Is the Tavor just the Flavor of the Day?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gothmog,
I don't shoot from the bench, all my shooting is done in a dynamic atmosphere. Whether that be 3 gun matches or simply practicing on my own. The bench is for zeroing your rifles.. A 7" or less gain over an AR or restricted Swiss is not going to make or break ones score in action shooting. Of all the matches I've attended the single greatest factor that makes or breaks someone's score is their ability to operate their system. That includes loading, reloading, malfunction drills as well as marksmanship. The system being used is rarely the problem, most issues are operator related.

APCR,
I agree, the non restricted label is a real make or break decision for lots. It is sad that something as stupid as classification of a firearm is what determines what is and is not being purchased. As for the hour to the range, that seems to be the norm which sucks.

TDC
 
Last edited:
TDC said:
Gothmog,
I don't shoot from the bench, all my shooting is done in a dynamic atmosphere. Whether that be 3 gun matches or simply practicing on my own. The bench is for zeroing your rifles.. A 7" or less gain over an AR or restricted Swiss is not going to make or break ones score in action shooting. Of all the matches I've attended the single greatest factor that makes or breaks someone's score is their ability to operate their system. That includes loading, reloading, malfunction drills as well as marksmanship. The system being used is rarely the problem, most issues are operator related.
Click to expand...

I more or less agree with your post.

But ... we shoot a lot of CQB stages and the shorter rifles do seem to confer an advantage ... exactly how large an advantage, I don't know. I'll admit that my view is entirely subjective but it is based on seeing a fair number of stages shot over the past 3 years.

Whether or not the Tavor bullpup will have this advantage remains to be seen, but my impression of shooting and handling the rifle suggests that it will work well in the CQB type stages. That being said, I see no disadvantage in the longer range stages as the rifle is accurate as well as fast handling.

The biggest impact a firearm can have on scores is its reliability and accuracy (especially the former) and the Tavor had no malfunctions despite being fired constantly by a variety of shooters and I expect nearly 1000 rounds went through it the day we tested it.

Not a torture test by any means, but a reasonable indication of reliability.
 
mattfrombc said:
Maybe this has been already posted in one of the other threads (I forget). But what is the OAL of this rifle?
Click to expand...

From an earlier post in this thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by TDC
Based on the facts I found the Tavor has an OAL of 28" (and change). My 14.5" AR measures out at 33"(and change) for my setup. So we can add two inches to make it a 16" gun and we're looking at a difference of 7" overall.
 
I think that the important thing is that the shorter barrel on an m4 is a compromise. What I've always heard is the longer the barrel the better. So no a longer barrel in a shorter package, Perfect. IIRC there was some talk of the trigger being unfriendly. Is there any info on this. I always found trigger work to be a big help in rifle competition bench, 3 gun or otherwise.:) :canadaFlag:
 
is it possible to work on the triger or do you think it would break in? Sorry if this should be in Gunsmiting, just thought I'd get a better idea here.:)
 
TDC said:
Calum,
I am ambidextrous, not to the level I wish to be but I can operate my tools with both hands. My examples are not only that of a civilian/sport shooter. How would a left hand shooter operate a right handed bullpup rifle without wearing hot brass in the mouth? I understand the system can be converted to eject out the left side, but that isn't something that can be done in a moments notice.

The LOP is crucial for proper fit and mounting of the rifle by the user. Adjustable LOP is of more value in that role than its ability to diminish the size of the rifle for confined spaces.

I have handled Bullpup rifles but never fired one. The ease of mag changes is something that is easier done without wearing armour or LBE something a soldier will always be wearing. That being said, a mag change on a bullpup rifle will still require the user to dismount the rifle and/or come off target. Something you currently do not have to do with conventional designs.

TDC

ETA: coyote ugly, no they do not. They are being issued by the Israeli's to their infantry units as replacements for their M16/M4 series of rifles. They have been quite extensively tested.
Click to expand...
The travor was designed specifically for C.Q.B. in urban areas. It is always easier to shoot a weapon that has a shorter length of pull than one that is too long.:evil: As far as body Armor it just increases the l.o.p.;) I'm sure that the Isrealis know how to design superior weapon systems with the enemies they have. As far ambidextrous goes I'd rather hot brass in my mouth than a bullet in the head. The only reason for ambi training is if your strong side is disabled, and your still being shot at:evil:
 
Gothmog,
You are correct. A system that fails is of no advantage regardless of what potential it may have. If it don't run it don't win.

