Thales Awarded Contract To Produce F90 Rifle for ADF

thales_f90-tfb

The Australian Defense Force have awarded Thales a contract to produce an unspecified number of Thales F90 rifles for them. The F90 is a modernized Steyr AUG. Jane’s reports

Thales Australia has received a low rate initial production (LRIP) contract from the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) for the company’s F90 5.56 mm assault rifle, developed to replace the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF’s) in-service F88 series.

No details were given by Thales of the contract’s value or schedule, but the company is understood to be hoping for a contract for “an appropriate volume” of F90s after second pass approval, which is anticipated in June 2015.

The F90 is now one step closer to officially becoming Australia’s next service rifle.

Thanks to Albi for the tip.



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

  • Zachary marrs

    Totally doesn’t look like a tavor

    • dave

      That’s because it’s based on the Steyr AUG. Heck, it basically is an AUG with a few different features required for the contract.

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      Totally doesn´t matter.

      • Zachary marrs

        So? I said it, bfd

    • iksnilol

      You are right, it doesn’t look like a Tavor.

  • Joshua

    Isnt it the exact same thing as the EF88?

    • Seburo

      The F90 is marketed as an export of the EF88.

  • Ed

    Still haven’t got the clue Even New Zealand is going with more AR based weapons. The Aug is not the best battle field weapon out there.

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      You speak out of experience with all platforms I take it?

      • Zachary marrs

        Well, would you rather have, a short rifle that wont fit you well, and is difficult to shoot accurately at longer range, or a rifle that is a but longer, but can be modified to suit every one of your needs, can use iron sights effectively, can be be used by people ranging from 5’1″ to 6’9″?

        More countries issue ar-15’s (or similar variants) than bullpups

        • Seburo

          Most Countries can’t afford to bribe Colt for a lower price on their Assault Rifles.

          • Zachary marrs

            Us gov’t gets m4’s for about $800
            Then you have countries that use dpms, with little to no problem.

            How much cheaper is the aug?

          • Seburo

            It’s cheaper to make stuff in state than it is too inport it. So around that price. Plus Thals pretty much is the AUG brand at this point. As Steyr doesn’t make them anymore.

            Also DPMS is mostly bought by special forces so those are irrelevant for a service rifle.

          • Zachary marrs

            Yes, because when I think of dpms, I think of guys with unlimited budget. You munt not know too much about ar’s

          • Seburo

            You don’t seem to know much about any other guns then your Corporate Socialist mall ninja rifle. DPMS cost over 2000 each. Not something just anyone can buy over a 100 of.

            No you cannot retrain an entire army to use a new rifle system. Not everyone can get America to buy new AR15’s for them. Courtesy of the American Taxpayer. Not every country has thousands of parts at artificially deflated prices.

            If you’re so smart why didn’t come up with any counterpoints to my statements?

          • Zachary marrs

            Dude, dpms is bargain bin, the top line ar’s are made by colt, bcm, Daniel defense, lmt, and to a lesser degree, spikes.

            If you are paying 1000 for a dpms, you need to flush out your headgear.

            I guess Olympic arms are the best as well?

            We only use fire suppression for machine guns, most troops issued rifles keep them in semi auto.

            “Dpms, used by spec ops delta navy marsoc ranger SEALS” -Seburo

          • Zachary marrs

            Reason I cant provide any counterpoints to your statement is because you said nothing intelligent. You have fun with your top line dpms.

          • Zachary marrs

            I obviously know more than you over ar15’s, dpms’ s have been used by the iraqi army, hardly what id call special ops. I stopped caring about what you had to say when you said that dpms is for special operations. “No you cannot retrain an entire army” ok, ill give you that, since we still use the brown bess we get off the backs of dead red coats.

          • Seburo

            They got the M4A1 on Taxpayer dollars. Basically money you and I payed. So that hardly counts.

            You’re just butthurt because you’re artificially underpriced Mall Ninja rifles were insulted. I don’t buy cheap crappy overrated products. Perfectly fine with my FN M4. Not the best but it works. That’s all anyone who isn’t a Mall Ninja needs. Not every actually pays the MSRP that you see on a website. Usually it’s higher than that for a buyers need.

            You don’t understand how military acquisition works at all. Not every unit gets itself the new Service rifle right off the bat. The m16 didn’t suddenly become our rifle when it was created during Vietnam.

