recruits who are not gun savvy.
-
Huh? I don't really get you. The additional weight of the SAR comes from it's full sized barrel from other scope designs come from the intergrated LAD and Kevlar safety plate. Pound for pound the weapon isn't significantly heavier then it's counterparts, once you factor in all the capabilities that the added barrel and LAD gives. The extra weight comes from kiasuism, not poor design.Originally posted by glock:ST shud start cracking on bringing the weight of the SAR 21 down to those of the latest bullpups - all are around =< 3.5 kg complete with scope.
The weight of the SAR 21 is a pain. If had a choice of standard modern assault rifle , I will take the G36C complete with P rail & red dot sight.
And the last I checked, the weapon also isn't that much heavier then the rest of it's bullpup counterparts. The AUG is 3.6 kilos empty (200 grams lighter), the FAMAS is 3.62 kilos (180 grams), the full sized G36 is 3.3kg as well and what have you not. The only true featherweight here is the TAR-21 which comes in at 2.8 kilos empty with the 18' barrel. It turns out mostly we are splitting grams here.
Given that, I'm not sure if the SAR's weight being a pain is more reality or imagination. More likely I think it goes in the line of our grunts thinking the weapon is excessively heavy because it's obviously heavier then the M-16 which they previously handled, giving whole life out of proportion to the rumour of it's weight. I never had any issues with it's weight, and most of the mono intake guys who had never explored the M-16 didn't say anything either.
The weapon "weight" certainly does not get in the way of doing combat drills, nor make it slower to aim. Actually I find the compact configuration of the SAR-21 easier to aim then the M-16, as the CG is closer to you. Not to mention you could go wacky things like fire it one-handed (arms fully outstretched) with decent stability, something very hard to do with the '16. When it boils down to the facts and numbers, the weight is really a ghost issue. It's not as if the weapon was 4.8 kilos empty... then we'll have a problem.
But to please the critics, it seems that of late ST has been showing us a lightweight SAR-21 variant. But I haven't gotten much news on that. -
Having handled Both, i really appreciated the fact you can run with sar in one hand holding the grip and pointing forward. Back during my training...i always envy the people who take the SAR. Carrying the m203 around is a big strain on right hand when you have to go prone with the other hand.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The weapon "weight" certainly does not get in the way of doing combat drills, nor make it slower to aim. Actually I find the compact configuration of the SAR-21 easier to aim then the M-16, as the CG is closer to you. Not to mention you could go wacky things like fire it one-handed (arms fully outstretched) with decent stability, something very hard to do with the '16. When it boils down to the facts and numbers, the weight is really a ghost issue. It's not as if the weapon was 4.8 kilos empty... then we'll have a problem. -
Tyra,
Ah huh ! You did say critics right - and ST tried to reduce the weight ; there you have it, it is heavy.
The SAR 21 weighs in at 3.94 kg with empty magazine - now thats heavy.
With LAD - which I think is really only useful in very limited scenarios - it weighs in at 4.1 kg - battery not included.
Bring the weight down to 3.6 kg with empty magazine & we get a great rifle ( G36 still better though - I luv German technology ) -
Please read about the LW version of the SAR before saying anything more.Originally posted by glock:Tyra,
Ah huh ! You did say critics right - and ST tried to reduce the weight ; there you have it, it is heavy.
The SAR 21 weighs in at 3.94 kg with empty magazine - now thats heavy.
With LAD - which I think is really only useful in very limited scenarios - it weighs in at 4.1 kg - battery not included.
Bring the weight down to 3.6 kg with empty magazine & we get a great rifle ( G36 still better though - I luv German technology )
AFAIK, the LW version of the SAR was intended for specialized applications, like as a carbine PDW... no word for ST if they really intend this as a full block upgrade. But the point remains... is the weight really a liability after everything has been factored in?
This is not to mention the weapon basically comes with the full 508mm barrel, the kevlar safety plate, and intergrated LAD... the weapon will be inherently heavier then it's counterparts who leave out the LAD and skimp on the barrel. As I said arguing that the weapon is heavy is really arguing in a circle... there's a difference between unnecessary weight and weight coming from stuff that's there for a purpose. Then it boils down to personal opinion on if all that stuff is needed. But at the end of the day if you want to produce a FIBUA oriented weapon that is economical to produce and yet giving some ninja capabilities to the average grunt... the SAR is one of the valid solutions to it.
I see no need to knock what obvious choices the designers made because if you look at it... the various systems have thier own pros and cons. If the system is actually flawed, or accepting a limitation to have another advantage is a thing one has to be clear about.
If one says that the SAR is simply "heavy" without examining the reasons why... they are pretty much mistaken. It's like saying the M1A2 is basically flawed because it's overweight compared to the T-72 and the T-72 has a larger gun! The whole issue is far more complex then that!
Also one needs to wonder if the stated difference in weight is really such an issue to begin with... as I said, it's not as if the weapon weights 5 kilos and gives you nothing more that the M-16 does not. The average Singaporean grunt is pretty much capable of handling the SAR-21 and using it proficently in battle without issues, and the fact that the yanks have gotten some of it for law enforcements shows that if the weight and fire selector is an issue... they apparently aren't as much as some would like to make it to be.
And you are certianly very wrong about the LAD being of limited use... it is almost certian to be used quite a lot in night fighting and FIBUA... in fact our troops train to use the LAD quite a bit... it's certainly not there for nothing. As I said some posts ago, it gives certain critical advantages over the red dot in FIBUA, namely in the more intitutive ability of the shooter to engage targets from various positions impossible with normal sights. That is very useful in FIBUA.
In fact I find it odd that you can make a big issue about the fire selector, but see little use for the LAD, if the combat effectiveness of the rifle was the main trust of your argument
-
I question the need for an integrated LAD - the SAR 21 is the only ( as far as I know ) standard assault rifle in the world that has one. Does the SAF know something all other armies who have been in real combat don't. I guess the enemy will just shoot at anyone pointing a laser knowing that the SAF conscript is the only army in the world to be totally outfitted with an integrated laser. The point of origin of the laser will incidentally make an excellent target for someone equipmed with a red dot sight. Almost the whole US Army is using red dot , reflex and Holosights on the M16s and M4s & there must be a good reason for it. Having said this , I will however agree that the laser sight has its use but in very special scenarios. A laser sight shud not be issued to the ordinary infantryman but to the spec operator or in very special scenarios to a select few when the mission requires it.
Most of the modern and most recent assault rifles whether bullpup or not have fire selectors near the trigger area and are operated without having to move the other hand to operate them. It is simply good ergonomics.
For the gun savvy, it is a big issue ; so I guess that we are not gun savvy and that's why we say it is no issue.
Again most of the recent & modern rifles do not have full 20 inch barrels. It is not necessary for the ranges we are talking about. That extra 50 m/s will make no difference at up to 400m. Give that extra 2 in of barrel & 50 m/s to the sharpshooter with a 4 X scope to take out targets at 600 m.
Why do we need a Kevlar cheek piece when others dont. Is there a design issue which makes it necessary to have one ? It is an unnecessary expense and weight when the fundamental design of the rifle is sound.
When other armies purchase the SAR21 & use it as their standard issue assault rifle, then we can say that we have a great rifle. I say reduce the weight, get rid of the integrated LAD, improve the selector & we will have a very good SAR 21 sought after by other armies. But looks like the M16s, AKs, M4s, AUGs, F2000, TAR 21 & G36s are still one step ahead. -
I question the need for an integrated LAD - the SAR 21 is the only ( as far as I know ) standard assault rifle in the world that has one. Does the SAF know something all other armies who have been in real combat don't. I guess the enemy will just shoot at anyone pointing a laser knowing that the SAF conscript is the only army in the world to be totally outfitted with an integrated laser. The point of origin of the laser will incidentally make an excellent target for someone equipmed with a red dot sight. Almost the whole US Army is using red dot , reflex and Holosights on the M16s and M4s & there must be a good reason for it. Having said this , I will however agree that the laser sight has its use but in very special scenarios. A laser sight shud not be issued to the ordinary infantryman but to the spec operator or in very special scenarios to a select few when the mission requires it.
That’s a bizarre way of looking at it. By this logic any “unique” piece of equipment that the SAF has should be discarded if it differs from armies who have been in real combat.
ItÂ’s does not matter if you are a conscript or not, what matters is how you are trained and what tactics and equipment you are going to use. IÂ’m not really sure what your arguments against the LAD are except that you do not really know how to use it, or maybe just an insistence on the fact that it canÂ’t possibly be useful. But an insistence on a position hardly vindicates it.
Also your point of the enemy shooting anybody pointing the laser seems to betray a common misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of how LADs should be actually used in combat situations. Typically, the LAD is only activated to check your aim just before you pull the trigger. There is no time for the enemy to track your location from the red dot, and you canÂ’t see the origin of the beam (it is invisible) unless it was shining straight into your eye, because Laser diodes emit light in a monodirectional beam and hence are only visible from a very restricted angle.
Also the fact that the noise and muzzle flash of firing at night makes the whole LAD-give-away–position thing pretty moot. It only gives away your position if you use it ala. SAF army ad style, with it constantly on and swinging around…which is really wayang and not SOP in the real world.
As for LAD vs. Red Dot sights, once again it is an issue of pros and cons. The LADÂ’s chief advantage over the Red Dot comes from it being more reliable and robust system then your typical red dotÂ… not to mention a great deal cheaper. Not to mention thereÂ’s the greater advantage of it possible to use the weapon from positions not normally available to other aiming systems. These certainly are very useful advantages over your common cheek-wield system of aiming. Also, an LAD is easier to learn and use then a red dot over various shooters of different skills, which will be a life saving factor for Mr. Goondusami Wowo shooter. Given the cost, reliability and intuitive advantages the LAD offers, all this I can see why the SAF decided to go for an integral LAD for the SAR-21.
In the end I’m not sure what you mean by stating “special scenarios” or “good reason for it”. The truth is there is more then one way of cracking a problem and I do not see why we should follow the SOP of a volunteer army of high quality shooters with many times more the annual defence budget for their infantry. Our needs are different and obviously we have to adapt for our own unique needs. The soldiers of the SAF are more variable in quality and with a more limited budget available to equip them, the LAD offers a good across-the-board compromise for everyone.Most of the modern and most recent assault rifles whether bullpup or not have fire selectors near the trigger area and are operated without having to move the other hand to operate them. It is simply good ergonomics.
If I so must note, the gun savy who reviewed the SAR-21 complained about the fire selector, but they never made it into the fatal flaw that some of us blow it out to be. Obviously we are judging the weapon from different yardsticks. I also notice Jane’s “gun savvy” reviewer said nothing about the weight many people talk about. So there you go.
For the gun savvy, it is a big issue ; so I guess that we are not gun savvy and that's why we say it is no issue.
At the end of the day, gun savvy or notÂ… is the SAR-21 weapon more reliable, accurate and more lethal then the previous system it replaced? Are soldiers using it fatally disadvantaged compared to their counterparts using other weapons? Is the weapon a cost effective and easy to maintain solution for the army? Can be used to fight effectively? These are the more concrete factors that really matter to an assault rifle that is aiming to equip the conscript army of an island state cost effectively, but yet give them some of the capabilities of high end systems.Again most of the recent & modern rifles do not have full 20 inch barrels. It is not necessary for the ranges we are talking about. That extra 50 m/s will make no difference at up to 400m. Give that extra 2 in of barrel & 50 m/s to the sharpshooter with a 4 X scope to take out targets at 600 m.
You apparently forgot all about the terminal ballistics discussion we had not so long back. I believe the chief advantage of additional barrel length come from increasing the lethality of the 5.56mm round, imparting to it significant benefits in barrier performance and fragmenting envelope which are vital to the 5.56mm being lethal. Basically speaking, the SAR-21 is more lethal, and retains that lethality out to a longer range then its counterparts. In 5.56mm weapons, this is a very important consideration given the performance of the bullet will dramatically decrease once it exits its’ “sweet spot” envelope. In FIBUA this additional capability is certainly useful. It’s not just about range- but range is useful.
In the end itÂ’s a matter of compromise. Some arms manufacturers decide to lose some lethality for weight but in our case we decide to stick with it. I donÂ’t think itÂ’s a bad choice, given itÂ’s only about 100-200 grams of additional metal to make your rifle sting more.
Also I donÂ’t understand this attitude of following what every other rifle design does as a justification for what is acceptable or not in a weapon. It depends on what works for you and what you intend to work with. I mean you could argue that thereÂ’s no need to engage in long-range fire fights (leave that up to SAW) and all enemies should be engaged within 50 meters and hence a 14Â’ barrel is sufficient in your grunt weapon. But it all depends on the tactics you intend to use army-wide in the end.
