View Full Version : A visual quiz....what is this rifle?
04-22-2004, 06:23 PM
Here is a photo of a rather unusual rifle taken in front of my fireplace.....Brownie points to who can correctly identify it :)
04-22-2004, 07:12 PM
Is it one of those Isralei bullpup thingys, a TAVR or something like that, I can't recall what it's called..plus a Colt M203????
04-22-2004, 10:34 PM
Tavor? There's a guy on off-topic.net in the Israeli military who told us about it. Lucky bastards are given 4,800 rounds a week.
04-22-2004, 10:59 PM
Nope not the Tevor by IMI......right on the M203 40mm though :)
Here is another clue....another gun by the same company in front of my fireplace.
04-22-2004, 11:35 PM
i beleive the gun in the back ground is fn? could the other be a fn f2000?
SAR-21, made by Singapore Technologies Kinetics (formerly CIS).
...oh, and it has a grenade launcher too.
I have absolutely no idea what the other gun is.
04-23-2004, 09:16 AM
M03, you are correct! The second gun in the previous post is the Ultimax MkIII 5.56mm Light machine
gun with 100 round drum magazine. this particular gun was tested at Fort Bragg
and trounced the M249 in weight(249 is six pounds heavier), controlability, and reliability.......and may be seen with a Delta team near you :)
Here is another pic showing more variations of the SAR21...note the visable/infrared laser on the grenade launcher sight. also the regular model of the SAR21 has a laser sight built into the forearm as standard. These weapon have replaced the M16 and M60 GPMG in the singapore armed forces and some other countries has procured a number of them as well. The gas system of the rifle borrows from the AK.
04-23-2004, 02:34 PM
Sit I should have remembered that, The SAR-21 was on the Rainbow Six 3 game...
Kool collection of hardware... Now how do you go about getting that stuff, or do you live in a free country?
04-23-2004, 02:54 PM
No, alas though I get to play with them...I dont own them. I demo them, and others to LE /Gov't agencies and sometimes do movie armorer work.
Here is two pics of the version tested by SOCOM and the USMC that uses M16 magazines...the regular version SAR21 mag isnt the same(its like a steyr AUG mag) Sorry these 2 pics load slow, but they are very detailed and make good computer wallpaper!
04-23-2004, 11:46 PM
Sweet, I want your job.. Well not yours, but one like it...Way too cool.....
04-24-2004, 08:48 PM
It's a heavy little b--tard, but the Bushmaster M17S bullpup is a sweet-shooting (after you get the trigger fixed up!) little rifle. It's 30" long, and that includes a 21" barrel. The only fault I see is that it's .223. (They should make it in 7.62x39, and taking an AK magazine!) I have one that has gone through about a case and a half of ammo, and I'm waiting for the first failure (except some caused by a damaged magazine). It uses AR mags, and I've never used anything else other than the AR-contract magazine that came with it. It balances at the pistol grip, and can be fired one-handed (except that it's heavy to support with one hand). It requires an optical sight, but I've used a red dot and a 4x scope designed for the AK, and that's all it needs. (I've never worked out a good magazine-change procedure, though.)
04-24-2004, 09:24 PM
While I have never shot the M17S, I have examined one extensively and had it apart.....the thing that struck me in a pure military use(not civilian) that it doesnt protect the shooter in extreme heat or cold as everything that touches your hands or face is metal(Sarge get the hot water, Kowalski stuck his toungue to his M17s on a bet again! after all it is 5 degrees out there lol.) Or how would it feel after sitting in 130 degree heat of the middle east all day?(I can feel my face sizzle) and the lack of any iron sights as backup is a henderence(things break when you play army) and the fairly slick finish of the weapon would be something if your hands had smimey mud or fresh blood on them. The lack of a dust cover also puts this weapon at risk in a mud drop. This is not a military weapon, but yes it is a fun futuristic shooter for recreational use. Another popular weapon in police use and civilian that has been soundly rejected by the military is the Mini-14
and its because it is fully open to mud a debris getting straight into the action, and it dont react well to extended fire (500 rounds in five minutes ect) but for normal use its a fine shooter ! Another that dont fair well in heavy tests is the M96 by Robinson armament! The last two big pics of the SAR21..note the discolored barrel....It had just been through a "mad minute" test of 500 rounds in less than five minutes.
04-25-2004, 01:35 AM
The M17S does have a back-up sight system (so Bushmaster says)--a 25m sight. I wouldn't have the sight on a Jennings (you MIGHT be able to make hits at 25m with it) but it seems that a lot of military rifles "of the future" have only optical sights.
