Steyr rifles to be phased out
-
Originally posted by MobyDog:
Not BER.Replacement will be done, but the AS TAT for DS repair should be getting better, as compared to last year and before I guess.
[b]Raptor937,
An excellent post,
however the SAR21 bullpup does have it's problems.. mainly the reloading timing, due in part the release level of the mag, and the charging handle. In intense battle.. it does pose some problems.
The integrated scope fogging is also a problem... usually lead to BER status.. if needed repair.
The safety catch is in the rear......[/b]
Feedbacks to STK , as usual, have been slow in implementation.I can't show much faith in a rifle that fogs up after riverine and beachhead ops.. -
Based on what I've read in the forum, it appears that scope fogging is a very real problem with the SAR-21. I am curious as to why this is the case. Is it a manufacturing defect, poor design or just an operational quirk?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Feedbacks to STK , as usual, have been slow in implementation.I can't show much faith in a rifle that fogs up after riverine and beachhead ops.. -
Originally posted by MobyDog:
The safety is not in the rear, the fire selector is there. Safety is located infront of the trigger. Bullpups always take a longer time to reload compared to the conventional designed weapons.
[b]Raptor937,
An excellent post,
however the SAR21 bullpup does have it's problems.. mainly the reloading timing, due in part the release level of the mag, and the charging handle. In intense battle.. it does pose some problems.
The integrated scope fogging is also a problem... usually lead to BER status.. if needed repair.
The safety catch is in the rear......[/b] -
Well, for starters, some people - like the MAF - may want to mount a better scope than the one that comes standard on their Steyr. Or a red dot aimpoint that makes a lot more sense than a LAD.Originally posted by Raptor937:So what do you want to mount on those rails?
Optics?
LAD?
Let's not get personal, I am speculating why the MAF is ditching the Steyr, and moving BACK to conventional weapon like the M-16. Let's keep to the topic, shall we?Originally posted by Raptor937:People hate bullpups for the most irrartional reasons.
And we shouldn't compare ordinary SAF conscripts to professional US Marines or other special troops. If a SAF conscript platoon is equipped with LADs, they will likely use it without discretion. -
well if we ignore the more nit picky things like these, the comparism of short range vs long range BALLISTICS would be like comparing the 9mm parabellum to the 5.56mm x 45 NATO to the 7.62mm x 39mm AK to the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO. Differing range ballastics also have a different ability to chew thru cover. Discounting specialised ballastics ya?Originally posted by tripwire:i did read somewhere that the M4 effective range is about 350m while that of the
SAR21 is about 850m, due to the shorter M4 barrel length compare to the SAR21
if so... given the effective range figures above... would it imply that the M4 "firepower" is actually lower then the SAR21, because it does not enjoy a higher spin rate which is avaliable to the SAR21 with longer barrel?
-
And how repair be done, if it's integrated ? I have heard that SAR21 have been BER, after being submerged in water...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Not BER.Replacement will be done, but the AS TAT for DS repair should be getting better, as compared to last year and before I guess.
Feedbacks to STK , as usual, have been slow in implementation.I can't show much faith in a rifle that fogs up after riverine and beachhead ops..Originally posted by Meia Gisborn :
Scope fogging is a common problem... many US soldier's also complain that their M-4 scope fogs too.. It is problem with the seals due to naturally occuring chemical effects, atmospheric pressure and temperature variation... and of course wear..
Based on what I've read in the forum, it appears that scope fogging is a very real problem with the SAR-21. I am curious as to why this is the case. Is it a manufacturing defect, poor design or just an operational quirk? -
Would you happen to know if STK nitrogen-purges the scopes on their SAR-21s?Originally posted by MobyDog:Scope fogging is a common problem... many US soldier's also complain that their M-4 scope fogs too.. It is problem with the seals due to naturally occuring chemical effects, atmospheric pressure and temperature variation... and of course wear..
(On most modern riflescopes, the moisture-bearing air in the tube is pumped out and replaced with nitrogen gas to eliminate fogging problems. Of course, if the scope is damaged and the airtight seals compromised, air can leak back in and cause fogging.) -
The iron sights on the SAR are good to 100 meters, i tried it at a life firing. Only issue is that they can't be zeroed, but it isn't a problem if you have a weapon that shoots reasonably straight.
Problem is they probably won't be that useful at night, unless something was done about it.
And the LAD is quite useful, if you use it in the right way. I seriously doubt anybody would leave it on and chiong with it, but it is fantastic for FIBUA where you can point-index a target far away, turn on your laser for a burst to get your aim right and squeeze off a shot without ever having to narrow your field of view to the sights... it can be a lifesaver in combat, reducing the attention needed to take aimed fire.
Problem is don't believe all the bull about it being factory zeroed, virtually every SAR after some time develops it's own quirks that requires normal zeroing. And the LAD needs to be zeroed as well, and to a certain range at that.
Don't have much issue with the trigger squeeze, except that it feels mushier then the M16... but I still could hit targets 300 meters away, and double taps aren't a problem. The M16 squeeze is nice to have, but not really necessary.
A real issue is the reload time, and I am wondering why they don't bother to give it a proper ease spring, given the fact that when you bang the weapon in open bolt hard enough, it would eash spring itself. Going for the charging handle is quite a hassle, and lowers considerably the loading time.
But all in all, I found the weapon a more reliable shoot then the M16, as much as the M16 reminds me more of a oil and metal gun. The SAR spits out metal that can kill, gives me things the M16 cannot provide, and that's good enough for me. I feel a lot of the compliants come from expecting M16 qualities from the SAR when it's a totally different weapon entirely requiring a different mindset. Going about the SAR with an M16 mindset means you never make full use of the weapon, and unless you make full use of it, how can you judge it fairly against the other? -
Well, the only problem I can think of related to the reload time is the higher rate of fire. Its really a more psychological problem than a design issue.
In adrenalin pumpin combat, a kan chiong soldier might not be firing at "normal" rate of fire, but "rapid" because of adrenalin rush, and the SAR-21 being too easy to shoot. Because it is easy to aim, a user may become more confident to shoot more, instead of taking well aimed shots. An improperly controlled section might actually find itself using up more ammunition than usual, and find itself reloading too often.
Disagreements on that opinion? -
SAR21 v.v.difficult to do double tap lah. M16 is more crisp,and u noe when it will fire. SAR21 is realli mushy, unless u tell me u are using a modded version.The stock ones all v.difficult to do double taps.
-
singapore should consider using AK-47s.. save $$ and rather lethal..there's a 100 bullet mag varient too,other than 30 bullets
-
Wat make u think we dun have AK-47
-
SAF should sell MAF SAR-21 at below cost.
But spare parts at inflated cost. -
I really don think its hard to double tap with the SAR-21 at all. Grip it hard, and watch ur LAD. Squeeze and squeeze.Originally posted by SpecOps87:SAR21 v.v.difficult to do double tap lah. M16 is more crisp,and u noe when it will fire. SAR21 is realli mushy, unless u tell me u are using a modded version.The stock ones all v.difficult to do double taps.
I'm partial to the M-16 too, but the SAR-21 is really just very easy to shoot with. -
Not really, a valid point.Originally posted by Shotgun:Well, the only problem I can think of related to the reload time is the higher rate of fire. Its really a more psychological problem than a design issue.
In adrenalin pumpin combat, a kan chiong soldier might not be firing at "normal" rate of fire, but "rapid" because of adrenalin rush, and the SAR-21 being too easy to shoot. Because it is easy to aim, a user may become more confident to shoot more, instead of taking well aimed shots. An improperly controlled section might actually find itself using up more ammunition than usual, and find itself reloading too often.
Disagreements on that opinion?
But I suppose that's where training comes in. And I certainly don't agree with the notion of giving a difficult to shoot weapon to soldiers so as they would not waste too much ammo. I remember when magazine rifles were first invented, some Military planners thought it was a bad idea beacuse it encouraged soldiers to waste ammo instead of reloading manually which forced them to take better aim with their bullets.
Obviously this is a defect of logic, instead of thinking of how they should alter their tatics to fit the new possibilities the magazine rifle gave them, they insisted that the innovation fit the old tatics. -
Hmmm so do you think that we should have a new type of magazine of higher capacity?
Assuming that is there is way of increasing magazine capacity without using some really killer springs. -
The bit on cannot fix bayonet is the only thing I agree with you.Originally posted by tvdog:This will be a bulllpup vs conventional layout debate, which has been done before.
snip
Cannot fit bayonet. snip
Someone mentioned that an army NEVER changes its infantry ammunition to another calibre. Something about logistics and careers etc...That's a pretty sweeping statement to make.
The whole western world cahnged from 7.62 NATO to 5.56 NATO 40 years ago. The European Combloc changed from 7.62x39 to 5.45 30 years ago.
China changed from 7.62x39 to 5.8mm in the 80's.
The massive Indonesian military uses all of the above including the 5.56, the 7.62x39 and possibly the 5.45.
Note they only change the calibre once. -
With regards to MobyDog, the scope of the SAR 21 can be replaced without a total BER declaration.If the weapon has been submerged in water, what needs to be changed is just the scope + assembly(i.e the rubber external seals). What I suspect may have caused a BER status, could be the LAD being compromised and extended rust in the trigger mechanism caused by slow attention drawn to the rifle.Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:Would you happen to know if STK nitrogen-purges the scopes on their SAR-21s?
(On most modern riflescopes, the moisture-bearing air in the tube is pumped out and replaced with nitrogen gas to eliminate fogging problems. Of course, if the scope is damaged and the airtight seals compromised, air can leak back in and cause fogging.)
MG, I'm not too sure about nitrogen purging, but the main problem was the quality of the seals themselves. -
Now, from what I understand the scope is integrated to the rifle's main assembly (Factory Zeroed)... you just can't change the seals and lenses just like that.. you can't just force out and push the lense back in the scope... it require cutting and welding them back.. which is a joke.Originally posted by LazerLordz:With regards to MobyDog, the scope of the SAR 21 can be replaced without a total BER declaration.If the weapon has been submerged in water, what needs to be changed is just the scope + assembly(i.e the rubber external seals). What I suspect may have caused a BER status, could be the LAD being compromised and extended rust in the trigger mechanism caused by slow attention drawn to the rifle.
MG, I'm not too sure about nitrogen purging, but the main problem was the quality of the seals themselves.
The LAD can easily be replaced and the rust in the trigger mechanism is moot.. because even if you do not submerge it.. normal operational usage in wet weather would do the same effects.. and the whole entire rifle assembly could easily be disassemble, including from the six main parts, but the only part that will not be possible would be the integrated scope... don't you agree. -
They shud have just never mount the handle scope in the first place. Aimpoints are so much more effective, day or night. With or without night vision. Just that they cost more...
-
ok.....guys this is the suspected Malaysian self made rifle. They seem to have a huge list of procument recently.
http://timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=3676.45 -
Talk about a fugly looking weapon. haha
-
26-04-2006: SME Ordnance in RM70m rifle deal
By Alfean Hardy
SME Ordnance Sdn Bhd has been given a letter of intent (LOI) by the Malaysian government for the supply of 14,000 Colt M4 Carbine assault rifles.
The contract, if finalised, would be worth about RM70 million and the rifles would be assembled under licence in Malaysia by the company.
The M4s will replace the armyÂ’s 15-year-old Steyr AUG rifles under provisions already made in the Ninth Malaysia plan (9MP). Eventually, the government is looking to buy more than 100,000 M4s, but in stages.
The LOI was among RM310.4 million worth of contracts and letters of acceptance (LOAs) signed at the Defence Services Asia 2006 exhibition in Subang on April 26.
The largest was the RM213.4 million contract signed between the government and SwitzerlandÂ’s Pilatus Aircraft Ltd for 10 PC-7 Mk II aircraft.
Other contracts include a five-year deal worth RM152 million between Satang Jaya Sdn Bhd and the government for safety and survival equipment, and a five-year contract between the government and Sapura Defence Sdn Bhd worth RM110.3 million for the maintenance of the air forceÂ’s simulator systems.
The RM310.4 million does not cover the four long-term contracts signed between the government and Satang Jaya, Zetro Aerospace and Sapura Defence.
so it is confirmed that they are gonna use the carbine!
-
Is it just me or the Malaysian soldier (should be officier as seen from the shoulder) in the last pic did not extend the butt stock? And why is his elbow sticking out to the side? I mean i don't know how they teach their soldiers but i don't think this is right as i am not taught this way.
-
I don't see any wrong with it. Either way worksOriginally posted by tankee1981:Is it just me or the Malaysian soldier (should be officier as seen from the shoulder) in the last pic did not extend the butt stock? And why is his elbow sticking out to the side? I mean i don't know how they teach their soldiers but i don't think this is right as i am not taught this way.