Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Steyr Upgrade

  • 12-05-2012 9:19pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭


    According to a post on the Defence Forces' facebook a good while ago, a board was set up to look into possible upgrades for the Steyr rifle. Not a new rifle, but an upgrade to the Steyr AUG A1 system itself.

    I also read in a Dail debate where in response to a question the Minister for Defence mentioned rifle upgrades.

    I haven't heard anything of it since. Is the Defence Forces going to go ahead with an upgrade, and if so, what are the details of it?

    Sorry I can't link the two statements as it was quite some time ago that I saw them and can't find them now.


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    AFAIK, not gospel mind you, but they are upgrading the sighting systems. They would probably give the rifles a service while they are at it too.

    As for details of the upgrades I couldnt tell ya!


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    A google brought this site up, that said that
    Steyr still have the intellectual property rights to the basic design, making it difficult to do any rebuild/modifications without their permission
    it may mean not much will be done to it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Change the sights to a modern Pitacinny rail, makes it a far more useful weapon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭KickstartHeart


    Thanks for the replies lads.
    Change the sights to a modern Pitacinny rail, makes it a far more useful weapon.
    Yeah I heard that that was on the cards. Not from proper sources though, just rumors.


    If anyone hears anything concrete throw it up here, just out of interest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10 Achilles1599


    Was on work experience in a local barracks a couple of weeks back and they give us a demonstration of the steyr A1 and the lieutenant mentioned that they should be upgrading the sights, think i heard him say something about ACOG sights and red dot sights.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    A good cost saving decision I must say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭neilled


    the_syco wrote: »
    A google brought this site up, that said that

    it may mean not much will be done to it?

    It won't be as radical as what the australians are doing with their EF88 upgrade, which involves wholescale changes including the angle of the buttplate and change to the trigger guard, length of pull for cocking the weapon, the introduction of electronics within the buttgroup and a new lighter fluted barrel and optimisation for use with aussie F1 ammo - they produce theirs under license and thats a huge upgrade that will take alot of work and testing to bring into service. Oh and they're throwing a new optic on as well. Basically your talking about entirely new weapons being rolled out, that are similar to whats in service already, so the retraining time should be short.

    The patents on the AUG are long expired - a number of "clones" are on the market in the USA, so its probably not that big a deal to make more radical changes, however its more likely to follow along the lines of a the kiwi upgrade - overhaul of weapons and upgrading of optics and a new housing group with rails.


  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭KickstartHeart


    A good cost saving decision I must say.


    Well the DoD and the Defence Forces have already met, and far surpassed their targets for cuts, while running on fumes in the first place. They can afford to make this very small upgrade. Other departments may still have to be making cuts but if they haven't met them then thats their fault.

    Defence has met its requirements. If it can meet the requirements and make this upgrade too then there's no issue.

    Anyway, keep it on topic. I didn't start this thread to debate what the department should be spending its finance on. I started it to find out information on the Steyr upgrades.


  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭KickstartHeart


    neilled wrote: »
    It won't be as radical as what the australians are doing with their EF88 upgrade, which involves wholescale changes including the angle of the buttplate and change to the trigger guard, length of pull for cocking the weapon, the introduction of electronics within the buttgroup and a new lighter fluted barrel and optimisation for use with aussie F1 ammo - they produce theirs under license and thats a huge upgrade that will take alot of work and testing to bring into service. Oh and they're throwing a new optic on as well. Basically your talking about entirely new weapons being rolled out, that are similar to whats in service already, so the retraining time should be short.

    The patents on the AUG are long expired - a number of "clones" are on the market in the USA, so its probably not that big a deal to make more radical changes, however its more likely to follow along the lines of a the kiwi upgrade - overhaul of weapons and upgrading of optics and a new housing group with rails.

    I was looking at the aussie upgrades too. I doubt its going to be anything like that though. I heard a guy who's in the Army (friend of a friend) mention a while ago that they're just going to put picatinny rails where the sights are on it now, and a better sighting system will be picked from there. Nothing else I don't think.

    Anyway if anyone hears anything about the sights they're going to pick throw it up here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭BigDuffman


    For the love of god give us sites with an aim point...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    BigDuffman wrote: »
    For the love of god give us sites with an aim point...

    You have an aim point. The centre of the reticle on the centre of the target.


  • Registered Users Posts: 587 ✭✭✭c-90


    I heard from an armourer that it was the acog. not rock solid, he may have only been testing it.

    he also reckons they'll be put on the gpmg which wouldnt be too hard considering they already have the rails.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭BigDuffman


    You have an aim point. The centre of the reticle on the centre of the target.

    No what we have is an open reticle with an aim point determined by the firer. With huge margin for error. You rely on the placement of your sites on the tgt and using the tgts edges as a guide as opposed to dot or point at which you use.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    BigDuffman wrote: »
    No what we have is an open reticle with an aim point determined by the firer. With huge margin for error. You rely on the placement of your sites on the tgt and using the tgts edges as a guide as opposed to dot or point at which you use.

    Not used a Steyr but from my understanding, the reticle is a circle, yes? If so, this is because your eye has an innate talent for finding the centre of a circle and recognising symmetry and concentricity. In formal target shooting using aperture sights, the foresight element is universally a circle for exactly this reason. It's also conducive to quick shooting since people don't fluff about with a fixed, definite centre to a reticle, which is something that encourages overly laboured and indecisive shooting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭BigDuffman


    Not used a Steyr but from my understanding, the reticle is a circle, yes? If so, this is because your eye has an innate talent for finding the centre of a circle and recognising symmetry and concentricity. In formal target shooting using aperture sights, the foresight element is universally a circle for exactly this reason. It's also conducive to quick shooting since people don't fluff about with a fixed, definite centre to a reticle, which is something that encourages overly laboured and indecisive shooting.

    That is exactly the reason on paper why this site is being used. "If a man fits within the reticle at 300m the rounds will hit dead centre" so yeah line up your sight, stick the tgt in the centre of the reticle and you should hit something.

    It's all very vauge for my taste.

    Compare this site to a simple dot sight or cross hairs as used by most other armies and when you try use it you can immediately see the flaw when trying to put down accurate deliberate fire.

    The flip side of the argument is that its ideal for close quarter and quick snap like firing (which one may argue is what most modern conflicts are throwing at soldiers). But personally I hate the lack of defined aiming point. What is conducive to quick shooting is detrimental to accurate shooting!


  • Registered Users Posts: 587 ✭✭✭c-90


    BigDuffman wrote: »
    That is exactly the reason on paper why this site is being used. "If a man fits within the reticle at 300m the rounds will hit dead centre" so yeah line up your sight, stick the tgt in the centre of the reticle and you should hit something.

    It's all very vauge for my taste.

    Compare this site to a simple dot sight or cross hairs as used by most other armies and when you try use it you can immediately see the flaw when trying to put down accurate deliberate fire.

    The flip side of the argument is that its ideal for close quarter and quick snap like firing (which one may argue is what most modern conflicts are throwing at soldiers). But personally I hate the lack of defined aiming point. What is conducive to quick shooting is detrimental to accurate shooting!


    couldnt agree more, sounds great in the manual and in theory but when your on the range simply hitting the target isnt good enough.

    even in a real life scenario, if the target is standing up all is well but how many people are going to stand up in a firefight. if you have to aim off for some reason the circle reticule becomes a severe disadvantage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    BigDuffman wrote: »
    That is exactly the reason on paper why this site is being used. "If a man fits within the reticle at 300m the rounds will hit dead centre" so yeah line up your sight, stick the tgt in the centre of the reticle and you should hit something.

    It's all very vauge for my taste.

    Compare this site to a simple dot sight or cross hairs as used by most other armies and when you try use it you can immediately see the flaw when trying to put down accurate deliberate fire.

    The flip side of the argument is that its ideal for close quarter and quick snap like firing (which one may argue is what most modern conflicts are throwing at soldiers). But personally I hate the lack of defined aiming point. What is conducive to quick shooting is detrimental to accurate shooting!

    I disagree there. Like I say, in formal competition shooting, it's all we use, and guys are shooting two-inch groups at 300m with that sighting system.

    graham%20hawarth%209x%20small.jpg
    c-90 wrote: »
    couldnt agree more, sounds great in the manual and in theory but when your on the range simply hitting the target isnt good enough.

    even in a real life scenario, if the target is standing up all is well but how many people are going to stand up in a firefight. if you have to aim off for some reason the circle reticule becomes a severe disadvantage.

    Again, it's all a question of sight picture, and if you know how much you need to aim off by you can do it. I use a round foresight element for competition and can hold off accurately by quite a long way to account for wind.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭RedWolfCQB


    A video showing the A1 sights: http://youtu.be/Rjr53im4bL8

    Could they not trade all the A1s in for A3s?! Government scrapage schemes no?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 2,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Morpheus


    no verticle or horizontal lines in that sight, just an empty lens with a little black circle in the centre!? Irish ones are somewhat different.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭RedWolfCQB


    http://youtu.be/-K5MYDmTEUM

    Murica! This vid gets me everytime!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Teangalad


    is there a lefty version of steyr ? or can it be adapted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭RedWolfCQB


    yeah its a matter of replacing a small part, its an ambidextrous rifle alright


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    The Defence Forces one were ordered with the ejection port on the left sealed up though. They are not ambidextrous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭neilled


    Teangalad wrote: »
    is there a lefty version of steyr ? or can it be adapted?

    Its not a simple yes no question - In its off the shelf configuration, the steyr aug comes with two ejection ports and can be converted to left hand use via the installation of a left hand bolt and placing the cover over the right port. This doesn't require an armourer per say, but its not something you'd want to do whilst rounds are flying.The Australian F-88 derivative has this feature, as do many others in service around the world.



    The DF ordered a version of the stock that has no left hand port. IOT to accommodate left hand firing a number of new stocks and new bolts would need to be bought for the ones in DF service.


  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭KickstartHeart


    It would be handy if the Steyr was like the Famas. I've heard from someone who fired it that you can strip and assemble it in a different way and the rounds will eject the opposite side than usual.
    (edit: he did fire the Famas at a civvi range on holidays so the standard military Famas might not be ambidextrous)

    I know a guy who does a bit with the RDF in his spare time. His right eye is significantly weaker than his left. He shoots with his left with his own rifles at home and he's a crack shot but he tells me that when he goes on the range with the steyr he's useless because he can barely see the target. His eyesight is within regulation but he still says its bad enough to get terrible groups. Ambidextrous rifles would be a nice upgrade for the likes of these guys who want to try and fire in DF competitions but just can't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭RedWolfCQB


    Could you not place the cover over the right port and just make do with the charge handle where it is?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    RedWolfCQB wrote: »
    Could you not place the cover over the right port and just make do with the charge handle where it is?

    You could, if there were actually a left side ejection port, and if you had the replacement bolt assembly. Since the DF rifles have neither, no, you can't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭KickstartHeart


    RedWolfCQB wrote: »
    Could you not place the cover over the right port and just make do with the charge handle where it is?

    The ones they use in the Defence Forces only have the one ejection port which is on the right hand side so there'd be nowhere for the spents to go.


    EDIT: Scratch that, 'It Wasn't Me' already explained. My bad


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭RedWolfCQB


    Yes but if they weren't, could they have not done that instead to keep an armorer out of the equation? I'm a bit of an oddball because I write with my left hand but I play golf etc right handed, if I boxed I'm not sure if I'd be orthodox or southpaw and if it came to holding a gun (pass my medical next week and hopefully I will) I'm not sure which way would be more comfortable.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭neilled


    RedWolfCQB wrote: »
    Could you not place the cover over the right port and just make do with the charge handle where it is?

    Even when modified for use left handed, the position of the charging handle does not change.


Advertisement