I’m still on the fence about whether I’m a bullpup guy or not - maybe the General Dynamics bid I’m firing tomorrow will change my mind ! Follow cappy here for updates: instagram.com/cappyarmy/
I have been told by Australia veterans the special forces use the m4 for the fact that work closely with the usa so for part and fixing there gun in the field. Puss fun stroy one told me he just took a m4 off a marine for parts not 100% on that but shows how close Australia and the USA are. Love your contact and awesome to see my Aussie gun get some love great job and hope you like the new prototype gun can't wait to hear on how it goes
As an Aussie with friends, and family in the military, I'm sorry to say that your slightly wrong about the AUG being the first bull bullpup to be adopted by a major military. That honour goes the the British with the EM-2 rifle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle Edit: Also forgotten weapons has a great video on it too
@@Ms.Whiskertoria technically it was never adopted and was only a trial and prototype.... an excellent one at that and the latest iterations of the SA80 are excellent just don't start me on the initial one that fell apart without even the drop of a hat.
Why you didn't mentioned Tavor Tar-21 It's also a bullpup assault rifle. The fact is not every special forces in the world uses Colt or M4 plateforms. Indian special forces uses Tavor Tar-21 as their primary Assault rifle.
The M4s used by Aussie SAS are H and H 416s so a gas piston version of the M4 better reliability allegedly than DI guns even if it does need a special setting on the gas block to run a suppressor
There's an interesting design feature of the AUG that never gets mentioned. The operation of the rifle can be done wearing mittens (i.e. no trigger finger exposed). That includes removing the barrel, cocking the charging lever, changing mags, and even adjusting the gas settings. Ever wondered why the trigger guard was so huge, why they chose a push safety catch, and (in the military version) a two stage trigger between semi and full auto? Now you know why. Makes sense when you consider that Steyr designed the AUG to be able to be used by Austrian alpine / mountain troops wearing bulky winter clothing.
@@btf_flotsam478 true. Though it does also protect the hand while fire and manoeuvring and its there if you get deployed somewhere cold, it may also have a structural component. Though to be honest the first time I used the F-88 I thought it was stupid too, but I got used to it.
Being able to manufacture the gun locally seems like a completely valid reason to discard any otherwise fine offering from Colt etc. It's a requirement like any other
Part of the "preliminaries" was the handing over to the Australian selectors, of the manufacturing "data pack" Drawings, material specs, process notes, etc. I've actually seen BOTH, here in Oz. Interestingly, The Kiwis indicated that they would adopt whatever Australia did. This ties in with the manufacturing deal. BOTH countries made components; the Kiwis doing most of the plastic bits and Australian plants making the metal bits. Even the horrible 1.5x optics were made here. The idea of having an optical sight built into the "carrying handle" appealed to somebody, but it is a pain, especially with that old military standby, the non-uniform soldier. The AUG butt is essentially of fixed length, thus eye relief becomes an issue for "out-of-spec" diggers. Steyr DID submit their "S" version for trials in oz. These had the "Euro-style" removable optics mounting rail system, but this was obviously too much of a mental challenge for some, hence fixed 1.5x optics in a fixed mount. (Cheaper, too).. Sights gone wonky? Entire weapon goes back to a higher-formation workshop. Then, there was the parallax issue. Can't happen in a 1.5 x scope? WRONG. Can and did.. The reworking of the receiver with an M1913 rail was a good idea. Grafting a long, CNC-machined, cantilevered rail onto Die-cast receiver bodies obviously seemed like a good idea at the time. I'm pretty sure there was NO consultation with actual engineers or metallurgists involved, however. Every time something was "fixed" the weapon got heavier and lumpier; NOT a good look as the modern Digger had to carry more and more other stuff with each passing year. A good one (with a GOOD optic) is a tack-driver, but they require steady parts replacement; gas plugs, cocking handles, hammer mechs and so on. Again, NOT the logistical and workshop godsend that was promised.
The WW II experience was an important factor, as mentioned in the video. When Japan entered the war, the Australian government considered the threat of invasion very seriously (though after the war it turned out not to be planned by Japan). After Pearl Harbor, the US and UK concentrated on building up their own supplies of weapons and consequently there was a shortage of arms they could make available to Australia. Consequently Australia developed its own tank, the Sentinel, and a locally designed submachine gun, the Owen. Before the tank could be used, M4 Shermans became available in quantity and so the local design was shelved. The Owen gun was more successful and was used by the Army through to the end of the Vietnam War. Consequently, local manufacture of the Army's primary weapons has been a priority where possible.
Hey Cappy, Retired Australian Army here. I wouldn’t discount the theory that the AUG “won” because of the manufacturing licence issue. When I joined back in ‘97, that particular rumour was quite well spread by then. That would make it Pre-Internet. Having said that I quite liked the F88, never had any issues with it at all on two ops, and countless training exercises, and parachute descents. The progressive trigger is a matter of training, and not a design flaw. Once you get enough time on the rifle it’s actually a very conscious decision to go full auto. You can tell who the new guys are at the rage quite easily after a three or four round burst instead of a single shot. The new version EF88 is better than the original F88,which sorely needed replacing by the 2010s
Thanks for the insight interesting to know the rumor has been around that long ! It does seem likely that it was part of the decision. the Australian Army already probably liked the platform for many other reasons as well . It’s not like they got a lemon just to produce it in house. Thanks for your inside knowledge !
I'm from Canada and we got to make our own Colt products, the C-7 and C-8 family in the 80's, based on Colt originals. I wonder why Colt let us do it and not the Australians.
Having used most variants of the F88/AUG, I've always felt it was trying to play catchup to the M4, I can honestly say though the new EF88 is finally close to being on par. However, the EF88 is heavier, no-where near as customizable and has more recoil, but it has the same basic features and the new ELCAN sight is amazing. I do hope though that one day the ADF does end its obsession with Steyr and start testing the market for better options, one can dream right.
If their was a local manufacturing issue I can see that reason alone for why they didn't pick the M16. Goverments love job programs. Nevermind the logistical safeguards in making your most used and basic weapon in your forces. I know in Canada we would NEVER have built our own version of the M16 if we couldn't build our own rifles. Dealings with the British government showed us why relying on a foreign ally for your rifle system is NEVER a good idea. Sure what got the crappy Ross rifle because of government corruption and believing in marksmanship over field durability. But after WW1 we still made our own rifles. Damn we would never have made the bloody Ross if the British and let us purchase the license for the Lee.
@@loganholmberg2295 during WW1 Canada should have just gave Britain the finger and make clones of the Lee anyway, I mean what the fuck where they going to do, kick you out of the war?
this honesly scream political as in the US didnt want Australia to have the ability to source ther army's primary weapon in house and instead rely on Us manufacturing hence as per standard procedure the US gov had their trusty overlords: corporations pressure against it. but Steyr was smarter and saw a gap that needed filling.
@@Teixas666 almost correct. the vid misses that the AUG 1 was an Australian and new Zealand deal. the USA was shitting on NZ at the time. great way to treat an ally
We loved the Steyr when it was introduced. The bullpup design meant you could really swing the rifle round quickly in close quarters and it was heaps lighter than the venerable L1A1 SLR, had really good ergonomics and basically just looked cool. It was also the first standard issue in NATO allied countries to have optical sights as standard. Rifleman marksmanship qualification became too easy so minimum standard went from a grouping score of 120 mm down to 90 mm. I remember the safety switch being a problem though with the number of unauthorised discharges going through the roof because the weapon could be taken off safety when on a sling and pressed against your webbing. The only thing we missed about the L1A1 SLR was downgrading from 7.62mm rounds to the relatively puny 5.56mm rounds (Vets used to talk about the SLR 7.62mm shooting straight through trees in Vietnam). Interesting that the US Army has just announced adopting the 6.2mm round for its new SIG Sauer M5. The SASR guys I spoke to said they preferred the M4 because they could adjust the stock for better marksmanship which you can't do with the F88 but they are incredible marksmen so it probably makes a difference to them - unlike your average, bagged arsed digger like me, for whom the F88 made me a much better rifleman.
That's a point. The bullpup layout puts the centre of gravity between trigger hand and shoulder, which is good for staying in the aim without much tiredness. Having the CG between the two hands might be better for taking quick unaimed shots, with the stock out of the shoulder.
add supply chain. if the SASR guys are operating with US spec forces then it makes sense to have the same weapons so all parts are interchangable if necessary.
@@LiveFreeOrDieDH theres also an issue when firing around corners in tight profile, (right handed shooter, shooting a left handed corner for example) catching brass in the face because the ejection port is much nearer to your face than that of a non-bullpup, so basically committed to using your right hand, and right eye to fire in all conditions.
Hi, I'm Max, I serve in the Austrian armed forces for some years now, so I can tell about the Aug A1 (Stg77) out of first hand. First the positiv points : *Durability, my service rifle was built in 1987 and its still acurat (300m and 5-6 cm spread) and even after 800 shoots without cleaning there was no failure at all. *long barrel in compact design, you can maneuver in cqb and lay down precision on distance out of a window. *the trigger, the trigger pull is hard, yes but you can go in full auto without any switch to flick (if an enemy appears in the close environment. *easy to use and take apart on the field. *center of gravity, the center of gravity is right on the pistol grip, so it's easy to maneuver with only one hand. Now the negative points, and that are the points why the sof teams didn't pick it as their service rifle in the 80s. -modularity, on the A1 version you can't optimize anything, no scope, no light, no laser. -the scope. Don't get me wrong, for a standard rifleman the scope is perfect and easy to use, but for my personal experience its ****,for cqb the field of view is to small and for long range (200m+) 1.5x magnification is too small and the "circul of deaf" is not precise. I'll hope that sums it up and give you a good idea of how to live with an Aug A1. For any other questions about the rifle or the Austrian armed forces, please don't wait to ask. And by the way my platoon and me loves your videos
I asked a former SAS trooper why they used the AR rather than the AUG in Afghanistan. He said "optics". The originally adopted AUG didn't have pic rails.
They’ve used M16/AR15 type rifles since before it was adopted by the US army. It’s light and they used to always keep the weapon to hand, no slings. All their drill is based around these weapons.
I thought closer matches in gear between U.S., British & Australian SF vs our military, was because of how most of the time our SF performs joint operations with both & a lot of shared training.
Australia had a bitter experience with the Carl Gustaf 84mm when Sweden opposed Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War and Australia ended up with a weapon system and no ammunition for the next 20 or 30 years, a vital lesson was learnt - never rely on someone else for your own essential services (A lesson very important today), also the Steyr turns a middling shooter into a marksman out to 400m.
As a Swede, I'm so sorry for our hypocritical actions and posturing. I'm happy that you are not relying on anyone else though. While working together is great and many times a necessity, in the end you can only fully rely on yourself.
Idk dude the trigger is pretty ass. Same as the Donut reticle, when I got to my unit and was using the ACOG and ELCAN sights it was a bit better. It’s also a bitch to clean, the plastic likes to trap carbon
@@SmphnyOfBulletswhen the ADF transitioned to the F88 from the SLR there suddenly became an embarrassing number of successful cross rifle applicants to the point they had to significantly change the qualification parameters. As for donut sights that's more of a debate about time on target versus preccision accuracy, from a pre body armour era. Lol thanks for the trip down memory lane of my time spent on the floor of a Q-store trying to Lazarus a battered F88 to life for a bitter staff Sargent who doesn't have anywhere better to go on a Sunday night.
The reason the satisfaction rate is so high is when they asked the Australian infantry what they thought about the Steyr 50% said yeah nah and the other 50% said nah yeah and the data collector who was 3rd party and international misunderstood and thought they meant the same thing and gave it the thumbs up 🦘
I went through the conversion from L1A1 SLR to AUS Steyr and nearly everyone was getting close to marksman qualification off the bat. The Army had to change the requirements for the marksman qualification due to the performance increase. The optic sight was a game changer … although I did miss the weight and powerful feel of the SLR! Back in the day we ran the rifle group with SLRs and the Scout Group had M16s. The Steyr brought one rifle in across the section with a unified ammo type, etc…
yeah, if i ever had one complaint with my steyr it was a very weird one: it has too little recoil. It almost feels like a toy when shooting. I want more feedback on my guns.
I still have my SLR and did most of my service with it. It really reached out there and DELIVERED the message. I wouldn't recommend it in urban situation unless you wanted the message delivered through a brick wall with an exclamation mark and full stop.😉😊
I use the Steyr AUG Mod 14 as I'm serving in the Irish Defence Forces. The Steyr in the mod 14 configuration has a picatinny rail and uses the Trijicon ACOG. The weapon has excellent ergonomics and weight, I've also seen even the worst shots hit a man sized target consecutively from 300m away. I've got very few negatives to say about the weapon system.
That sounds similar to the current Australian EF88, which has a picatinny top, side and foregrip rail and comes standard with a Specter x1-x4 optic with a similar sight pattern to an ACOG, and a foregrip with a built-in bipod, except the difference between the EF88 and other Steyr variants is that the platform itself was redesigned to be lighter and more ergonomic, and also all black lol.
For my American brothers and sisters, we like Aussies to be pronounced as 'ozzies'. Thank you from literally every Australian ever. Oh and it's Lith-go. Keep it up guys, awesome to see one of our guns on the show.
as an austrian who have seen quite a lot of military personal by now, i can say a few things about the AUG: 1. the special forces of austria does not use the standard army aug, they use custom build ones with extra stuff, like bigger rail space for attachments or a bigger magazine-button. 2. the standard aug has such a heavy pull, because every guy in the austrian army i talked to hated it when a rifle-trigger is lightweight, especially since the aug has a 2 stage trigger. i guess we austrians just have very muscular fingers or something like that. 3. the biggest downgreat of the aug is that it needs a lot of time to master - reloading in the stock, using the safety, having a heavy trigger, using the 2 stages trigger, all that are things that have to be learned and trained. the austrians from the military use this gun like a 3rd hand, because they are used to it. this is why a lot of special forces turn this gun down, because a bullpop isn´t a very intuitive design by todays standards - but i can tell you, it is certainly a very deadly one if it is in the right hands
For someone who went into service with a bullpup rifle, I agree. The bullpup doesn't feel weird to me as I didn't have any prior experience. When I first held an AR it felt like an awkward, long, front heavy weapon that was a bit harder to reload because i had to reach further from my body compared to a bullpup. But after handling it for a while I got more used to it. But if you gave me a choice of any weapon to use, I think i'd still go for a bullpup.
The Malaysian Armed Forces (Army, navy and Air Force) once fielded the AUG as the standard issue service rifle. But went back to the AR platform some time in 2006
5:50 - I remember reading a while ago that the reason the Australian SAS use the M4 and M16 because the majority of the time they're deployed alongside US special forces and found it made logical sense to use a weapon system that can be easily shared inter-operably.
@@AA-le3xe It is an odd oversight. There's a lot of good reasons for SF to use the M4 over the Steyr that have nothing to do with the Steyr being "less good". The Steyr is easy to shoot for troops that don't get a lot of range time, reliable, easy to maintain and we can manufacture them in-country. All high priority things in a standard issue infantry weapon, but not so much for SF.
I would have thought that the M4 being lighter, more durable against weather, more reliable to stoppages, a better balanced barrel and finally having a greater effective range… would have been the defining factors.
Fun fact: No one drinks Fosters here. Not a single person. Never seen it on tap, hardly ever see it sold in bottle-os (liquor stores). I think my late grandad used to drink it, pretty sure it fell out of favour sometime between the 80s to 90s lol. I'm an Australian, lived here all my life, and I do not recall ever seeing a person drink a fosters lmao. When Fosters are being sold at a bottle shop I always notice and say "Holy shit, look, it's fosters!" because it's such a rare sight. I also never buy it cause it's generally agreed that it's bad.
I was cooking a chook once, trying a recipe with a beer can up it's bum. Used a can of Fosters for a laugh. Was genuinely surprised to find it in the bottle-o.
Fun fact, we used the M16 in Vietnam, issued to scouts, section leaders and officers, while riflemen carried L1A1s. Australia was not very pleased with the M16 during Vietnam and that was another factor that contributed to its rejection.
@@paulp1450 the AR-15 platform in the most reliable rifle we have, so many myths about this, the rifle does need to be cleaned regularly, armalight rifle did tell people about this but the militaires didn't listen and they actually got sued for it. you look after your ar-15 and you will not have any problems (unless you try putting like 500 rounds through it as once)
@@michaelfisher4737 Those early models needed to be cleaned and oiled constantly and when you’re patrolling through swamps and thick jungle and rivers and mud and there are monsoon dirty rains every day when you’re on six week operations it’s not exactly practicable to be able to break your rifle down and thoroughly clean it as often as was needed, especially when the threat of ambush is constant. The SLR was much more reliable for the environment in Vietnam. Some troops did prefer the M16 though especially later in the war when they became more reliable. Australia was the first to adopt the M203 attachment on M16s into regular infantry use, which was very well received.
@@pats3071 all ar-15 models need to be oiled constantly, its the same with most modern military rifles and even m1 and m14 rifles. go look up the videos inrange have done with mud tests on ar-15s, the rifle is built so tight that nothing can get into the system to cause a malfunction. so many myths came our about the ar-15 during that war in un real, no wonder armalight rifle sued the military over it
I used the Steyr for 20 years and swear by it. Incredibly accurate, balanced, very little recoil, relatively light, modifiable, lethal and reliable. Transparent mags are handy and with or without the latest Spectre Scope, the 7 in pitch in turn barrel coiling made the round fly so beautifully stable making anyone a good shot. I remember taking down targets at three hundred meters with a savage cross wind by simply aiming slightly off to predictably know where the round would land. At my prime, I could even do this from the standing position. The two stage trigger pull is a system I'm amazed other assault rifles don't adopt - once mastered, it takes combat to the next level, particularly in urban environments and building clearances. I fired the M4 many times but it just always felt cheap, flimsy and produced without a soul - also, I could never seem to get it to fit my firing position (standing, kneeling or prone). Honestly, it's like a the Steyr is a premium European Sports car, while the M4 was mass production Mustang crap. Just my opinion after 20 years. Either way, I wouldn't like to take on a well-trained soldier with either platform. But if I had to go back, its the Steyr no questions asked.
Sorry Adam. Love ya and your channel but the styre is dogshit any infantryman will tell you that and after my frontline deployment to Afghanistan I'll say with confidence it's trash, pure trash. Do you see any SF unit carrying it? No you don't and your comments about the M4 are based on pure combat inexperience and respectfully... ignorance. From memory you weren't in the army either.
Your experiences were different from mine then. Don't rate that rubbish, short, plasticky (especially trigger group) crap at all!! Its exploding gas plugs, fragile snap off cocking handles, and melty trigger group / hammer were particularly bad. M4 isn't very impressive either. A modernised SLR, or something in a battle rifle calibre...conventional layout ..compact scope / dot ..sorted !! 🇦🇺
The optic sight was a welcome improvement over the iron sight. My marksmanship improved heaps when we went from the SLR to the Steyr. So much lighter too!
Brah the EF88 the upgraded Steyr is a beast I personally love it over any other firearm. It's super light now and with the new scope you have to be blind if you don't hit dead centre at any range under 600m
my uncle was telling me about using the SLR in the navy and how zeroing it meant filing down the iron sight. having just got back from kapooka and using those wicked spectre sights I was pretty blown away
I used both the SLR and the Steyr. Personally I loved the SLR. But I ran the first range shoot in my battalion using the Steyr. So I had a lot of clerks and other admin staff along (typical). I was very impressed with how it turned people who could barely hit a Fig 11 target at 50 m into into man killers. Esp tge smaller females, who had trouble even holding the the SLR on target unsupported. It was a good weapon. Apparantly the new version is even better.
I'd like to preface my comment by saying that I was an airforce aircraft mechanic that dabbled in base defense as a secondary duty. I was never involved in combat duties. This was an extremely well researched video and was pretty accurate. Personally, I transitioned from the SLR (FAL) to the F88 (AUG) in the early 90s and I loved it, although many of the old and bolds lamented the demise of the old SLR. During the change over there was a lot of scuttlebutt about kickbacks and grifting during the trials but in light of the trial paper coming out, I think this video is accurate as to why the weapon was adopted. However, one thing I would note is that ADF weapons training doctrine would have to be rewritten if the M16 had been adopted as the M16 controls are not compatible with ADF SOPs, namely the function of the safety and the bolt hold back controls. As already been mentioned the SASR operatate the M4 for reasons of interoperability but I have seen SF operate the F88 on occasion. Lastly, one major correction, any ADF personal would rather die of thirst than drink Foster's.
G'day. I am back in the ADF now although as a civilian, I was part of a re-trial between the AUSTYER and the M4 (2008) due to some grumbling within the Army. This was a test based on the original trial and I can confirm the AUSTEYR come out trumps again. Accuracy, penetration, ROF, adverse conditions, wear tolerances, etc. I used the AUSTYER in East Timor and Afghanistan and it still proved a reliable weapon system. Why Special Forces use the M4. The US and interoperability plan and simple. Plus adaptability, ie, attachments. The M4 is that, adaptable. The new EF88 OR F90 is just as adaptable now and as an old and bold am very happy with the AUSTEYR. Learning new combative techniques is making this weapon very effective. Great channel by the way. No BS and well researched. Well done.
Aussie vet here. We patrolled the streets of Baghdad (2005) with the Steyr. It's a tough, durable rifle but in urban and confined spaces becomes quite heavy on the barrel end. The limited use we had of M4's, we found them much lighter but with a more "flimsy" feel to them. Both are fine weapons.
Echo the thoughts below as someone from an Australian Army background qualified on both weapon systems. The M4 SOPMOD was preferred by SF because of its modularity (at the time the AUG had no rails and only the fixed sight), improved MOA accuracy when 'dialed in' (the AUG is still plenty accurate enough for your average grunt though, with its longer barrel for the same size compensating for the mushy trigger and DI gas system) and (importantly) interoperability with foreign SF and US resupply chains (as SF Task groups were often plugged into US battlegroups. The old AUG also didnt offer a bolt release (IA for a mag change was to cock the weapon, lock rearwards, drop and replace mag, manually release working parts forward and then fire), so a trained M4 user could conduct mag changes faster and get rounds back on target. The EF88 (the new AUG) totally addresses the first and last points (it has plentiful rails, room for an electronic rail and battery, and a a bolt release), however you get still get better MOA and interoperability with US forces with M4 style platforms, and now the SF guys are also used to the workspace of M4 style rifles, so they stick with them. They wont admit it but it also pretty much marks them as SF as well. I've extensively used both platforms and I can say without question the short stroke piston of the AUG is a whole another level of reliability better than the DI M4 with stoppages other than mag changes an absolute rarity. It's on a different planet - I probably had no more than half a dozen stoppages over 10 years using it that were not mag changes (in some extremely adverse Aussie conditions), and they were all double feeds jamming her up. The M4 matched that number of stoppages alone on the 3 day training course and range practices I did to qualify on it. It's not even close with reliability. I shot better groups with the M4 (but the AUG was no slouch there, and you're hitting center of seen body mass at 100m with either weapon) and preferred the modularity of the M4 (I was able to get round on target fast with a reflex sight, and after a bit of 'rewiring' the muscle memory had my drills quick as well.). The M4 trigger is better as well obvs. If I had to choose one rifle, it would be the AUG (EF 88) because it does everything I want it to do, when I want it to do it, regardless of weather or terrain, and its a weapon system I'm simply used to and have the muscle memory to operate under fire without thinking. It's a fantastic rifle.
@@chk6194 Better now with the EF88 - it comes with a brass deflector that stops you getting hit in the face when firing wrong handed. The Steyr is fully ambi (you just need a left eject bolt for a leftie) and all controls other than the side charging handle are ambi as well (mag release, saftey). It comes with ejection ports on both sides stock.
Very informative, thank you :) When reading the summary of the tests, the rough condition tests really showed a lot of difference, which Cappi here didn't really mention in his video much
@@Ocker3 I know its anecdotal, but in 10 years of the AUG as my main weapon in a Cavalry Armored Recon unit, with several such weapons issued to me over that time, and in EXTREMELY adverse conditions in the Australian outback, I can count the stoppages other than 'empty mag' on one hand (and they were double feeds, so the mag may have been the culprit!). Never heard any other soldier complain about the rifles reliability either, and we soliders love to bitch. Only complaint was about the power of the weapon with blokes preferring the 7.62 NATO. Personally the SS109 5.56 round was plenty good enough for me, as long as you get the tumble effect going that the round is designed for, and you dont overpenetrate (but the M4 obviously has the identical issue here). If anything, the longer barrel on the AUG due to its bullup nature increases muzzle velocity and kinetic energy on target (although this might also adversely affect the tumbling of the round, beats me).
It’s the best weapon in the world! I as a Austrian Sergeant Major was shooting for 35 years the AUG or Sturmgewehr 77 or StG77. The handling is fantastic and I would never change it with any other assault rifle. Many greetings from an old Sergeant Major from Linz-Austria🇦🇹😎👍✌️🍺💪 Europe!
Used the AUG for 12 years in the Irish DF its an amazing all round weapon, ive used it with the 203 launcher too a few times. Anything within 300m is a hit every time.
I’m actually hoping the Irish DF adopts the Australian F90 as a replacement for the AUG. It’s a generational leap forward compared to the AUG, It also appears that the US Army might be adopting a Ballpup
Waiting for someone in comments to mention the Bois. nice to have a man that actually used one say it. Never been in the reserves and the such but I got a good look at one when the West Post got shutdown, wish they let me field strip
In Iraq I had several Australian buddies, the Augs balance was phenomenal; so easy to point and stay on target. The trigger was "okay" compared to my M16, definitely would have preferred it over my weapon for sure.
@@liquidhyperion4189 Australians are not in a security pact with the US, the govrernment is. Australians want nothing to do with the United Sociopaths of America.
Ex Australian Army here, I used the austeyr for most of my time in, sometimes getting handed the minimi or mag 58 on occasion. I did however get to use the M4 on one occasion, and even though I was very familiar with the austeyr, I found the M4 to be waaaay more ergonomic than the austeyr. I think the reason our SF prefer the M4 over the austeyr would be ergonomics, and mission specific customisation options.
but the new F90 is much more ergonomic as the old F88 (Austeyr), best is the F90MBR: i think if it was not Australian built, did the french buy it (Lithgow arms who made the F90 is part from the french Thales group)
@@leneanderthalien Yeah I was out of the army just before the F90 was introduced, so I can't really comment on that. It looks to be more ergonomic and customisable than the F88, probably still has that gritty trigger group though. SF must be holding onto their M4s for a reason.
@@bpgsontz1072 ..plus when needed on special operations with other nations/NATO/RIMPAC SF forces, they can borrow spare/magazines etc parts as needed from them too, since many use the M16 variants.
That's quite interesting. Personally I found the complete opposite, the centre of mass being further back made the steyr significantly more comfortable for me than any other rifle I have ever held. I did not however that it was, initially at least, disliked by people who were already experienced with firearms before using the steyr.
I was an Australian paratrooper back in 88 (3RAR) you need to remember that we already had the M16 a1 and the 203 adaptation, however we where replacing the 7.62 SLR or Belgian FN big heavy and long rifle, F88 made it easier to stow when jumping, however in the first issue the optics where built in and no pic rails.
I think you'll find that most allied SF units use the M4 for interoperability between nations. It also had the Picatinny rail system long before Famas, SA80 and Styer allowing for more modification to the weapon in dynamic environments.
I’ve never in my life heard a SF operator say that the fact that other countries uses it is a plus, or even a minus for that matter. Smaller countries SF with no small arms industry might have an availability issue, and thus to some degree have to go with what other nations SF have, but that is not an “interoperationability” thing. You’re right about the picatinny rail etc, but that is a completely other line of reasoning for choosing weapons for SF.
Same magazines, same ammunition, same parts, same knowledge on how to use the weapon if it needs to be picked up and used by someone else. There's plenty of plusses. Weather or not you've heard anyone say it is irrelevant.
@@NemisisAce Exactly. It might be hard to understand if you are from a larger country, but NZ and Aussie have small Armies, and our SAS often work with SF from other nations.
Sort of. Most of those countries are now or always have been actually using the Diemaco C8, which has a very high interoperability with the M4 platform (having a common origin) but is far higher quality. While C7/C8 also had a rail system based on the Weaver rail prior to the Picatinny rail this was probably not really a factor in the widespread adoption of the C8.
Austrian here, I used the AUG back in the day when I was in service and I loved and still love the dual stage trigger precisely because you can go from semi to full auto without having to flip a switch. Especially in CQC when you run into an unexpected target it's handy that you just need to squeeze a harder. I also own the civilian version and had chances to compare it to a friends AR-15 and I have to say the balance while only holding it in the trigger hand is way better.
Big plus for bullpups their, love how much longer you can hold the rifle at the ready before fatigue sets in. Balance is huge. That's why people like M4s and Mk18's. But a 20 inch barrel is necessary for a rounded out infantry rifle in 5.56, and our Army and Marines have had trouble with the 14.5 barrel at 300m+ where an M16 doesn't till nearly 500m.
Yeah I imagine it all boils down to what you train on. Americans being AR crazy have an affinity to the AR so they tend to shit on anything else because its what they know. IMO most ergonomical and trigger issues on guns boil down to training. Besides its not like the base US army M16 has the best trigger either. Otherwise why would most Americans spend all that money modifying their ARs?😅
Rumour is someone got the shipping details wrong and a box of them showed up at Parliament. Instead of returning to sender they just sent them to the military to adopt them. ;)
I was an armoured in the Australian army when the F88 steyr Aug replaced the SLR (L1A1) in 1988. The first batch actually went to New Zealand in 1986/7, the plastic stock used to come apart and bite a chunk out of the users cheek ( very common). Then when I received them, we’ll - shit on a stick. The 1.5 power optics had a completely different optic to what you show. It was a huge circle with the cross hair on the outer. No post, no cross hair, not even a dot for accuracy shooting. No matter how hard I tried they said it was a battle sight. The trigger mech was made of the same plastic as the stock. When oiled, sand / dirt and everything else used to stick to it. This caused a sand paper effect, thus stoppages. They finally said use dry lube. The cocking handles broke off if accidentally stood on etc. making inoperable. When I asked to have a fold down like the SLR- answer NO. Trigger pull crap as stated. The original F88,S had extractors with sharp edges and would not eject rounds properly I had to hone each one down. The receiver housings had porosity holes all through them , poor quality (were meant to be solid). I had some that had NO bullet ramp machined in the barrels - they were meant to be test fired?! Being 5.56mm they didn’t have the knock down power that the 7.62mm of the SLR had. In all, every soldier hated them, they were unreliable for years. I got better scores shooting competition with the iron sighted SLR than I did with the 1.5power optics on the F88 ( I shot internationally in the defence force). The only good part about them, was the plastic magazines were see through, but if you got Rid ( mosquito/fly spray) on them they turned white, brittle and fell apart. This is not a conspiracy, just all facts. As an armourer they were the worst ever. I knew soldiers on some other trials, they all told me “don’t believe what you read). Most test trials are doctored to get a predetermined outcome. For instance, I watched video footage back in the day of the SLR verses the F88 vs M16a2. SLR passed every test. The M16and F88 were only shown in some areas of the video- because they failed those tests. You wanted to know why special forces don’t use them. Well above is just some examples, there is more.
Hi. I was involved in a re-trial of the Austeyr v's the M16/M4 about 8 years ago. The Steyr still outperformed the M4, again. The M4 is used in SF as it is compatable with the US SF, not to mention, mission adaptable. The new EF88/EF 90 has been modified to be just as adaptable now and is a very good weapon system.
Having not served, but know some guys that work at Lithgow; They said the F90 is a huge redesign over the F88 AUG, even though it looks the same. He also said that they can give a random civilian a F90 and they’ll group targets much quicker than a A4 platform, But I doubt that was a requirement of the tender
Also can't shoot offhand with the styers design. Some newer Bulpups liken the desert tech that have the ejection port that rejects forward and can be changed on the fly to offhand shooting puts it ahead. Styer can't so SF don't like it in an urban environment where shooting offhand around corners is needed.
I was working with the Afghan National Army Chief of Operations in the early 2000s and asked why the Aussie and NZ SAS adopted US weapons while fighting there. The response was that it was an interoperability/commonality issue. If all the troops are using the same kit they are easier to supply, maintain and recognize on the battlefield.
That'd make sense. They'd all be able to recognize it visually, and hear it. Especially important in places they're probably not really supposed to be in. Handing out spare mags etc. They all essentially work for the same corporations.
I think it’s also a modularity thing. The new Ef88 is pretty modular, mostly in term of optics, foregrips etc, but is nowhere near the level of the AR llatform
Even back in Vietnam Oz had to turn in its SLRs for crap reliability & function M16S, just to standardise ammo supply with Yank supply! M16s killed ppl due to crap reliability & poor stopping power! & No single fire option!!! WTF!
@@paulfribbs8516 agreed on the maintenance issues. All the M16 users in theater received the wrong lubricating oil, which caused the weapons to rust and jam quite easily. It wasn’t until the 1980s that they redesigned the ammo for improved accuracy and hitting power. Ya got me on the no single fire option. I have never heard of that in an M16. The M16 and M16A1 had a selector with three settings. Safe, single and full auto. The M16A2 had four settings. Safe, Single, Three round burst and full auto. I’ve handled hundreds of M16s over the years, and never seen a full auto only. Can you document that?
I was in the Oz army when we transitioned to the AUG - I'll start by saying it's not a bad weapon (the trigger as mentioned was crap) - but it is designed for cold weather, so you can operate it with thick gloves on. this means there is no trigger guard and the safety is push button rather than lever, so UD's went through the roof in the early days - the other thing, which should never have been a problem if someone with a brain had thought it through, was that the plastic on the stock was not UV stabilised, and Australia is famous for a hot, sunny hi-UV climate, so it would get brittle and crack in very short order. It's a cruel world.
The problem with the Styer compared to the M4 carbine in special forces , is the attachments that can be put on the M4 compared to the Styer. We can put different scopes on it and Night aiming devices , but it wasn't easy working out an M203 attachment that worked . The first ones were rattling the rifle to bits . The new FE90 is definitely a major update step forward with picatinny rails everywhere and improved trigger .
Lighter, more accurate, smaller and more agile, more accurate and able to be made in here. All round awesome infantry rifle. The Australian infantry are trained to fire multiple aimed single shots. If you're on burst or full auto, you're not really aiming and therefore mostly wasting ammo. The reason SAS use the M4 is as a result of the need to coordinate with other SF groups overseas. Also originally it was much easier to modify.
The clinching of the M4 was because the SASR Water Troops in each Sabre Squadron found that the earlier AUG/ F88s performed badly in marine environments. They didn’t handle seawater. The M4 performed better in water and was also modular. In its early years the AUG couldn’t fit a grenade launcher, or different optics, lasers and lights. The M4 SOPMOD could do all of that.
@@wattlebough i was replying to the OP not you, lol. respectfully, thats nice you got some time on the tools back in the day but the styre is dog shit, its a step in the right direct that they’re are finally dumping it in favour of the new SIG rifles.
@@MS-ux6zewhere did you hear they were dumping the steyr , they just finished recieving the enhanced f88 which isn't expected to replaced until well into the 2030s and dependent on the evaluations from their enhanced lethality testing which will decide the next generation of infantry weapon to come into service probably late 2030 The sig mcx is only being adopted by the special operations command and a few units in the airforce, navy etc to replace the m4 and will not replace the f88 as an infantry weapon. They are adopting the sig p320 as their sidearm though.
Hey mate. Just some clarification on a few points. For the longest time, SF in Australia often picked weapons by preference for example you can see pictures of SAS in Vietnam using SLRs and M16s, Commandos in East Timor using F88s and M4s. Even today they consider different weapons for different jobs, but I digress. The main reason the M4A1 eventually became the mainstay in SAS and Commandos has already been highlighted. A mixture of customisation options that early Steyr variants didn't have and interoperability considerations with other coalition SF units. There's likely many other considerations here, but I'd say those were the big ones. Aside from that. The new EF88 is a real nice weapon that has some perks of the M4 family engineered into it.
great additional info thanks for pointing this stuff out! Yeah it looks like the most logiical reason for SF using M4s is those after market customizations
Mate first good reply I’ve seen. I never had any problems with the F88s, I left the Army just before the EF88 came in, I think people forget that a rifle is only as good as it’s user. A point to add about the SF using M4s is that they also wanted a platform that you could pick up spare parts for any ware, due to not all SF deployments being with Aussie forces
@@MagpieOz As much as I hate on the F88, I do feel like that figures into it somewhat Being special forces mean you don't have to wear the same uniform as everyone else (even in the barracks environment), don't have to iron it, don't have to abide by the same facial hair and hairstyle standards, don't have to pay the same compliments to rank, etc. I used to think it was a good trade-off for the nature of their work, until it transpired they were hiding war crimes and having booze parties overseas. If the battalions of the RAR and reserve infantry started getting issued M4s or HK416s, you'd bet the SASR would have theirs painted with tiger stripes, or buy something newer and more distinctive-looking off the shelf from the States.
Used the Steyr in the Australian Army for a number of years in the late 90's. Loved it. Loved it so much, that while living in the US, bought one of the 40th Anniversary AUG's so I could use one regularly again.
F88-AUG is a sweet rifle. NZ had them but moved to the MARS-L platform (M4) AUG was prone to stoppages, mine loved a double feed. Field stripping in a firefight is no good... But NZ had old rifles, mine was pushing 20 years and maintenance was average at best.
If it is reliable, your troops are trained on it and the trigger doesn't suck a bullpup has more muzzle velocity with less overall length. That's great for overall army use. Special forces however want what they want. You hate the bullpup lengh of pull by half an inch? M4 it is. Hate the trigger, handguard, grip angle? Yeah, M4. If it means getting 3 shots on target instead of 2 in the same time, the lower muzzle velocity of an M4 doesn't matter as much as comfort and handling.
Here is the thing even with heavy optics and underbarrels bullpups have center of weight still in the center of the gun. While M4 just becomes more and more front heavy. Which is good for handling recoil I guess, but will tire you faster if you shoulder the gun a lot as those troops are trained to do.
the elephant in the room is the aug cant do water ops which is why the sf use the m4 , i served for 17 years and hated the steyr , i have worked with both the m4 and the aug and for me the m4 was much better in all aspects , note the report was for the m16 which was all ready in the process of getting alterations due to failings from nam and other variants were all ready being made and put to work effectively before the end of that war , but we then decide to test the aug to a known rifle with issues even if some of those issues had been addressed , by its own logic the m4 is much better than the then m16
As an Ex Australian Soldier, the Aug also has a lock out button to prevent soldiers from going full auto by accident. We also get taught to control our trigger pressures from day one using the Aug to prevent us from going full auto under stress and pressure of the battle.
Yes same here we kept this in single mode instead of full auto almost always. You'd have to be in a pretty desperate position to want to go full auto unless prone.
Woss button, bitch switch, chicken switch... basically the most hated function on the rifle, and only when some genius subby OIC range got the bright idea to make everyone use it.
@@Taskandpurpose You are? Is it related to the NGSW program? If so ask why GD decided to go with a magazine fed machine gun instead of a belt fed one. And what their plans are for the battery pack.
That true velocity ammo is clearly the most Superior of the ammunition choices for the ngsw. Well I love the idea of the MCX spear coming to market I'm not sure it and it's by metallic cartridge are really the next generation but simply one step forward
@@Taskandpurpose can you ask them about future potential 6.8 mm round use in Australia ? Have they considered presenting their NGSW bid there, since it’s also bullpup?
@@cybertronftw1 adf won't go for it. They haven't even adopted there new pistol yet which was meant to be the glock 17 with external frame safety. Irony is that glock turned down the request to RND a glock with frame safety for the Aussies but then back flipped on the US mhp. Short answer is no new polymer cased ammo or new toys on the horizon for us
Lol just came across this video in my TH-cam feed, get ready (TL:DR I served in Somalia in the Infantry first Australian deployment with the Aug). I was in when we changed over to the Steyr in 1992 in 1 RAR (1st Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment), literally that Christmas we were recalled for deployment to Somalia, I was told to report on Christmas Eve back to my unit. We were fairly happy with the new rifle but those of us who had been around for a while still were rusted on supporters of the L1A1 SLR, that changed when we took the rifle overseas (we were using Israeli made SS109 rounds with a steel penetrator as we did not have enough locally made 5.56mm ammo), in this first iteration they could not workout how to fit a 40mm launcher under the rifle so we were issued with the M79 for the deployment. The major stoppage we were having was a double feed but on operations for the first time in a desert environment the Steyr performed very well, I will not get into too much detail but things that were hit did not get up. If I may make a quick observation, when you mention Somalia you are actually showing footage of I believe Afghanistan, below is a link with some videos of us in Somalia, thanks for taking the time to talk about us!! th-cam.com/users/results?search_query=1rar+somalia
I would prefer an aug over an an m16. It is austrian quality as its finest. I think the special forces use the ar platform because it has more customization. On an ar for example you cant change the stock but the bullpupness of the aug does not allow you to change it. The ar platform usually has more rail space for attachments. The aug is not as customizable as some other bullpups out there. Still i prefer my finnish made rk62m3 over all other infantry weapons.
Rail space and modularity are big improvements on the newer model. Btw the newer EF88 is black as standard. The older F88 was the green and black Die Hard edition. (Many get painted though)
@@Taskandpurpose Don't discount the speed of mag changes. Changing mag on the original AUG is slow as hell especially if it's locked open after you fire your last round. You have to: grab the mag with your left hand, push the release with your thumb on the same hand, pull the mag out, do something with it (drop it or put it in a pouch) then get your next mag, insert it, grab the cocking handle and cycle the bolt, shoot. As opposed to an M4: push the mag release with your right hand while you're getting the next mag with your left hand, insert it and press the bolt release, shoot.
back in the late 80's when Ireland was assessing replacements for the FAL, the Styer AUG lost to the SIG SG 550 in the competition, then they realised that the SIG was too expensive so the Styer AUG became the standard weapon of the Irish Defence Force. Now the Irish use an updated Aug called the Mod 14
I worked on the trials for the Aug 88 and I was told the reason the Aussie SF groups went with the AR platform was quicker Mag changes when timing depends on it👍🏻🇦🇺
Wow interesting, that's exactly the comment I was gonna write until I read yours. I can only imagine if you're the point or coverman going into a house... Imagine a jam or someone running in whilst you reload. With the M4/16 you'll be able to squeeze off a round much faster than when you're fumbling with your bullpup. Whilst infantry might have this problem too, it isn't their PRIMARY concern, which it would be of any SF troops.
Thanks for the comment. I suspected that the difference would relate to the needs of a basic infantry soldier vs. features valued by proficient veterans.
@jumbo the only advantage other than range like you said is the magazine/magazine housing. The Steyr has the spring loaded catch, and you KNOW when it’s seated properly. M4, however …
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the numerous modifications the Australian army made to the gun. Apparently it's technically called the Austeyr. Also I think the bias due to manufacturing rights theory makes sense considering Australia is an Island nation meaning the only way we get international goods is from trade ships. Australia's population is too small to field a large enough navy to protect all of our shipping lanes in the event of a major global conflict so local manufacturing capability is very important in Australia.
Yes good observation. I had a part in there about the F90 new updates but I decided I’m going to do a separate video on those upgrades it was too much to fit into this one video . Yes I tend to buy the island nation needing to self manufacture theory too
It is extremely important when you consider the next war will be fought against the Chinese, Indonesians, Indians or a combination of them. No planes or ships are going to have an easy ride getting to Australia.
They use to make AusSteyr AUG’s for the civilian market before 1996 and we’re ordered to shut down along with AAA. There is currently one for sale and is considered a collector handgun here so if your a firearm collector and have a spare $18k you can own a semi-auto AusSteyr in Australia.
As I was told by ex-SF soldier, Australian Special Forces tend to want to use what the American Special Forces use. As they are the ones that are more likely going to be in combat situations, that is as good a reason as any for them to pick their weapon.
Not just that, but chances they will be on an op with U.S, British SF using M4 variants is pretty high, so everyone running the same platform; has distinct advantages.
@jumbo depends what youre using it for, bullpups and the Aug are much better for squad fire tactics, using from vehicles and much more accurate. The AR platform costs more but is easier to maintain in the field,ergonomically better suited to CQB and has a lot more easily available mounts but is a lot less reliable.
Different needs, M4 rail system, Balance and hold sight-calibration better on impact (eg landing) Plus our spec-ops do a lot of cross-over with US spec ops
We don't drink Foster's, we don't even have Foster's in Australia. I was in service during the changeover & the AUG is 1000% better. Everyone else uses M4's because it's a much cheaper unit. There is a switch just above the trigger to change it between semi & full auto by stopping the trigger from being able to fully pull, this has always been a feature ! The real reasons we luv them is because they strip then assemble in under 1 minute, They have a cleaning kit inside them, you can change the ejection port from right to left easily, 1.5X standard scope, piccaninny rail, open sight all in one, & they are light weight, which matters when you have to run or march for long distances.
"Nutty theories on the internet" aka accepted wisdom within the ADF. It's just a different tool for the job. The manufacturing licence was mandatory, the other criteria 'massaged' to support a foregone conclusion. SF needed modularity and water immersion (likely due to the gas system and potential overpressure). Bettrr than the M4? Just different. Best riflefor Oz according to a panel of people with vested interests? Definitely.
The other thing with the M4 is that SF more regularly interacts with foreign forces that use the M4 than the regular army does, so they can be re-supplied by an American unit already in-country instead of then having to make the logistical chain to get the Australian armament to them.
@@sorrrbet4923 Not really a factor given that the AUG can use the same magazines as the M4, all standard NATO (and close NATO allies) stuff. Modularity isn't an issue anymore, though it admittedly was with the first versions, the ones being produced in Australia now are not the same rifle as in the 1980's.
When the nascent Singapore Armed Forces were looking for a rifle, they decided on Colt's AR-15 and obtained a licence to produce it by Chartered Industries Singapore in the island republic. This was ain the mid to late 60s. As all 18-year-old males had to do national service, the SAF needed a lot of rifles. On completion of NS, soldiers went into the reserves until they were 40 and in the event of a "re-call" needed to be equipped and armed, The problem was that Colt would not allow Chartered Industries to sell AR-15s outside of Singapore. That may have been a factor in Australia's decision. Singapore eventually ended its relationship with Colt and CIS became Singapore Kinetics. It produced the SAR-21, also a bullpup, and a light machinegun called the Ultimax (and other military hardware), Singapore Kinetics sells its products internationally. I trained on the AR-15 and have fired a Steyr. I like the latter better, And it has nothing to do with the fact that I have been an Australian for the past 30 years. :)
Well also, what about that little gun called Glock... I own two of them actually, its one of the most ingenious mechanical devices ever created. But I still had to add a manual safety, just for my own peace of mind, and they ought to have that option. Especially because that's the reason it got eliminated from all the testing when the US was shopping around for a new side-arm -
I am glad your country made the Glocks too. I have a G43 and a G48. Right when I turned 21 I bought a couple Hi-Point pistols and thats what I used until I was 25 and finally bought my Glocks. I ankle carry the G43 and hip carry the G48. Both are super reliable and I love how they look.
@@pdb6157 There is something called HTL here in Austria its like High School for eingineering with different fields to focus in from Mechanical Engineering to Electrical Engineering or computer science. There is also one just for Weapon making in Carinthia.
Mate, the 'w' in Lithgow is silent😄 I am only an enthusiast & since the firearms regulations here in Australia I haven't really bothered too much. It was a huge thrill a couple of decades ago to be invited out to the RAAF range with an officer friend to put a dozen mags through the Steyr. Looking down range through that scope was incredible. My friend said that if you could pick up a man sized target at 300 metres it was all over. Supposedly not great past 400 & at 500 the projectile is tumbling. But what a day that one was. Nice video too, by the way
Australia also trialled a revolutionary _caseless assualt rifle_ called the C30R. Unfortunately in a attempt to gain publicity it was demonstrated in front of media before it's design was finalised and … It *blew up* in front of said media. It had a out of battery misfire, with a 60 round internal disc magazine. That was a teething issue that could have been fixed, if it had happened in house instead of in a public demonstration. Could be a idea to do a story on it? Step on forgotten weapons toes.
I love my AUG and it might be my favorite 5.56 gun to shoot of everything I own but it will never be my go to gun. First obviously is that the M-4/AR-15 has come a long way since the A2 and the AUG has been able to do little more than add a bolt release and a flat top rail to allow optic mounting choice. When setting up a fighting gun most bullpups just don't have the real estate to put things where you want them. Yes, it can be done but hardly optimally (for example a light you can activate with either hand). Speaking of switching hands many bullpups are a pain to fire offhand. Yes, you can switch the ejection port but not while in the middle of firing and so you often get a face full of hot spent brass without again putting yourself in a less than optimal position. Many people that just go to the local range and do mag dumps without ever attending training wouldn't notice this. Speaking of training, while the gun is reliable all mechanical items can malfunction and clearance drills on the AR are much easier than what you get into on the AUG. Lastly magazine changes are a bit slower, the Tavor X95 seems to be the best bullpup for this because of where they put the controls but its a factor and again you can train through this and get good/fast on the AUG but for the average Joe in the military the M-4 is just better. I love me some bullpups and I love me the AUG but I recognize them for the warts they have.
I was part of the feild testing of that very trial. Remember we trialed the Austrian manufactured weapon and it did outclass the M16A2. However when Australia manufactured the weapon there was some initial quality issues systemic to Aussie manufacturing that were quickly rectified. Yes being able to manufacture our weapon was important. We are an island and if supplies are cut off, we are stumped. The SF not using them.....in the beginning of the Steyer service I understand. The Steyer being weighted rear ward, I would think would be advantages to arduous patrolling with the weapon at the shoulder as wouldn't tend to overly weight the supporting arm. I do know that ego is a part of the human condition and that the current spec AUG is world class. So you will have to ask the SF operator's because there is no obvious reason for not using the Steyer
It's part practicality and part bureaucracy - the M4 has thousands of possible accessories designed to enhance it. You can put some of those on the Styer but the Army has to have the design tested and certified, which can take years. So, buying off the shelf M4s and off the shelf accessories makes life easier for the SF crowd who often change their equipment as operational needs change.
@jumbo this is a bizarre ill-informed response. Firstly, read the report. The M16A2 was outclassed in every category. With regard to the cold weather testing, nothing you say could be further from the truth. The polymer stock is a reason for its superior performance over any AR. Could I suggest that you watch this weapons freeze test. You will notice by around the 29 minute mark in the video that there are no AR contenders left. Some where the first to fail. Only the Steyr and AK variants made it to the end. Try to have some respect for the truth in future responses. Clearly your previous response was not from a position or knowledge or honesty. th-cam.com/video/LbjpIP5ShH0/w-d-xo.html
@@N17C1 I think that's exactly why Special Forces use the M16/M4 variants. They are the ones most likely to be working jointly with soldiers from other countries and being able to use the same accessories and attachments is a big plus. They are also more free to modify their weapons to individual preference and there's an existing pool of knowledge as to what modifications are effective.
You hit the nail on the head with your suspicions. I was an ammunition technical officer at the time of the introduction, and a good friend was platoon commander of the trial platoon, and he had serious reservations on it. The weapon wasn't popular with the trial platoon, it wasn't considered soldier proof, and the safety mechanism was not considered foolproof (borne out by later fatal accidents). My view as an ATO was that the round lacked carrying power over range (borne out in Afghanistan), and ballistic performance required the original SS109 round. Problem was that the army quickly reverted to the cheaper and US compatible M193 round, which seriously decreased the original lethality and ballistic properties of the rifle.
Being Australian and us all having a very “fk you” culture to management. If you busted your ass off to go through SASR selection and get in, are you gonna willingly use the same rifle 7RAR use? Hell no. These are the same guys that I’ve heard went and bought their own Blackhawk cause the ADF took theirs away and tried to give them an MRH90. How accurate that is I don’t know.
LOL, I was just training with The EF88 Steyr tonight. I think The reason Why the SASR and Commandos use the M4 is that they work closely with the US SF units and it's easier to share magazines and equipment etc, plus the m4 shape makes it easily modular. Unlike the Steyr, there are only 2 rails where you can attach your flashlight IR laser, Range finder, etc.
Part of the reason, I'd think, is that Yanks have a more rational use of the alphabet than we do. Their 'ss' is a hissing sound, where as for the buzz saw sound they go for ZZ.
The AUG is designed for a conscript army. Sure if you're a specialist a M4 setup may give you a little bit better ergonomics for reloading etc. But for 99% of people that's irrelevant. On the other hand bullpups are simply more practical during everything that isn't reloading under fire. The optics make it idiot proof under 400 meters which is basically every fight in a more symmetrical war. The short size is a godsend if you're cramming 8 conscripts in a military vehicle that isn't a HUMVEE. If you're a professional army like the US one that has oversized vehicles for everything and that doesn't rely on reservists for the bulk of its fighting force those factors may be less important but for Austria for example I think the AUG wins.
We got to field test them in my day. We would drop them in mud, stand on them, not clean them for days & they would still be reliable as. My only criticism of them was the tendency of the optical sight to fog up in jungle conditions, where you would mostly use the "iron" sights anyway. A mate in stores told me the army had bought 250,000 replacement safety sears for the Styer. Apparently, they don't actually wear out! 😁😎
I trained with the Steyr when I did my basic training in the NZ Army. I loved my Steyr. One difference was ours didn't use that mechanism for single shot or full auto. Ours used the safety. Push partly through for single shot, push all the way through for full auto. I hated full auto.
The steyr was a good shooter. I had two on my basic. One was an aussie built one, which failed (dead o-ring, sent back to the armourers) the next was an Austrian one from the original consignment. The quality difference was noticeable. Where the austeyr felt scratchy, like it always had grit in it (even when you'd just cleaned and oiled it) , the steyr built one was the definition of smooth. Both shot well.
@@kieranh2005 I think I heard some where the Aussies recycled or reused their trigger groups alot compared to the original design concept of throw away then install a new one. Got to save a dollar some where.
I was an Assault Pioneer with 6 RAR when we first trialled the weapon on exercise CALTROP force at Fort Ord California in 1989. It was a huge improvement on the Vietnam era SLR that was in service prior to the weapon system transition. Great for the environment that we trained in, particularly with the MOUT scenarios (Movement over Urban terrain), its improved vastly over the 30 odd years since its inception.
I'll say this, as someone who had options (US Gov't, not Aus), I would use a Glock (17, 19, 22) over, say, a Kimber. The Kimber is a "better" sidearm than a Glock. The Glock however, is accurate and reliable enough, and is highly modular. That oftentimes made it the right weapon for the job. Whether my main weapon was an MP-7 or M-4, I liked the Glock quite a bit as a sidearm. So, I'm guessing that's why their SOF go with the M-4 (or AR type) over the AUG. The AUG might be "better", but the M-4 is the right weapon for the job, because it shines in other areas and is good enough. Sort of like, would you rather have a really good screwdriver, or an okay multitool?
@@baobo67 I didn't say this was a tradesman. I also didn't mean to suggest you have other tools with you. Those are your two options. One or the other. In that case, it's better to have a pretty good multitool than a single high end screwdriver. As far as I'm concerned anyway. Maybe you don't agree with me.
Lived in Aussie for the better part of my life and never seen fosters at a bottle shop and even more so never seen some drink it. I’ve only ever heard of it from Americans. Piss is also used (by Aussies and kiwis) to describe alcohol e.g. let’s sink some piss. But you could also say beer taste like piss, meaning it’s bad... so idk how that works out 🤷♂️ 😂
Can't speak directly for our Army types (although the new EF88 seems to be popular with my Army workmates) but from an Australian Navy point of view the Steyr is a good weapon. A couple of pros: - Polymer means less maintenance in a salt water envornment - Short barrel lengths work wonders in narrow spaces onboard ships - With the sling, it makes using it one handed much easier (your other hand is busy trying to keep you upright as the ocean rock and rolls) - the new EF88 can now rail mount a torch, laser aimer and an IR scope which are godsends in the potential pitch black of a ship you are boarding/searching. - the option of converting it to 9mm is interesting (although I never saw one at sea) and has some advantages in firefights inside a ship. I was a national military rifle champion before going the Australian Navy so I hated the trigger more than most of my fellow officers who mostly had zero firearms exprience.
@@thisisabsolutelystup the trigger is not a problem at all. Having used the F88 since the early 90's and now the EF88 I have rarely gone full auto accidently and can still shoot accurately. The rifle is vastly more accurate than the majority of those using it.
I remember when I was in the Australian Army, we had L1A1 SLR, & then it was replaced by the F88 Austeyer, & I personally didn't like how the spent rounds flew out of the back near the butt, but they did have a lot going for it, with a better, light, magazine, & can have a grenade launcher attached, like the US M203,but the NATO round is only 5.56mm compared to the L1A1SLR,which was 7.62mm, also a Kolishnikov round, but overall, the F88 Austeyer is making leaps & bounds for the Australian Army, but doing hours & hours of Rifle Drill on the parade ground, I found it difficult to drill in comparison to the L1A1SLR, because it is longer than the F88.
We had these in the New Zealand Army, and I loved it. Nice, compact bullpup design means you don't have to muck around with a long weapon like the M16. This is especially important with Mounted Rifle units, who have to get into and out of vehicles regularly and can't be getting snagged on stuff, and also in urban combat, where having a shorter total weapon length means it's easier to pie around corners.
Which is why it has been replaced by the MARS. The Aystralian made Steyrs had a host of issues. Water getting into the integral sight, plastic melting under sustained fire. A nasty habit of going off by itself.
It may have been ok for tankies but infantry? No rail estate, not ambidextrous, breaking plastic parts, small parts to loose (remember the gas piston etc) and the horrible safety (UDs).
Well, for SF work the AR platform makes a bit more sense in terms of aftermarket support. Seeing as those guys tend to go deeply into customization aspect of their weapons. I am going to go out of a limb here as say that is the main reason those guys would go for the AR. Second reason might very well be "institutional influences". SF groups tend to train a lot together and US's groups get around a lot. And when a group of instructors show up rocking their ninja-ARs, you bet the people they are teaching are going to want to imitate the loadouts. "They are using it, so it MUST be the best!" kind of deal. A VERY far third reason might be deniability, fully guccied AR's are dime a dozen compared to AUGs so which one is going to give more hints as to who was rustling in the bushes during last night's firefight? If you can't compromise on quality, you're going to go for the platform that is most prolific.
Fired an Austrian version, excellent weapon way better than the Canadian C7 I was issued at the time. Very accurate and the trigger pull really helped with a constant trigger squeeze and accuracy.
The AUG was deemed more suitable for mainstream duties. That's not to say its the perfect system for our SF, therefore SF don't always run the same gear. Its like asking why US reserves don't have miniguns on their tinnys 😄
Yeah armies pick stuff for what THEY need for THEIR situation. All this what is BEST arguing is a little pointless since all armies have different needs based on doctrine, geography and where they think they might deploy. The Bull pulp probably has allot of features they need and they're willing to sacrifice a bad trigger and some other things to get it. Nevermind that report is based on what 30 year models? Both weapons have changed ALLOT since then.
@@loganholmberg2295 And lets face it, Special Forces are usually small, limited resource deployments and often working in tandem with allied special forces which almost always mean the US. It makes sense for guys operating away from supply chains to use hardware compatible with the equipment used by the people they are most likely to be working with. Imagine needing some more ammo and being the one guy in the group with the incompatible gun.
@@Wrathlon well, ammo isn't an argument lol. The US & Australia (all of NATO for that matter) use the same ammo types. An AUG fires the same 5.56 as an american M4, a french FAMAS, a german G36 or a belgian FN.
