Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Lithgow F90.. civi version? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/22/2016 3:25:58 PM EDT
|
LAV posted on his Facebook that he just got a bunch of info on the new F90.
Looks pretty slick He also said semi auto US market guns are planned. Can anyone confirm? |
|
Quoted: LAV posted on his Facebook that he just got a bunch of info on the new F90. Looks pretty slick He also said semi auto US market guns are planned. Can anyone confirm? I got to play with the only one in the US while there, but forgot to get pictures. Nice guys. They said to follow Lithgow Arms USA on FB for more information as it becomes availabile. MUCH better balance than the AUG. |
|
Quoted:
Yes. I talked to them at the NRA show yesterday. Planning to try and get ATF approval "by the end of the year". I got to play with the only one in the US while there, but forgot to get pictures. Nice guys. They said to follow Lithgow Arms USA on FB for more information as it becomes availabile. MUCH better balance than the AUG. Quoted:
Quoted:
LAV posted on his Facebook that he just got a bunch of info on the new F90. Looks pretty slick He also said semi auto US market guns are planned. Can anyone confirm? I got to play with the only one in the US while there, but forgot to get pictures. Nice guys. They said to follow Lithgow Arms USA on FB for more information as it becomes availabile. MUCH better balance than the AUG. Thanks for the reply and info. Any idea on possible MSRP? |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the reply and info. Any idea on possible MSRP? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: LAV posted on his Facebook that he just got a bunch of info on the new F90. Looks pretty slick He also said semi auto US market guns are planned. Can anyone confirm? I got to play with the only one in the US while there, but forgot to get pictures. Nice guys. They said to follow Lithgow Arms USA on FB for more information as it becomes availabile. MUCH better balance than the AUG. Thanks for the reply and info. Any idea on possible MSRP? |
|
Quoted: http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c240/ColtsR4Football/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpse980wn6r.jpg I won't trade my Steyr for it, but it was interesting. I'll have to dig the brochure out because things are a blur, but I remember it had the early style cocking knob, a long top rail, a short rail under the gas cylinder (but didn't think to see how it was attached), and a case deflector behind the ejection port. A small thing I liked was the gas cylinder plug was made with a sort of ring on the end to grab onto when turning or removing. They said the gas system was simplified but didn't elaborate. They claimed 1.1 lbs less weight and its noticeable. It felt more muzzle heavy than my AUG but it had smaller optics than mine has. They said it has a more rearward balance. They plan on a 16" and 20", and gave them different names. One was called something like "ATAKR" and the other I can't recall. They did seem to make a huge deal out of the upcoming Magpul AUG mags as a cheap supply of mags. Didn't make it seem like a NATO mag version was a real high priority for them. |
|
Quoted:
They did seem to make a huge deal out of the upcoming Magpul AUG mags as a cheap supply of mags. Didn't make it seem like a NATO mag version was a real high priority for them. A NATO mag version of the gun shouldn't be a priority for a gun designed to use AUG mags. Nothing wrong with AUG mags, nothing at all (except for price), which magpull will soon take care of... http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_124/276036_SO__About_those_2015_AUG_mags____.html |
Steyr-Mannlicher was talking with them last year, but nothing came of it. Supposedly the Austrians didn't want to pay the royalties or for the F90 to eat into AUG sales, even if it did they would have gotten a piece of the profit. Now with Thales on their own, Steyr gets nothing. Glad to see that this is going forward.
|
|
Quoted: A NATO mag version of the gun shouldn't be a priority for a gun designed to use AUG mags. Nothing wrong with AUG mags, nothing at all (except for price), which magpull will soon take care of... http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_124/276036_SO__About_those_2015_AUG_mags____.html Quoted: Quoted: They did seem to make a huge deal out of the upcoming Magpul AUG mags as a cheap supply of mags. Didn't make it seem like a NATO mag version was a real high priority for them. A NATO mag version of the gun shouldn't be a priority for a gun designed to use AUG mags. Nothing wrong with AUG mags, nothing at all (except for price), which magpull will soon take care of... http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_124/276036_SO__About_those_2015_AUG_mags____.html  |
|
Quoted:
NATO mags are a priority when I've got a lot of them laying around already
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They did seem to make a huge deal out of the upcoming Magpul AUG mags as a cheap supply of mags. Didn't make it seem like a NATO mag version was a real high priority for them. A NATO mag version of the gun shouldn't be a priority for a gun designed to use AUG mags. Nothing wrong with AUG mags, nothing at all (except for price), which magpull will soon take care of... http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_124/276036_SO__About_those_2015_AUG_mags____.html
I have about 150 USGI mags (which i haven't shot in years). The last time I shot a gun with a USGI mag was when I had a Tavor... AUG mags are perfection. 
|
|
Yeah, they talked up those Magpul mags to me too. Then later when I was at the Magpul booth and asked about AUG mags, they acted like we might see them someday, possibly, maybe, perhaps, in our lifetime, as if there was very little priority placed on them. But who knows?
They also talked up a quick caliber change feature, then demonstrated this feature by pressing the takedown button and pulling the action forward from the stock. I'm looking at it like "OK... when are you gonna do it?" when I realize he just did all he was going to do. Either I missed something or there was nothing to miss. I thought about getting my AUG and showing them the neat barrel removal feature they've always had, but chose not to. But all crap talk aside, it did look good. |
|
Quoted: Hooray, someone to make up for my picture fail! They did seem to make a huge deal out of the upcoming Magpul AUG mags as a cheap supply of mags. Didn't make it seem like a NATO mag version was a real high priority for them. Quoted: Quoted: http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c240/ColtsR4Football/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpse980wn6r.jpg I won't trade my Steyr for it, but it was interesting. I'll have to dig the brochure out because things are a blur, but I remember it had the early style cocking knob, a long top rail, a short rail under the gas cylinder (but didn't think to see how it was attached), and a case deflector behind the ejection port. A small thing I liked was the gas cylinder plug was made with a sort of ring on the end to grab onto when turning or removing. They said the gas system was simplified but didn't elaborate. They claimed 1.1 lbs less weight and its noticeable. It felt more muzzle heavy than my AUG but it had smaller optics than mine has. They said it has a more rearward balance. They plan on a 16" and 20", and gave them different names. One was called something like "ATAKR" and the other I can't recall. They did seem to make a huge deal out of the upcoming Magpul AUG mags as a cheap supply of mags. Didn't make it seem like a NATO mag version was a real high priority for them. According to Larry's FB response: Larry Vickers A STANAG mag version is planned This is added good news and a way to tailor to the American market centered around the AR-15 and it's components. Now that I retired my MSAR, I'd be down for a 20" model!  |
|
while i'm a fan of the idea of the F90, i hate that they removed the two most distinguishing AUG features...the removable barrel and the folding VFG. the Steyr grip is absolutely the most ergonomically correct and comfortable VFG ever put on a rifle. Maybe Steyr, Lithgow/Thales could make a folding one with the same shape that attaches to that front rail. I also wonder if the F90 is as accurate as the AUG with that thinner barrel They also destroyed the aesthetics of the front third of the rifle where the top and bottom rails connect to the barrel |
|
Quoted:
I have lots of details and pictures, will post as soon as I get back from the show. Sven Manticore Arns Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Oh baby Sven going to hook us up with some sexy pics... I really like the looks and ideas behinds this rifle.... I understand the guys who are disliking of this rifle because of it departure from the original aug. but like the Tavor and the x95 I look at them as seprate rifles and enjoy them as such. I am excited to feel one of these and hope to be able to add one to then crew before elections..haha hopefully... Sven what was your feel on the ergos and overall plateform feel? |
|
Quoted:
it looks like the manufacturer name, location, serial # are all on the barrel instead of on the receiver. since the barrel isn't removable, does that mean it's considered a permanent part of the receiver? Not 100% sure but I think you are right that the barrel is part of the receiver. Kinda sucks for barrel change. If you buy a 20" model I guess you are stuck with that. No spare barrel either. But hey, I will be one of the 1st ones in line to get one! Pete |
|
Quoted:
The barrel is removeable and watched them do so. Gun felt noticeably lighter and with improved trigger over AUG. Front portion of handguard is designed to accept 40mm gl. AUG mag version first followed by STANAG. Gun is currently awaiting ATF approval. You're saying that they removed the barrel/receiver unit from the stock, then disconnected the barrel from the receiver? I don't see how that is possible with tools. |
|
The barrel is removable, but it isn't like the AUG of past we all know, let me explain what I saw and how Lithgow explained it (pics to follow, uploading now)
The barrel is essentially the receiver- the cross bolt locks into a slot on the bottom of the large chamber area of the barrel. The aluminum rails and some composite components bolt around the barrel, but there really isn't a traditional receiver like on most other guns. The barrels are currently marked with all the data and SN, and Lithgow USA is waiting for the ATF to make final determination on what is considered the receiver and where to put markings due to the unique construction. Apparently even the ATF was a bit puzzled at what to do, and is working with Lithgow on it.
