I suppose every CGN member has noticed that the Israeli Defense Force seems to be exclusively using the M16 rifle and various M16 carbines in its battle against Hezbollah. Have they given up on the Galil? I've always thought the Galil was a very good rifle - in some ways superior to the M16 especially for the rigors of desert warfare. Does anyone know the story behind the demise of the Galil. Are these M16's made in the USA or does Israel make their own version. PSE
IDF uses M16 rifles in mideast conflict
- Thread starter PSE
- Start date
It has to do with U.S. aid programs.
The galil did not meet the criteria to be paid for because of the lack of U.S. "content".
Essentially, the aid package is given to the Isrealis as cash, and they buy stuff.
Whatever the end product is has to have at certain % of its parts purchased from the U.S.
So, they could buy most of the M16 parts, manufature the rest and assemble locally.
The Galil didn't meet this.
The galil did not meet the criteria to be paid for because of the lack of U.S. "content".
Essentially, the aid package is given to the Isrealis as cash, and they buy stuff.
Whatever the end product is has to have at certain % of its parts purchased from the U.S.
So, they could buy most of the M16 parts, manufature the rest and assemble locally.
The Galil didn't meet this.
You know us GunNutz are getting lazy when we can't even scroll down the first page!
Topic already discussed here:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95149
Topic already discussed here:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95149
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
tree mugger said:
I was with you until the 2nd last sentence about Israeli manufacture. AFAIK, they buy assembled/tested rifles and spares by the carton from CT, USA. What do they manufacture locally?
Aside, I wonder if the Tavor's US-made receiver qualifies it as 'American' goods? Do they get it subsidised then export it for profit?
Years ago I read in one of the mags (SOF or Combat Arms etc) an interview with the designer of the Galil, I forget his full name (Israel Galili or something). Anyways, he gave the reason as simple economics. Pay lots to mill galil receivers etc or pay very little to get the US M 16.
Unless you've owned or handled a galil, please dont spout about it being too heavy. Its no more heavy than the full stock M16's that Israel would have been sold originally. The galil is one of the best designed rifles ever, folding bipod with bottle opener, flip up night sights, (the best)folding stock, ambi-safety.
I dont buy the it was too heavy excuse because its bs. Some people also claim that Israel dropped the FN because it wasnt reliable. Guys on the Falfiles dug into that story and the general availble info was that the Israeli soldiers didnt do basic maintenance on their weapons and treated them like crap eg dropping them off the top of the carrier onto the ground routinely.
Someone convince me why the M16 of 1970's era was so superior to the galil, that they had to have it. Ive had (past tense)both so I have my opinions, and will need overwhelming proof to change them.
Unless you've owned or handled a galil, please dont spout about it being too heavy. Its no more heavy than the full stock M16's that Israel would have been sold originally. The galil is one of the best designed rifles ever, folding bipod with bottle opener, flip up night sights, (the best)folding stock, ambi-safety.
I dont buy the it was too heavy excuse because its bs. Some people also claim that Israel dropped the FN because it wasnt reliable. Guys on the Falfiles dug into that story and the general availble info was that the Israeli soldiers didnt do basic maintenance on their weapons and treated them like crap eg dropping them off the top of the carrier onto the ground routinely.
Someone convince me why the M16 of 1970's era was so superior to the galil, that they had to have it. Ive had (past tense)both so I have my opinions, and will need overwhelming proof to change them.
The Galil rifles are known to be Heavy: This was its primary drawback in popularity.
"... Its no more heavy than the full stock M16's that Israel would have been sold originally."
The Galil's main problem is weight; it is heavier than the M16A1, at around 3.9 kg (8.6 lb) empty vs the M16A1's 2.9 kg (6.4 lb), and therefore often considered to be a greater burden as a personal weapon for infantrymen, although its short length due to the folding stock made it very popular with the troops (Galil 840/614 mm vs M16A1 986 mm). The weapon never caught on among Israel's numerous special forces units, who used AK-47s for reliability and deniability if dropped or captured.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galil
"... Its no more heavy than the full stock M16's that Israel would have been sold originally."
The Galil's main problem is weight; it is heavier than the M16A1, at around 3.9 kg (8.6 lb) empty vs the M16A1's 2.9 kg (6.4 lb), and therefore often considered to be a greater burden as a personal weapon for infantrymen, although its short length due to the folding stock made it very popular with the troops (Galil 840/614 mm vs M16A1 986 mm). The weapon never caught on among Israel's numerous special forces units, who used AK-47s for reliability and deniability if dropped or captured.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galil
Last edited:
This is a silly argument.
As stated the M-16 was selected for economic reasons and not end user ones. I can't find sources so I guess I'm just adding to the here-say.
Here is how I know/take it:
- For the most part the IDF still has every Galil rifle, though a few have been surplused. Trust me The IDF throws away nothing.
- The Galil rifle is well made rifle
- The IDF has mostly gone to M-16 type rifles because they get them cheap (see above posts) AND they are a good proven platform.
- The IDF SF/special police etc have used the CAR type M-16 for a long time.
- All SF's sometimes use AK's or whatever the want for many reasons but mostly because they can. The rest use what they are issued.
