Why Bullpups are SICKKKKK!

TDC said:
Even the fast bullpup reloads have problems. For starters they're executed without gear/armor. Second, all participants have to look DOWN to execute the reload. This is a non issue for conventional rifles. How do you retrieve a fresh magazine with your support hand while simultaneously dumping your empty mag?? Oh right, you can't!! That alone will add time to the movement which is not experienced with several conventional rifles. Even the "rock and lock" rifles like the VZ can be reloaded by using the full magazine to eject the spent magazine. One motion for two actions. How do you shoot SBU with a magazine sticking out of the stock? How do you reload when prone?

TDC
Click to expand...

The Tavor is a rifleman's rifle. It gives rifle length (not carbine) barrels in a very nice to handle rifle. Shoot one of these off hand in standing, sitting (I use legs crossed) and prone. This rifle balances beautifully without extra supports (web belt, mag carriers or the RCMP upside down baton trick). Shoot it at 100 plus yards. Then you'll see why this rifle is an improvement over the conventional design.

There's also the argument regarding the required barrel length and the velocity needed for the 5.56/.223 ammo to tumble on impact. Other's have gone into more detail regarding this issue than I can.

Fast mag changes are a distant second place to me compared to how the rifle balances and shoots. You can change mags fast enough for my purposes. I'll be looking for cover to do a mag change anyways regardless of which rifle. The improved balance and the shooters ability to hold the rifle on target easier is a huge plus. More accurate shots means less need to change mags due to misses. ;)

How do you change the mags in prone etc? Easy you tilt the rifle. The same as with an AK, CZ etc. It's closer to your chest but not right in it. You can still do mag changes.

By the way you can't change a mag with a CZ/VZ 858/58 using another mag without the new after market modifications. The mag release is partially enclosed and difficult to get at. You're thinking of the Ak. A mag on the CZ doesn't fit into the mag release to activate it. There are new modifications available which allow you to, but they've only just come out as a commercial product. Up until now, they were owner mods only.

The bottom line. Shoot one of these offhand and you'll see what all the fuss is about.
 
its easy to criticize about something you never used.

Its like saying porsches are slow because the new gtr is faster on the nurburgring:rolleyes:.
 
Epoxy7 said:
The Tavor is a rifleman's rifle. It gives rifle length (not carbine) barrels in a very nice to handle rifle. Shoot one of these off hand in standing, sitting (I use legs crossed) and prone. This rifle balances beautifully without extra supports (web belt, mag carriers or the RCMP upside down baton trick). Shoot it at 100 plus yards. Then you'll see why this rifle is an improvement over the conventional design.

There's also the argument regarding the required barrel length and the velocity needed for the 5.56/.223 ammo to tumble on impact. Other's have gone into more detail regarding this issue than I can.

Fast mag changes are a distant second place to me compared to how the rifle balances and shoots. You can change mags fast enough for my purposes. I'll be looking for cover to do a mag change anyways regardless of which rifle. The improved balance and the shooters ability to hold the rifle on target easier is a huge plus. More accurate shots means less need to change mags due to misses. ;)

How do you change the mags in prone etc? Easy you tilt the rifle. The same as with an AK, CZ etc. It's closer to your chest but not right in it. You can still do mag changes.

By the way you can't change a mag with a CZ/VZ 858/58 using another mag without the new after market modifications. The mag release is partially enclosed and difficult to get at. You're thinking of the Ak. A mag on the CZ doesn't fit into the mag release to activate it. There are new modifications available which allow you to, but they've only just come out as a commercial product. Up until now, they were owner mods only.

The bottom line. Shoot one of these offhand and you'll see what all the fuss is about.
Click to expand...


The velocity required to "tumble" the projectile is a moot point. All projectiles with a greater length than width will tumble. It is fragmentation that is the concern as that is the primary wounding characteristic of the 5.56 projectile, namely the M193 and M855 offerings. It is common knowledge that a 16" barrel produces approximately 94% of the velocity achieved in a 20" barrel making it the "happy" alternative to a full size rifle.

As for the balance of the Tavor. I have shot one and it wasn't awe inspiring. The excessive offset and difficult mag changes offset the advantage of the longer barrel and better balance point.

As for the VZ. You are wrong. Having done mag changes by using a new magazine to eject a spent one I can tell you it can be done, in fact it can be done in under 4 second(closer to 3.5 seconds) from the buzzer. The protected wing of the trigger guard needs to be removed and the addition of a Dlask extended mag release doesn't hurt. Although I know some who accomplish the same task with the factory release.

TDC
 
TDC said:
The velocity required to "tumble" the projectile is a moot point. All projectiles with a greater length than width will tumble. It is fragmentation that is the concern as that is the primary wounding characteristic of the 5.56 projectile, namely the M193 and M855 offerings. It is common knowledge that a 16" barrel produces approximately 94% of the velocity achieved in a 20" barrel making it the "happy" alternative to a full size rifle.
Click to expand...

Like I said with regards to the tumbling round etc, others know more about that than I do.

However considering the twist rate is 1:7 on the Tavor it allows you to shoot the heavier ammo. The extra velocity does make a difference, especially with heavier ammo and of course greater distances. Excellent for target shooters, varminters and helps extend the accuracy (The accuracy is from the ammo/BC not the velocity)/range of a rifleman. The extra velocity from the longer barrel definitely assists with shooting the heavier rounds.

Also the M4 carbine doesn't have a 16" barrel it has a 14.5" barrel. I believe the M16a2 is a 20" barrel? Just something I wanted to point out. Our civilian versions have the 16" barrel not the general issued military ones. The military Tavor is at 18.1" I believe. 18" barrel in a package the length of a 14.5" carbine. T.A.R 21 overall length is 28.5", M4 overall length with the stock completely collapsed (14.5" barrel) 29.8".

In otherwords our Canadian civilian Tavors with 18.5" barrels are still .9" shorter than a true M4 with the stock completely collapsed.

As for the balance of the Tavor. I have shot one and it wasn't awe inspiring. The excessive offset and difficult mag changes offset the advantage of the longer barrel and better balance point.
Click to expand...

I've also shot a Tavor in three positional shooting at 100 yards. With a magnified scope (Elcan in the case of the one I shot) you really do notice the superior balance in all three positions. The further out you get the more of an advantage the balance and rifle length are. Plus the more magnification you have, the more of an advantage since it's much easier to keep the reticle on your target for longer, and with less moving around.

As for the VZ. You are wrong. Having done mag changes by using a new magazine to eject a spent one I can tell you it can be done, in fact it can be done in under 4 second(closer to 3.5 seconds) from the buzzer. The protected wing of the trigger guard needs to be removed and the addition of a Dlask extended mag release doesn't hurt. Although I know some who accomplish the same task with the factory release.TDC
Click to expand...

I also own a CZ 858 and there is no way I would use another mag to do mag changes without any modifications.
 
Last edited:
I see where you're coming from Epoxy7 but the length issue isn't one. As I mentioned, the ballistic advantage of the 18" barrel is moot when compared to a 16" carbine. I'm not concerned about what is issued(although it plays a role when discussing these two systems) I am concerned about what can be had to mitigate the advantages of one system over the other. If you're measurements are correct(which I'm sure they are) the benefit of a 16" barrel will only add 1.5" to the overall length when compared to the M4, an increase that is negligible. The minor length advantage of a Tavor with its 18" barrel(and accompanying ballistics) and fixed stock are trumped by the fact the AR series has an adjustable LOP. The balance is great, but it goes to waste if the rifle doesn't fit properly, especially in the case of optics and eye relief.

TDC
 
TDC said:
I see where you're coming from Epoxy7 but the length issue isn't one. As I mentioned, the ballistic advantage of the 18" barrel is moot when compared to a 16" carbine. I'm not concerned about what is issued(although it plays a role when discussing these two systems) I am concerned about what can be had to mitigate the advantages of one system over the other. If you're measurements are correct(which I'm sure they are) the benefit of a 16" barrel will only add 1.5" to the overall length when compared to the M4, an increase that is negligible. The minor length advantage of a Tavor with its 18" barrel(and accompanying ballistics) and fixed stock are trumped by the fact the AR series has an adjustable LOP. The balance is great, but it goes to waste if the rifle doesn't fit properly, especially in the case of optics and eye relief.

TDC
Click to expand...

Keep in mind those measurements for the M4 which (obtained online from Wikepedia but appeared to be accurate) are with the stock fully collapsed. I never shoot mine with the stock fully collapsed. So add in whatever length you would typically have your stock at.

With the .9" difference and now the 1.5" of the 16" barrel, you're at 2.4" plus whatever extra your stock would be set at for proper firing. I usually have mine second from the last spot for regular non CQB shooting. I measured this on my Stag 2t which has a 5 position adjustable Magpul CTR stock on it. My comfortable regular shooting position adds another 3.75" to the length. For CQB I had it one click out, so just about .75".

So in my case for regular shooting ie 100 yards offhand I would generally have about +6" in length for range shooting and +3" for CQB work over the Tavor.

Another thing to consider for balancing the rifle. You're dealing with a lever action in terms of weight and strength required to hold the rifle in position with your weak hand. Any distance further from your body amplifies the amount of strength required to hold the rifle steady. This is even more so with Conventional rifles since a lot of their weight is in the middle or near the front, while the Tavor is much lighter in the front and heavier near back towards the centre mass of the shooter. You'll see most people shooting free hand try to have their weak hand in as close to their body as possible in order to have the most strength/stability. A shorter rifle with the weight near the rear helps this a lot.

The overall weight of the M4 when empty is 5.9 pounds The M16A2 with 20" barrel is 7.8 pounds. A Tavor TAR 21 is 7.21 pounds. So it's around the same weight empty as a 16" barreled AR rifle. But.... the weight is more in the front of the rifle with the AR/M4/M16 rifle than the Tavor so it will feel heavier even while at the same weight. See above lever effect. The further from the body the more strength required even for the same weight.

Now here comes the important point. Those weights are empty. With a 30 round full mag (yes I know we can't use them, but that's what they were designed for) you're looking at another pound of weight. But.... that pound is significantly forward on the AR rifle vs the Tavor. Again the lever effect. This works out to a lot more than a pound in weight.

This is again amplified when trying to hold a 3-4x magnified sight on a target at 100 yards. The further out and the more accurate you're trying to be the bigger difference it makes. Especially if you have to hold the rifle on target for any length of time.

You can also see from my comparison that the heavier the rifle, the bigger the caliber the bigger the advantage the bullpup rifle has for the shooter. IE think Kel-Tec RFB vs AR-10

I've shot the TAvor and I really liked it. Others might not.
 
Epoxy7 said:
Keep in mind those measurements for the M4 which (obtained online from Wikepedia but appeared to be accurate) are with the stock fully collapsed. I never shoot mine with the stock fully collapsed. So add in whatever length you would typically have your stock at.

With the .9" difference and now the 1.5" of the 16" barrel, you're at 2.4" plus whatever extra your stock would be set at for proper firing. I usually have mine second from the last spot for regular non CQB shooting. I measured this on my Stag 2t which has a 5 position adjustable Magpul CTR stock on it. My comfortable regular shooting position adds another 3.75" to the length. For CQB I had it one click out, so just about .75".

So in my case for regular shooting ie 100 yards offhand I would generally have about +6" in length for range shooting and +3" for CQB work over the Tavor.

Another thing to consider for balancing the rifle. You're dealing with a lever action in terms of weight and strength required to hold the rifle in position with your weak hand. Any distance further from your body amplifies the amount of strength required to hold the rifle steady. This is even more so with Conventional rifles since a lot of their weight is in the middle or near the front, while the Tavor is much lighter in the front and heavier near back towards the centre mass of the shooter. You'll see most people shooting free hand try to have their weak hand in as close to their body as possible in order to have the most strength/stability. A shorter rifle with the weight near the rear helps this a lot.

The overall weight of the M4 when empty is 5.9 pounds The M16A2 with 20" barrel is 7.8 pounds. A Tavor TAR 21 is 7.21 pounds. So it's around the same weight empty as a 16" barreled AR rifle. But.... the weight is more in the front of the rifle with the AR/M4/M16 rifle than the Tavor so it will feel heavier even while at the same weight. See above lever effect. The further from the body the more strength required even for the same weight.

Now here comes the important point. Those weights are empty. With a 30 round full mag (yes I know we can't use them, but that's what they were designed for) you're looking at another pound of weight. But.... that pound is significantly forward on the AR rifle vs the Tavor. Again the lever effect. This works out to a lot more than a pound in weight.

This is again amplified when trying to hold a 3-4x magnified sight on a target at 100 yards. The further out and the more accurate you're trying to be the bigger difference it makes. Especially if you have to hold the rifle on target for any length of time.

You can also see from my comparison that the heavier the rifle, the bigger the caliber the bigger the advantage the bullpup rifle has for the shooter. IE think Kel-Tec RFB vs AR-10

I've shot the TAvor and I really liked it. Others might not.
Click to expand...

Some valid points, which can be mitigated by proper technique and equipment.

The balance is great, I won't argue that. The increased weight of an M4 or 16" carbine is not enough to make offhand shots difficult by any means regardless of whether or not you run 5 rounds or 30. Moving ones support hand in close is the result of extended exposure time("exposure time to failure") with the rifle mounted. This effect will take place with the Tavor as well, albeit over a longer period of time. That being said, making/taking the shot should neither meet nor exceed the "exposure time to failure" (for the support hand) with either system. If the shot is particularly long and the window of opportunity is such that an extended exposure is possible; You should seek a better position to shoot from. Offhand is a horrible position for long range precision shots. Lets keep in mind that your elbows should be rolled under the rifle so as to support it with your skeletal structure, not your muscles. It has been noted by others that if you cannot hold your loaded rifle for one minute at arms length then it is too heavy, i.e. there is too much crap hanging off it or you need to hit the gym. Some say the same one minute rule applies but with the rifle mounted. Either way, a minute is a significant amount of time to be on target, if you can't get the shot in a minute, you're not going to from that position and/or location.

A magnified optic is not necessary for 100 yard shots. Of course this is entirely dependent on what style of shooting you are engaged in. If we're discussing the merits of both systems in the context of their original intended purpose(military roles), there is most definitely no need for a magnified optic. On the contrary, if you engage in service rifle type shooting or similar accuracy based events. A magnified optic is an asset and the issues illustrated above come into play with regards to shooter fatigue. Of course, if we're discussing the "sporting" aspects of the Tavor, then we must exclude its benefits for CQB as they don't apply.

TDC
 
I love how EDC and Epoxy start each reply or have it slipped in somewhere" AS I MENTIONED" maybe its time to agree to disagree. It has been an time killing read for me.
 
grymt14 said:
I love how EDC and Epoxy start each reply or have it slipped in somewhere" AS I MENTIONED" maybe its time to agree to disagree. It has been an time killing read for me.
Click to expand...

Then don't read it. ;)

Bottom line is TDC and I do agree on many points. Where we disagree is on whether or not the advantages of the Tavor outweight the disadvantages. In some cases yes, in others no. As a General issue combat rifle I like the advantages. As a potential patrol carbine in police service I also like a lot of the advantages. For just fun shooting, I like the advantages. That being said I would happily use an AR/M4/M16 as well.
 
Last edited:
Epoxy7 said:
Then don't read it. ;)

Bottom line is TDC and I do agree on many points. Where we disagree is on whether or not the advantages of the Tavor outweight the disadvantages. In some cases yes, in others no. As a General issue combat rifle I like the advantages. As a potential patrol carbine in police service I also like a lot of the advantages. For just fun shooting, I like the advantages. That being said I would happily use an AR/M4/M16 as well.
Click to expand...

Well put Epoxy..:)

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom