Tavor VS Type 97??
- Thread starter Clobbersauras
- Start date
- Location
- on the road again
The Tavor guys talked to doc lector and they went thru some details and rules about the contest. They didn't reach a consensus on everything, but the most important details have been discussed. Lector is supposed to make everything public, but he didn't say nothing yet. Still waiting.........
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
I'm not trying to give hell to anybody.
I only try to hold my own in this thing
that was proposed to me.
I talked to Pete C., who, in my understanding is
the leader (or the spokesperson) of the guys
in the Tavor team.
This is the short version of the discussions so far.
They are more reasonable in their
proposals than I believed.
They asked so far 3 things
and I was more than happy to agree:
1. Bobby Williams as referee.
I cannot think of anybody
more suitable for the position of range referee.
Anybody (from team Tavor)
who sees a conflict of interest
will have to talk to Pete C. ASAP.
2. Pete said that 5 shot groups are better suited.
I cannot agree more.
It is hard sometimes to distinguish between and count
the correct number of holes without moving paper
in the back of the target if we shoot 10rnds groups.
We will go with 5 shot groups.
However, this cuts in half the total number of shots.
Therefore, in order to realistically prove a rifle
I suggested we go
with a total number of at least 200 groups
instead of my initial proposal of 100 groups.
Pete said he will have to discuss my suggestion
with the rest of his team.
I almost forgot:
We have also agreed to unlimited number of sighters
(but each of us from very different reasons
).
3. Teams of 5-6 persons.
I am fine with that.
(as for me, I will shoot with only
one partner, though).
I hope all their team’s members will shoot.
But if somebody needs cheerleading, team coaching
or alike, keep it discreet and within the 5-6 members.
No unwanted presence at the other team’s table.
No watchers, no mouth-breathers, no bozos.
After debating for few days,
we have also agreed on the following
about the hardware:
Guns: Unlimited mods as long as it is legal.
Optics: unlimited.
Mags: anything legal, unlimited number of mags.
Stands: unlimited, but:
No vises, no clamps, no brackets,
no strapping to the table or to fixed objects.
Bipods ok.
Muzzle accessories: anything legal.
Additional accessories
(spotting scopes, etc): unlimited.
Ammo: ready or reloads, anything legal.
I had only 2 main proposals of my own:
1. Measurement of the groups
and calculating the results:
No aggregates, no grand aggregates,
no medians, no indexing, no simple or multiple folding,
no empiric bullshyte, no non-sense,
no complicated formulas, no nothing.
Just simple arithmetic average:
the sum of all the measured values
divided by the number of measurements.
Plain and simple.
They happily agreed with it.
2. We will bet our rifles.
(The winner takes it all...).
I hope they will agree with it.
Now I have to wait in my corner so
they can discuss between them
some of the details and they will get back to me.
I only try to hold my own in this thing
that was proposed to me.
I talked to Pete C., who, in my understanding is
the leader (or the spokesperson) of the guys
in the Tavor team.
This is the short version of the discussions so far.
They are more reasonable in their
proposals than I believed.
They asked so far 3 things
and I was more than happy to agree:
1. Bobby Williams as referee.
I cannot think of anybody
more suitable for the position of range referee.
Anybody (from team Tavor)
who sees a conflict of interest
will have to talk to Pete C. ASAP.
2. Pete said that 5 shot groups are better suited.
I cannot agree more.
It is hard sometimes to distinguish between and count
the correct number of holes without moving paper
in the back of the target if we shoot 10rnds groups.
We will go with 5 shot groups.
However, this cuts in half the total number of shots.
Therefore, in order to realistically prove a rifle
I suggested we go
with a total number of at least 200 groups
instead of my initial proposal of 100 groups.
Pete said he will have to discuss my suggestion
with the rest of his team.
I almost forgot:
We have also agreed to unlimited number of sighters
(but each of us from very different reasons
).3. Teams of 5-6 persons.
I am fine with that.
(as for me, I will shoot with only
one partner, though).
I hope all their team’s members will shoot.
But if somebody needs cheerleading, team coaching
or alike, keep it discreet and within the 5-6 members.
No unwanted presence at the other team’s table.
No watchers, no mouth-breathers, no bozos.
After debating for few days,
we have also agreed on the following
about the hardware:
Guns: Unlimited mods as long as it is legal.
Optics: unlimited.
Mags: anything legal, unlimited number of mags.
Stands: unlimited, but:
No vises, no clamps, no brackets,
no strapping to the table or to fixed objects.
Bipods ok.
Muzzle accessories: anything legal.
Additional accessories
(spotting scopes, etc): unlimited.
Ammo: ready or reloads, anything legal.
I had only 2 main proposals of my own:
1. Measurement of the groups
and calculating the results:
No aggregates, no grand aggregates,
no medians, no indexing, no simple or multiple folding,
no empiric bullshyte, no non-sense,
no complicated formulas, no nothing.
Just simple arithmetic average:
the sum of all the measured values
divided by the number of measurements.
Plain and simple.
They happily agreed with it.
2. We will bet our rifles.
(The winner takes it all...).
I hope they will agree with it.
Now I have to wait in my corner so
they can discuss between them
some of the details and they will get back to me.
Last edited:
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Lector this sounds serious! After seeing your groups posted by 22 short I have full confidence in you...will the final results be posted on this thread? I used to shot competative prone small bore and the concentration needed to clear a ten target sheet is extreme let alone 100 to 200 5 shot groups...this is a very interesting contest.
Gotta love that offset
TDC
TDC the FAMAS was never designed to use a scope and there fore the offset problem and while the FAMAS is an ugly rifle it is extremely easy to handle and shoot[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt your information. The fact remains, that offset with a carry handle mounted optic is extreme and not conducive to short range shooting.
TDC
Last edited:
It was about time.
Stay away from the bacon as well, fat boy.
- Location
- on the road again
Just to prove Lector is an a**hole sometimes.
Do you actually realize how much of a deterrent this is? How can you come with such conditions? Why risk losing a rifle because of a competition? You make me hate you.
Now why is it necessarry to shoot so many rounds? This will put undue pressure on the competitors. You and your ideas about how to "prove" a rifle
Last edited:
- Location
- on the road again
The 97 used in this was my rifle. Without any modifications, with 4-6X scope, i could shoot an average of 2.5"-3". Lector could shoot tighter than me maybe 1/2" and that is arguable. I shot very little the Tavor I had plus another one that I put few rounds thru. The best i could do was 4" mainly because of the trigger. 97 has a much better factory trigger. The Tavor used in this competition has the trigger modified by Mr. Ari Friedman (sp) who was a professional armourer with the Israeli Armed Forces for about 16 years and recently moved to the States. He gladly drove 200 miles from his home in US to Vancouver BC to do this with absolutely no payment for the work. He will be back in the day of the shoot because he is part of the team Tavor.
I did not shoot this Tavor yet but I hope they will let me try few rounds.
I did not shoot this Tavor yet but I hope they will let me try few rounds.
While that is impressive. I somehow doubt that I'd get an ex Israeli armorer to come over to my place and fix the trigger for me.
My concern is this competition has become a bragging rights only thing.
IE it will be completely useless as a means of comparision for the average consumer.
Don't get me wrong. It sounds like fun. I'd still like to read about it, but I won't be making any purchasing decision based on the results
My concern is this competition has become a bragging rights only thing.
IE it will be completely useless as a means of comparision for the average consumer.
Don't get me wrong. It sounds like fun. I'd still like to read about it, but I won't be making any purchasing decision based on the results
aznshooter
Regular
- Location
- Southern Ontario
Have they considered competitors using BOTH rifles and compiling total scores? Best shooter will get bragging rights and we can have
I agree that the rifles should be stock with identical optics for standardized baseline.
Logic is based on each competitor shooting to the best of their ability with each rifle, which should minimize the effect of varying skill levels.
Excuse my ignorance, but what ammo does the Norco prefer, not sure what the specifics of the barrel are but if it can take 77g HPBT then both should produce some nice tight groups.
I agree that the rifles should be stock with identical optics for standardized baseline.
Logic is based on each competitor shooting to the best of their ability with each rifle, which should minimize the effect of varying skill levels.
Excuse my ignorance, but what ammo does the Norco prefer, not sure what the specifics of the barrel are but if it can take 77g HPBT then both should produce some nice tight groups.
