Originally posted by Shotgun:
Again, you guys are not seeing the point. The M4 is a good weapon
without a doubt.
Thing is, i'm not even saying the M4 is a GREAT weapon. It is
suitable for MAF ops needs.
Originally posted by Shotgun:
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 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.
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:
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.
Nobody doubts that.
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.