@@sesameseedbar8853 Er, SLR was ~ 5 kg. I don't think the Steyr was a huge deal lighter. You're right about environments though, *but*, there were SLR's around that had the barrel cut back to the forend :)
Every ex-Dig I've spoken to who fielded one gets a dreamy look on their face when you mention it. I have an English half-brotherwho wasin the Paras in the 60s-70s and feels similarly. I got to shoot a Lithgow *once*, only one shot, very surprised at the lack of recoil, it was great! Told my bro and he said "Now you know why she will always be my girl" lol
@@kiwi_comanche fair enough mate. I don’t know much about it to be honest I do have friends from Irish Army that like it. I started my career with the SA80 A1 which was a shocking bit of kit! When I say shocking that’s an understatement!! However I got issued the SA80 A2 that they sent to the Germans H&K in 2002 for a tour In Kabul back in the Day it was a huge improvement. It wasn’t a bad rifle still had room for improvements the latest version A3 is really a good rifle there’s still a few things that are a bit off it’s quite a heavy rifle for it’s size/class it. I have been lucky enough to have a go on the C8 however I didn’t think that much of it probably because I wasn’t used to it but that’s all trainable
@@bigjohn697791 Yeah I heard the A3 was a vast improvement. I remember the receivers warping on the A1s and 2s, the extra weight is probably from the heavier steel used to eliminate the warping issue.
As an Australian veteran of 33 years and multiple deployments I can say I think the F88 is an outstanding weapon. I joined the Australian Army in 1982. I used the SLR and M16 for over 6 years. Both are fine weapons. But the F88 is better. I used the initial Brit SA80 in 1990 whilst on exchange with the BAOR and thought it was a terrible weapon but I believe the current version is much much better. Why do the SASR use the American weapon? I suspect for interoperability issues as they work closely with US SF. I can’t think of any other reason.
Been in the Australian Army since '07 - honestly, you'll find the general consensus is that we've always preferred the M16, and view the F88/Austeyr family as a polished turd at best. No disrespect intended, but it seems like T&P has mainly bought into the bullshit spun about this system by both our hierarchy and the manufacturer. 1 - The whole interchangeable model universal weapon thing I chuckle whenever people mention this. We NEVER swap barrels around, use 42 round mags, 9mm receivers/barrles or heavy barrels. In practice, each Austeyr is effectively built and sold as a complete weapon system - whether its regular length, has the clumsy grenade launcher barrel, or has a carbine barrel for cavalry. Modularity never fit into it 2 - 970m/s That's the figure for the Austrian Steyr AUG, firing NATO ammunition. Our doctrine states a lower figure of 930m/s, as our rifles are optimised to fire Australian-produced ball ammunition (which has a slightly different loading to NATO ammunition - consequently, although we can fire American-produced ammunition from our rifles, we're not allowed to do so except if operationally required. Why is this the case? Who the fuck knows, but I have no faith in our highest decision-makers). Don't forget the other statistics, too - the effective range of the F88/F90 is markedly inferior, particularly with standard sights 3 - 27.5 inches It is significantly shorter than even the M4 carbine - but then again, that's a tradeoff. Fully loaded, an F88 is 700g heavier than an M16, while the newer EF88 is 200-300g heavier. The bullpup configuration also has a few drawbacks: - Weight distribution makes the grenade launcher variant much more awkward and unwieldy than an M203-equipped M4 or M16 - Modern stoppage drills (i.e., where you look into the chamber/working parts while scanning the battlefield) are more awkward compared to the M16/M4 - If a right handed shooter picks up a left handed weapon, they get hot brass in the face. I used to think this wasn't such a big deal, until I became a machine gunner and regularly had to swap weapons with other members of my section for tasks 4 - Why do most special forces units around the world use the M4 instead? Our special forces didn't buy into the hype or biased testing (largely conducted by people drawn from across the wider Army, who were mainly experienced with the old L1A1 SLR, and who basically no longer did the job expected of a Rifleman). Furthermore, the M4 is a far more practical choice for our SF, who work more closely with NATO SF counterparts than they do with our regular Army. Imagine an Australian SASR operators armed with F88s working out of a British or American FOB - they can't use their magazines, their rifles aren't optimised for the only readily available ammunition, they can't replace broken firing pins or lost gas plugs/pistons (another frustrating design quirk of the Steyr AUG), etc 5 - That was quickly resolved I wouldn't say that - rather, we received better training and directives on how to manage these issues over the years (i.e., for years, we were obliged to lubricate the trigger mechanism with graphite powder... a stupid directive, as when stored oil would slowly drip downwards into it and create a nightmarish mess). A good soldier can keep an F88/EF88 well maintained and minimise stoppages - but as someone who carried an M16 while attached to the Papua New Guinea Defence Force on operations, it is so much easier to do with an AR-platform rifle. The F88 was an absolute fucking nightmare to keep reliably functional in the jungle, much less clean The tan-coloured F88SA2 variant was rolled out in the late 2000s to become the new service rifle for the ADF. The problem? There were severe defects with the butt group (which encompasses the butt, trigger mechanism, pistol grip, trigger, magazine well) which weren't picked up until after it was produced, necessitating that the new tan receivers and barrels were mated with older-model olive butt groups. This was a perfectly functional combination, but resulted in an interesting colour scheme (as well as the wastage of thousands of new butt groups). Do you get why many of us may not trust our armaments industry, or our head shed's capacity to make procurement decisions? 6 - Colt said they wouldn't let us have the license to manufacture the M16 This is exactly what it is ultimately about. The ADF and our government will simply never adopt a service rifle unless we can manufacture it at home in the historic Lithgow factory 7 - 1.5x donut sight Again, this severely restricts the effective firing range. It was designed for the Austrian conscript/reservist, not the Australian professional infantryman - the Austrians accepted the reduced effective range of this sight (about 300m for a competent shooter) in exchange for the ease of use and trainability. Over time, Australian infantry units began to swap out this sight to bring us in line with our NATO allies (who have been using a range of far superior sights that offer enhanced magnification and/or the ability to reflexively engage targets with both eyes open), and the new sight on the EF88 intended to entirely replace the F88 is nothing like the donut 8 - The Australians have no plans of switching to anything else in the near future Again, this is because Colt won't sell us the license, even though the consensus is that we'd prefer an AR-platform rifle. Indeed, it is likely we'll see the F88 family continually modified for decades to come. I do like the new EF88 and consider it leagues above the original F88 (with fixed donut sight) that I trained with, but it is ultimately a polished turd and a slight step down from what our closest allies are using. Our best pals, the New Zealand Army, even recently decided to stop buying Austeyr rifles from us, and have switched to an AR platform (the MARS-L purchased off the shelf from LMT in the USA). We are insanely jealous, and those of us fortunate to train with our Kiwi brethren's rifles have found them significantly superior to what we've been used to
Just to add from above, Also a serving member (30yrs and still going) 8.5 - The supposed change from the standard NATO 5.56mm to 6.5mm as evidence from the recent decades proving the 5.56 was ineffective in todays battlefield environment and requires something with a bit more punch will determine whether Australia will seek a new rifle. We are just waiting on what calibre the USA will adopt. Also the rights to the licence from Styer are soon to expire so that may open up the market and Colt is owned by a foreign company now their may be room for negotiations there as Colt lost a lot of money on loosing the Australia deal back then. 9 - Australia didnt read the fine print on the contract from Styer with regards to the magazines. Australia had to use the proprietary plastic magazine from Styer as Australia wanted to use the M16 magazine system so it would be compatible with the F-89 MINIMI(M249) as a backup/quick load and ease of ammo distribution hence why the F-89 still has the magazine port on them today. Fact- The Kiwis turned all their F-88 Styers into an scrap as soon as their new rifles hit the shores and before they were out of the boxes. (they absolutely hated the F-88 and could not wait to get rid of them)
Smaller states often struggle to set up the complicated and expensive industry. Like Australia, they normally just purchase a license to make custom variants of existing guns. Also, Styer is a global company that originated in Austria.
When the styers first came on the Australian scene in early 91 we were told the plastic was made by Tupperware and the magazine springs were made by Sleepmaker.
when they first issued the M16 the troops called it "the mighty mattel rifle", Mattel being a toymaker. In point of fact, at one time Mattel actually did make some of the furniture for the M16 -
I was an officer in the Australian Army when the Styer replaced the SLR. At first, I worried that the 5.56 round used by the F88 Steyr would prove less effective than the 7.62 round used by the SLR that was being replaced. What I quickly realized was that the F88 Steyr was ridiculously easy to use. It used to take at least a week during Initial Employment Infantry Training to get a new soldier proficient with the SLR. Using an F88 Steyr the average person could become a competent rifleman in a day, and proficient in less than three days. Sure, the hitting power of the smaller round was a bit less, but the chances of a soldier actually hitting what he was aiming at was greatly increased. Overall, the Steyr it was a wise choice, although a remember one concern. The F88 Steyr has a cross bolt safety catch, which can be switched from safe to fire simply by lying the weapon on its side. I remember that this caused an accidental discharge that killed a soldier during the Somalia deployment and there have been a number of incidents since.
Yeah its probably allot easier to support in the field than the AUG. Its not like Special forces deploy with a nice army supply train of spares. This way the can always nick something for an allied supply chain in the area they are in which I imagine is usually American.
I think its also that the m4, being non bullpup, is better for the CQC drills that special forces do and their CQC requirements, particularly shoulder swapping and stuff.
They use it because it’s the better rifle especially for a skilled user. AUG might be good for the grunt but SF units where the skill level and experience is higher the AR platform is just a better rifle.
Austria's military only has a small percentage of active-duty personnel, the rest are reservists. That said, the early AUG A1 (in Austria called STG77) with the fixed scope and trigger system, which in this form is still in service, is given to the reservists. The professionals though are allowed to use updated versions with the rail system and other modifiable parts nearly to their liking and they can tailor it according to their combat mission e.g. barrel type, scopes, laser, lights, even different calibers are possible. A friend of mine who actively serves as an officer in the Austrian military was trying the AUG A3 SA MII recently and was blown away. So, its rather light weight, compactness, reliability, serviceability, and precision are the reason that this 50 year old concept is still used an appreciated... and it therefore, to date, is a bit of a challenge for Steyr to come up with something clear superior... yet they haven't.
@@gorancepuran5931 yes the M4 is a toy low cost weapon, the HK416 is much better, but im not understand why the Australian did replace they old F88's, with the standard F90 and not the F90MBR who is 100% Nato compatible( Stanag magazines and so).Close all the special forces did use HK416 i think because it's more discrete a to use a specific weapon : for example the FAMAS is THE signature from the french army, the F88 from the Austalians, the L85 british, HK G36 german, the SIG 550 Swiss, etc...
Outstanding weapon, I was issued this in the early '90s as an infantryman in the NZDF (incidentally you posted some footage of some kiwi soldiers in the vid), and loved its flawless ergonomics (for a RH shooter), weight, toughness and accuracy. I heard a similar comment from a senior NCO that was part of the selection trials way back. Apparently in NZ we evaluated the AUG, M16 A2, FNC, and Galil, and the AUG won based on cost, Trans tasman convenience, and a desire for political neutrality. Oz is a proudly self determined culture, and I could well imagine the desire to produce a domestic weapon being a big thing. Still a good choice though ;) I subsequently used the original SA80 in the UK forces and that bullpup was piece of bull shite...
@@mrskelington I'm ashamed I didn't recognize my own reference! BTW you are the only person to ever 'click' on the name, an outstanding critique and personification of the US military industrial complex.
@@milomindabinda8115 Agreed, fantastic book and great TV series remake, which did a little better than the first movie adaptation. Coincidently, I read it on my first deployment to Timor in ‘06, while carrying around a Steyr all day. On that deployment I signed a number of documents as ‘Washington Irving’ as Yossarian did in the hospital (which was in the book but not the series). No one ever looked at the signature.
My father was on the review team in 87-88, I'll forward the video too him, he might be able to answer some of your questions. He did all the left handed tests.
I was serving in an Australian Army Reserve infantry Battalion when the change over from SLR to Steyr commenced. The SLR was a great weapon but carrying the Steyr was so much easier and much more accurate.
In Ireland we moved from the basic FAL to the basic AUG in 1988/9, and still use i -with upgraded receiver group and optical sight. It was a really compact, exceptionally simple and easy to use, but always felt like a toy in my hands. The sight was great for battle but a bugger for target shooting. Regular forces only used the rifle while our SF used it in rifle and sub version - which they didn't like, now using a HK M14 variant, I think. In 1998 I recommended the LAW version as the sniper spotter/support weapon, but this didn't happen. Years later stock FALs were accurised, fitted with bipods and used by sniper pairs. Lore has it that we bought the AUG over the test winning SIG because of a deal to sell butter to Austria:) Both beat the M16, which was I think felt to be flimsy, unreliable and not as accurate. As for the SA80.........!!!!!
I’m still on the fence about whether I’m a bullpup guy or not - maybe the General Dynamics bid I’m firing tomorrow will change my mind ! Follow cappy here for updates: instagram.com/cappyarmy/
I have been told by Australia veterans the special forces use the m4 for the fact that work closely with the usa so for part and fixing there gun in the field. Puss fun stroy one told me he just took a m4 off a marine for parts not 100% on that but shows how close Australia and the USA are. Love your contact and awesome to see my Aussie gun get some love great job and hope you like the new prototype gun can't wait to hear on how it goes
As an Aussie with friends, and family in the military, I'm sorry to say that your slightly wrong about the AUG being the first bull bullpup to be adopted by a major military.
That honour goes the the British with the EM-2 rifle.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle
Edit: Also forgotten weapons has a great video on it too
@@Ms.Whiskertoria technically it was never adopted and was only a trial and prototype.... an excellent one at that and the latest iterations of the SA80 are excellent just don't start me on the initial one that fell apart without even the drop of a hat.
Why you didn't mentioned Tavor Tar-21
It's also a bullpup assault rifle.
The fact is not every special forces in the world uses Colt or M4 plateforms.
Indian special forces uses Tavor Tar-21 as their primary Assault rifle.
The M4s used by Aussie SAS are H and H 416s so a gas piston version of the M4 better reliability allegedly than DI guns even if it does need a special setting on the gas block to run a suppressor
Just a point of clarification, Aussies never drink Foster's, that's the garbage we send overseas. We do ride around on Kangaroo's though.
It's our Decoy Beer for the furriners. Keeps them away from the good stuff.
@@hoilst The good stuff... you mean the stuff that we Kiwis keep sending across the ditch to our northwestern isles?
We drink XXXX GOLD
I saw that one Aussie punch a roo in the nose for beating on his dog. Must really love the dog or maybe he's done that before. Great video tho!! LOL
As an Aussie I can vouch my kangaroo registration runs out this week so getting to work is gonna be hard
Used by the Austrians and the Australians which is good so you cant accidentaly say the wrong thing
Pretty sure they just went down the alphabet when they were looking to sell it
@@Taskandpurpose lmao
Only Americans get them two confused
@@Taskandpurpose Up the alphabet to be correct 😉 greetings from Austria 🇦🇹
Isn't this a mikeburnfire qoute?
There's an interesting design feature of the AUG that never gets mentioned. The operation of the rifle can be done wearing mittens (i.e. no trigger finger exposed). That includes removing the barrel, cocking the charging lever, changing mags, and even adjusting the gas settings. Ever wondered why the trigger guard was so huge, why they chose a push safety catch, and (in the military version) a two stage trigger between semi and full auto? Now you know why. Makes sense when you consider that Steyr designed the AUG to be able to be used by Austrian alpine / mountain troops wearing bulky winter clothing.
I didn't know that. Thanks
How much difference that would make in south-east Asia, the Middle-East or the Outback can be left up to your imagination.
@@btf_flotsam478 true. Though it does also protect the hand while fire and manoeuvring and its there if you get deployed somewhere cold, it may also have a structural component.
Though to be honest the first time I used the F-88 I thought it was stupid too, but I got used to it.
@@btf_flotsam478deserts get fucking cold.
@@btf_flotsam478deserts get pretty cold at night.
Being able to manufacture the gun locally seems like a completely valid reason to discard any otherwise fine offering from Colt etc. It's a requirement like any other
bingo
Part of the "preliminaries" was the handing over to the Australian selectors, of the manufacturing "data pack" Drawings, material specs, process notes, etc.
I've actually seen BOTH, here in Oz.
Interestingly, The Kiwis indicated that they would adopt whatever Australia did. This ties in with the manufacturing deal. BOTH countries made components; the Kiwis doing most of the plastic bits and Australian plants making the metal bits. Even the horrible 1.5x optics were made here.
The idea of having an optical sight built into the "carrying handle" appealed to somebody, but it is a pain, especially with that old military standby, the non-uniform soldier. The AUG butt is essentially of fixed length, thus eye relief becomes an issue for "out-of-spec" diggers. Steyr DID submit their "S" version for trials in oz. These had the "Euro-style" removable optics mounting rail system, but this was obviously too much of a mental challenge for some, hence fixed 1.5x optics in a fixed mount. (Cheaper, too).. Sights gone wonky? Entire weapon goes back to a higher-formation workshop. Then, there was the parallax issue. Can't happen in a 1.5 x scope? WRONG. Can and did.. The reworking of the receiver with an M1913 rail was a good idea. Grafting a long, CNC-machined, cantilevered rail onto Die-cast receiver bodies obviously seemed like a good idea at the time. I'm pretty sure there was NO consultation with actual engineers or metallurgists involved, however.
Every time something was "fixed" the weapon got heavier and lumpier; NOT a good look as the modern Digger had to carry more and more other stuff with each passing year.
A good one (with a GOOD optic) is a tack-driver, but they require steady parts replacement; gas plugs, cocking handles, hammer mechs and so on. Again, NOT the logistical and workshop godsend that was promised.
just makes up for US rules that mean you have to build any ship in the US no matter how good it is.
Yeah, I feel like if the AUG had performed exactly the same as the M16 - or even slightly worse - it still would have been considered a better option.
The WW II experience was an important factor, as mentioned in the video. When Japan entered the war, the Australian government considered the threat of invasion very seriously (though after the war it turned out not to be planned by Japan).
After Pearl Harbor, the US and UK concentrated on building up their own supplies of weapons and consequently there was a shortage of arms they could make available to Australia. Consequently Australia developed its own tank, the Sentinel, and a locally designed submachine gun, the Owen.
Before the tank could be used, M4 Shermans became available in quantity and so the local design was shelved. The Owen gun was more successful and was used by the Army through to the end of the Vietnam War.
Consequently, local manufacture of the Army's primary weapons has been a priority where possible.
Hey Cappy,
Retired Australian Army here. I wouldn’t discount the theory that the AUG “won” because of the manufacturing licence issue. When I joined back in ‘97, that particular rumour was quite well spread by then. That would make it Pre-Internet.
Having said that I quite liked the F88, never had any issues with it at all on two ops, and countless training exercises, and parachute descents.
The progressive trigger is a matter of training, and not a design flaw. Once you get enough time on the rifle it’s actually a very conscious decision to go full auto. You can tell who the new guys are at the rage quite easily after a three or four round burst instead of a single shot.
The new version EF88 is better than the original F88,which sorely needed replacing by the 2010s
Thanks for the insight interesting to know the rumor has been around that long ! It does seem likely that it was part of the decision. the Australian Army already probably liked the platform for many other reasons as well . It’s not like they got a lemon just to produce it in house. Thanks for your inside knowledge !
I'm from Canada and we got to make our own Colt products, the C-7 and C-8 family in the 80's, based on Colt originals. I wonder why Colt let us do it and not the Australians.
Having used most variants of the F88/AUG, I've always felt it was trying to play catchup to the M4, I can honestly say though the new EF88 is finally close to being on par. However, the EF88 is heavier, no-where near as customizable and has more recoil, but it has the same basic features and the new ELCAN sight is amazing. I do hope though that one day the ADF does end its obsession with Steyr and start testing the market for better options, one can dream right.
If their was a local manufacturing issue I can see that reason alone for why they didn't pick the M16. Goverments love job programs. Nevermind the logistical safeguards in making your most used and basic weapon in your forces. I know in Canada we would NEVER have built our own version of the M16 if we couldn't build our own rifles. Dealings with the British government showed us why relying on a foreign ally for your rifle system is NEVER a good idea.
Sure what got the crappy Ross rifle because of government corruption and believing in marksmanship over field durability. But after WW1 we still made our own rifles. Damn we would never have made the bloody Ross if the British and let us purchase the license for the Lee.
@@loganholmberg2295 during WW1 Canada should have just gave Britain the finger and make clones of the Lee anyway, I mean what the fuck where they going to do, kick you out of the war?
Colt: You can't manufacture our gun because we aren't going to give you the license.
Steyr: Here's our gun. Do whatever you want with it.
Virgin Colt vs Chad Steyr
this honesly scream political as in the US didnt want Australia to have the ability to source ther army's primary weapon in house and instead rely on Us manufacturing hence as per standard procedure the US gov had their trusty overlords: corporations pressure against it.
but Steyr was smarter and saw a gap that needed filling.
Like the French do with the Rafale vs what the USA does with the F35
Yep, now Australia is completley redesigning the thing to make it more modern. Steyr just radiates Chad energy
@@Teixas666 almost correct. the vid misses that the AUG 1 was an Australian and new Zealand deal. the USA was shitting on NZ at the time. great way to treat an ally
We loved the Steyr when it was introduced. The bullpup design meant you could really swing the rifle round quickly in close quarters and it was heaps lighter than the venerable L1A1 SLR, had really good ergonomics and basically just looked cool. It was also the first standard issue in NATO allied countries to have optical sights as standard. Rifleman marksmanship qualification became too easy so minimum standard went from a grouping score of 120 mm down to 90 mm. I remember the safety switch being a problem though with the number of unauthorised discharges going through the roof because the weapon could be taken off safety when on a sling and pressed against your webbing. The only thing we missed about the L1A1 SLR was downgrading from 7.62mm rounds to the relatively puny 5.56mm rounds (Vets used to talk about the SLR 7.62mm shooting straight through trees in Vietnam). Interesting that the US Army has just announced adopting the 6.2mm round for its new SIG Sauer M5. The SASR guys I spoke to said they preferred the M4 because they could adjust the stock for better marksmanship which you can't do with the F88 but they are incredible marksmen so it probably makes a difference to them - unlike your average, bagged arsed digger like me, for whom the F88 made me a much better rifleman.
the old L1R1/L1A1 was so f'ing heavy that if you dropped your SLR, the first thing you though was get your foot out of the way!
That's a point. The bullpup layout puts the centre of gravity between trigger hand and shoulder, which is good for staying in the aim without much tiredness. Having the CG between the two hands might be better for taking quick unaimed shots, with the stock out of the shoulder.
I think you hit the nail on the head as far as why the M4 is preferred by special forces: customization options and mounting accessories.
add supply chain. if the SASR guys are operating with US spec forces then it makes sense to have the same weapons so all parts are interchangable if necessary.
@@LiveFreeOrDieDH theres also an issue when firing around corners in tight profile, (right handed shooter, shooting a left handed corner for example) catching brass in the face because the ejection port is much nearer to your face than that of a non-bullpup, so basically committed to using your right hand, and right eye to fire in all conditions.
Hi, I'm Max,
I serve in the Austrian armed forces for some years now, so I can tell about the Aug A1 (Stg77) out of first hand.
First the positiv points :
*Durability, my service rifle was built in 1987 and its still acurat (300m and 5-6 cm spread) and even after 800 shoots without cleaning there was no failure at all.
*long barrel in compact design, you can maneuver in cqb and lay down precision on distance out of a window.
*the trigger, the trigger pull is hard, yes but you can go in full auto without any switch to flick (if an enemy appears in the close environment.
*easy to use and take apart on the field.
*center of gravity, the center of gravity is right on the pistol grip, so it's easy to maneuver with only one hand.
Now the negative points, and that are the points why the sof teams didn't pick it as their service rifle in the 80s.
-modularity, on the A1 version you can't optimize anything, no scope, no light, no laser.
-the scope. Don't get me wrong, for a standard rifleman the scope is perfect and easy to use, but for my personal experience its ****,for cqb the field of view is to small and for long range (200m+) 1.5x magnification is too small and the "circul of deaf" is not precise.
I'll hope that sums it up and give you a good idea of how to live with an Aug A1.
For any other questions about the rifle or the Austrian armed forces, please don't wait to ask.
And by the way my platoon and me loves your videos
This is the best post I've read on this vid, thanks for your service Max you're a deadset legend.
There's the A3 variant now. Has it been widely adopted yet?
Center of gravity is an under rated feature. Give em some with one hand and give em the finger with the other.
Wobei die KPE ja Licht & Laser an der A1 befestigt hat.
We fixed all those problems on the EF88 (F90). It's also half a kilo lighter :)
I asked a former SAS trooper why they used the AR rather than the AUG in Afghanistan. He said "optics". The originally adopted AUG didn't have pic rails.
and modularity
It’s why we developed the ef-88 so it was brought up to date
They’ve used M16/AR15 type rifles since before it was adopted by the US army. It’s light and they used to always keep the weapon to hand, no slings. All their drill is based around these weapons.
Lol. AR🤦
I thought closer matches in gear between U.S., British & Australian SF vs our military, was because of how most of the time our SF performs joint operations with both & a lot of shared training.
Australia had a bitter experience with the Carl Gustaf 84mm when Sweden opposed Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War and Australia ended up with a weapon system and no ammunition for the next 20 or 30 years, a vital lesson was learnt - never rely on someone else for your own essential services (A lesson very important today), also the Steyr turns a middling shooter into a marksman out to 400m.
As a Swede, I'm so sorry for our hypocritical actions and posturing. I'm happy that you are not relying on anyone else though. While working together is great and many times a necessity, in the end you can only fully rely on yourself.
@@mplovecraft why are you sorry? the vietnam war was bullshit
Idk dude the trigger is pretty ass. Same as the Donut reticle, when I got to my unit and was using the ACOG and ELCAN sights it was a bit better. It’s also a bitch to clean, the plastic likes to trap carbon
@@SmphnyOfBulletswhen the ADF transitioned to the F88 from the SLR there suddenly became an embarrassing number of successful cross rifle applicants to the point they had to significantly change the qualification parameters. As for donut sights that's more of a debate about time on target versus preccision accuracy, from a pre body armour era. Lol thanks for the trip down memory lane of my time spent on the floor of a Q-store trying to Lazarus a battered F88 to life for a bitter staff Sargent who doesn't have anywhere better to go on a Sunday night.
@@EvilShoei ahh the good old whiny retirement age Staff. Like your wife after a you’ve had a long day at work complaining at you, the memories 🤣
The reason the satisfaction rate is so high is when they asked the Australian infantry what they thought about the Steyr 50% said yeah nah and the other 50% said nah yeah and the data collector who was 3rd party and international misunderstood and thought they meant the same thing and gave it the thumbs up 🦘
As an Aussie! I can confirm this logic!
Talked to some Aussie soldiers and majority said they'd rather have our M4s lol
🤣🤣 so true
@@josephrobles3 i think the m4 looks better imo. joining the army next year so i guess I'll get to see how good the AUG is
Americans - please refer to this instructional video: th-cam.com/video/f4xlEPoc4No/w-d-xo.html
I went through the conversion from L1A1 SLR to AUS Steyr and nearly everyone was getting close to marksman qualification off the bat. The Army had to change the requirements for the marksman qualification due to the performance increase. The optic sight was a game changer … although I did miss the weight and powerful feel of the SLR! Back in the day we ran the rifle group with SLRs and the Scout Group had M16s. The Steyr brought one rifle in across the section with a unified ammo type, etc…
yeah, if i ever had one complaint with my steyr it was a very weird one: it has too little recoil. It almost feels like a toy when shooting. I want more feedback on my guns.
I still have my SLR and did most of my service with it. It really reached out there and DELIVERED the message. I wouldn't recommend it in urban situation unless you wanted the message delivered through a brick wall with an exclamation mark and full stop.😉😊
It wasn't particularly popular with the trial platoon.
@@David-dl3vj I couldn't roll my eyes harder.
@@David-dl3vj you still have your SLR service rifle? really? If that is true I wouldn't be telling everyone about it
I use the Steyr AUG Mod 14 as I'm serving in the Irish Defence Forces. The Steyr in the mod 14 configuration has a picatinny rail and uses the Trijicon ACOG. The weapon has excellent ergonomics and weight, I've also seen even the worst shots hit a man sized target consecutively from 300m away. I've got very few negatives to say about the weapon system.
That sounds similar to the current Australian EF88, which has a picatinny top, side and foregrip rail and comes standard with a Specter x1-x4 optic with a similar sight pattern to an ACOG, and a foregrip with a built-in bipod, except the difference between the EF88 and other Steyr variants is that the platform itself was redesigned to be lighter and more ergonomic, and also all black lol.
@Malcolm Caden A Defence Force not an Army, We mainly do UN peacekeeping missions but we have got involved in EUBG missions in the past.
Trigicon comes default??
@Malcolm Caden To be sure to be sure laddy.
Even the first version Austeyr had a single shot lock out button.
For my American brothers and sisters, we like Aussies to be pronounced as 'ozzies'. Thank you from literally every Australian ever. Oh and it's Lith-go. Keep it up guys, awesome to see one of our guns on the show.
Im sorry but the Aug is still our(Austrian) gun
And you use it to protect........ Nobody or nothing
@@stoneagepig3768 We protect the Austrian Civilians and People of many other countries
@@sebastianwagner1116 I think he meant australia
@@xBRProductionsx even if he meant Australia its not ok to talk bullshit like that
as an austrian who have seen quite a lot of military personal by now, i can say a few things about the AUG:
1. the special forces of austria does not use the standard army aug, they use custom build ones with extra stuff, like bigger rail space for attachments or a bigger magazine-button.
2. the standard aug has such a heavy pull, because every guy in the austrian army i talked to hated it when a rifle-trigger is lightweight, especially since the aug has a 2 stage trigger. i guess we austrians just have very muscular fingers or something like that.
3. the biggest downgreat of the aug is that it needs a lot of time to master - reloading in the stock, using the safety, having a heavy trigger, using the 2 stages trigger, all that are things that have to be learned and trained. the austrians from the military use this gun like a 3rd hand, because they are used to it. this is why a lot of special forces turn this gun down, because a bullpop isn´t a very intuitive design by todays standards - but i can tell you, it is certainly a very deadly one if it is in the right hands
For someone who went into service with a bullpup rifle, I agree. The bullpup doesn't feel weird to me as I didn't have any prior experience. When I first held an AR it felt like an awkward, long, front heavy weapon that was a bit harder to reload because i had to reach further from my body compared to a bullpup. But after handling it for a while I got more used to it. But if you gave me a choice of any weapon to use, I think i'd still go for a bullpup.
The Malaysian Armed Forces (Army, navy and Air Force) once fielded the AUG as the standard issue service rifle. But went back to the AR platform some time in 2006
5:50 - I remember reading a while ago that the reason the Australian SAS use the M4 and M16 because the majority of the time they're deployed alongside US special forces and found it made logical sense to use a weapon system that can be easily shared inter-operably.
That makes sense, but then it's odd that such information was overlooked by the host.
@@AA-le3xe It is an odd oversight. There's a lot of good reasons for SF to use the M4 over the Steyr that have nothing to do with the Steyr being "less good". The Steyr is easy to shoot for troops that don't get a lot of range time, reliable, easy to maintain and we can manufacture them in-country. All high priority things in a standard issue infantry weapon, but not so much for SF.
I would have thought that the M4
being lighter, more durable against weather, more reliable to stoppages, a better balanced barrel and finally having a greater effective range… would have been the defining factors.
Fun fact: No one drinks Fosters here. Not a single person. Never seen it on tap, hardly ever see it sold in bottle-os (liquor stores). I think my late grandad used to drink it, pretty sure it fell out of favour sometime between the 80s to 90s lol. I'm an Australian, lived here all my life, and I do not recall ever seeing a person drink a fosters lmao. When Fosters are being sold at a bottle shop I always notice and say "Holy shit, look, it's fosters!" because it's such a rare sight. I also never buy it cause it's generally agreed that it's bad.
Seconded!
Victorians did before the early 70’s
@@mickvonbornemann3824 But, that's Victorians...nuff said.
Fosters is not beer, its recycled you know what. Plenty of good craft beers, but for a standby: Coopers cloudy.
I was cooking a chook once, trying a recipe with a beer can up it's bum. Used a can of Fosters for a laugh. Was genuinely surprised to find it in the bottle-o.
Fun fact, we used the M16 in Vietnam, issued to scouts, section leaders and officers, while riflemen carried L1A1s. Australia was not very pleased with the M16 during Vietnam and that was another factor that contributed to its rejection.
My step dad hated them. I think the Australian military Vietnam developed a special loathing for them - "contact... oops jammed again"
@@paulp1450 the AR-15 platform in the most reliable rifle we have, so many myths about this, the rifle does need to be cleaned regularly, armalight rifle did tell people about this but the militaires didn't listen and they actually got sued for it.
you look after your ar-15 and you will not have any problems (unless you try putting like 500 rounds through it as once)
@@michaelfisher4737 Those early models needed to be cleaned and oiled constantly and when you’re patrolling through swamps and thick jungle and rivers and mud and there are monsoon dirty rains every day when you’re on six week operations it’s not exactly practicable to be able to break your rifle down and thoroughly clean it as often as was needed, especially when the threat of ambush is constant. The SLR was much more reliable for the environment in Vietnam. Some troops did prefer the M16 though especially later in the war when they became more reliable. Australia was the first to adopt the M203 attachment on M16s into regular infantry use, which was very well received.
@@pats3071 all ar-15 models need to be oiled constantly, its the same with most modern military rifles and even m1 and m14 rifles.
go look up the videos inrange have done with mud tests on ar-15s, the rifle is built so tight that nothing can get into the system to cause a malfunction.
so many myths came our about the ar-15 during that war in un real, no wonder armalight rifle sued the military over it
@@pats3071 th-cam.com/video/LyXndCxn9K4/w-d-xo.html
Bullpup guy or not, the AUG has done a hell of a lot for the firearms world.
agreed
@@callsigndobermanairsoft4209 what is AUG?
@@mr.rousseau.4655 its short for styer AUG rifle as explained in the video its the abbreviation of universal army rifle
It is one of the only bullpups I like.
Although I like the AUG as a curiosity, I’m wondering what it “has done...for the firearms world”?
I used the Steyr for 20 years and swear by it. Incredibly accurate, balanced, very little recoil, relatively light, modifiable, lethal and reliable. Transparent mags are handy and with or without the latest Spectre Scope, the 7 in pitch in turn barrel coiling made the round fly so beautifully stable making anyone a good shot. I remember taking down targets at three hundred meters with a savage cross wind by simply aiming slightly off to predictably know where the round would land. At my prime, I could even do this from the standing position. The two stage trigger pull is a system I'm amazed other assault rifles don't adopt - once mastered, it takes combat to the next level, particularly in urban environments and building clearances. I fired the M4 many times but it just always felt cheap, flimsy and produced without a soul - also, I could never seem to get it to fit my firing position (standing, kneeling or prone). Honestly, it's like a the Steyr is a premium European Sports car, while the M4 was mass production Mustang crap. Just my opinion after 20 years. Either way, I wouldn't like to take on a well-trained soldier with either platform. But if I had to go back, its the Steyr no questions asked.
Sorry Adam. Love ya and your channel but the styre is dogshit any infantryman will tell you that and after my frontline deployment to Afghanistan I'll say with confidence it's trash, pure trash.
Do you see any SF unit carrying it? No you don't and your comments about the M4 are based on pure combat inexperience and respectfully... ignorance. From memory you weren't in the army either.
Your experiences were different from mine then. Don't rate that rubbish, short, plasticky (especially trigger group) crap at all!! Its exploding gas plugs, fragile snap off cocking handles, and melty trigger group / hammer were particularly bad. M4 isn't very impressive either. A modernised SLR, or something in a battle rifle calibre...conventional layout ..compact scope / dot ..sorted !! 🇦🇺
@@adods9824 I concur. Steyr was more a political pick than a capabilities one. I never rated it.
The optic sight was a welcome improvement over the iron sight. My marksmanship improved heaps when we went from the SLR to the Steyr. So much lighter too!
Brah the EF88 the upgraded Steyr is a beast I personally love it over any other firearm. It's super light now and with the new scope you have to be blind if you don't hit dead centre at any range under 600m
my uncle was telling me about using the SLR in the navy and how zeroing it meant filing down the iron sight. having just got back from kapooka and using those wicked spectre sights I was pretty blown away
Yes, but the SLR was alot more powerful and it just felt right for me. I left the army because of the AUG
I used both the SLR and the Steyr. Personally I loved the SLR. But I ran the first range shoot in my battalion using the Steyr. So I had a lot of clerks and other admin staff along (typical). I was very impressed with how it turned people who could barely hit a Fig 11 target at 50 m into into man killers. Esp tge smaller females, who had trouble even holding the the SLR on target unsupported. It was a good weapon. Apparantly the new version is even better.
Drill looks so much better with the SLR too
Australian's don't drink Fosters it's shit beer and we export it to get rid of it.
I was in Darwin for 6 months and never saw Foster’s in any pub. Great Northern was universally available.
Crown lager is rebranded Foster's
@@thebeautifulones5436 you've just explained my dislike of crowies
Fosters is us trolling the world and or us exporting our rubbish like Rupert Murdoch.
@@thebeautifulones5436 nah crown is just VB that sits in the vat a couple of days longer...
I'd like to preface my comment by saying that I was an airforce aircraft mechanic that dabbled in base defense as a secondary duty. I was never involved in combat duties. This was an extremely well researched video and was pretty accurate. Personally, I transitioned from the SLR (FAL) to the F88 (AUG) in the early 90s and I loved it, although many of the old and bolds lamented the demise of the old SLR. During the change over there was a lot of scuttlebutt about kickbacks and grifting during the trials but in light of the trial paper coming out, I think this video is accurate as to why the weapon was adopted. However, one thing I would note is that ADF weapons training doctrine would have to be rewritten if the M16 had been adopted as the M16 controls are not compatible with ADF SOPs, namely the function of the safety and the bolt hold back controls. As already been mentioned the SASR operatate the M4 for reasons of interoperability but I have seen SF operate the F88 on occasion. Lastly, one major correction, any ADF personal would rather die of thirst than drink Foster's.
G'day.
I am back in the ADF now although as a civilian, I was part of a re-trial between the AUSTYER and the M4 (2008) due to some grumbling within the Army. This was a test based on the original trial and I can confirm the AUSTEYR come out trumps again. Accuracy, penetration, ROF, adverse conditions, wear tolerances, etc.
I used the AUSTYER in East Timor and Afghanistan and it still proved a reliable weapon system.
Why Special Forces use the M4. The US and interoperability plan and simple. Plus adaptability, ie, attachments. The M4 is that, adaptable.
The new EF88 OR F90 is just as adaptable now and as an old and bold am very happy with the AUSTEYR. Learning new combative techniques is making this weapon very effective.
Great channel by the way. No BS and well researched. Well done.
Aussie vet here. We patrolled the streets of Baghdad (2005) with the Steyr. It's a tough, durable rifle but in urban and confined spaces becomes quite heavy on the barrel end. The limited use we had of M4's, we found them much lighter but with a more "flimsy" feel to them. Both are fine weapons.
Are but you just ignore the little problems. Like anything in military it builds character
Except their calibre is too small :-(
@@adods9824 stop talking like you know what your on about. Did you deploy?
@KipKil1igan Yeah he's done 4 tours of the xbox live cod lobby..
@@Threaldaveoss ahahahahahaha
Echo the thoughts below as someone from an Australian Army background qualified on both weapon systems. The M4 SOPMOD was preferred by SF because of its modularity (at the time the AUG had no rails and only the fixed sight), improved MOA accuracy when 'dialed in' (the AUG is still plenty accurate enough for your average grunt though, with its longer barrel for the same size compensating for the mushy trigger and DI gas system) and (importantly) interoperability with foreign SF and US resupply chains (as SF Task groups were often plugged into US battlegroups. The old AUG also didnt offer a bolt release (IA for a mag change was to cock the weapon, lock rearwards, drop and replace mag, manually release working parts forward and then fire), so a trained M4 user could conduct mag changes faster and get rounds back on target.
The EF88 (the new AUG) totally addresses the first and last points (it has plentiful rails, room for an electronic rail and battery, and a a bolt release), however you get still get better MOA and interoperability with US forces with M4 style platforms, and now the SF guys are also used to the workspace of M4 style rifles, so they stick with them.
They wont admit it but it also pretty much marks them as SF as well.
I've extensively used both platforms and I can say without question the short stroke piston of the AUG is a whole another level of reliability better than the DI M4 with stoppages other than mag changes an absolute rarity. It's on a different planet - I probably had no more than half a dozen stoppages over 10 years using it that were not mag changes (in some extremely adverse Aussie conditions), and they were all double feeds jamming her up. The M4 matched that number of stoppages alone on the 3 day training course and range practices I did to qualify on it. It's not even close with reliability.
I shot better groups with the M4 (but the AUG was no slouch there, and you're hitting center of seen body mass at 100m with either weapon) and preferred the modularity of the M4 (I was able to get round on target fast with a reflex sight, and after a bit of 'rewiring' the muscle memory had my drills quick as well.). The M4 trigger is better as well obvs.
If I had to choose one rifle, it would be the AUG (EF 88) because it does everything I want it to do, when I want it to do it, regardless of weather or terrain, and its a weapon system I'm simply used to and have the muscle memory to operate under fire without thinking.
It's a fantastic rifle.
Concur.
How is it to operate from the left shoulder? i.e. after transitions?
@@chk6194 Better now with the EF88 - it comes with a brass deflector that stops you getting hit in the face when firing wrong handed.
The Steyr is fully ambi (you just need a left eject bolt for a leftie) and all controls other than the side charging handle are ambi as well (mag release, saftey). It comes with ejection ports on both sides stock.
Very informative, thank you :)
When reading the summary of the tests, the rough condition tests really showed a lot of difference, which Cappi here didn't really mention in his video much
@@Ocker3 I know its anecdotal, but in 10 years of the AUG as my main weapon in a Cavalry Armored Recon unit, with several such weapons issued to me over that time, and in EXTREMELY adverse conditions in the Australian outback, I can count the stoppages other than 'empty mag' on one hand (and they were double feeds, so the mag may have been the culprit!). Never heard any other soldier complain about the rifles reliability either, and we soliders love to bitch.
Only complaint was about the power of the weapon with blokes preferring the 7.62 NATO. Personally the SS109 5.56 round was plenty good enough for me, as long as you get the tumble effect going that the round is designed for, and you dont overpenetrate (but the M4 obviously has the identical issue here).
If anything, the longer barrel on the AUG due to its bullup nature increases muzzle velocity and kinetic energy on target (although this might also adversely affect the tumbling of the round, beats me).
It’s the best weapon in the world! I as a Austrian Sergeant Major was shooting for 35 years the AUG or Sturmgewehr 77 or StG77. The handling is fantastic and I would never change it with any other assault rifle. Many greetings from an old Sergeant Major from Linz-Austria🇦🇹😎👍✌️🍺💪 Europe!
"Jeden Tag fit mit 2 Gramm shit" 😂 🇦🇹✌
"Reeechts SCHAUT!" ein wahrer Kenner und Liebhaber.
Am meisten muss man wohl das niedrige Gewicht und das Handling loben, alles ist intuitiv daran.
Maybe we should be shipping this weapon to the Ukrainians?
Ich liebe unsere STG77 😎😎
@@MyNameisnoootRiiick8798 English only please.
Used the AUG for 12 years in the Irish DF its an amazing all round weapon, ive used it with the 203 launcher too a few times. Anything within 300m is a hit every time.
We had the rangers with us in East Timor.
It's pretty accurate compared to the shorter barreled M16 platform battle rifles .
I’m actually hoping the Irish DF adopts the Australian F90 as a replacement for the AUG.
It’s a generational leap forward compared to the AUG, It also appears that the US Army might be adopting a Ballpup
Waiting for someone in comments to mention the Bois. nice to have a man that actually used one say it. Never been in the reserves and the such but I got a good look at one when the West Post got shutdown, wish they let me field strip
@@jimmymifsud1 too expensive.
In Iraq I had several Australian buddies, the Augs balance was phenomenal; so easy to point and stay on target. The trigger was "okay" compared to my M16, definitely would have preferred it over my weapon for sure.
Traitor
@@normanadkins1784 That's a professional's opinion
@@normanadkins1784 We are literally in a security pact with the US, what are you on about.
@@normanadkins1784 😂😂 I feel the same way when we bought USA jets and uk
@@liquidhyperion4189 Australians are not in a security pact with the US, the govrernment is. Australians want nothing to do with the United Sociopaths of America.
Ex Australian Army here, I used the austeyr for most of my time in, sometimes getting handed the minimi or mag 58 on occasion. I did however get to use the M4 on one occasion, and even though I was very familiar with the austeyr, I found the M4 to be waaaay more ergonomic than the austeyr. I think the reason our SF prefer the M4 over the austeyr would be ergonomics, and mission specific customisation options.
I suspected this to be the case.
but the new F90 is much more ergonomic as the old F88 (Austeyr), best is the F90MBR: i think if it was not Australian built, did the french buy it (Lithgow arms who made the F90 is part from the french Thales group)
@@leneanderthalien Yeah I was out of the army just before the F90 was introduced, so I can't really comment on that. It looks to be more ergonomic and customisable than the F88, probably still has that gritty trigger group though. SF must be holding onto their M4s for a reason.
@@bpgsontz1072 ..plus when needed on special operations with other nations/NATO/RIMPAC SF forces, they can borrow spare/magazines etc parts as needed from them too, since many use the M16 variants.
That's quite interesting. Personally I found the complete opposite, the centre of mass being further back made the steyr significantly more comfortable for me than any other rifle I have ever held. I did not however that it was, initially at least, disliked by people who were already experienced with firearms before using the steyr.
I was an Australian paratrooper back in 88 (3RAR) you need to remember that we already had the M16 a1 and the 203 adaptation, however we where replacing the 7.62 SLR or Belgian FN big heavy and long rifle, F88 made it easier to stow when jumping, however in the first issue the optics where built in and no pic rails.
I think you'll find that most allied SF units use the M4 for interoperability between nations. It also had the Picatinny rail system long before Famas, SA80 and Styer allowing for more modification to the weapon in dynamic environments.
I’ve never in my life heard a SF operator say that the fact that other countries uses it is a plus, or even a minus for that matter.
Smaller countries SF with no small arms industry might have an availability issue, and thus to some degree have to go with what other nations SF have, but that is not an “interoperationability” thing.
You’re right about the picatinny rail etc, but that is a completely other line of reasoning for choosing weapons for SF.
Same magazines, same ammunition, same parts, same knowledge on how to use the weapon if it needs to be picked up and used by someone else. There's plenty of plusses. Weather or not you've heard anyone say it is irrelevant.
@@TommyGlint It was literally the reason I was given by the Warrant officer of the NZSAS. We also had the Steyr until very recently as our main rifle.
@@NemisisAce Exactly. It might be hard to understand if you are from a larger country, but NZ and Aussie have small Armies, and our SAS often work with SF from other nations.
Sort of. Most of those countries are now or always have been actually using the Diemaco C8, which has a very high interoperability with the M4 platform (having a common origin) but is far higher quality. While C7/C8 also had a rail system based on the Weaver rail prior to the Picatinny rail this was probably not really a factor in the widespread adoption of the C8.
Austrian here, I used the AUG back in the day when I was in service and I loved and still love the dual stage trigger precisely because you can go from semi to full auto without having to flip a switch. Especially in CQC when you run into an unexpected target it's handy that you just need to squeeze a harder. I also own the civilian version and had chances to compare it to a friends AR-15 and I have to say the balance while only holding it in the trigger hand is way better.
Big plus for bullpups their, love how much longer you can hold the rifle at the ready before fatigue sets in. Balance is huge. That's why people like M4s and Mk18's. But a 20 inch barrel is necessary for a rounded out infantry rifle in 5.56, and our Army and Marines have had trouble with the 14.5 barrel at 300m+ where an M16 doesn't till nearly 500m.
Love that balance. You can direct traffic and give hand signals with one hand and shoot almost accurately with the other.
Yeah I imagine it all boils down to what you train on. Americans being AR crazy have an affinity to the AR so they tend to shit on anything else because its what they know.
IMO most ergonomical and trigger issues on guns boil down to training. Besides its not like the base US army M16 has the best trigger either. Otherwise why would most Americans spend all that money modifying their ARs?😅
Also fan of bullpul balance. Just sits in the shoulder. Weight comes down through trigger hand, no forward rotation unless rails are stacked e.g. ugl.
The real reason is even we Aussies 🇦🇺 get _Austria and Australia mixed up_ and thought we were buying local…
Rumour is someone got the shipping details wrong and a box of them showed up at Parliament. Instead of returning to sender they just sent them to the military to adopt them. ;)
C'mon Defence Procurement would never fuck up.
Lloyd Christmas: G'day mate, put another shrimp on the barbie!
As an Austrian i can confirm that it's basically the same country...
Our snow kangoroos are just right side up, not upside down like in Australia 😊
I was an armoured in the Australian army when the F88 steyr Aug replaced the SLR (L1A1) in 1988.
The first batch actually went to New Zealand in 1986/7, the plastic stock used to come apart and bite a chunk out of the users cheek ( very common).
Then when I received them, we’ll - shit on a stick.
The 1.5 power optics had a completely different optic to what you show. It was a huge circle with the cross hair on the outer. No post, no cross hair, not even a dot for accuracy shooting. No matter how hard I tried they said it was a battle sight. The trigger mech was made of the same plastic as the stock. When oiled, sand / dirt and everything else used to stick to it. This caused a sand paper effect, thus stoppages. They finally said use dry lube. The cocking handles broke off if accidentally stood on etc. making inoperable. When I asked to have a fold down like the SLR- answer NO.
Trigger pull crap as stated.
The original F88,S had extractors with sharp edges and would not eject rounds properly I had to hone each one down. The receiver housings had porosity holes all through them , poor quality (were meant to be solid). I had some that had NO bullet ramp machined in the barrels - they were meant to be test fired?!
Being 5.56mm they didn’t have the knock down power that the 7.62mm of the SLR had.
In all, every soldier hated them, they were unreliable for years. I got better scores shooting competition with the iron sighted SLR than I did with the 1.5power optics on the F88 ( I shot internationally in the defence force).
The only good part about them, was the plastic magazines were see through, but if you got Rid ( mosquito/fly spray) on them they turned white, brittle and fell apart.
This is not a conspiracy, just all facts. As an armourer they were the worst ever.
I knew soldiers on some other trials, they all told me “don’t believe what you read). Most test trials are doctored to get a predetermined outcome.
For instance, I watched video footage back in the day of the SLR verses the F88 vs M16a2.
SLR passed every test. The M16and F88 were only shown in some areas of the video- because they failed those tests.
You wanted to know why special forces don’t use them.
Well above is just some examples, there is more.
Hi. I was involved in a re-trial of the Austeyr v's the M16/M4 about 8 years ago.
The Steyr still outperformed the M4, again. The M4 is used in SF as it is compatable with the US SF, not to mention, mission adaptable.
The new EF88/EF 90 has been modified to be just as adaptable now and is a very good weapon system.
The main reason I heard was that the fixed stock on the f88 was getting in the way of the extra gear that the SF's would carry.
Having not served, but know some guys that work at Lithgow;
They said the F90 is a huge redesign over the F88 AUG, even though it looks the same.
He also said that they can give a random civilian a F90 and they’ll group targets much quicker than a A4 platform,
But I doubt that was a requirement of the tender
That's truly amazing Jellyon Aplate, can you tell me why didn't they choose the XM8 rifle when they had a chance at it, yet again?
Also can't shoot offhand with the styers design. Some newer Bulpups liken the desert tech that have the ejection port that rejects forward and can be changed on the fly to offhand shooting puts it ahead. Styer can't so SF don't like it in an urban environment where shooting offhand around corners is needed.
Also bullpups are more difficult to use in every way except for being slightly shorter for the same barrel length.
I was working with the Afghan National Army Chief of Operations in the early 2000s and asked why the Aussie and NZ SAS adopted US weapons while fighting there. The response was that it was an interoperability/commonality issue. If all the troops are using the same kit they are easier to supply, maintain and recognize on the battlefield.
That'd make sense. They'd all be able to recognize it visually, and hear it. Especially important in places they're probably not really supposed to be in. Handing out spare mags etc. They all essentially work for the same corporations.
That’s a good point. I thought that it is because AR15 style rifles seem to be much more customisable since a longer time.
I think it’s also a modularity thing. The new Ef88 is pretty modular, mostly in term of optics, foregrips etc, but is nowhere near the level of the AR llatform
Even back in Vietnam Oz had to turn in its SLRs for crap reliability & function M16S, just to standardise ammo supply with Yank supply! M16s killed ppl due to crap reliability & poor stopping power! & No single fire option!!! WTF!
@@paulfribbs8516 agreed on the maintenance issues. All the M16 users in theater received the wrong lubricating oil, which caused the weapons to rust and jam quite easily. It wasn’t until the 1980s that they redesigned the ammo for improved accuracy and hitting power. Ya got me on the no single fire option. I have never heard of that in an M16. The M16 and M16A1 had a selector with three settings. Safe, single and full auto. The M16A2 had four settings. Safe, Single, Three round burst and full auto. I’ve handled hundreds of M16s over the years, and never seen a full auto only. Can you document that?
I was in the Oz army when we transitioned to the AUG - I'll start by saying it's not a bad weapon (the trigger as mentioned was crap) - but it is designed for cold weather, so you can operate it with thick gloves on. this means there is no trigger guard and the safety is push button rather than lever, so UD's went through the roof in the early days - the other thing, which should never have been a problem if someone with a brain had thought it through, was that the plastic on the stock was not UV stabilised, and Australia is famous for a hot, sunny hi-UV climate, so it would get brittle and crack in very short order. It's a cruel world.
The problem with the Styer compared to the M4 carbine in special forces , is the attachments that can be put on the M4 compared to the Styer. We can put different scopes on it and Night aiming devices , but it wasn't easy working out an M203 attachment that worked . The first ones were rattling the rifle to bits . The new FE90 is definitely a major update step forward with picatinny rails everywhere and improved trigger .
Lighter, more accurate, smaller and more agile, more accurate and able to be made in here. All round awesome infantry rifle.
The Australian infantry are trained to fire multiple aimed single shots. If you're on burst or full auto, you're not really aiming and therefore mostly wasting ammo.
The reason SAS use the M4 is as a result of the need to coordinate with other SF groups overseas. Also originally it was much easier to modify.
The clinching of the M4 was because the SASR Water Troops in each Sabre Squadron found that the earlier AUG/ F88s performed badly in marine environments. They didn’t handle seawater. The M4 performed better in water and was also modular. In its early years the AUG couldn’t fit a grenade launcher, or different optics, lasers and lights. The M4 SOPMOD could do all of that.
tell me your qualified on neither without telling me on neither
@@MS-ux6ze Got my TOET Q on the F88 in 1996. ;)
@@wattlebough i was replying to the OP not you, lol. respectfully, thats nice you got some time on the tools back in the day but the styre is dog shit, its a step in the right direct that they’re are finally dumping it in favour of the new SIG rifles.
@@MS-ux6zewhere did you hear they were dumping the steyr , they just finished recieving the enhanced f88 which isn't expected to replaced until well into the 2030s and dependent on the evaluations from their enhanced lethality testing which will decide the next generation of infantry weapon to come into service probably late 2030 The sig mcx is only being adopted by the special operations command and a few units in the airforce, navy etc to replace the m4 and will not replace the f88 as an infantry weapon. They are adopting the sig p320 as their sidearm though.
Hey mate. Just some clarification on a few points.
For the longest time, SF in Australia often picked weapons by preference for example you can see pictures of SAS in Vietnam using SLRs and M16s, Commandos in East Timor using F88s and M4s. Even today they consider different weapons for different jobs, but I digress.
The main reason the M4A1 eventually became the mainstay in SAS and Commandos has already been highlighted. A mixture of customisation options that early Steyr variants didn't have and interoperability considerations with other coalition SF units. There's likely many other considerations here, but I'd say those were the big ones.
Aside from that. The new EF88 is a real nice weapon that has some perks of the M4 family engineered into it.
great additional info thanks for pointing this stuff out! Yeah it looks like the most logiical reason for SF using M4s is those after market customizations
Mate first good reply I’ve seen. I never had any problems with the F88s, I left the Army just before the EF88 came in, I think people forget that a rifle is only as good as it’s user.
A point to add about the SF using M4s is that they also wanted a platform that you could pick up spare parts for any ware, due to not all SF deployments being with Aussie forces
In my experience it comes down to the SAS being something of primadonnas and wanting to be different to the rest of the army.
@@naess83 missing out man EF88 is so good to shoot. I never had problems with either version I love them both.
@@MagpieOz As much as I hate on the F88, I do feel like that figures into it somewhat
Being special forces mean you don't have to wear the same uniform as everyone else (even in the barracks environment), don't have to iron it, don't have to abide by the same facial hair and hairstyle standards, don't have to pay the same compliments to rank, etc. I used to think it was a good trade-off for the nature of their work, until it transpired they were hiding war crimes and having booze parties overseas.
If the battalions of the RAR and reserve infantry started getting issued M4s or HK416s, you'd bet the SASR would have theirs painted with tiger stripes, or buy something newer and more distinctive-looking off the shelf from the States.
Used the Steyr in the Australian Army for a number of years in the late 90's. Loved it. Loved it so much, that while living in the US, bought one of the 40th Anniversary AUG's so I could use one regularly again.
F88-AUG is a sweet rifle. NZ had them but moved to the MARS-L platform (M4)
AUG was prone to stoppages, mine loved a double feed. Field stripping in a firefight is no good... But NZ had old rifles, mine was pushing 20 years and maintenance was average at best.
If it is reliable, your troops are trained on it and the trigger doesn't suck a bullpup has more muzzle velocity with less overall length. That's great for overall army use.
Special forces however want what they want. You hate the bullpup lengh of pull by half an inch? M4 it is. Hate the trigger, handguard, grip angle? Yeah, M4.
If it means getting 3 shots on target instead of 2 in the same time, the lower muzzle velocity of an M4 doesn't matter as much as comfort and handling.
Here is the thing even with heavy optics and underbarrels bullpups have center of weight still in the center of the gun. While M4 just becomes more and more front heavy. Which is good for handling recoil I guess, but will tire you faster if you shoulder the gun a lot as those troops are trained to do.
With a m4 you can shoot a chicken with an AUG you can kill people
the elephant in the room is the aug cant do water ops which is why the sf use the m4 , i served for 17 years and hated the steyr , i have worked with both the m4 and the aug and for me the m4 was much better in all aspects , note the report was for the m16 which was all ready in the process of getting alterations due to failings from nam and other variants were all ready being made and put to work effectively before the end of that war , but we then decide to test the aug to a known rifle with issues even if some of those issues had been addressed , by its own logic the m4 is much better than the then m16
As an Ex Australian Soldier, the Aug also has a lock out button to prevent soldiers from going full auto by accident. We also get taught to control our trigger pressures from day one using the Aug to prevent us from going full auto under stress and pressure of the battle.
Yes same here we kept this in single mode instead of full auto almost always. You'd have to be in a pretty desperate position to want to go full auto unless prone.
ya.. it can be super glued to semi only
Woss button, bitch switch, chicken switch... basically the most hated function on the rifle, and only when some genius subby OIC range got the bright idea to make everyone use it.
Never used the lock out and never felt the need to. You got use to the 2 stage trigger and got on with it.
Apparently the Aussies gave a contract to True Velocity to produce polymer cased 5.56 ammo.
I’m getting on a plane to go meet the true velocity people in Texas right now I’ll ask them
@@Taskandpurpose You are? Is it related to the NGSW program? If so ask why GD decided to go with a magazine fed machine gun instead of a belt fed one. And what their plans are for the battery pack.
That true velocity ammo is clearly the most Superior of the ammunition choices for the ngsw.
