If we’re talking CQB, then what advantages does the tavor have over an AR with a 10.3” barrel.
Genuine question.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Best Semi_Automatic rifle IN MA
- Thread starter rodmar
- Start date
If we’re talking CQB, then what advantages does the tavor have over an AR with a 10.3” barrel.
Genuine question.
cathouse01
NES Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,441
- Likes
- 4,668
I think the original justification was that you get to keep the longer barrel so it’s more useful at longer ranges, thus it’s a bit more generally applicable as a standard infantry rifle than a short barreled AR. The IDF does a lot of close range fighting, but they do have to be prepared for longer range engagements. I think you’re right, if all you were engaged in was CQB, I don’t see any advantage over a short barreled AR.
You might get the same OAL with an SBR but require a $200 tax stamp and 10-month wait. No wait with a Tavor, no registration, velocity of a 16.5” barrel and subsequent terminal ballistic advantage, less unburnt powder creating flash signature, rifle action’s weight closer to the shooter’s center of mass allowing faster pivoting/turning.
ETA: and the cleaner piston gas system rather than a rifle that craps where it eats via direct impingement, though more a reliability than CQB advantage and you can get a piston AR.
Last edited:
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
It’s definitely a cool gun, I like it but in no way is it better than an AR. I’m curious if you can prove it’s better. I mean the AR has a proven track record, shoots more accurately, has less bump to it and is like a lego set with interchangeable parts for upgrades ect..
hillman
NES Member
No, I can't prove it's better than an AR. I have owned several, most were good, one was not. The trigger out of the box on the RDB is better than any I've had on my ARs but I don't know how it compares to any high end triggers. It's very light, easy to hold on target as for some reason recoil kind of pushes the barrel down instead of up. Better, I don't know how to decide that. I think maybe after I've owned it a few years and put a few more thousand rounds through it I could answer that better. However, I do, so far, think it's a viable option for someone wanting a good semi-auto in MA, and certainly cheaper than MA ARs. As for accuracy, I haven't had a chance to shoot mine at more than 100 yards, but with a plain jane Vortex red dot, I'm doing at least as well as any of my ARs did. I've been told already from one place that I can't use it in a carbine class, so I don't know if I'll be able to really judge it in that kind of situation either. I'm just curious about the RDB hate because "Kel Tec". I can't find forum after forum of people with mechanical failures or anything except someday it's going to break because "Kel Tec".
It's way behind the curve on accessories or spare parts, and yes, getting to the chamber from underneath is a pain in the ass but then I haven't had a failure of any kind in the 750 rounds I've fired in the short time I've had it, though. I had to tighten some screws in the stock, also. And I didn't clean it once, until after 750 rounds. And I'm using beat up metal preban mags. I'm wondering if there is some reason I don't know about that I shouldn't trust it with my life, but until then, I'm recommending it as a viable option to an AR or AK, especially in MA.
It has 4 sling attachment points on each side, no brass flying all over the place, light, barrel pushes slightly downward when fired, comfortable to hold and fire. So I'm guessing just not having 50 years of track record, yeah it doesn't beat that or the lego add ons. I'd love to have an X95, if it had as great of a trigger, and was about $1000 cheaper. But what's the advantage in the design? How is it mechanically better?
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
@hillman Honestly as much as I love the AR I’m not knocking you for liking the RBD better, if it works for you the roll with it. I’m in no position to tell you what’s a better option for your needs or what you prefer. I shot the RBD and didn’t love it, it had some serious kick to it, loud as anything I’ve shot lol and I didn’t shoot it as well as the AR platform. In close quarters it’s a great option without question and Ofcourse a solid choice for prisoner of Massachusetts. Enjoy the hell out of it and rock on bro 
hillman
NES Member
@hillman Honestly as much as I love the AR I’m not knocking you for liking the RBD better, if it works for you the roll with it. I’m in no position to tell you what’s a better option for your needs or what you prefer. I shot the RBD and didn’t love it, it had some serious kick to it, loud as anything I’ve shot lol and I didn’t shoot it as well as the AR platform. In close quarters it’s a great option without question and Ofcourse a solid choice for prisoner of Massachusetts. Enjoy the hell out of it and rock on bro
That's so interesting, I thought the kick was much lighter than my AR. I wonder what I did wrong with my AR!
If you have a DI setup where this matters, your gun is broken. I used to be one of those fgts that repeated the "shits where it eats" BS but after owning a couple ARs realized it's mostly bullshit. A few months ago i cleaned an AR that i literally hadn't touched since i bought it in june of 2016. I think the most i did was add a few drops of lube. No jams.
Tavor is cool but it's not a panacea. And half the people i know that buy them end up just dumping them for an AR or something else.
RDB = breathe on it the wrong way and the mag falls out. Mine was great as long as I didn't accidentally hit the release.... I remember some ruminations about them changing that but I don't know if they ever did because i dumped mine before that...
I totally agree with this, a standard DI AR is stupidly reliable. I don't like letting mine get real dirty and typically store them very clean, but its been shown you can fill the things with mud and they pretty much keep going.
The one situation I am aware of is for full auto use our armed forces have developed a preference for the SCAR, reportedly they do a little better in sustained full auto operation. As was explained to me they realized in some situations lugging around an M249 wasn't so good, lots of full auto with an M4 leaves things to be desired, so someone would get outfitted with a SCAR and extra ammo for that specific niche.
None of the above means didly squat for us, but hey the SCAR is out there if anyone wants to go that route.
SCRs, XCRs, etc. are lots of vaporware/unicornware. It is exists, good luck finding it for sale anywhere. When small companies are trying to sell a product that only people in a handful of states would be interested in due to bans, they can't compete with companies doing business in 40+ states due to the economies of scale in production.
mav
NES Member
The reason the SCAR is filling that role is because too many reports from Afghanistan and Iraq of M4’s running too hot in full auto sustained gunfights causing malfunctions and barrel warping and such.
Pistons run cooler, not just cleaner. Just one of many reasons why literally no weapons manufacturer uses DI in any platform outside of the M4/M16 and most of the specops weapons are piston-based rifles. Seriously, semi-auto AR’s are fine as DI, but not what I would run with a full auto M4.
Army historian says report on deadly Afghan battle was altered to absolve faulty gun
A former Army historian who chronicled the infamous Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers died after their M4 carbines jammed, tells The Washington Times that his official account was altered by higher-ups to absolve the weapons and senior officers.
m.washingtontimes.com
Firefight Fail: How the U.S. Army's M-4 Rifle Overheated and Jammed in a Bloody Battle
In the early morning hours of July 13, 2008, a Taliban force of between 100 and 200 fighters attacked an American Forward Operating Base guarded by 48 soldiers of 2nd Platoon, Chosen Company—part of 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment.
www.google.com
Last edited:
mav
NES Member
The reason the SCAR is filling that role is because too many reports from Afghanistan and Iraq of M4’s running too hot in full auto sustained gunfights causing malfunctions and barrel warping and such.
Pistons run cooler, not just cleaner. Just one of many reasons why literally no weapons manufacturer uses DI in any platform outside of the M4/M16 and most of the specops weapons are piston-based rifles. Seriously, semi-auto AR’s are fine as DI, but not what I would run with a full auto M4.
Army historian says report on deadly Afghan battle was altered to absolve faulty gun
A former Army historian who chronicled the infamous Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers died after their M4 carbines jammed, tells The Washington Times that his official account was altered by higher-ups to absolve the weapons and senior officers.
Firefight Fail: How the U.S. Army's M-4 Rifle Overheated and Jammed in a Bloody Battle
In the early morning hours of July 13, 2008, a Taliban force of between 100 and 200 fighters attacked an American Forward Operating Base guarded by 48 soldiers of 2nd Platoon, Chosen Company—part of 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment.
12-15 rounds per minute sustained is the “recommended” rate of fire. Note that the commie block doesn’t have a limit on rate of fire that low nor do the Israelis with the Tavor. I won’t mention HK because the rumor is that the plastic HK’s would have issues with sustained auto fire...
I'd take a SCAR, a Tavor pass..
Whatever the case the M4's in question are lightened barrels, fairly well known not to be great for sustained fire and the idea that the military hadn't tested the hell out of an M4, full well knowing how they hold up, until some battle, is just foolish. They have limits but are hardly inferior.
Put a light barrel on a piston gun and its still getting hot, isn't like a piston gun is water cooled - just a little better for it.
That 12 to 14 rounds thing may be based on firing continously forever, or an average with full auto use over an hour (ie 700 rounds an hour) but without the rest of the story its a farce to use the statistic alone. In any piece of garbage AR you could take 6 x 30 round mags and dump them as fast as you can without a problem, hot rifle oh yes, but I don't see say 60 rounds a minute doing shit until you have run out of ammo.
Bottom line I'm saying, a piston gun for civilians who are limited to semi auto is mostly a problem looking for a solution. Hey I'd love a SCAR but for the $$ I would rather buy say a (DI) Barret rec10.
Whatever the case the M4's in question are lightened barrels, fairly well known not to be great for sustained fire and the idea that the military hadn't tested the hell out of an M4, full well knowing how they hold up, until some battle, is just foolish. They have limits but are hardly inferior.
Put a light barrel on a piston gun and its still getting hot, isn't like a piston gun is water cooled - just a little better for it.
