New gun a cock-up ?
-
just a few comments... i haven't been called back for reservist, so i guess i'm trying to keep an open mind about the sar21
Originally posted by meander:
that's not a problem with the weapon... thats a problem with the webbing... not quite fair to lump it all together lah...
Magazine
...
However, it's impractical as it is too big for the current SBO (by current i mean 1-2 years ago when I was still in the army) that is too small to hold 2 SAR mags in the same pocket. Also, the rings around the body of the mag will interlock with another mag further interfering with combat reloading. Major pain.
Immediate Stoppages
could it be that u were firing blanks? i believe all weapons have that issue with blanks cos it simply doesn't generate enough gas for the blow-back action.
We were told the SAR IAs less the the M16. That's much is true. But when SAR does IA, chances are that it's a very serious one that cannot be cleared quickly (expended cartridge stuck behind bolt carrier). You might even have to strip the SAR to clear it. I'll rather choose the M16 that IAs more than the SAR that might not be able to recover from IA.
and i think only a plastic blank could get stuck in that awkward position... metal casings can't possibly get jammed that way now can it?
anyone has any ideas if the steyr or the famas or any other bullpup weapons has a better IA drill?
anyway, its a first generation weapon so its only fair to expect some teething problems i guess...
i've actually read a comprehensive report detailing the faults found by a fact finding committee on the first generation of m16 in the 1970s... u sure wouldn't want to be using THAT weapon in vietnam...Deflectors and left handers
heh heh... i'm a righty... but i guess u're right... they should work on either ejecting the rounds downwards, or at least with a switch to change the directions the rounds eject... deflectors are not the solution if u're working towards a fully ambidextrous bull-pup design.
I'm a left hander, and I totally hate the SAR. I'm biased. Why? The SAR does not have a deflector add-on. They have some mini joke of a built in deflector, which btw is some small triangular piece of plastic. It doesn't do its deflecting job AT ALL. During live firing, as would be the case during war, I get hit by like 90% of the bloody hot empty cartriges. -
Since i'm still awake at the ungodly hour, I shall answer some of your questions ...
Before that, I shall reiterate the fact that I am a biased left handed SAR hater
.that's not a problem with the weapon... thats a problem with the webbing... not quite fair to lump it all together lah...
I stand by what I said. Look for the SAR pics further up the thread. Notice the ribbed design of the mags? The "rings" around the mag? They serve no useful purpose. They don't impove grip much, nor are the indicating lines of ammo remaining. The only significant thing they do, is to screw up combat reloading.
How? When 2 SAR mags are placed in the same SBO pocket, the rings will sort of interlock together, making taking out/in mags much more difficult. Often when the intention is to take out ONE mag, both fall out of the pocket. This can be prevented if you use 2 hands to take out the mag, highly discouraged in combat situations. Obviously this problem is magnified 10 times when the SBO pockets are small.could it be that u were firing blanks? i believe all weapons have that issue with blanks cos it simply doesn't generate enough gas for the blow-back action.
It was a SAR familiarization live range when this unique IA popped up. The first time we shot live rounds with our brand new SAR. I was safety spec for another spec shooting in burst mode, and the weapon IA-ed. The bolt carrier was stuck half foward for no apparent reason, and SAR could not be cocked. We took out the buttstock, and found an empty cartridge lodged inside the rifle. It was stuck so bad we had to use a pair of pliers (and used considerable force) to full the cartridge out.
It took 2 people 10 minutes to clear 1 bloody IA. With a pair of pliers.
When this IA is encountered with plastic blanks it is in fact easier to clear. They aren't hot and can be torn, unlike metal cartridges.anyone has any ideas if the steyr or the famas or any other bullpup weapons has a better IA drill?
It's the same IA procedure for SAR. Cock, check chamber, no/double feeding blah ... The above mentioned IA happens rarely. But once it does, the rifle is disabled for quite some time. In combat, it's a major pain. If you're under fire and have to clear this ridiculous IA, you're a sitting duck.deflectors are not the solution if u're working towards a fully ambidextrous bull-pup design.
I have a left master eye too, so I can't effectively operate the MG, 84, M203, LAW ... the list goes on.
Weapons aren't like your traditional can opener, we can't just switch to using them with our right hand. True ambidextrous weapons are impossible, or rather impractical to make. So designers usually choose to make em all right handed weapons.
Solution : Pull left handers outta combat vocation? Us lefties are said to be creative. I would work well at a desk with a pen.
Or they could just make some elite left hander bn that operates left handed weapons bwahahaha that'll be the day
Adding in a minor postive feature about the SAR ...
SAR blank attachments
Our techies over there at ST grew some common sense and made better blank attachments. In the old M16 blank attachment, there's only 1 hole for the gas to escape, in front. If you aim at anyone in front of you at close range, you would hit him with the full blast of the escaping gas. The new SAR blank attachments has 4 holes at the side. Besides not harming your fellow soldier in front with your garang-ness, it also allows the gas to escape in 4 different directions, reducing escaping gas velocity at each hole. So even if you hit someone beside you, it don't hurt so bad. -
Originally posted by meander:
who says STAR don't have SAR-21....it all depends on operational needs. MP-5 is still prefered in CQB as it is smaller in size. somemore all the ammo pouches are designed to hold the mp-5 mags and the side-arm mag...also....need to consider penetration also so as not to harm others other than the target itself....
From the PoV of an infantry spec in the unit who has used both the SAR and the M16 in unit exercises,
[b]SAR sucks. Nice concept, but it's implementation stinks until someone bothers to refine it. Maybe I'm a biased left hander.
Weight
The SAR is considerably heavier than the M16. The weight difference might not be much when you first hold it, but try holding it in extended missions (above 10km), and it's a literal pain in the neck with a rifle sling. While it's not as heavy as MGs and stuff, we are expected to do rapid fire movement with the SAR unlike the MG team.
Scope
The SAR is useless in rainy weather and muddy terrain. Rain water or mud could splash onto the front end of the scope and obscure the view. The same could happen to an M16 too, but the front of the scope is made of glass material and is harder to clean compared to an iron sight. You might be able to clear off the mud, but you'll still get a pretty blur view. Rain is a bigger problem if it drips onto the iron sight, because if it doesn't stop, it's pointless to wipe the scope.
Iron Sight
Located on top of scope. I suspect this feature is a joke by ST engineers. It's completely useless because it's too small and you can't zero it.
Magazine
Innovative. Made of clear transparent plastic with markings at the back that enable the soldier to see amount of rounds he has left. However, it's impractical as it is too big for the current SBO (by current i mean 1-2 years ago when I was still in the army) that is too small to hold 2 SAR mags in the same pocket. Also, the rings around the body of the mag will interlock with another mag further interfering with combat reloading. Major pain.
Immediate Stoppages
We were told the SAR IAs less the the M16. That's much is true. But when SAR does IA, chances are that it's a very serious one that cannot be cleared quickly (expended cartridge stuck behind bolt carrier). You might even have to strip the SAR to clear it. I'll rather choose the M16 that IAs more than the SAR that might not be able to recover from IA.
Interior
Whatever material they used to make the inside rusts a lot easier. My SAR was only 4 months old, and it came back post mission with some serious rust. No, I didn't do water ops. Yes, it was clean and rust free when i went out with it. Maybe the SAR is still in the testing stage and I got some beta version? Personal hypothesis : SAF make these first versions with cheap metal, tests it in the field. After which they make newer final versions, and then sell the "beta" versions to other our neighbours.
Deflectors and left handers
I'm a left hander, and I totally hate the SAR. I'm biased. Why? The SAR does not have a deflector add-on. They have some mini joke of a built in deflector, which btw is some small triangular piece of plastic. It doesn't do its deflecting job AT ALL. During live firing, as would be the case during war, I get hit by like 90% of the bloody hot empty cartriges.
Bayonet
Erm ... what bayonet? THere's nowhere to fix it on. Sure, in close range combat you could smash the enemy's head with the heavy rifle butt. But given the SAR is barely 1m long, you might not reach the bugger before he pokes you with HIS bayonet.
Outer Casing
Someone told me the outer casing is made of Kevlar. No idea. Even if it is, SAR still looks like a toy. Anway there are claims that the SAR will protect the soldier's precious face in event of a chamber explosion as the casing and rifle interior can contain it. Means jack to me becasuse as a left-hander, my face is right behind the ejection port. If the rifle goes boom, the blast impact will go only where it can, out of the ejection port, to my face ...
Fire mode selector
The bullpup design forces the fire mode selector to be positioned behind at the buttstock where the trigger and firing mechanism are also located. Tough to change fire mode during combat.
Other rare plus points- SAR interior is easier to clean due to it's design.
Has a lighter recoil compared to the M16 (further making it seem like a toy).
The weight is evenly distributed making it easier on aiming.
The SAR has better accuracy due to scope (barring crap weather/ground) than M16 in close range.
Integrated LAD is nice idea.
Zeroing will remain no matter how many times one drops the weapon. Note: nobody in our unit was willing to test the claim by repeatly dropping the SAR during range.
Besides, if SAR is so good, SoF/STAR/SWG would have switched to SAR long ago.[/b] -
The ribs gives additional structural strength to the magazine.Originally posted by meander:Notice the ribbed design of the mags? The "rings" around the mag? They serve no useful purpose. -
I think meander raised a very good point on the Scope.
If it is going to be a muddy and rainy environment, the Scope is not going to be very useful, the dirt accumulated will obscure a clear view, making it slower than the Iron Sights in acquring a target. This has severe implications on the battlefied.
If the scope is clogged up with material, the common soldier's instinct is to wipe it off with his grimy fingers or part of his sleeve. Depending on the material used for the lens, it can either scratch the lens permanently or leave a temporary mark. Either end-result is "No-Go".
Its going to be one of those "Gee, it sounded like a good idea!" but ultimately problematic situation at the operating ground level.
BTW, i'm a Left Master Eye, Right Hander. I'm bitterly confused... -
Originally posted by Si Geena:
Would a rubber "cup" at the end of the scope help? Maybe one of those cups u could leave on when u are not using the rifle, and pop it off when u need it? Maybe either that, or use some scratch-proof material for the scope? A convex lens? Any other suggestions how we might fix this?
I think [b]meander raised a very good point on the Scope.
If it is going to be a muddy and rainy environment, the Scope is not going to be very useful, the dirt accumulated will obscure a clear view, making it slower than the Iron Sights in acquring a target. This has severe implications on the battlefied.
If the scope is clogged up with material, the common soldier's instinct is to wipe it off with his grimy fingers or part of his sleeve. Depending on the material used for the lens, it can either scratch the lens permanently or leave a temporary mark. Either end-result is "No-Go".
[/b] -
Let's compare SAR-21 and the Israeli TAR-21 (below)
Weight (with 30 rd mag)
SAR:4.44 kg, TAR:3.64 kg
Weight (empty)
SAR: 3.82kg without laser sights. Heavier than a fully loaded TAR
Mode selector
SAR: too far from pistol grip
TAR: thumb operated like M16
Ejector port
SAR: right side ejection. Lefties have to bear with hot cartridges
TAR: Both left or right side ejection by re-orientating bolt. Who says the selector must be near the bolt carrier?
Cocking Handle
SAR: other hand must hold handguard for comfort
TAR: other hand still on pistol grip, ready to fire immediately.
Conclusions:
The superiority of the TAR-21 is not rocket science, just creativity, clever engineering and common sense.
STK must wake up and improve the SAR-21 fast. -
Originally posted by stealthguy:
well..sound like u have fire TAR-21 before...can pls state the more pros of TAR-21..
Let's compare SAR-21 and the Israeli TAR-21 (below)
[b]Weight (with 30 rd mag)
SAR:4.44 kg, TAR:3.64 kg
Weight (empty)
SAR: 3.82kg without laser sights. Heavier than a fully loaded TAR
Mode selector
SAR: too far from pistol grip
TAR: thumb operated like M16
Ejector port
SAR: right side ejection. Lefties have to bear with hot cartridges
TAR: Both left or right side ejection by re-orientating bolt. Who says the selector must be near the bolt carrier?
Cocking Handle
SAR: other hand must hold handguard for comfort
TAR: other hand still on pistol grip, ready to fire immediately.
Conclusions:
The superiority of the TAR-21 is not rocket science, just creativity, clever engineering and common sense.
STK must wake up and improve the SAR-21 fast.[/b]
the feel of the whole thing..can? -
Most of the dirt about the SAR, I suspect, is a case of bias towards a new and unfamiliar weapon. When the M-16 was first introduced, it was, as a matter of fact, considered the most unreliable assualt firearm at that time, and plenty of troopers made lots of noise about how it wasn't worth jack.
Now? We have marines bragging they can preform with their M-16/M203, what the OICW can do. And of course, some so-called arms experts here totting how the M-16 is supposedly better.
More oddly, it seems that the SAR is always measured by the M-16 yardstick, rather then the universal yardstick for all assualt firearms. Which basically states that if the rifle does not give you the old feel of the M-16, it must be judged a drawback, which is insane.
More likely, I suspect all the supposed "advantages" of the M-16 over the SAR is more of a case of a old-bird trooper having adapted to the M-16's feel over the years rather then it being a actual advantage. Having spent far more time with the M-16 then the SAR, they are less inclined to view the SAR objectively. More always, their whiny complains about how the SAR supposedly sucks seems more of a case of whining about why this amazing piece of firearm does not feel like the M-16.
With their kind of logic in why the age old M-16 is supposedly a better weapon in this era, I guess I could pretty much build up a case on why muzzle loading muskets are better then an M-1 Garand with tons of obsqure reasons like muskets are simpler, dun make the "ping" magazine sound and are more reliable and dun jam. Yeah, go to war and see what happens.
What's more telling, that newer troops, who have spent about equal amount of time with the M-16 and SAR, like my Guards friend, and hence in a position to make a far more objective statement as they had no time to end up emotionally attached to either weapon, ended up prefering the SAR, for obvious reasons.
The truth is, if the SAR-21 was not any good, they would have gone the way of the SAR-80 and 88 a long time ago, let alone being made into several versions and constantly improved. -
I suspect meander is slightly out of date about the scope problems. Word is, from my friend who is using the SAR, they have fixed plenty of his complaints in the mark 3, including the scope.
Of course, which also explains the big hoo-ha and cockatoo raised about plenty of the people in here, considering they are probably making their judgements (which are blown quite out of proportion anyway) based on their old experiences with the first mark, which has been improved quite considerably now in its third incarnation based on troop feedback.
Come to think of it, these jokers are probably the ones to denounce the M-16 when it was introduced in Vietnam, irregardless of how many advantages it provided over the M-14, just because they can't get their head out of the sand and actually learn how to use the weapon. -
a problem with the new rifle is during pro-long firing.
this refer to a normal fire-fire of less than 10min firing between
7 to 10 mag of 30rounds each. it will be heated so badly
that affect it accuracy. -
I believe he is using the 2nd or 3rd update of the weapon...since the 1st version did not come with an iron sight.But the problem with the scope is still there since my friend who is currently using a SAR21 complains about it.I do however think you are rather bias towards the M16.....But then again it is true the SAR21 has alot of pro's.So i say to all you SAR21 haters give STK some time to work it out guys...no rifle has been perfected in 3years!(german weapons asideOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I suspect meander is slightly out of date about the scope problems. Word is, from my friend who is using the SAR, they have fixed plenty of his complaints in the mark 3, including the scope.
Of course, which also explains the big hoo-ha and cockatoo raised about plenty of the people in here, considering they are probably making their judgements (which are blown quite out of proportion anyway) based on their old experiences with the first mark, which has been improved quite considerably now in its third incarnation based on troop feedback.
Come to think of it, these jokers are probably the ones to denounce the M-16 when it was introduced in Vietnam, irregardless of how many advantages it provided over the M-14, just because they can't get their head out of the sand and actually learn how to use the weapon.
) -
That's the problem you see, they expect any weapon straight off the line to preform perfectly without any hicups. Considering these "arms-experts" don't even know about the long and trouble developmental history of the M-16 they so love or consider that the SAR-21, by any measure, came off far better then the M-16 when it was first introduced in its time, I wonder how much they really know about the world of firearms besides an M-16.
What's odder is that people who actually fire, test and review weapons for a living, give the SAR-21 two thumbs up (save for the fire selector). These are they guys who actually know what they are doing.
My beef is that what we have here is probably way up there among one of the world's most advanced infantry firearms and we are having a bunch of jokers who can't be bothered how to make full use of it just because it does not feel like their 40 year old weapon, and hence it must be defective.
Terms like bulky, fat and clunky are sure signs of illogic. What we do know is that units assigned the SAR showed a remarkable spike in their range scores. What we do know that in the field the SAR is far more reliable, almost idiot proof, far more forgiving, tougher and allow us soldiers to concentrate more on hitting the target rather the worrying if we have cleaned the weapon enough and if it will work or if our sights are lined up properly in the heat of battle.
In the end, what matters is that a SAR-equipped unit has far less on their minds then an M-16 unit, and they can concentrate on what is important. And that's not where the magazine is located or if other guns can have an LAM or not, but shooting the enemy. If a SAR equipped unit is not any more combat effective then an M-16 unit? Then why are we still bothering to propagate this weapon and improve it? Because the simple fact is, it is far, far better.
Considering how they can easily overlook all these live-saving advantages and stick with a rapidly ageing weapon, just because they know it better, and nit pick on the differences, which are hardly even disadvantages, then that's pretty sad.
I think it's far more objective, and logical, to get to know the SAR, put all your preconcieved notions aside and actually learn how to use that thing. No doubt the troopers will not be let down by it. -
Which is why the SAR21 is slowly phased in though the M16 will always remain in BMT tekong to teach people how to zero.Anyway i wonder how they can solve the problem of a scope taht cannot be used in the rain and mud which is so common here....They really should fix the damn iron sight on that thing....Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's the problem you see, they expect any weapon straight off the line to preform perfectly without any hicups. Considering these "arms-experts" don't even know about the long and trouble developmental history of the M-16 they so love or consider that the SAR-21, by any measure, came off far better then the M-16 when it was first introduced in its time, I wonder how much they really know about the world of firearms besides an M-16.
What's odder is that people who actually fire, test and review weapons for a living, give the SAR-21 two thumbs up (save for the fire selector). These are they guys who actually know what they are doing.
My beef is that what we have here is probably way up there among one of the world's most advanced infantry firearms and we are having a bunch of jokers who can't be bothered how to make full use of it just because it does not feel like their 40 year old weapon, and hence it must be defective.
Terms like bulky, fat and clunky are sure signs of illogic. What we do know is that units assigned the SAR showed a remarkable spike in their range scores. What we do know that in the field the SAR is far more reliable, almost idiot proof, far more forgiving, tougher and allow us soldiers to concentrate more on hitting the target rather the worrying if we have cleaned the weapon enough and if it will work or if our sights are lined up properly in the heat of battle.
In the end, what matters is that a SAR-equipped unit has far less on their minds then an M-16 unit, and they can concentrate on what is important. And that's not where the magazine is located or if other guns can have an LAM or not, but shooting the enemy. If a SAR equipped unit is not any more combat effective then an M-16 unit? Then why are we still bothering to propagate this weapon and improve it? Because the simple fact is, it is far, far better.
Considering how they can easily overlook all these live-saving advantages and stick with a rapidly ageing weapon, just because they know it better, and nit pick on the differences, which are hardly even disadvantages, then that's pretty sad.
I think it's far more objective, and logical, to get to know the SAR, put all your preconcieved notions aside and actually learn how to use that thing. No doubt the troopers will not be let down by it. -
I feel that gauging the SAR-21 against the M-16 in this way is kinda unfair. The SAR-21 is not just a replacement for the good ol M-16, but it is also a sign that the way an infantryman or soldier fights in combat will be different. Why is that so? Already there has been several ground level tactical changes. Eg. Fibua and the Charge.
Gone are the days where u standing hip charge. Gone are the days you spray an "X" into a room in fibua. The SAF is going for quick accurate fire in order to reduce the potential casualties in tight corners. This includes FATRICIDE. I believe more changes are coming along, perhaps in the webbing as well. I find the current webbing to be most uncomfortable. Especially when Proning. Perhaps a new webbing that stores the SAR-21 mags better is already in the works? And about the mag's ribbed rings... hahah..> Talk abour ribbed for your DISpleasure. Heh.
Bitch or not, the SAR-21 is here to stay. Though I had hoped for something more robust like the G-36. I saw a pic of the G-36 after firing 20000rds. Without stoppages and they even took out the bolt carrier group. Clean as a whistle.
Apparently, the SAR-21 is in competition with the TAR-21 for being the best combat bullpup. Which means it has already surpassed previous bullpup designs like the Steyr Aug and L-85. Way to go SAR! -
My personal take? Give the SAR-21 solid old backup iron sights, change the position of the fire selector and you have a winner here.
The issue of ribbed mags here is so ridiculus that the very fact it could even be brought up shows that those who slime the SAR apparently know virtually nothing about what they are talking about, but feel in a position to nit pick
. Case closed. -
I think the mag release should be changed also....because it is behind the mag at present,moving it to a forward position somewhere near the grip would be alot better.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:My personal take? Give the SAR-21 solid old backup iron sights, change the position of the fire selector and you have a winner here.
The issue of ribbed mags here is so ridiculus that the very fact it could even be brought up shows that those who slime the SAR apparently know virtually nothing about what they are talking about, but feel in a position to nit pick . Case closed. -
Other comparisons:Originally posted by NathanG5:well..sound like u have fire TAR-21 before...can pls state the more pros of TAR-21..
the feel of the whole thing..can?
Situation Awareness
The TAR21 has a reflex sight that focus the aiming recticle dot at infinity. There is no traditional front-sight tip/rearsight aperture, because the dot is collimated. As it is like aiming a digital camera using the LCD display, I always know if the weapon is pointing at the target. So I can keep both eyes open while firing the weapon. This reflex sight uses no battery.
Future variants of the SAR21 seem to have this reflex sight, but it is not surprising as STK is a good follower.
Ergonomics
In the TAR-21, I can change magazine, cock and ready to fire again in 3 seconds. This is because the magazine catch is designed to be depressed when you grip around the magazine and pull down. The same hand is then used to insert a new magazine and cock the rifle using the lever located above the barrel guard. At all times, the other hand is still on the pistol grip and my eyes is still look through the scope.
The SAR-21 uses the traditional M16 method of cocking with the other hand holding the hand-guard. So isn't ST the one who is has the M16 mindset? Yeah, yeah, ST can claim innovation in having the cocking lever tiltable to suit both left and right hand. But they missed the big picture badly.
Carrying Handle
I wish the TAR-21 has a carrying handle like the SAR-21 and M16. Good for lazy soldiers.
Bayonet
Both has no bayonet provisions. So better practice using the SAR-21 as a club.
Magazine
TAR-21 uses M16 magazines. If you are observant, you will see that the M16 magazine has a small window near the top that lets you see when there are less than 5 rounds left. The TAR-21 housing has an opening to let the firer see this. This is innovation.
SAR-21's transparent plastic magazine is just to reduce weight of an already heavy rifle. In the heat of combat, who have time to count how many rounds left? Just estimate with good soldiering skills. -
Unlike NathanG5, I don't think he has fired the TAR-21. He had just provided some info that can be obtained from material in websites.Originally posted by NathanG5:well..sound like u have fire TAR-21 before...can pls state the more pros of TAR-21..
the feel of the whole thing..can?
He has repeatedly avoided answering the question on whether he had fired the weapon before. -
Which is better, M16 or SAR21 (or TAR21 for some)?
Well, I like the Lee Enfield No 4. Nobody can dispute that it had proven itself in WWII. It's advantages include:
- smooth and fast bolt action
- reliability
- it enforces ammo conservation by forcing the firer to shoot one round at a time
- it is effective range is much further than the 5.56 used in M16/SAR21
- it is long and solidly built and with a bayonet at the end, makes an effective hand-hand weapon
- easy to maintain
- simple to operate and fool proof
The above shows that the No 4 is better that M16/SAR21. Shouldn't we go back to the No 4?
(Actually, I like the M16 too - have not handled the SAR21, so cannot comment) -
Good to keep it this way. Will you believe if I tell you I have?Originally posted by dragonstar:Unlike NathanG5, I don't think he has fired the TAR-21. He had just provided some info that can be obtained from material in websites.
He has repeatedly avoided answering the question on whether he had fired the weapon before. -
Hmmm :-)Originally posted by stealthguy:Good to keep it this way. Will you believe if I tell you I have? -
We would if it provided enough firepower...problem with bolt action is the that that i cannot provide enough firepower for the modern battlefield also the weapon is too bloody heavy.....and yea i like the bloody Enfield 4.....it's bloody nice....though i fav will have to the the k98 series(k98k included)Originally posted by dragonstar:Which is better, M16 or SAR21 (or TAR21 for some)?
Well, I like the Lee Enfield No 4. Nobody can dispute that it had proven itself in WWII. It's advantages include:
- smooth and fast bolt action
- reliability
- it enforces ammo conservation by forcing the firer to shoot one round at a time
- it is effective range is much further than the 5.56 used in M16/SAR21
- it is long and solidly built and with a bayonet at the end, makes an effective hand-hand weapon
- easy to maintain
- simple to operate and fool proof
The above shows that the No 4 is better that M16/SAR21. Shouldn't we go back to the No 4?
(Actually, I like the M16 too - have not handled the SAR21, so cannot comment) -
Firepower ... in WWI, the precursor of the No 4 rifle shot so fast that the Germans that that the British were using MGs :-)Originally posted by |-|05|:We would if it provided enough firepower...problem with bolt action is the that that i cannot provide enough firepower for the modern battlefield also the weapon is too bloody heavy.....and yea i like the bloody Enfield 4.....it's bloody nice....though i fav will have to the the k98 series(k98k included)
Anyway, i don't think that's what you meant. For long range firepower, there's the Bren (some claimed that it is the best LMG - don't start another war about Bren and the Ultimax - I like the Ultimax). For close range, there's the Sterling (I'm not talking about WWII weapons, but weapons available prior to independance).
With regards to the weight, the No 4 is only slightly heavier than the SAR21. -
By Blockhead : Would a rubber "cup" at the end of the scope help? Maybe one of those cups u could leave on when u are not using the rifle, and pop it off when u need it? Maybe either that, or use some scratch-proof material for the scope?
Yes, there are opaque rubber covers to cover both ends of the scope. But they're only issued when you send in the weapon back to the armskote. Using it outfield is not advisable anyway, coz you might get contacted anytime and have to return fire immediately. Rubber cups that cover up the scope would hinder that. Lens are already quite scratch proof. Haven't heard of cases where scope was scratched or broke during combat. However they're still not dirt proof though .a problem with the new rifle is during pro-long firing.
Dude, ANY rifle will heat badly if you fire continuously for 10 minutes.
this refer to a normal fire-fire of less than 10min firing between
7 to 10 mag of 30rounds each. it will be heated so badly
that affect it accuracy.