Talk:Steyr AUG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steyr AUG article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review Steyr AUG has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] cleanup users section

someone vaguely knowledgable please cleanup at least the first para of this section. its hideous Qleem 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there also seems to be a few sentences that need to be removed as they appear to be nothing more than opinion or rumour, unless the original author/s can come up with some references. I was also considering separate sub-headings for each country in a similar way to other pages, however there's not a great deal of information on each and it might look a bit sparse.Six-Four 06:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does AUG mean anything?

Does AUG mean anything? —No-One Jones 21:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Armee Universal Gewehr -- Cabalamat 15:04, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ROF

Previous quoted ROF appears to be wrong; I have 3 reference books all of which state it as 650 rpm. -- Cabalamat 15:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I am a former user of this weapon in the NZDF, i recall the cyclic rate of fire being around 600 rpm, although it is possible that weapon fires faster when the gas plug is at the 'adverse' setting Xcomradex 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe you're correct. Adverse does up the rpm if i recall correctly. TinyPirate 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is indeed 650 RPM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.54.224.42 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Muzzle velocity

Reference works I have give muzzle velocity as 970 or 980 m/s. Added both figures to the text -- Cabalamat 15:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Variability in 10m/s is not much. Military grade ammo is pretty rough and temperature differences would cause variations in muzzle velocity of more than 10m/s/

60.242.92.51 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notoriety?

The AUG has gained notoriety in popular culture, and has made numerous appearances in films, TV, comics and computer games such as Counter-Strike.

Is "notoriety" trying to imply that is a bad weapon, or that it is a deadly one? It is without a doubt my favorite Counter-Strike: Source primary weapon. Captain Jackson 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it just implies that it has become a well-known firearm due to its inovative design. --Squalla 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Use

Incorrect. The Australian Army does not use the Steyr Aug. Army uses the F88 Aus Steyr, a variant. 203.219.14.62 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

.....the F88 is exactly the same ....... so no it's not incorrect.
The AusSteyr is made in Australia and is regarded as being of lesser quality (the monopod 'rattles' about more, for example) than the Austrian version. Does this make it a varient? More like a locally-produced copy I guess. TinyPirate 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it would be a variant, hence your statement that the Aussie model is considered inferior to the Austrian one.
  • Errr... I'm not sure what you mean about the 'monopod' rattling. When I was issued with one. It didn't have a monopod. It has a forward handgrip, however. Otherwise, the quality of the lithgow firearms was quite good.
It makes and apperance in SOCOM: Fire Team Bravo 2 under the name STG-77 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.54.224.42 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Malaysian Usage

Just saw a Malaysian TV news item where they are going to replace with M4. Sorry, wasn't paying much attention so don't have more details.


Here's a media page from the Australian Defence Force website with photos taken of the AFP and Royal Malaysian Army working on Operation Astute. Nearly all the photos of Malaysian Troops, there a is a solider with Steyr AUG. I'm not sure if they are the Australian made F88's though. http://www.defence.gov.au/opastute/images/gallery/20060621a/index.htm That said, some of the soliders also have M16's with M203 GLAs, the Styer is probably not their main rifle anyway. So yeah, the Malaysian army still seems to be using Steyrs(the media page is for June 2006), and that should be reflected in the article.BrotherEstapol 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't think the Steyr AUG placed second to the M16 in Australia

the gun is lighter than the M16, you don't need a screwdriver to set it apart and it has an optical scope, which allows you to actually hit someone 300 m away

Furthermore the Steyr AUG is used in much more countries than the M16 and even Israel (and Malaysia) developed their own rifle, which both are a copy of the Steyr AUG (might want to include that)

I hightly doubt it placed second to the M16 and I highly doubt that special forces use a standard M16 rifle

