IMI- Tavor bullpup assault rifle


PDA






JimJD
December 20, 2003, 03:10 PM
So, this is what's replacing the UZI and possibly other firearms in Israel...

IMI- Tavor info (http://www.imi-israel.com/imi/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.1.2.12.2.5.html)

http://www.imi-israel.com/images/micro.jpg

" Israel Military Industries is launching the new family of the TAVOR assault rifles. The weapon is offered in four configurations:
The basic design - the T.A.R-21 Tavor Assault Rifle.
A sharp-shooting configuration is offered as a squad weapon.
For commando, airborne, paratroopers and special rescue units, as well as tank crews, a short Tavor assault rifle is offered.
Micro T.A.R is specially configured for security forces and special missions.
Tavor uses the proven, compact Bull pup design, which was optimized to best match the ergonomics and mission requirements of the modern warrior, providing natural handling, intuitive aiming from all firing positions and improved hit accuracy. Accuracy and target acquisition is enhanced, by the use of accurate aiming, through the use of an integral reflex optical reflective sight, which projects the aiming point on the center of the sight. Tavor has an attachment for additional sighting devices, such as a 3rd generation night vision sight, which can be installed with no zeroing. Tavor is gas operated, using rotating bolt action. All types use standard NATO 5.56mm ammunition (M855/SS109), accommodate a 30 round magazine and sustain a rate of fire of 750 - 900 rounds per minute"

Interesting, but where are the iron sights?
I think I can see a blade front on one version, maybe the rear is hidden under the optics?

If you enjoyed reading about "IMI- Tavor bullpup assault rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Caseless
December 20, 2003, 03:16 PM
The Tavor is a great looking and ergonomically designed rifle. But I have the feeling that all these new bullpup designs from different countries except the FN F2000 are missing the mark. They are not ambidextrous. Therefore not practical in the constantly changing conditions of a firefight.

JimJD
December 20, 2003, 03:28 PM
If it helps, IMI lists a "Left hand kit (bolt)" in their optional accessories list.

keederdag
December 20, 2003, 06:32 PM
maybe I'm kinda wierd, but the fact that it has no trigger guard bothers me.:confused:

Nightcrawler
December 20, 2003, 07:17 PM
I think people overestimate the times you shoot from your week hand in an actual military squad level firefight (compared to what you do in one of those urban rifle classes). When you're shaken up and in a fight, the last thing you want to do, if it can be at ALL avoided, is fire your weapon from your week hand and non-dominant eye.

Besides, even the US has has non-abmbidextrious weapons before. The M60 machine gun can't easily be used by a lefty, do to the feed plate that blocks the left side of the grip. And let's not mention the bolt action rifles in the days of old.

Onslaught
December 21, 2003, 03:08 AM
I think people overestimate the times you shoot from your week hand in an actual military squad level firefight
But us lefties (7 per 1000 isn't it?) shoot from the left side all the time.

Besides, even the US has has non-abmbidextrious weapons before. The M60 machine gun can't easily be used by a lefty, do to the feed plate that blocks the left side of the grip. And let's not mention the bolt action rifles in the days of old.
I don't know about the M60, but I'd assume they just didn't issue it to southpaws. As for bolt guns of the old days... well 1) you can use a right handed bolt action on the left side whereas the bullpup would eject brass directly into your face, and 2) back in the "old days" they also issued one "BDU" which served as dress and battle gear, hot or cold, rain or shine, and all around $ucked, and they had steel pot helmets, backpacks that wrapped everything up like a papoose... need I go on :D

Any bullpup design that doesn't consider left handed shooters or even the weak hand position is a poor design. It's not just "inconvenient" like the AR15 or a bolt gun where you can work around it... all you can do with the SA80 L85 A1 is learn to shoot right handed.

Nightcrawler
December 21, 2003, 03:17 AM
But us lefties (7 per 1000 isn't it?) shoot from the left side all the time.

I'm left handed.

The TAVOR, like almost every production bullpup, has a swappable bolt so left handed shooters can use it.

The M60...I don't know, I had to train on one, and had to fire it right handed. They don't issue 'em much anymore anyways.

The big beef people seem to have with bullpups is that they assume the soldier fires weak handed all the time. Maybe you swap shoulders a lot in one of the various rifle schools you can attend, but I'll bet you don't do it too much in Infantry School. (Anybody with an EIB care to comment? I might be wrong.)

