SAR-21 on Popular Mechanics
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
quite true...btw i heard u can get it somewhere faster...
Beach rd?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Beach rd?
hehehe
-
yes SAR-21 may be heaviler ! but that little weight is nothing.
With its more managable recoil and better balance - this actually should help in more acurate shots.
The scope is factory zero - thus advantage is less training time , and no zeroing.In theory - you can pick up any SAR-21 to shoot well due to the special scope. While M-16 if it is not your rifle - you have to re-zero it - if not you will most likely missed !!!
Heh , SAR 21 is not just a little heavier than M16, it is a lot heavier.
Rifle can be light & be also accurate. Felt recoil can be mitigated not by weight only.
You are absolutely right - it is pure theory that SAR 21 sight is factory zeroed & by implication needs not be re zeroed. In reality , all sights , even the ACOGs will need re zeroing eventually.
With its more managable recoil and better balance - this actually should help in more acurate shots.
The scope is factory zero - thus advantage is less training time , and no zeroing.In theory - you can pick up any SAR-21 to shoot well due to the special scope. While M-16 if it is not your rifle - you have to re-zero it - if not you will most likely missed !!!
-
You are absolutely right - it is pure theory that SAR 21 sight is factory zeroed & by implication needs not be re zeroed. In reality , all sights , even the ACOGs will need re zeroing eventually.
Actually I am becoming a bit suspicious of storywolf... he claimed to be an officer with tons of range time and hence must have been extremely experienced with the SAR-21...
I find it very, very odd that he would mention that the factory zero keeps, considering my own experience with the SAR-21 in different units, as well as the grunts I've talked to say otherwise.
But hmm, maybe he only shot the new weapons, but I know this for sure, that the whole factory-zeroed thing is more of an advertising feature then reality... not unless you want to shoot your SAR at anything effectively beyond 100 meters.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Not too sure about that, in practice much lighter weapons like the TAR-21 still managed impressive MOAs despite being might lighter then the SAR-21.
While I agree that the TAR21 is much lighter, the Isrealis does much of the world's media, magnified the superiority of this weapon.
To start with .. Videos from the range and strip down. The Tar21 does look filmsy internally during the strip down, and the range shooting is horrible, every semi-auto single shot requires the shooter to re-acquire the target, due to the upward recoil. While it does hit the target 300m out with it's factory fit reflex-sight. The weapons don't seem to balance well and is butt heavy, requiring the shooter to lay it inplace to their shoulder for accurate shot. The TAR21 is still very infant in the field, to know how durable it is.. and I don't think it's that durable.. reliablity is part of this equation.
Just saying....
-
While I agree that the TAR21 is much lighter, the Isrealis does much of the world's media, magnified the superiority of this weapon.
To start with .. Videos from the range and strip down. The Tar21 does look filmsy internally during the strip down, and the range shooting is horrible, every semi-auto single shot requires the shooter to re-acquire the target, due to the upward recoil. While it does hit the target 300m out with it's factory fit reflex-sight. The weapons don't seem to balance well and is butt heavy, requiring the shooter to lay it inplace to their shoulder for accurate shot. The TAR21 is still very infant in the field, to know how durable it is.. and I don't think it's that durable.. reliablity is part of this equation.
Depends on who you want to believe. And the possibility remains that the shooter could simply be a bad shooter, lol. In any case I have been at SAR-21 shoots where the users are unable to hit anything at 200 meters, apparently because the factory zero is not working.
But personally I do not think the Isrealis make unreliable weapons given they have far more experience in making weapons then us, as well as use weapons in some of the most unforgiving environments like the desert. And the TAR was designed first and foremost for their own needs, if the TAR could not work in the sandbox, then I hardly think the IDF would go ahead with it.
AFAIK, the TAR was designed to be CG rear, to put the CG of the rifle closer to the user's body during use as well as to minimize recoil, so it's a deliberate design move. Smart? I don't know I haven't shot the Tavor before.
Also in terms of deployment, the TAR-21 has found far more users then the SAR-21 and no real compliants from their users so far. In terms of use and deployment, the Tavor is quite far ahead of the SAR-21, of which our troops are still using the basic model.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Also in terms of deployment, the TAR-21 has found far more users then the SAR-21 and no real compliants from their users so far. In terms of use and deployment, the Tavor is quite far ahead of the SAR-21, of which our troops are still using the basic model.
Sometimes i think branding does play a part. -
Advertisting is one thing, getting it to work in the field is the acid test of things.
-
Try stuffing 2 SAR21 mags into a old SAF webbing mag pouch. Now try stuffing the 2 mags in record time... Then imagine trying to do that under fire...
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Depends on who you want to believe. And the possibility remains that the shooter could simply be a bad shooter, lol. In any case I have been at SAR-21 shoots where the users are unable to hit anything at 200 meters, apparently because the factory zero is not working.
But personally I do not think the Isrealis make unreliable weapons given they have far more experience in making weapons then us, as well as use weapons in some of the most unforgiving environments like the desert. And the TAR was designed first and foremost for their own needs, if the TAR could not work in the sandbox, then I hardly think the IDF would go ahead with it.
AFAIK, the TAR was designed to be CG rear, to put the CG of the rifle closer to the user's body during use as well as to minimize recoil, so it's a deliberate design move. Smart? I don't know I haven't shot the Tavor before.
Also in terms of deployment, the TAR-21 has found far more users then the SAR-21 and no real compliants from their users so far. In terms of use and deployment, the Tavor is quite far ahead of the SAR-21, of which our troops are still using the basic model.
While the Shooter is a factor.. In fact, he did hit the target 300m out with the first shot. But had to re-acquire the target again. He seemed to be a competent shooter.But, I'm talking about recoil here. It seemed that the TAR21 have a strong recoil for a bullpub, if not similar to the M-16. In fact, worst, since it went all over the place after every shot, especially upwards. The short barrel could be a factor. But this does not explain the recoil as a whole. The awkward handling also gets a minus from me.
As to the users, The IDF themselves are largely sticking to their M-4s, the TAR21 is getting a every slow deployment. You could hardly see one during the Lebanon incursion two years ago, and even today. How many are exported anyway, token numbers - India, Some latin countries ?
As someone has said, Branding has indeed have something to do with this. In fact, there are hardly any detailed reviews from the fields. Maybe it's too new.. but the strip down shows internal white plastic parts.. I think one was the coil spring retainer or end.
If it's up to me, put a P-rail onto a SAR-21 with a Reflex sight, heavier or not. it's golden. It's low on recoil, short, accurate and reliablity is there (minus the Scope). I like the balances to. But Bullpubs does have it's (Some say) Flaws.
-
The US Army is so big that buying a new gun will not only cost a lot of money, but it will take an eternity to replace all the guns. Never mind that the local gun lobby is strong and HK is a German company. Even the Russians are taking forever to replace their AKs for the An-94.
-
Its taking US Army and Russians an eternity because there is simply nothing out there which has significant advantage over the M16 s and AKs resp.
Despite the complaints about low lethality , low reliability etc of M4s, US is buying yet more of these weapons to replace M16s in the field. More importantly is that they are investing a lot into optics used together with the M4s. Hitting a target in the first place is still a lot more important than anything else.
-
But, I'm talking about recoil here. It seemed that the TAR21 have a strong recoil for a bullpub, if not similar to the M-16. In fact, worst, since it went all over the place after every shot, especially upwards
What are you talking about? The M-16 has one of the best recoil characteristics of any 5.56mm rifle due to its direct impingement gas system.
It's low on recoil, short, accurate and reliablity is there (minus the Scope). I like the balances to. But Bullpubs does have it's (Some say) Flaws.
In fact the M-16 should have better recoil handling then the SAR-21, which uses a long stroke piston system for that matter. And having shot both rifles I can concur. But the recoil on the SAR-21 is not so much that it is any issue for me.
As to the users, The IDF themselves are largely sticking to their M-4s, the TAR21 is getting a every slow deployment. You could hardly see one during the Lebanon incursion two years ago, and even today. How many are exported anyway, token numbers - India, Some latin countries ?
Wrong, the TAR-21 is replacing the M-16 and M-4 in significant numbers, and the intention is to completely replace them in their warstock eventually in fact they have already seen combat deployment in the hands of their users:
This is not to reluctant introduction of a weapon that is unproven, but an actual fielding in several users worldwide:
Azerbaijan 
Colombia - The Colombian Army operates the T.A.R. 21 for their special forces. Colombia bought 30,000 Tavors. 
Costa Rica - In use by the Law enforcement agencies of Costa Rica. 
Georgia - Since 2006, the Georgian Army has entered into a $65 million supply agreement for approximately 7,000 T.A.R. 21 rifles (including different variants and grenade launchers). These rifles are designated to replace the AK-74 derivatives that are currently in use by 7,850 special forces personnel. Officials report that 1,300 rifles have already been shipped. 
Guatemala - Guatemala's police force or PNC (Policia Nacional Civil) operates the T.A.R. 21 for routine tasks, and some special forces operations. [1] 
India - In late 2002, India signed an Rs. 880 million (about $20 million) deal with Israel Military Industries for 3,070 Tavor assault rifles to be issued to India's special forces personnel, where its ergonomics, reliability in heat and sand, and fast-point/fast-shoot design might give them an edge at close-quarters and employment from inside vehicles. By 2005, IMI had supplied 350-400 Tavors to India's northern Special Frontier Force (SFF). These were declared to be 'operationally unsatisfactory,' however, due to problems with their folding stock; meanwhile, Israeli units like the Galatz were voicing complaints of their own. The required changes appear to have been made, and the Tavor now looks set to enter operational service within a couple of months - even as India gears up for a larger competition that could feature a 9 mm M.T.A.R. 21 version.[citation needed] Tests in Israel during 2006 went well, clearing the contracted consignment for delivery. The new Tavors will have a modified single-piece stock and new sights, as well as Turkish-made MKEK T-40 40mm under-barrel grenade launchers (UBGLs). Singapore Technologies will supply the 5.56 mm ammunition. [2] 
Israel - In use by some infantry brigades and special forces' units of the Israel Defense Forces. (Primary user) 
Portugal - Small quantities of the T.A.R. 21 are also in use by the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária's special operation groups. The T.A.R. 21 also participated in Portugal's competition for its new assault rifle for all the Portuguese armed forces and the Police Special Operations Group — a bid that also included the local production of the T.A.R. 21 in Portugal. However, the T.A.R. 21 was excluded from the shortlist. The competition was meanwhile been replaced by another one, after both political and defense critics accused the competition of favoring the Heckler & Koch G36.[citation needed] 
Thailand - The Royal Thai Army purchased 15,000 T.A.R. 21 rifles. 
Turkey - Maroon Berets For a relatively new assault rifle in an oversaturated small arms market this is extremely remarkable.
If you are talking about token numbers then it would be our SAR-21. Note that the SAF only uses the SAR-basic so far and all of the other variants were pimped for the export market, but as of yet we've found far less customers.
-
Ultimately most AR making-companies advertise their products as "low-recoil", even the SAR-21 was touted as "low-recoil" when it's long stroke gas piston design actually means more moving parts and weights then the previous system in the M-16 it replaces.
But I believe it is a moot point.
But the point is if you are talking about 5.56mm ARs, they all practically have low recoil to begin with compared to the other infantry weapon format, the 7.62mm.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Actually I am becoming a bit suspicious of storywolf... he claimed to be an officer with tons of range time and hence must have been extremely experienced with the SAR-21...
I find it very, very odd that he would mention that the factory zero keeps, considering my own experience with the SAR-21 in different units, as well as the grunts I've talked to say otherwise.
But hmm, maybe he only shot the new weapons, but I know this for sure, that the whole factory-zeroed thing is more of an advertising feature then reality... not unless you want to shoot your SAR at anything effectively beyond 100 meters.
T-rex - you comparing how good a rifles is or are you comparing how you and your grunt friends manage to bang up rifles better then other army ?
If you are issue with handme down generation of SAR-21 that get knock by your precessors and you around till zeroing gone - then rezeroing is the only options. Frankly zeroing does not goes that easi, but most likely your case is really old hand me down sar-21 - which really is knock by you till kapo type !!!
Have you seen people doing car review with 3-4 hand cars ? Is that fair ? If you want to do go take 3-4 hand tavor and other rifles - they all also have the same issues.In Reality - the fact still stand - if I need to ship brand new rifles out to battlefield or reconditional factory rezeroed rifles - to soldiers who can open the crate and shoot with it without zeroing. Why not - that is still an advantage, which few others can claim !!!
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
T-rex - you comparing how good a rifles is or are you comparing how you and your grunt friends manage to bang up rifles better then other army ?
If you are issue with handme down generation of SAR-21 that get knock by your precessors and you around till zeroing gone - then rezeroing is the only options. Frankly zeroing does not goes that easi, but most likely your case is really old hand me down sar-21 - which really is knock by you till kapo type !!!
Have you seen people doing car review with 3-4 hand cars ? Is that fair ? If you want to do go take 3-4 hand tavor and other rifles - they all also have the same issues.In Reality - the fact still stand - if I need to ship brand new rifles out to battlefield or reconditional factory rezeroed rifles - to soldiers who can open the crate and shoot with it without zeroing. Why not - that is still an advantage, which few others can claim !!!
I don't think any rifle will last long without needing any form of zeroing even if it's me or you.
So in essence, why should it be any significant advantage?
-
The point is, it's not.
Apparently storywold thinks that factory zero will last field conditions over prolonged periods.
If you are issue with handme down generation of SAR-21 that get knock by your precessors and you around till zeroing gone - then rezeroing is the only options. Frankly zeroing does not goes that easi, but most likely your case is really old hand me down sar-21 - which really is knock by you till kapo type !!!
The point is, the factory zero slips and becomes useless, and in the tactical sense you go to war with a personal weapon, not with a weapon you find in a crate or on the floor like in a video game.
Your personal weapon is a weapon you train with and have to go through field conditions with.
And this is not under extremely harsh conditions or torture testing but routine use.
So if something like "factory zero" can't last the operational lifetime of the weapon, what does this say about it except it is a gimmick? In fact plenty of weapons with intergrated scopes could claim "factory zero" as a nice feature, and as a matter of fact these weapons are factory zeroed.
Bt they don't make a big point about it because they know by common sense such a thing is a gimmick.
In Reality - the fact still stand - if I need to ship brand new rifles out to battlefield or reconditional factory rezeroed rifles - to soldiers who can open the crate and shoot with it without zeroing.
In reality- the bigger and more important fact stands that soldiers will have to use their rifle in harsh conditions and over prolonged periods, and practially speaking the zero will slip.
So what's the point? More importantly, "factory zero" does not take into account the fact that each and every shooter is not the same. To consistently shoot with your
Why not - that is still an advantage, which few others can claim !!!
Getting your facts wrong again?
Virtually all other modern firearms are factory-zeroed, but once again they don't make a fuss of it. The SAR-21 is hardly new to this practice. Your G36 comes off the assembly line zeroed to 200 meters.
The difference was that the SAR-21 makers were silly enough to claim this weapon didn't need zeroing due to factory zeroing, which was patently false. Before ATP there are still zeroing shoots for the SAR-21.
This is because factory zero was never a subsitute for true zero in the first place.
-
Additionally, the whole idea of "factory zero" was not so grunts could take weapons from the box and shoot with them, but to cut down on the zeroing time spent in the range.
This is what the literature says:
The scope is factory-zeroed, and requires minimal further zeroing to suit different users. This minimizes non-training range time to zero the weapons and maximises live-firing training hours
As for combat advantage there is practically none at all... in fact you'll be probably worse of because the "standard" zero of the sights will not suit you as perfectly as a weapon that you bothered to zero on the range to your needs.
And of course the zero of all weapons, especially new ones which have not been broken in will slip because the shooting characteristics of the weapon will change over time as it is used.
So what advantage does the factory zero give in practice? Unless the SAF is in the practice of issuing non-personal weapons to their troops straight from the box and sending them into battle without time to prepare and personalize the sights to the users...
It provides none at all.
It's about the same as the lionnoisy claimed advantage of being able to carry the SAR-21 like a handbag and "run for your life"
-
thought SAR21 like other rifle like that,need to do zeroing shoot ???
my fren who use SAR21,said that every range like M16 like that,need to do zero shoot..
SAR21 is much heavier that M16 ~~~
cannot run like taking handbag ~
-
i uses SAR21
no need to zero shoot
the only thing is to align the LAD using a tool
SAR21 is heavier because of the addition of scope and LAD...
But the SAR21 with M203 is darn heavy.... WHY ?
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
i uses SAR21
no need to zero shoot
the only thing is to align the LAD using a tool
SAR21 is heavier because of the addition of scope and LAD...
But the SAR21 with M203 is darn heavy.... WHY ?
Then you heng lorh, or your scores could have been much higher, lol.
SOP for range with SAR21 where I come from still includes zeroing as part of practice.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The point is, it's not.
Apparently storywold thinks that factory zero will last field conditions over prolonged periods.
The point is, the factory zero slips and becomes useless, and in the tactical sense you go to war with a personal weapon, not with a weapon you find in a crate or on the floor like in a video game.
Your personal weapon is a weapon you train with and have to go through field conditions with.
And this is not under extremely harsh conditions or torture testing but routine use.
So if something like "factory zero" can't last the operational lifetime of the weapon, what does this say about it except it is a gimmick? In fact plenty of weapons with intergrated scopes could claim "factory zero" as a nice feature, and as a matter of fact these weapons are factory zeroed.
Bt they don't make a big point about it because they know by common sense such a thing is a gimmick.
In reality- the bigger and more important fact stands that soldiers will have to use their rifle in harsh conditions and over prolonged periods, and practially speaking the zero will slip.
So what's the point? More importantly, "factory zero" does not take into account the fact that each and every shooter is not the same. To consistently shoot with your
Getting your facts wrong again?
Virtually all other modern firearms are factory-zeroed, but once again they don't make a fuss of it. The SAR-21 is hardly new to this practice. Your G36 comes off the assembly line zeroed to 200 meters.
The difference was that the SAR-21 makers were silly enough to claim this weapon didn't need zeroing due to factory zeroing, which was patently false. Before ATP there are still zeroing shoots for the SAR-21.
This is because factory zero was never a subsitute for true zero in the first place.
In real life - sad to say not everything is perfect, that you go to your camp draw out your personal weapon ... ?
In real if there is a war - we must imagine the worst scenerio - which your camp would be in rubbles and your personal weapon gone ! You may be issue with a brand new factory zero and start the fight without even time to go to range. Yes the factory setting may not last - if it just last 3 days - for you to kick some ass - you can count your blessing already.If sniper & hunter have use scopes and out in the field for days and still be effective - a little more care would do wonders. To operate out in field in prolong period is possible with scope . Your experience is due to you being issue very used handme down SAR-21 !!! You have to cater some allowance for its not perfect for its worn out condition - no due to the weapon design or effectiveness. If everything is based on performance of worn out rifles - then nothing out there will work ... beside the old iron sights !!!
-
In real life - sad to say not everything is perfect, that you go to your camp draw out your personal weapon ... ?
In real if there is a war - we must imagine the worst scenerio - which your camp would be in rubbles and your personal weapon gone ! You may be issue with a brand new factory zero and start the fight without even time to go to range. Yes the factory setting may not last - if it just last 3 days - for you to kick some ass - you can count your blessing already.Yawn, this is a true blue lionnoisy "what if tomorrow anytime, anyday go to war" kind of argument. The same kind of logical fallacy that allows "you to run for yr life" carrying the SAR-21 in one hand.
You are coming up with an arbitary, and random "worse scenerio" without accounting for the likelyhood of such an event and the percieved advantages of having something to prepare for it.
Basically if I want to imagine the worst case scenerio, it would be something more severe then lacking a personal weapon and having to find a new one. Zeroing a weapon is hardly a difficult task even in field conditions. If I have to go to ops with a fresh weapon that magically appears from nowhere and everything in chaos chances are we are pretty screwed to begin with.
What is difficult and something harder to deal with is how to fight at night when you can't use anything but a non-tactical LAD.
So let me point out.
Likelyhood of losing your personal weapon in war (meaning sneak attack by enemy on local camp with also means Singapore is pretty screwed): not very high.
Likelyhood of finding the SAR-21 poor night fighting abilities a problem in combat: very high.
So after advertising so much about "factory zero" which one is the bigger and more likely issue?
The whole issue on factory zero is to cut down on range time zeroing, but as I would point out ST hardly makes it with the intention of going to war with factory zero, nor is it even a unique feature- practically all modern firearms come out of the factory with a default factory zero.
So what advantage does it give again? Nothing.
Do you walk around with a lighting rod on your head all time time?
Your experience is due to you being issue very used handme down SAR-21 !!! You have to cater some allowance for its not perfect for its worn out condition - no due to the weapon design or effectiveness. If everything is based on performance of worn out rifles - then nothing out there will work ... beside the old iron sights !!!
So you are saying our SAR-21 features don't work once it gets even slightly used which is disturbing considering some of our good working M-16s have be in service nearly TWICE the total service length of the SAR-21 itself. This is very disturbing indeed...
You are trying to argue for a small, and relatively irrelevant design feature over larger operational issues... great, so much for helicopter vision.
LOL, you're owning yourself bad.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
If I have to go to ops with a fresh weapon that magically appears from nowhere and everything in chaos chances are we are pretty screwed to begin with.
So you are saying our SAR-21 features don't work once it gets even slightly used which is disturbing considering some of our good working M-16s have be in service nearly TWICE the total service length of the SAR-21 itself. This is very disturbing indeed...
You are trying to argue for a small, and relatively irrelevant design feature over larger operational issues... great, so much for helicopter vision.
LOL, you're owning yourself bad.
Are we pretty screwed - ask Mas Selmat - he will tell you how SAF comb the whole singapore for him - he have the answer of this question for you !
Due to out small island and lack of depth in our defense - if there is a war - we be hit - just how badly ... ? I kind of wonder what make you so sure where your SAR-21 is kept will never be hit ?
If we have to fight a war we are screwed !!! If you can get a hand on a brand new SAR-21 in the middle of the chao - god is kind to you !!!
I didn't say that sar-21 features don't work once it gets even slightly used. You are the one that twisting words again to say that.
Are you sure your SAR-21 is just slightly used. LOL i doubt so !!!
Is it fair to compare a scope on SAr-21 to m16 iron sight - why don't you compare Sar-21 to M16 with scope ! We have M16 that been mounted scope - we should have issue you that - think you will not scream on SAR-21 any more .
You want to compare then compare iron sight of SAR-21 to iron sight of M16 ?So you telling me your handme down SAR-21 features don't work once it gets even slightly used. - good think we now know the problem is you !
-
By the way Mark V and Mark IV are even more lasting then M16 - base on the theory - we should issue them to you instead !!!