Your oppinion duly noted. :) I read in the article that the Auggie was chosen because Colt, USA didn't want to license the manufacture of the M-16. If that is true, then that generally means the M-16 did win, and the Australian government wanted it more than the Auggie.
Where do you get the idea you need a screwdriver to get an M16 apart? If you are an armorer disassembling certain parts, or are trying to remove the butt plate and rear sling swivel, OK I could see you needing a couple specialty tools, but to disassemble it for cleaning and lube it's a snap. You might need a pair of needle-nosed pliers to pull out that pesky retaining pin holding in the firing pin, but persistence and fingernails will do wonders.
As to the range, there are yearly National Service Rifle Matches held by the Marines at Camp Perry, Ohio, USA in which you can only fire an actual U.S. service rifle or a rifle closely based on a service rifle design (i.e. a 'civilian' version). People use the M1 Garand, M-14/M1A, M1 carbine, and yes, M-16/AR-15. Target ranges are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards. Yes, people compete (and win) at the longer ranges with M-16/AR-15 type rifles using open sights ('iron sights'; the competition rules forbid optical sighting devices). Sure the scope is impressive and snazzy looking, and perhaps functional at moderate ranges, but it's just that much more to worry about cleaning and breaking.
Special forces using an M-16? Maybe, but I doubt it - they prefer to kill the enemy. The 5.56x45mm NATO round was chosen partly because of it's tendency to injure - not kill - the enemy, so that it would hinder the opposing forces with lots of wounded they would have to take care of (if you faced an enemy that cared - that point was sort of missed by Kennedy's Whiz Kids). Special forces usually prefer weapons with a high first-hit kill ratio, which is the reason you see them still using 'dinosaurs' like the M-14 and FN-FAL. See 5.56mm for more info on that round. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.246.204.40 (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
  • American SF are trained in all sorts of weapons, including the M-16/4. There is the desire among the top military heads to give them their own special weapon (the SCAR IIRC) as their standard issue weapon, but until that comes about, they use what the rest of the US military uses. And the 5.56x45mm NATO round was chosen because of its effectiveness at killing people. That's the whole purpose behind firing at an enemy. If you wound or incapacitate a an enemy soldier in combat, that is fine and well, but you can't rely on that. And where does the M-14 even come into discussion? I don't even think there's any National Guard units that still use those anymore. I mean, not to sound trite, but you're just posting a much of misinformation.

I believe he is referring to the fact that during the Battle of Mogadishu one soldier was noted as using an M14 because he believed it to have better stopping power. Which turned out to be true, as the armor piercing rounds issued for the M16 were found to pass through an unarmored person and not cause much damage. It would take an unusually large number of hits by M16s to take down a person, but this one man's M14 was killing with the first few shots. Now keep in mind, that was against targets that weren't wearing any sort of armor, if the Somalis had been wearing some sort of effective body armor; that would have slowed down the rounds enough to have them stay in the body causing greater internal damage.--LWF 18:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Steyr placed a clear second to the M16a2 in Australian trials in the mid-late 1980's. Colt was going through some financial problems at the time and wouldn't grant the licence to lithgow for them to build the rifle there. After muchas discussion,meetings and burning of the midnight oil the department of defence and the DMO decided to go with the F88 AUSTEYR instead. It lost to the M16a2 in all regards - accuracy, reliability and ease of use. The only reason why we eventually adopted it is because it was cheap. The Galil placed a very clear last place, with terrible results from the accuracy stage. Australian special forces don't use the F88 - from memory entire units refused to be deployed to Timor until they were re-equipped with the M4. Cheers - Marlon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.177.184 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety catch

I read in the article the comment "The safety catch slides from side to side through the weapon, with one position (pushed fully right) being "safe" and another (pushed fully left) being "full automatic". The middle position sets the weapon to "semi automatic""

I used the Steyr for 12 years in the Australian Army, the safety catch only had two positions, safe (Right) and fire (Left). Control of your shots was done through trigger manipulation, if the trigger was depressed fully to the rear it fired automatic, a lighter trigger pull produced single shots. Underneath the trigger was a small switch which could be pulled down. This was the automatic fire lock-out button. When pulled out it allowed only single shots.

Having said that, i've been out for about five years, has there been a re-design? 220.233.56.215 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I only served in the Austrian Army for 8 months, but IIRC there was no extra trigger and the safety catch only had two positions. Firing automatic or firing a single shot depended on how hard you pulled the trigger. If I pulled the trigger halfways back, a single shot was fired; had I pulled it harder to the very back, the weapon would start firing automatically (wasn't allowed to do that though). --Wirthi 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
this has been fixed now Qleem 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Single shot and Automatic is controlled by an Automatic Lockout on the base of the trigger. Pushed up is fully automatic. Pulled down is semi automatic. At least, that's the way with the version used in Ireland.

im going to rv the change in the article and shoot an email off to steyr/ do some googling to see if we can resolve this. seems to me the different variants might have diff mechanisms for selective fire. anyway, if youd like to change it back please provide a citation. Qleem 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
ok according to the steyr website, the a1, a2, and a3 have the pullthrough trigger. its not specified for the 9mm, just says fully auto optional:
a3 >> http://www.steyrarms.com/index.php?id=33
Safety:
Lateral push-through type locks trigger
Trigger:
"Pull-through" trigger system. Fires semi-automatic when pulled halfway to a clearly felt point, fires fully automatic when pulled fully back.
perhaps the irish version has a secondary lockout as well, preventing the trigger from being fully pulled back?
anyway, final conclusion, unless some1 can send in a video or something, i say trust the steyr homepageQleem 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


I was with the NZ Army, and can confirm the new zealand version of the weapon (from Austeyr) has the three position safety catch: semi-auto, safe, auto. and i think i remember hearing from other soldiers that the aussie version ws different, but it was a while ago. in auto there are two quite distinct trigger pressures, so you could squeeze off careful single shots. i'm guessing in semi they just block this second position from being reached by the trigger. Xcomradex 01:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falkland Islands Regiment

I read in the article the comment that this gun is in use by the Falklands Defence Regiment. Since that are trained by the British army, and would fight alongside them in case of an invasion I am very surprised by this ( although they are independntly funded ). I would assume the SA80. Can someone explain this? 145.253.108.22 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The story is that the British gave the Falklands reg funding to buy their own kit. The British failed to make sure the Falklands reg would buy the same gear that the other British regiments are using. Hence the Falklands blokes are running around with pretty snazzy gear that all the other British squaddies want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.90.102 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Section

I'm moving the 'Users' section here for now because none of it is referenced. Please return any or all of this information to the article after it has been sourced. --Wasted Sapience 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users

It has been used by the British SAS and other organizations in a counter-terrorism role. It is also currently in use by the U.S. Customs Service. In Austrian service it is designated StG-77 (for Sturmgewehr 77). The Steyr AUG and Steyr AUG HB (HBAR) are used by Luxembourg's army as well. Also seen in Pakistan by the Army and Naval Special Service Groups and the Pakistani ASF (Airports Security Force). The Puerto Rican Army uses this weapon after the 2007 weapon trial.

There are semi-automatic versions that meet U.S. gun law restrictions; these have met with some popularity as a civilian rifle there.

An AUG family based on the AUG A3 was rumored to compete for the U.S. Army's OICW Increment 1 competition, a program to replace the M4 carbine, M16, and M249 machine gun.[citation needed] However, the OICW Increment 1 competition was put on hold and eventually cancelled in 2005.

The AUG also has a modified Australian variant, the F-88 Austeyr, which is the standard service rifle of the Australian Defence Force and the New Zealand Defence Force. There is also a shorter carbine variant (with a shorter barrel) which is used primarily by corps operating in vehicles (such as armour, transport and cavalry regiments).

In Australian service the F88 lost out in trials to the M16A2, while the IMI Galil placed third. The decision to adopt the F88 AUSTEYR was made after Colt refused to grant the licence to produce the M16A2 family of rifles under licence at Australian Defence Industries Lithgow[citation needed]

The safety catch on the Australian F-88 Austeyr has had its serviceability called into question on a number of occasions [citation needed]. The safety catch slides from side to side through the weapon, with one position (pushed fully right) being "safe" and another (pushed fully left) being "fire". In the past, however, there has been a tendency for the catch to lose its ability to lock in either of the positions (i.e. the "click" is lost and the safety catch slides freely (or too easily) from side to side) and thereby risk compromising the safety of the weapon. As a result, the Australian Defence Force has improved maintenance schedules and instructs its members to constantly check the condition ("safe" or "fire") of their weapons in a large range of situations (for example, when picking up or putting down the weapon, when handing it to or receiving it from someone, when changing between most degrees of weapon readiness, etc.).

Austrian soldiers with AUG
Austrian soldiers with AUG

In the Irish Defence Forces the Steyr AUG was selected after more than two years of exhaustive technical assessment by the Army Ordnance Corps and field trials by units throughout the Defence Forces, to replace the FN FAL that had been in use since the early 1960s. Initially a total of nine weapons (Beretta AR70/90, the Colt M16A2, the Enfield L85A1, the FN FNC, the HK G41, the IMI Galil, the FAMAS, the SIG SG550, and the Steyr AUG) from various countries were evaluated technically in firing trials, each firing thousands of rounds while their accuracy and reliability were gauged. Deliveries of the Steyr AUG to the Irish Defence Forces began in 1988. Today the Steyr is the primary infantry weapon of the Permanent & Reserve elements of Ireland's military forces, although it was not introduced into the Reserve Defence Force until 2001.

It is also used by the Falkland Islands Defence Force.

[edit] Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico was listed as a user. I am curious as to how, is it used by the police? Is it used by the national guard? In that case it would be considered to be in US army service... QZXA2 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lead Image

Before this starts to be continually changed and reverted.. what's the general consensus? should the main image on this page be of the newest variant of the rifle? Is the A1 the most deployed rifle? If so, should it be the main image? njan 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AP rounds?

Can this rifle accept the black-tipped NATO round M995? It's the NATO 5.56mm, so..it shouldn't have a problem of it going through the barrel.

Do you reckon it'll still have the same AP performance if these rounds were fitted into the Steyr AUG?

Shin-chan01 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Ref Link

There was a statement that said the Steyr is used by the Philippine army, but the reference linked to an article claiming some Filipino mutineers were given Steyr's by the US (for terrorist training). I changed to another link which states that elite Filipino Scout Ranger use Steyrs. I thought stating that the Filipino Army used Steyrs because of mutineers was inaccurate, as mutineers normally do not reflect the official military. ModestMouse2 (Talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeroing the weapon

The position of the reticle with the sights is adjusted using the knobs seen on the sight housing and a special key (usually held by an armourer - weapons instructor). This means that the sights can be zeroed to match actual fall of shot within the normal ranges in use. However, in practice it is customary to zero the weapon so that the centre of the reticle matches the fall of shot at 300m. i.e. the sights are "zeroed" for 300m. However this is up to the armourer and/or the firer in adjusting the weapon. For some situations for example I might want to zero the weapon so that the top of the reticle matches the fall of shot at 200m (say for competition shooting at that range) . --Sf (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, I might just change the wording a bit. Now regarding the forward assist, I have not been able to verify this. Are you by any chance confusing this with the forward bolt assist found in the American-made clones? Koalorka (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No to my knowledge Irish Steyr rifles have had a forward assist since the weapon was adopted in 1990. In a different life I am a weapons instructor with the Irish Army Reserve. --Sf (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well then. Out of curiosity, what does this device look like? Is it simply incorporated into the cocking handle or somekind of push button around the bolt? Koalorka (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
On the version with the "Square" (not curved) looking cocking handle there is a button on the rear upper corner. Pushing that pushes a small plunger through to engage a groove at the top of the left guide tube. Allows you to push the whole lot forward. --Sf (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. It's good to have people with first-hand experience with the type. Koalorka (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
First hand doesn't knowledge necessarily count for wikipedia ;-) --Sf (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I cant find my manual at the moment when I do I'll put a couple of refs into the text --Sf (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you open the image above of the Austrian troops and bring it to full resolution you can see the button on a couple of the cocking handles. --Sf (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
SF is right, it's on the "A1 version". For a source, in the article in Small Arms Review on page 45, which I used to cite the MSAR version it states:

"With the original Steyr design you had a small button on the charging handle that had to be held in to assist the bolt closing."--Mike Searson (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I removed that reference thinking you confused it with the MSAR variant M16A2 style forward assist. You can revert that. Koalorka (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...no prob! For the record, this article in SAR is a damn good article on the AUG, itself. It is about 50/50 speaking to the original design and the MT clone.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe all AUGs have a forward assist. The original A1 version had the square charging handle that had a small button on the top corner which allowed it to connect with the bolt and work as a forward assist. On the A2 and A3 versions, the charging handle is slightly different; it looks like a hook/Moon crescent. It does not have the button for forward assist function, instead I believe you push it up and forward. Hayden120 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clones?

Should the American clones be included in this article? This is about the original Steyr AUG; having information and external links on entirely different American manufactured rifles is unusual. Perhaps they should be split into their own articles where they can be properly expanded and referenced instead of just being tacked onto this page. The Australian clones are fine here as they are licenced copies of the original Steyr design. Hayden120 (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, conditionally. Isn't the American version licensed in some way as well? If not, is it truly a clone or is it a unique weapon? I've noticed the American version has some features that are quite different. Frankly, I don't see how the old one was broken enough to need a redesign, but whatever. What portion of the gun is actually new? Are they taking Austrian parts and incorporating them or are they making the gun from the ground up? If it's a totally new, unique gun, it might deserve a 'main article' reference and short writeup then get its own article. But, like other vaporware guns, I'd like it to mature a few years before it gets its own article. --Asams10 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can speak a bit to the Microtech offering. All their parts are made in the US. Better quality aluminium went into the receiver, and the accessory points are helicoils of stainless steel as opposed to threaded aluminium. The ability to add rails on the top end, forend and sides is an improvement, forward assist is more prominent, there's a bolt hold-open, larger extractor pin, beveled bolt lugs, a more robust ejection port door, no seam line on the stock, drain holes in the stock and a grooved buttpad. I agree with a short wait before breaking them out into separate articles. Wait for more published literature, etc or the anti-gun/anti-knife/anti-anythingexcept articlesfordroolingfanboysaboutvideogamesandSimpsonscharactersonFamilyGuyepisodes/deletionist nazis will try and eliminate them.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As well as what you mentioned, I believe the Microtech STG-556 also has a few other things such as a fluted barrel and apparently the use of 'better' materials all around, including the magazines. It is also available in 6.8 mm. But no, I'm quite sure its not licenced; apparently the patent expired for AUG A1 design... But I do think it is different enough to make a separate article - this is not your standard clone - it has been redesigned to a fair extent. Hayden120 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll raise the BS flag on the 'better materials' contention. It's likely a 6 or 7 series Aircraft Grade Aluminum either way abd both are the SAME quality, no better or worse. You can't have "Better" aluminum if it's graded either way. I don't think the Austrian Aluminum industry has any 'worse' standards than the American one. Further, the 'redesign' incorporated a different forward assist and mag release than I'm familiar with as well as a SLIGHTLY different magazine. The materials... again, I'm calling BS on the Magazine material being better. The one they had didn't cause any problems I'm aware of. Some internal parts had accelerated wear compared to their life expenctancy, but otherwise the AUG was a superb weapon. Without acceptance standards and mil-specs, nobody can tell me that this copy is BETTER than or even as good as the AUG. --Asams10 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile

Does Chile use this rifle? It looks like an anon ip insists that they do. Don't know whether to revert it or source it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, the same person has been going around and claiming Chile uses every cool-looking weapon on this planet. We get that from Filipino users as well. Probably children or airsofters having tactical Ninja fantasies. Koalorka (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I left a note on his talkpage to provide a source. I didn't know enough about it to go, either way. I suspect you're right, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find confirmation of this, since it popped up a few times, but couldn't find anything. Koalorka (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper name?

Is the proper name of this weapon the "Steyr AUG" or "STEYR AUG"? On the official Steyr website they consistently all-caps the name as "STEYR AUG". Clayhalliwell (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Steyr is a name, not an Acronym, therefore by Wikipedia Convention, it is not all caps. This discussion was had before on the Glock article... Glock of GLOCK. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)