Steyr AUG and TAVOR Comparison

[kimberkid]

The AUG has features like the quick change barrel that stem from its original role as the Army Universal Rifle. The AUG can be used as a support weapon with the long barrel, bipod, and open bolt hammer pack, changing barrels every 200-300 rounds. Or it can be issued with short barrels to AFV crews and rear echelon troops.

(Snip)
BSW

I've been an AUG owner for close to 20 years, I've upgraded and picked up a few accessories along the way ... I only wish I'd picked up a registered hammer pack back when they were "cheap".

Is that a typo about changing the barrel every 200-300 rounds? At 600 rounds a minute, that's changing the barrel about every 30-45 seconds. Even the LMG barrel is hammer-forged and it's a lot more durable than that.

​

If the IDF wanted to use NATO mags, they could have just used the NATO stock (my personal preference) and the IDF could have saved a lot of money had they just taught their troops to take care of their equipment ... I can't see how having to depend on an armorer to reconfigure your weapon is an advantage. Heck, you can't even add optics to a Tavor without fires adding a riser or replace the rail with an aftermarket unit so you don't have to dink with it every time you make a change. IMHO, when it comes to elegance, the AUG has the Tavor beat hands down ... Austria & the Aussies down under equipped their army's with them and only switched to the M16 when the US was giving them away in IRAQ. But then what do I know, I'm a US citizen quarter-backing from an armchair.

 

[Tirod]

I was eyeballing the AUG in it's early days, and my comparison was vs the HK 91, which I owned, and the M16, which I was issued.

It's design in the bigger scheme of firearms was to optimize the ballistic capabilities of government issue ammo while reducing the overall size of the weapon in the face of increased mechanized vehicle use. The general military trend was to get troops off their boots and into vehicles to improve speed and create a somewhat protected environment. Firearms like the FN FAL weren't vehicle friendly with their long overall length, and neither were many others.

Nobody at the time wanted to simply cut down the barrels as they very well know it would reduce the speed and power of the projectile, and the goal was to still be able to reach out to 500 with lethal force. It was an era when firearms in combat were still being proposed in larger calibers - many didn't want to adopt intermediates. If they were going to, it had to be with as much power as they could get - and a bullpup offered that.

The real issue is that ammo had been standardized and they were stuck with their selection. On an open playing field, you aren't - you simply change up your ammo choice to something that delivers more power and maintains effective range from a shorter barrel. That way you get both issues solved - less overall length for vehicular use, and adequate power.

In the long run we simply went to the M4 and live with the results, which have been successful because we also changed the ammo. We aren't shooting the same stuff we were in the 1960's. And don't forget when SF addressed the ammo issue, the result was the 6.8SPC, which increases power 50%. We didn't adopt that but there is no reason you can't.

Now, in the big scheme, is it better to own a proprietary weapon with a limited supply of repair parts, or use a proprietary ammo which isn't GI? This boils down to an individual decision - do whatever you like. If the application calls for as short a weapon in transport as can practically be used, I'd go a 14.5" light AR15 in 6.8. I think it would acquit itself well in a comparison vs bullpups.

Again, the thrust of what was being done was carrying them in and out of vehicles, and the answer doesn't mean you are stuck to use the longest possible barrel. Change the ammo and you get the power back without resorting to tradeoffs creating trigger issues and making mag changes worse. If it's strictly a gun you want to own, by all means go ahead. Each design has it's lessons to learn, and they are always compromises. Just be aware of what compromises you choose.

 

[justin22885]

^^.. uuh, to say mag changes, ergonomics, or trigger is worse is COMPLETELY subjective, youre comparing it to what youre used to, not taking it for what it is.. the AUG trigger fails with its plastic components but the metal trigger upgrades make it a pretty decent trigger.. and whats this fantasy people have that theyre going to be in the midst of some gunfight dodging bullets while pulling of a .5 second rapid reload all while standing in the open?.. the AUG mag changes are plenty fast enough that more countries have adopted that weapon than the M4

also, you say with a shorter barrel, get ammo tuned for a shorter barrel, well with an AUG, why not use that ammo tuned for a shorter barrel, plus a shorter barrel and have something even shorter yet?.. also, changing powders and bullets works to improve the performance in short barrels, but you'll never make back the velocity you lose when you shorten it

this isnt even mentioning the better balance, less fatigue shouldering the rifle for long periods of time, faster target acquisition, less overswing and a plethora of other benefits

 

[MechAg94]

I don't know anything about the reference to cheek slap on the trigger. I don't notice any of that. The trigger was smooth, but heavy. The Giessle trigger I installed (very easy installation) is nearly as good as their AR triggers. The only issue with the length of pull for me is the rear of the receiver is too close to use low mounted sites.

