Inadequate SAF Small Arms Sights

last SG · 2011-02-14T10:58:23+00:00

Ditzy, it is catastrophic if not very very stupid if you cant hit your target at 50 m when you happen to be doing guard duty one dark night at your army cam...

Sepecat SG

The SAF is probably the most technologically advanced military in SEA , but at the most basic foot soldier level, the weapons sights are woefully outdated & inadequate.

The SAR 21 does not have even the most basic night sight ( even the M16s of long ago had a tritium night sight on the front post ). The visible laser in the SAR21 cannot be used as a night sight in combat and can only be used in very special situations. It is an irrelevant system that shud be removed to reduce cost, weight & unnecessary complexity.

With so many excellent weapons sights available such as the Trijicon ACOG, Aimpoint, Elcan Specter etc., I wonder if it makes sense to have ACMS and other hitech equipment when our infantrymen do not even possess a modern small arms sight. These sights have been proven to be extremely effective in current conflicts which require a lot of precision small arms fire.

At an estimated cost of say US$ 700 per sight, it will cost only US$3.5 million to equip all "shooters" in at least 10 battallions. This is a very small sum compared to a single F15SG.

Shotgun SG

Who say dun have....?

Sepecat SG

I believe that we have small numbers of the above mentioned sights being used by SAF special forces.

However, the standard issue for the SAF infantryman is the 1.5X optical sight on the SAR21 plus the visible laser which are outclassed by the modern sights that are now being used by 1st world armies.

Shotgun SG

1.5X good loh... I believe I'm still stuck with iron sights with tritium tips that don't work.

Dun have ACOG better also lar, one less thing to sign 1206 for. No money to pay back...

spencer99 SG

At the end of the day, we are a conscript army. Even the 'no need to zero' SAR21 sight is to cater to our needs. When a reserve unit is activated, there is no need to 'zero' their personal weapon.

Also, like what Shotgun mentioned, there is a risk that expensive sights will be lost. and again, the SAR21's 'integrated' sight will not be 'lost' :-)

spencer99 SG

At the end of the day, we are a conscript army. Even the 'no need to zero' SAR21 sight is to cater to our needs. When a reserve unit is activated, there is no need to 'zero' their personal weapon.

Also, like what Shotgun mentioned, there is a risk that expensive sights will be lost. and again, the SAR21's 'integrated' sight will not be 'lost' :-)

weasel1962 SG

Gun sights are limited by the range of the gun. No point being able to zoom 2 km when the gun accuracy is limited to 300/800m.

Good gun sights serve as recon tools as well. Having said that, most can get a set of personal night vision binoculars eg bushnell 2.5x42 with built in IR for ~US$400 or monocular version for ~US$190.

The cheapest pair I noted was the EyeClops at US$70! No need to wait for army to get or the rest of the taxpayers to foot the bill.

The ACMS is not about gun sights. Its about network capability. Well developed ACMS tactics can bring division gunfire onto a target which a SAR-21 even with the best gun sight, cannot handle.

Shotgun SG

End of the day, its the marksmanship skills and weapon handling of a soldier that makes the biggest difference. An ACOG sight would be great barring the costs, but it alone does not make up for the lack of skill.

Some particular 1st world armies routinely deploy their troops into combat zones or hazardous peace keeping missions where firefights are the order of the day. The SAF does not.

Hence, more training emphasis is placed on his ability to shoot and manage the weapon, rather than the sighting system. This is not to imply that the SAF should not update its weapons system periodically. Just that ACOG is not at the top of the priorities at the moment.

I hope this does not invite a degenerated counter point of "might as well use bow and arrow."

spencer99 SG

AGree with Shotgun's oint of greate emphasis on individual marksmanship might pay greater returns than buying expensive gun-sights for everyone.

Also agree that the SAF does not routinely deploy our troops to comabt zones. If our Guards, SIR and SAR units routinely deploy into Iraq or Afganhistan as line infantry with frequent fire fights with the Taliban, than not giving themt he best sight that money can buy will be a terrible sin.

Sepecat SG

No denying that the existing SAR21 1.5X sight is much better when compared to old SAF M16 iron sights in clear daylight conditions.

But without an illuminated reticle, the SAR21 1.5X sight is practically useless compared to the old M16 with tritium front sight in low light and night conditions.

This is a big step backward where night shooting is concerned. Tritium has a shelf life & these old M16s have been around for some time & that is the reason why some are not working.

Many sights such as AIMPOINTs, ACOGs etc also claim to be able to retain the zero after dismounting / remounting.

Your personal equipment such as Kevlar helmet, body armor, webbing, uniform, boots , SAR 21 etc etc are also expensive. So are AMCS equipment, signal sets, thermal imagers, Spike antitank weapon system, Skyblade UAV etc etc. These are precisely the tools that are supposed to give the SAF the edge in combat. Do you want to fight without the above because they are too expensive ?

These small arm sights are not required to identify targets out to 2 km as mentioned by weasal1962. Instead, they have given users the ability to accurately hit targets out to 600 m compared to a max of 400 m with iron sights on 5.56 mm weapons. The magnified sights also help identify targets at longer ranges. No need to carry additional bino for the normal infantryman who is never issued binos anyway.

We are not comparing the capabilities of AMCS with a rifle sight. They are totally different systems.

The small arems sighting system is part and parcel of shooting and managing a weapon. ACOGS or similar etc will substantially improve the shooting of infantrymen. It goes without saying the a poor soldier or a poorly trained soldier will not shoot better even if equipped with ACOGs or similar. A marksman equipped with a 5.56 weapon can hit targets out to 400 m or more with iron sights. With a

2.5 to 4X ACOG or similar, he can do the same but out to 600 m.

If any of our infantry battalions were to deploy in a combat zone tomorrow, it will definitely be very expensive in terms of casualties when we cannot overmatch our opponents in the small arms firefight.

Cost of ACOGs or similar to equip 10 infantry battalions looks cheap compared to the $100 million spent on AMCS.

Shotgun SG

Designated marksmen in SAF sections will definitely have their own optical aids for precision engagement. Not all SAF infantrymen are designated marksmen. Hence, there is no need to equip ALL of them with 2.5 or 4x ACOGs.

Typically, engagements beyond 300m are for the snipers alr. Needless to say, the effectiveness of the 5.56 round beyond 300m is also questionable. Wind & elevation becomes a factor. Its no longer just putting the sight on the target. This also underscores the importance of shooting skill/technique.

There is also little need for an infantry platoon to engage any targets with small arms fire beyond 300m. With ACMS, rapid calls for indirect fire can be made quickly and accurately. Why shoot with a 5.56 when u can drop a 120mm mortar on them?

Watch a few movies such as black hawk down or Platoon, and figure out what is the typical engagement distance when contacted. Either that, you can figure that out in BMT.

The SAR-21 is not a well designed weapon for a variety of reasons. Optics can be better, but its not the most fatal design flaw. For a full list of its design issues, check out,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR_21

Sepecat SG

Firstly , an infantryman is above everything else a rifleman. Also in many circumstances other than all out total war, one cannot always call for a MLRS, F16 or Apache strike to neutralize a target. As an infantryman you had better

use your small arm and hit enemy to neutralize him. And so much the better if you hit him everytime up to 300 m and better still at 600 m. Your small arm

is available immediately to neutralize the enemy instantly at 60 cents a pop.

Clearly not everyone is a marksman. In the SAF, there is currently one designated marksman in each section who is equipped with a 3X scope rather than the standard 1.5X scope. This marksman is not sniper trained & does not qualify as a sniper.

For the British Army, the standard rifle sight has been the SUSAT 4X scope for more than 20 years. These illuminated sights were used effectively during the long drawn fighting in Northern Ireland & is still in use today.

More recently many front line armies have also adopted magnified

sights as standard equipment for their infantry rifle : -

- British Army will be using Elcan 4X sights with the SA80A2s

- US Marine Corp use ACOGs with 4X mag sights with their M4s

- Canadian Army uses Elcan 3X sights for their 5.56 mm C7s.

But there are also many modern 1X scopes such as Aimpoints, ACOGs, CarlZeiss in use in the Australian, US, Swedish, Israeli , German , Indian etc . armies’ standard infantry rifles.

Also, the British Army is now using the 7.62 mm L129A1 rifles for the designated marksman in each section with ACOG 6X scope.

The US Marine Corp designated marksman uses the 7.62 MM, M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle (EMR). Sights here vary & have up to 10X mag.

So, many armies are already using these non parallax illuminated sights.

Increasingly magnified ( 2.5 to 4 X ) sights are in use together with 1X mini red dot sights.

Also, increasingly, designated marksmen ( not snipers )

are issued with 4 to 6X mag sights for 5.56 and 7.62 weapons.

The bottom line is that these sights enable the well trained infantryman

to increase his reach up to 600 m with a 5.56 weapon.

At 50 to 100 m the shooter is able to rapidly achieve consistent multiple hits.

In practice 1X red dot ( illuminated unlike SAR21 sights ) and similar sights at these ranges enable very rapid and accurate placement of shots compared to iron sights.

At 200 to 400 m , he becomes extremely lethal with deliberate precision fire.

Finally, for a marksman with a 4-6X sight and accurized 5.56 mm weapon , hitting a mansized target at 600 m is more than possible – it is reality.

Any volunteers to stand at 600 m to be target board in front of

an accurized 5.56 M16 used by a marksman using a 6X scope ?

I am sure when hit at this range that the person will not be able to walk away to fight for a very long time ( if ever ) to come. How about volunteering to be a target at 600 m infront of an Ultimax 100 equipped with a 6X mag sight ?

Any takers ? Good luck !

Shotgun SG

Clearly you need to experience BMT before you will change your mind. Infantry small arms do not engage out to that distance. The rifleman is also clearly screwed if his platoon / battalion does not have access to any indirect fire support, and is expected engage out to 600m. Somebody out there has put the infantry in a very bad place.

Even if say the infantry section/platoon is ordered to attack an objective 600m away, it will do what it always does; fire and move. That is the bread and butter of the infantry. It is not precision engagement of targets at 600m, but rapid iterations of suppressive fire and movement in order to close in and assault. From 600m out, the infantry platoon will have access to better direct fire weapons such as the General Purpose Machine Gun, 40mm GLs, and even mortars to suppress and pin the enemy. They won't just sit there and pick away targets at 600m with "accurized" M-16s with 6x scopes.

Again, not saying that scopes and sights aren't important. Just that they are not high priority now since we are not like the US Army which is heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Teaching the shooting fundamentals will still be more important. I rather people suggest that we should go to range twice a year for our ICT than some or High/Low key exercises. More bullets, yay!

Sepecat SG

Shotgun , clearly you have not used any of these sights.

You will surely be preaching Aimpoints, ACOGs and Elcans after

using them only once.

1X red dot sights & similar for example are a vast improvement over

iron sights especially for short ranges up to 100 m. Speed, accuracy

& situational awareness are unrivalled when compared to the M16

iron sight & SAR21 sight.

Clearly I have gone thru BMT and more.

I have fired the M16 and SAR21 with the issued sights.

You & many others have only gone thru BMT & have never

used red dot or similar sights & therefore

cannot appreciate the effectiveness of these sights.

Just look at the number of these sights being used by the fighting

armies, especially the past few years or so.

Having learnt to shoot with M16 iron sights out to 300 m & being

reasonably good at it, I fully appreciate the improvement of the

SAR21 1.5X sight over the M16 iron sight. But the SAR21 sight

is not illuminated and the scope reticle is very poor. It is

clearly not designed by shooters for shooters. This sorry state is

made worse by the SAR21’ s other flaws such as excessive weight,

poor ergonomics & lack of P rails. Bottom line is that

if you are already a reasonably good shooter, when equipped with

these sights ( can be 1X , 2X or otherwise ) you will get a

significantly higher number of hits at any range than with iron sights

& also at a faster pace. But you will then also be able to hit targets

out to even 600 m if using magnified scopes whereas you had no

chance before with a an iron sight or 1.5X scope.

It is already a very well known fact that most firefights

occur at less than 300 to 400 m. But the lessons

learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan is that

infantrymen will now also need to engage enemy out to 600 m.

The insurgents have resorted to engaging from these distances

using AKs, RPGs etc and ordinary riflemen can do so only if

equipped with magnified scopes. Otherwise the only means for

return fire are the GMPGs.

You want to start an infantry assault from 600 m ? Best of luck !

The SAF & almost all armies assault from 300 m or less .

Even AI dismount at 300 m from the assault target.

Clearly, you do not know how to employ an asset such as

the designated marksman with an accurized 5.56 or better still 7.62

rifle with at least a 4X mag scope. He shud preferably be with the

fire support force or in the flanks picking out the enemy MG gunners &

commanders during an assault while the enemy is busy trying to

fend off the assault force. I am not talking just suppressing fire ;

it will be killing fire.

Your & my SAF BMT experience does not count as

combat experience. See how operations are conducted in reality

today in Iraq & Afghanistan. In a real combat situation, you will need

to be equipped and trained further & accordingly. SAF BMT just

teaches the recruit the bare basics. It is merely an intro to basic

soldiering skills including how to use a rifle. They will still need to

learn a lot more when posted to a combat unit. Even more training and

additional equipment needed before entering the combat zone.

When you watch coalition forces operating in Iraq & Afghan you

will note that many riflemen use their magnified scopes to scan the

terrain in open & even in urban terrain. Magnified scopes helps

identify targets & also gives them the means to engage at longer

ranges beyond 300 to 400 m.

Please watch BBC TV channels to appreciate that in real BA

operations in Afghanistan, targets are fleeting, elusive and at

extreme ranges. Troopers do not call on air support for these targets

when they can identify and engage with their SA80A2s equipped

with 4X sights. They will also engage with GPMGs equipped with

these mag sights. That’s why BA units are now also equipped with

one 7.62 rifle per section for the hitting power at 600 to 800 m.

There is clear recognition that a longer reach is required for each

section in a shooting war. It is of course true that the 5.56 is not

designed to hit targets out to 600 m but if

you only have a 5.56 weapon and can use it to hit an enemy at this

range, you shud do it. When a target is

stubborn and beyond the company’s or battalion’s means for

neutralization, then only they call in an airstrike or use a Javelin.

Can you find volunteers to be targets at 600 m for 5.56 weapons with its

reputed low stopping power ? I can bet you also that you cannot find

volunteers to be targets for so called low power .22 , .32

handguns with low stopping power. You will at least be in hospital

when hit with these rounds including a 5.56 at 600 m. You dont have to

believe me - just try it on your next stint at the range.

In a limited war, you may have air and artillery assets on call at

any instant because of excellent planning, abundant resources and limited

enemy actions & strength. In an all out high intensity war, limited air &

arty assets will be available to you & you will have to depend on your own

section or company weapons. As an infantryman, you depend on

your small arms to kill the enemy.

Did the US soldiers in Black Hawk Down have arty & air strike

assets to pull them thru ?

In a real war, you can bet that you will not have access to air / arty

assets most of the time. There will always be another unit in more dire

need than your unit. Someone will always screwup and these assets will

not be available to you. You will have to use your rifle, M203,

GPMG & to fight. Better still you have the optical sights to ensure

that you kill the target be it at 50 m or 600 m.

The bottom line is that these sights work and are extremely effective.

Why then are the combat experienced armies equipping their standard riflemen & support weapons with them in large quanities ?

SAWs, GPMGs, shoulder launched weapons, 50 cals and AGS are

increasingly being equipped with these sights as they are proven to

significantly improve hit rates at any distance out to the max ranges of these weapons.

Do you want to fight an enemy equipped with ACOGs, Aimpoints

and Elcans with your iron sights and SAR21 scope ?

These sights cost a few hundred dollars each for a very good

reason !

I want an Elcan or ACOG or Aimpoint next Christmas. SAF , please

supply.

weasel1962 SG

Its not just the sight. The further the range, the more inaccurate (and also loss of penetration) due to drop in bullet velocity. It will happen to all rifles. Rounds like SS109 can reduce velocity loss to distance but still less accurate beyond 400m. 300m is still the optimum range to engage an aggressor. The SAR-21 is designed for such engagements.

http://www.ss109.com/

Thats why snipers often have to use high powered rifle (and higher calibre rifles with heavier rounds). In such cases, loss of volume of fire is often the compromise.

Terrain is also a consideration but thats another issue. Open terrain = more range better. Closed terrain restricts LOS. More range = wasted.

As to fighting an enemy with better sights/range, the standard strategy as mentioned by shotgun is to close in. Its been the strategy since the 1800s when longer range rifles were used against shorter ranged muskets. Otherwise, use even longer ranged weapons eg Arty/CAS.

Sepecat SG

As I said, the 5.56 round was not originally designed to be effective manstopper at 600 m. That rightly belongs to the 7.62 round. But with mag sights, a 5.56 round can deliver at least effective suppressive fire up to this range. Also, I believe that an Ultimax 100 with a 6X scope will be quite effective at 600 m. If you have ever fired an Ultimax100, you know very well that achieving multiple hits out to 300 m with iron sights is not difficult due to its excellent constant recoil feature and comparatively low cyclic rate of fire.

But more importantly, I am saying that these modern sights make accurate , fast and extremely effective shooting out to the 300 to 400 m range where the 5.56 round is concerned for the individual rifleman. And this has been shown to be the case in real combat.

If I am not wrong, the US Marine sharpshooters now use an accurized M16 type weapon with 6X scope and special 5.56 rounds designed to go out to 600 m.

History shows that the disadvantaged need to close in order to win simply because they have no other choice. The advantage still lies with the one with the longer reach. An example is the Sherman or T34 with their 76 mm guns versus the German Tiger with its 88 mm gun. The Shermans and T34s had to close in to beat the Tiger. They had no choice as there was no better tank to fight the Tiger. But to win, the Allies and Russians had overwelming numbers of tanks against the limited number of Tigers. Also, the Allies & Russians accepted the high loss rates when fighting the Tigers.

Closing in is not an option when you can have the advantage of a longer reach.

Isn't military advantage about getting that longer reach ? Look at guns versus missiles in air and sea warfare ; artillery, ATGMs, tank guns etc in land warfare , BVR in AAMs etc etc

weasel1962 SG

How the US took out the tigers were through the use of air power eg rocket-armed typhoons & arty.

Study in ww2 showed 75% of british soldier battle wounds were caused by mortar, grenade, aerial bombs or shells. Only 10% were caused by bullets & anti-tank mines. The remainder were caused by blast, landmines, chemical and other wounds.

The issue of range will never be sufficient. An M-16 is outranged by a GPMG, which is out-ranged by a 12.7mm which is outranged by a 20mm, which is outranged by a 30mm, which is outranged by a 105mm tank gun, which is outranged by a 120mm tank gun, which is outranged by a 155mm arty gun, which is outranged by a MLRS, which is outranged by an aircraft bomb.

A longer reach rifle is a good to have. Personally, I would prefer focus on a mechanised force eg more bionixes/leopards but that requires more cost.

Shotgun SG

Sepecat, you miss my point. My point was that though these sights are good, they are just not high priority for our military, which is not actively engaged in any combat zone.

More likely, priority is placed in developing "system" that work as part of a set of integrated warfighting capabilities. Yes, being able to shoot at targets of opportunity at 600m with an M-16 is good. But calling in a JDAM while being able to see from the point of view of the pilot's SNIPER pod is BETTER.

Get the argument?

weasel1962 SG

A mk-82 is cheap.

spencer99 SG

IMHO...

If a soldier is given choices:

1. Would he like to engage at a faster speed at a target 100m away with a 1st rate or at a slower rate with iron sights?

2. Be able to fire more accurately at extreme 5.56mm range of 300-400m with optical sight or fruitlessly with iron sights?

3. Being in a section where one member of the team is equiped with a 7.62mm weapon so that he can more accurately engage at extreme ranges like 600m?

Now the answers to the above question will vary..... if the solider is in a situation whereby he is very likely to be deployed in a combat zone.... the answer is clear.... in fact, if I am that soldier and I do not have the necessary equipment, I will go and purchase them on my own if that avenue is feasible.....after all, my life depend on it...

However, for the normal grunt who serve 2 years and go back to being a civilian, the answer is different....

As for the policy makers... Leo2, Apaches, 155mm Howitzers look impressive on NDP and have visible deterrent value..... small arms gun sights do not...

I am not saying I agree with the above... but that is reality.....