Talk:Steyr AUG

EF88

Guns & Glory the two sources you added Lithgow Arms and the Australian Army poster do not mention:

• The length of pull has been shortened by 15 mm.
• A longer top rail.
• A free-floating barrel.
• That a fluted barrel dissipates heat from automatic fire.
• The butt plate design increases durability.
• The butt plate design is bolted-together for easier disassembly.
• Provision for electronic architecture to allow centralised control and power management of ancillary devices.
• The SL40 can fire all currently available 40 mm low velocity grenades.
• Improved grenade launcher mount which improves the balance of the weapon.
• Improved grenade launcher safety, the new KORD RIC (Rifle Input Control) electronic control system made by Thales will also be integrated into the rifle.

WP:BURDEN requires that "all content must be verifiable" and that material "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Melbguy05 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Then remove the two sources added. That is why I added the 'need better source'. This list was made years ago. Meaning it existed prior to when I gave these two 'new' sources. If you are not satisfied with the 2 sources, then remove the sources but keep the list and find a better one. It is a summarisation of the improvements that is found on the EF88. And if you look up the EF88 you will find that it has all the things mentioned on the list. The grenade module is for the F90. Although it does not mean that the EF88 cannot utilise it since it is the same weapon. The name 'EF88' is simply the Australian military designation of the F90. I don't see the issue here, and quite frankly there shouldn't be one really. Which is better, leaving it with 'citation needed' or with 2 sources and a 'need better source'. The latter is preferable Guns & Glory (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Guns & Glory It is your responsibility per WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability as you restored the material [1] that I removed [2]. Per WP:BURDEN "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Melbguy05 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Bruh I was the one who gave those two sources because the original ones were removed due to them being dead. The two new sources I have provided does not include everything on the list because they came from a Military site. Which often summarises everything. The original source was a more detailed blog post. Which was then just summarised into bullet points as you can see now. Just remove the two sources then. That's also part of the reason why I included 'Need Better Source'. And surely in due time someone can find a copy of those lost sources or find another one that includes every single one that is mentioned on that list. I can verify right now that everything on that list is true. I am from Australia and have visited Museums and military bases where they showcase the F88 and EF88. Guns & Glory (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Guns & Glory To be clear, there were three sources two were forums, one of which was dead, that were removed per WP:USERG and the third source, a 2011 Thales document, did not support the material [3]. You restored the material firstly with the Australian Army poster, then you added {{Better source needed}} with "The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS)" and finally you added Lithgow Arms whilst keeping the {{Better source needed}}.

Administrator Diannaa said at WP:ANI "Unsourced content can and should be removed if a supporting citation cannot be found. It doesn't matter if it's been there a long time".Melbguy05 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Melbguy05 Not sure whether this helps as Guns & Glory is a sockpuppet who has been banned, but I think I've found sources to cover off like 90% of those points, obviously without having access tot he DMO preso that these came from.

This has the most info, however its all within the paragraphs, not a neat list, but a quick Ctrl+F finds most things: —— Issue; V12N3; Volume 12. "ENHANCING THE AUSTEYR AUSTRALIA DEFENCE FORCE'S EF88/F90 RIFLE – Small Arms Defense Journal". Retrieved 2023-11-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

This one has info on the Rifle Input Control (RIC) and Kord Defence: —— "Land Warfare: The future of the F88 | ADM Nov 2010 - Australian Defence Magazine". www.australiandefence.com.au. Retrieved 2023-11-12.

This one has a tonne of info, really quite good , and has lots of photos too, (wonder if he would post them onto common as CC?) —— "EF88: Australia's Next-Generation Assault Rifle". The Rogue Adventurer. 2013-01-11. Retrieved 2023-11-12.

One from navy covering some things: —— Navy, corporateName=Royal Australian. "EF88 Austeyr". www.navy.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-11-12.

This is from ASPI so take it with a bit of a grain of salt. —— Masters, Chris (2019). Sticking to our guns: A troubled past produces a superb weapon (Report). Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

This from The Cove: —— Birch, Solomon. "On the Merits of M4 and EF88 (and more) | Part 3". The Cove | army.gov.au.

Personally I think the EF88 deserves its own page with a link in here for Full article: under the EF88 page. There is enough info, and the EF88 being essentially redesigned in Australia, not by Steyr, makes it very noteworthy, as its kind of its own rifle. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I gonna pretend I didn't see that

despite AFG, it's hard to confirm whether it is or not, because user edited was simply IP address.

Sniper4721 (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)