Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2018, 10:41:46 AM
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
| | |-+  IWI Tavor SAR & X-95
| | | |-+  Merging of X95 and Tavor 7?
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Merging of X95 and Tavor 7?  (Read 3836 times)
BBMW
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« on: February 06, 2018, 03:02:32 PM »

When IWI designed the Tavor 7, they didn't just port the X95 to 7.62x51mm.  They also added features and changed some design elements.  The no added parts LH conversion and going to MLOK rail attachments come immediately to mind.  So are they going to replace the X95 with a 5.56mm Tavor 7 to merge the product lines?  It would seem to make sense.  In some of the SHOT Show videos, the IWI reps seemed to hint / tease at this.
Logged
Practicool
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2018, 06:05:04 PM »

I have the sneaking suspicion of it as well, thinking that sometime in the next year I'm going to be digging deep (after forking out for a TS-12 of course, hehe) to be upgrading my old SAR to the new 5.56 Tavor hotness that will inevitably follow.
Logged
dntam
.
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2018, 10:33:58 PM »

Makes sense to me
Logged
cciman
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 219



« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2018, 12:07:49 AM »

This is a new design.

Design does not always follow function.  Let's wait and see if these "things" actually work after 3000 rounds.  Some things look cool in pictures but not in reality.  There is a difference between handled by 1000 vs handled by 100,000-- anything is possible when idiots touch the machinery. (???Sig 320)

Physical ergonomics, controls, manual of arms,  surface features, parts durability, color scheme matching, stock or handgrip fitment, functional reliability....any one variable can  hobble the project.

Logged
Rastoff
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 405



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2018, 07:20:05 PM »

Adapting the Tavor 7 to the 5.56 round is not as easy as it sounds. The biggest difference is magwell size. But there are other considerations. Will this new 7 design work with the lower pressure/recoil of the 5.56 round? Who knows?

Time will tell. I would love to see some of those things adapted to the X95, but don't want to have to buy a whole new rifle to get it.
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
racky
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2018, 01:49:07 PM »

well if they do I hope they make it able to switch to many calibers from 5.56 to 7.62 , including, 300blk-all the 6.5's (Grendel-Creedmore-Socom), and 224 valkery, 7.62x39., etc....time will tell .
Logged
mr_staypuft
^
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2018, 03:05:34 PM »

When IWI designed the Tavor 7, they didn't just port the X95 to 7.62x51mm.  They also added features and changed some design elements.  The no added parts LH conversion and going to MLOK rail attachments come immediately to mind.  So are they going to replace the X95 with a 5.56mm Tavor 7 to merge the product lines?  It would seem to make sense.  In some of the SHOT Show videos, the IWI reps seemed to hint / tease at this.

I would not want them to shoehorn the smaller calibers into the T7 (if this is what you're suggesting). 

I would just want them to update the X95 to have some of the same features:
  1. Adjustable gas
  2. "HK" notch for one handed lock-back
  3. Ambi bolt

  4. And if I'm dreaming, a free-floated solution to give the ability to have a recessed suppressor on a 8.5" 300BLK SBR under a round or octagonal M-Lok forend
Logged
pbjb
New Posting Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2018, 09:28:14 PM »

I looked at the Tavor 7 at the Great American Outdoors Show this week.  The Tavor 7 is a bigger rifle overall so there is room but it would have to have a mag adapter. 

FYI, one of the IWI reps said the one of their co-workers did put a HK lock-back notch on their X95.
Logged
diescheize11
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2018, 11:12:06 AM »

That HK notch was the biggest interest of mine too, the other two features you posted are important too.
Logged
MajorKong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2018, 03:37:56 PM »

Interesting that we all saw the same video demonstration and some take away a different impression.   

I thought that they implied that the new features of the Tavor 7 might one day be incorporated into the X95, but even the IWI rep said that he did not know. 

In any case the X95 is the weapon that has been combat tested.  Until the Tavor 7 has proven itself they should hold off on updating the X95. 

Logged
spacegunz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2018, 07:43:50 PM »

6.5 Creedmoor and other calibers of the same case size would make excellent caliber conversion kits for the Tavor 7, but not 5.56 or 300blk or .224valkryie or any other smaller cartridge; those would require a new design (not convertible) for optimal results.

Conversion kits allowing you to run significantly smaller cartridge sizes in a much larger frame rifle (like .223 in a .308, or 9mm in a .223) has always been (and still is) a terrible idea, except for novelty value.

The smaller caliber converted rifle is always going to be much heavier and klunkier than it needs to be, for the caliber. We accept a heavier rifle in .308 because it’s generally a necessary compromise to sacrifice weight in exchange for much better power and range. Eliminating the advantages of .308 while keeping the disadvantages (and sometimes adding to, like with a mag well insert) never made sense to me.

The only possible practical justifications I can think of would be economical ones: to have “2 rifles for the price of 1.5!” But even economical reasons like this are tenuous at best, since you’ll have to re-zero every time you swap anyway, etc. If you really want a cheap rifle for cheaper ammo fun, go buy a $500 AR15 or 9mm setup.

To be fair, I’m sure there’s a good few... hundred... or so people out there who love their Tavor 9mm’s, for example, but even among them I highly doubt anyone would seriously try to argue that such a setup is better than an ultra lightweight and compact 9mm SBR (or “pistol” style analogue).

And yes, a 5.56 “Tavor 7” is possible without compromise too, but as others have mentioned, it would have to be it’s own design (not a conversion kit) to be as light as an X95.

Personally, I would LOVE to see a “Tavor 97” concept fusing the design improvements of the Tavor 7 with the 5.56 caliber, such that the weight is BELOW 8 pounds. 7 pounds would be awesome, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 07:58:40 PM by spacegunz » Logged
BBMW
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2018, 04:34:47 PM »

Maybe I need to be more specific with what I'm saying.  I'm not suggesting they take the Tavor 7 platform/chassis, and down port it to 5.56.  It would be more taking the Tavor 7 appearance and feature set, and applying those either to the X95 or designing a proper smaller receiver for a, let's call it,Tavor 5.  There probably wouldn't be too many, if any, common parts.  But they'd look the same, have the same features and ergonomics.
Logged
spacegunz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2018, 03:51:15 PM »

You were clear enough that I understood you, at least. I was responding mostly to all the people who get all excited about the 'caliber conversion' concept, who joined in this thread.
Logged
Practicool
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2018, 05:08:30 PM »

Maybe I need to be more specific with what I'm saying.  I'm not suggesting they take the Tavor 7 platform/chassis, and down port it to 5.56.  It would be more taking the Tavor 7 appearance and feature set, and applying those either to the X95 or designing a proper smaller receiver for a, let's call it,Tavor 5.  There probably wouldn't be too many, if any, common parts.  But they'd look the same, have the same features and ergonomics.

I agree.  AR-15 and AR-10 are 2 different formats, thinking that Tavor 7 (in 7.62) and Tavor 5 (in 5.56) should be just a "conversion kit" doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed on just porting the best features into a smaller package.  Oh, and that guy who said the 9.5" 300 BO with an oversized forend to conceal a suppressor?  That too!!!
Logged
BBMW
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2018, 03:28:44 PM »

^
Obviously 300BO (and maybe .224 Valkyrie, but I don't know if a bullpup is the right platform for it), would work int he "small" chassis (ie X95 based.)  I can easily see IWI supporting two chassis sizes, but with the same feature set, and as many interchangeable parts as possible.
Logged
Practicool
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2018, 11:18:02 PM »

^
Obviously 300BO (and maybe .224 Valkyrie, but I don't know if a bullpup is the right platform for it), would work int he "small" chassis (ie X95 based.)  I can easily see IWI supporting two chassis sizes, but with the same feature set, and as many interchangeable parts as possible.

^^^^  THIS  ^^^^

Smiley
Logged
Rick53
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260


« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2018, 06:31:56 PM »

JMO but would guess since they have already announce X-95 is SBR .The likelihood of making a Tavor/x95 combo is not in the Cards:
Logged
Pages: [1] 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!