Running for your life ? Frankly when you need to do that , that
mean ... you are totally outgun - running all out for it .... !!!
That is very different from tactical withdrawal ....!!! which you
stop to shoot and fall back in orderly manner !!! Running for your
life mean running like hell for it , which you do not even want to
stop or turn back to return fire even if people firing at you ....
usually this mean all out speed and distance .... !
You say sling the rifle to run ... hello sling it behind, frankly
if you will not have time to stop to sling it !!! Isn't
that worst harder to bring to action if you really need it ? ....
If you sling it to the front, it keep banging to your legs and
waist ... isn't that slowing you down ?
As for later varients of SAR - did not have the scope - that is
because they are not for general soldiers - those will have
different sights mount - like even MARS for more close quarter
combat.
I do not agree with you on that what you say "SAR was intended to
put a competent weapons package at an affordable cost into the arms
of an ordinary SAF grunt, not go all out at all expense to give him
the best we upon possible. The Israelis can do it, but we for us we
stick with good enough and not best" - please
explain what the TAR have on so expensive that make SAR
have is cheap !
Ps if you want to know, a MARS sight often costs more
then the weapon it is mounted on, the intergrated 1.5x however,
does not.
Have you trained with the SAR before and done fire and movement
with it?
Do you know the proper way to retreat from the enemy? The
quickest way to get gunned down is to turn tail and run away in a
route. If you read up a little on history, note that very often the
losses inflicted on one side is caused not during the battle, but
often during the rout when one side is no longer effectively
returning fire. Simply running away is pure bad tatics, not to
mention something that would get you killed pretty fast.
Hence except for Arty drill, I can't think of any retreat
tatics I was trained in that involved simply running away even
if outgunned. You've still have to know which cover to run to,
retreat in bounds and fire back to supress and slow down the enemy
and cover your friends while they are running and so on and so
forth. It is only when you can clearly disengage that you pop
smoke, give one last burst of fire, and then get out of dodge.
Hence, I do not really think ST build the scope handle for the
purpose of "running for lives". It is just a by-the-way feature of
having to put a 1.5x scope, just as we would observe in the Aug and
other similar systems.
Even if you are running for your life you'll quickly discover
the optimal way to do so is to hold the rifle with both hands and
hug it close to your body, not via the scope handle like a shopping
bag.
The scope is just a handle, and a not very important one at
that, time to get over it. I seriously doubt that the additional of
a scope handle will save any lives... unless you want to concede
that ST made a stupid mistake in removing this feature in the other
variants of the SAR.
I do not understand about your argument on - "The SAR is not
truly ambidexterous in the sense of the TAR-21. While it was can be
shot left handed when need be, you will be badly injured or
possibly killed if the rifle experiences a chamber failure due to
the blast being directed rightwards from the safety
plate" So that mean being more ambidexterous,
shooting with TAR-21 - no matter with left and right you will not
be injuried or killed !!! Don't you find that you are being very
unfair here, when infact SAR-21 provide kelvar protection while
Tar-21 have none for chamber explosion - yet you twist your fact
till TAR-21 better, which is very unprofessional !
You don't seem to understand apparently. The kevlar protection
is only on the LEFT side of the rifle, where the user's face would
be if he is firing from the normal right handed position. The
blast during a chamber explosion is vented to the RIGHT, away
from a right handed shooter but straight smack into the face of
person firing it from the left handed explosion. Just take a SAR
apart and look at the reciever group and you can see the Kevlar
plate and get an idea of how it works.
If you won't take it from me, at least read up:
The kevlar plating on the left side of the weapon butt (where a
right-handed user's face would typically be) is effective in
protecting the user from any internal chamber explosion by
directing the resulting force to the right. However, that resultant
force would also seriously injure anyone unfortunate enough to be
on the right side of the weapon. In the case of a user firing from
his left shoulder, this could cause severe injury to his face.
As a result, all left-handed SAF soldiers are taught to fire
from their right shoulder as a safety measure,
Both gun basically use almost the same mechanism ... which
perform i would say as equally good. If you say singapore SAR is
cheap and not the best -that is pure bullshit that show little
knowledge of you have on firearm ! why would they even put kelvar
to prevent chamber blast - that add money to it.
You are the one pulling figures out of the air, if you
bothered to follow the other SAR-21 threads in this forum you would
realize the per-unit cost of the SAR has long been broken down and
debated over... as new weapon designs go it isn't that
expensive.
The cost of a kevlar plate is nothing compared to a MARS, which
could cost as much as the rest of the weapon itself. Basically
speaking, the SAR-21 was intended to provide a pseudo-sharpshooter/
LAD ability to the average SAF conscript cheaper then an M-16
decked out individually with these acessories by making them all
into one mass-produced package. The reduces the overall cost of the
weapon.
And what other cost-reducting measures... look at the 1.5x
scope... is is a mass-produced intergal scope or something like as
capable as an ACOG?
So the only things you guys end up arguing is on little
accesseries here and there... which is pure wasting of time ... as
I can easily fix a MAr on SAR-21 or TAR-21 - a 1.5x scope.
It's called a MARS sight, not Mar.
You can't fix a MARS on the normal SAR-21. You need to get the
MMS or P-Rail version that unfortunately... is not standard issue
to the SAF for the simple reason the basic version is the cheapest
to manufacture and standardize army-wide. If you want to get your
hands on the MMS... then my question is... why not just get a
normal TAR that is lighter?
And if you want to fix a 1.5x scope on the TAR... chances are
you won't use the mass-produced simple1.5x that comes with the SAR
but an ACOG instead... which is rather not the same thing.
Mar - is good for closer range shooting, as faster for close up
shooting .... but 1.5x scope - sort of is a balance between
close and distance shooting. Both are equally good, just that
each have their own advantage ... in different
situation. Thus you cannot use the sight as judge of which
rifle is better - just because you think you will shoot better with
this sight .... as other people will shoot better with that sight
!!!
If you didn't realize, I pointed this out in my post. It
all depends. HOWEVER the MARS is certainly the more flexible sight
under a wider degree of combat circumstances. It can be used in
low-light conditions (which you cannot with the 1.5X) without
having to resort to the LAD as with the SAR.
Think both side got different definitation of what is the best
rifle specification and accessories - thus both are best
rifles to each of the 2 army point of view is the best out
there for their own soldiers.
SAR-21 is a great rifle in its standard configuration which
strike a well balance to general soldier needs. For specialized
unit - it can be fix with all the different type of sights and
accessories to suit the need.
That's pretty much my point. ST did not make the SAR-21 to be a
world-beater. It was catered first and foremost to the needs of the
SAF in providing them a cost-effective upgrade to the M-16 as well
as some additional abilities. Nobody said it was a bad weapon, just
that it's not the best. Is is a decent weapon? Certainly I
would go into the field (and have) with it.
On the other hand, the demands of the IDF are far more stringent
and hence the TAR-21 design was far more specific and expensive.
Both are their own weapons but really comparing the SAR to the TAR
is a bit like comparing a family car to a sports car. And that is
just the truth.
