T97 vs Tavor Threads Merged
- Thread starter Kryogen
- Start date
Thanks man. I was gonna pick up some lar mags too. I was just wondering about the Pmags because eventually I'd like to get an AR as well and I keep hearing everyone talk about how good the Pmags are, but someone mentioned that the gen 3's don't work well.
Plus, my local shop has a ton of Pmags on sale lol
Pretty sure, eh? It's fall. I wonder where this "secured" order is.
Hmmm... I put alot of work into that review thread. Kind of feels like it was all pointless to just have it merged with a pile of other threads with NO actual basis for comparison, or videos, or side by side examples. I think my thread, at least, deserved to be left on its own. It wasnt ever meant to be a Tavor VS T97 competition thread. It was simply SUPPOSED to be an unbiased comparison of the functionality of the 2. I guess all the arguing ruined it.
I would agree. The objectivity and clear insightful commentary were enjoyed by all of us at M14.ca. Probably the best T97 thread to date. Let's not discourage the OP from posting more!
I never said it was - it was. I said it was a REPLACEMENT for the M4 to overcome it's weaknesses - the most prominent being the sorter barrel length providing lower muzzle velocity than would otherwise be desired in a RIFLE. Even the name TAR indicates the Tavor is an assault rifle.
I speculate that the QBZ on the other hand is a rifle designed to address the issue of having a light, squad based weapon that differs in operation significantly from the standard issue rifle of their military. Really, the Tavor - T97 argument seems to be a comparison between, the AK and the M16. Both are assault rifles, but one is phenomenally simple to operate and maintain,cheap, reliable, and inaccurate while the other is much more complicated, expensive, requiring more maintenance, but arguably more accurate.
Likewise, it appears to be reflective of different modern military doctrine, whereby western allied states structure their squad/section based tactics around a specialist with a light support weapon capable of putting a high volume of fire with riflemen providing cover fire, the Chinese/Russian doctrine appears to have a more distributed across the squad/section - just compare the QBB to the Negev. A TAR21 operator with no training would probably have a lot of difficulty operating a Negev, whereas an operator trained in a QBZ could probably immediately be capable of operating a QBB (very much like an Ak and Rpk).
That lends itself to another point that I think is fascinating. I disagree with an assertion made that wars are won by will - they are won by logistics. The QBB and QBZ are supposedly designed to have the majority of parts interchanged - there is no way this is a coincidence - which to me suggests the QBZ was designed to be assault rifle AND a LMG. The strategic and tactical advantage this presents is pretty interesting. By my experience in the Canadian Army, one of the first lessons they teach you with during machine gun theory is if one of your section gunners goes down, you sling your rifle and get behind his gun - this is because our doctrine revolves around the majority of fire in a section coming from the gunners, not the riflemen. Now thinking operationally and logistically, if your in the middle of Kerplakistan and your Negev/M249/C9 goes down requiring a tech/replacement part to fix - your screwed if your packing a Tavor, M4, or C8. You can't even use the belt ammunition without delinking it.
Conversely, if your QBB or QBB gunner goes down, in an emergency you could in theory use the drum mag from the QBB in your QBZ or your QBZ mags in your QBB.
The thing is, both the Tavor and T97 are variants of military weapons. The cool part about them (at least to me) is analysis of there intended function and interpreting what that means operationally when shooting them.
Like I said though, I'm a believer that logistics win wars, so while I won't knock the Tavor looks like a neat gun, I'd rather have a cheap rifle with 6400 rounds of ammo than just a cool rifle - But I certainly won't knock anyone who believes differently.
Last edited:
^^ interesting thoughts. I like that your not trying to make a point other than you find it all fascinating. Differing military tactics between countries and cultures is something I find fascinating as well. I can see your point in terms of why the guns seem to be what they are. My only thoughts in response are that non of that excuses the crappy placement of the safety (im mostly just kidding... its crappy but im sure it has nothing to do with how the gun was intended to be used).
the more time I spend with the T97 the more I like it though. I think its important to note, the mag release is not the original design. Its an alteration to make the gun more appealing to north american buyers who use, mostly, Stanag compatible mags. The T97 was originally designed to use rock and lock mags like an AK... Im not saying mag changes would be any better... but it would be interested to see how that style of magazine would effect mag change ergonomics.
the more time I spend with the T97 the more I like it though. I think its important to note, the mag release is not the original design. Its an alteration to make the gun more appealing to north american buyers who use, mostly, Stanag compatible mags. The T97 was originally designed to use rock and lock mags like an AK... Im not saying mag changes would be any better... but it would be interested to see how that style of magazine would effect mag change ergonomics.
They do it regularly in the politics and news digest forums, you must not have been paying attention...
Mark
