SHAH ALAM: In the previous article on the Caracal CAR816 assault rifles, I wrote that there were no plans to replace the M4A1 Carbine as the standard MAF assault rifle. It is simply too expensive, I was told. Despite this I have been told that there are plans in the works to buy a small batch of CAR816 A2 assault rifles specifically for the 10th Para Brigade.
Why the Paras then? Like the GGK, the brigade has upgraded some of its M4A1 Carbines with optics and other accessories and this could be seen especially on the Pandura -recon- troopers, a company strong unit attached to the headquarters.
It is likely reconnaissance elements of the four paratrooper infantry battalions attached to the brigade are also equipped with carbines equipped with optics and other devices.
Officers across the brigade have also been pictured with upgraded carbines – stocks,optics and handguards – though it is unclear whether these were sourced at the unit level or paid out of their own pockets.
Despite this, most paratroopers are equipped with stock M4A1 Carbines though even the ones deployed to Op Pasir as QRF in the ESSCOM AOR. The current carbine – the Block 1 version – is fitted with a handle and standard hand grip are not capable of mounting various accessories from optics to laser and white light pointers. The carbine was supposed to have a removable carrying handle but even if it were replaced it could only be fitted with an optic and nothing else. To fit other accessories like laser and white light pointers and underbarrel grenade launcher, one need to change the upper receiver completely.
PDRM’s M4A1 carbines (picture above) are the Block 2 version without the carry handle and fitted with full length picatinny rails and a front hand grip from the start though most are not equipped with optics.
It must be said that the intent to upgrade the M4A1 Carbine – Army wide – has been the talk for a while now – since they got them actually – but did not go past talks and proposals due to the costs involved. One recent proposal, I was told, quoted a price of RM100K to upgrade a single carbine. It will cost RM300 million to upgrade 3,000 carbines, if they bought at the quoted price. The cost of the proposed upgrade led to the idea of buying new rifles instead. Hence the talk about the Caracals. Well, we know from the Army shooting team tender, a brand-new rifle cost only RM35,000 each (likely without a scope and other accessories).
So, will it cost up to RM100K to up-grade a single carbine? It will with high markups of course. It is cheaper, of course, if one checks gun sites of course. For example, Caracal USA on its website stated that an upper receiver of a CAR816 will cost US$1284 (see the picture below.)
At current exchange, US$1,284 US Dollars (USD) is RM5,676.56. Even with a fifty per cent markup, the same upper receiver will cost around RM12,000. A good optic (like the US Marines ACOG) will cost around RM12,000 as well. Add a laser pointer and white light combo the cost to upgrade a carbine will be around RM25,000 to RM30,000 (and that is my estimated price not from an actual agent).
A new rifle like CAR816 A2 as shown by the Caracal USA website would also cost about the same ball park after adding the accessories – optics etc. So, if the order is for 3,000 new ARs, it will cost around RM90 million. If it costs around RM30,000 per rifle, including the accessories, of course. If the cost to upgrade a single rifle is RM100,000, for 3,000 rifles, it will cost RM300 million, enough money to stand up a new brigade (figuratively speaking of course).
For me, a better option is the Sig Sauer MCX upper receiver upgrade. The MCX has a similar operating system as the CAR816 and HK416, both piston-driven ARs. The MCX comes with a folding stock though which is convenient for use by paratroopers. Another option is the CZ Bren 3 rifle which has the same operating system as the other rifles above, but with options for foldable or telescoping stocks, again good for paratrooper use. Unfortunately, the Bren 3 upper receiver cannot be used on the M4A1 Carbine so we have to buy brand new rifles.
Again, it will not cost RM100K to buy the MCX upper receivers or even new Bren 3, or the CAR816 ARs. We just have to face facts.
For some background on the M16/AR15/M4 handguards check out the video below.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
” To fit other accessories like laser and white light pointers and underbarrel grenade launcher, one need to change the upper receiver completely ”
No need
You are confusing monolithic uppers with normal m4 uppers. You can just change the original M4 plastic hand guard with hand guards that have mlock or picatinny rails and you can install any accessories to your hearts content.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKjWajwVQAEVLLw.jpg
These kind of hand guards cost less than RM500, even less if we CNC machine these ourselves in malaysia rather than buying it from overseas.
Replacing M4 with CAR816 would give little if any firepower and lethality increase to the 10PARA units compared to just changing the hand guard to mount needed accessories.
CZ bren is pretty far removed from AE based rifle it’s better to issue them to ninja units rather than to issue them even at a brigade level
A cheaper upgrade is to replace the handguard of the M4A1 with the ones with Picatinny rail and then slap long relief 2x scope in front of the carry handle ala IDF’s Menusar rifle (practically a sawn off M16A1). This kind of shit is where Stride should do their job and come up with local solution that can save cost for the military instead of relying on outside companies that ended up coming with prices that seemingly came out of their asses
RM100k markup for a single M4 upgrade?! Why can the goverment buy it directly from the manufacturers instead of relying on local agent…not like it’s haram to do it
It has been told. This is not a crucial requirement as the fund should’ve gone for critical capabilities such as drones and counter drone warfare, missile or rockets development with 300M.
… – “Replacing M4 with CAR816 would give little if any firepower and lethality”
I doubt if that really was the intent. Anymore than replacing the AUG with the M4 was.
Great that the ASTROS unit has gotten the FlyEyes but we need to add to that. For a start large numbers of cheap and expendable commercial UASs. We also need – like we do lots of things – counter battery radars to add to Arthur.
As seen clearly in Ukraine, UASs work best when paired with other assets and there is an actute need for a recce/strike capability, without which the “long range” and “precision fires” are useless. A recent NYT report details the extent which American intel was crucial. I pointed this out in the past when there was mention of Ukraine doing this and that and “can we”, e.g. wasn’t HIMARS and Storm Shadow by themselves but as part of a recce/strike complex.
Lots of things we can do on paper but whether we will is the question. This proposal to replace the M4 shows how cocked up our priorities are.
Haiqal – “can the goverment buy it directly from the manufacturers instead of relying on local agent”
The official reason is that it can contribute to local know how and in doing so improve the local industry so one day we can produce out own kit with minimal external help. That’s why we hardly get any value for what we spend but you’d be surprised – some still buy into this self sufficiency “buatan tempatan oleh anak tempatan” thing. Others hold the view that it’s fine to pay more to support the local industry – delusion.
Naturally those who get the big contracts are the ones with the political pull as part of the system of patronage the defence industry, like others, has become.
dundun – “This kind of shit is where Stride should do their job and come up with local solution that can save cost for the military”
To be fair to Stride at times it does come up with stuff but it does not get selected either due to funding or bureaucratic wrangling.
If going for just uppers, something i have said before last year
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/ggk-m4a1-upgrades-sort-off/#comment-929906
GGK upgraded M4.
No new upper receiver, just new hand guards, stocks and other accessories. I have detailed the upgrades before here :
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/ggk-m4a1-upgrades-sort-off/#comment-929614
@Hulu
“Replacing M4 with CAR816 would give little if any firepower”
Indeed. Now if we gone with the USA switching over to M7 then you will see an increase in firepower which justifies a whole new rifle.
@Haiqal
“manufacturers instead of relying on local agent”
For CAR816, the local agent, Ketech, will be locally assembling (manufacturing?) the rifles here. So there is incentives to get via its sole agent. But of course going whatever locally is costlier than via OEM.
“Ukraine, UASs work best when paired with other assets”
At this stage of war, the only successful use of UAS is as suicide drones, with Russia employing TOW-like fibre cable link impervious to any jamming. Both sides have managed to render normal UAS usage to be useless with effective anti drone strategies & battlefield tactics. If we cant make effective use of UAS, we should at least employ tactics & equipment to make the battlefield inhospitable for its usage.
“Others hold the view that it’s fine to pay more to support the local industry”
Only if the goal was made clear to create jobs which goes to roll the economy, this at least has real impact. Others like self sufficiency & transfer knowhow is just BS. If the politicians are clear and rakyat are fine with this knowing the higher cost, I am okay to accept.
” This proposal to replace the M4 shows how cocked up our priorities are ”
With a small CAPEX budget, wasting it on replacing things that are still perfectly working is the definition of a cocked up priority. More so when the M4 replacement is like more than 5x the cost of the most expensive rifles out there such as the SIG MCX.
With our current level of CAPEX, Tentera Darat should be getting capabilities that we have very little or even non existant.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rm55-billion-de-for-the-rmk13/#comment-946866
Local production can be a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on what you aim to achieve Or at least what you realistically can achieve.
For example turkeye. By localisations as many components as they can not only can she can whether anymore potential future embargoes but also take advantage of their PPP advantage.
In some studies, if one take turkeye defence budget and adjusted it to PPP. Then turkeye defence budget is as big as France (just without the expensive nuclear programmes) In short whatever France can afford, be it her own fighters, carriers,ship,missile programmes, turkeye too math wise could. Which is something turkeye wouldn’t be able to afford if it’s she just continue being an import customers.
Obviously turkeye like SK and PRC are able to do so because they probably need to do so which allows all stakeholders to share a common goal. Countries that don’t have the need to do so most often would failed to do so. Not just us, but Aussie,JP,ID,India even SG defence localisation programmes are just a disappointment . It’s basically at it best,just an expensive tvet scheme. At it worse, just another money laundering apparatus. Thought In the case of Aussie, pointless tvet scheme as they don’t even have much of an industry to begin with.
Zaft – “Local production can be a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on what you aim to achieve”
Economics of scale, sufficient funding, a well thought out long term plan, a realistic and apolitical assessment of what can and can’t be achieved, etc. Over here hubris, patting our own backs, generating revenue for selected companies at the expense of the taxpayer and services and the “buatan tempatan oleh anak tempatan” mantra takes precedence.
“With a small CAPEX budget, wasting it on replacing things that are still perfectly working”
Many things “are still perfectly working” but may need replacing due to age, wear and tear, support issues, obselesence, not meeting present requirements, etc. The M4 however does not require replacing. Anymore than the AUG did if things between SME and Steyr hadn’t gone ratshit.
“If we cant make effective use of UAS, we should at least employ tactics & equipment to make the battlefield inhospitable for its usage”
No reason why we “cant make effective use of UAS”. They just add another element to the large mix of things needed. The main issue as seen elsewhere is cultural, doctrinal and mindset but we’ve seen or are seeing how UASs are now viewed differently.
“tactics & equipment to make the battlefield inhospitable for its usage”
That’s the problem. In addition to worrying about traditional threats in the form of fighters and gunships we now have to worry about UASs and loitering munitions. The problem is what works against a fighter flying at 25,000 feet might not work against a FPV drone flying at 200 feet. The problem is somewhat magnified if the drone has AI which enables better targeting and navigation and is operating as part of a mutually supporting “swarm”.
Another issue is that although we need counter UAS/loitering capabilites in the form of both hard and soft kill means distributed down to the lowest level, we can’t assume that any war or conflict we’re involve in will be one in which UASs and loitering munitions play a central role.
Gas operated rifles cannot except the above conditions,the pipe get suffocated with water or wet residue and causes misfire n stoppages that end up costing life.
U can change upper reciver,handguard and attach all the fancy gadgets but will it safe the trooper life,cause its still a GAS OPERATED rifle.
” trooper need their rifle to be fired underwater ”
LoL!!!!
“No reason why we “cant make effective use of UAS”.”
Because as you said, we buy things in penny packets, here & there but never enough, on the cheap, and with tactics that doesnt view UAS as disposables rendering an operator fearful to fly effectively in hostile area. If we are going to handicap ourselves, why not better handicap the other side too? When both side neutralise each others UAS.
“Because as you said, we buy things in penny packets”
I was referring to CONOPs.
“with tactics that doesnt view UAS”
Not the “tactics” but the mindset and culture. That will change however, we are already seeing a greater emphasis on unmanned systems.
“When both side neutralise each others UAS”
One can achieve that temporarily. Reaching a stage where we can permanently spoof or jam something is unlikely. Tactics and tech is always evolving. Frequencies can be changed, CPRA antennas with more more elements can be added and AI will negate inherent issues such as hunan error, issues with terrain and navigation.
“Reaching a stage where we can permanently spoof or jam something is unlikely.”
It will need a highly well intel & resourced sides to neutralise each other as whats happening in Ukraine now. The airspace is an EW cesspool which negates any UAS advantages, why TB2 no longer the star, where UAS usage has devolved into those that wish to ‘die’ (suicide drones). Ukraine only managed to do that with the full support of USA of course, the same if we get into any war with a UAS laden nation, will need to rely on USA/EU for such support as well.
@hulu,i bet you never fire M16/AR15 in actual scenario where it poured whole day and never get to shot target from underwater,too bad you either not a combat swimmer nor somebody SPECIAL.I can understand if you only shoot in controlled condition range..
,for that you earned yourself title 5star general,for the title of 6star general who can write endless thesis already been taken up.
Caracal USA has a video where the guns were placed in sand, water & mud then taken out and fired successfully.
youtube.com/watch?v=0zRNGEAWbXM
“It will need a highly well intel & resourced sides”
First there has to be a sense of urgency and the needed cultural and doctrinal elements. Then apart from the hardware we need to be able to adapt and innovate.
“where UAS usage has devolved into those that wish to ‘die’ (suicide drones”
As mentioned, they are also used to lay, mines, lay smoke, drop supplies and other things. Also, one reason why UAS and loitering usage is so high in this war is because of deficiencies in other areas.
“Ukraine only managed to do that with the full support of USA of course”.
Intel wise yes. Hardware and software no… Prior to the invasion the country already had a large pool of tech savy people as part of a large IT industry and most of the big players had a presence in Ukraine [often not realised or overlooked]. This paid off when the war started as they were able to deliver various home grown solutions. Also note that the 2014 annexation of the Crimea and Donbas led to the developing of a homegrown UAS industry, the reason why so many companies were able to fast track the development of UASs and loitering munitions after February 2022.
Tge Ukrainians are dependent on the U.S. and others for a lot of things but not for UASs and loitering munitions. In fact they are more reliant on the Chinese for certain off the shelf things. Also, because Ukrainian unmanned systems are tailored for their environment, have performed much better than foreign ones.
“The airspace is an EW cesspool which negates any UAS advantages”
Not permanently. It’s a cat and mouse game. Frequencies get jammed, they are switched. Navigation systems get spoofed, CRFA antennas with added elements are introduced.
“why TB2 no longer the star”
The bulk were lost to missiles and flak. We can talk about why Russian air defences in the early data weren’t successful but that’s another story.
“GGK upgraded M4”..they upgraded only the handguard just so for them to be familiar with all the current gadgets that is being use by solders all over the world.
,for ukarine geography its a vast grassy land versus teopical forested malasia.The window of opportunity in dropping a bomb on a tank etc is very hi,compared to a small window of opportunity in dropping a bomb onto a tank partially cover by trees or totally cover by foliages.
But when they go for operatuon,they will use unmark n unregistered weapons of their choice,funny for someone SPECIAL to be carrying M4 with ATM logo lasered on the rifle body..
Whenever we talk about effective usage of UAV dropping bomb effectively in ukarine,we assume it can also apply in malaysia
So the best usage of UAV in tropical climate is serveilance,recce,spotter for arty units etc…
Even the M4A1/M16s have been shown to be very resistant to mud and fouling. As the above water test for the piston-driven ARs, the M4A1/M16s need to be shaken vigorously for around 10 to 15 second before they can also be fired safely. If it was an issue for the M4A1/M16s, US Marines would have changed theirs two decades ago.
Redsot
You have zero idea how an M4 works. It can rain for the whole week and the M4 will still fire. Our army has been lugging the AR15 since the 70s and no such issues arise.
Get back to me when you have the experience of shooting an M4 underwater, or any piston AR15 for the matter.
Red Sot – “Whenever we talk about effective usage of UAV dropping bomb effectively in ukarine,we assume it can also apply in malaysia”
“So the best usage of UAV in tropical climate is serveilance,recce,spotter for arty units etc”
You overlook the fact that combat may occur in urban areas or open areas like along highways or other places with little vegetation. You also overlook the fact that UASs have been operated in places wiyh heavy vegetation such as Mozambican, Congo, Myanmar, etc.
Red Sot – “versus teopical forested malasia.”
You are assuming that any fighting will be confined to or mainly at forested areas and overlooking the fact that increased urbanisation the past 2 decades has resulted in less jungle. Also, all the places of strategic importance where fighting will occur are not in the jungle.
Red Sot – “for ukarine geography its a vast grassy land versus teopical forested malasia.”.
Actually there are areas with wide open spaces and also heavily forested ones. As heavily forested as our areas. Which is why many vehicles and arty pieces survive, instead of moving and being detected they remain still under the cover of natural vegetation. Look up the videos and various reports out there. Not a of Ukraine comprises large open areas.
Personally the biggest problem with buying drone beyond the *traditional serveilance,recce,spotter role is the pace of innovation and countermeasures are so rapid but the bureaucracy process to initiate a buy is too long that there’s a high probability that once you bought it, it might had been obsolete by then.
Imagine if we had bought in the hype and put down the money to buy tb2 in the hope of replacing both close air support fast jet and attack helo while cancelling the order of tanks,SPH and IFV because they were already obsolete, nothing but a sitting duck in the face of the mighty TB2. We probably look like a fool today.
Not saying TB2 is irrelevant now. But you can probably use it in place of a super tucano but totally not a replacement for an Apache or warthog as some suggested few years ago.
Also not saying that UAS have no future. Just that out of the myriad of system out there. Hard to make tail of which one would stand the test of time and which one would be obsolete as early as tomorrow.
Even the M4A1/M16s have been shown to be very resistant to mud and fouling. As the above water test for the piston-driven ARs.. shaken vigorously for around 10 to 15 second before they can also be fired safely. SURE,but it have to be through clean. And enemy round takes 5sec to land on your head whilst you are doing so..
. Hulu you dont have the slightest idea except by learning it in youtube,and you are testing me by provoking my intelectual.
nice try. Does anyone knows how big is the orifice in the barrel to let the gas pass thru the pipe n push the bolt carrier in the M4/M16/AR15 gas operated rifle? Does any veteran in ATM that uses the M16 tells you they have to keep the M16 clean n dry evertime.Either to cover the muzzle with plastic,or carry them underslung in order to keep rain from going into the barrel,wet residual powder will clog the orifice or the pipe and causes halfway feed or double feed. Talking about the U.S army their operating theatre mostly in africa n middle east continent,sand n dust is their major problem. In vietnam,what ever ATM are doing with their M16/AR15 the AMERICAN ARMY taught them
. Lastly like every human mentality,when they are overwhelm theybwill retreat to the jungle,never heard of retreating army goto urban places or highways…
Red Sot – “what ever ATM are doing with their M16/AR15 the AMERICAN ARMY taught them”
We never had any American advisors. We learnt from actual experience and having operated other rifles in local conditions way before we got the A1.
Zaft – “Imagine if we had bought in the hype and put down the money to buy tb2 in the hope of replacing both close air support fast”
As of 2025 nobody is under any illusions “drones”, can replace anything, not yet. They are supplementary and work best when paired with other things. We bought Males to supplement other assets, not do away with them.
Zaft -” Also not saying that UAS have no future”
No shit… Imagine yourself in 1918, a couple of years after the tank was first used. Still a new thing which despite its utility and future potential still had doubters and those who couldn’t see or understand its future potential.
Zaft – ” which one would stand the test of time and which one would be obsolete as early as tomorrow”
“Drones” are here to start and in due time they will gradually be replacing other things and AI will gradually enable inherent limitations to be overcome.
Zaft – “Imagine if we had bought in the hype and put down the money to buy tb2”
The Anka buy was intended to supplement not replace other assets. At present “drones” are supplementary. In the coming years however, especially with AI, they will gradually replace things.
Zaft – “Hard to make tail of which one would stand the test of time and which one would be obsolete as early as tomorrow”
Not “hard” at all. Just entails objective research. The “drone” is here to stay, no future wunderwaffe will mage it obsolete, any more than the the aircraft, submarine or tank were made obsolete by anything.
Imagine yourself in 1918, a couple of years after the tank was 1st used. Despite its utility and potential many didn’t understand the value of the tank. More than a 100 years after seeing combat the tank is still highly valued and has no replacement, despite the At mine, AT rifle, AT gun, attack helicopter, ATGW, etc, etc.
Zaft – “totally not a replacement for an Apache or warthog as some suggested few years ago”
Not as responsive as a manned platform and limited SA but that will change with AI. We are already seeing how AI has done away with issues related to terrain, target identification and other things. Before we see “drones” replace attack helicopters we’ll see them working on tandem.
Red Sot – “Lastly like every human mentality,when they are overwhelm theybwill retreat to the jungle,never heard of retreating army goto urban places or highways”
This is nonsense. Depending on the circumstances they might have to retreat to non jungle areas.
Red Sot – ” Talking about the U.S army their operating theatre mostly in africa n middle east continent,sand n dust is their major problem”
Because they have a worldwide tasking their weapons are intended to perform in all types of climatic conditions.
They also have and operate in places such as Panama, HAWAII, Guam and other places where there is heavy rainfall and high humidity.