The Australian Army continues to monkey with the F88 “Austeyr” despite their Special Operations components abandoning the weapon in the late 90s in favor of the M4. This briefing, presented at last year’s NDIA Small Arms Symposium outlines the incremental improvements made to the weapon. “Improving In-Service Small Arms Systems; An Australian Experience” was presented by Mr. Graham Evenden of Thales Australia. They have worked very closely with the Australian Army to enhance the F88. But, to what end?
Improving in-Service Small Arms Systems – An Australian Experience
Tags: Australia, Thales Australia
Don’t get me started…
SASR didn’t so much abandon it as never really adopt it in the first place, same as the NZ SAS.
Both units had pretty bad experiences during early use so stuck with what they knew, and more importantly knew worked for their requirements.
I heard about a country on the other side of the pacific, that’s bathing a pig in perfume since decades.
The only reason the ADF persists with the F88 is due to nationalistic arrogance because it is ‘Australian’.
I always hated it, and don’t get me started on the stupid drill of removing the barrel. Bright idea knee jerk reaction that was…
Perfume on a pig? More like polishing a terd…
Send the so called weapon design experts into an operational area with the weapon, then see if they still think its a superior weapon system. It would be less time consuming and probably less money, if they simply go a purchase M4s. I could go on all day!!!
Could one of those who use it give me a top 5 of what was wrong. Not knowing much, I always thought it was cool, so I’d like to hear from people who used it why it’s hated it so much.
I’ve never used one, but have read that changing magazines on bullpup weapons, specifically the F88, is slower than on ‘normally’ configured ones.
Five quick ones of the top of my head
1. The magazines. Only F88 mags will fit in the F88. Their design (which features two hooking points on the back) creates a snagging hazard
2. Lack of modularity. The barrel lacks a cover which means you are limited to what you can mount to the weapon and where. You can change the barrel, but in regular units you don’t have access to other barrel lengths so its a wasted feature.
3. The trigger guard is made to suit artic mitts. While some special units use it for winter training, the other 99.9999999% of the time it is a useless feature. Unlike most other weapons where you can rest your finger on the trigger guard, some users with smaller hands (i.e chicks) have to rest their fingers below the trigger. Means there is a greater risk of unintentionally manipulating the trigger.
4. The method of selecting fire through trigger pressure is retarded. The first pressure fires single, the second auto. In an ideal world every soldier is a marksman who knows his weapon inside and out. In reality however its not the case and some seem to have trouble being able to fire single shot which makes for interesting ROE investigations.
5. The over all design of the weapon. Maybe its just the ADI produced version, but watching someone take brass in the face from his right handed weapon suddenly deciding to eject to the left is funny at first but then it gets tiresome. Same for having to use graphite grease in the trigger mechanism which sits just bellow the return rods and springs that get oiled. When the two mix you get glue and a trigger mech that sticks.
I have used the SA80, the F88 and the M4 on operations. In order of preference I would place the M4 first, the SA80 second and I would find something else in lieu of the F88, as its a turd.
A lot of people in the ADF love the F88, but that’s only because its the only weapon most know and they believe the hype. The continued short falls of the F88 would suggest its a prime time to drop it and adopt something else.
This pretty much sums it up. That and the stock is a huge lump of plastic that gets in the way of plate carriers, vests, etc.
I might add that I’ve never fired an SA80/L85, but I found it clunky to manipulate. Probably worse than the F88 at first glance.
Excellent summary from Winston, to which I would only add that in both the Aus and NZ Armies, our Section Machine Gun is the Minimi, which takes M4/M16 magazines as a back up to the belt. The Steyr mag is a proprietary mag which fits that weapon only and doesn’t fit the Minimi. There is therefore no magazine fed emergency option for the Minimi.
As Winston also said, lack of fore guard or rail system (although they weren’t around back then) means goodbye to our old friend the M203. In NZ we dusted off and re-introduced the M79 for a few years in the early nineties to give the Inf a grenade launcher option. Now they have a bracket system which allows mounting of 203 on the Steyr, but its rattly, not especially secure and has to be bastardised with wire and cable ties to fit securely.
Thank you Winston and everybody else. That helps me understand it and see it differently. Not so cool to me now. Again, thanks.
I used the Steyr Aug when I was serving in the NZ Army. I’m currently serving in the British Forces (we use another another bullpup weapon – the L85/SA80).
There’s seems to be a lot of dislike towards bullpup weapons for some reason. Many people claim that magazine changes are awkward or difficult.
On the SA80 I would say that learning the drills does take a little getting used to as the cocking handle is on the right side of the weapon so this requires either tilting the weapon over or reaching over the top. That said, a magazine change requires no contact with the cocking handle. You simply remove the magazine, put a new one on and press the bolt release catch on the left hand side of the weapon. Easy and quick.
On the Steyr it’s even easier, magazine off, new one on and flick the cocking handle out of the hold open recess. I personally prefer the Steyr as the cocking handle is on the left hand side, the fire selector is integrated into the safety, it’s lighter than the SA80, can be used by left handed firers and doesn’t rattle as much. Both rifles are accurate (the SA80 moreso) and the built in two-position foregrip on the Steyr, though nothing special now, was very innovative for its time.
I’ve used the M4 (albeit only briefly). I found it to be good but preferred the weapon configuration I was used to. The fact that the bullpup layout allows the weapon to be short while maintaining equal if not greater accuracy is also a great feature, especially for vehicle mounted troops.
Steyr video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K5MYDmTEUM&feature=related If you look around the 2 min mark there’s some good examples of quick magazine changes (These are the A3 versions which I haven’t used, they appear to have an external bolt release button instead of flicking the cocking handle down).
Haven’t been able to find any videos showing slick drills on the SA80 on youtube thought there may be some floating around.
As for the majority of SF using the AR series of rifles. Well, they’re probably right in saying they are better. They’ve got far more knowledge than I do on the matter, just my two cents and experiences so far.
(Note: I am aware the SA80-A1 was plagued with problems but H&K did a great job of sorting them out. The A2 is a decent weapon and I’ve had very, very little in the way of stoppages)
well done Aus on spending $12m to redevelop a shit weapon sys and turn it into a shit M4. stay tuned, coming soon from ADI a a circular rolling device that along people to travel without walking. were calling it a wheel
And in true ADI fashion, it will only roll one way and it will have one flat section to stop it rolling to fast.
It will also be based on an outdated design, but will be announced as ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’ because the officer who approves it (and who will then leave the ADF in order to take up a senior position with the company) has never seen it before and doesnt know how to use ‘Google’.
I think you guys should have a look at some other options than the M4 to the F88. Have a look at the HK416, FN SCAR Mk16 (or 17 for the 7.62 version).