AR vs AUG/MSAR platforms

[yugo308guy]

Does anyone here have any significant REAL direct experience with both of these platforms? Enough to provide some honest competent feedback regarding the performance differences between the two? Anyone use both in carbine classes(or, I guess actual combat would work as well!) that can compare the advantages/disadvantages between them. Any instructors have many students using the AUG platform in classes? How do they hold up and how well do they perform?

I am going to take a carbine course this year and want to decide which platform will be my primary.

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

If you take the AUG it will be a nice write up after. And you could be more popular beacuse you have a diffrent weapons system.

[rob_s]

I just posted this elsewhere about the XCR, but I think it applies here too

They are a deviant system, which means that they deviate from the ubiquitous 5.56 16", carbine length gas system AR carbine (or "M4 carbine) that is most common. For my use, there needs to be a damn good reason to deviate from the ubiquitous when selecting anything, but especially so with an "evil black rifle". Besides things like upgrades and accessory availability, there is the issue of sole-source materials and spare parts, which is never good. If Robarms should fold for whatever reason, where do you get spare parts? Customer support?

I haven't yet figured out what the XCR offers, in real terms, over the ubiquitous alternative that would make me deviate.

Additionally, while I am not an instructor, I have supervised no less than three different AUG shooters at our matches and drills and each one on multiple occasions. Competency with the platform has run the gamut with some shooters being well adept at their manipulations, and others being shocked at little tricks that I (as a non-owner) have shown them in terms of ways to be more efficient with the platform.

Additionally, most use has been based in a contrarian nature of the shooter moreso than any perceived benefit or superiority of the platform, or based on a shooter's limited "collection" from which to choose. In a match setting, none of the shooters have proven to be competitive with the platform, FWIW.

In short, if you can't think of a real and true viable reason that makes the AUG platform superior, AND have addressed the possible longevity and support issues that should be part of choosing a primary weapon, stick with the M4.

Hope this helps.

[Jay Cunningham]

I don't have real direct experience. I do think that the AUG may serve a role in VCQB operations where the operator of the weapon would also be armed with a sidearm. The short overall length with a 16" barrel and the option to use 42 round magazines would make this something that may be very desirable in the very close in fight/structure clearing.

My $.02... as a GP weapon I say stick with the M4 pattern...

[kal]

I gotta get some play time with bullpups.


The whole idea of having a versatile 25~ inch rifle while STILL having a 12~ inch barrel is very attractive, especially if suppressed. (NFA issues aside...)

[yugo308guy]

I just posted this elsewhere about the XCR, but I think it applies here too


Additionally, while I am not an instructor, I have supervised no less than three different AUG shooters at our matches and drills and each one on multiple occasions. Competency with the platform has run the gamut with some shooters being well adept at their manipulations, and others being shocked at little tricks that I (as a non-owner) have shown them in terms of ways to be more efficient with the platform.

Additionally, most use has been based in a contrarian nature of the shooter moreso than any perceived benefit or superiority of the platform, or based on a shooter's limited "collection" from which to choose. In a match setting, none of the shooters have proven to be competitive with the platform, FWIW.

In short, if you can't think of a real and true viable reason that makes the AUG platform superior, AND have addressed the possible longevity and support issues that should be part of choosing a primary weapon, stick with the M4.

Hope this helps.

Rob S, while I agree with what you wrote concerning deviating from a "known" platform, and I definitly respect and will heed what you said, I will disagree about everything you wrote being applicable toward the AUG platform. I understand the comparison with the XCR, as I agree, it is not offering anything significantly different from the AR platform ie. similar ergos, weight balance and operational system, the only "real" difference is the gas piston operation, and that really doesn't make a difference is running the gun.

Conversly, the AUG platform is quite different, and not just for the sake of being different. The center of balance of the weapon is all the way to the rear and into your shoulder, making it(in my opinion) MUCH quicker and easier to manuever. And keep in mind, I am asking these questions with CQB in mind, although, with the ease of barrel changes the differences also apply to longer range shooting, with the caveat that the ability to change the barrel quickly, in and of itself, could actually affect the accuracy of the weapon anyways. So that could be good or bad I guess.

