Innovative Ambidextrous Stock for Steyr AUG

The latest invention from my German friend TroubleshooterBerlin is very innovate stock for the Steyr AUG. It allows the operator to switch ejection from right to left. No modifications to internal parts are required for the new stock to function.

TroubleshooterBerlin explains his invention in this video …

Steyr’s current solution for left handed shooters is a dedicated left-handed version of the AUG. Having one ambidextrous model would simplify procurement for both military and LE customers.

( Industry people frequently mention or ask about TroubleshooterBerlin when talking with me. Just so you all know, he will be at SHOT Show )



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • charles222

    Awesome! With this and rails, the Aug seems like a much more useful rifle; dedicated left/right-hand versions simply aren’t a very good compromise. What happens when a right-hand shooter needs to swap firing hands to stay behind cover, or the same for a lefty?

    • Joe Schmoe

      Most modern bullpups, like the Tavor, SAR-21, etc., have forward brass throw, so it doesn’t matter if you use it left or right handed.

    • Or, perhaps more importantly, what’s a soldier supposed to do if their dominant arm, hand, or eye is rendered unusable by injury in the field?

      • Tinkerer

        I believe they’d be evacuated.

    • W

      “What happens when a right-hand shooter needs to swap firing hands to stay behind cover, or the same for a lefty?”

      One of the many reasons why I dislike the bullpup design and hold a very strong opinion that they are not as well engineered as some people would like to think.

      Of course, this problem is solved with bottom ejecting weapons (P90) or ones with forward ejection (F2000; god forbid the ejection system gets clogged with dirt however). I believe caseless bullpup weapons are the way to go, and would eliminate most issues.

      • Joe Schmoe

        And your opinion is not based in fact. Where did you get that Bullpups are, and I quote; “they are not as well engineered as some people would like to think”?

        And there is no problem shooting modern bullpups with forward bass throw, such as the Tavor and others, with the off-hand.

        http://youtu.be/qy0FlnXCWxQ

      • W

        well, here is a interesting article about bullpups and engineering that offers a compelling argument against them

        http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html

        My contention stands that bullpups aren’t as great as people think they are. They have several glaring disadvantages when compared to conventional rifles, though I believe, with caseless technology, the disadvantages of bullpups can be mitigated.

        As I have said before, I would like to see two well-trained soldiers or even private firearms owners, one with a conventional and the other with a bullpup, have a competition to see who reloads the fastest.

      • W

        oh, and on the note of your video, it proves the common contention that firing bullpups left handed is inadequate (but doable according to the tester, which i think is overly optimistic).

        Yes forward ejection was smart from a engineering standpoint with the F2000, though in battlefield conditions, the forward ejection port, to me, seems like it could be adequately used though runs the risk of obstruction from debris. The P90 offers the most superior idea when it comes to bullpups; bottom ejection makes it ambidextrous. Changing ejection ports are a nice idea, though they cannot be feasibly changed on the battlefield if the soldier needs to change from their primary side to support side in order to maintain cover. A highly trained soldier even marginally skilled in MOUT and CQC is aware that he/she will have to switch firing sides.

      • Joe Schmoe
      • W

        and your point is???

      • Nater

        Joe drinks some bullpup koolaid. Don’t even bother.

      • Joe Schmoe

        Nater – Was me disproving each and every single point of yours too much for you to handle?

      • W

        well joe, you haven’t offered any insight on the subject or, less importantly, refuted anything i have said. Blindly sending some link so I have to sort through four pages of comments is not a way to form a argument; I would say it is being lazy.

        In defense of bullpups, yes engineering breakthroughs have been made to make them more ambidextrous. There are several extraordinary technologies such as forward ejection, changeable ejection ports (which is impractical), forward ejection with brass deflectors, bottom ejection, and caseless technology.

        There is a reason why nobody is rushing to bin all conventional rifles for bullpup designs however. In my opinion, having the weight of the weapon between your body and primary hand is a drawback, though perhaps this can be mitigate with another engineering breakthrough. I can see you failed to read the link in which I gratuitously posted.

      • Tinkerer

        @W

        “In my opinion, having the weight of the weapon between your body and primary hand is a drawback”

        In my experience, it’s not a drawback at all. When I shoulder an AUG, I tire less and can keep aim for a longer time, compared to when I shoulder an AR-15-based carbine. The classic issue of muzzle-heavy rifles countering muzzle climb with their forward-tilted CG is a non-issue with modern rifles that have their barrel aligned with the butt -recoil is linear, not up-climbing like in classic “bore axis above shoulder plate” designs like the M-14.

      • W

        “In my experience, it’s not a drawback at all.”

        Thats why i said “in my opinion”. To borrow from some friends in San Francisco, “different strokes for different folks” 😀 I actually respect the compelling arguments for bullpups and try to be as objective as I can. Bullpups certainly feel good to me, primarily because i can grip them and pull them into my body, maintaining a lower profile than a conventional rifle.

        “When I shoulder an AUG, I tire less and can keep aim for a longer time, compared to when I shoulder an AR-15-based carbine. The classic issue of muzzle-heavy rifles countering muzzle climb with their forward-tilted CG is a non-issue with modern rifles that have their barrel aligned with the butt -recoil is linear, not up-climbing like in classic “bore axis above shoulder plate” designs like the M-14.”

        I appreciate this comment because it is actually the feedback I was looking for (instead of just saying “uh huh!!!”). I believe the human body better balances things between their hands instead of between the dominant hand and body, though this is just a opinion. Perhaps it is a argument of old vs new. What you mentioned is one of the reasons why I think the SCAR 17 is the most superior battle rifle in existence right now and why it has a distinctive edge over its predecessors (especially the M14).

        Maybe if they would introduce the Tavor to the states, I would appreciate it more. I would take a month thoroughly examining, shooting, and training with it to form a more objective analysis. My experience with the F2000 has been surprisingly good, though I still dislike how bulky the damn thing is.

        Personally, I don’t like the closer muzzle blast of bullpups (which can be remedied with a flash hider like a vortex or blackout) and believe conventional rifles are superior in terms of aiming because they are designed for the human body to naturally aim, which is invaluable in snap shooting required for modern combat situations. I cannot dismiss the Israeli design of the Tavor, however, since the IDF are subject matter experts on urban warfare and snap shooting.

        • gallan

          Well here’s a simple truth some people don’t like to hear. When Israel and Australia adopted their bullpups, accuracy in training improved so much, they had to increase the marksmanship pass scores. So at least when it comes to the Steyr Aug and the Tavor bullpups, they are easier to aim than conventional rifle layouts like the Galil, M16 or FN FAL. (the previous rifles used by Australia and Israel)

  • I think that for most casual shooters, the combination mag release and bolt release is possibly more useful than the nifty brass deflector. Most of us just don’t have a reason to shoot weak side that often.

    The factory mag release sucks. There’s the trick of bumping the release with the fresh mag like you probably see in video games, but it’s a heavy release and more often than not you end up jarring a bunch of rounds free from your loaded mag. Also, empty magazines don’t usually drop free on their own.

    The best way to get a consistently fast reload is to strip the mag with your support hand on the way to your mag pouch.

    My TPD AXR came with a button on the side of the magwell to do this, which makes the whole process that much faster. The button on the rear is just awkward albeit ambidextrous.

    This guy’s setup puts that style of release on *both* sides of the stock and also links it up to the bolt catch. I like this trend in tactical rifles – two buttons or directions for a single lever to go. One button or direction drops the mag and engages the bolt catch. The other button or opposite direction releases the bolt catch. Make it so on both sides of the rifle, and you’re approaching efficiency and consistency nirvana. The AX556 is halfway there, they really just need to make both sides of the receiver match. (http://axtsweapons.com/products/AX556)

    • Tinkerer

      On the mag release issue, I believe it’s a matter of firing philosophy. In most european countries, the magazine is seen as a valuable and reusable piece of equipment. You don’t just drop it free and discard it, but are supposed to save it for later reload and reuse. So, the mag release has been designed with mag retention in mind. When I switch mags on an AUG, I grab the empty one with my non-firing hand, depress the mag release with my finger, and remove the mag. It’s a swift operation with some practice. Then, I insert a fresh mag. I realize too well it’s slower than a typical AR-15 reload -press mag release with index finger of right hand (if you’re right-handed). let mag drop free, insert fresh mag, press bolt release. It’s just a different training for the AUG, meant for saving resources, while in the AR the procedure is aimed at saving time.

