The rifle is designed to be switched to left hand use, CANAM should have the left hand bolts in with the next order, I think. So left hand is one of its original configurations.
Doesn't seem like a legitimate reason to me.
Klunks Tavor threat (cuz I deserve it)
- Thread starter Klunk
- Start date
Doesn't seem like a legitimate reason to me.
Thanks for the feedback Armedsask, I can understand your position.
But this example has stuck with me:
Consider in combat a left handed soldier using a left hand bolt Tavor gets his Tavor damaged (blown up, serious malfunction, etc...).
In need of a replacement primary weapon he grabs a right hand bolt Tavor from either a fallen comrade or a spare from a vehicle.
I think it would be important that they be able to use it properly in case of an emergency.
Do Israeli southpaw soldiers use the Tavor with the left hand bolt?
I'm pretty sure considering how combat hardened the Israelis are they also came up with a similar situation and a workable solution.
If anyone knows I would love to know.
Just my opinion. I like the idea of bullpups but I would like them to solve this issue like FN did with the F/FS 2000.
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
Tavor (pronounced TAH-VOR).
BTW, Klunk, what are you doing up in Wainhole? Playing Opfor in Kanadahar?
Opfor is full of drooling retarded reservist kids...I dont go there
Dook....I likes the railsetup
How didja do it??
Dlask rail, EoTech riser to align it up to the optic, and the TLR 1 light is very handy to my right index finger when in position.
There is plenty of room to manipulate the buttons, but I think the new mini sight would be even better.
The 552 co-witnesses to the plastic sights without the optic, and riser with the Dlask rail.
I think 999's rail is a little higher.
I think the EoTech has the best visual appeal for the gun. It is a high grade sight. I have one on my 10.5" AR, and it is perfect!
Thanks!
All rifles officially adopted by militaries are made by the lowest bidder. Just newer ones always seem better. The AR is the pinnacle of the space-age weapon. Everything else is just improved variations. Although, I personally think the bullpup design is at least a step more advanced than the conventional design.
Regardless, the ARs have undergone many improvements over the decades and still remain a steadfast soldier's best friend. Although there is plenty of searching by the US for the next best thing, and the AR's days in the mighty light are numbered, it still pretty good in comparison to it's possible replacements.
I think the next big step should be adopting caseless ammuntion, or alternatively propelled ammunition (i.e, railgun).
So when is it will you be heading into combat with this rifle?
Fail to Plan is a Plan to Fail.
- Fortune Cookie Proverb
Considering it is an active combat rifle for a state that seems to have constant combat engagements I would consider my question valid.
Additionally, if I had a Tavor I would probably let my range buddies try it out. I would prefer not having to change from a right hand to left hand bolt constantly since we have a good mix of southpaws as well.
Throttle_monkey1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Lol pure gold.
The TAVOR is definitely not a lowest bidder weapon - because it is a sole source supplier. The israelis government just asked IWI to develop stuff - so the money stays within the country.
Germany will never ask anyone other than HK to develop small arms...it is all about subsidizing their own industry even though it means they are paying way too much ( kinda like Diemaco as well) When there is a virtual monopoly, they just asked for the high end of all prices. Therefore, it does not mean automatically you can get the most bang for the buck and the higher quality because the governments are paying more.. It just means companies are making more money.
The US is actually the smartest - the government owns the right of the weapon and they can give it to anyone. That is more cost effective.
Germany will never ask anyone other than HK to develop small arms...it is all about subsidizing their own industry even though it means they are paying way too much ( kinda like Diemaco as well) When there is a virtual monopoly, they just asked for the high end of all prices. Therefore, it does not mean automatically you can get the most bang for the buck and the higher quality because the governments are paying more.. It just means companies are making more money.
The US is actually the smartest - the government owns the right of the weapon and they can give it to anyone. That is more cost effective.
who said ya needed to ANYTHING for that
Keep bugging me....Im outa kidneys and spleens to sell for loose gun change
They are actually much more accessable than the AR, except the safety, which is the same.
