doubt the sar-21 is a more effective weapon than its main
competitor the AUG from the following observations:
1)heavier
2)non STANAG mags
3)fire controls positioned at the buttstock of the
rifle
I cant see why its an effective modern weapon when some rifle
designed nearly 30 years ago can outdo it on the above, mostly.
Maybe you need to take a closer look.
Ultimately the move back then was to replace the STANAG mag with
a new system that performs better. The STANAG mag leaves much to be
desired in terms of reliability and durability. The switch to
polymer mags is not surprising... thou the CHOICE of the SAR-21's
polymer mag design is, which introduces compability issues with
older systems.
More interestingly, the SAR-21 export versions could take the
STANAG mag. Additionally most of them did away with the cheapo 1.5x
scope for modular mounts.
Reliability and safety of the SAR-21 trumps the Aug. Saw the
results of the chamber explosion test.
My take? ST had far more capable versions of the SAR-21 ready...
but the SAF chose to go for the bare-bones version instead, which
could be considerably improved. Maybe they are waiting for one big
upgrade to a better standard variant that could be applied across
the board like the SAR-21A? I dunno.
Don't see many issues with the SAR though... harshest critics of
it always seem to be local, but the foreign operators using it,
sometimes in combat conditions don't seem to be feeding back a lot
of scating reviews.
