SAR 21 Twin Brother
-
Originally posted by CM06:
In other words put simply,
in the long run, a fixed 1.5X sightscope is less viable/flexible than had SAR21 started off as a P-Rail modular system which was an option and very suitable at that considering that the design of the SAR21 was from the bottom up by the SAF.
Exactly! We must remember the basic SAR-21 was designed in the early 90s where back then requirements were quite different. Military firearms as well as the SAF's requirements have moved on quite a bit since then and as an ST spokesperson said himself when he pointed out that back then when they made the SAR that 3 kilos was acceptable for an AR, but nowadays it's 3 kilos for AR, accessories, and sights included.This is not that the current basic SAR-21 is a piece of junk- it hardly is but as even ST said it's time to move on and improve on the original product.
-
It might be possible. The 3rd Gen SAR-21 MMS would go to the manuever arms, while the current generation ones will go to Support Arms, and Training schools, phasing out the M-16S1.
Note, the Sar-21 is still not being issued to Support Arms.
-
To be exact, M-16S1 have yet reached certain support arms. They are using Colt AR-15.
Sad but true.These units are those really small units that nobody wants or cares as they were attached out from the Army to the Air Force or vise versa. Once out of the Army's orbat, they get support from the Air Force who rather use the money on fuel for a few more hours of Air time.
So in the end, these small but highly effective, highly specialise, specialise skills, highly professional, almost totally independent units make do with AR-15s although they operate In Theatre.
-
Eh, most support units have a mix of M16S1 and AR-15s. Quite normal wad. There isn't much to differentiate the 2 from in the first place. Similar generation, identical operations w/ exception of the forward assist, and similar ballistics.
-
LOL. Wait till you look through the barrel. Chromium in rifling almost gone. Rounds ended up tumbling in its tragectory.... haiz....
Difference between the M16 and AR-15 is AR-15 does not have a bolt assist. So sometime after firing a weapon you get fouling in the system and the BCG does not lock in. That's where you get stoppages.
-
Aiyah, Just retire the AR-15, M-16 to all support arms and SAR-21 for all Infantry Units.
-
Well, given the spiral system of development that we are adopting, with some new technology every 1-2 years instead of a big update every 10-20 years, you can be sure that what Shotgun said would be very likely, with hand-me-downs percolating from combat arms to support arms to fringe formations in the airforce and navy :P. I'm pretty sure that the "highly effective, highly specialise, specialise skills, highly professional, almost totally independent units" that Tancold mentioned would get the new stuff rather than AR-15s though?
-
Originally posted by Tancold:
LOL. Wait till you look through the barrel. Chromium in rifling almost gone. Rounds ended up tumbling in its tragectory.... haiz....
Difference between the M16 and AR-15 is AR-15 does not have a bolt assist. So sometime after firing a weapon you get fouling in the system and the BCG does not lock in. That's where you get stoppages.
Oh yeah.... I think I've seen those b4... they leave very erratic tracer trails. -
Some still have the old 3 pronged flash hider is it?
-
some info:
IWI to showcase assault rifle and light machine guns at Defexpo 2008.Our BureauWed, Jan 30, 2008Intro--- Israel Weapon Industries (I.W.I.) is part of a group of companies specializing in development, manufacturing and marketing a variety of products for the international and national military, law enforcement and other market business fields. Defenseworld.net, the only online show daily of Defexpo 2008 received responses to an e-mail questionnaire about IWI’s participation in Defexpo 2008.1. What products and solutions would you be promoting at Defexpo 08?
Israel Weapon Industries: As IWI Is a world leading small arms manufacturer we are offering our clients the best solution for the present and future needs base on our experience and all combat proven by The Israel Defense Forces (IDF). We will promote in the exhibition the New IDF Assault rifles 5.56, Sniper Rifles 7.62 & Light Machine Gun 5.56
2. What are the latest technology weapons and weapon services offered by you?
Israel Weapon Industries: The Tavor assault Rifle family together with Micro Tavor as a platform to 5.56 and 9 mm calibers. The famous NEGEV Light Machine Gun 5.56 along with the new upgrades.
3. What are the areas of application of the weapons manufactured by you?
Israel Weapon Industries: Military or Para Military & Law Enforcement forces
4. Are you looking for Industrial partnerships in India- if so in what areas?
Israel Weapon Industries: IWI is always on the look out for new business possibilities and business ventures to offer its best to the Indian market
5. How do you regard the Indian defense market in terms of market size for your kind of product or service?
Israel Weapon Industries: The Indian Market and specifically the Indian MOD is our most important & valuable client we consider the MOD as a partner for many years to come
6. Can the product line be custom fitted for the varying needs of the defence industry?
Israel Weapon Industries: We are working closely with the MOD and we are trying to fit our products to the needs of the end user with the best solution, by that we will do some modification to adopt these needs.
-
Do our eyes decieve us?
Has lionnoisy stopped running for his life and started taking something that isn't ST made seriously?
Oh wait... it's just another copy and paste.
-
Originally posted by wonderamazement:
Some still have the old 3 pronged flash hider is it?
The last time i saw that was in BMTC.... -
sorry for the hires...but Tavor the deadly beauty...
-
.JPG)
-
Originally posted by edwin3060:
Well, given the spiral system of development that we are adopting, with some new technology every 1-2 years instead of a big update every 10-20 years, you can be sure that what Shotgun said would be very likely, with hand-me-downs percolating from combat arms to support arms to fringe formations in the airforce and navy :P. I'm pretty sure that the "highly effective, highly specialise, specialise skills, highly professional, almost totally independent units" that Tancold mentioned would get the new stuff rather than AR-15s though?
The RSN uses mixture of AR-15, M-4 and SAR-21. -
If SAR 21 is a junk,then how about M4?
http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/20/Critics_turn_crosshairs_on_militarys_main_rifle/
Very few US govaman procurement do not call for open tender.
This include the rifle in the hands of every single services men and women!
Can u tell me what improvements have been made to this rifle since
Vietnam war?
I am sad to read this referring to Colt workshop.
''Many of the old ways remain, however. Brick-lined pit furnaces dating back to the 1960s are still used to temper steel rifle barrels.''
Does Colt still using grand dad era technology?Some body told me in
30 years ago,ST already get a metal really hard which even the experienced
craftman never seen before.Is this the barrel of U100?
http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/20/Critics_turn_crosshairs_on_militarys_main_rifle/
Critics turn crosshairs on military's main rifle
By Richard Lardner, Associated PressHARTFORD, Conn. — No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives.Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.
"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
The M4, which can fire at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.
"And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," says Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to."
U.S. military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently available.
"There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."
Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.
"We haven't made up our mind yet," Radcliffe says.
William Keys, Colt's chief executive officer, says the M4 gets impressive reviews from the battlefield. And he worries that bashing the carbine will undermine the confidence the troops have in it.
"The guy killing the enemy with this gun loves it," says Keys, a former Marine Corps general who was awarded the Navy Cross for battlefield valor in Vietnam. "I'm not going to stand here and disparage the senator, but I think he's wrong."
In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89% were satisfied with the M4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19% of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.
And the relationship between the Army and Colt has been frosty at times. Concerned over the steadily rising cost of the M4, the Army forced Colt to lower its prices two years ago by threatening to buy rifles from another supplier. Prior to the warning, Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report.
Coburn is the M4's harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the "SCAR," made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany's Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M4, their manufacturers say.
The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't.
Or won't.
"All I know is, we're not having the competition, and the technology that is out there is not in the hands of our troops," says Jack Keane, a former Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M4 replacement before retiring four years ago.
The dispute over the M4 has been overshadowed by larger but not necessarily more important concerns. When the public's attention is focused on the annual defense budget, it tends to be captured by bigger-ticket items, like the Air Force's F-22 Raptors that cost $160 million each.
The Raptor, a radar-evading jet fighter, has never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the troops who patrol Baghdad's still-dangerous neighborhoods or track insurgents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's no piece of gear more critical than the rifles on their shoulders. They go everywhere with them, even to the bathroom and the chow hall.
Yet the military has a poor track record for getting high-quality firearms to warfighters. Since the Revolutionary War, mountains of red tape, oversize egos and never-ending arguments over bullet size and gunpowder have delayed or doomed promising efforts.
The M16, designed by the visionary gunsmith Eugene Stoner, had such a rough entry into military service in the mid-1960s that a congressional oversight committee assailed the Army for behavior that bordered on criminal negligence.
Stoner's lighter, more accurate rifle was competing against a heavier, more powerful gun the Army had heavily invested in. To accept the M16 would be to acknowledge a huge mistake, and ordnance officials did as much as they could to keep from buying the new automatic weapon. They continually fooled with Stoner's design.
"The Army, if anything, was trying to sideline and sabotage it," said Richard Colton, a historian with the Springfield Armory Museum in Massachusetts.
Despite the hurdles, the M16 would become the military's main battlefield rifle. And Colt, a company founded nearly 170 years ago by Hartford native Samuel Colt, was the primary manufacturer. Hundreds of thousands of M16s have been produced over the years for the U.S. military and foreign customers. Along with Colt, FNMI, an FN Herstal subsidiary in South Carolina, has also produced M16s.
Development of the carbine was driven by a need for a condensed weapon that could be used in tight spaces but still had plenty of punch. Colt's answer was the 7½-pound M4. The design allowed the company to leverage the tooling used for the M16.
In 1994, Colt was awarded a no-bid contract to make the weapons. Since then, it has sold more than 400,000 to the U.S. military.
Along the way, Colt's hold has been threatened but not broken.
In 1996, a Navy office improperly released Colt's M4 blueprints, giving nearly two dozen contractors a look at the carbine's inner workings. Colt was ready to sue the U.S. government for the breach. The company wanted between $50 million and $70 million in damages.
Cooler heads prevailed. The Defense Department didn't want to lose its only source for the M4, and Colt didn't want to stop selling to its best customer.
The result was an agreement that made Colt the sole player in the U.S. military carbine market. FNMI challenged the deal in federal court but lost.
And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed.
The Army, the carbine's heaviest user, is outfitting all its front-line combat units with M4s. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and special operations forces also carry M4s. So do U.S. law enforcement agencies and militaries in many NATO countries.
More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.
Keane, the retired Army general, knows how difficult it is to develop and deliver a brand-new rifle to the troops. As vice chief of staff, the Army's second highest-ranking officer, Keane pushed for the acquisition of a carbine called the XM8.
The futuristic-looking rifle was designed by Heckler & Koch. According to Keane, the XM8 represented the gains made in firearms technology over the past 40 years.
The XM8 would cost less and operate far longer without being lubricated or cleaned than the M4 could, Heckler & Koch promised. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however. In 2005, after $33 million had been invested, the XM8 was shelved. A subsequent audit by the Pentagon inspector general concluded the program didn't follow the military's strict acquisition rules.
Keane blames a bloated and risk-averse bureaucracy for the XM8's demise.
"This is all about people not wanting to move out and do something different," Keane says. "Why are they afraid of the competition?"
As Colt pumps out 800 new M4s every day to meet U.S. and overseas demand, the company is remodeling its aging 270,000-square-foot facility in a hardscrabble section of Connecticut's capital city. New tooling and metal cutting machines have been installed as part of a $10 million plant improvement.
Many of the old ways remain, however. Brick-lined pit furnaces dating back to the 1960s are still used to temper steel rifle barrels.
"Modernizing the plant while trying to maintain quality and meet deliveries has been a challenge," says James Battaglini, Colt's chief operating officer.
Within military circles there are M4 defectors. U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, was one of the carbine's first customers. But the elite commando units using the M4 soured on it; the rifle had to be cleaned too often and couldn't hold up under the heavy use by Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs.
When the M16 was condensed into an M4, the barrel and other key parts had to be shortened. That changed the way the gun operated and not for the better, concluded an internal report written seven years ago by special operations officials but never published. Dangerous problems ranged from broken bolt assemblies, loose and ruptured barrels, and cartridges stuck in the firing chamber.
"Jamming can and will occur for a variety of reasons," the report said. "Several types of jams, however, are 'catastrophic' jams; because one of our operators could die in a firefight while trying to clear them."
Pointing to the report's unpublished status, Colt has disputed its findings. The M4 has been continually improved over the years, says Keys, the company's chief executive. The M4 may not meet the exacting standards of U.S. commando forces, he adds, but it fills the requirements spelled out by the regular Army.
Special Operations Command is replacing the M4s and several other rifles in its arsenal with FN Herstal's SCAR, which comes in two models: one shoots the same 5.56 mm round as the M4; the other a larger 7.62 mm bullet and costs several hundred dollars more. Both SCARs can accommodate different-size barrels allowing the weapons to be fired at multiple ranges.
The SCARs are more accurate, more reliable and expected to last far longer than their predecessors, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Marc Boyd, a command spokesman.
"SOCOM likes to be different," says Keys of Colt, using the acronym for the command. "They wanted something unique."
With the SCAR not yet in full-scale production, Heckler & Koch's HK416 is being used by elite units like Delta Force, the secretive anti-terrorism unit. The command would not comment on the HK416 other than to say there are "a small number" of the carbines in its inventory.
A key difference between the Colt carbine and the competitors is the way the rounds are fed through the rifle at lightning speed.
The SCAR and HK416 use a gas piston system to cycle the bullets automatically. The M4 uses "gas impingement," a method that pushes hot carbon-fouled gas through critical parts of the gun, according to detractors. Without frequent and careful maintenance, they say, the M4 is prone to jamming and will wear out more quickly than its gas-piston competitors.
"A gas piston system runs a little bit smoother and a lot cleaner," says Dale Bohner, a retired Air Force commando who now works for Heckler & Koch. "If the U.S. military opened up a competition for all manufacturers, I see the 416 being a major player in that."
The top half of the Heckler & Koch gun — a section known as the upper receiver that includes the barrel and the gas piston — fits on the lower half of the M4. So if the military wanted a low-cost replacement option, it could buy HK416 upper receivers and mate them with the lower part of the M4 for about $900 a conversion, according to Bohner.
Yet outside of Special Operations Command, there seems to be no rush to replace the M4.
Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army office that buys M4s and other combat gear, traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan last summer to get feedback from soldiers on Colt's carbine.
"I didn't hear one single negative comment," Brown says. "Now, I know I'm a general, and when I go up and talk to a private, they're going to say everything's OK, everything's fine. I said, 'No, no, son. I flew 14,000 miles out here to see you on the border of Afghanistan. The reason I did that was to find out what's happening."'
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the troops may not be aware of the alternatives. He wants the Pentagon to study the options and make a decision before Congress does.
"Sen. Coburn has raised a good question: 'Do we have the best personal weapon?' And I don't know that we do," Sessions said. "We're not comfortable now. Let's give this a rigorous examination."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.M4 FALLS SHORT IN TEST 
HARTFORD, Conn. — When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense's vaunted M4 carbine.
The tests were conducted at an Army laboratory in Maryland last fall. Ten M4s and 10 copies each of three other carbines the SCAR from Belgium's FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from Germany's Heckler & Koch were coated in heavy layers of talcum-fine dust to simulate a sandstorm. Tens of thousands of rounds were fired through the rifles.
The M4s malfunctioned 882 times. Bullets that didn't feed through the rifles properly or became lodged in the firing chamber were the biggest problems.
The other carbines had far fewer hitches. The carbine with highest marks was the XM8, a gun with a Star Wars look that the Army considered buying just a few years ago but didn't. The program collapsed due to bureaucratic infighting and questionable acquisition methods.
Despite the testing troubles, the Army and Colt are defending the M4, the rifle U.S. forces rely on in combat. The tests, they stressed, were only meant for research purposes and didn't represent actual conditions.
Dust and dirt are constant obstacles in Iraq, but no properly trained soldier would ever let his weapon become so clogged that it misfired.
"This is not what soldiers encounter on the battlefield," says Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the officer who runs the Army acquisition office that buys rifles and other battlefield gear. "It doesn't matter if you're firing a flintlock from the Revolutionary War or you're firing the M4, you've got to clean your weapon."
The XM8, Brown adds, had 10 cartridges break apart during testing a flaw that can injure the shooter. The M4 only had one ruptured cartridge.
In overall scoring, the M4 finished the sandstorm test with a 98.6 roughly 1 percentage point behind the others, according to Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga.
"That is good performance," Radcliffe says.
But the M4's chief critic wasn't buying the Army explanation spelled out in Power Point charts.
"What it shows is out of the four weapons tested, the M4 is the worst," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "If it's your son that's the 1% that takes a bullet in the head (from the enemy) because his gun jammed, that 1% is pretty meaningful."
Colt executives can't account for the M4's poor showing. And they hinted that the M4s sent from Colt's plant in Hartford may have been mishandled after being delivered to the lab.
"There's no way they left the factory like that," says Phillip Hinckley, Colt's executive director of quality and engineering. "It does leave a major question mark in your head."
— The Associated Press
AT A GLANCEOne of the biggest differences between Colt's M4 carbine and its competitors is the way the bullets are fed through the rifles. The HK416, XM8 and SCAR use a gas piston system to cycle the bullets automatically. The M4 uses "gas impingement," a method that uses a tube to push hot gas through key parts of the gun. This leaves residue behind, detractors say, and makes the M4 more prone to jamming. But Army officials and Colt executives say they've received no significant complaints from troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
M4: Colt Defense's M4 carbine is a direct descendant of the company's M16 first used during the Vietnam War. At 33.6 inches long and weighing 7 pounds when loaded, it is shorter and lighter than the M16 but shoots the same 5.56 mm round. (The round is about the size of an AAA battery.) The M4's compact design makes it ideal for troops traveling in Humvees or fighting in confined areas. An M4 costs about $1,500. The weapon is used by all the U.S. military branches.
HK416: Designed by Germany's Heckler & Koch, the HK 416 carbine is slightly heavier than the M4, but otherwise similar in appearance and feel. Heckler & Koch advertises its weapon as more rugged and accurate than the M4. At $1,425 each (2007 prices), the HK416 costs about the same as the M4. It also shoots a 5.56 round. Elite U.S. military units such as the anti-terrorist Delta Force are using the HK416. Norway selected the rifle last year for its military forces.
XM8: Also designed by Heckler & Koch, the XM8 weighs 8.3 pounds and fires 5.56 mm ammunition. Several years ago it was being pursued as a replacement for the M4s in the U.S. military's inventory. The project was halted in 2005, however, due to questions over how the program was being handled. No pricing data is available.
SCAR: The acronym stands for Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle. Made by Belgium's FN Herstal, two versions of the weapon one fires the 5.56 round and another shoots a heaver 7.62 mm cartridge are being purchased by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa The lighter SCAR weighs 8.5 pounds loaded. The command, which has its own budget for unique gear, says the SCARs are more durable and accurate than the M4. The command and FN Herstal are negotiating costs, but they expect the light model SCAR to cost about the same as an M4.
— The Associated Press
-
XM 8 is not better than M4:Colt Defense LLC
Read the officail reports mentioned here.Dunt glorify XM 8 too much.
http://www.colt.com/mil/news.asp
''March 26, 2007
Letter to the Editor from Colt Defense LLC in response to Army Times staff writer Matthew Cox article, ""It’s Better Than the M4, but You Can’t Have One" dated February 20, 2007West Hartford, Connecticut, March 26, 2007 –
Dear Editor,
Until the cancellation of the XM8 program in 2005, Army Times strongly promoted the HK XM8 for its adoption as the service weapon for the US Army.
In the recent feature article, "Better Than the M4 But You Can’t Have One" Staff Writer Matt Cox attributes cancellation of the XM8 program to "a sea of bureaucratic opposition." The story fails to mention a DoD Inspector General report on the acquisition of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon dated October 7, 2005, which addresses the XM8 Program and is found at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports. This report clearly stated the rationale, which indicated the XM8 offered no potential efficiency over the present weapons systems, as well as including mismanagement by those persons responsible for the program, both of which clearly may have been a strong consideration in the cancellation of the program. Another related and informative DoD IG report is Competition of the 5.56 Millimeter Carbine (D-2007-026) dated November 22, 2006 and is found at the same Web site.
Cox’s story about the HK 416 references unnamed experts and mis-represents comparisons between the HK 416 and M4. Additionally, he used findings in an unpublished draft 2001 SOCOM report on the M4 and a Marine Corps test of the M4 in 2002 without informing the reader that the Army did not agree with the report findings nor does it take into consideration the measures taken immediately by the Army and Colt to eliminate those few problems with weapon improvements. Instead, the story argues for adoption of the German manufactured HK 416 for the entire US Army now in use by a group of elite operators within Special Operations Command who rightfully develop their own kit of weapons and modify them to their needs.
Additionally, the story very wrongly alleges that Army leadership is not providing our men and women in uniform the best weapon available and, more disturbing, irresponsibly raises a concern to the Soldiers, Marines and Special Operations Forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families that their service weapon is not reliable.
The M4 speaks for itself as to its combat credibility. Before its introduction into the U.S. Army inventory in 1994, it was subjected to the full range of required Army tests and evaluations. The HK 416 has never been subjected to any of these official government tests.
From fall 2002 to today, government quality deficiency reports for the M4 have been nearly non-existent. Additionally, from fall 2002, U.S.Government inspectors at the Colt plant have overseen the firing of nearly 4 million endurance rounds with only three endurance gun failures.
The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system. Rifles were being designed with these systems in the 1920’s. Colt proposed a piston operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960’s. Today Colt Defense has the ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the U.S. military services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon.
Cox’ anecdotal examples of fouled weapons are not taken lightly, yet the information is not helpful if the type of fouling is not clearly defined. In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system. This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system. Is a gas piston operated weapon less vulnerable to the effects of the desert than a gas impingement system? If so, where are the results of the controlled tests? Additionally, there are a number of reasons for weapons fouling, including the reliability of the ammunition and reliability of magazines.
The M16 and M4 have undergone major enhancements since introduction of the M16 into the US military inventory in the 1960s and they are clearly not the weapons of forty years ago. These enhancements have improved functioning, reliability, maintenance and versatility for the individual Soldier and Marine throughout the years.
Currently, there is a government funded operational evaluation being conducted for SOCOM by Colt and UCT Defense for greaseless operating parts on the M4 to improve maintenance, functioning and the wear of select parts of the weapon.
In closing, at the 2006 NDIA Conference and at the Infantry War Fighting Conference sponsored by the Chief of Infantry and Commanding General United States Army Infantry Center & School, Fort Benning, Georgia, the M4 Carbine was listed by the Commanding General and included in his brief as one of the high lighted success stories in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini (ret.)
- Chief Operating Officer''
- 2.Lessons to learn
- A.Dunt fool by the cool design of XM 8.Go to read theUS
DoD Inspector General report ,come back and talk here.
B.I cant buy the idea that M4 is the best!!
C.I am pity the SOC guys have to modify HK416.Why does SOC NOT order the spec and let the rifle maker in a fully equipped factory?
Insurance will not cover if the rifle goes wrong after the guys modify it.
3.http://www.murdoconline.net/ 20.04.2008
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/005325.html
Is there any reports that out of 4000 US killed in Iraq,how many suffered from rifle
stoppage?
What would be the result if SAR 21 get tested?But the bullets have to be supplied by ST.
-
Lionnoisy, who said the Sar-21 was junk? Your super long post is directed at someone who said the Sar-21 was junk...
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Lionnoisy, who said the Sar-21 was junk? Your super long post is directed at someone who said the Sar-21 was junk...
SingaporeTyrannosaur:
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/314188
I could actually list the problems we had with our own-made systems just like you, like how the SAR-21 was quite a piece of junk when it was first issued and plenty of things didn't work as advertised,
2.http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/310955?page=3
SingaporeTyrannosaur:
''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.''
3.Just opposite to me,
SingaporeTyrannosaur seem hate ST products very much..no offences lah...if i quote out of contents,,,
-
If you look carefully, he was referring to the Sar-21's scope. Not the entire system...
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
If you look carefully, he was referring to the Sar-21's scope. Not the entire system...
There was a definite issue with the scope, especially amongst the first two batches.
The SAR-21 is not a perfect rifle, but it fits the SAF well for the roles that majority of the troops play.
-
Eh lionnoisy, how come you not talking on the threads where you created a clone to use as sockpuppet liao?
Running away scared?
PS.
-
For those who wondered what happened.
Lionnoisy created a clone called "makepeace" which he used in speakers corner to further his own agenda, trying to give people the impression that there are others out there that would agree with him.
Unfortunately he did a very poor job of hiding it.
This kind of behaviour is called sockpuppeting, ie. creating a false online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.[1]
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.
To "flame wars" and "phishing" we can now add "sock puppet." A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet. Recently, a senior editor at The New Republic got in trouble for some particularly colorful sock puppetry.
When Lee Siegel began blogging for The New Republic, he found, as many others have, that Internet posters tend to be fairly outspoken — and a good number of the posters on the blog were harshly critical. An exception was ''sprezzatura,'' who regularly offered extravagant praise. After Mr. Siegel was criticized for his writing about Jon Stewart, host of ''The Daily Show,'' sprezzatura wrote: ''Siegel is brave, brilliant and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.'' A reader charged that sprezzatura was in fact Mr. Siegel, but sprezzatura denied it.
The reader turned out to be right. ...
After making some lame and hasty excuse about his account being hacked, lionnoisy suddenly abandoned all this threads in which him being sockpuppeting was being mentioned. Unfortunately his excuse cannot stand up to logic as he was seen responding to and talking back TO HIS OWN ACCOUNT.
This is what happened:
29th April 0932hrs a "user" called "makepeace" that had never posted before created a lionnoisy-sounding titled thread called "Oz Judge ban TV drama & interview glorify gangland wars "
Already suspisions were raised because the structure and phrasing of the title was signature of lionnoisy. The first post by this "makepeace" was as such:
Originally posted by makepeace:
Oz Supreme Judge Justice Betty King
bans TV drama serices & interviews
glorifying those in the gangland war.The bans to prevent
jurors to be affected while the trial of a murder case is in progress.
U hardly expect democratic and free country like Oz will
ban TV programmes .Right?
U wont know TV programmes on Oz gangsters
are so hot there.Right?
u wont know ganglang wars there also so frequent.Right?
1.Judge cuts down(TV) Nine's Underbelly
Milanda Rout | February 12, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23200497-7582,00.html
2.Judge bans 'crime mums' interview
Peter Gregory | April 22, 2008
Barbara Williams and Judith Moran,
the mothers of defendant Evangelos Goussis
and the widow of the murdered Lewis Moran
respectively,were interviewed.
Its damn interesting that this news was under
Entertainment section!!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/judge-bans-underbelly-report/2008/04/21/1208742836107.html?s_cid=rss_news
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
5.u can learn more by seraching Justice Betty King
in www.yahoo.com.au
6.Questions
A.Why the media want to air the interview while the trial
is still on?
B.How are the gang activities in Down Under?
C.Am i look like anti--Oz?
D.How true are the postings in 3 and 4 listed above.
i dunt expect the there are so many details about
Oz gangsters.Can any one tell me more?
Note that other then for the user name, this post is virtually indistinguishable from the countless of other lionnoisy posts we can compare it with. The excessive reliance on the media, posting of hyperlinks, using warped logic that takes issues out of their context, and most tellingly the horrible english which make typos and grammatical errors right down to what lionnoisy would EXACTLY make is exactly what you'd expect from lionnoisy.
Hence lionnoisy must have been someone disappointed because after 20 minutes still nobody bothered to reply to his post under makepeace. Hence he decided to bump his own thread.
But after a few lackluster replies, he finally decided to "talk" to makepeace
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
3.The Morgan family----the story of the murdered
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/moran.family.htm
4.The story of the Boss ,Carl Williams,behind the killing
http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/carl.williams.htm
I cant believe there are so many killings
in the above links !!!
More excited than Holloywood movies!!
Note the bad acting, where he pretended to be "excited" and "surprised" about what he wrote himself.
Now this is the funny part, if his account was really hacked as he claimed it to be, he would certainly not be replying back to his "hacked" account so happily in such a way.
But in any case when he was exposed he made this very funny, frantic and desperate post trying to suddenly divorce himself from the actions of his sockpuppetry by claiming he was hacked. Unfortunately all a basic look at the thread will reveal what really happened, and that is nothing other then lionnoisy was caught red-handed sockpuppeting.
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Why did u check IP and English of forumers?
i just know my acct has been hijacked and u post it!!
It seems u are faster than me?Looks so strange!!
Looks like it is a cyber crime and /or frame up.
Hv anyone(u know who i mean) hacked into my e mails and computers ?
Do i have to hire armed guards to stay outside my
pigeon hole?
I am seeking helps from ISD,CIA,FBI,MI 5 and 6,
PRC Kong Ang, etc to check who hijack my acct
and make me appearing as ''makepeace'' after
i click submit.How safe in this forum??
I will buy you Ya Kun coffee if your info can lead to
catch the criminal,
Forums owners and mods are hereby notified my formal ,written and distressing complaints to cyber crimes!!
Another paethetic, and desperate reply from him when he was cornered:
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
oh it is good.Then can help me saving time to see counsellors How to get rid of computers addicts!!bye
Those who want to see what happened can go here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/315326
And some screencaps, so the evidence is preserved:
"mysterous" makepeace appears:
and of course his own excited and poorly acted "reply" to his own clone.
and his own desperate and feeble attempts to wriggle out of the situtation:
LOL, what a joker!
-
Anyway, yes, the basic SAR-21 is not the best piece of kit to have if you are talking about how far modern infantry firearms have come since 1996. Just no denying it and that will not change if you drag out the M-4 or the M-1 Garand or the Greese Gun or what have you not.
It is just a fact of life, our SAR-21 has to change and be updated or it itself will be out of date.
And this thread is about the TAR-21, not the M-4, how come you are not talking about it?
Don't try to educate us about the M-4, we know a lot more about it then you do. Some of the people here actually OWN M-4s and custom build their own.
Please don't try to distract people from your clone incident with your sudden "interest" in the M-4, LOL, it's not working.
Face up to what you did like a real man.
-
A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.
Deception
Use of a SockPuppet is typically frowned on. The social convention against sock puppets arises from the RealWorld. We do not expect to discover that the guy who runs the coffee shop is also our neighbour, but with a fake mustache and beard. In most communities there is at least a social expectation, and sometimes a site policy, that each person will use only a single identity. Thus, use of sock puppets is a DeceptivePractice.
A PenName (or anonymous posting) is about discretionary exposure of personally identifying information, and doesn't exclude the possibility of participating with a measure of integrity since discretion and deception are not at all the same thing. It is fair to expect that we all exercise a certain measure of discretion, but it is hoped that we do not engage in intentional deception. A SockPuppet, on the other hand, is dishonestly represented as being a unique individual, distinct from the existing identities already in use in the community.
Uses
By using several Sock Puppets all posting in favour of an idea, a dishonest person can give the impression that the idea has more grass-roots support than it really has. See also StuffingTheBallotBox, which is a similar problem in a more formal, voting context. Sock puppets make it harder to enforce "one man, one vote."
Sock puppet identities are disruptive in conversation because they are often used so that a person can ask questions of himself and appear to be carrying on a thread between two individuals.
