The Singapore Defence Industries
-
From what I gathered, so far only the elite units like guards and commandos are using the SAR. They intend to slowly phase out all M-16s over a period of time. The testing period was long over, they are going ahead with the plan.
As said before, it's a matter of getting used to the weapon's quirks, rather then criticizing it right off the bat because many of it's operations are dissimilar to the M-16, and hence supposed to be bad because they feel uncomfortable about it. Looking at it this way, if you get two people of equal skill who have had no prior training in both weapons and get one to learn the M-16 and the other the SAR, the guy with the SAR will almost certainly be more combat effective. The SAR will show it's worth once you stop treating it like the M-16. It's a rifle that's vastly easier to aim, use, maintain and shoot.
The military is a conservative organization, leave them to their own devices and they will still be using muskets today. To put it not likely, I've met this marine who thinks the M-16 with an M-203 is superior to the OICWS! He rejected the OICWS out of the bat without even bothering to truly learn about it's abilites and quirks. Yes it may look heavy and cumbersome and you probably cannot hand-to-hand with it, but in war games, it proved to be 5 times deadiler then units using the M-16 and in one match where an OICWS unit engaged an M-16/M203 unit in MILES, the OICWS unit only suffered one loss for totally knocking the opposition. The same goes for the SAR, trained up to the same level of skill, you are always going to be able to be more combat effective then with the M-16. And that's what matters, not petty remarks on how it seemed to be heavier (which is actually false), hard to balance (because they are not used to the idea of over grip CG, which makes it easy to control and even fire single handed), or the grip fatter (just plain biasness and petty egronomics) or recoil harder and so on... If ST spent so much just to turn out duds that are inferior to the M-16 in every aspect after so much study into how to make soldiers a better rifle then the M-16, they ought to be otta a job by now.
The problem seems to in the soldier's lack of education and open-mindness about the SAR, rather then any real poblem with the weapon itself. -
The russians have been trying out our ultimaxes, and they love it. Lightest SAW in the world.
As for jams and maintainence... sorry, no free lunch. It's an MG for goodness sakes! -
How's the SAR able to handle engagement of targets at short-medium ranges quickly? The M-16 can fire with both eyes open. While the SAR21 can do that, but one eye will be lookin thru a 1.5 scope, would that prove to be of some difficulty when engaging some err, running target?
-
adding to that.... even the "reowned" Belgium's FM-GPMGs that the Brits and some US units are using.......... still cause jams and stuff......Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:As for jams and maintainence... sorry, no free lunch. It's an MG for goodness sakes!
In one oversea joint exercise few years back......The marines commented that they liked our GPMGs more than their own M249s.......wondered why.....
-
M249s is not a GPMG , y are they comparing it with our GPMG?Originally posted by Silenthunter:adding to that.... even the "reowned" Belgium's FM-GPMGs that the Brits and some US units are using.......... still cause jams and stuff......
In one oversea joint exercise few years back......The marines commented that they liked our GPMGs more than their own M249s.......wondered why..... -
Ultimax 100 is not a GPMG, neither is the M249. Both are SAWs.
-
SAWs are automatic weapons which is man to deliver heavy punch yet light enough to be operated by sectional combat groups. SAWs calibre is usually 5.56mm, but GPMG which is for delivering even harder punch have a calibre of 7.62mm. Those of 50.cal will be under the family of heavy machine guns for hitting further targets from soft to semi-armoured.
-
You can engage near targets with the SAR-21 equally well with the 1.5x. Not much difference once you get used to it. But you could also point shoot or use the iron sights on the top. It's certainly gives you more options then the M-16.
-
aniwae...units of the US forces are slowly learning asian military traits
-
Well.. i was a SAW user for 3 months... I say that gun is one hell of a gun. firing off is simply fantastic as compared to M16... no IA even firing hundreds of blanks... however it is prone to misfire during cocking of the weapon.
maintainence wise... it is very easy even when compare to M16...
the only thing to note is that metal body. if the protective paints are wore off u will have a put in a lot of effort to remove the rust. hahahaha u will see the whole SAW covered with rust the next morning.
-
Yeah, speaking of jammed weapons, the SAR-21 is certainly far more reliable then the M-16, and easier to maintain too... plastic guns are they way to go!
-
I agree!
-
last i heard the M-16 had averaged a jam rate of 1 every 20 rounds?but that was the M-16A1 version so i dunno about the newer M-16'sOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Yeah, speaking of jammed weapons, the SAR-21 is certainly far more reliable then the M-16, and easier to maintain too... plastic guns are they way to go! -
That's why I dun understand why some people say they will stick with their "trusty M-16" considering there is a significant risk of AIing during combat, wouldn't you rather be using the SAR-21, of which jamming is almost unheard of (I think it only jams once every 20,000 rounds). Not to mention the SAR-21 can do a lot more... it's like saying... "no thanks for that assualt rifle, I'll stick with my trusty musket"
I've seen american marines speaking utter nonsense when they said that they can do as much with their M-16/M-203 as with the OICWS, so they'll stick with their trusty M-16... bah... nonsense... -
I think one of the main reason why the SAF M-16 jams regularly is that the gas pipe is really old; secondly, I was looking at the barrel length, and I think that has a part to play in why there may be jams at times. I used a carbine throughout my service...never really had that problem of jams...only needed to use 4 pieces out of a 5-piece cleaning rod...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's why I dun understand why some people say they will stick with their "trusty M-16" considering there is a significant risk of AIing during combat, wouldn't you rather be using the SAR-21, of which jamming is almost unheard of (I think it only jams once every 20,000 rounds). Not to mention the SAR-21 can do a lot more... it's like saying... "no thanks for that assualt rifle, I'll stick with my trusty musket"
I've seen american marines speaking utter nonsense when they said that they can do as much with their M-16/M-203 as with the OICWS, so they'll stick with their trusty M-16... bah... nonsense...
I think the short barrel compensated for the under-feeding of gas to push back the bolt-carrier group. The only problem is that its loud, and the rifle kicks a bit...after awhile, we got used to it and adjusted for that. Therefore, same type of ammo, but different lengths....that's my theory though...
The SAR-21 reminded me a little of my trusty carbine...short, compact, ergonomic, plus the addition of a scope too. I only wish that it came with a bayonet lug and attached bayonet. I know that modern warfare doesn't require it, but its always a dependable insurance. The bayonet could be a multi-purpose cutter like the U.S. version.
U.S. Marines? Hahaha!! They can't take our weather...plus, they are still stuck with the M-16A2 is becos' the Marines have the lowest priority among the 4 U.S. service branches in terms of military budget...that's why they are still stuck with the M-16A2, while the rest of the U.S. Army pretty much use M4s now.
The Marines were the same group that swore by the M-14 back in the old days....clunky, heavy, and often jams on auto-fire....the only good point is that it fired a 7.62 round, therefore packing a wallop, and that the accurized version was pretty good as a sniper rifle. But that's another category; as an assault rifle, it wasn't that good.
No offence to them; they are darn good soldiers; gung-ho and all. I would fight alongside them...I guess they tend to be rather conservative as compared to other branches in terms of technology. -
frankly speaking, the us marines are a damn good bunch of soldiers.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's why I dun understand why some people say they will stick with their "trusty M-16" considering there is a significant risk of AIing during combat, wouldn't you rather be using the SAR-21, of which jamming is almost unheard of (I think it only jams once every 20,000 rounds). Not to mention the SAR-21 can do a lot more... it's like saying... "no thanks for that assualt rifle, I'll stick with my trusty musket"
I've seen american marines speaking utter nonsense when they said that they can do as much with their M-16/M-203 as with the OICWS, so they'll stick with their trusty M-16... bah... nonsense...
they had served in gulf war, panama, and most of us war efforts around the world so their judgement would be correct. given the marine's roles these days, i dun think they would be getting insufficient fundings for appropriate purchases. i'm sure those guys who had experience war first hand would know wat they want rather than people like us who at the most, experience ATEC.
OICW is a great concept. very "star wars" i would say if onw can manage to carry that weapon around fight all day all night, be tactical, then pray hard tat god would look after him and ensure he dun get tired too fast. m16a2 or m4 are very goog weapons but it seems like the time for them to go is here. but o believe in the ASEAN or asia context, these weapon would stil be very much consider advance. so we have to move on.
cheers. -
The U.S. Marines are good. I don't take that from them. It's not about which branch has more experience or a longer tradition....it's about politics.The Marine's political clout in the Chiefs of Staff is smaller than the other service branches.Originally posted by foga:frankly speaking, the us marines are a damn good bunch of soldiers.
they had served in gulf war, panama, and most of us war efforts around the world so their judgement would be correct. given the marine's roles these days, i dun think they would be getting insufficient fundings for appropriate purchases. i'm sure those guys who had experience war first hand would know wat they want rather than people like us who at the most, experience ATEC.
OICW is a great concept. very "star wars" i would say if onw can manage to carry that weapon around fight all day all night, be tactical, then pray hard tat god would look after him and ensure he dun get tired too fast. m16a2 or m4 are very goog weapons but it seems like the time for them to go is here. but to believe in the ASEAN or asia context, these weapon would stil be very much consider advance. so we have to move on.
cheers.
OICW is a good weapon. But a weapon can only carry you that far. Realistic training have to make up formost of it. The U.S. concept of fighting a war is based on technological superiority. But we gotta remember that the opposition doesn't have to fight by the conventional rules of conflict. Remember Mogadishu? :
Guerilla tactics, terrorism ,etc etc. The point is, a weapon is a weapon. It gets us that far...we have to train hard and realistically for the rest of the part.... -
ok point noted. thks.
jus can't picture a person of my size carrying oicw.
thanks
cheers