M-16 or SAR-21
-
I prefer M-16...SAR-21 sucksss
-
i prefer m16. but sar 21 has quite alot of merits too.Originally posted by LoVeMeLoVeMenOt:I prefer M-16...SAR-21 sucksss -
M16S1
Easy to maintain and easy to get marksman
-
u went for ur btp liao?Originally posted by Master -_-:M16S1
Easy to maintain and easy to get marksman -
yupOriginally posted by wuming78:u went for ur btp liao?
-
wow. tts so early, considering u enlisted not long ago. got marksman?Originally posted by Master -_-:yup
anyway bmt u all never get to learn sar21 rite? -
m16 is good and easy to use,but sar21 is not bad too,it still need time to improve.........
-
Carbine is the best. SAR21 is around 4.7kg while M16 is around 2.7kg. As a riflemen, the lighter the better, as a person interested in gadgetry, SAR21 has more function.
-
but carbine is not as accurate.Originally posted by jacobs:Carbine is the best. SAR21 is around 4.7kg while M16 is around 2.7kg. As a riflemen, the lighter the better, as a person interested in gadgetry, SAR21 has more function.
m16 is like a vintage wine, versatile and reliable.
-
But the effective range of the carbine has been reduced due to its short barrel...Originally posted by jacobs:Carbine is the best. SAR21 is around 4.7kg while M16 is around 2.7kg. As a riflemen, the lighter the better, as a person interested in gadgetry, SAR21 has more function.
Not quite suitable for an infantry soldier due to certain operations needs to engage targets thats are more than 200 meters.
Although SAR21 is shorter than M16 but its maintains the some barrel lenght and plus some modification in the barrel groove line. Its actually increase the effective range compare to the M16.
The only problem is that... SAR21 gets heat up much faster than M16, hence it can be a problem after firing more than 4 magazines continuously. -
Yup, i said for riflemen the lighter the better. We would have greater fire power if everyone carrys gpmg like the americans. But by the time we reach the objectives..... erm.. not even sure we'll reach the objective...Originally posted by wuming78:but carbine is not as accurate.
m16 is like a vintage wine, versatile and reliable.
-
Erm, many of the posts here show a lack of understanding of the way things truly are.
For starters, the SAR-21 is actually marginally lighter then the M-16. It weights 3.98kg while the M-16 is 4.06. I dunno where you got the 2kg plus weight for the M-16 but it's quite off.
Also, better balance and egronomics make the SAR-21 easier to handle and shoot. It is far more reliable, hardly IAs, and breaks down into two main modules in the field within 12 seconds for cleaning, try that with your M-16.
Also, there is far less cleaning with the SAR, construction is polymer for most of the rifle, hence problems with corrosion is far less then the M-16. The SAR is also far more durable and can be slammed several times onto hard concrete and still function. Try that with your M-16 again!
Also, once you learn how to use the 1.5x sight, SAR-21 is far, far easier to shoot then the M-16. As a matter of fact, rate of W.O kings dropped dramatically when shooting the SAR, opposed the M-16 iron sighting.
In conclusion, the SAR actually proves to be generally a superior infantry weapon to the M-16, it seems that most of the bad press about it comes from people who have not had much experience with the rifle and those who are deeply engrained in viewing the world of weapons through the M-16 mindset.
If anything, the M-16 has had the history of being one of the lest reliable and most hated firearms when it was first introduced, go figure those who can't sleep without it. The SAR is clearly superior. -
Ermm, SAR21 is 4kg and M16S1 is around 2.7kg. I have an infantry manual book and i have to learn all the specs just in case we are tested by those guys who activate you during standby. Wonder where you get your 4.06kg for M16 really....? By the way, i have handled both weapons before, 6 weeks for M16. And sometimes i uses SAR21 for live firing, outfield and range. Where did you get the 4.06kg really? For it certainly feel really lighter than SAR21.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Erm, many of the posts here show a lack of understanding of the way things truly are.
For starters, the SAR-21 is actually marginally lighter then the M-16. It weights 3.98kg while the M-16 is 4.06. I dunno where you got the 2kg plus weight for the M-16 but it's quite off.
Also, better balance and egronomics make the SAR-21 easier to handle and shoot. It is far more reliable, hardly IAs, and breaks down into two main modules in the field within 12 seconds for cleaning, try that with your M-16.
Also, there is far less cleaning with the SAR, construction is polymer for most of the rifle, hence problems with corrosion is far less then the M-16. The SAR is also far more durable and can be slammed several times onto hard concrete and still function. Try that with your M-16 again!
Also, once you learn how to use the 1.5x sight, SAR-21 is far, far easier to shoot then the M-16. As a matter of fact, rate of W.O kings dropped dramatically when shooting the SAR, opposed the M-16 iron sighting.
In conclusion, the SAR actually proves to be generally a superior infantry weapon to the M-16, it seems that most of the bad press about it comes from people who have not had much experience with the rifle and those who are deeply engrained in viewing the world of weapons through the M-16 mindset.
If anything, the M-16 has had the history of being one of the lest reliable and most hated firearms when it was first introduced, go figure those who can't sleep without it. The SAR is clearly superior.
After using SAR21 for over a year and feedbacks of it's pros and cons from my bunkmate who use it i can share with you specifically if you want. Just let me know k? -
you got try before?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Erm, many of the posts here show a lack of understanding of the way things truly are.
For starters, the SAR-21 is actually marginally lighter then the M-16. It weights 3.98kg while the M-16 is 4.06. I dunno where you got the 2kg plus weight for the M-16 but it's quite off.
Also, better balance and egronomics make the SAR-21 easier to handle and shoot. It is far more reliable, hardly IAs, and breaks down into two main modules in the field within 12 seconds for cleaning, try that with your M-16.
Also, there is far less cleaning with the SAR, construction is polymer for most of the rifle, hence problems with corrosion is far less then the M-16. The SAR is also far more durable and can be slammed several times onto hard concrete and still function. Try that with your M-16 again!
Also, once you learn how to use the 1.5x sight, SAR-21 is far, far easier to shoot then the M-16. As a matter of fact, rate of W.O kings dropped dramatically when shooting the SAR, opposed the M-16 iron sighting.
In conclusion, the SAR actually proves to be generally a superior infantry weapon to the M-16, it seems that most of the bad press about it comes from people who have not had much experience with the rifle and those who are deeply engrained in viewing the world of weapons through the M-16 mindset.
If anything, the M-16 has had the history of being one of the lest reliable and most hated firearms when it was first introduced, go figure those who can't sleep without it. The SAR is clearly superior. -
errrrrrrrr u serve NS before? OR do u really handle both weapons before?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Erm, many of the posts here show a lack of understanding of the way things truly are.
For starters, the SAR-21 is actually marginally lighter then the M-16. It weights 3.98kg while the M-16 is 4.06. I dunno where you got the 2kg plus weight for the M-16 but it's quite off.
Also, better balance and egronomics make the SAR-21 easier to handle and shoot. It is far more reliable, hardly IAs, and breaks down into two main modules in the field within 12 seconds for cleaning, try that with your M-16.
Also, there is far less cleaning with the SAR, construction is polymer for most of the rifle, hence problems with corrosion is far less then the M-16. The SAR is also far more durable and can be slammed several times onto hard concrete and still function. Try that with your M-16 again!
Also, once you learn how to use the 1.5x sight, SAR-21 is far, far easier to shoot then the M-16. As a matter of fact, rate of W.O kings dropped dramatically when shooting the SAR, opposed the M-16 iron sighting.
In conclusion, the SAR actually proves to be generally a superior infantry weapon to the M-16, it seems that most of the bad press about it comes from people who have not had much experience with the rifle and those who are deeply engrained in viewing the world of weapons through the M-16 mindset.
If anything, the M-16 has had the history of being one of the lest reliable and most hated firearms when it was first introduced, go figure those who can't sleep without it. The SAR is clearly superior.
-
Sorry, but your handbook appears to be way off. Load your M-16 up to combat weight, and stick it on a weighting machine. The M-16 weights a good 8.79 pounds, or 3.99 kilos. That's not counting the bayonet attatchment and other combat acessories that would might like to stick on it.
2.7 kilos? Not very likely unless you are using some special version that is made of high tech lightweight polymers. The actual weight of the SAR-21 versus M-16 differs depending on the acessories you stick on it, but the offical stats in are that an SAR-21 should be marginally lighter. Have you considered that your experience of a heavier SAR could be due to it's more centric CG which makes it feel heaiver to those M-16 shooters who are used to the forward balance of the M-16? It seems that way.
If you have been shooting poorer on the SAR-21, it's probably because you have been applying your M-16 shooting techniques to the bullpup, or are simply too ingrained to the M-16 that any reaction to the SAR is that of a kneejerk reaction that tends to spot flaws with the weapon, rather then actually getting down to learn to shoot the weapon properly.
If you ask me, I prefer a weapon that's more accucrate, durable and most importantly, reliable and does not IA in battle after having being through mud, water, sand and dust, and at the same time not having to be constantly taken care of everyday and still preform. I'm afraid the M-16 doesn't quite cut that, but the SAR does pretty well. -
SAR-21 is 3.82kg unloaded but 4.44kg with 30rds plus mag.Originally posted by jacobs:Ermm, SAR21 is 4kg and M16S1 is around 2.7kg. I have an infantry manual book and i have to learn all the specs just in case we are tested by those guys who activate you during standby. Wonder where you get your 4.06kg for M16 really....? By the way, i have handled both weapons before, 6 weeks for M16. And sometimes i uses SAR21 for live firing, outfield and range. Where did you get the 4.06kg really? For it certainly feel really lighter than SAR21.
After using SAR21 for over a year and feedbacks of it's pros and cons from my bunkmate who use it i can share with you specifically if you want. Just let me know k?
The M16A1(same as our S1?) is 2.89kg empty and 3.6kg with 30rds and mag
M16A2 is 3.77kg empty and 4.47kg with 30rds and mag
Btw curious to know....ST have you fired both of them before?If yes what are your personal experience and preference on both? -
Bah, I tot you were refering to the M16A2, which is a bit heavier but by any standards the definative M-16 variant in terms of reliability, accuracy and other nick nacks.
Yes, the SAR-21 is heavier then our little S1, but that's mainly due to the inclusion of a no parallax 1.5x scope and the LAM, which in my opinion, is a good trade in for combat effectiveness. Esp. when the marginal increase in weight means that shooting becomes a lot more accucrate.
Yes I handled both weapons before and snapped off enough shots to know that the SAR-21's reputation as a "failure" is more due to ignorance and M-16 worship syndrome then actual preformance. And of course, I do have a guards friend which has extensive experience with both weapons to make an impartial choice about them.
I like the weapon for the fact it rarely IAs (and you can adjust the gas tap selector), and you don't have to worry about parallax and sight pictures to snap your targets down. Pratice is what you need to get used to the SAR-21 shooting method, not shoot a few rounds, note how different it is from the M16, and get irrated.
In the end, it's the concept of the assualt rifle that that produces projectiles and makes it easy to direct these projectiles at a target while making sure it does survive field abuse and conditions that matters. Not what emotional attatchment we actually feel with a vintage weapon. Sadly, it's not surprising that most soldiers tend to stick with what they know, and not actually exporing new possibilties with other weapons.
It's strange how many grunts tend to view the SAR-21 through the M-16 yardstick, which is a strange one for an assualt rifle, for the M-16 is a fragile, unreliable and complicated one as assualt rifles go in history. Somehow the fact that the SAR-21 is far more reliable, accucrate, well balanced, durable, idiot-proof and loaded with features that the M-16 can only emulate at far greater modification and cost, is conviently glossed over by many soldiers who insist on sticking with their M-16, which by any standards, is a poor and rapidly obsolent weapon.
Comparing the M-16 with the SAR-21 is prehaps akin to comparing an M-60 Patton with an Abrams tank. I doubt many grunts actually gave the SAR-21 an fair trail.
If weight is an issue, go grab an MP-5 submachine gun and jump into battle.
Amazingly, many of the same people argue against using body armour as it is way too heavy esp when stats show that wearing body armour can cut fatalities and casuties in battle by up to 70 percent! Just because it's too heavy. I pity the army that is obessive about cutting weight to the point of sacrificing actual effectiveness. -
Hmm.......ok so what do you have to say from that firing experience abt both the rifles?Like give the difference and stuff.
-
M16:
-Lighter at around 2.7kg.
-Simple.
-War-proven.
-Have the same range as SAR21.
-Weight is well-distributed.
SAR21:
-Not easy to get rusty.
-Higher accuracy in the day.
-Shorter, gd for BUA fighting.
On their cons, the M16 rust easily. I haven't had a chance to bring it out for many outfields. So i can't say much about it's bad points.
I have some bad things to share regarding SAR21, not to bring down it's name. SAR21 doesn't really withstand knocks well as in the laser aiming device often comes loose. It would be best if they weld it. The scope can get dirty and you have to use optic cloth to clean it, nothing else. It is also difficult to hit the target at 300m in the night without using LAD and at range for marksmen, you are not allowed to. Cleaning the SAR21 proves dangerous as some plastics are pretty sharp. Share more when i come back.... going out. -
My friend who just ORD say he like cleaning the SAR-21 better.....said it was ALOT easier.But he also said the iron sight for the SAR-21 aint worth shit though the scope is extremely usefulOriginally posted by jacobs:M16:
-Lighter at around 2.7kg.
-Simple.
-War-proven.
-Have the same range as SAR21.
-Weight is well-distributed.
SAR21:
-Not easy to get rusty.
-Higher accuracy in the day.
-Shorter, gd for BUA fighting.
On their cons, the M16 rust easily. I haven't had a chance to bring it out for many outfields. So i can't say much about it's bad points.
I have some bad things to share regarding SAR21, not to bring down it's name. SAR21 doesn't really withstand knocks well as in the laser aiming device often comes loose. It would be best if they weld it. The scope can get dirty and you have to use optic cloth to clean it, nothing else. It is also difficult to hit the target at 300m in the night without using LAD and at range for marksmen, you are not allowed to. Cleaning the SAR21 proves dangerous as some plastics are pretty sharp. Share more when i come back.... going out. -
yup yup... wat u said are all true.Originally posted by |-|05|:My friend who just ORD say he like cleaning the SAR-21 better.....said it was ALOT easier.But he also said the iron sight for the SAR-21 aint worth shit though the scope is extremely useful
but i guess we shud compare apple wif apple. a m16s1 + LAD + SSS wil definitely be heavier than sar21 wich has everything built in for one.
the max eff range of m16 is 460 while tt for sar21 is 400.
the bull pup design makes the sar 21 more compact and shorter and hence easier to carry and use than the m16
m16 rusts much more easily than sar21, and sar21 easier to clean.
...
in the end each wpn has its pros and cons.
but y did saf choose to move towards sar21? cos times are changing and it suits the likely battlefield more, e.g. fixed LAD, fixed SSS.
alot of ppl, myself included, still prefer the m16. but perhaps as mentioned, its cos we haven had as much chance to use the sar21. and in the end, we haven used either for ops yet - the sar21 is used in very much the same kind of ex and trg as the m16 has been.
but i think we all agree for one, the LAD has made aiming frm far, at the dark, much easier. how convenient!
so i guess to be fair, we shud give sar21 more time to be used b4 we make a comparison. -
Originally posted by jacobs:
Erm, as international AR standards go, the M16 isn't a simple rifle, in terms of operating principle. Want a simple rifle? Go look at an AK-47. The SAR-21's inner works are actually far simpler then the M16, and the rifle strips into much less parts which are easier to take apart and put together. In terms of pratical field complexity, meaning the complex tasks you have to preform to strip or clean the rifle, the SAR is certainly far easier to handle then the M16.
M16:
-Lighter at around 2.7kg.
-Simple.
In war, a reliable and idiot proof weapon can be want makes the difference between life and death.
Ahem, the M16's track record has been very troubled, by any means. In vietnam the thing was hated to the core when it was first introduced, it jammed like crazy, fouled and was poor in bad conditions. The M16's reliability is a sad footnote in history as one of the most unreliable infantry firearms ever produced.
-War-proven.
-Have the same range as SAR21.
-Weight is well-distributed.
Consquent versions improved on this defect, and though it is far better then in the vietnam, any grunt can tell you this rifle is still a tempremental one that requires a lot of attention to keep it going. In war, you may not have the chance to be so nice to it. The only reason the SAS decided to use this over the SA80 was because that piece of British junk was even worse then the M16.
The maximum effective range of the SAR-21 is actually more then the M16. The longer redesigned barrel allows it to hurl projectiles a bit faster and further.
As for weight is well distributed, I'm afraid you have not shot many firearms to know what this means. In terms of egronomics, the M16 is very primitive. You want to experience good weight distribution? Try your hand at an MP5.
If anything, the M16's weight is forward heavy, as opposed to the centralized CG of the SAR-21. Leaverage plays a larger role in egronomics then sheer weight. This means that despite being lighter in weight, it is actually harder to handle and aim the M16 as it requires quite a bit more strength and cordination from the left hand.
I don't think many modern rifles are made to be front heavy like the M16. The general theory now is that either centralized CG (sar-21) or rear weighted rifles (TAR-21) are easier to point index and use.
Centralized CG allows the SAR-21 to be easily held and fired one handed, if need be. By focusing the weight onto the right hand, the left hand is left with far less weight to adjust and aim the rifle, allowing quicker snap point indexing and easier aiming.
The reliability of the SAR-21 is certainly far in excess that of the M16.
SAR21:
-Not easy to get rusty.
-Higher accuracy in the day.
-Shorter, gd for BUA fighting.
Ahem, this is certainly not true. You can slam the rifle to the ground a few times and find that it still works prefectly and that was demostrated. The SAR-21 has been engineered to be far tougher then the M16. Unless you want to argue that the M16 can be abused as hard as the SAR21, I doubt "it dosen't really wistand knocks well" really holds up.
I have some bad things to share regarding SAR21, not to bring down it's name. SAR21 doesn't really withstand knocks well as in the laser aiming device often comes loose.
I think it would be prudent to readjust the LAD after it has been knocked loose, there's no going around it.
The thing now is, the generally mentality going around SAF circles from what I gathered, is that they are treating the SAR with a galss rifle mentality not because it is fragile, but because the rifle is new and they don't like the idea of abusing it too soon.
That's the thing with all optic scopes, but considering it eliminates parallax error, it's a good trade. And you shouldn't be complainting about sharp plastics as this feature will be probably that could safe your life considering they are a large part of the reason why the SAR-21 is so tough and reliable.
It would be best if they weld it. The scope can get dirty and you have to use optic cloth to clean it, nothing else. It is also difficult to hit the target at 300m in the night without using LAD and at range for marksmen, you are not allowed to. Cleaning the SAR21 proves dangerous as some plastics are pretty sharp. Share more when i come back.... going out. [/b]
My only gripes with that thing is that they could include regular iron sights above the scope instead of the ridiculus knobs, and a better safety fire selector position. Other then that, the rifle is an excellent piece of work. -
You must be from DSTA....... I am the first batch to use SAR21 for my unit, and after using it for so many exercises, training, etc.... the laser aiming really comes loose after some knocks. Secondly, the sharp edges is internal plastic's edges, not really crucial parts. About the LAD again, have you tried before at 300m range? can't find the red dot at all when i aimed squarely on the target. The rifle sadly isn't idiot proof too.... the safety catch has no indication with two colours, think have to squeeze trigger to try? if is on fire mode, you will misfire. It's a gd package, but please, it has things to refine, like what i have stated. By the way, the SAR21 is heavier at the front because of the LAD.
-
Ahh.... i'm not an arms specialist or whatever. However, i'm able to tell the weight differences. If i can't convince you that M16S1's weight is well-distributed compared to SAR21, please drop by any unit using SAR21 and ask them one qns, " is the front of SAR21 heavier than the rear? " thanks