Jump to content

Talk:Steyr AUG/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Picture of Irish Rifleman

Pte O'Brien has contacted me requesting that his picture nolonger is used on this page or any other on wikipedia. In accordance with his wishes, please do not use the image any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadworx (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to summarize your edits in the edit summary, especially when removing content. You also removed the picture of a Saudi marine without any explanation, and the removal of two pictures would not be considered an 'm' (minor) edit. ROG5728 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

cleanup users section

someone vaguely knowledgable please cleanup at least the first para of this section. its hideous Qleem 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there also seems to be a few sentences that need to be removed as they appear to be nothing more than opinion or rumour, unless the original author/s can come up with some references. I was also considering separate sub-headings for each country in a similar way to other pages, however there's not a great deal of information on each and it might look a bit sparse.Six-Four 06:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Does AUG mean anything?

Does AUG mean anything? —No-One Jones 21:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Armee Universal Gewehr -- Cabalamat 15:04, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Universal Army Rifle, I think, in English 220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ROF

Previous quoted ROF appears to be wrong; I have 3 reference books all of which state it as 650 rpm. -- Cabalamat 15:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I am a former user of this weapon in the NZDF, i recall the cyclic rate of fire being around 600 rpm, although it is possible that weapon fires faster when the gas plug is at the 'adverse' setting Xcomradex 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe you're correct. Adverse does up the rpm if i recall correctly. TinyPirate 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a manual somewhere that said 700 Mastertechnician (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am a current user of this weapon, and the rate of fire can vary greatly due to environmental and weapon conditions. For instance, the weapon can perform slower in colder climates or if the weapon is dirty. Manuals I have seen quote anywhere from 600 - 700 rpm but usually rest on 650rpm as a happy medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.162.192 (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Muzzle velocity

Reference works I have give muzzle velocity as 970 or 980 m/s. Added both figures to the text -- Cabalamat 15:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Variability in 10m/s is not much. Military grade ammo is pretty rough and temperature differences would cause variations in muzzle velocity of more than 10m/s/

60.242.92.51 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notoriety?

The AUG has gained notoriety in popular culture, and has made numerous appearances in films, TV, comics and computer games such as Counter-Strike.

Is "notoriety" trying to imply that is a bad weapon, or that it is a deadly one? It is without a doubt my favorite Counter-Strike: Source primary weapon. Captain Jackson 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it just implies that it has become a well-known firearm due to its inovative design. --Squalla 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Use

Incorrect. The Australian Army does not use the Steyr Aug. Army uses the F88 Aus Steyr, a variant. 203.219.14.62 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

.....the F88 is exactly the same ....... so no it's not incorrect.
The AusSteyr is made in Australia and is regarded as being of lesser quality (the monopod 'rattles' about more, for example) than the Austrian version. Does this make it a varient? More like a locally-produced copy I guess. TinyPirate 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it would be a variant, hence your statement that the Aussie model is considered inferior to the Austrian one.
  • Errr... I'm not sure what you mean about the 'monopod' rattling. When I was issued with one. It didn't have a monopod. It has a forward handgrip, however. Otherwise, the quality of the lithgow firearms was quite good.
It makes and apperance in SOCOM: Fire Team Bravo 2 under the name STG-77 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.54.224.42 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The australia version is different, it is not exactly the same. The F-88 Steyr, has a bayonet lug fitted to the barrel, the Steyr Aug does not. The Australian Army required the weapon to be capable of having a bayonet affixed. The picture at the top of the Wikipedia article incorrectly identifies a Steyr Aug when it is in fact a Australian F-88. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.125.101 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As an armourer in the Australian Army I can assure all that the Australian weapon is different, by the bolt assist, cocking handle design, return mechanism lubrication and sight rail and reciever modifications. The bayonet lug is a fitting which may be introduced on AUGs due to the treaded nature of the barrels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.191.7 (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The standard AUG can fit a bayonet. Any of the type that will fit on the M16 Mastertechnician (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Malaysian Usage

Just saw a Malaysian TV news item where they are going to replace with M4. Sorry, wasn't paying much attention so don't have more details.


Here's a media page from the Australian Defence Force website with photos taken of the AFP and Royal Malaysian Army working on Operation Astute. Nearly all the photos of Malaysian Troops, there a is a solider with Steyr AUG. I'm not sure if they are the Australian made F88's though. http://www.defence.gov.au/opastute/images/gallery/20060621a/index.htm That said, some of the soliders also have M16's with M203 GLAs, the Styer is probably not their main rifle anyway. So yeah, the Malaysian army still seems to be using Steyrs(the media page is for June 2006), and that should be reflected in the article.BrotherEstapol 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the Steyr AUG placed second to the M16 in Australia

the gun is lighter than the M16, you don't need a screwdriver to set it apart and it has an optical scope, which allows you to actually hit someone 300 m away

Furthermore the Steyr AUG is used in much more countries than the M16 and even Israel (and Malaysia) developed their own rifle, which both are a copy of the Steyr AUG (might want to include that)

I hightly doubt it placed second to the M16 and I highly doubt that special forces use a standard M16 rifle

Your oppinion duly noted. :) I read in the article that the Auggie was chosen because Colt, USA didn't want to license the manufacture of the M-16. If that is true, then that generally means the M-16 did win, and the Australian government wanted it more than the Auggie.
Where do you get the idea you need a screwdriver to get an M16 apart? If you are an armorer disassembling certain parts, or are trying to remove the butt plate and rear sling swivel, OK I could see you needing a couple specialty tools, but to disassemble it for cleaning and lube it's a snap. You might need a pair of needle-nosed pliers to pull out that pesky retaining pin holding in the firing pin, but persistence and fingernails will do wonders.
As to the range, there are yearly National Service Rifle Matches held by the Marines at Camp Perry, Ohio, USA in which you can only fire an actual U.S. service rifle or a rifle closely based on a service rifle design (i.e. a 'civilian' version). People use the M1 Garand, M-14/M1A, M1 carbine, and yes, M-16/AR-15. Target ranges are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1000 yards. Yes, people compete (and win) at the longer ranges with M-16/AR-15 type rifles using open sights ('iron sights'; the competition rules forbid optical sighting devices). Sure the scope is impressive and snazzy looking, and perhaps functional at moderate ranges, but it's just that much more to worry about cleaning and breaking.
Special forces using an M-16? Maybe, but I doubt it - they prefer to kill the enemy. The 5.56x45mm NATO round was chosen partly because of it's tendency to injure - not kill - the enemy, so that it would hinder the opposing forces with lots of wounded they would have to take care of (if you faced an enemy that cared - that point was sort of missed by Kennedy's Whiz Kids). Special forces usually prefer weapons with a high first-hit kill ratio, which is the reason you see them still using 'dinosaurs' like the M-14 and FN-FAL. See 5.56mm for more info on that round. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.246.204.40 (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
  • American SF are trained in all sorts of weapons, including the M-16/4. There is the desire among the top military heads to give them their own special weapon (the SCAR IIRC) as their standard issue weapon, but until that comes about, they use what the rest of the US military uses. And the 5.56x45mm NATO round was chosen because of its effectiveness at killing people. That's the whole purpose behind firing at an enemy. If you wound or incapacitate a an enemy soldier in combat, that is fine and well, but you can't rely on that. And where does the M-14 even come into discussion? I don't even think there's any National Guard units that still use those anymore. I mean, not to sound trite, but you're just posting a much of misinformation.

I believe he is referring to the fact that during the Battle of Mogadishu one soldier was noted as using an M14 because he believed it to have better stopping power. Which turned out to be true, as the armor piercing rounds issued for the M16 were found to pass through an unarmored person and not cause much damage. It would take an unusually large number of hits by M16s to take down a person, but this one man's M14 was killing with the first few shots. Now keep in mind, that was against targets that weren't wearing any sort of armor, if the Somalis had been wearing some sort of effective body armor; that would have slowed down the rounds enough to have them stay in the body causing greater internal damage.--LWF 18:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Steyr placed a clear second to the M16a2 in Australian trials in the mid-late 1980's. Colt was going through some financial problems at the time and wouldn't grant the licence to lithgow for them to build the rifle there. After muchas discussion,meetings and burning of the midnight oil the department of defence and the DMO decided to go with the F88 AUSTEYR instead. It lost to the M16a2 in all regards - accuracy, reliability and ease of use. The only reason why we eventually adopted it is because it was cheap. The Galil placed a very clear last place, with terrible results from the accuracy stage. Australian special forces don't use the F88 - from memory entire units refused to be deployed to Timor until they were re-equipped with the M4. Cheers - Marlon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.177.184 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Safety catch

I read in the article the comment "The safety catch slides from side to side through the weapon, with one position (pushed fully right) being "safe" and another (pushed fully left) being "full automatic". The middle position sets the weapon to "semi automatic""

I used the Steyr for 12 years in the Australian Army, the safety catch only had two positions, safe (Right) and fire (Left). Control of your shots was done through trigger manipulation, if the trigger was depressed fully to the rear it fired automatic, a lighter trigger pull produced single shots. Underneath the trigger was a small switch which could be pulled down. This was the automatic fire lock-out button. When pulled out it allowed only single shots.

Having said that, i've been out for about five years, has there been a re-design? 220.233.56.215 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I only served in the Austrian Army for 8 months, but IIRC there was no extra trigger and the safety catch only had two positions. Firing automatic or firing a single shot depended on how hard you pulled the trigger. If I pulled the trigger halfways back, a single shot was fired; had I pulled it harder to the very back, the weapon would start firing automatically (wasn't allowed to do that though). --Wirthi 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
this has been fixed now Qleem 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Single shot and Automatic is controlled by an Automatic Lockout on the base of the trigger. Pushed up is fully automatic. Pulled down is semi automatic. At least, that's the way with the version used in Ireland.

im going to rv the change in the article and shoot an email off to steyr/ do some googling to see if we can resolve this. seems to me the different variants might have diff mechanisms for selective fire. anyway, if youd like to change it back please provide a citation. Qleem 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
ok according to the steyr website, the a1, a2, and a3 have the pullthrough trigger. its not specified for the 9mm, just says fully auto optional:
a3 >> http://www.steyrarms.com/index.php?id=33
Safety:
Lateral push-through type locks trigger
Trigger:
"Pull-through" trigger system. Fires semi-automatic when pulled halfway to a clearly felt point, fires fully automatic when pulled fully back.
perhaps the irish version has a secondary lockout as well, preventing the trigger from being fully pulled back?
anyway, final conclusion, unless some1 can send in a video or something, i say trust the steyr homepageQleem 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


I was with the NZ Army, and can confirm the new zealand version of the weapon (from Austeyr) has the three position safety catch: semi-auto, safe, auto. and i think i remember hearing from other soldiers that the aussie version ws different, but it was a while ago. in auto there are two quite distinct trigger pressures, so you could squeeze off careful single shots. i'm guessing in semi they just block this second position from being reached by the trigger. Xcomradex 01:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Regiment

I read in the article the comment that this gun is in use by the Falklands Defence Regiment. Since that are trained by the British army, and would fight alongside them in case of an invasion I am very surprised by this ( although they are independntly funded ). I would assume the SA80. Can someone explain this? 145.253.108.22 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The story is that the British gave the Falklands reg funding to buy their own kit. The British failed to make sure the Falklands reg would buy the same gear that the other British regiments are using. Hence the Falklands blokes are running around with pretty snazzy gear that all the other British squaddies want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.90.102 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Section

I'm moving the 'Users' section here for now because none of it is referenced. Please return any or all of this information to the article after it has been sourced. --Wasted Sapience 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the Belgian police? There's an article dealing with the service weapon of the Belgian Federal Police which contains a picture of a Belgian officer bearing a Steyr AUG:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/03/23/belgian-police-adopt-sw-mp-9mm/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Follgramm3006 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Users

It has been used by the British SAS and other organizations in a counter-terrorism role. It is also currently in use by the U.S. Customs Service. In Austrian service it is designated StG-77 (for Sturmgewehr 77). The Steyr AUG and Steyr AUG HB (HBAR) are used by Luxembourg's army as well. Also seen in Pakistan by the Army and Naval Special Service Groups and the Pakistani ASF (Airports Security Force). The Puerto Rican Army uses this weapon after the 2007 weapon trial.

There are semi-automatic versions that meet U.S. gun law restrictions; these have met with some popularity as a civilian rifle there.

An AUG family based on the AUG A3 was rumored to compete for the U.S. Army's OICW Increment 1 competition, a program to replace the M4 carbine, M16, and M249 machine gun.[citation needed] However, the OICW Increment 1 competition was put on hold and eventually cancelled in 2005.

The AUG also has a modified Australian variant, the F-88 Austeyr, which is the standard service rifle of the Australian Defence Force and the New Zealand Defence Force. There is also a shorter carbine variant (with a shorter barrel) which is used primarily by corps operating in vehicles (such as armour, transport and cavalry regiments).

In Australian service the F88 lost out in trials to the M16A2, while the IMI Galil placed third. The decision to adopt the F88 AUSTEYR was made after Colt refused to grant the licence to produce the M16A2 family of rifles under licence at Australian Defence Industries Lithgow[citation needed]

The safety catch on the Australian F-88 Austeyr has had its serviceability called into question on a number of occasions [citation needed]. The safety catch slides from side to side through the weapon, with one position (pushed fully right) being "safe" and another (pushed fully left) being "fire". In the past, however, there has been a tendency for the catch to lose its ability to lock in either of the positions (i.e. the "click" is lost and the safety catch slides freely (or too easily) from side to side) and thereby risk compromising the safety of the weapon. As a result, the Australian Defence Force has improved maintenance schedules and instructs its members to constantly check the condition ("safe" or "fire") of their weapons in a large range of situations (for example, when picking up or putting down the weapon, when handing it to or receiving it from someone, when changing between most degrees of weapon readiness, etc.).

In the Irish Defence Forces the Steyr AUG was selected after more than two years of exhaustive technical assessment by the Army Ordnance Corps and field trials by units throughout the Defence Forces, to replace the FN FAL that had been in use since the early 1960s. Initially a total of nine weapons (Beretta AR70/90, the Colt M16A2, the Enfield L85A1, the FN FNC, the HK G41, the IMI Galil, the FAMAS, the SIG SG550, and the Steyr AUG) from various countries were evaluated technically in firing trials, each firing thousands of rounds while their accuracy and reliability were gauged. Deliveries of the Steyr AUG to the Irish Defence Forces began in 1988. Today the Steyr is the primary infantry weapon of the Permanent & Reserve elements of Ireland's military forces, although it was not introduced into the Reserve Defence Force until 2001.

It is also used by the Falkland Islands Defence Force.

"although it was not introduced into the Reserve Defence Force until 2001". Not true. It was in service with the reserves for some time before that. You're referring to the phasing out of the FN FAL from reserve service, which occured in that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertechnician (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico was listed as a user. I am curious as to how, is it used by the police? Is it used by the national guard? In that case it would be considered to be in US army service... QZXA2 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ARGENTINA never had the M16 as official weapon, always was the F.A.L National Industry with French Licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.137.123 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image

Before this starts to be continually changed and reverted.. what's the general consensus? should the main image on this page be of the newest variant of the rifle? Is the A1 the most deployed rifle? If so, should it be the main image? njan 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AP rounds?

Can this rifle accept the black-tipped NATO round M995? It's the NATO 5.56mm, so..it shouldn't have a problem of it going through the barrel.

Do you reckon it'll still have the same AP performance if these rounds were fitted into the Steyr AUG?

Shin-chan01 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a statement that said the Steyr is used by the Philippine army, but the reference linked to an article claiming some Filipino mutineers were given Steyr's by the US (for terrorist training). I changed to another link which states that elite Filipino Scout Ranger use Steyrs. I thought stating that the Filipino Army used Steyrs because of mutineers was inaccurate, as mutineers normally do not reflect the official military. ModestMouse2 (Talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeroing the weapon

The position of the reticle with the sights is adjusted using the knobs seen on the sight housing and a special key (usually held by an armourer - weapons instructor). This means that the sights can be zeroed to match actual fall of shot within the normal ranges in use. However, in practice it is customary to zero the weapon so that the centre of the reticle matches the fall of shot at 300m. i.e. the sights are "zeroed" for 300m. However this is up to the armourer and/or the firer in adjusting the weapon. For some situations for example I might want to zero the weapon so that the top of the reticle matches the fall of shot at 200m (say for competition shooting at that range) . --Sf (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, I might just change the wording a bit. Now regarding the forward assist, I have not been able to verify this. Are you by any chance confusing this with the forward bolt assist found in the American-made clones? Koalorka (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No to my knowledge Irish Steyr rifles have had a forward assist since the weapon was adopted in 1990. In a different life I am a weapons instructor with the Irish Army Reserve. --Sf (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well then. Out of curiosity, what does this device look like? Is it simply incorporated into the cocking handle or somekind of push button around the bolt? Koalorka (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
On the version with the "Square" (not curved) looking cocking handle there is a button on the rear upper corner. Pushing that pushes a small plunger through to engage a groove at the top of the left guide tube. Allows you to push the whole lot forward. --Sf (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. It's good to have people with first-hand experience with the type. Koalorka (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
First hand doesn't knowledge necessarily count for wikipedia ;-) --Sf (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I cant find my manual at the moment when I do I'll put a couple of refs into the text --Sf (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you open the image above of the Austrian troops and bring it to full resolution you can see the button on a couple of the cocking handles. --Sf (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
SF is right, it's on the "A1 version". For a source, in the article in Small Arms Review on page 45, which I used to cite the MSAR version it states:

"With the original Steyr design you had a small button on the charging handle that had to be held in to assist the bolt closing."--Mike Searson (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I removed that reference thinking you confused it with the MSAR variant M16A2 style forward assist. You can revert that. Koalorka (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...no prob! For the record, this article in SAR is a damn good article on the AUG, itself. It is about 50/50 speaking to the original design and the MT clone.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe all AUGs have a forward assist. The original A1 version had the square charging handle that had a small button on the top corner which allowed it to connect with the bolt and work as a forward assist. On the A2 and A3 versions, the charging handle is slightly different; it looks like a hook/Moon crescent. It does not have the button for forward assist function, instead I believe you push it up and forward. Hayden120 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clones?

Should the American clones be included in this article? This is about the original Steyr AUG; having information and external links on entirely different American manufactured rifles is unusual. Perhaps they should be split into their own articles where they can be properly expanded and referenced instead of just being tacked onto this page. The Australian clones are fine here as they are licenced copies of the original Steyr design. Hayden120 (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, conditionally. Isn't the American version licensed in some way as well? If not, is it truly a clone or is it a unique weapon? I've noticed the American version has some features that are quite different. Frankly, I don't see how the old one was broken enough to need a redesign, but whatever. What portion of the gun is actually new? Are they taking Austrian parts and incorporating them or are they making the gun from the ground up? If it's a totally new, unique gun, it might deserve a 'main article' reference and short writeup then get its own article. But, like other vaporware guns, I'd like it to mature a few years before it gets its own article. --Asams10 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can speak a bit to the Microtech offering. All their parts are made in the US. Better quality aluminium went into the receiver, and the accessory points are helicoils of stainless steel as opposed to threaded aluminium. The ability to add rails on the top end, forend and sides is an improvement, forward assist is more prominent, there's a bolt hold-open, larger extractor pin, beveled bolt lugs, a more robust ejection port door, no seam line on the stock, drain holes in the stock and a grooved buttpad. I agree with a short wait before breaking them out into separate articles. Wait for more published literature, etc or the anti-gun/anti-knife/anti-anythingexcept articlesfordroolingfanboysaboutvideogamesandSimpsonscharactersonFamilyGuyepisodes/deletionist nazis will try and eliminate them.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As well as what you mentioned, I believe the Microtech STG-556 also has a few other things such as a fluted barrel and apparently the use of 'better' materials all around, including the magazines. It is also available in 6.8 mm. But no, I'm quite sure its not licenced; apparently the patent expired for AUG A1 design... But I do think it is different enough to make a separate article - this is not your standard clone - it has been redesigned to a fair extent. Hayden120 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll raise the BS flag on the 'better materials' contention. It's likely a 6 or 7 series Aircraft Grade Aluminum either way abd both are the SAME quality, no better or worse. You can't have "Better" aluminum if it's graded either way. I don't think the Austrian Aluminum industry has any 'worse' standards than the American one. Further, the 'redesign' incorporated a different forward assist and mag release than I'm familiar with as well as a SLIGHTLY different magazine. The materials... again, I'm calling BS on the Magazine material being better. The one they had didn't cause any problems I'm aware of. Some internal parts had accelerated wear compared to their life expenctancy, but otherwise the AUG was a superb weapon. Without acceptance standards and mil-specs, nobody can tell me that this copy is BETTER than or even as good as the AUG. --Asams10 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chile

Does Chile use this rifle? It looks like an anon ip insists that they do. Don't know whether to revert it or source it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, the same person has been going around and claiming Chile uses every cool-looking weapon on this planet. We get that from Filipino users as well. Probably children or airsofters having tactical Ninja fantasies. Koalorka (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I left a note on his talkpage to provide a source. I didn't know enough about it to go, either way. I suspect you're right, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find confirmation of this, since it popped up a few times, but couldn't find anything. Koalorka (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper name?

Is the proper name of this weapon the "Steyr AUG" or "STEYR AUG"? On the official Steyr website they consistently all-caps the name as "STEYR AUG". Clayhalliwell (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Steyr is a name, not an Acronym, therefore by Wikipedia Convention, it is not all caps. This discussion was had before on the Glock article... Glock of GLOCK. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Austeyr A4 (or whatever it is called)

I have an image of one of these as I have been issused one for testing. The image is 1600x1200. Don't know if other people think it would be worth while adding it to the article. The only differences with a regular Steyr that you would be able to see are cosmetic. JB Pretender2j (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.37.166 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullpup

I've been trying to put "bullpup" into the summary of the weapon in the first paragraph, but it keeps getting edited out. I just think that a summary the gun should include that the action is behind the trigger, as the action is the most important part of a gun. Is there some consensus to include "bullpup"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortstack2012 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to mention it's a bullpup. Some guy (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The AUG is of bullpup layout, yes, but there are DOZENS of general rifle layouts out there, bullpup being a common one. Since it's mentioned below in the text saying so in the lede is redundant. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's already there you spastic. Take a hint next time you get reverted 14 times. Koalorka (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That is unnecessarily harsh and uncivil. I don't see why this hasn't been discussed on this talk page earlier. I also don't see any strong reasoning as to how the article is hurt by having "Bullpup" in the lead. The FAMAS and SA80 articles both mention bullpup in the lead. From skimming the article edit history it looks like you have been reverting the addition of the word bullpup without going into much discussion about it. Since the AK-47 and SA80 articles both mention "select-fire" and "gas-operated" in the lead, why is "bullpup" too specific? I would argue "bullpup" is much less specific (and easier for the casual reader to remember). Some guy (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force Cadets

'Also used by the Australian Defence Force Cadets.' At least in my 8 years of experience as an Australian Air Force Cadet and Instructor we have never been allowed to use the F88T. We have however used the normal (5.56mm) F88 fairly often. Have seen an F88T but we do not use it for training. However I have no sources to prove one way or the other, I'm new to Wikipedia so what should I do? Chrysilis (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation

I came to this article today wondering how AUG is pronounced - whether you say each letter or you pronounce it as a word (awg). If there is a general rule or correct pronounciation this should be mentioned in the lead. Some guy (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia?

I just saw a TV news report showing what appeared to be Indonesian Security (police/military?) carrying black Steyrs. Anybody know anything about this?220.245.115.78 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Design

Although the article mentioned the plastic firing parts, it does not specifically address the uniqueness of its engineers to not only think about barrel replacement but the ease with which changing out internal firing parts can be as it is basically one piece as well... The give and take of having these options is of course, a marvel considering the age of this gun. Yet, some have mentioned the firing "piece"(s) tends to melt or warp when fired at high rates or just plain wear and tear, there could be many reasons for this, including luck. But just as any military has a weapons "repair" unit, i hope others can fully shed light on the weapons characteristics, as reading 5.56, short medium long barrel length, capacity, rate of fire. may seem to be factual but even in a dealership, two cars of the same make/model can have different hp/torque output.....

By no means do I wish to dismiss the AUG as a dinosaur compared to "modern" era firearms. Since there are a lot of assault weapons with similar specifications and designs especially with cartridge standardizations, yet the limits and abilities are highly variable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

The Steyr Aug is also used by Georgian Special Police Forces, since 2005. There is a video clip of the Military Parade of 2005. Police Special Forces are carrying Tar-21's and Steyr-Aug's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.5.208 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You will have to provide us with a means of verification. Koalorka (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oberland UG semi-auto clone

Is it worth mentioning it aside from the American-made ones? Ominae (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Koalorka (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thing is I may have found sources in forum, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources. Ominae (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Taiwanese adaptation: T68 Assault Rifle

This link is the closest I have from a reference that can be immediately accessed.

http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3592/CSF_T68.htm

Otherwise I'll have to dig up my book from long-term storage.

And they're both in traditional Chinese.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy031101 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As a personal Reocities page, that website isn't a suitable reference. ROG5728 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


I have never edited a wiki article, so I do not know how to go about marking this on the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.244.89 (talk • contribs)

The article has several links to variants similar to this: http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/military-and-law-enforcement/steyr-aug-a3-sf/

The current URL for that page is: http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/military-law-enf/steyr-aug-a3-sf/

The others a most likely similarly changed. Should I update them? Or leave them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TolarisTango (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

...Is an Austeyr F88 labelled as an AUG A1. A1s don't have that bayonet lug halfway down the barrel, last I checked. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Steyr AUG's also have bayonet lugs. AUGs used by the Austrian military dont use bayonets but most other Countrys use them. Picture of Austrian built Stery AUG in use with Irish military fitted with bayonet.--Gunnai (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Then which country is that one from? More to the point, why are we leading with a non-domestic AUG rather than an initial production one? Also, checking up, the Irish version is exactly the same as the Austeyr F88, even including the same lockout for the two-stage trigger (which the pictured one does not have). The only difference is the rifling twist rate. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The image is licensed by Steyr Mannlicher and came from their website so its not an Austeyr.--Gunnai (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where it came from on their website: the "source" link on the image page goes to a page that doesn't have that image on it, so there's no real way to tell if it was ever on that page (unlike the pic of the 16-in AUG, which is still up, albeit not in the same place). I'd agree it's not an Austeyr (on closer inspection it doesn't have an ALO tab on the trigger as the Austeyr and Irish Army AUGs do), but it's not an initial production A1 either since the StG 77 adopted by the Austrian Army has no bayo lug, and we can't tell who's version it is or where the image came from anymore. We should probably replace it with an image from the PDF linked at the bottom of this page, which shows a non-lugged barrel and can be verified as being from Steyr-Mannlicher's website. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
To solve this old "mystery": It is identified as an A1 on their Steyr AUG downloads page here: https://www.steyr-arms.com/en/downloads/?catid=182
In any case it is just a feature of the barrel not the actual gun itself. Otherwise you would need to identify different barrel lengths as different types of the same rifle as well. For example you can replace the standard barrel with a heavy barrel intended for the light machine gun version but this would not turn a standard AUG into one. It would just be a standard AUG with the HBAR barrel.
Wether or not the barrel has bayonet lugs is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is an A1 or an Austeyr or whatever type. As long as the operative parts are the same, it is an A1 in my opinion. Bayonet lugs or not, especially since you can easily and quickly replace them.
2A02:8388:C80:6280:ADE2:F964:C0C0:A08C (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge F90 assault rifle

Looking briefly at the sources there, it doesn't look like the hardly discernible differences justify a separate article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The press release says "The F90 is identical to the EF88-designated weapon currently being developed by the company for Australia’s LAND 125 program, and is based on the F88 platform that has been in service and evolved in Australia since the late 1980s." Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I see it's already covered here in a far less misleading fashion, so I've redirected. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Fixed Carry Handle"

I want point out the following statement: "Integrated with the receiver casting is a fixed carry handle that contains a 1.5x telescopic sight made by Swarovski Optik.", made at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph under "features". Having been in the Austrian Army for some time and also having trained recruts on this rifle, I particulalrly remember that we were taught NOT to carry the weapon at the telescopic sight. Per definition in the Austrian Army, when you want to carry the weapon in one hand, you have to hold it at it's "balance point", which is on the stock between the magazin intake and the grip.

Now, it might be possible that this is only a peculiarity in the Austrian Army. But I checked the manufacturer's information a and the Autrian Army's regulations, and nowhere is this piece of the rifle ever called a "carry handle". It simply is the telescopic sight, and not a handle.

So, as long as no one can prove that the manufacturer intended, or one or more Armies recommend, that the telescopic sight is used as a carry handle, I suggest to remove this from the text.

On a side note I want to point out that in active service many people actually do in fact carry the weapon at the telescopic sight, as it is the most convenient place. However, my point is to prove that, however often it is done, this is not the intendet use. --Lalucre (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As there have been no objections so far, I have removed the phrase "a fixed carry handle that contains" from the text. When someone can prove that the scope was/is called, or intended as, a carry handle, we can put it back in. --Lalucre (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steyr AUG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What?

" and the second type—equipped with a 40 mm M203 grenade launcher that can be used mounted on the standard length rifle or autonomously—as a stand-alone grenade launcher after attaching a shoulder pad to the end of the 5.56 mm barrel." What does this mean? Even with the text before it for context, it's unclear. The grenade launcher can be used autonomously? If its autonomous, why is there reference to a 5.56mm barrel? A "stand-alone" grenade launcher? That phrase usually suggests that the grenade launcher can be used without attaching it to the gun. Did they mean that the AUG stock can be used, sans gun mechanism, to create a simple M79 simple grenade launcher (for whatever reason you'd want to do that)? I just don't see how it can be a "stand alone grenade launcher" when it involves a 5.56mm barrel. I'm also not sure why you'd want a "attach a shoulder pad to the end of the...barrel". Seems like the stock would be a more ideal place. AnnaGoFast (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steyr AUG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

The last picture's discription says: "SEK-policeman with a Stey AUG in Bavaria, 2011". Please change the text to: "SEK-policeman with a Steyr AUG in Bavaria, 2011" because the manufacturer's name (Steyr) is not spelled correctly.

Thank you very much! Knufy (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

DONE...--RAF910 (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dutch "use"

Whilst it is indeed true the Dutch trialled the weapon, to put it under "Users" seems a bit strange, as the weapon was only trialled. I don't think other wikipedia pages related to firearms put trialled guns as being "used".

I propose to somehow add the Dutch trial into the text somewhere else, based on the following Dutch source: http://www.militairmagazijn.nl/wapens/armamentaria/artikel/wapens_armas_xml_81711adc-30aa-482e-aba8-3899678dc9b2/

Thom430 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Steyr AUG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Steyr AUG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Steyr aug is not a submachine gun

A submachine gun is a magazine-fed, fully automatic carbine designed to fire pistol cartridges. The steyr aug does not fire pistol cartridges it fires the 5.56 NATO cartridge. EditMaster100 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a variant that fires the 9x19 mm Parabellum cartridge that qualifies as a submachine gun if it has the fully automatic firing capability. This variant was previously referred to as Steyr AUG Para or Steyr AUG SMG and is now referred to as Steyr AUG 9 mm, I see no reason to exclude this variant from the Steyr AUG page info box. Steyr Arms is listing the 9 mm version alongside the standard AUG. Additionally there is now a .40 S&W variant that also qualifies as a submachine gun - Steyr Arms is referring to it as "the latest Version [sic] of the Steyr AUG MP series". Note the MP which is likely referring to "Maschinenpistole" (machine pistol) which is the German word for submachine gun.
2A02:8388:C80:6280:1D7:325E:B3BF:2AA3 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steyr_AUG/Archive_1&oldid=1153137329"