IDF to replace the Tavor with M4

It seems strange to say it but I think I would take a x95 over a M4. I would have made the opposite choice with the original Tavor vs M4, although the Tavor still beats an Ar15 for robustness.

But I have never been a infantry soldier just experienced many thousands of rounds shot at the range, so a soldier likely has a different set of priorities.
 
This actually might be a good thing for the Tavor series if IWI gives it's primary attention to the U.S. market and develop it further instead of being tied to the wants of the IDF.

I'd really like to see a lighter, more compact further evolution of the platform.
 
Gatehouse said:
It seems strange to say it but I think I would take a x95 over a M4.
Click to expand...

As would I. I actually sold my AR15 years back because I just stopped shooting it. The IDF was just rolling out a "finalized" X95 configuration with a ~15" barrel and the quad rail you see on the commercial models, which I thought was well thought out.

As IWI makes domestic AR15s, importing Colt M4s is a very strange choice that smacks of under-the-table dealings of one sort or another. Who IMPORTS ARs, let alone COLT US ARs, when you have your own domestic small arms industry with tooling for ARs?
 
Gatehouse said:
It seems strange to say it but I think I would take a x95 over a M4. I would have made the opposite choice with the original Tavor vs M4, although the Tavor still beats an Ar15 for robustness.

But I have never been a infantry soldier just experienced many thousands of rounds shot at the range, so a soldier likely has a different set of priorities.
Click to expand...

I much prefer the Tavor over the AR platform.
 
870P said:
How relevant will laser aiming devices be in the not-too-distant future given the proliferation of thermals?
Click to expand...

Well, you cannot really ground navigate by thermal only. Individual still need imaging intensifying as the principle night optic, thermal is added on top for additional detection, wether it is wpn mounted or fused to II.

Not every military can afford what the US military plans to have in thermal/II fusion and wireless connected weapon sight, IAD is still the most cost effective way to pair up with NV , which is what 99% of the regular formations of developed militaries is trying to do outside fo the US. They are ( and we are in Canada ) still at least 10 years or 1 to 2 generations behind.

Mepro and TAVOR/X95 combo is really what they thought in the 90's would work in 2000's - the fact that Mepro MOAR doesn't even have IR illumination. Having a laser pointer and a Monocular is the cutting of the later 90's and the first quarter of the iraq War and afghan war, like the time when people are only getting PEQ 4, but some do get PEQ2.

If the IDF needs to start getting more serious about the regular infantry formation night operation capability, they need to start mass issuing NV monoculars ( at the minimum) and proper IAD to everyone ( like PEQ15), in conjunction with white/IR light. And to use these equipment they have no choice but to switch to M4. It is very difficult to configure the currently available IR and white light accessories on a X95. Sometime it simply won't work just because the amount of space available and the location of the space, etc.
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
If the IDF needs to start getting more serious about the regular infantry formation night operation capability, they need to start mass issuing NV monoculars ( at the minimum) and proper IAD to everyone ( like PEQ15), in conjunction with white/IR light. And to use these equipment they have no choice but to switch to M4.
Click to expand...

As the "finalized" issue X95 uses the full-length top rail and railed handguards we see on the commercial models, I'm just not seeing the problem you're describing. The new X95s use all the same attachment points as the old ones so you can bring the legacy models up to speed just by installing the new parts quickly and cheaply.

The IDF's 15.5" model for reference:
pv.jpg
 

Attachments

  • pv.jpg
    pv.jpg
    119.1 KB · Views: 391
Jarvy said:
As the "finalized" issue X95 uses the full-length top rail and railed handguards we see on the commercial models, I'm just not seeing the problem you're describing. The new X95s use all the same attachment points as the old ones so you can bring the legacy models up to speed just by installing the new parts quickly and cheaply.

]
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing since there is clearly enough rail space for everything...
 
h t t p s ://defence-point.com/2021/09/07/iwi-announces-additional-micro-tavor-x95-procurement-by-the-idf/

Looks like IDF is buying more micro tavors for their infantry unit, so it looks lime I wonder if the M4s will go to some units and the micro tavors go to other units.
 
nitroxace said:
Thanks for posting. Remember how the US "interfered" with the Canadian Avro fighter jet so many years ago. They hold the monopoly.
Click to expand...

They did us a favor. IMO the Avro Arrow was an ineffective endeavor. Developed with zero secrecy from the Soviets. It would've been obsolete in a matter of years.


Same goes for the Tavor. Handy maybe for vehicles, but ultimately Id rather use an AR for 90% of the shooting scenarios i could think of.
 
I'm curious about why anyone considers the M4 superior? Aside from cost and such... I'd base my decision off of the most likely scenario but I can't see any clear winner between the two myself.
 
I find the M4 more comfortable to shoulder = more effective to shoot. More adjustable, has a superior trigger , is less complex, more intuitive, more optic friendly, IMO more robust.

Outside of compactness, what really does the Tavor platform offer over the AR / M4 that actually matters ?
 
B said:
I'm curious about why anyone considers the M4 superior? Aside from cost and such... I'd base my decision off of the most likely scenario but I can't see any clear winner between the two myself.
Click to expand...

Murray 3-D said:
I find the M4 more comfortable to shoulder = more effective to shoot. More adjustable, has a superior trigger , is less complex, more intuitive, more optic friendly, IMO more robust.

Outside of compactness, what really does the Tavor platform offer over the AR / M4 that actually matters ?
Click to expand...

that is exactly the points made by murray:

when we started to receive the famas it was so short for most of us that it was not easy to reach targets (training started with mas 49/56). so more training for infantry ie my back up guy in my unit was in need of more training than i was thinking off before being reliablewith the famas.
so famas was great in vehicle and really close combat but not as good in longer shot especially with no optics option as the ones we started to operate with.

all special forces after a while received other rifles than the famas: always wondered why ... some magazines were not working properly and when they shut down the ammo plant: we needed to use other ammo that did not work properly as well.
 
B said:
I'm curious about why anyone considers the M4 superior? Aside from cost and such... I'd base my decision off of the most likely scenario but I can't see any clear winner between the two myself.
Click to expand...

The compact and bulky design of the bull pup inhibits air cooling, and causes the Tavor to overheat faster than a typical M4 would in the same circumstances.

That and every bull pup has a brutal trigger compared to what you can get in a base model M4.

Personally, and this is just a preference thing from running an AR for decades, but I dont love change mags close to the chest where I cant see it, compared to up at eye level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom