Like I said, I don't claim the MSAR is superior to the Steyr.  I have an MSAR, haven't had the slightest trouble with it.  Some have.  The OP asked for an opinion, and I gave it to him.  I still stand by it.  Not because A is better than B, or B is better than A.  It's because A and B for all intents and purposes are the same thing, and $500 buys a lot of ammo, or maybe a nice optic.  A nearly $500 price difference is no small chunk of change to the average shooter.  Sorry I came off like an ass in my last post.

To expand on that point, not only were they made in Australia, but they also had over 80 design changes.  Most of the changes were done to make the unit cost cheaper, and several of the design changes were against the recommendation of Steyr.  



ADI is also known to Australians as "Another Defective Item"...



 

A couple things...

First, I'd like to know the rate at which the first 20,000 AUGs had "issues".  I think you'd probably see numbers that are similar (for the rifles themselves, not talking about the XM-30 magazines for the E4) to the MSAR numbers.

Second, from all accounts, the first 5000 or so Australian F-88s were buggier than anything MSAR ever produced, yet once they got their feet under them and corrected the issues, the rifle has been a stellar performer.

I am sure you'd see some kind of problems with springs and other small parts,

And second, the Australian F-88 is considered an abomination of the AUG, which is what caused the problems. These days it has gotten better from what i've heard recently from some Aussie guys, but they still don't trust them 100%.

I am sure MSAR will one day have all the kinks out, but that doesn't mean you have to be the crash dummy for them. The OP,  AZ_Larry is a personal friend and i'd like to see him with a rifle that works out of the box, and not going back to the factory on day one like we see on these boards frequently.

These boards are anything but a fair representative cross section of what's really happening with the rifles.  It's a place to boast and bitch, and anything in the center is ignored.

AUG>MSAR.

Holy shit, batman, read my post!  I said price being equal (which is a variable that the OP specified) I would go for the Steyr.  And then I pointed out that the price isn't equal and that I would buy the MSAR and spend the extra money on spare parts if price were taken into consideration.

I had a warm and fuzzy about MSAR for a long while before Dave left, now I don't have that.  I've *never* had a warm and fuzzy about Steyr Arms, Inc.  I trust them less than MSAR.  However - as I mentioned - even when SAI didn't give a rip about Americans with AUG's, Pete Athens managed to get small parts into the country and make them available.  And the source of those parts - Steyr Mannlicher GmbH in Austria - I do have a warm and fuzzy about because they produce these rifles for military contracts and they will be making parts for them for a long, long time.

Proprietary MSAR parts though?  Better have them on hand because you never know when MSAR will give up the ghost, and when/if it does, those parts will become a hot commodity and there won't be an overseas manufacturer that Pete Athens or anybody else can source them from.

SilentType can be most easily described as an MSAR apologist.  He might tell you the truth about some things, but anytime anyone says anything negative about MSAR, he turns rabid.  Just look at his avatar and that's all you need to know...  He comes off like an Apple fanboy.

Also, whoever says that MSAR's mags are superior to STANAG mags is 1.) ignoring the OP's request for opinions about MSAR E4 rifles which take STANAG mags and for which MSAR's own polymer STANAG mag is a bad joke and 2.) hasn't put a PMAG through any serious use...  You can run a PMAG over with a truck, bet a MSAR/AUG mag would break.  And PMAG's are cheaper... And work in guns other than an AUG-alike...

Ummm....  Yeah....  No....
I guess you haven't heard about the original Steyr Demo's where they run the mags over with a 2 ton truck, huh?  Hell the whole rifle is designed to be run over by a truck....
 

As the OP I want to thank all the posters. I appreciate the feedback on both the MSAR and Steyr. Here is where I stand. I don't yet know if I'm going to get an AUG but if I do, I'll most likely get a Steyr standard with a NATO spare stock, or visa versa.

I have been through growing pains with another manufacturer, and have been in the position of having that outfit take care of me but it was a solid 5 years before they got their shit together. I don't plan on doing that again.

If I get the Steyr, it may be a NATO variant since I have tons of STANAG/PMAGS. I may also get a standard Steyr stock with some 42 rounders as well.

I have learned on this thread that I'll have to factor not only the difference in price, a bit less than has been discussed, but a decent amount of dollars in spares. Happily, I'm not in a rush and can wait for the best possible deal.

By the way, since I started this thread, not a single Steyr has shown up on the EE. I understand there are many more MSARs out there and many are probably impulse purchases. But the lack of Steyrs for sale on any boards for reasonable prices(Gunbroker excluded) speaks loudly.

Personally I wish MSAR the best. But if, and that's a big if, I get a bullpup it will be a Steyr.

Remains to be seen how a STG mag is better than a PMAG.  I have some of the E4 mags, and if they're anything to judge by, then they are much flimsier than a PMAG.  They get so much feed lip spread when loaded that they're difficult to insert and don't drop free.

There's probably nothing wrong with the STG mags you can get from MSAR (non-E4) and the AUG mags you can get from Steyr, I just get sick of hearing people say that they're vastly superior to AR-15 mags.  If you haven't had your head in the sand for the last few years, the AR15 camp has the mag issue sorted.

And yet when the current crop of magazines was put through an independent test regime, PMags failed more often than the MSAR mag and had more issues with breaking and splitting.

I'm not defending the XM-30...I have 55 of them at MSAR waiting for replacement since before SHOT, but the ones that were tested did work and worked well, and to paint a working PMag as being so much better than a working XM-30 from a durability standpoint is to become exactly what you accuse SilentType as being...except for Magpul.

I have AR-15 magazines courtesy of the Army (random contract mags with green and black followers), Lancer, Tapco, MSAR, C-products, and MagPul.  The MagPul's are the only ones that have worked consistently across all of my guns.  My AXR is pretty picky about mags which I attribute to the cyclic rate being too fast (Kent removed one of the two hammer springs from the Steyr NATO trigger pack, which screws with the timing.)

I've had various PMAGs for a while, and I've tried the other brands but haven't found anything as reliable.  I use them in my (the Army's) FN M16A2 and they've never given me any problems, even with blanks and shooting on burst.

I have 14 of the XM-30's, with various configurations of followers and springs courtesy of Dave R, and not a single one of them works loaded to 30+1 out of my AXR or any of my AR-15's.  Some work better than others, but none work perfectly.  Never bothered to try them in the FN.  If someone's managed to get a bunch of working XM-30's together for a test, they must have had a pretty high rejection rate.  With what these mags cost, that would be a bit spendy...

I'd really like to see this independent test regime that you reference...  as for me personally, I've never had a PMAG jam or break, but the XM30....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyhUtzbOMno

Yeah, that's my video.  And these would be some XM-30 failures in a couple of my rifles:





And as I've mentioned, when the XM-30's are loaded to capacity, they are hard to insert into a mil-spec magazine well and do not drop free.  PMAG's don't have this problem, which says to me that MSAR went with a more flexible, crack-resistant polymer.  I would not call that an improvement over what MagPul has to offer.

But I suppose if I love MSAR enough, those mags will magically start working better than my PMAG's.  I am definitely at fault there.

I received 4 amber msar e4 mags brand new in the wrap a while back

Every single one of them failed to load more than 26 rounds. They also failed to allow my SBR to function, not allowing any rounds to load. I sold them to an MSAR fan, even after telling him they didn't work right he had to have them.

I have 7 XM30 mags, and they all work without problems.  What were the problems people found?  Was something out of spec?  Problem with the spring?  Mine were manufactured in March of '09, if that makes any difference.

Dave Fortier did the test in SGN earlier this year.  All mags were sourced commercially from various vendors.  The PMag had issues with splitting down the back (IIRC) and the only mag to make it through pretty much without a problem was the Lancer L5.  The XM-30 (which worked!) was the second best for durability and reliability.  The goal, as I seem to remember, was to see just how "bad" the USGI aluminum mags really were as compared to all the "new and improved HSLD polymer mags" that are all the rage.

I'll see if I can find my copy and post the date it was published.

I saw that article as well, but I thought it was from '09.

Steyr..............Anything else is just a clone. My AUG A3 runs like a champ.

Don't get me wrong.  I fully realize that it's possible to break a PMAG, just as it's possible to break everything.  And I think everyone is in agreement that PMAG's are far and away better than GI mags.  But making the statement that you'd rather have a AUG-alike that takes AUG-alike mags vs STANAG mags because you can't get a good STANAG mag is simply putting your head in the sand and giving over to the fanboyism.

I love the way my XM-30 mags look in my AXR (and every other rifle, for that matter.)  I really wish they would work!  But they don't.  And the PMAG's definitely do.

I was actually looking forward to doing my own video-logged torture test on a group of GI, XM-30, Tapco, Lancer, TangoDown, and PMAGs.  Five of each mag, so each mag gets five lives before it was out of the running.  But I never did get around to it because I've been waiting for months and months for MSAR to fix their mags.

A little off topic, I know, but someone mentioned GI mags.  You know, GI mags got a bad rep when they first were issued that haunts them to this day.  During my 4 years in the Army, one of which was in Iraq, I NEVER had a problem with them.  No one I knew had a problem with them.  Some people still insist that they are somehow inferior, though.  Just one of those things, I guess, where perception becomes reality.

I've been in since '05, and there's definitely a lot to be said for how many malfunctions are caused by bad magazines.  This isn't necessarily because of a bad design, but rather bad maintenance and upkeep, and a culture that focuses on the wrong things.

• The Army just recently started fielding mags with MagPul-style anti-tilt followers.  My buddy that's mobilizing for his 2nd trip to Afghanistan has some of these.  They have a brown follower, I believe.


• The Army just recently started fielding a magazine lip go/no-go gauge, which I've still never seen.


• Despite the fact that the black follower (non anti-tilt) was phased out in favor of the green follower (anti-nosedive) I would say that about 50% of the Army's GI mags that I run across still have the black follower.


• The Army teaches you to clean your rifle to an inane degree, but never how to clean magazines, or even take them apart.  And there is no process to number and identify mags in order to establish a history of mag-related failures, meaning that bad mags just get tossed back into circulation.

Overall the problem with GI mags isn't the mags themselves, but the military.  Does this make them superior to, or even on par with the polymer competition?  Not at all...  But I have more GI mags than any other type of mag, and I use them in my AR15's and they work when well-cared for.

Ok, so besides PMags have folks had good times using GI type mags in the A3 stock?  Any other firsthands?

Not sure what you mean by A3 stock, there is no A3 stock that I'm aware of that takes STANAG mags.  If by A3 you mean the AUG A3 SA w/A1 NATO stock, then I can give a little insight.

My AXR has the Steyr MFG A1 NATO stock, and as I have mentioned one of the two hammer springs was removed from the trigger pack by TPD when the gun was assembled.  This is a useful mod for reducing the trigger pull, but increases the cyclic rate because the hammer springs slow the bolt down.

Of all of the mags that I have tried, I've only ever been problem-free with PMAG's.  MSAR's XM-30 mags jam in any gun I put them in.  Lancers work great in my AR's but don't seem to feed fast enough to keep up with the AXR.  Tapco mags always seem to have a jam on the 2nd to last round out of the magazine, which I haven't figured out yet.  They also don't drop free, but they do work great in my AR's.  GI mags are hit and miss, but I have had some success with a few that have upgraded springs and followers.

Overall, if I want it to run, I stick to PMAG's.  I would expect some of these problems to go away if I replaced the missing hammer spring.  In fact, I've acquired a spare pack with both original hammer springs, and I may try it out with the Lancer and Tapco mags someday.

Spart, about the hammer pack. i believe the only instance where the hammer springs are messed with are in TPD AXR rifles. The AUG A1 Nato stock works with Aug A3 hammer packs IIRC

Yes, I was mostly pointing out that even given the shortcoming of having a hammer spring removed which changes the cyclic rate, the PMAG's still work flawlessly in the AXR.  That speaks volumes to me about the robust feeding ability of the PMAG.  Removing one of the hammer springs is a good (IMO) mod to perform on any AUG-alike pack to reduce the trigger pull.

As for the trigger packs being interchangeable, this is not the case.  The NATO pack has a last round BHO that sticks out a bit further to catch the follower on STANAG mags.  The AUG A3 SA also has an external bolt release, and the body of the trigger pack itself differs due to this.  I'm not sure if anyone's tried to put one in a NATO stock, but it may not fit.  You certainly won't get the external bolt release with the NATO stock. Regardless of compatibility, I would recommend having a spare trigger pack on hand among other small parts, and the parts inside of the trigger pack body that could break are all interchangeable.

you are correct, i misspoke, i remember they have a different setup than the NATO pack..

i can't be 100% but i believe someone did put a regular a3 hammer pack in a NATO stock and just slapped the handle to release the bolt..
again i can't remember 100%

If it fits (which it may) using the charging handle would be the way to do it.  In fact, the only way to do it with a NATO stock.

Without changing the bolt catch, I would imagine that the last round BHO either wouldn't work or would bed very mag picky.

As the owner of an AXR and an A3 I'd like to say that my AXR with the nato stock hasn't had any issues with any nato mags GI, Lancer, or P mags.  The all run 100 percent.  Mine had one of the springs removed from the hammer pack, but I haven't had any problems.  I don't think that the removal of the spring does anything to change how the bolt and bolt carrier move on the forward stroke which is where it picks up the round.  Anyway I would recommend the A3 with a NATO stock.  It may not have a bolt release like the A3 stock but it does have a cool button on the side for mag release which none of the other AUG type stocks have.

