SAR-21 on Popular Mechanics
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Additionally, given how bad and confused his ideas are, I am not entirely surprised that he could actually argue that this would be a good idea:
Sounds far fetched? Not when you read his arguments and fantasy stories on how SAR-21 factory zero will be used in war...
Please explain the below fantasy stories !!! - which you all kept ignoring
From Janes Defense magazine - http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr000531_2_n.shtml
The reticle of the SAR-21 sight is such that it also leads the shooter's eye naturally to the target, another advantage which will certainly inspire soldier confidence in the rifle because it enables him to quickly acquire and hit targets to the limit of the rifle's effective range. We were impressed not only with the simplicity of the sighting system, but with the ability to achieve a high percentage of rapid-fire hits at 300m without any zeroing whatsoever
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Lol, storywolf must have really lost it to accuse Sepecat of being a clone of me.
What's funnier is that he can't even get the difference between tactical gloves and winter gloves correct, and when proven wrong he went on to suggest that gloves designed to be used in -20 degree weather can somehow come in tactical gloved thickness... apparently the next thing he's going to suggest is that Level IV body armour comes in Level 2A weights.
LOL.
Also, according to him, the opinions of grunts who have used to weapon day in and day out under field conditions ought to be disregarded over the opinion of media articles written by organizations who have only had the bare minimum of time with the weapon under best conditions.
So apparently in his world, you ought to trust the opinion of a person who has only seen the trailer instead of a person who has seen the whole movie in deciding if the movie is good or bad.
Seriously, none of his points will ever fly in the court of law, let alone in debate.
So apparently for him, the SAF's duty in times of crisis is to sit around and do nothing and let our warstock get bombed so that we can find some excuse to mess ourselves over just so we can use some feature called factory zero that is found in virtually all modern firearms in the first place.
Wow, this guy is just amazing...
Apparently in his world, common sense is a superpower:
there is many different winter gloves - some are just a little thicker than tactical gloves with new technology and material used- if you blindly just want to choose the thickest to compare - that is your issue and your lack of knowledge. -
Originally posted by Man!x:
i think the term "factory zero" is actually neutralizing the sight to the standard alignment in quality control terms. Once an individual person uses the rifle the alignment might not suit him ie: the distance from the eye to scope etc. Anyway SAR21 at 100m doesnt really requires zeroing but after that definitely had to zero. Anyway i prefer M16 than SAR cos i dont like the feel of SAR21's trigger pull and the Scope tends to fog. Wont get those problems in M16
Anyway SAR21 at 100m doesnt really requires zeroing but after that definitely had to zero ? - this sentense make no sense .
All optics will be affected by element and rough use - if you want to compare with iron sight - that is unfair.
-
How nice to think that any potential aggressor will play by SAF rules of forward stragtegy ? just because you are dumb - we should not assume that the aggressor are dumb also.... !!! How do one be aggressor - of course they are at your door step already threatening you, if that is not forward stragtegy - you mean you see aggressor that use backward stragtegy - Moving their troops away ?
Lame clone of t-rex !!!
Then I must be as dumb as storywolf is naive. I leave it to storywolf's limited imagination on what is needed to thwart forward strategy.
" backward strategy " ?!?!?? - whatever this strategy is was dreamed up by storywolf or perhaps by someone such as Red Riding Hood.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Anyway SAR21 at 100m doesnt really requires zeroing but after that definitely had to zero ? - this sentense make no sense .
i went to combat support range(100m) and ATP 300m combat shoot(This before the current section live firing style combat shoot). There was no zeroing done at the 100m shoot, Just sit at detail level, draw ammo, 100m shoot at foxhole, 50m rundown standing shoulder. At the ATP shoot as i recall there was a zeroing done.
-
Both M-16 and SAR21 need zero-ing...
Quote:
<<M-16
At the range, a sensor thing is placed below the rifle barrel to detect where the shots actually hit. A screen will be beside the firer the show where the rounds 'lands'. Zero-ing is then done using s pincer and turning the foresight tip.
SAR-21.
At the range, after firingthe zero-ing shots, the firer would have to walk 100m down to the target board the see where the round actually land. The firer will then walk back and use the SAR21 C-tool and tweak the scope sighting. For the night shoot, the LAD is tweaked (using SAR21 C-tool) to make sure that the LAD red dot is at the centre of the scope. The night shoot zero-ing is usually done before last light.
Due to time constraints, firers are often ordered to run to n fro to the targetboards. And take note, for zero-ing, 4 mags are usually issued to the firer. Hence the firer, would usually have to walk up n down to the target board 4 times. Of course, if u can get ur zero-ing done in 1 or 2 mags ... then gd4u.>>I happened to use M16 during my active NS period and I am using SAR21 in my NS stint now. So, I think I can relate to some of the experiences shared here.
I used to zero my personal M16 with the manual method described above for the SAR21 rifle. The zeroing target placed at 25m is called a "Canadian bull". It is shaped like the character "U". In the past, one such zeroing range can be found at the now-defunct camp near Kallang (I forgot the name of the camp). You fire 4 rounds into the valley of the "U" and measure the tightest 3-round grouping to adjust your iron-sights on the M16. If your shooting fundamentals are screwed ie., tilt cheek positioning, distance between rear-sight and master eye and etc, you can repeat the zeroing process forever.
Of course, the method described above for zeroing the M16 is a great improvement. You no longer need to measure the grouping on the Canadian Bull to find out how many clicks are required to adjust the front and rear sights. The sensor placed below the gun barrel senses and calculate the adjustment required. However, the manual method is still important and should not be discarded. In a war, you will most likely have to rely on this method. Get storeman to pack some Canadian Bulls in his war-chest:)
I have never need to zero the SAR21 that I used during my NS range sessions. In fact, we reservists just grab any rifle, shoot and come back to our gambling sessions:) It is so easy to use and it's accurate. We shoot with NSF armed with M16 and carbine, and we out-shoot them. Target acquisition was much faster. The reservists' details always finish off our 4-rounds before the M16 and carbine shooters.
Having said that, no weapon or ammunition are perfect for all situation. As long as we have the means to zero the weapons in the field and the zeroing for SAR21 does not wander as bad as some claimed the British's "Jungle Carbine" did, I don't think we need to argue about the zeroing aspect. If your shooting fundamentals are screwed, no amount of zeroing can help.
-
Both M-16 and SAR21 need zero-ing...
Quote:
<<M-16
At the range, a sensor thing is placed below the rifle barrel to detect where the shots actually hit. A screen will be beside the firer the show where the rounds 'lands'. Zero-ing is then done using s pincer and turning the foresight tip.
SAR-21.
At the range, after firingthe zero-ing shots, the firer would have to walk 100m down to the target board the see where the round actually land. The firer will then walk back and use the SAR21 C-tool and tweak the scope sighting. For the night shoot, the LAD is tweaked (using SAR21 C-tool) to make sure that the LAD red dot is at the centre of the scope. The night shoot zero-ing is usually done before last light.
Due to time constraints, firers are often ordered to run to n fro to the targetboards. And take note, for zero-ing, 4 mags are usually issued to the firer. Hence the firer, would usually have to walk up n down to the target board 4 times. Of course, if u can get ur zero-ing done in 1 or 2 mags ... then gd4u.>>I happened to use M16 during my active NS period and I am using SAR21 in my NS stint now. So, I think I can relate to some of the experiences shared here.
I used to zero my personal M16 with the manual method described above for the SAR21 rifle. The zeroing target placed at 25m is called a "Canadian bull". It is shaped like the character "U". In the past, one such zeroing range can be found at the now-defunct camp near Kallang (I forgot the name of the camp). You fire 4 rounds into the valley of the "U" and measure the tightest 3-round grouping to adjust your iron-sights on the M16. If your shooting fundamentals are screwed ie., tilt cheek positioning, distance between rear-sight and master eye and etc, you can repeat the zeroing process forever.
Of course, the method described above for zeroing the M16 is a great improvement. You no longer need to measure the grouping on the Canadian Bull to find out how many clicks are required to adjust the front and rear sights. The sensor placed below the gun barrel senses and calculate the adjustment required. However, the manual method is still important and should not be discarded. In a war, you will most likely have to rely on this method. Get storeman to pack some Canadian Bulls in his war-chest:)
I have never need to zero the SAR21 that I used during my NS range sessions. In fact, we reservists just grab any rifle, shoot and come back to our gambling sessions:) It is so easy to use and it's accurate. We shoot with NSF armed with M16 and carbine, and we out-shoot them. Target acquisition was much faster. The reservists' details always finish off our 4-rounds before the M16 and carbine shooters.
Having said that, no weapon or ammunition are perfect for all situation. As long as we have the means to zero the weapons in the field and the zeroing for SAR21 does not wander as bad as some claimed the British's "Jungle Carbine" did, I don't think we need to argue about the zeroing aspect. If your shooting fundamentals are screwed, no amount of zeroing can help.
-
Although i haven't fired the SAR21,but had handled the M16 in my NSF days. But storywolf is quite 'naive' to compare the tactical and artic snow gloves... I can tell storywolf that tactical gloves are much more 'feel' compared to snow gloves,i cannot feel my own fingers in snow gloves,wear tactical gloves to artic,i bet ur arse that u will be out of action in no time,due to frost bite. So i presume that storywolf is more like lionnoisy who like to cut and paste their article into the forum.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Then I must be as dumb as storywolf is naive. I leave it to storywolf's limited imagination on what is needed to thwart forward strategy.
" backward strategy " ?!?!?? - whatever this strategy is was dreamed up by storywolf or perhaps by someone such as Red Riding Hood.
"backward strategy" - was meant to be an insult to your comment of forward strategy !!! You just prove how ding-a-ling you are - please read the your own orginial comments and mine again .
-
Originally posted by gaoxingdcf07:
Although i haven't fired the SAR21,but had handled the M16 in my NSF days. But storywolf is quite 'naive' to compare the tactical and artic snow gloves... I can tell storywolf that tactical gloves are much more 'feel' compared to snow gloves,i cannot feel my own fingers in snow gloves,wear tactical gloves to artic,i bet ur arse that u will be out of action in no time,due to frost bite. So i presume that storywolf is more like lionnoisy who like to cut and paste their article into the forum.
Gaosingdcf07 - i know what the different between tactical gloves and artic snow gloves. Before you jump in like a blur sotong, please read everything carefully to see what i say and what been insert into my mouth by t-rex.
I did not denied that tactical gloves have more feel and thinner compare to snow gloves. Did you stop to question - how much more thicker ? I am just putting a point across - if you have choose a right pair of snow or winter gloves - you should have not problem with operating SAR-21. Just because T-rex say someone have problem with SAR-21 with winter gloves - are we happily jumping onboard without questioning if it is the issue of the rifle ?
Yes i may have put up picture of people wear tactical gloves with SAR-21 - that is to show you that with general gloves there is no issue - if you choose the proper winter gloves there is no problem.
As oversea winter sports is huge business - there is a whole lot range of winter gloves that have use advance technology that is almost as thin as any tactical gloves.Frankly my comments was - that if you have chose a right pair of winter gloves - you should not have issue with using SAR-21 ..... !!! Just that t-rex want to blow the whole thing out way off !!!
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Wrong, what I am saying is that there is nothing special about the SAR-21 factory zero, given it is common practice in the modern AR industry to factory zero their weapons in the first place (hence it's not even an advantage to begin with), as well as the fact that arms manufacturers do not give their weapons factory zero in case the soldier does not have time to zero his weapon, that's pretty rubbish.
Not to mention pointing out the unreality of you trying to construct your point for factory zero based on the event that you have to go to war without being issued a personal weapon video game style because your weapon was magically bombed.
Perhaps we're all looking at this the wrong way.
Factory zero as I understood it, means that the weapon could be taken out of the box, literally, and be shot by anyone without the need for any individual zeroing. Compare this to the iron sights of the M16 we've been using, which definately required zeroing per individual user.
Within the context of a civilian army that does not issue a personal weapon for each individual to bring home (eg. Switzerland), having a weapon that is accurate out of the box is a great boon. Imagine all those boxes and boxes of weapon waiting for a mass mobilisation ...
Certainly the same effect could be achieved through other reflex sights and p-rails ... but at what cost? The SAR-21 represents a general issue, spec-ed for SAF weapon that was designed and produced to be within a certain budget. It could certainly be made a better but only if you're willing to spend a lot more. Within the context of comparisons vs the M16S1, it is streets ahead and that, IMO, should be the benchmark for the SAR-21.
-
If we are to be armed with M16 as personal weapon during a sudden mob for real operation, we will have a hard time zeroing the weapon.
Ideally, during our shoot at the range, we should neutralize both iron sights for the M16 first before we zero the weapon. If I recall correctly, you need to ensure the front sight's base is flush with the seat of the front sight post, then ensure the tritium is facing you; you have to click the rear sight to either extreme corner before you click 7-click so that it is centred in the rear sight post (I think you can click 14-clicks left to right/right to left in total). After this preparation is done, you need to take note of the clicks made to zero that weapon so that, in theory, when you are issued with another weapon, you can zero it without firing it. Of course, you lack the assurance of a live-shoo to confirm the zeroing is fine:) Not to mention, how bad some of the servicemens' shooting fundamental are. By the time their "zeroing" is completed, they would have lost track of how many clicks they really need to zero from neutral sight position.
Imagine, say, one NS division is activated in a sudden mob, draw ammo, store, vehicle and move to the front-line within 24hrs. How many of us can zero is this manner? Can you? I can't for sure ;)
-
Originally posted by aikchongtan:
If we are to be armed with M16 as personal weapon during a sudden mob for real operation, we will have a hard time zeroing the weapon.
Ideally, during our shoot at the range, we should neutralize both iron sights for the M16 first before we zero the weapon. If I recall correctly, you need to ensure the front sight's base is flush with the seat of the front sight post, then ensure the tritium is facing you; you have to click the rear sight to either extreme corner before you click 7-click so that it is centred in the rear sight post (I think you can click 14-clicks left to right/right to left in total). After this preparation is done, you need to take note of the clicks made to zero that weapon so that, in theory, when you are issued with another weapon, you can zero it without firing it. Of course, you lack the assurance of a live-shoo to confirm the zeroing is fine:) Not to mention, how bad some of the servicemens' shooting fundamental are. By the time their "zeroing" is completed, they would have lost track of how many clicks they really need to zero from neutral sight position.
Imagine, say, one NS division is activated in a sudden mob, draw ammo, store, vehicle and move to the front-line within 24hrs. How many of us can zero is this manner? Can you? I can't for sure ;)
have you gone for any ICT before ? .....
-
threads like these make me laugh
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Good that what i been waiting for you to say !!!
Tell me what is consider winter gloves - how thick it should be. There is so many winter gloves of different type of different thickness ... just because someone say his got problem with switch, you all never question what gloves they are wearing ?
LOL.....self-smoke.
-
hmm..
i would think that the use of snow gloves with the sar 21 wouldnt be very often... unless youre based in some snow area course.
the issue here perhaps should be if snowglove-compatibility should be a main concern on the sar-21?
-
Please explain the below fantasy stories !!! - which you all kept ignoring
From Janes Defense magazine - http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr000531_2_n.shtml
The reticle of the SAR-21 sight is such that it also leads the shooter's eye naturally to the target, another advantage which will certainly inspire soldier confidence in the rifle because it enables him to quickly acquire and hit targets to the limit of the rifle's effective range. We were impressed not only with the simplicity of the sighting system, but with the ability to achieve a high percentage of rapid-fire hits at 300m without any zeroing whatsoever
And how does Janes know this except by taking smoke from ST? And having a bare minimum of experience with this weapon, especially weapons fresh off the line under controlled environments?
We who actually use the SAR and look through the sight at range, at ATP and what have you not certainly do not experience this magical "natural eye" leading and acquire and hit stuff. Smells to me to be like Iranian weapons advertising where they claim amazing stuff for their weapons when a bit of common sense and practical experience tells us that these "features" are actually far less then you try to make them out to be.
In fact when compared to other sighting systems like ACOG, MARS and red dot systems, the SAR-21 scope is actually seriously sub par, so you copy and paste one article from Janes for what?
So who's avoiding your paragraph? Except that you are just sucking your thumb and insisting that everyone use your article as the yardstick of things when the combined experience of the grunts in here just about overthrow your flimsly reliance on one article written by people who have a bare amount of experience with the actual subject matter.
You then, are the one avoiding the issue.
Seriously, you're giving us the impression that despite your "officer" with "many hours on the range" claim you made in the Tavor thread in which you were soundly defeated, you don't really seem to know your stuff and instead rely on Janes... hmmm.
And better, if your confidence in Janes is so much, how come you try to spin some weird fantasy story about the SAF having no choice but letting out warstock get bombed, make even more unlikely excuses for such a situtation to happen, just so you can get an excuse to justify factory zero in wartime?
Going by your kind of selective and one-track reasoning, you might as well equally argue that the GPMG tricycle is a great invention because due to our small area our fuel storage will almost certainly be bombed, making the SAF rely on the "useful" feature of man-powered trikes.
In fact you could probably justify it better, given fuel facilities are far easier to bomb then widely scattered small arms warstock.
Sorry lah "sir", the reasons you give to your men not very convincing...
-
LOL.....self-smoke.
What to do? He wants to delude himself marh?
Not too surprising given he has the habit of talking a lot but knowing very little about the actual state of affairs, hoping that the tide of ridiculus arguments he throws up will somehow construct a new reality for him.
The realities of cold-weather combat are well known, this is why they actually have weapons that are optimized for artic warfare, while storywolf may like to claim that you can select the right kind of gloves for the job the reality of the issue i that mother nature selects the equipment for you. If you are fighting in weather the likes of which utterly froze the nazi army in russia you will see if you can happily choose the imaginary "new technology and material" gloves.
It's not surprising why the Norwegians tossed out the SAR-21 in the early stages of their selection, given a basic function could not be properly done. Apparently to storywolf they are all ignorant and despite needing to have the technology to fight in extreme cold, they can't figure out something as simple as gloves.
Yep, good one storywolf, apparently your "knowledge" on "new technology and materials" for gloves is as good as your "knowledge" on new format grenades, of which in just about every "fact' you tried to put down on them ended up being utter rubbish.
What's next, no need to wear body armour lah, with new technology and materials just wear your no.4 can liao?
LOL, nice one "sir".
-
hmm..
i would think that the use of snow gloves with the sar 21 wouldnt be very often... unless youre based in some snow area course.
the issue here perhaps should be if snowglove-compatibility should be a main concern on the sar-21?
Well it would be an issue if we are trying to export the SAR-21 unfortunately, because winter fighting would be a concern for most of our potential western customers.
And worse even if we are trying to export to customers from other parts of the globe who do not have this issue, we have to compete with designs like the Tavor or G36 and what have you not, on top of an already saturated arms market.
Hence it's not too surprising the SAR-21 has not done as well as it should have given storywolf's reliance on Janes, in fact it's hardly the world's best rifle as it is in the basic form that the SAF grunt recieves, a decent and workable piece of equipment but far from being an ideal infantry weapon given the advances in technology since the decade ago it was introduced.
-
Imagine, say, one NS division is activated in a sudden mob, draw ammo, store, vehicle and move to the front-line within 24hrs. How many of us can zero is this manner? Can you? I can't for sure ;)
If the SAF has to do that, this means that there is some serious mess-up in organization. AFAIK, our front line and active units will go first, and proper time must be afforded to the reservist units to get properly equipped. Within 24 hours? Maybe.
Ie. this is the one of the original reasons why factory zero is required, not Storywolf's SAF get bombed until zialat zialat and we need to draw fresh weapons. But to cut down on the time on zeroing. In lieu of that and in worst-case (ala. Storywolf) senario give us a workable weapon that can be used, but it is hardly the cornerstone of SAF marksmanship nor how it intends to even fight its wars.
And of course, the fatal flaw in Storywolfs fresh weapon off the box fantasy is that after some use a fresh weapon will start to get broken in and deviate from it's factory setting, hence no matter what zeroing in time of conflict for the weapon to find it's true zero will be needed.
And of course for some lame reason, the LAD is default factory-zeroed to 200 meters when the actual reality of things is that we rarely use the LAD at that range in night fighting conditions, engaging a lot closer. This means that relying on your factory-zero in typical night fighting leaves you with a larger then desired MOA.
In any case, sudden mob and going to the front lines from civvie to military within 24 hours is the least favourable option for the SAF, in times of tension there would already been stepped up readiness levels which allow plenty of time for us to get properly equipped and mobilized, and fitting your personal weapon to you is part of it.
At the end of the day it's how we play our cards, and not nitpicking over the details. On one hand I can name other modern firearms that are factory-zeroed, but the companies that make them or the militaries that use them don't make a big issue out of it for the reason they know what they know that the feature is for.
Only Storywolf it seems, sees the need to make it into a life-or-death situtation for the SAF, then apparently before the SAR-21 was introduced our SAF is unable to fight because we are using M-16s for our reservist units that need zeroing.
Of course, if you are talking about the future use of the SAR-21 for the 3G SAF, and that is variants that will spot a P-rail and modular sights that are vastly better then the primitive 1.5x, factory zero is no longer an option. So apparently according to Storywolf the 3G SAF will be unable to fight given they don't have ST holding their hands with factory zero.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
And how does Janes know this except by taking smoke from ST?
When someone that he is better then Janes Defense magazine !!! T-rex - you just too arrogant !!!
Janes did not take the smoke from ST - they even send a professional gun expert down to singapore to see it himself - by the way, he is a true grunt - he was in real war - not like t-rex - a self-call grunt !
Janes articles are written by professional - a lot of them are military or former military personal, read by world wide military folks. If it is credibile for the whole world military, think for a false grunt to think otherwise it is ok !!!See no point in arguing with a nut case that are so arrogant that he think Janes defense magazine folks are crap ...!!! That why dinosaur extinct as they cannot accept another other people point of view.
-
No dinosaurs became extinct because a giant-assed piece of rock from space hit the earth.
-
LOL, good one 4Justice, you like erm, totally deflated his joke there.
-
When someone that he is better then Janes Defense magazine !!! T-rex - you just too arrogant !!!
When someone relies only on Janes Defence and disregards the testimony of thousands of grunts who actually use the weapon day in day out and are contradicting what Janes says... I think the arrogrant one is quite clear.
Janes did not take the smoke from ST - they even send a professional gun expert down to singapore to see it himself - by the way, he is a true grunt - he was in real war - not like t-rex - a self-call grunt !
Janes articles are written by professional - a lot of them are military or former military personal, read by world wide military folks. If it is credibile for the whole world military, think for a false grunt to think otherwise it is ok !!!Has this gun expert being with the SAR-21 in actual field conditions and seen how it actually works in the field before writing his article?
No.
Also what do you think this gun expert would say when he gets to compare other systems like the G36C, the Tavor, the FN2000 and what have you not against the SAR-21?
Going by your logic, we ought to trust the computer engineers at Microsoft when they say that Microsoft Windows is a good and stable OS because they know more about computers then us, regardless of the experience and problems we actually have with Windows and the existence of better systems out there.
Also recently, the military experts behind future weapons duffed up on describing our MATADOR as capable of firing smart munitions that can tell between soft and hard targets when the actual smartness of the weapon is the grunt using it and manually selecting the warhead mode, are you going to argue on the basics of this article?
Basically you are relying on an article that is written who no particular point of reference, not to mention you are trying to claim bizzare likely advantages that it has over other firearms, most amusingly being you trying to support lionnoisy's handbag carry stance as an advantage, the superiority of the 1.5x over advanced modular sighting systems like reflex and ACOG systems, and right not the false claim that factory zero offers it an advantage over comparable firearms when a simple check reveals just the SAR-21 main competitors in the market already come with such a feature.
Basically your approach is lionnoisy, selectively pick an article and harp on it repeatedly using the "qualifications" of the writers as a subsitite for logic, which is not surprising given in the Tavor thread your main push for the merit of your arguments was not in it's logic, but that you were some kind of an "officer" who spent far more time on the range then the normal "specs" and "grunts" and hence had the right to overwrite their concern.
I remember most amusingly, you argued that since it was possible for you to engage targets with the 1.5x scope, anybody else calling for a better system was "weak" and not a "true soldier", brushing aside the obvious and great advantage that such systems offered to the soldier in combat.
See no point in arguing with a nut case that are so arrogant that he think Janes defense magazine folks are crap ...!!! That why dinosaur extinct as they cannot accept another other people point of view.
A true nut case would be the one that chooses to hide behind a single article and is unable to argue his case convincingly with people who actually had real experience with the weapon who contradict him. In fact it seems his own resource is to pretty much say "my teacher said so" even when faced with overwhelming evidence or come up with "new materials and technology" that only exist in his own head.
So who is the false soldier here? The one who only knows how to quote media articles or the one who draws from his actual experience with the equipment in the field?
-
Honestly when people get all excited about the SAR-21 on "Popular Mechanics" it's just a bit sad.
Heheheheheh.