View Full Version : Who would still pick an AR over a US-made Tavor?
Tacti-square
05-09-13, 14:39
Just watched a couple Nutnfancy vids on the IWI Tavor in which he compared it heavily to the AR platform, specifically an SPR setup. He said a lot of great things about it but had some complaints concerning weight, trigger and caliber limitations. How many of you would still choose Stoner's design over the Israeli gun if you could have either? Please explain why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxCuDtQW3nw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rZccNNt7-U
If I want info on airplane mechanical issues, I may ask Nut'n Fancy. If I want info on guns, I'd look elsewhere.
I've owned bullpups. I'll stick to AR-15s.
Nutnfancy is generally regarded as a useless tool on this board.
Tacti-square
05-09-13, 15:14
I don't particularly like him either, he just had access to a system I was interested in. Forget about him then, just think about the platform. Is it more capable than the M4?
I rather get dental work done than watch him run a bolt gun.
Cylinder Head
05-09-13, 15:15
While I would agree that Nutnfancy can stick his hour long reviews where the sun don't shine, I will say that LAV himself chimed in to the Tavor thread on the "Other Rifles" board and said he'd consider picking one up over an AR.
I wouldn't even take the time to post in a thread about another goofball Israeli designed firearm.....
Let alone consider spending GOOD MONEY on one.! :nono:
I own both, and would definitely take the AR. The difficult trigger and behavior in recoil make my performance suffer noticeably on the Tavor. The extra length vs. extra weight is a tradeoff. That said, the Tavor is fun and different and I'm not getting rid of it any time soon.
As much as I'd love own a Tavor, it just doesn't compare to an AR.
Not only in price but availability, aftermarket, and ability to modify/customize. My AR still wins.
J Who would still pick an AR over a US-made Tavor?
No, welcome to the board....
Lawnchair 04
05-09-13, 15:27
As much as I'd love own a Tavor, it just doesn't compare to an AR.
Not only in price but availability, aftermarket, and ability to modify/customize. My AR still wins.
This...and I shoot left handed but not always so bull pups are generally a no go for me.
I really want a Tavor, I think it is a great design. However if i only had one semi auto sporting rifle i would take the AR15/M4 (especially the SR15) design all day long. The modularity and aftermarket options are unmatched at this point.
The reason i want a Tavor is to have a short OAL firearm without going NFA. Also i have always liked the design and as far as bullpup go the Tavor may be the best available.
The cons of all bullpups are crappy triggers, and length of pull in non adjustable which is a overlooked advantage of the AR15/M4.
This...and I shoot left handed but not always so bull pups are generally a no go for me.
never shot one but fondled one at a holiay inn:happy:. neat design but no ambidextious capability. also where are spare parts? ,plus 2600 dollars for one no thanks
never shot one but fondled one at a holiay inn:happy:. neat design but no ambidextious capability. also where are spare parts? ,plus 2600 dollars for one no thanks
you can order a LH model, and the controls can be converted to lefty. Even with a RH bolt it is possible to fire with the Tavor on the left shoulder.
yep noticed that feature but the way i shoulder the rifle would put the ejection port next to my mouth just like the AUG which i have fired and got lucky the case only chip my tooth, not very fun getting hot brass stuffed into your mouth but it will teach you to shoot mouth closed preety quick
Tavor = novelty, bullpup, short with unproven track record. AR = almost infinite configurations, easy to find parts for, cheaper....
Tavor is neat but there are plenty of reasons to stick with an AR carbine. Mostly because it's alot better. Mostly.
The question is rather silly since virtually no one has REAL hands on experience with it and probably not one person here has combat time with it.
Not sure why I would want a weapon that I can't support. If any of my AR's goes tits up, I can find parts from any crack dealer. Not so much with a Tavor.
Suwannee Tim
05-09-13, 15:56
I was indifferent to the AR for decades, I bought one in '86, shot it a couple of hundred times and put it up for two decades. With his election Barack Obama re-kindled my interest in ARs in that he disproved of me having one therefore I bought several. Then I shot 40K or 50K rounds out of various AR10s and AR15s and have become persuaded that it is the greatest military rifle ever designed. I'd love to have a Tavor though I have bought too many toys recently but it would just be a toy.
Tacti-square
05-09-13, 15:56
I'm sorry but there seems to be a lot of emphasis on parts availability and logistical queasiness. That's not a fair comparison, it literally just got here. As far as a combat track record the Tavor has more than proven itself with the IDF over the years and whenever it went in for refinements the guys on the ground had basically zero recommendations. I can understand the parts gripe, but I was asking more about the capabilities of the weapon, not how quickly you can find a barrel replacement. Just sayin, be fair to the new kid on the block
The question is rather silly since virtually no one has REAL hands on experience with it and probably not one person here has combat time with it.
Not sure why I would want a weapon that I can't support. If any of my AR's goes tits up, I can find parts from any crack dealer. Not so much with a Tavor.
IG hit the nail on the head... A Tavor breaks and you have a club - forever, unless you get lucky. An AR breaks, and within days at most you can have a serviceable weapon.
Tavor = novelty, bullpup, short with unproven track record. AR = almost infinite configurations, easy to find parts for, cheaper....
Darn fine points.........
WickedWillis
05-09-13, 16:02
Exactly. LAV loved the Tavor from what I understand. The rifle was built in war by a military that demands reliable weaponry. That pretty much sells me.
While I would agree that Nutnfancy can stick his hour long reviews where the sun don't shine, I will say that LAV himself chimed in to the Tavor thread on the "Other Rifles" board and said he'd consider picking one up over an AR.
Suwannee Tim
05-09-13, 16:02
I can't answer that question, I have never even handled a Tavor, I have no idea how it compares to an AR in actual use. I have an AUG, an LCR and an FS2000 none of which outshine the AR so I'm guessing that even if I did have a Tavor it would still be just a toy.
WickedWillis
05-09-13, 16:03
Tell the Israeli's that.
Tavor = novelty, bullpup, short with unproven track record. AR = almost infinite configurations, easy to find parts for, cheaper....
Chromium4500
05-09-13, 16:07
I would.
Actually, I would pick two of them! (~15 ppl ahead of me still at Copes!)
Chromium4500
05-09-13, 16:10
IG hit the nail on the head... A Tavor breaks and you have a club - forever, unless you get lucky. An AR breaks, and within days at most you can have a serviceable weapon.
Granted, this would generally be the CURRENT situation. However the Tavor has been available in the US for about a month!?! Be patient...
I'm prophesying right now that the Tavor is going to prove to be a success in the US market.
I'm sorry but there seems to be a lot of emphasis on parts availability and logistical queasiness. That's not a fair comparison, it literally just got here. As far as a combat track record the Tavor has more than proven itself with the IDF over the years and whenever it went in for refinements the guys on the ground had basically zero recommendations. I can understand the parts gripe, but I was asking more about the capabilities of the weapon, not how quickly you can find a barrel replacement. Just sayin, be fair to the new kid on the block
Fairness is irrelevant when choosing a weapon.
Exactly. LAV loved the Tavor from what I understand. The rifle was built in war by a military that demands reliable weaponry. That pretty much sells me.
Good for Larry. He loves the AR too. :)
Failure2Stop
05-09-13, 16:33
Tell the Israeli's that.
Their SF already did.
Littlelebowski
05-09-13, 16:52
Tell the Israeli's that.
Always funny how people think fighting Palestinians trumps us fighting on two fronts.
Tavor = novelty, bullpup, short with unproven track record. AR = almost infinite configurations, easy to find parts for, cheaper....
+1...pretty much sums it up, less is more, more or less:D
ForTehNguyen
05-09-13, 17:03
still the best designed bullpup in terms of ergonomics. Soemthing previous bullpups severly lacked. To thos dogging it how many have actually touched one? I still prefer my AR but the Tavor is still an impressively designed rifle
Failure2Stop
05-09-13, 17:12
still the best designed bullpup in terms of ergonomics. Soemthing previous bullpups severly lacked. To thos dogging it how many have actually touched one? I still prefer my AR but the Tavor is still an impressively designed rifle
It's arguably the best bullpup but still suffers from the same issue with overall usability/utility when compared to a traditionally laid-out carbine. Notice the trend with long handguards to allow the shooter to stretch his position out and to free up rail space for lights/lasers/bipods/grips/disco balls? Notice the push toward thin handguards to permit a good grasp of the forearm in barricade/supported positions? Notice the trend toward usable variable optics that benefit from extended eye relief in conjunction with in-line clip-on thermal and IR devices, along with IR lasers, all of which naturally benefit from a 12:00 placement?
If my need was to have a small, compact carbine without NFA restrictions, that would fit under my driver's seat or in a small pack, the Tavor would probably be at the top of my list. I simply don't want that enough to shell out the dough for it.
plouffedaddy
05-09-13, 17:15
http://imageshack.us/a/img713/751/picture12um.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img607/7134/img1377zc.jpg
So far I really like my Tavor. That said, AR manipulation is second nature to me and I'd have to spend a lot of time training with the Tavor to get to the comfort level I currently have with the AR platform.
Maybe one day, but not just yet.
WickedWillis
05-09-13, 17:17
Well that is being extremely liberal with my quote. I made no mention of what OUR troops are enduring currently. I was referring to the fact that the Tavor has seen extensive combat, and is "battle tested"
Always funny how people think fighting Palestinians trumps us fighting on two fronts.
it literally just got here.
And that was IG's point. How can people give you an honest assessment of the weapon's capabilities if they've never used it under any conditions? It's not possible for most, even on this forum, to give you an honest comparison.
Littlelebowski
05-09-13, 18:42
Well that is being extremely liberal with my quote. I made no mention of what OUR troops are enduring currently. I was referring to the fact that the Tavor has seen extensive combat, and is "battle tested"
Battle tested means different things to the AR and the Tavor
bluejackets92fs
05-09-13, 18:43
For $2, 000 I can build a kick ass SBR and probably get a suppressor too. I want a tavor for the cool factor but from a functionality stand point and manual of arms stand point I will take an ar any day. Also I'm not crazy on the whole small explosion under my cheek.
Littlelebowski
05-09-13, 18:48
It doesn't matter to many gun owners; Mako defense will always trump Magpul and the occupation of Palestine will always trump Fallujah and Marjah. Why? Because Israel.
Larry Vickers
05-09-13, 18:52
I love it when people put words in my mouth - what I said was, unless someone can show me proof I said otherwise ( then I will eat my words) , that it is the first Bullpup I have seen that I could potentially see using over an M4
Specifically in an SBR format against a DI M4 SBR the Tavor has serious potential ; if compactness is a very critical issue this weapon becomes a serious contender in a big way
Does that mean I am going to use it over an M4 - of course not - but what it does mean that the Tavor could be a superior weapon in certain applications to a comparable M4 carbine
You guys need to wake up and realize the M4 may be a great gun but it ain't the ONLY gun - take it from someone who deployed to Desert Storm with a CAR 15 with an effective range of a few hundred yards when you could see the enemy ( and he could see you ) miles away
Maybe, just maybe, things like 7.62 NATO battle rifles have a place in this world - even over the beloved M4
It doesn't matter to many gun owners; Mako defense will always trump Magpul and the occupation of Palestine will always trump Fallujah and Marjah. Why? Because Israel.
As should it, they are GOD's chosen, after all:agree:
RogerinTPA
05-09-13, 19:14
I think one would be great for the collection, but other than that, based on the ability to find parts and my familiarity with the M4 platform, I'll stick with it.
Littlelebowski
05-09-13, 19:15
As should it, they are GOD's chosen, after all:agree:
Not sure if serious.....
PatrioticDisorder
05-09-13, 19:19
For $2, 000 I can build a kick ass SBR and probably get a suppressor too. I want a tavor for the cool factor but from a functionality stand point and manual of arms stand point I will take an ar any day. Also I'm not crazy on the whole small explosion under my cheek.
Ballistics
No I don't think so:nono:
you could ask this question on the Tavor web site. Never mind I couldn't find one
I'm sorry but there seems to be a lot of emphasis on parts availability and logistical queasiness. That's not a fair comparison, it literally just got here.
You asked what people would pick and why, and you got answers with (damn good) reasons.
If something as important as maintainability makes the comparison 'unfair' then the decision really is a no-brainer.
Tavor = novelty, bullpup, short with unproven track record.
I think the Israelis have adequately achieved a track record with it. Most of us know little to nothing about them, and they've been in service since 2009 with several countries.
The question is rather silly since virtually no one has REAL hands on experience with it and probably not one person here has combat time with it.
Agreed. I think once someone, who knows their stuff, has about 5-10,000 rounds through one, then they should be able give us a good evaluation.
They are selling Tavors way faster than they can produce them, and it's not going to slow down anytime soon. Will it ever catch up to the AR in parts availability? Not even AKs can claim that, with all the after market stuff that's out there.
halfmoonclip
05-09-13, 20:05
Bullpups are strange beasts with ergos that feel odd to those of us trained on ARs. But it's hard to argue the barrel length/OAL.
If and when things settle down, and Tavor prices come down out of the ozone, I wouldn't mind trying one.
Moon
themighty9mm
05-09-13, 21:14
It's arguably the best bullpup but still suffers from the same issue with overall usability/utility when compared to a traditionally laid-out carbine. Notice the trend with long handguards to allow the shooter to stretch his position out and to free up rail space for lights/lasers/bipods/grips/disco balls? Notice the push toward thin handguards to permit a good grasp of the forearm in barricade/supported positions? Notice the trend toward usable variable optics that benefit from extended eye relief in conjunction with in-line clip-on thermal and IR devices, along with IR lasers, all of which naturally benefit from a 12:00 placement?
If my need was to have a small, compact carbine without NFA restrictions, that would fit under my driver's seat or in a small pack, the Tavor would probably be at the top of my list. I simply don't want that enough to shell out the dough for it.
I have no dog in this fight. However if I understand correctly. Most people have the longer hand guards for a few reasons. To place their hand closer to the muzzle for better control. And to bring things such as lights further out to help eliminate shadowing. These are the big reasons I moved to a longer hand guard anyways. With the tavor, by the very nature of the bull pup design alone. You already have hand placement closer to the muzzle and most of the rail mounting options any AR provides.
Outside of an adjustable length of pull stock, and needing to learn new techniques for a new platform. I'm not sure I see any real down sides with the tavor vs the AR. Seems to me while the may be apples and oranges. Its, on the same note a 6- a half a dozen issue. Just different ways of reaching the same goal.
Like I said, no dog in the fight and didn't intend on picking your post specifically, just seems most of the nay sayers, think along the same lines. I prefer the AR myself but only because its what I am accustomed to at this point. At the price point of the tavor its a no go for me. As at this point in time I have a decent understanding of how to make a 16 inch carbine pretty close to tavor length in a cqb role. And the ar does everything I want in a more affordable way
ForTehNguyen
05-09-13, 21:22
bullpup triggers wont be as good as the AR, since they require a connecting rod to connect the hammer and trigger. Inherit in all bullpups. Tavor trigger pull was pretty damn heavy but crisp.
