SAR 21 Twin Brother
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
I will pick the TAR21 with its much lighter weight & excellent optics anytime over the SAR21.
If only lions can shoot back with an AK47, there surely will be more lions in our midst.
I don't think our resident lion will like the AK47, because there is no handle for him to carry while "running" for his life. -
Even though I alway don't agree with Lionnoisy but we must keep an open mind.
What he say about the SAR-21 as a carrying handle is true! Yes you all are right to say that you all run with rifle with hands on the pistol grip and finger outside trigger - yes for SOC and some other missions.
Frankly i have been on some really bloody long range exercise which involve swift movement to objective 50km over long distance and different terrains in very limited time ! Most of the time we are running, if you want to go fast at that type of distance, hand on pistol grip all the time is not the best way ! Sometime carrying it with the scope does make running a lot faster,smoother and easier! A real soldier depend on his experience and senses to decide when he should be carrying his weapon is ready mode, and when he should be carrying it so he can move faster and more less stress himself. If you need to carry casaulty ... you need to carry him and his rifle also , the scope does come super handy !!!
As for the aiming sight - ITL MARS is a much better sight if you want close quarter combat !!! Yes it is faster to shoot. By our SAR-21 enable better longer distance shooting with it. Frankly about the aiming sights - of which is better ? ITL MARS or 1.5x ? Frankly both are good sights just that they have their each advantage in their own area. Mars is better for close and fast engagment, and 1.5x give better accuracy in distance !!! Different situation - you would have wish you have the other sights ... so it is not far to say which sight is better.Think it is hard to say which rifle is better .... as SAR-21 have a lot of versions ....and its compact versions is sure hell really like the twin of TAR-21
-
IMO, the TAR-21 really gives the SAR-21 a run for the money. The standard SAR-21 we have is simply not in the same class of weapon as the TAR-21.
So in an apple to apple comparison, the TAR-21 should be compared to something like the SAR-21 MMS. Until we have someone who has hands on experience with both of these weapons, its hard to come to any real conclusion.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
What he say about the SAR-21 as a carrying handle is true! Yes you all are right to say that you all run with rifle with hands on the pistol grip and finger outside trigger - yes for SOC and some other missions.
Frankly i have been on some really bloody long range exercise which involve swift movement to objective 50km over long distance and different terrains in very limited time ! Most of the time we are running, if you want to go fast at that type of distance, hand on pistol grip all the time is not the best way ! Sometime carrying it with the scope does make running a lot faster,smoother and easier! A real soldier depend on his experience and senses to decide when he should be carrying his weapon is ready mode, and when he should be carrying it so he can move faster and more less stress himself. If you need to carry casaulty ... you need to carry him and his rifle also , the scope does come super handy !!!
In any case, his "running for your life" point is moot... there is just about no situtation in which you need to run for your life and carry the rifle by its scope.AFAIK, why carry the rifle by its scope when you can just sling the thing and what have you not?
Not that a scope handle is a bad thing, if i use it i use it, but it's not really the lifesaver and make or break feature that lionnoisy is trying to make it out to be, which then again goes to show his general understanding of firearms. And of course as I stated before, the fact that later SAR variants don't see a bid need to retain the scope handle speaks volumes about its disposability.
That said, one needs to note that the basic SAR was intended to put a competent weapons package at an affordable cost into the arms of an ordinary SAF grunt, not go all out at all expense to give him the best weapon possible. The Israelis can do it, but we for us we stick with good enough and not best.
Unfortunately the suggestion that we are not best is not music to his ears, I kinda like the point where he tried to suggest that the Tavor cannot be used one handed... that quite clearly shows his lack of research and just how desperate he needs to come up with any kind of a reply, as if the people here did not know what they were talking about.
-
Suppose I am now in a cover position.
Say i really has to run across 50m distance and there is no cover along the route.Worse.I know there is pretty high chance there is or are rifles waiting for me.
My mission need me to reach 50 m away in one min in another cover position.
I cant wait and there is no back up .How?
option 1.Shall I put my finger on the trigger and start run for my life?
If I hear any bullets fired,shall i just blindly fire to the possible poisition of firing while i continue running?
u have to note i am running really fast.U and i cant fire a rifle very accurately while we run very fast.
We are not Jet Li or 007.Do u think the enemy will stop firing and take cover when he know I fire BLINDLY?? Not to mention i can hit the enemy.
Running a rifle with two hands is little bit slower than running with one hand holding SAR 21 sight.
option 2.I just grip the rifle SAR 21 by the sight and run.
