SAR 21 Twin Brother
-
how the heck a mere discussion on 'sights' end up like this?
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Why in the world would you think that an "officer" it's kinda lau qui for an NCO to out think him. I do not feel lau qui ... it is perfectly ok ... , I be happy to have NCOs or even men that out think me, which only help me more in my job and make it a lot easier. See that the different in training which result in different mentality and character - i take it as a asset - while you take it as negative as a disgrace!
As for the case here - i did not lau qui for i did put up very fair and valid points and isn't it kind of stupid to take it that by not accept my points is that you outwitted me. Sometime in discussing a issue - people alway bring up valid and invalid points .... even small may it be ... we go through the brain storming... whatever the conclusion is all contributed to it, does not mean you outwitted someone. Do you go to every brain storming or discussion ... needing to come up winner - so you feel you outwitted peope and not lau qui ...?Since you need to outwit people and not to lost face more... then the content of discussion, then really see not point carrying on talk to someone who is too cocky, who is more worry about "lau qui", rudely call officer names - "REMF" which bring shame to his NCO code of honor and selfishness - just keep focusing on "you and your men" perference, also so desperate to want to outwit an officer for once in his lifetime. I rather end this conversation then have you carry on losing your NCO code of honor .. !
Bye !!! Please do not restore to call me names and or say bad things about me - as a personal attack ... to get me to carry on this worthless discussion - for it will just totally reflect on your characters and mentality and your lack of NCO code of honor !
LOL, now you've really lost it
Fair and valid points? In some planet I am sure your style of coming up with points is quite impressive but your weak link is, this is earth.
What's my NCO code of honour? To ensure that my section have the best equipment to do the job as well as the chance of coming back home in one piece... and quite unfortunately I discover a rangerat trying to pitch the idea that they ought to stick with the basic SAR 1.5x scope that was designed for the SAF's needs 1996 when the SAF (and in fact most other armies) have moved 12 years on in this regard and are equpping their grunts with flexible, dedicated targeting systems. Indeed, this "officer" seems to be more interested in counting his range hours then actually figuring out what the troops in the field are saying, which is kind of unfortunate and well fitting of the title of what one would call "REMF".
If you read a non fiction book called Generation Kill, I think you'll fit quite well in with the officer characters in the book, Captain America and Encino Man... indeed your method of argument and reliance on qualification-hours when they were pratically clueless outfield make you all good bedfellows
As the point stands.
How do you justify then the reliance of the SAR in night fighting and FIBUA on the LAD given your obession on anything that is electronic isn't for the average enlisted man? How would you justify then further given the SAF is actually intending to increase the amount of mission-critical electronics in the SAF infantryman?
How do you justify the utility of the SAR scope in the face of other dedicated advanced sighting systems like red dot, reflex, or ACOG systems?
How would you justify the fact that despite your stickiness to the basic SAR scope, that armies around the world are shifting to adopting a modular system that can adapt to different dedicated sighting systems to suit the mission profile?
How would you justify the contuined utility of the basic SAR scope in light of the fact that it is the SAF's eventual intention to phase out the basic budget scope in favour of dedicated sighting systems such as the ACOG or (horrors of horrors for you!) reflex system sights in their implementation of the ACM, which will be the basic SAF grunt for the near future?
Indeed the point stands as this... for the same reason we stuck with the SM1 tank for so long we are sticking with the basic SAR scope, and that is basically not because the system is really as lionnoisy would say "damn good", but because for now we can keep it on the cheap.
BTW it's "please do not resort" and not "please do not restore".
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
how the heck a mere discussion on 'sights' end up like this?
Basically because somebody forgot the cardinal rule in here and decided to go all argumentum ad hominem in here and then realized he didn't have the ammunition to finish such an engagement. Roffles...
-
walamak. i see until my eyes go kuku alread
-
You should serious stop reading book titles like - "Generation Kill" - it kind of brainwash you to lust for violent and kill... no wonder you keep dreaming and insisting on having the best kill accessories ... not healthly !
Try something more peaceful and useful - Like :
Charles Darwin - "On the Origin of Species" - much more benefit for you .. It talk about T-rex extinct before the Encino Man. Also T-rex brain is smaller then Encino man ... very very interested read. -
Don't need to see so much lar. Storywolf n SgT-rex, lets keep this objective and not get too personal.
Storywolf, not to say that you are wrong in all aspects. I agree that a soldier trained sufficiently in the existing SAR-21 can indeed engage accurately and effectively. No doubts about it. However, training time is scarce given the shortened- NS, if theres anyway to make our weapons idiot proof and turn each one of them into a Carlos Hathcock, we should consider taking it. Red Dot sights are one of them.
The NVG point is also worth mentioning. The NVG I used back in NS was the one that gave me the "looking through a straw" view type. Basically, snap down, it turns on, and my vision is as though I was looking out of a tube. If not for the LAD, I would have no idea how an NVG would work with the SAR-21 standard. I would feel the Red Dot Sight would work well with NVGs.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
You should serious stop reading book titles like - "Generation Kill" - it kind of brainwash you to lust for violent and kill... no wonder you keep dreaming and insisting on having the best kill accessories ... not healthly !
Try something more peaceful and useful - Like :
Charles Darwin - "On the Origin of Species" - much more benefit for you .. It talk about T-rex extinct before the Encino Man. Also T-rex brain is smaller then Encino man ... very very interested read.
LOL, I tot somebody just went "don't friend you already, don't wan to play with you bye!!!" and now he's back? So much for heated promises from "sir".First despite claiming to have hours on the range you fail to grasp the tatical utility of modular dedicated sighting systems like red-dot, reflex or ACOG systems, and now you are attempting to make any sort of a judgement on a book that by your comments, you do not seem to have any idea about at all. Here's a tip... before you come up with a come back, use what they taught you (assuming you are an officer to begin with) in OCS and get some proper intel before you make your comeback
Encino man is a non-fictional character in the book, an officer with which you seem to share a lot in common with, but for some reason you seem to think that Encino man refers to something else entirely and went on to put up some really flaccid palenotological comeback. Firstly the "real" (non GK) Encino man is a fictional character, and secondly braincase measurements of Tyrannosaurus rex indicate they did have a larger brain then Homo sapiens sapiens (which I am assuming you are using as a benchmark for Encino man).
And thirdy, it's not usually good to make insults based on the forum nicks of people unless your base is strong because they tend to backfire. By trying to use your opponent's nick as a base to form an ad homineum argument especially on intelligence you might want to be careful, because given how your position is getting destroyed by their own virtue, by claiming your opponent as silly based on their nick is pretty much actually saying that you are silly enough to get floored by a supposedly unintelligent Tyrannosaur... which is actually very amusing. Aiyoh sir, take careful aim with your shots... don't anyhow zhuar.
Not sure how Generation Kill brainwashes people anyway, given it is a very good book to read on soldiering and leadership (and its sucesses and failures) in the field.
Hmmm another case of "sir" not doing his homework before shooting his mouth off again?
-
Sar and Tar... hmmmm...which one faster?
-
I just say i will stop arguing with you on the rifle sight issues that all. Which i did keep my promise.
Ok my mistake T-rex does have brain bigger then human ... but before you celebrate "T-rex's brain was indeed larger then human brain, but the cerebrum ( the part of the brain that use to think ) was very tiny)"
Your memory is having trouble - "don't friend you already, don't wan to play" eehhhhh super creepy man ! You really must have quote someone else !!! First about the friend thing ... I know we argue on the sight thing a little .. but we are not really that close to ever be "friends" yet ... second on the "play" ...wow stop the press !! 100% quoted wrongly.... not my preference .. not gay ! Wrong number !
Seem like you have this intention on keep dragging me to carry on any conversation with you ... even if you have to think of all sort of insults just to keep try keep me talking to you ..... can see you put hell lot of effort, really flattered !
-
lol been there.. .. (arguing with ST).....its like banging my head at the wall...(i guess its because both of us were stuborn and both me and him cant accept each other opinion).....it end up a locked thread. LOL.......
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
lol been there.. .. (arguing with ST).....its like banging my head at the wall...(i guess its because both of us were stuborn and both me and him cant accept each other opinion).....it end up a locked thread. LOL.......
Yep lol :) - just have a taste of it ... same both of us also as stubborn - he only accept the best sight ... while for me even less then best sight serve me just as well , i am happy and comfortable even with iron sights... !!! Think he is a perfectionist !
I think this thread is going to get on till it get locked too. I serious don't think ST can ever run out of breath ! -
and suddenly...it seems that arguing with lionnoisy is the more fun way...
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
I just say i will stop arguing with you on the rifle sight issues that all. Which i did keep my promise.
Ok my mistake T-rex does have brain bigger then human ... but before you celebrate "T-rex's brain was indeed larger then human brain, but the cerebrum ( the part of the brain that use to think ) was very tiny)"
Your memory is having trouble - "don't friend you already, don't wan to play" eehhhhh super creepy man ! You really must have quote someone else !!! First about the friend thing ... I know we argue on the sight thing a little .. but we are not really that close to ever be "friends" yet ... second on the "play" ...wow stop the press !! 100% quoted wrongly.... not my preference .. not gay ! Wrong number !
Seem like you have this intention on keep dragging me to carry on any conversation with you ... even if you have to think of all sort of insults just to keep try keep me talking to you ..... can see you put hell lot of effort, really flattered !
My point is, before you intend to suggest your opponent is deficent in intelligence, it would behoove you to actually be at a point where you have an advantage in the main debate because it is not enough to simply suggest that your opponent is stupid, if you get outwitted by a supposedly stupid opponent then it is an insult that basically backfires. It's okay sir, it's okay... even OCS makes mistakes sometimes.So I have no issue with you talking about T.rex intelligence as long as you are still unable to answer as it is:
And of course you decided to stop talking about the scope issue, you could not answer the questions as such:
How do you justify then the reliance of the SAR in night fighting and FIBUA on the LAD given your obession on anything that is electronic isn't for the average enlisted man? How would you justify then further given the SAF is actually intending to increase the amount of mission-critical electronics in the SAF infantryman?
How do you justify the utility of the SAR scope in the face of other dedicated advanced sighting systems like red dot, reflex, or ACOG systems?
How would you justify the fact that despite your stickiness to the basic SAR scope, that armies around the world are shifting to adopting a modular system that can adapt to different dedicated sighting systems to suit the mission profile?
How would you justify the contuined utility of the basic SAR scope in light of the fact that it is the SAF's eventual intention to phase out the basic budget scope in favour of dedicated sighting systems such as the ACOG or (horrors of horrors for you!) reflex system sights in their implementation of the ACM, which will be the basic SAF grunt for the near future?
In fact you ended up conceding my point, that indeed the SAR 1.5X basic is does not really have any real advantages over modular sighting systems. The reflex had plenty of advantages which you feebly tried to resist (your point on night fighting and reliability was really laughable), and of course the advantages of having a scoped system were better served with a sight such as the ACOG. Indeed beyond the fact that you took a bad position in a debate and have no choice to stick with it you don't really seem to have anything motivating your case.
Am I a perfectionist? Not really, given the increasing adoption of modular dedicated sighting systems in armies worldwide, as well as the SAF's intention to go down that road eventually, my opinion is perfectly reasonable... you are really the one who is stuck in the rut.
And my memory isn't having trouble, your english comprehension is. If you notice I didn't say you said "don't friend you already, don't wan to play with you bye!!!" I said you went. Unfortunately you seem to have issues determining what is verbatim and what isn't...
You ought to be flattered. At lease we could excuse lionnoisy for being plain incohorent... your attempts to sound cohorent and nearly managing but simply falling into the uncanny valley of pseudointelligence is really quite amusing and something that hasn't been seen since Glock.
-
I think I would just gloss over all of the argument.
-
Originally posted by Scania L113 lover:
I think I would just gloss over all of the argument.
Nothing much worth to read ... Sum it up for you.
Just T-Rex who will not accept anything but a Red Dot sight and insist soldiers must die die have it if not all will bobo shooters or if go into action without it - they will die !
While I think while MARS sight is good, it too have its disadv also, but soldiers still can do with other sights and the 1.5x is not that bad have its advantage too and We can go into war with it or even iron sights.
The rest is a lot of trading of insults and name calling ...
The final few ones are one damn lonely T-tex left hounding for my attention - with a lot more names calling and lots insults ..... !!! -
Just because you feel that MARS sight maybe is better, when others like me remind you not to write off other sights on their advantages too, and they are good to use also. You have to restore to insult and name calling to force everyone to accept it is MARS or nothing else .... ... !
Go ahead ... insult and call more names ..... ! -
Hmmm... how about an alternative summing up?
Rangerat "officer" unable to accept that pratical combat shooting situtations and not hours in the range is the true determiner of what is the more practical sighting system and attempts to make increasingly feeble arguments in an attempt to save a crumbling position.
The rest is a lot of "sir" getting a severe trashing and getting pwned left right and center and waving his paper qualifications wildly in an attempt to make of for a lack of logical congurence...
Just because you feel that MARS sight maybe is better, when others like me remind you not to write off other sights on their advantages too, and they are good to use also. You have to restore to insult and name calling to force everyone to accept it is MARS or nothing else .... ... !
It seems to me you are the one who lacks the ability to understand the advantages of other sights, insisting on the SAR 1.5x.
The gist of my argument is not just about MARS, but the sheer superiority of virtually any other dedicated modular sighting system (MARS, Aimpoint, ACOG) over an budget intergal 1.5x such as the SAR "scope".
The supposed "advantages" of the sar 1.5x are far better covered in the non-reflex red dot systems (ie. those with magnification) or systems like the ACOG (which outperforms the SAR budget intergal in virtually every department. At the end of the day, the one true advantage of the SAR 1.5x is cost.
... but soldiers still can do with other sights and the 1.5x is not that bad have its advantage too and We can go into war with it or even iron sights.
Indeed, soldiers can do with just about any other sight that you can mount on a P-rail. Tactically speaking, virtually anything would be more suitable then the SAR 1.5x.
-
And I'd like to remind you that since now you're all crybaby about people going argumentum ad hominem on you, that you were the one who first flirted with it while my replies to you were being very cordial and focused on the facts on hand and not the person making them.
My own argumentum ad hominem replies were made in response to these argumentum ad hominem which you first put up in response to my (then) cordial statements.
You are a infantry specialist - that shoot m16, sar- with 1.5x to 4.x + red dot on MP5 .. - yep the fancy military term for infantry soldier
so you telling me - you infantry specialist cannot fast and effectively shoot a man within 50m infront of you with a SAR-21 -even though you 5 months of "training with it" and need a expensive reflex sight to do it !!! - maybe you not that specialist after all.
I am sure another "infantry specialist" who cannot perform well with it unless he have reflex sights does not carry any weights.
It is indeed funny that you lack the stomach to finish what you flirted with and started and now are all crybaby about. Tsk tsk tsk "sir".
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
And I'd like to remind you that since now you're all crybaby about people going argumentum ad hominem on you, that you were the one who first flirted with it while my replies to you were being very cordial and focused on the facts on hand and not the person making them.
My own argumentum ad hominem replies were made in response to these argumentum ad hominem which you first put up in response to my (then) cordial statements.
It is indeed funny that you lack the stomach to finish what you flirted with and started and now are all crybaby about. Tsk tsk tsk "sir".
Infrantry specialist is = infrantry soldier (known military fact) not incorrect to say that .
Infantry specialist cannot fast and effectively shoot a man within 50m infront of you with a SAR-21 ? Impossible right since you say you train till that good - which that statement clear say so does not apply
Infantry specialist - cannot perform well even without reflex sight ? I am sure if you say you all that good - that statement also does not apply right.
So if all is false why you get so work up .... and unless you are saying they all are true ! Which you seem to be saying !!
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Any other sight that you can mount on a P-rail. Tactically speaking, virtually anything would be more suitable then the SAR 1.5x.
See i rest my case - such sweeping statement of - anything that mount on a P-rail is more suitable then 1.5x ?
Is that fair ?
-
If I had a choice, I will go for any one of the reflex / red dot sights rather than the 1.5 X scope on the SAR21.Clearly, they are very much more superior than the standard SAR21 scope. However, SAR 21 scope , overall , is still better than iron sights. Also disappointing is lack of illuminated dot or reticule on SAR 21 scope. At least M16 had tritium front sight. To me LAD is next to useless in most night combat - it just gives away your position. I see LAD useful only in a "policing ' kind of situtaion.
ST shud have made at least a 12 oclock P rail standard on SAR21 so that "lower cost " 1.5 X scope is issued to normal rifleman. Higher end reflex / red dot / holosight / high mag scope can be issued to specialist users.
Better still, shud also have a 3 - 4 X sight ( with range marks ) on a U100.
-
You seem to have a misconception about how things in military nuts are usually discussed among the regulars in here. My point in here is not to make you admit that you are wrong and I am right, neither is it about winning or losing for as far as things go on the internet there is this rather interesting picture about what kind of Olympics win/lose debate on the internet is like.
Hence my debate with you is hardly personal, and you seem to misread my return jabs at you as “getting worked up”… if I recall they are simply measured and justified reprisals in kind to a violation of the unwritten rules in this forum- ie. We do not resort to ad hominem arguments to make our point, instead we assume that our opponent, disagree as we might is an honorable, rational and competent person, abet one with different views, and one who should be judged soley on the merit of his points and not on the fact if he was a rangerat, a storeman, or an infantry specialist.
Hence you seem to be mistaken… I am not trying to “win” you, there is no prize and neither do I expect to get some “you are right I am wrong” post out of you. My point is quite simply this: after all the nonsense and crap has been distilled out in this thread, I’ll let what that truly matters remain have the final say- and that is the main gist of my argument and points against yours.
While I’ve built my case out of several very rational and logical points, ie. The sheer tactical advantages and utility of dedicated modular sighting systems versus a budget integral 1.5x scope on the SAR, as well as explored the reasons why the SAF kept with it for now (mainly logistical simplicity and cost), and as well as worldwide trends (the shift from integral sights to modular systems), as well as future SAF intentions (the eventual replacement with dedicated modular systems in the ACM concept) to make a case for the fact that the purpose for the 1.5x on the SAR is better serves the grunt replaced by a modular system.
Unfortunately your case in here is far less comprehensive. It is mostly a case of reactionary tactics, delving shallowly into the points raised, and trying to question the validity of the points raised by the tried and tested method by those who have more steam in them then solid points, and that is via the path of the ad hominem argument.
In this case, your “infantry spec cannot shoot man 50m in front of him hence need red dot” is a perfect example of an ad hominem argument which is only reserved for the likes of lionnoisy (who are not really in here for rational discourse anyway). Not only is this argument shallow, it is an attempt to drag the entire discourse into something that is far more ambiguous and illogical: basically you are trying to imply, or argue as such:
Infantry specs ought to be good shooters and be able to shoot with the 1.5x scope
Good shooters do not require a red dot sight to engage targets at such range.
Hence:
If a person argues for a red dot scope he’s not a good shooter
Hence:
SingaporeTyrannosaur is arguing so much for a red dot sight (which is actually untrue… I am totting the superiority of modular sighting systems in general over the SAR integral) because he is a bad shooter
Ie(sideline argument)
SingaporeTyrannosaur cannot shoot with anything but a red dot.
Of course in setting this up you are implying a second argument:
The opinion of bad shooters on sighting systems are less valid then good shooters
Let’s break this down:
Firstly right off the bat we can tell your first axiom is already quite incorrect. Firstly it assumes that preferring a 1.5x over a reflex system cannot be interpreted in any other way then the shooter is deficient, which is quite wrong. Plenty of more rational alternative explanations exist… but which I suspect you are unwilling to explore because they weaken the ad hominem argument you are trying to set up.
If your argument was to be followed with its logical conclusion it would mean that the USMC are worse shots then the SAF grunt because they will not shoot with anything other then things like ACOG, Aimpoint or MARS and would not really appreciate the idea of using our 1.5x.
It would also mean that if Carlos Hathcock argued for using a scope versus iron sights to carry out his duties in Vietnam (which he certainly would), it would imply that he is not good shooter at all and is making that argument on the basis that he is not confident with any other system.
As far as my qualifications go as a shooter, I think they are pretty satisfactory and reflective of the general level of skill in the SAF of grunts who go through typical shooting. I can hit targets at 300 meters with iron sights so I think it’s pretty safe to say that I am not arguing for a red dot because I am incompetent with the 1.5X.
Of course if the rest of your points were to be truly examined they will draw plenty of ridiculous conclusions: For example your rangerat as a true measure of what works in the field other then practical and actual training in tactical firefighting. This would mean going by your logic whatever Zaytsev says about his role and how to carry them out ought to be invalidated every time you see ought to contradict him by the fact that he almost certainly received virtually no formal training and certainly far less formal training then you, having learnt his craft quite practically in the Urals.
No, we can see this is quite not the case. Regardless of the speaker, a good point made stands on its own merit and does not require a constant running to oh-i-was-a-rangerat land.
But fortunately for everyone in here they pretty see through this. And as it stands you still haven’t really justified the following except to go i-is-an-saf-officer-its-good-enough-so-listen-to-me:
How do you justify then the reliance of the SAR in night fighting and FIBUA on the LAD given your obession on anything that is electronic isn't for the average enlisted man? How would you justify then further given the SAF is actually intending to increase the amount of mission-critical electronics in the SAF infantryman?
How do you justify the utility of the SAR scope in the face of other dedicated advanced sighting systems like red dot, reflex, or ACOG systems?
How would you justify the fact that despite your stickiness to the basic SAR scope, that armies around the world are shifting to adopting a modular system that can adapt to different dedicated sighting systems to suit the mission profile?
How would you justify the contuined utility of the basic SAR scope in light of the fact that it is the SAF's eventual intention to phase out the basic budget scope in favour of dedicated sighting systems such as the ACOG or (horrors of horrors for you!) reflex system sights in their implementation of the ACM, which will be the basic SAF grunt for the near future?
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
See i rest my case - such sweeping statement of - anything that mount on a P-rail is more suitable then 1.5x ?
Is that fair ?
Why is it unfair?And is it a sweeping statement or a simple statement of truth?
I seriously doubt is is any more unfair then saying that the Leopard 2 is superior to the AMX-13 SM1 tank, nor are the tankees who insist that the Leo2 is the better tank for them bad tankers to begin with. In fact I think it's the true sweep when you tried to imply that I was incapable of shooting with anything other then P-rail systems by virtue of me stating the plain fact that they are the indeed the better system.
If I want the advantages of a red dot over the intergal 1.5x scope then we have the option of mounting the MARS or other reflex systems. If we want the advantages of a proper scoping system over the intergal 1.5x then we'll mount something like the ACOG or magnified Aimpoint or something like that.
From the perspective of infantry operations and the tactical level, there is no question about which is the superior system for the grunt. As I said, the reason why the SAF still has the 1.5x SAR scope is more because of legacy (we have already implemented this so we have to stick with it) issues then actual tactical advantages provided by the 1.5x... which there are really none save cost compared to a P-rail system. And of course even the SAF itself eventually hopes to move on from the 1.5x intergal to modular systems that can be modified to the mission profile befitting its 3G transformation.
Indeed I am scratching my head... is there really any tactical situtation our troops can be expected to face in which the intergal 1.5x is better then a modular P-rail? And even if that was the case is the P-rail not still the more suitable for the vast majority of situtations?
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
If I had a choice, I will go for any one of the reflex / red dot sights rather than the 1.5 X scope on the SAR21.Clearly, they are very much more superior than the standard SAR21 scope. However, SAR 21 scope , overall , is still better than iron sights. Also disappointing is lack of illuminated dot or reticule on SAR 21 scope. At least M16 had tritium front sight. To me LAD is next to useless in most night combat - it just gives away your position. I see LAD useful only in a "policing ' kind of situtaion.
ST shud have made at least a 12 oclock P rail standard on SAR21 so that "lower cost " 1.5 X scope is issued to normal rifleman. Higher end reflex / red dot / holosight / high mag scope can be issued to specialist users.
Better still, shud also have a 3 - 4 X sight ( with range marks ) on a U100.
There you go storywolf... -
In other words put simply,
in the long run, a fixed 1.5X sightscope is less viable/flexible than had SAR21 started off as a P-Rail modular system which was an option and very suitable at that considering that the design of the SAR21 was from the bottom up by the SAF.