Weather you like it or not,
whatever you may say, if you fail to subject it to common sense and
logic you will certainly fail to convince anybody.
The only thing that annoys me is that you fail to see logic
repeatedly.
It seems that there are certain "key citeria" that you only seem to
consider and forget about everything else.
This is not to mention that a lot of the "comments" about the
SAR-21 being "heavy" come more from a riding of the weight issue to
the death by some people when by all measures this sentiment has
been proven quite conclusively to as irrational as the misgivings
biplane pilots, being used the open cockpits and forgiving handling
of their previous mounts, towards monoplane fighters.
Taking ALL the facts into account. This is clear:
The weight issue was not surprisingly not mentioned by those who
were trained on the SAR-21 from the start. A lot of the noise comes
from those who had to convert from the M-16... when by any measure
the two weapons are very different. ALSO, as one person pointed out
not too long back: the SAR-21 is actually LIGHTER then the current
generation M-16 that it is supposed to match up to and
replace.
So how is it heavy? It is you trying to make something that is
white in black. So if 100 people say the weapon is heavy out of
ignorance we have to follow the weight (no pun intended) of
ignorance and say it so? One common illness in some armchair
generals here seem to be locallymademustsuckitis, where they
find each and every reason to pick that the weapons locally made
(Ultimax, SAR-21, Bionix) have to be outright failures when other
nations see them as very promising weapons systems. This extend
often to the irrational picking out of faults, as if the entire
utility of the weapon and "greatness" of it depended on whatever
tiny fault we can find with it.
And your call for the removal of those supposed "features" on the
SAR-21 seems to stem from your ignorance of the subject matter then
those features actually having no use. You didn't know how to use
the LAD and hence saw it as unnecessary weight... I think those how
have been trained to use it WILL beg to differ.
After that, it seems you start splitting hair over barrel lengths,
kevlar plates and what have you not in your need to "improve" a
weapon that you don't seem to even know squat about. Is it no
surprise some people who actually USED the weapon more then you
will start to disagree and point out the blatant flaws in your
logic?
And it seems that unless the SAR-21 was in service with every army
in the world then you would consider it a "good" weapon. Which is
once again plainly ridiculus given the oversaturated arms market.
Also you make several critical errors in assuming that the ideal
weapon for Singapore somehow has to have whatever is the most
popular in the world. Wherever did you get that idea except from a
person who knows nothing about the subject but the notion that "so
many people can't be wrong."?
Really, please READ UP before you go around trying to bend
objective truth to your own subjective reality with your rather
laughable posts. Need we bring up your "critique" of the
Terrax?
As mythbusters might say, "I reject your reality and subsititute it
with mine."
Hence I must say, the sentiments about the "flaws" of the SAR-21
often turn out to be MYTH BUSTED.
There have been many posts agreeing that the SAR 21 is indeed
heavy. This is something all infantrymen appreciate. If STK can
lighten the current "std" issue SAR21 by removing features which do
not really give a
We are all of course aware that lighter & less bulky versions
of the SAR 21 already exist. I am saying that these shud be the
standard issue rather than the current " std " SAR21s issued to
NSmen so that SAR 21 can one day be one of the
worlds best rifles.
This is yet another example of you
not being able to understand even your own arguments, spinning
words in some vain attempt to support your point.
You contradict yourself. If your "superior" version already exists,
then it follows that it is already by your logic... a "one of the worlds best rifles".
Hence, what's with all your empty talk about one
day? All your "improvements" have already been done, and
as I said before if it is issued is an issue of the SAF and not STK
or the design of the weapon.
If you have so agreed that the technical hurdles have been
overcome, and in fact the very physical nature of the weapon makes
it in your own eyes "one of the worlds best", you have all but
destroyed your own position that "it is not yet the best." Indeed
your critique should be with the SAF and not STK or the SAR-21. And
if your critique isn't even based on an issue with the weapon, on
what grounds do you declare it "not one of the world's best?"
If I made the world's best weapon but because of things beyond my
control most people do not get to use it... does it change the
sheer fact that it exists that I have physically the world's best
weapon?
So I am afraid you are not making any more sense then you started
out with, like it or not. What's next, you are going to critique
the Abrams and Leopard 2 for not being as widespread as the T-55
and hence they are not the "worlds best" and would only "be one day
the best if they were issued in armies like the T-55"?
Please stop dodging, shifting the goalposts and face up to logic
and common sense
