IDF to replace the Tavor with M4

greentips said:
Bullpup actually works very well for infantry.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'd give props to the Tavor over a C7/C8 might be carrying it on patrol, slung on your back, or getting in and out of a vehicle. Over the C8, that would be by a very slim margin to be negligible.
As soon as any other manipulation occurred, like maneuvering or gun fighting, (by and large the most important factors) the Tavor turns into a turkey. imho.
 
Just from an ergonomic standpoint I believe the AR is very natural and visual performer especially with a stoppage.
I think the bullpup of any design can shine in close quarters such as mechanized infantry and urban fighting.
Once you hit open fields or even medium ranges the advantage goes to a more natural platform such as the AR which also has superior iron sites, even as backup sites.
 
Brutus said:
Just from an ergonomic standpoint I believe the AR is very natural and visual performer especially with a stoppage.
I think the bullpup of any design can shine in close quarters such as mechanized infantry and urban fighting.
Once you hit open fields or even medium ranges the advantage goes to a more natural platform such as the AR which also has superior iron sites, even as backup sites.
Click to expand...


I'm an IDF veteran and I take the tavor over the m16/M4 in every scenario except precision shooting. It is heavier but vastly more comfortable to shoulder and carry.
 
Mesayat said:
I'm an IDF veteran and I take the tavor over the m16/M4 in every scenario except precision shooting. It is heavier but vastly more comfortable to shoulder and carry.
Click to expand...

I was going to get into it by saying that clearly the Tavor is a good weapon system based on the fact one of the most active militaries in the world still use it in quantity with no apparent complaints. Straight from the horse's mouth is even better. People can have whatever opinion but I'd definitely listen to the folks doing actual work with both rifles. No doubt some prefer the AR but the Tavor seems to be a very well liked weapon.
 
CZ Shooter said:
I think the Israelis are making a mistake.
Always better to have your own weapon system, than depending on someone else.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.. more self sufficient in tough times is important, plus it leads to more innovation, and provides more options/variety depending on the need. Anything that stifles competition is bad in the long run.
 
greentips said:
Not surprised. Kinda know it is coming. Not good for IWI in foreign sales of more X95, but again it doesn't look like TAVOR is going anywhere with future big orders after the Indian contract loss, and places like Columbia and Chile went for Galil instead of TAVOR.

Looks like X95 will be depending on the US commerical market from now on.

The writings are on the wall when IWI started showcasing awhile Carmel ago and their own push rod AR. But even Carmel is not a good design.

A lot of it I suspect is that IWI and Mepro want to create an integrated system in the get go - TAVOR is terribly designed for LAD and night fighing. Their home growth Mepro 21 with integrated laser point is simply not sufficient and TAVOR was designed around it. Even Carmel has the same problem. There are simply no good ways to attach things like PAQ 15 to X95/TAVOR, which are essential to more recent fighting technology and TTP.

I have grown to know how to use a X95 efficiently, but my first choice will always be an AR if available.
Click to expand...

I find it way easier to mount everything on that smaller rail on the x95 because it’s has different plains of height

You also can have things that aren’t a peq, like a Russian Klesh, under the barrel and it’s way way nicer to mount and out of the way than on an ar15
 
$kull said:
I find it way easier to mount everything on that smaller rail on the x95 because it’s has different plains of height

You also can have things that aren’t a peq, like a Russian Klesh, under the barrel and it’s way way nicer to mount and out of the way than on an ar15
Click to expand...

M4's have more versatile accessory space. Even more than both versions of the x95. I'll give it that. But still I find it adequate for any operational requirement. Tavors also don't have nearly as much space underneath for say a bipod with a foregrip hence IDF soldiers being issued the "dildo" or CAA BPP grip pod which I keep forgetting to buy for mine in Canada lol.
 
$kull said:
You also can have things that aren’t a peq, like a Russian Klesh, under the barrel.
Click to expand...

People who put devices that emit things under barrels must not rest their rifles on supports very often.

The top rail placement of most LAD/LAM/Light etc happens for a reason. It's the right place to get whatever you're emitting downrange, and the right place to activate/deactivate the emitter.

I have occasionally seen bullpup-wielding NATO forces run their emitter modules at the three-o'clock position, and even then: there was lots of complaining about tape-switches.

Wonder if there's a thread worth being assembled to go over night-fighting stuff and shake out the dust. The conventional wisdom of the western forces I'm familiar with is that dedicated infantry need to be able to do all the things they'd do in the day, just as well in the dark.

To achieve that ends, across a company or platoon you might see a wide range of monoculars, binoculars, fixed power image intensifier sights, IR illuminators/indicators, thermal observation and thermal targeting devices, plus the optics suites on your mechanized elements.
 
TV-PressPass said:
People who put devices that emit things under barrels must not rest their rifles on supports very often.

The top rail placement of most LAD/LAM/Light etc happens for a reason. It's the right place to get whatever you're emitting downrange, and the right place to activate/deactivate the emitter.

I have occasionally seen bullpup-wielding NATO forces run their emitter modules at the three-o'clock position, and even then: there was lots of complaining about tape-switches.

Wonder if there's a thread worth being assembled to go over night-fighting stuff and shake out the dust. The conventional wisdom of the western forces I'm familiar with is that dedicated infantry need to be able to do all the things they'd do in the day, just as well in the dark.

To achieve that ends, across a company or platoon you might see a wide range of monoculars, binoculars, fixed power image intensifier sights, IR illuminators/indicators, thermal observation and thermal targeting devices, plus the optics suites on your mechanized elements.
Click to expand...

IWI Negev would like to say hello. There's a laser mount built into the barrel lol
 
Mesayat said:
I'm an IDF veteran and I take the tavor over the m16/M4 in every scenario except precision shooting. It is heavier but vastly more comfortable to shoulder and carry.
Click to expand...

i wish we can do a real comparison with the felin the tavor and an m4 and asks users what they prefer. never handled the real tavor only the semi auto version but i used famas version again not my choice but we used what we were given like any soldiers ... and m4 and im lean to the m4 but that this just me and my training was precision shooting.
 
medvedqc said:
i wish we can do a real comparison with the felin the tavor and an m4 and asks users what they prefer. never handled the real tavor only the semi auto version but i used famas version again not my choice but we used what we were given like any soldiers ... and m4 and im lean to the m4 but that this just me and my training was precision shooting.
Click to expand...

Israelis wouldn't be good to ask lol. Carrying a tavor is a status symbol in the army. Anyone seen carrying an m16/M4 is seen as inferior.
 
Well, out of the dozens of service rifles I've owned over the years, the Tavor I had was held onto the shortest timeframe.
 
I don’t know if this was mentioned in an earlier post. But there was a forces wide announcement and a news article stating that the tavor was stood down for training. Plus, there was a temporary suspension of use on civilian ranges in Israel. Apparently there was a fix being looked at because the tavor had a quirk in the bolt group if there was too much carbon/dirt build up that when the rifle was cocked it would cause the firing pin to be stuck in the fire position. There were incidents of individuals cocking the weapon, which would end up firing a whole Mag off in full-auto. I think they fixed the issue around 6 months ago.
 
Trapanese said:
Tavor 7 was designed for the civi market.
Click to expand...

TAVOR 7 was designed for foreign military sales, it was a contender for the Indian contract, they called for a 7.62 MBR. IWI even had a Indian partner to propose local manufacturing. Well, SIG USA's SIG 517 ended up winning that contract.

The 5.56 contract was won by Caracal 816, but the contract was canned now. I think IWI is going with the Galil ACE this time around, because Idian's deal with Russian to make AK200 locally fell through too.
 
From the Firearm Blog

IDF Are NOT Replacing the Tavor
"As part of the staff work on the optimal extraction of the weapons of the combat formation, it was decided these days to purchase additional weapons of the Tavor type.
The decision, the land arm notes, was made as part of the annual work plan, which weighs considerations of economic uniformity, adjustment to the designation of power, regular-reserve compliance, and so on."

For a decade now, the Tavor, a blue-and-white weapon, has been used by many infantry units and brigades in the IDF in a variety of sectors, and it will be distributed to fighters in the relevant units in the coming recruitment rounds as well. “We are very pleased with his abilities,” say in the land arm armament department, “he delivers very good performance, and proves himself.”
Click to expand...

thefirearmblog dot com/blog/2021/09/08/idf-not-replacing-tavor/

Can someone translate this from bureaucrat to English?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom