Top 10 Combat Rifles
-
Wow, you mean this weapon is gonna win wars for us? Or just another one of your fantastic speculations?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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. -
Funny how you never bother to understand before making criticisms.Originally posted by storm_freaky13: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.
I wrote that the SAR-21 is heavier than the M16 but similar to other bullpups, judging from the list. -
Shall I post twice the number of pictures of US troops in Iraq NOT using the LAD?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
-
LOL, it would actually serve this discussion a lot better if you actually answered by points instead of answering with ad hominem one liner.Funny how you never bother to understand before making criticisms.
I wrote that the SAR-21 is heavier than the M16 but similar to other bullpups, judging from the list.[/quote]
Was that even adressed to you? I believe it was to another poster who was saying that the weapon was unreasonably heavy when after all the data has been gathered... turned out to be mostly an illusion. I think we are quite clear on that post where you supported this position.
Take a chill pill, man.
Shall I post twice the number of pictures of US troops in Iraq NOT using the LAD?
How exactly does that impact on the argument of the obvious utility of the LAD? Given that was answered to that poster (not you) said that probably had no use at all except in very 'special circumstances'. And of course, the pictures demostrate quite clearly that being exposed by "fooling around" with the LAD (which is your point) apparently isn't a serious problem in the armies that are using it.
Going by the same thread, but I could certainly grab more pictures of our troops using the old SBO then the new LBV, and use that to booster the suggestion that the LBV is for 'special circumstances' while the SBO is for the normal grunt. Of course trends are not leaning that way at all.
One much know how to distinguish between the synthetic logical points in the issue (the arguments behind debunking the LAD criticisms) and the supportive evidence (pictures to support the point). I could probably pull up more pictures of troops without body armour but if I try to use it as an argument that this means going without body armour is inherently better I would be somewhat mistaken.
At the end of the day, all arguments considered can we conclude that the LAD is a USEFUL and EFFECTIVE piece of equipment for the soldier? Does it give him MORE tatical options then one who is without?
I believe so, Yes. In that case then it's kinda hard to dismiss it's addition in the SAR-21.
[quote]Originally posted by moca:Wow, you mean this weapon is gonna win wars for us? Or just another one of your fantastic speculations?
As to answer if this is speculation? I think it's pure logic.
Winning wars? That's your assumption not mine, not to mention deviating from the ACTUAL point of the issue:
Simply put, all things in skill, tatics and training considered being equal... is not the SAR-equipped unit presented with more options and capabilities then one that is equipped with the M-16S1? Would they not have distinct advantages that would allow them to exploit the battlespace then if they were equipped with the old system?
Perhaps I need to put it in terms that would be less inflammatory to you: if two similar units go into a battle, one equipped with a bolt-action civilian 5.56mm rifles and the other with the M-16Â… which unit has the tactical advantage? Which unit has more options open to them? Which unit has more freedom to employ different tatics and ways of fighting in their battlespace? Is that not an option any grunt, commander, general or army would reconize as more then "fantastic speculations" and want to take?
Back to the questionÂ… who has the empirical tactical advantage? The SAR-21 equipped soldier or the M-16S1? While some "old timers" may decry the features of the LAD and scope and all that other "modern" stuff... when you get down on the ground you realize you still aren't going to magically do all the things you could do with the SAR but not with the M-16.
How does that translate into battle?
Winning wars? That's another question for another thread... but to ask a relevant question... is the SAF better off equipping it's grunts with SAR-21s or keeping with the M-16S1? In war is not a SAR-21 unit far more effective then an M-16S1 unit? In the end would it not translate to more of our guys surviving and completing the mission and getting in more effective fire at the enemy?
Win wars for us? You seem to have misread me. I am merely arguing the rather obvious point that a more effective weapon quite obviously improves the effectiveness of it's soldiers, which in the end is important in a war.
Did the M1 Garand win the war for the US Army? Debatable. But were they better off then if they went into it with the M1903 Springfield which it replaced? All things considered I think that's much clearer. -
The Israeli Tavor package has a Reflex sight with built-in LAD as standard. Why not check the list what is the weight of the TAR-21?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
Weird.
2.8kg
So, again, in your hurry to dominate every debate, you just steamroll over any possibilities that your arguments may be the ones that are flawed. -
Moca, u're not making sense in ur prev quote.
SgT-rex was saying that if u add LAD and scope to an M-16, it would probably be as heavy as the SAR-21. (Btw, i doubt so, but thats besides the point) But u retort by saying that the TAR-21 with a built in reflex sight is only 2.8kg? Whats the link between sgTrex's LAD+scope and tavors builtin reflex sight?
In any case... the SAR-21 is indeed a hefty rifle to lug around. But the weight does not extend from the fact that its a bullpup, nor is it becos of a lil scope and LAD. SAR-21's weight is mainly caused by the kevlar plate thats used to shield the firer's face in the event of a chamber explosion.
Neither the Tar-21, nor the M-16 has that. If you take away that safety feature... u'd still end up with a rifle thats about any other contemporary bullpup. -
Don't talk about if's or but's - just answer this simple quesion:Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Did they really fail with the SAR-21? If you stick an LAD and scope ..Â… blah blah ....yes.
Is the SAR-21 right now one of the lightest AR in the world?
THE ANSWER IS NO. So what is wrong with the wordings of my statement?
And I wasn't comparing the weight of the SAR-21 with M-16 when making this statement. I wasn't even comparing the SAR-21 with other ARs. You have to get off this train of thought sometimes.
I was comparing this with STK's past achievements of REDUCING weight of weapons while IMPROVING performance.
Good examples: Ultimax-100, CIS 50, 40mm AGL, 155mm howitzers, 120mm mortars...etc Should I go on? Or do you GET THE PICTURE?
Please... the LAD is a nice-to-have. Not a must-have. If you cannot fight without the LAD, then you better be a clerk. Besides, the LAD is apparently very light, so it is not a weight issue after all. There's no need to write multiple paragraphs about the LAD when all you need to say is that it weighs nothing afgter all...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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 blah blah ... “useless”?
I mentioned that the SAr-21 should be lighter because the infantryman's load is increasing, with body armour, NVG, comms, Matador, etc etc. I did not say the SAR-21 should be lighter because of the M-16.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Tell me about it... thing is it's often like apples and oranges. The two weapons are simply different and reflect....
So stop starting and ending every argument with SAR-21 vs M-16....
There is also the problem of stubborn individuals who need to win every debate so badly that a less-than-perfect weapon is now made out to be the weapon that can mean a difference between losing or winning a war.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
No one here is advocating the return of the M16S1. We are talking about IMPROVING the SAR-21.
Of course it is good for a weapon to have as many gadgets as you can. I was merely examining what we can do to save weight. And if the gadgets don't actually weigh that much, then the problem is somewhere else.
With regards to the scope:
Are you saying the SAR-21 scope is the ideal scope?
Cos I am saying is that it is not ideal and there should be a P rail to mount OTHER scope options as well as proper iron sights.
Why go into a whole song and dance about shooting better with a scope at the range? Of course even a monkey will shoot better with a scope at the range.
But is the SAR-21 scope ideal for real combat in the tropics?
The SAR-21 scope fogs, has a small sight picture, slower target acquisition (which makes the LAD indispensable), tunnel vision. I said that I would prefer iron sights to the SAR-21 scope. I didn't say that ALL scopes are BAD!!!
Add to that the bad location of certain functional switches...
And yet, you are defending it like it is already perfect. -
Do you feel that the SAR-21 is heavy becos of the scope and the LAD? Cos that's what SG Tyro is saying.Originally posted by Shotgun:Moca, u're not making sense in ur prev quote.
SgT-rex was saying that if u add LAD and scope to an M-16, it would probably be as heavy as the SAR-21. (Btw, i doubt so, but thats besides the point) But u retort by saying that the TAR-21 with a built in reflex sight is only 2.8kg? Whats the link between sgTrex's LAD+scope and tavors builtin reflex sight?
In any case... the SAR-21 is indeed a hefty rifle to lug around. But the weight does not extend from the fact that its a bullpup, nor is it becos of a lil scope and LAD. SAR-21's weight is mainly caused by the kevlar plate thats used to shield the firer's face in the event of a chamber explosion.
Neither the Tar-21, nor the M-16 has that. If you take away that safety feature... u'd still end up with a rifle thats about any other contemporary bullpup.
(According to your post, NO. You feel that it is the kevlar plate. Good, we have another POV.)
So I pointed out that the TAR-21 also has a Scope (reflex) and a LAD, yet weighs lighter.
Again, I am only suggesting improvements, I didn't say to bring back the M16... -
Do I sense excessive passions that threaten to turn this thread into an episode of the Arena?
Then you are entirely on a different page with most of the people in this forum in relation to SAR weight issues. The thread running about the excessive weight of the weapon while the other camp was saying that the weight was well within acceptable tolerances. From the fact that several posters have misunderstood your thread about why isnÂ’t it the lightest might point that perhaps your should have clarified this stance a lot clearer. For if you didnÂ’t notice all of the talk on the weight was if it was excessive.
Is the SAR-21 right now one of the lightest AR in the world?
THE ANSWER IS NO. So what is wrong with the wordings of my statement?
I was comparing this with STK's past achievements of REDUCING weight of weapons while IMPROVING performance.
Good examples: Ultimax-100, CIS 50, 40mm AGL, 155mm howitzers, 120mm mortars...etc Should I go on? Or do you GET THE PICTURE?
From all the material IÂ’ve read about the SAR-21, since when was making THE LIGHTEST AR in the world one of the design considerations? What was stated that they intended to implement a weapon that would be lighter then the same M-16 package for the features included.
Did they achieve this? Yes. Which is pretty much the end of the topic. For if they should make this the lightes
And off the hat I can pick out several STK systems that do not put a reduction of weight as their first priority. The BX series, the Terrax, and certainly not the OICW-clone they are coming up with (which push the weigh limits of their respective designs). The assumption of having reduced weight for everything that STK produces it mainly an assumption on your part that you intend to push into the debate.There is also the problem of stubborn individuals who need to win every debate so badly that a less-than-perfect weapon is now made out to be the weapon that can mean a difference between losing or winning a war.
On that everybodyÂ’s on the same page on that respect: or have your forgotten about my own post about what I wish to see in the SAR-21? No arguments on the P-Rail there.
With regards to the scope:
Cos I am saying is that it is not ideal and there should be a P rail to mount OTHER scope options as well as proper iron sights.
No one here is advocating the return of the M16S1. We are talking about IMPROVING the SAR-21.
And where did I state that the SAR-21 is the weapon that makes the difference between winning or losing the war? The trust of my argument was that our troops using this system are certainly better of then using the old system, and pulled out several examples from personal experience with the thing to show why so. -
Why go into a whole song and dance about shooting better with a scope at the range? Of course even a monkey will shoot better with a scope at the range.
Then why sing in the first place of your apparent 200SGD marksmanship with the M-16S1 when it obviously has little bearing of the debate? I was under the impression that you were acting erratically and dismissing the need for the scope with these little sound bites. I must admit my error in judgement here, thought it would be good for all parties to be clearer on their stand. Would it not be better to say that “a scope would be nice
But is the SAR-21 scope ideal for real combat in the tropics?
The SAR-21 scope fogs, has a small sight picture, slower target acquisition (which makes the LAD indispensable), tunnel vision. I said that I would prefer iron sights to the SAR-21 scope. I didn't say that ALL scopes are BAD!!!
Add to that the bad location of certain functional switches...
And yet, you are defending it like it is already perfect.
Is the scope idea for real combat in the tropics? Have you used the scope in rain or in the tropics yourself and been with the grunts who actually take the weapon through the mud and rain? I have.
Do I sense excessive negativity in your opinion of the scope? Maybe we shall be clear here and avoid the “song and dance” you are adverse to:The SAR-21 scope fogs
Does it? At least not more then your typical scope.
WeÂ’ve used the weapon in humid weather and rain and discovered thatÂ… it does not fog at allÂ… not more then any other scope we used anyway. The typical scope will not fog given it is filled with inert gas, with an anti-fog coating on the lens. Fogging usually happens when the seal is compromised. The older batches of the rifle had quality control issues with the seal and led to quite a bit of fogging issues, but this issue has been fixed.
The real tropical question is if mud gets into your scope. You can still use it with water droplets on the scope, no issue but mud can reduce you to shooting from the backup sights.
They certainly should add a mud guard to that thing (that is, an external lens that can be quickly cleaned or flipped up if fouled)
In my personal experience I only came across one fogged SAR-21 scope in all the units I served in.
Does it fog any more then your typical scope? To balance it out I came across one fogged M-16 sharpshooter scope as well. I donÂ’t think soÂ… unless you are really saying that thereÂ’s an inherent ability for all scopes to fog.has a small sight picture
What exactly do you mean by a “small sight picture?” Are you making this from the rather obvious fact that if you have a scope with magnification you will get a smaller field of view? Is this really a disadvantage considering the scope can be used with both eyes open and the fact that the magnification is also an aid to aiming?slower target acquisition
Erm where you get your info from? Slower target acquisition happens only when the scope exceeds the threshold for the human brain to reconcile the differing magnifications (3X and above). 1.5X became a popular magnification because it augmented the natural vision of the shooter while leaving it possible for his to use the sight with both eyes open. In this case target acquisition with such a battle scope is actually faster then your traditional iron sights. The ultimate in target acquisition speed would be in the realm of unmagnified red dot sights and LADs, but thatÂ’s another discussion.
This is proven empirically on the range esp. on challenging fig 15 targets where the shooter rests with both eyes open, one viewing through the scope.(which makes the LAD indispensable),
See above. Apparently the makers of the Styer Aug who use a similar 1.5x, fogging, slower target acquisition scope system are making a big mistake by not adding the LAD. Sorry, IÂ’m afraid you are quite wrong.tunnel vision.
