Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 19, 2017, 06:34:15 PM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  IWI Tavor & X-95
| | |-+  Tavor vs AR15 article
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Tavor vs AR15 article  (Read 2287 times)
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,440


« on: April 09, 2017, 07:51:55 PM »

So this guy wrote a rather lengthy and detailed article comparing and contrasting the AR15 with the Tavor. The article seems to be fairly well researched, and I agree with many of his points (despite a few references to that idiot NutNFancy guy, yuck) such as how the Tavor has slightly more muzzle flip than an AR, but the Tavor is easier to shoot off hand and has better ergonomics.  I acknowledge that the AR15 is slimmer and easier to shoot accurately, but the one thing that caught my eye is his claim that the Tavor is less reliable than an AR15.

I admit that a high quality, well cared for AR15 from a good manufacturer such as DD, Colt or BCM is very reliable. But I always figured the Tavor to be an exceptionally reliable rifle, almost as if it was built centrally around that purpose.

The guy's claim seems to be that the Tavor is more sealed off internally than the AR15 and thus accumulates more fouling and vents off heat less efficiently, which in turn leads to more stoppages (like failures to extract) during high round count firing sessions (esp. when suppressed).  I don't understand his reasoning. The AR15 is a highly sealed off design (he even acknowledges this later in his writing). And while the Tavor certainly does get pretty filthy, I don't see it being a major culprit for failures. He wrote alot more about the technical aspects of the Tavor's internals leading to problems; I'll let you guys read it yourselves.

http://www.verytraumatic.com/blog/tavor-bullpup-vs-ar-15-2016-review-which-is-the-better-rifle

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 07:56:57 PM by Frostburg » Logged
Hivedr.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2017, 09:43:02 PM »

Did this guy even read the Army's M4 dust testing results and see how badly it failed when compared to the other three rifles in the test.  The IDF read the test data and compared it to years of hard field use with the M4/M16. I am sure the data was used during testing of the Tavor and had not the Tavor been superior to the M4/M16 I don't think the IDF would have switched given the ridiculous low price they paid for M4/M16s (FREE as part of our military aid packages, all be it used ones) when compared to the high price (~$1000) for each Tavor.  

Now the Tavor might not be the best rifle for suppressors, but then neither are a lot of modern rifles and just how many folks own suppressors? 1% maybe 2% of all MSR owners. I for one am not at all concerned about how my Tavor/X95 will shoot with a suppressor after firing 500 rounds and being smoking hot. God knows as a civilian or LEO if you have to ever shoot to the point your rifle gets so hot it starts to malfunction you are in either an alien invasion or there are airborne Russian troops landing at the local Highschool.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 11:10:24 PM by Hivedr. » Logged
TNC
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2017, 10:54:26 PM »

Blogs...internet experts...opinions...etc.  Anyone read the background on what appears to the author of this blog article?  Probably a nice young man who's a gun aficionado, but I saw nothing in his history or field of experience to instill a lot of heavy credibility in his final assessment.  We all have our opinions...nothing wrong with that.

Hivedr...airborne Russian troops landing at the local high school?  I'm in...stocking up on pork-and-beans right now.  Go Wolverines! Grin
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,440


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2017, 11:46:18 PM »

It's just odd because most of his writing is on point. If he was making a bunch of wildly inaccurate claims, I would readily dismiss him. But he's clearly familiar with both of these rifles. I'm just wondering what's up with his assessment on reliability. Maybe he has a point that we havn't looked at? I know there are many people who have many thousands of rounds through their Tavors without too many stoppages. But he did bring up some good points about the rapid accumulation of carbon fouling in the Tavor. The Tavor is pretty well sealed up, but then again, so is the AR and the Tavor has a much more violent action than the AR.
Logged
TNC
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667


« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2017, 01:43:35 AM »

Absolutes in comparing these two platforms is pretty hard.  I think a lot of complaints, jams, and other failures in AR's can be attributed to the fact that many are home built and/or factory guns tweaked with components/accessories that "can" affect reliability.  With the Tavor you get more of a "you get what you get" in terms of design and operation.  You can attach a suppressor and such, but there's not as much flexibility to play with...and potentially screw up...in the Tavor that affect reliability.

It would be interesting to see as much in-depth service data on military Tavors as we get to see on AR's.  Some of that blogger's observations concerning the M4 obviously refer to full auto weapons.  As civilians we're usually dealing with semiauto versions only for the most part.  I love my Tavor, AUG, and AR15's.  It's hard to argue against the AR15's biggest asset for the civilian market...untold options of componentry that allow the platform to easily and affordably morph from pistols to carbines to precision rifles...and...in numerous calibers. 

One observation I'd make on how much residue buildup and/or how dirt can affect either weapons platform.  The AR has been tested about as much as any platform just due to sheer number of years in production and sheer numbers in production.  If you have a well functioning AR15, you can usually keep it running with more lube, and more lube, and more lube...just about to the point of the BCG looking like tar.  Pat Rogers had some extensive data numbers on high round count AR's over the years, and it's pretty impressive.  From a U.S. perspective we really just don't have that kind of yardstick of time, numbers, and use to make a fair comparison.

In residue buildup and dirt, however, I think we have to admit the AR is one easy gun to field strip.  Heck, you can slap a spare, fresh BCG in it if necessary.  If it gets dirt, mud, etc. crammed into the ejection port, you can yank out the BCG in a couple of seconds and do a rudimentary cleanup.  Heck, I've even seem them dunked in water to clear mud from the action.  Try any of those maneuvers with the Tavor.  Access to the action and operating components on an AR is hard to beat.

I may sound like I'm clearly dissin' the Tavor.  I'm not.  Bullpups bring their compact size with longer barrels to the table, albeit with a little more complexity and harder to access components.  Everything's a compromise.  The Tavor and AR don't compromise much on sheer performance and reliability.   
Logged
JRKrejsa
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2017, 03:52:50 AM »

Agreed about wanting to see some more long term military and police data about relability, with the more users, the better.
Logged
RadScorpius
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661



« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2017, 11:32:47 AM »

I have a hard time trusting most gear review sites and blogs, I doubt most of those guys have a degree in engineering to assess machines properly, hell they probably don't even have a degree in journalism.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 11:07:36 PM by RadScorpius » Logged
BBMW
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2017, 12:08:49 PM »

The Israeli Army moved away from the M4 to the Tavor and then the Mini-Tavor (aka X95.)  They wouldn't have done so, and stayed with it for as long as they have, if the Tavors had a reliability problem.  So from that standpoint, I'd trust them more than this guy.

Of course that's for military purposes.  For something like a competitive rifle for matches like three-gun, the AR platform, with it's endless manufacturers, permutations and aftermarket support may very well be better.
Logged
BoulderTroll
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2017, 01:33:40 PM »

Duplicate post, please delete.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 04:07:49 PM by BoulderTroll » Logged
BoulderTroll
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2017, 01:35:07 PM »


The Israeli Army moved away from the M4 to the Tavor and then the Mini-Tavor (aka X95.)  They wouldn't have done so, and stayed with it for as long as they have, if the Tavors had a reliability problem.  So from that standpoint, I'd trust them more than this guy.

Of course that's for military purposes.  For something like a competitive rifle for matches like three-gun, the AR platform, with it's endless manufacturers, permutations and aftermarket support may very well be better.

You hit the nail on the head.  The Tavor has been put through its paces by the IDF in a very challenging environment for a weapon system.  If they've been satisfied with the performance, that's enough for me.  I am no longer concerned by what is "the best", simply what will get the job done.  People will argue until they're blue in the face about which is better between a SIG, Glock, or HK, when the truth is they're all perfectly fine.  I'm confident with a Tavor, MP5, M4, whatever.  They will all work when push comes to shove.  If two people faced off with a Tavor and an M4, the weapon would not be the deciding factor.
Logged
Apache
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629



« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2017, 03:19:15 PM »

Wow, another AR guy stating opinion as fact. What are the odds of that?
Logged

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Sine Missione
Rick53
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,176


« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2017, 05:04:18 PM »

Justification of a long standing platform over another seems on the Borderline of massive insecurity.  Or just plain old Jew Jealousy
Logged
boscoman
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2017, 06:58:11 PM »

"I have a hard time trusting most gear review sites and blogs, I doubt most of those guys have a degree in engineering to assess machines properly, he'll they probably don't even have a degree in journalism

The Israeli Army moved away from the M4 to the Tavor and then the Mini-Tavor (aka X95.)  They wouldn't have done so, and stayed with it for as long as they have, if the Tavors had a reliability problem.  So from that standpoint, I'd trust them more than this guy.

You hit the nail on the head.  The Tavor has been put through its paces by the IDF in a very challenging environment for a weapon system.  If they've been satisfied with the performance, that's enough for me.  I am no longer concerned by what is "the best", simply what will get the job done.  People will argue until they're blue in the face about which is better between a SIG, Glock, or HK, when the truth is they're all perfectly fine.  I'm confident with a Tavor, MP5, M4, whatever.  They will all work when push comes to shove.  If two people faced off with a Tavor and an M4, the weapon would not be the deciding factor.

Wow, another AR guy stating opinion as fact. What are the odds of that?

Justification of a long standing platform over another seems on the Borderline of massive insecurity.  Or just plain old Jew Jealousy"


These collective comments just about sum it up.
That being said I have taken enough classes since 2006 were AR 15s have had to go through aprox 2000 round in a week or less & have seen more than my fair share of failures. During that time I have used my Galil in 7.62 & my Tavor with a total of 2 failure to feed & one double feed with no cleanings for the week. Each failure took less than probably 2 seconds to clear. I'll go with the IWI / IMI weapons for pure reliability thank you very much.
Logged

"Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Courage is not a lack of fear, but one's ability to overcome it
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,440


« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2017, 08:37:23 PM »

I agree that his claims that the Tavor being less reliable than the AR15 are dubious, but I wouldn't dismiss him that quick. Most of his points seem to be valid, and he seems fair. The only part of his article I found odd was the reliability claim.
Logged
BoulderTroll
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2017, 09:07:57 PM »

I agree that his claims that the Tavor being less reliable than the AR15 are dubious, but I wouldn't dismiss him that quick. Most of his points seem to be valid, and he seems fair. The only part of his article I found odd was the reliability claim.

He may well be correct regarding reliability with suppressors, but I have very little experience with them.  But seeing as how I don't use my Tavor suppressed, it doesn't make a difference to me.  I think without a suppressor, the Tavor is every bit as, if not more reliable, inherently.  Secondly, he is honest in his blog about his lack of actual experience and training, which is commendable.  But in light of it, I don't put much weight in his opinions, and he should stick more to the facts he knows, as opposed to delving into the operational opinions that he does.  I don't mean to sound arrogant, but when someone who has never carried a gun for a living starts going into philosophy of use, I start losing interest.   

For what it's worth, I like NutNFancy.  I generally agree with his logic, he's not afraid to pull punches even on products he likes, and what's more, he's a military officer.  Even though small arms might not be his specialty, he at least is serving our country, which I respect.    
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 09:10:15 PM by BoulderTroll » Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,440


« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2017, 09:20:44 PM »

I agree that his claims that the Tavor being less reliable than the AR15 are dubious, but I wouldn't dismiss him that quick. Most of his points seem to be valid, and he seems fair. The only part of his article I found odd was the reliability claim.

He may well be correct regarding reliability with suppressors, but I have very little experience with them.  But seeing as how I don't use my Tavor suppressed, it doesn't make a difference to me.  I think without a suppressor, the Tavor is every bit as, if not more reliable, inherently.  Secondly, he is honest in his blog about his lack of actual experience and training, which is commendable.  But in light of it, I don't put much weight in his opinions, and he should stick more to the facts he knows, as opposed to delving into the operational opinions that he does.  I don't mean to sound arrogant, but when someone who has never carried a gun for a living starts going into philosophy of use, I start losing interest.  

For what it's worth, I like NutNFancy.  I generally agree with his logic, he's not afraid to pull punches even on products he likes, and what's more, he's a military officer.  Even though small arms might not be his specialty, he at least is serving our country, which I respect.    

NutNFancy a military officer? Had no idea, lol. That doesn't mean he necessarily knows much about weapons. There are plenty of officers who could barely fire an M16, depending on their position. But respect for someone who serves, nevetheless.

As for the point I was making that the author made some good points, I was referring to aspects of his article unrelated to reliability, per se. He commented on accuracy, handling characteristics, modifiability, etc.  All of which are things I objectively agree with.

I don't necessarily believe that a person needs to be Travis Haley or a member of Delta Force to have expertise on a topic of weapons and tactics. If an individual makes objectively reasonable observations about a topic through personal experience then they deserve valid consideration, regardless of their 'name recognition' or military pedigree.  People in the gun community tend to be overly obsessed with their idols or status at times.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 09:24:36 PM by Frostburg » Logged
boscoman
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2017, 09:43:35 PM »

I have worked & trained with a good number of SF guys in the past. When discussing many foreign weapons systems they will tell you that except for a minimal time spent with the AKs, they have very little knowledge of systems outside of the M4. It is their bread & butter and what they know best.
Logged

"Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Courage is not a lack of fear, but one's ability to overcome it
Hivedr.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2017, 10:38:04 PM »

I agree that his claims that the Tavor being less reliable than the AR15 are dubious, but I wouldn't dismiss him that quick. Most of his points seem to be valid, and he seems fair. The only part of his article I found odd was the reliability claim.

He may well be correct regarding reliability with suppressors, but I have very little experience with them.  But seeing as how I don't use my Tavor suppressed, it doesn't make a difference to me.  I think without a suppressor, the Tavor is every bit as, if not more reliable, inherently.  Secondly, he is honest in his blog about his lack of actual experience and training, which is commendable.  But in light of it, I don't put
much weight in his opinions, and he should stick more to the facts he knows, as opposed to delving into the operational opinions that he does.  I don't mean to sound arrogant, but when someone who has never carried a gun for a living starts going into philosophy of use, I start losing interest.  

For what it's worth, I like NutNFancy.  I generally agree with his logic, he's not afraid to pull punches even on products he likes, and what's more, he's a military officer.  Even though small arms might not be his
specialty, he at least is serving our country, which I respect.    

NutNFancy a military officer? Had no idea, lol. That doesn't mean he necessarily knows much about weapons. There are plenty of officers who could barely fire an M16, depending on their position. But respect for someone who serves, nevetheless.

As for the point I was making that the author made some good points, I was referring to aspects of his article unrelated to reliability, per se. He commented on accuracy, handling characteristics, modifiability, etc.  All of which are things I objectively agree with.

I don't necessarily believe that a person needs to be Travis Haley or a member of Delta Force to have expertise on a topic of weapons and tactics. If an individual makes objectively reasonable observations about a topic through personal experience then they deserve valid consideration, regardless of their 'name recognition' or military pedigree.  People in the gun community tend to be overly obsessed with their idols or status at times.


NutNFancy is a Lt.Col (Ret). The guy was a USAF pilot for 20 years and has a reasonable numbers of been there done that T-shirts. What you see in his videos is the "everyday man" persona / character he puts
on. In person he is actually very professional as one would expect from a person with his background. I for one do not care for his video persona but respect the man for his rank and years of service.
Logged
Heavy
Member
**
Online Online

Posts: 226



« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2017, 11:09:28 PM »

I just wish he would make a review that is not feature length.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,440


« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2017, 11:27:02 PM »

I agree that his claims that the Tavor being less reliable than the AR15 are dubious, but I wouldn't dismiss him that quick. Most of his points seem to be valid, and he seems fair. The only part of his article I found odd was the reliability claim.

He may well be correct regarding reliability with suppressors, but I have very little experience with them.  But seeing as how I don't use my Tavor suppressed, it doesn't make a difference to me.  I think without a suppressor, the Tavor is every bit as, if not more reliable, inherently.  Secondly, he is honest in his blog about his lack of actual experience and training, which is commendable.  But in light of it, I don't put
much weight in his opinions, and he should stick more to the facts he knows, as opposed to delving into the operational opinions that he does.  I don't mean to sound arrogant, but when someone who has never carried a gun for a living starts going into philosophy of use, I start losing interest.  

For what it's worth, I like NutNFancy.  I generally agree with his logic, he's not afraid to pull punches even on products he likes, and what's more, he's a military officer.  Even though small arms might not be his
specialty, he at least is serving our country, which I respect.    

NutNFancy a military officer? Had no idea, lol. That doesn't mean he necessarily knows much about weapons. There are plenty of officers who could barely fire an M16, depending on their position. But respect for someone who serves, nevetheless.

As for the point I was making that the author made some good points, I was referring to aspects of his article unrelated to reliability, per se. He commented on accuracy, handling characteristics, modifiability, etc.  All of which are things I objectively agree with.

I don't necessarily believe that a person needs to be Travis Haley or a member of Delta Force to have expertise on a topic of weapons and tactics. If an individual makes objectively reasonable observations about a topic through personal experience then they deserve valid consideration, regardless of their 'name recognition' or military pedigree.  People in the gun community tend to be overly obsessed with their idols or status at times.


NutNFancy is a Lt.Col (Ret). The guy was a USAF pilot for 20 years and has a reasonable numbers of been there done that T-shirts. What you see in his videos is the "everyday man" persona / character he puts
on. In person he is actually very professional as one would expect from a person with his background. I for one do not care for his video persona but respect the man for his rank and years of service.


I can respect that. And also, I can forgive his video persona, as an USAF pilot isn't going to be expected to be well versed in ground combat ops, especially anything involving small arms. They're flyers, not small arms tacticians.

I also find it hilarious about his "video persona" now. He talks with a 'Surfer Dude' accent. It's not uncommon to see many military aviators espouse similar casual mannerisms.

I remember a Marine Cpl. guiding an FA18 pilot to a target via radio, and the pilot's response was essentially, "Dude, just let me fly my plane. You worry too much. I got this.." lol  
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM by Frostburg » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!