            Full Auto is a recent invention. No Fire suppression isn’t just for machine guns. If it was they would M249 would have fire selectors(it makes them really heavy) as well and M4’s wouldn’t come with a three position selector switch. Otherwise we would use mythological sub MOA sniper M16’s as our main rifle instead of the M4.

            Did you have to spam your commits or where you that offended that you had to post three times like a 4chan idiot?

          • Zachary marrs

            You are the fool calling dpms a spec ops weapon. Your comments are just that stupid, so I address them multiple times.

            If anyone is butthurt its you.

            Spam commits? Is that like polygamy?

          • Seburo

            No your just retarded asshurt mall ninja. No it’s because you can’t address the argument. Just like video game console fan boys.

            It was a typo , everyone makes them. Learn to live with it instead of deflecting because don’t have any real facts. And your grammar isn’t any better. In fact it looks they kind used by a teenager who plays Call of Duty all day instead of an adult.

            Why does everyone is this thread hate your dumb ass?
            Your arguments failed to get anything accomplished. This makes you a troll.

          • Zachary marrs

            Also, how did you insult my “underpriced mall ninja rifles”? You called a dpms a special operations weapon. If you were to outfit a group of soldiers what would they have? Mosins? A cap and ball revolver? Cant have grunts using crappy ar’s, those are for spec ops only.

            Sorry to say it, but what bubba at the gunshow tried to sell you is not a “special operations” weapon, nor is it worth 1k.
            The dpms is a low end rifle. I would’ve taken you seriously, but you seemed to have confused your keyboard for a toilet.

            Goodbye, idiot.

          • Seburo

            Still with the fanboy butthurt. Can’t shut up for a damn thing. You seem too stupid to realize that not every government has Colt mafia connections for a new cheap assault rifle.

            Do you work for that redneck outfit payed for by overpaid Mall Ninja Rednecks? I wouldn’t call 850 cheap. Anything under 600 dollars is cheap.

            Is that coinciding or just mall ninja fanboy butthurt? Maybe you should leave the hotel room and go back to patrolling for ISIS members and drug dealers trying to cross the boarder. Don’t get shot by a USBP agent on the way out.

          • John

            “Also DPMS is mostly bought by SOF who have a nearly unlimited budget so those are irrelevant for a service rifle.”

            There’s a mall ninja line for the ages. “Real operators with unlimited budgets choose DPMS!” Ha!

          • Marlon

            That’s incorrect. Australia went with the AUG only because Colt wouldn’t grant us the license to produce the M16a2 domestically. It outperformed the AUG in our trials. The M16a2 was our first choice. (With the Galil a distant third)

          • Seburo

            That was a crappy thing to do? So Colt hasn’t changed since their awful business practices since the 80’s.

        • G0rdon_Fr33man

          Bulpups cannot use iron sights “effectively”, cannot be modified, and are difficult to shoot at longer ranges? What kind of asenine arguments are those?

          • Zachary marrs

            When I look at long range shooters, they use bullpups, my bad.

            Bull pups have long sight radius, my bad

            When you look at bullpups, they dont have much rail space, camt use a vfg or afg as well as a normal rifle

          • G0rdon_Fr33man

            The DSR-1 and Desert Tech SRS exists. Among the best you can get, in a short package.

            Irrelevant in 2014.

            More than enough. Standard infantry are not commonly issued lasers, bells and all of that tacticool garbage.

          • Zachary marrs

            Us infantry get like $10,000 in ancillary items…

          • G0rdon_Fr33man

            Really. How neat for the US taxpayers, and how wonderful for the US infantryman who gets additional weight up front (of their rifle).

          • n0truscotsman

            Say what you want, but the FAMAS is atrocious and bulky. Barely marginal for a fighting rifle honestly.

          • Paladin

            The FAMAS is indeed a poor excuse for a fighting rifle, but that’s not because it’s a bullpup, that’s just because it’s a poorly designed rifle.

          • G0rdon_Fr33man

            Yeah, the FAMAS is outdated as a bullpup, but IMO not because of the reasons you stated. The bulkyness is greatly overcome by the bullpup layout, but the worst aspect of it is the selector switch which is finicky. The one near your trigger finger selects between single and full, and once in FA, you can select burst and FA, but that lever is behind the magazine.

        • Paladin

          It’s certainly not impossible to have a bullpup rifle that can be fitted to the shooter, the Croatian VHS does just that.

          The bullpup concept in general allows for a much more versatile and adaptable rifle suitable for military needs. They are no less capable of accuracy than a standard rifle, as for your complaints about iron sights, I’m really not sure where that’s coming from, bullpup designs are capable of perfectly suitable sight radii, and given the prevalence of modern optics iron sights have been relegated to backup duty anyways. Even ambidexterity issues have been solved with forward ejecting designs like the F2000, RFB, and Desert Tech MDR.

          Simple fact is that the bullpup design offers superior ballistics in a more compact package with better balance.

          • Zachary marrs

            SIGHT RADIUS what is more easier (and accurate) to shoot at long range with, a 9mm pistol, or a 9mm carbine?

          • Tinkerer

            Shooting long range with a 9mm? You must be top tier operator, us mortals wouldn’t try that.

          • Zachary marrs

            Using that as an example Einstein

            I can use a 9mm carbine at 100 yards easy

            A pistol is qute a bit harder

          • Tinkerer

            Good for you. Now, practice the same witha 5.56×45 rifle with standard issue M855 ammunition -which requires a certain minimum velocity in order to tumble and/or fragment reliably inside a human torso, so you need a full length barrel in order to achieve such high velocities, and keeping a package compact enough for cqb and/or inside a transport.

          • Zachary marrs

            There are better calibers than 5.56 for use in short barrels.

            If you want to clear a house, toss in a couple of frags and then clean out the rest.

            Clearing a hose with a 16 inch barrel is not impossible, hell, I know guys who have used a4’s and 4× acgos

          • Barry

            Zachary Mars–Supreme Operator, Codename Ninja, AKA protector of malls everywhere. “Let’s throw some frags in there and clean out the rest”. Hahahaha! 100 yard headshots with a 9mm cuz sometimes it’s too easy with his ar15 using only the front sight.

            Zach, troll much?
            Bullpups have most of their weight rearward and indeed it does decrease fatigue if you had to hold weapon for extended periods of time. This is because the stock would be pressed into your shoulder and the weight would be resting against your body as opposed to being held up by your arms. Now take a 80 pound dumbbell (cuz I’m sure that’s what you use to warm up with). If you hold it closer to your body, it would easier than holding it farther out.

          • Zachary marrs

            its pretty easy to shoot 100 yards with a 9mm carbine, just paper silhouettes on a square range, nothing mall ninja about it

            as for the frags comment, you wanna go clear a building? go ahead.

            if anyone is being a mall ninja troll, its you.

          • Barry

            I’m sorry; I don’t have any fragmentation grenades. But apparently, you do since you suggested it. Hahaha! I suppose only the ninja masters are allowed frags in their mall load outs:). Do you say, “Zach Attack!” before or after you throw the frags to clear a house?

          • Zachary marrs

            This is over military use, not home defense

          • Zachary marrs

            Do you yell “IM A MORON” before you post?

          • Zachary marrs

            what? i don’t speak gibberish.

          • Barry

            I know, Zach. You are one of the “special” ones. Don’t forget to put your helmet on today, okay?

          • Zachary marrs

            If making fun of special education folks makes you feel good, great.

          • Paladin

            Again with people going on and on about sight radius, when the M4 sight radius isn’t even anything to write home about. If sight radius was king every rifle out there would have its front sights positioned at the muzzle, and yet clearly the M4, so praised for it’s mediocre sight radius, does not. In a comparison to the AR15 platform, a bullpup with its front sight at the muzzle would need only have a sight radius an inch or so shorter than that of an AR15, hardly a crippling deficiency.

            And before you start talking about putting sights out further on extended rail systems, that’s a civilian thing. The vast majority of AR15 pattern rifles in military service are equipped with standard integrated gas block FSPs.

            Additionally, as I’ve already stated, sight radius simply is not a make or break issue for a modern military service rifle when everyone is issued a high durability optic such as an Aimpoint, Eotech or ACOG. Iron sights have been relegated to a backup role and are rarely used.

            In direct response to your question, the carbine is easier to shoot for more reasons than just sighting. The simple presence of a buttstock for firing from the shoulder greatly increases the ability of the shooter to hit a target accurately.

          • Zachary marrs

            M4 sight radius is longer than 5 inches

          • Paladin

            Where did I say that the M4’s sight radius was 5″?

          • Zachary marrs

            You were the one who said that bullpups sight radius isnt that bad, and the m4’s sight radius isn’t that great

          • Paladin

            I did not say it was 5″. I said it was mediocre, par for the course, hardly worthy of praise. The thing is, sight radius is primarily dependent on the overall length of the rifle, not whether or not it’s a bullpup. The M4 does not make efficient use of it’s length, since the FSP is set back 4.5″ from the muzzle. A bullpup with equivalent OAL could easily have a longer sight radius than an M4 and a significantly longer barrel, providing improved ballistics. It would not then be a particular feat of engineering to design a bullpup that is more compact than an M4, while having both a longer sight radius and a longer barrel.

          • Zachary marrs

            And as soon as that comes on the market, I will be sure to buy it. I’d build it, but knowing my metal work, it’d probably explode.

          • iksnilol

            That is not a good comparison. A pistol and carbine are two vastly different weapons. A better comparison would be: is it easier to at distance with a rifle with a 5 inch barrel or one with a 16 inch barrel (presuming the front sight is near the muzzle).

          • Zachary marrs

            Balance is subjective, I like it above my strong hand, not behind it.

          • Tinkerer

            Balance is not subjective: it’s a measurable physical characteristic.

          • Zachary marrs

            The balance might be scientifically measurable, what is preferred by the user is subjective

          • Paladin

            A rear balance is objectively better for a fighting rifle. The more mass there is up front the harder it is to move the muzzle of the rifle due to the inertia and leverage. A rear balanced rifle is faster, easier to hold at the ready for extended periods and places less fatigue on the shooter enhancing their ability to shoot accurately during extended usage.

          • Zachary marrs

            Says who, you? You ain’t me

          • Paladin

            I don’t need to be you. Wouldn’t want to either, at least I can put a grammatically correct sentence together. Your preferences are irrelevant. From an ergonomic standpoint rear balance is better. A rifle with a centre of balance close to the buttstock is easier to hold in the firing position, and faster to transition from target to target. That’s not preference, that’s physics.

          • Zachary marrs

            So? I wouldn’t want to be you either, don’t mean shit

          • Zachary marrs

            You have lasted this long, why complain about my grammar now?

            Seriously, thank god you can speak for everyone.

          • 1911a145acp

            Yesss… that is why ALL the major Iron Man and National level 3 Gun shooters are seen in the winners circle w/ AUG, FN 2000, and KSG…..right?

          • Paladin

            3-Gun is not combat. Competition shooters are athletes, not soldiers. The AR-15 has a number of characteristics that render it very suitable for 3-Gun. Those same characteristics are not necessarily what is needed in a fighting rifle.

          • 1911a145acp

            Your words-“The more mass there is up front the harder it is to move the muzzle of the rifle due to the inertia and leverage. A rear balanced rifle is faster, easier to hold at the ready for extended periods and places less fatigue on the shooter enhancing their ability to shoot accurately during extended usage.” & “From an ergonomic standpoint rear balance is better. A rifle with a centre of balance close to the buttstock is easier to hold in the firing position, and faster to transition from target to target. That’s not preference, that’s physics”
            I would agree that these characteristics are important in EITHER combat or competition. Having owned several variations of Bullpups-i.e. Valmet, Norinco, Steyr AUG, Bushmaster M-17S, FN 2000, FN P-90, KelTec RFB,TAVOR etc. I can tell you from experience in competition, that they, DO NOT, mount as well, balance as well, transition from target to target as well as “conventional” long-arms.Typically, they suffer from ergonomically more difficult mag changes, much more difficult malfunction clearance, no stock LOP or cheek-piece adjustment, Muzzle blast and flash closer to your face/optics/night vision, greater difficulty in shooting and reloading from prone and many further exacerbate high optic to bore offset ( P-90),and generally, really shitty triggers.
            They DO offer longer barrels and shorter overall packages. I have NEVER used one in combat, and they do have advantages there. Other than the above issues- I like everything about them- I must, I keep buying them. Just my 2c

          • n0truscotsman

            “Simple fact is that the bullpup design offers superior ballistics in a more compact package with better balance”

            Balance is a matter of opinion, honestly, and various shooters with bullpups realize the inherent limitations of them during unconventional shooting positions.

