Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Israel's "Tabor" military rifle.

  1. #11
    Happy Camper hcpookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,700
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    "ALL OF THE ABOVE". Numerous posts (including mine!) and websites discussing the reasons why the bullpup design exists. Remember guys "form follows function". You don't get a bunch of weapons designers sitting around the salon saying "oh Stephan I wish we could make a gun that looks FABULOUS - but first, more gel for your FABULOUS hair"! It is a telling point that there are so many bullpup designs adopted by countries as their nation's choice for their main battle implement.

    The reason THIS bullpup is so interesting is that it has been around for 10 years and can actually say it has been "battle proven". Whatever that means... that phrase seems to make it get a stamp of approval that it really does work. Or something.
    Gunco Member #10

    http://pookieweb.net


    The "original" Boltcutter Rivet Squeezers:
    http://pookieweb.net/AK/rivet/boltcutters/boltcutter.htm


    Project Pink - the Pink and Blue AK-74:
    http://pookieweb.net/pink/pink.htm

  2. #12
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,349
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default

    i don' tknow HC, i remember those brits and their SA.s -- i ain't completely sold on the idea that somehow moving the action under ones head is a super-duper fix all for an assault rifle or any kind of combat arm, more complex, more expensive , heavy and square shaped. being shorter helps, some--but it is a trade off. some times the trade off is a negative one.

    if you could make a BP that was lighter, more durable, cheaper to make , simple and accurate then people are going to beat down a path to your door. so far there has not been ONE that can exceed existing designs in ALL those requirements and only a few that exceed them in ONE .

    several places adopted the AUG , only to go back to more conventional set ups . and it hasn't really seem much combat yet. a few spc- ops running some tuned up versions ain't like they sent 500,000 to capture iwo-jima or normandy, or defended stalingrad with the damn things.

    so far i haven't seen anybody who really is doing the bulk of the real combat use these as the man arm. if anybody is going to test it will be the IDF. i figure their going to have plenty of chances to run their war machine hard and for real in the near future if it don't run well the battlefield ain't gonna lie.

    the tabor is at least a shot at the prize ring , it is a bit early to declare it a "winner".

  3. #13
    No Hope For Me Coils's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    PA Where the Amish Roam Free
    Posts
    14,039
    Feedback Score
    38 (100%)

    Default

    Just do a youtube search on Tavor, there's a few good videos of it
    "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem" Ronald Reagan

  4. #14
    Happy Camper hcpookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,700
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    The Brits' L-85 is a special case. If you read the history of that particular firearm you'll see what I mean. It is the prime example of how NOT to design and deploy a firearm! So let's not count that one OK? LOL They are stuck with it for a while longer and intend to adopt an AR-style rifle when I last read about it. Something from HK. The irony of British use of an American design built by German production doesn't escape me

    As far as adoption history is concerned, I can readily count many countries that use them. Remember one of the largest users of bullpups would be CHINA! Not sure if they are "going away" from them but the French have used one for years, and the Russians have numerous bullpups they actively employ in Chechnya. Those are perhaps the biggest ones that have been used "in combat". As you say there are lots of countries using them and I'm sure most drill and train with them in whatever training facilities they have for their troops. I mean, you don't just carry the rifle around all day and don't train on it, right? I've seen documented use of the FN bullpup in the Sandbox by (I assume) Belgian troops. And the P90, although technically a PDW and not a real "battle rifle" is in widespread use. Aussie troops use the Steyr, as does probably a dozen different countries both in the sand and elsewhere. Ukraine, Croatia, Singapore, all have their own flavors for military use.

    As far as "combat proven" I really think that those who stand behind that crutch are all Armchair Admirals that don't really understand product development lifecycles. Consider the hundreds of "product improvements" the AR has had, and I think the logic is that unless "rifle X" undergoes the same process you'll never get there. Implying of course that the out-of-box design is fundamentally flawed and must be improved. Well, mechanical engineers are smarter than that and tend to look to the past to recognize and learn from the mistakes of others. So I tend to disagree that as a general rule the rifle MUST go through "battle testing". Normal wear-and-tear use by any customer, military or otherwise, will reveal design issues that need to be addressed. My point being that you just need to give it TIME. One could infer that my SIG 556-R is "battle ready" because it is based on a design that's been around from the 70's and even longer than that. But it isn't "battle tested" LOL

    I don't know. I tend to favor the bullpup design. Trigger pull is the one issue when a design isn't built as a bullpup design... you slap on normal trigger parts and add gizmos to make it work in a bullpup and you'll have problems. I think a good design will iron out the trigger pull issue. When done right, you don't have a problem with right-hand-vs.-left-hand use. There are designs that can be used to eliminate that issue. But "proper" use and training can mitigate that factor.

    Now, the Tavor has been around for 10 years and my reading of its design suggests there will be very little in the department of "factory recall" issues because the engineers set about to do it 'right'. And it has done battle with their continual spat of border incursions into Lebanon and the surrounding areas, so it is qualified more than others by those who feel that is a "requirement" for a rifle. I've read they are going to have 5.45 conversion kits as well as a 9mm conversion kit. No word on whether that will really happen, but it has been announced. I think it is a "drop-in" barrel swap deal but who knows.
    Gunco Member #10

    http://pookieweb.net


    The "original" Boltcutter Rivet Squeezers:
    http://pookieweb.net/AK/rivet/boltcutters/boltcutter.htm


    Project Pink - the Pink and Blue AK-74:
    http://pookieweb.net/pink/pink.htm

  5. #15
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,349
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default

    yea the 85 was a turkey-- even HK couldn't cure its ills--LOL

    some of its problems were the lowest bidder type of problems.

    i can recall broken pieces falling out of them, when clearing the many jams.

  6. #16
    GuncoHolic Tommo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,998
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    Brits did the same thing with the FN designed FAL and MAG. They cheapened the designs/materials which resulted in problems like cracking receivers and rivets.

  7. #17
    GuncoHolic Sprat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,711
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default

    I got to handle a Tavor last week at a gunshow in Port Charlotte, interesting, well made, but the seller wanted over 3K for it, they retailer for just under 2k, they also had a few stg-44 in 22lr there for around $550.00
    I picked up a East German marked P-38 to round out my collection
    Sprat and sprat1 are one and the same.

  8. #18
    AKAHOLIC o.d. ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South West Missouri
    Posts
    1,587
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    Bad design, imo. Need a special bolt and you have to disassemble the gun to switch to left handed operation. This may have been acceptable in the late 70's when the steyr AUG was designed but for a gun this new its unacceptable.

    The F2000 (FS2000 in civi trim) is completely ambidextrous out of the box and needs no adjustment to shoot from either shoulder. The same is true of the P90 but that's more of a carbine/PDW than rifle. I also believe the .308 Kel-tec bullpup is also completely ambi out of the box.

    The tavor is interesting but its design is already dated and honestly not very well thought out. IMO

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •