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.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.
Malaysian army replaces Steyr AUG with M4
- Thread starter Paxter
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
OT ??? Message for Renjer
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
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
Last edited:
laksmana_tldm
New Member
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
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.-
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.-
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.
Bad decision
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.
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
New Member
Hi all!
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.
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.