I'm kind of fond of the SAR-21due to the scope and speed of
target aquisition now that we don't need to fiddle with the sight
picture. It's not as bad as some make it out to be. I'd trade
it for my M-4 and call it 50:50 on the trade-off, weight and
compactness vs ease of use. During conversion, I managed 7/8 for
Fig15 and 8/8 for ATP at 300m.
The 7/8 is the reason I suspect we changed ammo, the droppage
was less than I remembered/anticipated. Remember how we used to
have to aim "half-body" up to generate a center of mass hit? (i.e
top of head) Now, it's more like neck level (i.e same as
200m). But I could be wrong.
Next time anyone's on range, can we trouble you for a quick peek
at the ammo-box markings? :)
The reason I am not impressed is its not easy to carry over long
distances or aim rapidly, with the hands placed front to middle but
the mass being mostly over the rear. I've only felt it up and fired
it at Army Open House, and got 5/5 at 100m but it took some effort.
It's also awkward to change magazines quickly, which is why I don't
like all bullpups and hope more new rifles follow the G-36 and XM-8
example.
As to field pics of the SAR-21 M-203, I've seen alot of official
pics of it, but none taken by soldiers themselves. I've noticed
that M-16 M-203 official pics have disappeared, but this could be
deliberate.
I'm not sure about quality, because SAR-21s I've seen are very
new. I have however seen seen alot of Ultimax in poor state.
They have 90s manufacturing dates, but are worn out like my unit's
M-16S1s made early 80s and before. My friend in Ordnance says its a
problem. (Funny that he is excused bearing arms but is posted
there!)
I've scoped out the ammo for you, it is locally made M193 ball,
in my unit and as recently as AOH 2009.
