What's your thoughts on the Tavor assault rifle?
Do bullpups live up to the hype?
In terms of reliability, I only ever had issues with it fresh out of the box, shooting steel-case Tulammo.
Had FTE/FTF every 3rd shot. Was running it bone dry too.
Took it back to the range with the bolt over-oiled (more than the manual recommends) and no issues.
Now I shoot Barnaul steel case through it (with zinc coating) and regular lubrication. Zero issues ever.
Eats brass like no ones business, and Ive been shooting shitty American Eagle .223.
Ive yet to shoot it in extreme cold, though there are videos of guys shooting it in -15C. It runs pretty dry, so I doubt there'd be any issues of lubrication freezing.
It ejects with intent.
Accuracy-wise, well Im a shit shot. At 50 yards with no magnification and a AIMPOINT PRO I can make 3 inch groups off a bench rest. Again, my technique is total shit though.
Look at Tavor accuracy vids on youtube.
Its a nice gun. Has a very dense feeling to it. Very compact and comfortable to shoot standing.
The BIGGEST issue with it, IMO, is that if you ride the charging handle , instead of pulling hard back, and letting go cleanly, is that it can fail to go fully into battery.
Trigger needs a improvement, but other than that its good
I love it because its a non restricted rifle for Canuckistan, only issue is that they're stereotyping themselves by charging what I believe is too much for said gun
>Its a nice gun. Has a very dense feeling to it. Very compact and comfortable to shoot standing.
The Tavor was designed for urban combat. It's heavy as shit, and short. It points fast, and all that mass soaks up the recoil impulse to keep you on target.
Do you want to hike all over the fucking place carrying one? Not really, but the compact size actually makes it pretty easy to pack around, even with the weight.
But if you're riding everywhere in urban terrain and just dismounting to storm a hooch? It's fucking ideal.
Tavor is better than normal Steyr Aug, but the new Australian (vs Austrian) EF-88 / F90 I'd say is slightly superior to the Tavor.
Fortunately, the trigger is very easy to replace.
I got my Tavor for $1700, but it was already converted to 9mm; which is fine by me, I got it specifically for the Ratworx ZRX.
90 percent of the people who bash the tavor have never spent any time with one. They claim it's too heavy, the trigger sucks the ergonomics suck. But when you hold one and shoot one and manuver with one of all makes sense. The gun was designed to be easy to use and it is. The only real issue I had with mine is the trigger. But the shooting sight trigger is the tits. I paid 1600 for mine shortly after they were released here. It's seen A LOT of rounds both steel cased and brass and never had any sort of malfunction. It is heavy but once it's shouldered it feels like a pencil barrel sbr ar. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but give the rifle a chance before you bash it. Get a friend who has one and use it hell come use mine. It may not be for you but after you have gotten used to it you will at the very least have a lot of respect for it.
It's ok, but you eat more smoke than usual, and for a new entry price around 1600, it's approaching AUG/fs2000 territory, which are inherently better overall, especially weight wise.
The factory irons are laughable, and using optics is pretty much required. Add a $400 trigger and you're well into used SCAR territory, which is unacceptable.
It comes in 300blk now, so there's that.
If the price hits $1000 OTD I'll buy one again, but right now my jewgolds are being used elsewhere.
My main worry about the Tavor, like the AUG, is added height over bore to get a propert cheekweld with most optics. Standard HOB on AR platform is 2.5 inches, it looks like 4+ inches is common on many bullpups. Not too appealing to me.
That's really more a matter of personal preference than a defect of the design, though. I personally don't have a problem with it - I actually like that my Tavor shoots differently than my AR, otherwise, what's the point of having different guns?
While I agree that cheekwelds are highly subjective and open to user preference, they are somewhat objectively superior for accuracy and work better when shooting prone, which is where your ass should likely be when returning fire if not moving or behind cover most of the time in most situations.
Different rifles for different roles. I wouldn't want a Tavor as a designated marksman rifle, but the shorter overall length - while retaining a full-length barrel - makes it objectively superior in close quarters where you aren't likely to be able to go prone (or where it would be inadvisable).
That may be a liability in a more open environment, but so can an overly long rifle in a closer one. Again, it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish - every gun will require some kind of compromise.
Litteraly the best rifle I have ever shot. I just can't say enough good about them. You need to buy one, preferably multiple of them (not that they will break I have never seen a tavor have any issues) anyway you go- I mean guys need to buy one. Right Now.
I don't have alot of experience will bullpups, but I HAVE shot a few of them.
In general, from my experience, bullpups perform better than standard rifles but they have worse ergonomics.
Tfw thread of my 2nd favorite rifle, combat proven, littered with shit posts and meme opinions by nofuns and callofdooty nigger faggots
It's what inexperienced people do. Probably the mentality of watching people do it in movies and also think it'll damage the gun. I tell people all the time not to ride it when their shooting mine.
This one seems to be the opposite: it bit more difficult to operate due to the heavier trigger, but the ergonomics are superior to anything else on the market.
That what you get when presenting something popular/hyped in a site dedicated to people with underdog mentality.
I'm the guy that first said that Original Steyr < Tavor < EF-88 / F90
Original Steyrs had non-removal sights, were heavier and had some issues here and there (eg, drop-safety only engaged if the rifle was dropped muzzle-down which is pointless).
Newer Steyrs have rails, some reduced weight, IIRC some material improvements as well.
The EF-88 / F90 though goes even further with even more weight reduction, a more rear-ward CG, better charging handle mechanism, improvements to reduce the chances of double-feed / jamming, better ergonomics, etc.
I think they're pretty cool and they definitely have downsides on paper, but I haven't shot one, don't own one, and so I will remain open to them. Don't like the price tag, but you'll have that.
And in regards to the Steyr trigger mech; I haven't had an issue with it, but dust can be an issue if you don't clean it properly (the issue mainly being in the trigger rods). The trigger mech itself is an all plastic thing that sits in the stock and is generally fine IMO.
Have had one about 4 months.
Mediocre. Inferior to FS2000 and all but the bottom of the bargain-bin AR's, better than AUG. Don't have any other experience with bullpups to compare it to. With AE 55gr FMJ I was consistently getting 3-4" groups with a 1-4x optic, compared to my cheapshit DPMS 16" carbine upper which would print the same ammo into 1.8-2" with fewer random fliers. Still plenty good enough as a combat rifle.
The mag mine shipped with would not feed no matter what I did. Literally would not even strip the first round. Contacted seller, seller shipped new mag, new mag was fine. Mine doesn't like anything but brass, have tried with Herter's, Brown Bear, Silver Bear, Tula, and Wolf and they will not cycle even semi-reliably. 4-5 doublefeeds per mag and rarely strips the first round if there are >18 rounds in mag. Brass, even shitty brass, runs like clockwork though.
>live up to the hype?
Not even close. 8-12lb factory trigger with a mile of takeup and yards of creep that can be somewhat improved with a $350 aftermarket trigger that still only takes it to AR USGI-tier, AKA still 5lbs and creepy and still bad. Trigger is still better than FS2000's mushfest. Sight radius is abysmal, if I wanted pistol-length sight radius I'd be shooting a pistol. Not enough top rail to have optic+anything, which sucks for people that own clip-on NODs/thermal or who wish to use a dot+magnifier.
Maybe? It was designed specifically for the Australian Defence Force, but the F90 is the export designation though, so keep an eye out for that. Manufacturer is Thales Australia / Lithgow Arms.
Got mine for $1700 ish. It is the third bull pup I've fired and easily the best of the three. I can't compare it to the aug because I've never fired an August. I have however fired the sa-80 and the fs2000. Of the three the Tavor is very ergonomic and comfortable to hold and shoot. Fs2000 is also very comfortable. The Tavor is not as heavy as some folks here make it out to be, try an ak47 or an m1 with a wood stock for comparison. The iron sits on the Tavor flip up out of the rails and they do look goofy but they are accurate. Out of the box at a 50yd range my grouping was very tight using the built in sights. Easy to to disassemble and Mai train as well. My only gripe really is needing a special tool to unlock the barrel. As far as the trigger goes, yes it is heavy but as most have already said this is an easy fix.
