SAR21: World's No 3 in high tech weapon (MyPaper 25/07)
-
No 3 in next gen of high tech weapons for soldiers
No 1: Scar-Light (FNH US) {USA}
No 2: XM-25 (Alliance Techsystems) {USA}
No 3: SAR-21 (ST Kinectics) {Singapore}
No 4: Corner Short Launcher (Corner Short & Dyanamit Nobel Defence) {Israel & Germany resp}
No 5: FMG9 Folding Machine Gun (Magpul Industries) {USA}
Ranked by: Popular Mechanics
Source: MyPaper 25/07/08 Pg A4
-
who ranked them?
-
Perhaps the more pertinent question should be: What criteria were used in determining the ranking?
Unless I am missing something obvious in the article on PM's website (linked here), there is no mention of the methodology and/or criteria used in selecting and ranking the rifles on the "Top 5" list, other than an indication in the preforatory blurb that the rifles "...are the most innovative systems currently in development--or already on the battlefield." How is innovativeness defined and measured in a product? -
I think MG has a pt
I've relooked at e article
It could have been misinterpreted with the list of 5 as being ranked
-
The article is only half right.
The SAR-21 FAMILY of rifles are indeed very very good. Especially the NEWER and lighter modular version.
The SAR-21 Vanilla that the infantry guys get... well... forget it lar.
-
I certainly would not object if someone graciously offered to donate a brand new SAR-21 to add to my collection.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
The article is only half right.
The SAR-21 FAMILY of rifles are indeed very very good. Especially the NEWER and lighter modular version.
The SAR-21 Vanilla that the infantry guys get... well... forget it lar.
I would use a SAR MMS or the like anyday, but yeah, the basic version that is much-debated about in here is a sad piece of ST making a lot of cool stuff, but the grunts getting the bottom of the barrel with a certain "officer" trying convincing them it is enough.
But SAR-21 more innovative then FN2000 or Tavor?...
Hmm that's a good one.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I would use a SAR MMS or the like anyday, but yeah, the basic version that is much-debated about in here is a sad piece of ST making a lot of cool stuff, but the grunts getting the bottom of the barrel with a certain "officer" trying convincing them it is enough.
But SAR-21 more innovative then FN2000 or Tavor?...
Hmm that's a good one.
just because some "self called grunt" cannot shoot with basic SAR-21 while a lot of other can - does not mean it is a sad piece !
-
i don't really know. I was fine with the AR-15, and i don't really have any complaints about the SAR. I'm not saying i'm a crack shot, but i guess the old adage applies.
"A lousy carpenter blames his tools"
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
just because some "self called grunt" cannot shoot with basic SAR-21 while a lot of other can - does not mean it is a sad piece !
Actually I shoot pretty well with the basic SAR-21, but you are not adressing the point, and the point is not my range abilities (which are okay), but the fact that comparable firearms have sights that are far more advanced and afford more options and advantages to the user.
But it's not surprising, given your basic logic is:
1) Any small point that is good about the SAR-21, blow it up out of it's actual utility in reason and logic.
2)When anybody raises a negative point about the SAR-21 (ie. it's primitive scope), dismiss them as weak soldiers who cannot fight with it.
In fact, lets do the math. The average shooter, using a previous generation M16 with ACOG on P-rail will get better MOAs and pks on the target at range then he or she can on the SAR-21 basic.
Futher more, the low light performance of the ACOG due to it's fiber optics exceeds that of the SAR-21, which basically becomes useless at night and making the soldier rely on his very untactical LAD for night fighting.
The advantages of the LAD is that it allows us to take shots without have to get a butt-wield and sight picture, this allows us to take shots from positions previously impossible... however, to rely soley on the LAD (in visible light no less) for night fighting is a very weak point of the SAR-21 basic, given using it raises up it's own disadvantages.
-
the only good thing i like about SAR21 is the sling...I love the sling
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Actually I shoot pretty well with the basic SAR-21, but you are not adressing the point, and the point is not my range abilities (which are okay), but the fact that comparable firearms have sights that are far more advanced and afford more options and advantages to the user.
But it's not surprising, given your basic logic is:
1) Any small point that is good about the SAR-21, blow it up out of it's actual utility in reason and logic.
2)When anybody raises a negative point about the SAR-21 (ie. it's primitive scope), dismiss them as weak soldiers who cannot fight with it.
In fact, lets do the math. The average shooter, using a previous generation M16 with ACOG on P-rail will get better MOAs and pks on the target at range then he or she can on the SAR-21 basic.
Futher more, the low light performance of the ACOG due to it's fiber optics exceeds that of the SAR-21, which basically becomes useless at night and making the soldier rely on his very untactical LAD for night fighting.
The advantages of the LAD is that it allows us to take shots without have to get a butt-wield and sight picture, this allows us to take shots from positions previously impossible... however, to rely soley on the LAD (in visible light no less) for night fighting is a very weak point of the SAR-21 basic, given using it raises up it's own disadvantages.
I am addressing the point ! I am just being fair.
If you say you can shoot pretty well with a basic SAR-21 - that the point - it does perform well as a basic infantry rifle as what it is design for - cheap and good = Yes.
You say compare to other comparable firearms - their sights is more advance ? Are you comparing the basic version of them to SAR-21 or the add-on versions ? if you want add on version then take the p-rail version of SAR-21 to compare. M16 with p-rail with ACOG is not the plain version !!!
You yourself have prove that with primitive scope you shoot well. Not every army is like US army - which afford p-rails, most of them just take the basic version.
-
Well, why make do with less ?
The US Army, combined with excellent training outshoots and outhits everyone else using M16s and M4s with P rails and scopes.
I say replace SAR21 scopes with optics like ACOGs for all front line combat units. If you were on the front line, wud'nt you want this ability to drop the enemy most of the time ? For the cost of one F15SG , you can equip the whole Singapore army with ACOGs or similar.
-
if only SAR 21 can fit on the tritanium sights
plus can get those off the shelves scopes...
i can say that SAR21 is a very nice weapon to use!!
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
The US Army, combined with excellent training outshoots and outhits everyone else using M16s and M4s with P rails and scopes.
I wouldn't be too sure about that-- I have heard differently.
-
If you say you can shoot pretty well with a basic SAR-21 - that the point - it does perform well as a basic infantry rifle as what it is design for - cheap and good = Yes.
Nobody said that the SAR-21 can't peform well as a basic infantry rifle, we are just pointing out from our experience with it that it leaves much to be desired, and certainly does not deserve much of the bragging rights that ST tries to claim for it.
In any case, I'll still take it any day over the M-16S1, but I'll dump the basic SAR-21 anyday for an advanced variant of it.
You say compare to other comparable firearms - their sights is more advance ? Are you comparing the basic version of them to SAR-21 or the add-on versions ? if you want add on version then take the p-rail version of SAR-21 to compare. M16 with p-rail with ACOG is not the plain version !!!
The point is then, why is the SAF not using that variant? Hmmm. It's certainly not because they don't have the means.
I have no argument with the MMS or P-Rail SAR, or even the LW Carbine which comes with better sights, the problem seems to be that you can't seem to accept the fact that the SAF is not making full use of the SAR-21 and trying to argue instead that what we have now is the best that it can be.
And don't try to dodge your old arguments, in the Tavor thread you argued yourself blue (and lost badly) trying to argue that the basic SAR-21 sighting solution was superior to MMS systems like P-rail. I remember you ran through a lot of bizzare arguments like "those who cannot shoot with 1.5X are weak", or that "1.5x is more reliable then modular systems" and what have you not.
You yourself have prove that with primitive scope you shoot well. Not every army is like US army - which afford p-rails, most of them just take the basic version.
How much of our GDP do we spend on defence?
Are you telling me that we can sell better versions of the SAR to other users who actually spend LESS then our nation on the military but can't afford to equip our own troops with it?
The basic thing I see, is not that the SAF is short of cash or anything, but simply because it's a big case of wayang to me. Nobody want's to rock the boat to make any huge improvements to the basic SAR the SAF grunt gets because nobody is really going to make a lot of money for ST from doing that as well the SAF being too lazy to implement something like retraining and retooling to get our grunts to shoot with better stuff.
But in the meantime, the SAF grunt is using a weapon that is becoming slowly outdated in the modern arms market. He is limited to using a 1.5x scope that has no proper night fighting abilities leaving him to rely on a very untactical LAD to achieve that end.
-
Originally posted by edwin3060:
I wouldn't be too sure about that-- I have heard differently.
It's probably the US marines who do that, given their marksmanship requirements are a lot stricter.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I have no argument with the MMS or P-Rail SAR, or even the LW Carbine which comes with better sights, the problem seems to be that you can't seem to accept the fact that the SAF is not making full use of the SAR-21 and trying to argue instead that what we have now is the best that it can be.
I will suggest that it is better not to spend the kind of money for the fancy EOtech or Aimpoint etc sights.They will be better off going for the tritium reticles on the baseline 1.5x sight and perhaps also include the bullet compensator as seen in the ACOG for better accuracy at longer distance.Upgrading the 1.5x sights with tritium reticles and the compensator will be a cheaper and effective option as compare to getting new sights COTS while at the same time having the need to through the trouble of changing our weapon mainstay to a new variant with the rails and also to include a new logistic chain for our boys just for that new sight.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
I will suggest that it is better not to spend the kind of money for the fancy EOtech or Aimpoint etc sights.They will be better off going for the tritium reticles on the baseline 1.5x sight and perhaps also include the bullet compensator as seen in the ACOG for better accuracy at longer distance.Upgrading the 1.5x sights with tritium reticles and the compensator will be a cheaper and effective option as compare to getting new sights COTS while at the same time having the need to through the trouble of changing our weapon mainstay to a new variant with the rails and also to include a new logistic chain for our boys just for that new sight.
Pretty much my wishlist if the SAF is somehow too cheap to do this despite being able to buy several F-15SGs and our neighbours like Thailand being able to implement this on the SAR-21s we sell them..But in any case the basic sights as they are now leave MUCH to be desired.