Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/3/2010 11:57:03 PM EDT
|
Been looking at the MSAR today (deciding between a MSAR, FS2000 or maybe saving up for a SCAR)
What are the all the variations? I talked to Ratworx today and got the LE pricing but now I'm confused on which rifle was priced out. I see some have the optic. Some have the raised rail while some have a flat rail and yet there is a third that has an extended rail. |
|
Ok, here it is.
I'm not sure what one Ratworx quoted you but it may well have been the E4 (takes AR mags) As for the rails The STG Gen I,II,III & IV all take the MSAR AUG mags while the III & IV also take the Steyr Mags. The STG's all have the raised 9"rail. The E4 has the lower and 1" longer rail (more like the AR). The extended rail that you seen is an aftermarket rail designed by 2020 (one of our members) It will fit the STG's and the E4. It is a huge rail that will fill all combo of scopes/reddot sights and back up sights. I have used it on my friends STG and I really like it. Hope I answered your questions ok....it's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet 
Greg Edit to add: The Gen IV STG has the squared off crossbolt and it will also accept the E4 stock without modfication to the receiver unlike the Gen I,II&III. |
|
Quoted:
The FS2000 is A LOT more picky about the AR mags that will work. MadDog  I wouldn't say it's a lot more picky. The safe advice is just to upgrade a USGI mag with a Magpul or CProducts anti-tilt follower or roll with the newer CProducts stainless steel mags. Keep in mind that the F2000 (the military precursor to our FS2000) was designed in the late nineties and debuted in 2001; before the AWB sunset and the outflowing of new and improved STANAG magazines on the American market. The USGI pattern was as good as it got then so they designed the magazine well around that specification. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with an aluminum magazine today. Those 20+ year old pre-bans we all hung onto during the AWB? Yeah, they sucked because they were old. 
I think the F(S)2000 ergonomics and handling are far superior to the AUG-style. I have both, so it isn't like they can't coexist in the same safe. I just found the FS2000 fits me better and handles more naturally. Weight is balanced better. The barrel system on the AUG is a lot handier. These things are like shoes though, and fit everyone differently. That said, the E4 is a nice rifle. The FS2000 is a nice rifle. I wouldn't kick either out of bed for eating crackers. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The FS2000 is A LOT more picky about the AR mags that will work. MadDog I wouldn't say it's a lot more picky. The safe advice is just to upgrade a USGI mag with a Magpul or CProducts anti-tilt follower or roll with the newer CProducts stainless steel mags. Keep in mind that the F2000 (the military precursor to our FS2000) was designed in the late nineties and debuted in 2001; before the AWB sunset and the outflowing of new and improved STANAG magazines on the American market. The USGI pattern was as good as it got then so they designed the magazine well around that specification. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with an aluminum magazine today. Those 20+ year old pre-bans we all hung onto during the AWB? Yeah, they sucked because they were old.
I think the F(S)2000 ergonomics and handling are far superior to the AUG-style. I have both, so it isn't like they can't coexist in the same safe. I just found the FS2000 fits me better and handles more naturally. Weight is balanced better. The barrel system on the AUG is a lot handier. These things are like shoes though, and fit everyone differently. That said, the E4 is a nice rifle. The FS2000 is a nice rifle. I wouldn't kick either out of bed for eating crackers.  
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The FS2000 is A LOT more picky about the AR mags that will work. MadDog I wouldn't say it's a lot more picky. The safe advice is just to upgrade a USGI mag with a Magpul or CProducts anti-tilt follower or roll with the newer CProducts stainless steel mags. Keep in mind that the F2000 (the military precursor to our FS2000) was designed in the late nineties and debuted in 2001; before the AWB sunset and the outflowing of new and improved STANAG magazines on the American market. The USGI pattern was as good as it got then so they designed the magazine well around that specification. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with an aluminum magazine today. Those 20+ year old pre-bans we all hung onto during the AWB? Yeah, they sucked because they were old.
I think the F(S)2000 ergonomics and handling are far superior to the AUG-style. I have both, so it isn't like they can't coexist in the same safe. I just found the FS2000 fits me better and handles more naturally. Weight is balanced better. The barrel system on the AUG is a lot handier. These things are like shoes though, and fit everyone differently. That said, the E4 is a nice rifle. The FS2000 is a nice rifle. I wouldn't kick either out of bed for eating crackers. Like shoes, man. These New Balances fit me like a glove.
There's been about 30 years of development in ergonomics since the basic AUG layout was designed. Magazine changes on both are clumsy given the bullpup layout, but Euros have a different school of thought on magazine retention and last round bolt hold open and it reflects in almost every European gun. Off the top of my head:
This is how it feels for me. It snaps to my shoulder a lot faster and the platform is more stable for prolonged shooting. I'm not saying the AUG style has bad ergonomics; I just feel the F(S)2000 is better for my tastes. I also use one of those split/angled ergonomic keyboards. My coworkers think I'm insane.
|
Armory Sponsor