Spart I might recommend that if you can get your hands on a different bolt carrier you give that a try and see if that helps any with your AXR being picky with its mags.  When I first got mine I was having the same issue I took it over to Kent and he figured out that oprods were just slightly off angle which was preventing my bolt from picking up the rounds correctly.  Changed it out and mine has been 100 percent ever since.

Miss you Kent

Wrong on both counts, first of all removing one of the hammer springs does increase the cyclic rate, mostly by increasing the speed that the BCG moves rearward and potentially increasing the speed that it moves forward if there is bounce.  The rearward travel is arguably more important to magazine function, as the BCG has to be moving slowly enough rearward for the magazine to push the rounds up far enough for the bolt to catch the top round, rather than slide over it or catch the round in the middle.

Secondly, the "button" mag release is an AXR-only feature, Kent fabricated that piece.  Steyr NATO stocks do not have this feature from the factory.

I also miss Kent, it's too bad that his business didn't make it.  These are still very fine rifles, however, I consider my AXR to be the finest rifle that I own.

All Kent did was fabricate a new button that stuck out from the nato stock to replace the steyr one which was flush.  Just made it a bit easier to use.  As for the rearward movement on the bolt the round should already be touching the bottom of the bolt carrier as soon as the round in front of it is fed into the chamber.  Once the bolt carrier passes over the bullet on its rearward movement the bullet only has to move up about an 1/8 of an inch.  A rifle has to be cycling pretty darn fast for a functioning magazine not to be able to keep up.  If anything it would seem that the boltcarrier and bolt would travel a bit further to the rear allowing even more time for a round to be pushed up in the magazine.  If you feel your boltcarrier is moving so fast to the rear that its bottoming out the springs and BOUNCING back WITHOUT the aid of the springs I would venture to guess you should stop shooting that rifle.  Anyway I could be wrong about this, but I'm not about the button.

once again my vote is for a steyr a3 with nato stock.  I think MSAR is a great company but I feel that the Steyr version is a bit more solid.  

I should stop shooting my AXR?  Are you serious?  Okay, some random dude off the internet says I should stop shooting my gun since it only runs 100% on high-quality mags.  I guess I won't shoot my AXR anymore!  It's unsafe because KG mauserman said so.  Wait, who?



We've gone completely off topic...but my explanation of why the cyclic rate can affect magazine operation isn't getting through to you so I won't try to push it anymore.  You don't want to understand and you've already got your theory that you're sticking to, so I won't help you understand.  It's not all that relevant to the topic anyway, and it can be a difficult concept to grasp.  And FYI, the guy who came up with the cyclic rate theory was Pete Athens...  He's what you'd call an AUG expert.

Regardless, I was only pointing out that having one of the hammer springs removed is likely the cause of my AXR's mag pickyness, and that a NATO stock with both hammer springs intact would likely be less picky about mags.  I'm arguing for the NATO stock, and pointing out that PMAG's work even when at a disadvantage (high cyclic rate.)  Steyr NATO stock + PMAGs = excellence.

With regard to the NATO stock mag release "button"... are you seriously advocating that people try to push the flush mag catch in far enough to release mags?  People who might have gloves on?  And people who might be trying to do so with a degree of speed and consistency?  Are you serious?  It's not going to happen, dude!  Without the TPD manufactured raised mag catch "button", that's just not an effective way of releasing the mag from a Steyr NATO stock.  It's pretty easy to see, even if you haven't had the benefit of holding one in your hands like I have.  Kent made that change for a reason...if the factory solution worked, he wouldn't have bothered making that design change.  Without that button, there's nowhere to index your finger and you have to push the mag catch into the stock.  Mag releases on weapons stick out for a reason, and Kommiefornia mag releases are generally flush with the firearm for a reason: it makes it pretty hard to remove the mag in a hurry.  The Steyr NATO stock is designed to have the mag released in the same way that you would on a regular Steyr AUG stock: with the lever at the rear of the magazine well.

But, it's not like the MSAR has this feature either. (Although it should, it really, really should.)

I have both an E4 and an AugA3 with NATO stock. I'd go with the A3. Mine has never had a malfunction after 4000 rounds.  Can't say that about my E4, its had a few FTF and FTE  after 2000 rounds.   That being said, I also have an A3 with an E 4 stock, MSAR match trigger pack and FNH. Barrel, with 20/20 rails. Thats my favorite bullpup

There's definitely something to be said for the E4 stock.  The look isn't for everyone, but it does give you options.

I'd get one for my AXR if they'd copy Kent's button mag release (hint, hint!)

Pics of the FNH barrel please