You see few Galil rifles becasue the IDF have so many M-16's now they are common issue, which only makes logistical sense.
My 2 1/2 cents
As stated the M-16 was selected for economic reasons and not end user ones. I can't find sources so I guess I'm just adding to the here-say.
Here is how I know/take it:
- For the most part the IDF still has every Galil rifle, though a few have been surplused. Trust me The IDF throws away nothing.
- The Galil rifle is well made rifle
- The IDF has mostly gone to M-16 type rifles because they get them cheap (see above posts) AND they are a good proven platform.
- The IDF SF/special police etc have used the CAR type M-16 for a long time.
- All SF's sometimes use AK's or whatever the want for many reasons but mostly because they can. The rest use what they are issued.
You see few Galil rifles becasue the IDF have so many M-16's now they are common issue, which only makes logistical sense.
My 2 1/2 cents
Last edited:
Merkava, Spike, the question is how much of the components are U.S. made ???
IMI does a whole hell of a lot more than small arms. They are Norinco in that respect.
Logistically, the M16 makes more sense (regardless of local economics) as you can source parts and extrtas from almost anywhere.
IMI does a whole hell of a lot more than small arms. They are Norinco in that respect.
Logistically, the M16 makes more sense (regardless of local economics) as you can source parts and extrtas from almost anywhere.
The couple of pounds in weight are are of little concern to an infantry soldier, if you consider the amount of kit used on patrol, ammo, water, more ammo, radio batteries, more ammo, 60mm mortars, 1 belt of 7.62 for the mag crew, first aid kit, food, signal flairs, map, grenades and more ammo, then those couple of pounds = a small percentage of total weight, i would take the R4 in any sandy/dusty environment at ranges less than 300M, due to reliability, i would take the AR platform for any longer range engagement.
Scope mount is not to bad, the scopes are attached to the top cover, you just remove the top cover and pop on a scope attached to a spare cover, only optic i have mounted in a night vision scope.
Attached image is of me with an R4, night scope attached, it would hold its zero for a full two weeks in the bush, even if it spent the daylight hours in my pack being bumped around. Only misfires i ever had with it were ammo related, nothing a yank on the charging handle couldn't take care of.
2nd image left side of the photo shows R4 with a rifle grenade in place
Scope mount is not to bad, the scopes are attached to the top cover, you just remove the top cover and pop on a scope attached to a spare cover, only optic i have mounted in a night vision scope.
Attached image is of me with an R4, night scope attached, it would hold its zero for a full two weeks in the bush, even if it spent the daylight hours in my pack being bumped around. Only misfires i ever had with it were ammo related, nothing a yank on the charging handle couldn't take care of.
2nd image left side of the photo shows R4 with a rifle grenade in place
Excellent pics there.
Greetips, I'm not arguing your logic. I'm just repeating what I read from the guy that designed the galil. Now maybe after he designed it he had no input into its procurements etc by the IDF and got pissed and made up his story.
But I would argue that he knows alot more about the subject than any of us, so I'll accept his word for it.
And for those that consider the AK the best rifle ever, there are many that consider the Galil proof that it IS possible to improve upon perfection.
Greetips, I'm not arguing your logic. I'm just repeating what I read from the guy that designed the galil. Now maybe after he designed it he had no input into its procurements etc by the IDF and got pissed and made up his story.
But I would argue that he knows alot more about the subject than any of us, so I'll accept his word for it.
And for those that consider the AK the best rifle ever, there are many that consider the Galil proof that it IS possible to improve upon perfection.
Truth of the matter is, we will never really know why they take any particular action, or choose to use any particular weapons for the use of their military. There must be thousands of backdoor political deals going on between U.S. and Israel we would never find out. I suspect they use what they use, because it suits them in, then current, political environment.
I'm not sure when the last galil was produced for the IDF, but there's at least one Israeli soldier representin with the Galil as of yesterday. Saw news footage of the IDF leaving Lebanon and showed a bunch of guys at a bus getting their kit. Everyone shown had M4, except for one guy with his galil with stock folded. Guy must be an OG going oldschool like that.
I just saw something interesting. A bunch of Israeli soldiers (squad size) on CNN had what looked to be mid-length carbines, like 16" M4's but the receivers were raw aluminum color, not black anodized.
It wasn't lighting or finish wear, it was a clear pic and the receiver was bare metal (or clear anodized?)
I wonder if Israel buys uppers and LPK's and makes a few local receivers???
It wasn't lighting or finish wear, it was a clear pic and the receiver was bare metal (or clear anodized?)
I wonder if Israel buys uppers and LPK's and makes a few local receivers???
beltfed said:
Yeah, I'm sure most guys would take the "current" M4 with rails for tac light, laser, Eotech & NVS, 1/9 twist, heavy bullets. But how many would take the M4 the Israelis use with super short barrel, the carry handle and no fancy tac lights or eotechs etc. I know that some regiments have the old model red dot that fits above the fore stock.
You cant deny the soldier first engineering of the basic galil, much different experience then the SP1. Bipod/wire cutter/bottle opener, ingenious flip up luminous sights, superb folding stock and near indestructible.
