New gun a cock-up ?
-
I wouldn't bother over 0.2 kg. But you are probably comparing the empty weight of the SAR-21 (3.82kg) with the loaded weight (30rd mag) of the TAR-21 (3.62kg).Originally posted by NathanG5:if are objective..u will have read the other post objectively..but obviously...u didnt..
SAR-21 is only 0.2 kg heavier then TAR-21...
n once again u didnt read my post...the TAR-21 have the same problem abt magazine change...
btw...we are not doing a OK Coral during gun battle...when u are contacted...so your say on who fire 1st is redundant...becos u are suppose to take cover or prone 1st...we are not Rambo..seriously..i doubt wat u are saying now..
pls read the other post before replying to any of the post..it basic forum etiquette..thanx u
If you refer to the STEngg and IMI corporate homepage,
www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=133
www.imi.co.il/imi/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.1.2.12.2.5.html
the empty weight of the TAR-21 is only 2.8kg.
the loaded weight of the SAR-21 is 3.82+0.16(laser)+0.46(mag with 30rd)=4.44kg
So the difference is 0.9 to 1 kg, which can be used this to carry two extra mags or one water bottle. -
[quote]Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Why would I take the SAR anyday? Because while its quirks takes getting used to, I can shoot far better with it then I ever could with the M-16, and it's added plus points are the points that matter. Durability, ease of use, reliability and far, far less mainteince and crankiness then the M-16 in field conditions. That's what will help me live in war, not how strange it is to hold or if it looks too much like the Aug.
for the SAR-21, it's not how strange it is to hold, it's the fact that the hand guard is a tat too thick for most of us. u mentioned ease of use, personally as a part of the BRC element, i wouldn't define the SAR21 as user friendly. i won't diagree on the point that i could shoot better wif the SAR21, but if in a battle condition, the few additional seconds could be the crucial few seconds that would determine your survivor in the field.
if the durability, ease of use, reliability,less maintainence and crankiness is a plus point, then user-unfriendliness (thick handguard) ,poor location of mode of firing would certainly be minus points.
What we need is a rifle that will allow us to project firepower and do so putting as little strain in unnecessary nontatical costs like cleaning it constantly and reliability issues. The real job of a soldier is not to sit around cleaning his rifle of rust or clearing common jams in battle, it is to kill the enemy. In that respect does the SAR allow us to do that job better with less of those side issues? Of course. That is by any measure, the true "trusty" rifle
hahah i dun think anyone would say to their encik that it's not a soldier's job to clean toilets, sweep floor the next time he do the inspection rite?
every new rifle or side arms would would definately neeed minimum cleaning. who among all of us had a chance to be issued wif a brand new M-16? i'm not gonna say the SAR 21 is gonna have more cleaning and reliability probs in the future. but at least when people give their views of certain issues, take it gentlemenly and respond gentlemenly.
obviously at this point in time, we have people in combat vocations having views abt the SAR21 and how or rather wat improvement they would like to see on the SAR21. u hav ur views i hav my take. so let's be sensible and engage the topic, not the people who air their views. terima kasih. -
Ah ... my mood is better now ... Arsenal won 5-0 !!! muahahhaha ... Now back on topic ..
Some of you guys are set in saying SAR rocks, and some go SAR sucks! Some of you guys might even be SAF spies sent here change general opinion about the SAR
(nah j/k). There's nothing I can do to change that.
All my posts were typed based on memory, I haven't touched the SAR for a while now, and I forgot some stuff. Heck, all i remember was my general opinion of the SAR. So there probably are still a lot of good/bad points that I didn't cover.
Now, my main point is, when a rifle has quite has still quite a few bad points, albeit all minor ones, it is an unfinished product. Many minor faults on a weapon = 1 not-so-good weapon.
I really hope the SARs that were sent my unit were part of a testing phase. Because while the SAR does look good on paper, its ground performance is sorely lacking. And I really am not far off with my comment. 2 battalions (mine and my sister inf unit) that switched from M16 to SAR midway maintained that it sucked right up to their ORD dates. What the top brass say about our SAR is rather irrevalent, they have to support the SAR because they are regulars; critizing the SAR openly would be career suicide. Designers can praise it to the heavens, but ground units are the ones to use the SAR extensively, and if they say it sucks, it sucks.
I have nothing against locally produced arms, in fact if the US starts buying our SAR I would feel proud as a Singaporean. But the reality is SAR still has some technical issues to sort out before they start phasing out all the M16s. When the time comes where most issues have been sorted out, only then I will say "SAR is a good weapon".
So I say to STK/DSTA or whoever it is that designs SAR : Gather more info and feedback from those who have used a variety of weapons including SAR in actual combat. Don't just get all your feedback from high ranking officers, retired personel, engineers, punks and the like; accept negative feedback from ADF and units who are using or have used the SAR before as they are the ones who will use the weapon the most in the end.
Then go back to the drawing table and make a better SAR; one that combines all current pros, and eliminates most of the cons. As someone mentioned earlier, nobody has perfected a weapon in 3 years. Hopefully in another few years we'll be seeing better SAR models.
Peace out
~meander~ -
I would wager it's more "sucky" attitude on the part of the unit which is using it, but I don't buy that for I prefer to be objective.
For someone objective, you are really pro-SAR and anti-M16. If you don't trust the opinion of entire units that have used the SAR for more than a year, who's opinion do you trust? Your own? Based on what you read and 2nd hand accounts from friends? Military magazine reviewers who fired SAR just once under "no-stress" conditions? Top brass reviews cannot be trusted as I mentioned in a previous post.
Now I pose to you the question : Have you handled the SAR in the field extensively? If yes, you are entitled to your views and comments, as to each his own. If no, you are still entitled to your own view and comments but please stop discrediting those who have done so.
Durability, ease of use, reliability and far, far less mainteince and crankiness then the M-16 in field conditions.
I disagree. But all this is subjective, everyone has different takes.
That's what will help me live in war, not how strange it is to hold or if it looks too much like the Aug.
If it's strange to hold, chances are you can't maintain prolonged aiming nor accuracy. And btw, no one here is talking about the Aug. Why keep comparing it?
... unnecessary nontatical costs like cleaning it constantly and reliability issues. The real job of a soldier is not to sit around cleaning his rifle of rust or clearing common jams in battle, it is to kill the enemy.
The real job of a soldier is to maintain readiness at all time to fight anytime. To achieve that, you acutally need to maintain you equipment in top condition. A rusty weapon works against you in battle. How do you propose to kill the enemy if your weapon jams in battle (due to rust/IA/whatever)? And if weapon reliability isn't an serious issue, I have no idea what is.
The SAR-21 being more balance. (you can actually shoot with 1 hand, easily), brings to bear much faster.
Yes you can shoot 1 handed with the SAR, but you probably won't hit anything. Like the M16, you still need 2 hands to aim with the SAR. However, SAR does win in terms of "bring to bear faster".
... SAR-21 is only 0.2 kg heavier then TAR-21...
...the TAR-21 have the same problem abt magazine change...
Pls read carefully yourself before you post. Get your facts straight too. Anyway we don't really care if TAR has similar problems. We are concerned about the fact the SAR HAS that problem.
...when u are contacted...so your say on who fire 1st is redundant...becos u are suppose to take cover or prone 1st...
If you manage to shoot first and take out a commander, you will disorganise the enemy and have a higher chance of winning. So I'll hardly say "who fires first" is a redundant factor in combat.
When I said "if it aint broke don't fix it", I was refering to the SAR mags. Since some TAR makes can reuse the M16 mags, I don't see why the SAR (somewhat similar to TAR) can't reuse them. Even if they had to replace the mags, why use polymers that have to be reinforced on the outside instead of sticking to metal mags?
The SAR IA issue was an mistake on my part. The particular IA in case was that cartridge was stuck behind in the buttstock, rather unique and impossible in M16s. I concede that it might be due to gas issues (tho in gas issues usually the cartridge is usually jammed in front, instead of behind). Still, the SAR still IAs too much for my liking during bn live firing exercises. Also, the mechanisms inside the SAR body looks fragile IMO, and might not be able to withstand years of combat. In any case, IA issue is settled : SAR IAs less than M16s. -
Fire it and carry it, then you'll know what we're talking about, it needs massive rework
Don't read from the internet and brochure and tell us that it's a good weapon. It's heavy even with composite material ?
I've to use my left hand to change from single to auto.
BTW, no left hander shooter for the SAR21.
-
http://dboy.cpgl.net/imi/tavor/tavor.htm
Not sure which is better but field stripping of SAR-21 and swapping of components is much easier.....
BTW, that's why the fire selector is behind...and not at teh pistol grip....re-design means less modular
Southpark
The Dude -
haha, Forgot about the "SAFE" part. In anycase, when it is required for anyone to put to safe, its not flicking of the switch that is that takes priority. The first priority is taking the itchy finger off the trigger. Finally, in the case of e SAR, take ur other hand and flick the switch to SAFE.
I don't know about u guys. I don't normally safe my weapon. I only cock my weapon when some stupid bugger yells contacted. Hahaha. I am lazy, so sue me. So the SAFE, is seldom used on my rifle. Only after we are done with our movement and Orange the enemy, then I safe my weapon. -
actually that's true... even with the m16 where the safety is easily accessible...Originally posted by Shotgun:haha, Forgot about the "SAFE" part. In anycase, when it is required for anyone to put to safe, its not flicking of the switch that is that takes priority. The first priority is taking the itchy finger off the trigger. Finally, in the case of e SAR, take ur other hand and flick the switch to SAFE.
I don't know about u guys. I don't normally safe my weapon. I only cock my weapon when some stupid bugger yells contacted. Hahaha. I am lazy, so sue me. So the SAFE, is seldom used on my rifle. Only after we are done with our movement and Orange the enemy, then I safe my weapon.
u put it on safe if u're sure that u got hours to burn before anything pops up... like if u're on a non-tac break... (i.e. lobo-ing )
if u're moving to an objective and expecting to meet patrols on the way, or sitting around in defence waiting for an assault on your objective, "safe" it for what? if anything moves in front of u, its shoot first, ask questions later liao... wait kena silenced worse man... kena fcuk, kena sign... -
Originally posted by meander:
seriously..im not sure whether in this post..are u refering to me or ST?
[b]I would wager it's more "sucky" attitude on the part of the unit which is using it, but I don't buy that for I prefer to be objective.
For someone objective, you are really pro-SAR and anti-M16. If you don't trust the opinion of entire units that have used the SAR for more than a year, who's opinion do you trust? Your own? Based on what you read and 2nd hand accounts from friends? Military magazine reviewers who fired SAR just once under "no-stress" conditions? Top brass reviews cannot be trusted as I mentioned in a previous post.
Now I pose to you the question : Have you handled the SAR in the field extensively? If yes, you are entitled to your views and comments, as to each his own. If no, you are still entitled to your own view and comments but please stop discrediting those who have done so.
Durability, ease of use, reliability and far, far less mainteince and crankiness then the M-16 in field conditions.
I disagree. But all this is subjective, everyone has different takes.
That's what will help me live in war, not how strange it is to hold or if it looks too much like the Aug.
If it's strange to hold, chances are you can't maintain prolonged aiming nor accuracy. And btw, no one here is talking about the Aug. Why keep comparing it?
... unnecessary nontatical costs like cleaning it constantly and reliability issues. The real job of a soldier is not to sit around cleaning his rifle of rust or clearing common jams in battle, it is to kill the enemy.
The real job of a soldier is to maintain readiness at all time to fight anytime. To achieve that, you acutally need to maintain you equipment in top condition. A rusty weapon works against you in battle. How do you propose to kill the enemy if your weapon jams in battle (due to rust/IA/whatever)? And if weapon reliability isn't an serious issue, I have no idea what is.
The SAR-21 being more balance. (you can actually shoot with 1 hand, easily), brings to bear much faster.
Yes you can shoot 1 handed with the SAR, but you probably won't hit anything. Like the M16, you still need 2 hands to aim with the SAR. However, SAR does win in terms of "bring to bear faster".
... SAR-21 is only 0.2 kg heavier then TAR-21...
...the TAR-21 have the same problem abt magazine change...
Pls read carefully yourself before you post. Get your facts straight too. Anyway we don't really care if TAR has similar problems. We are concerned about the fact the SAR HAS that problem.
my fact?
i got it from a Israelis webside..unless ur telling me they are wrong..
pls read my other post before that...duh.. plain rude..tsk tsk tsk..
so we dun care if TAR have tat problem...so dun farking compare it in the 1st place right? n if u read carefully..the post was not refering to yours..seriously..have u been readin the other post?
...when u are contacted...so your say on who fire 1st is redundant...becos u are suppose to take cover or prone 1st...
If you manage to shoot first and take out a commander, you will disorganise the enemy and have a higher chance of winning. So I'll hardly say "who fires first" is a redundant factor in combat.
so the enemy is gona be stupidly let u aim take a shot?
obviously its the enemy will fire 1st..u are being contacted..i guess u must be super garang soldier..who can run left right up down..without being shot at..hey gd for u bro..
well..unless u are toking being ambush n kena contact until damn near...i rest my case..
When I said "if it aint broke don't fix it", I was refering to the SAR mags. Since some TAR makes can reuse the M16 mags, I don't see why the SAR (somewhat similar to TAR) can't reuse them. Even if they had to replace the mags, why use polymers that have to be reinforced on the outside instead of sticking to metal mags?
The SAR IA issue was an mistake on my part. The particular IA in case was that cartridge was stuck behind in the buttstock, rather unique and impossible in M16s. I concede that it might be due to gas issues (tho in gas issues usually the cartridge is usually jammed in front, instead of behind). Still, the SAR still IAs too much for my liking during bn live firing exercises. Also, the mechanisms inside the SAR body looks fragile IMO, and might not be able to withstand years of combat. In any case, IA issue is settled : SAR IAs less than M16s.[/b]
i can see from your post..that u are telling all non SAR user to shut up?
n pls...post it clearly... who are u replying to? -
I'm more interested in what will happen at the end of the day. Will the SAR eventually phase out the M-16? Will it be perfected in due time? I don't see any reason why not.
There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the weapon, like say, the British SA-80, which was flawed from the bottom up. Of course, unless you are like Mr. Stealthguy, who is infatuated with the Tavor-21, who in the perfect example of an Armchair Rambo sedulously dodges all the logic being thrown at him. then I have little to say. -
I disagree. But all this is subjective, everyone has different takes.
Huh? I suppose M60 crews might argue that their tank is easier to maintain then an M1 Abrams due to the subjective nature of each person to his individual weapons system, but what that dosen't lie is the math at the end of the the day.
On average do SAR equipped units spend less time working on keeping their weapons in working order? Do SAR equipped units incur higher costs and turnover rates then say M-16 units. The subjective nature of an individual's attatchment to his weapon aside, what does the maths say at the end of the day, how does this translate to in tatical effectiveness in reality?
How then, do you disagree?
Since you mentioned it has been some time since you touched the SAR, have you been aware of the fact that the current standard issue SAR is already in its third mark?
Which I have yet to see, but from my comrades who are using it, they say it is quite a different weapon from the ones they usually show at aerospace or issued out initially in the first production batch?
Prehaps the difference in opinion is coming from people who are using the different marks? Still, I see little rational reason in slamming the SAR, for I have used the first mark, and it was far better and easier to point-index and shoot then the M-16. -
When I said "if it aint broke don't fix it", I was refering to the SAR mags. Since some TAR makes can reuse the M16 mags, I don't see why the SAR (somewhat similar to TAR) can't reuse them. Even if they had to replace the mags, why use polymers that have to be reinforced on the outside instead of sticking to metal mags?
That's because polymer mags are far more durable, stronger and most importantly, do not warp.
It can be fatal in battle when you realize you can't load your magazine because you warped your metal magazine back then when you went prone. Metal as a material for a magazine is unstable, it expands considerably when heated, tends to warp and is vulnerable to environmental conditions. Polymers as a materal are far more stable. I also like the feature that you can see how many rounds you have left. No grabbing for a misplaced, four round mag by accident in the heat of battle. I also hate to die because my last magazine refused to load after I dropped it on a hard surface accidently.
Also, I suspect the reason why STK made the SAR-21 use its own mags (hereby setting up a logistical issue) was because SAF itself announced it's intentions that it was going to totally replace the M-16 in due time.
Granted the current polymer mags are not perfect, but they are certainly superior to the old metal mags, and with a proper magazine pouch most of your problems with drawing them will cease to exist. -
i got it from a Israelis webside..unless ur telling me they are wrong..
pls read my other post before that...duh.. plain rude..tsk tsk tsk..
so we dun care if TAR have tat problem...so dun farking compare it in the 1st place right? n if u read carefully..the post was not refering to yours..seriously..have u been readin the other post?
Pls read stealthguy's post on top of page 5. Again. No, I don't think I'm rude. Yes I know you weren't refering to me, you were refering to stealthguy. Also I didn't start comparing TAR to SAR, if you look at your post where you quoted stealthguy (where he didn't mention TAR at all), you started comparing TAR to SAR after he had stopped talking about it for several posts. Anyway, your info is correct, BUT you are comparing different things.
SAR specs
Weapon w/o accessories : 3.82 kg
LAD : 0.16 kg
Empty mag : 0.12kg
Loaded 30 rounds mag : 0.46kg
Combat weight : 3.82 + 0.16 + 0.46 = 4.44kg
And according to this site : http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html
TAR specs
Weapon empty (with or w/o accesssories i dunno) : 2.8kg
Combat weight with optical sight, 30 round magazine, carrying sling : 3.635 kg
Dude, you were comparing the weight of a unloaded SAR with a fully loaded TAR. Let's just drop the TAR thing.
btw...we are not doing a OK Coral during gun battle...when u are contacted...so your say on who fire 1st is redundant...becos u are suppose to take cover or prone 1st...we are not Rambo..seriously..i doubt wat u are saying now..
and ...
so the enemy is gona be stupidly let u aim take a shot?
obviously its the enemy will fire 1st..u are being contacted..i guess u must be super garang soldier..who can run left right up down..without being shot at..hey gd for u bro..
well..unless u are toking being ambush n kena contact until damn near...i rest my case..
You were saying whoever fires first is not important. I'm telling you it matters. So i have no idea what your second comment means.
seriously..im not sure whether in this post..are u refering to me or ST?
i can see from your post..that u are telling all non SAR user to shut up?
n pls...post it clearly... who are u replying to?
I was referring to BOTH you and ST. If I quote you, I'm refering to you; if I quote ST, I'm refering to him. Simple as that. Reason I didn't mention any names is because I didn't want this to turn into a senseless bickering thread. But it still did, it's happening now.
And I never said non-SAR users should shutup. I said non-SAR users are entitled to their own opinion but should stop critizing/flaming/dissing SAR users. Because afterall SAR users have handled the weapon and know more on SAR, in contrast to those non-SAR users.
On average do SAR equipped units spend less time working on keeping their weapons in working order?
When I was in the unit, I used the SAR, while my men still used the M16. Reason being the M203 and sharpshooter models of the SAR weren't in yet. We spent the about the same time cleaning weapons. I wouldn't know about costs and turnovers. It's rather irrevalent since SAF has deep pockets.
Prehaps the difference in opinion is coming from people who are using the different marks?
My SAR has a iron sight, and as someone pointed out somewhere, it should be at least mk II or mk III. I overhead once at the armskote that we had mk III, but I really have no idea (maybe I'm delusional).All I'm sure of is that I used the SAR until from mid 2002 till 2003. Anyway I seriously doubt SAF would push out "crap versions" to operational units.
Still, I see little rational reason in slamming the SAR ...
Maybe I was a bit over-zealous in slamming the SAR in my first post. But I've toned down since then. Then again I see little rational reason in overly praising the SAR . In any case, I still feel that SAR is an unfinished work still on the drawing board. Let's leave it at that shall we?
Polymer mags blah
I understand the structural strength and warping part, but the rings will interlock no matter what as long as the SBO design is such that you place 2 mags in the same pouch. So maybe SAF will remake SBO such that 1 pouch for 1 mag? Or reinforce the mag from the inside? Or do nothing at all? We shall see.
To ST : I will say this once again. SAR is a nice concept. But until it's implementation is refined, right now SAR doesn't cut it.
Truce ST? After 3 pages of tearing each other's posts apart, we still won't budge from our individual PoV. What's the point? To what end? We're all reitering the basic same stuff. I'm kinda tired ... probably not replying to this thread anymore. Besides, I'm only posting so much because it's lonely weekend
but that should change . -
Originally posted by meander:
i cant believe this...i rewrite this reply 3 time...n 3 time kena data loss..
[b]i got it from a Israelis webside..unless ur telling me they are wrong..
pls read my other post before that...duh.. plain rude..tsk tsk tsk..
so we dun care if TAR have tat problem...so dun farking compare it in the 1st place right? n if u read carefully..the post was not refering to yours..seriously..have u been readin the other post?
Pls read stealthguy's post on top of page 5. Again. No, I don't think I'm rude. Yes I know you weren't refering to me, you were refering to stealthguy. Also I didn't start comparing TAR to SAR, if you look at your post where you quoted stealthguy (where he didn't mention TAR at all), you started comparing TAR to SAR after he had stopped talking about it for several posts. Anyway, your info is correct, BUT you are comparing different things.
SAR specs
Weapon w/o accessories : 3.82 kg
LAD : 0.16 kg
Empty mag : 0.12kg
Loaded 30 rounds mag : 0.46kg
Combat weight : 3.82 + 0.16 + 0.46 = 4.44kg
And according to this site : http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html
TAR specs
Weapon empty (with or w/o accesssories i dunno) : 2.8kg
Combat weight with optical sight, 30 round magazine, carrying sling : 3.635 kg
Dude, you were comparing the weight of a unloaded SAR with a fully loaded TAR. Let's just drop the TAR thing.
btw...we are not doing a OK Coral during gun battle...when u are contacted...so your say on who fire 1st is redundant...becos u are suppose to take cover or prone 1st...we are not Rambo..seriously..i doubt wat u are saying now..
and ...
so the enemy is gona be stupidly let u aim take a shot?
obviously its the enemy will fire 1st..u are being contacted..i guess u must be super garang soldier..who can run left right up down..without being shot at..hey gd for u bro..
well..unless u are toking being ambush n kena contact until damn near...i rest my case..
You were saying whoever fires first is not important. I'm telling you it matters. So i have no idea what your second comment means.
seriously..im not sure whether in this post..are u refering to me or ST?
i can see from your post..that u are telling all non SAR user to shut up?
n pls...post it clearly... who are u replying to?
I was referring to BOTH you and ST. If I quote you, I'm refering to you; if I quote ST, I'm refering to him. Simple as that. Reason I didn't mention any names is because I didn't want this to turn into a senseless bickering thread. But it still did, it's happening now.
And I never said non-SAR users should shutup. I said non-SAR users are entitled to their own opinion but should stop critizing/flaming/dissing SAR users. Because afterall SAR users have handled the weapon and know more on SAR, in contrast to those non-SAR users.
On average do SAR equipped units spend less time working on keeping their weapons in working order?
When I was in the unit, I used the SAR, while my men still used the M16. Reason being the M203 and sharpshooter models of the SAR weren't in yet. We spent the about the same time cleaning weapons. I wouldn't know about costs and turnovers. It's rather irrevalent since SAF has deep pockets.
Prehaps the difference in opinion is coming from people who are using the different marks?
My SAR has a iron sight, and as someone pointed out somewhere, it should be at least mk II or mk III. I overhead once at the armskote that we had mk III, but I really have no idea (maybe I'm delusional).All I'm sure of is that I used the SAR until from mid 2002 till 2003. Anyway I seriously doubt SAF would push out "crap versions" to operational units.
Still, I see little rational reason in slamming the SAR ...
Maybe I was a bit over-zealous in slamming the SAR in my first post. But I've toned down since then. Then again I see little rational reason in overly praising the SAR . In any case, I still feel that SAR is an unfinished work still on the drawing board. Let's leave it at that shall we?
Polymer mags blah
I understand the structural strength and warping part, but the rings will interlock no matter what as long as the SBO design is such that you place 2 mags in the same pouch. So maybe SAF will remake SBO such that 1 pouch for 1 mag? Or reinforce the mag from the inside? Or do nothing at all? We shall see.
To ST : I will say this once again. SAR is a nice concept. But until it's implementation is refined, right now SAR doesn't cut it.
Truce ST? After 3 pages of tearing each other's posts apart, we still won't budge from our individual PoV. What's the point? To what end? We're all reitering the basic same stuff. I'm kinda tired ... probably not replying to this thread anymore. Besides, I'm only posting so much because it's lonely weekend but that should change .[/b]
thanx to your long post..
u are rite..lets agree to disagree.... -
I'm glad to meet a fellow citizen who unwavers in support of the SAR-21.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I'm more interested in what will happen at the end of the day. Will the SAR eventually phase out the M-16? Will it be perfected in due time? I don't see any reason why not.
There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the weapon, like say, the British SA-80, which was flawed from the bottom up. Of course, unless you are like Mr. Stealthguy, who is infatuated with the Tavor-21, who in the perfect example of an Armchair Rambo sedulously dodges all the logic being thrown at him. then I have little to say.
Enough technical, tactics and character assaults have been discussed for forum readers to make their own judgement.
As an armchair rambo, I have fired the AR15 since 1980 in school, and have been using the M16 from NS even to now in an infantry combat unit. All my missions are in the field. Except during rest, our weapons are always slung or fired. 10km manoevres on foot is a norm.
In objective humility, I am also a marksman with the M16, with or without scope. It is technique and practise. Of all the theories taught, the two most important in combat is to place the cheek in the correct position on the butt (so your eye is aligned to the sights immediately), and squeeze the trigger as fast as possible without jerking the barrel. With the SAR-21 scope and balance, it is now easier to do this. Even a clerksman can score well.
Althought I have not fired the SAR-21, I can evaluate its ergonomics when I handle it. As an engineer by profession, I can tell whether it is an efficient design.
The big picture is not just a measure of rifle accuracy or amount of composite materials was used. Designers have to consider other issues like carrying it for extended duration, time-motion studies, weapon management and reliability.
The SAR-21 scored well in some, but lost out in others. For the soldier to perform effectively in the field, every factor is important. Remember that the SAF soldier spend more time carrying the rifle more than firing it.
So ST-Rex, what is your vocation in the SAF? We want to understand your background better. -
Engineers are generally not good designers. Kudos for the technological feat but boo-boo for usabilityOriginally posted by stealthguy:Althought I have not fired the SAR-21, I can evaluate its ergonomics when I handle it. As an engineer by profession, I can tell whether it is an efficient design. -
My unit STILL uses AR-15.. so anything better then that will be greatly appreciated.
It seems to me most of the discussion to date has been focused on reliability, selector switch, weight and the new "plastic" MAGs. I do not and cannot agree or disagree wif them as I have never had a chance to use the SAR. However, I would choose the SAR over my AR-15 for the following reasons:
Bullpup design has shorter overall length - most modern weapons are now on Bullpup design. The shorter length is especially useful in FIBUA. How do u like jumping through windows and swinging through doors with a SAW?? M-16 (for my case AR-15) is simply too long for my liking. And as in ALL bullpup designs (not juz SAR), MAGs are placed behind, naturally mag changing will be slower then say M-16s. But I guess I can live with that.
Build in Scope - I am a section sharp shooter.. suppose to carry a scope with my AR-15 (yes.. NCC weapon ) But in reality, it was never used coz its too difficult to zero and keep it that way.. in fact, I have not even seen the scope since I became NSman 10 years ago! Now, how "OPERATIONAL READY" a NSman am I? I suppose one cannot compare maintenance of iron sights with optical sights, the latter would surely be more complex ... but I'm not complaining as long as I can shoot better with it. 
"Plastic" MAGs - In my years firing with AR-15s (since NCC days).. THE major cause of IAs is actually due to faulty MAGs.. the cheap (look and feel) made in SIN metallic mags gets deform when dropped.. once the top part of the MAG is dented, it cannot align the rounds at a proper angle for the rifle to chamber them correctly, thus the IAs. I suppose the new MAGs can handle abuse better and I like the see through feature.. I'm not sure how many of u guys actually count your rounds when firing (i try).. Bt I think it will be difficult to do that in a "live" situation. Being able to see balance rds can be of real help when making split second decisions.
Great CG - I have tried holding the SAR at several SAF shows and more recently AA2004. I find the rifle balanced (weight). Its comfortable to hold and I assume its as comfortable to fire. I HATED the M203s and dislike the SAW's CG. M203 is extremely uncomfortable to hold in firing position due to the extreme weight in front. I'm not sure how many ppl can actually hold M203 in standing shoulder position for 5 mins and still hit their targets. I think I can do it with the SAR.
I too dislike some features on the SAR.. I feel that its a little bulky and a tad heavy. I'm sure we can benefit with a less "Kisu" configuration.. a more barebone config like the AUG.
I can live with the "cons" coz I think the "pro" side is heaver here. Overall, I feel the SAR is a step forward. So, please, please (x1000) melt the AR-15s and give me the SAR21!!
-
That's because polymer mags are far more durable, stronger and most importantly, do not warp.
I'm not too sure about this though...since i study engineering materials and polymers seem to have a lower everything then steel hehe anyway i might go ask my lecturer about it since i believe she worked on the weapon as an advisor
It can be fatal in battle when you realize you can't load your magazine because you warped your metal magazine back then when you went prone. Metal as a material for a magazine is unstable, it expands considerably when heated, tends to warp and is vulnerable to environmental conditions. Polymers as a materal are far more stable. I also like the feature that you can see how many rounds you have left. No grabbing for a misplaced, four round mag by accident in the heat of battle. I also hate to die because my last magazine refused to load after I dropped it on a hard surface accidently. -
you're from Airforce too?Originally posted by siaokao:My unit STILL uses AR-15.. so anything better then that will be greatly appreciated.
It seems to me most of the discussion to date has been focused on reliability, selector switch, weight and the new "plastic" MAGs. I do not and cannot agree or disagree wif them as I have never had a chance to use the SAR. However, I would choose the SAR over my AR-15 for the following reasons:
Bullpup design has shorter overall length - most modern weapons are now on Bullpup design. The shorter length is especially useful in FIBUA. How do u like jumping through windows and swinging through doors with a SAW?? M-16 (for my case AR-15) is simply too long for my liking. And as in ALL bullpup designs (not juz SAR), MAGs are placed behind, naturally mag changing will be slower then say M-16s. But I guess I can live with that.
Build in Scope - I am a section sharp shooter.. suppose to carry a scope with my AR-15 (yes.. NCC weapon ) But in reality, it was never used coz its too difficult to zero and keep it that way.. in fact, I have not even seen the scope since I became NSman 10 years ago! Now, how "OPERATIONAL READY" a NSman am I? I suppose one cannot compare maintenance of iron sights with optical sights, the latter would surely be more complex ... but I'm not complaining as long as I can shoot better with it.
"Plastic" MAGs - In my years firing with AR-15s (since NCC days).. THE major cause of IAs is actually due to faulty MAGs.. the cheap (look and feel) made in SIN metallic mags gets deform when dropped.. once the top part of the MAG is dented, it cannot align the rounds at a proper angle for the rifle to chamber them correctly, thus the IAs. I suppose the new MAGs can handle abuse better and I like the see through feature.. I'm not sure how many of u guys actually count your rounds when firing (i try).. Bt I think it will be difficult to do that in a "live" situation. Being able to see balance rds can be of real help when making split second decisions.
Great CG - I have tried holding the SAR at several SAF shows and more recently AA2004. I find the rifle balanced (weight). Its comfortable to hold and I assume its as comfortable to fire. I HATED the M203s and dislike the SAW's CG. M203 is extremely uncomfortable to hold in firing position due to the extreme weight in front. I'm not sure how many ppl can actually hold M203 in standing shoulder position for 5 mins and still hit their targets. I think I can do it with the SAR.
I too dislike some features on the SAR.. I feel that its a little bulky and a tad heavy. I'm sure we can benefit with a less "Kisu" configuration.. a more barebone config like the AUG.
I can live with the "cons" coz I think the "pro" side is heaver here. Overall, I feel the SAR is a step forward. So, please, please (x1000) melt the AR-15s and give me the SAR21!!
i was posting almost the same thing as u...but i guess frontline soldier have different view from us...
we never have the luxary of having a brand new weapon..let alone a new model.. -
Source: Defenseworld.net (register to read in full + graphics)
SAR-21 for Singapore
An Overview of the Development of the SAR-21 Assault Rifle
(The new SAR-21 is expected to progressively replace the M16 as the standard issue assault rifle in service with the Singapore Armed Forces.)
The conceptual design phase of the SAR 21 (Singapore Assault Rifle for the 21st century) Started at Chartered Industries of Singapore (a member of Singapore Technologies) in 1993. Development activities over the first two years were mostly focused on feasibility studies and the search for viable design technology. The key aim for the project was to develop an assault rifle which should have significantly higher hit probability than the M16 (the current standard-issue individual weapon of the Singapore Armed Forces), while at the same time being more pact and offering a lower overall system weight (when fitted with an equipment aiming device ). The rifle should also be equipped with an integrated optical sight.
The SAR 21 is a 5.56 mm caliber, gas-operated, “bullpup” configured weapon system capable of firing in semi-automatic and full-automatic modes. The “bullpup” configuration results in a shorter rifle without any reduction in the barrel length; indeed, the barrel length of SAR 21 is the same as in the M16, and therefore the inherent advantages (such as round dispersion and overall accuracy) that are barrel length-dependent were not compromised by the project goal’s of a compact weapon.
In addition to being lighter and shorter than the M16 it is intended to replace in SAFÂ’s service, the SAR-21 offers other significant advantages on terms of integrated day/night sighting capability, full automatic controllability, ease of maintenance, reduced recoil and additional safety features.
The SAR21 is modular in design consisting of five basic assemblies: barrel, upper receiver, lower receiver, bolt and magazine groups (see drawing). The modular construction allows ease of disassembly/reassembly and maintenance. The operator needs only to disengage two takedown pins and the weapon may then be field stripped in a matter of seconds or reassembled in less than a minute without the use of tools. Once field-stripped, all component parts requiring operator maintenance, cleaning or inspection are readily accessible.
Extensive use of modern and advanced engineering plastic materials is made for the weapon's upper receiver body, safety shield, hand-guard and lower receiver.
Accessories include rifle sling, blared firing attachment, cleaning kit, bore sighting equipment and Miles attachment.
OPERATION
The SAR-21 is magazine-fed, and has a close-bolt type of firing mechanism. The weapon uses a long-stroke piston with the main spring well protected inside the guide tube. The bolt tube has two large locking lugs that rotate 450 to lock with the barrel extension. The SAR-21 incorporates the CIS patented constant recoil principle to balance the bolt group and the recoil spring force in order to improve full automatic controllability.
Ejection is to the right and is accomplished by a rocking ejector. The cocking handle is fully ambidextrous as it is located on the centerline being protected within the housing scope mount when not in use.
The SAR-21 fires in semi-automatic and full-automatic modes. The mode-of-fire selector is housed in the lower receiver, while the safety button is just forward of the trigger. The rifle uses a 30-rd translucent plastic magazine to enable the user to have a direct visual feedback on the number of rounds in stocks.
The SAR-21 features an integrated 1.5x optical scope and a laser aiming device (LAD), both of which are factory-zeroed and do not require further field zeroing for engagement.
The optical sighting axis is optimally positioned to suit the average firer. The LAD is specially configured to suit the weapon, and the activating button is positioned such that no loose cable is exposed. The LADS is powered by one AA-size battery which can last for 4 hours of continual usage. Both visible and IR LADs are available.
As both the optical sight and the LAD are integrated to the weapon, stringent requirements were specified. Under normal condition, other than general cleaning of lenses, no other preventive maintenance is required.
Human Factor Engineering
In the SAR-21 design, human factor considerations were heavily factored during the development stage. HFE trials involving hundreds of soldiers were conducted which has resulted in the current profile of the butt stock, the cheek rest on the upper receiver, and the location of the safety button and the cocking handle.
HFE also involves safety features. One of the main safety considerations in a “bull pup” Rifle is that the firing chamber is much closer to the operator’s head than in a conventional rifle layout. To address this concern, the SAR-21 has been designed to provide the maximum protection possible by incorporating a built-in composite material Safety shield, metal reinforcement, positive large locking surfaces and by using a gas pressure venting hole in the barrel extension, to release the high pressure gas/blast.
The Weapon Family concept:
In addition to the standard-issue assault rifle, there are several possible variants of the SAR-21 to meet the varying requirements of different users and yet maintain high commonality of parts. This is achievable due to the modular concept adopted in its design.
Main variants include:
Sharp Shooter Variant
This is a standard SAR-21 with an integrated 3x optical scope. Replacement of scope from 1.5x to 3x or vice-versa can be performed at unit level.
Light Machine Gun Variant
This variant comes equipped with a heavy barrel and bipod, and operates in a full-automatic open bolt firing mode. More than 60% of the components are identical to the basic assault rifle.
SAR-21/M203 Variant
This is a SAR-21 attached with a M203 grenade launcher with 9” barrel. The LAD is mounted on the quadrant platform.
SAR-21 Picatinny-Rail (P-Rail) Variant
This variant, featuring a sight-mounting platform in place of integrated optical sight permits the use of all types of optical, electro-optical or collimating sight as selected by the operator.
Sourced with permission from Military Technology -
In addition to being lighter and shorter than the M16 it is intended to replace in SAFÂ’s service, the SAR-21 offers other significant advantages on terms of integrated day/night sighting capability, full automatic controllability, ease of maintenance, reduced recoil and additional safety features.
i dun understand this part....
we all know it aint true abt being light.... -
5.56mm caliber rounds just paper punchers, 6.8mm is becoming the new combat benchmark, after numerous complaints from grunts that 5.56 lack the punch against AK47 7.62mm...
talk about AK47, no western countries are able to replicate its reliablity , even after 40 yrs -
I think they meant M-16 + laser pointer + scope....Originally posted by NathanG5:i dun understand this part....
we all know it aint true abt being light....
BTW, Tavor is lighter than SAR-21 but I guess that's becos they have a shorter barrel - 480mm vs. a standard 508mm for the M-16 and SAR-21.
Southpark
The Dude -
they can...they just dont want to....because you cant hit crap using that thing after the 1st round....and honestly the gun's iron sight is extremely badly built...all of them....cant really aim properlyOriginally posted by LRRP:5.56mm caliber rounds just paper punchers, 6.8mm is becoming the new combat benchmark, after numerous complaints from grunts that 5.56 lack the punch against AK47 7.62mm...
talk about AK47, no western countries are able to replicate its reliablity , even after 40 yrs -
just wondering, are there HE rounds for 5.56mm ?