F88/AUG Question

[DeltaSierra]

Mr. Falla,


Since not many people here is the States have operational experience with the F88/AUG, I would like to know what your opinions are regarding F88/Steyr AUG as an infantry weapon.

In your opinion, is it a reasonable weapon for general issue, or is it more of a niche weapon? If you view it as more of a specialty weapon, what environment do you feel that the AUG would excel in?

Do you find the bullpup design to be preferable to a normal rifle, or is the overall length not as much of an issue to you?


I'm considering purchasing an AUG for my personal use, but I figured that I would like to ask someone like yourself what your thoughts might be.


Thanks,

DeltaSierra

[Jason Falla]

Originally Posted by DeltaSierra

Mr. Falla,


Since not many people here is the States have operational experience with the F88/AUG, I would like to know what your opinions are regarding F88/Steyr AUG as an infantry weapon.

In your opinion, is it a reasonable weapon for general issue, or is it more of a niche weapon? If you view it as more of a specialty weapon, what environment do you feel that the AUG would excel in?

Do you find the bullpup design to be preferable to a normal rifle, or is the overall length not as much of an issue to you?

I'm considering purchasing an AUG for my personal use, but I figured that I would like to ask someone like yourself what your thoughts might be.


Thanks,

DeltaSierra

I was issued an F88 for several years while serving in the ADF. I then moved to the M4 platform after joining the Regt. I used the new Steyr AUG A3 during the Tactical Impact TV show.

I think that the F88 is a good general issue weapon for the military. Australia adopted the F88 and moved away from the L1A1 SLR (FAL). This was a great choice in terms of modernizing the Australian Army. Unfortunately, there was little forethought to longevity and the evolution of modern warfare technology and tactics. When the Australian Infantry converted to the F88, there was no requirement to have a grenade launcher attachment on the weapon yet soldiers had to carry 40mm M79 to fill this role. Special Operations at that time were using M16A1 and A2 rifle augmented with XM15 Colt Commandoes fitted with M203 grenade launchers.

It wasn't until the late 90's that the Australian Defense Industry (ADI) and the Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO) was asked to design a grenade launcher attachment (GLA) for the F88. This posed a massive problem for engineers. Combined with the GLA, ADI and DSTO needed to design attachments for a laser and a flashlight due to the incorporation of CQB in to the infantry repertoire. After a long time in development, the GLA came into service. It is the best of a bad situation. But for the infantry soldiers is was a god-send, no longer did they have to carry the M79 (Wombat gun) that would crack the cranium every bound during fire and movement training. Rail adaptors and clamping devices were developed for the Night Fighting Equipment.

There were added problems with the F88's ability to function in a salt water environment. The term 'hydrostatic lock' was used to describe the malfunction that occurs during firing after being immersed in salt water. Due to the operational capability of special operations this was an unacceptable compromise and AS SOCOMD went exclusively with the M4 platform.

The Bullpup design has some very good pluses and some very big minuses.

Some of the benefits are that you get all of the performance of a longer infantry barrel (20") in a compact 10" format. The Steyr F88C, carbine length barrel is even shorter. The F88 is a soft shooting weapon with minimal recoil.

The negatives are that the weapon can not be fired from the support shoulder effectively due to the ejection port being so close to the firers face. The trigger mechanism although robust, is not very responsive and slow to operate, combined with a dual stage trigger that can see the firer fire full auto by mistake. This can be over come by engaging the single shot lock out button peculiar to the F88 platform.

The weapon does not support ancillary equipment well due to the lack of forward rail interface. This has since been addressed with the A3 version.

The magazines do not fall free and must be manually removed from the magazine well. Mag changes are slow and no conducive to special forces application.

The fixed Swarovski 1.4 power optic was a big change for the infantry but lacked performance for SOF application. Later mods included the F88S with a flat top picatinny rail segment and a detachable 1.4 power sight. This gave way to longer range optics like the Elcan 4x and the Leupold 4x sights.

Overall, I really like the Steyr platform. I am well aware of its capabilities and limitations and that is important when selecting a weapon for defensive use. I think that the A3 version is a great improvement to the original and performs very well.

For home defense, you are getting a legal length barrel in a compact format thanks to the Bullpup design. That is a big plus for interior combat.

Bottom line is that the Steyr is a great, robust weapon that takes a while to get used to, particularly if you are coming from an AR. After you get the hang of it, you will see that this is a great weapon and one that you can trust.

[DeltaSierra]

Thank you for your detailed response!

I very much appreciate it.




Thank you,

DeltaSierra

[Skyfire1201]

How well does the AUG A3 work with a suppressor? The integrated gas setting block and the piston based design seems to lend itself well for suppression, though how well does it work in practice? On the M4 system, I heard the main problem with suppression is blowback into the chamber, and thus products like the PRI gasbuster charging handle were created to address the problem. How is this on the AUG platform?

Also, does changing the barrel (say, from 16" to 20") cause POI changes, thus requiring the weapon to be sighted in again?

[Jason Falla]

Originally Posted by Skyfire1201

How well does the AUG A3 work with a suppressor? The integrated gas setting block and the piston based design seems to lend itself well for suppression, though how well does it work in practice? On the M4 system, I heard the main problem with suppression is blowback into the chamber, and thus products like the PRI gasbuster charging handle were created to address the problem. How is this on the AUG platform?

Also, does changing the barrel (say, from 16" to 20") cause POI changes, thus requiring the weapon to be sighted in again?

