So it seems the Israeli army is dumping the M4 and jumping on the “bullpup” design bandwagon, fielding a new Tavor-built TAR-21 assault rifle to its troops that looks more like the Austrian Steyr and British Enfield L85 rifle.
This is significant because the Israeli military is one of the only other modern armies in the world that has fielded the M4 as widely as the United States. It’s unclear whether the Israelis are changing their weapons because of the M4’s notorious jamming problems, or if they were just looking to update their assault rifle with integrated red-dot/laser sighting and shorten the rifle – which a bullpup design let’s you do because the barrel and receiver is essentially in the butt stock.
But checking out the video, it looks like a pretty good piece of gear to me.
Headshots at 300 yards with a bullpup? The shooter may have been a former sniper, but that’s still a tough shot to make standing up with such a short weapon.
(Gouge: WaZinn)
-- Christian
Comments
"Take the British L85(SA80) although beset with problems in the beginning, since the upgrade programme at the beginning of the decade, the SA80 has proven to be one of the most reliable and accurate assault rifles in the world, With an effective range of around 500m and an accurate range of around 400m."
Beter check that bud the latest of this rufle is the tests were rigged by the company and the SA80 still sucks.
Give me a rifle that is accurate and reliable or just say M14 or AR18. Smonehing in 6.5 Grendel would be nice too!
Posted by: Ray at January 13, 2008 09:27 PM
What no one adresses is the wimp projectile,a .223 cant hack it,neither in the military or the hunting field,I use any 7mm .25,308..........no prob,but a little itsy bitsy .223 just dont get the job done......believe me I tried it!!!!
Posted by: Kevin o'malley at December 1, 2007 03:55 AM
I like how the one guy gave a lot of credit to Stoner and his design. But gosh I just dont see how this weapon is any better than an M-4 id take an M-4 or Z-M 300 (heavily modified M-4) over any other weapon out there.
Posted by: 22lr at August 16, 2007 07:23 PM
Why does everyone think the m4 suks. If you acually read the reports of the people actually using it you would find better comments than crappy. People complain that it dosen't have a big enough calliber or that it is not accurate enough. People the army has been doing things a lot longer than most of you and I think they are doing a fine job.
Posted by: blarginator at June 21, 2007 09:50 PM
I am a Vietnam Infantry Officer and retired police officer,,,the M-16 even in its latest form is too long in the tooth. It needs a good replacement, the Tavor looks like a very good candidate.
Posted by: Roger W. Hamilton at May 20, 2007 11:42 PM
Well at least we know that their government isn't as boorish as ours when it comes to getting a superior weapon.
Posted by: Duke_13 at April 24, 2007 06:25 PM
That bald man shooting the tavor is a former Navy SEAL sniper...thats why he made a headshot.
Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2007 04:33 AM
m4? she's an old lady in make up... i use the m14 and won't trade it with the m4 any time... specially in the bush...
Posted by: tangofour at April 10, 2007 12:23 AM
I find it disgraceful that the Russians & the Israelis can manufacture weapons that are so reliable in the field yet the USA can only produce junk like the M-16. Come on, give our soldiers a fair chance and arm them with real weapons. Tell our brain-dead Generals to get their heads out of their ass.
Posted by: Dusty Rhodes at April 9, 2007 09:03 PM
My weapon was the M14, I was cleaned it once by destocking the action and running a hose over it. That gun was amazingly reliable in desert conditions, the seals use them in Iraq and I never hear many complaints about it other than weight. How are the M14 variants holding up over there? I noticed that the Isreali snipers in the the north use them too.
Posted by: Bob at April 9, 2007 07:30 PM
I really get chaffed about comments about our troops and weapons cleaning. The weapon MUST suit the environment. If your adversaries weapons are more functional than yours and your are cleaning at a reasonable interval then we need to support our troops not criticize them. SO SLAB, jr you need to back off. Try that garbage with ssomeone who doesn't know. I shot for the USMC at the highest levels, and from hands on real field experience, the M16/A2 service rifle 5.56mm, lightweight, air-cooled should weapon does not cut it. Compare the M14 to the 16 and then talk to me. And you do not even want to talk about the third world avenger the ak-47. Troops need field weapons for field environments and garrison weapons for garrison environments. Only and frickin' Army cook who has seen a rifle range once in life would make a statement like that. Think about what you say bgefore you jump the troops!
OOOO-frickin-RAH!
Posted by: Sgt Patterson at April 9, 2007 04:32 PM
Try carrying an M4 in Iraq in a convoy and see how much dirt gets in there. Or see how much crud builds up in the first hour of a foot patrol. Or do you want to wrap your weapon in a plastic bag in a tactical situation? The M16/M4 belongs in a rifle range where you have the luxury of keeping it clean. I was very meticulous in keeping my weapon and magazines clean before and after convoys and patrols in Iraq. But DURING those times you bet your ass I worried if my weapon was going to work after a sandstorm or when dismounting.
Posted by: manwithnoname at April 9, 2007 10:50 AM
Funny how everyone likes to talk about the M4's "notorious" jamming problems. Like several commenters have already noted, if you care for it properly, it will run just fine. The soldiers in the 507th Maintenance Company did not care for their weapons, and as a result their rifles were not functional when they needed them most. The biggest improvement I see in the Tavor over the M4/M16 family is the use of a long-stroke gas piston as opposed to direct impingement. However, as someone mentioned, there are gas-piston upper receivers available for the M4, such as the HK416. Purchasing the Tavor to equip US forces would not produce enough benefits to be worth the cost.
Posted by: Slab at April 8, 2007 04:30 PM
Once again the Isreali Army leads the world in small arms development. First, the Uzi, then the Galil and now the Tavor.
When a nation faces internal terrorist threats on a daily basis and external invasion like the "Zionist regime" from Jihadists all over the Arab world, its no wonder they produce automatic rifles second to none. Will our Spec Opns teams get enough of these new 21st Century weapons to make a difference in places like AFGN or Iraq ?
Time will tell. Procurement gurus take note.
Posted by: Lemuel genovese at April 7, 2007 09:08 PM
This design is based much on the same principle as the Barrett .50 in that it brings the magazine back further to the rear to reduce length. Its one of those ideas that just make you wonder why it wasn't done sooner, and it's probably made possible by newer materials technology (that's plastic for the rest of us.) The rest is just current technology. I'd like to see the U.S incorporate the idea into their new weapon if they ever get of their kiesters and decide to go through with it. They should also probably make a more normal looking caseless ammo for it. I still believe we could use the heavier, 70+ grain projectiles that were developed for the AR15 styles, but caseless would allow room for much more power! -just gotta make it water/dirt proof.
Posted by: PhilLeech at April 7, 2007 01:42 PM
As far as left handed shooters whining about brass going down their shirt? Oh come on people i shot the M16 for 4 yrs in the Corps as an Infantryman and i never once in that time ever had a brass casing go down my shirt from my personal weapon.I have had brass from other weapons drop into my neck from the Marine to my left but that was because he was closer to me becauise of my left handed shooting position. Lefties only drawbacks for the regular M16 is the location of the controls to drop mags and select fire. If u bothered to train with it like you are supposed to to familiarize yourself with it it doesnt become a problem unless u have tiny hands. I know,I coached the left handed shooters BECAUSE I was a leftie.
Posted by: Drgngnnr at April 6, 2007 09:28 PM
Anyone seen this weapon shoot with a left handed firer?
Posted by: pekos pete at April 6, 2007 08:38 PM
Switching mags on a bullpup is easy without having to roll on your side. just turn the frigging rile dickhead! reading some of those comments I have to wonder about the intelligence of some commentators. As to weight of the steyr AUG and ability to fieldstrip? I was a Cadet in the RNZCC, a bit like the states ROTC, and we (12 to 17 yr olds) could carry them and a pack, strip, clean and reassemble the rifles in the field, in the dark, and not lose bits or have jams. and we were lucky to get 3 weeks a year with the steyr, compare that with a regular force troop who have their rifles constantly at hand. Easy to do.
As to the 300M range, in urban battlefields, show me a line of sight over 300M that doesn't have a building, car, or other obstruction in the way!
Posted by: Rhys at April 6, 2007 06:55 PM
Not hard to figure out why the Israeli military would want to replace a weapon that has "notorious" jamming problems. The Israelis stand to lose a great deal if even one of their weapons fails to measure up. They are surrounded by enemies who would without so much as batting an eye destroy every Israeli. I still wonder though if their political leaders demand the production of weapons based on political considerations as do ours, or do they make intelligent decisions based purely on need.
Posted by: Anthony at April 6, 2007 12:08 PM
Very interesting weapon. The micro would be ideal for truckers/tankers 48 f**king centimeters long!!! Plus it naturally goes to the shoulder to discourage spraying from the hip bs.
Tim, there are civilian legal varients, you'll just have to track one down, and likely drop a few $keys on it.
Mk, and Charles, its pretty easy to swap it over to sinistral, just break it down, change the bolt, and the port on the other side opens up.
Posted by: mrnitropb at April 6, 2007 10:17 AM
That is nice! Is there any chance that I could get a semiautomatic only version shipped to my FFL in the US?
Posted by: Timothy Logsdon at April 6, 2007 10:01 AM
"Brian: Given the best soldier in the Jessica Lynch fiasco was hand-loading his M16 because of a jam, yes, a better rifle would make a difference."
I'm certain that had NOTHING to do with the fact that they weren't maintaining them properly.
Dude, maintain the M-4 right-it's not going to jam-that's why infantry units rarely have problems with them these days. That being said, it might be time for an upgrade.
Posted by: sam at April 6, 2007 09:38 AM
As a left-handed shooter, I couldn't help but notice the location of the ejection port on the Tavor. It doesn't appear to be a good idea to shoot the weapon from the "other side."
Is this an issue with modern armies? My own experience with the problem dates back to a live fire tactical exercise while undergoing my ROTC Summer Camp at Fort Riley in the Seventies. While firing my M-16 from the left side an ejected shell casing from my rifle flew into my shirt at the collar causing a burn and some memorable pain.
MK
Posted by: Michael Kandrac at April 6, 2007 08:54 AM
What about the L/H shoter???? A little hard on the face! There alot of L/H shooters in ever Army of the world.
Posted by: charles at April 6, 2007 08:43 AM
Brian: Given the best soldier in the Jessica Lynch fiasco was hand-loading his M16 because of a jam, yes, a better rifle would make a difference.
Likewise, ask Capt. Nate Self about the M4/M16 jamming. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at April 6, 2007 08:16 AM
Lots of interesting comments here. The Tavor does suffer from reliability issues. In fact, the Israelis have recently began to re-design it after their experience in Lebanon. The short barrel is nice as well... but not the end all be-all of combat, or even urban combat. Also, the Tavor's max range is advertised as being at 300 meters for a point target if I understood it correctly. The M-16 family is usually around 500 yards with 5.56 ammo. That does make a difference. There is a reason the Army brought back the Designated Marksman in squads with a return to M-14s. Even in urban combat, long range precision fires are important. This is one of the reasons the majority of the Marine Corps has full length M-16A4s with ACOGs (a far superior sight than the red dot in my opinion) for the majority of the troops out there. A Tavor would be nice for troops who are crew on helos or armored vehicles, or even the mortar and arty folks, but I can't see it going into general use because of the accuracy issue. Furthermore, if the two are both direct gas systems, they will suffer similar reliability issues if not maintained. But what else do soldiers do but maintain weapons? One of the small things that distinguishes professionals from the rabble (or at least should...). I could even see a Tavor mix with other larger weapons, but alone? You could be quickly outgunned by folks who do have the range, pinning you down and making those nice new rifles of yours as effective as cap guns. You also have to remember that urban fighting has two components- the door kicking portion where it is fast and furious with folks blazing away and size does matter, and the exterior getting into the buildings themselves. Movement to a building against a prepared defense is always more dangerous. You will take 90% of your casualties getting into that building. To get there, you have to have suppressive fires from other positions which most of the time are not very close, and you are trying to put aimed fire into mouseholes, windows, and doors to either kill the enemy or keep their heads down, because the guys moving to that building are very exposed. This is why accuracy and range are important. Just some random thoughts at any rate....
Posted by: TZ at April 6, 2007 12:52 AM
From the israeli viewpoint,this rifle makes
a hell of a lot of sense.their engaged,primarily
in urban warfare(i,e,mout,cqb/cqc).a weapon of the
tavors dimensions in such an environment is quite
advantageous for one overlooked reason which i have
not heard one poster make mention,ballistics.
With a shorter overall frame capable of housing
a twenty inch barrel,one can maximize the performance of the 5.56x45mm nato cartridge,whose
wound ballistics potential relies heavily on
velocity,a lesson not lost on the part of the
israeli,s whom actively engage in hostile action
with a tactical rifle in an urban setting for the
past fourty years or more.
In order for us to accomplish the urban warfare
scenario today,the u.s. military resorts to short
barreled versions of the existing issue weapon,
which is in the classic pattern with magazine
forward the trigger group.This,we have found much
to our chagrin,has resulted in a marked drop in
wound ballistic performance.The issue m855/ss109
green tip ammo effectiveness is diminished from
a listed average muzzle velocity of 3,150 fps from
the 20" barrel of the m-16a2/a4 down to around
2,750-2,800+ from the m-4/m-4a1 14" barrel.The
result is that the round no longer possesses the
neccessary velocity to cause bullet yaw in a flesh
and blood target much beyond 150 meters(the target
velocity for the 65 grain m855 round to accomplish
destabilization in a target is stated as 2500 fps,
below that,as the range increases the round begins to regain stabilization at its base,thusly,only
causing wounds the diameter of the projectile its-
self,a mere .224".acting more like a high velocity
icepick).
Its not so much the arguement of the m-4s reliability mechanicly,as with fastideous and
regular maitnance can address those issues to some degree,its more about ballitic performance of the
ammo thats come to question.We here in the states
have tried to find a solution by purpose engin-
eering a cartridge to provide increased lethality
in short barreled weapons(the 6.8x43mm spc for
example)a solution we might not need if we were to
use a weapon in a bullpup configuration,barreled
to 20",loaded with heavier bullets(77 grain sierra
matchkings)or 6.5x38mm grendal with 120 grain
lapua scenar's which give you lethal performance
from 0 to 1200 meters in a package the same size
as an m-4,theres some food for thought.
necessarily,what works for israel may not work
for everyone,but i would think it premature to
discount their wisdom with their track record in
urban warfare,wether your a devotee of the m-4 or
not.
Posted by: katsesama at April 5, 2007 07:12 PM
Moose - You do not need to roll over onto your side to change magazines. I find the Bulpup design easier for shooting. The left arm is not strained as far forward as say with a M-16 or FN FAL. This also means you do not have to lie at such a great angle to the weapon to provide a stable platform.
Posted by: Thomas at April 5, 2007 06:02 PM
The Tavor costs about 3x the price of an M1, so fully transitioning the entire US army and Marine Corps would be equivalent to arming it 3 times over with conventional weapons. Unless we suddenly shift into war spending like that of the Cold War/WW2 it just won't happen.
While the Bullpup design certainly has in a tight Urban battlespace, in open country or lying in a ditch I'd still rather not have to flip over on my side to change out mags. I'd also point out that SOCOM has the resources to go buy Tavors if they want, they've bought 416s and the SCAR after all, but they haven't. Says something.
Posted by: Moose at April 5, 2007 03:54 PM
Nick,
Not saying you don't need a rifle, but would a different rifle design really change that much in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Mogadishu? I don't think it would.
Posted by: Brian at April 5, 2007 03:03 PM
"However bulpup rifles suffer from excessive weight issues, and with the SA80 now being fitted with the HK AG36 grenade launcher, this takes the operational weight to around 14Ibs. The bulpup design is also notoriously hard to dismantle, clean and maintain on operations, so much so that the UK has decided to scrap the SA80 in favour of a new weapon"
Posted by: Wren Mandagorn at April 5, 2007 08:26 AM
I'll have you know that my Bull-pup Steyr only weighs 8lbs. It is easy to "dismantle" - I can field strip it in less than 30sec and it is very easy to clean and maintain on the ground.
Posted by: Thomas at April 5, 2007 01:55 PM
"Please please please do some research before posting inaccurate comments. It may make me rethink the sites competency!
Posted by: Thomas at April 5, 2007 09:35 AM"
It paines me when non-firearms guys make comments like "the M-16/M-4, which as everyone knows is prone to jams"...
Oy...
For those who think the Tavor is a miracle rifle (prolly because it LOOKS "futuristic")...it has been trialed by the Indian Army in significant numbers and found to be un-reliable...they have sent it back to IMI to be re-designed.
Posted by: Wes at April 5, 2007 12:50 PM
From Christian:
Thanks to all the readers for the correction on the Steyr - my bad.
Posted by: Christian at April 5, 2007 12:01 PM
Charles: Its the H&K 416 upper receiver, effectively converting their M4/M16s into H&K 416s. Some special forces units have been buying these receiver kits by specific name.
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at April 5, 2007 10:42 AM
Brian: Witness Mogidishu, Iraq, Afghanistan...
In counterinsurgency, the rifle is a, if not THE key weapon.
Posted by: Nicholas weaver at April 5, 2007 10:40 AM
The Steyr is Austrian, not German.
Posted by: John at April 5, 2007 10:21 AM
Sorry. Forgot about the Tavor being such a "Short weapon". I think you'll find the barrel length of the M4 to be only 14.5" compared to the Steyr and Tavor being 20" and 19" respectively. Please please please do some research before posting inaccurate comments. It may make me rethink the sites competency!
Posted by: Thomas at April 5, 2007 09:35 AM
"Headshots at 300 yards with a bullpup? The shooter may have been a former sniper, but that’s still a tough shot to make standing up with such a short weapon."
Are you serious? The Irish Army fire at moving 15"x15" targets at 300m with the Steyr AUG A1. To qualify with an average score means 2 hits in 5seconds. This is done prone, kneeling, standing. I suggest comparing professional soldiers shooting capabilities to the future weapons presenter rather than your own, which seem a little lacking.
Posted by: thomas at April 5, 2007 09:25 AM
I've heard of people switching their M-16/M-4 upper receivers for some other one that has improved reliability..don't remember which upper. :/
But if the Tavor uses the same gas mech that'll be sad. Then again, it's possible that they engineered it such that it won't be as problematic as the M-4.
I didn't think the IDF had the cash on hand to make this kind of transition....
Posted by: Charles at April 5, 2007 09:03 AM
Um wow, did you actually do any research, or did you just watch Future Weapons? IMI, for the IDF has been working on the Tavor since the early 90's.
Being as they fight in MOUT, AND across long range, it makes alot of sence to have a full length barrel in a compact design.
It comes standard with the MARS, on a piccitinny rail, with no BUIS. Even the Marines have aknowledged the increased efficiany of some form of optical sight. And since the IDF have a bunch of stuff laying around that latches onto the 1913 rails, it makes sense to do so.
As far as just dumping the M4, th eonly reason the IDf uses them is because a signifigant percentage of US aid to Isreal is weapons, or weapons allotments. Otherwise they'd just be running around packing Galil's. It just ended up being cheaper to buy US M16's, CAR's and M4's then it was to make their own rifles.
But now after a decade of R&D, and several modifications, and a big sale to India, they're beginig to think about one day maybe making it the issue rifle, at some point.
Finally, the irony of the whole damn stupid article, is that the Tavor uses a very similar gas system to the M16. Guess what. It still jams in sand.
Posted by: mrnitropb at April 5, 2007 08:49 AM
The Israelis needed a replacement for the M4, and the fairly logical choice was a bulpup design, over the last few years bulpup rifles have slowly proved themselves.
Take the British L85(SA80) although beset with problems in the beginning, since the upgrade programme at the beginning of the decade, the SA80 has proven to be one of the most reliable and accurate assault rifles in the world, With an effective range of around 500m and an accurate range of around 400m.
However bulpup rifles suffer from excessive weight issues, and with the SA80 now being fitted with the HK AG36 grenade launcher, this takes the operational weight to around 14Ibs. The bulpup design is also notoriously hard to dismantle, clean and maintain on operations, so much so that the UK has decided to scrap the SA80 in favour of a new weapon – 2010 for some and by 2015 for all. Although it remains to be seen whether a bulpup design will be used.
And it seems from initial reports from US and UK troops who have fired the Tar-21 say it suffers from similar problems I listed above.
And Franz if you’re interested the redesign / upgrade to the SA80 by Heckler & Koch was completed by 2002 when the company was still British and owned by BAE Systems, and the majority of the work was completed at H&K’s factory in Portsmouth, England.
Posted by: Wren Mandagorn at April 5, 2007 08:26 AM
Maybe the Army and Marines don't replace their rifles because 1) they don't make a strategic difference in a war (no war will be won or lost today because of the quality of either side's rifle - this isn't the 1860s anymore), and 2) it's an emotional issue where nobody wants to compromise? Everybody champions their own cause, and to someone who doesn't drool over every rifle design that comes out (like me), it merely seems like a lot of people who want to switch rifle designs because theirs didn't win.
I'm not saying there aren't better weapons out there than the M-16. What I am saying is that nobody has shown me that if we spent all that $$$ to upgrade, that it would really make any difference. How many more dead Al Quaeda members would there be? How many soldiers' lives would have been saved? I'm sure there are better combat boot designs out there, too, but I don't see people championing a change there. To me, and I'm sure to a lot of lawmakers, one rifle is as good as another.
Posted by: Brian at April 5, 2007 07:56 AM
I wonder that nobody has noticed that the "German Steyr" in fact is an product Designed/Made in Austria. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG. and the "English Enfield L85" on the other hand is made by Heckler&Koch and therefore is Designed/Made in Germany, for this have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L85.
Posted by: Franz at April 5, 2007 07:29 AM
Steyr is Austrian, not German - duh!
Posted by: Ace_NoOne at April 5, 2007 07:20 AM
I have readed somewhere that IMI has financial problems. Maybe Tzahal and Defence Dept. are finally worrying about M4 performance in a real future war - I do hope that Tzahal now just can affort the very best for the soldiers.
Now, the quasi-eternal question: Why US Army and Marines just don't give their people the very best rifle in the world instead of a good one with a very discussable realiability historial? Now there are a good bunch of better solutions than M16-M4.
Another interesting question: I thought that bullpup weapons were problematic for shooting in line. The ejecting port is too close to face (+- just below the shooter's eyes), so I readed that it was more probably that hot cases fell just on the face or neck of your fellow shooter at your right. In the video, there were a whole line of shooters with apparently no problem like that.
Any body can explain this?
Posted by: Juan at April 5, 2007 06:53 AM
Could it be a political decision? Back when isayeret.com did not require a paid subscription, i remember reading that the israeli army fielded the M4 mainly because israel had to spend the FMS dollars on american hardware. So instead of buying more galils with israeli money, the IDF bought M4 and spent their own money otherwise. As I recall, the Tavor was fielded in limited quantities to give its manufacturer a better chance at marketing it to other armies ("fielded by the IDF")- the aforementioned political angle
"Take the British L85(SA80) although beset with problems in the beginning, since the upgrade programme at the beginning of the decade, the SA80 has proven to be one of the most reliable and accurate assault rifles in the world, With an effective range of around 500m and an accurate range of around 400m."
Beter check that bud the latest of this rufle is the tests were rigged by the company and the SA80 still sucks.
Give me a rifle that is accurate and reliable or just say M14 or AR18. Smonehing in 6.5 Grendel would be nice too!
Posted by: Ray at January 13, 2008 09:27 PM