If the price was the same there is NO discussion IMO. The Tavor IS the superior firearm. But that $1000 price tag is pretty appealing. Not everyone can afford to buy the best straight from the start. And, I have no doubt the T97 will prove to be a good quality, long lasting gun that's simply not as refined and not as well designed/laid out ergonomically as the Tavor.
T97 vs Tavor Threads Merged
- Thread starter Kryogen
- Start date
mildcustom2
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Surrey, B.C.
Not on the same level but they are both Bullpup Black Rifles. Therefore the T97 is inferior to the Tavor.
Sweet zombie Jesus. Can we please hit this horse a couple more times? I think it died about 4 pages back but you can never be too sure.
To OP: great impartial review. You did a fantastic job of providing us with useful information.
To the tavor owners: we get it. You are offended that we would compare a norinco to your highly prized and expensive rifle. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD HAS SAID THE T97 IS THE SUPERIOR RIFLE. Everyone can unknot their britches.
Different strokes for different folks.
To be honest I don't like the Tavor, Kel tec RFB or the T97. I think they're ugly looking and have some draw backs from the design. They also have advantages as well but it depends on what you want out of the rifle so if you like it buy what you like best. Better or not doesn't really matter to much as long as it goes bang and hits the target. I've shot all of them I find the Tavor feels the best to hold the Kel Tec has the fun 308 win to shoot more bang is always more fun.. they T97 wasn't that bad and the price makes it more attractive then the Tavor so it depends on what you want.
I havent read more than 1 or 2 posts from people who HAVE actually shot both (and there arent many out there) who have said the T97 trigger is "better" than the Tavor. I, personally, dont think it is. Yes, its light, but with no physical or tactile release point you are always left guessing when it will fire.
With the extra trigger return spring removed from my tavor it is an excellent shooter. Trigger feels more "2 stage". First part is light then comes into resistance. The resistance has a bit of spongyness to it but there is no questions about when or where its going to break and the break is clean.
Would you rather have a light trigger that gives you no indication its going to release, or a slightly heavier trigger that you know exactly when it will release? For me, the Tavor trigger is better. However, neither are "match grade" and both have upsides and downsides.
With the extra trigger return spring removed from my tavor it is an excellent shooter. Trigger feels more "2 stage". First part is light then comes into resistance. The resistance has a bit of spongyness to it but there is no questions about when or where its going to break and the break is clean.
Would you rather have a light trigger that gives you no indication its going to release, or a slightly heavier trigger that you know exactly when it will release? For me, the Tavor trigger is better. However, neither are "match grade" and both have upsides and downsides.
- Location
- Iles Aux Grenouilles
I get the feeling that some people are feeling insecure about their expensive rifles with horrible trigger pulls, their night mare is that the T97 might be better in some way at at a far lower price
You are bull's eye......... they don' t stop
Sorry about the confusion. It sounded good in my head when I wrote it but perspective changes everything.
Exactly as stated.. I've been looking at buying the Tavor and rationalizing the cost and a similar bullpup at a much lower price confounds things. Hearing how great the T97 is makes that $2k difference bigger all the time.
I look forward to reading more of these great reviews and thanks to you who do them.
Exactly as stated.. I've been looking at buying the Tavor and rationalizing the cost and a similar bullpup at a much lower price confounds things. Hearing how great the T97 is makes that $2k difference bigger all the time.
I look forward to reading more of these great reviews and thanks to you who do them.
The smoke in the front's likely to be from the short stroke piston. The Tavor and 97 have different gas systems. Notice the Tavor still has huge vents mid rifle.
I don't know if these sporting rifles are military grade, anyone want to try some reliability tests on these civilian versions? At your own risk, or you could use a clamp and string to pull the trigger.
I've seen military 95's shoot after being buried in sand, and than shot again after left to soak in a crate of water. All shot shouldered by one guy same rifle, no clamps, semi, and than burst.
To note the guy disassembled the rifle after shooting from the sand to show how much sand got in. There was sand everywhere. Both tests with a full mag nothing in the chamber, than one loaded after taking it out of the sand, than the water. Mags changed from one test to the other because he shot all rounds.
Last edited:
How would a Tavor hold up with 1000 rounds through it, fired very rapidly?
I'm really curious, because the TAR-21 was designed primarily with FIBUA and CQB in mind and to be a replacement to the M4.
It looks as is the QBZ-97 (the Chinese military version of the T97) was designed as a general purpose infantry assault rifle that is interoperable with the QBB-97 LMG' which is essentially the same gun, with a bipod, heavier barrel and generally intended for use with an 80 round drum mag.
I think some of the reports of the T97 brutalizing and tossing brass very far with the gas selector set to low (one feature itself an obvious indicator the rifle is literally designed to be a machine gun) is reflective that a LOT of energy is used by the gun to cycle and clear the action which IMO is a pretty interesting feature. This indicates to me that the gun was designed to be reliable with high rates of sustained automatic fire.
I read an article that the M4's specification for its rate of fire for which it could be fired indefinitely without a major malfunction is 12 - 15 rounds per second. As the Tavor was meant to be a replacement for the M4, I would suspect it has a similar specification.
Conversely, if the Chinese doctrine for infantry tactics (of which I know nothing about) is influenced by the capacity of their weapons, and if their doctrine was modelled to be able to equal or superior to those of Western nations, from the looks of things, it would appear the QBZ and QBB series were designed to allow an an infantry section of rifleman and gunners, to be able to put down as many or more rounds down range than an infantryman from a Western military (including the IDF) - of which LMGs like the M249 are quite standard.
Ergo, I suspect there is a good chance that the QBZ on its own would be capable of a longer, higher sustained rate of fire than an M4 (or Tavor) would. Food for thought, IIRC, a Canadian infantry section is usually 8 soldiers, 2 C9 gunners, 6 riflemen with C7s. If the same infantry section were armed with equivalent Chinese weapons, I suspect it would be 2 QBBs and 6 QBZs. If both sections were capable of providing a similar rate, volume, and length of fire, it stands to reason that the QBZs would be capable of putting down more rounds than the C7s, as the QBZs only use an 80 round drum magazine.
Now this benefit may never be realized by most target shooters in Canada, but some people might take comfort in knowing the T97 could probably in a firefight be able to provide more firepower than an M4 and comparably designed weapons (like the Tavor).
Of course this all theory craft. I don't own a Tavor and Maybe it will be all thrown out the window when I get my T97 and do more tests in it.
I'm really curious, because the TAR-21 was designed primarily with FIBUA and CQB in mind and to be a replacement to the M4.
It looks as is the QBZ-97 (the Chinese military version of the T97) was designed as a general purpose infantry assault rifle that is interoperable with the QBB-97 LMG' which is essentially the same gun, with a bipod, heavier barrel and generally intended for use with an 80 round drum mag.
I think some of the reports of the T97 brutalizing and tossing brass very far with the gas selector set to low (one feature itself an obvious indicator the rifle is literally designed to be a machine gun) is reflective that a LOT of energy is used by the gun to cycle and clear the action which IMO is a pretty interesting feature. This indicates to me that the gun was designed to be reliable with high rates of sustained automatic fire.
I read an article that the M4's specification for its rate of fire for which it could be fired indefinitely without a major malfunction is 12 - 15 rounds per second. As the Tavor was meant to be a replacement for the M4, I would suspect it has a similar specification.
Conversely, if the Chinese doctrine for infantry tactics (of which I know nothing about) is influenced by the capacity of their weapons, and if their doctrine was modelled to be able to equal or superior to those of Western nations, from the looks of things, it would appear the QBZ and QBB series were designed to allow an an infantry section of rifleman and gunners, to be able to put down as many or more rounds down range than an infantryman from a Western military (including the IDF) - of which LMGs like the M249 are quite standard.
Ergo, I suspect there is a good chance that the QBZ on its own would be capable of a longer, higher sustained rate of fire than an M4 (or Tavor) would. Food for thought, IIRC, a Canadian infantry section is usually 8 soldiers, 2 C9 gunners, 6 riflemen with C7s. If the same infantry section were armed with equivalent Chinese weapons, I suspect it would be 2 QBBs and 6 QBZs. If both sections were capable of providing a similar rate, volume, and length of fire, it stands to reason that the QBZs would be capable of putting down more rounds than the C7s, as the QBZs only use an 80 round drum magazine.
Now this benefit may never be realized by most target shooters in Canada, but some people might take comfort in knowing the T97 could probably in a firefight be able to provide more firepower than an M4 and comparably designed weapons (like the Tavor).
Of course this all theory craft. I don't own a Tavor and Maybe it will be all thrown out the window when I get my T97 and do more tests in it.
Last edited:
I handled and shot one of the first Tavors in the country 3-4 years ago. I was never impressed.
If I am going to buy a bullpup which is an AR-18 action in a fugly plastic shell I'm going to buy the one that doesn't cost $3000.
If I am going to buy a bullpup which is an AR-18 action in a fugly plastic shell I'm going to buy the one that doesn't cost $3000.
- Location
- Canada, west
^^^
That's a lot of speculation derived from a probably. Interesting read none the less.
That's a lot of speculation derived from a probably. Interesting read none the less.
Reading is fun and knowledge is power. I don't believe everything I read - but I do read anything and challenge, question, speculate, and theorize based on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBZ-95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBB-95
What's also interesting is almost anything and everything about Western weapons is online. Heck, the Chinese even produce and manufacture them.
Next to nothing is known about the Chinese weapons.
That alone makes the T97 a more interesting piece.
@ Harble
It's kind of the same. 95's select fire, made for accurate shots in semi, but capable of auto, and shot in bursts. I think for closer ranges. Have seen it shot full auto though.
Basic 95-1 rifle's got a bigger hand guard than original 95s.
QBB-95 AND QJB 95-1 are built differently longer heavier barrel, bigger handguard, and bi-pod. Definitely made in mind to put more lead down range. All definitely more reliable than any direct impingement gun.
It's kind of the same. 95's select fire, made for accurate shots in semi, but capable of auto, and shot in bursts. I think for closer ranges. Have seen it shot full auto though.
Basic 95-1 rifle's got a bigger hand guard than original 95s.QBB-95 AND QJB 95-1 are built differently longer heavier barrel, bigger handguard, and bi-pod. Definitely made in mind to put more lead down range. All definitely more reliable than any direct impingement gun.
mildcustom2
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Surrey, B.C.
Wikipedia is not a good place for a source of factual I formation. Anyone that has access to the site can edit the content to say whatever they want. Very easy to give wrong information or speculative information like your comment about the T97 being equal or more firepower than an M4.
@ Harble
It's kind of the same. 95's select fire, made for accurate shots in semi, but capable of auto, and shot in bursts. I think for closer ranges. Have seen it shot full auto though.
QBB-95 AND QJB 95-1 are built differently longer heavier barrel, bigger handguard, and bi-pod. Definitely made in mind to put more lead down range.
That's the thing, it's been known since WWI that more effective rounds down range faster and longer win firefights, so the general progression of firearms technology for military purposes have been to increase those attributes.
I guess it kind of shows I think about these sorts of things the way a General probably does, rather than a Private. I'm more interested in the fact that the gun should, In theory, allow a section of infantry to outgun another section of infantry (strategic and tactical) instead of caring about things like ergonomics and appearance (operational).
Thank goodness I was kindly shown the door out of the CF
Agreed, and Like I said, I don't believe everything I read - I just can't recall the dozens of links from the other sites I read to verify (or disprove) what Wikipedia has as a starting point.
A research technique very common (especially among foreign intelligence agencies) is to aggregate information based on simple key word searches of public domain information. I usually don't post things without doing that kind of research.
Like I said - there's not much out there about the QBZs.