I am interested in the students you mention. In your opinion, how would you rate their knowledge base and actual familiararity with the AUG, compared to others' familiaraity with the AR? Was the AUG their primary platform, or were they AR guys who also shot AUGs?

Please understand, I am not asking these questions with impunity or sarcasm, I am truly interested in hearing feedback, positive and negative. I am considering making my StG-556 my primary weapon(with ARs backing it up, of course), but want to gather as much info as possible, from credible sources, before making that decision. And for everyone's information on my background, I was a SGT in the Army, Infantry, so pretty familiar with the AR system.

[rob_s]

I don't really have the interest in the platform to go on and on with this, but the crux of what I'm driving at can be summed up with this statement

there needs to be a damn good reason to deviate from the ubiquitous

My OPINION is that most Aug shooters (outside of those that are issued the rifle) work in reverse. They like the unique-ness and rare-ness of the platform, want to be "different", and reverse engineer their rationalizations for using it.

The bottom line with the Aug, for me, is that it offers no quantifiable benefit while carrying a whole lot of liabilities.

Just be sure that you're choosing it based on whatever your perceived benefits are, and that you've weighed these benefits against it's liabilities, and you should be fine. Be prepared to deal with the liabilities as they arise and drive on.

Frankly, I think it's much more important to pick one platform, operating system, and manual of arms and STICK WITH IT than what platform it is you choose. The AUG wouldn't even remotely rank in my top 5 choices, or maybe even top 10, for a variety of reasons but that doesn't mean it can't work for you.

Good luck, and certainly keep us posted as to how it works out.

[nsabjg]

If you shoot from around barricades(other obstacles) try to go from right to left or left to right with a bullpup.(Ejection port)

[Neville]

From what I have read and seen recently, changing shoulders is not recommended even with the Ar15 as it requires an additional set of skills for weapons manipulation. Leaving spare parts availability and familiarization aside, its a bit like the choice between 1911s and Glocks. The one can be tailored with thousands of after market parts and will bring a competent user a higher potential. The other tends more towards the "one size fits all" and KISS principle, is produced by the inventor (at least thats the case here) - and it runs. Of course, I can only speak of Steyr AUGs and I am sure the highest quality Ar15 carbines by Colt, Noveske, LMT, etc. run very reliable too. I once wrote this here:

I had a German M4 clone and went gladly to the Steyr AUG-Z (civilian version) because:
*less felt recoil = shot to shot speed while still being fairly precise
*great pointability & ability to use it one handed (in wounded shooter drills, CQB, etc.)
*KISS principle - the same lever for racking the bolt, malfunction drills, reloading
*surer & faster safety design (IMHO)
*reliability while being neglected without need for relubing (just from what I observed: several AUG-Zs went through 2000rds. in a carbine class without
being cleaned, while several Ar15s went down hard- due to loose gas keys- or chocked despite being relubed & cleaned by their owners)
*no gas in the face as my M4gery liked to throw (especially bad if you shoot with optical glasses)
*16" barrel ballistics while being only a bit longer than a Hk MP5
*higher QC due to only one manufacturer who invented it (Steyr)- no Lego guns possible (not true for the US market)
*less parts, almost no screws, etc.
*better issued magazines- never had one crack- at least equal to the PMag

One big disadvantage- right side ejection- can be handled: one can put the stock in the centre of the body while shooting around left corners.
The trigger will never be as good as a Gisele, but didn't people complain about Glock triggers too? I just wish the reset was more positive. Sadly
the "trigger tamer" makes reset even more mushy.

[texasyid]

I don't go to carbine classes and I can see where the ar would be better in some respects, transistion from shoulder to shoulder comes to mind. My 6920 with acog shoots 1" groups at 100 yds. I have a preban A1 Aug that I have been playing with and I really like the platform but with the stiff trigger ang dod sight 2'' groups is all I have been able to manage. I will at sometime in the future get a USAUG and will be able to mount an ACOG and I am sure the groups will improve.
I think I am pretty much through with the split receiver and di system of the ar. I have high hopes for the new AUG and think it will become my primary platform. I got my first m-16 in 1970 from my rich uncle and at this time ready to try something else. Rob does make sense though and has more experience than I do.