Is it time for me to leave the Tavor?
- Thread starter the_klenzer
- Start date
@TDC
A 10.5" barrel noveske is 28" OAL with the stock fully collapsed. With the stock adjusted to where I'd be comfortable shooting its roughly 4" longer than the Tavor. So, if you wanted a AR that has the same OAL as a Tavor your looking at 7.5" barrel
The Tavor is 29" OAL with a 18.6" barrel
A 18.6" barrel has better ballistics than a 7.5"-10.5" barrel.
True or false?
It's a simple question that has only one answer. Please try to answer without, but but. But that only matters with M885, yap yap yap.
I'm about done with this argument. You like the AR better. Good for you. I like the Tavor better, so what of it? I could care less if you don't value my opinion, as I clearly don't value yours.
A 10.5" barrel noveske is 28" OAL with the stock fully collapsed. With the stock adjusted to where I'd be comfortable shooting its roughly 4" longer than the Tavor. So, if you wanted a AR that has the same OAL as a Tavor your looking at 7.5" barrel
The Tavor is 29" OAL with a 18.6" barrel
A 18.6" barrel has better ballistics than a 7.5"-10.5" barrel.
True or false?
It's a simple question that has only one answer. Please try to answer without, but but. But that only matters with M885, yap yap yap.
I'm about done with this argument. You like the AR better. Good for you. I like the Tavor better, so what of it? I could care less if you don't value my opinion, as I clearly don't value yours.
ChrisAlston
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
[QUOTE=TDC;9326112
I never said optics were required, but the reality is that optics increases your effectiveness like no other accessory. All Nato nations issue optics to their infantry soldiers, that's called a clue. My point about the C7 BS is that no one cares about the CF designation for an AR.
Please tell me more about how you can acquire a proper cheek weld and fire your 97 or any bullpup(save for the FS2000) from the left shoulder without eating brass.
Well if we're going to talk about clues from NATO nations, look at how many of them are also using bullpups. The British L85A2, a bullpup that will literally break your face if you shoot it left handed, but has been in service for decades by people who actually go into combat. The French FAMAS, the Austrians with the AUG, also used by the Aussies, New Zealand, Ireland, and others. Of course the Isrealis with the Tavor, the Chinese with the QBZ-95. Singapore with the SAR-21. The Belgian F2000. Not all NATO but you see my point. Perhaps you could take a clue from these professional armies and civilians alike. If bullpups were really so bad they would be dying out, not getting more and more popular.
The C7 BS as you say is me recalling my own personal experience, not just stating my opinions as fact. Again, my own experiences in the army have had me take hot brass in the face, up my sleeves, down my shirt, you name it. I shoot my rifles right hand 99 percent of the time, if I absolutely have to transition to my left shoulder a little brass in my face is not my primary concern. If its not a panic its pretty easy to keep my cheek back an in inch from the ejection port and nothing hits it at all, still with a decent cheek weld. Not ideal but neither is shooting off hand. It isn't a big deal for me whatsoever, you are obviously more delicate. And if you said the T97 is a "non starter" that means you require optics. So yes, you did say optics are a requirement for a rifle, at least for you.
I never said optics were required, but the reality is that optics increases your effectiveness like no other accessory. All Nato nations issue optics to their infantry soldiers, that's called a clue. My point about the C7 BS is that no one cares about the CF designation for an AR.
Please tell me more about how you can acquire a proper cheek weld and fire your 97 or any bullpup(save for the FS2000) from the left shoulder without eating brass.
Well if we're going to talk about clues from NATO nations, look at how many of them are also using bullpups. The British L85A2, a bullpup that will literally break your face if you shoot it left handed, but has been in service for decades by people who actually go into combat. The French FAMAS, the Austrians with the AUG, also used by the Aussies, New Zealand, Ireland, and others. Of course the Isrealis with the Tavor, the Chinese with the QBZ-95. Singapore with the SAR-21. The Belgian F2000. Not all NATO but you see my point. Perhaps you could take a clue from these professional armies and civilians alike. If bullpups were really so bad they would be dying out, not getting more and more popular.
The C7 BS as you say is me recalling my own personal experience, not just stating my opinions as fact. Again, my own experiences in the army have had me take hot brass in the face, up my sleeves, down my shirt, you name it. I shoot my rifles right hand 99 percent of the time, if I absolutely have to transition to my left shoulder a little brass in my face is not my primary concern. If its not a panic its pretty easy to keep my cheek back an in inch from the ejection port and nothing hits it at all, still with a decent cheek weld. Not ideal but neither is shooting off hand. It isn't a big deal for me whatsoever, you are obviously more delicate. And if you said the T97 is a "non starter" that means you require optics. So yes, you did say optics are a requirement for a rifle, at least for you.
Holy hell people, you realize you are arguing about what rifle style each other should use in a competitive game, right? As far as active duty folks go, almost never do you get any choice in what firearm you carry. It's rule by bureaucracy and lowest bidder. Forget the few high speed low drag units you are scrambling to post about; the statistical odds of more than a couple of CGN members or even active duty military members being in those organizations is minimal. Yes, I know from experience.
Again, its "an AR" not "a AR" and its "you're" not "your".
No doubt the velocity and thus the performance of CERTAIN projectiles will be much greater from a longer barrel. Much like your lack of grammar you don't understand that the projectile choice can and does influence the decision on barrel length. Projectiles aside, I never said a 7.5" AR was viable or recommended, I also never said a 10.5" was desirable. If you do some research, which you clearly have not, an AR with an 11.5" barrel is ideal. Nevertheless, lets use the 10.5" as that is what the MK18 uses(if you are unaware of what a Mk18 is try google). Again, the advantage of a bullpup is its compact size with a longer barrel which equates to increased velocity. That is it, nothing else about a bullpup is an advantage over conventional rifle designs. So, such a compact rifle with increased velocity is a benefit in confined spaces, CQB/CQC/FISH etc etc. The ranges you'll encounter are less than 25 yards. If we look at M855 or M193 they require 2500-2700 fps for reliable "tumbling" or yaw action, and 2700fps and up for reliable fragmentation. Have a look at some published numbers below.
Win. 5.56 Q3131 55gr.
90 rounds fired:
Hi Vel: 2959
Low Vel: 2749
Average Vel: 2840
Black Hills 75 Gr. Match HP
25 rounds fired:
Hi Vel: 2405
Low Vel: 2322
Avg Vel: 2362
PMC 55 Gr. FMJBT
20 rounds fired (one box)
Hi Vel: 2554
Low Vel: 2426
Avg Vel: 2514
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?38754-Ballistics-on-a-10-5-quot-barrel
These numbers are from an owner of a 10.5" AR. Note, the Q3131 which is M193 ammo. The velocity is definitely higher than the minimum required for maximum terminal performance. The 75gr stuff performs at nearly all velocities, and Mk262 77gr ammo is available and in use by those who require gear for CQB work and it solves the velocity vs performance problem.
here's some more info for you.
http://counterstrikefox.freeservers.com/mv.htm
And some more
http://test.ak47.net/forums/t_3_16/...0gr_TSX_from_10_5_Mk18_mod_0_clone__LMT_.html
And some more!
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
These are not my opinions as you clearly feel they are. This is called fact, hard data that is indisputable. I do like the AR more than a bullpup, but its not because of my opinion, its because bullpups are dumb designs that solve exactly zero issues.
You say there's no chance of ever having to use my firearms for "combat" and you may be right. In fact, lets go with that theory for a minute. If we never need them for defence of life, then why are you so concerned about terminal performance and thusly barrel length? These rifles are simply "toys" right? If all we do is compete or plink with them then discussing terminal performance is entirely a moot point, yes? With that being said, it would be a wise decision to run a short barrel AR for competition. Its lighter, its faster to swing and it doesn't suffer from the issues of a bullpup. Lets not forget, an AR is far cheaper than a Tavor and much easier to support. So again I ask, where's the advantage?
On another note, if you're running your stock more than 3 positions from closed, you're likely wrong. Try squaring up to the target, its far more effective and doesn't limit your motion.
There is nothing more reliable than multiples of the same gun. You already know know how to run it. If one breaks, pick up another. If both break, try to make one from two...
I currently own a tavor. I like it a lot but I am starting to see the merit of twining up my 858.
The french are trying to ditch the fammas. If you like bullpups why mention the l85? Famous for being the gun even h&k could not get running. Have you tried clearing malfunctions with the fs2000? The only bullpup truly worth a damn is the steyr aug, and that is prohib.
Thanks again for yet another long winded post. Barrel length isn't the only advantage a bullpup has over an AR.
Here is why I prefer the Tavor over the AR
It has a better balance. I can hold my rifle up longer without getting tired.
I personally prefer the ergonomics. I've spent way more time with the Tavor than with an AR. So naturally I'm more a custom to the ergos.
As TDC has stated, the ballistics are better out of a longer barrel. Compared to a AR of equal OAL you'll have better long range performance out of the Tavor.
I find it quicker to move from target to target than a conventional rifle.
You disagree? That's fine. You can wright as many short stories as you want till your blue in the fingertips. It will never change the fact that I'm a better shooter with the Tavor. And that's all I care about. Your obviously emotionally invested in your rifle, so I see no point on continuing this argument.
Have a nice life
Here is why I prefer the Tavor over the AR
It has a better balance. I can hold my rifle up longer without getting tired.
I personally prefer the ergonomics. I've spent way more time with the Tavor than with an AR. So naturally I'm more a custom to the ergos.
As TDC has stated, the ballistics are better out of a longer barrel. Compared to a AR of equal OAL you'll have better long range performance out of the Tavor.
I find it quicker to move from target to target than a conventional rifle.
You disagree? That's fine. You can wright as many short stories as you want till your blue in the fingertips. It will never change the fact that I'm a better shooter with the Tavor. And that's all I care about. Your obviously emotionally invested in your rifle, so I see no point on continuing this argument.
Have a nice life
TV-PressPass
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Mountains, Alberta
Well, that's quite a thread you lot have got going here!
Shooter1of38
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
At what distances have you guys shot your Tavors?
I have owned one and have shot it on a kd range out to and including 500m. The rifle was not effective past 300m, unlike even short barrelled ARs.
Last edited:
I haven't gone past 250 yards yet. I can constantly hit a 8" gong at that distance with ease, I'm sure I can do it further out. But I haven't tried yet.
I know AR's are accurate to 500 yards and beyond. Even with the shorter barrels. I'm more referring to the energy the bullet carries, not whether it can be accurate.
And to answer your earlier question. Yes I have shot AR's
Maybe you have a lemon. I have shot a TAVOR at the 500 yard line with a 4MOA Aimpont H1 at Fig 11 on 4 ft frame. It is effective in keeping all the shots on the upper half of the fig 11 and most of the shots would be within the 4 inner circle.
IchBinEinSniper
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Brockvegas
This is the bestest thread ever...should I keep my gun or sell it and buy 2 of something else? Answer: let's talk balistics and barrel lengths and why the AR is a better rifle than all bull pups combined...you can't make this stuff up. Y'all think this board is about guns? No way, this place is all about tangents, and how to go down them!
Sell your Tavor...you don't seem to like it enough...no shame in that, I did the same as I didn't like the idea of having that money locked in a rifle I wasn't super stoked about shooting. Buy something else that you haven't owned before...that's what makes life fun after all. Lots of choice. If that doesn't work, move on to the next...
Sell your Tavor...you don't seem to like it enough...no shame in that, I did the same as I didn't like the idea of having that money locked in a rifle I wasn't super stoked about shooting. Buy something else that you haven't owned before...that's what makes life fun after all. Lots of choice. If that doesn't work, move on to the next...
ChrisAlston
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
@TDC
I've mounted a light on the T97. A Magpul rail section bolts right on through the ventilation holes in the upper handguard. You can mount these rails on both sides. The controls certainly aren't ergonomically located, but it doesn't stop a competent person from using the rifle very effectively. An ambi mag release will be available soon to fix the mag release. As for optics who cares, I didn't buy it to mount optics, and the iron sights work just fine as I've said like three times now. Bottom line, the T97 was really just a test run for me to see if I like bullpups. Turns out I do. A lot. So I've sold the T97 and ordered a Tavor. I still think the T97 is a great rifle. It's short, handles and balances beautifully, was reliable, takes AR mags, and is non restricted for a decent price.
Now onto the Tavor, frankly your anti bullpup trolling is just getting me more excited to get my Tavor, so keep on calling everything you don't like pieces of sh*t to your little heart's content.
I've mounted a light on the T97. A Magpul rail section bolts right on through the ventilation holes in the upper handguard. You can mount these rails on both sides. The controls certainly aren't ergonomically located, but it doesn't stop a competent person from using the rifle very effectively. An ambi mag release will be available soon to fix the mag release. As for optics who cares, I didn't buy it to mount optics, and the iron sights work just fine as I've said like three times now. Bottom line, the T97 was really just a test run for me to see if I like bullpups. Turns out I do. A lot. So I've sold the T97 and ordered a Tavor. I still think the T97 is a great rifle. It's short, handles and balances beautifully, was reliable, takes AR mags, and is non restricted for a decent price.
Now onto the Tavor, frankly your anti bullpup trolling is just getting me more excited to get my Tavor, so keep on calling everything you don't like pieces of sh*t to your little heart's content.
ChrisAlston
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
Yes I love the Steyr AUG, I would love to have one. I like the bullpup concept, not necessarily all bullpup designs. I was merely mentioning all the nations that use bullpups, and even despite their flaws are still successful with them. The Tavor I honestly think is a bullpup that gets it almost perfect just from researching it and handling one. I guess we'll see when mine shows up. I'm actually a big fan of the AR, but my owning the T97 has made me a big bullpup fan too.
How many rounds did you manage to chuck down the range? That is a pretty bold claim to make on a rifle that has only been in the market for a few months.
