I have fired both in full auto extensively. Both seemed to get hot fast. Dumping mags semi-auto up here in Canada I can say the same. I can definitely agree that stock triggers are very different but the X-95 is hardly so bad it can't compare. I have one set up with full Geiselle upgrades and one without. They both shoot pretty well the same for me running drills. Again I would base my choice off what I expected. Compact weapons can be worth their weight in gold. Realistically though the M4 isn't overly long... I'm clearly unable to decide myself haha.
IDF to replace the Tavor with M4
- Thread starter JoeShmow
- Start date
I have fired both in full auto extensively. Both seemed to get hot fast. Dumping mags semi-auto up here in Canada I can say the same. I can definitely agree that stock triggers are very different but the X-95 is hardly so bad it can't compare. I have one set up with full Geiselle upgrades and one without. They both shoot pretty well the same for me running drills. Again I would base my choice off what I expected. Compact weapons can be worth their weight in gold. Realistically though the M4 isn't overly long... I'm clearly unable to decide myself haha.
did you got accurate results? easy to shoot and being in the target are for me 2 different things.
I'm a little amused, because I found the exact opposite. The balance made it feel great to shoulder and carry, like I said, my AR never left my safe again. That it's also short frankly seemed like a secondary bonus compared to the balance.
Pretty much disagree with this across the board.
Each to their own i guess. But how come bullpups arnt the cats a$$ at 3 gun and service rifle matches then ?
It has all the internal apparatus a normal semi auto has, PLUS all the trigger linkage = more complex.
Mag well right in front your chest, the chamber pressure, ejection and action cycling is right under ur face, gotta push the gun ahead to properly show clear = Less intuitive design / layout basically.
Height over bore is noticably more then AR / M4 platform = less optic friendly.
More polymer stuff = less robust.
Im not by any means saying the Tavor platform is bad. I think its great! .... its just not as good as the M4/AR platform.
Last edited:
Bullpups are a novelty for civilian shooters and a nightmare for soldiers that are forced to overcome their peculiarities.
Just look at the top branches and units of militaries that can pick and choose what they shoulder....
Each to their own i guess. But how come bullpups arnt the cats a$$ at 3 gun and service rifle matches then ? For the same reason that actual service rifles don't seem to be the cats a$$ at them either. There's more to it.
It has all the internal apparatus a normal semi auto has, PLUS all the trigger linkage = more complex. The trigger linkage, while technically more complex, doesn't actually complicate anything. It's a bar. It slides.
Mag well right in front your chest, the chamber pressure, ejection and action cycling is right under ur face - So...?
gotta push the gun ahead to properly show clear - No you don't.
Height over bore is noticably more then AR / M4 platform = less optic friendly. So don't use a battle zero procedure designed for an M4's iron sights, problem solved
More polymer stuff = less robust. Are you sure about that?
Man it's almost like they do different jobs. There's a difference between a secret squirrel who can customize a rifle to be the perfect fit for every single mission, and the infanteer who needs one rifle that will be effective in any situation because it's the only one they've got.
It has all the internal apparatus a normal semi auto has, PLUS all the trigger linkage = more complex. The trigger linkage, while technically more complex, doesn't actually complicate anything. It's a bar. It slides.
Mag well right in front your chest, the chamber pressure, ejection and action cycling is right under ur face - So...?
gotta push the gun ahead to properly show clear - No you don't.
Height over bore is noticably more then AR / M4 platform = less optic friendly. So don't use a battle zero procedure designed for an M4's iron sights, problem solved
More polymer stuff = less robust. Are you sure about that?
Man it's almost like they do different jobs. There's a difference between a secret squirrel who can customize a rifle to be the perfect fit for every single mission, and the infanteer who needs one rifle that will be effective in any situation because it's the only one they've got.
I personally find that having a longer and heavier gun (to a certain extent ) aids in my ability to stabilize thus improving my offhand performance. I have a easier time holding my M305 on target then i do with my buddies 5.4lb SU16, or Type 97.
JDForBrkFst
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Roughly North Central AB
Jarvy. I have to assume you have a military background with multiple combat deployments, coupled with a significant amount of range and competition time on both platforms? Having checked all those boxes myself I'm running an AR and would never pick a bullpup if I had the choice. Btw, those "secret squirrels" from a practical shooting point are doing the same stuff as line infantry just much more practiced and faster. They all end up with an AR pattern rifle when they get the choice. You can argue with reality all you like. Bullpups are fun, and the Tavor is a great rifle. But don't make it more than it is.
I have never shot an AR - closest thing I have in terms of look and feel (but not function) is the MRA Renegade. I do have an X95 and like it a lot. I will say though that I probably will never get used to the bullpup mag loading. The only physical advantage of using my X95 at the range bench with a PMAG 5/30 or something like that is that I can sit down and the mag hangs off the edge of the bench and I just need to use my small Caldwell bag. I can't sit down and shoot my Renegade due to the protrusion of the mag in the middle. But I am sure one can argue for either of these they weren't really designed to be shot sitting down.
If the MRA Renegade is indeed like the look and feel of the AR, I think this would feel better in my hands anyway. The ergonomics of the X95 are very good though as is the weight distribution. I wish I had an opportunity to shoot an AR before they got banned.
If the MRA Renegade is indeed like the look and feel of the AR, I think this would feel better in my hands anyway. The ergonomics of the X95 are very good though as is the weight distribution. I wish I had an opportunity to shoot an AR before they got banned.
Bullpup actually works very well for infantry. Running a section attack with a X95 and a grip pod. After a few up and down the difference shows.
The problem is not bullpup configuration, the problem is that no one has designed a bullpup that is compact and light weight like M16FOW ( which requires the use of aluminum forgings or extrusion tube, that no one could grasp until FN SCAR came along). Also, all the gadgets like LAD, clip on thermal/II, etc are designed for M16FOW. Finally, stoner got the ergonomics of M16FOW right the first time, rotating FC ( that can be manipulated by any handsize) and slim grip are brilliant, and no country other than the US has so many civilian pro/semi pro "shooters" and trained ex military professionals to fuel the industries outside of the typical establishment bubble in other places. All these factors propel M16FOW to where it is right now.
Alot of the issues has also to deal with that IWI, Beretta and even FN and HK before ( followed by small co. like HS ), thought plastic guns would be the future back in the mid 90's. Some still stayed on the plastic ship until recently, and flopped hard like ARX160. Plastic guns are "big" because of shell geometry, and they end up not saving weight ( actually heavier ) compared to aluminum forging or extrusion tube. They also only get input from their own militaries, and the few people in places of influences are probably really not that much of expert. They also have no idea how far the US had leap frogged them in night fighting tech by at least two generations ( II, thermal) in the last 15 years, while the US was thinking about LAD and NV in the late 90's, most of these countries and companies did not even know it is a matter to consider.
Last edited:
Ah, you got me, just one deployment. My opinion is invalidated! *Applause* Well done, sir.
This article may actually be fake news. Word in Israel is that the IDF is still putting in orders for new Tavors. This is an entirely political move. The Tavor is an absolutely excellent rifle. Arik Avivi looks to be trying to set himself up with a seat in the Knesset at the expense of the Israeli defense industry.
That was my take from the various articles as well, he was pulling a stunt to get him set up for his next job. (I thought a corporate board somewhere). He made the announcement as he was retiring - but MTARs are remaining in service and they're buying more? It's like shuffling the rifle between units was all he could feasibly get away with.
JDForBrkFst
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Roughly North Central AB
And you still think bullpups are king? I suppose not everyone walks away with the same experiences. Care to address the rest of the post, or just trying to go with the "gotcha" and walk away?
What reply are you expecting? You posted that you have x/y/z experience and reach one conclusion. I have very similar experience and reached another. I countered your "gotcha" with my own "gotcha" because that's all the respect that sort of thing deserves.
I think everyone needs to recognize the biases that come out in competition formats. 3-Gun heavily favours a certain type of race gun. I don't see a lot of 20" ARs there (though I guess none of us do anymore). Service rifle favours a gun that can make those 500m hits, because the speed, agility and maneuverability at closer range doesn't matter as much, if it matters at all.
These competitions are useful to build skills and test equipment but they are not the end-all be-all, which is clear by the two very different guns you see coming out on top of these very different events. If you want a practical rifle, competitons can give you insight to how well things work, but using them to dictate your build is a mistake. Similarly, the secret squirrels don't end up with "A" rifle, they end up with two or three (or at least the uppers) because they can and should tailor their rifle for specific missions. If you have the opportunity to - great! The AR15 definitely comes out on top.
I think bullpups are king for the person with one rifle who doesn't know what situation they will find themselves in.
Last edited:
