SHAH ALAM: During the Merdeka Day parade, rehearsals and the actual event, I was intrigued with pictures of GGK/Special Forces Group carrying M4A1 carbines with M-Lok handgrips, laser sights, muzzle devices and reflex sights.
Initially I thought that the carbines may well be donated by the US, just like the KAC M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper rifles carried by Paskal operators. I initially posted that the M110s were likely to be sniper rifles procured by the RMN, just like the Army purchased some 20 Barret M107 anti-materiel rifles. The M110s were donated by the US, I was told, after I published the post on the parade though.
I asked around about GGK carbines whether it was also donated but my sources replied in the negative. Thankfully I could still identify some of the sights based on the markings on them and pictures posted on the GGK social media pages. They are Ultra Shot A-Spec reflex sights manufactured by Texas-based manufacturer, Sight Mark. As Sight Mark also manufacturers laser sights, the ones fitted on the GGK M4A1 may well be sourced from the company. I stand to be corrected of course. It is interesting to note that the GGK combat diver carbines are fitted with optics which looked like the ACOG sights but their handguards and muzzle devices are the same with the others.
As for the M-Lok handgrips and muzzle devices, I was stumpped. Thankfully for the Armed Forces Day demonstration and parade on October 5, a clear picture of the GGK M4A1 carbines fitted with the hand-grips was published on social media of the services (picture below).
The M-lok handgrip and muzzle devices were sourced from Ferfrans by a local company via a quotation notice. ESSCOM and the police are equipped with Ferfrans – a California based company – assault rifles though.
It is likely the reflex sights and the laser lights were supplied through another quotation notice as they were seen on GGK M4A1 carbines by June this year. They may have been supplied much earlier unlike the handgrips and muzzle devices which were only seen publicly in August.
I was told that the GGK upgrades may well be the last one for the M4A1s as the Army may well opt for new assault rifles in RMK13. What they are going to buy is beyond me. Whatever AR is procured it may be wise for the Army to buy a small batch of rifles specifically to meet the needs of the GGK instead of funding incremental upgrades in the future as with the current situation. Standard issue AR could also be supplied to the regiment for training and ceremonial duties as well.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
What is your personal opinion Marhalim. Putting aside the fact that ties between SME/NADI and Steyr went sour; would you have preferred we continue with the AUG 1; switched to the AUG 3 as was the plan or replace the AUG? If not the M-4; what would you have preferred to replace the AUG?
When we with the M4 there not many options for us, really. The M4A1 is a good weapon but going for the standard version without even the picatinny rail was wrong.
They should have stayed with the AUG 3 really.
The irony was we went from a gun with optics to a gun relying on iron sights. I remember how the Trijicon people were hoping for a major order via their agent whom they weren’t very happy with but instead got a small order.
With the AUG; as you know it wasn’t the 1st choice but Colt was unable to allow licensed production for the M16A2; our 1st choice. I wonder how PASKAU is doing with its SIGs.
Those with the ferfrans M-LOK handguards are equipped with ferfrans CQD muzzle device but with the Concussive Reduction Device (CRD) not installed.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbR-qksakAALsac.jpg
This is a pic with the CRD installed
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/FRAn1.jpg
The stock is from THRiL CCS (Combat Competition Stock), the grip is THRiL RTG (Rugged Tactical AR Grip)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbR-rr2bYAAP6Ad.jpg
For RMK13 2026-2030 the army has many other priorities to be fulfilled rather than spending the little money that we have to be wasted to replace something that is still perfectly usable.
Things like long range precision strike, something that tentera darat currently has zero capability whatsoever.
They are still using it but it appears M4s with rails and other stuff are now the preferred choice.
What do you think of the Caracal vs current M4A1 in use? The weakness of M4/M16 platform is well known and the short stroke on the Caracal supposedly correct its most major flaw. Me thinks its too early for a rifle change as USA have just started to finally switching over to XM7 with a different calibre. If we change now we may have to make another switch in 10 years time to align with NATO std (when they too switches to 6.8mm).
I have no preferences over a piston gun and non piston one. That said a piston gun is usually heavier than a non piston one.
I believed the 6.8mm cartridge should be good for LMG but not as an AR especialy with our smaller built soldiers.
I don’t think 6.8mm rounds would be an issue with regards to the physical size of the average soldier. We use to have SLRs with a larger round and the days when sections had to operate on foot for days on end are largely over. There is also a much greater degree of mechanisation and motorisation compared to the days of the 2nd Emergency.
Its not just the rounds, but of course, the gun itself. Yes, SLR were used in the 1960s to 1970s (gifted by the British) but seeing how fast they ditch them that when 5.56mm guns were available, makes one wonder the utility of moving to a heavier gun.
The reason for going with heavier calibre ammo is due to 5.56mm now is ineffective against modern body armour and hence lower lethality stopping power. No point sticking to an outmoded ammo calibre. Yes the SIG round will be more cumbersome but if it kills with lesser round, a soldier dont need to carry as much ammo as for M4.
The current conflicts in Gaza, South Lebanon and Ukraine show that the 5.56mm are lethal enough.
This was the justification for changing to a heavier calibre: “The SIG Sauer MCX-SPEAR (the rifle’s commercial designation) is chambered in the 6.8×51mm (.277 in) SIG Fury cartridge in response to concerns that improvements in body armor would diminish the effectiveness of ammunition such as the 5.56×45mm”
Were the SLRs gifted it bought? The ones we had were Enfield made but the heavy barrels came from Lithgow.
Also, did we replace the SLR because of weight and length issues with the gun itself or because we wanted to standardise to 5.56mm?
Ironically despite all the efforts in getting the right calibre and gun; the main casualties in Ukraine [like in all major wars] are fron arty and mortars, not small arms.
AFAIK some were gifted. Yes, the Army saw the results – not the early ones – of the use of M16s/AR15s in Vietnam and the SAS in Malaya/Sarawak and saw the need the change to a much smaller rifle/ammo.
Yes but the fighting there showed that 5.56 ammo are good enough.
That is the justification of the US Army. They are expecting to fight with peer enemy. Will we be fighting the same enemy?
@ marhalim
Yes the justification by us army is that body armor is getting better and need to hit at longer ranges as what they experienced in Afghanistan.
But as seen in real life, russian (that is the USA assumed “peer” enemy) body armor is sh!t. Rifles are still mostly used in firefights of 100m or less. And the main infantry killer on the battlefield are artillery sharpnels (still is for many years) and now kamikaze FPV drones.
TDM has so little artillery, zero long range precision attack systems, and no plans yet (not seen any) to embrace FPV attack drones (only mortar dropping prototypes seen). Yet it seems that a replacement for the still usable M4 is to be a priority in TDM RMK13 spendings rather than looking at things such as long range precision strike and FPV attack drones.
One interesting M4/M16 upgrade to me at least is the PSA Jakl
It uses a normal M4/M16 lower receiver combined with a piston-driven upper that transforms a normal M4/M16 into something like the SCAR but with a much lower cost.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLzIaceW0AAPL5g.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7nyJqrX0AA3u3u.jpg
Probably something we can do, converting many of the old non-m4 into something like this, with folding stock so that it is much more compact for paratroopers and mechanised troops use.
I’d rather if stride finds (economicLly viable) way to convert old M16A1 in both military and police stocks into CAR-like carbine ala Israeli’s Menusar. The way I see it the boys in blue as well as the AW will always need a long rifle that can fire something with more ummph than 9mm but didn’t really need the latest and greatest stuff
… – ” folding stock so that it is much more compact for paratroopers and mechanised troops use”.
Doesn’t the M-4 have an adjustable telescopic stock.
There actually are plans, just that we tend not to hear much about it. There are at least 3 local companies who have come up with loitering munitions and that’s because there is interest.
For me the biggest issue is not getting the actual drone but how we go about employing it in parallel with existing assets and how we distribute it – that’s the main challenge. That the Ukrainians have had so much success is due not only to the actual efficacy of the drones but in C2 and decentralised force employment.
Drones are great and are a must have but they complement not replace anything else, at least not yet. Unlike arty and mortars they’re affected by weather and unless are near the target, are less responsive.
Yes but its not a folding stock. The design of the AR15/M16/M4 do not allow for a foldins stock.
dundun – ” The way I see it the boys in blue as well as the AW will always need a long rifle that can fire something with more ummph than 9mm but didn’t really need the latest and greatest stuff”
Ok but to deliver that “fire something with more ummph than 9mm” would ideally require the rifle to be fitted with an optical sight rather than having the user just rely on iron sights.
The reason Colt went for a telescopic stock on the M-4 [like they did with various carbines in the 1970’s] is so the rifle becomes more compact and so the user can adjust the length of pull. Pros and cons. A foldable stock makes the right much more compact and practical for use in certain conditions/environments.
>optical sights
There’s plenty of way to mount an optics, both powered and unpowered, with or without using carry handle delete
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/yk0AAOSw-gliSoDI/s-l1200.jpg
another advantage of piston driven (compared to direct impingement) is that it will run nicely with suppressors installed.
with folding stocks, it can be made more compact, easier to store in cramped IFVs or secured safely to body during parachute jumps.
Normal M4/M16/AR15 cannot be fitted with folding stocks due to the buffer tube arrangement for it to work.
As a piston driven rifle, the JAKL conversion kit for the M4/M16 costs so much less than something from HK (HK416) or FN (SCAR-L)
Of course it will be cheaper but will ran as good and reliable as the 416 and the SCAR? Only by testing a small batch until failure only then we can know whether its worth converting our whole stock with it.
dundun – “There’s plenty of way to mount an optics*
I’m aware of that. The issue is not the viability but is getting those sights for the reconfigured M-16A1s.
… – “secured safely to body during parachute jumps.”
Is a rifle without a foldable stock a liability or a major issue when strapped to a paratrooper? I can think of many airborne units which don’t issue rifles with a folding stock
… – ” And the main infantry killer on the battlefield are artillery sharpnels (still is for many years) and now kamikaze FPV drones*
Since the days of the Civil War the main cause of casualties has been arty; as indicated. As of yet we have no firm data as to the actual numbers of casualties caused by UASs or loitering munitions. As of now it’s believed that after arty and mortars; the main cause of casualties is not UASs or loitering munitions but mines; mines which often don’t make it to the headlines.
Footage plays a large part in driving the narrative and forming impressions but footage is deceptive. We don’t see footage of UAS and loitering munitions strikes which fail; of vehicles being hit but later drive of; of crews exiting a vehicle after it’s been hit: etc.
Actually many manufacturers offered reflex sights that can be mounted on the M16A1 handle. No one just cut the gun handle just like that as this will weaken the top receiver. Mounting a reflex sight on the handle of the M16 solves only one issue.
A soldier needs a magnifier, thermal sight, and other things (Holosun a manufacturer from China has produced three-in one sight but it needs a picatinny rail). Today, such accessories are not luxuries but have become a necessity even for the lowly grunt with the line infantry.
Just like UASs; stuff like NVGs, body armour and rifle accessories have long become a “must have” rather than an expensive luxury which could wait but for us; only recently.
Like everyone else: the proliferation of UASs and loitering munitions have added another layer of complexity. In the past AD units had to struggle with the need to defend against low level manned threats which needed a different response to that of medium to low level threats. Now AD units also need to defend against UASs and loitering munitions operating in whats’s called the “air littoral” – a particular missile might be great against a fighter but woukd struggle against a UAS; way before the Ukraine we saw this in Libya, Donbas and Nargano Karabakh.
On paper everything we need is available from various sources. The trick is getting it in the right quantities and distributing it the right way.
“worth converting our whole stock with it”
Just convert those old M16 with the long 20inch barrels (using its lower receiver), just enough to equip para, mechanised & cavalry units (8-10k units?). Then pass the current M4 to the rest of BIS
” Is a rifle without a foldable stock a liability or a major issue when strapped to a paratrooper? ”
Never said it is, but a rifle with folding stock would occupy less space, minimising snagging. This is the G36 for example
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/ILA_2008_PD_929.JPG
What was the rationale in getting the
Ferfrans rifles and do we know which MAF units in ESSCOM got them?
