T97 vs Tavor Threads Merged

harbl_the_cat said:
That's the thing, it's been known since WWI that more effective rounds down range faster and longer win firefights, so the general progression of firearms technology for military purposes have been to increase those attributes.

I guess it kind of shows I think about these sorts of things the way a General probably does, rather than a Private. I'm more interested in the fact that the gun should, In theory, allow a section of infantry to outgun another section of infantry (strategic and tactical) instead of caring about things like ergonomics and appearance (operational).

Thank goodness I was kindly shown the door out of the CF :)
Click to expand...

huh?

If their in the field near dirt or water DI guns might have misfires or jam up. Or worst case scenario blow up. Everybody here has seen the m4 vs hk 416 blow up video right?
 
As the OP stated, not many that have posted in this thread own or shot both rifles so MOST opinions stated are based on online reviews and videos (trigger, perceived build quality, handling). There's nothing wrong in speculating and basing your purchasing decision based on others' experience, but I personally feel that if possible, own and operate the rifles you want by buying them on the EE, keep the one you like, and sell the other at little or no loss. I have bought many guns over the years that I thought I would hate/love but ended up with the opposite opinion on them after actually owning them.

I don't think the Tavor is worth $3k brand new after taxes ($2k is good, like the US) but that is the going rate now for a non restricted military style black rifle in Canada. With the T97 making such a big wave though, it may drive the prices of other rifles down so that the price difference wouldn't be so substantial. I think in the end, the T97, like Norc's AR and M14s, will bring more people into the Black rifle market and that is never a bad thing.

People that want to buy the Tavor will buy them (like those that buy high end ARs), so it's not about Tavor owners being "threatened" that our expensive rifles are being challenged, but a lot of facts need to be stated because there are too many BS "opinions" from people that have not shot either. The T97's biggest selling point is its price, but a Tavor it is not. Will they perform the same on the battlefield? I think so, as long as the operators have trained extensively with them and I doubt at any point during combat they'd be thinking about how the rifle looks or how good the polymer feels. For us regularly joes and target shooters though, those latter points have more merits since we are never going to use these "in battle", and a good amount of time is spent handling and admiring them, so to some people those things matter greatly in their buying decision.

Bottom line, both have pros and cons, and you buy which ever has more pros that you feel justifiable in spending the money on. I personally liked the T97 (even pre-ordered one) and if not for a nice deal I came across on the EE for a Tavor, I'd have the T97 in my safe right now. For what it's worth, I still think the T97 is butt ugly, even more so than the Tavor ;) but I also recognize that there ARE noticeable differences in the overall quality and feel of these two rifles, and my nod goes to the Tavor.
 
To the point a lot of people make about quality and superiority of design and functionality, remember many of the iconic German weapons of WW2 were vastly superior to their Allied counterparts but by virtue of the Germans inability to mass produce and field them, the tactical and strategic advantages those weapons garnered weren't enough to let the Germans win the war.

Just think if in 1939, if every German infantrymen was armed with a STG44, every tanker crew manned a Tiger, every fighter pilot flew an ME262, and every bomber crew manned an AR234 - the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

Same concept - given two alternatives, I put more value on the option that can perform an equivalent function, with the lowest cost rather than the most elegant option that is ridiculously expensive... Although I guess that's a long winded explain action of the Chevy/Cadilac argument already made, only my preference is based on the philosophy that my preference is based on what wins wars, rather than what is "nicer."

What we know is the Chinese are capable of producing effective weapons at 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of what Western nations can that perform an equivalent function. To me, that that indicates the Chinese have a greater chance of out producing the West in what effectively is a necessity to win a conventional war is a really cool feature about the T97 and Chinese guns in general over any Western produced counterpart.
 
Last edited:
harbl_the_cat said:
To the point a lot of people make about quality and superiority of design and functionality, remember many of the iconic German weapons of WW2 were vastly superior to their Allied counterparts but by virtue of the Germans inability to mass produce and field them, the tactical and strategic advantages those weapons garnered weren't enough to let the Germans win the war.

Just think if every German infantrymen was armed with a STG44, every tanker crew manned a Tiger, every fighter pilot flew an ME262, and every bomber manned an AR234?

Same concept - given two alternatives, I put more value on the option that can perform an equivalent function, with the lowest cost rather than the most elegant option that is ridiculously expensive... Although I guess that's a long winded explain action of the Chevy/Cadilac argument already made, only my preference is based on the philosophy that my preference is based on what wins wars, rather than what is "nicer."
Click to expand...

Kinda thread jacking and sending the thread off the rails now aren't you?
 
harbl_the_cat said:
To the point a lot of people make about quality and superiority of design and functionality, remember many of the iconic German weapons of WW2 were vastly superior to their Allied counterparts but by virtue of the Germans inability to mass produce and field them, the tactical and strategic advantages those weapons garnered weren't enough to let the Germans win the war.

Just think if in 1939, if every German infantrymen was armed with a STG44, every tanker crew manned a Tiger, every fighter pilot flew an ME262, and every bomber crew manned an AR234 - the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

Same concept - given two alternatives, I put more value on the option that can perform an equivalent function, with the lowest cost rather than the most elegant option that is ridiculously expensive... Although I guess that's a long winded explain action of the Chevy/Cadilac argument already made, only my preference is based on the philosophy that my preference is based on what wins wars, rather than what is "nicer."

What we know is the Chinese are capable of producing effective weapons at 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of what Western nations can that perform an equivalent function. To me, that that indicates the Chinese have a greater chance of out producing the West in what effectively is a necessity to win a conventional war is a really cool feature about the T97 and Chinese guns in general over any Western produced counterpart.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. You put greater importance on value and less so on perceived quality or feel, and that is totally fine. For others though, the rifle has to feel good when handled, and aesthetically pleasing. What is "good" differs from person to person. I believe the point of this thread is to provide info to the would-be buyers of either rifle to know what they're getting themselves into, from people that have shot and used both. What they do with that info, honestly, is not my concern.

I toyed with the idea of selling the Tavor now that the T97 is out, but after shooting one yesterday- the Tavor is staying.
 
Last edited:
mildcustom2 said:
Wikipedia is not a good place for a source of factual I formation. Anyone that has access to the site can edit the content to say whatever they want. Very easy to give wrong information or speculative information like your comment about the T97 being equal or more firepower than an M4.
Click to expand...

No not true, sources and credentials are strickly reviewed when posting articles on wikipedia. If it was untrue it would be discredited and removed/edited very quickly by the thousands of vetted experts reading the article.

But I agree, the TAVOR is absolutely not an M4
 
Thanks for your review, I have been itching for a bullpup for a while now and your review has made it final. Like most other things I do, seems like I will be going to the expensive one again. I cant stand the way the T97 looks. Looks like a toy, just so plain and blah. Sure its a good gun for those that just want something to plink with but I for some reason do care what things look like. I guess I'm shallow :p
 
OnnO said:
is the t97 worth it?
Norinco started from scratch and cloned the AR for Less than $700 (for a limited market).
T95, 97ishes are producing (for all their troops and the allied countries) and backed by the State right now! They just modified it to make it more difficult for us to handle/shoot!
I think less than $700 will be a fair price of T97!
Click to expand...
They didnt have to modify the ar to sell it here. We are a drop in the bucket for norinco, the type 97 needed a modded reciever and a longer barrel for us. Thats $ plus importation fees. Heck the m305 is going up 100$ due to import fees
 
2000 cheaper then a tavor worth it! Chrome barrel practically a mil spec rifle for the public and if ya got a pre order in under 1000 hell yea
 
Worth it is in the eye of the beholder. It's a ~1000$ NR bullpup. To many it is worth that and more, to some they would rather spend the extra 1500$ and get a tavor. This is a personal issue for you, you don't need others opinions. To me, I would rather spend the 1500$ extra and have something that looks appealing to me and isn't Norinco, but hey.. there are people still interested in that mutation bolt action "AK" so "worth it" is very different for every person.
 
Food for thought. The manual for my CQs had 2007 on he front cover, indicating they were probably manufactured in 2007 - 2008.

There are reports circulating that the t97 was manufactured as recently as this past August.

The Chinese economy, while still having some imbalances, is still growing while our Western economies are collapsing.

Our middle class is being wiped out, while there's is growing. Those pulling out the CQs for comparison should really keep that in mind. Stuff built 5 years ago in China5 years ago ought to be cheaper. Goin forwRd, don't expect that trend to continue.
 
Last edited:
The t97 finish quality is much better than most of the NORC products I own or owned. It shots well and the trigger is much better than the tavor. Personally I like Tavor's finish, look, and feel, but not the trigger or the $$$$. For me, it is not about the price of the gun, it is something I can have fun with (reliability) and not have to worry about dropping it or scratch the finish while shooting or in the woods. IMO, T97 clearly is the winner when it comes down to value and performance.
 
punkrockboy said:
Harbl, the manuals were probably made when the first batch of t97s came in. (The ones that were confiscated by the rcmp)
Click to expand...

I was talking about the manuals for the CQs, indicating they were manufactured a few years ago. That being the case, the price for them now is reflective of the costs when they were manufactured which undoubtably was cheaper than they are today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom