Steyr replacement

Story_Bud

Anyone know what they a replacing the steyr with, i heard it has been budgeted for but would like to know what they plan to buy ?!

Maoltuile

Story_Bud wrote: »

Anyone know what they a replacing the steyr with, i heard it has been budgeted for but would like to know what they plan to buy ?!

It's not exactly a secret that it's the A3 for the PDF? (is there an A4 out now as well?).

I'm guessing the RDF get passed-down whatever A1 bits and pieces are then surplus.

Story_Bud

Thanks i had been wondering ever since i read an article on it but no mention of what was going to replace it

newmug

They're not seriously going to replace all the Steyrs already?

What ever happened to all the old FN's? I'd love to get a decommissioned one!

Delancey

The Steyrs have been in service for a lot shorter than the FN's , whats the rationale for replacing them ?

Maoltuile

newmug wrote: »

They're not seriously going to replace all the Steyrs already?

What ever happened to all the old FN's? I'd love to get a decommissioned one!

Can't really comment on the Steyrs... but it's fairly obvious to anyone that they've been in heavy use for two and a half decades now, and the newer marks will fix problems and keep them up to date with the latest rifle technology trends. The FNs were clapped out after not much more service, and clearly obsolescent.

At least some of the old FNs have recently been taken out of reserve stocks, gotten some new furniture and been recycled as the new spotter automatic weapon for sniper team self-protection.

goldie fish

Delancey wrote: »

The Steyrs have been in service for a lot shorter than the FN's , whats the rationale for replacing them ?

FN entered service with the Irish Army in 1960. It retired from frontline service in 1990(30 yrs)
The Steyr entered service in 1986, and have not been retired yet, but evaluation of replacements take a while, so it may be 2017 when it finally enters service, given the other Defence Expenses that are forthcoming in the next few years.

whydave

Delancey wrote: »

The Steyrs have been in service for a lot shorter than the FN's , whats the rationale for replacing them ?

Well you have to remember that any Country that recieved a ''bail-out'' from the IMF must send 10% on military goods (see Greece buying new tanks from the US)

(will back up or remove as soon as I can find the source web site )

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

whydave wrote: »

Well you have to remember that any Country that recieved a ''bail-out'' from the IMF must send 10% on military goods (see Greece buying new tanks from the US)

What?!? Have you got a source for that?

If that's true, thats the most mental thing I have ever heard

Manic Moran

whydave wrote: »

Well you have to remember that any Country that recieved a ''bail-out'' from the IMF must send 10% on military goods (see Greece buying new tanks from the US)

Unless you have more recent information...

http://www.defencegreece.com/index.php/2011/10/the-greek-government-denied-that-there-will-be-a-supply-of-400-used-tanks-from-the-u-s/

The Greek government denied that there will be a supply of 400 used tanks from the U.S. The reports are not true, said the government spokesman Mr. Mosialos in a statement. “There is no deal, there are no thoughts to acquire 400 tanks, as the publications suggest, there will be no new burdens on the state budget. Categorical denial: there is no such thing”, concludes the statement.

Frankly, the Greeks can't afford them. They've even down-gunned some of their Leopard 2s to 105mm cannons in order to save on ammunition costs.

NTM

whydave

whydave wrote: »

(will back up or remove as soon as I can find the source web site )

Sorry cann't find the web site I was looking at and as stated will rmove comment
David

constantg

A3 according to my source in Ordnance. Rationale being reduced training costs, plenty of spares around from A1's, need for greater modularity with accessories offered by A3, positive experience with steyr

neilled

Maoltuile wrote: »

(is there an A4 out now as well?).

There are two versions of the A3, the A3 and the A3 SF.

See http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/military-law-enf/

Maoltuile

neilled wrote: »

There are two versions of the A3, the A3 and the A3 SF.

See http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/military-law-enf/

Thanks. Is that a mechanism release catch on the A3?

Donny5

neilled wrote: »

There are two versions of the A3, the A3 and the A3 SF.

See http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/military-law-enf/

There was also an Austeyr A4, but that seems to have dropped off the radar somewhat.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Thanks. Is that a mechanism release catch on the A3?

It is.

KickstartHeart

OP do you have a link to the article? I'd like to get a read of it.
Cheers.

KickstartHeart

Any idea what sites they might put on them anybody?

neilled

Donny5 wrote: »

neilled wrote: »

There are two versions of the A3, the A3 and the A3 SF.

See http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/military-law-enf/

There was also an Austeyr A4, but that seems to have dropped off the radar somewhat.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Thanks. Is that a mechanism release catch on the A3?

It is.

This presentation covers where the aussies are going with the f-88 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/WednesdayInter12397Evenden.pdf

SIRREX

Maoltuile wrote: »

Thanks. Is that a mechanism release catch on the A3?

If your refering to the catch on the side of the butt, just behind the magazine, then it's an extra magazine catch required in the US, AFAIK for the purpose of preventing high speed mag changes etc

Donny5

SIRREX wrote: »

If your refering to the catch on the side of the butt, just behind the magazine, then it's an extra magazine catch required in the US, AFAIK for the purpose of preventing high speed mag changes etc

You're talking out your arse - it's the Bolt Release Catch and it releases the action forward following an IA.

amurph0

The PDF already use the AUG A2 in limited numbers, fitted with an Elcan sight. And have been using them for a good few years.

You can see it being used on a live fire range in a video on the DF youtube page.

I've been told that in the future most members of each section on training exercises and overseas will be issued with an A2 mounted with an Elcan Spectre DR sight (different from the one in the video) while the rest will use the A1.

Non-infantry units (Artillery, Logs, Comms, etc) will continue to use the A1.

I've also been told that the A3 is a no go for general issue because of the cost and added weight. Plus the fact that accessories that could be mounted to the side rails (PEQ units, lights, grips etc) aren't on general issue anyways, so unless those accessories go on general issue then the A3 won't be considered because it isn't necessary.

SIRREX

Donny5 wrote: »

You're talking out your arse - it's the Bolt Release Catch and it releases the action forward following an IA.

Boll*x it is, I've been firing the Steyr for over 20 years, and there is no specific bolt release catch, when the action locks to the rear it is released by means of the the cocking handle. Try checking out who your talking to before you talk out of your arse!!

I may be wrong about the reason for the extra magazine release catch, and thats why I said AFAIK (As Far As I Know)

amurph0

SIRREX wrote: »

Boll*x it is, I've been firing the Steyr for over 20 years, and there is no specific bolt release catch, when the action locks to the rear it is released by means of the the cocking handle. Try checking out who your talking to before you talk out of your arse!!

I may be wrong about the reason for the extra magazine release catch, and thats why I said AFAIK (As Far As I Know)

Actually he's correct. It is a bolt release catch.

That "extra magazine release" you see on the side of M4's is also a bolt release catch, it is the button that is used to release the action after the hold open device holds it to the rear when there's an empty magazine. That feature was taken from the M4/M16 design and added to the more recent Steyr AUG designs for the american market.

Also if you watch the official Steyr presentation video on the A3 SF you'll see the button being used after a magazine change to release the action without having to use the cocking handle.

SIRREX

amurph0 wrote: »

Actually he's correct. It is a bolt release catch.

That "extra magazine release" you see on the side of M4's is also a bolt release catch, it is the button that is used to release the action after the hold open device holds it to the rear when there's an empty magazine. /QUOTE]

I'll get me coat!!:o
I must be stuck in the past with the Irish version

Manic Moran

The Steyr design has been around for so many years, it's inevitable that there are changes made in the design over the last few decades.

This, for example, is very definitely a bolt release.



Whereas this...


is a magazine release.

The one on the A3 linked to in the earlier post is a bolt release.

Manual located here: http://www.steyrarms.com/fileadmin/user/pdf/AUG_A3_SA_USA_Manual.pdf "Bolt Release Lever"

Story_Bud

not the one i first read but ah sure
http://www.herald.ie/news/defence-forces-to-bring-rifles-bang-up-to-date-2926884.html

Poccington

New housing with rail system and sight system will be the order of the day.

Maoltuile

SIRREX wrote: »

amurph0 wrote: »

Actually he's correct. It is a bolt release catch.

That "extra magazine release" you see on the side of M4's is also a bolt release catch, it is the button that is used to release the action after the hold open device holds it to the rear when there's an empty magazine. /QUOTE]

I'll get me coat!!:o
I must be stuck in the past with the Irish version

You're not alone. For those of us who remember the FN, IA's may just get more familiar again

Donny5

SIRREX wrote: »

amurph0 wrote: »

Actually he's correct. It is a bolt release catch.

That "extra magazine release" you see on the side of M4's is also a bolt release catch, it is the button that is used to release the action after the hold open device holds it to the rear when there's an empty magazine. /QUOTE]

I'll get me coat!!:o
I must be stuck in the past with the Irish version

No worries. I could have been a bit more diplomatic myself. Anyway, the A3 looks a good choice for the replacement.

SIRREX

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whereas this...


is a magazine release.

Yep that's the one I was confusing it with, Manic, can you tell us what was the reasoning behind the fitting of these auxillary magazine catches? And are they state specific or country wide

Manic Moran

It's just your standard NATO stock. The STANAG magazines are held in place by a latch located on the side, so since they had to put the lever for the latch in there anyway, why not just extend the other side of the lever to make a second mag release button and thus more choices? The 'normal' mag release behind the mag has a connecting rod to activate the mag latch lever.

constantg

is it just me or does it not sound a little redundant? was it put in aplce purely so the steyr would accept STANAG magazine?

Donny5

constantg wrote: »

is it just me or does it not sound a little redundant? was it put in aplce purely so the steyr would accept STANAG magazine?

Yes. The placement makes more sense if you're familiar with the AR-15 / other STANAG rifles.

constantg

Donny5 wrote: »

Yes. The placement makes more sense if you're familiar with the AR-15 / other STANAG rifles.

I'm not to be honest with you; i've only fired the Steyr so far. I've heard the A4 is not great compared to say the g36 or other modern 5.56.

Is the intention that the release catch be triggered with the thumb immediately after seating a fresh mag???

Donny5

constantg wrote: »

I'm not to be honest with you; i've only fired the Steyr so far. I've heard the A4 is not great compared to say the g36 or other modern 5.56.

Is the intention that the release catch be triggered with the thumb immediately after seating a fresh mag???

No, it's just the way the STANAG magazines are built. Unlike the Steyr mags, where they're held in by the magazine release catch holding a lip on the rear of the mag, STANAG magazines are held in place by a protrusion on the side of the mag well engaging an indentation on the side of the mag. The mag release on AR 15 style rifles is a type of lever that you push in from the side to release the mag, so to convert a Steyr stock to STANAGs, you'd have to use a mechanism to convert the vertical motion of the traditional Steyr mag release to the sideways motion of the AR 15 style. Seeing as such modifications have to be made to the stock, the manufacturer decided to place an AR 15 direct mag release on the side of the stock.

Manic Moran

You're getting confused:

Is the intention that the release catch be triggered with the thumb immediately after seating a fresh mag???

You wouldn't hit the mag release after seating a fresh mag, he's talking about the bolt release on the A3.

I'd need to see it in person, but I'd wager it's more a case of 'hit with the heel of the hand' than 'trigger with thumb'

NTM

Donny5

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're getting confused:



You wouldn't hit the mag release after seating a fresh mag, he's talking about the bolt release on the A3.

I'd need to see it in person, but I'd wager it's more a case of 'hit with the heel of the hand' than 'trigger with thumb'

NTM

Right you are.

marketty

amurph0 wrote: »

I've also been told that the A3 is a no go for general issue because of the cost and added weight. .

It's heavier? Feck that they can keep it!
Everyone thinks the steyr+m203 looks deadly til they have to carry the bastard ;-)

constantg

marketty wrote: »

It's heavier? Feck that they can keep it!
Everyone thinks the steyr+m203 looks deadly til they have to carry the bastard ;-)

how much heavier???

Manic Moran

constantg wrote: »

marketty wrote: »

It's heavier? Feck that they can keep it!
Everyone thinks the steyr+m203 looks deadly til they have to carry the bastard ;-)

how much heavier???

I'll bet it's only substantially heavier after people are done fitting attachments onto all the rails.

NTM

Maoltuile

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll bet it's only substantially heavier after people are done fitting attachments onto all the rails.

NTM

Yes. I mean, do you really need a iPhone attachment?

SIRREX

Maoltuile wrote: »

Yes. I mean, do you really need a iPhone attachment?

yes, if it has the sniper computer App

SIRREX

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll bet it's only substantially heavier after people are done fitting attachments onto all the rails.

NTM

It's actually very muzzle heavy with the M 203 attached

constantg

SIRREX wrote: »

It's actually very muzzle heavy with the M 203 attached

The A1 is pretty heavy itself with the 203....

Mr. Tezza

so are people talking about a whole new rifle or just an upgrade of the A1's to A3 spec, as in a new Housing with rails on it to replace the existing ones with carry handles/scopes?

From what I heard they're only going to go to front line PDF units with logs/cav/arty etc units sticking with the A1's. the RDF will also be sticking with the A1's afaik.

Makes sense to me, as long as PDF guys don't go out buying lasers and sh*te to clutter up the A3's rails...

SIRREX

constantg wrote: »

The A1 is pretty heavy itself with the 203....

Thats what i meant

OS119

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

...Makes sense to me...

not to me - having two different rifles (or parts of rifles) in circulation at the same time, on the same OP is a recipe for expensive hassle. the deliniation between units doesn't work because, in practice, an Infantry Coy will live with an Engineer Pln, a Logs Spt Coy, an Artillery Troop, a Signals section et all, and having to maintain two supply chains and two skill sets is going to be trouble you could live without.

added to which, on an Army wide basis you'd have to look pretty carefully to judge whether you actually saved any money by having a 'cheaper' basic rifle, and a more expensive 'gucci' rifle - you're going to have to make sure that Armourers were skilled on both models, that you have two smaller supply chains instead on one big one (and smaller orders for parts cost more per part than a larger order), two reporting/issuing systems instead of one, two training syllabusses.... the list goes one.

then there's 'future proofing' - the IA is already introducing an FN DMR for sniper teams, there's lots of talk about the heavy barrel Steyr - or something like the L129 - being introduced as a standard DMR, then there's the question of an LMG to suppliment the GMPG - just how many types of weapon is the future Bn group (in some delightful, dusty, logistically challenged dump) going to have to maintain and operate?

Mr. Tezza

OS119 wrote: »

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

...Makes sense to me...

not to me - having two different rifles (or parts of rifles) in circulation at the same time, on the same OP is a recipe for expensive hassle. the deliniation between units doesn't work because, in practice, an Infantry Coy will live with an Engineer Pln, a Logs Spt Coy, an Artillery Troop, a Signals section et all, and having to maintain two supply chains and two skill sets is going to be trouble you could live without.

added to which, on an Army wide basis you'd have to look pretty carefully to judge whether you actually saved any money by having a 'cheaper' basic rifle, and a more expensive 'gucci' rifle - you're going to have to make sure that Armourers were skilled on both models, that you have two smaller supply chains instead on one big one (and smaller orders for parts cost more per part than a larger order), two reporting/issuing systems instead of one, two training syllabusses.... the list goes one.

then there's 'future proofing' - the IA is already introducing an FN DMR for sniper teams, there's lots of talk about the heavy barrel Steyr - or something like the L129 - being introduced as a standard DMR, then there's the question of an LMG to suppliment the GMPG - just how many types of weapon is the future Bn group (in some delightful, dusty, logistically challenged dump) going to have to maintain and operate?

I see your argument but to be honest I don't see what the problem is, the two rifles are basically the same wit just a change in the housing which is 1 piece, so there is no need to train armourers cos the working parts are unchanged, just maybe how to zero a different sight which is pretty easy tbh.

Stores for each unit are usually kept separate anyway with their own Q so I can't see weapons getting mixed up.

I'm presuming the change is brought about by experience in the field by troops on the ground, so why go to the expense to change it for all units when it will only be used by the infantry at regular intervals.

The arty/logs/cav/NS/reserve don't use the Aug often enuf to justify it needing an upgrade already.

Mr. Tezza

OS119 wrote: »

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

...Makes sense to me...

not to me - having two different rifles (or parts of rifles) in circulation at the same time, on the same OP is a recipe for expensive hassle. the deliniation between units doesn't work because, in practice, an Infantry Coy will live with an Engineer Pln, a Logs Spt Coy, an Artillery Troop, a Signals section et all, and having to maintain two supply chains and two skill sets is going to be trouble you could live without.

added to which, on an Army wide basis you'd have to look pretty carefully to judge whether you actually saved any money by having a 'cheaper' basic rifle, and a more expensive 'gucci' rifle - you're going to have to make sure that Armourers were skilled on both models, that you have two smaller supply chains instead on one big one (and smaller orders for parts cost more per part than a larger order), two reporting/issuing systems instead of one, two training syllabusses.... the list goes one.

then there's 'future proofing' - the IA is already introducing an FN DMR for sniper teams, there's lots of talk about the heavy barrel Steyr - or something like the L129 - being introduced as a standard DMR, then there's the question of an LMG to suppliment the GMPG - just how many types of weapon is the future Bn group (in some delightful, dusty, logistically challenged dump) going to have to maintain and operate?

I see your argument but to be honest I don't see what the problem is, the two rifles are basically the same wit just a change in the housing which is 1 piece, so there is no need to train armourers cos the working parts are unchanged, just maybe how to zero a different sight which is pretty easy tbh.

Stores for each unit are usually kept separate anyway with their own Q so I can't see weapons getting mixed up.

I'm presuming the change is brought about by experience in the field by troops on the ground, so why go to the expense to change it for all units when it will only be used by the infantry at regular intervals.

The arty/logs/cav/NS/reserve don't use the Aug often enuf to justify it needing an upgrade already.

Mr. Tezza

OS119 wrote: »

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

...Makes sense to me...

not to me - having two different rifles (or parts of rifles) in circulation at the same time, on the same OP is a recipe for expensive hassle. the deliniation between units doesn't work because, in practice, an Infantry Coy will live with an Engineer Pln, a Logs Spt Coy, an Artillery Troop, a Signals section et all, and having to maintain two supply chains and two skill sets is going to be trouble you could live without.

added to which, on an Army wide basis you'd have to look pretty carefully to judge whether you actually saved any money by having a 'cheaper' basic rifle, and a more expensive 'gucci' rifle - you're going to have to make sure that Armourers were skilled on both models, that you have two smaller supply chains instead on one big one (and smaller orders for parts cost more per part than a larger order), two reporting/issuing systems instead of one, two training syllabusses.... the list goes one.

then there's 'future proofing' - the IA is already introducing an FN DMR for sniper teams, there's lots of talk about the heavy barrel Steyr - or something like the L129 - being introduced as a standard DMR, then there's the question of an LMG to suppliment the GMPG - just how many types of weapon is the future Bn group (in some delightful, dusty, logistically challenged dump) going to have to maintain and operate?

I see your argument but to be honest I don't see what the problem is, the two rifles are basically the same wit just a change in the housing which is 1 piece, so there is no need to train armourers cos the working parts are unchanged, just maybe how to zero a different sight which is pretty easy tbh.

Stores for each unit are usually kept separate anyway with their own Q so I can't see weapons getting mixed up.

I'm presuming the change is brought about by experience in the field by troops on the ground, so why go to the expense to change it for all units when it will only be used by the infantry at regular intervals.

The arty/logs/cav/NS/reserve don't use the Aug often enuf to justify it needing an upgrade already.

Mr. Tezza

OS119 wrote: »

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

...Makes sense to me...

not to me - having two different rifles (or parts of rifles) in circulation at the same time, on the same OP is a recipe for expensive hassle. the deliniation between units doesn't work because, in practice, an Infantry Coy will live with an Engineer Pln, a Logs Spt Coy, an Artillery Troop, a Signals section et all, and having to maintain two supply chains and two skill sets is going to be trouble you could live without.

added to which, on an Army wide basis you'd have to look pretty carefully to judge whether you actually saved any money by having a 'cheaper' basic rifle, and a more expensive 'gucci' rifle - you're going to have to make sure that Armourers were skilled on both models, that you have two smaller supply chains instead on one big one (and smaller orders for parts cost more per part than a larger order), two reporting/issuing systems instead of one, two training syllabusses.... the list goes one.

then there's 'future proofing' - the IA is already introducing an FN DMR for sniper teams, there's lots of talk about the heavy barrel Steyr - or something like the L129 - being introduced as a standard DMR, then there's the question of an LMG to suppliment the GMPG - just how many types of weapon is the future Bn group (in some delightful, dusty, logistically challenged dump) going to have to maintain and operate?

I see your argument but to be honest I don't see what the problem is, the two rifles are basically the same wit just a change in the housing which is 1 piece, so there is no need to train armourers cos the working parts are unchanged, just maybe how to zero a different sight which is pretty easy tbh.

Stores for each unit are usually kept separate anyway with their own Q so I can't see weapons getting mixed up.

I'm presuming the change is brought about by experience in the field by troops on the ground, so why go to the expense to change it for all units when it will only be used by the infantry at regular intervals.

The arty/logs/cav/NS/reserve don't use the Aug often enuf to justify it needing an upgrade already.