Combat load carried by infantry
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
still the same 7 per section..
This may little bit side track.
[b]What weapons do a section have?
In 1998,there are 7 men in a section.
They had:2 SAW,ULTIMAX 100
5 M16 replaced by SAR 21
2 M203 replaced by SAR 21
2 LAW .
[/b]
now 2 SAW, 2 LAW, 2 M203, 1 Sect Com. that means 3 SAR 21 for SC and 2 LAW gunners... -
Well, its is there a section sharpshooter/marksmen per section?
-
there used to be, but not anymore with the introduction of the the SAR21.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well, its is there a section sharpshooter/marksmen per section?
Everybody is now considered a sharpshooter. -
So all guns in the section are equiped with magnification scope now? ie., the SAW and M203 besides the SAR21.Originally posted by beavan:there used to be, but not anymore with the introduction of the the SAR21.
Everybody is now considered a sharpshooter. -
The last time i seen, they do not have any scopes for the SAW and M203 weapons.Originally posted by aikchongtan:So all guns in the section are equiped with magnification scope now? ie., the SAW and M203 besides the SAR21.
Further more, since the Ultimax is a LMG a scope may not be necessary. The M203 gunner is still using the old M203 plus M16S1 combo so there is no need to have a scope there too. Unless they decide to change the M203 to the SAR-21 M203 or SAR-21 40GL versions then will have the intergrated scope of the SAR-21.
SAR-21 M203 and SAR-21 40GL pics and specs
http://www.stengg.com/upload/617nXWOgF1ZH01nUEac.pdf
Here is an article with a pic of the latest Ultimax Mk4 version designed for USMC which have no scope
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=853 -
Section Marksman supposed to get the 3x Scope for the SAR21 whereas the rest of the men get the usual 1.5x.
However, I would still prefer the SAR21 to be issued with M1913 rails. -
Anyone has any idea why SAF is unable/unwilling to issue a SAR-21 with grenade launcher?
-
I think its a balancing issue when the launcher is loaded. Makes it difficult to shoot the 40mm I think.Originally posted by chino65:Anyone has any idea why SAF is unable/unwilling to issue a SAR-21 with grenade launcher?
Another possible consideration is the configuration of the Leaf Sight would be different given the SAR-21's lack of a rear-sight apperture. Current ones are developed for the M-16, not the SAR-21, and its likely that a special leaf sight has to be made for the SAR.
If they go the FN-2000 and OICW route, it would be adding computerised targeting systems for the 40mm. That would have weight penalties.
Oh, come to think of it, I havent seen the quadrant sight for the M-203 yet. Dunno if its economically feasible or not. -
BS ... SAR-21 with 3x scopes are issued 1 per section.Originally posted by beavan:there used to be, but not anymore with the introduction of the the SAR21.
Everybody is now considered a sharpshooter.
(at least in ITC - Tg Gul ... YMMV). -
*cough* wannabe *cough*Originally posted by LazerLordz:However, I would still prefer the SAR21 to be issued with M1913 rails.
-
On visual alone, the bullpup-GL configuration looks way more balanced than a conventional GL combo. The M16-203 combo is very front heavy, puts all the weight on the front hand making it difficult to hold a sight picture in a free unsupported firing position.Originally posted by Shotgun:I think its a balancing issue when the launcher is loaded. Makes it difficult to shoot the 40mm I think.
My guess ... ?
Oh, come to think of it, I havent seen the quadrant sight for the M-203 yet. Dunno if its economically feasible or not. [/quote]
Lots of wierd comments in this thread ... first the Sharpshooter comment, now this. I have not seen anything but quadrant sights in my unit ... what unit are you guys from anyway?
[quote]Originally posted by chino65:Anyone has any idea why SAF is unable/unwilling to issue a SAR-21 with grenade launcher?
i) Budget
ii) Commonality. With the grenadier going to SAR-21, the poor Ultimax will be an orphan with no one to scavenge mags from. Until they come out with a polymer mag SAW, they may not go down this path yet.
iii) Evolution. The SAR-21 may be due for a Mk2 version soon. They may want to see how this pans out before going through the expense of redesigning the GL mounts and re-issue. Which leads to ...
iv) Budget.
My 2c anyway. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Errmmmm ... Huh?
[b]Another possible consideration is the configuration of the Leaf Sight would be different given the SAR-21's lack of a rear-sight apperture.
Don't want to come across harsh but Dude! Have you fired an M203 with a leaf sight before? Or did you get confused?
You line up the leaf sight with the front sight lah.
-
Bull-pups are generally more balanced with a GL as compared with conventional rifles, because most of the weight of the rifle is at the back, which is then offset by the GL at the front. I would guess that both cost and commonality with the SAW are holding back the introduction of the SAR-21/40 GL.
However you could then ask why not have the SAR-21 LMG? I would guess that the SAR-21 LMG is not as good as the Ultimax.
Interestingly LMG design in the US is moving towards magazine fed, specifically having common magazines between the AR and the LMG in a section. See the Magpul Masada for one.
-
I think a better example to use will be the USMC IAR program.Originally posted by edwin3060:Interestingly LMG design in the US is moving towards magazine fed, specifically having common magazines between the AR and the LMG in a section. See the Magpul Masada for one.
http://www.fedbizopps.gov//spg/DON/USMC/M67854/ARRFI/SynopsisR.html -
erm.....so where is this all heading?
sorry lah. i don't know much regarding sights, apertures, weight balance and stuff....i only know how to squeeze the trigger.
-
I think the SAR-21 GL and M203 is both unbalanced. Bcos the SAR-21 is designed with a built in laser at the front to balance out the weight at the back due to bull-pup designs.
The problem with the SAR-21 GL and perhaps the SAR-21, is that the design of the hand guard and pistol grip is too bulbous, aka too fat and around to hold properly. I wonder too, if the iron sight of the weapon have been remedied anot? -
Actually i am puzzled as well since ST even went to the point of designed 2 types of 40mm grenade launching systems for the SAR-21.Originally posted by chino65:Anyone has any idea why SAF is unable/unwilling to issue a SAR-21 with grenade launcher?
Further more at an exhibition(can't remember which one) i personally handled a new side loaded M203 launcher from ST. The one which we using now is that we slide the barrel forward, this one is swivel to the left. Can't find any pics though. -
yea tt was the one I was thinking of. My badOriginally posted by kotay:I think a better example to use will be the USMC IAR program.
http://www.fedbizopps.gov//spg/DON/USMC/M67854/ARRFI/SynopsisR.html
The side opening 40GL is able to load rounds that are longer than the standard M203 round, thus there is more choice in what rounds to use. For example, the AG36.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AG36 -
My bad. Haha. No i'm not M203 trained, but I got confused with the alignment for the leaf sight.Originally posted by kotay:Errmmmm ... Huh?
Don't want to come across harsh but Dude! Have you fired an M203 with a leaf sight before? Or did you get confused?
You line up the leaf sight with the front sight lah.
Regards to the quadrant sight, I havent seen those made for SAR-21. I can imagine they dont' use the same sight?