Malaysian army replaces Steyr AUG with M4

[Paxter]

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Thursday/National/20060427084005/Article/index_html

the malaysian army has replace the steyr aug with the M4 today and will accept its first batch of guns end of the yr. Malaysia has doubled its defence spending to 18billion around 5billion + usd. And this is one of their first purchases with the new found cash :D

Just wondering why the M4 carbine? is it better than the steyr?

[Brutus Caesar]

No doubt this is a stupid question but does this mean the Steyr is close to replacement in Australia also?

[Big-E]

No doubt this is a stupid question but does this mean the Steyr is close to replacement in Australia also?

Why is this a stupid question? The Steyr Aug as an assualt rifle is more accurate than the M4. The M4 is a shorter version of the M-16. It is more suited to Special forces. Unless every soldier in Maylasia is going into special ops I think its dumb. Groupings with the M4 are more dispersed than the Steyr Aug, especially on full auto.

[Paxter]

maybe its bcs-

1. its lighter smaller than the styer

2. you be lucky to see anything more than 100m infront of you msian jungle is really really thick there isnt much open space something like 85% is dense jungle,urban, or plantations

3.Styer has been prone to fail during wet weather, msia territory army still uses the m-16 and that gun has a good track record

4. less parts?

[Paxter]

Why is this a stupid question? The Steyr Aug as an assualt rifle is more accurate than the M4. The M4 is a shorter version of the M-16. It is more suited to Special forces. Unless every soldier in Maylasia is going into special ops I think its dumb. Groupings with the M4 are more dispersed than the Steyr Aug, especially on full auto.

Prob cause we operate only in the jungle or urban areas, if your main arena is in the jungle wouldnt a shorter m-16, lighter, accurate at short range, less parts, capable to switch mag between m-16 and m-5 very durable in wet wealther make a diffrence?

[Adler]

Guess what, the Malaysian Armed Force, Reserved, PGA and some regiment still using the old M16 and the Bren :lol3 , some using the styer AUG, few AK-74 and now M4 colt. I've ssen them and they look more like a mercernaries with rag-tag equipment to me. Bellieve it or not it is more to political scandal. They will start change everything when there is new Prime Minister in office. Bellieve you me thats nothing but the truth. :D

malaysia boleh

[Michael RVR]

Probably has something to do with Styer taking production rights for the Aug-A3 off them.

;)

[Big-E]

maybe its bcs-

1. its lighter smaller than the styer

2. you be lucky to see anything more than 100m infront of you msian jungle is really really thick there isnt much open space something like 85% is dense jungle,urban, or plantations

3.Styer has been prone to fail during wet weather, msia territory army still uses the m-16 and that gun has a good track record

4. less parts?

If these are the criteria then they should just get surplus AKs. The M-4 is a special-ops weapon, it is reliable only if it is properly taken care off. It is only accurate when handled by a trained marksman. It sounds like all they need a weapon for is to spray the jungle with cheap ammo.

[Ding]

Guess what, the Malaysian Armed Force, Reserved, PGA and some regiment still using the old M16 and the Bren :lol3 , some using the styer AUG, few AK-74 and now M4 colt. I've ssen them and they look more like a mercernaries with rag-tag equipment to me. Bellieve it or not it is more to political scandal. They will start change everything when there is new Prime Minister in office. Bellieve you me thats nothing but the truth. :D

malaysia boleh
whoa dude... that's not nice. Malaysian Army is highly trained and are professional. Calling other armies 'looking like mercenaries with rag tag equipments' is not nice, especialy if you dont know much about the army.

FYI, at the moment, Steyrs are used for the frontline regiments, M16A2 are for the reserves (territorial army). If you checked on the net, yes, we still have Brens on our inventory (recently removed) but we dont use it anymore. We have some AK47s as trials.

In the army, they are trying a concept call BIS, which stands for Battalion Infantry Standard. In a BIS equipped squad/platoon there will be a mix of Steyrs assault rifles (assault guys), M249 (Machinegunners), grenade launchers (grenadiers??) and RPG7Ds (Anti armor personnels)

My view on the M4. Since the army primarily operates in close confines (ie thick jungle, swamps, cities, towns - we dont have a lot of open areas in Malaysia) it would be a better decision in having the M4 as it's lighter, shorter, more maneuravable in close confines. I agree with Paxter on this matter.

[Ding]

If these are the criteria then they should just get surplus AKs. The M-4 is a special-ops weapon, it is reliable only if it is properly taken care off. It is only accurate when handled by a trained marksman. It sounds like all they need a weapon for is to spray the jungle with cheap ammo.
Bro, we do not 'spray the jungle with cheap ammo'. Saying that seems to imply that the Malaysian Army is a bunch of untrained blokes which fights by 'spraying the jungle with cheap ammo'. Just to put the record straight:cool:

[Big-E]

Bro, we do not 'spray the jungle with cheap ammo'. Saying that seems to imply that the Malaysian Army is a bunch of untrained blokes which fights by 'spraying the jungle with cheap ammo'. Just to put the record straight:cool:

Well thats what the U.S. did in Vietnam, so I think your reading to much into it.;)

[Paxter]

Guess what, the Malaysian Armed Force, Reserved, PGA and some regiment still using the old M16 and the Bren :lol3 , some using the styer AUG, few AK-74 and now M4 colt. I've ssen them and they look more like a mercernaries with rag-tag equipment to me. Bellieve it or not it is more to political scandal. They will start change everything when there is new Prime Minister in office. Bellieve you me thats nothing but the truth. :D

malaysia boleh

urm the bern has been decom a while ago where do you get all this info? to my understanding and ive check with some of my friends who are in the reserved they are farely well armed, the ak-74 was just prob like for testing not for real combat use. They are mainly armed with the m-16. BTW what the hell does this got to do with a new prime minister? the army decides what they want but the final say is with the ministry of finance ;)

the pm ,may have a say but he doesnt choose what weapons are to be used...

[Ding]

Well thats what the U.S. did in Vietnam, so I think your reading to much into it.;)
sorry Big E.... I think I got carried away there.... apology offered;) also a bit of correction... not RPG 7D, it's RPG 7V...

[Big-E]

sorry Big E.... I think I got carried away there.... apology offered;)

apology accepted:D

[renjer]

Images you see of Malaysian soldiers not in full uniform are of our special forces on duty or on training. They are trying to blend into the environment that they will have to operate in (e.g. against pirates in the Malacca Straits or against Abu Sayyaf-like elements on the Sulu/Sulawesi Seas). AKs are only used by our naval commandoes (i.e. PASKAL). The standard weapons are the Steyr A1 and M16 A1. There are obviously older stocks of FLs and Brens which are no longer in active use but are still part of the national war stock that get taken out once in a while. Some other government agencies such the Prison Department and Customs & Excise use the M16 A2.

Michael RVR is probably right, switching to the M4 has something to do with a lost of production rights to the Steyr A3. BTW, is this confirmed? I have heard rumours of this but cannot get the information verified. Back in 2004 during the last DSA there was a big deal being made about Malaysia securing the production as well as global marketing rights to the A3. I believe there was then a political uproar in Austria about circumventing some European arms export control protocol. Anyone care to shed some on light on this?

[Big-E]

I couldn't imagine giving up the Aug for anything, now it makes sense.

[Adler]

whoa dude... that's not nice. Malaysian Army is highly trained and are professional. Calling other armies 'looking like mercenaries with rag tag equipments' is not nice, especialy if you dont know much about the army.

FYI, at the moment, Steyrs are used for the frontline regiments, M16A2 are for the reserves (territorial army). If you checked on the net, yes, we still have Brens on our inventory (recently removed) but we dont use it anymore. We have some AK47s as trials.

In the army, they are trying a concept call BIS, which stands for Battalion Infantry Standard. In a BIS equipped squad/platoon there will be a mix of Steyrs assault rifles (assault guys), M249 (Machinegunners), grenade launchers (grenadiers??) and RPG7Ds (Anti armor personnels)

My view on the M4. Since the army primarily operates in close confines (ie thick jungle, swamps, cities, towns - we dont have a lot of open areas in Malaysia) it would be a better decision in having the M4 as it's lighter, shorter, more maneuravable in close confines. I agree with Paxter on this matter.

Sorry mate.... I'm Malaysian and that's what info I've got from PGA (pasukan Gerakan Am, Wataniah, Army & special force and I've grown up in Army camp myself.
People said that they keep the good and hitec. stuff for the Merdeka day parade, media and joint exercise. Maybe the army bit secerative about what they have :ohwell . Anyway that's what I've seen for 28 years living with them and firing the guns, like bren, M16, MP3/5 in the firing range. Cheers....

[Paxter]

People said that they keep the good and hitec. stuff for the Merdeka day parade, media and joint exercise.

if thats the case im sure those military guards near my kampong are holding toy styers :P

anyway here is some cool info in this latest local def mag showed a local testing of the M4A1 and there were also testing optical sights and one of the most covered and liked by the army is the aimpoint comp4 red dots if they do purchase em i wonder how many M4A1 will get to use em btw... msia baught 110,000 M4A1s

[Ding]

Sorry mate.... I'm Malaysian and that's what info I've got from PGA (pasukan Gerakan Am, Wataniah, Army & special force and I've grown up in Army camp myself.
People said that they keep the good and hitec. stuff for the Merdeka day parade, media and joint exercise. Maybe the army bit secerative about what they have :ohwell . Anyway that's what I've seen for 28 years living with them and firing the guns, like bren, M16, MP3/5 in the firing range. Cheers....
I'm a Malaysian also, I was a member of the territorial force (wataniah). never in my life i shot a bren. only m16s and steyrs. even in training - without media around - it's always m16s and/or steyrs. nope, never shot a bren, mp3/5 in the firing range. never saw guys shooting that in my days in the force (2000-2004). maybe the ones you saw was 30 years ago????

[Paxter]

well if you said u live in an army camp while u were growing up then yeah prob there were berns around at that time... technically communism ended by the late 80s and the bern was used during the communist emergancy. But after that with the modernisation of our country armed forces weapons have change i dont doubt they still keep the bern in some storage as weapon stocks but i really REALLY doubt any modern msian trooper (regular or irregular) uses it.

[buschy]

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Thursday/National/20060427084005/Article/index_html
Just wondering why the M4 carbine? is it better than the steyr?

in my opinion its not that the m4 is a better weapon its just more suited to the needs of the malaysian army

[oraora]

It may be the GPMG, aka FN-MAG 7.62 mm. That weapon looks like a bren with belt ammo...

[knightrider4]

Not the right thread I know but I would like to know peoples opinions on the 6.8mm round offered by various small arms manufacturers, particularly for SpecOps.

[vintec]

i'm no arms expert but here's my opinion

malaysian jungle is dense and maybe carbine can do the job as good as a full size rifle. both m4 and steyr are good firearms and compact in size but steyr has an upper hand with longer barrel and better reliability than m4. malaysian government is spending that lum sum of money for no gains. unless the army is looking at utilizing the RIS....but still, i would prefer m16a4 as MBR and stick the m4 to commandos

[olsen2782]

If these are the criteria then they should just get surplus AKs. The M-4 is a special-ops weapon, it is reliable only if it is properly taken care off. It is only accurate when handled by a trained marksman. It sounds like all they need a weapon for is to spray the jungle with cheap ammo.

The M-4 is not a "Special Ops Weapon". Its used by the majority of infantrymen in the US Army. Also, if you want any weapon to be "accurate" as you said you have to have training. I could pick up any variety of weapons and as long as you show me how to zero the damn thing it will be accurate.

[vintec]

Its used by the majority of infantrymen in the US Army.

as far as i concern, all soldiers in SBCT and quite a few units use M4 but the others are still using m16a2 or m16a4 by the marines

[Big-E]

The M-4 is not a "Special Ops Weapon". Its used by the majority of infantrymen in the US Army. Also, if you want any weapon to be "accurate" as you said you have to have training. I could pick up any variety of weapons and as long as you show me how to zero the damn thing it will be accurate.

You are the one who is mistaken my friend. It is NOT used by the majority of infantrymen in the US Army. It is a "Special Ops Weapon." According to the DoD, the M4:

"has been adopted by United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and is the preferred weapon of the U.S. Army Special Forces."

They go on to say of the A1 variant:

"The M4A1 can be found in use by many U.S. military units, including the Delta Force, U.S. Navy SEALs, and the U.S. Marine Corps' Radio Reconnaissance Platoons and Force Reconnaissance companies. The M4A1 Carbine is specially favored by counter-terrorist and special forces units for close quarters combat because of the carbine's compactness and firepower."

The weapon most used the the US Army is still the M-16. According to wikipedia...

"The M16A2 remains the main U.S. service rifle in the Army, while the Marine Corps upgraded to the more flexible M16A4 rifles in the 2000s"

You obviously don't know a thing about assault rifles, you cannot just pickup an assualt rifle (never having shot one) and zero it on target. Since you haven't shot three round and full auto blasts your groupings would be horrible!:shudder

[brian1225]

Big E, hate to disagree with you, but...

I'm an Armor Officer, served in tanks, Cav, and as an Advisor, and have been assigned an M-4 in all of the above roles. Despite what might be said in some circles the M-4 is not a spec ops weapon. While initially deployed within the Special Operations community, the M-4 now serves across the US Army, I've seen MP's, tankers, Infantrymen, and others assigned it as a primary weapon.

As for picking the M-4 it's a good decision, the weapon is light, well balanced and since the development of rail systems it has incredible versatility, capable of mounting gun lights, optics, lasers, and other devices to improve it's effectiveness. Additionally it's common heritage with the M-16 means less spare parts to stock, simplifying logistics.

[Aussie Digger]

No doubt this is a stupid question but does this mean the Steyr is close to replacement in Australia also?

Nope Steyr and Minimi are about to undergo a significant upgrade and will remain in Australian service for many years to come. I'll post details of the Steyr upgrade when they come to hand.

[kotay]

I'm inclined to agree with Brian ... mainly on the strength of this bit from the US Army Web Site.

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m-4_carbine/index.html

which says that the M4 " will replace all .45 caliber M3 submachine guns, selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles."

[Awang se]

My personal assault rifle is an M4A1, the one without any rail. it's lightweight, highly reliable and easy to use. it never fail me.

if i see a target at long range, i have several options if i wish to engage the target at that range:-

1. call in artillery (if there's some close by)
2. Use Sniper (if there's one attached to my platoon/squad)
3. Use support weapons like FN MAG or Minimi.
there's several other options but i'm short of time to state all.

[jamesteo320]

What about the Hk G36K, it is suitable for use in jungle warfare.

[kaybee]

It does look like the decision on M4 has not been finalized. The tender is still open and several suppliers have submitted theri proposal such as H&K, Bushmaster, FN etc. I would prefer MAF choose HK 416 over M4, all bugs has been fixed.

[Aussie Digger]

What about the Hk G36K, it is suitable for use in jungle warfare.

How? So's a Golock. I wouldn't propose replacing Malaysia's Steyr with THAT though...

If you want to contribute to the discussion please do so. Do you have any experience in Jungle warfare or with using a G-36K? If not HOW can YOU say it's suitable?

FYI, the "K" in the name refers to the fact that it is the CARBINE version of the weapon.

Few Army's are prepared to issue carbines as their general service rifle.

Perhaps the G-36 "might" be the best weapon for Malaysia, but military forces don't make decisions based on off hand comments (I hope!). Rigorous testing of the weapons should be the deciding factor, besides cost, political/industrial/technical etc.

Not trying to pick on you, but contribute a bit more usefully or don't bother at all. Either way will comply by the rules.

Cheers

AD.

[Chino]

I agree that in Malaysia, contact at 300m and beyond is less important as you can't see that far.

Besides, every section would have sharpshooters/snipers/LMG etc for those distances.


Here are some points which I guess the M4 may be considered superior over the Steyr.

* light weight, the Steyr is heavy

* versatility, the MAF version of the Steyr has a fixed scope, I think...

* M203 GL. I dunno why... but MAF still uses the M16/M203 combo in Steyr-armed units. Singapore likewise uses the M16/M203 in SAR-21-armed units. I have seen that the Aussies mount GL on their Steyrs.

* Reloading with M16/M4 style weapons are faster, important in urban fighting.

None are BIG crucial differences, but it all adds up.

[Aussie Digger]

I agree that in Malaysia, contact at 300m and beyond is less important as you can't see that far.

Besides, every section would have sharpshooters/snipers/LMG etc for those distances.


Here are some points which I guess the M4 may be considered superior over the Steyr.

* light weight, the Steyr is heavy

* versatility, the MAF version of the Steyr has a fixed scope, I think...

* M203 GL. I dunno why... but MAF still uses the M16/M203 combo in Steyr-armed units. Singapore likewise uses the M16/M203 in SAR-21-armed units. I have seen that the Aussies mount GL on their Steyrs.

* Reloading with M16/M4 style weapons are faster, important in urban fighting.

None are BIG crucial differences, but it all adds up.

I have never used an M4, so I can't say for certain, but I doubt whether the difference is significant. The main difference between the M4 and the Steyr is the length of the barrel. The Steyr has a MUCH longer barrel, providing greater effective range.

The original Steyr had variants that came with a fixed scope OR a modular version depending on the users requirements. Australia called the "modular" variant the F88S and an equally large variety of scopes and other attachments could be fitted to it.

You are correct, Australia AND NZ mount "under-barrel" 40mm GLA's on their Steyr rifles.

Magazine changing speed is going to be more dependant on the skill of the user, not the weapon itself. I very much doubt whether the "speed" difference is measurable in any realistic way.

SASR and 4RAR (Cmdo) recently changed over from using the F-88 Austeyr to the M4. The official reason was it was more suited to "Amphibious" operations. An un-official reason is that the weapon could mount a greater range of "attachments". Of course now they have bitterly complained about the M4's "lack of range" in Iraq and Afghanistan so now SOCOMD issues SR-25 Sniper rifles... A LOT heavier and bulkier than any Steyr variant...

Personally I doubt it was for anything more than the fact that they were A) Allowed to and B) They think it's "cooler".

Ask a USMC soldier who has exercised in Australia what he'd prefer to use. I know the answer as I asked one this very same question once. He wanted to use my F-88C (and truth be known I wouldn't have minded a go at his M4)... The reason why? "Cause Steyrs are the sh*t man"...

Moral of the story? "The grass is ALWAYS greener"...

[renjer]

It does look like the decision on M4 has not been finalized. The tender is still open and several suppliers have submitted theri proposal such as H&K, Bushmaster, FN etc. I would prefer MAF choose HK 416 over M4, all bugs has been fixed.

I'd rather we stick with the Steyr.

[Waylander]

Much of our Infantry converted from G36 to G36k because the performance is close enough (and the same at the distances which you said are usual in Malaysia) and the handling of the shorter K is better.

Just a small comment and nothing more to contribute because I have defenitely not really an idea of jungle infantry warfare. :)

[kaybee]

I'd rather we stick with the Steyr.
Are you in the service and experienced with Steyr? If yes, I've nothing much to say since I am not, but from talking to the serving soldiers, nothing good about Steyr came out from them and most prefer M16 over Steyr.

[Simon9]

Are you in the service and experienced with Steyr? If yes, I've nothing much to say since I am not, but from talking to the serving soldiers, nothing good about Steyr came out from them and most prefer M16 over Steyr.

Nothing good about the Steyr??? What do they say about it? I can't find a single thing WRONG with the Steyr (except perhaps that you can't fire it easily from the opposite shoulder, but it can be done), and I've used it for six years.

When you consider the extra length and reliability issues of the M16 and the lack of power for the M4 of the same length as a Steyr, I can't think why anybody wouldn't prefer the Steyr for conventional infantry work (CQB is another matter).

Unless Malaysian Steyrs are of lower quality... but since ours are F88s that seems highly unlikely. :rolleyes:

[kaybee]

Nothing good about the Steyr??? What do they say about it? I can't find a single thing WRONG with the Steyr (except perhaps that you can't fire it easily from the opposite shoulder, but it can be done), and I've used it for six years.

When you consider the extra length and reliability issues of the M16 and the lack of power for the M4 of the same length as a Steyr, I can't think why anybody wouldn't prefer the Steyr for conventional infantry work (CQB is another matter).

Unless Malaysian Steyrs are of lower quality... but since ours are F88s that seems highly unlikely. :rolleyes: I said nothing good come out from them as in no praises for Steyr from the soldiers. I'm just relating their opinion and experience like easily jammed when wet, fog in the scope etc.

[Simon9]

I said nothing good come out from them as in no praises for Steyr from the soldiers. I'm just relating their opinion and experience like easily jammed when wet, fog in the scope etc.

Yes I understand that, I'm not questioning your claim - I was just asking for more info as to what their complaints are. :) "Nothing good" suggests to me that there was "something bad" about them.

Fog in the scope makes sense, I've seen that occasionally when the weapon has been submerged but it's never been a serious problem, just a bit of condensation around the edges.

As for jamming when wet, I've never known them to do that, but maybe this is something to do with the hydrolocking problem I keep hearing about. Malaysia is certainly much wetter than most of Australia. But then, we have a company permanently stationed at Butterworth and none of the guys I know who have served there have complained. Might be a manufacturing issue.

[renjer]

Are you in the service and experienced with Steyr? If yes, I've nothing much to say since I am not, but from talking to the serving soldiers, nothing good about Steyr came out from them and most prefer M16 over Steyr.

My experience was with the M16. Back then people complained about it as well. But it worked if you took care of it. I suspect the same would be true of the Steyr. Perhaps as AD said the grass is greener on the other side. Everybody wants the latest toy. Give it a few years and you'll be seeing this same story with different rifles being mentioned. Or perhaps like Simon said it could be a manufacturing issue.

Security of supply is my main concern. We manufacture the Steyr in-country and that's a big factor to consider. Like I said before I have not found actual confirmation as to whether the Austrians cancelled our manufacturing rights. Think of the Adnan. Better alternatives are available but we would simply be buyers of the alternatives. If war ever breaks out the lessons of the Konfrontasi will be back to haunt us.

[kaybee]

Security of supply is my main concern. We manufacture the Steyr in-country and that's a big factor to consider. Like I said before I have not found actual confirmation as to whether the Austrians cancelled our manufacturing rights. Think of the Adnan. Better alternatives are available but we would simply be buyers of the alternatives. If war ever breaks out the lessons of the Konfrontasi will be back to haunt us.
Don't worry, whatever the Malaysian govn choosed will be manufactured in the country, likely will go to SMEO as well. I believe the relationship with Steyr has soured since the cancellation of Steyr manufacturing relocation plan to SMEO.

[lobbie111]

In Vietnam the M16 was slightly disadvantaged in that the 5.56mm cartrige lacked the stopping power of the Aussie SLR's or the VC AK-47's in the jungle but it was mush heavier. And in urban environments the 7.62mm with a shortened barrel is preffered by some special forces why isn't the H&k 416 7.62mm Variant investigated

[renjer]

Probably because of the smaller stature of the average Malaysian soldier. I was told that was one of the reasons we switch from the 7.62mm SLR to the 5.56mm M16A1.

But you are right the 7.62mm has more hitting power. For the MA, I think that extra hitting power should be with the SAW. I hope the MA will consider the 7.62mm Minimi as a possible upgrade from the 5.56mm Minimi. It will be good firepower for our infantry squads which currently has 1x SAW issued per squad.

[qwerty223]

Hi, i know nothing about guns. Just wondering, AK-47 with 7.62 x 39 mm caliber is known to be less accuracy but more damage. So what about the new version of it, the AK-103. It seems that there is still ppl believed in large caliber? Have AK-103 improved to merge NATO guns in term of accuracy? :confused:

[ssmoore]

The US army initially accuired the m4 for its support troops that needed something compact but more powerfull than a pistol. Then the special forces saw it and thought its qualitys would serve them well also. It has almost took over the role of the traditional sub machine gun for them as pistol caliber sub guns have a hard time against body armor. The change to 5.56 from 7.62 was to enable controlled full auto fire and to increase the load out of ammunition. 7.62 is has better ballistics but none of the full size battle rifles were controllable on full auto, like the m14, fal, g3 even tho they were all really heavy rifles.

[Sgt.Banes]

Its more or less the ease of having a carbine rifle rather than a bullpup at least in this case.

Most European Armies and SEATO members use both the M-4 and Steyr AUG, so there isn't a huge problem with this. Though with this issue, it may all come down to defense budgeting in the end.

[mmmbop]

As for jamming when wet, I've never known them to do that, but maybe this is something to do with the hydrolocking problem I keep hearing about. Malaysia is certainly much wetter than most of Australia. But then, we have a company permanently stationed at Butterworth and none of the guys I know who have served there have complained. Might be a manufacturing issue.


Never had experience with steyr but as kb pointed out, some of the guys favor M16 than steyr. one of the reason i caught up was easily jammed due to overheating. and some said it could be due to manufacturing defect as the styer serves OZ quite well.but then again, butterworth ain't jungle at all and extreme wet never been an issue there.

[OPLITA]

Hi Renjer,

I live in Italy, I am a collector of firearms, I have recently purchased a M16 A1 Colt model 613, produced in 1971 in 5000 pieces for the Malaysian Government.
This M16 A1 has been modified for shooting ONLY in semiautomatic mode (the Italian law forbids the ownership of weapons full auto)
I would like to know what Unity, Battalions or Regiments had in use.
Do you know to which Unity belongs mine?
It is marked on the buttstock:

11
C
2

Sorry for the bad English, I hope that you understand
Thanks
Paolo

http://www.hostingfiles.net/files/20070313100850_M16_Malesia.JPG

[Sgt.Banes]

Is the steyr subject to jamming due to sand or mud?

[laksmana_tldm]

Malaysia had sold the M16 A1? never heard about it...could you please elaborate?

Hi Renjer,

I live in Italy, I am a collector of firearms, I have recently purchased a M16 A1 Colt model 613, produced in 1971 in 5000 pieces for the Malaysian Government.
This M16 A1 has been modified for shooting ONLY in semiautomatic mode (the Italian law forbids the ownership of weapons full auto)
I would like to know what Unity, Battalions or Regiments had in use.
Do you know to which Unity belongs mine?
It is marked on the buttstock:

11
C
2

Sorry for the bad English, I hope that you understand
Thanks
Paolo

http://www.hostingfiles.net/files/20070313100850_M16_Malesia.JPG

[Ituzaingo]

Well, it seems a Malaysia goverment operation for clear the actual M16 storage, as product of the AUG replace, the agreement also involved the supply of MP5 submachineguns made by B&T to MAF, were Bruger & Thomet AG is the official buyer of these M16. As usual sorry for my bad english.-

[Ituzaingo]

Weel,it seems a Malaysia goverment operation for clear the M16 storage, product of AUG replace. This agreement involved the suply of MP5 submachineguns made by B&T to MAF. Brugger & Thomet AG is the official buyer of these M16.-

[Ituzaingo]

Malaysia had sold the M16 A1? never heard about it...could you please elaborate?

Weel,it seems a Malaysia goverment operation for clear the M16 storage, product of AUG replace. This agreement involved the suply of MP5 submachineguns made by B&T to MAF. Brugger & Thomet AG is the official buyer of these M16.-

[OPLITA]

Malaysia had sold the M16 A1? never heard about it...could you please elaborate?

Well, it seems a Malaysia goverment operation for clear the M16 storage, as product of AUG replace. This agreement involved the supply of MP5 submachineguns made by B&T to MAF, were Brugger & Thomet is the official buyer of these "sweet 80' " M16, really the lower marks say AR15 Mod 613.

[Letli]

1) Malaysia has a well-known reputation for ad-hoc defence spending policy. The politics of it is about keeping up with the Jones's and prestige projects. Its not just this rifle, it’s the other procurements in the past, including aircraft.

This about turn on the Steyr has only made it a laughing stock. They have spent so much money only a couple of years ago to buy the Steyr and even more time & money to train the soldiers. All that down the drain. Its hard to imagine the MAF being able to be effective given such hare-brained procurement.

Weight, reliability issues in the M'sian climate? Lesson to be learnt ... do proper evaluation of any weapon system before adopting! Not as a status symbol!

The M4 is an even bigger mistake! Its something that the US is seeking to replace soon & yet M’sia wants to adopt it! Everybody knows it still has the same limitations as the basic M16, a 40 year old system.

The US Army’s long drawn out process of next generation rifle selection at least says something about their thoroughness. Though it also illustrates how the military overpays for everything.

2) M'sia is the only armed forces I know in this world going from a bullpup layout firearm to a conventional one!

Huge mistake!

The trend towards a bullpup design is an inevitably progressive step towards further compactness & weight-effectiveness. Hell, even the Assault Rifle concept and its intermediate round (between a full-fledged rifle powered 7.62mm & a pistol round) that was invented during WWII was geared towards that overall objective.

The Germans invented the concept back then because they recognised that the most common battle range was only up to 300-400m. Furthermore, the most valuable battleground will be in the urban setting of cities.

That's why the 7.62mm round and rifles like the Mausers and Lee Enfields died with it. Its more important to put a heavy volume of accurate firepower at 300-400m than to be able to fire a low volume of firepower to 1-2km.

If there are ppl on this forum still wondering about why not go wholesale back to 7.62mm, u need to research some military history.

3) Bullpup vs Traditional

As somebody who did his years in the army, I can offer this to the less well-informed. The M16 was a great weapon. Accurate, reliable & never jammed on me (since we maintained it clean, why else!) and not too heavy. Never had a chance to fight a war yet or kill anyone (& hope that I never will!) but I can vouch that a bullpup design is the only sensible improvement to this class of firearms.

However, the M16, like any traditional layout rifle, is still way too long for urban or jungle warfare. Its too unwieldy in a FIBUA or close quarters combat. & speed of reaction is key in such a lottery killing environment.

The centre of gravity, especially with a fully loaded magazine, is way forward. Meaning that it can only be properly held with 2 hands. This is exarcerbated when you start fitting other add-ons to the system, like the M203, tactical flashlights etc. This contributes to fatigue. Forget all your Hollywood glamour. I always say that a rifle is a huge pain in the neck, an incumbrance and a burden, though is absolutely indispensably a gem (that’s why we call the rifle our wife!) when you need it. Which means only about 0.001% to 0.1% of the time - only when you pull the trigger.

Try doing a 20km, 40km road march with it! Or sentry duty all night. Or a field camp.

Some say that being front heavy aids firing accuracy. Bollocks. The standard assault rifle is not meant for full automatic fire. That’s for the SAW, LMG or GPMG. Except during very close quarters combat that is. In which case, compactness of weapon is the key, not accuracy. In all other combat situations, semi-auto fire involves eye to sights, butt stock to shoulder, no compromise on marksmanship technique shooting.

The bullpup design maintains the same barrel length as the M16 while shortening the weapon length dramatically. The implication is incredible. You get the full power & accuracy of the 5.56mm round while making the weapon much more compact. In close quarter combat, you can swing it around tight corners (doorways, windows, corridors) in the firing position whereas the adversary in a traditional layout weapon has to hold it pointing at the ceiling and bringing it down to firing position when needed. The 0.5 seconds to do that - matter of life & death. Playing Counter Strike doesn’t make one entitled to comment on something like this - U can walk into walls & doors with the rifle still pointing forward for heavens sakes. What bull.

Before the bull-pup design came along, the SWAT & special forces compromised by opting for the 9mm submachine guns with its reduced stopping power. But the bull-pup design has since threatened the relevance of the submachine gun category. Notice how many SWATs, law enforcement agencies & Spec-Ops have independent conducted tests & gone for bull-pups.

The better balance also enables one handed firing, useful in close quarters, heli-descents, or abseiling conditions. Attachments of M203s for example do not upset the center of gravity as much.

The only advantage of the traditional rifle layout is strictly only 2 fold, reflected in the US’ stubbornness in not wanting a bull-pup. Firstly, a more adjustable rifle butt stock. However, if well-designed to the typical soldier’s profile, that’s hardly a problem with a bull-pup. Secondly, a wider choice of magazines. True, a drum magazine would be possible, as is taping 2 or 3 std mags together. Yet, how many troops actually use drum magazines in Af? Its too expensive for wide issuance & usually not as reliable due to the complexity or not as easily reloadable in the field due to the power of the springs in them. Furthermore, it only encourages the soldier to use wasteful (read inaccurate) long bursts. There’s a reason why automatic fire is best left to the SAWs, LMGs or GPMGs.

For ppl on this forum to talk about the need for 7.62mm rounds for power & yet not recognize the bull-pup as a better option is oxymoronic. It is far better to optimize weapon to extract the full potential of the 5.56mm with the bull-pup than to halve a soldier’s ammo count by going back to 7.62mm.

Therein lies the problem with the M4! It’s a shortened barrel for Pete’s sakes! That’s why the accuracy sucks and the stopping power weak. I would never want my rifle to have its accuracy or power compromised. I’d rather have a bull-pup of the same length as the M4 but the M16’s full 20” barrel. I hope I don’t have to kill – but if war time comes, I want to get the bad guy before he gets me.

The Steyr may not be faultless I’m sure, but there are other outstanding bull-pups around. There’s no way the M4 is better than a bull-pup layout rifle. As to the production/licensing issue… aah … that’s why countries like France & UK led the way in making their own a long time ago rather than depend on the US M16. Recently, Israel & Singapore designed & manufactured their own bull-pups too! Though I’m sure M’sia will never buy from those 2!

In no time, M’sia will change weapons – again. Watch this space.

[Letli]

1) Malaysia has a well-known reputation for ad-hoc defence spending policy. The politics of it is about keeping up with the Jones's and prestige projects. Its not just this rifle, it’s the other procurements in the past, including aircraft.

This about turn on the Steyr has only made it a laughing stock. They have spent so much money only a couple of years ago to buy the Steyr and even more time & money to train the soldiers. All that down the drain. Its hard to imagine the MAF being able to be effective given such hare-brained procurement.

Weight, reliability issues in the M'sian climate? Lesson to be learnt ... do proper evaluation of any weapon system before adopting! Not as a status symbol!

The M4 is an even bigger mistake! Its something that the US is seeking to replace soon & yet M’sia wants to adopt it! Everybody knows it still has the same limitations as the basic M16, a 40 year old system.

The US Army’s long drawn out process of next generation rifle selection at least says something about their thoroughness. Though it also illustrates how the military overpays for everything.

2) M'sia is the only armed forces I know in this world going from a bullpup layout firearm to a conventional one!

Huge mistake!

The trend towards a bullpup design is an inevitably progressive step towards further compactness & weight-effectiveness. Hell, even the Assault Rifle concept and its intermediate round (between a full-fledged rifle powered 7.62mm & a pistol round) that was invented during WWII was geared towards that overall objective.

The Germans invented the concept back then because they recognised that the most common battle range was only up to 300-400m. Furthermore, the most valuable battleground will be in the urban setting of cities.

That's why the 7.62mm round and rifles like the Mausers and Lee Enfields died with it. Its more important to put a heavy volume of accurate firepower at 300-400m than to be able to fire a low volume of firepower to 1-2km.

If there are ppl on this forum still wondering about why not go wholesale back to 7.62mm, u need to research some military history.

3) Bullpup vs Traditional

As somebody who did his years in the army, I can offer this to the less well-informed. The M16 was a great weapon. Accurate, reliable & never jammed on me (since we maintained it clean, why else!) and not too heavy. Never had a chance to fight a war yet or kill anyone (& hope that I never will!) but I can vouch that a bullpup design is the only sensible improvement to this class of firearms.

However, the M16, like any traditional layout rifle, is still way too long for urban or jungle warfare. Its too unwieldy in a FIBUA or close quarters combat. & speed of reaction is key in such a lottery killing environment.

The centre of gravity, especially with a fully loaded magazine, is way forward. Meaning that it can only be properly held with 2 hands. This is exarcerbated when you start fitting other add-ons to the system, like the M203, tactical flashlights etc. This contributes to fatigue. Forget all your Hollywood glamour. I always say that a rifle is a huge pain in the neck, an incumbrance and a burden, though is absolutely indispensably a gem (that’s why we call the rifle our wife!) when you need it. Which means only about 0.001% to 0.1% of the time - only when you pull the trigger.

Try doing a 20km, 40km road march with it! Or sentry duty all night. Or a field camp.

Some say that being front heavy aids firing accuracy. Bollocks. The standard assault rifle is not meant for full automatic fire. That’s for the SAW, LMG or GPMG. Except during very close quarters combat that is. In which case, compactness of weapon is the key, not accuracy. In all other combat situations, semi-auto fire involves eye to sights, butt stock to shoulder, no compromise on marksmanship technique shooting.

The bullpup design maintains the same barrel length as the M16 while shortening the weapon length dramatically. The implication is incredible. You get the full power & accuracy of the 5.56mm round while making the weapon much more compact. In close quarter combat, you can swing it around tight corners (doorways, windows, corridors) in the firing position whereas the adversary in a traditional layout weapon has to hold it pointing at the ceiling and bringing it down to firing position when needed. The 0.5 seconds to do that - matter of life & death. Playing Counter Strike doesn’t make one entitled to comment on something like this - U can walk into walls & doors with the rifle still pointing forward for heavens sakes. What bull.

Before the bull-pup design came along, the SWAT & special forces compromised by opting for the 9mm submachine guns with its reduced stopping power. But the bull-pup design has since threatened the relevance of the submachine gun category. Notice how many SWATs, law enforcement agencies & Spec-Ops have independent conducted tests & gone for bull-pups.

The better balance also enables one handed firing, useful in close quarters, heli-descents, or abseiling conditions. Attachments of M203s for example do not upset the center of gravity as much.

The only advantage of the traditional rifle layout is strictly only 2 fold, reflected in the US’ stubbornness in not wanting a bull-pup. Firstly, a more adjustable rifle butt stock. However, if well-designed to the typical soldier’s profile, that’s hardly a problem with a bull-pup. Secondly, a wider choice of magazines. True, a drum magazine would be possible, as is taping 2 or 3 std mags together. Yet, how many troops actually use drum magazines in Af? Its too expensive for wide issuance & usually not as reliable due to the complexity or not as easily reloadable in the field due to the power of the springs in them. Furthermore, it only encourages the soldier to use wasteful (read inaccurate) long bursts. There’s a reason why automatic fire is best left to the SAWs, LMGs or GPMGs.

For ppl on this forum to talk about the need for 7.62mm rounds for power & yet not recognize the bull-pup as a better option is oxymoronic. It is far better to optimize weapon to extract the full potential of the 5.56mm with the bull-pup than to halve a soldier’s ammo count by going back to 7.62mm.

Therein lies the problem with the M4! It’s a shortened barrel for Pete’s sakes! That’s why the accuracy sucks and the stopping power weak. I would never want my rifle to have its accuracy or power compromised. I’d rather have a bull-pup of the same length as the M4 but the M16’s full 20” barrel. I hope I don’t have to kill – but if war time comes, I want to get the bad guy before he gets me.

The Steyr may not be faultless I’m sure, but there are other outstanding bull-pups around. There’s no way the M4 is better than a bull-pup layout rifle. As to the production/licensing issue… aah … that’s why countries like France & UK led the way in making their own a long time ago rather than depend on the US M16. Recently, Israel & Singapore designed & manufactured their own bull-pups too! Though I’m sure M’sia will never buy from those 2!

In no time, M’sia will change weapons – again. Watch this space.

[Mr Ignorant]

Hi all! :cool:

First of all, I am an ignorant bum when it comes to Issues on Rifles and Procurement contracts, but this did raise some interest not too long ago on Malaysia's defence expenditure.

I think all if not most of the contributions on this thread has some relevance to it, and I was indeed confused as to why the Malaysians would switch to a Carbine type assault rifle when they were furtively using the Steyr AUG A1. I think highly of both in terms of design and outward appearance, but as I said before, I can't comment on overall combat effectiveness, or use because I am NOT in the Military or Armed Services.

The M4A1 as I understand it, appears to be the type of rifle that would normally be issued to Officers and Non Commissioned Officers, as other specialist forces, and not something that would normally be ideal for the frontline Troops. Saying that the M16A4 would have been the next best option for Malaysian mainline soldiers.

However,

Why the sudden change from a Bull Pup (that was not entirely popular) to the M4, which is basically a shortened M16???

Other than procurement aspect to it, I think this had to do with selective preferences. Historically, the Malaysians were already very familiar with the M16A1 Rifle, being that it began to be issued and rolled out in the 70s, not just to the Armed Forces, but to the Malaysian Police Field Force (now known as the General Operations Force) as well. That means something positive about the M16A1 and it's use in Malaysia.

Also, when it came to the war in the Jungle, various comments from serving relatives, praised the look and feel of the M16A1. The Soldiers liked the US Made Rifle.

When the first Steyr Rifles were issued in the 90s, the Royal Malaysian Police GOF somehow did not follow suit, and to this day, GOF Battalions still employ the M16A1 as their main battle rifle. Off course, defence procurement has nothing to do with Police procurement, but the adoption of the former did contrast somewhat unusually with the use of the latter in GOF formations.

I am not interested in the Bull Pup versus Conventional designs of Assault Rifles, mainly because I feel that is the road to nowhere on this thread. The M4A1, although shortened and now part of a US Military limited competition against the FN SCAR-L and the HK 416, may perhaps be the logical step for the Malaysian Armed Forces. And the Military will not have problems in re-training frontline troops on the use of the M4, mainly because the Initial Training would have had the benefits of experience, in previous cycles.

THe M4A1 will be rolled in the Malaysian armed services. It would be a welcome alternative to the Steyr, and no doubt, may perhaps be a success,.....current concerns notwithstanding.

Or maybe the Malaysians should have purchased the M16A4???

In any case, with regards to the M16 family, I was slightly impressed by the sight of GOF Sections still clinging adamantly to their M16A1s.