I would definitely like to have one of those but I'll stick with my AR.. I've shot bullpups and it's just something I couldn't get into it but I'd give it another chance for one of those. I'm too comfortable with the AR platform to ever choose anything over it even though my ak is a close second.
Failure2Stop
05-09-13, 21:28
Like I said, no dog in the fight and didn't intend on picking your post specifically, just seems most of the nay sayers, think along the same lines.
I shot a bullpup for 2.5 years working overseas instructing tactics, combat marksmanship, and competitive shooting. I was in the top 10 competitors for both years that I competed for the Queen's Medal (9th and 6th place, IIRC) while using a bullpup. I know a thing or two about them, and the issue is not about being close to the muzzle, but putting the body in the best position to drive the gun. The bullpup is a cramped arrangement in most regards and has a limiting 12:00 rail.
How many bullpups do you see winning 3-gun, 2-gun, tactical, or bullseye competitions?
Hint.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I have a Tavor, its comfortable, fun to shoot, and reloads are pretty easy. As much as I like it the 15 or so years of firing the ar platform can't be disregarded. Something happens I can manipulate my ar blind with one hand tied behind my back. I never look at a safety a d wonder if I am on safe or fire, I can tell by touch and that's ingrained in me by practice. The Tavor is awesome but if I was blinded I could not work it, I would fumble, I would try frantically to try and remember where everything is. Since there are right and left versions and i an a lefty if i lost my weapon and acquired a stray i would have to touch feel where the bolt is and which side its setup to eject on.I would basically look like a blind teenager on a hooker.
My ar I never wonder about. This is important despite not being a short coming of the weapon. The weapon may be awesome but without the muscle memory it's a liability.
themighty9mm
05-09-13, 22:25
I shot a bullpup for 2.5 years working overseas instructing tactics, combat marksmanship, and competitive shooting. I was in the top 10 competitors for both years that I competed for the Queen's Medal (9th and 6th place, IIRC) while using a bullpup. I know a thing or two about them, and the issue is not about being close to the muzzle, but putting the body in the best position to drive the gun. The bullpup is a cramped arrangement in most regards and has a limiting 12:00 rail.
How many bullpups do you see winning 3-gun, 2-gun, tactical, or bullseye competitions?
Hint.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I have no experience with bullpups, so I don't fully understand what you are saying. But do fallow well enough to get the basic picture... I think.
However as far as competition goes, there are only a handful of bullpup options at all. The tavor, the FN, styer aug, keltec rfb, I think I'm missing one or two in there. But no doubt you don't see many in competition, let alone winning them. They are just few and far between, and not exactly an all American design. With what you are saying, could be a big reason for that. I will have to take your word for it, as I simply don't know. But seems its more of an issue, of quantity and availability. Then again having never even touched one, I very well could be dead nuts wrong.
As for rail space (thinking tavor, based off pictures I have seen) you have the full length 12:00 rail and then a rail at 10 and 2. Right? Now not even having seen one in person I may very well not relize how little rail space it is. But it seems it would be plenty for mounting optics, lights, peq, and whatever other dumafloppy. Especially considering, the m4/RAS combination often times appeared more than enough. You did touch on this when you spoke of the trend moving towards longer rails. So perhaps it really wasn't enough.
Chrisollis
05-09-13, 22:36
AR for me... Honestly just because of familiarity with the platform. I would however like to shoot a Tavor.
IMO everyone in the USA that wants a 5.56 carbine should first get a 16 inch direct impingement AR and get know how to use it, it should be the default choice for a million or more reasons we can most probably agree on.
Only after that should you begin to think what else. In my case I live in WA state where we can't have an SBR. If for some reason I wanted a shorter rifle the the Tavor might be a choice for me. If I could have an SBR I'd still likely choose a 10 inch AR in 556 or 300blk over a Tavor simply because of the many hours of shooting, training, malfunction clearance, reload and general familiarity with an AR.
This also goes fora 7.62 platform, I'd probably try an ar10/sr25 type before seriously considering scar17 even though its pretty awesome and light for a 7.62.
I just like a few others do not have much to offer on this subject accept for speculation and dumb logic, I think the Tavor could find its place as an SBR, or when space is critical like cramped in a truck, humvee etc. But when ARs are already made to suit this situation why deviate, I'm a very open minded person but I guess my inexperience yields the thought that if something is proven and proven well in many faccits of combat, then unless something better, much better comes along not just equal or close which as of right now to much uncertainty exists with them in our hands, years from now who knows.
But I get it, its new its finally a bull pup that has some strong potential , although I do not think its the straw that broke the camels back and will start replacing M4s, but maybe it will be known as the bull pup that has some serious combat potential and we can put it to work, I could see potential for certain branches that may benfit using one based on circumstance and mission. If things work out it will find a spot on the armory shelf, tool for every job, but I feel that's still aways down the road, and the tools we are currently using speaking of the AR are still getting better and better, I have no doubt that one day a new wepon will be in the hands of our military as a standard issue. I just don't know if this is it. What works in other parts of the world has not always worked for us, and the Tavor may be no different, that not to say it's not a great firearm.
mauser-nagant
05-10-13, 01:06
I would pick an AR over a tavor.
I wouldn't mind learning a new weapon system, but the AR has just proven it self over and over again, i'm sure the tavor has as well.
the price, ouch.
I shot a bullpup for 2.5 years working overseas instructing tactics, combat marksmanship, and competitive shooting. I was in the top 10 competitors for both years that I competed for the Queen's Medal (9th and 6th place, IIRC) while using a bullpup. I know a thing or two about them.....
Jack, you are the perfect person to wring one out and then report the results! Get on with it please.
As a person who has neither (an AK though), who is in the market right now, I'm going for an AR over the Tavor. Though I would like a Tavor at some point, I am choosing an AR first.
Another vote for AR over Tavor. There are not enough benefits in favor of the Tavor to outweigh the benefits of the AR, as been previously discussed.
Mr.Anderson
05-10-13, 11:18
The first thing I notice about the Tavor would be limited support hand placement.
Also I believe logic and fundamentals has proven that the further the distance between points of contact on a given object, the more stable the platform?
Having two AR's I feel the urge for an AK :)
Glad there is an ak forum here hehe
Yes.
I'll keep my 16", but I scrapped my SBR project and went with a Tavor.
NeoNeanderthal
05-10-13, 11:35
You've gotta look at it as pros vs cons. A 10.5" sbr vs a tavor. In this situation the only advantage you have is velocity... is that worth the cost, weight, non-adjustable LOP, slower reloads, inferior trigger and lack of available customization?
The idea of the bull-pup is to give you a cqb gun that can reach out and touch someone...I have yet to see someone overcome the LOP and trigger issues and shoot it better than a 10.5" spr at long distance. Until then, its a cool concept and it very well might be the best pdw to date but I still consider it a pdw.
mkmckinley
05-10-13, 11:48
I wouldn't buy a Tavor simply because I've invested a lot of time, money, and focus on training with an AR-15. It looks like a great design but the supposed benefits of the Tavor aren't enough to make me want to switch platforms. That along with the limited support available for the Tavor will keep me from buying one any time soon.
This is a little off topic, but if you look at some of the improved carbine designs that have been developed in the last 10 years or so you'll see that most of them have "improved AR" style controls. They may have ambi controls or a different charging handle but the layouts are pretty much analogous. In other words the AR-15 is kind of the defacto standard for weapon handling. If there was something that an AR just couldn't do for me I would look at something like a SCAR-L with its AR style controls. That way I could retain most of the weapon handling skills that I've developed with an AR.
halfmoonclip
05-10-13, 12:20
As a person who has neither (an AK though), who is in the market right now, I'm going for an AR over the Tavor. Though I would like a Tavor at some point, I am choosing an AR first.
This is an eminently sensible approach.
Moon
It's arguably the best bullpup but still suffers from the same issue with overall usability/utility when compared to a traditionally laid-out carbine. Notice the trend with long handguards to allow the shooter to stretch his position out and to free up rail space for lights/lasers/bipods/grips/disco balls? Notice the push toward thin handguards to permit a good grasp of the forearm in barricade/supported positions? Notice the trend toward usable variable optics that benefit from extended eye relief in conjunction with in-line clip-on thermal and IR devices, along with IR lasers, all of which naturally benefit from a 12:00 placement?
If my need was to have a small, compact carbine without NFA restrictions, that would fit under my driver's seat or in a small pack, the Tavor would probably be at the top of my list. I simply don't want that enough to shell out the dough for it.
i think these are the reasons.
the current evolutions in ergonomics and peripheral equipment excludes bullpups as something desireable with the exception of a few circumstances that are based on legal convenience.
I have no dog in this fight. However if I understand correctly. Most people have the longer hand guards for a few reasons. To place their hand closer to the muzzle for better control. And to bring things such as lights further out to help eliminate shadowing. These are the big reasons I moved to a longer hand guard anyways. With the tavor, by the very nature of the bull pup design alone. You already have hand placement closer to the muzzle and most of the rail mounting options any AR provides.
Outside of an adjustable length of pull stock, and needing to learn new techniques for a new platform. I'm not sure I see any real down sides with the tavor vs the AR. Seems to me while the may be apples and oranges. Its, on the same note a 6- a half a dozen issue. Just different ways of reaching the same goal.
Like I said, no dog in the fight and didn't intend on picking your post specifically, just seems most of the nay sayers, think along the same lines. I prefer the AR myself but only because its what I am accustomed to at this point. At the price point of the tavor its a no go for me. As at this point in time I have a decent understanding of how to make a 16 inch carbine pretty close to tavor length in a cqb role. And the ar does everything I want in a more affordable way
i don't think you addressed the other things he was saying.
night vision optics in front of primary optics requires space, space that won't exist on a bullpup without extreme barrel lengths.
ir lasers and other night time support equipment that goes on the gun requires sapce. the ways to activate these pieces of peripheral equipment requires space and ergonomics of rail placement.
ability to wrap hand concetric to or close to inline with the barrel.
you also can't extend the arm while clasping the handguard which relegates you to the tight cqb stance which relies more on muscle support than skeletal support.
the bullpup is going to be a small package and that's good for cqb. but if you limit the choice to the bullpup's strong suit, then there's still other guns that are good for cqb. the bullpup may be the best in that pile, but then you have to consider parts intercompatibility, familarity in training across platforms etc.
also one of the fundamental design issues with a bullpup is the trigger feel. there will always be that fundamental difference in feel/weight between bullpups and traditional layout long guns. i think it was someone in the miculeck family that said the trigger is the most important modification for shooting fast in their shooting fast series on youtube.
Travis Haley and/or Chris Costa + any item = Shelf-clearing sales levels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?client=mv-google&hl=en&gl=SN&v=VJPgEozoHUA
Failure2Stop
05-10-13, 14:51
As for rail space (thinking tavor, based off pictures I have seen) you have the full length 12:00 rail and then a rail at 10 and 2. Right? Now not even having seen one in person I may very well not relize how little rail space it is. But it seems it would be plenty for mounting optics, lights, peq, and whatever other dumafloppy. Especially considering, the m4/RAS combination often times appeared more than enough. You did touch on this when you spoke of the trend moving towards longer rails. So perhaps it really wasn't enough.
Here is an idea of the space needed for a 12:00 rail:
http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/KAC/0O2P8849-A-1028-Stick.jpg
photo by stickman
Putting a light on the Tavor is going to further limit space available for support hand placement, pretty much forcing the use of a VFG in a sub-optimal grip.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gnm2C1B8vbI/ScuAxdavLGI/AAAAAAAADbI/av9zaK25NwU/s400/tavor.jpg
The preferred grip for a shoulder fired weapon looks more like this:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6725/p1000675b.jpg
Well proven by this guy:
http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Smith-Wessons-Jerry-Miculek.jpg
and this guy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1SUWtQ-SXvk/S9AhudnT8bI/AAAAAAAAAYs/3d7UzJXtqc8/s1600/kd-04.jpg
and these guys:
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Northern-Red.jpg
When doing stuff like this:
http://www.tactical-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tigerswan-left-kneeling-barricade.jpg
flyfishnevada
05-10-13, 14:52
If you have the bucks, get both. If not, the AR is easily my choice. The Tavor is a purpose built rifle for certain situations. It's never going to have the versatility of an AR. It's a lot like comparing a pickup and a dirt bike. The both have wheels and will move you around but only one of them does a bunch of jobs and does them average to great. The other one will get you over rough terrain better but it won't haul plywood and doesn't have air conditioning and a stereo.
The OPs question is flawed. Why do I need it and what am I going to do with it. Like that dirt bike, the Tavor does a handful of things really well but sucks at a bunch of others. The AR does a bunch of things and does most of them adequately or better. One is not a direct replacement for the other.
i don't think you addressed the other things he was saying.
night vision optics in front of primary optics requires space, space that won't exist on a bullpup without extreme barrel lengths.
ir lasers and other night time support equipment that goes on the gun requires sapce. the ways to activate these pieces of peripheral equipment requires space and ergonomics of rail placement.
ability to wrap hand concetric to or close to inline with the barrel.
you also can't extend the arm while clasping the handguard which relegates you to the tight cqb stance which relies more on muscle support than skeletal support.
the bullpup is going to be a small package and that's good for cqb. but if you limit the choice to the bullpup's strong suit, then there's still other guns that are good for cqb. the bullpup may be the best in that pile, but then you have to consider parts intercompatibility, familarity in training across platforms etc.
also one of the fundamental design issues with a bullpup is the trigger feel. there will always be that fundamental difference in feel/weight between bullpups and traditional layout long guns. i think it was someone in the miculeck family that said the trigger is the most important modification for shooting fast in their shooting fast series on youtube.
I've never even handled a Tavor, specifically, although other bullpups, yes.
I agree with most of your points, but just had a few points/questions about the comments regarding bullpup layout vs traditional:
- Why would using "extreme" barrel lengths (to create the rail space necessary for mounting various optics) be a negative? SHouldn't that just allow you to take advantage of better ballistics/higher muzzle velocities?
- Regarding extending the arm. That is obviously advantageous for controlling the upfront mass on a traditional layout. But on a bullpup layout, the center of mass of the rifle is much further back, which means that a tighter stance would result in a similar (possibly greater) distance (and therefore control) from the support hand to the center of mass.
- As for muscular vs skeletal support, in theory a bullpup would actually be easier to support skeletally (is that even a word) since it's center of mass is much closer to your midline/spine/body than a traditional carbine is.
Don't get me wrong, I am not about to ditch my AR's for anything, bullpups included, as there are many other considerations where the AR shines. However, at least on those points, the bullpup concept does have certain advantages over even an AR.
Failure2Stop
05-10-13, 15:04
- Regarding extending the arm. That is obviously advantageous for controlling the upfront mass on a traditional layout. But on a bullpup layout, the center of mass of the rifle is much further back, which means that a tighter stance would result in a similar (possibly greater) distance (and therefore control) from the support hand to the center of mass.
Doesn't really work out in the real world.
I have more than a little experience with both, and the traditional layout is easier to manage.
- As for muscular vs skeletal support, in theory a bullpup would actually be easier to support skeletally (is that even a word) since it's center of mass is much closer to your midline/spine/body than a traditional carbine is.
Again, not in practice.
The forward placement of the support hand works more with skeletal and muscular structure for actual shooting. True, shifting center of mass toward the body makes it easier to hold up for a long period of time, but that is frankly not a real issue in actual use.
themighty9mm
05-10-13, 16:26
Here is an idea of the space needed for a 12:00 rail:
http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/KAC/0O2P8849-A-1028-Stick.jpg
photo by stickman
Putting a light on the Tavor is going to further limit space available for support hand placement, pretty much forcing the use of a VFG in a sub-optimal grip.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gnm2C1B8vbI/ScuAxdavLGI/AAAAAAAADbI/av9zaK25NwU/s400/tavor.jpg
The preferred grip for a shoulder fired weapon looks more like this:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6725/p1000675b.jpg
Well proven by this guy:
http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Smith-Wessons-Jerry-Miculek.jpg
and this guy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1SUWtQ-SXvk/S9AhudnT8bI/AAAAAAAAAYs/3d7UzJXtqc8/s1600/kd-04.jpg
and these guys:
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Northern-Red.jpg
When doing stuff like this:
http://www.tactical-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tigerswan-left-kneeling-barricade.jpg
The image, of the tavor with some accessories other than just an optic does make it much more clear how little space there is. While the only shooter you showed I am familiar with is jerry. The images speak clear enough. Thanks for taking the time, pictures speak louder than words in this case. The picture with the tavor with other equipment, really shows how cramped it is. Like I said I apparently did not relize just how little space was there
My LGS has one for.......
$3500!!!!
Uh, Nope.
Tacti-Square -- if you had mentioned for what purpose would one choose, that would help narrow down the answers. I have four ARs; so would I choose Tavor over another AR? Yes. But for novelty at this point. Plus I cannot own an SBR where I live so the Tavor is as close as I can get. But if I could only choose one rifle to keep and that included SD purposes rather than range-only, it would be the AR because I've trained that manual of arms for nine years. I simply don't have the time to retrain to the same skill level on a Tavor in a life/death situation. Same reason why I don't carry a 1911 after training on Glocks my whole life.
Failure2Stop -- I definitely understand your point, but most of those pictures are 18" and 20" ARs; wouldn't a more fair comparison would be the handling of a 10.5 AR vs Tavor, which might put you into a similar cramped position?
ForTehNguyen
05-10-13, 19:27
inherit disadvantages of bullpups:
fixed LOP
trigger and hammer linked connecting rod = not as crisp trigger
reduced overall length = less rail estate
Mr.Anderson
05-10-13, 20:49
inherit disadvantages of bullpups:
fixed LOP
trigger and hammer linked connecting rod = not as crisp trigger
reduced overall length = less rail estate
Someone has already mentioned the "explosion" under your cheek.
I would concur.
I think it's a little disturbing and IRC, I read once about the "vibration" issue from the AR stocks and it's effect on... I want to think, it was actually, hearing loss/damage from the vibration alone.
Seems to me the actual workings of firing/cycling rounds and the vibration would be much more intense?
Also, I have not research data or test data to back this up, but again, IT SEEMS to me that the upper/lower receiver on the AR is not DIRECTLY connected to your face, where as the BCG/Action of the Tavor seems to be.
Of course I have no idea what the Tavor buffer system is like.
And last, and least, I think it's an ugly weapon lol.
While the only shooter you showed I am familiar with is jerry.
The guys pictured have been there, done that, period. Their take on all things firearms related carries serious weight. Trained with all of them and take their words as gospel.
Berserkr556
05-10-13, 21:33
I would still pick an AR over a Tavor.
Someone has already mentioned the "explosion" under your cheek.
I would concur.
I think it's a little disturbing and IRC, I read once about the "vibration" issue from the AR stocks and it's effect on... I want to think, it was actually, hearing loss/damage from the vibration alone.
Seems to me the actual workings of firing/cycling rounds and the vibration would be much more intense?
Also, I have not research data or test data to back this up, but again, IT SEEMS to me that the upper/lower receiver on the AR is not DIRECTLY connected to your face, where as the BCG/Action of the Tavor seems to be.
Of course I have no idea what the Tavor buffer system is like.
And last, and least, I think it's an ugly weapon lol.
Allow me to dork out here for a moment.....
I'm not aware of any correlation between vibration and hearing loss. Without a rare predisposing factor such as enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndrome, it would be very unlikely.
In order to affect hearing, vibration would need to either damage the ear drum, middle ear ossicular chain (middle ear hearing bones), inner ear (cochlea), hearing nerve, or auditory cortex in the brain....none of which is likely.
It takes significant force to perforate the ear drum or disrupt the ossicular chain (middle ear hearing bones). Think the force required to fracture the skull base or a blast injury. These three bones function to transduce noise in the form of a pressure wave into the inner ear, where it is then transduced into a neural signal.
I would venture to say that any reports of hearing loss due to vibration from recoil has the confounding factor of noise exposure, which will most certainly result in hearing loss.
Vibration could certainly cause a certain type of vertigo, but it this particular vertigo is not associated with hearing loss.
The Travor seems pretty cool and with unlimited resources I would definitely be interested. For the money you get a lot more flexibility with the AR.
I was infatuated with bullpups for awhile. I had a chance to play with one (not the Tavor) and it really wasn't my thing. I did fondle the Tavor at SHOT and I think it's a great gun. I'd buy or borrow one if I could, but hands down I prefer the AR platform. I can put them together, occasionally fix broken ones and I just prefer ergonomics. Even the bastardized California models with monster man grips aren't too bad to manipulate.
MountainRaven
05-10-13, 23:48
Depends on the AR.
Over a BM/DPMS/Oly? Absolutely.
Over a KAC/BCM/Noveske? Probably not.
Always funny how people think fighting Palestinians trumps us fighting on two fronts.
To be fair, they decided to replace the M16 FOW and then did so over the space of about a decade.
We've been trying to do it since, what, 1964?
Ill save my money 2000 could get me through almost 3 top notch AR courses
Nocalsocal
05-11-13, 00:55
From the pictures F2S posted I can see the limitations of the bullpup design in regards to mounting lights, lasers, IR etc. But what's really apparent is the lack of technology and design that would allow the bullpup design to flourish.
In essence we're trying to bolt on AR/M4 goodies onto a Tavor. Sort of like trying to turn an AKM into an M4. And we all hate that. I suspect that if a bullpup design was to really take a foothold in American civilian/military sales there would be more ergonomic bullpup focused scopes, red dots, wmls, etc..
I agree with Vickers that the Tavor/bullpup is mission specific. And for now the whole AR vs Tavor is apples and oranges. For now I'm fine with having 2 ARs and an AK. But the Tavor is probably going to be my next rifle if it ever goes down in price.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Depends on the AR.
Over a BM/DPMS/Oly? Absolutely.
Over a KAC/BCM/Noveske? Probably not.
To be fair, they decided to replace the M16 FOW and then did so over the space of about a decade.
We've been trying to do it since, what, 1964?
To be fair, their military is ten times smaller than ours and is thus much more agile as an institution. We also bank roll them.
The modern M16 fow has very little in common with what we used in Vietnam. There aren't a whole lot of parts that are the same. I'm thinking delta ring, gas tube, parts of the bolt, and selector switch? I'm no expert on the Vietnam era M16.
Unreconstructed
05-11-13, 07:28
AR = America's Rifle
Around here, nothing compares to the AR for availability, support, etc.
You can customize/ configure an AR any way you want.
Besides, I don't like the ergonomics of any bullpup.
Speaking of customizing with accessories I just saw this on Joint Force Enterprises Facebook page. I sure hope the charging handle is non reciprocating. As far as the accessories go it looks neat and clean. I just don't know how natural activating the light will be. It looks a bit hard to grip the Forend and wrap your thumb up onto the switch.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz267/edmateo50/photo_zps114b48ce.jpg
The M4 is a different configuration from the Vietnam era M16 but the parts will mostly exchange. You'd just have to be careful to match feed ramps.
I'd love to have a Tavor, it is the most interesting bullpup of it's class, but there's nothing I have I'd sell or trade to get one, except maybe the PTR-91
MountainRaven
05-11-13, 10:46
Speaking of customizing with accessories I just saw this on Joint Force Enterprises Facebook page. I sure hope the charging handle is non reciprocating. As far as the accessories go it looks neat and clean. I just don't know how natural activating the light will be. It looks a bit hard to grip the Forend and wrap your thumb up onto the switch.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz267/edmateo50/photo_zps114b48ce.jpg
It is non-reciprocating. And from what I have seen (haven't handled one - yet), it would not be much of a stretch to get the thumb on the WML's switch.
Interesting picture, though. Nice to see that the Tavor will take the SureFire toy mags. Something a lot of ARs won't do (Noveske Gen 2, HK416 except -A5, &c.).
sinlessorrow
05-11-13, 12:35
To be fair, their military is ten times smaller than ours and is thus much more agile as an institution. We also bank roll them.
The modern M16 fow has very little in common with what we used in Vietnam. There aren't a whole lot of parts that are the same. I'm thinking delta ring, gas tube, parts of the bolt, and selector switch? I'm no expert on the Vietnam era M16.
Have you ever seen how ancient the IDF's weapons are? The majority appear to still be rocking the single shield oval handguards, same with the M16.
Then there are things like their selection of CAA mags and the use of the Mepro which we learned early on with the RX01 that those type of sights have issues in differen situations.
Just because the IDF does it does not make it the best choice. Otherwise we should all be choosing CAA as the be all end all magazine, we would be rocking oval single shield handguards with IDF straps around them for heat protection, and sub par optics like the RX01 that wash out easily depending on situation. Oh and we would be training with rifles sporting bent barrels.(i kid you not there was pics of a member on TOS sporting one.)
Agree,must because something is Israeli / used by them doesn't necessarily mean it's the best...
DiabhailGadhar
05-11-13, 12:57
Well given the choice between the two I'd chose a SCAR 17 then an AR, then AR then a Tavor...in that order. Then again since nutn suggested it I'd add a super soaker before the Tavor...:rolleyes:
From the pictures F2S posted I can see the limitations of the bullpup design in regards to mounting lights, lasers, IR etc. But what's really apparent is the lack of technology and design that would allow the bullpup design to flourish.
In essence we're trying to bolt on AR/M4 goodies onto a Tavor.
How so? Are sights, lights, lasers, and IR devices dedicated AR devices? Just like the AR, quad rails and such are being designed and developed for the Tavor.
Some of us forget the AR system was designed by Stoner in the late 1950s, and how long did it take to get a quad rail for them?
Littlelebowski
05-11-13, 14:00
To be fair, they decided to replace the M16 FOW and then did so over the space of about a decade.
We've been trying to do it since, what, 1964?
No, I don't think so.
MountainRaven
05-11-13, 15:38
No, I don't think so.
No, you don't think what?
The Army never wanted the M16. They adopted it when they were ordered to. The M16 was going to be an interim solution until they made the SPIW work. Which didn't happen. So then they developed the Future Rifle Program... which didn't pan out. Then came CAWS and the Advanced Combat Rifle and the G11 and the OICW and the XM8.... Not to mention the Stoner 63, the FN SCAR, and the HK416. And now the Individual Carbine, which no one (I think) expects to go anywhere.
Some of us forget the AR system was designed by Stoner in the late 1950s, and how long did it take to get a quad rail for them?
Quad rails are a relatively new innovation...
Nocalsocal
05-11-13, 15:49
How so? Are sights, lights, lasers, and IR devices dedicated AR devices? Just like the AR, quad rails and such are being designed and developed for the Tavor.
Some of us forget the AR system was designed by Stoner in the late 1950s, and how long did it take to get a quad rail for them?
Exactly my point. Dedicated rails and hopefully accessories are being designed specifically for the Tavor because they are trying to lure AR shooters to the Tavor. But it seems manipulation, driving etc. are probably areas where the two shall never meet. And that's probably where the biggest challenges will be. (Just basing an opinion- I've yet to touch one)
No WMLS, IR lasers, etc. are not AR dedicated. However whenever a new light, laser or whatever comes out they always attach it to an AR and show how ergonomic it fits into the system. And just because it fits/flows well on an AR doesn't always translate well to other platforms eg. Eotech on a AK. (that's another story)
But let's get back to the Tavor and see where the market takes us. I for one would like to see how many Tavor users there will be in 5 yrs. I want one but I hope there will be a market to back up my purchase.
Tacti-square
05-11-13, 15:56
And now the Individual Carbine, which no one (I think) expects to go anywhere.
It got scrapped, actually. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/02/individual-carbine-competition-axe/
sinlessorrow
05-11-13, 15:56
No, you don't think what?
The Army never wanted the M16. They adopted it when they were ordered to. The M16 was going to be an interim solution until they made the SPIW work. Which didn't happen. So then they developed the Future Rifle Program... which didn't pan out. Then came CAWS and the Advanced Combat Rifle and the G11 and the OICW and the XM8.... Not to mention the Stoner 63, the FN SCAR, and the HK416. And now the Individual Carbine, which no one (I think) expects to go anywhere.
Any evidence it was interem solution?
MountainRaven
05-11-13, 17:03
Any evidence it was interem solution?
The SPIW project started before the adoption of the M14, was basically terminated two years after the adoption of the M16, but continued to limp along into the 1970s. And then the concept was reborn with the CAWS in the '80s.
sinlessorrow
05-11-13, 17:22
The SPIW project started before the adoption of the M14, was basically terminated two years after the adoption of the M16, but continued to limp along into the 1970s. And then the concept was reborn with the CAWS in the '80s.
So because they were looking at out of the box concepts that proves no one wanted the M16?
Also, everything I have read said the SPIW kept getting pushed back, the weapons were not very reliable or durable and experienced rapid overheating, the ammunition had considerable flash, pressure issues, and had to be hand made.
This could have been answered in the past pages but I'm not reading through them again, what is the price point to the IDF? Does anyone know this, I am just wondering how much difference there is in our market for them and theirs, can civs even own them there legally ?
I just don't understand what makes them sooooo much $$ besides the novality of the new KOOL product, and yeah if I had the money I'd buy one but if I had the money many things I'd buy first, then finally when I had it all, gone through all the training courses that ive always wanted to do, I'd buy one.
It's also funny when LAV says they serve a specific, he gets quoted, when I day the same thing, I get skipped lol. That's ok some say I will be somebody. :dirol: LAV deserves the Acknowledgment!
No, you don't think what?
The Army never wanted the M16. They adopted it when they were ordered to. The M16 was going to be an interim solution until they made the SPIW work. Which didn't happen. So then they developed the Future Rifle Program... which didn't pan out. Then came CAWS and the Advanced Combat Rifle and the G11 and the OICW and the XM8.... Not to mention the Stoner 63, the FN SCAR, and the HK416. And now the Individual Carbine, which no one (I think) expects to go anywhere.
I know, right? The M4 is such a piece of shit. And I feel terrible for all those countries who we force to adopt it when there are so many superior alternatives. Especially their special forces types.
Hey! You French dudes in Mali! go back to your FAMAS, it's better! Sacreblue!
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/operations/mali/130418-operation-serval-point-de-situation-du-18-avril-2103/operation-fs-4/2275156-1-fre-FR/operation-fs-4.jpg
And somebody tell these limey bastards to grab their bullpups! Even the American Army doesn't even want the M4!
http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc325/jkoyr/airsoft/general/img1378p8chh.jpg
I know, right? The M4 is such a piece of shit. And I feel terrible for all those countries who we force to adopt it when there are so many superior alternatives. Especially their special forces types.
Hey! You French dudes in Mali! go back to your FAMAS, it's better! Sacreblue!
The French in that picture are using 416's.
sinlessorrow
05-11-13, 20:17
The French in that picture are using 416's.
Its still an ar-15.
While were at it better tell the Tunisian SOF to.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/481496_477906702260327_1948877165_n.jpg
Guess pur boys didnt get the memo either.
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5028/25603457439342924301915.jpg
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/2830/74126657472029921033221.jpg
Pok im done.
Nutnfancy is generally regarded as a useless tool on this board.
I wouldn't say he's useless, every now and again he brings up some decent points. He's definitely not privy to what is quality kit
Magic_Salad0892
05-11-13, 20:45
I have shot a Tavor. My sister just bought one, and I've been able to handle it, and shoot it a little bit. (200 rounds or so. I've seen about 500 put through the gun.)
My impressions are:
The M16FOW can be put together to be lighter.
The M16FOW can be put together to be more accurate.
The M16FOW can accommodate NVDs, lasers, lights tape switches, VFGs, and variable optics better. And all at once.
The M16FOW can be reloaded faster.
The M16FOW can be specifically tuned for suppressor use. (And isn't a malf-machine with a suppressor in 5.56mm.)
The M16FOW accommodates slings better, and sucks less ambi, IMO. (I cannot shoot a Tavor lefty with a suppressor, especially.)
The M16FOW vents heat better, IMO. I noticed the Tavor get pretty warm around the handguards when I was doing hammer pairs on various distance targets. (Suppressed)
It's REALLY hard to tell when the gun locks back on a Tavor, so you get an AK like dead trigger effect. And suppressed, it might not even lock back.
The non adjustable stock makes trying to run a magnifier kind of weird, especially in awkward positions.
The M16FOW can be assembled to better fit the user, by far. I really hate the Tavor's pistol grip. And it doesn't have a real trigger guard. Not super horrible, but it's a strange issue that bullpups seem to always stick with.
Recoil signature is really weird. IMO. It doesn't recoil vertically. It kind of bounces around. YMMV on that one.
The charging handle is in a stupid place on the Tavor. I hate it.
More coming when I shoot it more.
AR > SCAR > Tavor.
Your sister? I wish my sister would buy a freaking sling shot! That's awesome! I live near the distribution place IWI, I may take a ride up and test drive one, but my next batch of money is going to either Grant or Grant for a Geissele MK4 13 :D
Ok how about this question.. How much do you think the Tavor takes to make in materials? How much in Man time or hours spent creating one. I am just attempting to gain a grasp for what makes them cost so much, besides the new gun smell.
MountainRaven
05-11-13, 21:34
So because they were looking at out of the box concepts that proves no one wanted the M16?
Also, everything I have read said the SPIW kept getting pushed back, the weapons were not very reliable or durable and experienced rapid overheating, the ammunition had considerable flash, pressure issues, and had to be hand made.
I know, right? The M4 is such a piece of shit. And I feel terrible for all those countries who we force to adopt it when there are so many superior alternatives. Especially their special forces types.
Hey! You French dudes in Mali! go back to your FAMAS, it's better! Sacreblue!
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/operations/mali/130418-operation-serval-point-de-situation-du-18-avril-2103/operation-fs-4/2275156-1-fre-FR/operation-fs-4.jpg
And somebody tell these limey bastards to grab their bullpups! Even the American Army doesn't even want the M4!
http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc325/jkoyr/airsoft/general/img1378p8chh.jpg
When did I land at Barfcom? I thought this was M4c.
Well, maybe while we're shoveling words into my mouth, you could at least use a little candlelight, maybe some romantic music.
NOWHERE did I say no one wanted the M16. The Air Force wanted the M16. The Army did not. The Marines did not. The gun was foisted on them by DoD. This is a matter of historical fact and record. The Army did not see the M16 as the gun that they wanted, they wanted whatever it was that was going to come out of SPIW (nothing, as it turns out).
NOWHERE did I say it was wrong for the United States military to desire pie-in-the-sky weapon systems and develop them as best as they can, although as far as I can tell that's wasted tax payer dollars for the most part as despite the millions spent on SPIW, CAWS, ACR, OICW, XM8, SCAR, HK416, IC, &c., we're still using rifles designed in the 1950s.
NOWHERE did I say there was anything inherently wrong with the M16 FOW.
All that I said was the United States Army has been attempting to replace the M16 and the M16 FOW since its adoption.
I guess that everyone got butthurt over it means that they must believe that the M16 FOW is absolutely perfect and that the United States Army can do no wrong. Or they just have too much emotionally invested into the weapon system to think clearly when someone points out that the single largest user of the M16 FOW has been attempting (and failing) to replace it for decades.
Its still an ar-15.
In the same sense that an M14 is an M1 Garand.
sinlessorrow
05-11-13, 21:41
bottom
Magic_Salad0892
05-11-13, 21:41
When did I land at Barfcom? I thought this was M4c.
Well, maybe while we're shoveling words into my mouth, you could at least use a little candlelight, maybe some romantic music.
NOWHERE did I say no one wanted the M16. The Air Force wanted the M16. The Army did not. The Marines did not. The gun was foisted on them by DoD. This is a matter of historical fact and record. The Army did not see the M16 as the gun that they wanted, they wanted whatever it was that was going to come out of SPIW (nothing, as it turns out).
NOWHERE did I say it was wrong for the United States military to desire pie-in-the-sky weapon systems and develop them as best as they can, although as far as I can tell that's wasted tax payer dollars for the most part as despite the millions spent on SPIW, CAWS, ACR, OICW, XM8, SCAR, HK416, IC, &c., we're still using rifles designed in the 1950s.
NOWHERE did I say there was anything inherently wrong with the M16 FOW.
All that I said was the United States Army has been attempting to replace the M16 and the M16 FOW since its adoption.
I guess that everyone got butthurt over it means that they must believe that the M16 FOW is absolutely perfect and that the United States Army can do no wrong. Or they just have too much emotionally invested into the weapon system to think clearly when someone points out that the single largest user of the M16 FOW has been attempting (and failing) to replace it for decades.
In the same sense that an M14 is an M1 Garand.
With the exception of the M14 bit, I'd actually agree with a lot of that.
If the military isn't trying to build a better gun at all times, then the soldier suffers. But their judgement as to what is better is usually wrong, or ends up being a waste of money.
sinlessorrow
05-11-13, 21:47
When did I land at Barfcom? I thought this was M4c.
Well, maybe while we're shoveling words into my mouth, you could at least use a little candlelight, maybe some romantic music.
NOWHERE did I say no one wanted the M16. The Air Force wanted the M16. The Army did not. The Marines did not. The gun was foisted on them by DoD. This is a matter of historical fact and record. The Army did not see the M16 as the gun that they wanted, they wanted whatever it was that was going to come out of SPIW (nothing, as it turns out).
Actually the Navy was one of the first to adopt the weapon for their SEALS.
NOWHERE did I say it was wrong for the United States military to desire pie-in-the-sky weapon systems and develop them as best as they can, although as far as I can tell that's wasted tax payer dollars for the most part as despite the millions spent on SPIW, CAWS, ACR, OICW, XM8, SCAR, HK416, IC, &c., we're still using rifles designed in the 1950s.
Yet none of those rifles have proven to offer any tangible, significant, cost worthy upgrade over our 1950's weapon, despite the fact that the M4 was adopted in 1994....yet those piston systems are all based off the AR-16(AR-18) and is of rouse 60yr old tech...
NOWHERE did I say there was anything inherently wrong with the M16 FOW.
All that I said was the United States Army has been attempting to replace the M16 and the M16 FOW since its adoption.
Because one should always be looking ahead to see if anything offers a tangible cost worthy upgrade, so far we have not seen that weapon, but that does not mean one should not look. One day we will find that weapon that is leaps and bounds better than what we have and it will be adopted. As long as we are slinging brass cased 5.56 there is nothing that is just such a huge upgrade in reliability, durability, and accuracy to justify the billion it would cost to switch.
I guess that everyone got butthurt over it means that they must believe that the M16 FOW is absolutely perfect and that the United States Army can do no wrong. Or they just have too much emotionally invested into the weapon system to think clearly when someone points out that the single largest user of the M16 FOW has been attempting (and failing) to replace it for decades.
It is not perfect, but it is better than a lot of systems out there and gets better often thanks to the huge support the weapon has seen in the civilian market which alot of those items end up getting to the Military market eventually. The SR-15 is pretty close to perfection though.
In the same sense that an M14 is an M1 Garand.
Then what would you classify the AA, BEAR, LWRC, 416 as then? they are just piston operated Ar-15s
My parts in blue
MountainRaven
05-11-13, 21:57
Actually the Navy was one of the first to adopt the weapon for their SEALS.
The Navy adopted a lot of weapons for the SEALs at the time. Including H&Ks in 5.56 and the Stoner 63.
Yet none of those rifles have proven to offer any tangible, significant, cost worthy upgrade over our 1950's weapon, despite the fact that the M4 was adopted in 1994....yet those piston systems are all based off the AR-16(AR-18) and is of rouse 60yr old tech...
Because one should always be looking ahead to see if anything offers a tangible cost worthy upgrade, so far we have not seen that weapon, but that does not mean one should not look. One day we will find that weapon that is leaps and bounds better than what we have and it will be adopted. As long as we are slinging brass cased 5.56 there is nothing that is just such a huge upgrade in reliability, durability, and accuracy to justify the billion it would cost to switch.
This is true, to a point. And it illustrates my point. But since SPIW ended, we haven't even seriously considered any other cartridge but the 5.56 and what can be done with that cartridge's basic dimensions. As it has been pointed out elsewhere, it is extremely unlikely that we will ever move away from the M16 FOW until such time as we can get away from the 5.56mm cartridge. (And whatever replaces the 5.56 will have to be substantially better to justify moving away from the cartridge, logistics train and all, not just in the US but in all of NATO plus Japan and Australia.)
While the M4 was adopted in the 1990s, it is basically just a military standardized for mass issue CAR-15, which has been around since the XM16E1.
And it should also be mentioned that the cost-benefit analysis only seems to apply to the United States military as a whole. But it has not stopped the unit-formerly-known-as-Delta from adopting the HK416 nor the Marines from taking a contract that could basically have been plugged by the M4A1 and giving it to H&K. At the same time, our allies in NATO (plus France) are adopting the HK416 over the M16 FOW (including the C7 and C8).
It is not perfect, but it is better than a lot of systems out there and gets better often thanks to the huge support the weapon has seen in the civilian market which alot of those items end up getting to the Military market eventually. The SR-15 is pretty close to perfection though.
I'll go on ahead and say that it's better than most other weapons systems for most uses. Not all and not everything. But most. ;)
So then what would you classify the HK416, or the LWRC, or the ADCOR BEAR, or the AA as?
I classify them as an AR-15 since they are just that, a piston operated AR-15.
It wasn't the best example, I'll admit... but yes and no. I consider the HK416 to both be an AR-15 and not an AR-15.
It is not an AR-15 because of the piston operation (and all the little things that H&K did to improve the weapon system and make it work well with the piston). But it is an AR-15 because the controls are (mostly) the same, it looks (mostly) the same, and apart from weight and recoil feels (mostly) the same.
Essentially, the HK416 is just a piston-operated AR-15 (and all the changes necessary to get a piston to work and work well in an AR-15), sure. But by the same token, the M14 is just an M1 with a detachable box magazine, a flash hider, and a selector switch (with a shorter receiver as a result of the shorter cartridge... which is identical in practically every aspect but length to the 30-06 cartridge used by the M1).
Off topic, What parts of a 416 are interchangeable with a AR15? I think that would determine if it is an AR15 like a VZ58 and an AK. Also I replied to steve--oh because he said M4 maybe he meant AR's. I'm still learning by the way.
On topic If you asked a bullpup forum about the tavor they would probably pick it over an AR vice versa we are going to choose an AR over it. Someone already said this but it's fairly new to us so how are we going to get enough trigger time behind one to determine which is "better". It's too early to tell.
bluejackets92fs
05-11-13, 22:13
Off topic, What parts of a 416 are interchangeable with a AR15? I think that would determine if it is an AR15 like a VZ58 and an AK. Also I replied to steve--oh because he said M4 maybe he meant AR's. I'm still learning by the way.
On topic If you asked a bullpup forum about the tavor they would probably pick it over an AR and like someone else said its fairly new to us so how are we going to get enough trigger time behind one to determine which is "better". It's too early to tell.
Not a whole lot other than basic parts like FCG and some other lower receiver parts. From my understanding it is a pretty proprietary platform.
The question is rather silly since virtually no one has REAL hands on experience with it and probably not one person here has combat time with it.
Not sure why I would want a weapon that I can't support. If any of my AR's goes tits up, I can find parts from any crack dealer. Not so much with a Tavor.
And he hits the nail on the head again.
I wonder why people think the Tavor is the end all, be all of rifles...?
I wonder why people think the Tavor is the end all, be all of rifles...?
Because it rocked in MW2!!!! :neo: :sarcastic:
I believe it has potential to become a very good rifle in the US market. I think as the popularity rises more aftermarket options will become available.
As one of the other members mentioned earlier, the main draw/attractiveness is the compactness. I've never had hands on with one, and don't foresee it happening at that price point. But, I do own a AK Bullpup. That being said, I prefer my Underfolder over the Bullpup.
I'll stick with my AR's.
I'm relatively new here, excuse any blunders.
For how I currently use an AR, and for how I foresee myself using one in the future, the AR is for me. The Tavor would be a fun gun, but for serious use I'll stick to the tried and true.