Hint, as my Warrant Officer would say to us while teaching us the weapon: “Open both your eyes genius!” Some shooters are unable to align a proper sight picture with both eyes open on iron sights, the scope has no such issue.I said that I would prefer iron sights to the SAR-21 scope.
Not knocking your preference, but given the “knowledge” you demonstrated on the scope I can see why you would prefer iron sights.
Would you like to elaborate on the empirical combat implications of this functional switch? Or is it more smoke then fire? I did not deny the switch could be improved, but pointed out that itÂ’s hardly a fatal flaw to the weapon to another user who thought that it was a massive issue. In fact I explicitly stated my preference for the switch to be improved if I had my way.
Add to that the bad location of certain functional switches...
And yet, you are defending it like it is already perfect.
Am I defending it like itÂ’s already perfect? I merely stated out what are the things you can do with this rifle and separated the chaff from the wheat in many of the issues pertaining to it. It is my opinion that in many areas the weapon has an undeservedly bad reputation stemming more likely from the pessimistic and negatively skewed opinions of certain posters rather then it being actual fact.
And in fact have drawn up certain examples why this is so through the rather legitimate means of logic, evidence, and personal experience with the thing. I am not even trying to dominate this debate given that when you post something that I obviously have a reply to; it would be incumbent to reply. If it appears that I am dominating this debate (if it ever even was one to begin with), it is more probably because some people actually bother taking the effort to adopt a proper position based on facts then shoot from the hip with a hastily assembled list of “arguments” drawn from thin air and ridden to the death.
Given in another thread a certain poster can pop in a post in the midst of some rather level headed discussion that the M1s the Aussies are getting are "oversized, over-weight and over-stated" and leave it at thatÂ… I am not exactly surprised to see the same act context-bending here. -
Hence for the sake of keeping the peace and topic on productive track here, and the likelihood that we are possibly arguing over many things that we might actually be in agreement with. Can we the parties involved cut out the more grandiose and irrelevant details (such as 200SGD per ICT hence scopes are redundant for me and M1 Garands being an advantage over the Springfield and picture grabbing) and state the core trusts of their respective opinions here?
I would state my own as such (and note they are not all directed for moca):
1)Much of the poor reputation of the SAR-21 that crops up in discussion is often undeserved, once the facts have been considered.
2)The weight of the weapon cannot be considered to be excessive, all things about the rifle factored in. The utility of these features are another thing.
3)The 1.5X scope of the SAR-21 offers improved target acquisition and engagement capabilities to the soldier over the previous iron sight system, allowing otherwise poor shooters to engage their targets and good shooters to perform at higher efficiency.
4)The utility of the LAD in the battle rifle has been proven conclusively in combat experience. ItÂ’s inclusion on the SAR-21 is not certainly not frivolous and gimmickry and in competent hands is a valuable tactical tool.
5)The weapon offers several key advantages over the M-16S1 in terms of marksmanship and tactical opinions. It also represents a significant improvements for the user in FIBUA operations, reliability. All these, factored in obviously add to the lethality and survivability of the user in the battlespace.
6)Priority key improvements that could be made to the system include the provision for the P-Rail variant as the standard variant of the SAR, hence unfortunately/fortunately rendering most of the bickering here moot to begin with
In the LAD, additional options should be added to give IR capabilities as standard issue. Additionally, more complex backup iron sights should be provided to extend the utility of these sights to become a fully functional iron sight, as opposed to the current backup sights which can be reliably used up to 100 meters. The scope should be optimised for use in the tropics (dust cover, mud guard).
Provision for a hand-situated, ergonomic fire selector is also preferable. And as an afterthought the ability to accept C-mags and standard NATO metal magazines.
There you have it.
My personal preferences for my variant of the SAR-21 is:
Â’20 inch barrel (the little edge in ballistic performance might save your butt).
P-Rail
LAD with IR capacity
Red Dot sight, C-Mag capacity (urban setup) 1.5X scope (other operations)
Maybe a cool tactical flashlight with IR filter would be as well, but itÂ’s really more in the realm of personal drool-some weaponry by now.
And yeah, keep the Kevlar plate for me, as IÂ’m paranoid when it comes to chamber explosions in bullpups.
Notes:
Changing the barrel length to reduce/increase weight or lethality is probably not even an issue to begin with given STK does indeed manufacture the SAR-21 with various different barrel lengths. There is even a carbine version and what have you not if you visit their webpage.
But it turns out that in the end it is the SAF that decides what it wants to get. Personally as I said I would go for '20, but it's no skin off my back if someone here wants some other length. -
My view on the M16 and SAR21
M16
I was trained in M16 throughout my NS life. Upon reservist, we started attaching LAD onto our M16 for our trainings.
