The killing power from this weapon's prodigious rate of fire and accuracy has made this weapon sought-after by warfighters the world over.
Only in Singapore do we have an issue with this instrument of war.
Against a mountain of endorsements, only in Singapore can we find fault with the weapon by fussing over engineering that has evolved from generations of gunsmiths since the first Gatling gun was fielded.
Despite the weapon's fearsome reputation as a man-stopper, you can count on one hand the number of such weapons in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) arsenal.
Yes, this is a sad story that would become tragic if a single SAF man or woman died because of the lack of firepower in battle, slaving over a GPMG when they could bring on the rain on the Enemy and flatten them swiftly and decisively.
Make no mistake: Our special forces operatives would love to get their hands on as many of these weapons as they can. Ditto our Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) helicopter squadrons.
None will come their way until our defence engineers can convince themselves the weapon is safe to operate. You see, after the SAF acquired a trial batch for operations, additional procurements were tripped up by concerns over the possibility of a cook-off.
Concerns raised are valid.
Such attention to the quality of our firearms is commendable - and we say this with absolutely no sarcasm - as the safety and reliability of our war machines and instruments of war should be beyond doubt.
But this issue has had the weapon's maker perplexed as it ignores the weight of evidence that underlines the performance of the said weapon under demanding operational conditions.
Testimonies amassed from established armed forces like the ADF count for nothing. Neither do explanations that the cook-off cannot occur as imagined by the defence engineers concerned, simply because the rounds are not chambered in the part of the weapon our defence engineers have an issue with.
Sadly and embarrassingly speaking, this episode which is making its rounds among defence-aware individuals worldwide - repeat: worldwide - is one case where our defence procurement processes are too smart for its own good.
Book smart, members of the project team in question undoubtedly have the paper qualifications needed for the job at hand.
What they perhaps lack is the exposure to the art and science of gunsmiths.
With more years in this field, they would also gain from additional exposure and experience that will help them appreciate weapon engineering considerations whenever foreign arms vendors come a-calling to introduce a new weapon.
So the Triple Es comprising Education, Exposure and Experience should be kept robust and balanced in our defence eco-system.
What we have witnessed is a procurement impasse as the project team concerned
In the meantime, who loses? It is our men and women in the SAF who deserve every technological and operational advantage Singapore can give them before they deploy for operations.
This episode is noteworthy because our defence procurement processes and protocols are known worldwide for their rigour and no-nonsense approach to weapon evaluations. We are respected as a smart buyer. We have been feted as a reference customer by arms makers whose products survived intensive scrutiny by our weapon procurement teams.
What happened in this instance should not detract from successes in military engineering that buffed up Singapore's reputation in the defence science and engineering realm.
Successes are lauded each year during the Defence Technology Prize ceremony, which are the Oscars of Singapore's defence science community.
Declared projects form the familiar narrative that underline and emphasize the Lion City's prowess in military engineering.
The low-profile projects reinforce this narrative by providing tantalising suggestions and hints at the breadth and depth of our weapons engineering capabilities.
Years after the RSAF stood down its A-4SU Super Skyhawks with one last flight across the island, Singapore watchers who scrutinised the size and composition of the final formation that comprised a dozen TA-4SUs may have been puzzled at the RSAF's need for so many twin-seat Super Skyhawks. Add to this the 10 TA-4SUs in Cazaux, France, and one would have a good idea of the number in the RSAF orbat.
The project to weaponise the twin-seat Super Skyhawks
It is perhaps not surprising that cases where we could have done better become talking points, precisely - or thankfully? - because such episodes are uncommon.
Dog bites man is often not considered newsworthy (caveat: depending on which body part is bitten). But not the other way around.
Gossip surrounding the project involving the weapon with the high rate of fire is a man-bites-dog moment that makes it an instant talking point.
It will not break the system because our defence eco-system is strong and enduring.
But we have much to learn and internalise from this episode because we can do better when handling similar cases in future.