Is the AR platform perfect? I guess that is a matter of opinion, but you can't argue the fact that it still is in service with many countries and used by the best (well at least variants of it). Improvement and innovations are still being made to the DI AR in incremental steps that keep it a very robust platform.
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-13, 18:02
Because it rocked in MW2!!!! :neo: :sarcastic:
It was awesome in MW2.
/thread
I would consider one for its compactness because SBRs are a no go in WA state. I'm unsure of the technical ballistics aspect, but I'd think the added velocity of the 16" barrel vs comparable OAL SBR would be a factor in lethality.
If I had the money , I'd gladly buy one for testing.
Grand58742
05-12-13, 18:04
Actually the Navy was one of the first to adopt the weapon for their SEALS.
Yes and no. The USAF was the first service to attempt to adopt the M16 FOW in 1961. Initial attempts to do so were shot down by Pres Kennedy on advice from General Maxwell-Taylor who wanted to keep the M14s and ammo straight across the board (which didn't make any sense since the USAF was still using M2 Carbines at the time for security which already meant the supply chain needed at least two different rounds...actually three since the Garands were still in use in NG and Reserve units). It wasn't until 1962 that the USAF was allowed to sign the contract for the M16 as well as the Big Army a year or so later. Yes, 1,000 or so were bought by ARPA and sent to Vietnam where US advisers used them and sung their praises, but there was no "formal" adoption by any military unit at that time and the M14 was still "standard." He is correct and the USAF was the first service to formally adopt the M16 FOW which it used to replace the M2 Carbines.
While the SEALs might have bought and used the AR15 in 1962, they were also commissioned by JFK in the same year so the timelines are close on "adoption." So in reality the first formal wide scale deployment and adoption of the M16 FOW as we know it was by the USAF. US Special Operations Forces have always been able to field non-standard types of weapons so a few hundred or thousand SOF guys testing out a new weapon in theater (advisers in Vietnam as part of the ARPA purchase or possibly even the initial SEAL purchases of AR15s after they founded) and/or special purpose use does not really make it any more of a "formal" adoption by the US Military than the dozens of limited use types they have used over history. Those guys have a lot of leeway to use what works best and forget the formal criteria for adoption or what the big Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines wants/issues.
MountainRaven
05-12-13, 18:13
I wonder why people think the Tavor is the end all, be all of rifles...?
My guess is that it sort of has a perfect storm going for it....
It has the cachet of being Israeli and basically being to the TAR-21 what Arsenals are to Kalashnikovs, the SCAR 16S/17S is to the Mk16/17, and the (sort of) US-produced Steyr AUG A3 is to the Austrian Steyr AUG.
It has the interest of guys who previously rarely or never would have given a bullpup any serious attention, including two SMEs who are taken rather seriously on this forum.
And the reasons that those SMEs are interested are interesting to other people, the ergonomics of the design, the trigger, safety, &c.
Plus you have the Society for the Promotion of the Pmag and Other AR-15 Magazines, the Bullpup Brigade, the Balls & Bayonets Battalion (with the 18" Tavor), the Southpaw Liberation Army (with a factory left-hand option), the Multi-Caliber Association of America (with factory conversions and rifles for 5.45 and 9mm), and the Retro Survivalist Squad (who missed out on buying a Galil or a Valmet when they were 'cheap' and mags and parts were readily available, who have realized that the Mini-14 is not all that and a bag of chips, don't want to buy an AK or SKS because they're 'commie junk', but are too proud to buy the AR-15 they have spent their whole lives maligning).
I've had 3 bullpups, they all shot great and I got rid of them anyway. ps90, fs2000, RFB.
Don't want another no matter how great, I'll stick to my ar pattern rifles.
Fidalgoman
05-12-13, 19:50
When I was younger and cars were simpler Ford and Chevy had a thing going where the radio and other controls were on opposite sides. I guess marketing thought if you went to kick up the volume on a test drive and changed channels instead you’d be annoyed and stick with the brand you know.
I as well have no dog in the fight and am fine with my 6920, however I wouldn’t mind having a Tavor to run for a while and scope it out. Since I have an SSA trigger in my Colt it’s obvious I might be a little underwhelmed with the one from Israel. That said aftermarket parts are probably already on the way.
Remember when piston rigs were going to make DI guns obsolete?
plouffedaddy
05-12-13, 21:02
I wonder why people think the Tavor is the end all, be all of rifles...?
I'm not sure it's the end all, be all of rifles. But, of all the bullpup's I've shot/owned this one is atop the list and has less of the typical bullpup drawbacks than any model to date (at least, that I'm aware of) while still retaining some of the positive aspects shorter OAL rifles bring to the fight.
And since we all love pictures...... :moil:
http://imageshack.us/a/img845/9063/picture4ql.png
Cylinder Head
05-12-13, 21:24
My guess is that it sort of has a perfect storm going for it....
It has the cachet of being Israeli and basically being to the TAR-21 what Arsenals are to Kalashnikovs, the SCAR 16S/17S is to the Mk16/17, and the (sort of) US-produced Steyr AUG A3 is to the Austrian Steyr AUG.
It has the interest of guys who previously rarely or never would have given a bullpup any serious attention, including two SMEs who are taken rather seriously on this forum.
And the reasons that those SMEs are interested are interesting to other people, the ergonomics of the design, the trigger, safety, &c.
Plus you have the Society for the Promotion of the Pmag and Other AR-15 Magazines, the Bullpup Brigade, the Balls & Bayonets Battalion (with the 18" Tavor), the Southpaw Liberation Army (with a factory left-hand option), the Multi-Caliber Association of America (with factory conversions and rifles for 5.45 and 9mm), and the Retro Survivalist Squad (who missed out on buying a Galil or a Valmet when they were 'cheap' and mags and parts were readily available, who have realized that the Mini-14 is not all that and a bag of chips, don't want to buy an AK or SKS because they're 'commie junk', but are too proud to buy the AR-15 they have spent their whole lives maligning).
Bravo, best post of the entire thread.
My guess is that it sort of has a perfect storm going for it....
It has the cachet of being Israeli and basically being to the TAR-21 what Arsenals are to Kalashnikovs, the SCAR 16S/17S is to the Mk16/17, and the (sort of) US-produced Steyr AUG A3 is to the Austrian Steyr AUG.
It has the interest of guys who previously rarely or never would have given a bullpup any serious attention, including two SMEs who are taken rather seriously on this forum.
And the reasons that those SMEs are interested are interesting to other people, the ergonomics of the design, the trigger, safety, &c.
Plus you have the Society for the Promotion of the Pmag and Other AR-15 Magazines, the Bullpup Brigade, the Balls & Bayonets Battalion (with the 18" Tavor), the Southpaw Liberation Army (with a factory left-hand option), the Multi-Caliber Association of America (with factory conversions and rifles for 5.45 and 9mm), and the Retro Survivalist Squad (who missed out on buying a Galil or a Valmet when they were 'cheap' and mags and parts were readily available, who have realized that the Mini-14 is not all that and a bag of chips, don't want to buy an AK or SKS because they're 'commie junk', but are too proud to buy the AR-15 they have spent their whole lives maligning).
What he said! lol
:D
HackerF15E
05-13-13, 05:46
If I want info on airplane mechanical issues, I may ask Nut'n Fancy.
He's not a mechanic -- he's a pilot. What a pilot knows about working on his airplane is generally nil.
I have no dog in this fight either, but bull pups do nothing for me.
My guess is that it sort of has a perfect storm going for it....
It has the cachet of being Israeli and basically being to the TAR-21 what Arsenals are to Kalashnikovs, the SCAR 16S/17S is to the Mk16/17, and the (sort of) US-produced Steyr AUG A3 is to the Austrian Steyr AUG.
It has the interest of guys who previously rarely or never would have given a bullpup any serious attention, including two SMEs who are taken rather seriously on this forum.
And the reasons that those SMEs are interested are interesting to other people, the ergonomics of the design, the trigger, safety, &c.
Plus you have the Society for the Promotion of the Pmag and Other AR-15 Magazines, the Bullpup Brigade, the Balls & Bayonets Battalion (with the 18" Tavor), the Southpaw Liberation Army (with a factory left-hand option), the Multi-Caliber Association of America (with factory conversions and rifles for 5.45 and 9mm), and the Retro Survivalist Squad (who missed out on buying a Galil or a Valmet when they were 'cheap' and mags and parts were readily available, who have realized that the Mini-14 is not all that and a bag of chips, don't want to buy an AK or SKS because they're 'commie junk', but are too proud to buy the AR-15 they have spent their whole lives maligning).
Wow. Just wow. This is definitely the best reply yet.
Keep in mind as well that the Tavor was designed based on Israeli combat doctrine, down to and including things such as grip and stance, which differ from their American counterparts. It wasn't designed for a long, forward reaching support grip, nor was it designed for use with several optic options in the 12:00 position.
If you intend on running any of the above, then it's not going to do anything better (or even as well as) an M4. It's a compact short to mid-range rifle with ergonomics optimized for Israeli combat doctrine.
Fairness is irrelevant when choosing a weapon.
Exactly, I want the one that gives me a clear advantage.
Not sure about the Tavor, but I've never shot a bullpup style rifle that had a decent trigger.
justin_247
05-13-13, 10:53
At this point in time, I do not believe this is a reasonable question. We simply don't know a whole lot about the U.S.-made Tavor. Three things come to mind:
1. The future availability of spare parts.
2. How well it functions suppressed (there are folks who are having problems with certain suppressors on the weapon).
3. How well it functions as an SPR.
As for now, the AR-15 is qualitatively superior. A single 14.5"-16" carbine is capable of performing every role out to 400 meters. Ideally, a person with a single SBR'ed lower (with a VLTOR A5 receiver extension, a good stock, and a Geissele/Wilson trigger) and two upper receiver assemblies (one that's 10.5"-12.5" and another that's 16"-18") would arguably provide the most capability. Regardless of configuration, it's a very versatile weapon and there is plenty of parts availability.
DreadPirateMoyer
05-13-13, 11:23
Handled one the other day. Trigger was junk. Felt bulky. Controls weren't crisp at all and felt like they relied on plastic tabs as springs. Wasn't a fan.
It also didn't seem very modular. Part of what makes the AR-15 so great is that it's not super centrally-planned. It can essentially be custom made to what you need it to do, fitting your individual needs as necessary. The Tavor just seemed like a centrally-planned, one-size-fits all solution, which may very well be the point, but overall, I didn't like that; way too inflexible in its design outside of the original designers putting in it what they think is best for you, rather than giving you a base platform that allows you to put in it what actually is best for you. It felt like the public education of firearms. It felt like government bread lines ("THIS IS ALL THE SUSTENANCE WE HAVE DEEMED YOU NEED!") rather than the glories of choice in a free market. It felt like a politician telling me what I need rather than letting me decide what I want, which may be great for soldiers in the military who aren't firearms enthusiasts, but not for me, and maybe not the consumer market.
Lastly, I've read that it is god-awful to suppress, and that the gas blowback to the face is unbearable. Since I run all my rifles suppressed, I was really unhappy to hear this.
This all comes from a guy who loves trying different platforms out and owns quite a few LWRCs with his Colts, BCMs, and DDs. I really wanted to like the Tavor so I could have a suppressed "SBR" for home defense without having to get a stamp, but overall, I have to give it a no-thanks.
Haven't handled one, but I wouldn't even consider the tabor over the AR. I've also seen that the trigger absolutely sucks, but not for that reason alone. The years of development and testing behind M4s and likewise mil spec AR guns wins me over hands down. Pretty tough to compete with bedrock solid platforms like the AR & AK.
How is one supposed to transition to your support hand, and still fire the weapon? Anyone who owns one tried to transition on the fly, and fire the weapon? IF you can't transition without the need of tools and a spare bolt kit I'd have no use for it. It looks like you'll take brass straight to the side of the face or neck.
***Edit***
Just watched a video of a shooter on youtube shooting a right handed version left handed. The brass was striking her right shoulder frequently, and then bouncing back and striking her in the face. I'm guessing that my fat *** would obstruct it even more, and I'd get even more brass in the face. I figured the brass would hit me coming out of the ejection port not off a ricochet tho.
justin_247
05-13-13, 14:56
Just watched a video of a shooter on youtube shooting a right handed version left handed. The brass was striking her right shoulder frequently, and then bouncing back and striking her in the face. I'm guessing that my fat *** would obstruct it even more, and I'd get even more brass in the face. I figured the brass would hit me coming out of the ejection port not off a ricochet tho.
My understanding is that the Tavor's ejection pattern is heavily dependent on the type of ammo being used. Military Arms Channel showed that "weak" ammo, like Wolf and Tula, resulted in the brass being ejected to the 3-5 o'clock positions, whereas mil-spec ammo was being ejected at the 1-2 o'clock position.
I can see a Glock Gen4 style Tavor erratic ejection thread on every gun forum before you know it. I'm not a huge fan of shooting an AK left handed so I know I'd be out on the Tavor if I ever had to transition.
halfmoonclip
05-13-13, 15:11
The inability to fire from either shoulder is just another of the many tradeoffs to be encountered in the bullpup configuration.
Like many things in this life, there is no free lunch; the bullpup either has to be accepted as what it is, with advantages and problems, or not.
It's doubly tough around here, because so many were trained on the AR platform, and it's been the basis of our service rifles for a long time. I'd be hard pressed to think of another service rifle that was our standard for so long.
Wonder how the Austrians feel about the bullpup config after all the years of the AUG?
Moon
I feel that if any bullpup out there was truly a step up from the ar15 system, some of our "tier 1" units would find a way to field them. I know some "elite" units use bullpups, until I see that our best boys move to one I will continue to regard them as subpar to the ar.
Bullpup precision rifles, large caliber, I do see as a platform that shows promise.
mastiffhound
05-13-13, 20:25
The Tavor is a strange bird. Before I comment on it a little journey is in order. The first semi auto rifle I ever pulled the trigger on was Dad's M1A. Long ago in a galaxy full of cheap available surplus ammo, I loved it. Being too poor when I got out of school I couldn't spend $1100 to $1500 on an M1A so I bought a Ruger Mini-14. It was as close as I could get, don't laugh! $650 and not much for accuracy. I think I got a 5 shot group at 100 yards one time of 2.5 inches, a thrilling moment indeed!
Then came the Arsenal AK, fun to shoot and about as accurate as my Mini. It sucked as far as ergos. I spent a little money on different stocks and forearms realizing later that all I was doing was trying to make my AK more like an AR.
When I got my first AR I loved it. It was a Bushmaster, I know now it's trash. We lived out in the boonies and didn't have the internet, I also didn't know anyone who owned an AR. I recently moved up to a Palmetto State Armory AR. I know it's not top grade but it makes my Bushy look like the turd that it is. I have been looking at Noveske, DD, and BCM. One of them will be my next purchase.
