SAR 21 Twin Brother

last SG · 2008-03-17T20:19:19+00:00

Have you ever considered laying a smoke screen first rather than volunteer to be the target in a turkey shoot?

edwin3060 SG

Well, the Visible LAD is not THAT bad, given that the off-angle light emission is reduced by the shroud, and that way that we train to use it, which is not at all like the SAF adverts or SAR-21 adverts that you see. Besides, given the limited number of NVGs that we have, having a visible LAD is a good compromise. In a situation where both sides are using NVGs, if we ever find ourselves in one, the visible/IR debate would be moot.

A few additional points:

1) The MARS sight is more fragile than the scope

2) The Picatinny rail system means that you have to re-zero the sight every time you remove and re-attach the sight

3) IMO, in the perfect world, we would all have G36 sight systems that have a reflex sight/scope hard mounted onto the rifle :)

Shotgun SG

Let talk about the standard SAR-21 and standard TAR-21 ... what make them so not the same class !!!

But the way - sights Mar vs 1.5x is out ...of this discussion - as they each have their own average in different range and situation !

let start -

SAR-21 - have chamber explosion protection

TAR-21 - look smaller

...

Frankly the list can go on and on ... but these are just very very minor different ... which cannot be use to justify which on is better !!

You say it that it is hard to come to any real conclusion - but then you start off - " standard SAR-21 we have is simply not in the same class of weapon as the TAR-21" - Please be more fair .... I do know you have your preference on little things here and there.... but be more professional. You cannot just say SAR-21 is not as good just because of your little perference here and there .... ! That is your own little perference ... which does not talk about its performance !

Frankly a lot of comments here, have been unfair to the SAR-21, just because people want to say TAR-21 is better ... they are being very unprofessional to bring up little things which is more of a preference to different users rather then really great advantages .

I'll try to engage you without going into a heated discussion.

But the very things you intentionally drop from comparison is what sets them apart in a different class of comparison. Hence if you read my entire post, its better to compare the SAR-21 MMS to the TAR-21.

The Red Dot sight, when compared to a 1.5x scope allows a shooter to bring up his weapon to bear faster against targets both near and far. I've handled both the SAR-21 Standard and the SAR-21 MMS and I can honestly tell you, that in my opinion, the SAR-21 MMS with a Red Dot Sight is comes up quickly and smartly. (Common sense, there IS a reason why they introduced the Red Dot Sight to a more advanced version of the MMS)

If I may elaborate a little more... the head position with the MMS down sight is slightly higher and more "forgiving", whereas the 1.5x scope would require the soldier adopt a stricter firing position. Which means, for an unseasoned SAR-21 user, he takes a little longer to align himself, and requires to hunch forward a lil more just to get a good sight picture.

In a tactical situation, what is the difference between a red dot sight and a 1.5x scope. Besides quicker target acquisition, the red dot sight remains accurate even if the user is wearing tactical goggles or gas mask. The 1.5x scope, would introduce some problem as mentioned above.

Finally, the infantry man's load is after all getting heavier. People try to make things lighter, but the footman ends up carry MORE lighter nonsense. The SAR-21 is HEFTY. But at the end of the day, I think the soldiers who survived a chamber explosion from it, thanks its weightier kevlar plate.

At the end of the day, a rifle is still but a rifle. If you compare a rifle without its accessories, given its barrel and firing mechanism, then you're purely comparing ballistics and how well the parts are made. Unfortunately, it seems that most of us are more interested in the END product that makes or breaks the rifle as an effective combat system. Taking the MARS vs 1.5x scope out of the comparison turns into rather myopic comparison and discussion.