Will I am,
A shorter firearm, or smaller profile aids in the ability to maneuver the firearm, not necessarily shoot the firearm. I am aware of the intended CQB role that Tavor was designed for. However, the advantage of the Tavor over a 16" M4 is in the 7" range. Make that a 14.5" M4 or an 11" shorty and your Tavor now has a 5.5" and 2" gain respectively. Seeing as how CQB involves ranges well under 50 yards the ballistic advantage and the accuracy gain of a longer barrel is of practically no value.

As for firing your right hand eject Tavor from your non dominant side. All I can say is ouch! The brass is extremely hot, somewhere in the 400*f range. You be my guest if you enjoy eating brass at that temp. Not to mention your ability to fire non dominant is of great importance when one is firing from the left side of cover. To fire from the left side of cover while continuing to mount the rifle on your dominant side would place far too much of the body in harms way. Having the ability to transition to non dominant and continue firing without worrying about hot brass is a great advantage.

The other scenario I see is a left handed soldier losing their weapon and being forced to use the rifle of a right handed soldier who has fallen. Without the left hand bolt and a few minutes to change it over the soldier is gonna have a hard time effectively using the weapon.

TDC
 
TDC said:
Gothmog,


Will I am,
A shorter firearm, or smaller profile aids in the ability to maneuver the firearm, not necessarily shoot the firearm. I am aware of the intended CQB role that Tavor was designed for. However, the advantage of the Tavor over a 16" M4 is in the 7" range. Make that a 14.5" M4 or an 11" shorty and your Tavor now has a 5.5" and 2" gain respectively. Seeing as how CQB involves ranges well under 50 yards the ballistic advantage and the accuracy gain of a longer barrel is of practically no value.


TDC
Click to expand...

Not in terms of external ballistics, but terminal ballistics. Theoretically.
 
Will I Am said:
I'm sure that the Isrealis know how to design superior weapon systems with the enemies they have.
Click to expand...

You mean kids throwing rocks, and guys who can't aim worth a crap shooting AK47s at them?

To put your faith into a firearm simply based on its origin is kind of dumb, no?
 
Greentips,
How do you figure? a CQB engagment occurs inside 50 yards. An 11" AR still produces sufficient velocity to fragment. As for accuracy, its a 50 yard shot at best, probably a lot less. Do we really need to discuss the required accuracy at such ranges to successfully engage combatants?

TDC
 
Originally Posted by Will I Am
I'm sure that the Isrealis know how to design superior weapon systems with the enemies they have.

darko said:
You mean kids throwing rocks, and guys who can't aim worth a crap shooting AK47s at them?

To put your faith into a firearm simply based on its origin is kind of dumb, no?
Click to expand...

LOL!;)
 
The Tavor is not a CQB weapon. It is issued to general infantry.

A 10.5" goes below 2700fps with M193 at 15 yrds......I am not a Frackler worshipper but why will you take less while you can get more out of a shorter package???

BTW, accuracy is not a function of barrel length - it only matters when there is wind drift - which affects at longer range when velocity is lower.

About the need to switch shoulder - I would let those who have more experience to comment about its real world application. My guess is that most users are not proficient enough with their weapons to do that.
 
I understand the relationship between barrel length/velocity and inherant accuracy. Which illustrates my point exactly. at social distances such as CQB there is a negligable loss in velocity. An 11.5" Ar will still produce fragmentation in M193(45-50 metres) and M855 (12-15 metres).

When we discuss the ability to transition from dominant to non dominant without any issues(hot brass) I ask this, why settle for something less when you can have more in an alternate package? If producing lefty friendly firearms wasn't a priority than explain why the AR platform has a shell deflector for just such a reason?

TDC
 
Seriously, who on this board is going into a combat zone after buying one of these rifles? :rolleyes:

For frick sakes buy a Tavor, shoot it, and enjoy it.

And don't worry about combat as I'm pretty sure that some day if you get drafted to goto war our Government will make sure you have the best battle rifle that only the lowest bidder can make at the time. :D
 
I can't beleive that this has lasted over 100 posts.

If you don't want it, don't F'NG buy it.....

dominant side/non-dominant......what the hell difference does it make in Canada ????

Oh, and CAN-AM, thanks for making it available......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom