IDF phasing out Tavor and M4, in favor of locally made AR15 platform

An eye for an eye. Don’t go and rape women and kill children in Israel. Maybe the Arab brothers in neighbouring countries will open their doors. If you know any history you will know that won’t happen as HAMAS would try to cause a coup. A quick history lesson on what Palestinian refugees have done in Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

I recall all the cheering from Gaza after the crimes they committed started. Don’t attack civilians in Israel and expect them to tolerate it. At least they acted and didn’t poll all the purple haired hippies to see if it met public opinion polling.
 
Overlander2018 said:
I would take my X95 over the C7 I had to shlep around for 7 years any day. I would also take my 14.5 C8 that sits in my safe over my X95 any day. Long and heavy is the worst, short and heavy is a little better, short and light is king... (That's what she *never* said).
Click to expand...

Interesting. What if your back in civilian life and had to choose one available. Would it be the X95 then?
 
One downside of the tavor is the side eject by your face. It can make offhand shooting difficult.

Like if a right handed shooter (using a rifle with right side eject) needs to slice a corner on the left. I could see how a side ejecting bulpup could be an issue there, and as far as I know there is only one military forward ejecting bulpup, the FS2000. I doubt Israel wants to license that from FN (cost, it's not very modern). And I doubt Keltec RFBs or RDBs would survive military conditions for long.
 
Overlander2018 said:
I would take my X95 over the C7 I had to shlep around for 7 years any day. I would also take my 14.5 C8 that sits in my safe over my X95 any day. Long and heavy is the worst, short and heavy is a little better, short and light is king... (That's what she *never* said).
Click to expand...

Praising the X95 and dropping some yiddish? Yofi!
 
Astute Observer said:
One downside of the tavor is the side eject by your face. It can make offhand shooting difficult. .
Click to expand...

There is a method to accomplish this. IIRC Warrior Poet Society did a vid showing it.

Basically you don't move your hands at all. Just switch the butt to your other shoulder. It seems a little weird at first but it totally works. Would def need a little training / practice but its a viable method.
 
Astute Observer said:
One downside of the tavor is the side eject by your face. It can make offhand shooting difficult.

Like if a right handed shooter (using a rifle with right side eject) needs to slice a corner on the left. I could see how a side ejecting bulpup could be an issue there, and as far as I know there is only one military forward ejecting bulpup, the FS2000. I doubt Israel wants to license that from FN (cost, it's not very modern). And I doubt Keltec RFBs or RDBs would survive military conditions for long.
Click to expand...

If you shoot 5.56 rather than .223 spec ammunition the ejection will be more 2 O' clockish, which helps considerably.
 
Just seems like a move to more in-house procurement, and the AR is a natural easy choice that they're all familiar with rather than the Tavor. Almost like they're anticipating Western sanctions.
 
Israel has very little "strategic depth" - like Singapore. Singapore actually built its military based on the IDF model. Singapore's main enemies are Malaysia and Indonesia, two muslim cultures that were openly hostile to in the past and now semi tolerant these days of Chinese and Indian. The situation is almost a carbon copy of Israel but in Asia. It is well known that Singaporian military strategy is not to static defend. If they know trouble is coming they are striking first to take out the Malaysian and Indonesian.

So why do I bring up Singapore? Like Israel, they are working very hard to build local arms and munition manufacturing. Singapore can build its own smalls arm, small to mid cal munition, some IFV, but it is still incapable to build most equipment and it is depending on the US ( helicopter,, fighter jets first F35 purchaser in asia outside of Japan) and some european hardware like Tanks.

But the lack of strategy depth means the arms depot and factories are essentially part of the front line. So either they go super fast to push the front away from their home front, or they need massive supply by foreign country. The fact is, if the war goes bad, all the local boutique weapon system cannot be maintained once the depots are getting attacked and parts are thinning out. It is almost inevitable they need to use foreign weapons. But during peace time, money needs to go to economy. These small countries are not even like Ukraine which is much bigger and is dotted with disperse ex SU depots.

Small arms ( like rifles and pistols ) are the most basic and most replace-able items. They are disposable. Little training is needed to move from one to another. It is the most low risk ( both politically and also logistically) place to give locals money to build local manufacturing capability but when things go bad it can also be substituted. That's why many countries pay 2X to even 4X the money for local mall arms ( before the tens of millions investment) which are not even as good as the 650 USD plain jane M4
 
Last edited:
Bottom line is the X95 / Tavor are turds (as are all bullpups).
Yes, to gun nerds they're cool and different and yeah, you can get to know a semblance of mastering the manual of arms with them, but by-and-large as a service rifle, they are a solution to a question that is no longer relevant.

3 to 5 times faster operating a Tavor over an AR platform? Give me a break.
 
beltfed said:
Bottom line is the X95 / Tavor are turds (as are all bullpups).
Yes, to gun nerds they're cool and different and yeah, you can get to know a semblance of mastering the manual of arms with them, but by-and-large as a service rifle, they are a solution to a question that is no longer relevant.

3 to 5 times faster operating a Tavor over an AR platform? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that bullpups aren't as intuitive as an AR platform. So certainly slower, and I don't think any amount of training can change that...but they have their purpose/utility. Vehicle entry and exits, particularly if there are bunch who are armed, x95's are way better at deploying than AR's. Just generally carrying on your body, I really like the compactness x95. 18.5" barrel, so all the velocity vs. what would have to be a 10 or even 8" AR to get the same compactness.
 
X95 is reliable and from a user perspective it is pretty simple - pop one pin and the guts fall out. it only gets complicated when people try to do more than they are designed for people to do.

