Tavor VS Type 97??
- Thread starter Clobbersauras
- Start date
Ok - so now that the Tavor is here who's gonna do a Tavor VS Type 97 review?
Someone that owns both rifles needs to do it with pics and range reports. I know some gun nut out there has to own both...I'm eagerly awaiting someone's unbiased review
Well, apparently you missed my article in the CSSA magazine. I don't often reprint entire articles here, but just for you....
Tavor, Type 97A review.
There are two new “bullpup” rifles about to enter the Canadian market. As noted in the first issue of Canadian Shooting Sports, bullpups are NOT prohibited in Canada. This brings to four, the number of self loading bullpup rifles to be issued an FRT number recently, following the FN-PS90, the FN-FS2000. The two newest ones are the Israeli made Tavor, and the Chinese made QBZ Type 97A.
I had the pleasure of trying out the IWI (Israeli Weapons Industries) Tavor at a Tactical Rifle match held at TMSA in Pitt Meadows, BC recently.
This new rifle is being imported by CanadaAmmo.com, of North Vancouver BC. Apparently, this is the first civilian version of the Tavor to be marketed anywhere in the world! The sample we tried out was serial number 0002. The factory kept number 0001, and CanadaAmmo.com also has number 0003, although it was not at the range, as it was being tested by the RCMP technical lab at the time. Chris from CanadaAmmo.com expects to have further shipments beginning around late summer.
If the interest shown at TMSA is any indication, there will be quite a few of these rifles sold in the near future. It was handled, photographed, shot, and generally commented upon for the entire day.
I have been aware that Chris has been working on importing the Tavor for well over a year now, so I was most interested in seeing it unveiled for the first time. Chris first told me of his plans at the 2006 SHOT show in Las Vegas. We had gone down to the huge trade show together, and after he returned from a business meeting with reps from Israel, he revealed what he was working on. I have been looking forward to the arrival of them ever since.
As is typical of bullpups, the trigger group is where you might expect to find it, but the action or mechanism is separate from the trigger, with the action located much farther rearward than a traditional rifle. This allows the barrel to be set much farther back, thereby reducing the overall length of the gun. It gives it a very unusual look to it, one that some people love, and others absolutely hate! It also changes the point of balance somewhat. With the heavy action not being so far forward, the gun is not so front heavy. As such, it points very easily, and just seems lighter. One of the other shooters commented later that he was surprised how well he did at his first Tac match, and felt that the gun “did all the work”.
I was concerned about how the trigger would feel, as the linkage required between trigger and action can cause a “mushy” feel on poorly designed guns. After the match, I tried some slow, deliberate shots to concentrate on the feel of the trigger. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it had a very nice trigger pull. It had a soft take-up, followed by a crisp break. No squeaky, scratchy, mushiness at all to it. Oddly enough, during the actual match (Chris loaned the gun to several lucky shooters to run the entire match with, as he wanted to really test it), I was not aware of any sensation. In retrospect, this probably indicated that it just felt natural.
I did not have the opportunity to do any serious accuracy testing, merely shooing at steel knock down targets from the offhand position, so I cannot comment on its’ 100 metre potential.
The inner workings, such as the bolt and bolt carrier, can be removed very easily through the rear of the gun. The rubber butt plate swings downwards after a captive pin is released. The innards are simply withdrawn from the rear. This makes it very easy to clean the firearm after a long shooting session. When the rear hatch is open, the internal aluminum frame can be seen housed in the outer over-molded plastic shell. These two pieces are not separable.
Apparently, the Tavor can be set up for left handed use, but I did not get a chance to test this aspect. Firing from the left shoulder would involve changing the ejection to kick the cases out the left side, rather than the right side. The cocking handle also has a provision to be changed to the opposite side. The cocking handle is found on the left side, near the muzzle, as set up for right handed shooting. This allows you to #### the gun with your weak hand, while holding the gun in position with your right hand.
The Tavor comes standard with a Mepro 21 sight. This is a reflex type, which superimposes an orange dot on the image you see through the sight. The Mepro uses both fibre optics during daylight, and a tritium insert in low light conditions. It does not use batteries. There is some discussion about having a Picatinny rail mounted to the gun, in order to allow for more choice of sights in the future, but this is not yet confirmed.
A number of people have asked about another type of sight, the MARS unit. The MARS sight (Multi-purpose Aiming Reflex Sight) is an Israeli designed sighting system that combines a reflex sight for daytime use, and a laser for low light use. This would probably add another $1000 to the price, and yet there seems to be quite some interest in this upgrade.
The Tavor package includes a cleaning kit with several large brushes, a screw together cleaning rod, an oil bottle. Also, two pinned 5/30 round mags are included, as is a small user manual. The manual is laminated, which is a nice touch, so it should stay cleaner longer.
Right now, it is available in any colour you like, as long as it is black (to quote Henry Ford). The IWI website shows a green plastic Tavor, but this is not currently available in the civilian version. It may be available in the future.
The pricing for Tavor is $2999, plus taxes. Shipping to anywhere in Canada is included. There is a payment plan of four equal monthly payments of $749.75, plus tax. Further details can be found on their website.
It is quite surprising to see just how much interest this gun is creating. As of this writing, mid July, CanadaAmmo.com had committed orders for a surprising number of them. Chris asked that I not reveal exact numbers, but it was more than I expected. Perhaps those dealers that are getting a bit tired of being haggled by non-customers complaining about the price of a $700 bolt action rifle should consider this. It would seem that if firearms enthusiasts are lining up buy a $3000 Tavor, and possibly a $1000 MARS upgrade, then give the people what they want.
Thank you to CanadaAmmo.com for bringing in new and interesting items for the Canadian shooting sports market. I am aware of a few other projects that Chris is working on, and if only half of it comes to be, we are in for interesting times ahead!
The other new bullpup is the Chinese made Type 97A. While I knew in advance about the Tavor, the arrival of the type 97A really caught me by surprise. The first I learned of it was on a post on the mighty CanadianGunNutz.com forum. I was vaguely aware that the Chinese army had adopted a new service rifle, along with a new cartridge (5.8 x 42mm), this being known as the type 95. I had also seen on another website that there is a military export version of this rifle, known as the Type 97, which has been slightly changed to use the NATO 5.56 x 45mm round and standard NATO M16 / AR-15 magazines, but didn’t expect to see any civilian models here anytime soon. So when I learned that several had been imported in Canada, I was quite amazed.
As noted, the type 97 is the military export version (Apparently, Cambodia now uses the 97, as I have seen a photo of it in use)
The type 97A is the civilian semi-auto only model. Naturally, it does not have full auto or 3 round burst capability.
Although the few samples arrived here prior to the Tavor, my chance to test fire one came a couple of months after the Tavor test. The first five samples were brought in by Lever Arms of Vancouver, BC. The gun I was able to see, photograph and fire was the personal property of Kin Chung, owner of Lever Arms.
I did not have the chance to use it in a Tactical Rifle match, as I had hoped to, but did test fire it briefly afterwards.
It strikes me as being well made, although not as nicely finished as it could be. The magazine release, for example, seemed to be an afterthought, rather than an important part of the operating system.
It has more exposed metal parts than the Tavor does, the guts of the Tavor being housed in a plastic or polymer outer shell.
The 97A disassembles into more pieces than the Tavor, but as I like to study the technology of firearms, that’s OK with me! In any event, a captive pin is pulled out to the right at the rear of the gun, thus allowing the buttplate and upper part of the outer shell to be removed entirely. Once the buttplate is removed, the bolt carrier and bolt is withdrawn to the rear, along with the return spring and guide.
The bolt uses three large locking lugs, rather than numerous small ones like the AR-15 family. Not to imply that either is better than the other, just something that I noticed as I was studying it.
The gas system is of the short stroke type, rather than the direct impingement method found on the AR-15 series. Many people are of the opinion that direct impingement tends to foul the gun by piping exhaust gasses into the inner workings.
The cocking handle is on top of the receiver, under the carry handle. As such, it gives the appearance of being ambidextrous, but as it only ejects from the right side, it is most certainly not ambidextrous.
The trigger on the 97A is also quite acceptable. While it is a long trigger pull, it is not overly heavy, nor does it drag or squeak. I fired five slow fire shots, concentrating on the feel, and felt it was fine.
I tried firing from the prone position, to see if it could be done. I used a short 10 round magazine, and all was good. The mag did not catch on the ground at all. I had forgotten to do this on the Tavor earlier, and someone on CGN asked about it, so this time I made sure to include that as part of the test.
I tried double-tapping off quick shots, and it doesn’t jump around any more than any other 5.56mm gun.
When doing mag changes, it is possible to do so without removing the gun from your shoulder, but it will take some training to do so smoothly. The mags drop free upon pressing the mag release button, as anyone familiar with an AR-15 can relate to. However, inserting a new mag into the mag well is a bit awkward as the mag well is so far back on a bullpup design. It can be done, and I did so, but to get proficient at it will take some practice.
The rear aperture is built into the carry handle, and is very close to your eye. I suppose with a short overall length, the sight span radius is going to be reduced naturally, so putting the rear sight as far back as possible makes sense. The rear sight consists of a movable rotating wheel, sort of like a paddle wheel, that has three apertures and a post. It seems odd to have a post at the rear, and one also at the front sight. I would have expected a U-groove, or similar.
The three apertures are set at 100M, 300M, and 500M.
There is a rail built into the carry handle. However, it is not a NATO standard rail, but presumably a Chinese standard one. No word on whether future models will have a Picatinny rail built into it.
The first group of five guns are all restricted class, based on the barrel length. Kin tells me that he is trying to convince the Chinese factory to build guns for the Canadian market with slightly longer barrels (over 18.5”) to allow them to be in the non restricted class. There is also a “sniper” model with a 20” barrel, but as this is so new, the factory is concentrating on re-equipping the Chinese Army first. Kin is well aware that a non restricted model is far more preferable to most shooters.
Kin tells me that Lever Arms is planning on bringing in another 30 of the standard length model, 20 of a shorter model yet, and perhaps five of the sniper if he can get them. No promises, but they should be here about the time this issue comes out.
And no word on pricing yet, as this depends on all sorts of factors beyond his control.
As I was doing the research for this article, I heard an interesting bit of info. There might be a second importer of the type 97A, and if so, this should be good for the consumer, having two different sources to choose from. (EDIT, now I can reveal that this is CanadaAmmo.com that will be bringing in many more)
For more information on both of these rifles, go to www.world.guns.ru , including photos from this author.
Once again, thanks to Chris from CanadaAmmo.com, and to Kin Chung from Lever Arms for the chance to try both of these most interesting guns.
CGN member "Zavgor" with Tavor
TooTall with Type 97A
Last edited:
I had a chance to handle both and I shot Tavor. While I never shot 97's quality seems ok, and all things being equal I like QBU88 ( non-restricted version of 97) better. I have seen it taken apart and everything appeared pleasing my eye. It comes with interesting scope, not sure how good it is but I liked reticle. Scope is much bigger on snipers than on short ones. I would like to see some targets shot with sniper - would be the only viable comparison between the two (Tavor and 97). I do not think we should be comparing Tavors to short 97's as they are restricted.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
You need to have a look at the type 97 in person. Comparing your d to the 97 is like comparing a Chinese Tokarov to a Glock.
Time will tell...
Quality.
Durabiltiy.
Functionality.
We will have to see how each performs over the long haul.
I would have a lot more faith in engineering and manufacturing at IWI then Norinco...
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
That wasn't my intent at all. I'm more interested which is a better rifle overall. If the Type 97 didn't work well it would be worthless. As it is though it seems the jury is still out on which one is the "hands down" winner.
Tootall - thanks for the post!
I'd like to see an endurance test and a feature by feature comparison of the two.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
I'm not sure I agree with your statement. China has some of the best engineering and manufacturing facilities in the world. The type 97, in concept, is very similar to the Tavor. Although China develped a proprietary round, the 5.8 (QBZ-95), around the platform (Rifle, Carbine, LMG and sniper). They've been working on the design for 20 years.
But that's the thing about faith..it's not always based on the evidence...
Sorry I'm joking...I had to say it
Last edited:
I'll #### in a box and send it to you for free, that doesn't mean it's better.
I'm not sure I agree with your statement. China has some of the best engineering and manufacturing facilities in the world. The type 97, in concept, is very similar to the Tavor. Although China develped a proprietary round, the 5.8 (QBZ-95), around the platform (Rifle, Carbine, LMG and sniper). They've been working on the design for 20 years.
But that's the thing about faith..it's not always based on the evidence...
Can you PLEASE provide me with example of BEST engineering CHINA has to offer???
The only thing I see from them is being capable of churning out products on a massive scale....but usually very cheaply put together product.
For example...
I bought a Zstar quad(Made in China).
The rear-axle wheel bearings piled up after about 1 KM.
Upon further inspection the bearings were not sealed and contained no grease. The ball bearings themselves broke up into chunks....is this the kind of engineering excellence and quality you are speaking of....
Made in China doesn't really instill alot of confidence....
Just using it as an example of......Quality Chinese Manufacturing.....
Not saying that Norinco is junk...but I doubt it is of the same quality as IWI.
I could have bought a Polaris mini-quad for $2500 but bought Zstar for $423.....was a BIG savings....
Can you PLEASE provide me with example of BEST engineering CHINA has to offer???
The only thing I see from them is being capable of churning out products on a massive scale....but usually very cheaply put together product.
For example...
I bought a Zstar quad(Made in China).
The rear-axle wheel bearings piled up after about 1 KM.
Upon further inspection the bearings were not sealed and contained no grease. The ball bearings themselves broke up into chunks....is this the kind of engineering excellence and quality you are speaking of....
Made in China doesn't really instill alot of confidence....
When it comes to engineering, China is not that bad - it does send people onto outer space.
However, don't look for precision products from China, that's not what they good at.
I am doing business with China, their advantage/disadvantage is their supplier chain.
The quad, for example, can be done in this way:
1, Go to buy a quad from Honda
2, take it apart.
3, send parts to different suppliers
4, Put parts from suppliers together.
5, Ship to Canada.
The whole process can happen in a shop smaller than most Canadian house.
If it's a good sell, they can increase capacity 100 times over night.
Then they will put in a QC department
The major advantage of this way is it takes very little to start up. However, sometimes they don't know what they are dealing with, for example:
1, Quad - there is not quad market in China, so nobody even drive a quad before!!!
2, Toys - a big toy can be break down to small assembles, then break down again into parts. Suppliers may not even not it's toy parts. Some time wrong paint was used.
Canada received major benefit from this "Made in China" madness. Oil is the king!
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Do products from Intel, Dell, Sony, IBM, Motorola, or Microsoft count?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3787031.htm
