Steyr replacement

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.

Mr. Tezza

Sorry for multiple posts, something wrong with my fone, can mods delete as appropriate, including this message please

goldie fish

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

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

What makes you think that? The units above use them just as often as infantry. In fact the Cav already use a shorter variant.


The Air Corpse however... they could use their weapon stores as accomodation, for all the use it gets...

Mr. Tezza

goldie fish wrote: »

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

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

What makes you think that? The units above use them just as often as infantry. In fact the Cav already use a shorter variant.


The Air Corpse however... they could use their weapon stores as accomodation, for all the use it gets...

Just from the point of view regarding their job description really, infantry are trained to be infantry and use the rifle regularly so they in theory would acclimatise to the new system quicker whereas the other units are trained to operate different weapons/machinery.

I know this isn't the case and other units do infantry roles such as bank escort etc.

It just makes sense to me from an operational point of view. In saying all that I may be biased because I am an infantry man, but in the reserve so I don't expect to see an upgraded rifle being given to me anytime soon...

OS119

one of the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan is that a successful insurgency will attack absolutely any part of a deployed force - so the truck driving loggie, the plant driving engineer, the CIMIC Med Spt team - or even, god forbid - the AC ground techs supporting a helicopter FOB, are as likely to get into a contact as the steely-eyed dealer of death from the Infantry.

added to which the 'face' of a modern force in the field is no longer 'teeth' with the tail tucked safely behind the line - you'll have Artillery FOO's and JTAC's imbedded in Infantry Pln's along with Int Linguists, Signals EW operators, Engineer Search Teams and EOD/C-IED operators - all of them exactly as far from the enemy as the infantry, indeed some of them even closer...

neilled

OS119 wrote: »

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?

If you look at most forces, theres a variety of weapons available to deal with varying scenarios. The thing with the AUG is that is a modular system with no huge modifications to the internals of the weapon over the years. Any force that were carrying out an upgrade wouldn't be looking at something as radical as say the upgrade of the LA85A1-A2 upgrade where a huge number of components had to be changed internally. In theory a force armed with the steyr could be looking at something as simple as introducing a new railed housing group onto existing weapons, so the logs end of things won't be impacted that badly. I believe the Kiwi's are doing something along those lines. Looking at the average NATO PL in afg, a wide variety of weapons are carried as a minimum these days

5.56 Service Rifle with Optic
5.56 Service Rifle/ 40mm Grenade launcher Combo
7.62 DMR
5.56 LMG
7.62 MG
Shotgun (optional)
Pistol (optional, depending on PLCMDR PLSGT)
Light anti armour/bunker weapon

with the following add ons
Heavy Anti Armour/Bunker Weapon System as required
Sniping Weapon As required
7.62 SF as required
Mortar as required

goldie fish

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

Just from the point of view regarding their job description really, infantry are trained to be infantry and use the rifle regularly so they in theory would acclimatise to the new system quicker whereas the other units are trained to operate different weapons/machinery.

I know this isn't the case and other units do infantry roles such as bank escort etc.

It just makes sense to me from an operational point of view. In saying all that I may be biased because I am an infantry man, but in the reserve so I don't expect to see an upgraded rifle being given to me anytime soon...

So in that statement you are saying you have no idea what the other corps do. You have no concept of either the role of an FOO or what a CTR does? Take off the blinkers. Cav and Artillery do the infantry role as well as the infantry do, and do their own jobs as well.

It is a very ill informed , insulting and ignorant statement. Clearly you have never been overseas to see what the defence forces actually do, and are basing it on the few exercises you have participated in, perhaps as security or enemy?

OS119

neilled wrote: »

...Looking at the average NATO PL in afg, a wide variety of weapons are carried as a minimum these days...

yes, and keeping them all operational in theatre is a right pain in the arse - but its done because all of them are needed operationally - none of them are there because of cost.

the next time an Irish unit goes somewhere a bit sweaty its going to be taking a similar array of weapons - do you really think its a good idea to increase that array by one more type just so some beancounter can make a headline saving?

there's an argument for a training pool of weapons, and an operations pool of weapons, but given the size of the IA the costs of having two relatively small sets of weapons is going to be pretty high - you're going to be charged an arm and a leg by the supplier, and so the 'savings' you make by having a 70/30 split between 'high grade' weapons for operations, and 'mid grade' weapons for training and home duties are going to be wiped out by the higher cost of componant parts.

Mr. Tezza

goldie fish wrote: »

So in that statement you are saying you have no idea what the other corps do. You have no concept of either the role of an FOO or what a CTR does? Take off the blinkers. Cav and Artillery do the infantry role as well as the infantry do, and do their own jobs as well.

It is a very ill informed , insulting and ignorant statement. Clearly you have never been overseas to see what the defence forces actually do, and are basing it on the few exercises you have participated in, perhaps as security or enemy?

In my earlier post I said I was in the reserves and as I have not heard of any reserves going overseas in an infantry role I thought it would have been quite obvious that I have never been overseas. I am not however basing my opinions on "a few" exercises and find that comment insulting to say the least. My opinions are based on knowledge from friends in current PDF and ex-PDF that have been overseas on numerous occasions and my own experience. I do not think that my statement was being ignorant I was simply stating that a rifle is primarily an Infantrymans weapon so should he/shs not be given the benefit of having the best equipment available?

In a perfect world close observation roles, would be tasked to Infantry primarily although I do understand that this is not always the case and therefore it is necessary for relevent corps to be trained on this also. I have never heard of a Logs unit being tasked with doing a CTR... if you have, fair enough.

I think you have misread my previous posts and in doing so have prejuded me incorrectly which I do find insulting. my meaning was that troops destined for frontline Infantry type roles should be offered the upgraded weapons, a friend of mine in the arty went to Liberia in what was essentially an Infantry role.

There is also the premise of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so why would you be looking to change a rifle that works? The only reason I can think of is feeback from troops on operation who saw a benefit from using different while on said operation, e.g. ARW using HK416.

If I'm wrong all well and good I don't profess to know everything regarding the DF I do not have an ear in the inner circles, but as a cost saving measure would it not be an intelligent move to purchase an allotment of A3 housings with rail systems and hand them out to troops as deemed relevent?

goldie fish

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

In my earlier post I said I was in the reserves and as I have not heard of any reserves going overseas in an infantry role I thought it would have been quite obvious that I have never been overseas. I am not however basing my opinions on "a few" exercises and find that comment insulting to say the least. My opinions are based on knowledge from friends in current PDF and ex-PDF that have been overseas on numerous occasions and my own experience. I do not think that my statement was being ignorant I was simply stating that a rifle is primarily an Infantrymans weapon so should he/shs not be given the benefit of having the best equipment available?

In a perfect world close observation roles, would be tasked to Infantry primarily although I do understand that this is not always the case and therefore it is necessary for relevent corps to be trained on this also. I have never heard of a Logs unit being tasked with doing a CTR... if you have, fair enough.

I think you have misread my previous posts and in doing so have prejuded me incorrectly which I do find insulting. my meaning was that troops destined for frontline Infantry type roles should be offered the upgraded weapons, a friend of mine in the arty went to Liberia in what was essentially an Infantry role.

There is also the premise of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so why would you be looking to change a rifle that works? The only reason I can think of is feeback from troops on operation who saw a benefit from using different while on said operation, e.g. ARW using HK416.

If I'm wrong all well and good I don't profess to know everything regarding the DF I do not have an ear in the inner circles, but as a cost saving measure would it not be an intelligent move to purchase an allotment of A3 housings with rail systems and hand them out to troops as deemed relevent?

Ye see you are very wrong. The Steyr is a soldiers weapon, and not just infantry. Cav and Arty need all the enhancements available to infantry as much as, if not more than, infantry do. Inf have the luxury of more inf to support them when things get hairy, Cav/Arty do not have such a luxury.
CTR is primarily a Cavalry role. FOO is primarily an artillery role.
For you to even suggest that your friend in arty should be armed inferior to his infantry colleagues, just because of his corps, even though you admit he was doing an infantry task is frankly strange and illogical!
As for LOGS, I'm sure manic will share many stories of Logs types facing the worst type of enemy engagement in Iraq etc. Indeed, many were killed or kidnapped, perhaps due to the fact they were not as well armed as their frontline counterparts.
Indeed, you may remember the first deployment of the ARW overseas as a unit was to Somalia where they provided protection for, you guessed it, LOGS!
The notion that a soldier should not have access to the same personal weapon enhancement as his comrade because of his collar badge is madness. The suggestion that the Infantry corps are the only ones doing real soldiering in the Irish DF is preposterious and very ill informed.

Mr. Tezza

goldie fish wrote: »

Ye see you are very wrong. The Steyr is a soldiers weapon, and not just infantry. Cav and Arty need all the enhancements available to infantry as much as, if not more than, infantry do. Inf have the luxury of more inf to support them when things get hairy, Cav/Arty do not have such a luxury.
CTR is primarily a Cavalry role. FOO is primarily an artillery role.
For you to even suggest that your friend in arty should be armed inferior to his infantry colleagues, just because of his corps, even though you admit he was doing an infantry task is frankly strange and illogical!
As for LOGS, I'm sure manic will share many stories of Logs types facing the worst type of enemy engagement in Iraq etc. Indeed, many were killed or kidnapped, perhaps due to the fact they were not as well armed as their frontline counterparts.
Indeed, you may remember the first deployment of the ARW overseas as a unit was to Somalia where they provided protection for, you guessed it, LOGS!
The notion that a soldier should not have access to the same personal weapon enhancement as his comrade because of his collar badge is madness. The suggestion that the Infantry corps are the only ones doing real soldiering in the Irish DF is preposterious and very ill informed.

Are you just choosing to ignore certain parts of what I am saying and substituting it with what you want me to be saying so you can have an e-argument?

What I have been saying is that to save costs etc instead of re-issuing the upgrades to everyone that it could be done that the upgrade kits were only given out to frontline operational troops, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE OTHER CORPS AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

I made the point that my friend being in the arty was doing an infantrymans role in Liberia as an example of a time when the upgrades would theoretically be given to corps other than Infantry. How you didn't read that properly is mind boggling to me.