When someone that he is better then Janes Defense magazine !!!
T-rex - you just too arrogant !!!
When someone relies only on Janes Defence and disregards
the testimony of thousands of grunts who actually use the weapon
day in day out and are contradicting what Janes says... I think the
arrogrant one is quite clear.
Janes did not take the smoke from ST - they even send
a professional gun expert down to singapore to see it himself
- by the way, he is a true grunt - he was in real war - not like
t-rex - a self-call grunt !
Janes articles are written by professional - a lot of them are
military or former military personal, read by world wide military
folks. If it is credibile for the whole world military, think for a
false grunt to think otherwise it is ok !!!
Has this gun expert being with the SAR-21 in actual field
conditions and seen how it actually works in the field before
writing his article?
No.
Also what do you think this gun expert would say when he
gets to compare other systems like the G36C, the Tavor, the FN2000
and what have you not against the SAR-21?
Going by your logic, we ought to trust the computer engineers at
Microsoft when they say that Microsoft Windows is a good and
stable OS because they know more about computers then us,
regardless of the experience and problems we actually have with
Windows and the existence of better systems out there.
Also recently, the military experts behind future weapons duffed
up on describing our MATADOR as capable of firing smart munitions
that can tell between soft and hard targets when the
actual smartness of the weapon is the grunt using it and
manually selecting the warhead mode, are you going to
argue on the basics of this article?
Basically you are relying on an article that is written who no
particular point of reference, not to mention you are trying to
claim bizzare likely advantages that it has over other
firearms, most amusingly being you trying to support lionnoisy's
handbag carry stance as an advantage, the superiority of the 1.5x
over advanced modular sighting systems like reflex and ACOG
systems, and right not the false claim that factory
zero offers it an advantage over comparable firearms when a
simple check reveals just the SAR-21 main competitors in the
market already come with such a feature.
Basically your approach is lionnoisy, selectively pick an
article and harp on it repeatedly using the "qualifications" of the
writers as a subsitite for logic, which is not surprising given in
the Tavor thread your main push for the merit of your arguments was
not in it's logic, but that you were some kind of
an "officer" who spent far more time on the range then the
normal "specs" and "grunts" and hence had the right to overwrite
their concern.
I remember most amusingly, you argued that since it was possible
for you to engage targets with the 1.5x scope, anybody else calling
for a better system was "weak" and not a "true soldier", brushing
aside the obvious and great advantage that such systems offered to
the soldier in combat.
See no point in arguing with a nut case that are so
arrogant that he think Janes defense magazine folks are crap ...!!!
That why dinosaur extinct as they cannot accept another other
people point of view.
A true nut case would be the one that chooses to hide
behind a single article and is unable to argue his case
convincingly with people who actually had real experience with the
weapon who contradict him. In fact it seems his own resource is to
pretty much say "my teacher said so" even when faced with
overwhelming evidence or come up with "new materials and
technology" that only exist in his own head.
So who is the false soldier here? The one who only knows how to
quote media articles or the one who draws from his actual
experience with the equipment in the field?
