I keep seeing people say that the 3X optics for both Austrian Special forces and regular troops are more so used as risers rather than primary optics but why and why bother producing them then? Also why no illumination from factory? Just seems like an odd decision for a military optic and they have had decades to add this feature. Even the new SF optic has no illumination which seems very odd to me so wanted some insight as these optics are not cheap to manufacture and I’m sure they could develop their own decent red dot if they wanted to keep manufacturing in country.

is it possible soldiers do use and prefer these scopes to their red dots? Whole situation seems odd as a riser would be way cheaper and lighter if that’s all soldiers and especially special forces want out of these.

The SF originally had tritium but I guess that feature got lost in translation.

Probably wasn’t worth it to Steyr to get an NRC import license for the radioactive tritium. Magnum Research didn’t bring in the Galil’s with tritium sights either.

I "think" (I know jack shit about it) that they intended the optic to be used in conjunction with an RDS on top. 3X optic for daylight use past 100 yards and the RDS for close and night. I read that is why the optic mount is low at 60mm which would put the piggy-backed RDS at a good height.

I personally have little use for a low power fixed scope without daylight illumination. It's like re-inventing the ACOG but without any of the added benefits. And the optics on the US guns seem to come with a 70mm mount that would put a piggy-back RDS too high (except for maybe Jay Leno).

This is why I put ACOGs on all my fighting rifles. Keeps things simple, reliable, effective. Don't know why anyone would use anything else on a 5.56 main fighting rifle.

Because if you need illumination, you probably should have nods and an on gun laser.

There's actually several very valid reasons for no illumination.

1. The Donut of Death reticle (and its variants) works well without illumination. The large, coarse reticle is still quite visible at night under streetlight / moonlight levels of illumination in my backyard. It is wayyyyy more visible then my 4x32 led ACOG Chevron with the battery turned off.

Likewise, in daylight of Las Vegas (super duper bright) which can overwhelm some illuminated reticles, the large black reticle remains crisp and visible. Ditto when a powerful WML is activated, reticle works fantastic, whereas some illum reticles will wash out.

2. Tasks that benefit/require an illum reticle (speed shooting at close range, passive aiming through NVG) are accomplished with the piggy back Aimpoint, which is just better for those roles. There's also the IR laser for NVG use.

3. Illum ads cost and points of failure. Tritium fades away after ~10yrs (I'd love to see Radium sights make a comeback), and only works at night. LED is a relatively recent light invention, and adds cost, weight, and potential points of failure. Neither are ideal for optics designed to last decades in service with conscripts.

I think all are valid points. The un-illuminated optic is designed to be used in conjunction with an RDS on top. For a mass-produced optic issued to troops on a tight budged, it also makes sense.  

It seems that the US military has solved this issue with the widespread use of ACOG's. But I also prefer to run my ACOG with an RDS on top because for me, under 50 yards, I was 1X with a big, easy and bright reticle. My bias is from using it in 2-gun matches which are 100% shot in bright daylight where the illuminated reticle is faster. In actual war, combat, boogaloo, etc. things will be mostly at night and preferences will change.  

I also personally love the LED ACOG's. A good LPVO with daylight illum. is fantastic but I worry about the durability in actual combat. Yes I know US troops have used them for 10+ years but I dont expect to have the same personal log. train and support in some scenarios.

Bottom line: A good quality fixed, low-power scope without illumination will always work ok and certainly better than a more delicate LPVO with illumination that is broken...?

Night fighting in the past tended to use flares or other illumination like star shells.  In Viet Nam aircraft would deploy parachute flares if time permitted.  In CQB muzzle flash and tracers were used to identify enemy positions or to provide suppressive fire.  One reason some armies used green tracers and others used red tracers.   The Steyr AUG was one of the first military rifles to be deployed with an optic to most soldiers and was a relative new concept.

You might be right about the complexity/added points of failure being less desirable especially for a largely conscript army but I still think that their special forces uses these or similar fixed power scopes and id still think they would have wanted something similar to the Eclans bright dot. Also, considering how lpvos have become more affordable I feel like they could have saved a lot of money and some weight replacing the scope + rds combo with an lpvo. Maybe durability was the main focus since idk if the costs would be less than just going with a decent lpvo

From some of the interviews in Ukraine, they said the main criteria for optics in a real war is durability due to constantly diving into the ground over and over in response to incoming artillery. One interviewee mentioned that a number of LPVO/MPVO optics broke or lost zero during this; the ACOG was praised for its durability.

Just holding the AUG optics I have, the thing is a giant 7075 aluminum armored shell over a small optic, so I imagine/hope it would fair pretty well in terms of durability.

A true high intensity warfare grade LPVO would cost more then the AUG, possibly twice more.

With the factory AUG scope they get an affordable, durable, pretty good magnified optic, and excellent Aimpoint riser and IR laser mount, all while remaining outside of ITAR restrictions.

Excellent points.

Thank you. Those are indeed great points! I guess I’m just a little salty they couldn’t include some illumination in the optics considering how well built and expensive they are. Maybe one of the posters above is right in that it doesn’t make much of a difference since the reticle is still very useable in the dark but I’d still have liked it tbh. I think the acog system with the dual ilum or better yet an elcan-like one for a battery would have been stellar. I don’t know of anyone complaining about the durability of those two systems and with the battery option not needing any expensive replacements I think they should have included something. I’m coming from the perspective of really appreciating having illumination on vari rifle scopes when it starts getting darker so just feel it would have been a good add

an illuminated reticle isn't going to help you see the target any better. and remember, the reticle on these optics is a big circle. if you can't see the reticle, you likely can't see the target either

Thats the thing though, the AUG optic is not expensive as far a military grade, euro made optics. The SF was $699, and the regular 3x when it was available was $499-$599. And thats retail, imported into the US, purchased as single units - not in the thousands for a military contract.

A 3x ACOG TA33 is $944 on sale at EuroOptic. 4X LED is $1,080.

The goal of the AUG optic was to provide a universal, affordable, durable, and effective optic for a military on a modest budget.