Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/2/2013 3:14:38 AM EDT
|
I have been searching but not seeing much in the way of pictures. How are current austrian army AUG rifles set up?
I was told 16" barrels are standard, what else am I missing? |
|
From cruising around on www.bmlv.gv.at you can see current pictures of the Austrian military.
It appears that the 20" A1 is still the standard. But there are quite a few SF guns on there. This picture is from September 13 of this year. A3 SF with M68 on top seems to be the standard SF setup. 
Picture turned out small... you can see it here larger: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/aktuell/bildderwoche/galerie/vollbild/13092013.jpg |
|
Quoted:
Why put an Aimpoint M3 or similar on top of a 1.5x scope? Makes no sense to me. Better to just put the Aimpoint on top of a picatinny rail, IMO... Mick Because an Aimpoint is night vision compatible, the scope is not. Note the NV bracket on their helmets. |
|
Quoted:
Because an Aimpoint is night vision compatible, the scope is not. Note the NV bracket on their helmets. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why put an Aimpoint M3 or similar on top of a 1.5x scope? Makes no sense to me. Better to just put the Aimpoint on top of a picatinny rail, IMO... Mick Because an Aimpoint is night vision compatible, the scope is not. Note the NV bracket on their helmets. That's good observation. |
|
Still makes absolutely no sense. There is no advantage to a 1.5 vs 1x red dot. Putting an M68 on top of an optic like that puts the head even higher than it needs to be.
Still much more efficient to use an A3 style rail.... Mick Quoted:
Because an Aimpoint is night vision compatible, the scope is not. Note the NV bracket on their helmets. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why put an Aimpoint M3 or similar on top of a 1.5x scope? Makes no sense to me. Better to just put the Aimpoint on top of a picatinny rail, IMO... Mick Because an Aimpoint is night vision compatible, the scope is not. Note the NV bracket on their helmets. |
|
The Austrian standard issue rifle is the AUG. They've been using the AUG for 35 years now.
Every soldier in their military knows the AUG A1 just as every soldier in the US military knows or should I say "knew" the M16 A2. From my perspective, it's logical that they continue with the integral optic AUG (A1 transforming into the SF) as that is what they know and what they are good at. |
|
Coming from an Australian military background, where they've been using the AUGA1 (F88) since the early 1990's, it just doesn't make sense to me.
ADI went to the F88A1 version with the picatinny rail just so they could properly use optics like the Aimpoint, Elcan and ACOG. So, from another long time user of the system, I cannot see the logic. My opinion is after the SF model was developed, the users found the integral scope didn't meet their needs. Hence the kludge of a solution as they didn't have the $$ to replace the uppers. A case of making do with the best they had... Mick |
|
Quoted:
Coming from an Australian military background, where they've been using the AUGA1 (F88) since the early 1990's, it just doesn't make sense to me. ADI went to the F88A1 version with the picatinny rail just so they could properly use optics like the Aimpoint, Elcan and ACOG. So, from another long time user of the system, I cannot see the logic. My opinion is after the SF model was developed, the users found the integral scope didn't meet their needs. Hence the kludge of a solution as they didn't have the $$ to replace the uppers. A case of making do with the best they had... Mick I hope that is true... then the scope assemblies can be surplussed and sent on a boat this direction. 
|
|
I have a friend in the JagdKommando and they like the setup they have with a magnified optic on the bottom and an Aimpoint on top. He prefers the T-1, but surprisingly, most of his men like the M68. Apparently it becomes very easy and intuitive to just adjust the cheek weld. Up close, it's a chin weld and use the Aimpoint. Stretch the distance a little and use the magnified optic.
Little known issue. The 40mm grenade launcher causes problems. The recoil actually causes the stock to flex, almost to the point the magazine hits the pistol grip. And in some cases, they've experienced the stock cracking as a result. Since I don't have a 40mm, or much need for one, not really an issue for me. I've been searching for an appropriate optic that would be reasonable to try the same setup, but so far, no luck. |
|
Quoted:
Still makes absolutely no sense. There is no advantage to a 1.5 vs 1x red dot. Putting an M68 on top of an optic like that puts the head even higher than it needs to be. Still much more efficient to use an A3 style rail.... Mick Quoted:
Still makes absolutely no sense. There is no advantage to a 1.5 vs 1x red dot. Putting an M68 on top of an optic like that puts the head even higher than it needs to be. Still much more efficient to use an A3 style rail.... Mick Quoted:
Quoted:
Why put an Aimpoint M3 or similar on top of a 1.5x scope? Makes no sense to me. Better to just put the Aimpoint on top of a picatinny rail, IMO... Mick Because an Aimpoint is night vision compatible, the scope is not. Note the NV bracket on their helmets. Most likely they are issued the rifle with the 1.5x optic, and they were then issued or used unit discretionary funds to get the AImpoints. |
|
Quoted:
I have a friend in the JagdKommando and they like the setup they have with a magnified optic on the bottom and an Aimpoint on top. He prefers the T-1, but surprisingly, most of his men like the M68. Apparently it becomes very easy and intuitive to just adjust the cheek weld. Up close, it's a chin weld and use the Aimpoint. Stretch the distance a little and use the magnified optic. Little known issue. The 40mm grenade launcher causes problems. The recoil actually causes the stock to flex, almost to the point the magazine hits the pistol grip. And in some cases, they've experienced the stock cracking as a result. Since I don't have a 40mm, or much need for one, not really an issue for me. I've been searching for an appropriate optic that would be reasonable to try the same setup, but so far, no luck. I'm thinking a Kahles k16i 1-6x may be the ticket on an A3. |
|
too big for an AUG....
Mick Quoted:
I'm thinking a Kahles k16i 1-6x may be the ticket on an A3. Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a friend in the JagdKommando and they like the setup they have with a magnified optic on the bottom and an Aimpoint on top. He prefers the T-1, but surprisingly, most of his men like the M68. Apparently it becomes very easy and intuitive to just adjust the cheek weld. Up close, it's a chin weld and use the Aimpoint. Stretch the distance a little and use the magnified optic. Little known issue. The 40mm grenade launcher causes problems. The recoil actually causes the stock to flex, almost to the point the magazine hits the pistol grip. And in some cases, they've experienced the stock cracking as a result. Since I don't have a 40mm, or much need for one, not really an issue for me. I've been searching for an appropriate optic that would be reasonable to try the same setup, but so far, no luck. I'm thinking a Kahles k16i 1-6x may be the ticket on an A3. |
|
I have the Swarovski Z6i on my Tac Scope Division 3 gun rifle. It weighs in at 16-18 oz, not including the mount.
Kahles is a sister company to Swarovski and they share some common components. I can't imaging putting something like that on the AUG. Now, add the ruggedization that one would need, and the result would be something that is too big and heavy. And at $2,700 each, unaffordable... Mick Quoted:
Mick, do you mean it is too long/heavy? Quoted:
Quoted:
too big for an AUG.... Mick Mick, do you mean it is too long/heavy? |
|
K16i is 10.5 inches and 16.9 ounces. Heavy and expensive for sure. Leupold vx-6 illuminated may be a very nice option - 13.6 ounces and 10.8 inches. What does the most recent (and recently discontinued) stand-alone A3 rail mounted optic weigh? It looks like it is a pig.
Quoted:
I have the Swarovski Z6i on my Tac Scope Division 3 gun rifle. It weighs in at 16-18 oz, not including the mount. Kahles is a sister company to Swarovski and they share some common components. I can't imaging putting something like that on the AUG. Now, add the ruggedization that one would need, and the result would be something that is too big and heavy. And at $2,700 each, unaffordable... |
|
Quoted:
Still makes absolutely no sense. There is no advantage to a 1.5 vs 1x red dot. Putting an M68 on top of an optic like that puts the head even higher than it needs to be. Still much more efficient to use an A3 style rail.... Isn't the A3SF optic 4x, not 1.5x? I see the merit to an Aimpoint atop a 4x. |
|
The SF is a 1.5X scope....
Mick Quoted:
Isn't the A3SF optic 4x, not 1.5x? I see the merit to an Aimpoint atop a 4x. Quoted:
Quoted:
Still makes absolutely no sense. There is no advantage to a 1.5 vs 1x red dot. Putting an M68 on top of an optic like that puts the head even higher than it needs to be. Still much more efficient to use an A3 style rail.... Isn't the A3SF optic 4x, not 1.5x? I see the merit to an Aimpoint atop a 4x. |
Armory Sponsor
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.