What does all this mean? I still have all of the rifles I ever purchased. I could spend $2000 (Tavor M.S.R.P.) and get one sexy bangin' AR for that price as most on here would agree. So what does the Tavor do that any of my other firearms won't? A little shorter length of pull and a terrible trigger. I was interested just like most were until I started reading and watching reviews. No Tavor for me, I think I will keep all of my rifles and buy a nicer well built AR to keep them company. I paid my dues in trial and error, I won't do it again. Sorry if I took awhile to get there but I tend to do everything that way.:D
SBR AR15 for me. Just my pref. To each his own.
sinlessorrow
05-13-13, 20:48
For just a few hundred more you could get a SR-15, probably one of the best rifles on the market.
I have shot a Tavor. My sister just bought one, and I've been able to handle it, and shoot it a little bit. (200 rounds or so. I've seen about 500 put through the gun.)
Your sister bought a Tavor? Most people's sisters don't know what a Tavor is. You have a sister who goes out and buys hard to find $2000+ longarms that the average gunowner has never heard of???
Keep in mind as well that the Tavor was designed based on Israeli combat doctrine, down to and including things such as grip and stance, which differ from their American counterparts. It wasn't designed for a long, forward reaching support grip, nor was it designed for use with several optic options in the 12:00 position
And a lot of people will be happy equipping and shooting the gun like that. They will mount a single optic on it--like an Aimpoint or ACOG, and maybe mount some type of light on it They will be perfectly happy with it.
Some people like different kinds of guns. Not everyone considers the M16/M4 to be the be-all and end all. Some people are more comfortable with the type of grip that you employ with a bullpup. They like having a more compact gun that doesn't require NFA paperwork.
Some people like the feel of a bullpup with the balance further back. I've found that having the balance further back and closer to your center of gravity makes the gun less tiring to use and makes length of pull less of an issue.
As long as the guns are reliable and durable and serve their purposes, I don't have an issue. As long as the owners don't try to claim that their Delton is what Delta uses, or that their Hipoint carbine is just as good as anything the HRT has, etc.
I have shot a Tavor. My sister just bought one, and I've been able to handle it, and shoot it a little bit. (200 rounds or so. I've seen about 500 put through the gun.)
She single?
And a lot of people will be happy equipping and shooting the gun like that. They will mount a single optic on it--like an Aimpoint or ACOG, and maybe mount some type of light on it They will be perfectly happy with it.
Some people like different kinds of guns. Not everyone considers the M16/M4 to be the be-all and end all. Some people are more comfortable with the type of grip that you employ with a bullpup. They like having a more compact gun that doesn't require NFA paperwork.
Some people like the feel of a bullpup with the balance further back. I've found that having the balance further back and closer to your center of gravity makes the gun less tiring to use and makes length of pull less of an issue.
As long as the guns are reliable and durable and serve their purposes, I don't have an issue. As long as the owners don't try to claim that their Delton is what Delta uses, or that their Hipoint carbine is just as good as anything the HRT has, etc.
I agree. My point was that many people will look at a Tavor (or even purchase one) and then immediately try to set it up and run it like an M4, declaring it just as good as (which it is not in that role). The value of the Tavor comes from the ways that it differs from the M4/AR-15 and the roles that it's meant to perform, not in how closely it can be set up like one.
She single?
Hey, I asked first.
sinlessorrow
05-13-13, 22:07
Hey, I asked first.
You did? Sounds like he beat you on that one:sarcastic:
I agree. My point was that many people will look at a Tavor (or even purchase one) and then immediately try to set it up and run it like an M4, declaring it just as good as (which it is not in that role). The value of the Tavor comes from the ways that it differs from the M4/AR-15 and the roles that it's meant to perform, not in how closely it can be set up like one.
Exactly right. The strength of the Tavor is as a short, compact rifle that retains 16" barrel ballistics. You can't expect to run it the way you could an AR with an extended rail or have the extended rail space to mount as many things that you would on an AR.
In looking at the Tavor, viewing at the various videos of its operation, and reading what Larry Vickers has written, it sounds like the gun has surpassed all other bullpups in terms of ergonomics--especially when it comes to fast reloads.
I'd be interested in knowing more about how it did in combat in the Mideast and also seeing how the US made Tavor holds up over time.
You did? Sounds like he beat you on that one:sarcastic:
You're right. He did.
Anyway, when someone asks 'Who would still pick an AR over a US-made Tavor?', you have to also ask what the poster means by 'pick'.
Is this their first mil semiauto rifle; their only mil semi auto rifle, etc. I also have to ask how much training they have had before.
If finances is an issue, for the $1999 MSRP of the Tavor, you can get a Colt 6920, Aimpoint & mount, slings, and mags.
Also how can you say 'Who would still pick an AR over a US-made Tavor?' when very few people have any hands on experience with the Tavor, while they have lots of experience with the AR. Most of the carbine classes in the US are built around the AR manual of arms.
For what it's worth I've run bullpups (FS2000 & Steyr AUG) in multiple carbine courses. At the time I did it this I had already been shooting the AR for over 20 years and had been to several carbine classes with an AR. If you go to a carbine class with a lesser known gun, don't expect the instructor to know much about it, or to sideline the class to give you personalized attention. You need to figure these out on your own.
By the time I ran the bullpups in classes, I had fired a decent amount of rounds through them and figured out on my own the best ways that I could run them. And I still hit some roadbumps (but that's a whole 'nother thread).
Besides, this is M4carbine.net. What type of answer does someone who posts a topic like this expect?
sinlessorrow
05-13-13, 22:45
You're right. He did.
Anyway, when someone asks 'Who would still pick an AR over a US-made Tavor?', you have to also ask what the poster means by 'pick'.
Is this their first mil semiauto rifle; their only mil semi auto rifle, etc. I also have to ask how much training they have had before.
If finances is an issue, for the $1999 MSRP of the Tavor, you can get a Colt 6920, Aimpoint & mount, slings, and mags.
Also how can you say 'Who would still pick an AR over a US-made Tavor?' when very few people have any hands on experience with the Tavor, while they have lots of experience with the AR. Most of the carbine classes in the US are built around the AR manual of arms.
For what it's worth I've run bullpups (FS2000 & Steyr AUG) in multiple carbine courses. At the time I did it this I had already been shooting the AR for over 20 years and had been to several carbine classes with an AR. If you go to a carbine class with a lesser known gun, don't expect the instructor to know much about it, or to sideline the class to give you personalized attention. You need to figure these out on your own.
By the time I ran the bullpups in classes, I had fired a decent amount of rounds through them and figured out on my own the best ways that I could run them. And I still hit some roadbumps (but that's a whole 'nother thread).
Besides, this is M4carbine.net. What type of answer does someone who posts a topic like this expect?
I think another thing to look at is the price, the Tavor is $2,00 but for a couple hundred more you are in the range of a SR-15 and if you are able to spend $2,000 what is a few hundred more to get a rifle like the SR-15.
I think another thing to look at is the price, the Tavor is $2,00 but for a couple hundred more you are in the range of a SR-15 and if you are able to spend $2,000 what is a few hundred more to get a rifle like the SR-15.
I was in the market for a Tavor but after going through that exact thought process i am going with a SR15 instead for only a couple hundred more, well less actually than the gunbroker auctions.
But if i was someone with multiple AR's and some cash to burn i can see the Tavor a a viable alternative.
For the price point of the Tavor, I would rather get a Colt with an Aimpoint optic. Or get a Noveske/BCM AR instead.
I also prefer a SCAR16/17 over the Tavor for a few hundred $$ more.
It is a neat rifle, but nothing about it screams better than a quality AR15 IMO.
Nutnfancy is generally regarded as a useless tool on this board.
+10000.
Not only on this board, but everywhere else. Can't stand his voice and his reviews. They used to be good, but a 40min review on a gun that can be done in less than 10mins is not really that difficult.
Magic_Salad0892
05-14-13, 22:16
She single?
LOL. :p
(No. Btw.)
LOL. :p
(No. Btw.)
:(
I thought we were bros
Rather get a noveske and failzero bcg.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Uh, no. I'd not choose it over an AR.
Over the past decade or so there has been a tremendous amount of lessons learned and component development of America's Rifle.
I see no reason to spend money on this platform versus the mature platform we already have.
Some will admire the "mystique" the newcomer offers and perhaps they'll be moved to jump on it.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
No interest in the Tavor or any other bullpup on the market. The ONLY benefit they offer is shorter overall length, along with a host of down sides to include increased weight/complexity/cost, decreased accuracy, bad ergos and recoil impulse, poor trigger, etc etc etc.
That's not to say that it's a bad rifle, I'm sure it performs admirably. I see no reason to spend more money for less.
In addition to all of the above potential problems, here is my main issue: I learned to clear buildings in the 90's. Done it lots of times since then. In all my years, I have never cleared a building without switching to the off side for left hand corners. (I shoot "wrong" handed). This is no problem for my ARs or my shotguns. Its a big problem for the Tavor. While handling one at the shot show, I brought this point up to the very serious soldier looking dude who was peddling the platform. I told him I shoot left handed and he said, "No problem you can put the ejection port on the other side." I asked, "What if I need to switch sides while clearing a building?" He thought and stammered a bit, and said, "You can just hold it like this (gun held away from the body, ejection port pointing away from face and angled awkwardly downward, barrel pointed who knows where...). I was not impressed or satisfied with that answer.
Because of this, I say, "No thank you." I'll stick with my AR. Just got a brand spankin' new one from DD! :D
Tacti-square
05-16-13, 01:14
In all my years, I have never cleared a building without switching to the off side for left hand corners. (I shoot "wrong" handed). This is no problem for my ARs or my shotguns. Its a big problem for the Tavor.
Pretty sure you can immediately change this one on the fly: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/06/hs-produkt-vhs-2-assault-rifle/
Yes, I would buy a Tavor over an AR....as a reference piece, assuming my utility armory needs have already been met.
A bullpup does offer some interesting attributes and I will buy a Tavor this year. Again, it will be a reference piece to go along with my other bullpups.
Pretty sure you can immediately change this one on the fly: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/06/hs-produkt-vhs-2-assault-rifle/
The man demonstrated how easy it was to change which side the ejection port was on. He fumbled just a little bit and it took him about 8-10 seconds. A fast, well practiced guy might be able to do it in 5-6 seconds. No time for that when clearing a "hot" building.
Its not the right gun for me. If you wish to either spend precious seconds constantly reconfiguring your ejection port for every other corner, or get hit in the face with hot brass continuously, by all means, go ahead. My choice would be to stick with a gun that works well, doesn't need ejection port reconfiguring to shoot from either shoulder, and doesn't hit me in the face with each off side shot, or force me to not shoulder and aim properly.
I think this gun is "neat", but not practical for real world defensive or offensive use. So to answer the original question: I would.
Alaskapopo
05-16-13, 02:19
Just watched a couple Nutnfancy vids on the IWI Tavor in which he compared it heavily to the AR platform, specifically an SPR setup. He said a lot of great things about it but had some complaints concerning weight, trigger and caliber limitations. How many of you would still choose Stoner's design over the Israeli gun if you could have either? Please explain why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxCuDtQW3nw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rZccNNt7-U
Bullpups suck. Triggers sucks, accuracy sucks, ergonmics generally suck. Tried to like bullpups but in the end they suck.
Pat
kaiservontexas
05-16-13, 03:28
I will stick with the AR.
Ill stick with my noveske afghan and amd65 sbr.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Magic_Salad0892
05-16-13, 06:21
Your sister bought a Tavor? Most people's sisters don't know what a Tavor is. You have a sister who goes out and buys hard to find $2000+ longarms that the average gunowner has never heard of???
She had the pre-order out. And yeah, I got her into guns. Actually helped her SBR a DD gun a while back.
My ultra-leftist mom "screwed up" and raised "right wing gun nuts".
My ultra-leftist mom "screwed up" and raised "right wing gun nuts".
PRICELESS!!!
Are you by any chance related to VaporTrail? :help:
DiveFlyFun
05-16-13, 14:56
The AR has decades of use and modifications where the Tavor is still relatively new. for example, I am unaware of any instances in which it has been used in freezing temperatures.
My ultra-leftist mom "screwed up" and raised "right wing gun nuts".
Simply awesome...
DiveFlyFun
05-16-13, 15:00
LOL :nono:
MountainRaven
05-16-13, 15:33
The AR has decades of use and modifications where the Tavor is still relatively new. for example, I am unaware of any instances in which it has been used in freezing temperatures.
Apparently the Indian army issued some to troops on the frontier with Pakistan, experienced some issues due to altitude/low temperatures and IWI has since fixed them (and the Indian army hasn't had any issues since, that I'm aware of).
DiveFlyFun
05-16-13, 15:55
Thanks for the info! It just goes to show how valuable time and use is to fine tune everything. I certainly wouldn't mind having both of them.
PatrioticDisorder
05-16-13, 16:12
She had the pre-order out. And yeah, I got her into guns. Actually helped her SBR a DD gun a while back.
My ultra-leftist mom "screwed up" and raised "right wing gun nuts".
Outstanding!
No bullpups here, thank you very much... I don't care how good they are. Don't need all that stuff right by my noggin when a round blows up!
Phillygunguy
05-16-13, 21:32
I got to shoot a Tavor at one of Vickers basic carbine class, I liked it and thought it could be a viable option to the AR but I don't see myself ever replacing the AR with it.
TurretGunner
05-16-13, 22:36
No bullpups here, thank you very much... I don't care how good they are. Don't need all that stuff right by my noggin when a round blows up!
Oh yeah? How many guns have you blown up?
How many AR's have you seen blown up?
Here's a hint... there is more reinforcement in the Tavor than the AR .
I swear some people just talk to talk without ever thinking what comes out of their mouth.
sinlessorrow
05-16-13, 22:38
Oh yeah? How many guns have you blown up?
How many AR's have you seen blown up?
Here's a hint... there is more reinforcement in the Tavor than the AR .
I swear some people just talk to talk without ever thinking what comes out of their mouth.
Any proof of all the reinforcement? and KB's seem to happen alot if you browse the net, all it takes is one bad load.
halfmoonclip
05-16-13, 22:41
For shits and grins, I have an MSAR AUG. Hard to argue with the overall length, and mine has gone 'bang' every damn time it was asked.
That said, the AR platform is hard to argue against, considering its utility and usefulness.
Best thing about a bullpup is its length without going NFA. Time to get over it and move on. If it were possible to buy an 11" AR without a tax stamp, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Moon
I would still choose my BCM over a Tavor.
AR > Everything else besides a "good blaster as your side" jk jk.
If it were possible to buy an 11" AR without a tax stamp, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Moon
We would still be having this discussion. It's not that the overall length by itself is the advantage, it's the overall length relative to barrel length. The fact is that a regular AR will have a much shorter barrel (and thus corresponding lower velocity) than a bullpup at the same OAL.
PatrioticDisorder
05-17-13, 07:15
Without ever holding a Tavor the questions I have would be the availability of parts to keep it running... Furthermore light placement (and for some IR device placement) I can see being an issue. Aftermarket parts, such as improved trigger are also question marks. If solutions to these questions get answered, I'd bet the Tavor can/will be a legitimate alternative to the AR platform, not better or worse but different.
scoutfsu99
05-17-13, 07:47
Has anyone seen a bullpup kaboom? Seen any video/pictures?
GlocksInMySocks
05-17-13, 13:51
I can't believe a heated conversation, in which 99% of the contributors have never even held the rifle in question, is even taking place.
Oh yeah? How many guns have you blown up?
How many AR's have you seen blown up?
Here's a hint... there is more reinforcement in the Tavor than the AR .
I swear some people just talk to talk without ever thinking what comes out of their mouth.
What does this have to do with someone's comfort level about the proximity of explosions near one's face?
The statistics for people's pistols going off in their pants aren't all that high, but I'm still more COMFORTABLE carrying mine in the back. The consequences of an ND are VASTLY different.
I can't believe a heated conversation, in which 99% of the contributors have never even held the rifle in question, is even taking place.
Only a few posts here have said whether or not they actually held the gun. I think your percentage may be off a little. Or a lot.
Even if it were correct, some people, Pat for example, already know they don't prefer ANY bullpup design over their AR. I don't have a problem with this.
I don't have to shoot every lever action rifle to be able to tell you that I do not prefer some lever action rifle that I've never shot over my AR.
Back in 1990 I came within a hair's breath of blowing up a brand new Bushie Carbine. Praise the Father I didn't just pull the trigger after the last round out had a funny sound to it. Yup, upon opening, there was no light at the end of the bore and I had a squib charge or ? So no 'pups...and I got my reasons! Dig it !
mastiffhound
05-17-13, 18:19
Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn
My guess is that it sort of has a perfect storm going for it....
It has the cachet of being Israeli and basically being to the TAR-21 what Arsenals are to Kalashnikovs, the SCAR 16S/17S is to the Mk16/17, and the (sort of) US-produced Steyr AUG A3 is to the Austrian Steyr AUG.
It has the interest of guys who previously rarely or never would have given a bullpup any serious attention, including two SMEs who are taken rather seriously on this forum.
And the reasons that those SMEs are interested are interesting to other people, the ergonomics of the design, the trigger, safety, &c.
Plus you have the Society for the Promotion of the Pmag and Other AR-15 Magazines, the Bullpup Brigade, the Balls & Bayonets Battalion (with the 18" Tavor), the Southpaw Liberation Army (with a factory left-hand option), the Multi-Caliber Association of America (with factory conversions and rifles for 5.45 and 9mm), and the Retro Survivalist Squad (who missed out on buying a Galil or a Valmet when they were 'cheap' and mags and parts were readily available, who have realized that the Mini-14 is not all that and a bag of chips, don't want to buy an AK or SKS because they're 'commie junk', but are too proud to buy the AR-15 they have spent their whole lives maligning).
I'm so glad that I had the opportunity to learn on my own. The two bullpups I've held (ps90, steyr aug) didn't fit me right. I am proportioned like an alien with short arms, big hands, and a long torso. I have the AR platform(in triplicate), the AKM(Arsenal), and Mini-14. I am in the Multi-Caliber Association of America( this is really a big reason why the AR platform is so loved) and even though I own a Mini-14 I never found it to be all that and a bag of chips. I love commie junk too, cheap sticks that go bang can be fun! It sucks that I had to learn the hard way about AR quality but with research and help that has changed. I got to have fun with other platforms too.
The thing I like the most about the AR, AKM, and Mini-14 platforms is adjustability. My AR's, AKM, and Mini have adjustable stocks, grips(you can change all of mine for bigger or smaller grips), and triggers. I can't get that with the Tavor at this time. I may have never held the Tavor but not being able to adjust anything that I love to adjust just sucks. One size does not fit all, the Tavor is one size everything. Maybe I'm a weirdo? If I am then there must be a ton of us weirdos considering how much is sold in adjustable accessories for the three platforms mentioned above.
brushy bill
05-17-13, 18:40
Oh yeah? How many guns have you blown up?
How many AR's have you seen blown up?
Here's a hint... there is more reinforcement in the Tavor than the AR .
I swear some people just talk to talk without ever thinking what comes out of their mouth.
Please provide some details on the "there is more reinforcement in the Tavor than the AR". Thanks.
MountainRaven
05-17-13, 19:56
Please provide some details on the "there is more reinforcement in the Tavor than the AR". Thanks.
Not a direct answer and not technical proof of one variety or another... but I do feel that I should point out that I wouldn't trust a bullpup made in the PRC or Russia or Iran or Iraq. Or any other place where a low value is placed on the lives of grunt infantry.
But a bullpup made in Austria, France, or the UK? Should be GTG, at least from a 'blowing up my face' perspective. As for Israel, remember that they are the only country on earth that has intentionally decided that they would rather lose tanks to mobility kills than tank crews. (And have designed their tanks to haul infantry internally in an emergency. And have converted old MBTs into heavy APCs. &c.)
Again, not proof positive. But I find it hard to imagine that Israel would intentionally put their soldiers at risk firing their very own service weapons given the care with which they have crafted everything else around keeping people alive (so they can continue to fight and inflict damage on the enemy and keep Israel in the fight long enough to keep themselves from being wiped off the map).
If you are (hopefully) an NRA member there is an article in the new American Rifleman on the Tavor.
-Jax
TurretGunner
05-18-13, 17:56
What does this have to do with someone's comfort level about the proximity of explosions near one's face?
The statistics for people's pistols going off in their pants aren't all that high, but I'm still more COMFORTABLE carrying mine in the back. The consequences of an ND are VASTLY different.
Considering the British, Austrian, Australian , French, China, New Zealand and many other 1st word, dominate countries all use a bullpup, and don't seem to have this problem of guns blowing peoples heads off...........I think you have no idea what your talking about.
Piss poor training and weapons manipulation with a pistol is not even comparable to the discussion at hand.
halfmoonclip
05-18-13, 19:41
We would still be having this discussion. It's not that the overall length by itself is the advantage, it's the overall length relative to barrel length. The fact is that a regular AR will have a much shorter barrel (and thus corresponding lower velocity) than a bullpup at the same OAL.
While there is a velocity loss, I'm not sure it signifies at the distances we usually use our carbines.
Moon
TurretGunner
05-18-13, 21:10
While there is a velocity loss, I'm not sure it signifies at the distances we usually use our carbines.
Moon
It matters for fragmentation at typical distances <200yards
halfmoonclip
05-18-13, 21:20
It matters for fragmentation at typical distances <200yards
While I'm entirely willing to be wrong about this, it was my impression that current NATO rounds weren't supposed to fragment or tumble.
Moon
TurretGunner
05-18-13, 22:11
While I'm entirely willing to be wrong about this, it was my impression that current NATO rounds weren't supposed to fragment or tumble.
Moon
You are entirely wrong. They need to achieve a certain V before they will break up, maximizing dmg to tissue. Only way a round is going to tumble is if its subsonic and/or hits something
halfmoonclip
05-18-13, 23:33
So FMJ military ammo is supposed to break up? If you say so, but color me skeptical.
Moon
So FMJ military ammo is supposed to break up? If you say so, but color me skeptical.
Moon
Here's a gel test. Multiple fragments.
http://youtu.be/dOYPxiRldaE
MountainRaven
05-19-13, 00:59
So FMJ military ammo is supposed to break up? If you say so, but color me skeptical.
Moon
I'm pretty sure that you're right that they're (technically) not supposed to.
But they can. And it's that capability that lends them a certain amount of lethality.
So FMJ military ammo is supposed to break up? If you say so, but color me skeptical.
Moon
You really should not post on topics you CLEARLY have no clue about. At least regarding 5.56mm NATO ammunition.
Just sayin.
In the end, I would not risk my life on it.
I'm sorry. I would risk my life on the g-3, FAL, AK, AR series because they are out there and they work.
Maybe in 5 years we will see how the Tavor does.
PatrioticDisorder
05-19-13, 07:49
In the end, I would not risk my life on it.
I'm sorry. I would risk my life on the g-3, FAL, AK, AR series because they are out there and they work.
Maybe in 5 years we will see how the Tavor does.
Tavor has been around a while now, it's only "new" to the US civilian market. (they have even been legal in Canada for a while now, believe it or not)
Considering the British, Austrian, Australian , French, China, New Zealand and many other 1st word, dominate countries all use a bullpup, and don't seem to have this problem of guns blowing peoples heads off...........I think you have no idea what your talking about.
Piss poor training and weapons manipulation with a pistol is not even comparable to the discussion at hand.
That's just the point. I'm not talking about the gun's track record or its likelihood of blowing up. I'm talking about the end users comfort level. As a long term end user, I am most definitely a SME on MY comfort level, and I'm willing to bet that jaygee knows more about his own comfort level than you do too.
The original question was about which gun we'd prefer. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about when stating MY preference for an AR over any bullpup design including this one, which I did lay my hands on, and manipulate for several minutes. In those few minutes, I saw what I needed to see to make an informed decision about MY personal preference and comfort level.
If you have more experience with the rifle, or wish to base your own preferences on the experience of another countries track record with said gun, more power to you. Doesn't make everybody else a blubbering idiot who can't tell what they do or don't like.
halfmoonclip
05-19-13, 09:18
You really should not post on topics you CLEARLY have no clue about. At least regarding 5.56mm NATO ammunition.
Just sayin.
Well excuse me. Another source I was just reading said that the current round doesn't depend on yaw for effective performance. But neither that source nor I are nearly as well informed as you.
Have a nice day.
Moon
TurretGunner
05-19-13, 12:27
That's just the point. I'm not talking about the gun's track record or its likelihood of blowing up. I'm talking about the end users comfort level. As a long term end user, I am most definitely a SME on MY comfort level, and I'm willing to bet that jaygee knows more about his own comfort level than you do too.
The original question was about which gun we'd prefer. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about when stating MY preference for an AR over any bullpup design including this one, which I did lay my hands on, and manipulate for several minutes. In those few minutes, I saw what I needed to see to make an informed decision about MY personal preference and comfort level.
If you have more experience with the rifle, or wish to base your own preferences on the experience of another countries track record with said gun, more power to you. Doesn't make everybody else a blubbering idiot who can't tell what they do or don't like.
This is a gun site for people who take firearms seriously.
We care about facts, statistics, and reality. We evaluate and disscus to make ourselves better and refine our craft.
We were not talking about AR's vs all Bullpups. There is much bias involved. Had we not grown up around AR's and many of us not been drilled and trained on the system for years... we can come to different conclusions.
Personaly, I believe Pups will be the future. Unless there is some radical revolution of small arms design, You cannot dissagre with the features. Having a compact weapons with the ballistics of a rifle or carbine... just makes too much sense. People will get used to them and once their flavor of the month gun trainer or top unit starts using one, will all of a sudden be the most ardent of fans
watch your mouth.
Voodoochild
Unreconstructed
05-19-13, 13:14
I have no interest in selecting any bullpup design over the 25 years of muscle memory & ergonomics of my AR rifles and carbines.
Or any other traditional semi auto mag fed rifle for that matter.
I was interested in this thread to learn about new weapons. That's not happening here... /unsubscribing
TurretGunner
05-19-13, 15:14
I have no interest in selecting any bullpup design over the 25 years of muscle memory & ergonomics of my AR rifles and carbines.
Or any other traditional semi auto mag fed rifle for that matter.
I was interested in this thread to learn about new weapons. That's not happening here... /unsubscribing
Then why the **** would you even read/post in here?
What point does your post make?
Just like to be heard?
Littlelebowski
05-19-13, 15:16
Then why the **** would you even read/post in here?
What point does your post make?
Just like to be heard?
Why don't you knock off the attitude?
ForTehNguyen
05-19-13, 16:10
Personaly, I believe Pups will be the future. Unless there is some radical revolution of small arms design, You cannot dissagre with the features. Having a compact weapons with the ballistics of a rifle or carbine... just makes too much sense. People will get used to them and once their flavor of the month gun trainer or top unit starts using one, will all of a sudden be the most ardent of fans.
this is the only thing I see bullpups have over conventional designs - reduced overall length. However when you go bullpup you introduce new disadvantages: fixed LOP, greatly reduced rail estate, and linkage controlled trigger group. Without modularity (which enabled the AR platform to survive this long) a bullpup cannot last as long as the AR has. Military can get whatever length barrels they want, as for civilians the bullpup is a way to get a compact weapon without going NFA. So what incentive does the military have to adopt it?
PatrioticDisorder
05-19-13, 16:51
Military can get whatever length barrels they want, as for civilians the bullpup is a way to get a compact weapon without going NFA. So what incentive does the military have to adopt it?
It's already been said, but with a SBR AR you lose lots of pressure FPS in a round highly dependent on speed to work it's magic, that advantage shouldn't be written off.
titsonritz
05-19-13, 17:02
I’d be more interested in the chick with a Tavor than a Tavor.
It may be the best conceived and executed bullpup out there but it is still a bullpup and personally I have no use for one. I’ll stick with my AR, AK, M14 or several other options over any bullpup.
TurretGunner
05-19-13, 17:27
this is the only thing I see bullpups have over conventional designs - reduced overall length. However when you go bullpup you introduce new disadvantages: fixed LOP, greatly reduced rail estate, and linkage controlled trigger group. Without modularity (which enabled the AR platform to survive this long) a bullpup cannot last as long as the AR has. Military can get whatever length barrels they want, as for civilians the bullpup is a way to get a compact weapon without going NFA. So what incentive does the military have to adopt it?
The LOP is not an issue. They are usualy on the small side which is fine for running armor or for people with trex arms.
Rails are overrated. 90% of railestate (I am trademarking that word) goes un used, and is unneeded for most users. Unless your running a IR/VL/ILUM , PVS22 , light, M203/320, ect, then you don't need rails. A lightweight, robust FF tube is more than adequate and will make you a better shooter then all that heavy shit hanging off the side. Every time I finger one of the rifles in the collection (XM177's, 601, 603's, 607's, XM16, XM16A1 ect), It really is amazing how light and pointable those rifles are. Running a Slab Side M16 in 20" feels lighter and points better than a 14.5/16 Carbine. Part of me wonders where the hell we went wrong. 99% of people who carry a rifle in the military will never shoot it in anger or train hard enough and shoot enough rounds to make the Gov profile needed.
They will figure out the triggers. For a fighting carbine, the trigger is not really that important. As long as its consistent and repeatable, then it is all that is needed.
The proliferation of bullpups has nothing to do with NFA. It has everything to do with a compact carbine that retains rifle ballistics. Its easier to clear rooms and move around in confined spaces. Its easier to move around inside of a MRAP or armored vechicle. Carring a m16A2/4 in a Upparmored HUMMV is a suck you cannot immagine untill you experince it. Good luck thinking you can shoot from the windows or make a quick dismount with that musket banging into every com/electrical wire and strap on the way out.
Mysteryman
05-19-13, 19:48
It's already been said, but with a SBR AR you lose lots of pressure FPS in a round highly dependent on speed to work it's magic, that advantage shouldn't be written off.
Stop relying on projectile construction to solve the problem as there is no guarantee it will perform as advertised. Shot placement trumps all, end of discussion..
MM
Rails are overrated. 90% of railestate (I am trademarking that word
Been said before.
Magic_Salad0892
05-20-13, 09:45
I’d be more interested in the chick with a Tavor than a Tavor.
I never should've posted that. Lol.
I like the idea of being able to tailor my rifle to my needs. The Tavor just isn't customizable like the AR. The AR is beautiful because of its modularity combined with PROVEN reliability.
If I want a full quad rail I can have one. If I want a modular rail I can have that too. If I want shorter OAL I can SBR it. If I want a precision rig, that can be arranged. Obviously it can also be an amazing fighting rifle. There is a vast arrangement of triggers available for the AR as well. Need I go on?
The Tavor has its niche. It would be a collectors item to me (one I would shoot), but not my go to fighting rifle.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 10:27
For me it all comes down to shooting performance. Show me a bull pup that can have a good trigger like an AR (2.5 pounds to 4) with a free floated barrel that can shoot sub moa. All the bull pups I have fired today were no where near that standard. Get me a bullpup with an AR's level of performance and I would try it. There is a good reason that countries like Britain that issue bull pups to the general troops issue AR's to their best of the best like SAS.
Pat
TurretGunner
05-21-13, 06:31
For me it all comes down to shooting performance. Show me a bull pup that can have a good trigger like an AR (2.5 pounds to 4) with a free floated barrel that can shoot sub moa. All the bull pups I have fired today were no where near that standard. Get me a bullpup with an AR's level of performance and I would try it. There is a good reason that countries like Britain that issue bull pups to the general troops issue AR's to their best of the best like SAS.
Pat
The SA80 is a piece of shit.... HK failure of epic proportions.
We have one of the british army gave us as a gift a while ago. While its cool and unique, its a shitty design and build. The optic is like an acog meets a WW2 german 4x with #4 reticle. Kinda stupid.
The Tavor and the AUG are more well though out designs that work.
I don't understand where this facination with a MOA rifle is.
First, 99% of shooters cannot shoot MOA with a carbine
Second, 99% of carbines are not MOA rifles
Third, You don't even need close to that in a working rifle.
We aren't here to shoot tiny groups in paper. We are here to put effective targets COM at common ranges. I can do that with a 3-4 MOA rifle out to 300M... been there done that.
Magic_Salad0892
05-21-13, 10:10
TurretGunner:
A more accurate weapon is always better, no matter what. It removes error, and mechanical influence. It also means that the weapon can be fit into more roles.
IMO A 14.5'' SOCOM barrel can be used as a DMR with a 2.5x-10x scope. As the Colt ones I've been around all shoot 1MOA, or just under with match ammo.
We should never look at what we "need". We should always be looking what what's best.
TurretGunner:
A more accurate weapon is always better, no matter what. It removes error, and mechanical influence. It also means that the weapon can be fit into more roles.
IMO A 14.5'' SOCOM barrel can be used as a DMR with a 2.5x-10x scope. As the Colt ones I've been around all shoot 1MOA, or just under with match ammo.
We should never look at what we "need". We should always be looking what what's best.
Exactly. Why settle?
sinlessorrow
05-21-13, 10:51
TurretGunner:
A more accurate weapon is always better, no matter what. It removes error, and mechanical influence. It also means that the weapon can be fit into more roles.
IMO A 14.5'' SOCOM barrel can be used as a DMR with a 2.5x-10x scope. As the Colt ones I've been around all shoot 1MOA, or just under with match ammo.
We should never look at what we "need". We should always be looking what what's best.
I can attest to the accuracy of the SOCOM barrel. With good ammo and good glass I can get 1.5" groups at 100M, of course thats if I am on my game. I am not the bet shooter by any means but your standard barrels are very accurate.
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 12:21
The SA80 is a piece of shit.... HK failure of epic proportions.
We have one of the british army gave us as a gift a while ago. While its cool and unique, its a shitty design and build. The optic is like an acog meets a WW2 german 4x with #4 reticle. Kinda stupid.
The Tavor and the AUG are more well though out designs that work.
I don't understand where this facination with a MOA rifle is.
First, 99% of shooters cannot shoot MOA with a carbine
Second, 99% of carbines are not MOA rifles
Third, You don't even need close to that in a working rifle.
We aren't here to shoot tiny groups in paper. We are here to put effective targets COM at common ranges. I can do that with a 3-4 MOA rifle out to 300M... been there done that.
Most shooters can shoot MOA with the right ammunition. Having an accurate rifle gives you a lot more options. Not all fights are close in. I want more options not less.
Pat
PatrioticDisorder
05-21-13, 12:28
Most shooters can shoot MOA with the right ammunition. Having an accurate rifle gives you a lot more options. Not all fights are close in. I want more options not less.
Pat
Maybe a good percentage of shooters who frequent M4 are capable of shooting 1 or sub MOA, but you'd be suprised how truly shitty some people shoot, try MOB (minute of barn). Shooting on the move, possibly under the stress of being in a 2 way range, 1 MOA vs. 2/2.5 MOA wouldn't make much difference for me, but then again I'm not an elite operator, I'm a civilian. Perhaps this kind of nitty gritty might matter to someone who is capable of shooting sub MOA off hand, but that kind of skill far exceeds the skill of 99.999999% of humans.
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 12:52
Maybe a good percentage of shooters who frequent M4 are capable of shooting 1 or sub MOA, but you'd be suprised how truly shitty some people shoot, try MOB (minute of barn). Shooting on the move, possibly under the stress of being in a 2 way range, 1 MOA vs. 2/2.5 MOA wouldn't make much difference for me, but then again I'm not an elite operator, I'm a civilian. Perhaps this kind of nitty gritty might matter to someone who is capable of shooting sub MOA off hand, but that kind of skill far exceeds the skill of 99.999999% of humans.
Well the less accurate the rifle is the less accurate you can be. More is better. I shoot a lot of three gun with all kinds of people from miltiary, police and mostly citizens and most can hit 1 moa with good ammo.
Pat
PatrioticDisorder
05-21-13, 14:19
Well the less accurate the rifle is the less accurate you can be. More is better. I shoot a lot of three gun with all kinds of people from miltiary, police and mostly citizens and most can hit 1 moa with good ammo.
Pat
I agree with you that more is better, however the point was 1 MOA isn't an end all be all dealbreaker.
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 14:32
I agree with you that more is better, however the point was 1 MOA isn't an end all be all dealbreaker.
That depends on who you are and how you plan to use the rifle. For me I want under 1 moa and will get rid of the barrel once it starts going past 2 moa with match ammo or 3 moa with ball.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
05-21-13, 15:17
That depends on who you are and how you plan to use the rifle. For me I want under 1 moa and will get rid of the barrel once it starts going past 2 moa with match ammo or 3 moa with ball.
Pat
By the time you turn a 1 MOA rifle into a 3 MOA rifle, the gas port will be eroded to out-of-spec dimensions anyway in many cases.
Don't military armorers flip out barrels every 10k rounds? Can somebody confirm that?
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 15:53
By the time you turn a 1 MOA rifle into a 3 MOA rifle, the gas port will be eroded to out-of-spec dimensions anyway in many cases.
Don't military armorers flip out barrels every 10k rounds? Can somebody confirm that?
What you you mean by flip? Military barrels can go as long as 25k and still be in the military loose standard of 4 moa.
TurretGunner
05-21-13, 17:36
What you you mean by flip? Military barrels can go as long as 25k and still be in the military loose standard of 4 moa.
Has nothing to do with MOA.
The rifle's need to shoot xxx MOA when they are new, and are random sampled to ensure quality control is maintained.
After a rifle is in the system, It is rare the barrel will be changed. Fact is, most rifles see maybe 100-500 rounds a year. There are many more rifles then personal so that drives the avg per rifle down.
They are supposed to be gauged and checked every so offten for muzzle and throat errosion IIRC. Most barrels get ****ed up by poor and too frequent cleaning then will ever get shot out.
True Story: I had a real piece of shitty raggy M16a2 assigned to me for my MOB. It looked like it was dragged through ranger school a few times then thrown in a tumbler. I shot expert with it durring fam quals and record quals.
Right before we left the MOB station, a group of 45B's came in and checked all of our rifles and carbines. Mine was out of their spec so they took it and gave me a replacement (we had extras), to rebarrel most likley. So i got to deploy with a rifle that was not even sighted in for the deployment. I just BDZ it and hoped for the best. Luckily I never had to defend myself with it.
The vast majority of shooters cant even shoot close to 5 MOA with open sights. You are mental if you think it makes a difference.
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 19:51
Has nothing to do with MOA.
The rifle's need to shoot xxx MOA when they are new, and are random sampled to ensure quality control is maintained.
After a rifle is in the system, It is rare the barrel will be changed. Fact is, most rifles see maybe 100-500 rounds a year. There are many more rifles then personal so that drives the avg per rifle down.
They are supposed to be gauged and checked every so offten for muzzle and throat errosion IIRC. Most barrels get ****ed up by poor and too frequent cleaning then will ever get shot out.
True Story: I had a real piece of shitty raggy M16a2 assigned to me for my MOB. It looked like it was dragged through ranger school a few times then thrown in a tumbler. I shot expert with it durring fam quals and record quals.
Right before we left the MOB station, a group of 45B's came in and checked all of our rifles and carbines. Mine was out of their spec so they took it and gave me a replacement (we had extras), to rebarrel most likley. So i got to deploy with a rifle that was not even sighted in for the deployment. I just BDZ it and hoped for the best. Luckily I never had to defend myself with it.
The vast majority of shooters cant even shoot close to 5 MOA with open sights. You are mental if you think it makes a difference.
I guess I am mental then. The ability to make a shot at 600 yards is a good thing to have or a 200 yard head shot etc. Your not going to do that very well with 5 moa. If the vast majority of your shootes can't shoot better than 5 moa its time to improve training with a hard focus on marksmanship. All of my officers do way better than that even with the irons.
Pat
plouffedaddy
05-21-13, 19:51
By the time you turn a 1 MOA rifle into a 3 MOA rifle, the gas port will be eroded to out-of-spec dimensions anyway in many cases.
Don't military armorers flip out barrels every 10k rounds? Can somebody confirm that?
I was a military armorer for 3 years. We checked erosion--no round count was kept (at least that I knew of...).
Me, because the AR15 is a proven platform.
MountainRaven
05-21-13, 20:31
Not going to pick sides, here, but I thought this was the website where 'sub MOA' ARs went to die. Where a good, accurate carbine was one capable of 2 MOA. And a screaming accurate one was 1.5 MOA.
Makes me kind of wonder how folk would have got on with AKs and HK91s and FALs, with their crappy triggers and pretty poor (compared to a modern AR) accuracy.
I can't speak about the Tavor, but most Steyr AUGs can shoot in the 1 MOA -2 MOA range. I've done this with Austrian made Steyr AUGs as well as the US made Sabre one.
The FS2000s typically run about 2.5 MOA, though I do remember getting one 1.75" 5 shot group with some 77 grain BH ammo.
I have never heard of someone complaining that a rifle was too accurate. Eliminating variables for error is always a good thing.
TurretGunner
05-21-13, 21:29
I guess I am mental then. The ability to make a shot at 600 yards is a good thing to have or a 200 yard head shot etc. Your not going to do that very well with 5 moa. If the vast majority of your shootes can't shoot better than 5 moa its time to improve training with a hard focus on marksmanship. All of my officers do way better than that even with the irons.
Pat
No offesne buddy, but you really don't know shit about the military. 5 MOA is very good for a shooter in combat. Its not your pretty little range where all conditions are perfect and you get all the time in the world to make your wittle holes. If I had a squad full of guys who shot 5 MOA with irons and optics... that would be one deadly ass squad. Real world doesn't work like that.
Carbines and service rifles are not for 600 yard shots. They are sometimes capable with the right shooter and scenario, but that is rare. That's what snipers and crew served are for (and mortars, and arty and CAS) .
And based on every cop I have shot with, including fam, friends, and co-workers......I highly doubt it.
TurretGunner
05-21-13, 21:31
Not going to pick sides, here, but I thought this was the website where 'sub MOA' ARs went to die. Where a good, accurate carbine was one capable of 2 MOA. And a screaming accurate one was 1.5 MOA.
Makes me kind of wonder how folk would have got on with AKs and HK91s and FALs, with their crappy triggers and pretty poor (compared to a modern AR) accuracy.
If you want to go talk about small groups... go to snipershide.
If I want to talk about carbines and fighting guns... I come here.
Both have their place and lane.
sinlessorrow
05-21-13, 21:40
If you want to go talk about small groups... go to snipershide.
If I want to talk about carbines and fighting guns... I come here.
Both have their place and lane.
So you cant have a carbine that has tight groups? I guess mine must be magical.
No offesne buddy, but you really don't know shit about the military. 5 MOA is very good for a shooter in combat. Its not your pretty little range where all conditions are perfect and you get all the time in the world to make your wittle holes. If I had a squad full of guys who shot 5 MOA with irons and optics... that would be one deadly ass squad. Real world doesn't work like that.
Carbines and service rifles are not for 600 yard shots. They are sometimes capable with the right shooter and scenario, but that is rare. That's what snipers and crew served are for (and mortars, and arty and CAS) .
And based on every cop I have shot with, including fam, friends, and co-workers......I highly doubt it.
Spoken like someone who has had the KISS principle beaten into their heads. YOU ARE ARGUING THAT A FIVE TIMES LESS ACCURATE RIFLE IS JUST AS GOOD AS AN ACCURATE ONE! Keep it down to human error, don't introduce equipment error too. Come on man. Think about it, you suck at shooting and only shoot 5moa, if your weapon is 5 moa that makes you possibly 10moa? Think about it.
Not going to pick sides, here, but I thought this was the website where 'sub MOA' ARs went to die. Where a good, accurate carbine was one capable of 2 MOA. And a screaming accurate one was 1.5 MOA.
Makes me kind of wonder how folk would have got on with AKs and HK91s and FALs, with their crappy triggers and pretty poor (compared to a modern AR) accuracy.
i will tell u why. because i have never seen a 1-1/2" enemy at 100 yards. usually 5'5" to 6'6" and 14=16" wide at the chest.(where all bullets need to go). that will stop the 1-1/2" confusion.
also why would anyone swithc from a 60 yr old weapon, battle tested weapon, to a new untried system. no sane person i know.
jjw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.