To judge things, we need facts and figures - i ask for just 6 !
And yet you struggle, in the end give me 4 only. Tavor, SA80 - yes
they have better sights. G36 - 1.5x sight also & Vector CR-21 -
1x sight - nothing special - I put them as equal. From 4 of top
rifle of standard configuration you mention - i only see 2 of them
have better sights only.
The basic G36 sights that the Germans use are far more advanced
then SAR-21, as foxtrout8 has mentioned it. Notice the irony
here? The Germans export stepped-down
models for customers while retaining the best for their
own troops while our own ST seems to ship the best stuff for
overseas customers while retaining the bare-bones models for our
own troops.
Note the G36 sights are a true example of battlefield
innovation and not some "let's slap on a basic 1.5x and tell the
grunts to rely on our innovative, world's first intergal LAD to do
the job for night fighting".
The Vector 1X reflex sight offers significant advantages over
the SAR-21 sight, most important being in it's ability to
be used in low light without resorting to the LAD. In a low light
engagement users of the SAR-21 basic are at a significant
disadvantage versus users of a reflex system.
In fact you will notice that advanced versions of the SAR
like MMS do away entirely with the 1.5x and go back to 1x but
using a reflex system instead or mounting more advanced
systems when magnification is needed.
I am struggling? I am giving you a chance by trying to
answer your question as fairly as possible. If you really insist on
me giving 6 rifles at the time you are really digging your own
grave.
First an foremost I focused on answering the question
fairly, given at the time the SAR-21 was released arms
manufacturers were deciding between going P-rail or intergal
optical systems. Ultimately flexibility ruled in favour of the
P-rail modular systems which in their basic configuration will be
mounting a scope that is far superior to that of the SAR-21.
So how are you going to judge a weapons like that which have no
"basic" version to speak of?
A good example would be the FN2000, which has no "basic" version
but is instead designed to accept just about anything you can slap
on it from reflex sights to a computerized laser guided grenade
launching system.
Another issue is also how the weapon is actually implemented and
used. We can try to argue that the SAR-21 has better sights then a
bare-bones M-16 but as it turns out now the American grunts are
using M-16s running on P-rail systems that are equipped with
far better sights then our SAR-21 basic, allowing them to outshoot
us anyday. Hence our argument becomes useless and just talk that
has little bearing in reality. Basically this is just a fight for
bragging rights ignoring what is really happening.
This is where your agument is flawed, one cannot just look at
the basic model of the weapon and compare them basic to basic but
instead look at how the entire weapon is designed to be used in the
end. Going by your argument, the SAR-21 has more "advanced" sights
then rifles like the SCAR which come with iron sights but were
designed from the outset to be modular weapons to accept modular
sights, but are perfectly happy to go on their iron sights.
Flexibility is the key here, so how you want to compare? By
trying to restrict the case to something that is not reflective of
what is really happening in the real world or by making your
arguments and points based on things which will have basis in
reality?
The fact is quite basic- we claim to be one of the most advanced
militaries in the region, or even the world with out weapons
R&D technology but can't even equip our own troops with a
proper sighting system that is well thought out and
designed that offers the soldiers options and not gimmicks
like intergal LAD and factory zero which are more or less one-trick
ponies.
What we need are sights that are flexible (ie. modular) as well
as offering us options (not having to rely soley on LAD for night
fighting with the main scope becoming mostly useless). In this
respect the SAR-21 basic cannot be considered to be that good a
rifle when we can do much better, unless you want to say "ooh, our
SAR has more advanced sights then the Khaybar KH2002 assault
rifle"... which unfortunately, isn't really an achivement at
all.
Ultimately it's easy to construct any argument to your favour by
asking for restrictive conditions to sastify them, but it does not
follow that the argument you construct from these conditions to
"trap" your opponents will actually lend any merit to your case at
all.
The crux of the issue still remains, the ST promised to
equip our troops with the best that they could with their resources
and technology in the SAR-21 series, but the way things really go
seems to indicate that some corners are being cut here and there.
Arguing till the sun goes down on the merits of the SAR-21 basic
will not retify the situtation that we can put better weapons into
the hands of our troops and are not doing it for some reason.
And you know what is the greater irony? They are touting new
systems like SSW when we can't even bring our troops up to date
with a modernized version of the SAR-21, giving them a model that
is running on 1990s weapons design thinking when the rest of the
world has moved on quite a bit.
The point remains, the SAR-21 basic needs to be changed or
swapped out for some other variant if we want to at least claim
that our troops have the best weapon they can get from ST. The
irony I feel is some of our grunts train with a thai trooper,
and see him carrying a more advanced version of the SAR-21.
