New Zealand Army Selects LMT To Replace Steyr AUG - The Firearm Blog
NZDF
Attachment 39785
Just need Govt to sign the cheque.Quote:
Following the trials programme phase of the evaluation of tenders, the Ministry has selected Lewis Machine & Tool Co Inc of the USA as preferred Tenderer. Subject to the Ministry undertaking a Due Dilligence activity and negotiation of a contract package, New Zealand Government approval will be sought to proceed to award of a contract.
Yay bout time we moved to something decent, now how do I get back in??? Better call up the Sargent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kscott
Oh that right I'm now far too old/fat/lazy and cynical. :sarge:
I like to set trends in firearm fashion rather than follow them. Nzdf must have heard that I just brought an ar so have decided to follow suite.
I am sure that the final product will look some what different to that picture in both colour and accessories/optics etc... As for the Steyr, it has served this country well, and if it wasn't so bloody expensive then we would most likely have seen it carry on.
Same company they selected for there designated marksmen rifles in 7.62. interesting to se what configuration they end up getting from then there was a lot of complaints about the effective range of the Steyr
I wonder if their trial included the AK-12 or A-545.
The following companies were selected for the Individual Weapon trials phase:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
Beretta New Zealand Limited
Česká zbrojovka a.s.
Colt Canada Corporation
FN HERSTAL
STEYR MANNLICHER GmbH
XTEK Limited (Sig Sauer)
Heckler & Kock GmbH
Lewis Machine & Tools Co Inc
No mention of Kalashnikov Concern.
Nope, they did/would not fit the user requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
The m16 A2 won the last IW trial hands down but it only took 30 yrs to get an AR platform in service.
Now they are back to square one retraining weapons techs and TOETS/drills among other things.
Good decision and about time.
As for the AK platform it would never get a look in with us or any Western block force for obvious reasons to the tactically minded.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Well from what I know the Army did want the AR-15 to start with (remember they had M16 A1s) but Colt was not prepared to allow local licensed manufacture and yes they were expensive. There was also the question of the Government of the day and the fact that they were an American product. The Steyer is technically advanced and has some nice features but it has fiddly small parts (seen the piston and gas adjuster!) and oddities like the sling swivel mount which holds the but pad and trigger mechanism in-place. It is one thing to shoot something on the range and another to look after it in the field. Apparently it is not that popular with many of the troops (probably those who have used ARs).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter
Should've just done a deal with Tipple and GC, would've saved the taxpayer a fortune :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon
And for it to be chambered in 300 wsmQuote:
Originally Posted by Kscott
That could be our new flag
Sent from the swamp
I'm happy enough with the move to the LMT don't get me wrong but the media has painted a picture of how the steyr is "not liked by troops" or "Cant hit the side of a barn" or whatever but the bottom line is that it has serverd us more than well over the past 29 years! As for small parts, it breaks down in to 4 main groups for field cleaning... there is no need to be messing with it any more than that when on patrol. Sure going to miss the bullup too.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
Only thing that let it down was the optics was not easy to identify targets greater than 100m even on the range all you would see is the stupid black donut :(
Yeah everyone has their opinion. Cant hit the side of a barn door? I won't accuse the Steyer of being inaccurate because a good one was easy 2-3moa. I must say that I found the Australian made ones not quite on par with the Austrian versions as far as build quality goes. The 1.5 optics were a bit annoying, worst of both worlds, mud rendered them useless and not much magnification. The pistol sized iron sights are also too short for decent aiming. I think I would enjoy the rail version with a Trijicon more. Who knows one day I may get sentimental and purchase one of GunShittys over priced Acat ones :O_O:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kscott
Isn't he still on the chain gang in a USA Facility breaking rocks :sarge:
I managed to shoot an honest inch when I did my first zero before my first AWQ.Quote:
Yeah everyone has their opinion. Cant hit the side of a barn door? I won't accuse the Steyer of being inaccurate because a good one was easy 2-3moa
Well done! An inch and a half to two was the best I managed from memory. It depended a lot on the ammo also, i think we had some european stuff at one stage FN? that was quite good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daggers_187
The AUG was friggin accurate despite the trigger and that was about it.
It was somewhat depressing shooting against USA Olympic team members using an AR with irons and getting toweled up at comps using the same ammo.
Poms with there 4x SA-80 were good as well.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
My civi aug seems very accurate, despite having one of the worst bang switch's I own-and it's by far the worst for the price bracket it's in.
Under 1.5" at 100 with a acog and the same cheep ammo I use for service class in my ar
Yeah, and depends on what rifle you have as well. I never thought the AUG was too bad, it's actually very nice to carry in a conventional situation (no body armour, long distance dismounted patrols.)Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
I think it's more of a strategic issue than a tactical one. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
Effective range and weapons employment is a tactical issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daggers_187
Not strategic.
RNZIR doctrine still dictates a
section/det fire capability that would exceed the 7.62x39.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
It was my understanding at the time that:Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
NZ was offered a very good deal, i.e. cheaper than the Absolutely Useless Gun, on the M16A2; because the USMC had yet to adopt it BUT the Aussies put the kibosh on that because they wanted the AUG manufacturing rights. Din Collings later advised me that the AUG purchase was finally swung by a butter deal.
The Steyr is lower quality in every way than the L1A1 and M16A1/2! Critical parts can become unserviceable after fewer than 1,000 rounds. The cocking handle is exposed and vulnerable to breakage. The rifle is excessively vulnerable to dust and dirt and, so far as I am concerned, the decision to adopt it was a treasonous act, constituting deliberate endangerment of NZ military personnel and those whom they are assigned to protect.
"Deliberate endangerment" Not a chance... Having used both weapon extensively I would grab a Steyr over a A1/A2 any day especially one of the same manufacture date. Never seen a cocking handle break and it is in fact in a far more "usable" position for combat then the AR platform. I am sad to see it go as I would have loved to move to the enhanced Steyr as the our Aussie brothers are, but with a price tag in excess of 6K it was never going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZG47
It is annoying to see all this hate towards a weapon that is very capable and as I have said has served us well. In saying that bring on the LMT! as evolution of people, weapons and other equipment is a fact of life and we must just get on with it.
When do the old steyrs come on the market? ;)
I was referring to compatibility of ammunition and magazines with other nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
from what im told they wont the govt will pay to destroy them like some others that were destroyed recentlyQuote:
Originally Posted by matto1234
A cocking handle or worse was broken just about every jump we did.
It wasn't grunt proof. It suited the Fibua role, not the green role imo.
Accurate, functioned well in the right environment and apart from the first few years of it inception it served it's time.
But at the end of the day it was a political buy.
Some recent weapon purchases the military has made have been end user buys, and it is good to see.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Wasn't what I was referring to though eh. 😆Quote:
Originally Posted by Daggers_187
I was trained to pick up any available weapon on the fight through if I needed one, and continue killing bad guys until the re-org.
If you done your job right, the bad guys position would have a lot of small arms lying around with full mags attached.😊
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
UN policy (which NZ follows loyally) is that military surplus arms should be destroyed rather than sold to the public so all that good stuff ended with the 303 era.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakesae101
Even if they did by some miracle sell them then they would all be E cat. The sad reality is that if you want to own a military surplus rifle you have to buy a chinese copy for most models.
Well the cocking handle would be the least of your worries these days, given the multitude of accessories that are attached to the weapon. The term "Grunt proof" in my opinion is a cop out, it comes down to correct "equipment husbandry" as a weapon will only operate as good as the soldier behind it. As for only been suited to FIBUA, are you referring to the caliber or the weapon?Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
Weapon. Caliber is irrelevant.
Accessories? We are talking Nz Army yeah? Name one accessory employed by a private infantryman besides specialty optics or 40 mm in the light infantry role. There are none.
As for grunt proof the Army does not buy seperate weapons for a parade ground drill, weapons drill and the like. They get hammered everyday of service. Any soldier would find that obvious.
Over cleaning, highly repetitious TOET testing and the like, required by teeth arms, fuck a weapon more than any operational service.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Well as you are referring to weapon, then you are indeed very misguided. They Steyr moves through the close country a tad better then your standard AR primarily due to overall length, the center of gravity due the bulpup design enables the non-master hand to move from the weapon to move foliage and the like without loosing stability of the weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
As for "grunt proof" 29 years and counting is a bloody good innings for a modern weapon systems that's for sure, if they were as bad as you remember then we would not have many left in service. But I still have a problem with the term as insinuates that a "grunt" does not take care of his gear. Milspec is just that, it is not bomb proof as with any weapon system.
Accessories... Acog, J-dot, Pec-15, PRR remote switch, Torch, UNS sight or T2 for a start. Things have progressed a shit load since you got out in 2001. Contrary to popular belief the New Zealand soldier is one of the best personally equipped soldiers in the world.
Meh, things went downhill after these were upgraded.
Attachment 39816
:thumbsup:
Misguided? OK.
I was on the trial that selected the AUG/C9
I have 20 yrs of being trained and training infantry soldiers.
I carried an AUG for the majority of that time.
I could buy a Styer tomorrow but I would never own one based on my experience carrying one all over the world.
Take it for what you will. The defence force has made a good decision replacing them. Obviously others have the same opinion.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
I'm not saying your full of shit and don't know what your talking about... But given that when you joined in 84 you were part of an era that had emotive ties to the previous weapon I can see why you are not a believer in the weapon, much like those who are in the same boat you were moving on to the LMT fully from the Steyr. Oh and by my maths 1984-2001 is not 20 years...Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
You assume a lot. We were emotive over a weapon system? 😆😆
I work in the same capacity now. So over 20 yrs in that type of training environment.
But this has been getting off topic for to long now. Something I tend to do.
As I said the defence force has seen fit to replace it so it's no longer an issue at the end of the day.
The new platform no doubt will have its own limitations.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
why is it our SAS get issued better kit and weapons as in the Ar15 than our regulars? who have over the decades always had to either swap or steal better equipment from our allies in conflicts. Surely there wouldn't be that much difference in price?
