Steyr Upgrade

KickstartHeart

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.

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!

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?

goldie fish

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

KickstartHeart

Thanks for the replies lads.

goldie fish wrote: »

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.

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.

senordingdong

A good cost saving decision I must say.

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.

KickstartHeart

senordingdong wrote: »

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.

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.

BigDuffman

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

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.

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.

BigDuffman

goldie fish wrote: »

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.

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.

BigDuffman

It wasn't me! wrote: »

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

RedWolfCQB

http://youtu.be/-K5MYDmTEUM

Murica! This vid gets me everytime!

Teangalad

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

RedWolfCQB

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

It wasn't me!

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

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.

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.

RedWolfCQB

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

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.

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

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.

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.

RedWolfCQB

neilled wrote: »

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

Yeah could you not turn the gun horizontal with your left hand and pull it with your right?

Midnight Oil

neilled wrote: »

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

Magazines are charged.

Weapons are cocked

RedWolfCQB

STG-556 (AUG Clone) Shooting "weak side" --> http://youtu.be/HB2gxxOMp2E

The way he uses his hand at the end, its says in the description you can buy aftermarket shell deflectors to do this.
BTW it looks like such a toy compared to the original!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Oil
Magazines are charged.

Weapons are cocked
Sorry could you explain what you mean to a poor civi?

davetherave

You pull back the cocking handle to cock the rifle.
You charge/bomb-up a magazine by placing rounds in said magazine.

Manic Moran

Midnight Oil wrote: »

Magazines are charged.

Weapons are cocked

Not necessarily.



Steyr's manual uses the term 'cocking handle', but SIG's uses 'charging handle.'

Unless there is a distinction I am not aware of, the terms are interchangeable.

OMARS_COMING_

Whats up with the weapon the way it is? Is an upgrade needed that much?

Midnight Oil

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Steyr's manual uses the term 'cocking handle', but SIG's uses 'charging handle.'

Unless there is a distinction I am not aware of, the terms are interchangeable.

When was the last time you cocked a magazine

neilled

Midnight Oil wrote: »

Magazines are charged.

Weapons are cocked

I do know what its called, just felt it would be easier to use the term the poster had used rather than confuse them. Cocking a magazine on the other hand.... sounds potentially painful :eek:!

Ref whats wrong with the rifle - technology has marched onwards. The design is now been around since 1977 and in service with the df since 1988 with no changes.

Since then, small arms technology has marched on. Optical sights have improved from the basic 1.5 x of the steyr to much more advanced designs, mountings for laser pointers and torches have become the norm in NATO armies - in essence modularity for specific missions is now the norm rather than taping a maglite onto the side of your rifle when conducting urban ops. With the A1 there's a limit to what you can do as the weapon now stands and the DF are now simply updating the rifle to meet future challenges.

It should be pointed out however, that robust plastic magazines and optics for everyone have been standard in the PDF since 1988 - proving how far ahead of its time the AUG was.

Our nearest neighbours press office has recently been bragging about the vertical foregrips and plastic emags that it has recently bought at the cost of millions through Urgent Operational Requirement purchases - the DF has had them for all members of the PDF for over two decades and with the reserve for over a decade, and if your not deployed operationally, you can expect to be carrying a weapon with an Iron sight.

This is an incremental upgrade and nothing near as radical as what the Aussies are doing with their EF-88/F-90 programme.

RedWolfCQB

IS there actually an upgrade in the pipeline? Even just rails instead of the standard scope.

goldie fish

RedWolfCQB wrote: »

IS there actually an upgrade in the pipeline? Even just rails instead of the standard scope.

Yes. Specs and requirements were all over E Tenders.

RedWolfCQB

goldie fish wrote: »

Yes. Specs and requirements were all over E Tenders.

Any idea of when they will be in service?

KickstartHeart

OMARS_COMING_ wrote: »

Whats up with the weapon the way it is? Is an upgrade needed that much?

Going on what soldiers say, the sights are not great. Upgrading the rifle with a picatinny RIS would mean that sights + other equipment would be interchangeable. A cheap upgrade that makes the weapon far more adaptable for different roles.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

goldie fish wrote: »

Yes. Specs and requirements were all over E Tenders.

I was talking to a CQ on Monday that deals with tenders, he blatently told me that there is NO money in the pot for a weapon upgrade. The civies are pretty much "in charge" of the budget, they are very much about money forcasts and not interested in what we need. The tenders must have come back fairly expensive.

KickstartHeart wrote: »

Going on what soldiers say, the sights are not great. Upgrading the rifle with a picatinny RIS would mean that sights + other equipment would be interchangeable. A cheap upgrade that makes the weapon far more adaptable for different roles.

I have never had a problem with the sights, obviously technology has come a long way since we first got them, but they have worked out fine for me anyway.

senordingdong

It wasn't me! wrote: »

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

But why did they do that?
Could there really have been that much of a saving to be made or was it just an oversight?

Donny5

senordingdong wrote: »

But why did they do that?
Could there really have been that much of a saving to be made or was it just an oversight?

They, like many armies, just decided that all their soldiers would shoot right-handed and that's that.

amurph0

senordingdong wrote: »

Could there really have been that much of a saving to be made

Yes.

Less training needed and less parts.

It also avoids accidents. For example if someone accidentally fires a left-handed steyr from their right shoulder and burns their face.

There's no need for left handed steyrs. I'm left handed and I find it very comfortable firing from my right shoulder.

KickstartHeart

benwavner wrote: »

I was talking to a CQ on Monday that deals with tenders, he blatently told me that there is NO money in the pot for a weapon upgrade. The civies are pretty much "in charge" of the budget, they are very much about money forcasts and not interested in what we need. The tenders must have come back fairly expensive.

Didn't the Minister say in the Dail a while back that funds had been allocated for a "rifle upgrade" though!?

senordingdong

amurph0 wrote: »

I'm left handed and I find it very comfortable firing from my right shoulder.

That's what I was wondering.

neilled

senordingdong wrote: »

But why did they do that?
Could there really have been that much of a saving to be made or was it just an oversight?

Basically extra parts required (and therefor costs increase) - you need spare bolts for the 10% or so that will be left handed and you need the cheekpiece covers. Of course plain old pig iron "there's one way to do it" no doubt had an impact was well!

The Aug optic was born of trying to increase the firing rate of a conscript army who wouldn't get huge amount of time with a weapon. It allowed faster target acqusition and the principle is that if you get the man sized target in the ring at 300m, you'll drop the enemy, rather than waiting to get the "perfect" shot with cross hairs etc. Its not designed to get precision shots, its designed to increase the rate of fire - particularly relevant if you were going to be engaging the massed hordes of the warsaw pact.

There was a specific amount allocated for the upgrade of the steyr over the next financial year - not enough to do a mass upgrade, but to begin an incremental upgrade over a period of time.

Benwaver - the funding has been allocated in the financial estimates, however I wouldn't be surprised if efforts had been made to stall it. Those familiar with DF history will remember that the Department of finance repeatedly stalled DF attempts to buy the venerable vickers machine gun in the aftermath of independence, repeatedly stating that "further trials were needed" on the few weapons that had been bought in an effort to prevent the purchase. This was the same vickers that mowed down millions during WWI and soldiered on right up to the congo.