SAR 21 Twin Brother
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
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 sometimesThe point is, his point on the scope handle would have been accepted if it was valid and had a point- unfortuntately it's as blunt as points go.
As pointed out, the scope handle does not give the grunt really any real increased tatical advantages... it's just a point of splitting hairs and as far as having a point relevant to this debate, highly irrelevant.
Also it's gets better when you realize that his point- which was the scope handle allows you to run faster for your lives, is totally invalid to begin with. Holding the rifle like a shopping bag with one hand is prehaps the worst way to sprint with it, and there are plenty of alternative ways to sling or carry it that make far more sense. In this light the whole scope handle thing is a point of making a mountain out of a molehill.
I do not for one, think that the SAF will win wars or even minor fights because the SAR has a scope-handle. I seriously doubt a grunt will tell you that he survived because he could carry his rifle by the scope handle and run.
And how does the accesories does not matter to the weapon especially if it was unable to mount them?
Note that this point was made to address lionnoisy who wanted to compare a basic SAR to the basic Tavor and say that it was "better", and as I pointed out this is just not the case. The basic (and most common) SAR variant was not made to, and cannot match up piecemeal to the Tavor, if you want to look at the overall score and considering which weapon performs better over the widest ranges of situtation.
Of course lets say for the sake of an argument we say the accessories do not matter the SAR still has several inherent "flaws" versus the Tavor... the weight for one thing, and the lack of safety for true ambidexterous firing. These are rather real flaws. Even the MMS SAR will have them.
And yes, my idea of an ideal SAR would be the MMS variant I outlined, but at the end of the day it is the basic SAR that our grunts go into battle to. All this talk about better variants is cold comfort and moot if it is not implemented.
Unfortunately, there are no plans to put the MMS variant into widespread service, probably because it will cost a lot more then the basic SAR.
-
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.I think he is being pretty fair actually, and the numbers back him up.
If you look at a truly modern army you will note that the use of P-rail systems and different sighting systems have become the de-facto standard. The flexibility afforded by these systems are simply too tempting to pass up.
And as for the scope-versus-red dot, in the context of the SAF I would say that the red dot is the more suitable system. In any case almost any external P-Rail sighting system would be better then the basic SAR Scope.
You wanted to talk about all-round range performance, well it's pretty much known that the red dot is a far more flexible system. Note that 1.5x was chosen for the scope not because it really magnified things but because it was the limit that a soldier could shoot through the scope with both eyes open (beyond that the brain cannot compensate for the difference in magnification). This allows one to engage targets with both eyes open, much like a red dot. 1.5x is actually a compromise between magnification, and a good field of view. It is a level that is a jack of all trade but master of none.
HOWEVER the speed of engagement is still considerably slower especially opposed to an open style reflex sight like the MARS, this is due to the narrower field of view. Under typical infantry firefight ranges (under 100 meters), the red dot is far more useful.
The only time when the SAR 1.5x scope truly has an advantage over the Tavor red dot is when you are shooting at a STATIONARY target at range. But if the target is moving, taking cover and shooting back, being able to respond quickly and engage is more of a factor then being able to get a magnified look on the target... especially if it's just 1.5x. This is the reason why reflex sights are becoming more popular then your typical scope... and of course there's the red dot sight with magnification as well that combines the best of both worlds. But back to our argument, looking at the BIG PICTURE, in the context of modern infantry operations, the ITL MARS is certainly the better sighting system is the majority (in fact most) of situtations.
And also in the context of the SAF. Why? Because given our local terrain (jungle) and the fact that we are expected to fight more urban battles, engagement ranges will be typically short compared to say, the rolling mountans of Afganistan. A reflex sight would fit the SAF's bill much better.
The reason why we didn't go for the reflex sight for the basic SAR that we are talking about, which the grunts use, and which is the more relevant to our discussion currently, is because of cost.
Note that to make an argument on which weapon is the best or not I am considering the big picture. For example how it will actually be produced and used in the field. No point talking about the SAR MMS being THE SAR variant when in fact most of them being produced and used is the basic SAR, and that's the one we are fighting are wars with for now. Hence when the SAF goes into battle now it goes with the scope and not the red dot sight.
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 !
Lets put it this way... eventually a left-handed SAR user will be badly injured by a chamber explosion, and this is because of the way the weapon was designed... is this acceptable? The SAF apparently does not, and hence opts to train ALL of its soldiers to fire right handed, more or less mooting the ambidexterous nature of the weapon. It's a bit like buying something with a feature that you end up not using not because it's impossible, but because there are risks that you rather not take.
Also, unlike the TAR, the SAR is not ambidexterous in the sense that it can truly be converted for left handed shooters (ejecting shells to the left)... hence the left handed shooter will have to put up with the increased noise and firing gases being ejected on his side as the bolt works. I know this because I shot the weapon left handed before (admittedly knowing the risk if something went wrong).
-
It maybe unfair, but tactical goggles are beginning to prove their worth in combat. Soldiers have sworn by Z82+ standard eyewear and how they've saved their eyesight from certain blindness from high explosive shrapnel.
I think you need to inform your instructors that the enemy doesn't always show up where you want to be, and have a tendency of showing up where u don't want them to be. And honestly, I really don't think its that difficult for the TAR-21 to engage beyond 100m.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
It maybe unfair, but tactical goggles are beginning to prove their worth in combat. Soldiers have sworn by Z82+ standard eyewear and how they've saved their eyesight from certain blindness from high explosive shrapnel.
I think you need to inform your instructors that the enemy doesn't always show up where you want to be, and have a tendency of showing up where u don't want them to be. And honestly, I really don't think its that difficult for the TAR-21 to engage beyond 100m.
Well I could hit targets with iron sights at 300m... what's the big deal with a red dot? A scope just makes it easier but when it comes to the firefight where dudes are running around and taking cover here and there it's a red dot that I'll want to use. If I really wanted magnification I would go for a 4x and above and not a 1.5x.Not that the SAR scope is a mistake... it's a cost effective solution to fixing the problem of WOWO grunts that just can't figure out the iron sights as well as to implement some form of advanced sighting for rifles SAF wide. Not a bad solution but let's not lionnoisy it and say it ought to be the best.
-
Storywolf doesn't seem to believe that the red dot sight can hit out accurate past 100m. The sights themselves can be calibrated and zeroed for different ranges, so I really don't see why he thinks they are inaccurate compared to a scope or ironsight.
A weapon like the TAR-21 or SAR-21MMS mounted with a red dot sight, really offers a big plus factor. The eye/head alignment to the weapon is a lil more forgiving, and slightly higher, allowing te user a much wider field of vision, and capability to engaged with both eyes open.
A 1.5x scope is nice... but such options are available to various Red Dot Sights as well, eg ACOG.
-
ST--Good point about aiming thru the red dot vs scope with gogges or gas masks. I never thought about that :). Maybe they should incorporate an additional section into live firing using the backup iron sights on the SAR-21. Given that we are supposed to wear goggles during urban fighting to protect against shrapnel, etc, maybe an additional 100m and 50m with the iron sights and goggles :P
-
As for the ambidexterous point - it is still all excuse ! both rifle can be effectively shot left handed - equal both are as ambidexterous ! But you keep faulting SAR-21 due to SAF training policy ... which is Nuts !!
Shotgun I have not doubt that a MARS sight can shoot well to 200m even .... but frankly anything above 200m - i think i would do a lot better with the 1.5x !!!
I still find fault with all the few of your gang that - keep just talking about how good the MARS sight is - the sad fact all of you keep emphasing on one thing - that is how good it is for closer combat and urban fighting only ... !
You all keep thinking of urban fighting is close quarter !!! Face it real urban fighting involve a lot of good old distance good shooting !!! You think like movies -general soldiers will rush a block of flat to take it !!! In real battle, you shoot at enemy from distance to take out anything you can ... while calling for planes or tanks to take out the enemy ... that the real battle ordinary soldiers does .... And not what you all keep imagining - special force soldiers - charging room to room !!! Yes for operations that you all keep imagining - a MARS sight is the best .... but for general soldiers frankly a 1.5x is a better choice which suit the wider range of shooting that they will face !!!
This is an example of a 1.5x scope look... tell me frankly ... can you shoot a enemy from 20m to 100m with it easily and fast !! By the way someone say Red dot -capability to engaged with both eyes open .. this picture above also prove that 1.5x you can engage with both eyes open also, may not be as good as MARS, but good enough for general soldiers !
I seriously wonder if you all have any true experience in usings things like MARS or the different various scope before .... seem like a lot of you seem to justify MARS - maybe more due to your lack of confident or skill in shooting , thus anything that seem to give you a bigger sights is your 1st preference ! Frankly your sentence - "If I really wanted magnification I would go for a 4x and above and not a 1.5x" already show that you have no experience in scope magifications ...... or using various sights and not a true shooter !!! A true shooter will never never never - say that . Wasting my time taking to someone who may know about rifles and accessories .... but sadly ... did not know about tactics or shooting and blind reading things from gun mags ... without true experience in using different various of scope and magifications !!! With shooters like you ... damn we serious need to replace SAR-21 1.5x scope with MARS !!!
-
-
Erm I think you are being unreasonable here.
I can assure you I am not a gun mag junkie- In my NS vocation as an Infantry Specialist I've trained extensively in iron sight as well as scoped system. I've not only had to use the M-16S1 as well as the SAR-21, but also to TRAIN people in the use of them in my vocation as an instructor. I've used different sight powers from 1.5x to 4x (Sharshooter), used the SAR in nightfighting (where we realize the scope is pratically useless) and with NVGs. I have also fired the MP5 with the red dot reflex sight system and the experience speaks for itself. If the SAF had the dream amount of money there's no question about it... it would go for the reflex sight or something like the ACOG.
Note that in the 3G ACM concept the Advanced Combat Man system is using a red dot reflex sight, speaks volumes about which system the SAF knows to be superior.
Let's be objective here, the SAR 1.5X lacks the target aquisition speed of the MARS, is less egronomic to aim with, as well as being virtually unusuable in low-light. And it trades all this just for a 1.5x magification... which is a questionable trade.
And also who said the reflex sight was only for CQB? The grunts in Iraq used it pretty well for normal firefights. In fact if normal iron sights can hit it, so can a red dot. I don't understand why you are so fixed on the idea that reflex sights are only for CQB... except that you fail to see the obvious.
This is not about playing up one side or trashing the other, I am telling you, from my own training experience, as well as the testimonials of others who have actually been in REAL firefights about the various merits and cons of various sighting systems... that in the general arena of combat the infantryman is expected to face, the red dot reflex is the idea sight for him. So I am sorry, I do not for one think the system of the simple SAR 1.5X is the more flexible sight for the average infantryman, that would be just contary to the facts. How can a sight that is less natural and simple to use and unusable in night fighting be more flexible for the average infantryman? It's akin to saying that the M1 Garand is a better rifle then the M-16 for the average infantryman simply because it shot a bigger bullet.
Look at this this way: the typical expected mission profile for the SAF now include a lot of urban operations (they said it themselves) And CQB will become a large part of it, and even without CQB a lot of fighting will take place at steet-length... I seriously doubt a 1.5x scope that is more of a liability indoors, as well as with a slower targeting time, and being deficent in night combat, is the more "flexible" sight for ops. Why not train a bit with 6SIR and immediately apperciate what would be the better scope for them?
Even if you don't want to take it from me, take it from the grunts who have used the MARS system in firefights... just go to stragetypage and ask any of them if they think they would trade it out for the 1.5x SAR scope... they'll probably give you a strange look and ask you why on earth you want to trade on the something like a MARS for the 1.5x SAR scope... in fact I doubt they would even trade a 1.5x ACOG for the SAR scope. And these are not spec ops troopers, they are normal infantrymen.
Bottom line, you are kinda like arguing that a T-55 is a better tank for armoured corps then an M1A2 Abrams... which is I feel, and many others agree... a lost cause. The SAR-21 scope was not made to compete with truly advanced dedicated sighting systems that can be P-railed. I seriously doubt the simple SAR 1.5x scope has a future when the SAF finally decides to upgrade one day.
As for the left-handed issue the SAF is the largest user of the SAR. Given the SAR was made mainly for the SAF needs (with safety being one of them), this inability to truly get around the danger of chamber explosions and giving the SAF soldier a truly safe ambidexterous ability is still a product design failure no matter how you want to cut it.
BTW the manification provides easier shooting for STATIONARY targets at range, but if the target is moving things even out a lot more between normal sights and low-power scope systems.
Basically at the end of the day the reason why we went for an intergal, simple 1.5x scope is cost and not because of any of its inherent superiority over dedicated sighting systems or anything. A real 1.5x sighting system would be something like the ACOG, which for your information, something the average infantryman has used in battle.
-
You are a infantry specialist - that shoot m16, sar- with 1.5x to 4.x + red dot on MP5 .. - yep the fancy military term for infantry soldier
You say you are a "instructor" ... that taught people how to shoot ...Now you really got me interested !!!
I am truely interested to know the type of former training they provide you to prepare you for being a instructor, approximate the hours of the course for instructor, and what area it generally cover ? -
I've never handled the TAR-21.
Just the SAR-21 and the SAR-21MMS w/ Red Dot Sight. Frankly speaking, I don't need to squeeze off a round to know that I took less time to acquire a target through a Red Dot Sight.
I never said you cannot keep both eyes open while using the 1.5 x scope. It is easily done. BUT the sight picture is much different from what is shown in the picture. The scope focuses the 1.5 x zoom into 1 eye, eg the right Eye. That eye can no longer see whats to the right of the shooter because its entire vision is being "tunneled" by the scope.
OTOH, the Red Dot sight like the MARS / EOTech behaves more like a gun mounted heads up display, allowing the user to freely glance around, without any eye being "tunneled." The 1.5x scope can do that, but requires more "training" for a user to be proficient at doing that.
Of course, the only saving grace for the SAR-21 Standard is its laser dot that can be used for night fighting and closed combat. However, without sounding like a broken record, its non-passive nature does cause problems as well.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I've never handled the TAR-21.
Just the SAR-21 and the SAR-21MMS w/ Red Dot Sight. Frankly speaking, I don't need to squeeze off a round to know that I took less time to acquire a target through a Red Dot Sight.
I never said you cannot keep both eyes open while using the 1.5 x scope. It is easily done. BUT the sight picture is much different from what is shown in the picture. The scope focuses the 1.5 x zoom into 1 eye, eg the right Eye. That eye can no longer see whats to the right of the shooter because its entire vision is being "tunneled" by the scope.
OTOH, the Red Dot sight like the MARS / EOTech behaves more like a gun mounted heads up display, allowing the user to freely glance around, without any eye being "tunneled." The 1.5x scope can do that, but requires more "training" for a user to be proficient at doing that.
Of course, the only saving grace for the SAR-21 Standard is its laser dot that can be used for night fighting and closed combat. However, without sounding like a broken record, its non-passive nature does cause problems as well.
Yes Shotgun you are totally correct .
Actually the misconception of most people is that you look through a sight with the eye right beside the scope !
In real, eyes are well away from the scope which your eyes can effectively scan and glance around the for target and switch to the scope, just the moment you want to shoot. As what you say there is still "tunneling effect" by as it is 1.5x the effect is at its mininal and it is something which a user can get trained to get use to. You hit the nail on the head when you say the problem requires more "training" for a user to be proficient at doing that.
What your view of 1.5x magnification - how useful or valuable is the magnification in your point of view - to shooting ... ?
So far most leading manufacturers comments of their 1.5x scope is as below: -
" 1.5x magnification with the illuminated reticule it offers outstanding performance at close ranges with both eyes open. A necessity when maintaining maximum situational awareness.
This makes it extremely fast acquiring targets at very close range while maintaining the added precision possible with 1.5x magnification
At 1.5x you can aquire targets with both eyes open !
1.5x great scope for fast acquisition and shooting. "
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
You are a infantry specialist - that shoot m16, sar- with 1.5x to 4.x + red dot on MP5 .. - yep the fancy military term for infantry soldier
You say you are a "instructor" ... that taught people how to shoot ...Now you really got me interested !!!
I am truely interested to know the type of former training they provide you to prepare you for being a instructor, approximate the hours of the course for instructor, and what area it generally cover ?As infantry specialists we are trained to be proficent in all of the small arms that are used in the section level. Hence we must know how to operate and maintain the M-16S1, the SAR-21, the Ultimax 100 (mk1, mk2, mk3) M203, the Sharshooter variants of the rifles, as well as the LAW (I was trained in both Armbrust and Matador). This is actually the basic level that all infantrymen will train to when they go through AIT, though they will specialise in one weapon that is their main role. However specs are expected to have an additional level of understanding of the weapon beyond the man level (though if you train with your men long enough, they will eventually pick up your level of understanding of the weapon). If you go to PS level you will learn additional weapons like the GPMG.
As part of our duties we are supposed to instruct the enlisted man on the use of these various infantry weapons, teach them how to maintain it in the field as well as how to become competent shots with them. We have to inspect their weapons to make sure it's in working order, as well as troubleshoot it (to the level of our understanding) if it fails for whatever reason.
So yes, I can say it's safe to say that I have a lot of pratical experience with the SAR-21 as well as the other infantry weapons... didn't bother to log to hours we were trained in it but let's just say that day in day out for 5 months I trained with these weapons, followed by which I was transfered to 3rd Guards as a roving spec where I recieved additional training in MOI for those weapons again, as well as other stuff like how to aid in LAD zeroing, scope checking, FFI duties and so on and so forth... so I kinda know the weapon like the back of my hand.
Gone through multiple life firings with the SAR-21, both in ATP as well as section and platoon level shoots. Did shooting with life ammo uring the day, at night, used LAD with it, scope so on and so forth. Fought fibua with it, used in in jungles and in rain and mud. And yes the keeping both eyes open is something that is taught to the men as well.
Getting to shoot the MP5 with a reflex sight was a treat from our commandos friends, and I've got a pretty good idea of how the two sighting systems against each other. I am telling you in most situtations we were trained to fight in the magnification is something that is a good trade for a set of open reflex sights, unless you are section SS in which case you will be using the 4X scope.
-
What your view of 1.5x magnification - how useful or valuable is the magnification in your point of view - to shooting ... ?
So far most leading manufacturers comments of their 1.5x scope is as below: -
" 1.5x magnification with the illuminated reticule it offers outstanding performance at close ranges with both eyes open. A necessity when maintaining maximum situational awareness.
This makes it extremely fast acquiring targets at very close range while maintaining the added precision possible with 1.5x magnification
At 1.5x you can aquire targets with both eyes open !
1.5x great scope for fast acquisition and shooting. "
The problem is this: versus what?
The 1.5x scope is certianly faster then the iron sights because you don't have to worry so much about parallax, sight picture and stuff, but it lags quite far behind the naturalistic superimposition of open reflex sights in target acquistion. Hence in a typical combat environment in which the firefight is within 150 meters (in fact in urban terrain and heavy jungle this range can be as short as 50 meters) the 1.5x scope user will be disadvantaged against a reflex sight user... it's just natural.
BTW I still haven't heard anything from you about how the 1.5x SAR scope stacks up versus reflex in the nightfighting arena... that's a big part of soldiering operations you are missing out.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
As infantry specialists we are trained to be proficent in all of the small arms that are used in the section level. Hence we must know how to operate and maintain the M-16S1, the SAR-21, the Ultimax 100 (mk1, mk2, mk3) M203, the Sharshooter variants of the rifles, as well as the LAW (I was trained in both Armbrust and Matador). This is actually the basic level that all infantrymen will train to when they go through AIT, though they will specialise in one weapon that is their main role. However specs are expected to have an additional level of understanding of the weapon beyond the man level (though if you train with your men long enough, they will eventually pick up your level of understanding of the weapon). If you go to PS level you will learn additional weapons like the GPMG.
As part of our duties we are supposed to instruct the enlisted man on the use of these various infantry weapons, teach them how to maintain it in the field as well as how to become competent shots with them. We have to inspect their weapons to make sure it's in working order, as well as troubleshoot it (to the level of our understanding) if it fails for whatever reason.
So yes, I can say it's safe to say that I have a lot of pratical experience with the SAR-21 as well as the other infantry weapons... didn't bother to log to hours we were trained in it but let's just say that day in day out for 5 months I trained with these weapons, followed by which I was transfered to 3rd Guards as a roving spec where I recieved additional training in MOI for those weapons again, as well as other stuff like how to aid in LAD zeroing, scope checking, FFI duties and so on and so forth... so I kinda know the weapon like the back of my hand.
Gone through multiple life firings with the SAR-21, both in ATP as well as section and platoon level shoots. Did shooting with life ammo uring the day, at night, used LAD with it, scope so on and so forth. Fought fibua with it, used in in jungles and in rain and mud. And yes the keeping both eyes open is something that is taught to the men as well.
Getting to shoot the MP5 with a reflex sight was a treat from our commandos friends, and I've got a pretty good idea of how the two sighting systems against each other. I am telling you in most situtations we were trained to fight in the magnification is something that is a good trade for a set of open reflex sights, unless you are section SS in which case you will be using the 4X scope.
Yes 5 months you train with SAR-21 ..... sorry 5 months holding it and running with it, hugging it to skeep and shouting bang bang, and of course shooting in range - is training with it.
When i say training to shoot it - mean - a real specialised class which teach you shooting - shooting with live rounds from morning till night - for a whole week to a month. A real official course that is just delicated in shooting and not the normal range) !!!
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The problem is this: versus what?
The 1.5x scope is certianly faster then the iron sights because you don't have to worry so much about parallax, sight picture and stuff, but it lags quite far behind the naturalistic superimposition of open reflex sights in target acquistion. Hence in a typical combat environment in which the firefight is within 150 meters (in fact in urban terrain and heavy jungle this range can be as short as 50 meters) the 1.5x scope user will be disadvantaged against a reflex sight user... it's just natural.
BTW I still haven't heard anything from you about how the 1.5x SAR scope stacks up versus reflex in the nightfighting arena... that's a big part of soldiering operations you are missing out.
so you telling me - you infantry specialist cannot fast and effectively shoot a man within 50m infront of you with a SAR-21 -even though you 5 months of "training with it" and need a expensive reflex sight to do it !!! - maybe you not that specialist after all.
If all major manfacturers of guns and scopes agreed and feel that 1.5x give outstanding performance at close ranges with both eyes open giving maximum situational awareness. - I am sure another "infantry specialist" who cannot perform well with it unless he have reflex sights does not carry any weights.
Night fighting -have a red dot sight have brightness control sensor automatically adjust red dot for ambient lights ... that help a little more ... but please do not mistake that as a inbuild night vision, but both still need nightvision separately to be effective at night ... yes with red dot .. sight with night vision on ...is a little easier to see.. but not huge adv... as you try to make it look like.My view - on 1.5x vs reflex sight - it like a normal 29" tv vs a wide screen tv .... yes good to have ... but nothing to wow about ! 1.5x sight is pair with laser ... function more or less similar with red dot sight. Red dot easily to view , 1.5x added precision - give and take - each have their own adv and disadv - more or less match !!! Yes red dot is a bloody good sight - possible the best money can buy but I would not be anytime putting down the 1.5x like you did just to make your point for trying to tell how good ther reflex sight is ... as 1.5x is really just right behind... which may not make that much of a different .
Someone raise a good point eariler think it is the key point which i must say i really must give credit to red dot which wins hands down - brightness control sensor automatically adjust red dot for ambient lights ... yes that sure win a lot of my vote ..... but ... wait ... build in auto sensor .. on the scope ..you telling me it some electronical, which mean got wires, circuits which mean it need battery ! If anything that got wire circuits and batteries - yes it is good, it is bounce to give you good and advance stuff .... but then that depends on what type of soldiers are using it ..... !!! If you are some special forces or swat doing special missions .... which you go in and out with limited time in the field it is a beauty ...... but imagine - general troops .... which will be out in the field for long long period .... which need really rough handling of it and contact with waters through rain, water obstacle ....! Under the hot sun .... yes red dot is water proof ... that i am sure of... but under sun and rain and rough handing by ordinary soldiers, .. please do not think of infantry only, you must think of other like artillary, combat engineers, armours folks who work with rifles slings, they be banging the rifle a lot more around also .... I think there is a bloody high chance that - wire, or circurity or battery will give way .... then what they have a piece of glass which no better then their iron sight ? Task 1.5x would be the better choice of mass soldiers.
Next we also look at the isreal ... yes red dot totally suit them ... ! Because they fight mostly in desert, mountain or urban terrains - which red dot will be able more able to survive those environment. Singapore is different , beside urban we have jungles, swamps, sea.... and monsoon rains... yep our thick vegatation & wet weathers which is a nightmare for ..wires circuity and batteries.
Like you say - red dot may be the best sight ... it is good and suit for special team of soldiers and some countries.... but in other countries like singapore - 1.5x is the safer choice . -
Say... what are your weapon qualifications? Have you served NS before? What did you serve as?
Lol if that's your standard then I doubt even the SIW guys will meet your citeria, which means that the whole of the SAF is virtually incompetent to make any kind of a judgement on what kind of weapon is good or not good for them even if it is common sense such as something really being easier to shoot. And well unfortunately the true judge of what works for him or not is really the grunt who has to test the weapon in field conditions as well as the officers and specs who have to train the enlisted men in the use of these weapons.
Not sure what you mean by our climate is bad for red dot sights... going by your logic it would mean the commandos are plain nuts for using red dot sights for operations where they have to ingress via swimming UNDERWATER. Also this would even mean that having the LAD on the SAR is a bad choice as even a simple river crossing involves having the rifle submerged, and worse given we are relying virtually all of our night fighting capability on something that is as your said based on something that works on wires, circuity and batteries.
As on your point of night fighting not being a big advantage with red dot sights... I think you are clearly talking out of somewhere that isn't your mouth. The one of the big reasons why reflex sights have grown in popularity with militaries is because of their exceptional performance in low light versus other sighting systems. Red dot sights are prehaps the ultimate sight in a passive night fighting system (ie. one that does not involve the use of NVGs). Unlike the normal tritium tip sights where you have to deal with the parallax and guesswork in the sight picture (ie. M-16 night shoot), and the SAR 1.5X which is virtually useless at night, all you have to do with a red dot sight is to superimpose the red dot onto the shape you intend to shoot and pull the trigger. For this reason red dots are very popular with SWAT or CQB specialists that have to storm a building that is darkened but not dark enough for the use of NVGs.
The truth of the matter is, these things are built to milspec standards, which involves them having to survive these kinds of conditions as well as being grunt-proof before they can actually be used. Hence I think your point on only the dude who spends all his time at the range under controlled environment with hours of shooting targets that don't dodge, cheat and shoot back being the better judge of which sight is better actually quite the reverse of reality. It is the grunt and their NCOs who train them in the use of these weapons, they who have to sleep with the weapon, maintain it, and shoot it in less-then-optimal conditions that is the true judge of which weapon is the better one to win the war.
If you want truly reliable sights then stick to simple iron sights. Even the SAR scope can get fouled with mud or dirt or start misting over when the seal is broken and it has happened to us in the field. Of course I could argue that mud actually affects a red dot LESS then a scope due to the more open nature of the sight allow greater tolerances in the field of view for mud. When a bit of mud or water is on your scope, you have to deal with a very obvious blotch in your sight picture... and I know this because I've experienced this before. But then again mud does not mix with any kind of sighting system at all so the point is moot, not to mention the CDOs who eat a lot more mud and water then us would have sounded off and NOT used them in the field if this was the case.
Of course I could also tell you about my CDO friends who had the chance to experience both the SAR scope and then use a red dot p-railed on an M4 and how they prefered fighting with the red dot but you would say that if they didn't meet your above SIW standards their opinions don't carry much weight right?
You really are getting funny here.
The 1.5x scope is not the cheaper choice... but safer? I think not.
-
pardon me for saying this- i might sound stupid...
actually i prefer the iron sight :D lols. but then again, i dont have much exp with the scopes though...
-
If all major manfacturers of guns and scopes agreed and feel that 1.5x give outstanding performance at close ranges with both eyes open giving maximum situational awareness. - I am sure another "infantry specialist" who cannot perform well with it unless he have reflex sights does not carry any weights.
That trick will only work in the 80s and the 90s when everyone was wowed by the Styer Aug unfortunately if you look at the true prevalance of sighting systems, you would have realized that intergral simple scopes like the 1.5x have fallen out in favour of P-rail mounted dedicated scopes like the ACOG or reflex systems ITLs MARS. Just look at Iraq to get a grip on what they are doing. Even the chinese have resorted to putting red dots on their AKs which you might have noted if you read the AK thread:
And actual use in combat in Iraq:
So I am not asking you to take it from me, go take it from them:
"Red dot sights are common in speed shooting sports such as IPSC. Military units have adopted these since they are easy and fast to use, and because they work very well in low-light conditions. The United States Army adopted the Aimpoint CompM2 (designated M68 Close Combat Optic) and has begun widespread issue to units deploying in support of the "War on Terrorism." Red dot sights are also popular among paintball and airsoft players for similar reasons."
And seriously, if we wanted a proper scope we could have went for an ACOG and not our 1.5x intergal.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Say... what are your weapon qualifications? Have you served NS before? What did you serve as?
Lol if that's your standard then I doubt even the SIW guys will meet your citeria, which means that the whole of the SAF is virtually incompetent to make any kind of a judgement on what kind of weapon is good or not good for them even if it is common sense such as something really being easier to shoot. And well unfortunately the true judge of what works for him or not is really the grunt who has to test the weapon in field conditions as well as the officers and specs who have to train the enlisted men in the use of these weapons.
Not sure what you mean by our climate is bad for red dot sights... going by your logic it would mean the commandos are plain nuts for using red dot sights for operations where they have to ingress via swimming UNDERWATER. Also this would even mean that having the LAD on the SAR is a bad choice as even a simple river crossing involves having the rifle submerged, and worse given we are relying virtually all of our night fighting capability on something that is as your said based on something that works on wires, circuity and batteries.
As on your point of night fighting not being a big advantage with red dot sights... I think you are clearly talking out of somewhere that isn't your mouth. The one of the big reasons why reflex sights have grown in popularity with militaries is because of their exceptional performance in low light versus other sighting systems. Red dot sights are prehaps the ultimate sight in a passive night fighting system (ie. one that does not involve the use of NVGs). Unlike the normal tritium tip sights where you have to deal with the parallax and guesswork in the sight picture (ie. M-16 night shoot), and the SAR 1.5X which is virtually useless at night, all you have to do with a red dot sight is to superimpose the red dot onto the shape you intend to shoot and pull the trigger. For this reason red dots are very popular with SWAT or CQB specialists that have to storm a building that is darkened but not dark enough for the use of NVGs.
The truth of the matter is, these things are built to milspec standards, which involves them having to survive these kinds of conditions as well as being grunt-proof before they can actually be used. Hence I think your point on only the dude who spends all his time at the range under controlled environment with hours of shooting targets that don't dodge, cheat and shoot back being the better judge of which sight is better actually quite the reverse of reality. It is the grunt and their NCOs who train them in the use of these weapons, they who have to sleep with the weapon, maintain it, and shoot it in less-then-optimal conditions that is the true judge of which weapon is the better one to win the war.
If you want truly reliable sights then stick to simple iron sights. Even the SAR scope can get fouled with mud or dirt or start misting over when the seal is broken and it has happened to us in the field. Of course I could argue that mud actually affects a red dot LESS then a scope due to the more open nature of the sight allow greater tolerances in the field of view for mud. When a bit of mud or water is on your scope, you have to deal with a very obvious blotch in your sight picture... and I know this because I've experienced this before. But then again mud does not mix with any kind of sighting system at all so the point is moot, not to mention the CDOs who eat a lot more mud and water then us would have sounded off and NOT used them in the field if this was the case.
Of course I could also tell you about my CDO friends who had the chance to experience both the SAR scope and then use a red dot p-railed on an M4 and how they prefered fighting with the red dot but you would say that if they didn't meet your above SIW standards their opinions don't carry much weight right?
You really are getting funny here.
The 1.5x scope is not the cheaper choice... but safer? I think not.
My weapon qualification on shooting - I did a full 4 week full time course on shooting - which everyday I shoot 200-450 rounds per day . Yep your so call dude who spends all his time at the range under controlled environment with hours of shooting targets, sorry our target do moving and dodge, but don't shoot back. Don't worry, the infantry training like your does cover what this course does not offer.
Your seem to be saying proper course is useless - practical experience is that one that count ...!!! Like this you are telling people - that they should not be going to university to study as they learn nothing as it is a controlled environment, just hours of studying and learning thing and applying them in a control environment !!! Where as if you do not go to university - you so out work direct ... as a grunt in the company ... rough it out and learn the hard way ... !!! I think if someone who get the chance to go to univeristy to get to learn things in a control environment then go out into the company to carry on his learning and get experience- will have more knowledge isn't it better !!!
Don't worry i served my NS, I am qualifed infantry officer, combat engineer officer and bridging officer with some other conversion courses.
Since SAF chose 1.5x and you the one complaining about it- it seem you are the one who are accusing the whole of the SAF is virtually incompetent to make any kind of a judgement on what kind of weapon is good or not good for them and lack of common sense .
Yep grunt sleep with it, maintain, shoot with it in range .... and train to pass on their experience and knowledge to the next batch .... if like that you want to call yourself expert or professional in shooting .... go ahead be my guest.
Remember the Ultimax 100 - it was the grunt who sleep with it, maintain it , shoot with it in range ... then complain about it being no good - prone to jamming, and tell the whole world about it !!! But if you have went for real proper training ... which true instructor would explain the problem is with the blanks that where used, which singapore make blanks, german make blanks and real rounds to shoot to see for ourselves and learn the fact is it is a good rifle, but singapore make blanks is the problem. So sometime not all proper course are no good, there are just something roughing it out knowledge does have its limitation.About the your shooting in less then optimal condidtions - all your shooting is done mostly in control ranges ! Think what you mean by shooting in optimal condition is night range ! I am sure all your live ranges - also does not involve people shooting live rounds at you, which need you to dodge .... all live ranges due to safetly reason do not involve you needing to dodge or people shooting at you with live rounds !!! because of danger of you end up shooting the next person !!! So what your claims on your infantry live shooting in range that involve dodging, cheating and shoot back ... is not valid.
You say that a shooting course is - "dude who spends all his time at the range under controlled environment with hours of shooting targets that don't dodge, cheat and shoot back being the better judge of which sight is better actually quite the reverse of reality ". Well at least those folks who concerntrate on perfecting their shooting are spending serious time learning everything about shooting. If they want to learn how to dodge or cheating - we will send them expert in this area - you my friend the infantry specialist. For your so call training between your busy dodging and cheating ,shoot ....if there is someone shooting at you, think you be way too busy dodging to perfect you shooting ....!!! That is why they have a saying for this- jack of all trades, master of none !
A general soldier in the field does not know when he will encounter water obstacle which is common in our region !!! Please remember the equipment that is issue and the condition of it and servicing of it for general soldier is different from CDO ..., thus for a general soldier bring something that have wires,circuity and batteries into the water - that is asking for trouble. Further more we need to use them for a long period of time like our M-16s did - i do not think something with wires, circuity and batteries .... will survive much after a few hand me down.
Again it is "your" CDO friends ... experience ? Isn't that what we call hear say ....
Like i say before - CDO operations varies ... they are special soldiers ... which need is above the general soldiers... also they are equip with different gears to suit different mission which does not mean what is suitable for them and their perference is suitable for the general soldiers. For your information, I was been instructor for CDOs that come for to my unit for "specific" course ... also alway operate side by side with them on a hell lots exerise and real missions. I think i would know them, their equipments and their ops better then what was told to you over a coffee or dinner.
-
Tsk, please stop avoiding the questions, "sir". Remember intergity is one of the seven core values
Ultimately it is the grunt with which will fight the wars for the SAF, not the person who sits at the range. Hence it is the weapon that is the more suitable for the grunt that is the decider of things. What you are saying is pretty akin to saying that our rifles should be designed for Olympic sports shooters at the range and not the grunt who has to do whatever he has... which is given your officer vocation... casts some doubt on the general quality of our officer corps to allow such quality of mind in. So yes it is the NCOs and enlisted men, the "too busy dodging then perfecting shooting" people that will be the users of the rifle. Can't blame them for wanting something easier to shoot that is more pratical for most combat situtations.
And yes we (pratically all combat infantry vocationalists) do have exercises in which we are shot and and can get "killed" through the TLES system. So we do have a pretty good idea of how important cover and tatics can be, as well as what sight is the optimal. Since you are an infantry officer I am sure you much be familiar with the TLES and hence would be clearly quite clear on how different range shooting is from actual combat... but your points and general understanding of combat shooting which seems to place the arena of "real" shooting in being at the range shooting at plastic targets day and night seems to suggest that your vocation seems to be that of what the yanks might call an REMF.
You still haven't answered the question on on our climate being bad for any electronics. Going by your logic then did ST then make a mistake by making the stand issue hand-me-down SAR rely on using the LAD during night fighting, which is something that relies on "wires, circuity and batteries"? Of do you, for all the courses you took don't seem to understand the concept of "milspec"?
Also, how do you account for the increasing popularity of the usage of red dot in conventional armies like the yanks and even the chinese? Especially in the case of the yanks where it has seen actual combat.
Give your reliance on paper and controlled courses, you seem however unable to adress a simple paper statement:
"Red dot sights are common in speed shooting sports such as IPSC. Military units have adopted these since they are easy and fast to use, and because they work very well in low-light conditions. The United States Army adopted the Aimpoint CompM2 (designated M68 Close Combat Optic) and has begun widespread issue to units deploying in support of the "War on Terrorism."
-
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Tsk, please stop avoiding the questions, "sir". Remember intergity is one of the seven core values
Ultimately it is the grunt with which will fight the wars for the SAF, not the person who sits at the range. Hence it is the weapon that is the more suitable for the grunt that is the decider of things. What you are saying is pretty akin to saying that our rifles should be designed for Olympic sports shooters at the range and not the grunt who has to do whatever he has... which is given your officer vocation... casts some doubt on the general quality of our officer corps to allow such quality of mind in. So yes it is the NCOs and enlisted men, the "too busy dodging then perfecting shooting" people that will be the users of the rifle. Can't blame them for wanting something easier to shoot that is more pratical for most combat situtations.
And yes we (pratically all combat infantry vocationalists) do have exercises in which we are shot and and can get "killed" through the TLES system. So we do have a pretty good idea of how important cover and tatics can be, as well as what sight is the optimal. Since you are an infantry officer I am sure you much be familiar with the TLES and hence would be clearly quite clear on how different range shooting is from actual combat... but your points and general understanding of combat shooting which seems to place the arena of "real" shooting in being at the range shooting at plastic targets day and night seems to suggest that your vocation seems to be that of what the yanks might call an REMF.
You still haven't answered the question on on our climate being bad for any electronics. Going by your logic then did ST then make a mistake by making the stand issue hand-me-down SAR rely on using the LAD during night fighting, which is something that relies on "wires, circuity and batteries"? Of do you, for all the courses you took don't seem to understand the concept of "milspec"?
Also, how do you account for the increasing popularity of the usage of red dot in conventional armies like the yanks and even the chinese? Especially in the case of the yanks where it has seen actual combat.
Give your reliance on paper and controlled courses, you seem however unable to adress a simple paper statement:
"Red dot sights are common in speed shooting sports such as IPSC. Military units have adopted these since they are easy and fast to use, and because they work very well in low-light conditions. The United States Army adopted the Aimpoint CompM2 (designated M68 Close Combat Optic) and has begun widespread issue to units deploying in support of the "War on Terrorism."
"intergity is one of the seven core values" isn't that teach in one of those you consider "useless" paper class in OCS ... which according to you is not practical .. for control enviornment use only ... , things rough out in the real field ...dodging & cheating - which you expert at is more important ?
You are telling us when war comes officers will not be fighting it, just infrantry sergent "you" will be the great leader lead your infantry to fight only ! So officers, storemen, cooks, signallers, amour, tanks .... and other units ... all sit back and you and your grunts will do the job ? For me i show the same respect to all the ranks, storeman, cooks, signallers ... other units, what ever they do, whether the front line or not .. they still play the same equal part in the war. If you keep viewing officers are not qualify to lead, what make you think "you" are qualify to lead your men, just because you sweat it out with them side by side ... you are a make a better leader !!! The only problem is there is alway someone lower than you, who think he sweat more and know more then you and deserve to lead more then you. The old japanese industry thinking ... which people must rough it out and rise from the ranks from experience.... think they have abandon that ideal long ago ! By the way if you want to compare sweat it out on the ground - you just turn into the wrong alley - trying to compare with it with combat engineer... you are way off.
You seem to have the wrong misconception that everyone beside me shooting is an officer, there are a lot of grunts infrantry specialist like you ... so please do not insult them on "sport shooting" also ! I am sure they and everyone also went throught everything "grunt" you been throught, but I am sure a extra "sport shooting" does help them know more about shooting and improve on.
You seem to like to dump everything together - yep let just grab the rifle - we will go out there - while taking cover, fire movement, and being shoot at, we can perfect our shooting . Isn't it like going to a school - telling them let dump all the subject together - PE, english, maths and science. Yes let do PE, while we doing it we do maths and science together ... combining them is a more real application. Maybe that is a too new a school of thoughts - I perfer to concentrate on a single subject ... and not jack of all trade - master of none.
Your question on climate being bad for electronics ... on SAR LAD ... at least the LAD is separate from the sight, if LAD is down - the sight is still ok. While your MARS - it is intergrated with sight.
Is reliance on paper and controlled courses, if that how you see thing.... yep going to university and poly is all paper and controlled courses too, maybe ... but ... sure got a few paper to wipe ass with, while you got only leaves to wipe yours !
I alway have address the issue - Red dot sights i have agree, are good, really good to have but does have its adv and weakness which i have brought up. Also i have brought up why it suit certain countries more also. I am not against red dot from the start ... I am just pointing out while red dot is good, we should not totally due to that and put down all other sights and scope for they too have their adv which you did. Just because the US like it and adopt it does not mean other must ... if we copy everything blindly ... we may well go copy them and send "you" to lead grunts to invade iraq while our officer go "sport shooting", that a good ideal, throw in the MARS sights and war is won.
Even if you feel that I am a bad officer, your uncall for and unjust sweeping statement of "doubt on the general quality of our officer corps" clearly reflect your limitation in knowledge, character and judgement abandoning your own NCO - core values ! All NCOs and men in my units, down even cooks, storeman & drivers ... , instead of judging me and condemning me, as a young officer out of OCS and different conversion course - paper only no real application .... , they took me in, guide and teach me, let me growth and learn. You see if they have like you ... just blindly condenm officers ... i would have been a damn bad officer ... no instead my NCOs and men open their hearts and arms ... ensuring I stay on course to be a good officer, no matter how bad the going was.
By the way - I would not worry to much on the "doubt on the general quality of our officer corps" for we alway have "you" - the grunt which will fight the wars for the SAF - dodging, cheating and know better qualified and more experience and know more then the general quality of our officers corps ! Or at least till someone lower than you, who think he sweat more and know more then you, smarter and deserve to lead more then you - telling you "I doubt the quality of SingaporeTyrannosaur" !Think i will not go into further discussion with you on this ... as it went way out of focus !
-
Haiz, you type so much but still never answer the glaring holes in your argument. Let me break it down for you:
"intergity is one of the seven core values" isn't that teach in one of those you consider "useless" paper class in OCS ... which according to you is not practical .. for control enviornment use only ... , things rough out in the real field ...dodging & cheating - which you expert at is more important ?
Tsk,tsk,tsk... want to make a comeback at least think about how to make it properly, if not you are simply pwning youself.
But somehow I am not really surprised given the general quality of your answers.My point is pretty consistent throughtout: I am arguing that it is the pratical experiences of the infantryman that ought to take precedence over that of the more removed opinions of some others who base their opinion
Unfortunately, my point on you lacking intergity is that you simply lack the intellectual intergity (which is somewhat surprising considering you claim to be an officer) to even argue your points in a cohorent way, given your points rest heavily on the ad hominem and to make it more funny they have been easily defeated leading you to make wider and wider claims and then more amusingly claim that you can't carry on because things have lost "focus".
Sorry "sir", I'm afraid indeed only one person has lost "focus" in this place and that is really you.
I think you seem to forget that there is a difference between adressing points and simply answering them. As I am about to point out, you are good posting answers to points but rather poor at adressing them... as I will point out, you "replies" to my questions are unfortunately indicative that you are running low on ammunition.
You are telling us when war comes officers will not be fighting it, just infrantry sergent "you" will be the great leader lead your infantry to fight only ! So officers, storemen, cooks, signallers, amour, tanks .... and other units ... all sit back and you and your grunts will do the job ? For me i show the same respect to all the ranks, storeman, cooks, signallers ... other units, what ever they do, whether the front line or not .. they still play the same equal part in the war. If you keep viewing officers are not qualify to lead, what make you think "you" are qualify to lead your men, just because you sweat it out with them side by side ... you are a make a better leader !!! The only problem is there is alway someone lower than you, who think he sweat more and know more then you and deserve to lead more then you. The old japanese industry thinking ... which people must rough it out and rise from the ranks from experience.... think they have abandon that ideal long ago ! By the way if you want to compare sweat it out on the ground - you just turn into the wrong alley - trying to compare with it with combat engineer... you are way off.
Yawn, you are answering way out of point in this case... which is kinda sad considering you are supposed to be officer caliber.
Ultimately the real issue is this: shall grunt who do the bulk of the dirty work and knows what kind of shooting that is needed to get the job done take advice on which is the better sighting system from a rangerat such as yourself? Ultimately it is the opinion of the grunt that matters on if this or that system applied to him really worked in the field or not. It does not matter if you have spent 4 years shooting everyday on the range with the 1.5x scope when at the end of the day these things can be applied in an easier way in real life.
In the same vein, it does not matter if you have trained for 4 years shooting things up in the SM1 tank when the same job can be done more effectively in the Leopard 2. What matters here is the better way to do things.
You talk so much about the old army versus the new army that I find it kinda ironic that you are pretty resistant to a simple concept that ultimately it would make more tatical sense for the SAF to switch to reflex-sighting systems. And more ironic considering the SAF does WANT to swap out the old 1.5x scope for p-rail reflex/ red dot/ ACOG style systems in their plans for the 3G ACM (which will be the basic grunt in the future). So are they being silly and not listening to you in this case?
Your question on climate being bad for electronics ... on SAR LAD ... at least the LAD is separate from the sight, if LAD is down - the sight is still ok. While your MARS - it is intergrated with sight.
Ah, a good example of answering but not adressing my points. Frankly, do think a bit more before you shoot given you are an "officer" it's kinda lau qui for an NCO to outthink you leh...
Still does not answer the question. WIth the LAD down, the SAR is pratically useless for night fighting and breaching in FIBUA . How is this acceptable to base so much of the combat effectiveness of the SAR on electronics like the LAD, going by your basis of reasoning?
Additionally the SAF is ADDING and not removing electronics from the load of the SAF soldier... by your logic are they making a stupid move?
Indeed what does the fact that MAJOR armies have switched electronic sighting in field and actual combat mean? That they are making a stupid mistake or that the technology has matured to be reliable enough for use in the field for the average soldier?
At the end of the day you can cry all you want on this "reliability" point and try to fit a square peg into a circle hole, but milspec is milspec. If deep strike specalists like the CDOs with whom the absolute reliability of their weapons is vital as they spend a lot of mission time deep behind enemy lines with no recourse if their stuff breaks down under the elements use such equipment...
So I am not entirely sure what your "reliability" concern is... except that you are losing this discussion if you can't get this point to work, which unfortunately you are not... aiyoh "sir" why like that?
But if there's any consolation I am sure the electronic sights are at least somewhat less reliable then your ability to come up with weak arguments and your sheer courage to even post them... guess you're one of those officers we will laugh at for the amazing wayangness in war but whom no one will listen to (kinda reminds me of one of the officers in my unit to which even the enlisted men were more competent combatants.)
I alway have address the issue - Red dot sights i have agree, are good, really good to have but does have its adv and weakness which i have brought up. Also i have brought up why it suit certain countries more also. I am not against red dot from the start ... I am just pointing out while red dot is good, we should not totally due to that and put down all other sights and scope for they too have their adv which you did. Just because the US like it and adopt it does not mean other must ... if we copy everything blindly ... we may well go copy them and send "you" to lead grunts to invade iraq while our officer go "sport shooting", that a good ideal, throw in the MARS sights and war is won.
I am not putting down scope systems persay, but just the SAR 1.5X scope which is to put it nicely- a decent budget scope on its own but simply junk if you consider it against virtually any other dedicated modern sighting system. Not to mention somewhat early 90s tech.
For example, an example of a proper and useful scoping system would be the ACOG which is widely issued in Iraq beside the Aimpoint red dot system.
The ACOGs are internally-adjustable, compact telescopic sights with tritium illuminated reticle patterns for use in low light or at night. Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC)* models feature bright daytime reticles using fiber optics which collect ambient light. The ACOGs combine traditional, precise distance marksmanship with close-in aiming speed.
This is not about copying the yanks but simple logic:
Besides cost what other reedeming features our 1.5X scope has versus the Tavor MARs or even other scoping systems like the ACOG?
None really, it's just cheap. It has poor low-light capabilities (despite what ST advertises) versus other similar scopes like the ACOG or systems like the red dot. It cannot be used at night (no tritium), limited backup abilities (pistol style versus ACOG ghost ring) as well as being totally intergrated to the weapon (lack of tatical flexibility).
Think i will not go into further discussion with you on this ... as it went way out of focus !
Aw, our officer going back to his (as the yanks call "REMF") position once the fire gets to hot?
Well now who's the one losing focus here? If I recall you were the one who insisted at first that we were armchair gun mag soldiers of fortune and then later demanding to know about our qualifications, and later to move on talking about the entire SAF to combat engineers
At the end of the day my position has always been consistent and I am sure others in here will agree with me: The SAR 1.5x scope simply does not match up to the other kinds of standard-issue sighting systems out there. Not because it is sucky in its own right but it was never meant to match up to them.
Further more, a more detailed position is this:
Given my own experience in the field, as well as having heard from my comrades with which trained together in numerous different combat situtations, it is our humble suggestion that no matter what the rangerat in here suggests... we would do the job of defending out nation a lot better if we could get our hands on some more advanced sighting systems not exclusive to the red dot, but the red dot would be an idea scope for most of the stuff we do. It's not that we can't kill stuff with the SAR 1.5x... but if given alternatives we would prefer to use other systems. Your suggestion that the current 1.5x is good enough is years late... it would have worked for 1996 but not in 2008 when such technologies have matured so much more. And your further suggestion that is is good enough for the average soldier is more laughable... this is an average soldier tell you... we can do our job better with something else.
And does the SAF agree? Go check out the config of their ACM concept... hmmm don't see any SAR 1.5x scope there... oh wait, I see ACOG style sights, reflex systems... hmm... maybe they didn't ask you for your input when they made their plans.
Am I saying the grunt is the most important vocation in the SAF? Nope, but just that you don't have to tell us how to do our job or how to get it done. I think we know better what is better for us. I do not care if you enjoy shooting with the scope for days and loving it, but if it is a liability when I have to get my section to storm a darkened building, I would rather have some other piece of kit that gets us home.
-
Nope, but just that you don't have to tell us how to do our job or how to get it done. I think we know better what is better for us.
Why in the world would you think that an "officer" it's kinda lau qui for an NCO to out think him. I do not feel lau qui ... it is perfectly ok ... , I be happy to have NCOs or even men that out think me, which only help me more in my job and make it a lot easier. See that the different in training which result in different mentality and character - i take it as a asset - while you take it as negative as a disgrace!
As for the case here - i did not lau qui for i did put up very fair and valid points and isn't it kind of stupid to take it that by not accept my points is that you outwitted me. Sometime in discussing a issue - people alway bring up valid and invalid points .... even small may it be ... we go through the brain storming... whatever the conclusion is all contributed to it, does not mean you outwitted someone. Do you go to every brain storming or discussion ... needing to come up winner - so you feel you outwitted peope and not lau qui ...?Since you need to outwit people and not to lost face more... then the content of discussion, then really see not point carrying on talk to someone who is too cocky, who is more worry about "lau qui", rudely call officer names - "REMF" which bring shame to his NCO code of honor and selfishness - just keep focusing on "you and your men" perference, also so desperate to want to outwit an officer for once in his lifetime. I rather end this conversation then have you carry on losing your NCO code of honor .. !
Bye !!! Please do not restore to call me names and or say bad things about me - as a personal attack ... to get me to carry on this worthless discussion - for it will just totally reflect on your characters and mentality and your lack of NCO code of honor !