    • W

      leave it up to a german to invent a lever-style magazine release 😀

      humor set aside, i believe that lever-style magazine releases are far superior to the age-old button types that seem prevalent in most firearms (except H&K), even among newer designs (like FNs new handguns and S&W M&P). It seems that another elegant feature of this invention is the bolt-release feature with the magazine release also.

      I never understood firearms designers’ attachment to the button magazine release. Perhaps its the nostalgia.

      You can definitely tell this stock for the AUG can reload significantly faster than its previous counterparts…especially when switching to the support side.

      Kudos for another breakthrough in German engineering LOL

  • Other Steve

    I’d really like to see Styer get this ducks in a row and get a reasonably priced AUG to the states. Nato stock preferred.

    I’m terribly upset I missed the TPD AXR boat. That sounds like it would have been the best option.

    I’ll hold out that the A3 or an A4 comes around with options I want.

  • Hauser

    I don’t think you can switch the ejection side on this stock, it just deflects the rounds away from your face. In the video of it being shot left handed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5_Ijrcmq2o&feature=youtu.be) you can see this. Looks like the deflector makes it so the rounds drop downwards from the ejection port rather than flying out to the side. Can’t tell from the video, but looks like you have to have that deflector digging into your face though.

  • Lance

    Looks cool and I like that it keeps its origenal AUG look Im a minority but I did like the 1 1/2 power scope they came with looks better than a flat top anyway.

    • Komrad

      Period, comma, and colon are your friends. Your post wasn’t too obnoxious, but I’m having a hard time reading what you wrote because you made it one big run-on.

      • Other Steve

        You’re right, it wasn’t outright trolly, but having spent a LOT of time with an A1 (my dad still owns one in a safe), I can say the 1.5x is nothing to write home about. I like the donut reticle, and the irons up top are kinda cool, but that glass really gets its but kicked by anything you would put on a flat top version. You can be either way about the looks, but I doubt he has ever looked through one.

    • W

      you like a 1970’s era optical sight versus the flexibility to place a Trijicon, Eotech, or any other superior optical sight on with the flattop? I guess everybody is entitled to each his/her own opinion 😉

      Don’t get me wrong, the 1.5x optic on the AUG was state-of-the-art in an era where most military rifles at the time employed only iron sights. It is safe to say its capabilities have been eclipsed by more superior optics available however. Steyr realized this when they designed the newer variants with a rail system.

  • Having a single unit being produced for both left and right handed gunmen is definitely more efficient. This Aug looks really nice, great post.

    • Tinkerer

      The AUG has always been produced as a single unit for either right or left handed users, there were never specialized lefty rifles. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s instantly convertible. You need to switch the place of the rubber ejection port cover -the AUG has always had two, one on each side, with the unused one being covered with a rubber piece- and I don’t remember well if you replace the boltface or just turn the original one the other side, so the extractor now faces left and the ejector right.

  • Alex-mac

    Maybe you should contact Thales in Australia. They are just finishing the EF88, a new Steyr Aug variant that will replace F88A2 currently in use. It’s the most drastic redesign of the Steyr Aug since it’s introduction. So I think something like this might be welcomed. I also suspect the EF88 will be the next French bullpup standard rifle. (Thales is french owned and the steyr aug patents have just expired)

  • Caseless

    Steyr needs to either update the AUG design with front ejection, or switch to HK G11 type caseless ammo.

    • Brian

      Caseless weapons need Ejection ports too in case the round fails. The G11 has an ejection port for your information.

      • Caseless

        Yes, I am familiar with what you are referring to. However, technically it’s not an ejection port per se, more like a dummy round dump port. It’s located on the bottom of the G11 stock. Any bad round just drops thru this port during the firing phase without affecting the subsequent rounds in the burst.
        AUG may be fine for some users, but my guess is most experienced shooters prefer a more versatile rifle with quick ambidextrous-transitions in a CQB environment.

  • ItЎ¦s actually a great and helpful piece of information. IЎ¦m happy that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.