The CG of M16 was in the front. Firing on the move was difficult.
Also while bashing through the vegetation, the frigging LAD is another BLOODY problems. My men and fellow commanders also agreed. The bloody thing would be tangle up in vines, vegetation etc.
One of my men while bashing through the vegetation, lost the LAD. The frigging clamp broke. Luckily someone in the rear saw it and retrieved it back for him or else 1206 liao.
SAR21
After our ATEC, we were converted to SAR21. Integrated LAD lessen the possibility of 1206.
True it is heavier but the ergonomic and CG is much much better.
I normally neck sling my rifle with barrel pointing down during moverment. At movement notice, I can bring up the weapon, aim and shoot. Wih SAR21, I can do it with relative stability. With bare M16, no problem but with the LAD attached, I will swing here and there a little bit before steadying it for firing.
(those armour guys who went Brunei for live firing would go through the "walk through tunnel range" would knows that with SAR21, target acquisition is much faster)
No problem with the position of the safety. Using left hand to cock and safety the weapon. Right trigger finger push safety to fire.
Scope need some getting use to but damn accurate. If able to zero it even better. 1 of my trainer able to fire 3 rounds with only 1 holes on the target board after zeroing his SAR21.
The next point I want to bring up is the selector switch. My view may get me being flame by others but what the heck.
I have no major problem with the mode selector in the rear. It would be better if the selector switch is infront but not major problem for me.
My SOP
1) Before firing auto, take over, reload full mag, switch and fire.
2) Take cover, replace empty mag with fresh mag, switch back to semi and fire.
My view.
If you want to spray full auto, you need to make sure you have a fresh mag before you fire. No point you switch to auto to fire with half a mag or less. Also to achieve maximum "shock and awe", firing auto should be coordinated. not 1 fellow auto the rest semi. Half section firing semi, the other half switch to auto with fresh mag.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth of info.
Cheerio! -
Strange, I never had a problem with the M-16 swinging around even if i pull it to the front with butt up n barrel down. The M-16 had pretty good mobility as long as u don't bring it down from "high alert" position unnecessary, which means, glueing the butt to ur shoulder hollow, and barrel up, but head relaxed.Originally posted by Slywong:My view on the M16 and SAR21
M16
I was trained in M16 throughout my NS life. Upon reservist, we started attaching LAD onto our M16 for our trainings.
The CG of M16 was in the front. Firing on the move was difficult.
Also while bashing through the vegetation, the frigging LAD is another BLOODY problems. My men and fellow commanders also agreed. The bloody thing would be tangle up in vines, vegetation etc.
One of my men while bashing through the vegetation, lost the LAD. The frigging clamp broke. Luckily someone in the rear saw it and retrieved it back for him or else 1206 liao.
SAR21
After our ATEC, we were converted to SAR21. Integrated LAD lessen the possibility of 1206.
True it is heavier but the ergonomic and CG is much much better.
I normally neck sling my rifle with barrel pointing down during moverment. At movement notice, I can bring up the weapon, aim and shoot. Wih SAR21, I can do it with relative stability. With bare M16, no problem but with the LAD attached, I will swing here and there a little bit before steadying it for firing.
(those armour guys who went Brunei for live firing would go through the "walk through tunnel range" would knows that with SAR21, target acquisition is much faster)
No problem with the position of the safety. Using left hand to cock and safety the weapon. Right trigger finger push safety to fire.
Scope need some getting use to but damn accurate. If able to zero it even better. 1 of my trainer able to fire 3 rounds with only 1 holes on the target board after zeroing his SAR21.
The next point I want to bring up is the selector switch. My view may get me being flame by others but what the heck.
I have no major problem with the mode selector in the rear. It would be better if the selector switch is infront but not major problem for me.
My SOP
1) Before firing auto, take over, reload full mag, switch and fire.
2) Take cover, replace empty mag with fresh mag, switch back to semi and fire.
My view.
If you want to spray full auto, you need to make sure you have a fresh mag before you fire. No point you switch to auto to fire with half a mag or less. Also to achieve maximum "shock and awe", firing auto should be coordinated. not 1 fellow auto the rest semi. Half section firing semi, the other half switch to auto with fresh mag.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth of info.
Cheerio!
The M-16 had a very instinctive feel at close range engagements. No need to aim down the iron sights in order to shoot. Just need to bring it up, look at the target, and just rely on ur training to align urself to the target and shoot.
Of course, for the Sar-21 to do that, it uses the LAD, which is rather idiot proof. UNTIL u see multiple red dots dancing around... which many cause some disorientation.
On the current standard issue version of the Sar-21:
Its heavy when compared to its peer assault rifles. Thats undeniable. A Sar-21 with M203 totally just blows my mind on how much SAF expects a conscript soldier to chiong with.
What I do not agree with is that the weight is contributed by the LAD and scope. Which are indeed useful pieces of equipment to the vanilla Sar-21. The heaviest single component (except crucial weapon component like barrel ) would be the piece of kevlar they slapped on to protect firers from potential catastrophic failures. No doubt, a genuine safety consideration for a bullpup.
However, to note... no other bullpup has had such a "safety" consideration and implementation.
I believe the scope fogging matter has been more or less resolved, and no longer a critical issue.
What can be improved is the location of the LAD function. Perhaps they should run it down to the pistol grip, so that when the user squeezes the grip, the LAD would come up when the LAD is in the ON mode. You wont' have a continuously shining laser pointer, just something that comes on before u squeeze the trigger, and goes off after u relax the trigger. -
Actually the on/off switch of the LAD is on the forward grip of SAR21, control by the thumb.Originally posted by Shotgun:What can be improved is the location of the LAD function. Perhaps they should run it down to the pistol grip, so that when the user squeezes the grip, the LAD would come up when the LAD is in the ON mode. You wont' have a continuously shining laser pointer, just something that comes on before u squeeze the trigger, and goes off after u relax the trigger.
Press it when you need it and let go when you dont. -
1. How can one add the much heavier AN/PEQ2 to an M16 and then say that
M16 is then as heavy as SAR21 with LAD. The SAR 21 LAD does not come
close to what the AN/PEQ2 can do. The SAR 21 LAD is a VISIBLE plain jane
laser.
2. Again adding an AIMPOINT / Holosight or Trijicon sight to an M16 and
then comparing the weight of an M16 with any one of these these sights
with a SAR 21 with a plain vanilla scope is not right comparison. Use any of
the above sights ans se for yourself how the SAR21 scope compares. I'd
rather have a P rail & use any one of the above - its more flexible and also
its more future proof.
3. Issuing a VISIBLE LAD is not a good idea. It takes ONE idiot to
accidently thumb the switch to get everyone killed. A discharge
from a visible LAD, after all, must come from an SAF soldier since they
are the only ones issued as standard for their infantryman - I cannot
think of any other army which does so. If a VISIBLE LAD has so many
advantages, why don't all armies use it.
4. How many good assault rifles have similar selector controls as the
SAR 21 ?
5. This tread is about Top 10 combat rifles - we hope that the SAR 21 can be
in the top 10 once its improved. It probably is a good rifle. But why do we
want to settle for a good rifle when we can have the greatest ? It only
takes a couple more of improvements to make it one of the greatest. -
1. How can one add the much heavier AN/PEQ2 to an M16 and then say that
Erm how so not being able to do what it can do? I often wonder if the SAR-21 LAD is not actually an AN/PEQ2 to begin with! They both run on 2AA batteries, have the same 5 different modes of operation. If anything they are probably built to the same MILSPEC.
M16 is then as heavy as SAR21 with LAD. The SAR 21 LAD does not come
close to what the AN/PEQ2 can do. The SAR 21 LAD is a VISIBLE plain jane
laser.
Also, the AN/PEQ2 does not come inherently with an IR function unless you get the other variants. I used both systems, one with the LAD on the M16/M203 and other on the SAR-21. No difference noted lehÂ…Again adding an AIMPOINT / Holosight or Trijicon sight to an M16 and
What are you talking about? They have
then comparing the weight of an M16 with any one of these these sights
with a SAR 21 with a plain vanilla scope is not right comparison. Use any of
the above sights ans se for yourself how the SAR21 scope compares. I'd
rather have a P rail & use any one of the above - its more flexible and also
its more future proof.
I think Kotay did a very good detailed weight post some time back on what really happens when you add all these accessories.
All things considered, you must realize that various scopes are catered to different situations. There would be some situations in which you would prefer to use the normal optical sights then a red dot, and vice versa. For FIBUA the red dot is certainly a better solutionÂ… but when it comes to longer engagements they more or less become the same thing, with the scope being superior in some areas. ThereÂ’s still a need for the good old optical around.
If the army had to choose between what to standard issue to its soldiersÂ… any clue as to why they picked the 1.5X scope? Probably with it having something to do with cost and logistics. A 1.5X scope is certainly a lot cheaper for the benefits it offers to the shooter, and no batteries included as well. Preferably the grunt would want something more of course.
The thing isÂ… I believe most of these improvements have already been made.
5. This tread is about Top 10 combat rifles - we hope that the SAR 21 can be
in the top 10 once its improved. It probably is a good rifle. But why do we
want to settle for a good rifle when we can have the greatest ? It only
takes a couple more of improvements to make it one of the greatest.
Some wanted a shorter barrel? Just look at the STK website and youÂ’ll realize they are pushing all the different barrel lengths in the variants of their design.
Some wanted other options other then LAD or 1.5X scope? ItÂ’s already been done considering there is actually more then one P-Rail variant of the SAR.
In fact if you look at much of our 3G ads, our Land Warrior equivalent using a P-Rail SAR-21 with a shortened barrel and reflex red dot sights. So that has been done as well.
At the end of the day when we distil all our arguments down, the one that really remains for STK to fix is: “Hey, shift the dang fire selector forward!” and maybe "hey it could be a good idea to add dust covers to the scope if we are mounting it on our P-Rail (which is more a scope rather then SAR issue)"
More accurately this thread really not “improvements to the SAR-21” but “what the SAF should implement as standard issue for the SAR-21?”. A lot of the capabilities we are suggesting have already been made possible and really it’s more an issue of why doesn’t the SAF adopt it already?
My personal opinion is that the P-Rail SAR should really be the standard variant and the various units do their own setup and layouts for their various needs. 6SIR would probably prefer a different setup from 3Guards if they had the choice about things.
The suplus so called "common" SAR-21 (which at this point would not be so common), could be then either reserved for the reserve units or vocations who are not expected to see direct combat (RP, MP, CMBP commando clerk), because the basic scope/LAD setup is a cheap pakage that's effective for them, not to mention untied to the logistical issues of setting up a chain the keep with the P-Rail variant (any P-Rail arm is bound to have a larger logistical footprint).5. This tread is about Top 10 combat rifles - we hope that the SAR 21 can be
I'm not sure about all this stuff about being good or great. A firearm is great to me if it is reliable and works for the job I intend it to.
in the top 10 once its improved. It probably is a good rifle. But why do we
want to settle for a good rifle when we can have the greatest ? It only
takes a couple more of improvements to make it one of the greatest.
But since we are on your topic: considering most of your suggested improvements have been actually implemented and the real issue is really the SAF not moving to aquire them... is not the SAR-21 already (by your def) a "great weapon"?
Unless of course, the fire selector is a BIG and intractable issue.
At the risk of pushing this discussion into the realm of the subjective (and hence highly arguable). Given all that has been shown here... is there any reason not to believe that the SAR-21 is well within the proverbial "Ivy League" of assault rifles of the world? -
And some relevant links:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/etc/medialib/imindef_media_library/graphics/army/army_news/download_our_issues/pdf.Par.0028.File.tmp/May2006.pdf
Note the variant of SAR-21 that the 3G trooper is carrying, P-Rail, reflex sights (mounted above what appears to be a thermal sight?). LAD mounted on the forward P-rail along with foregrip as well.
Of course, who can forget guns.ru?
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as31-e.htm
Some rather interesting pictures there, especically hich I think answers most of the questions regarding if the we should be changing the scope and LAD options. Note there's no LAD on the P-Rail variant, and what is apparently an variant of the SAR-21 being able to accept the standard metal mags.
Another picture of the metal mag SAR:
And of course, we can go and get our sources straight from the horses' mouth by visiting STK's website. Interesting to note that the export versions of the SAR-21 have the provision to mount the standard metal mag:
http://www.stengg.com/upload/805FZ25kCHnhWIBPg9K.pdf
SAR-21 P-Rail, SAR-21 MMS Carbine, and SAR-21 LW Carbine.
Also, if you notice the SAF ads in Orchard Road recently that features this medic, you'll notice that he is carrying a variant of the SAR-21 that looks like the MMS Carbine but appears to be somewhat different and smaller as well. Any idea what that is? Apparently they are thinking of providing our medics (or other vocations in which a full sized weapon is not ideal) with a PDWish weapon? -
Great. Now I wait for the P rail variant - no 1.5X scope, no LAD - to be standard issue. Must I also be 3 G soldier on TV advert to have one too ?
Really, if P rail variant is standard issue, I am all for it. By the way, what is the weight of the P rail variant ?
PS Standard LAD on the SAR 21 has same modes as AN/PEQ2 ? -
So is the a problem with the SAR 21 or the SAF? If it's really with the SAF where and who should your beef be with? The design and abilities of the rifle or the way the user organization implements it?Originally posted by glock:Great. Now I wait for the P rail variant - no 1.5X scope, no LAD - to be standard issue. Must I also be 3 G soldier on TV advert to have one too ?
Really, if P rail variant is standard issue, I am all for it. By the way, what is the weight of the P rail variant ?
PS Standard LAD on the SAR 21 has same modes as AN/PEQ2 ?
And I think you're forgetting that even with the P-Rail, the individual soldier will probably not be able to pick and choose what he wants with impunity... that would be tied down via the different units.
So you still might be stuck with your 1.5x battlescope to fit on your rail if your unit so sees it fit. You seem to have this impression that we can just walk into E-Mart/Beach Road and get anything we want for the P-Rail. Some of the yanks actually buying their own scopes to use when they were not issued, but is this something the Singaporean NSF can easily do given our current context? Admittedly it would be pretty cool to ask the Beach Road auntie for an AimPoint.
So yeah, while the P-Rail in theory means you can mount anything on the SAR if so needed, pratically I wonder if this will be actually praticed. It'll depend in the end what is actually implemented on the ground. In theory the LBV allows maximum customization of the tatical vest loadout, but the units still enforce standarization.
And why should anyone be surprised that the SAR LAD is as capable as the AN/PECQ2? Having used both I find no difference between the two, except of course, for the naturally more egronomic and balanced arrangment of the SAR 21 LAD.
Other then that in terms of operation you get the same hi and low constant/momentary settings, the only difference being that the non IR SAR21 LAD does not come with the ilum laser (that can only be seen by NVGs) option that comes with the AN/PEQ2... which is (for now at least). With the IR-capable SAR21 that are issued to the shooters in the section that use NVGs, the LAD is pratically indistinguishable.
So in terms of targeting capabilities... how are they different? You said the SAR-21 LAD does not come anywhere near what the AN/PEQ2 can do. Is there any reason to believe that in the first place? Is there going to be cause to believe next that the bullets fired from the SAR21 is mysteriously less effective then those fired from other barrels? -
Yeap, there is indeed an MMS carbine version of the SAR-21. And its a HELL LOT LIGHTER too.
Why? Cos there is not more scope, LAD, and kevlar. Just Sar-21, and its picatinny rail.
Had an opportunity to mess around with it... The moment I picked it up, looked down the reflex sight.... i thought to myself, "THIS is what the SAR-21 should be!"
Why? Firstly, light. 2ndly, Modular. Can attach wide variety of sighting or equipment. 3rdly, becos its modular, it also helps protect expensive sights from damage. When running SOC, don't put on the sights lor! Run with just the bare weapon. Of course, without the kevlar, some parents are gonna kpkb when one of their sons gets a total makeover from chamber explosion. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Not to nitpick, but why do you say the MMS has no kevlar protective plate and pressure vent hole? I didn't actively go and look for it when I had my try with the MMS, but from what I see it uses the same butt assembly as the normal SAR variant, which should include the kevlar plate.
Yeap, there is indeed an MMS carbine version of the SAR-21. And its a HELL LOT LIGHTER too.
Why? Cos there is not more scope, LAD, and kevlar. Just Sar-21, and its picatinny rail.
...Of course, without the kevlar, some parents are gonna kpkb when one of their sons gets a total makeover from chamber explosion. [/b]
Also, STK seems to markets this safety feature across all the variants, given we don't see any fine print about the MMS lacking the kevlar plate. Unless you have actually seen it absent, all reasons indicate that it should be there.
On another note the MMS is my ideal variant of the SAR21, though I would go for a full 20' barrel on it. That makes me undecided between the full sized '20 SAR P-Rail and the MMS, given the SAR P-Rail does pack its LAD into a more egronomic package with a nice handgrip to boot. But the MMS does give you a ton more options. -
On my airsoft M4-type carbine, it is fully P-rail and I can attach a foreward grip.
I find it extremely comfortable.
Has anyone here fired a weapon with a forward pistol-grip?
Is having a foreward pistol-grip better for accuracy/stability or the standard M16/SAR-21 grip?
When is the foreward pistol grip especially useful? -
Hey Everybody is in agreement that the SAR 21 variants are better ( light weight, P rails , option to use other sights, forward hand grips ...........wow ) . See.........we are moving away from the standard issue SAR 21.
Once I get my standard issue P rail variant of SAR21 , I am getting a Trijicon variable power sight - or gosh, get the SAF to buy one. If you can spend S$ 60 million on one F 15 SG, why not equip all our guys with Trijicons or heck Aimpoints. -
I've fired simunitions from an MP5 with a forward grip, it worked for me.
It's a matter of personal opinion, I don't mind a forward grip at all, though it has the key disadvantage of not being able to easily shift one's supporting hand up and down like you could a normal handgrip, which is more limiting in egronomics. Some people find the vertical gripping action more natural apparently, so once again it's pretty personal. A fully P-Railed weapon would have to use a forward grip though. -
Just to note: the IMI Tavor has a LAD built into the reflex sight and this is standard on all TAR-21.