MAF abandon Steyr after 15-year service
-
IF you are a Malaysian Commando / SF soldier, which weapon (and loadout) from the country's arsenal will you select?
Mission requires you to move through occupied heavy vegetation for 5km, then through 1km of sparse / open terrain, then assault a fortified bunker complex. -
m4 with m203 attachment with red dot scope
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
If they are problem free, why indeed would the MAF want to replace them?
2ndly, based on your argument that the new standard ammo that will be established in the near future, isn't it is more logically for MY to stay on to 5.56mm Steyr AUG for the time being instead of replacing it with another 5.56mm like the M4 in the first place??
Because in reality , what is wrong with Steyr AUG?
I've mentioned this many times but somehow cannot penetrate: Please explain why their SOF picked the M16 system over Steyr. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
Good. Finally you've committed yourself to something.
OZ soldiers are using Steyr AUG in Iraq and Afganistan, I dun hear many complaint abt it.
So the Australian represents a acceptable yardstick to you, right?
OK...
If I can show you that all the Australian SF UNIVERSALLY PREFERS the M4, will that shut you up? From your past history - probably not. You would just yakking away until we all get tired and give in.
Commando 4RAR
Aussie SASR:
Finally, NZ SAS
From this website:http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-army-today/rar-sasr/sasr.htm
" The main weapon used today by the SASR is the American M-4 Carbine. ...The standard Australian issued Steyr AUG is rarely used (similar to that of the SA-80 and the British SAS). "
The British SAS also uses the M4. How come they don't use the Steyr or SA80? Please explain it, genius.
So...
Do I hear you laughing out loud at Australian SF choosing the M4? Are they going many steps backwards?
WIll you call these Australians stupid? Or "rojak" etc etc? I'm sure you won't. Cos they're Australians.
People like you like to laugh at the Malaysians becos they are Malaysians, and you will keep finding reasons to laugh at them irregardless of your own short-sightedness. -
Throughout my NS life in the infantry, I have fired thousands of live rounds through old training M16 rifles. As an estimate, I've had less than 20 IAs in total. Not great, but hardly as bad as all these reports make it out to be. And the weapons I used were, I emphasize - old, worn out training weapons.
The desert has differernt demands on a weapon. The talcum powder sand gets everywhere into the weapon. Even the great FN FAL didn't work for the IDF in the desert. But guess what the IDF was most happy with longest? The M16 system. But MY isn't a desert. Duh?
Furthermore...The US Army was a frustrated one in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. No wonder they bi.tch so much. If they were happy and winning the number of complaints would automatically decrease. -
Originally posted by Cro-Magnon:
I think the fact that the British, Australian and Kiwi SAS all picked the M4 over their standard infantry bullpups is enough said.
[b]IF you are a Malaysian Commando / SF soldier, which weapon (and loadout) from the country's arsenal will you select?
Mission requires you to move through occupied heavy vegetation for 5km, then through 1km of sparse / open terrain, then assault a fortified bunker complex.
[/b]
If gary wants to keep banging his head against the wall about how bad the M4 is, he's just being obstinate.
Is Andy McNab of "Bravo Two Zero" is a believable guy?
"Andy McNab was the British ArmyÂ’s most highly decorated serving soldier when he left the SAS in February 1993."
http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=20107
But anyway, here he is talking about what a great weapon the M4 is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0uqj3zY6mg -
British SBS in Afghanistan.
So is it political decision that the SBS picked the M4? Or maybe they can't afford anything else?
Or maybe they are quite stupid and accepted the M4 without testing.
Or maybe there's a powerful Colt lobby in all these countries?
Probably, the truth is that, being the professionals thse people are, they picked the M4 after long evaluation and consideration over all other available system.
But our Gary just can't accept it.
Maybe Gary will volunteer to go tell these guys how stupid they are for choosing the M4. -
Some SF unit are using the M4 becos of it's light weight and compactness but it is not their standard infantry weapon, becos of limited effective range.
Australia infantry for example never used M16 at all, after the FN SLR , they picked the Steyr AUG.
As for the Israeli, they got most of their M16 under aid, and now with budget permits, the army also want M16 to be replaced with own Tavor-21.
Thailand is going for Tavor 21 to replace their M-16A1.
S Korea has replaced M16 their own indigenous design weapon.
Even the US SF unit is already started to move away from M4, US Delta Force did it in 2004 and Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group , they are using H&K 416 now.
So how do you guys explain that?
The Army's Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine. Experts said its piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts. Other special units, such as the Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, also have used the 416.
U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms requirements. In November 2004, SOCom awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace its weapons from the M16 family.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_rifletest_070920/
It seem that Delta Force & Asymmetric Warfare Group already scrapped their homegrown M4.
In their eyes, H&K 416 must be better!
Last thing I want to ask you guys, anyone here know how many army in the world that pick the limited range M4 as their standard infantry weapon?
I know the US army dun, their standard infantry AR is the M16A2 , not M4.
So who else other then MY? -
Given that the MAF have the older M16A1/CAR15, current Steyr AUG, FN Minimi, other 5.56mm assualt arms, and in future, the M4 - which/what 5.56mm rounds does Malaysia keep in stock? Considering the rounds have different performance when fired from the different barrel twist.
If the M4 is going to be standard throughout- then its fine on the logistics. I assume they need something that reaches 300m (using the newer 5.56mm rounds). -
Again, you guys are not seeing the point. The M4 is a good weapon without a doubt. Its compact design suits SF units well given their range of operations and offers modular capabilities for whatever needs required.
But as a standard infantry weapon? Its quite questionable due to its limited engagement distance.
The problem with the AUGs in M'sia was largely due to their locally licensed manufacturers. Its their people. Not the design or weapon fault. -
Th HK 416 is good. But MAF is not getting a license to build it.Originally posted by gary1910:Even the US SF unit is already started to move away from M4, US Delta Force did it in 2004 and Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group , they are using H&K 416 now.
And as you've mentioned before about lobbies - HK have their own lobby group in the US military.
The reason I did not want to quote US military as any examples is that the are too many political factors involved.
I picked the special forces of non-American, non-M16 using countries who have picked the M4 over and above everything else. Only a very obstinate person like you would continue to say that the M4 is crap in the light of these examples.
There are other weapons in the section besides M4.Originally posted by gary1910:... the limited range M4 as their standard infantry weapon?
The AK series are all short range. what problem is that? Time to open up that dusty brain of your to new ideas. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Thing is, i'm not even saying the M4 is a GREAT weapon. It is suitable for MAF ops needs.
Again, you guys are not seeing the point. The M4 is a good weapon without a doubt.Originally posted by Shotgun:
The jungle is the jungle. The city is the city. Whether you are SF or regular infantry, you're operating in the same terrain, just different size units.
Its compact design suits SF units well given their range of operations and offers modular capabilities for whatever needs required.
But as a standard infantry weapon? Its quite questionable due to its limited engagement distance.
But why can't Malaysia have a different view of their armed forces? Theirs is a very small professional force. They are all well-trained jungle fighters. They really aren't that different from commando units.
This small professional army is supplemented by the TA, and reservists. And you can be sure the M4 is not going to them.Originally posted by Shotgun:
Nobody doubts that.
The problem with the AUGs in M'sia was largely due to their locally licensed manufacturers. Its their people. Not the design or weapon fault.
However...
Why didn't the SAS of Steyr or SA80-using countries mentioned earlier use their home-made weapons? Or another European design? They all use German mp5 SMG, why not pick another German AR like the G36K? Why the M4?
The whole gist of this debate is that:
...gary says the M4 is crap.
but the SAS of 3 countries don't think so.
It's that simple, we're not even talking about how many people use or don't use it. -
Two famous incidents of M16/M4 jamming in Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
http://www.concernedjournalists.org/jessica-lynch-media-myth-making-iraq-war
In both these incidents, the M16/M4 jams happened the minute the soldiers got ambushed and tried to shoot back.
They jammed before any rounds were fired.
In other words, these were previously unfired weapons.
They didn't jam because of carbon build up clogging the gas system.
Any experienced M16 user who gets IA at a nice clean rifle range firing a nice clean weapon will know immediately this is a magazine problem.
Or...
Another culprit is identified as a lethal combination of fine sand combined with the wrong lubricant for desert.
As alleged in this article: http://www.militec-1.com/articles/SFTT.html
The SAS of England, Australia and NZ don't use American-issued lubricants. Could this be why they don't complain about jams?
Furthermore, MY is not a desert.
...
Just as there are a lot of people complain, there are similarly a lot of people who have no problems with the M16 system. It is a matter of what you want to hear.
The most famous desert army is the IDF and they stuck with the M16 for so many conflicts. They ditched the FN FAL for being sensitive to sand, but kept the M16 for so many decades and so many conflicts?
No matter that they were given cheaply by the US. If they didn't work and endangered Israeli lives, they would be ditched.
But they worked.
As as usual, Gary is ignorant - this time of the fact that the IDF does issue M4 to non-SF troops. -
M4 have been in MAF inventory for quite some times dude. Their radioman all use colt M4A1... the knew the weapon capability...and some how, knew on how to operate in harsh jungle condition without any problem..
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=108150&page=27
Made in malaysia VB Berapi M4 Carbine 5.56mm (Under Licensed)
-
paskau but using bushmaster M4 -
look at the dude that looked pissed -
look at the dide no 2 from the right... Colt M4A1 carbine
-
let stop posting MAF m4 shall we..
greek airborne troop.
p/s: Hellenic Armed Forces equipment were as rojak as MAF..they didnt complain...nor the MAF complain -
greek!
-
more greek M4
try to call these people stupid and rojak.....(im being sarcastic) -
Heard a rumour that one reason the AUG's were replaced by the M4 was that no further developments/improvements were planned for the AUG. But don't know how true that is.Originally posted by Shotgun:Again, you guys are not seeing the point. The M4 is a good weapon without a doubt. Its compact design suits SF units well given their range of operations and offers modular capabilities for whatever needs required.
But as a standard infantry weapon? Its quite questionable due to its limited engagement distance.
The problem with the AUGs in M'sia was largely due to their locally licensed manufacturers. Its their people. Not the design or weapon fault. -
I'm a very obstinate person ???
Firstly I've already stated 2 point which you guys acknowledge:
1) Gas blowback has higher frequency of jamming and need daily maintenence.
( also higher wear and tear as reported in the article below)
2) M4 has less effective range due to shorter barrel.
But you guys ignore the above points as if they dun exist!!!!
The article I have posted clearly stated :The contenders participating in the upcoming test use a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing.
Then you stated that it is it logistical reason, which dun even stand in term of MAF.
By contrast, the M4 uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Weapons experts said blowing gas directly into the receiver of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication and causes excessive wear on parts.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_rifletest_070920/
Then you Chino bought inferior 5.56mm ammo, which atm still no new standardised ammo, so a moot point.
Then you guys stated that due to most SF units are using M4 therefore it must be good, but the fact is, most US SF units are now switching to H&K416 and discarding the M4.
Those switching over becos they dun think the M4 is good enough , therefore switching over to H&K416.
Now again , you ignoring the changes of weapon in US SF units , instead stated that the UK , OZ SAS still using the M4, therefore it must be good.
But let me ask you guys, what if those SAS units will also switch over to H&K 416 too, will it happen?
I will not be surprised, since the 416 is still relatively new, the SAS units may be slow at adopting it , but they will certainly look closely on the US SF units that are using the 416, afterall the Delta force purposely collaborated with H&K to come out with 416, so based on f/b from them and their own evaluation, I will not surprised they too will switch to 416!!!
Then will you guys ignore the above and come up with more excuses?!?
So who is being obstinate???
Lastly as I asked you guys is there any army using M4 as a standard infantry AR???
Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF. -
You are the first one here that called them stupid, so are u admitting they are???Originally posted by tankfanatic:try to call these people stupid and rojak.....(im being sarcastic)
Rojak orbat is fact, even Johngage ,a Malaysian acknowledge it becos of those in charge are either more concern of their self interest or of political reason. -
the AR upper receivers have enjoyed renewed popularity over the past few years.
-
I give up. I doubt Gary nor anyone else is saying that the M4 is an inferior weapon.
Its just not a "3G" weapon that the MAF boasts it to be.
Just a few notes I've gathered from some experience from Iraq and Afghan. Whether the M4 can shoot through a brick wall, is questionable. That extra barrel length only goes to help the rounds to go through.
"Why would any one want to shoot at / through walls??!"
I think every one on this forum should be able to answer that.