IV8888 Takes A Look At The Lithgow F90 Atrax Bullpup

13256061_10156928720075416_7426466635069438056_n

While Nathaniel F. was at NRA 2016, he posted about Lithgow Arms bringing the F90 Atrax bullpup to the US market. Youtuber IV8888 gets a chance to run a select fire Atrax through the paces on their range, lucky.

The F90 Atrax is a variation of the Steyr AUG bullpup as explained in the excellent blog post by Nathaniel, that was developed for the Australian Defense Force to replace the F88 (their military designation for the AUG). With the introduction to the US market, I expect there to be plenty of interested buyers given the rifle’s MSRP comes in under the $2,000 mark and takes AR-15 mags like it is expected to.

In the video IV8888 not only has a ton of fun blasting some pumpkins on full auto, but he also uses the 20″ barrel to push the rifle out to 600 yards using an Elcan Spectre 1-4x optic with rather success. The performance of the Atrax at range even under full auto fire is nothing short of impressive. I have to say; the Atrax is rather attractive even though I am not much of a bullpup guy.

Check out Eric’s video below; you get shooting, some light commentary, and even a quick field strip.



Patrick R

Patrick is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and works in the shooting sports industry. He is an avid recreational shooter and a verified gun nerd. With a lifelong passion for shooting, he has a love for all types of firearms, especially handguns and the AR-15 platform. Patrick may be contacted at tfbpatrick@gmail.com.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • UWOTM8

    OH MAH LAWD SOMEONE FINALLY GOT THEIR HANDS ON IT

  • Vitor Roma

    Glad that the barrel is still super quick to change, even if not the same way of the old aug.

    • AMX

      I’m not sure changing the entire barrel/receiver assembly counts as a “barrel change”

      • Spike

        Not really any different than changing the upper on an AR-15.

        • AMX

          That’s pretty much my point – on the AUG you can do the same, but you can also pull the barrel out while leaving the “upper” in place.

          That capability has been sacrificed for the sake of lower weight.

          • Vitor Roma

            But it’s not really the full upper, more like barrel group, since the BCG remains there.

          • roguetechie

            It’s not really the full upper just the serialized part that is legally the firearm…

            Which if every other AUG AUG clone etc including the US made ones that came before this one are any indication of the probable Cost and even Availability AT ANY PRICE of stripped receivers, barreled receivers, parts kits, and even replacement stripped buttstock replacements…

            Put it this way, you should just save the last $250-$750 in difference between a stripped upper and a NIB complete second gun really isn’t that much when you consider what AUG and AUG clone replacement parts cost individually you’d be extremely lucky to get a spare complete BCG without spending more for your “upper and bcg” than buying a whole gun at MSRP.

        • Aaron

          It wouldn’t be different if it actually was an “upper”. That is the receiver assembly he’s pulling out. If that somehow is now considered an “upper” and not the serialized part that means the plastic stock is the “gun” so no changing stocks easily.

          • Spike

            I wasn’t thinking from a legal perspective, purely from a parts swopping one.

  • xebat

    So once this comes in as a semi-auto variant will it be the King of Bull-Ups ?

    • Rob

      Considering that the f88 had a horrible reputation compared to the original Steyr and this further deviates from the original design allowing them to find new and interesting ways to screw it up…. It is yet to be determined. That is optimistic hat being worn.

      • Richard

        I have to say, I really didn’t like the F88 at all, but the ATRAX does look pretty neat.

        I would have preferred a proper handguard of some type and a magazine release that could be activated from the trigger finger.

        • jono102

          Thales have a hand guard system they are developing for the EF88 A2. We still have a mix of (Austrian) AUG and ADI (now Thales) made steyr’s. Once they sorted the issues with the ADI rifles they were pretty much the same apart from the AUG’s having a more slender pistol grip. ADI did mess with the design to produce the F88 i.e. trigger mech and retical pattern.

          • mig1nc

            Google is failing me, got any pics of the EF88A2 handguard system?

          • jono102

            A correction, its the A1 not A2. I haven’t seen any published pics but it and an integrated suppressor type hand guards were displayed at the THALES stand at the Land Forces 2016 Conference in Australia recently.

          • Max Glazer

            In Australian military they were designated F88SA1 and F88SA2. F88SA2 differs from A1 with some minute details such as longer rail on top and IIRC some on sides. When I was in we used A1s.

  • GD Ajax

    Looking forward to seeing how this stacks up to the Tavor and eventually the DT MDR.

  • VanDiemensLand

    Sexy rifle. What is with the part in the front, inside of the hand guard that moves in tandem with the trigger when it’s pulled?

    • jono102

      Its one and the same piece as the trigger that extends forwards.

  • Amplified Heat

    Jiminy jillickers, another 2000$ 5.56 platform! Looks like a CX4, now…

  • noob

    the handguard is made for interfacing with a grenade launcher, which only comes in 40mm. I wonder if you can get a 35mm flare launcher version?

  • Shootin’ Buddy

    Where is the factory?

  • Anyone else notice that the barrel was marked Dasan USA? (Check around the 2:55 time stamp.)

  • Uniform223
  • Gunner4guy

    Nice…! Can’t wait to try one out, even if I can’t afford it.

  • Richard Lutz

    Sadly very few Australia civilians can possess such a rifle as they are Category D firearms in Australia that are restricted to occupational users like farmers and pest controllers who can demonstrate a need to own one. Not that I would want one as the M4 is a better all-round weapon and used by elite military units like the Australian SAS. That said, I hope they go on sale in the US to private users as this could be used to help liberalize gun laws in Australia. It should also be pointed out that the concussion for a 16″ barrel bullpup is excessive so you are best with a 20″ barrel, which largely defeats the point of having a bullpup as such a rifle is not much shorter than an M4 type rifle with a 14.7″ barrel and permanently fitted A2 flash suppressor (so the barrel is deemed to be 16″ long) like the FN 15 Military Collector M4. You can readily swap shoulders to return fire around left or right handed corners with a conventional rifle like the M4 but not so with bullpups like the F90.

    • jono102

      There’s minimal difference in effect on the firer between 16″ and 20″ barrels with a Steyr. The SMG length barrel at 13.8″ is another story.

      • Richard Lutz

        That’s what I would have thought, but lots of people who own an AUG say the concussion from the 16″ barrel is markedly worse than with the 20″ barrel and will soon cause headaches even with hearing protection. Thus I would only use a short barrel bullpup with a sound suppressor.

        • jono102

          There is minimal just as there is minimal difference between an M16 and an M4. As they have same reasonably efficient flash suppressor very little crap or concussion is projected back from the muzzle. A break (in particular crap knock off’s) will have more of an effect for a firer.

          I’ve carried both for a fairly long time and will always go for the 407mm/16″ as it is the best compromise of accuracy and flexibility. Our Armored guys used to have 350mm barrels but they were some what “Uncomfortable” to be around at the best of times

          • Richard Lutz

            Perhaps the best choice would be one with a 350mm barrel and a suppressor so it is short and quiet. Too bad about the issue relating to swapping shoulders and the lack of an adjustable stock.

          • jono102

            The 350mm was dropped for a reason, any gain in ease of operation/carriage was lost in its effective range, noise and signature. 400mm is the minimum barrel length to stabilize the likes of SS109/62gr for the ranges soldiers need to deal with. The suppressor would be solving a non issue. As a military service rifle if someone reckons they need something shorter than a 407mm barrel on a bullpup they have to re think what their role actually entails.
            Adjustable stock and shoulder issues are purely teaching points or factors any trained soldier can work around and aren’t as bigger issues as some would make out.

          • Richard Lutz

            A 368mm (14.5″) barrel seems to work well with the M4 which is now the standard issue rifle of the US Army, so it seems to me that a 350mm barrel with a fast twist barrel (1 in 7″) would stabilize the 62-gr bullet in the SS109 round for the ranges soldiers need to deal with; while having the correct length stock can markedly increase efficiency. Not being to swap the rifle to the weak shoulder when shooting around a corner is a serious problem with bullpup rifles like the AUG, if not the FN F2000. The F2000 seems a little too complex for my liking while the short barrel variant (F2000 Tactical) is one-pound heaver that the M4 Carbine. If soldiers in your nation’s armed forces use the M4 then it would make sense to use the same type of rifle, not something that has a completely different manual of arms with no parts interchangeability.

          • jono102

            The 350mm barrel will just have a military creating more problems than it solves. Ok its shorter except now there is:
            1. No way to mount a 40mm launcher,
            2. Limited rail space for the likes of in line IR/TI sights and PEQ’s etc,
            3.The need for suppressors as standard due to the volume and muzzle blast, and also the budget to replace said suppressors due to the wear and crap dumped into them from the still burning propellant found with the shorter barrels
            4. The loss of energy at target end due to the drop in velocity from the shorter barrel, so a round that is becoming a paper puncher/range rifle at ranges it should have better wound/terminal ballistics. Thus loosing over match or parity with possible oppositions weapon ranges. Leading to why the US needed to develop the M885A1 for carbines and in turn had to develop more reliable mags to suit.
            5. The extra training burden of developing consciousness and mind set of carrying a very short weapon.

            In regards to general service weapons, Unless it is purely an upgrade (i.e. ADF with EF88) it is best to do a complete change of systems. Its never ideal to mix legacy parts with new weapons not to mention possible warranty, tracking and control issues that could extend from it. If its been deemed your service rifle is not up to scratch and an upgrade is not be worthwhile or viable, why keep any of it including any manual of arms. The govt could write it off as aid to some other country which is a crap load cheaper than maintenance and storage in the long run. Even upgrades as per the ADF/EF88 example has required extensive rewrites of their manuals.

            We have methods and teachings to employ the Steyr off hand around cover, it just requires practice as does any type of shooting. It may not look “Tacticool” doing a Carbine course or mimicking a youtube video but as they say “Good enough for Govt work”. That or a non adjustable stock has never been an issue that couldn’t work around or to a degree mitigated by soldiers of any merit.

            Like I mentioned earlier, there is a reason our military dropped the 350mm barrel and the above is some or it.