What I realize in war is that itÂ’s far often better to have something and not need it, then to need it and not have it.Why do we need a Kevlar cheek piece when others dont. Is there a design issue which makes it necessary to have one ? It is an unnecessary expense and weight when the fundamental design of the rifle is sound.
As I said itÂ’s a matter of Singaporean kiasuism. But just so to let you know chamber explosions can happen with any firearm if you left something in the barrel or your ammo sucked or whatever reasons that had nothing to do with your gun. Often itÂ’s a matter of heng-sway if you get seriously wounded or not. But with bullpups more often then not you will be seriously injured or killed if such a thing happenedÂ… given the thing takes place right beside your face.
Have you seen the pictures of the remains of a Styer Aug after a worst-case scenario chamber explosion test? Basically the entire chamber and stock of the weapon is smashed and letÂ’s just say that the user would have received an extreme makeover of the worst kind or even killed. The same test was conducted with the SAR-21 and the weapon survived intact.
Has this measure paid off so far? In peace time is has, given since its induction there has been chamber explosions involving the SAR-21 caused by user stupidity (firing a marked faulty weapon with barrel brush in barrel) and the user got away with superficial burns to the cheek. For a peacetime conscript army this is importantÂ… A kiasu safety measure? Maybe, but IÂ’m fine with it. I donÂ’t mind a 50 or 100 grams of Kevlar for peace of mind knowing that even if the gun blows upÂ… IÂ’ll be fine. -
When other armies purchase the SAR21 & use it as their standard issue assault rifle, then we can say that we have a great rifle. I say reduce the weight, get rid of the integrated LAD, improve the selector & we will have a very good SAR 21 sought after by other armies. But looks like the M16s, AKs, M4s, AUGs, F2000, TAR 21 & G36s are still one step ahead.
One step ahead of what? Getting onto the world stage? Apples and oranges. You are forgetting other factors considering if we export the SAR (and we have) it will probably lose and gain the features because we have to adapt it to whoever we are selling it to. But if you are saying that just because it was a weapon designed with the needs of the Singaporean defence in mind it is a step behind then IÂ’m afraid you must be quite mistaken, not to mention bringing your conclusion totally out of context.
And I canÂ’t see how the M-16 is one step ahead of the SAR-21 as an infantry weapon given it is a far older system that is much less reliable and gotten into the world marker through circumstances having little to do with the quality of the weapon. Ditto for some of the flashier weapons.
In the end if I need to quote a gun savvy person who has fired a lot of firearms in his life, he basically said that all this talk between what guns is better or not is mostly moot. It depends on what you need at the point of time and mission and what the tactics you intend to use. I donÂ’t understand this fetishism about red dot sights, weight and barrel length. If I need a red dot sight IÂ’ll use it, or if iron sights are best at that time then so be it. If the LAD gives me some added advantage over a red dot, I'm not going to get anal and defensive but exploit the advantages to the max. Basically it's not just the tool but your mindset to it as well... the weapon in the end is just a tool to complete your mission.
How is the SAR-21 one step behind when it basically provides a good fit to the firearm requirements of the SAF at an economical cost? A weapon that every grunt from the garang to the less then ideal can use? -
Time for another list!!!
In descending order, empty weapon weight according to Modern Firearms:
SA-80 (L85A1): 4.13kg
FN FNC : 4.06kg
SIG 550 : 4.05kg
Galil 5.56 : 3.95kg
SAR-21 : 3.82kg
Stery AUG : 3.80kg
FAMAS G2 : 3.80kg
FN F2000 : 3.60kg
HK G36 : 3.60kg
Type 89 (JPN) : 3.50kg
QBZ-85 : 3.40kg
AKS (AK-74) : 3.30kg
INSAS : 3.20kg
M16A1 : 2.89kg
TAR-21 : 2.80kg
The SAR-21 is 1 kg heavier than the M-16A1, though quite similar to other 'pups like AUG and FAMAS.
For a company that prides itself in making the world's lightest this and the world's lightest that... the SAR-21 is an unfortunate exception to STK's rule.
With the basic load for an SAF infantryman increasing - Matador replacing Armbrust, body armour, NV equipment, more and more comms sets - the extra 1kg basic weapon weight begins to add up. Even if you ignore the other loads, I would rather carry an extra 30-round magazine in place of an extra 1kg weapon deadweight. It fires the same little bullet as the M16S1, so why should it be so much heavier?
From infantrymen's POV, lighter is always better as there - PERIOD. There is always a hell lot of other stuffs to carry on a jolly trip out to the field.
I think the extra features like the LAD, kevlar plate, scope etc that "justifies" the extra 1kg should all be deleted in the A1 model.
The LAD...
Remember the night range target with the tiny blinking red light that was our aiming point in the dark? We used to think it was to simulate enemy smoking a cigarette... WRONG! It simulates bored SAF conscript fooling around with the LAD!!!)
The LAD will be the first thing I get rid of on the SAR-21A1.
KEVLAR PLATE
So many other armies use 'pups for so long with no kevlar plate. So why do we suddenly need a kevlar plate? Is the SAR-21 more dangerous?
Or is this another sales gimmick?
SCOPE
The scope actually weighs very little. But I would prefer PROPER open sights and P-rails instead of the "tube" found on the SAR-21 as standard. If a scope is desirable, there are other MUCH MUCH better options.
BARREL
And a shorter barrel of 18-inch if it'll help reduce weight. -
While everyone has their dream version of the SAR-21, I wonder what in the end will truly be implemented if (ever) there is an A1 model. In the end itÂ’s not about pleasing our equipment fetishism, but coming up with a solution that works for the army both for the grunt and the machinery of war giving the grunt the weapon in the first place.
But since we are on our dream SAR-21, hereÂ’s mine:
LADRemember the night range target with the tiny blinking red light that was our aiming point in the dark? We used to think it was to simulate enemy smoking a cigarette... WRONG! It simulates bored SAF conscript fooling around with the LAD!!!)
Uh uh, the LAD would be on my SAR-21S1 (I think SÂ’poreans wonÂ’t name their block upgrade A1). The arguments you raised are similar to some arguments raised against magazine weapons when they were introduced- that is poorly trained soldiers would use up their entire ammunition load compared to a soldier with a manually loaded weapon. Any weapon in idiotic hands would be suicide to their user, LAD or NOT. The argument for a bored conscript fooling around with the LAD and hence giving away his position should be an argument against bad training, not the LAD. IÂ’m afraid you are totally way off on this one.
The LAD will be the first thing I get rid of on the SAR-21A1.
What that cannot be denied is that the LAD, if used properly is a devastating tool. The yanks proved the “death dot” system during night fighting in Iraq many times over and have an insurgent body count to show for it. The improvement I want to see done is for the LAD to come standard-issue with an IR mode that enables it to be used with NVGs (so far only select SAR-21s in the squad come with the IR option), making it ultimate for night fighting.). The options it offers the user in FIBUA make the weight more then worth it.
KEVLAR PLATEKEVLAR PLATE
As I said I think this is kiasuism. I am neutral to this actuallyÂ… it does not matter to me if the weapon has a Kevlar plate or not, and I donÂ’t really mind the extra weight if it does. It like what? 50-100 grams? Any rifle will explode if you have faulty ammo or something left in the barrel, and there are some firearms that I donÂ’t want to have around when that happens (M-16, Aug). I have no issues with the SAR taking acceptable measures to totally eliminate this risk.
So many other armies use 'pups for so long with no kevlar plate. So why do we suddenly need a kevlar plate? Is the SAR-21 more dangerous?
Or is this another sales gimmick?
ItÂ’s like saying why do MBTs like the Abrams bother with fire retarding systems? Are they implying their armour is insufficient versus other fire retarding-less tanks?SCOPE
I would go for a P-rail system that allows ANYTHING rather then saying this or that system is better or not. In some situations the scope is the best, in others a dot sight. My idea config would be IR-capable LAD and Red Dot sights for the urban fighter setup, and the old scope-LAD combo for medium to long range operations. They should actually make the SAR-P rail the standard SAR variant of the SAF actually, but I think itÂ’s issues beyond the simple practicality of it. Namely logistics. Oh yeah, improve the open sights (which are effective to about 100 meters) above the scope so it can be used at night as well.
The scope actually weighs very little. But I would prefer PROPER open sights and P-rails instead of the "tube" found on the SAR-21 as standard. If a scope is desirable, there are other MUCH MUCH better options.BARREL
I would keep the 508, namely because I donÂ’t mind the extra weight given the 5.56mm is a round that is sensitively dependent on ballistic tolerances. The additional range is always nice to have around and the increase in wounding and barrier performance is certainly nice to have in FIBUA. This is certainly NOT deadweight.
And a shorter barrel of 18-inch if it'll help reduce weight.I would rather carry an extra 30-round magazine in place of an extra 1kg weapon deadweight. It fires the same little bullet as the M16S1, so why should it be so much heavier?
Deceptive words to invoke emotions there
The extra 1 kilo is NOT deadweight. Deadweight on the weapon is weight that is there for no purpose nor contributes to the utility of the weapon. Since it appears you might be one of the soldiers who never acquainted yourself properly with the LAD and sight systems of the SARÂ… it is indeed invariable that one might tend to see these features as deadweight. But I donÂ’t think features that allow you to shoot more efficiently and effectively then a bare-bones iron sight system. Not to mention the reliability and size issues that come with the M-16.
Also you fail to note that if one mounts the propriety systems to give the M-16 a LAD and scope, the system is actually MORE expensive then a factory minted SAR-21 to boot. -
Yes, indeed I have never touched a SAR-21 and all I said are a M16-user's biased opinion.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Since it appears you might be one of the soldiers who never acquainted yourself properly with the LAD and sight systems of the SARÂ… it is indeed invariable that one might tend to see these features as deadweight. But I donÂ’t think features that allow you to shoot more efficiently and effectively then a bare-bones iron sight system. Not to mention the reliability and size issues that come with the M-16.
Also you fail to note that if one mounts the propriety systems to give the M-16 a LAD and scope, the system is actually MORE expensive then a factory minted SAR-21 to boot.
Agreed, the M16 is not ideal as you've mentioned the reliability issue.
But I'm saying that since STK trditional emphasis is on making things light, how come they failed with the SAR-21?
On the scope issue, I would prefer open sights. I'm a SGD 200-per-ICT badge-wearing Marksman with the M16S1, so I guess using a scope is kinda redundant to me. -
Can't help but notice...whenever a thread about rifles, the SAR21 vs. M16 will pop up time and again
-
But I'm saying that since STK trditional emphasis is on making things light, how come they failed with the SAR-21?
Did they really fail with the SAR-21? If you stick an LAD and scope on an M-16, it turns out to be a heavier system. Having said that, if you removed all the acessories from the SAR and gave it nothing but plain old iron sights... would it be lighter then the M-16? Going by the variants of SAR-21 carbine, LW, and P-rail versions which have the option to omit the LAD and change the scopeÂ… yes.
Also I don’t understand why we knock the SAR-21 for having an LAD and going all about the apparent “uselessness” of the LAD … given it is SOP in the units I was in (before they had the SAR-21), to mount an LAD on some M-16s in the section anyway, not to mention even in AIT, BSLC, ASLC, OCS the LAD is taught and trained in. When an LAD is mounted on an M-16 (even if it's burdened with an M203) it’s “cool ninja stuff” and when it’s found in the SAR it’s suddenly “useless”?
Weird.Can't help but notice...whenever a thread about rifles, the SAR21 vs. M16 will pop up time and again
Tell me about it... thing is it's often like apples and oranges. The two weapons are simply different and reflect the difference between of the two eras they represent. Some people apparently do not realize that the SAR-21 isn't simply an M-16 replacement... it actually involves relearning and adapting quite a lot of our training and tatics to adopt this weapon. You can't treat the SAR-21 like an M-16 or the other way round, they're just different.
Hence a lot of the criticisms seem to stem from it being different from the M-16, rather then it actually being inferior. Sometimes I wonder if they have ever being with the SAR-21 outfield, realized it's ability to eat a lot more mud and dirt then the M-16 ever could without quitting (one outfield I fired hundreds of blanks without ever cleaning the weapon over the entire exercise and the weapon never quit).
Have they ever stormed a house in FIBUA and realized that the compact and balanced nature of the weapon made it far handier? Have they tried running full pelt across a street from bound to bound and still realize that they could put rounds into a far window without even aiming, shooting from the hip by using the LAD? Have they seen privates who were totally hopeless with the M-16 getting first round hits with the SAR-21? I have.
Have they stripped the weapon and realized that it breaks down into simpler parts that are so much easier to clean? Not to mention what else? To me it clears the big three checks of an rifle: it is accurate, reliable and lethal. That makes it a weapon I would certainly go into a firefight with, certainly more so then the M-16S1. The rest is mostly nitpicking and at worse, constantly wondering why we didn't follow this or that army with their weapon design.On the scope issue, I would prefer open sights. I'm a SGD 200-per-ICT badge-wearing Marksman with the M16S1, so I guess using a scope is kinda redundant to me.
I also scored my marksman on the M16S1, and given the choice I would certainly go for the SAR-21 if I ever had to take range during ICT. If you want to know how easy the SAR is to shoot there was talk going around when it was first introduced to drill all recruits in the M16S1 before they learnt the SAR-21 because the SAR-21 was so easy to shoot that it encouraged bad shooting habits from the recruits taking many things that would otherwise be considered carefully while shooting for granted. No need to worry about sight pictures, less strain on the eye picking out the target, a stable, centralized weapon CG. It's nearly a dummy's weapon to shoot.
Hence I don't see how the scope can be redundant to any shooter. In the SAR-21 it is an aid to improve the aim of poor shooters, and adds to the effectiveness of already good shooters. It boils down I suppose, if the individual is too stubborn to actually figure out something that might make them do something a lot better then they usually do. -
I think this thread has dreamed out the ideal SAR 21 for STK to start working on the SAR 21 S1 ( totally agree that this sounds better than A1 ).
Comparisons between M16 and SAR 21 are inevitable since all of our Spore NS men have been using one or the other or both.
We just expect a better rifle than the previous generation of M16s. We also want all the best stuff from the M16 ( light weight , full length barrel , great ergonomics ) in the SAR 21. We also like the bullpup & scope in the SAR 21 - but more improvements are preferred such as a P rail & infrared laser. The M16 though not ideal is still a great rifle. With the straight line design and iron sights , most of our guys can easily hit man sized targets at up to 300 m. We hope & expect that the SAR 21 S1 will be greater. -
I'm just curious. If they do upgrade the rifles, how do they implement it? Give everybody new stuff or make necessary adjustments and parts. Pardon, this is coming from a person that has no military background.
-
I'm mostly (99%) in agreement with Sg Trex about the merits of the SAR-21 and about how it's a mostly misunderstood beast by local users. But I'd just touch on some issues raised from a slightly different approach ...
But I'm saying that since STK trditional emphasis is on making things light, how come they failed with the SAR-21?
How exactly did they fail wrt weight issues with the SAR-21?
Comparing the weight of the SAR-21 with the M-16A1/S1 is a flawed comparison, the A1/S1 represents an older generation of assault rifle with flaws inherent in it's light weight design. If you want really to compare the SAR-21 with a modern M-16A1/S1 analogue, try the M-16A2/A4 (current US Army/USMC fielded) or the HK 416, supposedly HK's solution to the problems inherent to this 40-years old M-16 design.
(weight with 30rnd magazine)
M-16A2/A4 (20" barrel) ... 3.99 kg
HK 416 (14.5" barrel) ... 3.95 kg
Now consider this
AN/PEQ-2 is 250 grams with batteries.
1.5X scope is also about 250 grams (or more)
Which gives you
(weight with 30rnd magazine, LAD or equivalent, scope)
M-16A2/A4 (20" barrel) ... 4.49 kg
HK 416 (14.5" barrel) ... 4.45 kg
SAR-21 (20" barrel) ... 4.44 kg
Where has ST failed in delivering a lightweight design?
As has been mentioned, compared to other modern assault rifles such as G36, FAMAS, AUG, the SAR-21 is actually lighter once all features are considered.
If you want to talk about the necessity of a LAD and/or scope, that's another issue altogether ...I question the need for an integrated LAD - the SAR 21 is the only ( as far as I know ) standard assault rifle in the world that has one. Does the SAF know something all other armies who have been in real combat don't
The SAF has its own unique requirements that results in us having equipment designed and produced by ST instead of purchased COTS. That our equipment departs from conventional wisdom or is not widely use does not automatically make it a failure (eg. 3m max width for AFV platform). I belief that the SAF has a clear and sound idea of what works and what doesn't ... we wouldn't be a Grade A reference customer if we consistently made bad choices in equipment procurement.
BUT just to make you feel better ... I've spoken with some Aussies and found out that a laser Night Aiming Device is standard issue for the ADF. I've also seen loads of pictures of US and Canadian ISAF troops with AN/PEQ-2s attached to their M-4/M-16s. What does it indicate to you that their weapons do not have an inherent LAD/NAD/AN/PEQ-2 but yet they have seen fit to attach one ... for operational use? Does it then indicate a design flaw in their weapon?
If anything, a built-in by design LAD allows for a more balanced packaged with a cleaner, ergonomic design . I remember that I used to hate the LAD on the M-16 ... not hate the functionality but rather the ergonomics of the whole thing. A brick that further unbalanced the weapon, greater likelihood of entanglement in undergrowth, an activation button that sometimes slid around and a connecting cable that sometimes came loose ... -
Some pictures for what has been a rather verbose thread to date
Australian troops with NAD attached (on right side of carrying handle just under scope)
US 509th PIR troops in Iraq with AN/PEQ-2 attached. Interesting to see one attached to the M249SAW
US Trooper from 136th in Iraq with AN/PEQ-2 attached. Also with ACOG optical sight.
Canadian ISAF in Afghanistan.
-
"Remember the night range target with the tiny blinking red light that was our aiming point in the dark? We used to think it was to simulate enemy smoking a cigarette... WRONG! It simulates bored SAF conscript fooling around with the LAD!!!) "
From what we've seen above... the "special scenarios" appear to be quite common, and many armies have apparently figured out the "bored soldier foOling around with the LAD!!!" problem.
The LAD will be the first thing I get rid of on the SAR-21A1.
"The point of origin of the laser will incidentally make an excellent target for someone equipmed with a red dot sight. Almost the whole US Army is using red dot , reflex and Holosights on the M16s and M4s & there must be a good reason for it.... A laser sight shud not be issued to the ordinary infantryman but to the spec operator or in very special scenarios to a select few when the mission requires it. " -
Funny how when one is complaining about the SAR-21 being heavier than other weapons then posts a list of the weight there for all to see that in fact there is not much difference in the weight of bull pups. That basically throws the 'over-weight' issue right out of the window.
Agreed on that if weight could be reduced its better as it equates to better mobility. But its the fitness of a soldier that would actually determine how agile he/she would be. Yes there is a limit to how much a person can carry until the point he is no longer able to fight effectively but he needs to be physically fit and thats where training comes in. Shall not go into that as its a seperate issue.
Granted, the M-16 is a lot lighter but its cg is way too forward. Typical of convertional layouts. And this is addressed with the bull pup design. My older friends already in the army all gave the SAR-21 Thumbs Up for FIBUA. The shorter overall length makes clearing rooms easier, faster turning and less probability of the weapon unexpectedly getting stuck at the window when jumping in. The LAD was especially useful, i quote my friend a sergeant said that it is damn good to use at night to acquire targets, and even in rooms. just click the button see where the light is, shift if necessary to the target, squeeze the trigger. Dont even need to bring it up to sights.
I myself a noob not even in NS yet tried out both rifles at AOH few years back. M-16 felt comfortable to carry and to use and reload. Then i tried the spanking new SAR-21. The big front grip felt very comfortable for me and being totally a noob at shooting, the scope allowed me to acquire my target easily or at least made my aiming more accurate. It was easier to use than the M-16's iron sights.
The CG was nicely centered. Yes it was heavier no doubt, but handling is better. Considering what the entire package of both rifles fresh out of factory and their capabilities for the weight is a good trade off. Like what SGTyrano was saying which i agree, add all the scope and LADs to the m-16 the weight will be heavier. my point is about ergonomics. The LAD and the scope is nicely blended into the overall design of the rifle and makes operation easy. -
Funny...Most of my friends whom are using SAR-21, whether former users of M16S1 or not, said the SAR-21 is too heavy...
-
Funny ... after we converted to the SAR-21, nobody complained that the SAR-21 is too heavy.Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:Funny...Most of my friends whom are using SAR-21, whether former users of M16S1 or not, said the SAR-21 is too heavy...
Is this going to be a subjective or objective debate? -
Not to mention from my quarters when we learnt the SAR-21 after finishing our BMT with the M-16S1... in fact a lot of our batch were more vocal about the superior capabilities of the SAR-21.Originally posted by kotay:Funny ... after we converted to the SAR-21, nobody complained that the SAR-21 is too heavy.
Is this going to be a subjective or objective debate?
The mono intake people who are now started on the SAR-21 before being introduced to the M-16 are hardly clamouring for the M-16 after their introduction to it as well. So yes indeed, is this going to be a subjective or objective discussion?
Objectively, if two infantry platoons of similar skill and experience went into battle, and one armed with the M-16 and the other the SAR-21... which platoon has more tatical options open to them? Which platoon would have the edge?
Nuff said.