In general bullpup is a great set up for general field infantry style of work like section attack kinda thing, up down up down up down that sort of stuff. Think of the mechanics of slamming onto the ground and getting up again and again with wpn in one hand. Also the halt and sitting/squatting around waiting everyone's rifle start pointing to the ground because physics is physics,muscles get tired. I can also say that bullpup will be much nice in winter warfare type of situation - just easier to carry and move around, and easier to keep pointing up while kneeling and in general sufferingin deep snow. Also think of doing things on skis and shooting off ski poles ( Austrians figured this out back in the 70's) These are more relevant back in the days when the institutions insist on 20" bbl and Under slung GL. But we are moving away from under slung GL to go with standalone, and the world is going to 11" to 14" carbine with suppressor for everyone. But these are things not quite relevant to civilian use as a hunting or pest control rifle. 20" is nice for the velocity using varmint bullets

What makes more sense is TAVOR 7. MBR and DMR in bullpup like DT and TAVOR 7 makes sense. A 20" tube in 6.8/308/6.5 does make a bg difference for the 4" more.
 
Last edited:
beltfed said:
Bottom line is the X95 / Tavor are turds (as are all bullpups).
Yes, to gun nerds they're cool and different and yeah, you can get to know a semblance of mastering the manual of arms with them, but by-and-large as a service rifle, they are a solution to a question that is no longer relevant.

3 to 5 times faster operating a Tavor over an AR platform? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

I've never seen any claims re. operating a Tavor is 3-5x faster. Whoever said that is an idiot. However there are numerous gun tubers who have shown that operating an X95 is not slower than an AR.

Like you, I have spent a lifetime with the AR platform and am extremely comfortable with it. However, I have a little time on an X95 now and I really like it. So much so, that I wouldn't go back to an AR if the bans get lifted. I need a bunch more time on my X95 to get really comfortable with its operation but it is in no manner inferior to the AR, it is simply different.

ALL firearms have pros and cons. This is true for the AR and the X95. One just has to learn to adapt to the platform.



Painkillers said:
I'll agree that bullpups aren't as intuitive as an AR platform. So certainly slower, and I don't think any amount of training can change that...but they have their purpose/utility. Vehicle entry and exits, particularly if there are bunch who are armed, x95's are way better at deploying than AR's. Just generally carrying on your body, I really like the compactness x95. 18.5" barrel, so all the velocity vs. what would have to be a 10 or even 8" AR to get the same compactness.
Click to expand...

The only reason we think of the AR as being intuitive is because we have all spend decades using it. The X95 is not slower than an AR, there are loads of videos on YouTube demonstrating such. Of course training will help with the familiarity and speed of operation.

You are 100% correct with respect to vehicle entry, exit and the 98% of the time we spend carrying a rifle vs the teeny amount of time we spend actually shooting a rifle.
 
greentips said:
X95 is reliable and from a user perspective it is pretty simple - pop one pin and the guts fall out. it only gets complicated when people try to do more than they are designed for people to do.

In general bullpup is a great set up for general field infantry style of work like section attack kinda thing, up down up down up down that sort of stuff. Think of the mechanics of slamming onto the ground and getting up again and again with wpn in one hand. Also the halt and sitting/squatting around waiting everyone's rifle start pointing to the ground because physics is physics, muscles get tired. I can also say that bullpup will be much nice in winter warfare type of situation - just easier to carry and move around, and easier to keep pointing up while kneeling and in general sufferingin deep snow. Also think of doing things on skis and shooting off ski poles ( Austrians figured this out back in the 70's) These are more relevant back in the days when the institutions insist on 20" bbl and Under slung GL. But we are moving away from under slung GL to go with standalone, and the world is going to 11" to 14" carbine with suppressor for everyone. But these are things not quite relevant to civilian use as a hunting or pest control rifle. 20" is nice for the velocity using varmint bullets.
Click to expand...

With today's accessories and technology, the bullpup offers both a limitation and a benefit.

The limitation is the lack of rail space to hang stuff off of. Lights, lasers, pressure pads etc get crammed together and require a little thought to organize.

The benefit is that the forward weight of accessories is much closer to the centre of gravity of the rifle and makes it much easier to manipulate and live with over time. The front heaviness of a fully kitted out AR/M4 is not trivial. Try holding that up for any period of time and you will discover just how much of a biatch gravity can be.

A similarly kitted out bullpup is much easier to handle and manipulate because the CG is way further back, basically at the pistol grip.

Add in the CDN requirement for an 18.5" barrel to keep it non-restricted and conventional rifles become ridiculously front heavy and difficult to manipulate and live with. I learned that lesson the hard way with a WK180. It was simply impossible to move with and shoot offhand for any distance.
 
It was the bolt release comment being 3x faster than an AR. Complete rubbish.

But whatever, I don't have the energy to inject this thread with more doses of reality.
Back to your regularly scheduled Tavor circle jerk.
 
beltfed said:
It was the bolt release comment being 3x faster than an AR. Complete rubbish.

But whatever, I don't have the energy to inject this thread with more doses of reality.
Back to your regularly scheduled Tavor circle jerk.
Click to expand...

The X95 bolt release is definitely faster and more intuitive than an AR. Insert mag with thumb extended upwards. When the mag bottoms out, twist wrist slightly to further extend thumb onto bolt release. Thats it. It's super fast.

Don't go away mad ..... :)
 
...likewise - insert mag in an AR (that is right in front of you as opposed to under one's armpit, btw) with your right hand, release bolt hold open with your left hand without breaking your grip.
You're a lefty like me yes? So you know this to be true.

Not sure why the need to embellish the workings of the Tavor, but it is a common theme in threads like these.
Anyhoo, enjoy your thread and the craptastic rifle. :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom