Talk:SAR-21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Left hand shooting with the sar 21 - The cheek of the firer will be up against the ejection port. It will hurt!!!!
[edit] Left Handed Shooting
It is possible to shoot from the left side, the ejection port will not be up against your cheek.
However in the case of a chamber explosion, your face will kenna until very zialat, so as mentioned in the article, it's safer to shoot from the right master hand... the kevlar plate is there for something.
Anyway I like the rifle, it is a decent firearm that gets the job done. this may be a personal opinion but it may be that a lot of the "issues" with the SAR come from this curious syndrome among Singaporeans to distrust anything we come up with ourselves (strangely enough, the SAR and Ultimax were rated highly by other nations but always negatively by ourselves), and also from it being different from the M-16S1 rather then being actually inferior. Bullpups are different, and often a lot of the difficulty comes from being locked into the conventional rut.
-Shian
I have used both, and I agree with the negative comments listed. Also, it is not true that the SAR-21 can be fired from the left shoulder - at least if you don't want your left cheek to get a burnt mark.
For those older reservists that had used both the SAR-21 and the M16, the former compares unfavourably with the latter.
There is a few more problem that has not been listed: the reticle on the SAR-21 1.5X scope is not always clear. Sometimes, in very bright conditions and against a dark target, the reticle could not be seen. This is a serious flaw that has nothing to do with whether the user is used to the new weapon.
It is also not true that foreign reviewers were generally favourable towards the weapons. For example, the cocking handle and the selector switch behind the magazine had both been commented on unfavourably by reviewers.
Contrast this with the Tavor, which generally has good review on all aspects.
- Philip Sim
"It is also not true that foreign reviewers were generally favourable towards the weapons. For example, the cocking handle and the selector switch behind the magazine had both been commented on unfavourably by reviewers."
Uh, foreign reviewers mentioned the cocking handle and strange position of the fire selector, HOWEVER by and by this constitutes to about just all their grouses with the weapon, which one might consider that ST did design primary for the Singaporean market. The odd position of the fire selector has been speculated by us at least… to comply with SAF tactics of predominantly semiautomatic fire… but as I said it was speculation. In any case it's one thing to say the reviewers had one or two grouses, it's another to say they panned it as a weapon entirely. By and by the SAR scored very well, if you go by Jane's (who did grouse about the points you mention).
I must disagree with you on the weapon not being able to be shot from the left shoulder- well at least I've done it without any issues (in fact my worse injury from a SAR came when I buttstroked myself in the face while taking cover). However all in all we must agree that the left-handedness of the SAR is a pretty moot issue as the safety feature of the weapon means that invariably it was meant all along to be a right handed weapon in which firing from the left side is done only under special circumstances (as in having to clear certain covers)… or at least that is my tactical experience with the weapon.
However I will have to point out on your point on the reservists who think the SAR-21 compares negatively to the M16 that a lot of this has to do with ingrained into the conventional M16 layout. Case in point when you look at our current mainstream mono intake personnel who are now introduced to the SAR first, and later the M16 the opinion tends to be that the M16 is not up to scratch. They would go on to raise issues on the increased complexity of stripping and maintaining the M16 and the length of the weapon, which to them are apparently intractable problems in an infantry weapon. As I said, it seems that grunts tend to favour the weapon they were raised on.
This is not to mention the scope issue is not restricted to the SAR-21… just about any scope system have similar issues. The problem is logistical rather then designs as ST did come up with a solution (which involved changing the seals in the scope to prevent them fogging) but apparently in SAF style it has yet to filter down to the units using the older marks. I haven't experience losing the dot against a dark target, I could shoot black figure 11s at 300 well enough… so I can't comment on that. My personal grouse is that they should fit the backup iron sights (which are good up to 200 if you have a keen eye) with a proper one.
Teething issues aside, a properly maintained SAR-21 works extremely well. In my experience the weapon has proven to be far more reliable and easy to maintain in the field then the M16. With are important combat considerations. You can seriously foul the SAR with mud and sand and it will still keep going on long after an M16's bolt would have been stuck firmly back in the buffer. And it's compact and accurate too, which is great for FIBUA. I do not see any reason to be unreasonably pessimistic about the weapon, after one has filtered out the SAF wayang… I mean when it comes to it, it still gives us more pros then the cons to takes switching from the M16.
AFAIK, the Tavor wasn't well liked by Israeli troops at first before they eventually warmed to it, with reactions being somewhat like that of the SAF troopers to the SAR. But I suspect it could both are cases of bullpup knee-jerk reaction then actual deficiencies in weapon design.
I mean after having a 30 year advance in weapons and materials technology, not to mention all the studies into and research going into making a weapon to eliminate or reduce the problems soldiers experience we produce an inferior weapon? I think different is a better way to put it. Last I remembered the M-14 mafia is still alive among some vets who consider the M-16 a piece of junk, so we need to remember that grunts tend to be a conservative bunch. If we had our way we would likely be still using muskets. Rexregum 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your points are well taken. I can only comment based upon my own observations and experiences. To reiterate:
1. Left-handed firing is not possible without risk of a cheek burn
2. The 1.5x sight is not up to scratch - this is a copy of one of the less good aspects of the Steyr AUG design. The reflex/laser aimer combo sighting system used on the Tavor is superior. It is worth noting that some units (that shall remain unnamed) deploys the SAR-21P version with reflex sights that solved the problem of the disappearing dot.
3. The push button safety was a poor design as well - it is awkward to press, and depending on your luck, you might receive either a rifle with a safety catch that is too stiff, or too mushy. This could be a quality control issue which I hope ST Kinetics address. Other than that, a thumb switch is by far the easiest control to use, a feature repeated in the Tavor. I have never come across, or heard of, an M16 with a mushy or hard to deactivate safety.
4. The ergonomics are not well thought through - the placing of the selector switch is awkward. If there's a tactical reason for this, no one has been able to figure it out. As with the selector, a thumb switch is superior.
5. The magazine change system is awkward, requiring the firer to unlimber the weapon to perform a reload. It is worth noting that the export version using the M16 magazine use a different kind of catch system that allow the magazine change to be performed much more easily. The reason for this design was probably because the 30-round magazines on the M16 on occasion drop accidentally. However, the choice of following the Steyr AUG magazine catch is a poor one, considering that there are superior options out there, such as the HK G36 catch system which is superior.
6. The Laser Aiming Module is unnecessarily heavy and bulky for its purpose. The Tavor sighting system again has a superior design, being much lighter and easier to dismount and replace.
The SAR-21 struck me as a design that copied the Steyr AUG too much, and chose to incorporate bad design elements that users have already found fault with in the Steyr AUG design. As a subjective preference, the CAR-15 or - even better - the newer M4 are superior in terms of ease of usage.
