m4 or SAR21?
-
what weapon will our guards and commandos use? coz i have no doubt that the infantry will use the new sar21... and sometimes i wonder why the singapore government chose to go ahead with the sar21 instead of getting the m4? besides not needing to zero the sar21, what are the other advantages?
-
The SAR-21 is a far superior and advanced system compared to the M4. It has greatly improved realibility, durability, field maintainence the list goes on. Besides a few grouses, it is obviously a superior system.
The M-16 series is showing it's age, we need to move on to new things instead of hanging onto things which only make us fight less effectively. -
Carbines are known to have bigger kick back than M16.Originally posted by alphanumeric:what weapon will our guards and commandos use? coz i have no doubt that the infantry will use the new sar21... and sometimes i wonder why the singapore government chose to go ahead with the sar21 instead of getting the m4? besides not needing to zero the sar21, what are the other advantages?
It is BRC's current weapon -
i personally find the m16 better than the sar21, even in terms of accuracy. mabbe i not used to the scope. anyway i haf serious concerns abt sar21 in ops. its scope can be rather vulnerable i mus say. the glass can crack or the optics can spoil. and if tt happens the iron sight tt is on sar21 is totally a useless sighting tool! of course the LAD in sar21 is great altho it makes it so much heavier. at least no need to carry the NFE separately. realli going towards fibua and lic type warfare.
-
ok...tis topic have been repeat again n again...
there is no definite answer to tis...if im not wrong the last time it was discuss..there was a few flaming rite?
so i think we better spread out the pros n cons of both weapon rather den tryin to argue which weapon is better -
Basically it's all a matter of bad, stuck-in-the-rut attitude, rather then pros and cons.
Basically troopers who are way too attatched to their old M-16s will nit pick at what they precieve to be the slightest flaw in the SAR-21, while making up for and glossing over the many perks and shortcomings of the M-16, sometimes without even knowing that they are there.
The truth of the matter is, the SAR-21, laied out fatually and bare bones, is obviously way superior to the M-16. It is not a perfect system, no weapon is, but a system that has been designed to meet our requirements, and nobody can argue that it does no do this job way better then the old workhorse M-16.
Basically, it's down to the troops to quit being overy critical of the new weapon (while unconciously making up for the vastly larger amount of problems the M-16 gives them) and start actually learning how to use the thing and getting to know it. Most troops just shoot one or two mags from the SAR-21, and declare 'I prefer the M-16'. Pleese lah... And those who are stuck with it keep looking at it in terms of the M-16.
The truth is, it's quite a different weapon, and to use it means to break and make mindsets. And if we manage that, we'll find that the SAR-21 serves up way better then the M-16.
That's why there are some marines which think that the M-16, M203 combo is more effective then the OICWS in combat, even though war games testing this new weapon versus the old has shown that it is 500 percent more effective... -
I wanna the FN F2000!!! Can shoot left-hand and right hand. Tho I sometimes wonder how they do their IA drill since the bolt face and chamber can't be seen...
-
the grenade launcher on the fn2000 sounds good. led indicators to tell u when the gun is pointed at the correct angle to ur target. . . maybe i out of date, but this is the first grenade launcher i heard of that does this. . .Originally posted by 21Alpha:I wanna the FN F2000!!! Can shoot left-hand and right hand. Tho I sometimes wonder how they do their IA drill since the bolt face and chamber can't be seen... -
I'm still wondering how they manage the ejection of cartriges thru a tube. Must see it in action.Originally posted by 21Alpha:I wanna the FN F2000!!! Can shoot left-hand and right hand. Tho I sometimes wonder how they do their IA drill since the bolt face and chamber can't be seen... -
I have a personal liking for the M-4, or even the old CAR-15 carbines that the SAF still currently employs. I dunno abt the jamming issues though. I used a carbine throughout my NS without having any real jam issues like what most of the line units faced with the M-16. It has a real kick, since the barrel is shorter than the M-16 by about 15-20 cm. I remembered having to using only 4 pieces out of a 5 piece cleaning rod!
Nevertheless, aiming isn't that badly affected, once you know how to deal with the recoil. I've used it for ATP and earned 200 bucks bonus for using that weapon. That also means that there are less chances of jams, since the escaping gas only travels a short distance before it throws back the bolt.
Having said that, the SAR-21 is a far superior weapon as compared to the M-16, like S'pore Tyrannosaur mentioned. The biggest flaw I can find with the SAR-21 is the lack of provision for a bayonet. I know it sounds foolish to mount bayonets in 21st century warfare, but knowing that you have a blade to mount on your rifle is, to me, a comforting thought when you have to rush a position. Furthermore, even the U.S. troops continue to employ bayonets for crowd control in Iraq. No doubt its a psychological weapon, but I believe it has its value. To make it better, the bayonet should be a multi-purpose wire cutter... -
The main advantages of the SAR21 to me are the reliability and the accuracy.
Most SAF soldiers have only used the M-16 family rifles before and think that they are "reliable" weapons. They are not. They are one of the most unreliable assault rifles in history. You need to keep it very clean for it to work. A rifle which you need to clean at least once a day is not reliable. An average AK-47 can be buried in mud for months and be completely red with rust and still fire perfectly on full auto the first time you pull the trigger. That is reliable. I have not used the SAR21 for long enough to make a full judgement, but it is definitely a huge improvement on the M-16 type weapons in terms of reliability. No stupid little pins and bolts to lose while cleaning the rifle either.
The accuracy of the SAR21 is also really good. You have to shoot it quite differently from the M-16. Don't try to predict the sight's movement with your breathing like you would with the M-16. When the dot is on the target, just squeeze the trigger right away (just like a computer game). Breath control is not so important, just finger control. Grip the rifle tightly against your shoulder since it has a tendency to jump forward rather than up (for me at least). If you do this, the rifle is damn good. No need to line up rear sight with front sight and wait to breathe in or out and all that crap, just put dot on target and shoot. It takes a bit of practice if you have been trained with the M-16 but I can now engage the range targets faster and more accurately once I got rid of the M-16 mindset. New recruits who have never fired the M-16 apparently did better on the SAR21 than the M-16, so it is easier to learn (though I have no confirmation of this). No need to zero is a big big bonus. The backup iron sight on the SAR-21 is crap though, no question.
The main disadvantages are the controls and deployment attitude.
The fire selector is in the stupidest possible position and the safety is too hard to push in one handed (maybe the rifles are still too new). Magazine change is also very difficult, since you have to reach almost into your armpit, the magazine release is not near your firing hand and is also hard to press (again, maybe too new). The cocking handle is weird though it works OK, and needing to cock after magazine change slows everything down even more. They seriously need to improve all of this.
The SAR21 is currently so precious. Cannot drop it. Cannot stamp the butt on the ground. No oil on the sight or laser. No this. No that. 1206 if you do anything wrong. Etc. No wonder there is no bayonet stud -- who would dare to have bayonet training if the crabs and stars think the rifle is made of glass? It is as if the thing is a new baby everyone is cooing over. Once the rifle is no longer new and fascinating this should change. Less headaches for me. -
ahah so long liao they havent fixed the iron sight issue yet
This was due to complains they got during testing when it started to rain and the scope got blured out leaving them totaly useless and realising those iron sights do not work.....i wonder why they havent fixed it yet.hmm.....Anyway i have never used the SR-21 before so ill just have to go with what i hear and so far i agree with dhkoo.the M4 i believe should not be used....while a good weapon it is much like the M16 and quite unreliable....i believe the US army is using it as a stop gap measure before the OICW comes into use. -
I've never had the chance to fire the SAR-21, being a lowly technician
, but I've had the chance to handle it for drills, as I sway sway got arrowed 
to be in the NDP transformation contingent 
.
I've noticed that my thumb's knuckle were always chafed, and the protrusion at the side where the shells are supposed to exit also gave a number of cuts. These sentiments are shared by a lot in my contingent. I seriously hope these are not problems faced in operational use..... -
Said and done, once the glass mentality of the SAR-21 is dropped, you'll realize that this rifle is actually designed to be almost grunt-proof.
You can actually toss the weapon to the ground, submerge it, and leave it in very bad conditions and found that it still works. Mainly thanks to it's modular design and polymer parts. If you ask me, that a vast improvement over the old M-16 we literally have to keep looking after every day. -
well, thanks for your views... it is true that all guns have their disadvantages and advantages, and that the sar21 and m4 included... seems like the usual complains bout the sar21 is the iron sight, positioning bout the fire selector and the fragile scope eh? well, the rifle is a bullpup design, so the magazine is placed at the butt... i suggest those uncomfortable with the design get used to it, coz i don't see any way they will change the design...
interestingly, 2 other rifles have been dragged into this discussion, the ociw and the fn2000...i heard that majority of the soldiers who tested out these two weapons system found them to be heavy and bulky... not the ideal weapon to carry around...
sometimes, i just wonder, why not issue everybody with a minimi... the firepower will be awesome... but i guess it's not gonna be economical right? haha -
I heard the same comments abt the OICW also. Too bulky and all. I personally feel that technology alone does not totally define the rifle. It may be high-tech, but the end-user must be satisfied with it. Look at the M-21. They still kept it in service as a sniper rifle until the SR-25 came along. It was used in almost every imaginable conflict since it first came about as an accurized M-14 to fit the sniper role.Originally posted by alphanumeric:interestingly, 2 other rifles have been dragged into this discussion, the ociw and the fn2000...i heard that majority of the soldiers who tested out these two weapons system found them to be heavy and bulky... not the ideal weapon to carry around...
sometimes, i just wonder, why not issue everybody with a minimi... the firepower will be awesome... but i guess it's not gonna be economical right? haha
I would say get rid of the M-16 in service, but keep the carbines. Maybe its a personal liking, but I feel that the carbines haven't really outlived their usefulness yet. Its still good for armoured units (currently using carbines also) or even in combat support roles in the Arty (except 21SA, which already has that), Mil. Police, logistics, etc...Not to mention, Cdos and BRCs would still find the weight of the weapon attractive as compared to the SAR-21.
Give everyone a Minimi? Sure...and when the next shooting war comes along, the QM would run outta bullets for everyone in the field. We would technically lose the war becos' of ammo shortage lol
-
The OICWs is certainly bulky... they're still reducing system weight to a more managable level... but come to think of it, it is pound for pound, far more lethal then your M-16/203 combo.
And more cost effective as well (about three times) -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/29/ngun29.xmlOriginally posted by alphanumeric:sometimes, i just wonder, why not issue everybody with a minimi... the firepower will be awesome... but i guess it's not gonna be economical right? haha
Not really a minimi for everyone - but I read that the Britsh new standard 8 man section of certain selected marine/para units have increase their firepower by having -
2 x Rifleman (SA80)
2 x Grenadier (SA80 w/40mm GL)
2 x MINIMI (M249 support weapon)
2 X LSW (SA80 Light Support Weapon)
plus LAWs when required.
That's 4 SAWs, 2 Grenadiers and 2 rifleman in one section. Seems that the Minimi were added for increased sustained firing with belt ammo. Strangly, the LSWs are now used as a form of sharpshooter weapon rather than a automatic support weapon. -
The LSW was "supposed" to have been a SAW, but it proved too unreliable in fully automatic fire. However, it is extremely accurate with the 4x sight, so they changed it to a designated marksman rifle.
If you want your "spray and pray" section, we have an even better SAW than the Minimi, the good old Ultimax Mk 3. Less prone to jamming, lighter and more accurate from accounts of those who have used both (not me). Ultimax is longer and has no belt-feed though, but I can live with that. The only thing I cannot stand about the Ultimax is its tendency to go off if struck, especially with old guns where the sear has worn down, but that's what you get with an open bolt weapon.
The 500% lethality claims of the OICW are just that -- claims. They have not been demonstrated. The OICW (or XM29) will be a worthwhile weapon if and only if it is really that effective. Otherwise it will be a clumsy piece of junk that the grunts will hate to hump around. I for one am certain that the carbine part is useless in the current design since the barrel is too short to produce fragmentation effects from 5.56mm ammo.
The FN2000 is the right way to do a bullpup weapon, but I want to hear how it works in action before I make any judgement. Ejecting cases forward is the right thing to do, but if it compromises the reliability of the weapon then no thanks. The computer targeter is nice, and at least unlike the OICW it can be removed and replaced with conventional sights if it sucks. -
do you seriously think singapore will be short on ammo should there be a war? i doubt so. but to have everyone on minimi is not feasible for large troops. maybe for commandos/special units.Originally posted by Tango1:I heard the same comments abt the OICW also. Too bulky and all. I personally feel that technology alone does not totally define the rifle. It may be high-tech, but the end-user must be satisfied with it. Look at the M-21. They still kept it in service as a sniper rifle until the SR-25 came along. It was used in almost every imaginable conflict since it first came about as an accurized M-14 to fit the sniper role.
I would say get rid of the M-16 in service, but keep the carbines. Maybe its a personal liking, but I feel that the carbines haven't really outlived their usefulness yet. Its still good for armoured units (currently using carbines also) or even in combat support roles in the Arty (except 21SA, which already has that), Mil. Police, logistics, etc...Not to mention, Cdos and BRCs would still find the weight of the weapon attractive as compared to the SAR-21.
Give everyone a Minimi? Sure...and when the next shooting war comes along, the QM would run outta bullets for everyone in the field. We would technically lose the war becos' of ammo shortage lol -
Those claims were made from the results when they pitted two squads against each other during war games, one armed with the OICW, the other with the old M-16/M203 junk. And guess who won?Originally posted by dkhoo:The 500% lethality claims of the OICW are just that -- claims. They have not been demonstrated. The OICW (or XM29) will be a worthwhile weapon if and only if it is really that effective. Otherwise it will be a clumsy piece of junk that the grunts will hate to hump around. I for one am certain that the carbine part is useless in the current design since the barrel is too short to produce fragmentation effects from 5.56mm ammo.
The OICW squad only lost one man while the M-16/203 side was wiped out. Basically because a smart computer programmed round and a weapon that can shoot around corners without unnecessary exposure in the hands of a grunt under cover is a lot more effective then an M-16/203 which is a dumb weapon that requires you to be expose to get a clear shot.
I think that's demostration enough.
Short of zapping each other with live ammo, there is no closer and better way of making your claims. -
We may not run outta ammo, but the possibility exist. Nothing is infinite in a shooting war. Its not even about that. In a conflict, rear-echelon supplies always screw up. That's a fact of modern warfare. Even the U.S. army in Iraq faced resupply problems during their push to Baghdad. I agree that its not feasible to have everyone hump a SAW. And to take your point further, we may even examine marksmanship. The average bullet expenditure in Vietnam was nearly 50,000 rds for 1 casualty. So imagine everyone on a full automatic weapon.Originally posted by tiggersgd:do you seriously think singapore will be short on ammo should there be a war? i doubt so. but to have everyone on minimi is not feasible for large troops. maybe for commandos/special units.
No weapon is fool-proof. I don't doubt your claims but I would argue that technology does not account for most eventualities that might occur in a shooting war. So its a high-tech weapon. So? It still requires the individual grunt to go out there and face the enemy to use it. What happens when its damaged? As compared to replacing an ordinary assault rifle? A guerilla armed with an AK have a good chance of getting an OICW-armed soldier too. Its just a matter of tactics. Even the best technology out there in Iraq has not prevented weekly ambushes of the coalition forces, or bagged the head honcho...yet.Originally posted by Singapore Tyrannoasaur:Those claims were made from the results when they pitted two squads against each other during war games, one armed with the OICW, the other with the old M-16/M203 junk. And guess who won?
The OICW squad only lost one man while the M-16/203 side was wiped out. Basically because a smart computer programmed round and a weapon that can shoot around corners without unnecessary exposure in the hands of a grunt under cover is a lot more effective then an M-16/203 which is a dumb weapon that requires you to be expose to get a clear shot.
I think that's demostration enough.
Short of zapping each other with live ammo, there is no closer and better way of making your claims. -
Note that this is a WARGAME. They simply ASSUMED that the OICW would perform according to specifications and then saw what would happen. It would be equally valid for me to have a wargame where all my men were able to fly, invisible, invulnerable to 120mm tank shells and able to detect and snipe people between the eyes at 5km. I would find my men would utterly destroy the opposition, and therefore decide to design powered armor that would allow my men to do all of this.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Those claims were made from the results when they pitted two squads against each other during war games, one armed with the OICW, the other with the old M-16/M203 junk. And guess who won?
The OICW squad only lost one man while the M-16/203 side was wiped out. Basically because a smart computer programmed round and a weapon that can shoot around corners without unnecessary exposure in the hands of a grunt under cover is a lot more effective then an M-16/203 which is a dumb weapon that requires you to be expose to get a clear shot.
I think that's demostration enough.
Short of zapping each other with live ammo, there is no closer and better way of making your claims.
But is it technically possible? That is the real question. I can wish for all the god weapons that I want, but that doesn't mean I can have them. Same with the OICW. IF (and that is a big big IF) the OICW functions up to its specifications, without screwups, then it may do that well in battle. Note that the OICW has had its target specifications scaled back a few times already if I am not wrong.
Also, and more importantly, you must realize how corrupt the US arms procurement process currently is. These "dog and pony shows" (wayang sessions to us Singaporeans) are designed for one purpose: to sell the weapon, so that some general can "retire" into the board of directors of a big arms firm, which will earn billions from the R&D and sales of the weapon. All this, while Congressmen get nice "campaign contributions" from the firm to support the weapon in Congress. Of course the wargame will have a good result. No sense has come from the US arms industry since the early 90's. All their good stuff is from the 60's and 70's when they were still serious about fighting a war with the Soviets.
In the end, the proof is in the shooting. Only when the M29 OICW is finally released and tested by real soldiers in a real war will I make my judgement. I am not very hopeful at this point though. -
do you know you are take the butt out of a carbine and still shoot.
of course there will still be a rod sticky out. I feel that the inacurracy of the carbine is due to the flimsy butt and the short barrel.... 300m Eff range.....
gosh you guys sounded like SAR-21 salesmen.....hahaha
joke -
Yeah...I tried taking out the buttstock before and shooting it...hurts like crazy...and that was only blanks too!! ouchOriginally posted by Silenthunter:do you know you are take the butt out of a carbine and still shoot.
of course there will still be a rod sticky out. I feel that the inacurracy of the carbine is due to the flimsy butt and the short barrel.... 300m Eff range.....
gosh you guys sounded like SAR-21 salesmen.....hahaha
joke
You're right though. The carbine isn't that accurate as compared to the M-16 let alone the SAR-21. But the purpose of it is simply compact handling, esp. for Armour crewmen, BRCs, and sometimes, Cdos. 300m effective range? Can do lah...most engagements in jungle warfare take place at less than 100 metres...I dunno, but the carbine is pretty fun to shoot once you know how to handle the 'kick'. The 'crack' of the weapon when firing is distinctively louder and higher pitched than the M-16. Wah lau, no ear plugs cannot man...
Wish I had the chance to play with the SAR-21. I wonder if reservists would all convert to SAR-21 also? Or done already?