On the back sling. I learned a lil thing called the "reverse back sling" back in my days. A soldier is able to swing from back sling to "high alert" within a second. Its a lil chunky to elaborate here, but yeah... its possible.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

A few additional points:

1) The MARS sight is more fragile than the scope

2) The Picatinny rail system means that you have to re-zero the sight every time you remove and re-attach the sight

3) In the perfect world, we would all have G36 sight systems that have a reflex sight/scope hard mounted onto the rifle :)

An additional question for more knowledgeable minds-- The SAR-21 has a long stroke gas piston like the AK-47 or the Ultimax, while rifles like the G36 and the TAR-21 have the short stroke gas piston. What are the advantages of each? I am thinking that the long stroke gas piston is more durable/reliable while the short stroke gas piston is lighter, am I right in my assumptions?

Valid points, in night fighting we point-index the SAR at the general direction of the target before activating the LAD in a brief pulse enough to aim and engage the target instead of leaving it on all the time.

However this is still not as flexible as the MARS system that allows you to aim in totally passive move via the reflex system in low light (unfortunately the basic 1.5x scope is so simple that they did not implement a night-fighting system for it as you might see in other scopes), but also gives you the very same LAD ability to boot. This system is certainly far more flexible over a larger range of situtations... especially when you are setting up a night ambush and want to achieve total surprise- a MARS equipped system will have a lot more options compared to one with just scope and LAD.

1.)Not sure about the MARS sight being more fragile... it works for the grunts in Iraq using it as well as a battle-experienced armed force with decades of almost constant warfare... if you want truly reliable sights then go back to iron. The scope can still crack, fog or foul up. But the bottom line in, I don't think the scope or MARS will provide problems to the grunt who knows how to take care of his sighting system.

2.) The SAR-21 comes off the production line factory zeroed, however in pratice we realize this zero is soon lost once the weapon gets seasoned after it has been used a bit, or bumped around a bit, not to mention to the individual shooting habits of the user. So to me this is a moot point.

The main point and advantage of the P-rail is flexibility... of course you got to re-zero your components once you swap them out and put them on... it's a normal part of the procedure. Given you still got to zero the scope of the SAR-21 once in a while, I'm not sure how it really matters.

3.) Precisely, the IDF wanted to get closer to this idealistic equipping of their soldiers, so why should we be surprised or bothered if the weapons package they made for their own needs is better piecemeal then ours? Ours is a decent piece of kit considering our abilities, it's only the insecure or irrationally nationalistic (aka. lionnoisy) that needs to run for his life trying to prove that anything ST churns out has to be good, best and better, even if it means taking the tiniest and most irrelevant detail and trying to make it sound as if the SAR-21 was designed around the scope handle.

arball SG

here has become another battleground eh?... lols..

wad i hav to say it tt, every country have its own need right? these needs are shaped by the way they expect to have to fight in.... eg( i doubt isreal really plans for tropical forest war right?)

anws.. abt the run with scope handle thing.... won't that damage your sight zeroing quite alot? doubt it to be really feasible for the short dash scenerio though.... you might drop the rifle right? perhaps slinging the rifle would be a better option then.

just my 2 x 6.02 x 10^23 cents worth of thoughts...

bananaking SG

it looks.....kinky...LOL

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Lol the whole carry weapon by scope thing as a battle tatic is pretty much dead.

I as well any any other infantryman who trained with the SAR in here can tell you this pretty much... there wasn't really any time we found ourselves badly needing a scope handle to "run for our lives"... And in any case I've handled the SAR pretty much to tell you that carrying it by the handle single-handed and sprinting is prehaps one of the not-so efficent ways to run with it. But this point will be lost on lionnoisy who for the same reasons, is unable to see why the 400 gram payload of fantail is much better suited for other things other then suicide missions.

When you need to sprint with a 4-kilos shopping bag do you dangle them from one hand or firmly hold them close to your body and run?

BTW, as I pointed out, using the scope handle does not make use run faster (in fact it will probably be slower), and even for the sake of an argument and lets defy physics and say it does, the tradeoff for having you defenceless in that position is not worth the marginal increase in speed. And in any case, lionnoisy's original application for it "running 50 meters in one minute over open ground that is subject to heavy enemy fire" is such a ridiculus requirement that scope handle or not any person hardheaded enough to try it won't make it any way.

If you've been in a firefight (simulated or not), you'll immediately see that trying to run across open ground exposed to enemy fire for 50 meters is a very stupid thing to do... you won't even dare to expose yourself for even the 4 second rule (in pratice we can cut exposure time to 2-3 seconds if we can).

Also lionnoisy is not an advocate of suppressive fire (that is fire that is not totally aimed to hit the enemy but simply to make him duck), if he even knows what that is given he argues that since one can't shoot well on the run, he ought to exclude himself from shooting entirely and leave the enemy completely uncontested to get into a comfy firing position and take a long, nice aim at him.

Haha maybe it the only thing I can think for the scope handle is that makes the weapon easier to draw from the armory... wow, big feature... what was ST thinking cutting it from the latest variants. Maybe they should come up with a "one-hand handle" P-rail attachment so the MMS can also have this great, lionnoisy-endorsed feature.

storywolf SG

MARS sight often cost more then the weapon ! So you are using cost now to justify what is good ? Just because it cost a lot mean it is better then something cheaper?
Hello people been using AK and M16 with iron sights they still shoot as good ! it is the shooter not the sight !

Your example of - running across open ground for 50 meters is very unfair ! If you put yourself in that situation - you deserve to be shot ! Why would you ever want to be in a open ground the nearest cover 50 meter !! Come on - even lionnoisy will not be that stupid - would you ? In open ground the most stupid thing is to waste time to even shoot back ! - alway get to nearest cover away or then shoot back !!! Ok to be more fair, we take it down to semi open - 20m - say 1.5 second to 2 second. With speed + momentumn + surprise + enemy unprepare - they may get a lucky unaim shot off, and you already disappear into cover and gone.. if you die die chose tactical retreat, you lost momentumn + speed + surprise + give the enemy extra second to aim + all those shooting and noise - you are just announ to every enemy to shoot you !.... you are more likely to be shot ! Please do not limited yourself to tactical retreat in your military dictionary only !

Like i say soldier moving over long distance and fast have to balance the need to reserve his strenght and need to hold his rifle at alert !!! Which is every wrong on your argument of every second must be hand must be on pistol grip - your soldier will die of tireness before he even reach his destination !

Look SAR-21 have kelvar plate on right side to protect one side for chamber explosion ! TAR-21 have no kevar plate both side not protected ! How in the world can you say zero protection is better then one !

storywolf SG

Also storywolf, you might need to know that lionnoisy has a habit of taking the smallest feature of any ST made-equipment and trying to play it up as a war-winner.

For example, the 400gram payload of the Fantail he tried to squeeze out to its logical limit to make his "crash Fantail into targets" idea work.

Once again... not too sure how important the scope handle is... it certainly didn't strike me as something rather important in the field. If it is there it's there, but our grunts won't die without it. I'd gladly trade out the scope handle SAR for an MMS with a reflex sight and IR-capable LAD so it works with NVGs and does not announce my position out to the entire world during night fighting where the normal 1.5x is mostly useless and one has to use the vislight LAD... which is kinda retarded.

Actually resorted to using the backup emergency sights during night shooting as the visible LAD (normal SAR LAD is not IR-capable) is a quick way to attract a lot of fire on your position and the next thing you know you'r TELS system will be buzzing telling you you've been shot over 20 times.

yep lionnoisy do over talk over some features ... like you say his ideal of fantail - yep that I also have blown him on his ideal .

But the scope handle is just a small issue, but it does have its advantages. We must also be fair to him at time.
If he raise a valid point, it may be small but it is still valid - we must also accept it, we cannot just base on his pass funny comments on fantail and those and just say it is bad .
So you are telling me that a SAR with a MMS and reflex sight and IR-capable LAD - is a good rifle ... and it is not a SAR-21 ? It is still a SAR-21 no matter what sights or NVG you put on it .... !!! If like that you are not comparing a rifle , you comparing the accessories ! You are just comparing with and without NVG not the rifle !

You are telling me you are not you .... you are based on the clothes you wear ! Are you telling me that by wearing some clothes - you are smarter and a better human . If that the way you judge things - then how can you judge lionnoisy even though he say non-sense sometimes

Shotgun SG

storywolf,

How do you justify the "superior" tactical value of the carrying handle/scope against a Red Dot Sight that allows a soldier take aim faster?

Have you taken aim with an Iron sight while wearing a gas mask or tactical goggles?

I think most of us have ceded that the SAR-21's safety feature is in fact superior to the TAR-21. However, thats not the only factor being considered.

storywolf SG

storywolf,

How do you justify the "superior" tactical value of the carrying handle/scope against a Red Dot Sight that allows a soldier take aim faster?

Have you taken aim with an Iron sight while wearing a gas mask or tactical goggles?

I think most of us have ceded that the SAR-21's safety feature is in fact superior to the TAR-21. However, thats not the only factor being considered.

You are being very unfair .

Red dot sight adv is 1.5x disadv - and 1.5x adv is red dot sight disadv . it is speed of aim vs distance shoot ! Why must you just focus on speed ..... it will not be fair if i just focus on distance shooting with 1.5x which it have adv.

Yes I have taken aim with gas mask or goggles ... don't you think it is unfair to take those into the picture - as general soldiers do not usually use them .... you usually need those when close quarter combat - which again unfair as this is a red dot sight adv ! Have you shoot at enemy that is 200m to 400m which adv is in favour of the 1.5x with gas mask & googles ? If yes you need some slap from my instructors ... why the hell you putting on gas mask or googles when enemy so far away which their fart cannot even reach you, unless you want to make them die of laughter !!! Please stop putting in unfair factors in. We talking about all round range performance - not close quarter combat only.

So if SAR-21 is more safer ... then why you keep say TAR-21 is more ambidexterous ? So you mean SAR-21 - cannot shoot from left just because SAF instructor play it safe ...... If shooting SAR-21 & TAR-21 from left have the same amount of danger to chamber explosion - then why you unfairly say TAR-21 is more ambidexterous - should not them be the same ! The SAR-21 is able to be use for left handler to shoot as safetly as TAR-21 - just because the SAF for safety reason, does not allow that - so that is unfair for you to keep saying the TAR-21 is more ambidexerous.

Like you say safety is one factor = same thing sight is just another factor - they are not the only factor to consider ! But you have reach a stage of unfairness - when you keep choosing factors to consider and ignore - all only to TAR-21 side !

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

yep lionnoisy do over talk over some features ... like you say his ideal of fantail - yep that I also have blown him on his ideal .

The point is, his point on the scope handle would have been accepted if it was valid and had a point- unfortuntately it's as blunt as points go.

As pointed out, the scope handle does not give the grunt really any real increased tatical advantages... it's just a point of splitting hairs and as far as having a point relevant to this debate, highly irrelevant.

Also it's gets better when you realize that his point- which was the scope handle allows you to run faster for your lives, is totally invalid to begin with. Holding the rifle like a shopping bag with one hand is prehaps the worst way to sprint with it, and there are plenty of alternative ways to sling or carry it that make far more sense. In this light the whole scope handle thing is a point of making a mountain out of a molehill.

I do not for one, think that the SAF will win wars or even minor fights because the SAR has a scope-handle. I seriously doubt a grunt will tell you that he survived because he could carry his rifle by the scope handle and run.

And how does the accesories does not matter to the weapon especially if it was unable to mount them?

Note that this point was made to address lionnoisy who wanted to compare a basic SAR to the basic Tavor and say that it was "better", and as I pointed out this is just not the case. The basic (and most common) SAR variant was not made to, and cannot match up piecemeal to the Tavor, if you want to look at the overall score and considering which weapon performs better over the widest ranges of situtation.