On the M110s; all fine all well we got them courtesy of the American taxpayer but like everything else; at a later stage we have to get spares. Spares are not hard to get but the issue is us getting them on time. Makes me wonder if the Oshkosh lorries which came with the radar came with any spares for short term needs.
Won’t go until details but in the past there were certain things funded by private companies which did not come with provision for spares later and that became a major issue.
No idea of the rationale behind the procurement of Ferfrans rifles apart that they tender for it and the company that won the bidding offered the Ferfrans. From pictures of the rifles, the Ferfrans are issued to units directly seconded to ESSCOM.
.. – “Never said it is”
“secured safely to body during parachute jumps”
That is why I asked.
Talks about M4 improvements are perhaps too late, if ATM/Madani ady decided to go with Caracal 816 money-in-hole project. Also its moot when the USA/NATO have started the ball rolling hard into changing NATO calibre to 6.8mm. Normally we will follow suit, hence a change of weapon will follow too.
“Oshkosh lorries which came with the radar came with any spares”
As Marhalim alluded these radar will be semi-permanently mounted so its doubtful we will need to move them once its fixed down. Odd branded trucks are not unknown to us and I believe maintenance allocation will come if ATM chooses so, like the Avibras ASTROS trucks, the airbase fire & support trucks, the upcoming TATRA trucks for EVA SPH.
“so its doubtful we will need to move them once its fixed down”
I’m aware that the radar [like all others we use] is not “mobile” per see. Also, whether or not the radar is moved around often or not; in the long term spares will still have to be sought.
“n will come if ATM chooses so, like the Avibras ASTROS trucks”
Not that ATM but if the bureaucrats ‘choose so”. Also harder to justify when the quantity is small and as I alluded to; a number examples where stuff ceases being operated because allocations for support were not forthcoming.
“Odd branded trucks are not unknown to us”
Like what exactly? Everything we operate/operated or most has a local dealer or spares which can be sought locally [whether the 911s, Volvos, Pinzgauers and others]; not the Oskosh.
“Normally we will follow suit, hence a change of weapon will follow too”
There is only a single precedent; back in the 1970’s when we adopted the 5.56mm round for the AR-70.
Expected given that the geo-strategic environment was different. Prior to that we switched from .303 to 7.62mm it was in the post Merdeka period and we basically did what our Commonwealth partners did.
Fast forward a few decades; I’m not sure we’ll switch to 6.8mm just because the Americans have. Or maybe we will; remains to be seen.
“in the long term spares will still have to be sought.”
The radar would be needed of course. The Oshkosh truck meant to bring them around which isnt needed once its mounted down? Not so much. Unless TDM/TUDM (not sure it belongs to whom) are going to repurpose it for another use but as I recall, USA dont allow that.
“Like what exactly?”
As mentioned, the ASTROS trucks arent brand in this market, the eight ARFFV manufactured by Magirus Italy is not a wellknown brand here, the EVA SPH will likely be on TATRAs also not a known brand here. If you want to talk about local dealer; I know a few that can bring in Oshkosh/Cummins/Mack/Freightliner/any USA based truck parts. Of course these will be special order so anything can be done with money.
Most of the scramblers in the Army are petrol powered ones. The electric bikes they bought recently as I mentioned before are for experimental purposes.
The radar is under RMAF, it will not be moved around.
The Astros trucks are basically Mercedes Benz trucks, just like some of our 4X4s which are Hilux, but in drag. Not a problem of maintaining them, the only problem is of course the system electronics and the rocket launcher system, not the trucks themselves. And buying the rockets themselves.
“only problem is of course the system electronics and the rocket launcher system”
Is there gonna be a problem with our Astros because of Avibras going bankrupt?
TATRAs are already operated here. Not in numbers maybe but they are.
Yes the Oskosh, unlike everything else we operated/operate; is the odd one out. No local dealer and not operated.
The Oskoshs are meant for the RMAF, I dont see an issue in the very unlikely event they were transferred to the army; they aren’t going out of the country to a 3rd party. The RMAF also had a few Russian lorries; no idea if still operated.
All the RMAF radars are techinally mobile but we don’t move them around: not even with the S-600s.
Yes if they do not make more rockets or support the electronics and the launcher systems.