I started with L1A1 SLR and m16A1. some of the issues bought up about the Styer are absolute B/S. One about the mag resting on the ground when in the prone position is absolute rubbish.
The F88 is a good rifle, however there are better rifles available, and were also better options when the styer was selected. however we have the F88 now and will have it in all services for some time yet.
i agree about the UD issues, always been a problem since the rifles introduction, and I largely put it down to the arctic trigger gaurd (however i never had a ud with any weapon in over 8 years of infantry work.) Would i prefer the SLR...
maybe, in open country , definatly. Advantage of any 5.56 gun, is the amount of ammo carried, accuarcy (for ordinary shots!)disadvantage is stopping power at ranges over 200m. I could hit a man size target at 500-600m with an SLR at the SMR range. Forget about the styer at those ranges.
Agreed. Got my 'crossed shovels' on the SLR, got a very soft spot for that weapon. The Little Black Plastic Gun (M16) was a favourite on the sneaker ranges in close quarters stuff like the ranges at Canungra, but overall I didn't find the Steyr to be that bad a weapon. We were the first ARA unit issued with it (6RAR) prior to going to the USA on Ex Caltrop Force. Our initial analysis was the trigger guard needed a redesign and the safety either needed a total redesign or a guard around it to prevent it being pushed through when the weapon was placed down on an uneven surface - both points pushed back through the chain of command but nothing ever eventuated. We were the guinea pigs that had the manual rewritten after it became clear that you could not check 'clear' at night after firing plenty of rounds without removing the barrel and inspecting the breach that way (was charged with a blank UD myself after a night ambush session at LWC. Cleared the weapon the same way as the SLR under the 3 candlepower streetlamp and promptly 'catch, fire, catched' myself a UD charge - very embarrassing and a hit to the wallet).
Overall, its not a bad weapon (not that I've had widespread experience with its competitors) - and its certainly easier to train people to fire it reasonably accurately than its iron sighted predecessors. It's also nice to have the capability to fire full auto for those few situations where that may be necessary as opposed to the single shots from the SLR.
I must admit, I'm having a bucket load of trouble understanding why any army unit would have to resort to using 303's - that sounds like complete BS to me, plenty of SLR's and M16's about, and the 303 uses a different and not stocked calibre (except for the few converted to 7.62NATO). Other faults with that article - how the hell does a Steyr magazine 'rot' - its made from plastic! I have never had one melt either, although I have had the cheap pressed aluminium M16 mags produce multiple stoppages due to the feed lips being damaged or bent or the magazine being dented (that last point SLR too). Never had that issue with the Steyr - you were supposed to be able to run over a Steyr mag with a vehicle and it would be OK (never tried it) - try that with a pressed metal or aluminum mag..
Never suffered from a black eye from the Steyr due to eye relief. Only ever saw the grenade discharger cup once in training for the SLR (and you needed special blank rounds to use it) - hardly a major point over the Steyr. From memory were were supposedly not going down that path with the steyr anyway - the Inf Cen was testing and evaluating bullet trap and bullet through grenades that were not introduced. Much smarter - with the grenade discharger cup fitted to the SLR, it took you out of the battle as you could no longer fire ball rounds - far smarter to just use the M203 attachment (adopted instead of the bullet trap grenades) or a 66 rather than what this idiot was proposing.
As to the issues of the bayonet - I never managed to break mine - quite a few were aparently made brittle due to diggers using them as impromptu hexe stoves - the heat of the hexe was causing the metal to become brittle over time (at least that was what we were told). Of course, he fails to mention that the F88 bayonet had a wire cutter (absent in the M16 or SLR). As to the utility of using the F88 as a bayonet fighting tool - it's bullpup design mittigated much of its usefulness in this regard. If the enemy managed to get that close - you were in deep doo doo's anyway.
Weight - love that comment about a fully loaded F88 weighs as much as an unloaded SLR - yep, so? What weight do you think an SLR would be with a 30 round magazine (ammo is very heavy) and a basic telescopic sight fitted (here's a hint - heaps more). The comment about the sustained rate of fire is a classic - do you really think on operations (hell, even not on operations
) that people stick to that guide? What if you do burn out a barrel - the ease of its replacement should make that a comparitive non issue - an SLR or M16 would have to go back to an armourer to get the same change made.
Mud in the mechanism? Easy - due to the plastic design of the internals, if the F88 did get an immersion in mud, you could strip the action from the butt and take the damn thing into the shower with you(or under a running tap). Never even considered doing that with a wooden stocked SLR.
No weapon is perfect, but the F88 was a pretty damn good compromise when I used it. I have heard stories that the quality of metals used in the later weapons were not quite as good (I think most of ours were fine in that regard) - and I guess that I was using new weapons (ie. weapons that had not been kicking around for 30,000 rounds and 25 years) but that commentary sounds like the author was some kind of luddite with an axe to grind.