            As far as ballistics go, there is little difference between 20″ and 14.5″ barrels when it comes to 5.56 comparing apples to apples. Modern improvements in ammunition have made this even more so.

            How are bullpups more “versatile” and “adaptable” than, say a M4?

          • Tinkerer

            I wouldn’t say that there’s “little difference” in ballistics between a 20″ barrel and a 14.5″ barrel. Lookit here: http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/barrel6.jpg
            Those are numbers for Muzzle velocity. But as we all know, velocity drops as the bullet flies downrange, due to air resistance. Now, that means that the higher the muzzle velocity, the higher the impact velocity -also, the farther you can reach while still keeping a bullet velocity that will cause enough damage. Simply put: more barrel gives you more velocity, and increased effective range.

          • n0truscotsman

            So what are the differences within typical combat infantry engagements? That is the context I was talking about, not target shooting or extreme accuracy competitions. I should have specified.

          • Tinkerer

            It’s not about “target shooting” or “extreme accuracy”, man. It’s about physics. The M855 round needs to tumble and fragment in order to inflict the maximum damage to the target, and that only happens reliably when hitting the target at speeds above 2500 fps. If your initial -or muzzle- velocity is lower, then the bullet flies for a shorter distance before it slows down below that minimal velocity, thus reducing your effective range. Yes, you can still hit a target beyond that distance, but the damage you cause will be seriously diminished.

          • n0truscotsman

            That is just the M855 round. There are others in service and it will be on its way out soon within big army. The M855A1 is designed to not be reliant on muzzle velocity alone to reliably disrupt tissues.

            Again, were talking about 2-300 fps difference within the realm of a 200 meter typical combat range. There are other variables that affect accuracy more than the differences between 14.5″ and 20″ chrome lined barrels, such as ammunition.

            Im speaking in the context of an average infantryman engaging ranges typical of modern infantry engagements.

          • 1911a145acp

            Typically, neither M 193 ball nor the M 855 Green tip, “tumble” -rather they yaw. It is the yawing, deformation of the projectile and sideways profile through tissue that causes the most mechanical wounding effect.

          • Paladin

            As velocity drops so does wounding potential. Additionally, higher muzzle velocities create flatter trajectories and longer point blank ranges, which is most certainly helpful in combat.

          • n0truscotsman

            1.) your first point about velocity dropping is a improper assumption.

            2.) I can agree about higher muzzle velocities, but again, were talking about 2-300 fps within the realm of engaging targets at combat ranges within 200 meters.

            Past 500 there would be a difference.

          • Paladin

            Numerous studies have shown that the wounding performance of FMJ ammunition is highly dependent on velocity. M193 does not fragment reliably below 2700FPS, significantly reducing terminal performance.

          • 1911a145acp

            The diff between original 5.56x45mm at 3200 fps vs current real world 14.5 inch barrel at 2450 fps IS significant. Real world wounding performance inside 300 m, is not.

          • Paladin

            They’re more versatile and adaptable because they can perform better in a broad range of uses. A standard layout rifle that is effective at long range combat is too long to be effective in close urban fighting. Likewise a shortened standard layout rifle may perform well at close ranges, but suffer at longer ranges due to the loss of velocity. That’s why the IDF selected the Tavor to replace their M16s.

            As for the advantages of a longer barrel, shooting 55gr 5.56 you lose about 200FPS going from a 20″ to a 14.5″, which is not insignificant.

          • n0truscotsman

            Again, how are they more versatile and adaptable? I want to know.

            Do they accommodate optical sights, lasers, and flashlights better than conventional layout rifles? are their reload times faster? are their ergonomics superior? If they are, then in what way?

            I want specifics and not just anecdotes/personal opinions.

            “A standard layout rifle that is effective at long range combat is too long to be effective in close urban fighting”

            I can moderately disagree with other points, seeing other aspects of truth behind them, but this one is utter BS.

            Tell the world’s premiere special forces, SWAT teams, and even ISPC shooters their ARs are “too long to be effective in close shooting”. You would get laughed at.

            “but suffer at longer ranges due to the loss of velocity. That’s why the IDF selected the Tavor to replace their M16s.”

