I would go for one if they came out with it.

I disagree.  YMMV.

Care to explain your logic?  A barrel, bolt, and optic is considerably lighter and takes up less volume than an entire upper receiver assembly and optic.

Sure.  I will start by addressing as many methods of carrying the items as I see reasonable (to an extent).

Carry those three things, or more depending on how many uppers you are comparing it against, in your hands...take a mental image of that.  Then vision carrying what would surmount to being an upper or a few uppers...remember that for each upper you're effectively multiplying your load on the other end...this isn't a concern of ounces but how difficult it is to carry in your hands.

I suppose the above is a "field" view of it....but most of us, me included, don't carry these things in our hands.  That was to get you to more readily conceptualize some of my point.  So, considering in a bag, It might be more weight (ounces to pounds depending on exactly how many uppers vs. internal components in the AUG, of course) but it is all together, uncluttered, and more organized.  I am not sure of the application that you are envisioning but I see having a few uppers in the range bag/pelican case (as mentioned) easier than having expensive components loose-leaf such as optics, bolts and barrels (and more difficult to have them not loose-leaf since they are each individual).  But most people wouldn't carry such important items their bags loose-leaf anyways (this is preferential).

So, if you put those in a bag (depending on your preference as to how you like to carry your items; some people are more sloppy than others and really don't give a shit), you will likely end up with a similar realistic carrying capacity.  It also depends heavily on how you carry what you carry and, for me, I just don't see it as being any simpler (in my hands or my range bags/cases)...In summation, I find the quick detach barrel system  more of a problem-less solution and, at best, a negligible benefit (as mentioned).

Beyond that I also feel that needing to re-zero or simply rely on the optics/mounts is a flaw when compared to having an upper ready and configured to go.  Still a statement on my equipment/personal items/preference and that is really what it is going to get down to.

I still maintain that it is simpler to switch uppers than all of the other components (from carrying to re-zeroing).  I don't see my opinion as wrong, likewise I don't see your opinion as wrong, this is just a rationalization of my previous comments and I know that the above examples will easily vary from person to person.  I see the quick barrel change as benefit in military applications (like the rifles you referenced earlier) but I just don't for a majority of end users....doesn't make it less 'cool' just a problem-less solution.





Edited for clarity and to better illustrate my view.

If I was in the market for an AR this is the one I would get, if reasonably priced!

This

Love it! I am good for one.

I wonder if they could make these take advantage of existing aug barrels.  I have 2 Augs and a bunch of ARs. It would be really cool to be able to through an Aug, 4 barrels and this AR in a pelican case and have a conventional rifle and Aug that use the same barrels.  Just dreaming but it would be cool!

I think it's a great idea to try and use the AUG piston concept in different ways, but  the last thing I need (personally) is another $2k+ AR15, piston or not. I've got enough really nice ARs that do their job exceedingly well. Aside from that...



- Why not do something that really advances the carbine, like integrating ambi mag releases, selectors and bolt hold opens ala KAC?



- Unless this is intended as an entrant for a US Military carbine competition/solicitation, why stick with the AR15 form factor? Shit's played out, Holmes!



- Considering the cost of AUG barrels at $700+, aren't we to assume that this would also be the case here, given the gas block and locking lugs seen here?



Not to put a turd in the punch bowl, I'm just sayin...


 

I too was wondering if they would be compatible with existing AUG barrels.

Larger market for those with pre-ban lowers or pre-86 RR/DIAS.
The number of ARs (and aftermarket FCGs) out there make it much easier for companies offer what amounts to a new rifle system without having to deal with serialized and restricted parts.

The way that the barrel sleeve locks to the receiver appears to be a mirror image of an AUG.
My guess, probably not.

That's another part of the problem, at least from my perspective. It's yet another gas piston upper with a (presumably) ginormous price tag, not a heavy barreled belt-fed upper that changes the capabilities of the host weapon in a measurable way. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have options in the marketplace, but aside from a faster barrel swap, I'm not seeing the huge advantages that will allow Steyr is going to gain civlian market share when there's been options such as the MRP piston that do the same job for less money.





