Top 10 Combat Rifles

last SG · 2006-12-17T01:04:28+00:00

What criteria are they using to determine the rifles and rankings? Reliability? Accuracy? Cost-effectiveness?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Technically the fragmenting effects of the usual 5.56 is disallowed under the Geneva conventions as well, and in fact some have tried to introduce 5.56 rounds that do not fragment. But that would make the round very much less lethal.

davechng SG

yes! the 5.56 fragmentation that thumble and create that temporary cavity than the permanent cavity on the target will greatly increase the lethality of the round ! As we know, the new 1:7 twist barrel use by most M4, M16A2 ,3 that stabalize the SS109 or M855 and the black tip M955! with a long enough barrel, the KE and the hi velocity of the 5.56 will actually create a much devastating effect than a std ball M43 7.62x39mm ammo. MOst AK round will just go right thru the target!

We experiment by putting jeans cloths and behind it a 2 liter bottle with water! the AK round would simply go thru the target! but a 5.56 or the AK74 5.45x39mm would blast the bottle .. the bottle pretty much exploded when hit while the 7.62x39 merely punch a hole thru.

for 7.62x51 NATO.. they do have their purpose at longer range since the 5.56 pass 300 meter already lose so much velocity that it will not fragment and thumble and thus losing the magic of the round! need to look at the German 7.62 round, they have a much thinner metal jacket and when hit the target ! it would fragment becasue of the thin walled jacket ! how nasty is that!

DaveC!

moca SG

What is your preferred assault rifle calibre? 5.56mm, 7.62mm NATO, or 7.62mm AK?

For me, it is definitely 5.56mm as the whole package including the weapon is lighter and easier to handle. Knockdown power or not, fragmentation or not, it is always safer to shoot someone several times if you can.

Some people die faster, some die slower, whatever the calibre. Some people are killed by one .22 round, while others survive horrendous wounds.

Unfortunately, dying is not yet scientific whatever the test results show.

moca SG

double

davechng SG

For general purpose rifle engagement of not more than 400 yds! I would go with the 5.56 ! but it will be the M855 which is the 62 grain or the 77 grain ammo and not the 55 grain M193 we use in Singapore! these have low impulse and very controllable in Full auto ... and acccuracy with a 16 or 20" barreld rifle! probably a piston base M4 or SIG type riflle! ( have not use the SAR21! so cannot comment on that) .. Used the AUG but find the bullpup to be quite akward when changing mags and clearing weak side corners! but if I have to be engaging distnace beyond that! than I will go with a 7.62x51mm . probably a SCAR H , or L1A1.

DaveC

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Don’t forget the newer Mk 262, which is prehaps the ultimate expression of the 5.56mm so far, with more violent fragmentation and retaining this preformance over a longer distance. My dream mag load would be alternating Mk 262 with M955 penetrators, that’ll be a nasty load to throw at anybody.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Sorry ah glock, I post our PM here for everybodys benefit. Well I had a unique position in NS in which I had a lot of time with both rifles. I spent my SISPEC and Guards days playing and shooting with the SAR a lot and later in BMTC exclusively with the M-16. As I loved firearms, I did investigate and play with both weapons a lot more then your typical conscript grunt that expects his firearm to behave like his PS2 Controller Smile . Though I didnt train until so high level like my friend who managed to strip to SAR down to nearly nothing.

Originally posted by glock:
[b]You apparently have used SAR21 or are more familiar with SAR 21 than me. I handled SAR21 on two or three ocassions only.

Need you to clarify the following - Are you saying that outer circle on SAR 21 sight fits a 1.7 m standing man at 100 m and that inner smaller circle is for standing man at 300 m ?
If so, that's great as it is similar to G36 but G36 is at 400 m. G36 sight has simple graduations for range estimation up to 800 m and for aiming off left & right for moving target. They also have aim points for other ranges also. Not really difficult to use and I think our guys are smart enough to use them - they are great for range estimation.

Actcherly hor, its pretty much taught in SAR technical handling. As far as I have known and experienced, a factory zeroed SAR-21 will hit at 200 meters on the centre dot (though in practice few scopes actually hold this zero by the time the rifle gets to you and you have to adjust it a few clicks but its more or less there). But yes, the little circle that surrounds the dot and the space between them are more or less your aim points for 100 and 300. But actually its good to have, though for most targets the flat trajectory of 5.56mm means that even if you have the dot on them youll most likely hit for a man sized target.

The lines in the scope on SAR 21 are very difficult to see as there is little contrast. If a different color such as amber is used it wud have been a great improvement. It illuminated using tritium, even better. Also, back up front sight shud have illum.

No issues with the scope lines from me anyway, so I guess its a personal thing. I had no issues using it in foliage when everything was green and black. Its only an issue when it gets dark but its pretty moot because the scope was never intended for night fighting.

Tritium would be a good idea, and theres really nothing stopping it from being implemented in the SAR-21 scope except the idea that perhaps SAF is trying to cut costs here and there and hence ST has to follow suit. Perhaps they ruled that the LAD would make up for it. I would prefer both tritium and LAD though.

But the scope improves shooting for any shooter over iron sights, no doubt. I am a decent shot with the M-16, but shooting the SAR lead to a dramatic improvement in my ability to find and hit the target. Its pretty amazing that at 300 meters you are taking a lot less time to aim at and hit the target. Of course to some users anything but iron sights are heresy Smile

[/quote]I think that a really serious issue with SAR 21 is weight. ST shud have ensured that the weapon was in the 3.5 kg ( with scope ) & not 4 plus kg. After all, all the new rifles in past 10 years complete with scope are way below 4 kg. [/quote]

Not so sure about that. A lot of the so called extra weight comes from the added barrel length and hence systems. Pound for pound the lethality of the SAR-21 is unlikely to be deficent, given we are paying the weight to get the best ballistic qualities out of the 5.56mm, which in my opinion is a good move. And more importantly one also needs to know that the SAR-21 , being kiasu and having to consider the mothers of conscripts in mind, comes with the added weight of a Kevlar armour plate to tahan the force of a chamber explosion to prevent the typical bullpup fault of tending to drive metal into your head when it decides to fail. I mean did you see a chamber exploded Styer Aug before? You dont want your face to be there.

So all in all I dont think thats an issue the weight is being used for something useful. Given how the yanks like to slap so much ninja stuff on their firearms which cranks up the weight up a lot, unless the rifle weighted 6-8 kilos or something its pretty much a moot issue.

The current Safe/Fire and Auto/Single Shot on SAR 21 really sucks. When u need Auto NOW, u need it NOW and to use your other hand to activate is crazy. In life and death situation every miliisecond counts !

Once again its a tough call and dependent on tactics. Sometimes in FIBUA we go into a room already set on full auto and sometimes we go in on semi. Depending on the situation I guess. But in practice I never figured out a situation in which I suddenly had to switch to auto to save my life. If there was a guy charging me and I had a SAR or an M-16 my instinct would not be to go auto and pump him full of rounds. It would be to put as many rounds into him as I can semi. Maybe the Russians might disagree but I suppose its tactics once again. Even on the M-16 when I was contacted at close quarters it never crossed me mind to go auto and blaze away (given there were no superiors around it would be easy to do).

So as a feature Im not sure if its really as useful, or a big an issue as it is made out to be. It depends on the soldier and frankly a deliberate double or triple tap seems as dangerous (if not more so) then spraying on full auto and turning the weapon into the MA5B Assualt Rifle from Halo. Not all of us carry 10 mags of 60 rounds and have energy shields like the Chief Smile

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I am personally not in favor of using LAD unless in very special circumstances. I cannot imagine in a night fight with a battalion of infantryman all using LADs for aiming even momentarily - I don't think it will work - how can you distingusih whose target is whose when everyone uses the LAD ?

I put it down to an issue of training. The LAD is extremely useful when you learn how and how NOT to use it. The key advantage it gives over the red dot is its ability to shoot from bizzare positions without ever needing any sight picture. At least the way I was trained was to acquire your target first before using your LAD to confirm the aim. Its quite different from activating your LAD, seeing the spot and trying to use it like a ray-o-death and sic it on the target. Yah if your entire battalion do that then confirm buang one. So, back to the proper method: if your instinctive shooting is decent, your LAD will more or less appear where you expect it to and you can use it pretty well. I never had any issues with this method discovering which was my dot and used it very well during section life fire. Actually I appreciate this feature because it allows me to keep my face off the rifle and see where all the men in my section are while I engage the target.