Well I love the idea of the MCX spear coming to market I'm not sure it and it's by metallic cartridge are really the next generation but simply one step forward
@@Taskandpurpose can you ask them about future potential 6.8 mm round use in Australia ? Have they considered presenting their NGSW bid there, since it’s also bullpup?
@@cybertronftw1 adf won't go for it. They haven't even adopted there new pistol yet which was meant to be the glock 17 with external frame safety. Irony is that glock turned down the request to RND a glock with frame safety for the Aussies but then back flipped on the US mhp.
Short answer is no new polymer cased ammo or new toys on the horizon for us
Lol just came across this video in my TH-cam feed, get ready (TL:DR I served in Somalia in the Infantry first Australian deployment with the Aug). I was in when we changed over to the Steyr in 1992 in 1 RAR (1st Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment), literally that Christmas we were recalled for deployment to Somalia, I was told to report on Christmas Eve back to my unit. We were fairly happy with the new rifle but those of us who had been around for a while still were rusted on supporters of the L1A1 SLR, that changed when we took the rifle overseas (we were using Israeli made SS109 rounds with a steel penetrator as we did not have enough locally made 5.56mm ammo), in this first iteration they could not workout how to fit a 40mm launcher under the rifle so we were issued with the M79 for the deployment. The major stoppage we were having was a double feed but on operations for the first time in a desert environment the Steyr performed very well, I will not get into too much detail but things that were hit did not get up. If I may make a quick observation, when you mention Somalia you are actually showing footage of I believe Afghanistan, below is a link with some videos of us in Somalia, thanks for taking the time to talk about us!!
th-cam.com/users/results?search_query=1rar+somalia
In my time in the ADF I was able to experience the F88 and EF88 weapon systems, absolute breeze to shoot and balanced so well
9.5/10
Former Austrian Army Recon here and I loved me my AUG (or as we called it StG77). Rugged, reliable, compact, yet accurate.
Österreich auf jeden Fall😂✌🇦🇹
@@Oberkommando Landeck, AufklKP/StbB6/6. Jägerbrigade, gibt's mittlerweile nicht mehr.
@@MH-jj2ss Ich dachte ich schleiche als Österreicher alleine rum bei Cappys Ersatzteilarmee... 😉
I would prefer an aug over an an m16. It is austrian quality as its finest. I think the special forces use the ar platform because it has more customization. On an ar for example you cant change the stock but the bullpupness of the aug does not allow you to change it. The ar platform usually has more rail space for attachments. The aug is not as customizable as some other bullpups out there. Still i prefer my finnish made rk62m3 over all other infantry weapons.
I think this is probably the most likely scenario , the extra rail space and after market equipment for the M4 makes it worth it on the high end
That is literally the reason why steyr cooked up an ar-15 clone for the Austrian SF the Jagdkommando.
Mind you i was just a conscript but i met a few people in the higher army echelons in Austria since then.
Rail space and modularity are big improvements on the newer model. Btw the newer EF88 is black as standard. The older F88 was the green and black Die Hard edition. (Many get painted though)
@@Taskandpurpose Don't discount the speed of mag changes. Changing mag on the original AUG is slow as hell especially if it's locked open after you fire your last round. You have to: grab the mag with your left hand, push the release with your thumb on the same hand, pull the mag out, do something with it (drop it or put it in a pouch) then get your next mag, insert it, grab the cocking handle and cycle the bolt, shoot. As opposed to an M4: push the mag release with your right hand while you're getting the next mag with your left hand, insert it and press the bolt release, shoot.
back in the late 80's when Ireland was assessing replacements for the FAL, the Styer AUG lost to the SIG SG 550 in the competition, then they realised that the SIG was too expensive so the Styer AUG became the standard weapon of the Irish Defence Force. Now the Irish use an updated Aug called the Mod 14
Gonna need the source on that.
the source is - use google @@thegael1996
I worked on the trials for the Aug 88 and I was told the reason the Aussie SF groups went with the AR platform was quicker Mag changes when timing depends on it👍🏻🇦🇺
They told me that M4s had all the 'fruit' available and Styer didn't so they preferred the M4 because of the accessories you could get for it.
They also went with the AR platform due to it being much easier to switch from right to left handed.
Wow interesting, that's exactly the comment I was gonna write until I read yours. I can only imagine if you're the point or coverman going into a house... Imagine a jam or someone running in whilst you reload. With the M4/16 you'll be able to squeeze off a round much faster than when you're fumbling with your bullpup. Whilst infantry might have this problem too, it isn't their PRIMARY concern, which it would be of any SF troops.
Thanks for the comment. I suspected that the difference would relate to the needs of a basic infantry soldier vs. features valued by proficient veterans.
@jumbo the only advantage other than range like you said is the magazine/magazine housing. The Steyr has the spring loaded catch, and you KNOW when it’s seated properly. M4, however …
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the numerous modifications the Australian army made to the gun. Apparently it's technically called the Austeyr.
Also I think the bias due to manufacturing rights theory makes sense considering Australia is an Island nation meaning the only way we get international goods is from trade ships. Australia's population is too small to field a large enough navy to protect all of our shipping lanes in the event of a major global conflict so local manufacturing capability is very important in Australia.
Yes good observation. I had a part in there about the F90 new updates but I decided I’m going to do a separate video on those upgrades it was too much to fit into this one video . Yes I tend to buy the island nation needing to self manufacture theory too
@@Taskandpurpose Oh awesome can't wait to see that.
It is extremely important when you consider the next war will be fought against the Chinese, Indonesians, Indians or a combination of them. No planes or ships are going to have an easy ride getting to Australia.
They use to make AusSteyr AUG’s for the civilian market before 1996 and we’re ordered to shut down along with AAA. There is currently one for sale and is considered a collector handgun here so if your a firearm collector and have a spare $18k you can own a semi-auto AusSteyr in Australia.
@@DavesIneosGrenadier It's more likely to be fought in Indonesia, beside the Indians and Indonesians V the Chinese.
As I was told by ex-SF soldier, Australian Special Forces tend to want to use what the American Special Forces use. As they are the ones that are more likely going to be in combat situations, that is as good a reason as any for them to pick their weapon.
Not just that, but chances they will be on an op with U.S, British SF using M4 variants is pretty high, so everyone running the same platform; has distinct advantages.
Makes sense.
@jumbo depends what youre using it for, bullpups and the Aug are much better for squad fire tactics, using from vehicles and much more accurate. The AR platform costs more but is easier to maintain in the field,ergonomically better suited to CQB and has a lot more easily available mounts but is a lot less reliable.
@jumbo you didnt watch the video did you
Different needs, M4 rail system, Balance and hold sight-calibration better on impact (eg landing) Plus our spec-ops do a lot of cross-over with US spec ops
We don't drink Foster's, we don't even have Foster's in Australia.
I was in service during the changeover & the AUG is 1000% better.
Everyone else uses M4's because it's a much cheaper unit.
There is a switch just above the trigger to change it between semi & full auto by stopping the trigger from being able to fully pull, this has always been a feature !
The real reasons we luv them is because they strip then assemble in under 1 minute,
They have a cleaning kit inside them,
you can change the ejection port from right to left easily,
1.5X standard scope, piccaninny rail, open sight all in one,
& they are light weight, which matters when you have to run or march for long distances.
"Nutty theories on the internet" aka accepted wisdom within the ADF. It's just a different tool for the job. The manufacturing licence was mandatory, the other criteria 'massaged' to support a foregone conclusion. SF needed modularity and water immersion (likely due to the gas system and potential overpressure). Bettrr than the M4? Just different. Best riflefor Oz according to a panel of people with vested interests? Definitely.
The other thing with the M4 is that SF more regularly interacts with foreign forces that use the M4 than the regular army does, so they can be re-supplied by an American unit already in-country instead of then having to make the logistical chain to get the Australian armament to them.
ADI float for the Thales buyout?
Vested interest sure
@@sorrrbet4923 Not really a factor given that the AUG can use the same magazines as the M4, all standard NATO (and close NATO allies) stuff. Modularity isn't an issue anymore, though it admittedly was with the first versions, the ones being produced in Australia now are not the same rifle as in the 1980's.
When the nascent Singapore Armed Forces were looking for a rifle, they decided on Colt's AR-15 and obtained a licence to produce it by Chartered Industries Singapore in the island republic. This was ain the mid to late 60s. As all 18-year-old males had to do national service, the SAF needed a lot of rifles. On completion of NS, soldiers went into the reserves until they were 40 and in the event of a "re-call" needed to be equipped and armed, The problem was that Colt would not allow Chartered Industries to sell AR-15s outside of Singapore. That may have been a factor in Australia's decision. Singapore eventually ended its relationship with Colt and CIS became Singapore Kinetics. It produced the SAR-21, also a bullpup, and a light machinegun called the Ultimax (and other military hardware), Singapore Kinetics sells its products internationally. I trained on the AR-15 and have fired a Steyr. I like the latter better, And it has nothing to do with the fact that I have been an Australian for the past 30 years. :)
I am really proud that my little homecountry Austria has invented such a cool new weapon.
Well also, what about that little gun called Glock... I own two of them actually, its one of the most ingenious mechanical devices ever created. But I still had to add a manual safety, just for my own peace of mind, and they ought to have that option. Especially because that's the reason it got eliminated from all the testing when the US was shopping around for a new side-arm -
I am glad your country made the Glocks too. I have a G43 and a G48. Right when I turned 21 I bought a couple Hi-Point pistols and thats what I used until I was 25 and finally bought my Glocks. I ankle carry the G43 and hip carry the G48. Both are super reliable and I love how they look.
Austria has some good engineering schools or something the Austrian's make the best stuff for often a decent price also.
@@pdb6157 There is something called HTL here in Austria its like High School for eingineering with different fields to focus in from Mechanical Engineering to Electrical Engineering or computer science. There is also one just for Weapon making in Carinthia.
New weapon? This weapon was introduced in 1977. That's why it's called the STG-77...
Mate, the 'w' in Lithgow is silent😄
I am only an enthusiast & since the firearms regulations here in Australia I haven't really bothered too much. It was a huge thrill a couple of decades ago to be invited out to the RAAF range with an officer friend to put a dozen mags through the Steyr. Looking down range through that scope was incredible. My friend said that if you could pick up a man sized target at 300 metres it was all over. Supposedly not great past 400 & at 500 the projectile is tumbling. But what a day that one was. Nice video too, by the way
Australia also trialled a revolutionary _caseless assualt rifle_ called the C30R.
Unfortunately in a attempt to gain publicity it was demonstrated in front of media before it's design was finalised and …
It *blew up* in front of said media.
It had a out of battery misfire, with a 60 round internal disc magazine.
That was a teething issue that could have been fixed, if it had happened in house instead of in a public demonstration.
Could be a idea to do a story on it? Step on forgotten weapons toes.
I love my AUG and it might be my favorite 5.56 gun to shoot of everything I own but it will never be my go to gun. First obviously is that the M-4/AR-15 has come a long way since the A2 and the AUG has been able to do little more than add a bolt release and a flat top rail to allow optic mounting choice. When setting up a fighting gun most bullpups just don't have the real estate to put things where you want them. Yes, it can be done but hardly optimally (for example a light you can activate with either hand). Speaking of switching hands many bullpups are a pain to fire offhand. Yes, you can switch the ejection port but not while in the middle of firing and so you often get a face full of hot spent brass without again putting yourself in a less than optimal position. Many people that just go to the local range and do mag dumps without ever attending training wouldn't notice this. Speaking of training, while the gun is reliable all mechanical items can malfunction and clearance drills on the AR are much easier than what you get into on the AUG. Lastly magazine changes are a bit slower, the Tavor X95 seems to be the best bullpup for this because of where they put the controls but its a factor and again you can train through this and get good/fast on the AUG but for the average Joe in the military the M-4 is just better. I love me some bullpups and I love me the AUG but I recognize them for the warts they have.
Well it's made to equip an army, not really be a mall ninja export
I was part of the feild testing of that very trial. Remember we trialed the Austrian manufactured weapon and it did outclass the M16A2. However when Australia manufactured the weapon there was some initial quality issues systemic to Aussie manufacturing that were quickly rectified. Yes being able to manufacture our weapon was important. We are an island and if supplies are cut off, we are stumped. The SF not using them.....in the beginning of the Steyer service I understand. The Steyer being weighted rear ward, I would think would be advantages to arduous patrolling with the weapon at the shoulder as wouldn't tend to overly weight the supporting arm. I do know that ego is a part of the human condition and that the current spec AUG is world class. So you will have to ask the SF operator's because there is no obvious reason for not using the Steyer
It's part practicality and part bureaucracy - the M4 has thousands of possible accessories designed to enhance it. You can put some of those on the Styer but the Army has to have the design tested and certified, which can take years. So, buying off the shelf M4s and off the shelf accessories makes life easier for the SF crowd who often change their equipment as operational needs change.
@jumbo this is a bizarre ill-informed response. Firstly, read the report. The M16A2 was outclassed in every category.
With regard to the cold weather testing, nothing you say could be further from the truth. The polymer stock is a reason for its superior performance over any AR.
Could I suggest that you watch this weapons freeze test. You will notice by around the 29 minute mark in the video that there are no AR contenders left. Some where the first to fail. Only the Steyr and AK variants made it to the end.
Try to have some respect for the truth in future responses. Clearly your previous response was not from a position or knowledge or honesty.
th-cam.com/video/LbjpIP5ShH0/w-d-xo.html
@@N17C1 I think that's exactly why Special Forces use the M16/M4 variants. They are the ones most likely to be working jointly with soldiers from other countries and being able to use the same accessories and attachments is a big plus. They are also more free to modify their weapons to individual preference and there's an existing pool of knowledge as to what modifications are effective.
Steyr isn’t BLACK (F88) Rocky 😂
Steyr. Not steyr
You hit the nail on the head with your suspicions. I was an ammunition technical officer at the time of the introduction, and a good friend was platoon commander of the trial platoon, and he had serious reservations on it. The weapon wasn't popular with the trial platoon, it wasn't considered soldier proof, and the safety mechanism was not considered foolproof (borne out by later fatal accidents). My view as an ATO was that the round lacked carrying power over range (borne out in Afghanistan), and ballistic performance required the original SS109 round. Problem was that the army quickly reverted to the cheaper and US compatible M193 round, which seriously decreased the original lethality and ballistic properties of the rifle.
Being Australian and us all having a very “fk you” culture to management. If you busted your ass off to go through SASR selection and get in, are you gonna willingly use the same rifle 7RAR use? Hell no. These are the same guys that I’ve heard went and bought their own Blackhawk cause the ADF took theirs away and tried to give them an MRH90. How accurate that is I don’t know.
LOL, I was just training with The EF88 Steyr tonight. I think The reason Why the SASR and Commandos use the M4 is that they work closely with the US SF units and it's easier to share magazines and equipment etc, plus the m4 shape makes it easily modular. Unlike the Steyr, there are only 2 rails where you can attach your flashlight IR laser, Range finder, etc.
for your information there is already a so called nato-stock available for the aug that accepts ar/stanag-mags
For future reference, you say Aussie like “Ozzy Osbourne.” Yanks have a hard time with it and you tend to say oss-see. Thanks for the great video!
And we drop the "w" when saying Lithgow. It's just Lith-go. Same as when we say Moscow. Mos-co. We really are lazy speakers.
I've always pronounced it like Ozzy. Aussies from Oz
Part of the reason, I'd think, is that Yanks have a more rational use of the alphabet than we do. Their 'ss' is a hissing sound, where as for the buzz saw sound they go for ZZ.
@@dagwould 100% the English language is a roulette wheel of nonsense 🤣
@@dagwould Granted, here in Iowa one side of my family pronounces "Wash" as Warsh. Creek is Krick
The AUG is designed for a conscript army. Sure if you're a specialist a M4 setup may give you a little bit better ergonomics for reloading etc. But for 99% of people that's irrelevant. On the other hand bullpups are simply more practical during everything that isn't reloading under fire. The optics make it idiot proof under 400 meters which is basically every fight in a more symmetrical war. The short size is a godsend if you're cramming 8 conscripts in a military vehicle that isn't a HUMVEE. If you're a professional army like the US one that has oversized vehicles for everything and that doesn't rely on reservists for the bulk of its fighting force those factors may be less important but for Austria for example I think the AUG wins.
We got to field test them in my day. We would drop them in mud, stand on them, not clean them for days & they would still be reliable as. My only criticism of them was the tendency of the optical sight to fog up in jungle conditions, where you would mostly use the "iron" sights anyway.
A mate in stores told me the army had bought 250,000 replacement safety sears for the Styer. Apparently, they don't actually wear out! 😁😎
why does every aussie call it styer 😂
Its Steyr, e first, y after haha.
Greetings from an Austrian :)
@@XpVersusVista typo
@@XpVersusVista Probably how we pronounce it, too... sty-ya
I trained with the Steyr when I did my basic training in the NZ Army. I loved my Steyr. One difference was ours didn't use that mechanism for single shot or full auto. Ours used the safety. Push partly through for single shot, push all the way through for full auto. I hated full auto.
The steyr was a good shooter. I had two on my basic. One was an aussie built one, which failed (dead o-ring, sent back to the armourers) the next was an Austrian one from the original consignment.
The quality difference was noticeable. Where the austeyr felt scratchy, like it always had grit in it (even when you'd just cleaned and oiled it) , the steyr built one was the definition of smooth. Both shot well.
@@kieranh2005 I think I heard some where the Aussies recycled or reused their trigger groups alot compared to the original design concept of throw away then install a new one. Got to save a dollar some where.
I was an Assault Pioneer with 6 RAR when we first trialled the weapon on exercise CALTROP force at Fort Ord California in 1989. It was a huge improvement on the Vietnam era SLR that was in service prior to the weapon system transition. Great for the environment that we trained in, particularly with the MOUT scenarios (Movement over Urban terrain), its improved vastly over the 30 odd years since its inception.
This is the second time I watched this. I truly enjoy watching your videos. All the way from Sydney.
I'll say this, as someone who had options (US Gov't, not Aus), I would use a Glock (17, 19, 22) over, say, a Kimber. The Kimber is a "better" sidearm than a Glock. The Glock however, is accurate and reliable enough, and is highly modular. That oftentimes made it the right weapon for the job. Whether my main weapon was an MP-7 or M-4, I liked the Glock quite a bit as a sidearm.
So, I'm guessing that's why their SOF go with the M-4 (or AR type) over the AUG. The AUG might be "better", but the M-4 is the right weapon for the job, because it shines in other areas and is good enough.
Sort of like, would you rather have a really good screwdriver, or an okay multitool?
What decent tradesman uses a multitool?
@@baobo67 I didn't say this was a tradesman. I also didn't mean to suggest you have other tools with you. Those are your two options. One or the other. In that case, it's better to have a pretty good multitool than a single high end screwdriver. As far as I'm concerned anyway. Maybe you don't agree with me.
@@baobo67 what you said is totally irrelevant to the actual topic
"Foster's, Australian for piss!"
-Drunk Aussie I met in college.
Lived in Aussie for the better part of my life and never seen fosters at a bottle shop and even more so never seen some drink it. I’ve only ever heard of it from Americans.
Piss is also used (by Aussies and kiwis) to describe alcohol e.g. let’s sink some piss. But you could also say beer taste like piss, meaning it’s bad... so idk how that works out 🤷♂️ 😂
Can't speak directly for our Army types (although the new EF88 seems to be popular with my Army workmates) but from an Australian Navy point of view the Steyr is a good weapon.
A couple of pros:
- Polymer means less maintenance in a salt water envornment
- Short barrel lengths work wonders in narrow spaces onboard ships
- With the sling, it makes using it one handed much easier (your other hand is busy trying to keep you upright as the ocean rock and rolls)
- the new EF88 can now rail mount a torch, laser aimer and an IR scope which are godsends in the potential pitch black of a ship you are boarding/searching.
- the option of converting it to 9mm is interesting (although I never saw one at sea) and has some advantages in firefights inside a ship.
I was a national military rifle champion before going the Australian Navy so I hated the trigger more than most of my fellow officers who mostly had zero firearms exprience.
Did you ever get used to the trigger?
@@thisisabsolutelystup the trigger is not a problem at all. Having used the F88 since the early 90's and now the EF88 I have rarely gone full auto accidently and can still shoot accurately. The rifle is vastly more accurate than the majority of those using it.
I remember when I was in the Australian Army, we had L1A1 SLR, & then it was replaced by the F88 Austeyer, & I personally didn't like how the spent rounds flew out of the back near the butt, but they did have a lot going for it, with a better, light, magazine, & can have a grenade launcher attached, like the US M203,but the NATO round is only 5.56mm compared to the L1A1SLR,which was 7.62mm, also a Kolishnikov round, but overall, the F88 Austeyer is making leaps & bounds for the Australian Army, but doing hours & hours of Rifle Drill on the parade ground, I found it difficult to drill in comparison to the L1A1SLR, because it is longer than the F88.
We had these in the New Zealand Army, and I loved it. Nice, compact bullpup design means you don't have to muck around with a long weapon like the M16. This is especially important with Mounted Rifle units, who have to get into and out of vehicles regularly and can't be getting snagged on stuff, and also in urban combat, where having a shorter total weapon length means it's easier to pie around corners.
Which is why it has been replaced by the MARS. The Aystralian made Steyrs had a host of issues. Water getting into the integral sight, plastic melting under sustained fire. A nasty habit of going off by itself.
@@andrewwebb2257 Yeah, I mean, it certainly isn't perfect.
It may have been ok for tankies but infantry? No rail estate, not ambidextrous, breaking plastic parts, small parts to loose (remember the gas piston etc) and the horrible safety (UDs).
For the record. Nobody in Australia drinks fosters
Shuddup. They’ll come over here and take our real beer. 😜
@@bendgeddes That's ok we can just give them the craft beer and troll them twice.
VB for the win!!
That's good to hear. I've tried it several times and it tasted like ButtWiper I mean Budweiser.
Well not since the early 70’s
Well, for SF work the AR platform makes a bit more sense in terms of aftermarket support. Seeing as those guys tend to go deeply into customization aspect of their weapons. I am going to go out of a limb here as say that is the main reason those guys would go for the AR.
Second reason might very well be "institutional influences". SF groups tend to train a lot together and US's groups get around a lot. And when a group of instructors show up rocking their ninja-ARs, you bet the people they are teaching are going to want to imitate the loadouts. "They are using it, so it MUST be the best!" kind of deal.
A VERY far third reason might be deniability, fully guccied AR's are dime a dozen compared to AUGs so which one is going to give more hints as to who was rustling in the bushes during last night's firefight? If you can't compromise on quality, you're going to go for the platform that is most prolific.
Fired an Austrian version, excellent weapon way better than the Canadian C7 I was issued at the time. Very accurate and the trigger pull really helped with a constant trigger squeeze and accuracy.
The AUG was deemed more suitable for mainstream duties. That's not to say its the perfect system for our SF, therefore SF don't always run the same gear. Its like asking why US reserves don't have miniguns on their tinnys 😄
Yeah armies pick stuff for what THEY need for THEIR situation. All this what is BEST arguing is a little pointless since all armies have different needs based on doctrine, geography and where they think they might deploy. The Bull pulp probably has allot of features they need and they're willing to sacrifice a bad trigger and some other things to get it. Nevermind that report is based on what 30 year models? Both weapons have changed ALLOT since then.
@@loganholmberg2295 And lets face it, Special Forces are usually small, limited resource deployments and often working in tandem with allied special forces which almost always mean the US. It makes sense for guys operating away from supply chains to use hardware compatible with the equipment used by the people they are most likely to be working with. Imagine needing some more ammo and being the one guy in the group with the incompatible gun.
@@Wrathlon well, ammo isn't an argument lol. The US & Australia (all of NATO for that matter) use the same ammo types. An AUG fires the same 5.56 as an american M4, a french FAMAS, a german G36 or a belgian FN.
The gate guards for the USAF don't need modular SF type rifles. Actually that would include most of the US Army, especially the Army National Guard.
@@Wrathlon SF have limited resources? They get the most funding in Oz.
When the Australian army went from the SLR to the steyr aug, a great many of us missed the SLR. Now that was a rifle.
Chad SLR and Virgin AUG?
@@sesameseedbar8853 Er, SLR was ~ 5 kg. I don't think the Steyr was a huge deal lighter. You're right about environments though, *but*, there were SLR's around that had the barrel cut back to the forend :)
They should of kept as a Marksman rifle and continued updating it. Imagine the SLR updated to todays standards etc.
Every ex-Dig I've spoken to who fielded one gets a dreamy look on their face when you mention it. I have an English half-brotherwho wasin the Paras in the 60s-70s and feels similarly. I got to shoot a Lithgow *once*, only one shot, very surprised at the lack of recoil, it was great! Told my bro and he said "Now you know why she will always be my girl" lol
@@OhSoddit aug has between 3,1 - 3,9kg in different setups.
Irish Defence Forces also use steyr aug the Kiwi's used to but have moved on to the LMT
I hated the AUG. Stoked that NZ has at long last moved to the AR platform. The MARS L rifle is superb.
@@kiwi_comanche fair enough mate. I don’t know much about it to be honest I do have friends from Irish Army that like it. I started my career with the SA80 A1 which was a shocking bit of kit! When I say shocking that’s an understatement!! However I got issued the SA80 A2 that they sent to the Germans H&K in 2002 for a tour In Kabul back in the Day it was a huge improvement. It wasn’t a bad rifle still had room for improvements the latest version A3 is really a good rifle there’s still a few things that are a bit off it’s quite a heavy rifle for it’s size/class it. I have been lucky enough to have a go on the C8 however I didn’t think that much of it probably because I wasn’t used to it but that’s all trainable
@@kiwi_comanche The MARS L is a flaming piece of shit. Worst thing our Army ever did since the last stupid move, buying glocks and LSW Minimis.
@@CanterburySteel You're the first person I've heard with a bad experience man. What happened?
@@bigjohn697791 Yeah I heard the A3 was a vast improvement. I remember the receivers warping on the A1s and 2s, the extra weight is probably from the heavier steel used to eliminate the warping issue.
As an Australian veteran of 33 years and multiple deployments I can say I think the F88 is an outstanding weapon. I joined the Australian Army in 1982. I used the SLR and M16 for over 6 years. Both are fine weapons. But the F88 is better. I used the initial Brit SA80 in 1990 whilst on exchange with the BAOR and thought it was a terrible weapon but I believe the current version is much much better. Why do the SASR use the American weapon? I suspect for interoperability issues as they work closely with US SF. I can’t think of any other reason.
Been in the Australian Army since '07 - honestly, you'll find the general consensus is that we've always preferred the M16, and view the F88/Austeyr family as a polished turd at best. No disrespect intended, but it seems like T&P has mainly bought into the bullshit spun about this system by both our hierarchy and the manufacturer.
1 - The whole interchangeable model universal weapon thing
I chuckle whenever people mention this. We NEVER swap barrels around, use 42 round mags, 9mm receivers/barrles or heavy barrels. In practice, each Austeyr is effectively built and sold as a complete weapon system - whether its regular length, has the clumsy grenade launcher barrel, or has a carbine barrel for cavalry. Modularity never fit into it
2 - 970m/s
That's the figure for the Austrian Steyr AUG, firing NATO ammunition. Our doctrine states a lower figure of 930m/s, as our rifles are optimised to fire Australian-produced ball ammunition (which has a slightly different loading to NATO ammunition - consequently, although we can fire American-produced ammunition from our rifles, we're not allowed to do so except if operationally required. Why is this the case? Who the fuck knows, but I have no faith in our highest decision-makers). Don't forget the other statistics, too - the effective range of the F88/F90 is markedly inferior, particularly with standard sights
3 - 27.5 inches
It is significantly shorter than even the M4 carbine - but then again, that's a tradeoff. Fully loaded, an F88 is 700g heavier than an M16, while the newer EF88 is 200-300g heavier. The bullpup configuration also has a few drawbacks:
- Weight distribution makes the grenade launcher variant much more awkward and unwieldy than an M203-equipped M4 or M16
- Modern stoppage drills (i.e., where you look into the chamber/working parts while scanning the battlefield) are more awkward compared to the M16/M4
- If a right handed shooter picks up a left handed weapon, they get hot brass in the face. I used to think this wasn't such a big deal, until I became a machine gunner and regularly had to swap weapons with other members of my section for tasks
4 - Why do most special forces units around the world use the M4 instead?
Our special forces didn't buy into the hype or biased testing (largely conducted by people drawn from across the wider Army, who were mainly experienced with the old L1A1 SLR, and who basically no longer did the job expected of a Rifleman). Furthermore, the M4 is a far more practical choice for our SF, who work more closely with NATO SF counterparts than they do with our regular Army. Imagine an Australian SASR operators armed with F88s working out of a British or American FOB - they can't use their magazines, their rifles aren't optimised for the only readily available ammunition, they can't replace broken firing pins or lost gas plugs/pistons (another frustrating design quirk of the Steyr AUG), etc
5 - That was quickly resolved
I wouldn't say that - rather, we received better training and directives on how to manage these issues over the years (i.e., for years, we were obliged to lubricate the trigger mechanism with graphite powder... a stupid directive, as when stored oil would slowly drip downwards into it and create a nightmarish mess). A good soldier can keep an F88/EF88 well maintained and minimise stoppages - but as someone who carried an M16 while attached to the Papua New Guinea Defence Force on operations, it is so much easier to do with an AR-platform rifle. The F88 was an absolute fucking nightmare to keep reliably functional in the jungle, much less clean
The tan-coloured F88SA2 variant was rolled out in the late 2000s to become the new service rifle for the ADF. The problem? There were severe defects with the butt group (which encompasses the butt, trigger mechanism, pistol grip, trigger, magazine well) which weren't picked up until after it was produced, necessitating that the new tan receivers and barrels were mated with older-model olive butt groups. This was a perfectly functional combination, but resulted in an interesting colour scheme (as well as the wastage of thousands of new butt groups). Do you get why many of us may not trust our armaments industry, or our head shed's capacity to make procurement decisions?
6 - Colt said they wouldn't let us have the license to manufacture the M16
This is exactly what it is ultimately about. The ADF and our government will simply never adopt a service rifle unless we can manufacture it at home in the historic Lithgow factory
7 - 1.5x donut sight
Again, this severely restricts the effective firing range. It was designed for the Austrian conscript/reservist, not the Australian professional infantryman - the Austrians accepted the reduced effective range of this sight (about 300m for a competent shooter) in exchange for the ease of use and trainability. Over time, Australian infantry units began to swap out this sight to bring us in line with our NATO allies (who have been using a range of far superior sights that offer enhanced magnification and/or the ability to reflexively engage targets with both eyes open), and the new sight on the EF88 intended to entirely replace the F88 is nothing like the donut
8 - The Australians have no plans of switching to anything else in the near future
Again, this is because Colt won't sell us the license, even though the consensus is that we'd prefer an AR-platform rifle. Indeed, it is likely we'll see the F88 family continually modified for decades to come. I do like the new EF88 and consider it leagues above the original F88 (with fixed donut sight) that I trained with, but it is ultimately a polished turd and a slight step down from what our closest allies are using.
Our best pals, the New Zealand Army, even recently decided to stop buying Austeyr rifles from us, and have switched to an AR platform (the MARS-L purchased off the shelf from LMT in the USA). We are insanely jealous, and those of us fortunate to train with our Kiwi brethren's rifles have found them significantly superior to what we've been used to
Just to add from above, Also a serving member (30yrs and still going)
8.5 - The supposed change from the standard NATO 5.56mm to 6.5mm as evidence from the recent decades proving the 5.56 was ineffective in todays battlefield environment and requires something with a bit more punch will determine whether Australia will seek a new rifle. We are just waiting on what calibre the USA will adopt. Also the rights to the licence from Styer are soon to expire so that may open up the market and Colt is owned by a foreign company now their may be room for negotiations there as Colt lost a lot of money on loosing the Australia deal back then.
9 - Australia didnt read the fine print on the contract from Styer with regards to the magazines. Australia had to use the proprietary plastic magazine from Styer as Australia wanted to use the M16 magazine system so it would be compatible with the F-89 MINIMI(M249) as a backup/quick load and ease of ammo distribution hence why the F-89 still has the magazine port on them today.
Fact- The Kiwis turned all their F-88 Styers into an scrap as soon as their new rifles hit the shores and before they were out of the boxes. (they absolutely hated the F-88 and could not wait to get rid of them)
Hey Dude,that's not enough information....🤣
@@chucknoris7648 Alleged, use the stuff....🤣
@@petermulvahill210 I live a very sad life.
@@rethguals Would you like to see 'Alleged War hero',Ben Roberts Smith and 'Schmo from Qanon' in a black thong?🤣😆
Why do the Australians have to use an Austrian weapon? That's just confusing!!!
Smaller states often struggle to set up the complicated and expensive industry. Like Australia, they normally just purchase a license to make custom variants of existing guns.
Also, Styer is a global company that originated in Austria.
@@samsonsoturian6013 That Joke flew over your head
The convicts got confused by the spelling
Must be the blood rushing into their head
The Australians did a little trolling
When the styers first came on the Australian scene in early 91 we were told the plastic was made by Tupperware and the magazine springs were made by Sleepmaker.
The magazines bodies were in fat made by Sabco (and branded) the toilet brush company !
when they first issued the M16 the troops called it "the mighty mattel rifle", Mattel being a toymaker. In point of fact, at one time Mattel actually did make some of the furniture for the M16 -
im getting the vibe you are framing this as a bad thing?
because honestly that sounds amazing for being able ot cheaply produce it.
It was Funny- A Bored Grunt Buttstrokes a Tree with a SLR the tree gets hurt. You Try the same thing with a Steyr the entire weapon Breaks lol :P
Hahaha I remember hearing that.
I was an officer in the Australian Army when the Styer replaced the SLR. At first, I worried that the 5.56 round used by the F88 Steyr would prove less effective than the 7.62 round used by the SLR that was being replaced. What I quickly realized was that the F88 Steyr was ridiculously easy to use. It used to take at least a week during Initial Employment Infantry Training to get a new soldier proficient with the SLR. Using an F88 Steyr the average person could become a competent rifleman in a day, and proficient in less than three days. Sure, the hitting power of the smaller round was a bit less, but the chances of a soldier actually hitting what he was aiming at was greatly increased. Overall, the Steyr it was a wise choice, although a remember one concern. The F88 Steyr has a cross bolt safety catch, which can be switched from safe to fire simply by lying the weapon on its side. I remember that this caused an accidental discharge that killed a soldier during the Somalia deployment and there have been a number of incidents since.
I was looking for a comment about that safety latch.
Australian Special forces use the AR platform to allow them to better work with American military and special forces.
Yeah its probably allot easier to support in the field than the AUG. Its not like Special forces deploy with a nice army supply train of spares. This way the can always nick something for an allied supply chain in the area they are in which I imagine is usually American.
I think its also that the m4, being non bullpup, is better for the CQC drills that special forces do and their CQC requirements, particularly shoulder swapping and stuff.
@@fruitylerlups530 Bullpup rifles literally are made for CQC, you get the range and accuracy of a rifle in a weapon the length of an SMG
I mean the NATO aug takes ar mags
They use it because it’s the better rifle especially for a skilled user.
AUG might be good for the grunt but SF units where the skill level and experience is higher the AR platform is just a better rifle.
I’m an Aussie who is thinking about joining the army so this was great to hear 😃
Did you joined it?
It is a great life if you are suited to it. I did 36 years and did not regret a second of it.
Did you join
When I first saw the AUG in Die Hard, I fell in love.
Austria's military only has a small percentage of active-duty personnel, the rest are reservists. That said, the early AUG A1 (in Austria called STG77) with the fixed scope and trigger system, which in this form is still in service, is given to the reservists. The professionals though are allowed to use updated versions with the rail system and other modifiable parts nearly to their liking and they can tailor it according to their combat mission e.g. barrel type, scopes, laser, lights, even different calibers are possible. A friend of mine who actively serves as an officer in the Austrian military was trying the AUG A3 SA MII recently and was blown away. So, its rather light weight, compactness, reliability, serviceability, and precision are the reason that this 50 year old concept is still used an appreciated... and it therefore, to date, is a bit of a challenge for Steyr to come up with something clear superior... yet they haven't.
As for the reason why the special forces use the M4 in Australia is from what I’ve seen being able to be compatible with international counter parts.
they use h&k 416 not the m4 like the 95% of special forces that use ar15 platform...
@@gorancepuran5931 yes the M4 is a toy low cost weapon, the HK416 is much better, but im not understand why the Australian did replace they old F88's, with the standard F90 and not the F90MBR who is 100% Nato compatible( Stanag magazines and so).Close all the special forces did use HK416 i think because it's more discrete a to use a specific weapon : for example the FAMAS is THE signature from the french army, the F88 from the Austalians, the L85 british, HK G36 german, the SIG 550 Swiss, etc...
Also, Lithgow is pronounced without the w. Lith-go.
And 'Aussies' is pronounced Ozzies. Only Americans say it Ossies.
@@MrColin159 'mericans' struggle with the English language..
6:22 Liffgo, with two f's
@@artmallory970 😀 I'm not stalking you, I was just walkin' past. Funny I was recently making fun of a coworker who lived in Liffgo...
Also: White EOD armor makes you look like a stormtrooper.
Outstanding weapon, I was issued this in the early '90s as an infantryman in the NZDF (incidentally you posted some footage of some kiwi soldiers in the vid), and loved its flawless ergonomics (for a RH shooter), weight, toughness and accuracy.
I heard a similar comment from a senior NCO that was part of the selection trials way back. Apparently in NZ we evaluated the AUG, M16 A2, FNC, and Galil, and the AUG won based on cost, Trans tasman convenience, and a desire for political neutrality. Oz is a proudly self determined culture, and I could well imagine the desire to produce a domestic weapon being a big thing. Still a good choice though ;)
I subsequently used the original SA80 in the UK forces and that bullpup was piece of bull shite...
Hey Milo Cathcart wants some tomatoes
@@mrskelington ?
@@milomindabinda8115 th-cam.com/video/g0UV6ug96c0/w-d-xo.html
In another scene of the remake he gets tomatoes
@@mrskelington I'm ashamed I didn't recognize my own reference!
BTW you are the only person to ever 'click' on the name, an outstanding critique and personification of the US military industrial complex.
@@milomindabinda8115 Agreed, fantastic book and great TV series remake, which did a little better than the first movie adaptation.
Coincidently, I read it on my first deployment to Timor in ‘06, while carrying around a Steyr all day. On that deployment I signed a number of documents as ‘Washington Irving’ as Yossarian did in the hospital (which was in the book but not the series). No one ever looked at the signature.
Honestly, it was not until after I left the army that I really appreciated how damn good the F88 is. Love it
My father was on the review team in 87-88, I'll forward the video too him, he might be able to answer some of your questions. He did all the left handed tests.
100% for manufacturing rights, we had pride back then...
Hahah yeah nowadays we would give away 20% of our territories for some subpar weapons system because "friends of the minister"
@@GreenTimeEagle
Oh yeah, and water too...
I mean who needs it anyways, right?
Not just pride. In the event of war..... Imports can't be relied on
.. Covid proved that.
I was serving in an Australian Army Reserve infantry Battalion when the change over from SLR to Steyr commenced. The SLR was a great weapon but carrying the Steyr was so much easier and much more accurate.
In Ireland we moved from the basic FAL to the basic AUG in 1988/9, and still use i -with upgraded receiver group and optical sight. It was a really compact, exceptionally simple and easy to use, but always felt like a toy in my hands. The sight was great for battle but a bugger for target shooting. Regular forces only used the rifle while our SF used it in rifle and sub version - which they didn't like, now using a HK M14 variant, I think. In 1998 I recommended the LAW version as the sniper spotter/support weapon, but this didn't happen. Years later stock FALs were accurised, fitted with bipods and used by sniper pairs.
Lore has it that we bought the AUG over the test winning SIG because of a deal to sell butter to Austria:) Both beat the M16, which was I think felt to be flimsy, unreliable and not as accurate. As for the SA80.........!!!!!