Of course lets say for the sake of an argument we say the accessories do not matter the SAR still has several inherent "flaws" versus the Tavor... the weight for one thing, and the lack of safety for true ambidexterous firing. These are rather real flaws. Even the MMS SAR will have them.

And yes, my idea of an ideal SAR would be the MMS variant I outlined, but at the end of the day it is the basic SAR that our grunts go into battle to. All this talk about better variants is cold comfort and moot if it is not implemented.

Unfortunately, there are no plans to put the MMS variant into widespread service, probably because it will cost a lot more then the basic SAR.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

You are being very unfair .

I think he is being pretty fair actually, and the numbers back him up.

If you look at a truly modern army you will note that the use of P-rail systems and different sighting systems have become the de-facto standard. The flexibility afforded by these systems are simply too tempting to pass up.

And as for the scope-versus-red dot, in the context of the SAF I would say that the red dot is the more suitable system. In any case almost any external P-Rail sighting system would be better then the basic SAR Scope.

You wanted to talk about all-round range performance, well it's pretty much known that the red dot is a far more flexible system. Note that 1.5x was chosen for the scope not because it really magnified things but because it was the limit that a soldier could shoot through the scope with both eyes open (beyond that the brain cannot compensate for the difference in magnification). This allows one to engage targets with both eyes open, much like a red dot. 1.5x is actually a compromise between magnification, and a good field of view. It is a level that is a jack of all trade but master of none.

HOWEVER the speed of engagement is still considerably slower especially opposed to an open style reflex sight like the MARS, this is due to the narrower field of view. Under typical infantry firefight ranges (under 100 meters), the red dot is far more useful.

The only time when the SAR 1.5x scope truly has an advantage over the Tavor red dot is when you are shooting at a STATIONARY target at range. But if the target is moving, taking cover and shooting back, being able to respond quickly and engage is more of a factor then being able to get a magnified look on the target... especially if it's just 1.5x. This is the reason why reflex sights are becoming more popular then your typical scope... and of course there's the red dot sight with magnification as well that combines the best of both worlds. But back to our argument, looking at the BIG PICTURE, in the context of modern infantry operations, the ITL MARS is certainly the better sighting system is the majority (in fact most) of situtations.

And also in the context of the SAF. Why? Because given our local terrain (jungle) and the fact that we are expected to fight more urban battles, engagement ranges will be typically short compared to say, the rolling mountans of Afganistan. A reflex sight would fit the SAF's bill much better.

The reason why we didn't go for the reflex sight for the basic SAR that we are talking about, which the grunts use, and which is the more relevant to our discussion currently, is because of cost.

Note that to make an argument on which weapon is the best or not I am considering the big picture. For example how it will actually be produced and used in the field. No point talking about the SAR MMS being THE SAR variant when in fact most of them being produced and used is the basic SAR, and that's the one we are fighting are wars with for now. Hence when the SAF goes into battle now it goes with the scope and not the red dot sight.

Lets put it this way... eventually a left-handed SAR user will be badly injured by a chamber explosion, and this is because of the way the weapon was designed... is this acceptable? The SAF apparently does not, and hence opts to train ALL of its soldiers to fire right handed, more or less mooting the ambidexterous nature of the weapon. It's a bit like buying something with a feature that you end up not using not because it's impossible, but because there are risks that you rather not take.

Also, unlike the TAR, the SAR is not ambidexterous in the sense that it can truly be converted for left handed shooters (ejecting shells to the left)... hence the left handed shooter will have to put up with the increased noise and firing gases being ejected on his side as the bolt works. I know this because I shot the weapon left handed before (admittedly knowing the risk if something went wrong).

Shotgun SG

It maybe unfair, but tactical goggles are beginning to prove their worth in combat. Soldiers have sworn by Z82+ standard eyewear and how they've saved their eyesight from certain blindness from high explosive shrapnel.

I think you need to inform your instructors that the enemy doesn't always show up where you want to be, and have a tendency of showing up where u don't want them to be. And honestly, I really don't think its that difficult for the TAR-21 to engage beyond 100m.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Well I could hit targets with iron sights at 300m... what's the big deal with a red dot? A scope just makes it easier but when it comes to the firefight where dudes are running around and taking cover here and there it's a red dot that I'll want to use. If I really wanted magnification I would go for a 4x and above and not a 1.5x.

Not that the SAR scope is a mistake... it's a cost effective solution to fixing the problem of WOWO grunts that just can't figure out the iron sights as well as to implement some form of advanced sighting for rifles SAF wide. Not a bad solution but let's not lionnoisy it and say it ought to be the best.

Shotgun SG

Storywolf doesn't seem to believe that the red dot sight can hit out accurate past 100m. The sights themselves can be calibrated and zeroed for different ranges, so I really don't see why he thinks they are inaccurate compared to a scope or ironsight.

A weapon like the TAR-21 or SAR-21MMS mounted with a red dot sight, really offers a big plus factor. The eye/head alignment to the weapon is a lil more forgiving, and slightly higher, allowing te user a much wider field of vision, and capability to engaged with both eyes open.

A 1.5x scope is nice... but such options are available to various Red Dot Sights as well, eg ACOG.

edwin3060 SG

ST--Good point about aiming thru the red dot vs scope with gogges or gas masks. I never thought about that :). Maybe they should incorporate an additional section into live firing using the backup iron sights on the SAR-21. Given that we are supposed to wear goggles during urban fighting to protect against shrapnel, etc, maybe an additional 100m and 50m with the iron sights and goggles :P

storywolf SG

As for the ambidexterous point - it is still all excuse ! both rifle can be effectively shot left handed - equal both are as ambidexterous ! But you keep faulting SAR-21 due to SAF training policy ... which is Nuts !!

Shotgun I have not doubt that a MARS sight can shoot well to 200m even .... but frankly anything above 200m - i think i would do a lot better with the 1.5x !!!

I still find fault with all the few of your gang that - keep just talking about how good the MARS sight is - the sad fact all of you keep emphasing on one thing - that is how good it is for closer combat and urban fighting only ... !

You all keep thinking of urban fighting is close quarter !!! Face it real urban fighting involve a lot of good old distance good shooting !!! You think like movies -general soldiers will rush a block of flat to take it !!! In real battle, you shoot at enemy from distance to take out anything you can ... while calling for planes or tanks to take out the enemy ... that the real battle ordinary soldiers does .... And not what you all keep imagining - special force soldiers - charging room to room !!! Yes for operations that you all keep imagining - a MARS sight is the best .... but for general soldiers frankly a 1.5x is a better choice which suit the wider range of shooting that they will face !!!

1.5x

This is an example of a 1.5x scope look... tell me frankly ... can you shoot a enemy from 20m to 100m with it easily and fast !! By the way someone say Red dot -capability to engaged with both eyes open .. this picture above also prove that 1.5x you can engage with both eyes open also, may not be as good as MARS, but good enough for general soldiers !

I seriously wonder if you all have any true experience in usings things like MARS or the different various scope before .... seem like a lot of you seem to justify MARS - maybe more due to your lack of confident or skill in shooting , thus anything that seem to give you a bigger sights is your 1st preference ! Frankly your sentence - "If I really wanted magnification I would go for a 4x and above and not a 1.5x" already show that you have no experience in scope magifications ...... or using various sights and not a true shooter !!! A true shooter will never never never - say that . Wasting my time taking to someone who may know about rifles and accessories .... but sadly ... did not know about tactics or shooting and blind reading things from gun mags ... without true experience in using different various of scope and magifications !!! With shooters like you ... damn we serious need to replace SAR-21 1.5x scope with MARS !!!

storywolf SG

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Erm I think you are being unreasonable here.

I can assure you I am not a gun mag junkie- In my NS vocation as an Infantry Specialist I've trained extensively in iron sight as well as scoped system. I've not only had to use the M-16S1 as well as the SAR-21, but also to TRAIN people in the use of them in my vocation as an instructor. I've used different sight powers from 1.5x to 4x (Sharshooter), used the SAR in nightfighting (where we realize the scope is pratically useless) and with NVGs. I have also fired the MP5 with the red dot reflex sight system and the experience speaks for itself. If the SAF had the dream amount of money there's no question about it... it would go for the reflex sight or something like the ACOG.

Note that in the 3G ACM concept the Advanced Combat Man system is using a red dot reflex sight, speaks volumes about which system the SAF knows to be superior.

Let's be objective here, the SAR 1.5X lacks the target aquisition speed of the MARS, is less egronomic to aim with, as well as being virtually unusuable in low-light. And it trades all this just for a 1.5x magification... which is a questionable trade.

And also who said the reflex sight was only for CQB? The grunts in Iraq used it pretty well for normal firefights. In fact if normal iron sights can hit it, so can a red dot. I don't understand why you are so fixed on the idea that reflex sights are only for CQB... except that you fail to see the obvious.

This is not about playing up one side or trashing the other, I am telling you, from my own training experience, as well as the testimonials of others who have actually been in REAL firefights about the various merits and cons of various sighting systems... that in the general arena of combat the infantryman is expected to face, the red dot reflex is the idea sight for him. So I am sorry, I do not for one think the system of the simple SAR 1.5X is the more flexible sight for the average infantryman, that would be just contary to the facts. How can a sight that is less natural and simple to use and unusable in night fighting be more flexible for the average infantryman? It's akin to saying that the M1 Garand is a better rifle then the M-16 for the average infantryman simply because it shot a bigger bullet.

Look at this this way: the typical expected mission profile for the SAF now include a lot of urban operations (they said it themselves) And CQB will become a large part of it, and even without CQB a lot of fighting will take place at steet-length... I seriously doubt a 1.5x scope that is more of a liability indoors, as well as with a slower targeting time, and being deficent in night combat, is the more "flexible" sight for ops. Why not train a bit with 6SIR and immediately apperciate what would be the better scope for them?

Even if you don't want to take it from me, take it from the grunts who have used the MARS system in firefights... just go to stragetypage and ask any of them if they think they would trade it out for the 1.5x SAR scope... they'll probably give you a strange look and ask you why on earth you want to trade on the something like a MARS for the 1.5x SAR scope... in fact I doubt they would even trade a 1.5x ACOG for the SAR scope. And these are not spec ops troopers, they are normal infantrymen.

Bottom line, you are kinda like arguing that a T-55 is a better tank for armoured corps then an M1A2 Abrams... which is I feel, and many others agree... a lost cause. The SAR-21 scope was not made to compete with truly advanced dedicated sighting systems that can be P-railed. I seriously doubt the simple SAR 1.5x scope has a future when the SAF finally decides to upgrade one day.

As for the left-handed issue the SAF is the largest user of the SAR. Given the SAR was made mainly for the SAF needs (with safety being one of them), this inability to truly get around the danger of chamber explosions and giving the SAF soldier a truly safe ambidexterous ability is still a product design failure no matter how you want to cut it.

BTW the manification provides easier shooting for STATIONARY targets at range, but if the target is moving things even out a lot more between normal sights and low-power scope systems.

Basically at the end of the day the reason why we went for an intergal, simple 1.5x scope is cost and not because of any of its inherent superiority over dedicated sighting systems or anything. A real 1.5x sighting system would be something like the ACOG, which for your information, something the average infantryman has used in battle.

storywolf SG

You are a infantry specialist - that shoot m16, sar- with 1.5x to 4.x + red dot on MP5 .. - yep the fancy military term for infantry soldier

You say you are a "instructor" ... that taught people how to shoot ...

Now you really got me interested !!!

I am truely interested to know the type of former training they provide you to prepare you for being a instructor, approximate the hours of the course for instructor, and what area it generally cover ?

« Previous Page Next Page »