Steyr AUG?

[SaraP]

Could someone please be so kind as to repost Shakken's rant/essay on why the AUG sucketh?

[Scuddie]

Aug?

AUG??


AUG??!!



AUG?!?!?!

[Dr.J]

yeah im actually quite interested in why the Steyr Aug sucks as well. after all, the australian army did choose it over the M16..... i know about people filing down the charging handle, but thats about all i know....

[Freon]

try the button

[OICW]

Since it doesn't work for me, I had to dig it up the old fashioned way (gives finger to BU)

The really old version:

My main gripe with the AUG is the trigger and safety set up.

The whole thing strike me as very wrong.

To start the ball rolling, the safety is your basic push though mechanism that prevents trigger and bolt motion. All well and fine. It's a system with a push though safety, used successfully on many machineguns such as the FN series as well as the Enfield SA-80(Small Arm for the 80s)/L85A1.

But the problem is is that it copies the full trigger guard design of the FAMAS F2/G2.

Now, with the FAMAS you get away with this because the trigger is spaced sufficiently far away from the pistol grip it allows you to slip your index in behind it to practice the 3rd rule(finger off the trigger till sights are on target), but with an AUG with it's solid trigger, you have no where to rest your finger but on the receiver, which is sloped, so your trigger finger naturally finds itself floating back onto the trigger when it's not supposed to.

Which gives the AUG a high ND(Negligent Discharge) ratio. A theory being proven by the Australians and their ST-88 Austeyrs. Incidentally, I've already heard of at least 8 ND incidents this year alone amongst Malaysian army personnel concerning the Steyr AUGs this year. We recently adopted the AUG as a matter of fact.

The pushbutton safety only aggravates the situation. There is really no eyes-off confidence with it. if the saftey is on, if you were to run your thumb over it to check, you put the safety off.

Worse still you have to shift your grip in order to push the safety back thought the other side. in any case, the whole setup is extremely unsafe. A fact already combat proven in indonesia.

Another issue is the 1.5x Swarovski optic provided with the basic rifle. It SUCKS for close in fighting. Most people will say you don't need to use sights for close ranges, but having trained in CQB, I can tell you theres nothing for confidence like well designed sights to train on your target.

The moulded box format sights on top of the scope were made for pistols and DON'T WORK on the AUG because you need a eye relief of at least 400mm to distinguish them properly. I remember picking up the AUG and saying "What moron designed these sights?".

In my professional opinion, the Swarovski should be redesigned as a picatinny rail attachment and issued with the AUG-T. As well as having a post/aperture sight moulded on top. Or even better, a red dot optic.

Another gripe is the barrel system it sorely needs to discard the vertical foregrip in favor of a barrel shround of some sort. I dislike vertical foregrips and avoid them whenever I can. They tend to shift the weight of the weapon further away from your hands, and make the gun less stable.

The shroud will also prevent soldiers from burning their hands on hot barrels. I've done this several times with the AUG. Also, it ought to shift the AUGs center of gravity forward. The AUG itself being rear heavy.

What pisses me off is that Steyr didn't foresee these things in the first place. Steyr is an extremely innovative company. The problem is they often put innovation above practicality.

Even Wayne Novak himself once commented "Which idiot designed these ****ing sights?" at a SHOT show in referance to the triangular profile sights on the Steyr M9. Which I must agree, lack foresight. When you shoot a pistol, you want the top of the sights to line up horizontally in straight line.

Hard to do when your front sight is a sharp pointed triangle.

Here's another quote

1. No open sights (The ones on top of the scope are useless.)
2. Safety system is too rudimentary and doesn't offer the confidence of a lever system (Anecdotal evidence suggests the safety often doesn't function reliably.).
3. No place to rest trigger finger when practicing the 3rd rule.
4. Trigger pull too heavy for precision shooting. (Not to mention the two stage trigger is not as useful as Steyr would have you believe.)
5. No handguard/barrel shroud (Vertical forgrips do not offer the stability a horizontal handguard does for precision shooting. I'd gladly trade the modular barrels for a barrel shroud!)
6. Pronged flashhider (I call them 'salad forks' for their ability to pick up vegitation.)

Some others have cited the tendency of the magazines to dissolve under certain cleaning solutions. Don't know about that myself.

The F88 Austeyr for example has proven itself to be every bit as dangerous to it's operators as their opponents.

[N'kEnNy]

I won't argue on behalf of the AUG, neither do I question your educated oppinions.

But I'd like to point out that few if any of the presented deficiencies really matter in game. With the exception of a deficient Ironsights and the poor performance of the integrated scope in CQB. (suprise surpise )

Wether or not a weapon has poor safety system, jams alot, lacks barrel "shrouding", or that the trigger pull is to heavy these things can't really be added to the game anyhow.

Infiltration doesn't really have a set "story" or setting. Which means that pretty much anything goes. It would seem that many of the fans wants Infiltration to "clean up" and become a true military style modification.

It can't be argued that the Steyr Aug is a military grade weapon. However on the grounds of the many reasons presented it can be argued that "elite forces" or mercenary teams are not likely to pick that weapon for its real life deficiencies.

In the end it comes down to the various ideas and oppinions within the development team. Which is why weapon suggestions are probably doomed to failiure by default


This has probably been said before, but you'll have to excuse me for not bothering to search.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by N'kEnNy

In the end it comes down to the various ideas and oppinions within the development team. Which is why weapon suggestions are probably doomed to failiure by default

Here, have a cookie...

[ecale3]

someone has seen the light!

[N'kEnNy]

hehe, sorry no enlightenment. I've got inside information. I used to run the ns-co weapon suggestion thread.
-ken

[Scythe]

cheater! My cookie now!

[OICW]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

Here, have a cookie...

Tell me who the hell in the Inf team still wants to keep the DE in and I'll pay them a visit with a crowbar and a smile

[ThunderChunky]

If you see a DE in the next version, then you can go crowbarring away gleefully. However, we're not going to take work out of Infiltration in its current state, especially if it isn't unbalanced.

[Dr.J]

how are you planning to crowbar OICW? but was saraP asking about the aug in game or in real life? anyway, i doubt people enjoy taking stuff out of their work so youre gonna have a hell of a time crowbarring people OICW

[ecale3]

we won't be alive when the next version of INF comes out...

[OICW]

Originally Posted by Dr.J

how are you planning to crowbar OICW? but was saraP asking about the aug in game or in real life? anyway, i doubt people enjoy taking stuff out of their work so youre gonna have a hell of a time crowbarring people OICW

Not my fault they're not willing to remove a non-milspec weapon after running around ignoring non milspec (and milspec in some cases) weapons because "it's a military simulator"

[keihaswarrior]

I want to know how a bunch of the people on this forum got it into their heads that INF was strictly a military simulation that had a goal of being entirely milspec. I have never seen anything from a team member officailly stating that milspec was a goal for INF. It seems more like something that was made up by the forum goers here that wish they were in charge of INF's developement.

(Note: please show me a link or something, if you find where it has been officially stated - ty )

[N'kEnNy]

Originally Posted by N'kEnNy

Infiltration doesn't really have a set "story" or setting. Which means that pretty much anything goes. It would seem that many of the fans wants Infiltration to "clean up" and become a true military style modification.

I think few people claim that the development team has "promised" the fans a milspec mod only. Its rather a wish and a suggestion.

[-=SDS=-Coop]

Originally Posted by ecale3

we won't be alive when the next version of INF comes out...

Last Will and Testament....

I leave to my first born, my reciept for Infiltration 3.0, and promotional cup holder, flash light, and mousepad all in one.

I leave to my loving wife, my 2002 vertical feed autococker paintball gun.

I leave to yurch, my last box of croutons, dated 1984, the year of my birth... it should be prime now, just dont drop it, as croutons, although they taste better over time, they also become explosive too.

and finally, to everyone.... go **** yourselves

signed
Gary "Coop" Cooper
Dated March 12th, 2034 (happy 50th birthday to me)

now if i can get someone to noterize this official document, im set

[melagne]

Now, I don't know what noterize means, but what the hell, i might as well do it before someone else does:

Consider Your Official Document Officially Noterized





(Damn, now I want one of those mousepad/light/cupholder thingies too.)

[-=SDS=-Coop]

it makes the doccument official.

thats hillarious