There's no reason that there couldn't be a forearm patch and a cheekpiece attached to the receiver to protect the shooter from contact with the aluminum. That would also make it less likely to slip when your hands are muddy, bloody, or otherwise slimed.
I've never done a lot of heavy firing with it, but I ran into a guy with an AUG one day. We traded guns for a while, and he was more impressed with the M17 than I was with the AUG. He never could get through a magazine without some kind of failure, and seemed to accept that as standard for it. And what kind of back-up sights does the AUG have?
I feel really insulted that you compare the M17S with the Mini-14. Of course, I've sometimes said that where people often say they have the worst example of a particular firearm ever built, I often feel that I have the only M17S that they made right. And I had to do a lot of work on the trigger--the sides were rough and had to be smoothed off (I used a file, rubbing the trigger and the inner piece over it to take off the high spots) and slicked up the inside of the grip, where the trigger inner piece rubs, by cutting a piece of milk jug to fit into the opening to make a slick surface. And I opened up the slot the trigger bar slides in and soaked it in CLP. (I almost cut some blocks from some thick pieces of milk jug plastic and floated the trigger bar on that. Milk jug plastic is a major source of raw material for my projects.)
I don't say that the M17S is a military weapon as it stands. I feel it is at best a beta-test stage. (Bushmaster claims to have spent several million in getting it from it's original design to what they are selling. Someone took them for a lot of money if that's true.) But it is an interesting firearm, and one that deserves more interest than it has received.
04-25-2004, 03:16 AM
JohnLewis, wow! im drolling as i look at the pics. i want to trade occupations so bad. being one that when i go shooting i dont go to the range to work on accuracy i go to shoot stuff up! luckely i have a place i can shoot what ever i get my hands on. a coworker had a pumpkin stand and after halloween i got to shoot up around 70 left over pumpkins. my favorite is paint! hitting paint quarts or gallons at fairly close range is awesome! i say this because im wondering when you say you demo these rifles is it on accuracy or is there a way you demonstrate their destructiveness? i wasnt fond of the bullpup concept at first but my son thought the AUG was the coolest rifle on earth. i had a chance to pick up a preban m17s and i love it! we call it the PMAUG(poor mans AUG). awsome pics! PE p.s. is a semi auto version availiable?
04-26-2004, 08:35 PM
Packrat, read it again...wasnt comparing, just listed two other guns in the same situation.....liked very much by civvys and cops yet shunned by military organizations.nothing more, nothing less
PREOKC...they have mulled over a semi auto for the last two years and just wont do it with the ban in place ...so there may be hope after sept.As far as using inamimate targets to blow up......most police range masters faint at the thought of fouling their range with stuff that spatters :) so its mostly against paper targets.......but doing 100rd bursts standing with a Ultimax LMG resting against my nose is something that they like to see.
Which reminds me, how easy is the SAR-21 to break down?
This is one of those rifles that if they produced a semi-auto version domestically, I think I would immediately go out and buy one. The coolness factor is very high for a good-looking bullpup rifle.
04-26-2004, 11:01 PM
Takes all of 15 seconds to fully field strip an SAR21. Ive allways told them I would be one of the first customers if the semi auto was made! just have to see what happins.
10-25-2004, 08:46 PM
I served as a combat engineer in the SIngapore Armed Forces for 2.5 years as a SAW gunner with the Ultimax 100.
It is indeed a fine weapon, only that it had a tendency to rust very quickly in the mud and humidity. I had to oil it daily and keep the thing very well maintained (you get charged for a rusty weapon, 21 days in the stockade). At that time, we were still using modified M16A1s as the primary rifle, and the Ultimax felt almost as light as the M16. Fired it frequently on auto and semi, almost on a daily basis, and I loved the firepower it provided to our squad.
Halfway thru my tour of duty, they swap the entire motherload of M16s with SAR-21s. I would say it was a trade-off. We were all so used to the ruggedness and reliability of the M16 that when we got the SAR-21 we sometimes forgot that the scope meant we had to treat it "nicely". It was also heavier than its predecessor, and because of its short length, there was no need for bayonets. As such, the Singapore army has done away with bayonet fighting in its curriculum and does unarmed combat instead, which I don't really like coz u never know when you have to stick someone in the ribs. The SAR-21 was very, very accurate though, but as someone who can do headshots with an M16 at 300m, it's not that much an advantage for me.
It terms of coolness, the SAR-21 takes it.
11-07-2004, 08:58 PM
so John, now that the bans lifted and it appears it will stay that way(for awhile anyway) is a semi auto version in the works?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.