The only two things I would change: 1) I would be curious if they could slim down the profile to make it just a bit less bulky, and 2) I wish they would bring back the 5.45X39 conversion they initially planned for. The "bulky" part isn't really an issue, I just prefer sleek and slim.

 

[justin22885]

I don't know anything about the reference to cheek slap on the trigger. I don't notice any of that. The trigger was smooth, but heavy. The Giessle trigger I installed (very easy installation) is nearly as good as their AR triggers. The only issue with the length of pull for me is the rear of the receiver is too close to use low mounted sites.

The only two things I would change: 1) I would be curious if they could slim down the profile to make it just a bit less bulky, and 2) I wish they would bring back the 5.45X39 conversion they initially planned for. The "bulky" part isn't really an issue, I just prefer sleek and slim.

cant really do away with the bulkiness, with its sort of upside down AR18ish type of action its generally pretty wide to mount the guide rails/oprods in a position that clears the magazine

 

[grter]

I would pick a Tavor.

 

[MechAg94]

I would also. This is actually one of the first times I ever heard anyone praise the Aug without some misgivings. Of course, I don't remember the Aug being available or really discussed that much at all.

Also, if it doesn't take AR mags, it will not be my preference. I have a small pile of them. That was one reason I got the Tavor. With all the polymer mag options these days, I don't think there is anything negative to say about AR mags.

 

[ttarp]

While the Tavor didn't improve much on the AUG beyond ergonomics and layout of the controls, it is a quality rifle and I'm all about having options.

The AUG has much more potential for a bigger aftermarket due to its modular design, but as unpopular as the rifle is and its flakey availability until the last few years we've seen very little aftermarket growth.

The Tavor had some sort of "legendary" status when it came on the scene, hats off to their marketing department. Thats what I like best about the Tavor though, the aggressive marketing and glowing first hand reports have interested a lot of folks who wouldn't normally look twice at a bullpup design, and hopefully the more folks that get into bullpups, the more prices will drop and more aftermarket will become available too.

But whichever rifle you favor, you'll constantly have to justify your purchase to the folks who insist a $500 AR is every bit as good and better for a third of the price.

 

[justin22885]

I would also. This is actually one of the first times I ever heard anyone praise the Aug without some misgivings. Of course, I don't remember the Aug being available or really discussed that much at all.

Also, if it doesn't take AR mags, it will not be my preference. I have a small pile of them. That was one reason I got the Tavor. With all the polymer mag options these days, I don't think there is anything negative to say about AR mags.

you can get the AUG M1 with the nato stock that uses AR-15 magazines with a functioning LRBHO.. and there are negatives about the AR mags.. forced to be generally thin, most do NOT have a constant radius on the inside, and they dont lend well to ambidexterity without some akward mag release mechanism

 

[grter]

Now I would want to Tavor to have the full mil spec treatment but with a long barrel and in semi. For the price it should be.

 

[ifit]

Just checked out the Bullpup forums all I can say is WOW the Tavor holding its own...I chose a Tavor over the Aug

Tavor total topics=3,058/Posts=43,496

Aug total topics=801/Posts=6,423

very interested if they release a civilian based X-95 version

 

[Fishbed77]

Even now, the Tavor's thousandish price makes it an order of magnitude more popular.

Where have you seen a Tavor for ~$1000? I've never seen one below $1500.

 

[Manny]

I have a Tavor because I found it used but new for a killer deal. In comparison I've never laid eyes on an Aug in real life. The Tavor is pure win for me in that it's actually shorter than my Sig M400 pistol with no worries about legalities with the arm brace. It is much different getting used to a Tavor than an AR, but well worth the effort IMHO.

 

[HKGuns]

Now I would want to Tavor to have the full mil spec treatment but with a long barrel and in semi. For the price it should be.

You realize the Tavor comes standard in 16" and 18" barrels right? As far as "The full milspec treatment" - I have no idea what that even means.

Regardless, I own the Tavor and it is a fantastic rifle. The AUG is on my list.

The correct answer is both, just a matter of which you choose first.

 

[grter]

You realize the Tavor comes standard in 16" and 18" barrels right? As far as "The full milspec treatment" - I have no idea what that even means.

Regardless, I own the Tavor and it is a fantastic rifle. The AUG is on my list.

The correct answer is both, just a matter of which you choose first.

It's unfortunate that not many people do

 

[basicblur]

You realize the Tavor comes standard in 16" and 18" barrels right?

I've often wondered how many folks knew this, as I see a lot of folks with 18" barrels.

Maybe they have some need / desire for the 18" barrel, but if one of the selling points for a bullpup is shorter length, I wonder why so many folks seem to have the longer barrel?

I went with the 16" barrel.

 

[kimberkid]

I've often wondered how many folks knew this, as I see a lot of folks with 18" barrels.

Maybe they have some need / desire for the 18" barrel, but if one of the selling points for a bullpup is shorter length, I wonder why so many folks seem to have the longer barrel?

I went with the 16" barrel.

I've had several Bushmaster M17S's over the years and they were only offered with a 21" barrel because when it was introduced about all anyone shot was surplus (this was back in the day when you could buy 1000 rounds of 55 grain lake city for $69) and the 20" barrel was the way to go because you got to use the full potential of the round in a shorter package ... for years it did nothing but sit in the safe then a couple years ago I decided to dress it up and chop the barrel on it ... its now 16 1/8", it handles and cools a lot better.

The old look:

​

The new look:

​

 

[kimberkid]

Here's how the M17S compares in size with the Tavor; if the Tavor had a regular flash hider on it they would be the same length ... but I like the heavier barrel of the Bushmaster



Here's how my AUG(A2) compares in size with the Tavor;



I've had both an AUG and M17S for over 20 years, I really didn't expect the Tavor to be as hard to get used to as it is seems to be (for me anyway).

 

[justin22885]

the M17S you guys are showing is outdated.. the new one by K&M uses AR-15 trigger group, magpul style buttpad, modified AR-15 trigger components with a "pull" type of link which gives a smooth, short, lightweight trigger pull.. it could very well be the best bullpup on the market, id like to see a torture test ot it first though

 

[kimberkid]

Interesting!

Ken had a re-designed trigger system for the original lower that was supposed to be pretty nice and after having him customize mine I can vouch for his quality. I kept thinking I'd get one of his trigger systems and install it myself but never did ... I wonder if it's still available?

Except for the upgrades He made for the original M17S I had no idea he had picked up the design from Bushmaster and took it to new heights. I'd be interested in getting one of his lowers but I'm not interested enough to fork out $1800 on a design that never took off in the 15 or so years Bushmaster had it. However knowing how heavy the gun was with a fiber lower I would guess it's pushing 9 pounds with its new billet lower.

(edit)
Just out of curiosity I put mine on a digital bathroom scale, unloaded it weighs 9.3 pounds ... that's with about 5'" of barrel cut off (wiki says 8.2 with the 21.5" barrel)... 16" AUG weighs in at 7.3 and the 16" Tavor at 7.0

 

[HKGuns]

It's unfortunate that not many people do

Thanks very much for your great additions to this thread.

Nice rifles Kid.

 

[grter]

There are also some internal dimensional differences designed in so that some military parts wont fit in the SAR (this is a cut and paste)

My thoughts

This I can understand to comply with US anti full auto laws. My guess is they are refering to the the trigger group and housing which I read a lot of complaints about a heavy trigger pull. That would not sway me I am fine with that and would fix it if it bothered me enough.

The following specs below I like.


Manufacturer: IWI US, Inc.; (717) 695-2081; iwi.us
Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO (.223 Rem.) (tested); 5.45x39 mm and 9 mm Luger with optional conversion kits
Action Type: long-stroke, gas-piston-operated, semi-automatic center-fire rifle (blowback with 9 mm Luger)
Receiver: hard anodized 7075-E6 aluminum with Teflon coating
Barrel: 16½" chrome-line, cold hammer forged chrome-moly vanadium steel (tested); 18" with bayonet lug; both with 1/2-28 t.p.i. muzzle threads
Rifling: six-groove,1:7" RH twist
Magazine: standard AR-15/M16 detachable box
Sights: folding steel rear peep and fully adjustable tritium front post
Trigger: 11-lb., 8-oz. pull
Safety: bilateral AR-15-style lever
Stock: injection-molded polymer with molded-in stippling in flat dark earth or black
Overall Length: 261⁄8" (16½" barrel, tested) 275⁄8" (18" barrel)
Weight: from 7 lbs., 14 ozs. (tested) to 8 lbs., 8 ozs.
Accessories: quick-detachable sling swivels, cleaning and maintenance kit, sight adjustment tool, one 30-round polymer magazine, owner’s manual, lock
Suggested Retail Price: $1,999 (tested); $2,599 (“IDF” Model)

The following is from iwi.us/tavor

TAVOR® SAR Features Include:
• Bullpup configuration allows for short rifle convenience with long rifle accuracy
• Optimized ergonomic design for increased comfort and ease-of-use
• Clean, long stroke gas piston operation
• 5.56 NATO detachable, cold hammer-forged barrel (CHF), chrome-lined with 1:7 twist, CrMoV steel
• Optional 9mm Parabellum conversion kit with CHF barrel, 1:10 twist, CrMoV steel
• 100% ambidextrous configuration and operation with optional left-hand bolts for 5.56 NATO. No additional parts required to convert 9mm Parabellum to LH configuration
• Integral ambidextrous front and rear quick detachable sling swivel receptacles with push button swivels
• Simple field stripping into easily serviceable subassemblies
• Mil-Std 100% interchangeability of all TAVOR SAR parts
• Last round - bolt holds open on an empty magazine
• All metal parts treated for corrosion resistance
• Integral rubber recoil pad


Another source

This short section of U.S. law in many ways defines the existence of IWI U.S. The company needed to figure out how to import a “non-sporting” rifle from Israel and turn it into an American-made gun by replacing up to 10 foreign parts with domestically manufactured items. The solution was made possible by the Tavor SAR’s extensive use of polymer components (and the fact a magazine counts as three parts). Without listing every part of the bullpup, suffice it to say most of the polymer parts are made in the U.S., as is the trigger, while most of the metal bits come from Israel, including the barreled action. Therefore, the Tavor SAR is, in the most technical manner, an American-made gun

Source http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/21/gun-test-iwi-u-s-tavor-sar/

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/21/gun-test-iwi-u-s-tavor-sar/#ixzz3oUlt2pJQ


the trigger pack for the U.S. version has been slightly modified compared to the Israeli & Canadian versions.
Source http://www.acrforum.com/forum/general-firearms/3801-military-arms-channel-full-review-tavor.html[/url]

I would like to know exactly what these trigger pack differences are. I also recall reading something about the gas ports angled differently than in military models. Is this true, if so why and what does is mean to the shooter ?

Overall I am impressed. Unlike the UZI semiauto carbine which was a drastic departure from it's original design as an open bolt to a closed bolt US semi auto version, the Tavor seems to be as true to it's original design as possible.

The fact that most of the metal parts are made in Isreal along with a great chrome lined cold forged steel barrel with a proper twist rate, is a relief since I would hate to see this go down the tubes with a cheapo US made button rifled barrel and sub par metal parts lacking proper heat treatment.

I also like the fact that the barrel is easily removable and would not mind slipping in a 20 inch barrel (that is what I like) and would probably even buy a lower quality uncoated button rifled after market barrel for it, a bummer I am willing to live with if IWI won't make one but there is hope I read they actually do make a longer barrel for the Canadians to comply with their laws. I would want to buy one of those longer barrels even longer than 20 inches for me would be a plus.

When it comes to plastic polymer I do trust the US to do that right (I think, am I wrong ??????)

I would definately buy one of these if I could but I live in D Blasio/Bloomburg paradise where criminals have firepower and civilians are required by law to remain unarmed, helpless and allow themselves and their family to be slaughtered by the first opportunistic home invaders that happen to stop by while waiting for the police to stop by and toe tag everyone in the house, unless of course you happen to have a fat income then you can even conceal carry.

 

[briansmithwins]

Clean, long stroke gas piston operation

Yeah, not so much. The Tavor does get its bolt carrier and inside of the receiver dirty. It doesn't affect operation at all.

The AUG's short stroke piston does keep the inside of the receiver and recoiling parts clean.

BSW

 

[lysanderxiii]

the isrealis pride themselves on unique designs. their MBT is probably one of the most sophisticated battle tanks in the world, the Galil was essentially a nato standard AK47 with ambidextrous controls. isreal likes being top gun with weapons R&D. even if it has no advantage over the aug(I've read a number of reports that say the trigger is far superior on the tavor, and optics are easier to work with on the tavor), it's still something that can be attributed to isreali craftsmanship and generates revenue for isreal.

The original Galils were 1-12 twist, M193 only, when it came out in the early 1970s there was no such thing as NATO standard 5.56mm.

The Israelis don't so much pride themselves in uniqueness, but have more of an understanding that in the field of national defense, you have to be self-sufficient. One of the hard lessons of 1967, and an arms embargo by France.

 

[MechAg94]

Yeah, not so much. The Tavor does get its bolt carrier and inside of the receiver dirty. It doesn't affect operation at all.

The AUG's short stroke piston does keep the inside of the receiver and recoiling parts clean.

BSW

I have never had any rifle of any type that maintained a clean chamber. However, I recently acquired an LWRC piston AR upper so I will see how that works.

Also, it isn't a matter of if it gets dirty, but if it keeps working despite being dirty.