New owner, new direction. SWAT now pays a lot better than it used to--in fact, better than most publications out there, and not just gun rags. The idea is to be more like an internet forum, which means letting the experts loose with their real opinions.
Mr. Awerbuck did note that the M4 was very reliable--no malfunctions whatsoever. But the adjustable stock had only two positions--full open, which was about 19", or fully closed, which was too short for him to use. What's the point? Also, as mentioned above, he found that several shooters had the stock collapse unexpectedly when their cheeks depressed the button. Why place it there?
Above all, he asked what the gun was for and found no real answer. As he put it, the weapon doesn't do anything that previous designs didn't do, so what's the point? If, as you say, it was designed the way it was so as to win a military contract, so be it, but that doesn't make it a good weapon. The military has been known to make mistakes with weapons before.
I didn't read the article on the SW3, which means it happened before Rich bought the magazine, so I can't really comment on that. It's always possible the author just got a good example. I understand a lot of people hate Special Weapons, but surely at least a few of the guns work.