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

beltfed said:
So, I did try the Tavor when we were shooting CSRA in Homestead for around 4-5 matches.
I'm a low 500s shooter with my best match around 525 (years ago).
I've shot a Colt H-bar match rifle out there equipped with irons into the low 400s.
The Tavor equipped with a 2.5x10 Nightforce and 69SMKs was high 200s to low 300s - I think my best match was around 325.




I don't have the answers you seek, sorry.
I'm sure google has you covered if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
Rounds sent are only as good as their placement obviously, and if you consider an AR with a 14 - 20" barrel being effective to 500m, and the Tavor ineffective past 300-350m, that could represent a significant gap in capability - potentially.
Click to expand...

Well I was trying to direct you to learning something on your own to illustrate the point.

If you would like to have a greater understanding of the issues surrounding your seemly strong opinions, I suggest terminal ballistics, wound lethality, military ammo of Hague convention signatory countries, and how these factors relate to barrel lenght in a military rifle specifically to a 5.56 rifle as we are discussing.
 
I think if western militaries placed value in those items from their service rifles, we would have seen transitions to calibers other than 5.56mm, and some services would not have widely accepted anything less than 20" length as a standard.
Certainly at some point within the ~20 years of WAT where engagements were stretched, but the opposite of both of those are true.

The bullpup is dead.
 
beltfed said:
The bullpup is dead.
Click to expand...

I can understand that one platform can be preferred over another, or have some advantages over another, but one thing that I noticed in many discussions is that things are either "Good" or "Trash". There can be a gradient of values that are not necessarily binary.

If Usain Bolt gets dethroned in the 100 meter sprint by another athlete, it doesn't mean that he's an absolutely worthless garbage athlete that can't run. He'll still beat the other 7.999999 billion people in the world at the 100 meter dash.

Besides, wouldn't accuracy and functionality have less to do with the inherent bullpup design as much as it would be the manufacturing of the specific model of bullpup? If a rifle with a traditional layout is reviewed as having terrible accuracy, people don't jump to the conclusion that the traditional rifle layout is dead, because that would be incorrect.

For what it's worth, the Kel-Tec RDB was used by the silver medallist at the 2019 IPSC World Rifle Competition, among hundreds of AR-platform competitors.
 
A lot is context-dependent too, whether you're IDF or CF or a Canadian civilian. For those in uniform, infantry, tanker, and paratrooper roles have different needs too. But for a military supply system, standardization is a big thing.

And for most of us arguing locally, we're comparing a lamented AR with a restricted-length barrel against a Tavor or WK with an NR barrel, and that latter is a long rifle. And folk are thinking competition not combat.
 
People also have to realize that there are many bullpups out there. Bad experience with one doesn't mean the others all suck.

I have some experience with AUG, SA80, SAR21 and of course TAVOR X95. They don't "drive the same". My fav is SAR21, AUG should be before SAR21 but the safety button is not good . Then X95, and SA80 dead last to the ocean bottom.

And seriously we don't need a 500m service rifle. We need a 11.5" 250m 5.56 service carbine suppressed with an ultra short can that is only good enough that won't blast ear drums, and a 18" DMR rifle in 6.8 suppressed and a 16" LMG in 6.8
 
Most modern SRs are capable 500m guns - at least in the sense of effective fire.
If your section has the current capability of controlling that grid square you should retain it, not go backwards.
 
Military ball or FMJ 5.56 ammunition no longer produces a reliable lethal wound channel with velocity less than 2500fps.

Roughly speaking a 10.5" barrel loses that velocity at about 100m
An 11.5" loses that at about 150m
A 14.5" at 225m
A 16" at 250m
A 20" at 300m

Now add in what your target is wearing for protection.


Absolutely the accuracy is further, and the bullet will travel further...

But understanding the reality of barrel lenght vs velocity how it applies to military ammunition (governed by the Hague convention) you can clearly see that the key to 5.56 lethality is a velocity above 2500fps.

So bullpups offer a shorter rifle with greater round lethality for military purposes.

I'm not talking about section effective range by volume of fire, I am purely talking about the terminal ballistics of the round.

So all things considered, the benefit of a bullpup is clear in this regard. Compact and capable of the required velocity Compared to a traditional rifle.

For military purposes, this means a rifle that maintains its compact nature while being effective across a broader set of combat situations.



There is a reason soldiers don't run around with 10.5" rifles.


I suggest if you want to learn more, research the studies done on the topic.
 
Last edited:
beltfed said:
Most modern SRs are capable 500m guns - at least in the sense of effective fire.
If your section has the current capability of controlling that grid square you should retain it, not go backwards.
Click to expand...

That would suggest it was a mistake moving from the C1 (FAL) to the C7 (M16). Not sure many people would agree with that.
 
The M855A1 and the new green ammo that has been talked about will not be lead body brass / copper jacket, so the fracker study will not apply

The MK318 brass bullet barrier blind bullets can get better lethality than M855 even out of short barrel.

It all depends on what new ammo is coming out in the future. Sounds like the CF is not going to anything longer than 14" in the future, and the ammo will be optimized for SB. Pretty sure GD will have all this figured out, the tech is not new. IMI Namo...everyone has some similar thing going on. Green, more lethality in short barrel, barrier blind...etc etc.

Daver_II said:
Military ball or FMJ 5.56 ammunition no longer produces a reliable lethal wound channel with velocity less than 2500fps.

Roughly speaking a 10.5" barrel loses that velocity at about 100m
An 11.5" loses that at about 150m
A 14.5" at 225m
A 16" at 250m
A 20" at 300m

Now add in what your target is wearing for protection.


Absolutely the accuracy is further, and the bullet will travel further...

But understanding the reality of barrel lenght vs velocity how it applies to military ammunition (governed by the Hague convention) you can clearly see that the key to 5.56 lethality is a velocity above 2500fps.

So bullpups offer a shorter rifle with greater round lethality for military purposes.

I'm not talking about section effective range by volume of fire, I am purely talking about the terminal ballistics of the round.

So all things considered, the benefit of a bullpup is clear in this regard. Compact and capable of the required velocity Compared to a traditional rifle.

For military purposes, this means a rifle that maintains its compact nature while being effective across a broader set of combat situations.



There is a reason soldiers don't run around with 10.5" rifles.


I suggest if you want to learn more, research the studies done on the topic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I Dont Care About You said:
That would suggest it was a mistake moving from the C1 (FAL) to the C7 (M16). Not sure many people would agree with that.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
The early C7s ran circles around the FN. Taken on strength in 55/56 timeframe, the C1 and C2s should have been replaced in the early 70s' not late 80s' - that is the Canadian way though; hang on to kit far too long until it goes from stores directly to a museum.
One could argue that if you rewind a bit further it was a mistake to transition to .308/7.62x51 after WW2 in the first place, but that stuff was out of our control as a minor power.
The 5.56 wasn't and still isn't ideal, so we will see what the future brings and how quickly, but it was a solid replacement for 7.62 NATO.
 
Daver_II said:
Military ball or FMJ 5.56 ammunition no longer produces a reliable lethal wound channel with velocity less than 2500fps.

Roughly speaking a 10.5" barrel loses that velocity at about 100m
An 11.5" loses that at about 150m
A 14.5" at 225m
A 16" at 250m
A 20" at 300m

Now add in what your target is wearing for protection.


Absolutely the accuracy is further, and the bullet will travel further...

But understanding the reality of barrel lenght vs velocity how it applies to military ammunition (governed by the Hague convention) you can clearly see that the key to 5.56 lethality is a velocity above 2500fps.

So bullpups offer a shorter rifle with greater round lethality for military purposes.

I'm not talking about section effective range by volume of fire, I am purely talking about the terminal ballistics of the round.

So all things considered, the benefit of a bullpup is clear in this regard. Compact and capable of the required velocity Compared to a traditional rifle.

For military purposes, this means a rifle that maintains its compact nature while being effective across a broader set of combat situations.



There is a reason soldiers don't run around with 10.5" rifles.


I suggest if you want to learn more, research the studies done on the topic.
Click to expand...

You seem to be stuck on the only two positive attributes of the Tavor and bullpups in general.
One is the 'extra' barrel length that can be incurred in a certain size (length) package, and the second is lethality at given ranges.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but both are white noise and somewhat red herrings.
 
beltfed said:
You seem to be stuck on the only two positive attributes of the Tavor and bullpups in general.
One is the 'extra' barrel length that can be incurred in a certain size (length) package, and the second is lethality at given ranges.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but both are white noise and somewhat red herrings.
Click to expand...

Please explain why you think these issues are white noise and red herrings?
 
I was just at the colt factory in Connecticut and I got all kinds of personalized tours of the place while doing my M16 and m4-5 armorer course. They have like a huge section of the warehouse stacked high with pallets of m4 and M5s to be shipped to Israel and Pakistan.
 
greentips said:
The M855A1 and the new green ammo that has been talked about will not be lead body brass / copper jacket, so the fracker study will not apply

The MK318 brass bullet barrier blind bullets can get better lethality than M855 even out of short barrel.

It all depends on what new ammo is coming out in the future. Sounds like the CF is not going to anything longer than 14" in the future, and the ammo will be optimized for SB. Pretty sure GD will have all this figured out, the tech is not new. IMI Namo...everyone has some similar thing going on. Green, more lethality in short barrel, barrier blind...etc etc.
Click to expand...

I am aware of what is going on in these regards, but this is not the reality today.

And really not overly important to the point I was making.

My point really only has to do with combat weapons fielded today, and how bullpups offer advantages in a number of circumstances that traditional rifles do not.

From a lot of the reading I have done on the decisions around the Isreali combat weapons situations it isn't based on the merits of the weapon, but other factors, such as cost, domestic manufacturing, and current mission profile.

And hey... whatever works for them...

But Tavors, and bullpups don't "suck".

Like.you said, individual rifles run the gambit of quality and user experience... but claiming an AR is better based on uninformed opinion is ridiculous.

Especially considering the real world experience speaking about what military ammunition does (or doesn't do) out of a short barreled carbine.
 
Daver_II said:
Please explain why you think these issues are white noise and red herrings?
Click to expand...

Longer barrel length and the compact package the Tavor offers:
As stated, look no further than the rifles getting dumped.
Israelis, columbians, who else? A bunch that took on the F2000 are or have been dumped, etc. The 5.56 is a marginal round when you dig into the weeds regardless whether it has a 20" barrel or not.

Terminal ballistics. This is going to, and was always likely, to be led by the US as the leading partner in NATO and NATO predominantly being married to 5.56. They've run how many developments in recent years to replace the AR and 5.56mm. 6 ARC, 6.8SPC, what else? Now the 6.8 fury with the XM5/7 - I guess we'll wait and see if that pans out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom