Steyr rifles to be phased out
-
not to politicise the thingy... but MAF is built on the premise to safeguard the dominance of malays in malaysia politics...Originally posted by donchoo:M4?? even though battle proven, have very low stopping power. Lotsa US troops complaining about that, but its a good rifle
I think they meant M16A4?
But Ak-47? Gosh, if they opt for it they will be moving backwards. AK-100+ series would be a better choice since it fires a 5.56mm
in short.. their military is geared to fight internal "disruption" rather then against external enemies...
as such.. the M4, being suited to FIBUA would be suitable for handling "events" in malaysian cities and towns.. though i believe the AUG would do just as well.
perhaps... as someone already foretold... its either a means of fleecing their govt for money by some well connected companies...
or it could be that they may have been denied servicing and spareparts from AUG producer(due to the rupture)... which as a result could slowly result in weapon deterioation...
given that the rifle is the basic of any military force... i doubt they can accept a weapon for mass usuage if they are unable to service it due to lack of spares.... either through direct denial of parts or priced out of their reach due to punitive measures from AUG.
the above are my personal opinion... just guessing. -
here my i cent:
maybe its a political move by MY to get closer to the US , buy more US made products.. perhaps get a better deal on FTA they are working on.
Perhaps this is a signal that perhaps MY would be looking at purchasing other defence related items from the US
Jus one of my theories
-
You never change the calibre of a standard infantry weapon. The logistics and operational readiness issues are career killers.Originally posted by tchiew:Hmmm can you be more precise on which part of the article does not make sense? There's nothing technically wrong with the weapons and calibre quoted in the article. Do correct me if i'm wrong.
Since the Steyr AUG is 5.56 it will be a "Western" weapon or a locally produced item.
Therefore most of the AK series will be out.
L85 is a POS from the moment it was born. No decent military journalist would even mention it as potential replacement.
Going back to M16 variant is possible but AUG is a better designed weapon and it is in use, so why change? Change for the sake of changing is a bad idea especially for infantry weapons. See 1st para. -
You only got part of it right, but there is also the other side of the coin. In jungle, you don't get resupply that often. You mention accuracy is not important, thus making able to carry more ammo more important.Originally posted by tvdog:This grenade launcher issue brings to mind our own adoption of the SAR-21. I continue to see M-16/M203 being used among SAR21-equipped units. Does anyone know if we are using SAR-21 with GL?
It seems manufacturing the Steyr AUG is rather demanding. The Australians also have quite a few issues with their own locally-made Steyr AUGs.
The option of selecting the AK-47 is actually a very sound choice, in my opinion. Since Malaysia is mostly jungle, most of the time you can see what you are shooting at anyway, so accuracy may not be such a top priority. If so, then the AK-47 makes perfect sense. The bullet can punch through foilage better and is definitely more of a man-stopper compared to the 5.56mm or the Russian's newer 5.45mm.
Also in the heat and jungle movement, weight become very important. 5.56mm or 5.45mm at least will not kill you 1st with their weight and let you carry more in case you don't get resupply. -
This will be a bulllpup vs conventional layout debate, which has been done before.Originally posted by Raptor937:Can you list the disadvantages of the bullpup design?
Why is the G36 better than the SAR21?
I guess the MAF's decision to switch back to the conventional format after 15 years with the Steyr will add a lot of weight to the "bullpup vs conventional" argument in favour of the latter. The US army will never go near a bullpup, whom they almost universally disdain.
Personally, putting aside the fact that it is a bullpup - I feel there are a lot of stupid things done on the SAR-21. Cannot fit bayonet. Cannot use M-16 mags. No iron sights. Unnecessary LAD. No rails on the standard weapon. Too heavy. If can fit GL as advertised, how come that version still not seen in SAF service? But as you'll notice, a bullpup can only fit a short barrel GL.
Anyway, the advantages of the M4 is that it has all the rails so that you can put stuff on it like a christmas trees, this not only has obvious tactical advantages but will also make the MAF look more modern. The AK series is still not made with rails, and it does look very dated.
The Steyr has no rails either, and because it is made under license they can't add modifications.
Someone mentioned that an army NEVER changes its infantry ammunition to another calibre. Something about logistics and careers etc...That's a pretty sweeping statement to make.
