Mmm…this will never end, in fact, it might get worse…

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 recognized 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.