The TAVOR
- Thread starter CanAm
- Start date
Keep in mind that the test that was run in that other thread was run with a gun that traveled across Canada on multiple un-supervised test-shoots and had thousands of rounds run through it with no significant maintenance performed.
We also don't have any idea of the ammo that was used for that test.
Again, until someone does an exhaustive, controlled side-by-side test of both rifles any opinion expressed remains just that, an opinion, with no basis in fact whatsoever.
I am really surprised someone have dug out that thread of mine. Just to clarify a few things:
ammo used was some softpoint off the shelf factory stuff, can't remember.
shooter's experience is of no your concern really, I am fine shot and a few friends who tested Tavor with me are great shots too.
I am convinced those groups could be cut in half if I could use scope or even BUIS.
It is really sad that Tavor was in country for almost a year, hundreds of people shot it and nobody ever tried to see what kind of groups are possible from that thing. Why is that me in a god forgotten armpit of British Columbia doing all the dirty work.
ammo used was some softpoint off the shelf factory stuff, can't remember.
shooter's experience is of no your concern really, I am fine shot and a few friends who tested Tavor with me are great shots too.
I am convinced those groups could be cut in half if I could use scope or even BUIS.
It is really sad that Tavor was in country for almost a year, hundreds of people shot it and nobody ever tried to see what kind of groups are possible from that thing. Why is that me in a god forgotten armpit of British Columbia doing all the dirty work.
More than likely some 45-50 grainers which aren't the Tavor's favorite with its 1:7 twist barrel.
- Location
- Port Perry/Toronto
Yeah, I'm holding out for a while untill I can get just a flat top model. I'd really like to put an ACOG on one, and the m21 really has no use for me. There are many other guns I have to get in the meantime.
Dude in G.P.
CGN Regular
- Location
- Having Fun on The Firing Line
i dunno, i thought a 4" group at 200m was acceptable, i mean for me at least. Or at least that's what the rifle did at the WSC demo on Dec 29, 2007 shooting 55gr american eagle. The Mepro sight isn't that bad, certainly not the rep it's been getting. Don't get me wrong, there are better out there, but it's not the worst. i guess in the long run it's all dependant on what you use it for.
Thanks for the input...
I was starting to think the $500 Mepro was U S E L E S S...
For the average Joe-Schmoe plinker it should suffice.
flat top / pic rail
Can-Am needs to offer the option of a trail with the pic rail and people can mouint their own optics. Then people can start getting feedback on the accuracy.
I am 100% interrested in this gun but am holding as accuracy is in the air and I dont like being forced to purchase a site.
H
Can-Am needs to offer the option of a trail with the pic rail and people can mouint their own optics. Then people can start getting feedback on the accuracy.
I am 100% interrested in this gun but am holding as accuracy is in the air and I dont like being forced to purchase a site.
H
That is just about acceptable for service use, ideally you require minute of angle capability, its then down to the rifleman to produce the goods. 4 inches at 200 equals 8 inches at 400 which means you can hold a fig 11 man target at the maximum individual engagement range. It wont win any long range prizes but its obviously meant to be more than just a CQB and car wreck plinking toy rifle.
The Israelis wouldnt produce a service rifle for mechanised troops (the reason behind bullpups) and not expect it to achieve a minimum acceptable standard. I suspect that the rifle and issued sight combo is more than capable of MOA, its just a case of training the troops to use it properly and that is something they certainly seem to be good at!
Dude in G.P.
CGN Regular
- Location
- Having Fun on The Firing Line
TimC
Well 4" at 200 equals 2 MOA, which country requires their service rifle to be 1 MOA capable?
Well 4" at 200 equals 2 MOA, which country requires their service rifle to be 1 MOA capable?
Well, military doctrine of my decade (90s) was that individual fire to 300m and section fire to 600m was acceptable performance.
Killing power at range is really delivered by section, platoon and company weapons and weapons dets.
The rifle has only ever really been a local protection weapon (within 600m by group fire).
Don't know if that doctrine has changed significantly?
I don't believe so, as I've heard Morpheus explain more than once here in the boards that the C7 weapons family has been doing exactly what it was designed to do, as part of a greater family of weapons SYSTEMS. Of a wealth of good sources here, he was pretty well placed to be in the know.
My point is to say that 6 moa at 300m equals 18 inches, an acceptable center of mass hit.
And while the rifle is likely capable of better mechanical accuracy, I DO believe the scope offers a good mix of close range speed coupled with effective engagement out to maximum personal range. I would EXPECT that part of their reasoning is also that accuracy predictably degrades under stress. I should imagine that they tested the efficacy of various sighting systems under induced stress conditions.
I would also imagine this isn't too far of from keeping with the Israeli doctrine.
It IS capable of hits at 500m, and we confirmed this in Valleyview, Alberta. However, the sight mechanism is a strongly limiting factor and accuracy is not reproducible shot after shot. 1 shot in 3 tended to strike the target.
All in, service rifle is a whole other ball game, and the shooter may be far better served refitting it with another sight system.
my .02c
Killing power at range is really delivered by section, platoon and company weapons and weapons dets.
The rifle has only ever really been a local protection weapon (within 600m by group fire).
Don't know if that doctrine has changed significantly?
I don't believe so, as I've heard Morpheus explain more than once here in the boards that the C7 weapons family has been doing exactly what it was designed to do, as part of a greater family of weapons SYSTEMS. Of a wealth of good sources here, he was pretty well placed to be in the know.
My point is to say that 6 moa at 300m equals 18 inches, an acceptable center of mass hit.
And while the rifle is likely capable of better mechanical accuracy, I DO believe the scope offers a good mix of close range speed coupled with effective engagement out to maximum personal range. I would EXPECT that part of their reasoning is also that accuracy predictably degrades under stress. I should imagine that they tested the efficacy of various sighting systems under induced stress conditions.
I would also imagine this isn't too far of from keeping with the Israeli doctrine.
It IS capable of hits at 500m, and we confirmed this in Valleyview, Alberta. However, the sight mechanism is a strongly limiting factor and accuracy is not reproducible shot after shot. 1 shot in 3 tended to strike the target.
All in, service rifle is a whole other ball game, and the shooter may be far better served refitting it with another sight system.
my .02c
Last edited:
That is for the service rifle. I thought the ones we were getting were the longer barrel'd onces and as such that would make them the sniper one...
It should be able to do 1 MOA or less @ 100m consistantly IMHO...
4" at 200m is actually pretty good, however a 6MOA dot at 200m covers 12" so I have to assume a 4" group is partly luck. It may be that the target in that specific case facilitated a consistent hold but in real world use I doubt 4" groups would be the norm.
As an example the dot at further ranges would almost totally abscure a coyote from view. You can't hit what you can't see. The Mepro sight would be more appropriate for the cqb models.
I'm not saying the Tavor isn't capable of good accuracy, indications are that it will be excellent, its the sight it comes with that I have an issue with. For myself I won't buy one until I can get a flat top model without paying for a $500 sight that I don't need or want.
As an example the dot at further ranges would almost totally abscure a coyote from view. You can't hit what you can't see. The Mepro sight would be more appropriate for the cqb models.
I'm not saying the Tavor isn't capable of good accuracy, indications are that it will be excellent, its the sight it comes with that I have an issue with. For myself I won't buy one until I can get a flat top model without paying for a $500 sight that I don't need or want.
- Location
- Port Perry/Toronto
It's not up to CanAm. I believe they talked to IWI, and the only way to get a tavor right right is with the m21
We're lucky we're getting these at all. These guys are so busy filling contracts with militaries I'm surprised their even taking civilian orders.
That being said, there are other firearms I need to buy first, and in the meantime I can wait for a less expensive non m21 tavor.
It's always so fun to watch pissing matches on cgn. 
I give the tavor a year or two to work out the kinks, get the next batch in, and see about a rail/possible a longer barrel.
I'll compare it to the masada when it comes out, and whichever looks better can come live with me.
P.S. - held one.... I like!
I give the tavor a year or two to work out the kinks, get the next batch in, and see about a rail/possible a longer barrel.
I'll compare it to the masada when it comes out, and whichever looks better can come live with me.
P.S. - held one.... I like!
Last edited:
Not so much a requirement but phase 1 of the APWT for the L1A1 SLR (1980's) required the firer to group at 100 yards, the smaller the group size the higher the score, this encouraged shooters to try harder at grouping. It also ensured that achieving 1 inch at 100 yards (1MOA) meant that the shooter could hit all of his targets at all ranges (if he did his part) and the maximum score could be achieved. This was when the 300 individula and 600 section fire was considered adequate. No targets were engaged beyong 300 yards for this apwt although nowadays with the L85A2 it goes out to 400 yards.
Maximum scores and marksman ratings were and are achievable otherwise they wouldnt be posted.
ergo if MOA is achievable with an L1A1 and iron sights then it should be achievable with a good 5.56 bullpup.