The whole western world cahnged from 7.62 NATO to 5.56 NATO 40 years ago. The European Combloc changed from 7.62x39 to 5.45 30 years ago.
China changed from 7.62x39 to 5.8mm in the 80's.
The massive Indonesian military uses all of the above including the 5.56, the 7.62x39 and possibly the 5.45. -
SAR21 if I'm not mistaken, can and will take M16 STANMAGs. If you consider between the SAR21 and the M4, I will take the SAR21 anyday. Why?As it does not scarifice range and accuracy just so as to let the weapon maintain a smaller frame. Example, look at the Israelis, they saw the barrels of the CAR15s to make the weapon shorter, and end up having weapons which IA every few rounds. Besides, the SAR21 does have back-up iron sights if the scope fails, its on the top of the scope. I won't say that the LAD is totally useless, but in the case of KINS protection, it serves to intimidate would be threats into surrendering, as having a locked and loaded rifle with its laswer sight trained at your vitals is a really intimidating sight.Originally posted by tvdog:Personally, putting aside the fact that it is a bullpup - I feel there are a lot of stupid things done on the SAR-21. Cannot fit bayonet. Cannot use M-16 mags. No iron sights. Unnecessary LAD. No rails on the standard weapon. Too heavy. If can fit GL as advertised, how come that version still not seen in SAF service? But as you'll notice, a bullpup can only fit a short barrel GL. -
With the 7.62mm ammunition of the AK-47, one bullet is all it takes to stop a man dead in his tracks.
im not sure how this is an entirely comparable factor. Granted the AK fires a 7.62 round, but thats vastly different from the 7.62 NATO round the FN FAL(SLR) fires. 1stly the cartridge is shorter, 39mm vs the 51mm of the NATO round. 2ndly the bullet head itself, and a whole host of ballistics factors, are different. In this case, how can they say "going back to the 7.62mm calibre bullet" because these are 2 entirely dfferent rounds?
The more senior of Malaysian soldiers, whether retired or still in active service, are more inclined towards going back to the 7.62mm-calibre bullet.
It was this ammunition which was used before the armed forces changed to the M-16.
The weapon of choice then was the SLR, a tough and extremely accurate rifle which was possibly even more durable than the AK-47. -
This is very interesting. They are the first country to move back from a bullpup type rifle to a conventional straight line rifle. There must be lots of discussion on the internet, considering that the Steyr Augs are still new.
So while we are moving to the SAR21, Malaysia is going the opposite direction with the M4. Looks like they have also standardised on the newer 5.56mm rounds used by the SAWs.
Also, like Israel, and more recently the US - they have preferred a shorter rilfe in the form of a carbine as a standard. The Israeli army had used mostly older M16 carbines and are now moving to the Tavor. -
Hmm.......This is my personal take on how the SAR-21 should have been. Firstly, The LAD must be removed. Bcos the LAD has onli a combat range of abt 100m, thus watever beyond that is useless. In the night, the moment u on your LAD, u are a bullet magnet. All the ppls can see u and can shoot at you. You will be basically just a LIVING blinking figure 12. Next is the issue of the scope. The scope is prone to dewing in the morning and after river crossing, even wif scope rubber, it is damn JIALAT. They could have a rail instead for those sharpshooter to mount their scope. Lastly, should have a better iron-sight like that of M-16 to act as a spare.
I feel that the Singapore rifle should be USER friendly and also IDIOT-PROOF. Just tell me how the average left hander shoot with the SAR-21?
I think the emphasis should be more on fire-power than the part on accuracy. I remember that the jungle instructor at Laikun camp in Brunei told us that in typical jungle setting, the maximum typical engagement is lesser than 150m. Thus in the heat of a fire fight, do you think you will have the chance to aim properly and shoot? NO. History have also proven that fire-power is veri essential especially for conscript based army. Look at the battle of Stalingrad, the Soviet has at least 1 LMG, and 4 SMG per squad. Bcos in a typical BUA situation, you do not need to have range except for sniper. Also to train a typical conscript soldier to fire the Mosin Ngant properly is time consuming. Thus by letting their soldier carry the SMG, they will have a higher chance of killing the enemy eventhough they use more rounds. One might say that the average amt of time the Singaporean soldier receive for training is more than the Russians,....... but the veri old reservist guys may not be able to handle the new weapons that are too complicated. Thus having a cheap, pick up to fire type of rifle is definitely a plus over the typical new age rifle. -
hmm true true.Originally posted by equlus84:Hmm.......This is my personal take on how the SAR-21 should have been. Firstly, The LAD must be removed. Bcos the LAD has onli a combat range of abt 100m, thus watever beyond that is useless. In the night, the moment u on your LAD, u are a bullet magnet. All the ppls can see u and can shoot at you. You will be basically just a LIVING blinking figure 12. Next is the issue of the scope. The scope is prone to dewing in the morning and after river crossing, even wif scope rubber, it is damn JIALAT. They could have a rail instead for those sharpshooter to mount their scope. Lastly, should have a better iron-sight like that of M-16 to act as a spare.
I feel that the Singapore rifle should be USER friendly and also IDIOT-PROOF. Just tell me how the average left hander shoot with the SAR-21?
I think the emphasis should be more on fire-power than the part on accuracy. I remember that the jungle instructor at Laikun camp in Brunei told us that in typical jungle setting, the maximum typical engagement is lesser than 150m. Thus in the heat of a fire fight, do you think you will have the chance to aim properly and shoot? NO. History have also proven that fire-power is veri essential especially for conscript based army. Look at the battle of Stalingrad, the Soviet has at least 1 LMG, and 4 SMG per squad. Bcos in a typical BUA situation, you do not need to have range except for sniper. Also to train a typical conscript soldier to fire the Mosin Ngant properly is time consuming. Thus by letting their soldier carry the SMG, they will have a higher chance of killing the enemy eventhough they use more rounds. One might say that the average amt of time the Singaporean soldier receive for training is more than the Russians,....... but the veri old reservist guys may not be able to handle the new weapons that are too complicated. Thus having a cheap, pick up to fire type of rifle is definitely a plus over the typical new age rifle.
this post makes loads of sense, esp the last bit about firepower over accuracy for a conscription army. -
isit?? why not armed all NSmen with autoloading shotguns instead?Originally posted by HENG@:hmm true true.
this post makes loads of sense, esp the last bit about firepower over accuracy for a conscription army.
that would be a blast.... 
-
Originally posted by tripwire:isit?? why not armed all NSmen with autoloading shotguns instead? that would be a blast....
how fun for them
but hey u would need some weapons capable of some longer range. If u consider it, range ability also equates to penetrating power. A weapon able to fire long range would be more likely to chew thru enemy cover like a brick wall than short range weapons.
he DID say fire-power afterall... -
Perhaps I'm goignt o clarify a bit...... When I mean firepower, I do not mean just blindly switching to auto and spray. I mean we could do things like delivering a short burst. The SAR-21 trigger, seems a little bit hard to press down, and the auto selector is in a veri uncomfortable postion. I personally thing increasing the amount of fire power per section is a safer option to ensure the destruction of the enemy, rather than to take aim. For example the German army of WW2 has at least 3 men carrying the panzerfaust per squad. Compared to the British which prefer to concentrate their anti-armour efforts to onli a team of PIAT. Yes, u can train the PIAT team to be peace time "marksman for anti tank" but could you ensure they will produce the same results under combat fatigue and stress? For the German army case, they can still take on the enemy armour even if the guy miss, but for the British wat will happen if they miss.......will they be able to reload in time? Furthermore the panzerfaust is cheaper and a veri idiot proof weapon
-
Should've just bought the Belgium FM2000 instead.
-
choose M2
-
It's simple. It's a top-down decision. The Minister of Defence, Datuk Najib, instructed SME to contact Colt and arrange for it.
The top brass who had to support this decision had made the visit to Colt shortly after that. Everything was done in a rather short fashion so that the MOU could be signed during the DSA.
That's my take on it. -
Originally posted by SpecOps87:SAR21 if I'm not mistaken, can and will take M16 STANMAGs. If you consider between the SAR21 and the M4, I will take the SAR21 anyday. Why?As it does not scarifice range and accuracy just so as to let the weapon maintain a smaller frame. Example, look at the Israelis, they saw the barrels of the CAR15s to make the weapon shorter, and end up having weapons which IA every few rounds. Besides, the SAR21 does have back-up iron sights if the scope fails, its on the top of the scope. I won't say that the LAD is totally useless, but in the case of KINS protection, it serves to intimidate would be threats into surrendering, as having a locked and loaded rifle with its laswer sight trained at your vitals is a really intimidating sight.
This early pic is from Modern Firearms (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as31-e.htm) and it shows the SAR-21 with a M-16 STANAG mag. But if you ask any SAR-21 user, they will tell you otherwise. The production SAR-21 CANNOT accept a M-16 mag. This quote from Modern Firearms confirms it:
"The SAR-21 is fed using proprietary 30-rounds box magazines, made from the translucent plastic."
The SAR-21 iron sights are good probably for under 10m. And as reported by many users, the lens fog.
The LAD is useless cos in the dark where you can't see your target, the LAD doesn't help as all you'll see is your red dot - it doesn't illuminate the target. And with a platoon of excited folks all pressing the LAD at the potential target, how can you tell which of the 30 red dots is yours? And of course, as everyone already said, it's a bullet magnet.
I have never heard of Israelis sawing the barrel of the CAR-15. But in case you haven't heard, the Tavor is not popular with the IDF.
The bullpup layout presents many problems including a complicated trigger system which results in a bad trigger pull - also reported by many SAR-21 users. Apparently, the SAR-21 has one of the best trigger pull for bullpups, but still no comparison to conventional one like the M-16. So you can imagine the Steyr AUG must be quite nasty.
And also, the weapon is not ergonomically friendly like the M-16. The switches are all in awkward places. -
Yes, with regards to Tvdog, the SAR21 latest production runs are equipped with the Mil-Spec 1913 rails, and export versions are STANMAG compatible.Originally posted by SpecOps87:SAR21 if I'm not mistaken, can and will take M16 STANMAGs. If you consider between the SAR21 and the M4, I will take the SAR21 anyday. Why?As it does not scarifice range and accuracy just so as to let the weapon maintain a smaller frame. Example, look at the Israelis, they saw the barrels of the CAR15s to make the weapon shorter, and end up having weapons which IA every few rounds. Besides, the SAR21 does have back-up iron sights if the scope fails, its on the top of the scope. I won't say that the LAD is totally useless, but in the case of KINS protection, it serves to intimidate would be threats into surrendering, as having a locked and loaded rifle with its laswer sight trained at your vitals is a really intimidating sight.
Disclaimer : When they will be ops deployed into the SAF, is not certain for sure.Me, personally I love my AR-15 carbine. -
I'm just speculating here, but if they shortened the barrel without making commensurate changes to the gas system (in particular, the length of the gas tube), malfunctions can and will occur (most usually in the form of a short-cycling bolt carrier that fails to go back far enough to strip a new round from the magazine).Originally posted by SpecOps87:Example, look at the Israelis, they saw the barrels of the CAR15s to make the weapon shorter, and end up having weapons which IA every few rounds.
The length of the gas tube has to be matched to the length of the barrel to ensure that the gas system has enough pressure to completely cycle the bolt carrier. Shortening the barrel reduces the amount of pressure the gas system can tap, and this has to be compensated for by reducing the length of the gas tube to keep the pressure up.
Perhaps Lazerlordz can chime in and offer a more detailed explanation.
-
The PIAT is very different from the Panzerfaust. It's closer to the Panzercheck. The former being much like a LAW and the latter today's ATGM. Even if both were unguided. The PIAT and Panzercheck were heavier reload able weapons usually used in teams while the Panzerfaust was a 1 time use squad lvl AT weap.Originally posted by equlus84:Perhaps I'm goignt o clarify a bit...... When I mean firepower, I do not mean just blindly switching to auto and spray. I mean we could do things like delivering a short burst. The SAR-21 trigger, seems a little bit hard to press down, and the auto selector is in a veri uncomfortable postion. I personally thing increasing the amount of fire power per section is a safer option to ensure the destruction of the enemy, rather than to take aim. For example the German army of WW2 has at least 3 men carrying the panzerfaust per squad. Compared to the British which prefer to concentrate their anti-armour efforts to onli a team of PIAT. Yes, u can train the PIAT team to be peace time "marksman for anti tank" but could you ensure they will produce the same results under combat fatigue and stress? For the German army case, they can still take on the enemy armour even if the guy miss, but for the British wat will happen if they miss.......will they be able to reload in time? Furthermore the panzerfaust is cheaper and a veri idiot proof weapon
Anyway having a harder to squeeze trigger doesnt affect firepower as much as it affects responds time.....
Back on topic. Yea it does seem like a step back. I mean the M4 is based on an aging design and i believe the US is aready waiting to replace it....Though with the XM8 canned i'm not sure if they will replace it.
i guess like someone said, they rushed it for their Defence exhibition.Possibly some political thing again.....sucks for them -
just my 2cents worth, e LAD is a very effective tool,esp if fibua. my frens n i managed to shoot a cylume stick with the lad during a live firing for fibua..whole room filled with the glowing liquid..haha..shiok man
-
it's not as if the M4 has an adjustable bolt to regulate the gas pressure. you're right in saying that the length of the gas tube has to match the length of the barrel, but shortening the gas tube will increase the pressure too, and the bolt carrier mech might wear out?Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:I'm just speculating here, but if they shortened the barrel without making commensurate changes to the gas system (in particular, the length of the gas tube), malfunctions can and will occur (most usually in the form of a short-cycling bolt carrier that fails to go back far enough to strip a new round from the magazine).
The length of the gas tube has to be matched to the length of the barrel to ensure that the gas system has enough pressure to completely cycle the bolt carrier. Shortening the barrel reduces the amount of pressure the gas system can tap, and this has to be compensated for by reducing the length of the gas tube to keep the pressure up.
Perhaps Lazerlordz can chime in and offer a more detailed explanation.
I'll defer to you these days on the workings of a mechanism, I'm getting rusty -
I have never heard of Israelis sawing the barrel of the CAR-15. But in case you haven't heard, the Tavor is not popular with the IDF.
Nope I've never heard an Israeli say that he hates the Tavor, but the one I heard said that he liked them.The bullpup layout presents many problems including a complicated trigger system which results in a bad trigger pull - also reported by many SAR-21 users. Apparently, the SAR-21 has one of the best trigger pull for bullpups, but still no comparison to conventional one like the M-16. So you can imagine the Steyr AUG must be quite nasty.
What is so complicated about a simple linkage?
It is a combat rifle not a match rifle. Why do you need such a good trigger pull for?
Its good enough for me.The LAD is useless cos in the dark where you can't see your target, the LAD doesn't help as all you'll see is your red dot - it doesn't illuminate the target. And with a platoon of excited folks all pressing the LAD at the potential target, how can you tell which of the 30 red dots is yours? And of course, as everyone already said, it's a bullet magnet.
You might want to tell the Yanks that their PAQs are making them bullet magnets.
Guess their M4s must be too light hence they are mounting them.No iron sights.
American soldiers and Marines are mounting ACOGs, EOTechs, AimPoints on their rifles.
And many of them using optics have no rear iron sight on their rifles.
Why would anyone want to mount an optics onto a combat rifle?
Quite simple really you can't hit what you can't see.
And the SAR21 has back up iron sights if you some how manage to break the optic.Too heavy.
SAR21 - 4 kg with magazine
SIG 550 - 4.05 kg w/o magazine
G36 - 3.6 kg w/o magazine
AUG - 3.8 kg w/o magazineThe Steyr has no rails either, and because it is made under license they can't add modifications.
Anyway, the advantages of the M4 is that it has all the rails so that you can put stuff on it like a christmas trees, this not only has obvious tactical advantages but will also make the MAF look more modern.
So what do you want to mount on those rails?
Optics?
LAD?
People hate bullpups for the most irrartional reasons. -
i did read somewhere that the M4 effective range is about 350m while that of theOriginally posted by HENG@:
how fun for them
but hey u would need some weapons capable of some longer range. If u consider it, range ability also equates to penetrating power. A weapon able to fire long range would be more likely to chew thru enemy cover like a brick wall than short range weapons.
he DID say fire-power afterall...
SAR21 is about 850m, due to the shorter M4 barrel length compare to the SAR21
if so... given the effective range figures above... would it imply that the M4 "firepower" is actually lower then the SAR21, because it does not enjoy a higher spin rate which is avaliable to the SAR21 with longer barrel? -
Raptor937,
An excellent post,
however the SAR21 bullpup does have it's problems.. mainly the reloading timing, due in part the release level of the mag, and the charging handle. In intense battle.. it does pose some problems.
The integrated scope fogging is also a problem... usually lead to BER status.. if needed repair.
The safety catch is in the rear......