And how many times to SWAT-cops switch shoulders with their MP5s? I'm genuinely curious on this one. Is it a common thing, that you swap shoulders to go around a corner and such? what do they do if their weapon has a sling on it (they type where if you let go of the weapon it just hangs on your chest)?

One question. Take a look at the following pictures of Bullpup rifles that are currently in production. Pictures courtesy of World.Guns.Ru.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/qbz-95.jpg
Norinco QBZ-95 5.8x42mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_r.jpg
Steyr AUG 5.56x45mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/famas_g2.jpg
GIAT FAMAS G2 (latest model) 5.56x45mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/tavor-tar.jpg
IMI TAR-21 "Tavor" 5.56x45mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/sar21_1.jpg
Singapore Technologies Kinetics SAR-21 5.56x45mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/vektor_cr21.jpg
Vektor CR-21 5.56x45mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/VaLMET-M82.jpg
Valmet M82 5.56x45mm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/l85a2.jpg
Enfield/HK L85A2 5.56x45mm

Notice that a disproportionate number of them have the handguard that wraps the pistol grip instead of a trigger loop. Is there any reason for this? The Steyr AUG started it, is it beneficial in some way? Shooting with heavy gloves, maybe? (A larger trigger loop might be a simpler solution). Heck, on the FAMAS, it was added; the original versions didn't have it!

Nightcrawler
December 21, 2003, 03:36 AM
Oh, just so it's known, I'd sell a kidney if I could get a semiautomatic .308 bullpup that was lefty friendly. Especially if it looked as cool as the FAMAS. :D

Black Snowman
December 21, 2003, 09:42 AM
Notice that a disproportionate number of them have the handguard that wraps the pistol grip instead of a trigger loop. Is there any reason for this? The Steyr AUG started it, is it beneficial in some way? Shooting with heavy gloves, maybe? (A larger trigger loop might be a simpler solution). Heck, on the FAMAS, it was added; the original versions didn't have it!

From what little I've researched these it seams the large guard rather than a trigger guard was used for two reasons, clearance for gloves, or even mittens, plus it gives a place for a 2nd handhold for akward firing positions. Notice the swell in the center of the Travor's? I bet that's there to fill a gripping hand better. Also notice that most of them are canted at the same angle.

PS: I though lefties were closer to 30% of the population?

Onslaught
December 21, 2003, 12:53 PM
I'm left handed.

:D

PS: I though lefties were closer to 30% of the population?

Taken from Lefthanders FAQ (http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/lefty-faq.html):

What percentage of the population is left handed?

There have been many different numbers put forth, with the most
common numbers we have seen being in the area of 13 percent. However,
we have seen numbers as high as 30 percent, when you allow a
very loose definition of left-handedness.


I believe I added an extra zero... to the stats I heard... 7 out of 100, not 1000.



Oh, just so it's known, I'd sell a kidney if I could get a semiautomatic .308 bullpup that was lefty friendly. Especially if it looked as cool as the FAMAS.
Absolutely... If DSA does make the AUG, and it converts to left-handed use, and it's <$1000, I will own one.

That's the first time I've ever seen a Singapore Technologies Kinetics SAR-21... And it is now by far the "coolest" looking bullpup I have ever seen.

Black Snowman
December 21, 2003, 01:56 PM
My vote for coolest looking bullpup still falls firmly with the Barret Mod 82. It's just so big many people don't realise it's a bullpup design :D

cdbeaver
December 21, 2003, 09:21 PM
My information is that one in seven is left-handed. That figures out to about 16 per cent of the population, male and female.

I'm a lefty looking for a southpaw-friendly firearm.

Onslaught
December 22, 2003, 01:04 AM
I'm a lefty looking for a southpaw-friendly firearm.
If you're interested in being more specific about types of firearms, and would like some input from a fellow lefty with a long spanning interest in things that go "boom", I'd be glad to share my experiences with pistols, rifles, and/or shotguns.

PM would probably be the way to go so we don't hijack JimJD's thread entirely.

Gabe
December 22, 2003, 01:32 AM
Black Snowman wrote:

PS: I though lefties were closer to 30% of the population?


It's also societally determined. In East Asia lefties make up a much smaller percentage of the population than the US. In Japan its almost unheard of.

Correia
December 22, 2003, 12:43 PM
I got to play with the 2 Barrett Tavors. They did have very rudimentary flip up iron sights for emergency use. Trigger was better than expected. Rear heavy, but pointed very quickly. Did not get to shoot it however.

I really liked how they felt. I wouldn't mind having one. :)

Nightcrawler
December 22, 2003, 02:21 PM
http://world.guns.ru/assault/tavor-civ.jpg

ICK. This is the "civvie" Tavor.

Why they didn't make it look like the regular TAR-21 is beyond me.

JimJD
December 22, 2003, 03:11 PM
I was just over at the site you linked the pic from Nightcrawler.
Some interesting info over there.
So the civilian version is modeled after the "Tavor-2", Hmmm...
I don't think it looks that bad, kind of like the fact it has a trigger guard.
But, I like the appearance of the other versions too.
It still needs some iron sights!:)
...and a muzzle brake.

BadWolf
December 22, 2003, 04:05 PM
I agree about the FN F2000.

I think it is the coolest and most ergonomic bullpup design and most elegant as they dealt with the right and left hand issue by making the brass fall out an opening near the front.

Correia
December 22, 2003, 04:09 PM
Jim, there are little plastic flip up sights on that gun.

JimJD
December 22, 2003, 04:23 PM
Jim, there are little plastic flip up sights on that gun.

On all versions or just one?
Did it seem like it was a "quality" part?

tire iron
December 22, 2003, 04:36 PM
I concur 100% that the ANY rifle SHOULD be 'left/right' friendly.

The facts are that the world is composed of 50% right side cover and 50% left side cover. That means that you have a 50/50 chance of utilizing/shooting from 'left' side cover (or "weak" side cover).

Now if you choose to expose more of your body to incoming fire than is necessary by using the rifle 'right handed' around left side cover - do so - but understand you just exposed WAY more 'bullet absorbing material' than I am willing to expose.

One of the main reasons for using cover is to MAXIMIZE the damage to your opponent/s while MINIMIZING the damage to yourself. That means transitioning to whichever shoulder helps meet that goal - all dependant upon the cover available.

The Israeli's "missed the boat" on this one - the only bullpup that 'got it right' is the FN2000. It just shows that the gap from the designer to the end user is too wide.

Whether or not the military teaches weak side shooting is immaterial. They are training to the lowest common denominator. In other words - they are not the last and only word on what is 'a better way' to do things.

This technique (bi-lateral or 'ambi' shootingz) IS taught and used by some of the high-speed mil and civilian "SWAT" units though. The 'high-speed' shooters of USMC Force Recon have ambi selector/safeties and ambi-Mag catches on their issued M4A1's - turning them in mighty fine 'ambidextrous' carbines. Other units/PD's have done the same - for a good reason. It makes sense.

In fact - all it really takes to make a believer out of anyone is some good 'force on force' training with either simunitions or even paintball/airsoft. Pain can be a good teacher.:D

Whether or not you will want to do this in a firefight is strictly a training issue. If you don't train to do it - you will not do it. If you train to do it until it is 'second nature' - then you will do it. As the oft quote saying stipulates - train how you fight and fight how you train.

He who trains to utilize both shoulders/hands will have a SERIOUS 'leg up' on his adversary who has not trained that way - as his adversary can now only effectively utilize 50% of the cover available to him.

So the choice is yours - do you want to be able to utilize only 50% of the cover available - or 100% of it??

cheers

tire iron

Correia
December 22, 2003, 05:14 PM
Jim, I've only handled that one version. (the Barrett version). They were kind of cheesy. I got the impression that they were strictly for emergency use only and the gun was meant to use an ACOG or red dot.

Gabe
December 22, 2003, 05:58 PM
Bullpups can be shot from the weakside, its just that its a little more awkward. Armies don't train to shoot from the weakside with conventional rifles either. People under stress don't like to resort to unfamiliar stunts.

To shoot from the shoulder, turn the bullpup 90 degrees so the ejection port points straight down, like a left handed gangsta grip. Not very accurate but weak hand shoting never is, and this is perfectly acceptable for CQB range.

tire iron
December 22, 2003, 06:31 PM
Gabe,

I agree it can be done - but then one has 12" of rifle hanging out in "no man's land" - with a one's elbow/arm out there with it. It is 'un-usually uncomfortable' to shoot a bullpup 'gangsta' style and keep one's elbow 'down' - to prevent one's elbow from being a bullet sponge - but the rifle itself then becomes a 'target' indicator as it precedes him by 12" or so around cover.

Again - I agree it can be done - but wouldn't it be great if all he had to do was switch shoulders - without any wierd 'gansta' style mounting solutions??

That is what I mean when I posted that "those that design are too far removed from those that USE the tools".

cheers

tire iron

Correia
December 22, 2003, 06:47 PM
Tire, I wouldn't say that those who design are to far removed from those that use the tools. The bullpup concept caught on about the same time as infantry really started riding around in armored fighting vehicles. Shorter meant that you could get in and out of your vehicle faster with out hanging up the whole squad in the doorway. See all of the complaints from Iraq from the infantry guys who were carrying around M16s instead of M4s.

Everything has trade offs. The M4 is nice and short but gives up 8 inches of barrel to a comparably sized bullpup. Where I honestly think bullpups would shine are as DMRs or as suppressed weapons. Both of which the length benefit would offset the lack of left handed shooting. That is why the world needs a good .308 bullpup. :)

tire iron
December 22, 2003, 06:57 PM
Corriea,

I have nothing at all against the bullpup concept. In fact I think it holds great promise.

My beef is with how the bullpup concept has been executed. EVERY bullpup but one is a 'shoulder specific' rifle. THAT is my complaint. The ONLY bullpup that has been 'thought out' correctly is the FN2000. It is the only bullpup that I would even seriously consider - the others limit one's options too much.

So to my way of thinking (which admittedly is 'unusual') - there should never have been a 'shoulder specific' rifle ever designed - and if the designers actually had to FIGHT with the rifles they designed, and they had to expose more of their body than they should have to - they WOULD design a bullpup that is truely 'ambi'. So to me that is where the 'gap' is.

cheers

tire iron

Correia
December 22, 2003, 07:30 PM
We can be in agreement there. I think that forward ejection is a great idea, but since I've never even seen an FN2000 in person, let alone examined the action I've got to withhold my opinion.

tire iron
December 22, 2003, 07:37 PM
Lest anyone be confused - my statement:
(The FN2000 is)the only bullpup that I would even seriously consider
only means that it is worthy of T&E'ing. I too have no trigger time with it and have never held it. But the fact that it is THE ONLY ambi bullpup out there - means it is the only bullpup that I would even look at for more than being 'curious'.

cheers

tire iron

Grump
December 22, 2003, 10:08 PM
Sorry I missed the memo, but...

How does the FAMAS eject forward somewhere? I find this intriguing and far more useful that either semi-permanent lefty conversions, or awkward in-the-field adjustments to the system.

Now, and EASY flipover of some part to allow left ejection, as easy as flipping up some bogus plastic back-up sight, would probably come close enough to the benefit some of us want to badly.

tire iron
December 23, 2003, 12:09 AM
Grump,

It is the FN produced (Belgian) 2000 bullpup that ejects the spent cartridges out of a tube that runs along the top of the barrel. The brass justs 'falls' out of the tube.

The FAMAS (French) is like every other bullpup - i.e. one must choose BEFORE going to the field if one wants a right or left handed rifle.

And you are right - the forward ejecting FN 2000 IS intreguing - because it can be used from either shoulder - equally as well.

cheers

tire iron

seeker_two
December 23, 2003, 06:30 PM
I'm intrigued w/ the bullpup rifles, too. I especially like the FN2000's ejection system, but I don't feel I'd be too hampered w/ the other ejection systems.

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried developing a bullpup rifle w/ a bottom-eject system like Calico SMG's or Ithica 37's? Seems like that would solve the ambidextry problem, too. :cool:

Justin
December 23, 2003, 07:24 PM
IIRC, the FN P90 ejects through the bottom, although it's not a bullpup in the true sense of the word. The magazine sits on the top of the weapon instead of behind the grip.

Also, the previously mentioned Calico Carbines are bottom ejectors as well.

Caseless
December 24, 2003, 03:16 PM
1) Aside from the FN F2000, the revolutionary caseless ;) HK G11 is another good ambidextrous bullpup design.

2) I, too have been lusting after a .308 bullpup. The closest I have seen is the derivative of the Dragunov SVD, called the SVU - www.world.guns.ru/sniper/sn19-e.htm. It is chambered in the 7.62 x 54 rimmed cartridge, which is slightly more powerful than .308.

Nightcrawler
December 24, 2003, 04:15 PM
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/svua.jpg

Feh. LIke almost every Russian bullpup, it's not only non-ambidextrious, but not able to be switched for lefties. Shame, 'cause it's really cool.

Caseless
December 24, 2003, 06:11 PM
I think in this case it doesn't matter because the SVU is a sniper/fire suppression rifle, not an assault rifle.
Merry Christmas to all highroaders.:)

Nightcrawler
December 24, 2003, 06:17 PM
Matters to me; I'm left handed!

I don't think it's super-critical that you be able to switch shoulders on the fly, though it is nice. But a rifle that I can't even use properly because it's wrong-handed...ick!

But yes, the WORLD NEEDS A .308 BULLPUP!

max popenker
December 25, 2003, 02:26 AM
well, the Soviets experimented with ambi bullpups since mid-1960s, if not earlier. here's the experimental 7.62x39 TKB-011M bullpup (top on picture), developed in Tula by Afanasiev in 1969. Note the ejection port just behind the pistol grip (pointed by arrow), which ejected shells forward and to the right slightly, well clear off the face when shooting from left shoulder. also note polymer housing, almost 10 years before the famous Steyr AUG :)


the more recent is the A91 bullpup, made also in Tula. middle is the older 7.62x39 version (late 1990s), with integral 40mm above the barrel, below is the most recent 5.56NATO version, with underbarrel 40mm. Both feature forward ejection with port at the right side of the receiver, above the pistol grip, and pointing forward, not to the side (marked by arrows).

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=683679

finally, a bit of trivia: first gun to have forward ejection feature was... the Maxim MG of 1880s wintage =)

Nightcrawler
December 25, 2003, 06:56 AM
Now THOSE are cool, Max. :cool: Top one's a bit on the ugly side, though. Got that Russian bakelite-looking wood-colored plastic...

Braith-Wafer
September 10, 2007, 08:27 PM
Now that feature is used on the FN F2000.

But what about the cocking handle on this one? Does it divert the cartridge ejection?

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/532/TKB-011.JPG

elmerfudd
September 10, 2007, 08:55 PM
Everything has trade offs. The M4 is nice and short but gives up 8 inches of barrel to a comparably sized bullpup. Where I honestly think bullpups would shine are as DMRs or as suppressed weapons. Both of which the length benefit would offset the lack of left handed shooting. That is why the world needs a good .308 bullpup.

I dunno, a .308 is a pretty big cartridge to stuff into a bullpup configuration. I'd be concerned about the length of pull on one.

rkh
September 10, 2007, 09:24 PM
Let me remind everyone that the FN2000, or at least the version FN sells to US consumers, would be one heck of a lousy service rifle.

Practical experience shows that:

1) magazines do not drop free;
2) clearing feed failures/jams frequently involve disassembling the rifle--there is no tap-rack-bang equivalent;
3) the creepy trigger breaks at a brutal 10+ lbs and by virtue of the bullpup design can never be made match grade;
4) even if magazines did drop free, mag changes would not be as fast as with the AR layout.

Issues 3 & 4 are the only problems that will likely not be overcome by a better bullpup. When that bullpup arrives, then we'll be able to decide whether a lousy trigger and slow reloads are a fair trade for a longer barrel in a compact package.

Wes Janson
September 10, 2007, 11:26 PM
Practical experience shows that:

1) magazines do not drop free;
2) clearing feed failures/jams frequently involve disassembling the rifle--there is no tap-rack-bang equivalent;
3) the creepy trigger breaks at a brutal 10+ lbs and by virtue of the bullpup design can never be made match grade;
4) even if magazines did drop free, mag changes would not be as fast as with the AR layout.

Issues 3 & 4 are the only problems that will likely not be overcome by a better bullpup. When that bullpup arrives, then we'll be able to decide whether a lousy trigger and slow reloads are a fair trade for a longer barrel in a compact package.

#1 is somewhat unknown at this point because it's still in a prototype phase, and #2 will require extensive testing to know for sure one way or another, but the Kel-Tec bullpup definitely solves #3. The trigger pull weight is adjustable down to two pounds..and it really IS a short, light pull. Too light for a battle rifle maybe, but it can just as easily be set for four or five pounds.

doc2rn
September 11, 2007, 12:31 AM
Doesn't Steyr make a lefty B-pup?

rkh
September 11, 2007, 12:58 AM
Wes:

As indicated, I was talking about the FN bullpup which is NOT a prototype. There are lots of them in circulation now, and a lot of less-than-satisfied owners.

I reserve comment on the Kel-Tec trigger until examples actually become available.

GunTech
September 11, 2007, 01:10 AM
Oh, just so it's known, I'd sell a kidney if I could get a semiautomatic .308 bullpup that was lefty friendly. Especially if it looked as cool as the FAMAS.

keltec will be releasing the RFB soon. It's 308 and has forward ejection, making it ambidexterus.

If you enjoyed reading about "IMI- Tavor bullpup assault rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!