            The IDF fights mostly in confined urban areas, where the Tavors shorter overall length may be more convenient in armored vehicles and in buildings, although if they were concerned with overall effectiveness at longer ranges, they wouldn’t be opting to jump ship to the X95.

            So, again, asking for specifics, how is 200 fps within the typical 2-300 meter combat engagement range “significant” as far as differences in ballistics? especially when using other ammunition types besides M855?

          • Paladin

            I already told you, you’re confusing versatility and modularity. How many tactical teams clear rooms with 20″ M16s?

            The current standard for a special forces carbine is a 10.5″ AR15 variant, such as the HK416C, MK18 or C8 SFW. They use it because it is short and easy to maneuver in tight spaces. It does however lose a significant degree of ballistic performance, putting out only around 2700FPS with 55gr.

          • n0truscotsman

            Im not confusing anything. How many tactical teams clear rooms with 20″ M16s? The many world armies that have M16s and a typical Marine Corps fire team to name a few examples. Not to say that is optimal for that particular environment, say, compared to a M4 or Tavor.

            Im trying to figure out how 2-300 fps is going to profoundly affect terminal performance within typical CQB and infantry engagement ranges, especially when using ammunition types other than M855. Maybe thats why the Israelis are wondering the same thing and thats why the X95, with its 13″ barrel, is the next evolution of the Tavor?

            Speaking of that, if you are using Special Forces as a example, the Mk 262 cartridge has plenty of terminal performance from a 10.5″ barrel, which compensates for the inferior performance from that barrel length firing M855. In other words, from a Special Forces perspective, that is really a non issue.

          • James O Donnell

            And, oddly enough, none of those are bullpups.

          • James O Donnell

            Shoot around right-hand cover.

            Now shoot around left-hand cover.

            Now do it “for keeps,” where hanging your head and upper torso out in the open can result in something permanent and bad.

            Bullpups are a brilliant — on paper — idea dreamed up by people who don’t expect their enemies to shoot back.

          • Paladin

            That problem has already been solved with forward ejecting bullpups like the F2000, RFB and MDR, or downard ejecting bullpups like the P90 and RDB.

          • James O Donnell

            Which result in more complicated ejection paths which increase the likelihood of stoppages, and make clearing them more difficult.

          • Paladin

            Have you seen the ejection system on the MDR? It’s really quite clever. It works sort of like the dust cover on an AR15. When it’s closed it directs the brass forwards, and when it opens it ejects sideways and gives the same access to the ejection port as is found on other rifles.

            Additionally, it could also be said that because forward ejecting designs are less exposed to the environment they are less susceptible to dust debris and other fouling. And I honestly have not heard any reports of major problems with firearms like the F2000 or RFB failing to eject.

          • FourString

            “Bullpups are a brilliant — on paper — idea dreamed up by people who don’t expect their enemies to shoot back.”

            So IDF & IWI (in re Tavor) are people who don’t expect their enemies to shoot back? Did I actually just read that?

          • James O Donnell

            The IDF buys Israeli whenever possible, to pump money into IWI. Doesn’t mean they buy the best possible gear. The IDF has a long history of poor small arms choices. The Dror LMG, the Israeli version of the FAL, the Galil ARM as an LMG…

            The Tavor hasn’t seen a whole lot of actual combat to date.

            Two of the three bullpup designs that have — the L85 and the FAMAS — are no longer in production, and both France and the UK are looking to replace them, with conventionally configured rifles being purchased at present by their elite forces.

        • iksnilol

          An AK is even better than the AR since way more countries issue the AK than the AR. This is coming from an AK/CZ/cake lover.

          The whole comfort thing is nice but blown way out of proportion. I had no problem using an AK (Russian receiver, East-German furniture) with a stock too short for me to hit a torso sized plate at 300 meters. First time using that type of sights since I do most of my shooting with globe and aperture sights.

          And no, I am not particularily talented.

        • G0rdon_Fr33man

          https://www.facebook.com/zachary.marrs

          Get off them steroids, mall ranger.

          • Zachary marrs

            Im not on Facebook, detective, this is the only social media I do

          • Sulaco

            Children – children stop that.

          • Zachary marrs

            YOU’RE NOT MY REAL DAD!

          • Zachary marrs

            You would make a great addition to law and order.

            Lets grow up and get back to the subject matter.