If i hear any firing,i drop to the ground,locate possible enemy position and fire.I think i have a pretty higher chance to survive than i fire while i running.
In option 1,i expose longer in enemy 's sights.
NO HARD FEELING
This armchair discussion may save our ass.
-
I'd sling my rifle behind tighten and sprint.
-
Have you ever considered laying a smoke screen first rather than volunteer to be the target in a turkey shoot?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
In any case, his "running for your life" point is moot... there is just about no situtation in which you need to run for your life and carry the rifle by its scope.AFAIK, why carry the rifle by its scope when you can just sling the thing and what have you not?
Not that a scope handle is a bad thing, if i use it i use it, but it's not really the lifesaver and make or break feature that lionnoisy is trying to make it out to be, which then again goes to show his general understanding of firearms. And of course as I stated before, the fact that later SAR variants don't see a bid need to retain the scope handle speaks volumes about its disposability.
That said, one needs to note that the basic SAR was intended to put a competent weapons package at an affordable cost into the arms of an ordinary SAF grunt, not go all out at all expense to give him the best weapon possible. The Israelis can do it, but we for us we stick with good enough and not best.
Unfortunately the suggestion that we are not best is not music to his ears, I kinda like the point where he tried to suggest that the Tavor cannot be used one handed... that quite clearly shows his lack of research and just how desperate he needs to come up with any kind of a reply, as if the people here did not know what they were talking about.
Running for your life ? Frankly when you need to do that , that mean ... you are totally outgun - running all out for it .... !!! That is very different from tactical withdrawal ....!!! which you stop to shoot and fall back in orderly manner !!! Running for your life mean running like hell for it , which you do not even want to stop or turn back to return fire even if people firing at you .... usually this mean all out speed and distance .... !
You say sling the rifle to run ... hello sling it behind, frankly if you will not have time to stop to sling it !!! Isn't that worst harder to bring to action if you really need it ? .... If you sling it to the front, it keep banging to your legs and waist ... isn't that slowing you down ?
As for later varients of SAR - did not have the scope - that is because they are not for general soldiers - those will have different sights mount - like even MARS for more close quarter combat.
I do not agree with you on that what you say "SAR was intended to put a competent weapons package at an affordable cost into the arms of an ordinary SAF grunt, not go all out at all expense to give him the best we upon possible. The Israelis can do it, but we for us we stick with good enough and not best" - please explain what the TAR have on so expensive that make SAR have is cheap !I do not understand about your argument on - "The SAR is not truly ambidexterous in the sense of the TAR-21. While it was can be shot left handed when need be, you will be badly injured or possibly killed if the rifle experiences a chamber failure due to the blast being directed rightwards from the safety plate" So that mean being more ambidexterous, shooting with TAR-21 - no matter with left and right you will not be injuried or killed !!! Don't you find that you are being very unfair here, when infact SAR-21 provide kelvar protection while Tar-21 have none for chamber explosion - yet you twist your fact till TAR-21 better, which is very unprofessional !
Both gun basically use almost the same mechanism ... which perform i would say as equally good. If you say singapore SAR is cheap and not the best -that is pure bullshit that show little knowledge of you have on firearm ! why would they even put kelvar to prevent chamber blast - that add money to it.
So the only things you guys end up arguing is on little accesseries here and there... which is pure wasting of time ... as I can easily fix a MAr on SAR-21 or TAR-21 - a 1.5x scope.
Mar - is good for closer range shooting, as faster for close up shooting .... but 1.5x scope - sort of is a balance between close and distance shooting. Both are equally good, just that each have their own advantage ... in different situation. Thus you cannot use the sight as judge of which rifle is better - just because you think you will shoot better with this sight .... as other people will shoot better with that sight !!!
Think both side got different definitation of what is the best rifle specification and accessories - thus both are best rifles to each of the 2 army point of view is the best out there for their own soldiers.
SAR-21 is a great rifle in its standard configuration which strike a well balance to general soldier needs. For specialized unit - it can be fix with all the different type of sights and accessories to suit the need.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
IMO, the TAR-21 really gives the SAR-21 a run for the money. The standard SAR-21 we have is simply not in the same class of weapon as the TAR-21.
So in an apple to apple comparison, the TAR-21 should be compared to something like the SAR-21 MMS. Until we have someone who has hands on experience with both of these weapons, its hard to come to any real conclusion.
Let talk about the standard SAR-21 and standard TAR-21 ... what make them so not the same class !!!
