Tavor vs AR, Apples to Apples Comparison Part 1 (50 yards)

z71camaro said:
LOL! How do you assume from any of those videos that they are forced by their equipment to take shortcuts?

When I load 10 rounds in a mag and fire 10 rounds from it, I don't check the chamber before reloading either. None of my equipment forces me to do that.

At least you're right about it being settled on the range. I'll settle the best for me on the range, you can settle it for you, and everyone else can do it for themselves as well.
Click to expand...

Just count to 10. Easy to do while shooting, moving and communicating. Well unless you start doing tactical reloads or start having to go into partials or having stoppages. If you accept that you never plan on doing any of the above things while shooting, life is easy, count to 10 and feed the pig.
I have been victim of enough training to see the shortcomings inherent with trusting ones cognitive abilities under stress.
 
if the gun stops firing, release the mag, put new full mag in, charge with charging handle.
guess what, if you have a jam it'll clear the jam and you'll have a full mag in there to boot!
sounds pretty logical to me...
Maybe I am an alien?
 
mikethebike said:
if the gun stops firing, release the mag, put new full mag in, charge with charging handle.
guess what, if you have a jam it'll clear the jam and you'll have a full mag in there to boot!
sounds pretty logical to me...
Maybe I am an alien?
Click to expand...

Or create a double or triple feed, if it is feeding, and not a striped rim.
Knowing what is going on might help you decide whether to get your rifle back in the fight, go to your secondary and/or scurry to cover.
 
I love how the AR vs. Tavor threads always devolve into a debate about mag change speeds. While being proficient with your weapon is extremely important for a soldier I have serious doubts about how important that .5 second longer mag change is in the grand scheme of a battle. The important thing is does the rifle go bang when it's supposed to, and does it put rounds where it is supposed to? It seems quite clear to me from all of the things I've seen and read that they both do exactly what they were intended to do, and that attempting to make definitive statements about which is better is mostly about promoting the one you personally prefer. So in the spirit of the debate I say the AR is crap... Mostly because my C7 was long and annoying when climbing in and out of a vehicle, and on the occasions I got to go to KAF the green furniture clashed with my civilian clothing...
 
WeatherdoG said:
I love how the AR vs. Tavor threads always devolve into a debate about mag change speeds. While being proficient with your weapon is extremely important for a soldier I have serious doubts about how important that .5 second longer mag change is in the grand scheme of a battle. The important thing is does the rifle go bang when it's supposed to, and does it put rounds where it is supposed to? It seems quite clear to me from all of the things I've seen and read that they both do exactly what they were intended to do, and that attempting to make definitive statements about which is better is mostly about promoting the one you personally prefer. So in the spirit of the debate I say the AR is crap... Mostly because my C7 was long and annoying when climbing in and out of a vehicle, and on the occasions I got to go to KAF the green furniture clashed with my civilian clothing...
Click to expand...


Generally, people do not like things that "go against the norm" thus, put it down or deem in "unsuitable."

People used to think that the weak/strong hand reload for shotgun from a caddy was the fastest until someone noticed what the Europeans were doing. Now everyone tries to do deuce or quadloading.

It's all in the training baby.

Back on topic (even though I know it won't) I am waiting to see the 100 yard results :)
 
That opens up another dog fight.

I fire three shot groups allowing the barrel time to cool between shots. A lot of the boys take exception to that saying that 5 and 10 shot groups are required because large rapid strings are a fact of life for military guns. That's fair as far as it goes but it also introduces more variables that may skew results, IMHO.
 
One Lung Wonder said:
A lot of the boys...saying that 5 and 10 shot groups are required because large rapid strings are a fact of life for military guns.
Click to expand...
A rapid string of fire has nothing to do with shooting more rounds in a group. Shooting more rounds in a group is to limit or eliminate the low variable you mention below and provide a more realistic expectation of how your rifle performs.

One Lung Wonder said:
That's fair as far as it goes but it also introduces more variables that may skew results, IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
One Lung Wonder said:
That opens up another dog fight.

I fire three shot groups allowing the barrel time to cool between shots. A lot of the boys take exception to that saying that 5 and 10 shot groups are required because large rapid strings are a fact of life for military guns. That's fair as far as it goes but it also introduces more variables that may skew results, IMHO.
Click to expand...

you need at least 6 to calculate a standard deviation, so statistically if you want to be correct you need a 6 shot group, minimum. then you do a 95 percentile and that gives you your moa.
 
Actually - no. Barrel heat induces flyers that tend to skew statistical results. That is why the precision guys avoid barrel heat like the plague. The lighter barrels especially start to spray once they heat up. A large number of rounds in a group will only prove that accuracy degrades as the barrel heats. Personally I would limit the number of shots per group to five...three is better. For meaningful results you want to eliminate variables external to the gun as much as possible.
 
mikethebike said:
you need at least 6 to calculate a standard deviation, so statistically if you want to be correct you need a 6 shot group, minimum. then you do a 95 percentile and that gives you your moa.
Click to expand...

Standard deviation is a useful statistic with discrete commodities like velocities, Mike. In accuracy testing it is not particularly meaningful. A simple average is much more representative - and simpler.
 
Thankfully matches and combat are never more than 5 rounds of slow fire at a time.

If you need to limit group size and fear a warm barrel to get decent groups from a supposed service rifle, it is not much of a service rifle.
 
One Lung Wonder said:
Actually - no. Barrel heat induces flyers that tend to skew statistical results. That is why the precision guys avoid barrel heat like the plague. The lighter barrels especially start to spray once they heat up. A large number of rounds in a group will only prove that accuracy degrades as the barrel heats. Personally I would limit the number of shots per group to five...three is better. For meaningful results you want to eliminate variables external to the gun as much as possible.
Click to expand...



Shocked that I have to state the obvious, but......

Barrel heat doesn't play as large a factor as you think it does, unless it is acting on other components of the rifle (heat shields, barrel bands, stocks, bedding, etc.)
Regardless, one can mitigate the effects (real or perceived) by just slowing the shooting down when shooting for groups.
 
Well now boys we are talking about two methods here - and no need to get snippy or pi$$y about it because they are both equally valid. We are simply defining accuracy by different methods. I know my method is valid because it has been used for years in the gun industry and it's standard. In my world I will use my rifle to pot a yodeller, perhaps some gophers at moderate ranges, or maybe to send a warning shot across the bow of a bear that is getting too close for comfort. That's my world.

If yours is the '3 gun/run n' gun' all you have to do is hit a man sized target out to moderate ranges in a game where speed and handling are king and accuracy is relative to that. That's fair too and I will accept that. In my world, if barrel heat opens up a group 1 MOA - that is a big deal. If yours is one where 6~8" are acceptable...1 MOA is peanuts.

It's all a matter of perspective boys. If your methods work for you, smile and run with 'em. I will be the first to agree with them in the sense that these are service rifles and it makes sense to test them under service conditions within service parameters. For me - that's boring. These guns will all function within those parameters and any difference between a Tavor and an AR or any other black gun will be purely conversational in those circumstances. However...after working with black guns for over half a decade I am finding the same holds true when you test them under rigid conditions for accuracy too. I guess the moral of the story is to find a rifle that fits - and then smile and use it.

Shoot straight, lads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom