SAR-21 vs G-36

last SG · 2002-05-21T00:50:00+00:00

U mean u r still using SAR 80 ? During my NSF days, SAR 80 was the standard issue for logistic units but the last I heard it was gradually phased out. Reason...

laser51088 SG

the suit is still very much in the future. You probably saw it in pioneer if you have it, cos thats where i saw it in. should also go look at the US version, look like some space cadet rather than infantry...

hitman 47 SG

if i'm not wrong...the IR aiming system comes in two modes..one which is pure IR which u can see with your eyes the other one can be seen using NVG. not much use either.. like the army 21 advertisement...u see one section of soldiers in the river/swamp..with the laser on...during smoky conditions...its really misguiding...giving your self away for enemy to spot your positions...

some US Swat teams used a diff version of the sar-21...it comes with a Picantinny rail, so u can remove the built in scope and add on a 20 mm rail red dot sight..(e.g aimpoint or trigicon aCOG reflex) ... i think that one better for CQB and FIBUA. Shocked

hitman 47 SG

the SA80 is too sucky...look stylish..but can't last long... chamber jammed v. often...can't use in harsh conditions...which was reported during the Royal Marines were issued with the new improved version LA85 A2... still got problem...

butt stock melts when comes into contact with insect repellent... Laughing Surprised Mr. Green

magazine gets jammed up easily also...falls out of the magazine chamber without notice... Wink

the british army is going to replace it soon with the G36...i find it strange then..perhaps Heckler & Koch wants them to buy the G36..that's why give them lousy quality and design when manufacturing the SA80 for the british army...who knows...no offence here.. Mr. Green

philip72 SG

Came across your discussions. Couldn't resist replying. Let's compare the SAR21, G36 and M16 in terms of length, safety, optics and versatility.

Length: SAR21 is the shortest, but remember, the G36 has a folding stock, that takes about 20cm out of the length. So, the length is almost the same. No difference. Score: 1-1-0

Safety: The SAR21 uses a push button safety fitted to the top of the front guard. The G36 and M16 both employs a thumb safet/selector switch. The G36's switch is ambidextrous.

I've tried the SAR21 before. I cocked the weapon, and had to use my left hand to push the safety on. When I tried to push the safety button off with my right hand index finger with the weapon shouldered, I had some difficulty getting enough leverage. I had to tilt the gun to one side to gain more leverage to push the button in. I prefer the old M16 in this respect. Easier to switch the safety off with a simple swipe of the thumb. The same should go for the G36.

Pushing the safety in, then moving the index finger to the trigger is two distinct motion. Much easier with a thumb switch.

Also, to switch the SAR21 to auto, you had to move your left hand from the front guard to behind the magazine to push in the selector button. Again, switching the M16 and G36 to auto is much easier. Another swipe of the thumb.

Furthermore, it is impossible to switch the SAR21 to safe with just the firing hand. You had to use your left hand. What if your left hand is occupied?

Score: 0-1-1

Optics: Much had been made about the SAR21's optics. I've tried the optics before. It is a black circle. When the gun is cocked, a tiny black dot appears in the centre of the circle.

I actually prefer the M16's iron sights. The contrast between the front sight is better than the black circle. It was also easier to acquire the M16 front sight for snap sighting. Perhaps it is because when I tried the SAR21, I was in a shed, and the target was covered by the shadow of a camo net. Perhaps it is because of my eyesight, but this goes to show the SAR21 optics is not ALWAYS better.

The G36 uses a red dot reflex sight. I tried an Aimpoint, a Tasco version, an ACOG reflex sight and a Bushnell Holosight before. They are great. It was easy to pick out the red electronic dot against any background, and very easy to acquire for snap sighting. I tried a Bushnell Holosight equipped SAR21-P. It's definitely better.

Furthermore, the German Army version had a 3.5x shooting scope fitted to ALL their G36, under the red dot reflex sight.

Score: 0-2-1

Versatility: One thing I definitely like about the M16 is it's versatility. You can fit a 4x scope by simply putting it on the carrying handle. You can fit an M203 by removing the front guard. Not so simple with the vanilla SAR21.

With the G36, there is also a hole in the carrying handle to which you can fit other systems. And let's not forget, with the German version, this is a moot point as the 3.5x scope is standard. It also has its own version of a 40mm grenade launcher.

Much has been said about the laser point incorporated into the front guard. But you can clamp it to the barrels of the M16 and G36 too. So, no real advantage.

When it comes to true versatility, nothing beats the M4A1 carbine fitted with a KAC Modular Weapon System. This carbine is fitted with P-rails on the top, bottom and both sides of the hand guard. You can fit laser sights, flashlights, grenade launcher, shot-gun, fore-grip, fore-grip/flash-light/laser-pointer combination, together with a whole variety of sights on the p-rail over the receiver of the carbine. Now, how's that for versatility?

Score: 0-1-2

So, what is the final score:

SAR21:1 G36:5 M16:6

Let's keep our M16's but fit it with the KAC Modular Weapon System. : )

EXCO SG

Well, I don't know if this is fair to the SAR 21, because I doubt anyone have handled and shot a G36 before.

I have shot the SAR 21 before on 2 occasions, and I find it very comfortable for me, except for the selector switch, which require a bit of work. As for the scope, I don't know if its just me... but I feel its very "minimal", especially since it is actually a scope and not a reflex sight. I have shot a CDO MP5 with reflex sight (forgot the type), a simple red dot, but it is much easier to do snap shots accurately with it, but then again to be fair, the requirements of those 2 weapons are entirely different.

I also understand that the magazine for the SAR 21 cannot be used on the M16 and vice versa, that is definitely a minus point if the SAF intends to maintain both weapons.

CX SG

Versatility: One thing I definitely like about the M16 is it's versatility. You can fit a 4x scope by simply putting it on the carrying handle. You can fit an M203 by removing the front guard. Not so simple with the vanilla SAR21.

i don't really agree with this point u brought up...

true... the m-16 can accommodate a scope, a grenade launcher and LADs, but under the SAF ORBAT, only one man out of 7 gets the 4x scope and 2 others get the M203... its not as if we make it such that everybody gets everything... its not the point at all.

with the SAR 21, everybody gets their scope, not just the sharp-shooter and it can be fitted with an M203 as well (though not everyone gets it nor wants it Mr. Green ).

i like the build in LAD of the SAR21... it beats having an add-on module fitted to the barrel of your weapon! that is the most absurd piece of equipment i've ever seen! it shifts the C.G of the weapon slightly forward while the cable linking it to the trigger button is ALWAYS getting in the way! the SAR21 has been built with all these features in mind and even though it weighs more, it has a more balanced feel.

want to know SG

I saw in a Discovery Channel Program that a british officer who take part in the falkland war said that the fighting was so fierce that he uses his fist and helmet to beat the enemy soldier. And in Vietnam war a US officer said when he run out of bullet. He jump on top of the North Vietnamese soldier uses his fist and punched his face.

philip72 SG

Fair enough. I guess no one will actually be slapping an M203 to his M16 on a whim. I can also see your point about the orbat. I guess for new recruits, it would be easier to train them to use the SAR21. So for the ordinary GI Joe, it wouldn't make much of a difference. But wouldn't it be great if everyone got a 3.5x scope to go with his rifle? And wouldn't it be nice to know that you can fit an M203, and the other accessories, to a standard rifle in the field if necessary without having any specialist help or waiting for that M203 eqiupped SAR21 to arrive?

Personally, I'm not sure how useful the LAD really is. Have anyone noticed that the Israelis really don't seem to be issuing that stuff to very soldier, and they certainly has more operationally experience than anyone else. What they DO do, is issue as many reflex sights as they could to their troops, especially those involved in occupational duties.

Another thing: has anyone noticed that almost every Israeli soldier carries an M16 or its derivative nowadays? This is despite the fact that IMI produces the Galil.

Yet another point: Brit SF troopers really can't seem to be bothered with the SA80, but uses the M16 instead, despite all the other alternatives, like the Steyr AUG.

Yet, yet another point: the American SF troops (even their airborne troops) in Afghanistan still uses the M4 or the M16. And if you look at the photos, they are fitted with all the cool accessories like ACOG sights, LAD designators (they don't seem to be bothered about the CG being off balance), etc.

A lesson here perhaps? : )

bcoy SG

The Israelis use the M16 series because they receive American aid and funding to be buy these. Its cheaper for them.

That might change however, if the Tavor 21 is succesfully introduced.

Israeli defense forums -
http://www.waronline.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

dkhoo SG

Several points:

1. The reason the Israeli army uses M16s rather than Galils is because they receive a lot of foreign aid from the US that can ONLY be spent on American weaponry. Therefore they would rather buy M16s rather than waste their own precious money on Galils. Think of it as the American gov't "rewarding" their arms manufacturers (who then give executive positions to Congressmen when they retire).

2. The requirements of the Israeli army are very different from ours from a tactical standpoint. Ranges in the desert are much longer than in the fighting the SAF expects to encounter. That is why the Israelis employ so many snipers (.50 cal snipers some more). Even when they are forced into urban combat, the Israelis don't FIBUA like the SAF does. Their doctrine seems to be to use engineers and armor to just tear down the whole built-up area like in Hebron or Jenin (even when there are civilians!). In fact, the Israelis seem to be equipped for classic armor-based desert warfare, while the SAF is strongly geared toward infantry-based jungle and urban warfare. As a result, the Israelis have almost no use for LADs thanks to the long engagement ranges and lack of close assault doctrine.

3. The SAR21 has a few good points that you did not bring up:

A. It does not shit where it eats. The M16 feeds its gas directly back into the mechanism to cycle the bolt, making it one of the dirtiest rifles out there. The SAR21 and G36 both use gas pistons like most modern weapons (and even the old AK47), which makes a lot more sense. This is why M16s and M4s suck -- reliability and maintenance.

B. The SAR21 (uniquely) does not require any zeroing, or at least very little. To me, this is its strongest feature. It really helps if you can just pick up any rifle and fire it accurately first shot.

C. It has very low felt recoil according to most experts, though I don't know how the G36 fares here.

D. It really is smaller than the G36 -- you don't fire the G36 (or any other carbine or folding-stock rifle) with the stock folded if you want any accuracy. Unless you are firing from the hip or a vehicle, you're going to need to open the stock and put it against your shoulder, just like any other rifle. Then the G36 becomes a bit long.

E. The SAR21 is OUR rifle. This means that we have every right to produce, improve and modify it. It also means that we understand completely how it works. We can actually make a Mk 2 version without asking for permission, or reverse-engineering something like a G36. We can make as many as we want, when we want, along with as many spare parts as we like. This is very important.

However, I agree that the SAR21 needs some improvement on the ergonomic side. The position of the fire selector is particularly screwed up. And the push-in safety is for things like MGs, not for something like an assault rifle, where you need to switch quickly with one hand. The SAR21 is also a bit heavier than it should have been.

4. You really don't want to use an M16 with all the junk on it. Each item needs seperate zeroing and targeting devices. This is a pain in the ass, particularly with LADs and other aiming aids. That is also why most armies don't issue their grunts with these (only special forces). It is hard to keep the zeroing of add-ons when you are bashing around on maneuvers. As a previous poster said, they also shift the center of balance of the weapon, making it harder to use and less accurate. The SAR21 has the center of balance right over your hand, which is very nice.

kY|e-_-o SG

maybe someone should bring up this thread to DSTA on how to improve the SAR21 based on everyone's opinions..

thats wat i called a productive forum..hehee Mr. Green

dkhoo SG

Another thing -- the "standard" G36 used by the German Army has 3.5x sights and a reflex sight, but no backup iron sights! Imagine if your optics fail for any reason. At least the export version with the 1.5x sights still has iron sights (no reflex sights though).

On a side note, I do not see the point of having anything more than 2x magnification on a 5.56mm rifle. Your maximum effective range is quoted as 800m, but at that range your round may not seriously injure your enemy even if you hit. 5.56mm rounds rapidly lose energy as they fly, and will not hit with enough force to fragment inside the target's body outside 150m. Accuracy also goes to hell because the little projectile gets pushed easily by crosswinds. I would consider your "real" maximum range to actually be only 400m or so, and ordinarily never order my men to fire outside that range if I can help it. At that kind of range, 2x sights are more than enough. Higher magnification sights are more suitable for larger calibre weapons with longer ranges.

On another side note, I also do not see the point of quoting cyclic rates for weapons like assault rifles. The weapon is not meant for sustained fully automatic fire. Your firing rate is limited more by the rate at which you can take aim and change your magazine than by any mechanical aspect of the weapon. Even firing full auto, there is not that much of a difference between different assault rifle firing rates since your magazine is so small. This measure only makes sense for machine guns and automatic cannons. While I'm at it, I must say that I find the magazine change on the SAR21 difficult. They should put the magazine release near enough to the trigger group so that you can release the magazine with your trigger hand (thumb) while your free hand takes the other magazine and slaps it home, like in a conventional rifle. More ergonomics problems =/

CX SG

Originally posted by philip72:

But wouldn't it be great if everyone got a 3.5x scope to go with his rifle? And wouldn't it be nice to know that you can fit an M203, and the other accessories, to a standard rifle in the field if necessary without having any specialist help or waiting for that M203 eqiupped SAR21 to arrive?

cannot lah! who would bring an extra grenade launcher out field??? under what remote conditions would such adjustments be "necessary"? if u hardly ever utilise a function, how can we ever justify that its "necessary?"

it was never intended to be a procedure that could be done out field. how many times did U remove the handguard of the M16 out field??? i've only done it in the peace and quiet of my bunk and it can still prove to be a pain to remove and replace. any procedure that requires such adjustments are usully done by the armourers anyway.

