Here are a couple of videos to give you a closer look at two of Israel Weapons Industries latest products. IWI was showing off its Flat Top version of its X95 Micro Tavor at Eurosatory 12 in Paris, a weapon that seems to have come along way from the original Tavor that sported a fixed integral sight.
I wrote about IWI’s new grenade launcher a couple of weeks ago. Here’s a brief video of one of the IWI guys working the action of the GL40 while he walks through some of the 40mm grenade launcher’s features.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
I see the Tavor still uses the front sight post off the M-16A1. Overall this is a improvement over older Tavors. However never cared for the tavor design. Overall the conventional rifle design of the M-4A1 HK 416 and even ACR is better ergonomically and is alot more durable than this design.
Lance,
Ergonomics are best defined by the user.. I can do mag changes on my Aug a lot faster than I can my Ar-15, doesn’t mean its better. As far as durability, what is your basis for that statement? I think the Tavor is a great design and I’m hoping they’ll hit U.S. shelves, the world has embraced the bullpup design, but we’re still fumbling around with an uppity AR types like the ACR.
I strongly disagree that “the world has embraced the bull pup design”. I think not, sir. The vast majority of the world’s armies do not seem terribly interested in bullpups. Also, the major western tier 1 SOF units are not using them either, with the exception of a relatively small number of FN 2000s used by GROM. I know first hand that many British troops are not blown away by the awesomeness that is the SA80/L85… Ergonomics are indeed subjective, but tha majority of people seem to find traditional rifles to be a bit better than bull pups in that regard. As far as toughness or durability, I have no reason to doubt that bull pups in that regard. Having said all this, it’s rare that I find a gun that I can’t find something to like about!
I have to agree Rapier975. Also one small thing to note: the “bull pup” design are not really that customizable, you’re stuck with that butt stock so to speak.
There’s no need for a collapsible butt stock on a bullpup, I think that’s the point? As far as embrace, I still stand by my statement. The Brits, French, Aussies, Austrians, and the worlds largest army in China all field bullpups as their primary rifles. As far as special ops goes, look at the list of growing nations using the Tavor as their spec ops rifle.
The M4 is also growing in popularity, with far larger numbers than any bullpup. The fact is that no bullpup is revolutionary enough to warrant widespread replacement by conventional rifles.
That being said, I cannot wait until the Tavor is introduced to the US. Anything by IWI is excellently engineered.
No, the M4 just has better marketing and a long, solid record in combat! The fact that the worlds largest army, China, has chosen to replace all their Soviet era designs with a bullpup is a statement in itself..
The M4 is produced by the largest weapons exporter in the world, so its increasing popularity shouldnt be surprising. China has also adopted the Type 03, which is a standard layout rifle that is a updated type 81 carbine.
Indeed, it’s hard to compete against free M-16′s and M4′s being handed second hand around the world.
@Alan
I wouldn’t mark the Type 95 as the most awesome weapon as well as the PLA as the most world beating enemy. The PLA and Chinese defense have every type of small arm from Type 56s to Type 95s in inventory. The Type 95 is a awkward design with a large carry handle which raises the eye level of the shooter. The type 03 may replace the 95. The 03 is a conventional design.
“The Type 95 is a awkward design with a large carry handle which raises the eye level of the shooter.”
You mean like the FAMAS, M-16, G-36 and nearly every other assault rifle that has a carrying handle over bore?
Idiot.
if you look at the youtube vid of the PLA shooting contest, the soldiers have no problems speed loading new mags into their ‘awkward design’. Every style rifle design has its own quirks and techniques.
Lance is just talking out of his *** as usual.
Hey Lance, let me hear your hands on experience with the Tavor. After all, you seem to know that it’s less ergonomic than an M-4A1 and less durable (where the **** did you pull this ******** statement out from?).
Joe your a Jerk.
First Ive handled more bullpups than you can count I know you can only count to 3 because your a idiot. 2nd the conventional Assault rifle set up is used by 90% of nations armed forces. outside of at most 8-10 nations almost everyone else is using normal rifles. Lets see only Israel, France Britain, Australia, Austria, NZ, and China use Bullpups while USA, Russia, Japan, Canada, Poland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Brazil, South Africa, even Mexico ect ect. Im talking about infantry use not just a few bullpups bought for testing or SF use.
The Tavor is ok All I said it isn’t as ergonomic as a regular rifle.
Lance: You actually said, “Overall the conventional rifle design of the M-4A1 HK 416 and even ACR is better ergonomically and is alot more durable than this design.”
What exactly is your definition of “durable” ?