But the way - sights Mar vs 1.5x is out ...of this discussion - as they each have their own average in different range and situation !
let start -
SAR-21 - have chamber explosion protection
TAR-21 - look smaller
...
...
...
Frankly the list can go on and on ... but these are just very very minor different ... which cannot be use to justify which on is better !!
You say it that it is hard to come to any real conclusion - but then you start off - " standard SAR-21 we have is simply not in the same class of weapon as the TAR-21" - Please be more fair .... I do know you have your preference on little things here and there.... but be more professional. You cannot just say SAR-21 is not as good just because of your little perference here and there .... ! That is your own little perference ... which does not talk about its performance !
Frankly a lot of comments here, have been unfair to the SAR-21, just because people want to say TAR-21 is better ... they are being very unprofessional to bring up little things which is more of a preference to different users rather then really great advantages .
-
I still prefer the Automatik Kalashnikov 47
-
Good choice Ceecookie.
At least when suddenly lions come charging at you .... you would not need to wish like someone else that you have a good old Ak47 instead then a lighter TAR-21 - regardless of what excellent optics he may have !
haha
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Suppose I am now in a cover position.
Say i really has to run across 50m distance and there is no cover along the route.Worse.I know there is pretty high chance there is or are rifles waiting for me.
My mission need me to reach 50 m away in one min in another cover position.
I cant wait and there is no back up .How?
option 1.Shall I put my finger on the trigger and start run for my life?
If I hear any bullets fired,shall i just blindly fire to the possible poisition of firing while i continue running?
u have to note i am running really fast.U and i cant fire a rifle very accurately while we run very fast.
We are not Jet Li or 007.Do u think the enemy will stop firing and take cover when he know I fire BLINDLY?? Not to mention i can hit the enemy.
Running a rifle with two hands is little bit slower than running with one hand holding SAR 21 sight.
option 2.I just grip the rifle SAR 21 by the sight and run.
If i hear any firing,i drop to the ground,locate possible enemy position and fire.I think i have a pretty higher chance to survive than i fire while i running.
In option 1,i expose longer in enemy 's sights.
NO HARD FEELING
This armchair discussion may save our ass.
It is apparent that you have no experience whatsoever in any kind of infantry tatics, much less that of the SAF, not to mention another case of you bending reality to fit your own expectations.
Have you even trained with the SAR before in real life infantry combat situtations? Obviously not, I have.
If you need to clear 50 meters of open ground under heavy fire with no cover, it does not matter how you run, you will almost certainly get gunned down for sure... in fact it's probably only a mission you would go on, smarter grunts have other ideas to do so.
Secondly, any soldier who has sprinted with a rifle can tell you that the best method to sprint with it is to hold it close to your body with TWO HANDS, and run in low profile. Keeping the weight of the rifle close to your body makes it easier to run with.
On the other hand, holding 4 kilos of rifle in one hand like a shopping bag is one of the WORST ways to carry it while running. You have the full weight of the weapon away from your own center of gravity as well as unbalanced on one side (due to a the single hand carry).
In other words, you do not RUN slower with two hands, but instead carrying the rifle by the handle single handed is prehaps the worst method to run with it.
If you note, just watch the videos in iraq of grunts sprinting for cover while under fire. See any of them holding their M-16s by the handle?
-
Running for your life ? Frankly when you need to do that , that mean ... you are totally outgun - running all out for it .... !!! That is very different from tactical withdrawal ....!!! which you stop to shoot and fall back in orderly manner !!! Running for your life mean running like hell for it , which you do not even want to stop or turn back to return fire even if people firing at you .... usually this mean all out speed and distance .... !
You say sling the rifle to run ... hello sling it behind, frankly if you will not have time to stop to sling it !!! Isn't that worst harder to bring to action if you really need it ? .... If you sling it to the front, it keep banging to your legs and waist ... isn't that slowing you down ?
As for later varients of SAR - did not have the scope - that is because they are not for general soldiers - those will have different sights mount - like even MARS for more close quarter combat.
I do not agree with you on that what you say "SAR was intended to put a competent weapons package at an affordable cost into the arms of an ordinary SAF grunt, not go all out at all expense to give him the best we upon possible. The Israelis can do it, but we for us we stick with good enough and not best" - please explain what the TAR have on so expensive that make SAR have is cheap !Ps if you want to know, a MARS sight often costs more then the weapon it is mounted on, the intergrated 1.5x however, does not.
Have you trained with the SAR before and done fire and movement with it?
Do you know the proper way to retreat from the enemy? The quickest way to get gunned down is to turn tail and run away in a route. If you read up a little on history, note that very often the losses inflicted on one side is caused not during the battle, but often during the rout when one side is no longer effectively returning fire. Simply running away is pure bad tatics, not to mention something that would get you killed pretty fast.
Hence except for Arty drill, I can't think of any retreat tatics I was trained in that involved simply running away even if outgunned. You've still have to know which cover to run to, retreat in bounds and fire back to supress and slow down the enemy and cover your friends while they are running and so on and so forth. It is only when you can clearly disengage that you pop smoke, give one last burst of fire, and then get out of dodge.
Hence, I do not really think ST build the scope handle for the purpose of "running for lives". It is just a by-the-way feature of having to put a 1.5x scope, just as we would observe in the Aug and other similar systems.
Even if you are running for your life you'll quickly discover the optimal way to do so is to hold the rifle with both hands and hug it close to your body, not via the scope handle like a shopping bag.
The scope is just a handle, and a not very important one at that, time to get over it. I seriously doubt that the additional of a scope handle will save any lives... unless you want to concede that ST made a stupid mistake in removing this feature in the other variants of the SAR.
I do not understand about your argument on - "The SAR is not truly ambidexterous in the sense of the TAR-21. While it was can be shot left handed when need be, you will be badly injured or possibly killed if the rifle experiences a chamber failure due to the blast being directed rightwards from the safety plate" So that mean being more ambidexterous, shooting with TAR-21 - no matter with left and right you will not be injuried or killed !!! Don't you find that you are being very unfair here, when infact SAR-21 provide kelvar protection while Tar-21 have none for chamber explosion - yet you twist your fact till TAR-21 better, which is very unprofessional !
You don't seem to understand apparently. The kevlar protection is only on the LEFT side of the rifle, where the user's face would be if he is firing from the normal right handed position. The blast during a chamber explosion is vented to the RIGHT, away from a right handed shooter but straight smack into the face of person firing it from the left handed explosion. Just take a SAR apart and look at the reciever group and you can see the Kevlar plate and get an idea of how it works.
If you won't take it from me, at least read up:
The kevlar plating on the left side of the weapon butt (where a right-handed user's face would typically be) is effective in protecting the user from any internal chamber explosion by directing the resulting force to the right. However, that resultant force would also seriously injure anyone unfortunate enough to be on the right side of the weapon. In the case of a user firing from his left shoulder, this could cause severe injury to his face.
As a result, all left-handed SAF soldiers are taught to fire from their right shoulder as a safety measure,
Both gun basically use almost the same mechanism ... which perform i would say as equally good. If you say singapore SAR is cheap and not the best -that is pure bullshit that show little knowledge of you have on firearm ! why would they even put kelvar to prevent chamber blast - that add money to it.
You are the one pulling figures out of the air, if you bothered to follow the other SAR-21 threads in this forum you would realize the per-unit cost of the SAR has long been broken down and debated over... as new weapon designs go it isn't that expensive.
The cost of a kevlar plate is nothing compared to a MARS, which could cost as much as the rest of the weapon itself. Basically speaking, the SAR-21 was intended to provide a pseudo-sharpshooter/ LAD ability to the average SAF conscript cheaper then an M-16 decked out individually with these acessories by making them all into one mass-produced package. The reduces the overall cost of the weapon.
And what other cost-reducting measures... look at the 1.5x scope... is is a mass-produced intergal scope or something like as capable as an ACOG?
So the only things you guys end up arguing is on little accesseries here and there... which is pure wasting of time ... as I can easily fix a MAr on SAR-21 or TAR-21 - a 1.5x scope.
It's called a MARS sight, not Mar.
You can't fix a MARS on the normal SAR-21. You need to get the MMS or P-Rail version that unfortunately... is not standard issue to the SAF for the simple reason the basic version is the cheapest to manufacture and standardize army-wide. If you want to get your hands on the MMS... then my question is... why not just get a normal TAR that is lighter?
And if you want to fix a 1.5x scope on the TAR... chances are you won't use the mass-produced simple1.5x that comes with the SAR but an ACOG instead... which is rather not the same thing.
Mar - is good for closer range shooting, as faster for close up shooting .... but 1.5x scope - sort of is a balance between close and distance shooting. Both are equally good, just that each have their own advantage ... in different situation. Thus you cannot use the sight as judge of which rifle is better - just because you think you will shoot better with this sight .... as other people will shoot better with that sight !!!
If you didn't realize, I pointed this out in my post. It all depends. HOWEVER the MARS is certainly the more flexible sight under a wider degree of combat circumstances. It can be used in low-light conditions (which you cannot with the 1.5X) without having to resort to the LAD as with the SAR.
Think both side got different definitation of what is the best rifle specification and accessories - thus both are best rifles to each of the 2 army point of view is the best out there for their own soldiers.
SAR-21 is a great rifle in its standard configuration which strike a well balance to general soldier needs. For specialized unit - it can be fix with all the different type of sights and accessories to suit the need.
That's pretty much my point. ST did not make the SAR-21 to be a world-beater. It was catered first and foremost to the needs of the SAF in providing them a cost-effective upgrade to the M-16 as well as some additional abilities. Nobody said it was a bad weapon, just that it's not the best. Is is a decent weapon? Certainly I would go into the field (and have) with it.
On the other hand, the demands of the IDF are far more stringent and hence the TAR-21 design was far more specific and expensive. Both are their own weapons but really comparing the SAR to the TAR is a bit like comparing a family car to a sports car. And that is just the truth.
-
Also storywolf, you might need to know that lionnoisy has a habit of taking the smallest feature of any ST made-equipment and trying to play it up as a war-winner.
For example, the 400gram payload of the Fantail he tried to squeeze out to its logical limit to make his "crash Fantail into targets" idea work.
Once again... not too sure how important the scope handle is... it certainly didn't strike me as something rather important in the field. If it is there it's there, but our grunts won't die without it. I'd gladly trade out the scope handle SAR for an MMS with a reflex sight and IR-capable LAD so it works with NVGs and does not announce my position out to the entire world during night fighting where the normal 1.5x is mostly useless and one has to use the vislight LAD... which is kinda retarded.
Actually resorted to using the backup emergency sights during night shooting as the visible LAD (normal SAR LAD is not IR-capable) is a quick way to attract a lot of fire on your position and the next thing you know you'r TELS system will be buzzing telling you you've been shot over 20 times.
-
Well, the Visible LAD is not THAT bad, given that the off-angle light emission is reduced by the shroud, and that way that we train to use it, which is not at all like the SAF adverts or SAR-21 adverts that you see. Besides, given the limited number of NVGs that we have, having a visible LAD is a good compromise. In a situation where both sides are using NVGs, if we ever find ourselves in one, the visible/IR debate would be moot.
A few additional points:
1) The MARS sight is more fragile than the scope
2) The Picatinny rail system means that you have to re-zero the sight every time you remove and re-attach the sight
3) In the perfect world, we would all have G36 sight systems that have a reflex sight/scope hard mounted onto the rifle :)
An additional question for more knowledgeable minds-- The SAR-21 has a long stroke gas piston like the AK-47 or the Ultimax, while rifles like the G36 and the TAR-21 have the short stroke gas piston. What are the advantages of each? I am thinking that the long stroke gas piston is more durable/reliable while the short stroke gas piston is lighter, am I right in my assumptions?
-
Originally posted by edwin3060:
Well, the Visible LAD is not THAT bad, given that the off-angle light emission is reduced by the shroud, and that way that we train to use it, which is not at all like the SAF adverts or SAR-21 adverts that you see. Besides, given the limited number of NVGs that we have, having a visible LAD is a good compromise. In a situation where both sides are using NVGs, if we ever find ourselves in one, the visible/IR debate would be moot.
A few additional points:
1) The MARS sight is more fragile than the scope
2) The Picatinny rail system means that you have to re-zero the sight every time you remove and re-attach the sight
3) IMO, in the perfect world, we would all have G36 sight systems that have a reflex sight/scope hard mounted onto the rifle :)
An additional question for more knowledgeable minds-- The SAR-21 has a long stroke gas piston like the AK-47 or the Ultimax, while rifles like the G36 and the TAR-21 have the short stroke gas piston. What are the advantages of each? I am thinking that the long stroke gas piston is more durable/reliable while the short stroke gas piston is lighter, am I right in my assumptions? -
Originally posted by storywolf:
Let talk about the standard SAR-21 and standard TAR-21 ... what make them so not the same class !!!
But the way - sights Mar vs 1.5x is out ...of this discussion - as they each have their own average in different range and situation !
let start -
SAR-21 - have chamber explosion protection
TAR-21 - look smaller
...
...
...
Frankly the list can go on and on ... but these are just very very minor different ... which cannot be use to justify which on is better !!
You say it that it is hard to come to any real conclusion - but then you start off - " standard SAR-21 we have is simply not in the same class of weapon as the TAR-21" - Please be more fair .... I do know you have your preference on little things here and there.... but be more professional. You cannot just say SAR-21 is not as good just because of your little perference here and there .... ! That is your own little perference ... which does not talk about its performance !
Frankly a lot of comments here, have been unfair to the SAR-21, just because people want to say TAR-21 is better ... they are being very unprofessional to bring up little things which is more of a preference to different users rather then really great advantages .
I'll try to engage you without going into a heated discussion.
But the very things you intentionally drop from comparison is what sets them apart in a different class of comparison. Hence if you read my entire post, its better to compare the SAR-21 MMS to the TAR-21.
The Red Dot sight, when compared to a 1.5x scope allows a shooter to bring up his weapon to bear faster against targets both near and far. I've handled both the SAR-21 Standard and the SAR-21 MMS and I can honestly tell you, that in my opinion, the SAR-21 MMS with a Red Dot Sight is comes up quickly and smartly. (Common sense, there IS a reason why they introduced the Red Dot Sight to a more advanced version of the MMS)
If I may elaborate a little more... the head position with the MMS down sight is slightly higher and more "forgiving", whereas the 1.5x scope would require the soldier adopt a stricter firing position. Which means, for an unseasoned SAR-21 user, he takes a little longer to align himself, and requires to hunch forward a lil more just to get a good sight picture.
In a tactical situation, what is the difference between a red dot sight and a 1.5x scope. Besides quicker target acquisition, the red dot sight remains accurate even if the user is wearing tactical goggles or gas mask. The 1.5x scope, would introduce some problem as mentioned above.
Finally, the infantry man's load is after all getting heavier. People try to make things lighter, but the footman ends up carry MORE lighter nonsense. The SAR-21 is HEFTY. But at the end of the day, I think the soldiers who survived a chamber explosion from it, thanks its weightier kevlar plate.
At the end of the day, a rifle is still but a rifle. If you compare a rifle without its accessories, given its barrel and firing mechanism, then you're purely comparing ballistics and how well the parts are made. Unfortunately, it seems that most of us are more interested in the END product that makes or breaks the rifle as an effective combat system. Taking the MARS vs 1.5x scope out of the comparison turns into rather myopic comparison and discussion.
On the back sling. I learned a lil thing called the "reverse back sling" back in my days. A soldier is able to swing from back sling to "high alert" within a second. Its a lil chunky to elaborate here, but yeah... its possible.
-
Originally posted by edwin3060:
Well, the Visible LAD is not THAT bad, given that the off-angle light emission is reduced by the shroud, and that way that we train to use it, which is not at all like the SAF adverts or SAR-21 adverts that you see. Besides, given the limited number of NVGs that we have, having a visible LAD is a good compromise. In a situation where both sides are using NVGs, if we ever find ourselves in one, the visible/IR debate would be moot.
A few additional points:
1) The MARS sight is more fragile than the scope
2) The Picatinny rail system means that you have to re-zero the sight every time you remove and re-attach the sight
3) In the perfect world, we would all have G36 sight systems that have a reflex sight/scope hard mounted onto the rifle :)
An additional question for more knowledgeable minds-- The SAR-21 has a long stroke gas piston like the AK-47 or the Ultimax, while rifles like the G36 and the TAR-21 have the short stroke gas piston. What are the advantages of each? I am thinking that the long stroke gas piston is more durable/reliable while the short stroke gas piston is lighter, am I right in my assumptions?
Valid points, in night fighting we point-index the SAR at the general direction of the target before activating the LAD in a brief pulse enough to aim and engage the target instead of leaving it on all the time.
However this is still not as flexible as the MARS system that allows you to aim in totally passive move via the reflex system in low light (unfortunately the basic 1.5x scope is so simple that they did not implement a night-fighting system for it as you might see in other scopes), but also gives you the very same LAD ability to boot. This system is certainly far more flexible over a larger range of situtations... especially when you are setting up a night ambush and want to achieve total surprise- a MARS equipped system will have a lot more options compared to one with just scope and LAD.
1.)Not sure about the MARS sight being more fragile... it works for the grunts in Iraq using it as well as a battle-experienced armed force with decades of almost constant warfare... if you want truly reliable sights then go back to iron. The scope can still crack, fog or foul up. But the bottom line in, I don't think the scope or MARS will provide problems to the grunt who knows how to take care of his sighting system.
2.) The SAR-21 comes off the production line factory zeroed, however in pratice we realize this zero is soon lost once the weapon gets seasoned after it has been used a bit, or bumped around a bit, not to mention to the individual shooting habits of the user. So to me this is a moot point.
The main point and advantage of the P-rail is flexibility... of course you got to re-zero your components once you swap them out and put them on... it's a normal part of the procedure. Given you still got to zero the scope of the SAR-21 once in a while, I'm not sure how it really matters.
3.) Precisely, the IDF wanted to get closer to this idealistic equipping of their soldiers, so why should we be surprised or bothered if the weapons package they made for their own needs is better piecemeal then ours? Ours is a decent piece of kit considering our abilities, it's only the insecure or irrationally nationalistic (aka. lionnoisy) that needs to run for his life trying to prove that anything ST churns out has to be good, best and better, even if it means taking the tiniest and most irrelevant detail and trying to make it sound as if the SAR-21 was designed around the scope handle.
-
here has become another battleground eh?... lols..
wad i hav to say it tt, every country have its own need right? these needs are shaped by the way they expect to have to fight in.... eg( i doubt isreal really plans for tropical forest war right?)
anws.. abt the run with scope handle thing.... won't that damage your sight zeroing quite alot? doubt it to be really feasible for the short dash scenerio though.... you might drop the rifle right? perhaps slinging the rifle would be a better option then.
just my 2 x 6.02 x 10^23 cents worth of thoughts...
-
it looks.....kinky...LOL
-
Lol the whole carry weapon by scope thing as a battle tatic is pretty much dead.
I as well any any other infantryman who trained with the SAR in here can tell you this pretty much... there wasn't really any time we found ourselves badly needing a scope handle to "run for our lives"... And in any case I've handled the SAR pretty much to tell you that carrying it by the handle single-handed and sprinting is prehaps one of the not-so efficent ways to run with it. But this point will be lost on lionnoisy who for the same reasons, is unable to see why the 400 gram payload of fantail is much better suited for other things other then suicide missions.
When you need to sprint with a 4-kilos shopping bag do you dangle them from one hand or firmly hold them close to your body and run?
BTW, as I pointed out, using the scope handle does not make use run faster (in fact it will probably be slower), and even for the sake of an argument and lets defy physics and say it does, the tradeoff for having you defenceless in that position is not worth the marginal increase in speed. And in any case, lionnoisy's original application for it "running 50 meters in one minute over open ground that is subject to heavy enemy fire" is such a ridiculus requirement that scope handle or not any person hardheaded enough to try it won't make it any way.
If you've been in a firefight (simulated or not), you'll immediately see that trying to run across open ground exposed to enemy fire for 50 meters is a very stupid thing to do... you won't even dare to expose yourself for even the 4 second rule (in pratice we can cut exposure time to 2-3 seconds if we can).
Also lionnoisy is not an advocate of suppressive fire (that is fire that is not totally aimed to hit the enemy but simply to make him duck), if he even knows what that is given he argues that since one can't shoot well on the run, he ought to exclude himself from shooting entirely and leave the enemy completely uncontested to get into a comfy firing position and take a long, nice aim at him.
Haha maybe it the only thing I can think for the scope handle is that makes the weapon easier to draw from the armory... wow, big feature... what was ST thinking cutting it from the latest variants. Maybe they should come up with a "one-hand handle" P-rail attachment so the MMS can also have this great, lionnoisy-endorsed feature.
-
MARS sight often cost more then the weapon ! So you are using cost now to justify what is good ? Just because it cost a lot mean it is better then something cheaper?
Hello people been using AK and M16 with iron sights they still shoot as good ! it is the shooter not the sight !Your example of - running across open ground for 50 meters is very unfair ! If you put yourself in that situation - you deserve to be shot ! Why would you ever want to be in a open ground the nearest cover 50 meter !! Come on - even lionnoisy will not be that stupid - would you ? In open ground the most stupid thing is to waste time to even shoot back ! - alway get to nearest cover away or then shoot back !!! Ok to be more fair, we take it down to semi open - 20m - say 1.5 second to 2 second. With speed + momentumn + surprise + enemy unprepare - they may get a lucky unaim shot off, and you already disappear into cover and gone.. if you die die chose tactical retreat, you lost momentumn + speed + surprise + give the enemy extra second to aim + all those shooting and noise - you are just announ to every enemy to shoot you !.... you are more likely to be shot ! Please do not limited yourself to tactical retreat in your military dictionary only !
Like i say soldier moving over long distance and fast have to balance the need to reserve his strenght and need to hold his rifle at alert !!! Which is every wrong on your argument of every second must be hand must be on pistol grip - your soldier will die of tireness before he even reach his destination !
Look SAR-21 have kelvar plate on right side to protect one side for chamber explosion ! TAR-21 have no kevar plate both side not protected ! How in the world can you say zero protection is better then one ! -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Also storywolf, you might need to know that lionnoisy has a habit of taking the smallest feature of any ST made-equipment and trying to play it up as a war-winner.
For example, the 400gram payload of the Fantail he tried to squeeze out to its logical limit to make his "crash Fantail into targets" idea work.
Once again... not too sure how important the scope handle is... it certainly didn't strike me as something rather important in the field. If it is there it's there, but our grunts won't die without it. I'd gladly trade out the scope handle SAR for an MMS with a reflex sight and IR-capable LAD so it works with NVGs and does not announce my position out to the entire world during night fighting where the normal 1.5x is mostly useless and one has to use the vislight LAD... which is kinda retarded.
Actually resorted to using the backup emergency sights during night shooting as the visible LAD (normal SAR LAD is not IR-capable) is a quick way to attract a lot of fire on your position and the next thing you know you'r TELS system will be buzzing telling you you've been shot over 20 times.
yep lionnoisy do over talk over some features ... like you say his ideal of fantail - yep that I also have blown him on his ideal .
But the scope handle is just a small issue, but it does have its advantages. We must also be fair to him at time.
If he raise a valid point, it may be small but it is still valid - we must also accept it, we cannot just base on his pass funny comments on fantail and those and just say it is bad .
So you are telling me that a SAR with a MMS and reflex sight and IR-capable LAD - is a good rifle ... and it is not a SAR-21 ? It is still a SAR-21 no matter what sights or NVG you put on it .... !!! If like that you are not comparing a rifle , you comparing the accessories ! You are just comparing with and without NVG not the rifle !
You are telling me you are not you .... you are based on the clothes you wear ! Are you telling me that by wearing some clothes - you are smarter and a better human . If that the way you judge things - then how can you judge lionnoisy even though he say non-sense sometimes -
storywolf,
How do you justify the "superior" tactical value of the carrying handle/scope against a Red Dot Sight that allows a soldier take aim faster?
Have you taken aim with an Iron sight while wearing a gas mask or tactical goggles?
I think most of us have ceded that the SAR-21's safety feature is in fact superior to the TAR-21. However, thats not the only factor being considered.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
storywolf,
How do you justify the "superior" tactical value of the carrying handle/scope against a Red Dot Sight that allows a soldier take aim faster?
Have you taken aim with an Iron sight while wearing a gas mask or tactical goggles?
I think most of us have ceded that the SAR-21's safety feature is in fact superior to the TAR-21. However, thats not the only factor being considered.
You are being very unfair .
Red dot sight adv is 1.5x disadv - and 1.5x adv is red dot sight disadv . it is speed of aim vs distance shoot ! Why must you just focus on speed ..... it will not be fair if i just focus on distance shooting with 1.5x which it have adv.
Yes I have taken aim with gas mask or goggles ... don't you think it is unfair to take those into the picture - as general soldiers do not usually use them .... you usually need those when close quarter combat - which again unfair as this is a red dot sight adv ! Have you shoot at enemy that is 200m to 400m which adv is in favour of the 1.5x with gas mask & googles ? If yes you need some slap from my instructors ... why the hell you putting on gas mask or googles when enemy so far away which their fart cannot even reach you, unless you want to make them die of laughter !!! Please stop putting in unfair factors in. We talking about all round range performance - not close quarter combat only.So if SAR-21 is more safer ... then why you keep say TAR-21 is more ambidexterous ? So you mean SAR-21 - cannot shoot from left just because SAF instructor play it safe ...... If shooting SAR-21 & TAR-21 from left have the same amount of danger to chamber explosion - then why you unfairly say TAR-21 is more ambidexterous - should not them be the same ! The SAR-21 is able to be use for left handler to shoot as safetly as TAR-21 - just because the SAF for safety reason, does not allow that - so that is unfair for you to keep saying the TAR-21 is more ambidexerous.
Like you say safety is one factor = same thing sight is just another factor - they are not the only factor to consider ! But you have reach a stage of unfairness - when you keep choosing factors to consider and ignore - all only to TAR-21 side !