Like Warwick, I carried the F88 Austeyr for some years.
I won't dispute such things as the trigger pull on the AUG, it is definitely an issue but a few other points I would challenge because some of them seem like "local build" problems rather than being universal to the design.

The magazines: Sounds more like a problem with the specific magazines you had access to, I've seen Australian made AUG magazines dropped and they did not lose any rounds. Also, not all of us "strike" the bottom of the magazine to seat it, frankly I think that it's a poor practice as it is may be relevant to some firearms but it is by no means suitable for all. I've never had any need for slapping the bottom of any AUG mag I used to seat it properly but I've also never needed to strike the bottom of any mag I used on the M16A1 to get it to seat properly. I sincerely believe this has more to do with training than it does with any actual need to shove the mag further into the magazine well to compensate for any seeming deficiency in the rifles ability to seat & retain a magazine.

The gas port selector: Under normal use, you shouldn't be mucking about with it and if you do have to use it, it's designed to be manipulated with the head of a 5.56mm round - there's no need for putting bare flesh on it unless you're doing strip/clean/assembly.

Double-feed: Depending on the model of AUG you're using and the accepted drill for doing so, clearing a double-feed was pretty damned easy - if it couldn't be cleared through the ejection port, you removed the barrel and took care of the problem.

But wait, there's more as they say in the television adverts. The biggest issue with the A.U.G. is the proprietary Steyr magazine The U.S. is obligated to defend Australia under the ANZUS treaty. There is a Standardization Agreement ( STANAG) between the U.S. and almost all of it's potential allies ( Britain, Canada, NATO).
The Steyr can't accept STANAG magazines. All of the ammunition made for use with STANAG magazines are packed in stripper clips with magazine adapters that permit charging magazines with clips, rather than individual rounds.
None of that will work with an AUG magazine. If Australian forces are operating with U.S. forces which is very likely in a real war, the only thing that the U.S. supply systems can provide to AUG users are loose cartridges. That's why the Australian SAS in Afghanistan is seen using M-4s. Their AUG are pretty much useless when depending on the U.S. supply system.
When the EF-88 was introduced the problem still wasn't fixed! That's carrying national independence a bit far!
Of all the countries around OZ, the Malaysians and Kiwis used the AUG and both have decided to dump it.

Geez, how ever did we survive when we & the Brits used the L1A1 and you used the M14, the Belgians used the FAL and the Germans used the G3.
I can't believe we actually made it through WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc. without standardization...

The AUG is only useless when relying on the US supply system if you suddenly forgot how to load a magazine.

I've been in the ADF a long time. I am qual'd on a lot of weapon systems. I like the M4 family its a good weapon. I miss the FN FAL which was the first long arm I carried in service. But it had its limitations as well.
And I REALLY like the current Australian issue service rifle. I have no reservations about its performance and can hand on heart say I have never experienced any of the issues that Remington has described. Even in the field on active service. Including logistics!!!!!
Remington, I will politely listen to your views, just not agree with all of them.
Question though, how do you rate the FAMAS family?

I haven't handled a FAMAS in a long time and the rifle has been modified a number of times since, including the introduction of STANAG magazines, so I really can't evaluate the latest versions.
Like any bullpup rifle it has a very long trigger linkage that makes for a horrible trigger.

Was it awkward to shift from a traditionally configured assault rifle to a bullpup configured rifle?

For anyone who has been raised with firearms of conventional configuration, a bullpup is awkward. By conventional I mean; starting at the muzzle and working backward, barrel, receiver with magazine underneath, the trigger group, the stock.
Americans have usually handled firearms of this layout and find the bullpup arrangement awkward.
However, for nations where citizens have no exposure to guns prior to military service, it may not be an issue.
The justification for the bullpup design is that it is more compact and when soldiers are jammed into armored personnel carriers or helicopters, it is thought to be useful. It might be if we could figure out how to make the soldiers and all their gear smaller at the same time. The M-4 addresses the problem with a collapsible stock.
My objection to a bullpup is that it places the ejection port right up next to a soldiers face. Even if the rifle has off-side ejection, it means that the weapon can only be used from one shoulder.It's critical that a soldier be able to use a rifle from both sides of available cover with exposing more of his/her head than necessary.

I think at least with the FAMAS the ejection port is easily reconfigured so as to change it for a left hand or right hand shooter. Bit more effort and tooling required for the Aug.
As for me changing from long arm to Bull pup, I hated it and it took me quite some time to get used to it and accept it.
Don't mind it at all now but I get to fire a few different weapons now to keep me happy.

Follow-up on this old thread. France has announced that the replacement rifle for the FAMAS will be the HK416F, a gas-piston gun. This rifle is already officially in use by Norway, and unofficially by other militaries including U.S. Army Special Forces and the U.S. Marines.