Let’s try to stay professional people
Fair question I just dislike when 80% of the Tavor is plastic and while doesn’t matter on the firing line the rough conditions of urban combat would be hard on the plastic body of the Tavor. But Israelis take care of there weapons to help negate this, for other nations this may be tougher on the weapons.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
“Israeli’s take care of their weapons”; oh man, that got me going.
“Israel, France Britain, Australia, Austria, NZ, and China use Bullpups while USA, Russia, Japan, Canada, Poland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Brazil, South Africa, even Mexico ect ect. Im talking about infantry use not just a few bullpups bought for testing or SF use.”
Again you show your ignorance:
Users of bullpups (not including Special Forces):
Singapore
UK
France
New Zealand
China
Australia
Uruguay
Bangladesh
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Slovenia
Thailand
Zimbabwe
Columbia
Brazil
Georgia
Guatemala
Vietnam
India
And I’m sure I’m still missing some.
And you said the Tavor is less ergonomic, but it’s clear you’ve never handled one. So like I said, you are talking out of your *** Mr. Coast Guard boy. And you have no idea of the first thing regarding durability of rifles in combat since you’ve never been close to combat (and don’t pretend otherwise).
I don’t know about durable but I find a convemtional rifle design more comfortable and easier to use an type of sight.
Sorry Joe almost every country you listed only use Bullpups for Special Forces regular infantry use regular M-16 or AKs.
China Yes Army uses Type 95 but navy Militas and reserves use Type 56 rifles carbines and Type 81 rifles.
Uruguay Only SF M-16A1 in use.
Bangladesh Only SF, Type 56 is standard issue there.
Iran Sorry they use G-3A6s and Type 56 made in China and there state arsenal, Only a small number of there Bullpups used by Revolutionary Guard units.
Saudi Arabia They use a smorgasbord of arms AKMs G-3s M-16s M-4s and I doubt they buy weapons from Jewish Israel since they’re the Islamic center of the world.
Thailand Some M-16A1s being replaced by Tavor other units getting newer M-16A2 and M-16A4s so no real replacement, upgrade.
Zimbabwe Infantry use AKM NOT TAVOR.
Columbia. SF only for Tavor, all infnatry and even most SF use M-16s or M-4s.
Brazil SF and Police only they making there own FNC like rifle for infantry.
Georgia This is a joke. Most Georgian infantry use AK-74 and or M-4 (domestic and US bought).
Guatemala Only SF use tavor for counter terror, most use M-16A1.
Vietnam Only SF in the navy Vietnamese use AKM for infantry and AK-74 for naval infantry.
India Uses alot of small arms FALs AKMs there own design AR.
Saudi Arabia use the Steyr Aug… You know what, how about you do a simple Google Search and educate yourself. I’m done wasting time on your ignorance.
“I just dislike when 80% of the Tavor is plastic”
Well, since the largest part of any bulpup is the stock and it has more metal in it than an M4 (action, barrel). What is the M4 butt stock made of again? Oh yeah plastic. Original hand guards? Oh yeah plastic. Pistol grip? Oh yeah plastic. It more than likely a wash as to which has more if you actually think about it. Think of it this way. Take the M4, push its action back into the butt stock. Not much gain either way
the irony about critics of “plastic” rifles is that their beloved AR15/M4 design was once criticized for being too “plasticy” to include untrue rumors that early M16s were produced by the Mattel toy company. :)
I like the Tavor and I can’t wait to shoot one. Very cool idea. I just hope it doesn’t end up in the hands of Bushmaster so they can’t ruin it like they did the Masada/ACR.
Joe shove your ignorance and self pride to yourself. Do a internet search on world militaries and weapons. Your a smug jerk get lost Joe.
Bullpups are not taking over the world pal.
Go ahead, this is just a partial list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_service_rifles_of_national_armies
Yeah proves my point
Bullpups are not “taking over the world”. Many nations are upgrading their inventories to M4s and other conventional layout rifles or supplementing their bullpups with these rifles. This is not a statement against whatever demerits may exist against bullpups; most militaries just dont favor the design.
I would take the X95 Micro Tavor over the M16 or M4 any day. The performance and ergonomics are unmatched.
And for those doubting the reload speeds of bullpups, check out what the Chinese can do with an even poorer reload design than the Tavor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ3-5sDnDVc&feature=player_detailpage#t=82s
and your point is?
I have seen someone clear a double feed in 3 seconds on the M4A1, thats dropping the mag, clearing the malfunction and inserting a new mag and dropping the bolt.
there is alot going against the bullpup design.
lack of LOP
short sight radius
right hand only shooting, this is a big one since it forces you to fully reveal yourself when going around left hand corners.
crappy trigger pulls(generally worse than our ****** burst cog)
you have 60,000PSI of pressure right next to your head/neck
there is a reason why countries that use bullpups have SOF groups that use the M4.
Lack of LOP –
I assume LOP stands for “length of pull” for the stock? This is a legitimate complain but is very minor when you consider the fact that for 90% of people behind body armor, the default lengths on the bullpup work fine (they were designed that way).
Short sight radius-
Null point considering that 99.9% of militaries are going to be using the bullpups with an optical sight with iron-sights used only as an emergency reserve.
right hand only shooting-
I have no idea where you got this from. Modern bullpups like the Tavor can switch the ejection side. Modern bullpups also throw the brass forward, so you can use it left handed with a right side ejection with no problem.
Crappy trigger pulls-
Null point, this is not for some super competition shooting. The soldier that learns and trains with a Tavor will be used to the trigger on it; a soldier coming from a Tavor to an M4A1 might say the same thing.
Chamber next to head-
What’s your point? It’s not like anything can happen. They are engineered with plates between your cheek position and the chamber so any blowout will go away from you.
“there is a reason why countries that use bullpups have SOF groups that use the M4.”
And there are countries with traditional layout AR’s that use bullpups, what’s your point?
yeah those are competition shooters. i doubt their largely conscript military force can handle those rifles like that.
No Bull pups are not replacing the M-4 but more and more SF troops are using the
FN P-90.. I have found it personally to be a great design…
talk to Dr. Roberts, he will teach some things about the P-90.
basic thing to know is the cartridge is a pathetic round and highly outclassed by the 5.56.
Joshua: Can debate cartridges for ever. What works well is more a function of where applied. 5.7X28 was designed to replace the 9X19 and I tend to think of it more like a 30carbine. Not the biggest pop out there, but under right circumstance, useful. It will excel at things that one would of traditionally used a 9mm pistol or submachine gun for. Not your 500 yard kill shot. So if you’re looking to go room to room not a bad choice. Would like to see H&K give up on their hurt feelings on the 4.6×30mm and build a MP7 in 5.7X28. Also the bulpup design lends it’s self to room clearing better than a traditional rifle layout.
You get outside where the distance starts to increase… Give me a “real” rifle, will be honest I just don’t like a bulpup and no I can’t real say why, more than likely the balance for ‘me,’ with the bulk in the rear. Past the 500 yards I’m gonna look to something in 7.62X51 flavor. Past a 1000, well you get the idea.
Some might say the 5.56 is a pathetic round and highly outclassed by the 7.62, but for under 500 yards, easy recoil, lighter weapon, more rounds ready, and carried. Under the 500 yards it has advantages over the 7.62X51. The 5.7 tends to have some of those characteristics over the 5.56, except maybe for under two hundred yards. Though I might rather say for the room to room.
This model looks like a Spec ops weapon, I never handled a Tavor, but it must be similar to SA-80. I did notice Brits and Aussie spec ops use the M-4 design. I guess to each his own. I really would like to get my hands on that Tavor. It looks pretty ******. Looks don’t mean everything I know. I think the Hezbollah experience rubbed off on the IDF pretty good. Close quarters, up close and personal yes?
Um, for indoor, urban combat, the bullpup design can’t be beat. Repeated tests by several different defense agencies clearly show that. Also, similar testing has shown that this design is much easier for users with smaller frames to use accurately, because the tend to be lighter, and the center of gravity of the weapon itself is closer to the users center of gravity resulting in a weapon/ user integral unit that has much less polar motion … Ie is less awkward to use. Also, the smaller more compact design of the bullpup can be made both lighter and stronger at the same time.
Lastly, accuracy range tests with new recruits repeatedly show that the pulp up design is significantly better over conventional designs like the M-4.
In fact in terms of just about every aspect of weapon performance the bullpup design has proven superior in both testing and in real combat. Except in one area….cost per unit…
Um, for indoor, urban combat, the bullpup design can’t be beat. Repeated tests by several different defense agencies clearly show that. Also, similar testing has shown that this design is much easier for users with smaller frames to use accurately, because the tend to be lighter, and the center of gravity of the weapon itself is closer to the users center of gravity resulting in a weapon/ user integral unit that has much less polar motion … Ie is less awkward to use. Also, the smaller more compact design of the bullpup can be made both lighter and stronger at the same time.
Lastly, accuracy range tests with new recruits repeatedly show that the pulp up design is significantly better over conventional designs like the M-4.
In fact in terms of just about every aspect of weapon performance the bullpup design has proven superior in both testing and in real combat. Except in one area….cost per unit…