To put it bluntly, I think even HK is finding that uber priced piston ARs are a niche within a niche...within a niche. Knowing HK, they don't really care. Whether or not Steyr cares, I have no idea, but I think they should.





Of course, if a Military contract is the goal then all is fair in love and war.




 
 

Until caseless or telescoping cased cartridges become viable there's not much that can really be done besides making the systems more flexible, lighter, more accurate, and more reliable.

Except the vast majority of R&D money has already been spent and amortized...more than thirty years ago for the design.  All that's left is a fairly straightforward adaptation of the design to the AR.  There could be some issues, but over the last ten or so years, most of the heavy lifting has been done when it comes to discovering unknown issues.



HK would sell penny candy for a buck simply because it had their name on it, and then when people scoffed, they'd get arrogant about it and make some crap excuse about how it's the same candy that's issued and used by whatever unit is in vogue.  Yeah...I have no time for HK.

Couple of things pop-up right away.

A.  I'd really like to see how the piston interfaces with the bolt carrier, because carrier tilt has been a serious issue with all GP ARs and I've seen lots of creative "solutions" for the issue, but none that appear to be more than band-aids to the problem.

B.  Great they've got a monolithic upper, but now you're stuck with the rail system for life or you'll have to wait until Steyr gets off their rears (always a long process) to make a different upper and pay for awhole new upper. .  

C.  Barrel isn't as free float as a DI barrel.

Oh, and I don't know how we started talking about HK, but yeah I think HK is the most overrated of firearms manufacturers on the planet. Decent quality, but their designs leave something to be desired lately. FNH is a much bigger mil contractor and they still deliver weapons at decent price points without all the arrogance.  

So then it sounds like you would agree that this doesn't seem to offer anything particularly groundbreaking when compared to what's already out there. At that point, the question becomes "why bother?" Only reason I can think is that Steyr is after some sort of military contract, whether for the Austrians, or as a submission here in the US.
I would argue that the AR's R&D didn't come into its maturation until the carbine's problems were sorted out, and that furthermore, it wasn't until after the death of the AWB that we really started to see some huge advancements in the materials, designs and auxiliary components.



When one looks at the cost of AUG parts, it becomes clear that Steyr isn't exactly selling fresh squeezed lemonade for 10 cents a quart. Seems  like criticizing HK's pricing structures in this context would be like the pot calling the kettle black.



FN? Pffft! Again, look at pricing for the PS90, FS2000 and the SCAR series, then come back to complain about HK. New technology combined with quality manufacturing and quality assurance costs money. When its imported it's even more money.





 

Question...I have been under the impression that a barrel either is, or is not, free floated....that there is not a "isn't as free float" and the DI barrel part completely throws me off because the free float can be determined by the rail system used as well (free floating rail or not).

All of the Steyr designs are not free floating due to the grip and gas systems that are attached.

Perhaps just a mistype but I don't get it .

Free Float = only attached to the firearm at the receiver.  In a gas powered semiauto, there is inherently going to be some sort of gas system extending back from the forward section of the barrel, be it gas piston or direct impingement gas tube, it is still considered a free float system.

On this Steyr rifle, as on the AUG, the barrel locking mechanism attaches the barrel at a point well forward of the chamber area to the handuard (on the AUG the forward part of the receiver).  2 points of connection for the barrel = not free floated.

We could probably argue on how much effect the Steyr system has over other methods such as an AR-15 forward handguard retainer ring, but by the way it is attached theroetically loads on the handguard/forearm are going to translate into the foreward end of the barrel.  On point of connection is always theoretically superior for a barrel as the second point of connection can alter the barrel harmonics, along with inconsistent pressure on the handuards.

Right...so I was right...

At least in the way his comment sounded as far as free floating.  I should clarify that I am familiar with free float systems but the way I read his comment I wanted to clarify.

+1 here!