That 12 to 14 rounds thing may be based on firing continously forever, or an average with full auto use over an hour (ie 700 rounds an hour) but without the rest of the story its a farce to use the statistic alone. In any piece of garbage AR you could take 6 x 30 round mags and dump them as fast as you can without a problem, hot rifle oh yes, but I don't see say 60 rounds a minute doing shit until you have run out of ammo.
Bottom line I'm saying, a piston gun for civilians who are limited to semi auto is mostly a problem looking for a solution. Hey I'd love a SCAR but for the $$ I would rather buy say a (DI) Barret rec10.
mav
NES Member
The battle in question had M4’s failing after 30 minutes of the battle. Soldiers interviewed had said 6 mags in 30 minutes, which was around the “sustained fire” average. Thinner barrel is a problem. DI is a problem. Mags can be a problem. The army has had all the evidence and research for years and even had a plan to upgrade M4 uppers to piston uppers, but cost continued to be an issue.
Got nothing against the AR and love mine, but anyone who thinks it’s a superior platform to any of a number of alternatives we can purchase, including the SCAR, Tavor, AK, CZ, and Beretta is crazy. Add in any number of piston uppers and it gets even crazier. A DI upper has two things going for it over a piston upper: cheaper and lighter. Those are two attributes that are low on my list of qualities for a carbine... even as a civilian.
Got nothing against the AR and love mine, but anyone who thinks it’s a superior platform to any of a number of alternatives we can purchase, including the SCAR, Tavor, AK, CZ, and Beretta is crazy. Add in any number of piston uppers and it gets even crazier. A DI upper has two things going for it over a piston upper: cheaper and lighter. Those are two attributes that are low on my list of qualities for a carbine... even as a civilian.
Fixxah
NES Member
My Belgium BAR has five round clips. Nice rifle. Needs sniper legs though. Maybe there is a composite stock kit with a rail for a flashlight or chainsaw to go with the sniper legs? I haven't shot it since before the quonset hut failed under heavy snow.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 9,009
- Likes
- 5,488
I believe the SIG piston rifles are not covered by the Maura Healey AR15 edict, as they do not use compatible parts, i.e., the bolt
and gas system and trigger are entirely non-interchangeable with any AR15 parts. At least, a high volume well known dealer
was still selling them after the Healey 'ban', for that reason I believe.
I had the SIG 556 and 556R (7.62x39) which were both nice rifles, although probably hard to find replacement parts for.
I like the idea of a piston gas system rather than direct impingement, but it is a heavy rifle compared to an M4 type.
and gas system and trigger are entirely non-interchangeable with any AR15 parts. At least, a high volume well known dealer
was still selling them after the Healey 'ban', for that reason I believe.
I had the SIG 556 and 556R (7.62x39) which were both nice rifles, although probably hard to find replacement parts for.
I like the idea of a piston gas system rather than direct impingement, but it is a heavy rifle compared to an M4 type.
I have an RDB and enjoy it as a toy but im grabbing one of my ARs for real work. I will say this that I like the RDB better then the tavor for many reasons but neither would be my choice for fighting etc.
Think about it for a minute- if you really think 6 mags in 30 minutes will destroy an AR you haven't played with them much. A lot of people do that every Sunday. They are only warm at that rate. I'm fairly certain I have run 4 x 40 round mags through a pencil barrel in 5 minutes - absolutely hot enough to appreciate why a pencil barrel and slim guard are not all they are cracked up to be but no where near failure.
mav
NES Member
Incorrect. I’ve used them plenty. Most people aren’t doing mag dumps with their AR’s over a brief period along with sustained sporadic fire over the course of an hour in 100 degree heat and dirty conditions. Again, this is real world scenario in wartime, not range time. We so don’t know how much use these M4’s had nor their maintenance schedule or the condition of the mags. Suffice it to say that most civilian AR’s are in better shape than the .mil M4’s.
I have an AR15 and an AR10. Love them both, but my go to for CQB out to 400 is the Tavor over my AR and CZ Scorpion. Why? Piston action based on the AK which the Israelis understand after years of study and experience is superior to DI, bullpup which gives the benefits of a carbine barrel length with SBR profile, optimal weight distribution and handling with most of the weight in the stock against your shoulder and minimal weight on your supporting arm. It’s reliable and as accurate as it needs to be for an infantry weapon. Runs cooler and cleaner so I don’t need to spend as much time cleaning it. The only downside for me is manual of arms for loading/mag change is slower than with the AR for me, but that’s my own issue of needing more practice and nothing to do with the platform.
Given the Israelis have had the opportunity to test and choose any number of rifles for it’s infantry, and it chose to replace the M4/M16 with the Tavor, that should speak volumes. The only reason the US still uses the M4, despite it’s flaws is cost and a general disdain for the infantry. The Pentagon likes programs like the F-35, sexy and intimidating to the rest of the world. The rest of the world has caught up in terms of infantry weapons... look at the AK-12/15 and tell me it is inferior to the M4.
Last edited:
It is likely that most civilian AR's are in much better shape and of a quality beyond standard issue military models.
The ambient temperature & the sun definitely don't help as far as cooling them off, I have "summer" FDE versions of my favorite stuff for that reason, they do not just sit and increase temperature in the sun.
But I still can't imagine how 6 mags in 30 minutes would ever be considered problem causing - we dump a lot if ammo where I shoot. It's s nothing to see someone walk up and dump a bunch of mags as fast as they can change them. Smoke comes out of places you don't expect, metal guards get too hot to touch, the brass will burn you, but the rifles don't seem to care.
I don't spend hours there and generally shoot multiple guns, burning 300+ rounds of 5.56 in an outing I have casually done quite a bit, probably within an hour maybe even closer to a half hour being stupid sometimes. These things are not one bit fragile.
Maybe in full auto its different, ie maybe 6 full 30 round bursts in 30 minutes equally spaced is somehow worse than semi auto fire of 180 rounds in 30 minutes
mav
NES Member
The amount of time between rounds allowing the weapon to cool or at least not heat up beyond a certain point I think is key. Semi auto fire, even mag dumps, don’t send lead down like full auto... 750-900 rounds per minute. It’s funny, but the M-16/M4 3-round burst feature was a thing supposedly because of studies done in Vietnam regarding volume of fire and accuracy in firefights. I wonder if there wasn’t an alterior motive based on overheating when trying to achieve/maintain fire superiority. Pure speculation on my part...
Last edited:
That's cute but that's not reality for most people buying a semi-automatic rifle in America. You can shoot an entire typical battle load of 556 carried on one man without the gun stopping on any decent gun. I've seen even shitty PSA and other poverty guns do that and way more before failure.The reason the SCAR is filling that role is because too many reports from Afghanistan and Iraq of M4’s running too hot in full auto sustained gunfights causing malfunctions and barrel warping and such.
Pistons run cooler, not just cleaner. Just one of many reasons why literally no weapons manufacturer uses DI in any platform outside of the M4/M16 and most of the specops weapons are piston-based rifles. Seriously, semi-auto AR’s are fine as DI, but not what I would run with a full auto M4.
Army historian says report on deadly Afghan battle was altered to absolve faulty gun
A former Army historian who chronicled the infamous Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers died after their M4 carbines jammed, tells The Washington Times that his official account was altered by higher-ups to absolve the weapons and senior officers.
Firefight Fail: How the U.S. Army's M-4 Rifle Overheated and Jammed in a Bloody Battle
In the early morning hours of July 13, 2008, a Taliban force of between 100 and 200 fighters attacked an American Forward Operating Base guarded by 48 soldiers of 2nd Platoon, Chosen Company—part of 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment.
Special circumstances as you've outlined possibly require different equipment.
mav
NES Member
Pretty much. I think my point in pushing this is more that .mil is really behind the curve for modern combat rifles for line infantry given what’s out there, trends in rifle design, etc. DI AR’s are fine for us in the civilian world who will never have to gain fire superiority against a numerical superior enemy with personal weapons in harsh and dirty climates, especially given that modern infantry tactics require crew served weapons to provide the base of fire in achieving fire superiority. A mag fed M4 even with a 750 round cyclic can’t compare to a belt fed M240 or M2. Even the M249 is a better option for base of fire than M4’s. 200 round belt with 5-7 round bursts means almost 30 trigger pulls before a reload. An M4 gets 4...
Last edited:
I think where the Tavor(7) shines in this specific market (DPRM) is with the .308/AR-10 scenario. Most run of the mill, nuthin fancy, used AR-10s, at least that I’ve seen in the past 2 years, are right between $1,800 and $2,000, if not north of that. The 2 AR-10 lowers I’ve seen are $500 and $800 respectively. A brandy spankin new Tavor7 is $1,999 (plus tax...)at MFS. Now you’ve got a fully ambi (yes, I’m a lefty and possibly biased here), 20” chrome lined barreled, standard mag taking, small packaged, .308 battle rifle. On second thought, the 20” barrel might be more $ than the 16”.
Just my thoughts.
hillman
NES Member
That's my point, though. I hear people say exactly that, but not WHY they wouldn't trust the RDB for "real work". Again, not trying to say RDB is superior, just trying to find real reasons why people think it might not be, other than "kel tec". Is construction or design inferior? Plastic parts don't bother me, I've owned Glocks. With the mag well accessory, rapid magazine changes aren't difficult, faster than an AK for me anyway. I don't know, just looking for reasons why I shouldn't trust mine for "real work" and not finding any. Hell, the design fits me so well at this point I'd consider trading my M1A for an RFB.
