Weapons Video!

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

A link to an Israeli (IWI) weapons site. A good video on the (bull-pup) Tavor weapons system.

http://www.israel-weapon.com/default...C879B9BDCCD%7D

[ZoneOne]

Great video, thanks for posting.

I really like the last animation

:-)

[Five-O]

Anyone have any practical experience with this weapons system?

[smp52]

I don't know anything about the Tavor, but using 9-11 images to sell their product isn't in good taste. Any defense contractor using 9-11 images to sell their product isn't right, IMHO. I'm cool with our government using it, but not private (or other nation's subsidized) contractors using them for marketing purposes.

From what little I know, they've had issues in the development of it over the years. I saw a Discovery/History channel thing, with a former SEAL as the host, checking the weapon out in Israel. He seemed to like it.

Wikipedia's entry on the Tavor.

[TFM]

Day and night sights you don't have to zero. How does that work?

[CDRODA396]

Saw this on one of those Discovery Channel shows, seemed fairly effective. I wonder if the IDF has actually bought/fielded any of these, and if so how they performed during the recent "activities" in southern Lebanon?

[kgoerz]

I want one......Only thing I noticed it was geared for civilians. No mention of exact accuracy, Type of round used, Weight, Mag Capacity or Collapsible Stock, Barrel Capacity, Construction Material.....etc.etc. Most gun and Scope manufactures guarantee a very low MOA change to warrant not rezeroing, when changing Optics. But I still want one.

[jbour13]

Originally Posted by CDRODA396

Saw this on one of those Discovery Channel shows, seemed fairly effective. I wonder if the IDF has actually bought/fielded any of these, and if so how they performed during the recent "activities" in southern Lebanon?

I saw the same show, weapons trainer from the IDF said they would try full fielding this August. It was fielded to the Givati Brigade during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002 and received favorable reviews. It's also been seen in the hands of Israeli SF.

With modifications it's capable of left hand firing. The ejection port and charging handle can be swapped to the other side.

It has a few minor drawbacks. It'll take time to field, train, and implement like any other weapon. It's 3 times the cost of an M-4/ M-16. I'd like to give it a go and see how it feels.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by jbour13

I saw the same show, weapons trainer from the IDF said they would try full fielding this August. It was fielded to the Givati Brigade during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002 and received favorable reviews. It's also been seen in the hands of Israeli SF.

With modifications it's capable of left hand firing. The ejection port and charging handle can be swapped to the other side.

It has a few minor drawbacks. It'll take time to field, train, and implement like any other weapon. It's 3 times the cost of an M-4/ M-16. I'd like to give it a go and see how it feels.

Roger:

Surprisingly that is exactly what the Wikipidia article said. I am not a moderator but please -- give credit where it is due.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

I want one......Only thing I noticed it was geared for civilians. No mention of exact accuracy, Type of round used, Weight, Mag Capacity or Collapsible Stock, Barrel Capacity, Construction Material.....etc.etc. Most gun and Scope manufactures guarantee a very low MOA change to warrant not rezeroing, when changing Optics. But I still want one.

KG:

First thing I noted about that particular design is that is is actually designed to fit a human being wearing body armor and with a combat load. IMHO the major drawback of the M-4 is that it doesn't fit a soldier. Then I read the article on this design and it first stated that the weapon was designed with full ergonomics. That to me is a major plus. The ergonomics means a huge amount in terms of consistent accuracy and speed. I saw it when I looked at the stock design.

From there it becomes an issue of barrels over almost anything else. If they are making some decent barrels, it will be accurate enough for combat. My view of 'combat accuracy' is two minutes of angle without human error.

After barrels, it becomes one of bullet design and manufacture QC. You can have problems with powder and primers, brass consistency, neck tension etc. They do mean something but not as much as bullet design and manufacture. The issued M-855 Ball (IMHO) is only slightly better than the old issued M-2 Ball 30-06 -- which must be the absolutely worse designed and made bullet I have ever fired. If the Army made a better bullet -- even the old M-193 55 grain ball -- one would get 2 MOA out of a service grade rifle and ammo which is one hell of a-lot better than anything the Soviet Union ever made or the Post Soviet Union for that matter.

Then the trigger. I have seen guys dominate the absolute mess of a trigger found in the issued M-4. No service rifle or carbine I have shot has had a worse trigger than the issued M-4 but guys can train themselves to dominate that particular abortion of design and quality control to degrees that continues to amaze me. Provide a decent DM with a carbine that has a decent barrel, firing a decent bullet, with a decent trigger and you have something going.

I think the ergonomics of this particular design are very sound. That implies to me that more than likely the rest of the rifle is also sound.

This comes from someone who doesn't like the bullpup design.

Gene