Tavor vs AR, Apples to Apples Comparison Part 1 (50 yards)
- Thread starter z71camaro
- Start date
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
There is a reason military acceptance tests are 10rnd groups, they show how a rifle really shoots.
If a stock Stag can print a 1 1/8" 10rnd group (good ammo, good optic and I can shoot) where apples to apples does that leave the Tavor?
2/3 the length, twice as expensive, equal reliability, half the accuracy?
If a stock Stag can print a 1 1/8" 10rnd group (good ammo, good optic and I can shoot) where apples to apples does that leave the Tavor?
2/3 the length, twice as expensive, equal reliability, half the accuracy?
Perhaps you should work on your writing skills to accurately portray what you are trying to say.
The problem comes from exactly what you are saying. Trying to judge the capabilities of it on what it wasn't designed to do. Do you think your dog is an idiot because he can't drive your car? Just because that's what people here try to use it for, doesn't mean the rifle is crap, it means the intended use is. But then again, I've always felt if you can't get closer to what you're trying to kill, you need to become a better hunter, not a better shot.
This was not designed to be a precision long range weapon. It was 100% built to be a compact CQB rifle that still provided full velocity rounds. It was built to take a lot of #### and abuse while filled with sand and hit center mass without fail in rapid succession out to no more than 200m as there are very few areas out there that a bullet can travel any further without hitting something.
I do completely agree the trigger is crap though, but also know that no matter what you did to this thing or filled it with, it would still fire shot after shot. Their test drop for these to pass was ridiculously high.
Went out shooting with family yesterday, I have 2 Questar pistol mags that have decided to start not feeding the first round. They half load and then stop the bolt (no jamming or marks anywhere on the brass, just stop feeding it). Bump the bolt and it finishes feeding it and is good to empty.
The AR did this every single time with those 2 mags, the Tavor did it once out of about 25 times they were used in it.
I did 5 shot groups since that is the standard and due to amount of ammo with, but if you want to see 10 shot groups, just say so. I'll also happily add other rifles to this test group, just need someone to supply them.
While I appreciate the effort you put into this, I don't think you're ever going to convince anyone that one is better than the other.
The AR and the Tavor are very polarizing, and I would be surprised if more than a small minority thought of them as equal or otherwise were not emotionally attached to one of them.
AR guys love them and think Tavors look terrible, and Tavor guys think they have the coolest design ever.
To me it's not even like comparing people who are Mustang or Camaro fans, it's almost like comparing American muscle car fans to import racer fans. At best you're going to get people on one side of the fence to respect those on the other side, but they'll still have their own preference and won't change sides based on 0.1 on the quarter mile, or in this case a smaller grouping.
The AR and the Tavor are very polarizing, and I would be surprised if more than a small minority thought of them as equal or otherwise were not emotionally attached to one of them.
AR guys love them and think Tavors look terrible, and Tavor guys think they have the coolest design ever.
To me it's not even like comparing people who are Mustang or Camaro fans, it's almost like comparing American muscle car fans to import racer fans. At best you're going to get people on one side of the fence to respect those on the other side, but they'll still have their own preference and won't change sides based on 0.1 on the quarter mile, or in this case a smaller grouping.
Comparing the price of a new rifle to a 60 year old gun produced by the billion is ridiculous. That's the thinking that has people still thinking the 1911 is the be all end all pistol. The apples to apples in this comparison is 2 rifles designed and built for the same purpose.
Unless you are comparing the same type of rifle, price is a ridiculous thing to get hung up on. How about comparing the price to other non-restricted equal quality same purpose rifles? It's a lot closer. Most who buy these are well aware and ok with compromising some accuracy for length. If you're not then you're buying the wrong rifle.
Last edited:
Oh I'm well aware that a lot of people make up their mind long before they see any facts to any options. Fanboyism is huge in today's society, especially when it comes to firearms.
Knowing that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just figured this would be fun. I love both of these rifles, and can and will admit to their faults.
Better (smaller) than 2 moa and (down to) 1 moa. Said another way: from 1-2 moa. Better?
I judge my dog's idiocity based on the intelligence of other dogs. (Fwiw I refer to my two as dumb and dumber)
Similar comparisons are made with the Tavor. I would judge it against a short barrelled rifle like an M4gery or a Sig carbine, and not my TRG (as it would be an unfair and invalid comparison).
I would not say the rifle is crap, but it's' accuracy sure is.
Much clearer. Lol.
I agree the accuracy leaves something to be desired for shooting small groups or attempting to use it as a varmint rifle, but it'll hit a coyote or silhouette target at any distance I need it to. And for that matter it has no problem taking gophers at 100 either.
That being said I'll still report what these do at greater distances once I get a chance at a longer range.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I maintain that nothing currently available to the Canadian public (restricted or non) will run with a decent AR.
We all know the AR is capible of printing a tighter group. But I still don't get why so many people are obsessed with the accuracy of thier black rifle. The only time you'll get MOA is when shooting from a rest. What MOA are you getting out of you ARs when shooting from standing unsupported, or on the move?
I don't have much experience with the AR, I've put roughy 500 rounds through my friends Noveske. When we shot benched there was no doubt that it was the more accurate rifle. But what I found interesting was that offhand the Tavor was much more accurate. Even my buddy who's owned an AR for 20 years was more accurate with my Tavor offhand. I know that's more based on the shooter than the gun, but interesting none the less.
It would be cool to see some groups out of both rifles from differnt shooting positions.
How old is the AR vs AK debate. We all know the AK isn't as accurate or ergonomical, but there is still pleanty of people out there that are willing to trade off some accuracy for reliability and durability. I don't see how AR vs Tavor is much differnt.
The #1 reason I got my Tavor was for home defence. I wanted a short 5.56 semi that can take AR mags, and will go bang every single time I pull the trigger. How important is that I use a 1 MOA rifle for that role?
I don't have much experience with the AR, I've put roughy 500 rounds through my friends Noveske. When we shot benched there was no doubt that it was the more accurate rifle. But what I found interesting was that offhand the Tavor was much more accurate. Even my buddy who's owned an AR for 20 years was more accurate with my Tavor offhand. I know that's more based on the shooter than the gun, but interesting none the less.
It would be cool to see some groups out of both rifles from differnt shooting positions.
How old is the AR vs AK debate. We all know the AK isn't as accurate or ergonomical, but there is still pleanty of people out there that are willing to trade off some accuracy for reliability and durability. I don't see how AR vs Tavor is much differnt.
The #1 reason I got my Tavor was for home defence. I wanted a short 5.56 semi that can take AR mags, and will go bang every single time I pull the trigger. How important is that I use a 1 MOA rifle for that role?
bottom line, you will never shoot well enough for the AR's advantage in accuracy to make a difference. Anyone who argues about how the AR is the superior platform for it's 1moa vs some other rifle's 1.5/2 moa are either idiots or bench shooters, neither of which i have any respect for as shooters. The difference of the two is i do have respect for bench shooters as engineers and mathematicians.
- Location
- Aaaaaadmontin AB
Personally I think it's huge, Mardigan. If you are going to run n' gun the Tavor wins hands down because of its handling...but when you want to sling up and start shooting out past 100 you need ever last bit of accuracy you can squeeze out of your gun. Just ask the boys headed out to Camp Perry how important top notch accuracy is.
It bothers me when the self proclaimed experts stand up on their hind feet and proclaim "It's a bullpup! It's a given that you will have a crappy trigger and rudimentary accuracy..." My response to that is ...."Says who?" Other self-proclaimed experts? Boys we already have a sweet trigger for this rig - I bought one of the first Timneys in and mine works like a charm. All I need now is a heavy free floated bull barrel and a serious optic and this thing is ready to compete. The fact is that if you put the same amount of effort into R&D for the Tavor that you have for the AR or the 1911...you can bet any bugs will get worked out. The AR was a complete piece of crap when it came out...but today it is the best gun on the planet. The future looks bright for the Tavor, says I.
You mean like this?
The biggest issue I have with comparing the two is the same issue I have with the PC vs. Mac debate. Just as there is no such thing as a PC, there is no such thing as an AR. Both the Tavor and Mac are made by a single company. In contrast, the PC and AR have become generic, with so many companies making the various components. It becomes very difficult to compare since my AR will be different than yours. And with some new parts, can be completely changed. With the Tavor, you have a choice of colours, and a 16 or 18.6" barrel. There are some aftermarket parts available, and more may be on the way, but a Tavor is a Tavor. With an AR platform, you can have barrels from 7.5 to 20", all sorts of grips, barrels, collapsible stocks, fixed stocks, upper receivers, handguards, triggers, etc. Not to mention the price range of an AR is from way less than $1000 to over $3000. So really, comparing the two, at this time, is pretty pointless.
Also, is there really a rivalry between these two guns? I like both for different reasons, and can't imagine why fans of one would not like the other.
Are these "idiots" supposed to care if you have respect for them or something? The fact you don't have respect for some shooters based on they're preffered method of shooting is such a fail for the sport as a whole.
- Location
- Aaaaaadmontin AB
I owned both rifles so I have no skin in the game. If somebody wants to pretend he is God's gift to the shooting sports I suppose there is no harm in it. For me this is an interesting and fun way to compare and contrast two very different guns.
Fact is if nobody beats me to it I will put the Tavor up against the XCR-l keymod just for the fun of it too. Unless something is seriously wrong with my new Robinson - the Tavor will probably win.
Fact is if nobody beats me to it I will put the Tavor up against the XCR-l keymod just for the fun of it too. Unless something is seriously wrong with my new Robinson - the Tavor will probably win.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
What are you doing August 9th? Want a chance to show me how superior the Tavor is? Want to spend a whole day falling behind this unskilled guy with a cheap AR?
But what would that have to do with "what gun is better". Probably has a lot more to do with the shooter?
I'm still a new shooter, I've only had a PAL for 2.5 years. When I got my Tavor I had only been shooting for roughly a year, so my experiences with black rifles was extremely limited. My first time shooting an AR was well after I had pleanty time in with my Tavor. And as I said before, I'm a better shot with my Tavor, and much faster, as I've had much more time with it.
So what would I care about what you can do wih your AR. It has nothing to do with me. I only care about what I can shoot better. I've shot ARs, and I'm way more proficient with my Tavor. That's all I care about.
Sure I could put in the time with the AR to get better with that rifle, but why would I want to? Is there some magical enchantment that's inherent all ARs that makes you a better gun fighter?
That's pretty funny. And completely a$$-backwards.
A rifles' accuracy will be far more important to shooters who shoot from dynamic positions and under stress or movement than any bench shooter.
Case in point using a simple interpolation:
Shooter 'A' uses an AR with a combined accuracy (rifle and ammo) of 2 moa. The shooter is good for 5-6 moa in a kneeling or squatting position (the field position he is dealt with in this particular instance) at 300m on a moving target. Combined accuracy of the rifleman with kit is 7-8 moa for a total of approx. 21"-24" diameter hit radius - assuming an 18" diameter target, 75-85 percent chance of effective fire on this target.
Shooter 'B' uses a Tavor with a combined accuracy (rifle and ammo) of 5-6moa. The shooter is good for 5-6 moa in a kneeling or squatting position (the same shooter and field position he is dealt with above) at 300m on a moving target. Combined accuracy of the rifleman with kit is 10-12moa for a total of approx. 30"-36" diameter hit radius - assuming same 18" wide target, 50-60 percent chance of effective fire on this target.
Obviously it isn't as simple as this, but pretty close. If you think accuracy doesn't matter, then cudos to you.
