Replacement for SAW?
-
My 2 cents...
What is the role of a Section Assault Weapon?
• static automatic fire in support of assault/defence
• mobile automatic fire during assault
• conduct patrols
• conduct recce
• perform OP
• set up ambush
In these situations, the Section has to have strong automatic firepower and yet be highly mobile and be able to bug out quickly if things go wrong.
During WW1, the concept of SAW was born with infantry using mag-fed LMG like the Lewis, Chauchat as light support MGÂ’s and also as mobile automatic fire during the assault phase.
During WW2, famous LMG like the British Bren, Russian DPM and US BAR were used extensively and successfully in the SAW role. They were all mag-fed automatic weapons designed on the outset as a LMG.
Interestingly enough, the Germans concentrated on developing belt-fed MG-34 and MG-42 GPMG instead and had no real mag-fed LMG other than those they captured. Of course they later came up with 2 full-auto capable assault rifles the MP-43 and the FG-42.
The whole world today still cannot agree on what is the best system for a SAW. The only thing that is universal is that the SAW uses the same caliber ammo as the basic assault rifle. -
Roughly, there are 3 general types being used for the role of SAW today:
• Option ONE
This is an “upgunned” version of the basic assault rifle. Usually the barrel is heavier and longer and a bipod is added. It is also usually converted to fire from the open bolt.
Examples in use are the British LSW, which is a “heavy version” SA-80. Another is the RPK, “heavy version” of the AK. Both use box magazines of about 30 to 40 rounds. Another is the M-16HBAR.
The advantage of this system is the lightweight compared to other SAWs and the ease of training as it is basically the same weapon as the basic assault rifle.
The disadvantage is the small ammo capacity. 30 to 40 rounds on bursts or full-auto is not much firepower. The gunner will be changing mags so often he will be quite ineffective. And especially if the design is a bull-pup like the SA-80 or SAR-21, changing mags while prone on bipod must be quite difficult, I imagine.
• Option TWO
This is a dedicated belt-feed LMG design that (mostly) has magazine-feed as an option. Examples are plenty with the most famous being the Minimi, Negev etc.
This concept is different from the Option ONE as this is basically a “scaled down” GPMG as opposed to a “scaled up” assault rifle.
Belt feed offers great firepower as you can have a belt of 200 rounds on the weapon on the static support role. For the assault role the belted ammo comes in convenient canvas pouches that prevents snagging or ammo becoming dirty.
The disadvantage is that in the assault role, the weight here is heavier and reloading a belt under fire can be quite tricky.
The “combo-drive” of mag and belt feed is unbeatable, though. -
• Option THREE
This is a dedicated magazine-feed LMG in the tradition of the old greats like the Bren, BAR, DPM, Lewis etc. It is not an adaptation of an assault rifle or belt-feed GPMG etc but designed as a LMG from day one.
Although the mag-fed LMG was very popular in both world wars, today this is not the case. I only know of one example in use today and thatÂ’s the Ultimax. Nearly every modern LMG design is dual belt/mag feed like the Minimi, Negev or just belt-feed like the CETME Ameli.
The Ultimax had been sold (in not very big numbers) to many countries like Croatia, Indonesia and Philippines and has a 100-round drum magazine. The Ultimax as we all know is a very lightweight LMG that fires from the open-bolt and is allegedly very accurate.
The apparent advantage over Option ONE (eg SA-80) is of course the big firepower with the 100-round drum.
The apparent advantage over Option TWO (eg Minimi) is the lighter weight and maneuverability and ease of mag-feeding. -
I started out thinking the Ultimax is the B.E.S.T. SAW and the 100-round drum superior to any other systems.
But the advantage of the drum is highly questionable. Not only are they supposed to be prone to jamming, a fully-loaded drum was allegedly prone to sometimes “fall out”.
And since you need to load the drums with special equipment, logistically it is not a great advantage over belts as QM still has to separately supply SAW gunners with pre-loaded drums on top of the riflemen.
WhatÂ’s more, the drums when empty are not that lightweight. I imagine the drums are also pretty expensive items. So after firing off your drum ammo you would still be carrying the empty drums with you everywhere you go.
The metal links of belt ammo, on the other hand, are cheap, light and expendable. After firing the belts, you are home free, no heavy empty drums to carry around.
How reliable is the drum is NOT something I know as on the several occasions I fired live rounds on the Ultimax I used the 30-round mags. The drums must be pretty delicate and thatÂ’s why SAF doesnÂ’t supply them for training. I was firing only short bursts but one stoppage occurred and the cause was bad feeding and the round was jammed so badly the instructors took 20-mins to pry the cartridge out.
Accurate? My reservist unit had to fake the test results of the SAW gunners everytime as they couldnÂ’t apparently, hit the broad side of the barn, so to speak. It is possible that all the SAW gunners in my unit are Bobo Kings but it is also possible that the accuracy of the Ultimax is not what everyone claim that it is. I once shot very short bursts and it was quite accurate. But during range the gunners fired slightly longer bursts and all the shots went wide off the mark.
Furthermore, the Ultimax seems to be very flimsily constructed. The weakest areas are the butt/receiver joint and the cocking handle. The receiver also looks very flimsy.
Despite its shortcomings, I will still trust a Ultimax with a 30-roung mag than a SAR-21 SAW. But I do believe the Ultimax is obsolete and they should definitely redesign it to dual belt/mag-feed.
My personal opinion only. -
maybe your guys SAWs were not zeroed properly ? My company's men SAW were zeroed properly, and some of them managed to literally cut the target up into half using a 30 rnd magazine..okay the target board was pretty beaten, but then ...it was cut into half still...
I never used a drum magazine during excercise,and the size and the bulk must be pretty unweldy in my opinion. to redesign the SAW into a belt fedweapon it can be done, it will be done to watch the poor gunner scopping up all the belt links -
Saw is better them all of them in weight, accurate, range. One must look at it like the classical Bren gun, with 30 round magazine for accurate controll rate of fire, and uses magazine for mobility. It also control the rate the troops expands their round.Originally posted by fudgester:Wow... ok.... I didn't know that such a SAW existed.....
But comparing the other system specs (weight, length, recoil, etc), how does the Negev fare against the Ultimax?
When in action, with a belt or 100 round magzaine, the gunner may just fail to estimate and control his firing to burst. But with the 30 rounds mag, sort of it force you to serious control your rate of fire and go for acurate shots. -
Just to add... the rate of fire rpm for M16 is 700 to 800 and SAW is 400 to 600.Originally posted by one-niner:hmm ...some times it just boils down to the dictum .."Less is more"
question, what was the original idea of developing a weapon that could deliver a higher rate of fire than a ordinary M16, AK-47 rifle ? it should be light, easy to use, deliver the supposed rate of fire it has to and gets the job done.
KTHMKK... -
Yes, that's what the British faced in Iraq. The SA-80 LSW didn't have the sustained rates of fire needed. Sustained rates of fire in this case refers to the continuous rates of fire before having to reload. The SA-80 didn't have a drum mag even. With the introduction of the para minimi, the LSW has been relegated to a semi-automatic sharpshooter role, partially because of its longer barrel length and 4x optical scope.Originally posted by tvdog:• Option ONE
This is an “upgunned” version of the basic assault rifle. Usually the barrel is heavier and longer and a bipod is added. It is also usually converted to fire from the open bolt.
Examples in use are the British LSW, which is a “heavy version” SA-80. Another is the RPK, “heavy version” of the AK. Both use box magazines of about 30 to 40 rounds. Another is the M-16HBAR.
The advantage of this system is the lightweight compared to other SAWs and the ease of training as it is basically the same weapon as the basic assault rifle.
The disadvantage is the small ammo capacity. 30 to 40 rounds on bursts or full-auto is not much firepower. The gunner will be changing mags so often he will be quite ineffective. And especially if the design is a bull-pup like the SA-80 or SAR-21, changing mags while prone on bipod must be quite difficult, I imagine. -
Link belt are heavy and they do get caught with clothes or other things.Originally posted by tvdog:The metal links of belt ammo, on the other hand, are cheap, light and expendable. After firing the belts, you are home free, no heavy empty drums to carry around.
Accurate? My reservist unit had to fake the test results of the SAW gunners everytime as they couldnÂ’t apparently, hit the broad side of the barn, so to speak. It is possible that all the SAW gunners in my unit are Bobo Kings but it is also possible that the accuracy of the Ultimax is not what everyone claim that it is. I once shot very short bursts and it was quite accurate. But during range the gunners fired slightly longer bursts and all the shots went wide off the mark.
Think your unit saw gunners is really BOBO king. Possible they are doing rambo !!! The saw is very acurrate in hitting the bull eyes if you zero it. If not , just use short bursts, and you just cut the targert into 1/2. That what we alway like to do , just saw the target till the top fell off. Not other machine is able to do that unless they are mounted on tripod.
A Section automatic weapon should not be just converted from the SAR-21. As time again we have seen people trying to just use a heaviler barrel and think they have a Section automatic weapon. Think the SAW is what we need and it have done its job well.
As for argument on the need of belt feed - that mean you need firepower or substain firing power , then take the GMPGs !!! -
Nobody runs around with dangling belts anymore. All modern SAW come with canvas pouches that can attach to the weapon to hold the ammo.Originally posted by storywolf:Link belt are heavy and they do get caught with clothes or other things.
....just use short bursts, and you just cut the targert into 1/2. That what we alway like to do , just saw the target till the top fell off. Not other machine is able to do that unless they are mounted on tripod..
As for argument on the need of belt feed - that mean you need firepower or substain firing power , then take the GMPGs !!!
My initial impression was that link belts are heavy and drum is the way to go.
But next time you have the chance pick up an expended GPMG link and you'll see how light it is. The heaviness of the belt is mostly the ammo itself and not so much the metal links. We often forget that the Ultimax drum alone weighs quite a bit too. I think this is because most of us have never used a drum for excercise.
So why doesn't SAF issue drums for training? I can assure you, it is not because the drums have to be machine loaded. GPMG belts are machine-loaded as well, but that has never stopped SAF issuing them. No army will trust not having every part of each piece of equipment fully tested by all troops during training. The fact that we don't train with drums tells you a lot.
I am sure the reason is because the drums are very delicate, prone to jam and posibly still prone to dropping off the weapon. If used by SAF soldiers for training all these faults would show up and would be bad for overseas sales. The only times I have seen the SAW with the drum is during weapon tests by potential foreign buyers at the range or during NDP or other publicity pictures.
As to your point there being no need for a SAW to have high firepower...
Well, we didn't invent the concept or the need for a SAW with high auto firepower on the move. So let's not now decide that we don't need high firepower for a SAW.
As to relying on the GPMG instead... because of its weight and size and the fact that it is normally crew-served by at least 2 people, the GPMG is not suited to firing on the move. Furthermore the GPMG is allocated to one per platoon, and we have 3 to 4 sections per platoon. So how can one GPMG provide sustained covering fire for every section during an assault?
But the fact that the Ultimax is mag-fed has contributed to its simplicity, cheap price tag and super light weight. A belt-fed gun has all these fiddly parts that drive the belt and feed trays just like a GPMG. On top of that add the mag-feed option and the weapon weight will rise significantly - further reducing its chance of overseas sales.
But then, having to carry the empty drums with you after expending the ammo is a huge drawback as the Ultimax drums aren't light. Whereas with the belt system, nothing to carry after expending the ammo belt.
But it is now very obvious to the people at ST that they have missed the boat on big overseas sales of the Ultimax as everyone has follwed the US to adopt the Minimi or another belt-fed LMG. The Ultimax is an orphan being the only mag-fed LMG available.
The only countries confirmed to have bought the Ultimax are mostly poor third world 5.56mm-user nations like Croatia, Philippines and Indonesia. (A forum friend from Bosnia or some former East-bloc country said their army bought SAR-80 from us.)
If these countries are using the Combloc 7.62 calibre they would have a lot of other cheap LMG to choose from. But when you look at 5.56mm LMGs, there really aren't that many options that can be considered cheap. But now that South Korea has made their own versions of the Minimi, I can expect it will be comparatively low-priced and take away even more potential Ultimax buyers.
So I am sure the clever sales and engineering people at ST are cracking their heads on what next. And I am sure that SAF strategists are also not very happy to stick with a weapon that can only reliably fire 30-round magazines.
Don't get me wrong, I love the SAW, and I would hate to see it go as it is our pride and joy to have such a famous and unique weapon.
But the strength of the Ultimax - its 100-round mag - is also the source of its problems. So I think if we can come up with a belt-fed SAW it would be the right way to go.
Or design a better drum for the Ultimax. -
magazine/drup fed economic mah also advantage, on the battle field if run out of ammo in drum can still grab the m-16 magazine from the SBO of the dead person next to u to use. Belt you still need chain link where to find?
Yah mebbe improve the drum better suggestion. -
Why not just use dual magazine connectors? Essentially it'll still be a 30 round mag, but all u have to do is switch to the nxt mag when the first is dry. I think its a nice compromise between the 100rd drum and the 30rd mag.
-
1Originally posted by tvdog:... ... ...
1
So why doesn't SAF issue drums for training? I can assure you, it is not because the drums have to be machine loaded. GPMG belts are machine-loaded as well, but that has never stopped SAF issuing them. No army will trust not having every part of each piece of equipment fully tested by all troops during training. The fact that we don't train with drums tells you a lot.
2 I am sure the reason is because the drums are very delicate, prone to jam and posibly still prone to dropping off the weapon. If used by SAF soldiers for training all these faults would show up and would be bad for overseas sales. The only times I have seen the SAW with the drum is during weapon tests by potential foreign buyers at the range or during NDP or other publicity pictures.
... ... ...
3 But then, having to carry the empty drums with you after expending the ammo is a huge drawback as the Ultimax drums aren't light. Whereas with the belt system, nothing to carry after expending the ammo belt.
... ... ...
4 But the strength of the Ultimax - its 100-round mag - is also the source of its problems. So I think if we can come up with a belt-fed SAW it would be the right way to go.
Or design a better drum for the Ultimax. 1. during training we are using plastic type blank and it can not stand the "squeez" the drum give which is why. 2. mag dropping off do happen to the M16 as well. 3. GPMG rounds are factory machine load not in field mind you. If you had not seen one maybe can try asking them to let you see it.
2 again jam and dropping off happen to M16 as well as other weapon as well.
3 yes you are right and let say you go into defend now (after an attack) and QM say no more belt for you as all used up and factories stop work due to war and say he manage to get you some of the link (maybe only up to 100 rounds) you need to join, than how?
with drum mag, even without a loader, a well train SAW gunner still can load it up to 50 to 60 rounds. mind you 50 is what GP box mag carry.
I will rather be carrying 6 drum mags of 50 per drum than to 1 belt of 100 than after that to carry nothing at all.
4 if drum is the problem than why do we have ppl come out with C-mag or D-mag and of which i think one of it can load up 200 round. -
"1. during training we are using plastic type blank and it can not stand the "squeez" the drum give which is why."
* Our unit don't issue drums for live firing either. Why are they so precious?
"2. mag dropping off do happen to the M16 as well."
* Oh really? If it did I'm sure it is because it was a faulty weapon. This is not a problem known to occur with M-16.
"3. GPMG rounds are factory machine load not in field mind you. If you had not seen one maybe can try asking them to let you see it."
* I said belts ARE machine-loaded. Please read. Umm... I hope you're not trying to be sarcastic... I have seen and fired a GPMG, thank you.
"3. yes you are right and let say you go into defend now (after an attack) and QM say no more belt for you as all used up and factories stop work due to war and say he manage to get you some of the link (maybe only up to 100 rounds) you need to join, than how?
with drum mag, even without a loader, a well train SAW gunner still can load it up to 50 to 60 rounds. mind you 50 is what GP box mag carry.
I will rather be carrying 6 drum mags of 50 per drum than to 1 belt of 100 than after that to carry nothing at all."
* Well, as I've mentioned, ALL modern SAW have both the belt and mag-feed option. So your theoretical situation is quite erm... unrealistic? Linking ammo belt by hand? C'mon man...
Have you personally loaded a drum by hand or is it another theoretical situation?
"4 if drum is the problem than why do we have ppl come out with C-mag or D-mag and of which i think one of it can load up 200 round."
* In case you don't know, C-mags are known to be very problematic that's why very few police and armed forces use them. D-mags I don't know. -
1 Our unit don't issue drums for live firing either. Why are they so precious?
*1. cause soldier are more precious than drum. heck, "todays" live firing dun even fully load live 30 rounds mag, only 20 live rounds per mag.
someone not doing the job and count yourself lucky or unluck up to you. PC got no idea, PL SGT no experience, CSM never check, OC dun 1 to answer and CO dun 1 to write off if it lost due to the carelessness of his precious soldier.
2 Oh really? If it did I'm sure it is because it was a faulty weapon. This is not a problem known to occur with M-16.
*2. good that you say this. boil down to handling of weapon. you yourself had sayIf used by SAF soldiers for training all these faults would show up... ... ...
and mind you, din anyone tell you what is securing of equipment? dun find fault, find a remedy. my man got no such problem.
3 I said belts ARE machine-loaded. Please read. Umm... I hope you're not trying to be sarcastic... I have seen and fired a GPMG, thank you.
*3. maybe you should read one more time. GPMG rounds belt or anyother rounds belt are all FACTORY machine linked. ie it is pre-link and pack b4 issue to you.
I am referring if you had not seen one DRUM LOADER go ask to let you see one not any rounds belt linked.
sarcastic, yes i am and for what you had written hereSo why doesn't SAF issue drums for training? I can assure you, it is not because the drums have to be machine loaded. GPMG belts are machine-loaded as well...
just show you had no idea of what machine was been talk here. DRUM LOADER.
4 Well, as I've mentioned, ALL modern SAW have both the belt and mag-feed option. So your theoretical situation is quite erm... unrealistic? Linking ammo belt by hand? C'mon man...
Have you personally loaded a drum by hand or is it another theoretical situation?
*4. modern SAW have both the belt and mag-feed option which the mag feed always cause IA. ps check it up if you had never fire one with both belt and mag feed type SAW.
linked up the GPMG rounds, it is not unrealistic, yes you may have seen and fired a GPMG, it just that you had not come across this situation.
you can have your doubt about have I or have I not as I am sure I have on your.
and out of 18 SAW gunners, I had and have 18 SAW marksman with me and that is only good for me?
5 In case you don't know, C-mags are known to be very problematic that's why very few police and armed forces use them. D-mags I don't know.
*5. C-Mag, back to sq1 of user maintainance and handling technic.
KTHMKK -
Just a note -- I have heard of no SAW that can use both belts and magazines reliably. The Minimi certainly cannot -- feeding in a magazine will usually cause the weapon to jam very badly. The Negev also has reliability problems with magazines. The Ultimax magazine is very reliable and not that hard to load. I cannot fathom why it is not issued for training, though I suspect the reason is purely cost. Also, I think that in the early days, bozos kept stuffing plastic blanks into the drums and jamming them, which then requires depot level repair, so units just stopped issuing them for training. If it were up to me, I would issue the drums at least twice a year for LF to give the SAW gunners confidence in their weapons. Definitely no blanks anywhere near a LF (you hope).
-
Oh, what a shame that the mag feed option doesn't work reliably...Originally posted by dkhoo:Just a note -- I have heard of no SAW that can use both belts and magazines reliably. The Minimi certainly cannot -- feeding in a magazine will usually cause the weapon to jam very badly. The Negev also has reliability problems with magazines. The Ultimax magazine is very reliable and not that hard to load. I cannot fathom why it is not issued for training, though I suspect the reason is purely cost. Also, I think that in the early days, bozos kept stuffing plastic blanks into the drums and jamming them, which then requires depot level repair, so units just stopped issuing them for training. If it were up to me, I would issue the drums at least twice a year for LF to give the SAW gunners confidence in their weapons. Definitely no blanks anywhere near a LF (you hope).
Seems then that there still sin't a perfect solution. But if it's up to you, do you prefer Ultimax drum - assuming it works reliably - or Minimi belt? -
I would actually prefer the belt. The Americans use plastic links for their Minimi belts which are much lighter than any magazine and more than making up for the weight of the belt-feed mechanism. They then put the belts in canvas bags under the guns, which keeps the weapon compact and prevents the belt from snagging on things, achieving almost all the advantages of mag feed. The greater potential for sustained fire with a belt is a great bonus.
With the introduction of the SAR-21, the Ultimax is unable to use magazines from the riflemen, so that advantage of mag feed goes out the window. The Ultimax is also too long for close combat, making it a bad mate for the short SAR-21. I am quite sure that the SAF will be changing SAWs soon. The Ultimaxes are getting worn out and I do not see new replacements. What the new weapon will be is the question. I doubt it will be the Minimi. It will probably be a version of the SAR-21.
It might take some time for the new SAW to come into service because the SAF is currently very stretched for funds, with the NGF, Formidable frigates and other big $$$ expenditures in the pipeline, this will be a low priority as long as the Ultimax is still "good enough". -
I defintely agree that the SAR-21 magazine issue alone will kill the Ultimax.
Some of the earliest pictures I saw of the SAW they had M-16 mags on them. SO I thought, ah... fine. One less thing about the SAR-21 to complain about.
But then, all reports I read from forumners here indicated that the SAR-21 cannot take M-16 mags. What a b i t c h.
Does anyone here know why this is an advantage?
Not only will this kill the Ultimax but what about our whole stockpile of brand new M-16s? We'll have to either sell them off or if we continue to use the M-16, there is suddenly the different magazines problem which Singapore have not had for 30 over years. -
AFAIK, the sar 21 cannot take m-16 mags, the saw can only take in modified m-16 mags
-
Thats true the M-16 mags which can fit into the M-16 and SAW have and additional small catch/hole on the top. Supposed to cost a bit more is you sign 1206.
-
SAW is a awesome weapon and i dun mean those training ones we draw from the armsskote.
I have draw a brand new SAW before, it comes very oily in a plastic bag from a wooden box. Though hard to cock or strip as it is brand new but it did not IA one time when i use it. Was also assigned drum-magazines of 100rounds blanks, fucking awesome.
-
Everything from those "boxes" are new.Originally posted by Bejean:SAW is a awesome weapon and i dun mean those training ones we draw from the armsskote.
I have draw a brand new SAW before, it comes very oily in a plastic bag from a wooden box. Though hard to cock or strip as it is brand new but it did not IA one time when i use it. Was also assigned drum-magazines of 100rounds blanks, fucking awesome. -
Your point being?Originally posted by bcoy:Everything from those "boxes" are new.
-
Here some of the spec of current SAW/LMG use in the world that was compiled by someone else from another forum:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The world famous FN-Minimi/M-294/C-9/L-110
5.56mm
Belt/Magazine
1040mm 465mm barrel
6.85kg empty/10kg with 200 round belt
700-1000rpm
Singapore's super light weight Ultimax
5.56mm
Drum/Magazine
6.5kg with 100 round drum
1030mm 508mm barrel
500-540rpm
Israel's rugged Negev
5.56mm
Belt/Magazine
7.5kg empty
1020mm 460mm barrel
850-950rpm
The MG-3/CEMTEish Ameli
5.56mm
Belt
5.7kg
970mm 400mm barrel
850-950 rpm
BritainÂ’s SA-80 based LSW
5.56mm
Magazine
6.88kg
900mm 638mm barrel
650-800rpm
The eldery RPD
7.62mm
Belt
7.1kg
1036mm 521mmm barrel
700rpm
The RPK an AK-47 with a long barrel
7.62mm/5.45mm
Magazine/Drum
5.9kg
1035mm 591mm barrel
700rpm
AUG LSW
5.56mm
Magazine
5.4kg
900mm 621mm barrel
680rpm
L-4A4 BREN a true gentleman
7.62mm
Magazine
10kg empty
1156mm 625mm barrel
500rpm
K-3 a Korean SAW
5.56mm
belt/magazine
6.85kg
1030mm
700-1000rpm
MG-43 German engineering
5.56mm
belt/magazine
6.5kg
1050mm
800rpm
INSAS LMG
5.56mm
magazine
6.23kg
1050mm 535mm
650rpm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One thing for sure, the super light weight of Ultimax 100 is plus point to me since SAW gunners need to carry abt 600 rounds to the field, fxxking heavy!!!
As for problem on the reliability of the L86A1 - SA-80 Light Support Weapon , some of you guys suggested that the SAR-21 SAW might face the same problem as well.
Actually the same problem is inherent in the SA-80 rifle itself and they did not the resolve problem:The L86A1 was plagued by the same problems as its sister, L85A1 rifle. In fact, the L86A1 was more suitable as a semi-automatic para-sniper rifle, than the LSW / LMG, due to the poor reliability in full automatic fire, relatively small (by machine guns standards) magazine capacity and the lack of quick detachable barrels.
Thus the SAR-21 SAW might not faced the same problem, if the reliability is as good or better as Ultimax100 , why not?
One thing for sure, Mindef will fully test any new weapon before adopting, for example like the SAR80, after testing , it was not trully adopted by frontline troop eventhough it was the first made in SG rifle.
The problem of weapons we faced during NS for e.g. like I.A. etc are mainly due to the fact we were using training weapons, so wear & tear are understandable.
During my BMT, my M-16 was like junk, IA all the time, rusty barrel etc.
In unit , I have a better weapon and during NS I was once issued a relatively new M-16, heck go thru the whole 3~4 days range w/o a single IA.
One thing for sure, we will all be issued "brand new" weapons for war.