The AUG was never designed with suppression in mind, this is mostly true for the AR platform. Weapons designers and manufacturers have to make minor changes to operating systems in order to ensure smooth functioning of the weapon.

While operating in the ADF I never saw a suppressed F88. I don't have any experience with it either. Although knowing that the gas system is typically the area that creates most issues for suppressed AR's, I would think that the Steyr would perform well suppressed when the gas system is moved to the 'Adverse' setting.

I have used suppressed military weapons for a long time. I was first issued a Silent Sterling while in the CDO Regt, then an MP5 SD and an M4 with KAC suppressor. They all blow gas and filth back into the receiver! Some more than others. The main reason why USSOCOM wanted the development of the HK416 was to reliably suppress the weapon for Special Operations use. After market mods like the PRI Gas Buster charging handle can help with excess gas discharge. Nothing really works that well and operators need to realize that excess gas is a factor that they have to contend with.

Changing out the barrel of the F88/AUG to a longer/shorter barrel will definitely change the POI. This is due to the velocity change with the different lengths. At no time in the ADF do soldiers get issued more than one barrel for the F88. All weapons have to have a matching serial number, including the barrel and receiver body. The only weapons that would be issued with a second barrel are the M249 (Minimi), the Mag 58 and the .50 QCB

[Skyfire1201]

Thanks for the detailed info Jason. I'm aware of the velocity differences switching to a 20" barrel from 16", which I'm assuming can be compensated via differnet hold overs. What about windage changes though? Does switch to a different barrel cause enough changes in POI such that the user has to re-sight in the rifle?

[Jason Falla]

Originally Posted by Skyfire1201

Thanks for the detailed info Jason. I'm aware of the velocity differences switching to a 20" barrel from 16", which I'm assuming can be compensated via differnet hold overs. What about windage changes though? Does switch to a different barrel cause enough changes in POI such that the user has to re-sight in the rifle?

As part of the 'UNLOAD' drill in the Australian Army, the barrel must be removed from the weapon and presented for inspection.

The barrels are removed every time the weapon is inspected also. After drawing it from the arms room, or returning it, conducting maintenance on the weapon etc etc.

I did not see any noticeable changes in POI after performing the above.

I do have two LMT MRP's that have interchangeable barrels though and would routinely change between a 16" barrel and a 10" barrel. I did notice slight changes in POI. I ended up taping the click adjustments onto the inside of the Pelican case so I could quickly adjust the sights when moving from one barrel to the other.

Having said all that, it would always behoove the shooter to check/confirm zero when ever a different barrel is placed on the weapon or prior to conducting operations.

[jimothy_183]

Mr. Falla,

Can you please tell us what it was like to transition from the bullpup F88 platform to the M4 platform? Was it difficult or not? Was it like learning something completely new when moving over to the M4?

I ask this out of curiosity because I have a friend in the M.O.D who had one day of familiarisation with foreign weapons some time during his basic training at Catterick. Among those were the M16 and AK47. He told me that even though he had extensive hours on the SA80 he found that learning to fire the M16 and AK even though he wasn't completely competent with those systems wasn't really difficult or counter intuitive as it was more like learning something completely new.

[Jason Falla]

During my time in the Military I received training and qualifications on as many as 20 different weapons. From the Browning HP SLP 9mm through to the Javelin Missile system. It is very difficult to become an expert in all weapon systems but it is possible to be competent to +80%, so that when required you can employ that weapon effectively. There should always be time for build up training prior to the conduct of an operation where time will be spent on weapons handling and skills required for the job.

When you have been exposed to this type of training and lifestyle, you end up with a higher level of understanding of weapons. So learning a new weapon system is not a difficult task. The majority of work is understanding the operating system and safety requirements. The rest is becoming familiar with the control features and pulling it apart. Because of the intimate knowledge of weapons, learning the control features and strip and assemble, can be learnt quickly through simple repetition. (Sure there is a little more to it but this is the crux.)

Moving from the F88 to the M16/M4 was not a difficult task for me as we had both platforms in our inventory while serving in the CDO Regt. We would conduct routine weapons handling on both the F88 and the M16.

The higher up the food chain you get, the more training you receive and the more you are expected to learn at a rapid rate. This is a reason why there is a selection process in Special Operations and candidates are selected for various attributes including aptitude.

Hope that helps out.

Cheers,

[jimothy_183]

Thanks for the helpful answer Mr. Falla.

I'd like to ask another question though. What are your thoughts on learning to shoot with optics before ironsights?

I ask this because most people believe that ironsights should be learnt first and others such as James Yeager in this vid @ 0:52 say otherwise.

I think it would be interesting to hear from you because I would image that you started on the F88 with the fixed optic before learning another weapon system.

[Jason Falla]

I actually learnt how to shoot using my grandfather's .22 and 410 shotgun! Both of which had irons. When I joined the Army, I was issued an F88 but also qualified using the M60, MAG 58, and M16 which had irons.

I do believe that it is easier to learn on an optic versus irons. There are times though when optics just don't work or are not fitted on the particular weapon system.

If optics weren't faster and easier to acquire than irons, they wouldn't be as popular!

The F88 1.4 powered Swarovski sight features a donut reticle which is really easy to use. Just put the circle on the target and shoot. No cross hair or finite sight pictures. The F88 in its original format did have emergency combat sights (essentially pistol sight radius) on the carry handle that doubles as the optic but for memory we were not instructed in depth about using them during recruit training. They were there just in case the optic went down. I never saw an F88 optic go down!

Cheers,