Steyr

return guide

Should the DF be looking at changing the standard rifle now that some of them are 20 years old and if so what should they be looking at ?
G 36, Hk 416/7, M4, Tavor

Manic Moran

Well, the M-16 is 40+ years old, and still going strong.

Is the Steyr proving unsatisfactory in any way? If not, why change it?

NTM

Hagar

What about the Grand Daddy of them all the AK47?

return guide

Hagar wrote: »

What about the Grand Daddy of them all the AK47?

I know lots of guys are pro FN (7.62 FN Fal) but as we know NATO dont think that way.

Steyr

This was brought up in Barracks on Sat, we were up for TOET's and Steyr refresher trg as we have some ARP this weekend coming and one of our Sgt's said he knew people who evaluated the Steyr among others etc etc and they apparently said that if they could have made a better weapon it would be the Steyr but with the SA80's sights.

Personally i believe why feel the need to change a brilliant weapon?

cp251

Steyr, (how appropriate). Is the Steyr AUG really as good as it's claimed? I just ask because I seem to remember the something about the Aussies having issues with them. Can't find a reference though. I was always under the impression that the Steyr was as good as it gets in assault rifle terms.

As for retiring them, well no need until laser rifles are issued as standard to most countries!

newby.204

IMO i feel a shift in caliber is needed, either 7.62 nato or 6.8 spc. 5.56 nato just doesnt have the stopping power that the 7.62 does!! the steyr is a brilliant weapon, it just doesnt have the well umf of a larger caliber!!

arybvtcw0eolkf

newby.204 wrote: »

IMO i feel a shift in caliber is needed, either 7.62 nato or 6.8 spc. 5.56 nato just doesnt have the stopping power that the 7.62 does!! the steyr is a brilliant weapon, it just doesnt have the well umf of a larger caliber!!

The other side of that debate is that the 5.56 rd is lighter, so an infantry section can carry more plus its not affected by wind like the 7.62mm rd.

Its also thought that on the modern battle field the infantry section won't engage targets at ranges over 300mtrs and the 5.56mm has sufficient stopping power at that distance.

Also, unlike most other modern armies now the Irish infantry section has the GPMG packing a powerful kick up the arse for anyone's liking.

The Steyr has served us very well in terrain as varied as the jungles of East Timor & Liberia, to the extrem conditions of Eritrea & Somalia to almost artic conditions of the Balkans in the winter.

Its a fantastic weapon.

cushtac

Steyr wrote: »

This was brought up in Barracks on Sat, we were up for TOET's and Steyr refresher trg as we have some ARP this weekend coming and one of our Sgt's said he knew people who evaluated the Steyr among others etc etc and they apparently said that if they could have made a better weapon it would be the Steyr but with the SA80's sights.

The sights would be easily enough to sort if the brass wanted to, just swap the current housing group for one with a better sight or one with a rail.

arybvtcw0eolkf

cushtac wrote: »

The sights would be easily enough to sort if the brass wanted to, just swap the current housing group for one with a better sight or one with a rail.

I'm probably just old school.

But after cutting my hind teeth on the .303 as a young FCA soldier, then the FN when I joined the PDF but I find the scope on the Steyr grand!.

neilled

Mairt wrote: »

I'm probably just old school.

But after cutting my hind teeth on the .303 as a young FCA soldier, then the FN when I joined the PDF but I find the scope on the Steyr grand!.

Question for you Mairt, seeing your the seasoned sort! Most of the steyrs I've seen the DF with seem to have been a "special" version ie rather than having two ejection ports they just seem to have the one located on the right hand side of the stock. Most references to the AUG state its ability to be adapted to suit a left handed or right handed shooter.

Did the DF order a "special" variant for any particular reason, or am I just imagining things, and if I'm correct do left handed variants exist? The careers add in all the graduate magazines would indicate so, shows a soldier cammed up wading through a river, backpack (complete with thermarest ) with his rifle in his left shoulder. Of course it could just be a simple image reversal either!

Trotter

I think the steyr will be with us for another 10 years at least. All of the most up to date weapons research suggests that something along the lines of the Tavor will be the next standard of Infantry weapons.

I watched a programme on the Tavor recently, and its about to be issued to general service soldiers in Israel. The top brass there are very proud of it and its very highly thought of. I can see a period where something like this is standard in a number of armies, before the Irish army uses the benefit of their field testing to choose something similar in future.

Sputnik

Question for you Mairt, seeing your the seasoned sort! Most of the steyrs I've seen the DF with seem to have been a "special" version ie rather than having two ejection ports they just seem to have the one located on the right hand side of the stock. Most references to the AUG state its ability to be adapted to suit a left handed or right handed shooter.

Did the DF order a "special" variant for any particular reason, or am I just imagining things, and if I'm correct do left handed variants exist? ...

There is nothing special about the Irish version. There's a plate covering the left side ejection port. To convert the rifle to left handed use install a left handed bolt and move the plate to cover the right side.

neilled

Sputnik wrote: »

There is nothing special about the Irish version. There's a plate covering the left side ejection port. To convert the rifle to left handed use install a left handed bolt and move the plate to cover the right side.

Fair enough, I had been under the impression that from what I thought I saw in the past the DF rifles only had one ejection port. Thanks for the info.

Captain Chaos

I have heard though that the accuracy of the AUG is just ok, this could be the user, the sights or both.

The new A3 version seems to be better suited to Ranger use due to having the 4 20mm rails.

If a new round is needed, it looks like the US is going with the 6.8x43mm SPC, which is ment to be better than the 5.56 out to 200m. But the 6.5mm Grendal could replace both the 5.56 and 7.62 due to its accuracy and effective range.

If the DF were to go for a new assault rifle, I think the HK416 would be up there.

Manic Moran

Comments about the US going to a larger round are overstated. The most recent few rifles considered XM-8, OICW) are 5.56mm.

The main problems with 'knockdown power', such as it is, are caused more by the problems of firing out of the short barrel of the M-4 carbine as by anything else. Nobody else seems to be complaining about the 5.56mm round, and for conventional high-intensity combat still seems to be the most efficient: Remember that the reason for the switch was to allow an infantryman with a reasonable combat load to knock as many people out of the fight as possible: By moving to a smaller round with less kick, a troop could fire more times, faster, and more accurately, resulting in more hits. If it didn't blow the guy's arm totally off, who cared? He's going to get taken out of the line for a bit anyway. By moving back to a larger round, you start going back to the inefficiencies which led to the move to 5.56 in the first place.

I also think there's a bit of 'hollywood expectancy' involved. "Hey! I just shot him, and he didn't fly back 15 feet in the air. My round must suck!"

NTM

minidazzler

The Steyr is a grand rifle. It is reliable and I know that if I have a round in the breach and safety off then pull my trigger a round is going to go off. I have never had a jam in my rifle and I have fired about 200 rounds from it.

I would like a ELCAN(I think are the ones I was on about then. I have forgotten the name but they have the traditional crosshairs on them) on it because I prefer cross hairs to the circular reticle but I cant do any thing about that.

Keep the rifle clean and it is perfect. it will do what its supposed to do.

Captain Chaos

minidazzler wrote: »

The Steyr is a grand rifle. It is reliable and I know that if I have a round in the breach and safety off then pull my trigger a round is going to go off. I have never had a jam in my rifle and I have fired about 200 rounds from it.

I would like a SUSAT on it because I prefer cross hairs to the circular reticle but I cant do any thing about that.

Keep the rifle clean and it is perfect. it will do what its supposed to do.

If the DF got more AUG A2s or A3s then fitting a SUSAT type of sight would be no problem. The only problem I could see is that they are 4x sights and would be of little use in short range urban combat, where the AUG's 1.5x sight is more useful. Some armies use the ELCAN C79 sight which is ment to be very good and ruged.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Cushtac I'm sure you were around, but was anyone else around to remember the 'butter mountain' before we discuss replacing the steyr any further?.

Manic Moran

minidazzler wrote: »

I would like a SUSAT on it because I prefer cross hairs to the circular reticle but I cant do any thing about that.

SUSAT doesn't have a crosshair, it has a post-type aimpoint indicator. I think it's a little large, I prefer the sight on the ACOG which is similar, but smaller with graduated range markings.

I'm giving serious consideration to shelling out for an FTS magnifier for my Holosight. It gives the advantages of both a CCO and a scope, but at the better part of $700, it's an expense I'm not going to go with until the next Iraq jaunt. (The holosight itself adds another $500 or so, but I bought it on the last go-around.)

NTM

newby.204

Sputnik wrote: »

There is nothing special about the Irish version. There's a plate covering the left side ejection port. To convert the rifle to left handed use install a left handed bolt and move the plate to cover the right side.

It doesnt have a "plate", the stock has to be replaced aswell. Im not saying the steyr isnt a great rifle it is, i just prefer 7.62. Also the sights are designed to give quick target aquisition and rounds downrange, its not ment to be a precision rifle. We are not in the business of killing, man pops up you put him in the cirlce round hits upper mass game over(all goin well)!! We dont have the money to replace the steyr but i do think id prefer to have a 7.62 weapon or even the new 6.8 rem in a bullpup config!! but thats just me dreamin:D

arybvtcw0eolkf

newby.204 wrote: »

We dont have the money to replace the steyr

Your getting close to the 'butter mountain' :cool:

rednik

The butter mountain, nice one Mairt. If they change weapons in the future what could we use as a bargaining chip then.
In my Unit any lefties on the range had to fire the steyr right handed there was no choice. I never saw a converted weapon.
As for its accuracy it was more or less the same as the FN but not the 303. Plus it never really felt like a rifle when firing it as there was no recoil or kick unlike the previous weapons. As for cleaning there are a lot of parts with the steyr so more care must be taken so it can be a pain in different situations ie in dark or bad light.

triskell

Mairt wrote: »

Cushtac I'm sure you were around, but was anyone else around to remember the 'butter mountain' before we discuss replacing the steyr any further?.

I was still in when the testing was going on,I rekon we got the best of that deal. that was when we had no money here, we were very lucky we didn't end up with the sa80 given the political climate at the time. when they were finished testing it (sa80)they gave it back in a bag:D:D.
my only crib with the irish version steyr was/is the reticle, its not really designed for pinpoint accuracy. its designed to hit a mansized target at 300m and incapacitate him
i would have preferred some form of crosshair or post (but nobody was really interested in my choice being a redarse at the time)

ChapOfDRyans

Mairt wrote: »

Cushtac I'm sure you were around, but was anyone else around to remember the 'butter mountain' before we discuss replacing the steyr any further?.

i remeber being told about that,is that where the irish did a swap or am i thinking of something else.

Steyr

ChapOfDRyans wrote: »

i remeber being told about that,is that where the irish did a swap or am i thinking of something else.

Was it not the Beef Mountain for the FN's?????????? I remember hearing of the Beef Mountain.:p

Steyr

rednik wrote: »

In my Unit any lefties on the range had to fire the steyr right handed there was no choice. I never saw a converted weapon.

Same as here in my Unit, and we have 4 Lefties!! One is an Officer!

rednik wrote: »

Plus it never really felt like a rifle when firing it as there was no recoil or kick unlike the previous weapons.

Ah but what about the Spring noise! Boing boing boing!

minidazzler

ChapOfDRyans wrote: »

i remeber being told about that,is that where the irish did a swap or am i thinking of something else.

Detecting sarcasm over the internet is near impossible so I assume you are serious.

There was no swap that was just a joke that goes around to Recruits to mess with them. You must tell all recruits that we got the rifle like this.
"We needed weapons,
THe Austrians needed butter,
Win Win."

But really its called a butter rifle because when it was first gotten the lads who were used to the FN said that it would melt in the sun(because of the plastic)

Sorry if you knew that but in ternet sarcasm should be wrapped in
tags.

neilled

So, sorry to ask the question again, the Irish varient of the steyr isn't the standard stock with the two ejection ports, its a specific right or left ejection model which by the basis of the replies on the forum seems to not be widely available. T'is odd seeing that the standard aug is always marketed on the basis of being adapted for either a left or right handed firer.

Captain Chaos

Also correct me if I'm wrong but I have heard from people that our version also have an extra switch/catch which has to be lifted with the trigger finger before the trigger can be fully depressed to go to full automatic fire.


I know units are tought to fire semi only.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Also correct me if I'm wrong but I have heard from people that our version also have an extra switch/catch which has to be lifted with the trigger finger before the trigger can be fully depressed to go to full automatic fire.


I know units are tought to fire semi only.

ALO.

Automatic LockOut switch is an Irish design/modification.

Flying

Mairt wrote: »

Cushtac I'm sure you were around, but was anyone else around to remember the 'butter mountain' before we discuss replacing the steyr any further?.

Butter for Guns, Oh I remember that

Flying

The Irish one is semi automatic until the ALO is knocked on.

neilled

Flying wrote: »

Butter for Guns, Oh I remember that

To quote Goering "Guns will make us powerful, butter will only make us fat!"

c-90

us leftys are well used to adapting to right handed things. after 15 mins of holding a right handed wepon i always hold them right handed. the only bad thing is it wont fire around right handed corner

minidazzler

neilled wrote: »

So, sorry to ask the question again, the Irish varient of the steyr isn't the standard stock with the two ejection ports, its a specific right or left ejection model which by the basis of the replies on the forum seems to not be widely available. T'is odd seeing that the standard aug is always marketed on the basis of being adapted for either a left or right handed firer.

We have no slot. My guess is the Lads didnt want to "waste" money buying conversion kits got the weapon.

Steyr

Mairt wrote: »

ALO.

Automatic LockOut switch is an Irish design/modification.

ALO is an Irish design/mod, wow thats interesting!:)

Hagar

Yeah, bullets cost money.
Why don't they just issue muskets?
Equip an army with up to date weaponry then restrict the ability of that weaponry? Well thought out strategy Minister.

No reflection on the forces themselves, just the penny pinching mentality of the bean counters.

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, the M-16 is 40+ years old, and still going strong.
NTM

I'm not a weapons expert by any means but is the M-16 any good?

I've heard all the usual stories of the M-16A1 in Vietnam etc etc and how poorly it fared, what I've heard on the A2 has been mixed and either how it's an excellent weapon for troops who have been well trained or else it's still a substandard gun.


Any thoughts on the uses of theM16 welcome

cushtac

Hagar wrote: »

Equip an army with up to date weaponry then restrict the ability of that weaponry? Well thought out strategy Minister.

The ALO doesn't restrict the ability of the Steyr and what makes you think the Minister is responsible for it?

muletide

Mairt wrote: »

ALO.

Automatic LockOut switch is an Irish design/modification.

I will have to correct you there martin - The Aussies I worked with in Timor also had ALO's on their Steyrs.

Hagar

cushtac wrote: »

The ALO doesn't restrict the ability of the Steyr and what makes you think the Minister is responsible for it?

muletide wrote: »

I will have to correct you there martin - The Aussies I worked with in Timor also had ALO's on their Steyrs.

I thought the ALO was a device to restrict the easy use of full auto on the weapon. I understand the concept of short controlled bursts to produce accurate fire, I also understand the concept of winning a fire fight where maximum delivery on target of munitions is required. I don't think our troops should have to use anything more complex than the old style "change lever" which facilitated bot short burst or full auto to achieve this.

I assumed the that weapons thus modified would cost more than the standard version and so the decision to pay extra would have been made at Govt level on the basis of potential saving on ammo in peacetime at the expense of effectiveness in combat. I may be wrong but I would expect the Army Brass to want all the fire power they could get and only be constrained by budgets imposed by the Minister.

Manic Moran

There is precedent. There are "Kill-joy" plates on US M16A1s, which prevent one from selecting full auto. (A2 and later have 3-round-burst, so have an inbuilt restriction).

Of course, they're the first thing to be removed when on deployment!

NTM

Flying

muletide wrote: »

I will have to correct you there martin - The Aussies I worked with in Timor also had ALO's on their Steyrs.

I was in East Timor, never saw that at all strange I always thought it was an Irish Mod, obviously not

cushtac

Hagar wrote: »

I thought the ALO was a device to restrict the easy use of full auto on the weapon. I understand the concept of short controlled bursts to produce accurate fire, I also understand the concept of winning a fire fight where maximum delivery on target of munitions is required. I don't think our troops should have to use anything more complex than the old style "change lever" which facilitated bot short burst or full auto to achieve this.

The ALO is a little button on the bottom of the trigger - pull it down & you've got semi-automatic fire; push it up & you've got automatic fire. It's hardly difficult & it's well within the capabilities of our troops to disengage it. You're also assuming that the ALO wouldn't be already disengaged if the situation warranted it.

Hagar wrote: »

I assumed the that weapons thus modified would cost more than the standard version and so the decision to pay extra would have been made at Govt level on the basis of potential saving on ammo in peacetime at the expense of effectiveness in combat. I may be wrong but I would expect the Army Brass to want all the fire power they could get and only be constrained by budgets imposed by the Minister.

That's a massive assumption. If the government was that worried about the cost of ammunition why didn't they do the same with the FN? I also doubt very much if the Minister gets that involved with the nitty gritty of small arms selection.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is precedent. There are "Kill-joy" plates on US M16A1s, which prevent one from selecting full auto. (A2 and later have 3-round-burst, so have an inbuilt restriction).

Of course, they're the first thing to be removed when on deployment!
NTM

So we can call the ''kill-joy'' the ''Joy-2-kill'' for Iraq/Afghan

Boston

cp251 wrote: »

Steyr, (how appropriate). Is the Steyr AUG really as good as it's claimed? I just ask because I seem to remember the something about the Aussies having issues with them. Can't find a reference though. I was always under the impression that the Steyr was as good as it gets in assault rifle terms.

As for retiring them, well no need until laser rifles are issued as standard to most countries!

The Australians use a modified Steyr exclusive to them, manufactured in a different place to where the rest of the world gets theres.

Hagar

cushtac wrote: »

The ALO is a little button on the bottom of the trigger - pull it down & you've got semi-automatic fire; push it up & you've got automatic fire. It's hardly difficult & it's well within the capabilities of our troops to disengage it. You're also assuming that the ALO wouldn't be already disengaged if the situation warranted it.



That's a massive assumption. If the government was that worried about the cost of ammunition why didn't they do the same with the FN? I also doubt very much if the Minister gets that involved with the nitty gritty of small arms selection.

All good points, I stand corrected.

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

Comments about the US going to a larger round are overstated. The most recent few rifles considered XM-8, OICW) are 5.56mm.

The main problems with 'knockdown power', such as it is, are caused more by the problems of firing out of the short barrel of the M-4 carbine as by anything else. Nobody else seems to be complaining about the 5.56mm round, and for conventional high-intensity combat still seems to be the most efficient: Remember that the reason for the switch was to allow an infantryman with a reasonable combat load to knock as many people out of the fight as possible: By moving to a smaller round with less kick, a troop could fire more times, faster, and more accurately, resulting in more hits. If it didn't blow the guy's arm totally off, who cared? He's going to get taken out of the line for a bit anyway. By moving back to a larger round, you start going back to the inefficiencies which led to the move to 5.56 in the first place.

I also think there's a bit of 'hollywood expectancy' involved. "Hey! I just shot him, and he didn't fly back 15 feet in the air. My round must suck!"

NTM

while i think the 5.56 vs 7.62 doctrine holds in conventional, high-intensity warfare, there appears to be a problem in unconventional warfare.

the gripe is not that 5.56 doesn't have the range you need - because as you point out nobody uses small arms at the ranges where the difference in range between 5.56 and 7.62 becomes apparent, rather that it doesn't have the penetration and 'stopping power' at short range that 7.62 (or perhaps more correctly, 7.62 weapons have)

the short version is that you have two identical car-bourne attacks on checkpoints and one VCP has 7.62 weapons and the other 5.56, the vehicle attacking the 7.62 VCP will be stopped quicker, further away and with less rounds fired than the vehicle attacking the 5.56 VCP.

obviously, as you point out, the issue is as much the barrel length of the weapon as it is with the round itself. however the counter to that is that the L85 A2 (SA80) has a barrel length just 15mm less than the SLR/FN FAL yet its ability to wreck the **** out of oncoming VBIED attacks is significantly less than that of an FN FAL. indeed the L86 (the LSW) has a much greater barrel length than the FN MAG/GPMG - 646mm vs 546mm - yet no man alive would say that the L86 is better at stopping cars or attacking any kind of protected target than a GPMG, even when equalling the GPMG's rate of sustained fire to that of the L86.

Manic Moran

Whilst true, your VCP scenario is based upon the possibility that 5.56mm is the only option available. In pretty much any such scenario I can think of, there will be 7.62 or .50 cal machineguns available precisely for dealing with such problems. Has there ever been a VCP you've seen without a belt-fed of larger calibre somewhere in the vicinity, either at section level, such as in Ireland, or mounted on a HMMWV or tank?

NTM

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst true, your VCP scenario is based upon the possibility that 5.56mm is the only option available. In pretty much any such scenario I can think of, there will be 7.62 or .50 cal machineguns available precisely for dealing with such problems. Has there ever been a VCP you've seen without a belt-fed of larger calibre somewhere in the vicinity, either at section level, such as in Ireland, or mounted on a HMMWV or tank?

NTM

i've certainly seen such a VCP in Ireland with only L85 and L86, and in dusty places with only L85 and 5.56 Para-Minimi - and even when a 7.62 is present as a unit weapon rather than as IW's, who's to say that it won't be doing something else?

an Irish infantry section - with its GPMG - is probably better armed than a British infantry section (while accepting that 40mm UBGL's are far more widespread in the BA than in the IA), yet even then in a VCP-type situation, stationary, exposed, is still only able engage a single target that is either in anyway hardened or a range greater than 400m. in the BA the L86A2 goes some way to extending the field of fire to 600m or so, but still you have a situation where the section is only able to bring one weapon to bear onto targets that are either remotely hardened or at a range greater than 400m.

other options, explosive options, that a section could use to engage such targets in conventional high-inyensity warfare just aren't usable in 'policing' operations, the risk of - that dreadful phrase - collateral damage being too great.