Kalishnikov !!

I wish I could afford an M14. I am happy with the M1 Garand though.
Big Garand fan, here. Sorry to take us off topic, but I have built one, keep parts on hand for them, and I am ready to build another. Just need the time. The price appreciation in the last decade makes me wish I could have put Garands in my IRA instead of stocks, but that’s another story…
 
Last edited:
I bought a Norinco AK in 1989 and sold it a couple of year later for twice of what I paid for it and every time I see and AK I want one. Should I get one ?
Great guns but can't be well suppressed because of the gas ports on the upper piston chamber. I got into reloading 7.62x39 back when we banned the russian ammo imports. The problem with reloading for the cal is that you have to look for boxer primed brass and lots of it is Berdan primed brass (like the wooden Yugo crates that were cheap years ago). The PPU stuff is the only boxer primed brass I have found in any quantities.
 
in the early 2000s i worked with some SAS aussie and canuck, they all had either a HK derivative or an M4 style gun. Non had AUG, which is why I asked the question. None has L85 either.
Yeah, it's a good point, and to be honest I'm not sure why. The armies from Australian, New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, etc all issue the AUG. I've found it to be very reliable and I've never heard anyone complain about it.

Yet from my limited knowledge, Australian SF use the M4, not sure why. The AUG gives you more barrel and velocity in a small package. Swapping between the rifle (20") and the carbine (16") should only take seconds. Even before the EF88 upgrade, they could easily take picatinny rails, advanced optics, under barrel grenade launcher, and the same ammo everybody else. Nobody could ever tell me what the AUG lacked. Maybe if you submerged both in water, the AUG would take more water onboard due to its hollow stock, which holds some of the working parts.

I always assumed it was one of 3 reasons. The water issue for people doing SEAL type activities. The fact that Australian SF were often deployed with foreign units (like the US and UK) and wanted to use a common tool and take advantage of the powerful US supply chain. Or they just needed to look cool and have something different from the regulars back home.

I assume you got to fire the military version AUG with the two stage trigger. Half way for single shot, all the way in for full auto. How did you find that?
 
Last edited:
Australian SF use the M4, not sure why.
Nobody could ever tell me what the AUG lacked.
wanted to use a common tool and take advantage of the powerful US supply chain
This. I think one big reason is magazine compatibility. Our military has reallt scienced the M4 family to the hilt. Bullpups have definate advantages, like you said, with barrel length and velocity, but lack in square inches to slap cool guy gear. The M4 also allows an array of optics to be used, where as the stg77 had the fixed 1.5 dot. I would and still arhue that the height overbore for the stg77, and the a1 ar15 in relation to trajectory is optimal.....but all in all, i think it has to do with magazines.


I assume you got to fire the military version AUG with the two stage trigger. Half way for single shot, all the way in for full auto. How did you find that?
You assume right. I think the trigger was terrible, but that kind of goes for all bullpups especially of the era. Full auto fire was typically not used by US Special Operations forces, unless needed.....more of an emphasis on single shots and marksmanship.... The" pull the trigger all the way back thing'" as opposed to "half way back" on the STG77 in my opinion is not good for the regular soldier. Took a bit of feel to get used to. I suppose it would force the soldier to squeeze the trigger lightly for well aimed shots.....but this is not reality in combat...I could see a bunch of wasted ammo.
 
I think one big reason is magazine compatibility.
Yep that makes sense, it's all about integrating into the supply logistics.
Our military has reallt scienced the M4 family to the hilt. Bullpups have definate advantages, like you said, with barrel length and velocity, but lack in square inches to slap cool guy gear.
Probably why the new EF88 / F90 has a fixed barrel, with a lot more rails, and better sights.
You assume right. I think the trigger was terrible, but that kind of goes for all bullpups especially of the era. Full auto fire ..... The" pull the trigger all the way back thing'" as opposed to "half way back" on the STG77 in my opinion is not good for the regular soldier. Took a bit of feel to get used to.
The trigger would have had a small nib on the bottom, this is the single shot lock out to stop full auto fire. It's easy to apply, but hard to see unless someone shows it to you.

This is the new one, with a 16" barrel.

EF88.webp
 
Yep that makes sense, it's all about integrating into the supply logistics.

Probably why the new EF88 / F90 has a fixed barrel, with a lot more rails, and better sights.

The trigger would have had a small nib on the bottom, this is the single shot lock out to stop full auto fire. It's easy to apply, but hard to see unless someone shows it to you.

This is the new one, with a 16" barrel.

View attachment 258638
Is it full ambi option for ejection?

I suppose there is not plan to replace it.
 
