Terrex - watsup?
-
Members shud not suppress the genuine feedback about the weight of the SAR 21 - there are many who do not have the opportunity to handle other fine weapons offered. One just has to handle a G36, F2000, Tavor, SCAR L etc to know that the SAR 21 is heavy. If it is heavy, it is heavy.
We shud keep an open mind and criticize with the view to improve our lot in the SAF. We cud do with a lighter SAR 21 especially when we make an honest comparison with what is available in the market.
I think no one can really admit that the SAR 21 is really much better than the other modern rifles on offer. As to it being cheaper , no one really knows as any accountant can tell you - there are liars, damned liars and ............
As to keeping the money in Singapore , again really how much we do not know as many components & parts are sourced from foreign companies.....
Again, my belief is that we can live without having to design our own small arms................it is almost certain that the resources spent do not commensurate with the benefits derived. The SAR 21 can easily be substituted with any of the modern rifles such as the G36 which can be locally manufactured especially if some think that cost is not an issue, if iit is really more costly in the first place. -
How come you like to bump up old threads? Nvm, let's try to tone down hostilities for everyone's sake.
Also, most of what you posted is more apporiate in the "procurement blunders" thread... why did you post here (lack of incriminating counter-posts?) I'll help you shift your posts.
I do not think people in here are supressing the genuine feedback. A lot of the members here are indeed giving their own feedback from their own handling of the weapon, having used it, shot it, and lived with it outfield.Originally posted by glock:Members shud not suppress the genuine feedback about the weight of the SAR 21 - there are many who do not have the opportunity to handle other fine weapons offered. One just has to handle a G36, F2000, Tavor, SCAR L etc to know that the SAR 21 is heavy. If it is heavy, it is heavy.
We shud keep an open mind and criticize with the view to improve our lot in the SAF. We cud do with a lighter SAR 21 especially when we make an honest comparison with what is available in the market.
As it stands, the weight issue is not a big highlight for many of us here and the current batches who train with the weapon. The weight issue was highlighted heavily in the early batches of troops who converted from heavy use of the M-16S1 to that weapon.
So I'm not sure removing kevlar plates, reducing barrel lengths, using lightweight (but very expensive) MARS sights and what have you not is really reflective of the current opinion of the SAF grunt. As it stands even reviewers of firearms who have handled plenty of weapons in their day don't really have an issue to pick with the SAR-21's weight (certainly not the Jane's reviewers)... most of the talk about the weight has an indeed has, come locally, and even that is being reversed by the opinion of the current batch.
So is the SAR-21 really heavier? Only if you choose to compare it against the most lightweight of designs but in terms of 5.56mm ARs is of an average weight.
Weight reduction was not one of the main issues highlighted by the ADF when they tested the first few marks of the weapon... they highlighted a lot of issues which were fixed in the current mark that is in widespread use, but weight apparently never made the list as a big issue.
If you want an idea of an needlessly heavy infantry battle rifle, try the British SA80 that ended up with its weight because of inherent design flaws that required counterbalances and renforcements that jacked up the weapon weight with no utility to its function at all.I think no one can really admit that the SAR 21 is really much better than the other modern rifles on offer. As to it being cheaper , no one really knows as any accountant can tell you - there are liars, damned liars and ............
Nobody in here has any illusions of the SAR-21 being a super-rifle as if its sheer use would determine death or victory. But what its long-time users know (as opposed to those who just converted to learning the weapon) that it is a reliable and capable piece of kit that gets the job done.
If I really had to make a choice as to what rifle to go into battle with, it would certainly make my list and more then ready to be considered by our armed forces.
So you are telling us that our accountants cannot be trusted either way... if they are saving money they won't tell us and if they are losing money they won't tell us either.
But what a lot of people are saying, LOGICALLY, unless something really extraordinary happens it is highly UNLIKELY that the SAR-21 would be more expensive then its counterparts. In the same vein we don't really know how much those chinese AK clones really cost to make, but what we do know seems to point to them being a lot cheaper then say your... G36C.
Hence I believe the onus of proof the determine that the SAR-21 is really more expensive really lies on you then on the opposition.
Firstly, no matter how you add it up... having components sourced from other companies in your own design certainly still does not make a local unit more expensive then bying the whole thing piecemeal from a foreign developer.
As to keeping the money in Singapore , again really how much we do not know as many components & parts are sourced from foreign companies.....Again, my belief is that we can live without having to design our own small arms................it is almost certain that the resources spent do not commensurate with the benefits derived. The SAR 21 can easily be substituted with any of the modern rifles such as the G36 which can be locally manufactured especially if some think that cost is not an issue, if iit is really more costly in the first place.
I think you have made your belief clear, but I'm not sure how many of your points involve wishful thinking then actually cold hard facts.
What do you mean that "it is almost certain that the resources spend do not commensurate with the benefits derived"? Do you actually have the facts and figures to prove that or are you really going by your gut feel?
And you have to do a lot of homework to prove that... given a lot of people here have posted literally overwhelming evidence as to why local arms procurement (even small arms) are beneficial. We have yet to see anything of that sort in your posts except a lot of "i think", "it is my opinion", "it is almost certain", "it is my belief"... fair enough... now prove them.
I think moca put forward some rather convincing points as to why no matter how we add up, a locally manufactured design is still more economically viable then a license manufacture.
I think you have to do a lot more then say that accountants proving facts in favour of your opposition are "liars and damned liars" to really present anything in here... other then that your beliefs as much as we know what they are are just that: a religious statement of faith.
Indeed what is stopping others from assuming that you are just what you say accountants to be- a liar and a damned liar. At least we have the assurance that accountants will be taken to task and law if the numbers finally mistally too much, certainly decades of local arms procurement would have bled our nation much worse then the NKF... but a single person on the internet stating his beliefs without supporting them with proper facts and arguments I suspect... is far less trustworthy.
So we are still waiting... after so many posts... for you to really demostrate your beliefs convincingly. We know what you are saying... you have been saying it for countless posts but as it remains you have yet to seriously justify any of them on local arms procurement. -
What is more interesting is why you sought to attack it as oversized, overpriced and all those other things in the first place? Unless you assumed that it was locally designed until you were forced to do your homework?Originally posted by glock:Why are people still defending the Terrex ? After all it was designed in Ireland. Maybe it is really cheaper to develop a wheeled battle taxi somewhere else.
I think we all know ST isn't silly, by and by they know where to spend and where to save. You seem to think that they launch into all projects without thinking as to if they are really economically viable. -
So there is an admission that the SAR 21 is not light after all. At 4.18 kg, it really is no fun to lug around. And we can accept that our guys lug a heavy rifle since the claim is that its weight is not an issue ? The point is that it can & must be made lighter for the benefit of the poor SAF infantryman.
By the way , has anyone got an answer to why the shorter - < 20 inch -barrels for most modern assault rifles ?
Again, when compared with the many excellent alternative weapons shud'nt the SAR 21 be as light or lighter than the others ? Given that it does not have any major ( already clearly stated in some posts ) benefits over the competition, I see the only reason for using SAR 21 is that it is locally designed.
For most NS men who have only trained on SAR 21 and have not used other assault rifles, they may not complain of its weight simply because they have no comparison.
I repeat that we can have an excellent assault rifle ( eg G36 ) which can be manufactured locally to overcome the issue of supply. Small arms do not need to be locally designed. Our limited resources shud be better employed to develop leading edge weapons. This is not rocket science.
As to the many nations that have purchased our small arms, again, it begs the question - how many ? I hope that the examples used before such as the Bangladeshi SF, PNG police , Somalians, Crotian Guards..........etc. are not included. One just has to look at the images captured in newsclips in war torn zones where these weapons are purported to be used to realize that the weapons used in these places are overwhelmingly AK47s and the like. A sprinkling of our local small arms used in a handful of nations is again not something to brag about.
The SA80 is a lousy weapon. It is heavy, costly, unreliable ........... No one said that it is a good rifle and shud not be used for comparison. When given a choice, I myself will opt for the SAR 21 over the SA80.
The Terrex is a good case of not needing a weapons system to be developed or designed locally to meet a " unique " SAF requirement. Maybe it is also cheaper in this case. -
nevermind.
-
So what is your point? That suddenly our NS men don't know what's best for them?Originally posted by glock:So there is an admission that the SAR 21 is not light after all. At 4.18 kg, it really is no fun to lug around. And we can accept that our guys lug a heavy rifle since the claim is that its weight is not an issue ? The point is that it can & must be made lighter for the benefit of the poor SAF infantryman. [/quote]
The total point you seem to be missing is that our "poor" SAF infantrymen who have trained, fought and slept with this weapon, by and by have no big issues about its weight. If it is heavier then some other european rifle you can't seem to avoid thinking about apparently is a fact that is lost on most of them and they seem to fight pretty well regardless of it.
Also, the fact that the extra weight comes from the unique design choices of the SAR seem to be lost on you as well.
The rest it seems is just a numbers game. I can call this or that system heavy, lously or expensive but at the end of the day it's the grunts who decide.
By the way , has anyone got an answer to why the shorter - < 20 inch -barrels for most modern assault rifles ?
You mean to say you have not been reading the comments of one of our overseas members who have spent a lot of time firing 5.56mm weapons to boot and even owns his own piston M4 to boot? He answered a lot of questions on why it is more then justified to keep a '20 inch barrel in our 5.56mm weapons.
If other designers want to reduce their length, no buff to them, but it hardly means that we have to follow them. It is not really only you that has an issue with this? You don't even see long debates on '20 inch versus '18... it's up to the individual user to decide.Again, when compared with the many excellent alternative weapons shud'nt the SAR 21 be as light or lighter than the others ? Given that it does not have any major ( already clearly stated in some posts ) benefits over the competition, I see the only reason for using SAR 21 is that it is locally designed.
For most NS men who have only trained on SAR 21 and have not used other assault rifles, they may not complain of its weight simply because they have no comparison.
I repeat that we can have an excellent assault rifle ( eg G36 ) which can be manufactured locally to overcome the issue of supply. Small arms do not need to be locally designed. Our limited resources shud be better employed to develop leading edge weapons. This is not rocket science.
Point is, as long as you keep ignoring the unique local reasons for the SAR design, and the fact that it was designed to be a very different weapon from the G36, most of your examples are apples and oranges and moot.
Simply put, the SAF has long been moving towards self-reliance in weapon system, and the most bread and butter weapon: the infantry small arm will certainly be the first base they will want to cover.
The Malaysian experience with Styer, which set back their armed forces by a generation in firearms in its aftermath is a painful and expensive lesson in self-sufficency we apparently have no intention of learning after our own experience with Colt.
Given ST has already been maturing it's small arms technology, has already come up with decent designs to boot in the HMG, GL, and SAW weapons... it is only a logical extension of their abilities to forray into making our own standard infantry weapon.
Did ST set out to be a world-beater with SAR-21? No. They set rather modest goals for the project and suceeded in creating a weapon that met the SAF requirements of being a cost-effective, reliable, and self-reliant upgrade to the M16S1.
Most importantly, did the SAF decide that to go locally made on a whim? When the requirement for a replacement firearm was raised, the SAF ran through many options and firearms from many different sources... including the G36C before settling on the option to procure locally. Maybe they know something about dealing with H&K that you don't.
[quote]The SA80 is a lousy weapon. It is heavy, costly, unreliable ........... No one said that it is a good rifle and shud not be used for comparison. When given a choice, I myself will opt for the SAR 21 over the SA80.
Exactly my point. The SA80 is a true example of a defective weapon system that we ought to chuck right out of the window if we ever came up with it. The SAR-21 however, is hardly that weapon. What the grunt really wants needs is a weapon that puts the bullets on spot, does not quit when you abuse it, and is idiot proof to keep going. The rest is really splitting hairs.
What we have is a decent, and cost effective piece of locally manufactured gear, and our grunts are certainly not disadvantaged carrying it into battle. A more worthy life and death issue would be getting stuff like proper body armour or armour kits for the soft skin units then haggling over assault rifle design.The Terrex is a good case of not needing a weapons system to be developed or designed locally to meet a " unique " SAF requirement. Maybe it is also cheaper in this case.
Why state the obvious? ST is smart enough to know when to design stuff ourselves, or outsource it as and when needed. Our SAW was designed by an englishman, but the experience led to the C.I.S. 50. It would be foolish to forray into something yourself when you don't yet have the experience yourself and need to learn from others first.
You on the other hand seem to think that one solution fits all the questions. The SAF has shown considerable flexibility in sourcing its weapons and sometimes resorting to outright creativity to do so... why can't you exibit the same innovation in your thinking?
Unless of course it is your crusade to see the SAF equipped with the G36C
-
No problems with the Taugay label although there must be a joke or something in there ... kinda lost to me without the context ...Originally posted by glock:Taugay shud check the weights he has given, I do not know his source, but I will be happy to loan him my collection of Janes & other material. It is a fact that the SAR 21 is heavy and I repeat and repeat and repeat that reducing the weight will make the SAR 21 a better rifle.
In any case, care to point out the specific mistakes I made?
Also, you seem to have missed the points raised by other posters that lighter is not always better (within limits) with regards to Assault rifles.
i) A certain amount of mass to the weapon attenuates the recoil and allows for a more controllable weapon both in rapid and automatic fire modes.
ii) Shaving weights will usually lead to sacrifices elsewhere ... lighter weight composites (that may be more fragile) and thinner barrels that results in lower volume of fire. Consider the evolution of the M16A1 to the A2/3/4 models. The A1 had a thin barrel and fragile plastics, the evolutions after that had a heavier barrel and beefier composites ... surely a design change made necessary by the experience with these flaws in the M16 ... and you're suggesting we go back down that road?
Weight is not always a bane for rifles, especially not when we're shaving hairs and talking about a half-kilo difference ... -
Originally posted by Glock:By the way , has anyone got an answer to why the shorter - < 20 inch -barrels for most modern assault rifles ?
Well, besides the points raised by others ... here's one from the cost perspective that was sort of rattling around the empty space in my head ...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You mean to say you have not been reading the comments of one of our overseas members who have spent a lot of time firing 5.56mm weapons to boot and even owns his own piston M4 to boot? He answered a lot of questions on why it is more then justified to keep a '20 inch barrel in our 5.56mm weapons.
IINM, the SAF still uses M193 rounds as opposed to the M855/SS109/Green Tip rounds. While the ballistics character of the M193 differs from that of the M855 ,again IINM, when shot out of a 20" or greater barrel length they are close as makes no difference.
If the M193 rounds do cost less than the M855, by about US$0.02 per round, then maybe the SAF stuck with the 20" barrel and M193 combo to reduce life cycle cost for their assault rifle solution for the SAF soldier?
Just a thought ... -
Here we go again...
Whats the terrex got to do with the Sar-21? Its not a world class wheeled AFV, but ST never claimed it to be. So let it be what it is. Just another wheeled AFV.
The SAR-21 was never acclaimed to be the best combat rifle, so let it be.
I agree that the SAR-21 is heavier than the M-16S1 that I'm used to. And I totally agree with that point. However, it does not make it a worse rifle than the M-16S1! At least no just the weight issue alone. No matter how we try to justify, the bare facts are, given the default configuration of the weapons, the Sar-21 is heavier.
Other than that, its a respectable weapon, its added weight and good CG, gives it great stability when firing. If you tried to rapid fire (not auto) both the M-16 and the SAR-21, you'll realize it takes greater effort to re-stabilize the M-16 than the SAR-21. It also has greater accuracy with the x1.5 scope.
At the end of the day, what it lacks or rather exceeds in weight differences, the Sar-21 makes up with capabilities, greater accuracy and stability. You win some, you lose some.
The Terrex on the other hand, IMO, is just another way of marketing Singapore equipment. Its NOT a fantastic super high tech vehicle probably wasn't designed to be so. In a way, its more suited for OOTWs, which maybe what some countries need to fulfill their UN Peace keeping commitments. The design is modular so that there will be a Terrex for whatever OOTW needs they may have. -
Unlikely though, because despite all the monkey noise jumping up and down his cage going "arrr...arrr....arrr!!" Glock makes about barrel length, SAR-21s are produced in other lengths... the choice to stick with a '20 inch barrel for standard use was one that was made by the SAF, and ST simply followed their requirements to the letter.Originally posted by kotay:Well, besides the points raised by others ... here's one from the cost perspective that was sort of rattling around the empty space in my head ...
IINM, the SAF still uses M193 rounds as opposed to the M855/SS109/Green Tip rounds. While the ballistics character of the M193 differs from that of the M855 ,again IINM, when shot out of a 20" or greater barrel length they are close as makes no difference.
If the M193 rounds do cost less than the M855, by about US$0.02 per round, then maybe the SAF stuck with the 20" barrel and M193 combo to reduce life cycle cost for their assault rifle solution for the SAF soldier?
Just a thought ...
Beyond that, I see no issue choosing '20 over '14 or '18... different lengths give you different things from your bullet. If other designers like different lengths fine with me, and the whole thing is really a non issue. His attempt to politicize and make this into an infexible issue is mostly an invention on Glock's part and I suggest we don't follow him into this folly and make a mountain out of molehills, as if our SAF soldiers are carrying a worthless extra '2 of metal into battle. Ridiculus!
At the end of the day this barrel length issue is as stupid as saying more people paint their cars blue then red nowadays, what is the rationale for your car being red?
Different users have different requirements, and sometimes the changes are innane. But as davechng already said, if you already have a bullpup design, why not max out the length you have? Who wants to fault the SAF for being kiasu?
Frankly I find his attempts to politicize this issue laughable, it's less of a argument, and more like a young child who simply can't (or refuses) wrap his head around certain things and makes a grand mess of things. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Ditto on all this, but how is the default config of the SAR heavier then the M-16S1? Obviously a clean M-16 will be lighter given the SAR has internal to it a lot of things that had to be mounted to consider all things fairly.
No matter how we try to justify, the bare facts are, given the [b]default configuration of the weapons, the Sar-21 is heavier.
Other than that, its a respectable weapon, its added weight and good CG, gives it great stability when firing. If you tried to rapid fire (not auto) both the M-16 and the SAR-21, you'll realize it takes greater effort to re-stabilize the M-16 than the SAR-21. It also has greater accuracy with the x1.5 scope.
At the end of the day, what it lacks or rather exceeds in weight differences, the Sar-21 makes up with capabilities, greater accuracy and stability. You win some, you lose some.
[/b]
The orginal design brief when Singapore was launching its ACR project in the mid 90s was to create a weapon that was lighter then an M-16 decked out with both scope and LAD, and with a cheaper per-unit cost to procure. After considering the arms that were on the market, including somebody's favourite weapon, it was realized that no current system on sale fit these requirements well and the decision was made to
AFAIK, arms contracts do not come cheap. As much as Glock likes to sing songs about license manufacture he seems to miss out on the fact that license manufacturing isfor procurement security, rather then cost-effectiveness. As long as you manufacture what is not legally considered your design, each copy (unless you are China and could not care less about legal process) you make is as good as if you have bought it from the manufacturer... the only difference being you have more control over the supply.
That is obviously a far from ideal position... also Glock seems to be missing out the fact that you actually have to get the company to agree to grant you the license to manufacture in the first place, and that is often the most tricky part of the deal. In fact the G36C can trace it's origin to the failure of Germany's part to get a license from Belgium's FAL, forcing them to look to local options.
Also, what makes him think H&K is happy to devalue its most famous product by outsourcing its manufacture? They are happy as they are to camp where they are and provide the rights to their weapon only to the highest bidder, which put it way out of the SAF's league. Why do you think this weapon has only seen limited distribution in asia? Apparently Glock thinks getting a license from arms companies is a simple matter? And he took economics?
To note how neow H&K are about their intellectual properity, the development costs for all G36 derivatives such as the KE module for the OICW, XM8 became so non-competitive and overrun that the Yanks, with their 60B a year budget, and having blown a lot of cash on their own ACR project decided to open up the contract to other companies to shake H&K up and we all knew eventually how it ended.
The Germans make fantastic firearms, but dealing with them is another question altogether. But hey, they're Europeans!
There are many good reasons why the SAF has wisely decided not to go down the license manufacture path- again. And even if they did it is highly unlikely that they'll be making anything to do with a rifle from H&K anytime soon.
So yeah, I'm not too sure what Glock is driving about with the songs and poems about the license manufacture of G36C, give it is prehaps only slightly below par in humour of the notion of us suddenly getting a license from the yanks to make the F-22. Not to mention having driven (no pun intended) a thread on the Terrex (of which apparently Glock has lost most of his voice on, when he was quite a baboon when it started) quite way off track. -
For me, u can say watever crappy things about e SAR21, i will still prefer e SAR21 over e M-16 for i had shot with both
-
SGT-rex, your right. That the SAR-21 is lighter than an M-16 equivalent w/ LAD, scope, and Kevlar protection.
But our friend glock isn't emphasizing on that, but on the default carrying weight instead.
In a way, he is also right that the load of the infantryman has increased with our locally developed technology instead of decrease.
If you remember the Land Warrior spoof video, I guess you'd recall what a joke the entire land warrior system is. It'd be PERFECT if and only if the soldiers have a powersuit as well.
While I still favor the M-16 over the Sar-21 (mainly cos the weight is finely distributed over 2 hands), I do admit that target acquisition is a hell lot faster. Overall, a more effective rifle for the Army as standard issue. It is not too much technology for a soldier to quickly learn, and still increase effectiveness of a soldier.
So there, can we agree to disagree over the weight issue? -
only one guy is nitpicking over the weight issue.
G36 is lighter. -
I see consensus regarding the weight of the standard issue SAR 21 compared to other modern assault rifles & it took probably more than two dozen posts to set the record straight. What is clear is that many chose not to admit the obvious.
Again, if members do read my posts , I never said that the standard issue SAR 21 was a bad rifle. I repeat for the umpteen time that it is an improvement over the M16 though STK cud do something more to lighten the SAR 21 for the SAF infantryman who is truly overburdened – reading glasses are in order here for some.
Yes , an unnecessary extra 1/2 kg to lug around for a rifle is a big deal ! When you start to add a heavier Matador ( compared to an Armbrust ) plus a host of new systems to the SAF soldierÂ’s load , the SAF soldier is really overburdened. Members who do not wish to highlight issues which can help the SAF infantryman do not have their interests at heart.
Whoever suggested that the SAF soldier is stupid has not served in the SAF.
The question about barrel lengths was not a trick question & the need for a 20 in barrel to achieve higher velocities need not be defended to death – it is obvious that a longer barrel will give bullets higher velocities. Although the American experience in combat has shown that the shorter barrels in M16 variants do not have the same lethal terminal ballistics as 20 in barrels, this fact seems to have been lost with most rifle designers including the Israelis. Then I guess, we Singaporeans & Americans are smarter than the rest.
For some, the extra 2 inches of barrel IS critical & that’s why they go bananas – I am saying ( as others do ) it is not critical & shud be chopped……… and monkeys do enjoy chewing up bananas.
We can buy German Leopard 2s but cannot get a license to manufacture G36s ? I am sure we did not ask. I guess the Leopard 2s are capable of doing less harm than G 36s. Hope that we can in future buy spare parts for the Leos. I also hope that the Leos are not duds. And yes G36s are nice rifles, obviously.
However, it was not obvious to many that the Terrex is not a local design. The point made by some was that locally designed equipment to suit SAFÂ’s unique needs cud be cheaper and that in this case most of the money stays in Singapore. My point is that most likely not correct on both counts. Anyway , the Terrex ( as others pointed out ) is just another armored vehicle. The SAR 21 is also another rifle. So what right ? Right. -
Back with the hit and run posting again? Reviving an old thread, posting one post of the same points and hope that some stick and then quietly slipping out again? Should point you to several enlightening articles on your behaviour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Restorff_effect
Who's going nuts over the 2' of barrel? Some choose to have it and others choose not to... in the end it boils down to what you want for your own weapon... The SAF has its own reasons and plans for keeping the '20 barrel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking_%28pastime%29
It seems that with all the wondering as to why the SAF didn't follow other people with chopping the length comes from one monkey, and the only monkey is... you.
Same old rebuttals to your point on weights and stuff, and the same reply that many of your points are more or less your religious views that while we accept and respect as your right to have, most in here reject out of hand. Especially most of your talk on local procurement efforts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation
And please do your research on how H&K does its deals before thinking it's wise for the SAF to sell itself out for the G36C, before really going any further on how it's imperative for us to get it. All the words you wrote in your post did little to really answer any of what was revealed about H&K, except prehaps to cry more about why we can't get G36C
And as much as you seem to be concerned for the "poor" SAF grunt... it seems most of the grunts themselves in here think little of your condescending "concern"... is it not time for you to try a new sales pitch? And for your information having personally carried the MATADOR and trained with the SAR as well as some of the supposedly "heavier" upcoming equipment, some of us are more qualified on what is actually important to us grunts then a nitpicker going through the usual logical gymnastics lamenting on how there should be a "revolution" in procurement affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
And yes the SAR is just another rifle, you're really only the one who can't seem to get that rather obvious fact influence you to make more rational statements.
Have a nice day. Really it has been fun glock, but now you're really being a baby. -
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh.
Join the Mexican Army, last i know, their grunts (even MPs) carries a copied G36 AR. They called it the FX-5 or something. but it's a G36 rip..Now H&K is raising hell on them.
But hey! Be Mexican and you can carry your fav rifle.
Oh yeah when the real button is push i'm sure you wont wear(and refuse strongly to not wear) body armour since it's like 10-12 (TEN TO TWELVE) KILOS heavier and you never wear that before. -
As most people have realized, there is no point talking with Glock any further as it seems that he has decided to draw from the realm of faith when it comes to justifying his position.
The total change of opinion from the Terrex going nowhere and being not cost-effective to "hey it isn't locally designed", as well as all his flip flops on local procurement to end with "accountants are LIARS!" is just a rather sad proof of that.
His inability to do proper homework on the Primus and other locally designed stuff like SR Mortar, SLWAGL, C.I.S 50. before coming in to convert others on the folly of local procurement is yet another rather humourous feature of his sad recent foray in here.
While we respect his right to hold his own opinion, unfortunately I think it is just that case that most reasonable men in here have their reasons for mostly rejecting. And while he might believe wholeheartedly in them, it is more an articulation of religious faith in his position then anything else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_believer_syndrome
At the end of the day, there is little point in carrying on a thread that revolves around glock posting the same refuted things, and then running away for a week or so while many others present the same counter arguments and then for him to return to post his "reply", as if just adding one more post to have the last word adds any validity to his religion of foreign promotion.
All we can say is that it is indeed very fortunate, and it shall remain that way as well, that the SAF has a lot better ideas then him on how to procure arms and equip our army with. And it is a good thing that none of our procurement trends are going to take a turn for glocklogic anytime soon.
At the end of the day he can be a Chee Soon Juan in his matter and keep barking the same thing, I think most of us here are just going to sit back and enjoy the show he provides... which is mostly that of a fustrated dog behind the immutable bars of logic foaming and barking away.
As for what OUR grunts really want and need... leave that for the REAL SAF grunts (of which many of us are here) to discuss in another thread. -
When war really break out , no soldier would care about the weight of the gun and they would jolly well shoot with the gun that they recieve during the war time.
-
Tyra is most welcome not to reply to my posts – good riddance. The ramblings are becoming more incoherent.
Who said anything about a G36 C. I said G 36 – there is a difference right ?
The Terrex has gone nowhere, is not cost effective and its not locally designed – all factual statements. Can t you swallow the truth ? And by the way, the best accountants are always right because they ask this question first – how much do you want it to cost or how much profit or loss do you want for this financial year ? You are obviously not an accountant – poor thing, all the economics lessons gone to waste.
Tyra, please stop putting words into other peoples months. I made no or little comments on SR Mortar, SLWAGL and CIS 50. I already confessed earlier that I knew little on these weapons. You must be having nightmares of Glock tearing up your points & dreamt that I denigrated your pet weapons.
You shud stop using Wikipedia as your source – its reputation on military matters is surpassed by Janes by a wide margin - you do read Janes do you ?
Huh ! Tyra is a Singapore grunt ?!? But I always thought that grunts only existed in the US Army. I am going straight to the Wiki website to search for “ Singapore Grunt “. It is a new animal to me. -
Hi CM06,
I totally agree about your point on joining the Mexican Army. You are right, I am no grunt, but I think the Mexicans must be offering good incentives for Asian grunts like yourself to join their army. With so much being said about Singapore talent being poached by other countries, here is an opportunity not to be missed by those who seek greener pastures overseas. You mean some of you grunts already have offers ? I say go for it man ! Imagine all the tequila that you can drink ! No more beers for you grunts.
There you go. Even the Mexicans think so highly of the G 36 that they carry copies of G 36s ! After all, imitation is the best form of flattery, right ? I guess the Mexicans will eventually be reasonable – HK will be happy to have grant them a production license. Funny they did not copy the SAR21 or some other rifle for that matter.
10 to 12 kg for body armor ?! Wow ! Can I hasten a guess as to where they will be made ? All the more reason to chop the weight of everything in sight that you Singapore grunts carry. I am beginning to see visions of Rambo type Singapore grunts festooned with 12 kg body armor, 4.2 kg rifles, 9 kg AT weapons, ammo , backpacks Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…..
WaitÂ….it cannot be a vision but reality since some of our grunts in this forum have already admitted that its no big deal with all this weight. -
YawnÂ… to your points I submit the same itinerary of rebuttals, considering you have not produced anything new (except perhaps to reach new heights of questionable logic).
I will however, point out the good humour in your recent posts:The Terrex has gone nowhere, is not cost effective and its not locally designed – all factual statements. Can t you swallow the truth ?
The truth you canÂ’t swallow seems to be that you have not done your homework and are now trying to clutch at
And just how is the Terrex not cost-effective or going nowhere?
Locally designed? Refer to the Procurement Blunders thread.And by the way, the best accountants are always right because they ask this question first – how much do you want it to cost or how much profit or loss do you want for this financial year ? You are obviously not an accountant – poor thing, all the economics lessons gone to waste.
LOL, given by many of your opinion and calculations on local procurementÂ… IÂ’m afraid the only one whoÂ’s economics lessons that have uttely gone to wasteÂ…. is you.Tyra, please stop putting words into other peoples months. I made no or little comments on SR Mortar, SLWAGL and CIS 50. I already confessed earlier that I knew little on these weapons. You must be having nightmares of Glock tearing up your points & dreamt that I denigrated your pet weapons.
Actually I enjoy your presence in here given it breaks the monotony of the forum and gives the rest a person to be united against, as well as to sharpen the wit of those in here. So actually I look forward to each and every time
Note that all your attempts to question local procurement have only strengthened a positive opinion on it. In a backhanded sort of way you are actually beneficial, and not detrimental to your opponents.
And what did I but mention these weapons but to demonstrate your pitiful understanding of them, hence brining into question your ability to make proper judgements on anything- a lack of ability that you unfortunately explicitly demonstrate yourself without really requiring intervention. But I simply helped you along.
So no, I’m afraid I don’t really have nightmares about you… I actually find you kinda funny.You shud stop using Wikipedia as your source – its reputation on military matters is surpassed by Janes by a wide margin - you do read Janes do you ?
IÂ’m afraid judging by your track record, I am afraid it seems apparent that I might be more well read then youÂ… but itÂ’s only because it seems that you are [I]much less[/I] well read on anything then just about anybody.
Huh ! Tyra is a Singapore grunt ?!? But I always thought that grunts only existed in the US Army. I am going straight to the Wiki website to search for “ Singapore Grunt “. It is a new animal to me.
LOL, I am not the first, nor the last in here, to refer to ourselves as “grunts”. Hence I’m afraid your foray into semantics is going to fail like most of your other endeavours. This is because the rest know what I am referring to when I use the term, accept and understand it in a way that is useful and conducive for discussion… unfortunately your deliberate misunderstanding of the term hurts only your credibility and not anybody else’s.
Sigh, do you really need to blow off your toes with every post?
Note that yet again your latest posts have failed to bulge the overwhelming weight of opinion against you but even an inch.
All in all a spirited attempt at rebuttal, but you really have to find better points and approaches. Feel free to try again though. -
Apparently someone have not realized that some of us in here have already trained with Level 3 body armour and all the current section weapons...
Hmm... but as far as we checked... no issues on being able to fight effectively yet.
As I said, the world must look positively terrifying from somebody's armchair. -
Back to the Terrex, please...
There are some SAR-21 threads including one I started examining why the SAR-21 has not yet secured an overseas order called: "What's wrong with the SAR-21. -
There you go. Even the Mexicans think so highly of the G 36 that they carry copies of G 36s ! After all, imitation is the best form of flattery, right ? I guess the Mexicans will eventually be reasonable – HK will be happy to have grant them a production license. Funny they did not copy the SAR21 or some other rifle for that matter.
That latest quote as stamped, confirmed and approved 100% pure Glocklogic, a fully organic product of a person that brings you some of the best humour in Military Nuts, otherwise also known as Glock!
Wait! Wait! This was really funny! I want to try my hand at Glocklogic as well!There you go. Even the Chinese and so many other countries think so highly of the AK-47 that they carry so many copies of it! After all, imitation is the best form of flattery, right? I guess all those countries will eventually be reasonable- Kalashnikova will be happy to have grant them a production license. Funny they did not copy the G36 or some other rifle for that matter.
Let me try a variation:There you go, so many countries, even the Israelis think so highly of the Styer Aug that so many "raygun bullpups" have been designed inspired by it like the SAR-21, TAR-21, CR-21... After all imitation is the best form of flattery, right? I guess we will all eventually be reasonable- Styer will be happy to grant us a production license. Funny the number of rifles "copied" off the Styer Aug far exceeds that of the G36.
Hmm... I guess imitation is the best form of flattery... Glock should be flattered that people are starting to imitate his style of humour and nonsense to bring mirth in this forum, proving that quite conclusively he truly is the king of it's supply.
We really can't hold a candle to Glock, we must license manufacture his jokes...
NOT!