Serious Xijinping gave Duterte 23,000 FOC Automatic Rifles to cut Ang Moh Trump's gun sales!

frenchbriefs said:

why would china copy american junk?copy the ak47 instead lah,i believe they are already doing that anyway.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

Generally, the countries that standardize on 5.56mm used in M16 and others, have money. Those countries that standardize on WarPAc 7.62mm like that used on AK-47 don't have money. U going to build products for countries that have money or for countries that do not?

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

Factually, your timeline is not accurate. SAR 21 started coming into SAF service around 2000. And even then, in small quantities trialed with units like Commandoes, etc. The SR 88 was already available in 1988 and the even more improved SR 88A was available from 1990. Instead of switching production from M16S1 over to the SR 88 in 1988, and then stop production in 1999 or 2000 when the SAR 21 took over, they continued to make the M16. Why? I don't know other then to assume it was politics and PAP incompetence. When they decided to continued to manufacture the M16S1 under license for that period of 12 years, they were paying royalties thru the nose to Colt. and even worse, they could not export the M16S1 for foreign sales because the US govt. had the last word as to who they could sell it to, and Colt would not have permitted it.

They could have saved a lot of money making the SR 88 and also have a decent chance at export sales. Their stated goal to develop the SAR 80 was to get a cheaper weapon and get out under the yoke of Colt and the US Govt. They succeeded in doing this, yet they did not use the weapon for themselves. That is really strange, unless someone at MINDEF or CIS or PAP or Familee got a nice kickback to kill the SR 88. happens all the time in the US.

Now, is the SR 88 better then the M16? I would guess not, I have not used or fired the SR 88 myself. But i am very familiar with the SAR 80 and M16. If the SR 88 is in between these 2 weapons in quality, then I will say its an acceptable rifle for the SAF. I mean, are we intending to go to war any time back then? Would we have required a weapon superior to the M16? The answer is no. U are right when you say its a trade off. The SAR 80 was markedly heavier then the M16, but the SR 88 is lighter then the SAR 80, but still one lb heavier then the M16. But weight is not the only consideration. After all the AK-47 is a lot heavier then the M16, but it does not make it any lesser of a weapon. SO, the locally made, cheaper SR 88 with good overseas sales prospects is not made the standard rifle of the SAF and instead the expensive M16 is continued to be manufactured? where is the logic in that?

BTW, I am telling you here that the SAR 21 bullpup may be a newer technology, but it certainly is not significantly superior, if at all to a M4/M16, and hence can't be that much better then an SR 88. The SAF could have bought 300,000 SR 88 with all the money spend developing the SAR 21.

Click to expand...

frenchbriefs said:

why would china copy american junk?copy the ak47 instead lah,i believe they are already doing that anyway.

Click to expand...

HTOLAS said:

Though the SAR21 came into service around 2000, its development began way before, some time in the early 1990s. Interest in a bull-pup design went back even further, around the late 1980s.

Whether the bull-pup layout is superior or not is open to debate; but the SAF, and many armies besides, were looking for a weapon that had a full barrel length but was overall shorter. The M4 achieved shorter overall length at the expense of a shorter barrel, which affects accuracy. The bull-pup was seen as the answer. By the early 1990s, there were already 3 bull-pup rifles in service around the world: the French FAMAS, the Austrian AUG Steyr, and the British SA80. The first 2 were highly thought of but the SA80 was a disaster at the start.

Adopting a rifle for an army is not so simple; it would have meant technical handling training, re-equipping and training armourers, etc. So, with the SAR21 in mind, it was probably thought not to be worthwhile to adopt the SAR88 as an interim.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

Right of the bat, this tells you what other major countries such as the US, China and Russia think of the bullpup design.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

The bullpup design has been only adopted by 2 major armies, the Brits and the French. I don't count the Austrians as a major army. Other countries license produce the only acceptable bullpup design, the Steyr, and even then they have stopped it. One was Malaysia. The other Australia, again, I don't consider then as substantial armies. Other countries order small batches but do not adopt it entirely. That fact that you have to debate whether the bullpup design is superior or not, means that there is no clear advantage. Otherwise, many countries would have adopted a bullpup design. Right of the bat, this tells you what other major countries such as the US, China and Russia think of the bullpup design.

What I am telling you is that given our requirements (non operational and non combat), there was no necessity to spend all that money to develop a bullpup design aka SAR 21. Even the Jews did not completely adopt the TAR-21 (their version of SAR 21), after having helped ST Engineering design the weapon. A SR 88 was all we needed, and all we still need today. And by the way, I have shot the whole M16 range of weapons including AR-15, CAR-15, M4, M16 and I can tell after having also shot the Steyr AUG, the bullpup is definitely not superior to the M16 class. The trigger pull and the ergonomics are inferior to the M16. Some one needed a career boost and extra funding so that they can can develop this weapon.

Click to expand...

HTOLAS said:

Perhaps we have been speaking at cross purposes. You seemed determined to say that adopting a bull-pup design (esp the SAR21) was a bad idea, while I was trying to give an account of why possibly the SAF did not switch to the SAR88 after having had their eyes fixed on a bull-pup design. I don't agree or disagree with you about the bull-pup; I've only ever used the M16, M16HB, SAR80, AK47 (range only) and the SAR21 (range only), so I can't definitively say that one or the other is better.

This I do know, because they are shorter for a given barrel length, the bull-pups are more manoeuvrable, and that was why the SAF decided on them.

Finally, I don't if you consider the PLA to be a major army or not, but they, too, have adopted a bull-pup rifle (QBZ-95) as a standard issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBZ-95

Click to expand...

eatshitndie said:

tiongland equips their tank crew with their latest bullpup rifle, qbz-95. ammo is 5.8x42mm. they're exporting the qbz-97 chambered for the 5.56x45mm nato round. great for fibua and armor but cannot compare with conventional 5.56x45mm rifles such as ar-15 or m-16 as those rifles are longer, better balanced with firing pin, bolt action and magazine in the middle. most bullpup designs are unbalanced with center of gravity thus the lighter muzzle end or front tends to rise during auto firing. this one, however, tiongs claim is balanced and can shoot more accurately with a 5.8x42mm round. must try at range. cannot get one in my hands yet. expect barrel to be heavy to compensate for weight in the rear.

Click to expand...

Papsmearer said:

Tank crews get issued all sorts of shits but that does not make their side arm the standard weapon in their army. IDF tank crews were issued Uzis at one time but that gun is not the standard issue in the IDF. Same for the SAF and at one time, they were issuing CAR 15 for the tank crews, again not the standard issue for the SAF.

Click to expand...

Ang4MohTrump said:

So loaded Xijinping undercut the arms deal with 23,000 FOC Automatic Rifles

Click to expand...

rodent2005 said:

Rifles FOC but bullets and spare parts will be the cash cow.

Click to expand...