Talk:SAR 21/Archive 1

Left Handed Shooting
Left hand shooting with the sar 21 - The cheek of the firer will be up against the ejection port. It will hurt!!!!

I made some changes to the article, removing the assertion that the rifle is ambidextrous. I do not know who wrote that but it is inaccurate. It may be fired from the left shoulder from time to time but the deflector is not reliable in itself to prevent all casings from moving upwards, thereby striking the firer's face. That moves it firmly in the non-ambidextrous category. A ambidextrous rifle is one like the FN F2000 where there is virtually no chance of casings hitting the firer. - SM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scabstermooch (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to shoot from the left side, the ejection port will not be up against your cheek.

However in the case of a chamber explosion, your face will kenna until very zialat, so as mentioned in the article, it's safer to shoot from the right master hand... the kevlar plate is there for something.

Anyway I like the rifle, it is a decent firearm that gets the job done. this may be a personal opinion but it may be that a lot of the "issues" with the SAR come from this curious syndrome among Singaporeans to distrust anything we come up with ourselves (strangely enough, the SAR and Ultimax were rated highly by other nations but always negatively by ourselves), and also from it being different from the M-16S1 rather then being actually inferior. Bullpups are different, and often a lot of the difficulty comes from being locked into the conventional rut.

-Shian

I have used both, and I agree with the negative comments listed. Also, it is not true that the SAR-21 can be fired from the left shoulder - at least if you don't want your left cheek to get a burnt mark.

For those older reservists that had used both the SAR-21 and the M16, the former compares unfavourably with the latter.

There is a few more problem that has not been listed: the reticle on the SAR-21 1.5X scope is not always clear. Sometimes, in very bright conditions and against a dark target, the reticle could not be seen. This is a serious flaw that has nothing to do with whether the user is used to the new weapon.

It is also not true that foreign reviewers were generally favourable towards the weapons. For example, the cocking handle and the selector switch behind the magazine had both been commented on unfavourably by reviewers.

Contrast this with the Tavor, which generally has good review on all aspects.

- Philip Sim

"It is also not true that foreign reviewers were generally favourable towards the weapons. For example, the cocking handle and the selector switch behind the magazine had both been commented on unfavourably by reviewers."

Uh, foreign reviewers mentioned the cocking handle and strange position of the fire selector, HOWEVER by and by this constitutes to about just all their grouses with the weapon, which one might consider that ST did design primary for the Singaporean market. The odd position of the fire selector has been speculated by us at least… to comply with SAF tactics of predominantly semiautomatic fire… but as I said it was speculation. In any case it's one thing to say the reviewers had one or two grouses, it's another to say they panned it as a weapon entirely. By and by the SAR scored very well, if you go by Jane's (who did grouse about the points you mention).

I must disagree with you on the weapon not being able to be shot from the left shoulder- well at least I've done it without any issues (in fact my worse injury from a SAR came when I buttstroked myself in the face while taking cover). However all in all we must agree that the left-handedness of the SAR is a pretty moot issue as the safety feature of the weapon means that invariably it was meant all along to be a right handed weapon in which firing from the left side is done only under special circumstances (as in having to clear certain covers)… or at least that is my tactical experience with the weapon.

However I will have to point out on your point on the reservists who think the SAR-21 compares negatively to the M16 that a lot of this has to do with ingrained into the conventional M16 layout. Case in point when you look at our current mainstream mono intake personnel who are now introduced to the SAR first, and later the M16 the opinion tends to be that the M16 is not up to scratch. They would go on to raise issues on the increased complexity of stripping and maintaining the M16 and the length of the weapon, which to them are apparently intractable problems in an infantry weapon. As I said, it seems that grunts tend to favour the weapon they were raised on.

This is not to mention the scope issue is not restricted to the SAR-21… just about any scope system have similar issues. The problem is logistical rather then designs as ST did come up with a solution (which involved changing the seals in the scope to prevent them fogging) but apparently in SAF style it has yet to filter down to the units using the older marks. I haven't experience losing the dot against a dark target, I could shoot black figure 11s at 300 well enough… so I can't comment on that. My personal grouse is that they should fit the backup iron sights (which are good up to 200 if you have a keen eye) with a proper one.

Teething issues aside, a properly maintained SAR-21 works extremely well. In my experience the weapon has proven to be far more reliable and easy to maintain in the field then the M16. With are important combat considerations. You can seriously foul the SAR with mud and sand and it will still keep going on long after an M16's bolt would have been stuck firmly back in the buffer. And it's compact and accurate too, which is great for FIBUA. I do not see any reason to be unreasonably pessimistic about the weapon, after one has filtered out the SAF wayang… I mean when it comes to it, it still gives us more pros then the cons to takes switching from the M16.

AFAIK, the Tavor wasn't well liked by Israeli troops at first before they eventually warmed to it, with reactions being somewhat like that of the SAF troopers to the SAR. But I suspect it could both are cases of bullpup knee-jerk reaction then actual deficiencies in weapon design.

I mean after having a 30 year advance in weapons and materials technology, not to mention all the studies into and research going into making a weapon to eliminate or reduce the problems soldiers experience we produce an inferior weapon? I think different is a better way to put it. Last I remembered the M-14 mafia is still alive among some vets who consider the M-16 a piece of junk, so we need to remember that grunts tend to be a conservative bunch. If we had our way we would likely be still using muskets. Rexregum 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. I can only comment based upon my own observations and experiences. To reiterate:

1. Left-handed firing is not possible without risk of a cheek burn

2. The 1.5x sight is not up to scratch - this is a copy of one of the less good aspects of the Steyr AUG design. The reflex/laser aimer combo sighting system used on the Tavor is superior. It is worth noting that some units (that shall remain unnamed) deploys the SAR-21P version with reflex sights that solved the problem of the disappearing dot.

3. The push button safety was a poor design as well - it is awkward to press, and depending on your luck, you might receive either a rifle with a safety catch that is too stiff, or too mushy. This could be a quality control issue which I hope ST Kinetics address. Other than that, a thumb switch is by far the easiest control to use, a feature repeated in the Tavor. I have never come across, or heard of, an M16 with a mushy or hard to deactivate safety.

4. The ergonomics are not well thought through - the placing of the selector switch is awkward. If there's a tactical reason for this, no one has been able to figure it out. As with the selector, a thumb switch is superior.

5. The magazine change system is awkward, requiring the firer to unlimber the weapon to perform a reload. It is worth noting that the export version using the M16 magazine use a different kind of catch system that allow the magazine change to be performed much more easily. The reason for this design was probably because the 30-round magazines on the M16 on occasion drop accidentally. However, the choice of following the Steyr AUG magazine catch is a poor one, considering that there are superior options out there, such as the HK G36 catch system which is superior.

6. The Laser Aiming Module is unnecessarily heavy and bulky for its purpose. The Tavor sighting system again has a superior design, being much lighter and easier to dismount and replace.

The SAR-21 struck me as a design that copied the Steyr AUG too much, and chose to incorporate bad design elements that users have already found fault with in the Steyr AUG design. As a subjective preference, the CAR-15 or - even better - the newer M4 are superior in terms of ease of usage.

--
 * LAD and Reflex Sights involve technology that are fast moving in recent years. Both sights still does their job well, but we do not deny that there are better LAD and sighting system available in the longer term. However, I would not say that they copy Steyr AUG too much. The fundamental firing mechanism or engine of the weapon system is totally different. In fact, some of the mechanism is based on other proven design, and not Steyr's. That being said, 50% of the system differs from Steyr AUG. If the external design of the weapon looks similar, its because of the bullpup design and use of plastic components to lighten the weight. Such a design intent (which is non-proprietary) does not leave the designers or anyone much choice to make one look different from another.

I would have to agree with the buttons and switches. They should be located somewhere closed to the hands during operation. Zragon 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be a bit of speculation, but I suspect the position of the auto/semi selector switch to the rear of the butt may have something to do with the stance that is used. If you check out the youtube clip of the "Future Weapons" episode of the LWRC IAR, when they were firing it as a LMG conversion prone, the shooter's left hand was "cross-body" and holding the butt of the rifle against the shoulder. If that was a SAR, it would have then placed the selector switch directly under his left hand. So maybe the placement of the switch there was meant for the SAR-LMG.

On a personal note, I'd rate the SAR on a par with the M4, each has it's good points: M4: The compactness and weight of a "clean" M4 really can't be beat. In excercises and cramped spaces, it has my vote. SAR-21: When push comes to shove, I actually prefer this, the accuracy and speed which you can obtain a "sight picture" is faster than the M4 as the scope is a 2-point aiming system (dot-target) as opposed to the M4's 3-point system (rear sight-fore sight-target) M-16?: Change. Does not have the compactness of the M4 nor the accuracy of the SAR.

There were those who were recommending the EO-tech reflex-laser sights, but there may be a slight flaw in the system, at long ranges (300m+) you can't have a magnified image and will be forced to shoot "center of mass". With the M4, I can hit a target at 300m but I really have no idea where on the body I hit. When they gave us a chance to do a "familiarization shoot" by putting up full/half/head targets, I could actually pick which body part I wanted to hit with the 1.5 scope! My assistant was looking at me funny and asked "Were you trying for all head-shots?" (I was. I hit all but the 1st round too.)

For those who are having a bit of problem converting from the M-s to the SAR when loading, do what I do, before you unload, do a "half-twist" (i.e tilt the rifle 45% to the right). This makes the magazine easier to get to, but more importantly, it breaks your "muscle memory" of the M-series and allows you to retrain a new pattern faster. When you're using the M4 or 16 again, don't twist the rifle when unloading and you should go back to the old pattern.

(220.255.7.202 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

I touched the rifle only once, and I can say it's quite nice.

The bullpup configuration made the weapon nicer to hold, cock and reload, despite its great weight. Its an ugly one though, having the bumps on it's body everywhere. The cocking handle is wonderful to use, being able to be bent to the left for left-hand-cockers and right for right-hand-cockers. The SAR21 is also easy to field-strip (the basic one of removing bolt, bolt cam pin and firing pin). The scope was quite handy too.

Time for the flaws. The rifle is far too ugly and heavy. Holding it in Rusok position kills cells and results in a build up of lactic acid in the hand. Then, the scope has a required eye relief (duh!) or the user will see black spots. The iron sights are unusable and useless, they ought to replace it with probably s G36/G3/MP5 style sight.

Guess thats all.

8w4h4h4h4 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Move
Hello,

I've renamed the page to SAR 21 as that is the correct terminology. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or disagree with the page move.

Thanks!

DeAceShooter (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This article currently kind of sucks Here are Some changes that may help

1. Find out what kind of operating system it has. A "modified stoner/kalashnikov operating system". There is no such thing. This thing is either direct impingement (Stoner), or gas piston(Kalashnikov.

2. This is for the "P-rail" variant. We should think about completely deleting operation. The section offers nothing useful, we should be concentrating on Design or History.

3. We may need to add that someone may add optics to it (Kind of unnecessary when we know it has a picatinny, but if we are going to say things we don't need to know, like the Operation section). It seems we never said that there was an included low-mag scope on any other variants (we may just need to add it to design).

4. We seriously need to trim down the Criticism section. Most of these are just issues that you expect to find in a bullpup. In fact, now that I think about it, almost none of these were specifically related to the SAR-21. Either weed it out, or delete it.

5. When we say "left-handed SAF soldiers are taught to shoot the rifle right-handed as a precaution", shouldn't we say "users of the sar-21 are taught to shoot it left handed"? You guys say yourselves that more than just the SAF uses it. It may not matter, if we are planning to delete it anyways. Modifiedsear (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Er... now there is a "modified Stoner/Kalashnikov operating system". Basically, what they did was mate a short stroke gas piston (Kalashnikov) to a Stoner bolt carrier group. Pity you deleted the section before checking. Can't remember the original text, so not going to restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.44.179 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Steyr Aug
In reference to the Steyr Aug iron sights, Ive was in the Irish Military for 3 years and Ive never heard of an AUG with iron sights. Do they exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.199.251 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Connection to IMI TAR-21?
There's a see-also link to Tar 21, but neither it nor the manufacturer, nor Israel, are mentioned in the article. The two rifles certainly look similar and have similar names, but what exactly is the relation between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.123.31 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Related design. Israel and Singapore cooperate closely in weapons design, with the final end deviation due to the difference in operating environment and desired complexity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.44.179 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Similarity to Steyr AUG
I have the unpleasant experience of having 4 of my edits on SAR-21 undone without any explanation other than that Dave1185 does not think the SAR-21 as anything to do with Steyr AUG, and is instead only to be compared with the TAR-21. I think this intellectually dishonest (presuming even the basic knowledge) and at worst blind nationalistic actionism. We have silly situation where an Austrian ex-servicemen is arguing with a Singaporean ex-servicemen over this issue, except that I find that the Singaporean is just simply ignoring the obvious. The comment above "The SAR-21 struck me as a design that copied the Steyr AUG too much, and chose to incorporate bad design elements that users have already found fault with in the Steyr AUG design." shows that ths is not an outrageous view to take. I would ask all editors of this page to please have a look at the histories and my edits, Dave1185's undoing of them, and present me with a consensus opinion. I find the entire exchange to date quite disappointing, to be honest, and really says volumes about wikipedia's inherent weaknesses. By the way, the term "iron sights" as used in the texts is of course incorrect, the Steyr sights are welded on and cannot be removed, the english Steyr AUG article is incorrect here as well.AK76 (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you have cited aren't sufficient for the text you're adding. The Asian Military Review article (here) is suitable for use in the article, but you need to say only what the source says. It says that the SAR 21's external design is similar to the Steyr AUG. It doesn't say that the SAR 21 is "clearly based on the AUG" or that it "resembles it very closely both in terms of general appearance as well as the design of individual components". See No original research, where Wikipedia policy outlines that articles cannot use analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. This source is sufficient to justify stating that the SAR 21's external design is similar to the Steyr AUG, and it is probably sufficient to justify listing the Steyr AUG in the See Also section, since a similarity of external design is established.


 * The blog you cited (here) is not a suitable source, per Wikipedia policy on sources. The pmulcahy.com source you cited (here) is a personal website and a videogame website, and as such is also unsuitable. Note the "damage" and "pen" tables by the author. The Modern Firearms source you cited by Maxim Popenker (here) is suitable for use in the article, but it doesn't mention a similarity to the Steyr AUG. It notes the locations of the various controls, but it doesn't explicitly say what you said in your edits: "the gas-exchange system, the location of the charging handle and the saftey-switch are all exactly the same as on the Steyr-AUG". Again, per Wikipedia policy you cannot advance a position not advanced by the sources. ROG5728 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can accept the blog posts cannot be seen as credible. But you confirm that the physical appearence similitary is mentioned often enough, so I suggest it be included. The Asian military review specifically says: "The external design is similar to the father of all polymer receiver bullpuprifles, the Steyr AUG." Also, you did not comment on my comment that compared the weight of the two weapons and contrasted it with the statements by MINDEF that they wanted a weapon for the Asian physique. Comparisons are often made with the Steyr-AUG (see http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/sar21.htm) and for instance http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/s/st/steyr_aug.htm. Given that the Steyr is much older then the SAR-21 it is disengenous to say that this is irrlevant. Another article that places the chronologcial development of SAR-21 vs. Steyr is here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm. Generally all articles include the Steyr at least as a comparable weapons (incl here: http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/SAR-21), another edit which was removed. cheers, AK76 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said in my first comment, the text from Asian Military Review could be included in the article, so long as the text is not twisted to say something that wasn't said in the source. The website by Anthony Williams (here) would be a suitable source but it does not say anything about the AUG being a basis for the SAR 21, or even that the two guns are particularly similar. The other websites you linked are personal pages or wiki pages, and as such they are automatically unsuitable. ROG5728 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

AK76, the link you gave (http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/SAR-21) is actually a copy of the article from Wikipedia (see the bottom), perhaps not recent. Just so you know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have a couple of more on the general role the Steyr plays in the development of the bullpup. I think it enough to finally put it in the article. http://www.reference.com/browse/Bullpup; http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Bullpup AK76 (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... both are actually copies of Wikipedia articles. And we don't cite ourselves when we write articles. We cite other published, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:V. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the new title?
Why is it called CIS SAR 21 now?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted the non-consensus approved/discussed move back to the original, for example pages of exceptional naming convention please note also AR-10, AR-15 and/or M16 rifle. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's good.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Twist Rifling
Can someone verify this? Modern firearms are not usually made with progressive twist and I can't find anywhere else where it states the SAR-21 has a progressive twist. If anything, I think it warrants more of a mention than just part of the specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.157.213 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SAR 21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104013406/http://www.stengg.com/download/pdf/sba/land-systems/sar21.pdf to http://www.stengg.com/download/pdf/sba/land-systems/sar21.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104013406/http://www.stengg.com/download/pdf/sba/land-systems/sar21.pdf to http://www.stengg.com/download/pdf/sba/land-systems/sar21.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010201552/http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-17.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)