I have one. I wouldn't buy it again. It's fine. Points easy, accurate enough. Easy to keep shouldered after someone with an AR would be hating life. 18" barrel is still compact.
It's very handy. If that's important to you, it's not a bad choice.
I've never had any reliability problems with it.
whats /k/ opinion on the FAD ?
I have heard no first or second hands accounts of this rifle
Forward ejecting and shoots underwater
>Not knowing there are constant revisions to the AUG
I think AUG A3 and the Australian's EF88 are the most recent.
Don't think we (Australia) uses the A3; our current variant is the F-88SA2, which is similar to the A3, but still has the built-in forward vertical grip and no side rails (my memory's just gone fuzzy on that - I'm not Army anyway so I barely touch the things). The F-88SA2 also comes with a rail version of the original donut 1.5x sight, although SF, etc will throw on Trijicons, etc if they're not using M4s.
The EF-88 (which I've handled, but not fired, for the record) is being issued in black, with units permitted to paint them to their CO's standards. As far as I'm aware we're finally swapping to commercial (Trijicon) sights, although I'm not sure what specifically. The EF-88 I used had an RCO sight; I forget which specific model. But yeah, the EF-88's noticeably lighter and better balanced. The weight difference between both variants with a GLA is massive and while I didn't quite get the hang of it, the new bolt release switch on the stock is nifty. Also the new charging handle mechanism / bolt hold-back mechanism is excellent.
He's using the GLA which is why his cheeks not on it, but regardless; a non-prone example:
Used M4 for the first half of my service and then the Tavor and then the X95 which I'll just call the Micro.
The Tavor was made for the firing position, it's incredibly comfortable in it and the weight being in the back is great, same goes for the micro, the problem is of course that you don't spend most of your time in the firing position or directly aiming at something, even during operational use so its weight was for me a great drawback, it hit my balls and knees harder and more often than the m4 ever did during navigation/ruck marches.
I guess in the end firefight functionality tramps over anything else but I think it's worth noting that the M4 was a lot more comfortable to "live" with.
As far as accuracy goes I really enjoyed the Tavor, I didn't get to mess around with it too much but when I did I was able to place 250m shots fairly well for a rifle that wasn't really meant for that range.
As far as the M4 goes it performed well in its operational range but imo it didn't do too well if you tried to get more out of it - I think it might have had to do with the rifles weight and the way the barrel is situated in the Tavor.
With reliability the tavor takes the m4, as long as you pass something through the barrel ones in a while it feels like it could just keep shooting forever, very rarely jammed and when it did the relatively strong action would take care of it - of course this is a trade off because it means that when something more "serious" like a jammed casing happens the M4 is easier and quicker to manage while at the same time you'd have to hit your tavor on the floor.
Two bonuses the M4 had over the Tavor for me were
1. nimble feel - much quicker to move around, much easier to place your barrel on something for support
2. not having to worry about where your cocking handle is - if you're right handed and you're slicing a corner to your left and there's a need to shoot there's a very real chance that your will get stuck in something and won't load
Fug that's more than I expected to type - anyway, a couple of closing notes -
cocking handle thing has been dealt with in the X95 to some extent, because now when it's closer to your body there's the lesser but still existing chance it'll get stuck in your sling, uniform or w/e so those are things you need to keep in mind.
All in all as a combat gun I think I'd take the tavor, as a general service rifle I think it's a tougher choice and the classic design has some real merits to it.
Tavor got me into bullpups. I'm a true believer at this point, I most def want a bullpup as my go-to carbine. I'd never buy a Tavor though. I've seen people on various forums have too many problems with them. Like two Tavors in the same carbine course having their trigger packs shit the bed beyond repair. And of course there is AregularGuy's swamp test.
I really want to see how the MSBS-B, RDB, and MDR pan out before I buy anything. I like the downward ejection on the RDB but it seems like it'd be really vulnerable to shit getting up in there and it is of course Kel-Tec, which is a major strike out of the gate. I like how the MSBS-B is going to have its mag release in the same location as an AR, even though its a bullpup.