And given the Yanks in Iraq are using their LADs WITH NVGs (which no doubt would be even more confusing) and are getting in kills with it during night engagements so much so until usage of the death dot is pretty much SOP I dont think its a great issue once you realize how to use the system. Its very, very useful.

My main compliant is that the grunts are not getting enough time towards knowing their weapon better, and sometimes I think that might be the fault of us instructors and the SAF at large who havent figured a more robust system of firearm training. I mean BTP and ATP are cool but beyond that we need to know the practical by and bys of using the weapons especially in situations very different from range. Our grunts just dont spend enough time with the weapons and are never taught beyond the basics. The yanks actually make their recruits keep their rifles in bunk WITH blanks when first introduced to the weapon to engineer misfires to teach them how to use the weapon properly.

moca SG

During my time with the M-16, the SOP was (then) to switch between Semi or Full as the situation dictates. In other words, during FIBUA or FOFO, we are pretty much on Semi as you approach the objective.

But once you are IN the objective, example inside the house/room, or inside the comms trench/bunker, it is (or rather, WAS...) SOP to switch to Full.

Perhaps it is different, now?

If switching is inconvenient with the SAR-21, I would put to Full in these close combat situations.

Question: On the SAR-21, can u regulate a full-auto mode to fire single shots if you squeeze but don't hold down the trigger? I think the Steyr AUG has this ability...

Dangerous? Why so?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in SAF Cdo double tap during CQB is SOP.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Originally posted by moca:

During my time with the M-16, the SOP was (then) to switch between Semi or Full as the situation dictates. In other words, during FIBUA or FOFO, we are pretty much on Semi as you approach the objective.

But once you are IN the objective, example inside the house, or inside the comms trench, it is (or rather, WAS...) SOP to switch to Full.

Perhaps it is different, now?

If switching is inconvenient with the SAR-21, I would put to Full in these close combat situations.

Question: On the SAR-21, can regulate a full-auto mode to fire semi if you squeeze but don't hold down the trigger? I think the Steyr AUG has this function... [quote]

I think the "according the situtation" as to choosing what firing mode to choose still applies. But now clearing rooms in semi-auto is taught, and in fact the whole thing now leans towards the use of semi-auto (delibrate double taps to aquired targets (or blind spots) in the room) to do the bulk of clearing in FIBUA.

The obvious justification is that no soldier really carries enough ammunition to sustain auto-clearing for more then a couple of rooms. But then again it is possible to fire bursts on the auto function which would be useful in FIBUA (which is what I would do)... so it depends on what you are trained in. I never tried firing single shots on the SAR while on auto, but given the bullets come out so fast I wonder if this is possible... it could be done but it would probably involve a lot of trigger snatching which is bad marksmanship... but in CQB I guess that doesn't matter.

[quote]Dangerous? Why so?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in SAF Cdo double tap during CQB is SOP.[/b]

Well double or triple taps allow for a more precise placement of shots on the target. In many situtations getting in the rounds where they matter is a lot more useful then sending lots of rounds downrange in the hope that they hit. The grunts in Vietnam were well known for using their M-16s like personal machine guns before proper fire disciple was taught.

I read in this sniper book once that one Vietnam unit never bothered to teach their men proper marksmanship at all, and during a demostration on how actually to use their M-16, a visiting instructor managed to get their most hopless soldier to hit a target more times then the entire company combined who shot at it from the hip or on full auto.

There is a chance that in auto most of the rounds go wide or are wasted. In fact I was studying this Brit infantry combat manual once and it does not recommend auto unless on a bunch of charging infantry at less then 20 meters, at which there is a higher chance of more bullets connecting.

Yeah, I think it's pretty SOP for the Cdos to do douple tap in CQB... given that this is also becoming SOP SAF-wide. It is useful when you are in a place that might have hostages or non-combatants, where spraying might be a bad idea. But once again, it depends on what is really happening on the ground.

glock SG

With all the better modern assault rifles all having very simple switching from single shot to auto & vice versa, I don't see why we can't have it for our SAR21s too. We then leave it to the tactical situation for soldier to use either auto or single shot. The point is that the single shot /auto switching feature on our rifles must be made to work quickly & easily.

When a 1/2 dozen of enemy drops in 20 m in front of you , you wud not want to fiddle around with the single shot/auto before opening fire on auto. You will need to do it at a flick of a switch - in a tenth of of a second !

kenn3th SG

http://www.surplusrifle.com/index.asp

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Well dude, as I said it's a matter of personal training and what tatics your troops are going to use. The M-16s the Yanks use can't even manage auto fire, having limited themselves to burst mode for various justifications... at the end of the day it depends on how you are going to use the weapon and the way you have been trained to do so.

Having said that, from my personal military experience and training I have not come across a situtation that really struck me as a requirement to switch immediately from semi to auto. Often it's either a case of going in already on semi or auto, or taking a breather during a situtation to switch.

And more so it's not as if switching to auto takes that much more time (just take your non master hand off to the rear as if exceuting a mag change and tap the fire selector) it does not even take a second and certainly well within the time frames that would be considered useful for combat. You can do it certainly well within the time frame it takes to change a mag or take cover.

The same argument could be made for the notion that conventional layouts change mags marginally faster then bullpups. But going by that logic it could be argued that a belt-fed system is the best as it requires the least mag changes of all.

At the end of the day I'm not arguing that the SAR-21 couldn't be improved by giving it an M-16 style fire selector. I am just pointing out that it is not as big an issue as people might put it out to be. If I had my way the SAR-21 would be able to take all kinds of mags (not just its own), have an M-16 style fire selector, tritum tipped backup sights, IR LAD, a ease spring lever and all that other stuff that I could think off. But at the end of the day all weapons are designed with many considerations in mind.

There is certianly nothing in the design of the SAR that prevents it from being given an M-16 style selector. As I have speculated some posts before, it is likely that ST designed the SAR with SAF doctrine of mostly semi operations in mind, and decided that adding the extra linkages for the fire selector to be in the master-hand postion (given this is a bullpup) was edged out for making a more robust, and simpler system.

My take on this? It is an acceptable compromise. Your weapon is pretty much screwed if the fire selector is broken. In a bullpup this would be a system consisting of linkage rods and plates more complex then your conventional design. Not to mention this is a feature that at best has dubious need to be used that quickly and the current feature in the rifle still does its function at an acceptable speed.

I would have an issue if the safety was in the fire selector position, but this is not the case.

moca SG

edit

moca SG

But do you know this for a fact? Or just speculation?

Pure speculation... Mr. Green

Are there any bullpups out there that has solved this problem by having the selector switch at the pistol grip? If others can, I wonder why STK didn't?

glock SG

Selector switches on the bullpups FAMAS, TAR21, F2000 are all located near trigger area without having to use other hand to activate - excellent ergonomics.

AUG does not even have selector. Just pull trigger for single shot and hold trigger for auto - however I personally do not like this feature.

L85 A1/2 - I think has similar selector as SAR 21. Anyone can think who else uses this weapon besides the Brits ?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

But do you know this for a fact? Or just speculation?

Mostly fact where I come from. If you open up the SAR lower receiver group, you can see that the fire selector is a very simple and direct system that involves sliding a cam into (or out of the way) via the button (which is directly part of the system itself). It's a simple matter to add the linkage plate or rods to activate it from near the handgrip.

Actually it's a moot observation, it's pretty standard to most bullpup designs. To make the fire selector work you have to make a linkage between a hand-sited switch which is far ahead of the firing mechanics of the weapon. The only difference is that for some reason they decided to leave it out of the SAR, not that it could not be done.

It's a bit like saying that the standard SAR does not have a P-Rail hence it cannot be done at all. But in reality there's really nothing stopping the SAR from having a working P-Rail... and it has been done.

Of course Im no weapons engineer nor do I work for ST. But this is a reasonable observation on my part having opened the weapon and examined the firing mechanism for quite a lot of time during my NS.

Theres a way to do an ease spring on the SAR as well, making it possible to combat load it without touching the charging lever but it isnt taught in TH. Its something the grunts of my batch discovered after using the weapon for a while the ones who were interested to figure out how the weapon works.

Pure speculation...

Mr. Green as I already said it's just an educated guess on my part. For some reason ST determined the fire selector position wasn't a big issue... and I seriously doubt it's a simple oversight given how much was put into designing this weapon, and not from imcompetent quarters as well.

Are there any bullpups out there that has solved this problem by having the selector switch at the pistol grip? If others can, I wonder why STK didn't?

Selector switches on the bullpups FAMAS, TAR21, F2000 are all located near trigger area without having to use other hand to activate - excellent ergonomics.

AUG does not even have selector. Just pull trigger for single shot and hold trigger for auto - however I personally do not like this feature.

L85 A1/2 - I think has similar selector as SAR 21. Anyone can think who else uses this weapon besides the Brits ?

I heard the AUG had issues with its firing system; something to do with unreliable safeties and it was never really ironed out.

At the end of the day we can only speculate, but the raw facts we do have is that in some areas a bullpup is a more vulnerable design then the conventional as it involves a lot of linkages between the trigger and firing mechanism. Obviously you could get a thumb selector to work, and maybe itll work pretty reliably as well. But in the end we dont know the real reason behind the mysterious choice of ST to choose a slightly-slower switching mechanism and we can only speculate. All I can tell you is that it was well within their means and ability to produce a SAR with a thumb switch, but they didnt. And there has to be a reason.

Combat wise, I dont think its really a big issue at all. Mostly a mountain out of a molehill. We should really be more concerned with the lethality, accuracy, and reliability of the weapons system then nick nacs like this. These are just, as my SSM would say, the 5-cent and 10-cent quirks between different systems. Its bizarre to base an entire opinion of a weapon on it.

glock SG

ST shud start cracking on bringing the weight of the SAR 21 down to those of the latest bullpups - all are around =< 3.5 kg complete with scope.

The weight of the SAR 21 is a pain. If had a choice of standard modern assault rifle , I will take the G36C complete with P rail & red dot sight.

glock SG

ST shud get feedback from combat veterans eg Spec Ops personnel from US,UK etc on what features they will like to see in SAR 21 to make it a truly great rifle. Maybe shud give them a 100 units free to try it out. This feedback is better than from our own recruits who are not gun savvy.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Huh? I don't really get you. The additional weight of the SAR comes from it's full sized barrel from other scope designs come from the intergrated LAD and Kevlar safety plate. Pound for pound the weapon isn't significantly heavier then it's counterparts, once you factor in all the capabilities that the added barrel and LAD gives. The extra weight comes from kiasuism, not poor design.

And the last I checked, the weapon also isn't that much heavier then the rest of it's bullpup counterparts. The AUG is 3.6 kilos empty (200 grams lighter), the FAMAS is 3.62 kilos (180 grams), the full sized G36 is 3.3kg as well and what have you not. The only true featherweight here is the TAR-21 which comes in at 2.8 kilos empty with the 18' barrel. It turns out mostly we are splitting grams here.

Given that, I'm not sure if the SAR's weight being a pain is more reality or imagination. More likely I think it goes in the line of our grunts thinking the weapon is excessively heavy because it's obviously heavier then the M-16 which they previously handled, giving whole life out of proportion to the rumour of it's weight. I never had any issues with it's weight, and most of the mono intake guys who had never explored the M-16 didn't say anything either.

The weapon "weight" certainly does not get in the way of doing combat drills, nor make it slower to aim. Actually I find the compact configuration of the SAR-21 easier to aim then the M-16, as the CG is closer to you. Not to mention you could go wacky things like fire it one-handed (arms fully outstretched) with decent stability, something very hard to do with the '16. When it boils down to the facts and numbers, the weight is really a ghost issue. It's not as if the weapon was 4.8 kilos empty... then we'll have a problem.

But to please the critics, it seems that of late ST has been showing us a lightweight SAR-21 variant. But I haven't gotten much news on that.

« Previous Page Next Page »