Is it full ambi option for ejection?
Yes it can be set up for left or right side shooters. You need that with a bullpup, otherwise it's brass into the side of your head.
I suppose there is not plan to replace it.
The F88 Austeyr AUG with the fixed 1.5x optics in the handle and no rails, that you shot previously, and I did basic training with, was upgraded to the F88A1 with a top Picatinny Rail, no carry handle and better optics.

This has recently been replaced the EF88 as standard issue, it now has rails top and bottom, left side and right side, for attaching all the good gear. I'm not in anymore, but speaking to mates who still are, they like it a lot and often comment that it's more accurate to shoot, or easier to shoot well. I assume it's due to all the little improvements and the better optics.

Going back to the F88 and F88A1, the only time I recall ever having a stoppage was when shooting blanks during ambush drills in sandy regions. I blame the blanks as they were much shorter in over all length. With real ammo, I never had those problems. I found the AUG very reliable. If someone yelled at me "SHTF! Grab a rifle and lets go!" I would still grab a AUG as my first choice and feel I had a good weapon with me.
 
I’m interested to know, would you own one?

You have shots lots of different rifles, and have access to many different options, including the AUG. If price wasn’t a concern, would you own and use an AUG at home? Not talking deployment here.
There is no doubt it is a formidable gun, and has withstood the test of time.

Great question. Thanks for asking.

I would say today, maybe. For me, i do not like bullpups, as they do not afford much real estate for aiding in support from the prone such as over a wall or on a car hood, or in a window. I was looking at the newer version when you brought it up, and was thinking that area forward of the trigger should just cover the whole barrel at least to the muzzle brake, just for some extra purchase for prone supported work. I like some distance between the mag and muzzle. I do like the pic rail locations.


Frankly, the manual of arms is just different, maybe to different for my liking, without some serious trigger time...and deployment.......so not sure.

I own no bullpups currently but definitely see the value.

I almost bought a Desert Tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SR5
Big Garand fan, here. Sorry to take us off topic, but I have built one, keep parts on hand for them, and I am ready to build another. Just need the time. The price appreciation in the last decade makes me wish I could have put Garands in my IRA instead of stocks, but that’s another story…
Kalashnikov is a Garand copy really, so not too far off topic.

What would be the most coveted M1......most details possible.......

if I was going to get one, or two, one to shoot and one to shine, which would I get? CMP I suppose for the shooter. But Gucci, unicorn Garand to never shoot and rarely touch.
 
Kalashnikov is a Garand copy really, so not too far off topic.

What would be the most coveted M1......most details possible.......

if I was going to get one, or two, one to shoot and one to shine, which would I get? CMP I suppose for the shooter. But Gucci, unicorn Garand to never shoot and rarely touch.
Garands have really shot up in price recently. I think the awareness is that the number is limited, and the CMP will sell out here in the near future.

So, the most coveted would be an original, intact, Gas trap. The CMP found one a few years back, and they auctioned it for around $40,000. Now, the first 10,000 or so M1 were built in the gas trap configuration. A bit of testing and experience showed that a port in the barrel worked better, and so most of those first 10,000 were updated to the barrel port, which is how the subsequent 6 million or so were built.

Nearly every M1 Garand has been rebuilt at some point in its history. When they were brought back from World War II, many of them had been shot out, so they got re-arsenaled, new barrels, parts measured, and put back together, but nobody kept the parts separate. So you get a Winchester trigger guard on a Springfield armory receiver, and other bits and bobs that came from various heat lots, and various production years. The armorers at the time did not care about keeping the rifles with their original parts. The parts were interchangeable.

Harrington and Richardson made some fine quality M1 during the Korean War. For some reason, collectors look down on them, but I’m here to tell you they shoot great. Collectors tend to like the Winchesters, and the international harvester, because they are unusual, and people have heard of both of those companies. But the Winchesters are not as finely made as either the Harrington and Richardson‘s, or even the Springfields.

Many of the rifles being sold as “original“, were cobbled together with the appropriate parts from the correct era for the production date of the receiver. It’s almost impossible to trace the history of the rifle, and there are a lot of “corrected” Garands that are being sold as “correct”.

A CMP certificate is desirable because you know that the rifle was bought in that condition from the army depot in Anniston. It’s how it was put in Storage 50+ years ago.

I would stay away from the modified ones, the “tanker“ Garand’s were never built during the war and never created for the war department. They’ve been modified by gunsmiths of quite variable skill and created in the last few years. Some work well. Some do not.

In the end, as a vet, I would just get a field grade from the CMP. You’re not too far, find out when they’re open, bring your paperwork, and pick one off the rack. If the CMP sold it, it will function correctly, some are more valuable than others, but a properly functioning rifle will bring you years of enjoyment.

Personally, I have at least one rifle from each of the major manufacturers. A Springfield, a Harrington and Richardson, a Winchester, and an international harvester.
 
Back
Top Bottom