IDF phasing out Tavor and M4, in favor of locally made AR15 platform

[I Dont Care About You]

...likewise - insert mag in an AR (that is right in front of you as opposed to under one's armpit, btw) with your right hand, release bolt hold open with your left hand without breaking your grip.
You're a lefty like me yes? So you know this to be true.

Not sure why the need to embellish the workings of the Tavor, but it is a common theme in threads like these.
Anyhoo, enjoy your thread and the craptastic rifle.

I have 4 ARs. Can we still be friends.

 

[Rankuwa]

But whatever, I don't have the energy to inject this thread with more doses of reality.
Back to your regularly scheduled Tavor circle jerk.

And when said circle jerk is inevitable crashed by someone who calls the X95 a turd because they couldn't be bothered to properly learn a new system. Hyperbole begets more hyperbole I guess.

 

[beltfed]

I had one of the first Tavors in the country...

 

[Painkillers]

I had one of the first Tavors in the country...

Sooo, you want to lead the circle jerk? I'm confused.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

The X95 is considerably better than the original Tar21.

 

[beltfed]

Sooo, you want to lead the circle jerk? I'm confused.

It was just a comment regarding the below quote, which is a standard argument most fans of something or some process use to counter negativity of their beloved something or someone. The old line of "oh, you don't own one, so how could you possibly know its crap?", or "you sucked with it / your's sucked, but that isn't indicative of them/they/zer overall".

And when said circle jerk is inevitable crashed by someone who calls the X95 a turd because they couldn't be bothered to properly learn a new system.

The X95 is considerably better than the original Tar21.

No question, they made improvements. Its still a bullpup though.

 

[RabbitTeeth]

I don't lean toward or against the Tavor at this point - but I've seen lots of successful folks with Tavors that hold their own in a 3-gun competition against Bren 2's, Ravens and B&T APC223's.

What I will say, however, that it's amusing to hear the logic that they're 'turds'. That's like saying a Porsche 911 GT2 is a turd because it is a few milliseconds slower on the quartermile than a Nissan GT-R and Ford GT. Absolute trash, completely unusable.

 

[beltfed]

There are two problems with your argument:

1) the comparison of a 3-gun competition to real world service rifle use, and
2) the analogous comparison of a Tavor to a Porsche 911 GT2 to other expensive sports cars. (of which the Tavor will hands down beat all of them to the 1/4 mile ).

I could kick the living sh!t out of someone shooting a DCRA Service Rifle course of fire (known distance shooting 100-500m) with a Lee Enfield shooting against someone with a Tavor. That doesn't mean the Enfield has now returned to being a viable service rifle.

You guys really need to look no further than the fact that after, what a decade or more?, the IDF is dumping them.
They spent a small fortune developing and manufacturing them and realized they are what they are. Unsuitable for further development and deployment.

 

[Daver_II]

There are two problems with your argument:

1) the comparison of a 3-gun competition to real world service rifle use, and
2) the analogous comparison of a Tavor to a Porsche 911 GT2 to other expensive sports cars. (of which the Tavor will hands down beat all of them to the 1/4 mile ).

I could kick the living sh!t out of someone shooting a DCRA Service Rifle course of fire (known distance shooting 100-500m) with a Lee Enfield shooting against someone with a Tavor. That doesn't mean the Enfield has now returned to being a viable service rifle.

You guys really need to look no further than the fact that after, what a decade or more?, the IDF is dumping them.
They spent a small fortune developing and manufacturing them and realized they are what they are. Unsuitable for further development and deployment.

What makes you an expert?
What qualifications do you hold?

 

[langr]

There are two problems with your argument:

1) the comparison of a 3-gun competition to real world service rifle use, and
2) the analogous comparison of a Tavor to a Porsche 911 GT2 to other expensive sports cars. (of which the Tavor will hands down beat all of them to the 1/4 mile ).

I could kick the living sh!t out of someone shooting a DCRA Service Rifle course of fire (known distance shooting 100-500m) with a Lee Enfield shooting against someone with a Tavor. That doesn't mean the Enfield has now returned to being a viable service rifle.

You guys really need to look no further than the fact that after, what a decade or more?, the IDF is dumping them.
They spent a small fortune developing and manufacturing them and realized they are what they are. Unsuitable for further development and deployment.

The fact that the IDF are moving away from Tavors is hardly justification for civilian use. I don't see why supply chain costs, indigenous parts reliance, and the need for a unified system matters for civilians in Canada.

90% of the reasons for military procurement are not factors for the end user. Using it to judge weapons for civilian use is immensely stupid. Just look at the SIG Spear, SA80, etc etc. Anyone who's been in will tell you procurement does not have the end user have the highest priority. It's about buying the most at the lowest cost, lowest risk, and highest risk mitigation.

The arguments are even more moot when you consider that traditional AR15 style platforms in Canada have to be 18.6" inches. You might as well buy a musket.

 

[beltfed]

What makes you an expert?
What qualifications do you hold?

I never said I'm an expert, but I'd expect there are more than a few in the IDF.

If they are dumping them, they have no doubt 'dotted their 'I's and crossed their 'T's.

As one poster said they are set to become collector's items. I'm suddenly pining for one...fVck, I never should have entered this thread...

 

[beltfed]

Anyone who's been in will tell you procurement does not have the end user have the highest priority. It's about buying the most at the lowest cost, lowest risk, and highest risk mitigation.

Not that I'm under some spell and don't believe all services have a messed up procurement of some fashion, but for sure Canada must be one of the worst for a first world country.

I find it extremely hard to believe the Israelis are ditching all they have poured into this rifle system to save money.

 

[Daver_II]

I never said I'm an expert, but I'd expect there are more than a few in the IDF.

If they are dumping them, they have no doubt 'dotted their 'I's and crossed their 'T's.

As one poster said they are set to become collector's items. I'm suddenly pining for one...fVck, I never should have entered this thread...

OK,

Simply put correlation does not mean causation.

There are a number of reasons that do not at all relate to the performance of the Tavor, and in general, bullpups.

These rifles certainly do not "suck" and bullpups in general have a number of advantages to traditional rifles.

They have seen service in a number of militaries, and security forces around the world.

I prefer bullpups to traditional carbines, despite having had years of training and teaching on traditional carbines.

Most of the reading I have done on the replacement of the Tavor talks more about domestic production, cost, and life cycle of the current fleet ... not the merits of the rifle.

 

[greentips]

Not sure how many of you have been to Israel for more than a few days.

But there are many many conscripts and they roam around in malls and travel to theirs posts using public transit. The border police are everywhere in places like Jerusalem.

These post teenagers conscripts have to carry their weapons with them, even if they are wearing civies. Back in the days the standard were CAR15, but then they got TAVOR and X95

If I am a teenager roaming in the malls with a weapon, I want my CAR 15 not a X95. I dont really care what the weapon expert gotta say about drills and accuracy.... X95 is heaver and clunky compared to CAR15. It sucks to have this thing slamming my butt all the time if I just hang it low off my back. Now I can't just prop it on the window side on the EGGY bus, the X95 is so short short it just slides and falls off onto the floor and stuck under the seat in front of me.......I am talking of having the pleasure of being lazed a millions times by teenagers with guns in Israel.

It is simple, everyone wants their 5lb CAR 15 back just like back in the good old days, the blah blah blah are just noises. And this noise is supported by the people who gotta carry CAR15 when they were young conscripts, and they are now in the position of influencing decisions

 

[beltfed]

These rifles certainly do not "suck"

Compared to the AR FOW, yeah, they do. By a very large margin. Subjective and imho, but looks like the IDF too.

bullpups in general have a number of advantages to traditional rifles.

Exactly one. They are shorter OAL than a traditionally designed rifle with similarly equipped in length barrel.

If they could make them truly ambi similar in some way to what the FS2000 offers, cut weight and size where it matters, get an adjustable LOP, and fix chamber access for clearing malfunctions, they could have a winner on their hands. If there was merit in the design, they'd refine it as opposed to dumping them.

 

[Painkillers]

Compared to the AR FOW, yeah, they do. By a very large margin. Subjective and imho, but looks like the IDF too.





Exactly one. They are shorter OAL than a traditionally designed rifle with similarly equipped in length barrel.

If they could make them truly ambi similar in some way to what the FS2000 offers, cut weight and size where it matters, get an adjustable LOP, and fix chamber access for clearing malfunctions, they could have a winner on their hands. If there was merit in the design, they'd refine it as opposed to dumping them.

For a guy who doesn't even own one, you're full of...opinions about them. Why is that?

 

[Gunnerlove]

There are two problems with your argument:

1) the comparison of a 3-gun competition to real world service rifle use, and
2) the analogous comparison of a Tavor to a Porsche 911 GT2 to other expensive sports cars. (of which the Tavor will hands down beat all of them to the 1/4 mile ).

I could kick the living sh!t out of someone shooting a DCRA Service Rifle course of fire (known distance shooting 100-500m) with a Lee Enfield shooting against someone with a Tavor. That doesn't mean the Enfield has now returned to being a viable service rifle.

You guys really need to look no further than the fact that after, what a decade or more?, the IDF is dumping them.
They spent a small fortune developing and manufacturing them and realized they are what they are. Unsuitable for further development and deployment.

The LE is pushing it but I would definitely rather shoot the classic 1-12 with a $600 DPMS Oracle over any bullpup I have ever shot.

I doubt anything out there will beat it in ease of use and accuracy..... and nothing close to the value.

I have been trying to talk myself into a bullpup hard since May 2020 and can't get there.

 

[Daver_II]

Compared to the AR FOW, yeah, they do. By a very large margin. Subjective and imho, but looks like the IDF too.





Exactly one. They are shorter OAL than a traditionally designed rifle with similarly equipped in length barrel.

If they could make them truly ambi similar in some way to what the FS2000 offers, cut weight and size where it matters, get an adjustable LOP, and fix chamber access for clearing malfunctions, they could have a winner on their hands. If there was merit in the design, they'd refine it as opposed to dumping them.

OK, since you seem to talk more than listen, please tell us about the terminal effect on target and maximum effective range of military ammunition fired from an equivalent OAL AR.

At what range does the round no longer reliably create a lethal wound channel?

Then apply that information to a longer barrel in the same OAL.


The benefits to a bullpup are clear for those that want their weapon to be effective, while also being able to maintain the shorter rifle for vehicle mounted operations.
The benefits to bullpup concept rifles don't end there, but those pros and cons can be debated forever as there will always be circumstantial factors to consider.

When conducting CQB operations the effective range is not an issue, as engagements are generally within the lethal wound channel distances.

So are bullpups beneficial for CQB? Not particularly, but are bullpups beneficial in other areas of war fighting? Absolutely.

That does not detract from the bullpup concept whatsoever.

 

[Painkillers]

OK, since you seem to talk more than listen, please tell us about the terminal effect on target and maximum effective range of military ammunition fired from an equivalent OAL AR.

At what range does the round no longer reliably create a lethal wound channel?

Then apply that information to a longer barrel in the same OAL.


The benefits to a bullpup are clear for those that want their weapon to be effective, while also being able to maintain the shorter rifle for vehicle mounted operations.
The benefits to bullpup concert rifles don't end there, but those pros and cons can be debated forever as there will always be circumstantial factors to consider.

When conducting CQB operations the effective range is not an issue, as engagements are generally within the lethal wound channel distances.

So are bullpups beneficial for CQB? Not particularly, but are bullpups beneficial in other areas of war fighting? Absolutely.

That does not detract from the bullpup concept whatsoever.

Short barreled AR's are why 300 Blackout was invented. The lethality of 5.56 out of an 8 or 10" barrel is less than desired so they had to up the caliber diameter. None of this applies to a 16 or 18 inch bullpup of course.

 

[beltfed]

The LE is pushing it but I would definitely rather shoot the classic 1-12 with a $600 DPMS Oracle over any bullpup I have ever shot.

I doubt anything out there will beat it in ease of use and accuracy..... and nothing close to the value.

I have been trying to talk myself into a bullpup hard since May 2020 and can't get there.

So, I did try the Tavor when we were shooting CSRA in Homestead for around 4-5 matches.
I'm a low 500s shooter with my best match around 525 (years ago).
I've shot a Colt H-bar match rifle out there equipped with irons into the low 400s.
The Tavor equipped with a 2.5x10 Nightforce and 69SMKs was high 200s to low 300s - I think my best match was around 325.

OK, since you seem to talk more than listen, please tell us about the terminal effect on target and maximum effective range of military ammunition fired from an equivalent OAL AR.

At what range does the round no longer reliably create a lethal wound channel?

Then apply that information to a longer barrel in the same OAL.


The benefits to a bullpup are clear for those that want their weapon to be effective, while also being able to maintain the shorter rifle for vehicle mounted operations.
The benefits to bullpup concept rifles don't end there, but those pros and cons can be debated forever as there will always be circumstantial factors to consider.

When conducting CQB operations the effective range is not an issue, as engagements are generally within the lethal wound channel distances.

So are bullpups beneficial for CQB? Not particularly, but are bullpups beneficial in other areas of war fighting? Absolutely.

That does not detract from the bullpup concept whatsoever.

I don't have the answers you seek, sorry.
I'm sure google has you covered if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
Rounds sent are only as good as their placement obviously, and if you consider an AR with a 14 - 20" barrel being effective to 500m, and the Tavor ineffective past 300-350m, that could represent a significant gap in capability - potentially.