          • Dan

            That isn’t cool man, if you’re going to pull a cheap stunt like that at least have the balls to post your own facebook page

          • Zachary marrs

            Its not even me. Sometimes people forget that a Facebook page is not required to use tfb

        • joe

          I just got an fs2000 bullpup and I can consistently hit a man size target at 300 meters with the ghetto iron sights that come with it. I find that with the weight being so close to the body, there is far less wobble an more stability than my AR

          • Zachary marrs

            which is where our preference of ergonomics differ, (a concept some people aren’t able to grasp) try some unconventional shooting positions, take a carbine course.

            ive had the pleasure of talking to guys who now live in america, but served in militaries that use bullpups, and the much prefer ar’s

          • Barry

            Yes, let’s do some unconventional shooting, Zach. When you akimbo 2 ar15 rifles, is it more comfortable than 2 bullpups?

            By the way, I talked to some ninjas–err, special forces operators such as yourself and they told me they preferred bullpups….the guys you spoke to were at the mall that day, too?

            Ok, joking aside, I agree the bullpup layout has limitations, especially firing from cover. Everything is a give and take. But if you want to argue that the Australian military made a mistake and should have went with an ar derivative because you think it’s best, well, I guess you can continue swinging that purse of yours.

          • Zachary marrs

            when did i say they chose the wrong rifle? i’m just trying to point out the flaws to all the people who are blinded by butthurt

          • Barry

            I agree. With the rifle shouldered, the weight is closer to the body allowing for more stability during sustained firing.

    • Tinkerer

      Of course it’s not the best: the SG 550 is.

    • n0truscotsman

      Funny thing is that Australia’s Special Forces dont use the AUG.

    • tipsey

      I’m pretty sure that out of all the countries that have gone to a bullpup configuration from a standard one, no one has never gone back…
      (happy to be corrected)

      • Man pippy

        France is going back.

  • John

    No surprise. From what I’ve read, Australia has taken the Steyr AUG, applied practical experience to it from Iraq and Afghanistan, and modernized a lot of parts. It’s easier to load, easier to chamber a round, easier safety and easier to customize, as well as looking less fashionable and more durable for use.

    The grenade launcher they developed sucked though, so they’ll be going with Steyr for that.

  • Cherryriver

    Wonder why Australia uses Orwellian Martians to test out their military weapons?
    Are they short on Aussies?

  • Sulaco

    Gasp….must….have. Although I got rid of my Aug clone some time back, too trained in AR’s and not chance of parts or repair for it…

  • toms

    Bullpups are awesome once you get used to them. Quick on target and easy to shoot offhand. Augs are as accurate as a stock M4. Full cartridge velocity makes a big difference when shooting people in modern body armor. Something our military has forgotten since we have been engaging irregular forces, hopefully will never have to learn that lesson in blood.

    • James O Donnell

      Shoot around right-hand cover.

      Now around left-hand cover.

      What, your bullpup required you to expose your entire head and upper torso in order to take the shot?

      The minor difference in velocity for a given cartridge between an M4 barrel and a standard length AUG barrel is nothing to get excited about. Improved bullet design is more likely to resolve any issues than a layout that requires the user to expose vital areas to incoming fire.

      There’s a reason that the elite forces of the biggest fans of the bullpup concept — the UK, France and Australia — all chose rifles with conventional rather than bullpup configurations.

      • TacticalBudgieSmuggler

        You should expose your entire head and upper torso from left AND right cover if you’re not a girls blouse. You should stand in incoming fire and TAKE IT LIKE A MAN. I bet you can’t even grow a beard.

        • James O Donnell

          It’ll never be as thick and luxuriant as your mom’s. But if she shaved it’d scrape my sack something terrible.

          • TacticalBudgieSmuggler

            Touche, sir. Here’s a picture of Mum for ya.

          • TacticalBudgieSmuggler

            The fuck, where’s my pic?

          • TacticalBudgieSmuggler

            goddamn fucking thing, UPLOAD MY PICTURE.

          • TacticalBudgieSmuggler
          • TacticalBudgieSmuggler

            Oh, nice. It just had to refresh. My bad. Enjoy the picture.

  • Man pippy

    Sidenote: That side rail is made of polymer, must be that super strong polymer they use on the Steyr since I’ve never heard of a military rifle having a polymer rail.