View Full Version : will the tavor stand the test of time?
i see all of these posts on various forums with everyone loving them but do you guys think its a temporary fling or do you think the tavor will be popular for years to come? the aug and fs2000 seem to have more or less fallen by the way side over the last several years, if not longer. im wondering if its just the flavor of the month or if it will stick.
secondly, i have heard they are pretty dang heavy, has anyone that has handled one noticed a significant weight gain over an AR? i know the weight distributes differently but was wondering what people thought.
i am tired of doing sbr's to get small rifles, it would be nice to have one that is small but not have some special registration.
Best thing would to get rid of the NFA act. Sbr should be legal no problem.
Best thing would to get rid of the NFA act. Sbr should be legal no problem.
I completely agree. Shorter barrel length actually results in slower bullets and wasted powder (unless you like flame and noise). I also cannot understand why everything else in the world needs a muffler or to be quieter but getting a suppressor costs me more tax money. Government logic... go figure.
I think many other fun stuff, has quickly had the problems found. (Look at UTS 15, KSG to some extent early models, PMR30, MSAR's etc.) So after another month or two and you don't start seeing a lot of stories and videos of problems crop up I think functionally it will be fine. Question is of course theres a buying frenzy, but how high will demand keep up, reliable or not.
I completely agree. Shorter barrel length actually results in slower bullets and wasted powder (unless you like flame and noise). I also cannot understand why everything else in the world needs a muffler or to be quieter but getting a suppressor costs me more tax money. Government logic... go figure. [Awesom]
It boils down to reliability, availability and cost. All the firearms mentioned could stand the test of time. Aug, KSG, FS2000 and Tavor are all reliable, but remain a niche market mainly due to cost and availability. Cost too much and not widely available, thus when the next sexy thing comes out will fall by the wayside.
ringhilt
06-21-2013, 18:47
I think JHerexx hit the nail on the head. I think cost will be the prime driving factor of the tavor fading away into being a niche rifle just like the FS2000, AUG, MSAR, etc. At approx. $2K each they are just not cost effective. You can get a generic AR starting at $800 and go up depending on how you option it out. Even a quality AK will only set you back approx. $1100. For $2K I can get a really nice AR that will shoot sub-MOA. For that price you just purchased a Tavor. You don't even have iron sights to get you going yet.
Bottom line, price will be the factor that keeps the Tavor from being everyday common.
If you want one, go for it. They are reliable. The Israelis would not use them if they did not perform. And the extra weight is not very noticeable. The rifle balances very well. (I was able to shoot one at Shot Show back in January) I think the extra weight is because is was designed to be heavy duty for combat usage.
One more thing. if you want a tack driving rifle, bullpups of any sort are not going to do it. They are plenty accurate just not tack drivers. They are meant to be easy to carry and shoot.
My $1.02 worth.
Here is a link to a youtube review of the rifle by NutnFancy. Worth your time to watch. I think he does a fair review of the rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxCuDtQW3nw
The tavor comes with built in Irons btw. You are leaving out it's selling points including size. To have that in the AR, don't forget time and $ of going NFA... For the common person, the reliability between a value AR and the tavor wouldn't matter, but then likewise neither would an LWRC. (And those still sell great and in business at 2k+ per and still usually need trigger jobs etc.) One thing that will be interesting is aftermarket options inventive people come up with. It's already been suggested due to it's design, that radically reshaped aftermarket stocks could be possible.
I completely agree. Shorter barrel length actually results in slower bullets and wasted powder (unless you like flame and noise). I also cannot understand why everything else in the world needs a muffler or to be quieter but getting a suppressor costs me more tax money. Government logic... go figure.
cstone for president. [Awesom]
Great-Kazoo
06-21-2013, 19:24
It boils down to reliability, availability and cost. All the firearms mentioned could stand the test of time. Aug, KSG, FS2000 and Tavor are all reliable, but remain a niche market mainly due to cost and availability. Cost too much and not widely available, thus when the next sexy thing comes out will fall by the wayside.
This. Stand the test of Time? Tavor can't stand the test of my wallet. I've done 2 SBR's, 1 factory for what the Tavor's MSRP is. AND as a concerned, environmentally conscious, carbon friendly new age sensitive man, i installed mufflers on them. If it could save one person's hearing, isn't it worth it.
This. Stand the test of Time? Tavor can't stand the test of my wallet. I've done 2 SBR's, 1 factory for what the Tavor's MSRP is. AND as a concerned, environmentally conscious, carbon friendly new age sensitive man, i installed mufflers on them. If it could save one person's hearing, isn't it worth it.
they are pricey, but i don't think they're as "expensive" as people are making them out to be. a good quality AR will likely run around 1100-1200 (BCM type or better). then another 200 for the stamp. tavors right now are going to 2000 but if supply ever catches up (which is a good question) they are thought to be selling at 1900 or so.
another way to look at it is by comparing it to newer ar types such as scars, xcrs, acrs. these have a few nice features but in reality aren't drastically better than a normal ar. yet they cost 2000 plus. they may not be around forever either, i don't know. it just seems the tavor market is a bit different than the flavor of the month in the past. it will be interesting to see though.
one not so good sign is that these have been in use in israel for a while and you haven't seen a whole lot of parts and upgrades come out. they may not be as crazy about that sort of thing as americans but still youd think more options would be out.
they are pricey, but i don't think they're as "expensive" as people are making them out to be. a good quality AR will likely run around 1100-1200 (BCM type or better). then another 200 for the stamp. tavors right now are going to 2000 but if supply ever catches up (which is a good question) they are thought to be selling at 1900 or so.
another way to look at it is by comparing it to newer ar types such as scars, xcrs, acrs. these have a few nice features but in reality aren't drastically better than a normal ar. yet they cost 2000 plus. they may not be around forever either, i don't know. it just seems the tavor market is a bit different than the flavor of the month in the past. it will be interesting to see though.
one not so good sign is that these have been in use in israel for a while and you haven't seen a whole lot of parts and upgrades come out. they may not be as crazy about that sort of thing as americans but still youd think more options would be out.
Okay...Tavors are going for $2,000. My AR, built from the ground up with all the bells & whistles cost $1,400. Add a tax stamp, now you're talking 1,600. Still saves me $400 to have an SBR. Even picking up a new AR for $1,400 and tax stamping it is cheaper. Also, I know the AR platform inside & out. Buying the Tavor means I have to become familiar with a whole new system. I think the Tavor is cool & all, but WAY overpriced, just like the SCAR, ACR, FS2000, etc.
Great-Kazoo
06-21-2013, 20:00
they are pricey, but i don't think they're as "expensive" as people are making them out to be. a good quality AR will likely run around 1100-1200 (BCM type or better). then another 200 for the stamp. tavors right now are going to 2000 but if supply ever catches up (which is a good question) they are thought to be selling at 1900 or so.
another way to look at it is by comparing it to newer ar types such as scars, xcrs, acrs. these have a few nice features but in reality aren't drastically better than a normal ar. yet they cost 2000 plus. they may not be around forever either, i don't know. it just seems the tavor market is a bit different than the flavor of the month in the past. it will be interesting to see though.
one not so good sign is that these have been in use in israel for a while and you haven't seen a whole lot of parts and upgrades come out. they may not be as crazy about that sort of thing as americans but still youd think more options would be out.
I've owned lots of "niche" guns. Most if not all, were sold for 2 reasons
1) my asking price was met
2) Availability of general use parts.
I really debated on buying one. However my money was put to use elsewhere for a lot less up front cash. Same for the SCAR, interesting gun, not a lot of movement in the secondary market. last thing i want is being stuck with a boat anchor.
i think people buying them over msrp are nuts. buying it at or slightly under probably is fairly safe. still a lot of money though. i don't particularly want one but i am just interested whenever something new hits the market.
I've owned lots of "niche" guns. Most if not all, were sold for 2 reasons
1) my asking price was met
2) Availability of general use parts.
I really debated on buying one. However my money was put to use elsewhere for a lot less up front cash. Same for the SCAR, interesting gun, not a lot of movement in the secondary market. last thing i want is being stuck with a boat anchor.
Aloha_Shooter
06-21-2013, 20:26
This is only the second "niche" gun I've owned -- the first one (Beretta CX-4 Storm) is a hoot and a half and able to use my existing Beretta 92 mags so staying in the collection. I like how the Tavor feels -- a bit heaver than the Storm but acceptable -- although I haven't had time to check it out at the range. Having said that, it's a platform that's been battle-tested in one of the more stringent crucibles on the globe and it can use my existing AR mags so I'm pretty comfortable with having one. I have no doubts the Tavor will withstand the test of time.
We haven't seen parts and upgrades out for the Tavor for the same reason we didn't see a lot of evolution in the AR platform until its popularity in the civilian market increased. It's the individuals willing to tinker and try different configurations that drive that evolution -- government procurement systems tend to favor a few monolithic configurations to ease the logistics system. I fully expect the parts and upgrades to blossom as acceptance and distribution in the civilian market increase.
XC700116
06-21-2013, 22:52
I REALLY like everything about the idea of the Tavor, however as mentioned, price is a biggy to me, not disqualifying, but bang for the buck IMO just isn't quite there. There's the obvious advantages it offers over the AR but IMO one of the biggest, it can't match straight away by design. The Trigger, I'm a nut for good triggers. I currently have paired down to 2 AR lowers with 4 different uppers and both lowers have Geissele triggers in them, a 2 stage HSNM and a S3G. The design of the bulpup/Tavor can never match the trigger feel you can achieve with an AR. That's probably the single biggest factor to my unwillingness to pay the price for one. With some work, they could be very accurate, but the trigger is the weak spot in the system for accuracy.
That said, long run if it was a $1k rifle instead of a $2k rifle I'd probably pick one up, but for what it can offer for $2K, I'll pass for now.
beast556
06-21-2013, 23:52
Priced way to high. Should only be around a thousand bucks.
You ask if these will stand the test of time. In a lot of ways they already have. The AUG was designed in the 1960s and has been in production since 1978. It is used by around 35 different countries and has seen a number of revisions. It has been copied by the Australian government and 2 or 3 US companies. China has even made a knockoff.
All this adds up to something with staying power and enough demand to have people copy. I have heard rumors that the same basic team that designed the AUG were hired away by FN to design the P90. I can't verify it but that is the rumor I have heard and looking at the 2 I can definately see the similarities. This says that other prominant companies feel it is worth millions to fund their own designs and not just make direct copies of the AUG. Even KelTec is getting into the market with their RFB.
Then look at the aftermarket bullpup stocks for the 10/22, the AK47, the Mini 14, the M1A, the SKS, the Saiga...and how long those have been available and you come to the conclusion that there is definatly a demand for the design.
DavieD55
06-22-2013, 07:54
You'll never catch me with one.
NightCat
06-22-2013, 10:03
I'll beat the dead horse some more.
It isn't cost effective...for what else you could spend the money on, you could have a much nice, designed for your application battle rifle instead.
I believe the Tavor will hold up for those who have them, Israeli's make some damn reliable weapons, However i'm sure like all imports, they get dumbed down and produced cheaper for the American market...cause we cant be trusted with anything.
Zundfolge
06-22-2013, 10:55
The problem with all these cool new "wonder-bullpups" (AUG, FS2000, Tavor, etc) is that they never build or sell enough of them to get the cost down to around the same as an AR. If they didn't cost twice what a decent AR cost then they would sell better.
Oh and I think what really hurt the FS2000 was Magpul ... people want to be able to use Pmags in their .223/5.56 rifles. Running this high-tech sci-fi looking rifle from a 40 year old STANAG mag just seems wrong.
The problem with all these cool new "wonder-bullpups" (AUG, FS2000, Tavor, etc) is that they never build or sell enough of them to get the cost down to around the same as an AR. If they didn't cost twice what a decent AR cost then they would sell better.
Oh and I think what really hurt the FS2000 was Magpul ... people want to be able to use Pmags in their .223/5.56 rifles. Running this high-tech sci-fi looking rifle from a 40 year old STANAG mag just seems wrong.
Actually the AUG has dropped dramatically in price. They used to run an easy $3500+. And that was for a well used model. Now you can pick up one new for around $2000.
The FS2000s problem is it was never accepted by any major government unlike the AUG, the Tavor, and the P90. Thus the high price tag on it to recoop the costs of design and manufacture. The AUG is still recooping the price of having to set up manufacturing here in the US. If they continue to make them here and there continues to be a demand I would expect their price to drop more eventually as well. The P90 was adopted by a number of governments so the price on it was cheeper.
I've built three 10.5" AR pistols in the past month. The one I built for myself in .300BO, with iron sights (front tritium post), light, laser and a SIG pistol cuff is a shade under 6 pounds, can be easily suppressed, shot from the shoulder, stuffed in a pack, shoot sub and sonic rounds. Complete it was about $1K to build, does everything a Tavor (or Bullpup) does with readily available parts, less noise and a LOT less cost. Plus, no SBR tax stamp.
Tavors are cool, but so is a Lambo. I think the interest will fade, and even if found to be utterly reliable (a statement that is WAY premature at this point) they will end up being a niche gun. The steadily falling prices of ARs from 2004 until 2007 did more for their popularity than I think most of us realize.
i kind of think it has proven to be reliable. the build for the civilian market is the same minus select fire. made by the same people, same parts, everything, and they run it in a desert. there are things i am worried about, like the trigger, reliability i am not. lets not forget that as much as we all love ar's, they aren't the most reliable rifles ever made.
heres whats confusing to me. people talk about the cost but then keep saying how many ar's they have or have built. thats fine, i have two as well, but why worry about the cost of one rifle when you are having three that cost the same? sure, you can have more rifles for the same price, but how often do you shoot each one? i always have one go to and the other sits in the safe, maybe its just me.
ar's are great. i like them, i know them well. but they have serious limitations in today's world, and they should i mean they were designed decades ago. doesn't mean they are obsolete, they aren't, but some rifles have made some improvements, though usually at a cost. personally the one thing i like about it is a 16.5" barrel in a small package. yes you can build sbr's, which i have and do enjoy, but you also can't shoot as far. secondly i like the ability to fairly quickly change out parts to go to different calibers, especially 9mm. and yes, you can get a different ar uper and do the same, and for about the same cost, but compared to other flavor of the month rifles, thats a nice ability.
if they could fix the trigger and somehow get the cost down to about 1600 i think it would sell like a hotcake.
I've built three 10.5" AR pistols in the past month. The one I built for myself in .300BO, with iron sights (front tritium post), light, laser and a SIG pistol cuff is a shade under 6 pounds, can be easily suppressed, shot from the shoulder, stuffed in a pack, shoot sub and sonic rounds. Complete it was about $1K to build, does everything a Tavor (or Bullpup) does with readily available parts, less noise and a LOT less cost. Plus, no SBR tax stamp.
Tavors are cool, but so is a Lambo. I think the interest will fade, and even if found to be utterly reliable (a statement that is WAY premature at this point) they will end up being a niche gun. The steadily falling prices of ARs from 2004 until 2007 did more for their popularity than I think most of us realize.
heres whats confusing to me. people talk about the cost but then keep saying how many ar's they have or have built. thats fine, i have two as well, but why worry about the cost of one rifle when you are having three that cost the same? sure, you can have more rifles for the same price, but how often do you shoot each one? i always have one go to and the other sits in the safe, maybe its just me.
I build custom uppers for customers, so everything I say I have built is not in my safe.
While I do have multiple ARs, they all have specific tasks and none are really duplicates. I have 4 configured for different competitions, specifically built for those match types. Going to 2 or 3 Tavors would be a serious step in the WRONG direction for me.
Let's face it, there are really four kinds of gun owners, shooters, plinkers, hunters and collectors. Those classes may transfer into averages of 20K, 1K, 50 and 10 rounds a year. When I burn out an AR barrel a year on average, the cost of a Tavor barrel just really becomes a financial hurdle. If I was a just a plinker, hunter or collector, I might in fact have a Tavor in the safe.
Zundfolge
06-22-2013, 20:04
Actually the AUG has dropped dramatically in price. They used to run an easy $3500+. And that was for a well used model. Now you can pick up one new for around $2000.
Yeah, I believe the fact that Steyr makes them in the US now (and competition from the MSAR) we've seen some price drop ... I don't think they'll be anything other than a fringe boutique gun until they're closer to a grand.
The FS2000s problem is it was never accepted by any major government unlike the AUG, the Tavor, and the P90. Thus the high price tag on it to recoop the costs of design and manufacture. The AUG is still recooping the price of having to set up manufacturing here in the US. If they continue to make them here and there continues to be a demand I would expect their price to drop more eventually as well. The P90 was adopted by a number of governments so the price on it was cheeper.
Good points all around there.
Honestly if KelTec would make a 5.56mm version of the RFB that takes all AR mags they'd likely sell more than they could produce (pretty much like everything else they make :p ).
Yeah, I believe the fact that Steyr makes them in the US now (and competition from the MSAR) we've seen some price drop ... I don't think they'll be anything other than a fringe boutique gun until they're closer to a grand.
Good points all around there.
Honestly if KelTec would make a 5.56mm version of the RFB that takes all AR mags they'd likely sell more than they could produce (pretty much like everything else they make :p ).
ha, so true.
So many silly comparisons and lots of misinformation. Did someone seriously just compare a pistol to a Tavor rifle? You can't even fire it from your shoulder and you think it's better? Uhmmkay. I won't even get into how silly I think the whole 'pistol' AR15 segment is. I mean seriously, if I want to shoot a pistol I'll just shoot a pistol and not sacrifice maneuverability and compactness in the process. I don't understand why some people feel the need to interject into some topics sometimes but whatever. Let's get back to the topic now...
I'll just say that the Tavor is quickly becoming my favorite platform. If you had one to tear apart and see how it's made and how they correct a LOT of misgivings of other systems (yes, even the beloved AR15) you would see that it's not just a fad. It's been proven by the IDF for years now and if it's good enough for them to make their primary use weapon then it's good enough for us can shooters. This is a serious weapon system and it does some stuff that an AR15 simply can't do, in any configuration. Period. The balance is incredible and you can shoot all day long moving form target to target with lightning quickness and you can hold it all day long w/o fatigue. Hang a suppressor off the front of it and an AR15 and then do target transition drills and it's night and day difference. Not even remotely close.
Nothing out there is perfect and this applies to the Tavor as well but man, for it's limited shortcomings it sure does the rest VERY well. I can get standard velocity out of a 16.5" barrel while firing from the shoulder from a package shorter than my 9" SBR'd AR15 even with the stock fully collapsed... read: Not even in firing configuration. That being said, if SHTF and I need to grab a rifle it probably won't be a Tavor.... yet. In a year or so I may not have the same opinion. This thing is a tank and it's a dream to drive!
So many silly comparisons and lots of misinformation. Did someone seriously just compare a pistol to a Tavor rifle? You can't even fire it from your shoulder and you think it's better? Uhmmkay. I won't even get into how silly I think the whole 'pistol' AR15 segment is. I mean seriously, if I want to shoot a pistol I'll just shoot a pistol and not sacrifice maneuverability and compactness in the process. I don't understand why some people feel the need to interject into some topics sometimes but whatever. Let's get back to the topic now...
AR pistols can be shoulder fired.
Don't forget comparing piston to non piston guns though.
AR pistols can be shoulder fired.
Sort of, sure.
Don't forget comparing piston to non piston guns though.
That's another thing as far as the comparisons are going. They're all comparing DI AR's to a Tavor which is a piston. Comparatively I have a LMT CQB MRP 12" piston upper and just the upper runs over $1,500. So this seems a better comparison and price-wise it will end up being more plus you have tax stamps and waiting for said tax stamps and when all that's said and done I've got a slower upper that doesn't reach out as far and it's STILL a longer weapon system overall and doesn't balance as well. Even then though this isn't a fair comparison for either system as they're just... different. Not sure why we're even comparing apples to string cheese anyway.
Did someone seriously just compare a pistol to a Tavor rifle? You can't even fire it from your shoulder and you think it's better? Uhmmkay.
You really need to get out more, or at least know what you are talking about...talk about misinformation! An AR pistol, if you know what you are doing, it about the ultimate PDW.
DI vs. Piston, the piston fad hit the 3Gun ranks for a few matches, then went away as they are much slower and actually need more maintenance. The bullpups load slower too.
Feel free to bring the Tavor out to a match and run it directly against some of the best running ARs and see what you think then. Or not. [ROFL2]
wctriumph
06-23-2013, 13:02
Well, I am not the authority that you guys are but because of the price, in my opinion, it will be a niche gun in the US. I would like to try one sometime and I am sure it is a incredible firearm, just too expensive for general consumption by the shooting public.
i would of course never diss the a r15 directly, as it is sacrilege, but the reason "the best running ars" seem so great at matches is because...wait for it...the shooters have shot them for decades. trying to go to a comp with a completely different reloading system, trigger, or even just in the case of the piston ars where you have different maintenance and failures, is idiotic. even if a rifle did show up and out class the ar it would take literally at least 10 years to really see it get replaced. regardless of how good a rifle is, you are better off with a less impressive rifle that you know backwards and forwards than with an outstanding rifle that you don't know squat about.
this thread isn't about replacing a good ar. that won't happen. the ar platform has been around for a long time for a reason. its simply about the merits of the tavor on its own. if iwi puts out the numbers they are supposedly going to, the price tag it has right now likely won't stand and they will be sold for more like 1800-1900. still pricey, of course, but as they become less rare pricing won't be as big of a factor. if you can put a base level, but good, ar next to a tavor and say in all facets they are equal, then yes the price is not even close to worth it. obviously most will feel attached to an ar and not want to change, even idf soldiers had that going.
You really need to get out more, or at least know what you are talking about...talk about misinformation! An AR pistol, if you know what you are doing, it about the ultimate PDW.
DI vs. Piston, the piston fad hit the 3Gun ranks for a few matches, then went away as they are much slower and actually need more maintenance. The bullpups load slower too.
Feel free to bring the Tavor out to a match and run it directly against some of the best running ARs and see what you think then. Or not. [ROFL2]
this is my opinion as well. for me, besides a crappy trigger (which likely will be helped by somebody making a good adjustment), the price is all that i really see negative about the tavor. and honestly, im not sure what makes it so expensive. considering israel uses it, so parts aren't fabricated simply for a small civilian niche, it seems strange its expensive. it doesn't have that many parts really and i would think the government contract would pay for the developmental costs.
theres no doubt you CAN easily spend the same amount on an ar, and many do. hell buy knights anything and you are almost there. the question comes down to how good of quality and reliability is the tavor. you can build a cheap ar for like 600. a pretty solid one for 1k. a really nice one for 1500. does that 1500 really buy you better reliability or do people just buy the brand marketing? thats kind of hard to say. since the tavor is simply one brand, there isn't a cheaper or more expensive way to go so really it comes down to how good it is stock. people have problems with ar's all the time, which is one reason people buy the best brand stuff they can, hoping it is more reliable and often times it is. if the tavor is as reliable out of the box, it is more worth it. we won't know that though for years until people have shot them in all environments. i know the idf thinks its more reliable than the ar, but i want to see what the civilian market thinks.
Sort of, sure.
That's another thing as far as the comparisons are going. They're all comparing DI AR's to a Tavor which is a piston. Comparatively I have a LMT CQB MRP 12" piston upper and just the upper runs over $1,500. So this seems a better comparison and price-wise it will end up being more plus you have tax stamps and waiting for said tax stamps and when all that's said and done I've got a slower upper that doesn't reach out as far and it's STILL a longer weapon system overall and doesn't balance as well. Even then though this isn't a fair comparison for either system as they're just... different. Not sure why we're even comparing apples to string cheese anyway.
this is my opinion as well. for me, besides a crappy trigger (which likely will be helped by somebody making a good adjustment), the price is all that i really see negative about the tavor. and honestly, im not sure what makes it so expensive. considering israel uses it, so parts aren't fabricated simply for a small civilian niche, it seems strange its expensive. it doesn't have that many parts really and i would think the government contract would pay for the developmental costs.
The Tavor you buy here in the states is not the same rifle the Israelis are using. It is very similar but there are some dimensional differences in the design so that certain parts will not interchange with military models. Somewhere online there is a comparison between the two.
this is my opinion as well. for me, besides a crappy trigger (which likely will be helped by somebody making a good adjustment), the price is all that i really see negative about the tavor. and honestly, im not sure what makes it so expensive. considering israel uses it, so parts aren't fabricated simply for a small civilian niche, it seems strange its expensive. it doesn't have that many parts really and i would think the government contract would pay for the developmental costs.
Actually they would have to do some redesign and retooling to fit with requirements the ATF puts on them for it to be semi only. That all takes $ and they have to recover those costs. They may have also had to set up shop here in the US to get around import restrictions so there may be additional costs there as well.
The Tavor you buy here in the states is not the same rifle the Israelis are using. It is very similar but there are some dimensional differences in the design so that certain parts will not interchange with military models. Somewhere online there is a comparison between the two.
there are very small differences in regards to parts. the differences are there, yes, but the majority of parts are interchangeable. they had to obviously make a few adjustments due to semi auto.
spqrzilla
06-23-2013, 15:35
Perhaps the Tavor is a better rifle than the AR. ** shrug ** Does not really matter in my opinion. Because the Tavor does not and cannot have the modularity of the AR system that is really the basis of its popularity. It simply can't reach that tier of popularity and utility.
Perhaps the Tavor is a better rifle than the AR. ** shrug ** Does not really matter in my opinion. Because the Tavor does not and cannot have the modularity of the AR system that is really the basis of its popularity. It simply can't reach that tier of popularity and utility.
perhaps. some people like me think modularity is a bit over rated. i put an optic on my rifles, thats about it, so rails all over it and such doesn't do much for me. changing out stocks is probably the nicest feature, grips is kind of nice but still overrated to me. you can switch out calibers and barrel lengths by switching uppers, but for about the same cost and effort you can do so with a tavor.
don't get me wrong, being modular as opposed to not is good, but for a lot of people it really isn't used much, if at all.
Aloha_Shooter
06-23-2013, 16:29
The question wasn't whether the Tavor was better than the AR but whether it would stand the test of time. Is a Shelby Cobra better than a Porsche 911? Does it matter? Both have withstood the test of time. What criteria do you use to determine this? The M-14 was America's main battle rifle for a lot shorter period than the M-1 Garand or the M-16 yet it's a classic design that many swear by and it's been brought back to use in the desert. The rifle has withstood decades of use by the Israelis and may see decades more.
wctriumph
06-23-2013, 17:25
The question wasn't whether the Tavor was better than the AR but whether it would stand the test of time. Is a Shelby Cobra better than a Porsche 911? Does it matter? Both have withstood the test of time. What criteria do you use to determine this? The M-14 was America's main battle rifle for a lot shorter period than the M-1 Garand or the M-16 yet it's a classic design that many swear by and it's been brought back to use in the desert. The rifle has withstood decades of use by the Israelis and may see decades more.
As a military rifle I have no doubt that it is and will continue to be a successful battle rifle. As far as a civilian rifle, I feel that because of it's rather high retail price it will be a niche item for now and into the foreseeable future.
i suppose one thing that will be interesting to watch is whether other militaries adopt it.
i suppose one thing that will be interesting to watch is whether other militaries adopt it.
Too many other good options.
Too many other good options.
you can pretty much say that about any rifle.
you can pretty much say that about any rifle.
-hence why the Tavor was a solution to a nonexistent problem. If you want one, buy it, but it's hardly solving the worlds problems.
-hence why the Tavor was a solution to a nonexistent problem. If you want one, buy it, but it's hardly solving the worlds problems.
all i am saying is if more places adopt it it may cause the company to grow and the cost to drop. of course the cost could go up too due to marketing. nations choosing rifles, sadly, sometimes comes down to politics, not merits of a rifle. i mean really we could have m4's and ak's and every nation could choose one or the other and not need any other rifles really, just variants. but for some reason some countries are always looking for the next new thing. its funny that the two major powers, the US and Russia, really haven't changed their rifles much compared to the rest of the world. the ak74 is a bit different but the general design is the same.
Zundfolge
06-23-2013, 20:30
-hence why the Tavor was a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Actually the Tavor was the solution to a problem that Jews have long feared ... some day they'll be alone against the world and they don't want to have to procure their arms from foreign countries that will eventually turn on them so they designed and built their own rifle.
Considering the history of the Jewish people being hated and conquered time and time again, I think that makes sense.
Singlestack
06-23-2013, 21:12
Yup, similar thinking behind the Merkava as well. The problem with high performance fighter jets is the level of constant investment and development is more than Israel can consistently afford. They have gotten great mileage out of mature designs of other countries like the Mirage, Ouregon, F-4 Phantom, etc., but have added select enhancements along the way reflecting their needs.
Since the Tavor was originally designed in 1991 and put into service in 2001, I expect it will "stand the test of time."
Are there any battle rifles that have not stood the test of time? I'm talking about rifles that were adopted by a major govt military, used for at least 10 years, and were not replaced strictly due to technological advancements, such as metalic cartridges, lever action repeaters, full autos, etc.
The Brit SA80 series may be one such dog.
Which has a longer wait time: NFA paperwork mailed in today or a Tavor order called in today?
KestrelBike
08-07-2013, 19:00
once I got my tavor,the ideas of sbring an AR went out the window for me.
and tavors come in and out of stock frequently now.
and yes, i realize you could build an AR and pay for the tax stamp for less than a Tavor.
Well said!
Have you tried messing around with the trigger?
Take that spring out that I mentioned as it's not necessary & makes a noticeable difference. Other than that try to remain patient until Geissele releases the trigger pack currently in development. [Beer]
KestrelBike
08-07-2013, 22:44
Take that spring out that I mentioned as it's not necessary & makes a noticeable difference. Other than that try to remain patient until Geissele releases the trigger pack currently in development. [Beer]
I think I know what you're talking about (saw a blurb on arfcom months & months ago?) but will you link me just in case please? (I went through this thread, did not see the post mentioning spring removal). Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dizuRNL0HIs
I did the spring removal, and did not notice enough difference to make it matter. It "seemed" to go from 15 lbs to 13 lbs. Still SUCKS
It appears that all it needs is a lighter trigger return spring.
I look forward to ANY improved trigger that comes onto the market.
Other than that, Love the Tavor.
KestrelBike
08-07-2013, 23:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dizuRNL0HIs
cool thanks; Davsel: interesting!
ANADRILL
08-07-2013, 23:09
Love mine:) suppressed with a AAC 762SDN-6
ANADRILL
08-07-2013, 23:11
http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo261/zinux9/tavor_zpsc193bbe6.jpg (http://s382.photobucket.com/user/zinux9/media/tavor_zpsc193bbe6.jpg.html)
i suppose one thing that will be interesting to watch is whether other militaries adopt it.
Looks like they already have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21
beast556
08-08-2013, 00:55
I would like to get one they seem nice, I just cant bring my self to spend 2K on a gun that should be around 1100-1400$. If the price ever drops down to reasonable I will get one.
stoner01
08-08-2013, 01:06
I would get one imply for a range toy. Since Ive always had to save and make do with what I have, Id much rather invest in my AR and have it fit my needs than have bunch of random range toys.
I think I know what you're talking about (saw a blurb on arfcom months & months ago?) but will you link me just in case please? (I went through this thread, did not see the post mentioning spring removal). Thanks!
I thought I posted it in this thread. I just realized this thread is different than the main Tavor thread we were discussing them in with lots of good info. If you search you'll find that and all your questions will be answered. lulz
I did the spring removal, and did not notice enough difference to make it matter. It "seemed" to go from 15 lbs to 13 lbs. Still SUCKS
It appears that all it needs is a lighter trigger return spring.
I look forward to ANY improved trigger that comes onto the market.
Other than that, Love the Tavor.
Did you remove the right one? There's another one in the trigger pack that is to prevent slam fires on light primered target ammo. That one is only a pound or so and should NOT be removed for safety reasons. The spring removal I described in the other thread is good for 3-4lbs easily.
This is a pretty good (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/The-Pennsylvania-State-Capitol-Police-Choose-IWI-US-TAVOR--SAR.html?soid=1102126238606&aid=hpMocHq5eC4) sign for the OP's original question.
i really like the tavor BUT.... I am not happy with having to mail the rifle back to them for the left/right conversion. I know if will cost me somewhere around $50 to ship it. Plus the $104 for the conversion. Plus $10 for them to ship it back. Plus, 2-4 weeks once they get it. So, I will be without the rifle for 3 1/2-6 weeks. I bought it when all the internet was saying you order the bolt from IWI and install it yourself in a half hour. I told IWI that this isnt the kind of thing American like to deal with. I told them this is why we liked ARs.
We dont need no stinking armorer.
If you need a left hand one why not just buy a left hand rifle?
i guess you didnt notice, but there are about a zillion guys who want a left handed one. And IWI is selling about 3 a year. (figures slightly exaggerated) everyone wants one and nobody is getting them.
Yeah, I imagine that they're not going to be making too many left handed ones until they get caught up with demand on their primary seller. I didn't pay a lot of attention to that being as I'm right-handed but most of what I saw made it seem like it was an easy end-user adjustment. Is this not the case?
plus all the videos by the experts said you can shoot it either way. im telling you the brass was cutting my chin each time a case was ejected.
Is that with 5.56 or .223?
i really didnt want a left handed gun anyway. i have 15 ARs and none of them are left handed. i want them to be right handed. but the bullup just isnt going to work without the left handed conversion.
Look at it this way, the Tavor is STILL easier to fully convert to left handed than an AR15.
Did you remove the right one? There's another one in the trigger pack that is to prevent slam fires on light primered target ammo. That one is only a pound or so and should NOT be removed for safety reasons. The spring removal I described in the other thread is good for 3-4lbs easily.
I followed the instructions on http://www.ltwerner.com/tavor.ltwerner/howtoprocedures.phtml?id=11
It did not make a noticeable difference to me.
Still love the Tavor - fits nicely in my hide-a-way next to my wife's PS90.
While I support the innovation of a new non AR15 rifle comming to the US market I think that the price witll push a lot of people away. Its almost in the price range of even cooler rifles like the scar and XCR-L as well as the fact that I could get two decent ar's or 4 ak's for the same price
yes, but in 25+ years of shooting them I have never needed a left handed version.
That's my point. Short of manufacturing your own from the ground up you're kind of SOL on a full conversion. Not so with the Tavor.
While I support the innovation of a new non AR15 rifle comming to the US market I think that the price witll push a lot of people away. Its almost in the price range of even cooler rifles like the scar and XCR-L as well as the fact that I could get two decent ar's or 4 ak's for the same price
I keep hearing this but I don't think they care. It's not an AR15 and there are people who realize this. Those are the people buying them at rates that they can't currently keep up with. Also keep in mind that the AR15 and versions & versions have been being produced since before most of us were born. Of course manufacturing processes are optimized to lower production costs and volume helps as well. For what it is it's priced fine and I don't think they care about trying to match the price of AR15's and people are still standing in line waiting to get them at the price they have them at. To me, the Tavor is a closer comparison to the SCAR or ACR based on the advancements in the design and it does just fine with pricing when compared to those. Even that is a stretch since they aren't bullpup but still closer than comparing to an AR15. Your comparison is like saying 'Well, 1911's need to be priced near $500 to compete with Glocks' but those two are at a closer comparison. I don't think anyone cares about the price comparison because not too many people are deciding between the two. The Tavor buy is buying the Tavor because nothing like it exists and they're willing to pay a premium for it. I know that was me. It didn't prevent me from buying any other AR15's.
For the record, I would take a Tavor over a SCAR every time. Same with the XCR & good luck finding a decent AK for $500 these days and even if you do you won't have what this Tavor gives you.
my probably isnt with the conversion or paying for it. the bolt was available from IWI for sometime now. Everyone said its an easy install. $104. no big deal. But, they reclassified it as an armorer level job only. it the additional cost and shipping that annoy me. of course its my fault for buying a right handed gun. but mostly my fault for buying a right handed bullpup. BUT, I will never SBR an AR now. Why?, the tavor with the 762sdn is still shorter than a 16" AR. I like the gun, I just believe to increase the marketability of the gun, they either need to pump up the left handed production. OR better allow us to convert the rifle ourselves again.
I'm sure production will ramp up once they start meeting demand which we're starting to see. I too agree that they should allow the end-user conversion since that's how they marketed it. I wonder what was happening that made them change their stance on this 180deg. Must have been pretty important I'm guessing. BTW, I made bold one of the parts that keeps getting skimmed over by all the people trying to compare Tavors to AR15s. The overall length is ridiculous especially with a suppressor hanging off of the end. The balance of it suppressed compared to an AR15 is night & day difference. You can pay an extra $200 to SBR an AR15 and wait a year and in the end you will STILL have a package that is substantially longer and balances much worse and slows your target transitions and increases arm fatigue with prolonged use no matter how nice of an AR you have. You don't get ANY of that with a Tavor with the added benefit of an overall length with a 16" barrel shorter than that attainable by SBR'd AR15s. All of this in a very well designed/made and combat proven system. To people who value these things $2k is a bargain.
I keep hearing this but I don't think they care. It's not an AR15 and there are people who realize this. Those are the people buying them at rates that they can't currently keep up with. Also keep in mind that the AR15 and versions & versions have been being produced since before most of us were born. Of course manufacturing processes are optimized to lower production costs and volume helps as well.
Yeah yeah thats reasonable and im sure it will come down in time (I doubt it, look at the desert eagle) but I think its more than just difficult production it also has the "IWI tax" (fictional) which means they mark up the price of everything they make about $200-$300. IWI has always made expensive guns with gimmicky features.
For the record, I would take a Tavor over a SCAR every time. Same with the XCR & good luck finding a decent AK for $500 these days and even if you do you won't have what this Tavor gives you.
JG has M70 aks for $499 right now and those are pretty damn nice.
You dont happen to work for IWI do you? [LOL]
Yeah yeah thats reasonable and im sure it will come down in time (I doubt it, look at the desert eagle) but I think its more than just difficult production it also has the "IWI tax" (fictional) which means they mark up the price of everything they make about $200-$300. IWI has always made expensive guns with gimmicky features.
Now you're comparing a Tavor to a DEagle? This comparison stuff just needs to stop now.
JG has M70 aks for $499 right now and those are pretty damn nice.
Yeah, they're decent but it won't group like a Tavor, doesn't suppress well and is HUGE by comparison. It's also an air cooled VW engine compared to a liquid cooled turbo charged direct injection engine. Yeah, they cost less but do you really want one if performance is important? I have AK's and can tell you that there is no comparison and I'm glad IWI didn't try to compete with the prices of an AK by cutting corners in production. AKs were designed to be as cheap as possible and I'm glad that wasn't IWI's goal with the Tavor.
You dont happen to work for IWI do you? [LOL]
I do not but it seems that way. What I am is a skeptic of Tavor from the jump before they came out when I heard about them. Owning several, getting my mits on them first hand & seeing what others have put them through is what converted me.
Aloha_Shooter
08-27-2013, 11:22
I see a lot of people foaming at the mouth because the Tavor isn't a $600 AR or AK. You're right, it's not. An Audi TTS isn't a Ford Focus either. Don't get me wrong, I love my AR but the engineering behind the Tavor is damned impressive and real world field experience indicates the original question starting this thread is moot. If you want an AK, buy an AK. If you want a 5.56 platform that uses standard AR magazines and rail accessories with the accuracy of a 16-inch barrel but measuring less than 29 inches tip-to-toe, get a Tavor.
Really to compare prices you need to compare bullpup to bullpup. Look to the AUG...for decades it typically ran in the $3500 range. Now that they have been around and manufacturing and design is paid for they have dropped into the $2000 range. The Tavor out of the box is in the $2000 range. Same ballpark as the MSAR was originally. Lets look to the Kel Tec RFB...it is running about $1900....again the same ballpark.
You want an AK bullpup price...then go with the Century International Arms AK bullpup. I have messed with them and trust me...the trigger is worse. there is a flimsy piece of wire that is the trigger rod. Bends and twists and gives when you try to shoot the thing. Sure they are a bullpup and they are in the $900 range but you will get what you pay for. No caliber conversions available. No left hand conversions. No nothing. It is an ak with a junk bullpup kit slapped on.
Rumor is that Geisselle is planning on making an after-market trigger for the Tavor.
If that turns out to be the case, I may have to start saving my lunch money...
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Rumor is that Geisselle is planning on making an after-market trigger for the Tavor.
If that turns out to be the case, I may have to start saving my lunch money...
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Yeah, that was posted a while back. Just playing the waiting game now to see what they can do.
Rumor is that Geisselle is planning on making an after-market trigger for the Tavor.
Between that and the 6.5 grendel and/or the 300 blk it should end up a nice little package.
DavieD55
08-27-2013, 19:29
The only way you would catch me with a Tavor if it were the differance between life and death and I couldn't get my hands on anything else. [Coffee]
The only way you would catch me with a Tavor if it were the differance between life and death and I couldn't get my hands on anything else. [Coffee]
Thanks for adding nothing to this thread. Not sure why you felt the need to share.
JMBD2112
08-27-2013, 22:02
If I didn't want to put together another bolt gun I would buy one
ANADRILL
08-28-2013, 12:23
The only way you would catch me with a Tavor if it were the differance between life and death and I couldn't get my hands on anything else. [Coffee]
Must be an Anti-Semite....hahahaha
Great-Kazoo
11-19-2013, 00:02
Reviving this thread.
After handling one for more than a few gun store minutes. I am not impressed. I understand the SBR feel w/out a tax stamp. But man o man what a clunky, non ergo friendly unit. Sure a lot of you like it, it does have a cool factor, and a good idea. Myself, i'll pass.
Eggysrun
11-19-2013, 01:17
There IS a difference in just holding it and actually firing the tavor. I have a lantac dragon enroute, I can only imagine how much more awesome the tavor is going to be
I have never understood the trigger issues. feels totally fine to me. would it be nice to have a 1 oz hair pin trigger? sure, but its hardly needed. the ergos I like more than my sbr, however the controls take some serious getting used to.
Great-Kazoo
11-19-2013, 02:19
I found nothing wrong with the trigger. For me it's more parts availability. For the spouse, with hand issues fom years of computer work, inability to maintain good grip and holding up a rear heavy gun. Her rifle barely tips 5.5lbs ,loaded.
A major concern is field expedient parts. Bust a cocking lever on the AR charging handle, a new CH is available, almost everywhere in CO. The Tavor, not so lucky.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.