Yet, yet another point: the American SF troops (even their airborne troops) in Afghanistan still uses the M4 or the M16. And if you look at the photos, they are fitted with all the cool accessories like ACOG sights, LAD designators (they don't seem to be bothered about the CG being off balance), etc.

they can do whatever they want. its their army. i don't wanna have to carry all that crap on my weapon when i need to sweat it out in the jungle and charge up a hill! (not looking forward to my next ICT Mr. Green )

to my experience, its cumbersome to carry such seperate nonsensical add on modules on top of your combat load and your not very light weapon...

another possibility that it doesn't bother the ang moh is because the M-16 was designed for the ang moh. they are more big sized so the weight and size wouldn't bother them as much. the SAR21 was built for the smaller asian frame so even though its slightly heavier, the weight is more evenly distributed for a smaller sized user. i've often felt that my M-16 was falling all over with all the add-ons even though i've properly adjusted my sling.

not to mention that organic SAF section commanders wear NVGs and their carry their sect-com load so its quite siong to carry so many things all over and still function effectively. the SAR21 helps by making the load more manageable.

philip72 SG

*sigh* looks like I'm one of the few M16 fans here.

With regards to why the Israelis use the M16s instead of the Galil, please refer to this great website: www.isayeret.com. I think the web master is an Israeli himself, so he should know what he is talking about. Basically, the Israelis could have used either M16s or Galil's, but their SF units took the lead, and started using M16s and CAR15's simply because they are better.

About the M16s eating it's own shit, yeah, I've got to concede this point. It's a pain having to clean the bolt-carrier everytime you use it. But it does make for a lighter rifle. And with proper modern ammunition with cleaner burning powders, the amount of cleaning is reduced. No problems with reliability either.

I'm still sticking to the point about versatility, because I think it's an important point. It's not only important at a tactical level, it's also a strategic point. The more versatile a weapon is, the easier it would be for logistics. Things like shooting scopes, M203s, etc, can be shipped to the front seperately. This is less bulky.

At the tactical level, if the weapon is damaged, you can remove the add-on's and give it to another weapon in the field. The section leader won't have to do without his M203, or his shooting scope in the field. Mind you, if the SAR21 version to be issued is the P-rail version, this problem would be solved.

Much has been made about how you do not need to zero the SAR21, but how exactly has this been achieved? The shooting scope is that it is focused to infinity. As long as the user can see the sight picture, he does not have to worry about the position of his eye relative to the weapon. Thus, the shooting scope can be zeroed at the factory itself to the barrel of the weapon without having to worry about the individual user of the weapon. The same goes for the LAD, which is also zeroed to the barrel.

So, it is not some magical quality of the SAR21. STK has taken the extra step to make things easier for us. This means that this can be duplicated in other rifles, including the M16, if these uses scopes or reflex sights.

It also means that for other versions, like the P-rail version, you DO have to zero the sights if it the sights have not previously been zeroed to the barrel. Or if for some reason, the shooting scope loses its zero relative to the barrel, you do have to zero the scope again, back to the barrel.

Btw, one of the advantages of the KAC modular system is that it allows accessories such as LAD and shooting scopes to be fitted, zeroed in, and then taken off and kept in the haver-sack. These can then be refitted without loss of zero, because of the clamp and rail system employed. It also has the advantage that you can adept your weapon to mission necessity in the field. It also means that you can put what you don't need in the haver-sack, making for a lighter weapon.

dkhoo SG

Hey, I don't think anyone here is anti-M16 per se -- it's just that it is important to call a spade a spade and identify both the good and bad points of each weapon under consideration.

It is true that the M16 is a good weapon. I like it better than the SAR21 in its current form due to ergonomic problems actually. However, the M16 has limitations to its design that cannot be overcome. For example, it would not be impossible to create a KAC system for the SAR21, or to change the position of its controls. The furnishings of a weapon are relatively easy to change. The SAR21 is not the answer either to me though. However, with enough thought, a good weapon that is adaptable to the various needs of troops in the field can be come up with.

Fundamentally, there are two main differences between the SAR21 and the M16:

1. Bullpup configuration. This is one of the huge debates in the gun world. Which is better? Bullpups are definitely shorter, but the cost is poor ergonomics. In order to solve the problems with bullpups, they need to become truly ambidextrous (can be fired from either shoulder at any time), and the magazine change must be easier. Truly ambidextrous fire can only be achieved if casings can somehow not eject into the user's face. This can only be done if casings eject forward and downward, rather than left or right (or if you have caseless weapon). This is not trivial to achieve in a compact and light manner, but is important. Fixing magazine change is harder, since fooling around with a magazine well under your chin will always be hard.

2. Mechanism. The M16 has that fouling problem. The SAR21 is currently unproven (but looks good in terms of reliability and recoil). We'll have to see. However, it seems to me that the SAR21 is easier to adapt (a LMG version with replaceable barrel is available, if I remember correctly). Does the SAR21 have a free-floating barrel?

If anything, I feel that the day of the assault rifle may be ending. Modern American Interceptor body armor can stop 5.56mm point blank, and even 7.62mm at range with the ceramic plates in. While body armor (currently) does not cover every part of the body and the user still is bruised when hit, it makes me wonder how much longer rapid firing small calibre weapons will remain effective.

Some form of rapid firing grenade launcher would probably be the way to go for the true infantry weapon of the future. For example, South Africa and Russia both field 6 shot revolver style 40mm grenade launchers. Everybody here probably has heard of the 20mm OICW grenade launcher, but I feel that the programme is rather misguided (simplicity is important in a weapon). A much simpler version would be better. 20mm is almost the same as 12 gauge, so it might be possible to create something like an automatic 12 gauge shotgun that instead fires 20mm impact or "hopper" airburst grenades, with flechette rounds for CQB (12 to a magazine like the Jackhammer automatic shotgun). Ring aerofoil grenades with flat trajectories would allow the weapon to be pretty accurate at range. Carry a PDW as well if you're really paranoid that the enemy will get close. A notional 10mm launcher might be even better. This would actually be a form of explosive ammo, which I believe is forbidden by convention, but you never know...

Shotgun SG

I agree that the SAR-21 has to be fully ambidexed to be considered a respectable CQB weapon. I don't know how real CQB is fought, never been in such a situation. But in the games I know, being able to peek around the corner with a rifle on your left shoulder is important. Of course, the other option is just to "bang" your way through with explosives. That would still not elimnate the problems on a corner situation where the wall's on the right. In airsoft skirmishes, a mirror often proves useful, rather than peeking over with your left shoulder.

About the SA-80, its basically a cut down version of the Enfield L85. Its like the M4, cut down version of the M16.

Honestly, I still consider the G-36 to be a very well designed and built weapon. But you gotta remember, H&K has been producing firearms, from rifles, sniper systems, submachine guns to pistols for years. They have the experience in the field. For Singapore to come up with the SAR-21 is truly a respectable. With more upgrades and more variants and future modifications, there is still room for development.

philip72 SG

Agree with dkhoo's point about the problem with bull-pup designs. The only bull-pup design so far that's really satisfactory from the ergonomics point of view is the FN P90 5.7mm. It is truly ambidextrous as empty cartridges are ejected downwards, and the controls and sights can be used from either side of the gun. On top of that, it's magazine holds 50 rounds, and it uses a reflex sight. Newer versions even have P-rails on top and to the sides. A very well thought out design. As some of you had already noticed, the commandoes are using it. Only problem is, it's using a rather unique round that is even less powerful than the 5.56mm!

bcoy SG

Check out the new FN F2000 bullpup -
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm

dkhoo SG

WOW! So it has already been done right!

The F2000 is really a tremendous advance if it works as advertized. STK needs to somehow acquire the technology used in that weapon (either by purchasing it, or "other means"). If the technology in the F2000 (advanced bullpup design with downward casing ejection), SAR21 (no zeroing) and G36 (reliability and ergonomics) could be combined, you'd have the ultimate assault rifle. That targeting system for the F2000 looks interesting too. I heard that once you set the range with the laser, all you need to do is raise the weapon. At the right elevation, a light will come on in the sight, and the 40mm grenade will fly that range. Simple and effective (unlike OICW).

The 5.7mm round is designed to penetrate armor. It also apparently has a very flat trajectory, making it very accurate. But you are right that it doesn't injure the target quite as much as current 5.56mm rounds. Still, it is a nice calibre.

Shotgun SG

The P90 is pretty cool indeed. However, I have heard of rounds falling loose, jammed if the magazine was dropped or have encountered "shock." Unsure about that though.

For me, I don't mind sticking to the SAR-21 for my NS days. Its as good as it gets in the region.

« Previous Page Next Page »