|
|
Quoted: The barrel is removable, but it isn't like the AUG of past we all know, let me explain what I saw and how Lithgow explained it (pics to follow, uploading now) The barrel is essentially the receiver- the cross bolt locks into a slot on the bottom of the large chamber area of the barrel. The aluminum rails and some composite components bolt around the barrel, but there really isn't a traditional receiver like on most other guns. The barrels are currently marked with all the data and SN, and Lithgow USA is waiting for the ATF to make final determination on what is considered the receiver and where to put markings due to the unique construction. Apparently even the ATF was a bit puzzled at what to do, and is working with Lithgow on it. |
|
Quoted:
while i'm a fan of the idea of the F90, i hate that they removed the two most distinguishing AUG features...the removable barrel and the folding VFG. the Steyr grip is absolutely the most ergonomically correct and comfortable VFG ever put on a rifle. Maybe Steyr, Lithgow/Thales could make a folding one with the same shape that attaches to that front rail. I also wonder if the F90 is as accurate as the AUG with that thinner barrel They also destroyed the aesthetics of the front third of the rifle where the top and bottom rails connect to the barrel The barrel isn't thinner on the F90, and by deleting the quick change barrel (which was never used anyway other than by karl in Die Hard. ;) ) they were able to vastly strengthen and beef up the chamber area, which is the most common area of wear and failure of the AUG- worn locking locks, slipping headspace because of that, chamber overheating and accelerated wear, and wear to the point the firing pin can't set off rounds are all hallmarks of the AUG design. Not something you see on the semiauto version, but I have seen it happen firsthand on full auto AUGs. |
|
Quoted:
The barrel is removable, but it isn't like the AUG of past we all know, let me explain what I saw and how Lithgow explained it (pics to follow, uploading now) The barrel is essentially the receiver- the cross bolt locks into a slot on the bottom of the large chamber area of the barrel. The aluminum rails and some composite components bolt around the barrel, but there really isn't a traditional receiver like on most other guns. The barrel is removed from the"receiver" without tools being needed ? |
|
Quoted:
The barrel is removed from the"receiver" without tools being needed ? Quoted:
Quoted:
The barrel is removable, but it isn't like the AUG of past we all know, let me explain what I saw and how Lithgow explained it (pics to follow, uploading now) The barrel is essentially the receiver- the cross bolt locks into a slot on the bottom of the large chamber area of the barrel. The aluminum rails and some composite components bolt around the barrel, but there really isn't a traditional receiver like on most other guns. The barrel is removed from the"receiver" without tools being needed ? The barrel has a composite (i.e. similar to delrin polymer) component sandwiched and bolted around it, and the top and bottom rails are bolted around the barrel. Could the components be unbolted and you change for another type of barrel? Yes (dependent on what the ATF determines is the serialized part). Is it a quick change barrel system? No. |
Here is a Pic from TFB 
You can see "sort of" what Sven is talking about - The pic looks to be from a brochure and is kind of small. What I am really interested is in the "improved lighter" trigger. Are we talking RDB, KM17 area or Tavor with a LB or Geiselle (sp?) trigger or will it be ~ 6.5 lbs Quoted:
The barrel has a composite (i.e. similar to delrin polymer) component sandwiched and bolted around it, and the top and bottom rails are bolted around the barrel. Could the components be unbolted and you change for another type of barrel? Yes (dependent on what the ATF determines is the serialized part). Is it a quick change barrel system? No. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The barrel is removable, but it isn't like the AUG of past we all know, let me explain what I saw and how Lithgow explained it (pics to follow, uploading now) The barrel is essentially the receiver- the cross bolt locks into a slot on the bottom of the large chamber area of the barrel. The aluminum rails and some composite components bolt around the barrel, but there really isn't a traditional receiver like on most other guns. The barrel is removed from the"receiver" without tools being needed ? The barrel has a composite (i.e. similar to delrin polymer) component sandwiched and bolted around it, and the top and bottom rails are bolted around the barrel. Could the components be unbolted and you change for another type of barrel? Yes (dependent on what the ATF determines is the serialized part). Is it a quick change barrel system? No. |
|
Quoted:
The barrel isn't thinner on the F90, and by deleting the quick change barrel (which was never used anyway other than by karl in Die Hard. ;) ) they were able to vastly strengthen and beef up the chamber area, which is the most common area of wear and failure of the AUG- worn locking locks, slipping headspace because of that, chamber overheating and accelerated wear, and wear to the point the firing pin can't set off rounds are all hallmarks of the AUG design. Not something you see on the semiauto version, but I have seen it happen firsthand on full auto AUGs. Quoted:
Quoted:
while i'm a fan of the idea of the F90, i hate that they removed the two most distinguishing AUG features...the removable barrel and the folding VFG. the Steyr grip is absolutely the most ergonomically correct and comfortable VFG ever put on a rifle. Maybe Steyr, Lithgow/Thales could make a folding one with the same shape that attaches to that front rail. I also wonder if the F90 is as accurate as the AUG with that thinner barrel They also destroyed the aesthetics of the front third of the rifle where the top and bottom rails connect to the barrel The barrel isn't thinner on the F90, and by deleting the quick change barrel (which was never used anyway other than by karl in Die Hard. ;) ) they were able to vastly strengthen and beef up the chamber area, which is the most common area of wear and failure of the AUG- worn locking locks, slipping headspace because of that, chamber overheating and accelerated wear, and wear to the point the firing pin can't set off rounds are all hallmarks of the AUG design. Not something you see on the semiauto version, but I have seen it happen firsthand on full auto AUGs. |
|
Quoted:
You're saying that they removed the barrel/receiver unit from the stock, then disconnected the barrel from the receiver? I don't see how that is possible with tools. Quoted:
Quoted:
The barrel is removeable and watched them do so. Gun felt noticeably lighter and with improved trigger over AUG. Front portion of handguard is designed to accept 40mm gl. AUG mag version first followed by STANAG. Gun is currently awaiting ATF approval. You're saying that they removed the barrel/receiver unit from the stock, then disconnected the barrel from the receiver? I don't see how that is possible with tools. EDIT- Never mind. I posted begore seeing a second page. Duh. But I still wouldn't call removing all of that mess "removing the barrel" anymore than separating the two halves of an AR. Using the general idea that the receiver is what the barrel is screwed/pressed/clamped/whatever into, to me, there is little question the receiver should be the part similar to the AUG's- the triangular part the barrel is mounted to. |
|
Quoted:
EDIT- Never mind. I posted begore seeing a second page. Duh. But I still wouldn't call removing all of that mess "removing the barrel" anymore than separating the two halves of an AR. Using the general idea that the receiver is what the barrel is screwed/pressed/clamped/whatever into, to me, there is little question the receiver should be the part similar to the AUG's- the triangular part the barrel is mounted to. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The barrel is removeable and watched them do so. Gun felt noticeably lighter and with improved trigger over AUG. Front portion of handguard is designed to accept 40mm gl. AUG mag version first followed by STANAG. Gun is currently awaiting ATF approval. You're saying that they removed the barrel/receiver unit from the stock, then disconnected the barrel from the receiver? I don't see how that is possible with tools. EDIT- Never mind. I posted begore seeing a second page. Duh. But I still wouldn't call removing all of that mess "removing the barrel" anymore than separating the two halves of an AR. Using the general idea that the receiver is what the barrel is screwed/pressed/clamped/whatever into, to me, there is little question the receiver should be the part similar to the AUG's- the triangular part the barrel is mounted to. I would tend to agree- the only issue with that is the "triangular part" is made of composite, not metal, so it would require a metal tag bonded/molded to it for the serial number. If I were Lithgow that is how I would do it to prevent the barrel from being the serialized part. |
|
Quoted:
I would tend to agree- the only issue with that is the "triangular part" is made of composite, not metal, so it would require a metal tag bonded/molded to it for the serial number. If I were Lithgow that is how I would do it to prevent the barrel from being the serialized part. So everything that looks like the receiver (the triangle part) is some type of polymer? And the rails bolted on, they're metal? |
|
Some observations from your pictures.
The bolt sleeve (which may not even be compatible with an AUG) is the old "short" design. It doesn't look like they are using a trunnion or barrel extension. Looks like the chamber area/barrel is one expensively machined part.. |
|
Quoted:
I would tend to agree- the only issue with that is the "triangular part" is made of composite, not metal, so it would require a metal tag bonded/molded to it for the serial number. If I were Lithgow that is how I would do it to prevent the barrel from being the serialized part. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The barrel is removeable and watched them do so. Gun felt noticeably lighter and with improved trigger over AUG. Front portion of handguard is designed to accept 40mm gl. AUG mag version first followed by STANAG. Gun is currently awaiting ATF approval. You're saying that they removed the barrel/receiver unit from the stock, then disconnected the barrel from the receiver? I don't see how that is possible with tools. EDIT- Never mind. I posted begore seeing a second page. Duh. But I still wouldn't call removing all of that mess "removing the barrel" anymore than separating the two halves of an AR. Using the general idea that the receiver is what the barrel is screwed/pressed/clamped/whatever into, to me, there is little question the receiver should be the part similar to the AUG's- the triangular part the barrel is mounted to. I would tend to agree- the only issue with that is the "triangular part" is made of composite, not metal, so it would require a metal tag bonded/molded to it for the serial number. If I were Lithgow that is how I would do it to prevent the barrel from being the serialized part. Wow. I had no idea that was composite. I got to handle the one at the show, but not when it was apart. Hmmm. Knowing that now, I'd almost think it should be even lighter than it is. And yes, I'd think a molded-in tag would be the way to go, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it should be the part least likely to ever need replaced. |
|
Quoted:
So everything that looks like the receiver (the triangle part) is some type of polymer? And the rails bolted on, they're metal? Quoted:
Quoted:
I would tend to agree- the only issue with that is the "triangular part" is made of composite, not metal, so it would require a metal tag bonded/molded to it for the serial number. If I were Lithgow that is how I would do it to prevent the barrel from being the serialized part. So everything that looks like the receiver (the triangle part) is some type of polymer? And the rails bolted on, they're metal? Correct Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Wow. I had no idea that was composite. I got to handle the one at the show, but not when it was apart. Hmmm. Knowing that now, I'd almost think it should be even lighter than it is. And yes, I'd think a molded-in tag would be the way to go, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it should be the part least likely to ever need replaced. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The barrel is removeable and watched them do so. Gun felt noticeably lighter and with improved trigger over AUG. Front portion of handguard is designed to accept 40mm gl. AUG mag version first followed by STANAG. Gun is currently awaiting ATF approval. You're saying that they removed the barrel/receiver unit from the stock, then disconnected the barrel from the receiver? I don't see how that is possible with tools. EDIT- Never mind. I posted begore seeing a second page. Duh. But I still wouldn't call removing all of that mess "removing the barrel" anymore than separating the two halves of an AR. It is a full pound lighter than an AUG Using the general idea that the receiver is what the barrel is screwed/pressed/clamped/whatever into, to me, there is little question the receiver should be the part similar to the AUG's- the triangular part the barrel is mounted to. I would tend to agree- the only issue with that is the "triangular part" is made of composite, not metal, so it would require a metal tag bonded/molded to it for the serial number. If I were Lithgow that is how I would do it to prevent the barrel from being the serialized part. Wow. I had no idea that was composite. I got to handle the one at the show, but not when it was apart. Hmmm. Knowing that now, I'd almost think it should be even lighter than it is. And yes, I'd think a molded-in tag would be the way to go, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it should be the part least likely to ever need replaced. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
And yes, I'd think a molded-in tag would be the way to go, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it should be the part least likely to ever need replaced. Agreed, making the barrel the receiver is a mistake. If anything ever happened to the barrel to necessitate replacement, you're screwed. |
|
When I see plastic anywhere near the barrel, I can't help but wonder.
Maybe I don't understand the interaction of parts and materials here, but looking back on what happened with the G36, where the barrel trunion was seated in plastic and when heated, moved around randomly affecting accuracy I wonder: How does this system forestall a similar issue? If someone could describe how this is set up such that it's not a concern I'd appreciate it. |
|
Quoted:
When I see plastic anywhere near the barrel, I can't help but wonder. Maybe I don't understand the interaction of parts and materials here, but looking back on what happened with the G36, where the barrel trunion was seated in plastic and when heated, moved around randomly affecting accuracy I wonder: How does this system forestall a similar issue? If someone could describe how this is set up such that it's not a concern I'd appreciate it. My question exacly. The answer here is make or break for this rifle. |
| It looks like the "cocking body" is not attached to the barrel, but to the gas block and sight rail. So the plastic body will help dampen a recoil whipping action of the sight rail that also butts up against the stock assembly. Then the question is how hot that portion of the gas black gets? One would guess, very hot. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Lithgow F90.. civi version? (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor