Higher end NR rifles, Robinson Arms XCR ($2500) vs Tavor 21 ($2750), which is better

mikethebike said:
I will only address this comment.

MAC was shooting a 10 inch gong at 500 meters with his tavor with an Elcan 4x sight. See his youtube channel.

Any assault rifle that can shoot a 10 inch target at 500 meters is not useless at range.
Click to expand...

I posted a ton of factual information and made only one "political" comment, if you want to call it that in reference to the IOF. It's mostly a commentary on the power of language. Torture is still torture even if you call it "Enhanced interrogation". For more info:

http://www.truetorahjews.org/

Thanks for the link. That is better than I have seen on a lot of other range reports. He mentions his trigger job, not sure what it is since I have not seen the video he references it, and the 4x is nothing crazy so thats pretty good.

However this is benchrest on bags with optics, not 200m stabilized by a sling, or really comparable to what is issued to the IOF, so it's not quite what I was getting at. The bullpup platform was designed for CQB and is much more comparable to rifles made for close quarters engagements that are common in the urban enviroment.

On topic though, I think the Tavor sucks, lots of people agree with me and lots don't. I posted info on my reasoning for it. Lots of people say it's good "because the IDF uses it" and I argued against that point. As I said it's already being replaced.

The XCR is not at all comparable to a bullpup.

If I was going to get a bullpup I would much more look towards the vastly improved version of the Tavor, the X95 which is now replacing the Tavor, or as previously mentioned, a Norinco offering.

China has made lots of progress. If pics are necessary to verify that something is in use by armed forces etc there are lots but here is a quick one..

281zi43.jpg


http://military-photos.livejournal.com/76106.html
 
Breitling604 said:
On topic though, I think the Tavor sucks, lots of people agree with me and lots don't.
Click to expand...

I'm probably going to regret entering this train-wreck of a thread... but have you actually USED a Tavor? I, personally, don't feel I can provide opinions on guns I haven't used extensively. If you HAVE used one extensively - and I seriously doubt you have, based on the quote below you made in another thread - I'm curious about what, exactly, you felt sucked about the Tavor you used, once you had trained on it enough to get used to the very different ergonomics. Once I practiced sufficiently with mine, I found it to be a reliable, ergonomic, reasonably accurate, user-friendly firearm. If I were ever to find myself in uniform again, I'd have no compunction about carrying one. This is my opinion, based on my FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE.

If you're actually qualified to have an opinion of your own based on firsthand experience, I look forward to your feedback. If you haven't used one extensively, I DON'T THINK any of us here care what YOU think.

Breitling604 said:
No not really, I'm new to guns and not sure about a lot of slang terms, internet qualifications, short-hand and other various nomenclature.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dirt McGirt said:
Yo strait up home da tavor mo betta. Dis a army gun fo reals and it be shorter.
Click to expand...

I agree with the facts that Dirt most eloquently related. I will add that no one in the US military, at any level, or any other military, is issued, or even takes seriously, the XCR as a combat weapon - either front line or reserve. It's never been used in any type of combat and it failed during it's tests in the SOCCOM competition. The rifle has had issues in civilian use, due to quality control failures, and while support for it is excellent, you can't shoot a broken gun. Those are facts, not opinion. I'd love to love the XCR, but comparing it to the Tavor is like comparing a Mini 14 to an AR 15. There are folks who try to do that, but really?
 
Last edited:
I would say go with the Tavor. Big time! I was handling an XCR last night and the weight of the thing is just crazy. It's a f#cking wet log. If the Tavor is good enough for the soldiers of a country who are have to be prepared for all out war 24/7, it's good enough for you. Also mag changes on the Tavor are so smooth it almost made me laugh the first time I did it. It is such a beautiful design. If I made more money and was able to add to my gun collection at will, I'd be buying that gun this afternoon.
 
Breitling604 said:
Everywhere I went I only saw M4's in use around the border which is primarily where I saw soldiers. Even within the IOF, no weapons that have come out of Israel have gotten any widespread use. The Galil AK variant has spread around to various armed forced more than the Tavor has, no one is touting it. Just because someone is using something in their armed forces, it doesn't make it battle proven or qualify it for civilian use. No one is going around spouting off about how great the Norinco QBZ-95; because it is a ####ty bullpup just like the Tar-21.

I don’t get what this whole love affair with the IOF is; “If the IOF depend on it then it’s good enough for me!

They do Ok in general so long as they fight terribly equipped, poorly trained losers already bombed into submission by the Israeli Air force which is clearly their Special Operations people and do the vast majority of the heavy lifting. Read “Air Operations in Isreal’s War Against Hezbollah” by Benjamin S. Lambeth.

When the IOF invaded south Lebanon, a bunch of Hezbollah weekend warriors with ####ty gear pretty much had entire units pinned down all over and would have slaughtered hundreds of them if not for the constant stream of air support. I think for the majority of the fighting the IOF had about 10,000 soldier’s vs 3000 hezbollah fighters. The IAF ran over 12,000 combat missions in what 33 days or something? And the casualties ended up something like 1:3.5 IOF:Hezbollah depending who you believe. Why do you think the Israelis are working so hard against Syria or anyone else in the region getting surface to air capabilities?

The Tavor has been claimed to be “battle proven” as it was used during Operation Cast Lead which was not a battle. The Israeli ground forces could have rolled out armed with nothing but a blunt crooked tree branch to share and the results of the ground combat would have been the same, minus a couple casualties and some friendly fire casualties. A rock or a blunt object is far more battle proven than a Tavor and I don’t see anyone running around claiming a Louisville slugger should replace a service rifle. The 1911 has seen exponentially more combat than the IOF never mind the Tavor and how many armed forces still consider it their primary combat ready side arm?

I mean, even Bush Jr. said “Israel's "shaky military performance" cost it international credibility. He also said that Israel "mishandled" it’s opportunity, and that some of the sites it attacked were of "questionable military value". This was in his book Decision Points.. How is this impressing people? How bad do you have to be to be accurately criticized by Bush.

If you call your gear battle proven because you survived “combat” which consisted of you donning your costume, jumping into an APC and driving to an area already bombed out and shooting some civilians and the odd guy in a T-shirt armed with an old AK along the way, does this prove your kit is what kept you alive thus qualifying it as battle proven? Claiming they take the odd pot shot is not combat either. There are Native reserves where the RCMP can only enter with the ERT because they get pot shots taken at them. That's not battle or combat, that's getting shot at. With the Tavor they can't shoot back because it's useless at range. That's why the IOF units deployed out along borders etc are using the M4 still. It's a real gun.

I’m pretty confident in saying that the IOF has not seen combat against any comparably trained and equipped military in decades and I have no idea why people can't stop glorifying them. They are nothing special. If you want a battle proven rifle, look into what is in use by Americans, any force deployed, or anyone who choses their weapon. Or just get a Kabar, it's seen a lot more combat than a Tavor, and is more useful at range.
Click to expand...


 
CobraGT said:
If you HAVE used one extensively - I DON'T THINK any of us here care what YOU think.
Click to expand...

No I have not used one extensively at all, not past 5 minutes. I am new to guns in general, and have no idea how to operate almost all guns. Nowhere in the OP's thread did he state qualifications for the opinions he solicited. My argument was in reference to the claim people make that it's great because it's "battle tested" (hasty generalization), (that is not based on their experience either), I simply argued against this claim. I don't need ANY experience with any gun to argue against a conclusion based on a terrible premise, or lack or one at all. The evidence provided had nothing to do with my personal experience either. One average person's experience is so limited it's necessary to look past that and not extrapolate which I did. If you go back and read my post, I did say what the Tavor is widely described as being good at, and never once did I use a premise of "because it did or didn't for me". I'm sure if you were ever in uniform again and found yourself in a role where the Tavor was appropriate, you wouldn't feel guilty, but who would? That hardly qualifies it as "The best" in a completely flawed comparison.

About the second quote you reference. My interest in guns, tactical gear etc. originated during my time with and exposure to private security contractors. No not being one, but having them provided by my employer while I lived and worked in the Middle East. They were South African and used completely different linguistics (and a way different attitude) than what I find here. Now that I am back in Canada and no longer have the luxury of an armed babysitter, I am trying to learn what it takes to make my own sandwich. I was in the Middle East for some time and I was there for the July War. My experience there shattered my perspective of the security and safety I took for granted in Canada, and brought the war of my Grandfather (including the general dependency of my generation in general) into terms I could really understand. I suppose what most of my experience here is showing me is I have a much different perspective of this industry/part of some people's lives than most of the people here (glorifying, completely incorrect information etc if you read that far). I don't really mind if you care what I think, or if anyone else does for that matter whom can neither comprehend my argument or make a valid one of their own.

One more reply then time for me to go. Peace.
 
enefgee said:
... it failed during it's tests in the SOCCOM competition....Those are facts, not opinion.
Click to expand...

According to RA it was disqualified from the SCAR competition on a technicality due to late delivery of blank firing adaptors. Can you provide the source for your claim it in fact failed it's tests, particularly which ones it did? I'm sure you have proof since you stated this is fact and not opinion. I would love to know the truth.

Thanks!
 
Madmardigan said:
Click to expand...

Not hate at all, just utter disappointment at the lack of tolerance and empathy combined with the total embrace of completely immoral behavior that seems to be common here. As a Canadian I thought these values were part of our national spirit, and am distraught that people who claim to be the first to "Support the troops" and be "Patriotic" would be not only completely ignorant as to what that would actually entail, but be glorifying those working in opposition to it. What is it Canadians have gone to fight for, and continue to do to this day? There are many correct answers to this question, but one thing that doesn't belong there is so those they fought for could reverse the roles.
 
Last edited:
Breitling, there is no need to carry on, you have a bias towards the Tavor, because you have a bias towards the Jews. That is the basis for your reasoning, I get it. That is fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

were you to give supporting facts as to why the tavor is inferior to the XCR you might gain credibility. But to say its so because you don't like the Israelis, is simply an argument that has no counter and really destroys any credibility you may have had.

I shall leave you with this quote.

Bless a Jew and I will Bless you, curse a Jew and I will Curse you..... this comes from a guy who can both bless and curse...... God
 
dizzy said:
Breitling, there is no need to carry on, you have a bias towards the Tavor, because you have a bias towards the Jews. That is the basis for your reasoning, I get it. That is fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Click to expand...

Did you even read my post?

When someone made a reference to what you are implying, I gave a link.

http://www.truetorahjews.org/

Incase you don't make it into that link, I am not against Jews or Judaism neither of which the state of Israel represent. In fact I am a believer along with many Orthodox Jews that the ideology of Israel is diametrically opposed to the teachings of traditional Judaism. For that matter I am not against any race or religion, or lack thereof. I'm not even against people who think they are really aliens.

dizzy said:
were you to give supporting facts as to why the tavor is inferior to the XCR you might gain credibility. But to say its so because you don't like the Israelis, is simply an argument that has no counter and really destroys any credibility you may have had.
Click to expand...

How about the supporting facts against it's widespread use as a "battle proven" service weapon, and that is it currently being replaced? I guess this answers my earlier question of did you actually read my posts.

dizzy said:
I shall leave you with this quote.

Bless a Jew and I will Bless you, curse a Jew and I will Curse you..... this comes from a guy who can both bless and curse...... God
Click to expand...

Oh the irony.

shalom aleichem.
 
yardie said:
Antisemitism...the 'New Black'.
Click to expand...

Since you are a fan of Churchill (but not reading comprehension or logic), maybe I should say it with the respect it deserves; Sir Winston Churchill, I will leave you with one of my favourite quotes attributed to him.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
 
This is why I am reluctant to start "Which should I buy" threads here.
They tend to go sideways real quick.
 
Well I own a TAVOR, I used to own the Steyr AUG so I'm not a stranger to the Bullpup and I honestly don't like the TAVOR. In fact if the AR15 were non restricted I wouldn't even own it. To me the gun feels to "fat" and clunky and I feel cramped using it. I'm still trying to love it; kinda like an arranged marriage I'm hoping I can grow to do so. I'm thinking of getting an XCR but am a little "gun shy" after owning an M96 and doing the Beta testing for Robarm.
 
Breitling604 said:
Non-restricted true, battle proven? Not true. XCR was designed for SOCOM to compete in the SCAR competition, the Tavor was designed to save Israeli industry, was employed by a small amount of units in the IOF, and is now widely being replaced by the next "next level bullpup". The tavor was never used in any real "battle" is not even widely employed in the the IOF, and is already being replaced.



You hate bullpups, but you love the Tavor because it's magic, not a bullpup?



What is an AR feel? The XCR uses a Kalashnikov type gas operated action with a long-stroke gas piston attached to the bolt carrier group; or do you mean it looks/feels kinda like an AR lower?

The XCR is multi-caliber. It can make accurate shots at range, be used in a wide variety of roles including hunting etc as you can take it out to play, suited to shouldering on either shoulder, and was designed for use by arguably the most experienced, well trained soldiers on the planet.

The Tavor has rifle length velocity in a carbine length package, and is suited for kicking in doors so long as you don't have to clear from the left of cover much, and for those who are small and weak and the non adjustable ergos work for you.

So if you're kicking in doors, or standing behind the bench making holes in paper at short range, and if fits well the Tavor is better.

If you're looking to do anything else, the XCR is win.

The only reason I can see these two being compared so often is they are both non-restricted for now. Really, on nearly every other level, they are apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

It's not battle proven? Where are you getting your information from?

My unit has used the Tavor since August 2006... Every draft since then has used it and later changed to the micro Tavor (not sure when exactly, it was after my time).
The August '06 draft and the guys after them fought with the Tavor in the Gaza strip and west bank on countless operations. It's a better gun than the M4, and every person in my unit that had the chance to switch from the M4 to the Tavor (including myself) would choose the Tavor hands down every time. The only reason I switched back to the M4 was because I spent the majority of my service with it and was better trained on it. The Tavor though is more reliable, more comfortable to fire, and more compact with the same level of accuracy as that of the full M4.

The fact that you can even try to say that the Tavor is not "battle proven" just blows my mind. Like I said, the Tavor has been used operationally since the August 2006 draft of my brigade received them. It was used in the largest battles since the Second Lebanon War (Operation Hot Winter in Gaza, Operation Jacob's Ladder in Gaza, and Operation Cast Lead also known as the Gaza War). Even though the IDF has been switching to the micro Tavor, that is just a newer iteration of the Tavor. The internals are the same, it's just a more compact package with a better rail system and a new mag release.

Why do you keep calling the IDF the IOF? What does that even mean? The Israeli military is the Israeli Defence Force... No 'O' there...

As for the Tavor being employed only by small units, the Tavor was issued to the Givati, Golani, and Nachal brigades. 3 of the 4 regular infantry brigades. How is that in any way a small scale deployment of the weapon? In addition to those 3 brigades, it is also issued to the Karakal regiment and the Bedouin Reconnaissance regiment. The only reason more brigades other than the infantry have not received Tavors yet is budgetary reasons.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand why everyone looks up to us so much? That's fine, you don't need to understand.

However the United States Marines, Army, SEALS, and other special units DO understand which is why they come to us for training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom