Is it time for me to leave the Tavor?
- Thread starter the_klenzer
- Start date
@ TDC, just because James Yeager says bullpups suck doesn't make it so. As for accuracy, I spent pleanty of time with both platforms yesterday. I wasent printing poor groups with either, I thought both were satisfactory. I'm just saying from what I've seen first hand the AR was no more accurate than the Tavor.
I still don't what's so magical about the AR platform. I get that most you guys have spent countless hours with your AR, and that there is no better rifle for you. But don't tell me what I can or can't do with my rifle. I've done mag changes from standing, on the move, prone, and kneeling. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that I can't. And I'd be willing to bet I'm just as fast with my Tavor as you are with your AR. Maybe even faster. You obviously haven't spent the time nessary with the Tavor to be proficient with it. That says nothing about the gun, just you.
And again, just because the SF don't use the Tavor means very little. Just that they like their M4's. There is no arguing that the Tavor isn't a quality firearm. It's accurate enough, durable, reliable, and pleanty fast in be hands of somebody who knows how to use it.
I get the "this is Murica, dam it" attitude, but here's a reality check I for you. Your not using your rifle in combat. You likely never will. This SHTF fantancy camp BS is just that, BS! Any of the space cadet SHTF scenarios I've heard of you wouldn't survive anyway. You goona take on the Chinese army with your AR-15? You wouldn't last the first 10 seconds in a firefight. What about your own government coming to put you in a FEMA camp? Same thing, you don have he resources to put up any kind of a fight, again your dead. Zombies, aliens, civil unrest? Pull your head out of your arse!
Fact is, both are very capible fighting rifles. You just may be better with one not the other.
I still don't what's so magical about the AR platform. I get that most you guys have spent countless hours with your AR, and that there is no better rifle for you. But don't tell me what I can or can't do with my rifle. I've done mag changes from standing, on the move, prone, and kneeling. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that I can't. And I'd be willing to bet I'm just as fast with my Tavor as you are with your AR. Maybe even faster. You obviously haven't spent the time nessary with the Tavor to be proficient with it. That says nothing about the gun, just you.
And again, just because the SF don't use the Tavor means very little. Just that they like their M4's. There is no arguing that the Tavor isn't a quality firearm. It's accurate enough, durable, reliable, and pleanty fast in be hands of somebody who knows how to use it.
I get the "this is Murica, dam it" attitude, but here's a reality check I for you. Your not using your rifle in combat. You likely never will. This SHTF fantancy camp BS is just that, BS! Any of the space cadet SHTF scenarios I've heard of you wouldn't survive anyway. You goona take on the Chinese army with your AR-15? You wouldn't last the first 10 seconds in a firefight. What about your own government coming to put you in a FEMA camp? Same thing, you don have he resources to put up any kind of a fight, again your dead. Zombies, aliens, civil unrest? Pull your head out of your arse!
Fact is, both are very capible fighting rifles. You just may be better with one not the other.
Clearly you've never competed or trained. A switchable system is fine, but can you transition from shoulder to shoulder, round to round and not eat hot brass in the mouth? Can you transition and not compromise your cheek weld for use with optics??
TDC
So I was just thinking how is that Tavor mag release going to work in Canada when we have our mitts on in winter? Just found mitts are better than gloves for warmth. Also I can drop my AR trigger guard to use mitts without activating the mag release accidently, not so sure about how this bullpup will do in cold weather as I see the majority countries listed being warm weather in nature am I missing something here???
Randy
Randy
Last edited:
Shooter1of38
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
First of all, my opinions are mine and mine alone. Unlike the crowd followers on this forum, I formulate my own opinions and apply logic and fact. I could care less what Yeager says about bullpups, it just so happens he is of the same opinion as myself and many others, they suck. Oddly enough, there are no shortage of other professionals who agree that bullpups suck.
You don't understand accuracy at all. THE SHOOTER MAKES THE SHOT. Unless you used a ransom rest and a mechanical trigger mechanism, the shooter is still inducing error. I'm sure both rifles are capable of acceptable service/combat accuracy. However, the long transfer bar of the bullpup design does not equate to a great trigger pull, which when combined with the human running the system translates into less CONSISTENCY.
Here's the "magic" of an AR. Completely modular, adaptable to nearly any role/need/mission/goal/desire. Can be setup to be 100% ambi but works well in an ambi capacity without aftermarket ambi parts. Adjustable LOP to FIT ANYONE WITH ANY AMOUNT OF GEAR/CLOTHING. Optics ready, including clip on NV/thermal devices, lasers, lights, and combinations of the aforementioned. These are the attributes of the AR, none of which are an option with a Tavor or any bullpup.
Comprehension again lacks on this forum. A reload with a Tavor can be done at relative speed, its a matter of practice as you say. The issue isn't so much the speed, its the MANUAL OF ARMS needed to execute said reload. I have yet to see anyone do a reload with a bullpup without taking their eyes off the threat/objective to ensure they're stuffing the magazine into the rifle. The control placement/design of the rifle cannot be corrected. This has nothing to do with the CONSISTENCY of your movements. Adapting to a poor design is what you must do to achieve any level of proficiency. The fact remains, that the design sucks. You proclaim rapid reloads with your Tavor, great. Do it with gear on and heavy winter clothing. How's the the eye relief with a magnified optic and a fixed LOP? Now transition to your support side and make hits. There's nothing great or magical about a Tavor or any other bullpup for that matter. They fail to address several problems that have been solved for decades. Zero net gain in a bullpup over a conventional design.
As for the America comment. I'm not a yank, and I don't live in America, so where that ignorant sh*t came from is beyond me. With regards to personal defense, I certainly hope I don't need to use my rifle for it, but I won't be the fool who rests his life on the belief that "it can't or won't ever happen." Ask the Jews and Gypsies how that worked out for them. Ask the Russian people how that worked out for them. You may believe that government is there to help you and serve you, but you'd be the fool not them. You are probably right, I couldn't fight off an army by myself, and I may not last long against even a moderately sized opposition, but I would sooner die on my feet than live on my knees. Being able to defend yourself is no different than traction control and seatbelts in cars, it gives you a chance. SHTF scenario aside, there's a very real chance of a home invasion or other criminal activity. I prefer to have options for such events, your beliefs may differ and its your life to lose. I prefer to fight for mine..
On a final note, the bold above much like most of what you've posted, is wrong. its YOU'RE not YOUR.
TDC
Again, its you're, I have a hard time taking people seriously when they can't read and write. Nevertheless, YOU'RE saying that a full day of eating hot brass in the mouth is acceptable? I have yet to shoot a rifle(aside from bullpups) that punishes me every time I fire. Its almost like the design SUCKS! How about the fixed LOP and lack of rail for optics mounting?
TDC
Not sure what happened, but I had commented on this post earlier. Anyway, here it is again.
A switchable system is one thing, being able to transition from shoulder to shoulder without sacrificing ones cheek weld for optics use is quite another. Other than the FS2000 I don't believe there's a bullpup out there that offers full ambi use without the need for replacement/reconfiguration.
TDC
@tdc.
I did read about it. http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
I realize this article is about military ammo, and that the primary reason for the study is to gain data on suppressor use, but it is still valid data for 5.56 ammo in Canadian AR-15s.
"Equally illuminating in this study was the correlation between velocity and barrel length (see Graph 2). To generate a lethal wound channel, the M855 projectile must have a velocity of at least 2,500 ft/sec on impact with the target. Below that critical velocity, the M855 bullet simply drills a 1/4 inch hole in the target, which too frequently is not lethal unless it passes through a vital structure. Some of this limitation is being addressed with newer projectiles not available to the authors at the time of the study. In the longer barrels, the maximum velocity of 2,979 ft/sec was in the 20-inch barrel with a velocity of approximately 2,700 ft/sec in the 14.5-inch barrel. The critical velocity of 2,500 ft/sec was in a barrel between 9 and 10 inches in length, which further shows the folly of considering a 7-inch barrel for this cartridge."
decreased velocity with barrels much shorter than 14.5 inches have a number of unwanted effects. Lowered linear velocity produces lower rotational velocity, which will result in diminished gyroscopic stability of the bullet. It will also result in significantly decreased projectile kinetic energy, decreased ability to generate a sig nificant would channel, and will reach a point of diminishing returns where lethality of the projectile definitely comes into question.
Thus, it is the opinion of the authors that barrel lengths less than 14.5” in this caliber introduce effectiveness issues that may be detrimental to the user.
I am not arguing that longer barrels are better, all I am saying is that bullpup designs have the benefit of a longer barrel in a shorter package.
Whatever the case, a shooter should tune his weapon, equipment, cartridge, and training, to suit his needs.
I did read about it. http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
I realize this article is about military ammo, and that the primary reason for the study is to gain data on suppressor use, but it is still valid data for 5.56 ammo in Canadian AR-15s.
"Equally illuminating in this study was the correlation between velocity and barrel length (see Graph 2). To generate a lethal wound channel, the M855 projectile must have a velocity of at least 2,500 ft/sec on impact with the target. Below that critical velocity, the M855 bullet simply drills a 1/4 inch hole in the target, which too frequently is not lethal unless it passes through a vital structure. Some of this limitation is being addressed with newer projectiles not available to the authors at the time of the study. In the longer barrels, the maximum velocity of 2,979 ft/sec was in the 20-inch barrel with a velocity of approximately 2,700 ft/sec in the 14.5-inch barrel. The critical velocity of 2,500 ft/sec was in a barrel between 9 and 10 inches in length, which further shows the folly of considering a 7-inch barrel for this cartridge."
decreased velocity with barrels much shorter than 14.5 inches have a number of unwanted effects. Lowered linear velocity produces lower rotational velocity, which will result in diminished gyroscopic stability of the bullet. It will also result in significantly decreased projectile kinetic energy, decreased ability to generate a sig nificant would channel, and will reach a point of diminishing returns where lethality of the projectile definitely comes into question.
Thus, it is the opinion of the authors that barrel lengths less than 14.5” in this caliber introduce effectiveness issues that may be detrimental to the user.
I am not arguing that longer barrels are better, all I am saying is that bullpup designs have the benefit of a longer barrel in a shorter package.
Whatever the case, a shooter should tune his weapon, equipment, cartridge, and training, to suit his needs.
Thanks for the grammar lesson.
I still don't see the big advantage with the AR. Don't like eating brass, shoot 5.56 ammo, its a non issue. Not enough rail for optics? I have more than enough rail for a dot sight, BUIS, and a flashlight. What else would you have me attach?
Show me where I said I rely on the government to keep me safe? I just said I don't think they're coming to put me in a FEMA camp. And if you think this will happen we can end this argument now, as you're bat sh!t crazy. Home invasion will likely be the only situation you'd ever use your civilian AR against somebody. And At that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery. Even if it dose happen, how many mag changes are you going to do? Where are you keeping all these spare mags on you when you wake up at 2:00 am to the glass breaking?
In your opinion you prefer the AR, that's just fine. It's only your opinion, and it only holds value with you. With my experiences of the two, I prefer the Tavor. Your complaints of the rifle haven't been a issue for me, as I've spent the time learning how to use it properly. There is no "better gun", just better for you.
I still don't see the big advantage with the AR. Don't like eating brass, shoot 5.56 ammo, its a non issue. Not enough rail for optics? I have more than enough rail for a dot sight, BUIS, and a flashlight. What else would you have me attach?
Show me where I said I rely on the government to keep me safe? I just said I don't think they're coming to put me in a FEMA camp. And if you think this will happen we can end this argument now, as you're bat sh!t crazy. Home invasion will likely be the only situation you'd ever use your civilian AR against somebody. And At that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery. Even if it dose happen, how many mag changes are you going to do? Where are you keeping all these spare mags on you when you wake up at 2:00 am to the glass breaking?
In your opinion you prefer the AR, that's just fine. It's only your opinion, and it only holds value with you. With my experiences of the two, I prefer the Tavor. Your complaints of the rifle haven't been a issue for me, as I've spent the time learning how to use it properly. There is no "better gun", just better for you.
Again, the discussion revolves around M855 service ammo, we as civilians are not limited to such ammo, and shot placement still trumps. There is no magic bullet style/design that ensures one shot stops, it doesn't exist. I agree that increased velocity clearly has benefits, my point was that the loss in velocity between an 18" or 20" compared to a 16"/14.5" even an 11" barrel is not enough to demonstrate appreciate degradation in terminal or trajectory performance. Yes, at extended ranges the shorter barrels/slower projectiles lose out, but that isn't the topic of discussion.
A compact rifle such as a bullpup has the advantage of offering long barrel velocities/performance in a smaller package when compared to similar conventional designs. The advantage of the bullpup is confined spaces, for such a space anything with a barrel over 10.5" will produce suficient velocities for M855 to perform to its potential. That being said, there's nothing left to compare. For identical confined space situations, there is no advantage to a bullpup over an SBR. This advantage is based solely on the belief that M855 must be propelled at what are deemed critical velocities for ideal terminal performance. Nowhere has anyone mentioned MARKSMANSHIP and multiple rounds on target. Bullpups are sold on one attribute only, longer barrels in smaller packages. They address one less than critical "issue" while failing to solve other far more important problems.
As for bullpups in civilian hands, they have zero benefits. The chances of it being employed in confined spaces where its design "excels" is close to zero. The issues of high offset, non ambi, fixed LOP, lack of mounting rail and poor ergonomics are a constant set of problems. Granted, some bullpups deal with some of these issues better than others, but all suffer.
How does 5.56 prevent me from eating brass? Are you indicating that 5.56 loaded ammo ejects differently? I agree, an optic, buis, and a light are really all a guy needs. Tell me, where is your light mounted and how bad is the shadow it casts?
FEMA is American, so it doesn't apply, as I am a Canadian citizen living in Canada.
If you believe no citizen has ever been mistreated by its government, you need to read more.
The AR as a better platform is not my opinion, its fact. The Tavor is not ambi and has a fixed LOP. If I'm left handed, under 5 feet tall and wearing a winter coat, I doubt I can get the proper eye relief on a magnified optic. Not an issue on an AR, I don't eat brass and I can fit the LOP for my stature and my clothing. How about that offset your Tavor suffers from? What is it, 4-5 inches? That's ideal for short range work. These are called FACTS, not opinions.
The bold in your post should read "AN issue" not "a issue".
TDC
You think door kickers only realize the advantage of a smaller package? What about transporting it, storing it? What about hunting? What about hiking/trekking with it? I can think of many examples of a shorter gun being a huge advantage.
I don't see how being on a knee or prone would drastically reduce the speed of a reload with the tavor. For me, reloads were one of the biggest + factors with the tavor. Maybe bullpups just suck for you. Im sure there are pros/cons but its a perfectly serviceable firearm and has some advantages over the AR platform (along with some disadvantages) I hardly even shot my tavor and I was very proficient with reloads... Not sure what you are talking about there. I love bullpups personally.
Ive posted this before, but here is my reload on second try with the Tavor. This was my second time shooting it and I had shot probably 30-40 rounds through it in total since I got it. My eyes were off the target for maybe 1/4 of a second, but again, Im no pro nor was I thinking about that. With more practice Im sure I could have done it with much less movement and without my eyes leaving the target.
[youtube]?v=BF_RCFkkrgY[/youtube]
