SBR OR TAVOR?

Tavor is on my list of future purchases or an FS2000. It would be nice to get rid of one of my carbines and replace it with a bullpup. Any reason why an FS2000 isn't being considered? Price, reliability?
 
The IDF does not use a commercial Tavor made in the US. While it "should" be a proven platform it isnt 100% the same thing

the US military also does not use bushmasters or rock river ARs and I don't hear anyone questioning them on these grounds.
 
the US military also does not use bushmasters or rock river ARs and I don't hear anyone questioning them on these grounds.

That isn't exactly a fair comparison though, since the brand choice is entirely dependent of contracts with the lowest bidder to still fall within spec. I would never use them as the benchmark for quality comparison because that is like saying that LaRue, DD, BCM, and other tier one manufactures "must be junk" just because they are not standard issue.
 
Don't get a Tavor unless you want a Tavor.

If you want a short rifle, get a SBR. I have a 10.5" AR and a Tavor. I know the AR, I've been shooting one for 25 years. I rarely shoot the Tavor. Don't get me wrong, its a nice gun, especially with one of the aftermarket triggers that are coming out. But its so so DIFFERENT. Everything is different.

I don't want to take the time to learn a new rifle. By learn, I mean learn to use it instinctively. I can manipulate the gun without looking. I'm a long way from that with the tavor.
 
That isn't exactly a fair comparison though, since the brand choice is entirely dependent of contracts with the lowest bidder to still fall within spec. I would never use them as the benchmark for quality comparison because that is like saying that LaRue, DD, BCM, and other tier one manufactures "must be junk" just because they are not standard issue.

criticism of any firearm should be based on either inductive or deductive grounds. in other words, either direct experience w the gun (inductive) or some reason for why a design is possibly inherently flawed (deductive). to claim that a tavor "hasn't proven itself" is a circular argument because honestly how many commercially available guns have truly "proven themselves"? probably less than 2% of them. if i require everything in life to prove itself on the battlefield for 100 years then i will be a awfully lonely human being with no friends, no investments, no home, no job, no car, no guns, etc.

most criticism of the tavor is produced by AR-fanboys who are afraid of anything that might outshine an AR. don't get me wrong, i love the AR design too. what type of american doesn't? but every time i show up with my tavor somewhere i have AR-lovers commenting on how it's this-or-that and all i can say is "are you asking me or telling me?"
 
criticism of any firearm should be based on either inductive or deductive grounds. in other words, either direct experience w the gun (inductive) or some reason for why a design is possibly inherently flawed (deductive). to claim that a tavor "hasn't proven itself" is a circular argument because honestly how many commercially available guns have truly "proven themselves"? probably less than 2% of them. if i require everything in life to prove itself on the battlefield for 100 years then i will be a awfully lonely human being with no friends, no investments, no home, no job, no car, no guns, etc.

most criticism of the tavor is produced by AR-fanboys who are afraid of anything that might outshine an AR. don't get me wrong, i love the AR design too. what type of american doesn't? but every time i show up with my tavor somewhere i have AR-lovers commenting on how it's this-or-that and all i can say is "are you asking me or telling me?"

I wasn't at all speaking of the Tavor, as I know next to nothing about them, I was referring to your Bushmaster/Rock River examples...
 
Last edited:
Tavor is on my list of future purchases or an FS2000. It would be nice to get rid of one of my carbines and replace it with a bullpup. Any reason why an FS2000 isn't being considered? Price, reliability?

I have both - and prefer the FS2000
 
the US military also does not use bushmasters or rock river ARs and I don't hear anyone questioning them on these grounds.

I'm not comparing any AR to a military m16 or m4... The AR is a commercial firearm, with 40 years of support and modifications to the design as well as a established group of contractors / vendors that produce parts

criticism of any firearm should be based on either inductive or deductive grounds. in other words, either direct experience w the gun (inductive) or some reason for why a design is possibly inherently flawed (deductive). to claim that a tavor "hasn't proven itself" is a circular argument because honestly how many commercially available guns have truly "proven themselves"? probably less than 2% of them. if i require everything in life to prove itself on the battlefield for 100 years then i will be a awfully lonely human being....."

Questioning a newly manufactured product, in a new production facility of any type is pretty common. There are plenty of examples of established product lines that have shifted workforce or location and seen a large drop in overall quality. This can happen with any product... Like it or not, yes the Tavor is "NEW" and "NO" it is not proven in a commercial sense. Will there be parts supports 5 years from now? Will there be replacement barrels available when the stock one is shot out? If I crack my stock assembly doing a tactical roll over the hood of a firebird, will a replacement be found?

There have been many "gamechanging" must have firearms that have turned out to be an absolute albatross. Do I think the Tavor will likely be one, no. Given the IDF use and investment I doubt it.

Oh and "my" criticism of anything I spend my money on will be based on whatever the hell I dream up, thank you [smile]
 
Questioning a newly manufactured product, in a new production facility of any type is pretty common. There are plenty of examples of established product lines that have shifted workforce or location and seen a large drop in overall quality. This can happen with any product... Like it or not, yes the Tavor is "NEW" and "NO" it is not proven in a commercial sense. Will there be parts supports 5 years from now? Will there be replacement barrels available when the stock one is shot out? If I crack my stock assembly doing a tactical roll over the hood of a firebird, will a replacement be found? There have been many "gamechanging" must have firearms that have turned out to be an absolute albatross. Do I think the Tavor will likely be one, no. Given the IDF use and investment I doubt it. Oh and "my" criticism of anything I spend my money on will be based on whatever the hell I dream up, thank you [smile]

You might want to do more research. Read the Wikipedia for tavor SAR-21. This rifle has been around since 2001. Current rifle is assembly in US, but using imported parts. This rifle is subject to 922r. Modified the rifle will be extra killy.

Sent from my Tinfoil hat
 
the US military also does not use bushmasters or rock river ARs and I don't hear anyone questioning them on these grounds.

Its not quite the same.

The changes from M16 to AR15 were made 40 years ago. The the ar15, a semi auto variant of the M16 is well proven.

The Americanized, semi-auto variant of the Tavor is new. I know for one thing that the US version's fire control system is different from even the semi auto version of the Israeli tavor, which has been available in Canada for a few years.

In the process of certifying the gun, the ATF wanted the US Tavor to use a slimmer trigger pack so that the full auto pack could not fit in the gun. The Canadian (Israeli made) Tavor uses the same wider trigger pack as the select fire guns, is made in Israel by IWI and is pretty well proven. The American gun is made by an American company, owned by an American, using some American parts. Big difference.

With all that said, I'm confident that the Tavor will prove to be a very reliable and durable platform based on everything I've experienced first hand and also read on the internets. But its not yet proven.
 
Its not quite the same.

The changes from M16 to AR15 were made 40 years ago. The the ar15, a semi auto variant of the M16 is well proven.

The Americanized, semi-auto variant of the Tavor is new. I know for one thing that the US version's fire control system is different from even the semi auto version of the Israeli tavor, which has been available in Canada for a few years.

In the process of certifying the gun, the ATF wanted the US Tavor to use a slimmer trigger pack so that the full auto pack could not fit in the gun. The Canadian (Israeli made) Tavor uses the same wider trigger pack as the select fire guns, is made in Israel by IWI and is pretty well proven. The American gun is made by an American company, owned by an American, using some American parts. Big difference.

With all that said, I'm confident that the Tavor will prove to be a very reliable and durable platform based on everything I've experienced first hand and also read on the internets. But its not yet proven.

Why not consider a proven Bullpup like the Steyr AUG with a NATO stock?? If your not really in need of it being fully ambi, or your a lefty, i don't necssarily see the need for a Tavor??

This is a great deal for a NATO version. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=415190229
 
Last edited:
Why not consider a proven Bullpup like the Steyr AUG with a NATO stock?? If your not really in need of it being fully ambi, or your a lefty, i don't necssarily see the need for a Tavor??

This is a great deal for a NATO version. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=415190229

I don't know if you were implying that the tavor is ambidextrous. Because its not.

As a left handed shooter I can tell you that the Tavor is perhaps the LEAST ambi firearm I've ever used. It is switchable, but it is not ambi.

Here's the difference. A left handed shooter can pick up a standard AR15 and shoot and run the gun with some adaptation. The same shooter can pick up a scar and run it even better with its ambi selector. With 1 minute of work the lefty can switch the charging handle to the side of his choice.

In contrast, a right handed Tavor can not even be used by a left handed person until the LH bolt is installed and the ejection port cover swapped to the other side. I know I tried. 3 shots into my first mag I got wacked in the chin with a shell that bounced back into the ejection port and stopped the gun.

One in a million, I thought. Then it happened two more times in the next 30 rounds. About 1 in 3 shots struck my face in some way.

After installing the LH bolt and making the swaps, the gun ran great. Zero failures in hundreds of rounds. The myth of Tavor ambidextrousness is one of the biggest lies told by the firearms industry in years.

I use it as a litmus test when I read reviews of the tavor. If the reviewer just parrots (most) the marketing literature on the Tavor's "ambidextrous" controls, I quite literally cringe.

Don
 
I don't know if you were implying that the tavor is ambidextrous. Because its not.

As a left handed shooter I can tell you that the Tavor is perhaps the LEAST ambi firearm I've ever used. It is switchable, but it is not ambi.

Here's the difference. A left handed shooter can pick up a standard AR15 and shoot and run the gun with some adaptation. The same shooter can pick up a scar and run it even better with its ambi selector. With 1 minute of work the lefty can switch the charging handle to the side of his choice.

In contrast, a right handed Tavor can not even be used by a left handed person until the LH bolt is installed and the ejection port cover swapped to the other side. I know I tried. 3 shots into my first mag I got wacked in the chin with a shell that bounced back into the ejection port and stopped the gun.

One in a million, I thought. Then it happened two more times in the next 30 rounds. About 1 in 3 shots struck my face in some way.

After installing the LH bolt and making the swaps, the gun ran great. Zero failures in hundreds of rounds. The myth of Tavor ambidextrousness is one of the biggest lies told by the firearms industry in years.

I use it as a litmus test when I read reviews of the tavor. If the reviewer just parrots (most) the marketing literature on the Tavor's "ambidextrous" controls, I quite literally cringe.

Don

Don, this is interesting... This seems to be different than the military arms YouTube reviews that I had watched. It was mentioned that higher preasure rounds worked better than steel case wolf ( in terms of deflecting forward away from the shooters face ) but failures due to shooting lefty or on right handed gun weren't mentioned
 
Believe me,

Unless this gun is switched to your dominant side, it is nearly useless. The reason none of them mention it is because they aren't left handed and never tried shooting the gun left handed.

Further, the selector is only on one side. It is very easy to switch it to the other side. You could even buy a 2nd selector from IWI, but its position is such that your trigger finger would then have to reach over the selector.

My gun was not a fluke. I've had the same thing happen on 2 guns. A 16.5" gun and an 18" gun.

By the way, I prefer the 18" gun. You get a bit more MV which is always a good thing with the .223 round. Its still shorter than my 10.5" AR SBR with the stock telescoped all the way in.

Also, the 18" gun gets the muzzle a bit further from your face. This is a good thing if you choose to install a brake since the muzzle is already pretty close to your face.
 
Last edited:
No experience here, but I lean towards the Tavor.

How about a Kriss, or Thompson, or Uzi?

the kriss vector is straight awesome. Tiliting bolt design is wicked smart. Talk about no recoil.
if they made a 9mm or .223 version i would setup another piggy bank for it....im just not invested in .45acp so i usually steer clear (not knocking .45 i just try to keep the same calibers for simplicity)
 
No experience here, but I lean towards the Tavor.

How about a Kriss, or Thompson, or Uzi?

Ergonomics and overall length as well as caliber options. Rifle and pistol caliber conversions are a main requirement of mine. The Kriss Vector is 3/8" of an inch LONGER than the Tavor when folded. This would require me to SBR the Kriss, which I'm not the slightest bit interested in.
 
I don't know if you were implying that the tavor is ambidextrous. Because its not.

As a left handed shooter I can tell you that the Tavor is perhaps the LEAST ambi firearm I've ever used. It is switchable, but it is not ambi.

Here's the difference. A left handed shooter can pick up a standard AR15 and shoot and run the gun with some adaptation. The same shooter can pick up a scar and run it even better with its ambi selector. With 1 minute of work the lefty can switch the charging handle to the side of his choice.

In contrast, a right handed Tavor can not even be used by a left handed person until the LH bolt is installed and the ejection port cover swapped to the other side. I know I tried. 3 shots into my first mag I got wacked in the chin with a shell that bounced back into the ejection port and stopped the gun.

One in a million, I thought. Then it happened two more times in the next 30 rounds. About 1 in 3 shots struck my face in some way.

After installing the LH bolt and making the swaps, the gun ran great. Zero failures in hundreds of rounds. The myth of Tavor ambidextrousness is one of the biggest lies told by the firearms industry in years.

I use it as a litmus test when I read reviews of the tavor. If the reviewer just parrots (most) the marketing literature on the Tavor's "ambidextrous" controls, I quite literally cringe.

Don

Well, i'm just a fool for youtube and other forums about the Tavor i guess. The AUG requires you to move to a left hand bolt also, but the charging handle can't be swithed. If there is no real advantage to the Tavor over the AUG, i'd go AUG.
 
Last edited:
I drank the Ambi Tavor coolaid. I bought a right handed gun because I've always used right handed guns and prefer to develop the skill to run a "standard" gun rather than something special and left handed. (The sole exception being my LH Benelli duck gun and my LH Remington trap gun)

I was very surprised when the first round bonked me in the chin. I was even more surprised when the gun jammed because it bounced back into the ejection port.

I am not kidding that in the first mag 2-3 rounds bounced back into the ejection port and stopped the gun.

I'm actually not knocking the gun. It runs flawlessly when your body isn't blocking the ejection port.
And like I said, the 18" gun gives you rifle muzzle velocity at a length shorter than my 10" SBR.

Because of the short length, I can't help but think what a great designated marksman's gun this would make in something like 6.5 Grendel with a 24" bbl.
 
I drank the Ambi Tavor coolaid. I bought a right handed gun because I've always used right handed guns and prefer to develop the skill to run a "standard" gun rather than something special and left handed. (The sole exception being my LH Benelli duck gun and my LH Remington trap gun)

I was very surprised when the first round bonked me in the chin. I was even more surprised when the gun jammed because it bounced back into the ejection port.

I am not kidding that in the first mag 2-3 rounds bounced back into the ejection port and stopped the gun.

I'm actually not knocking the gun. It runs flawlessly when your body isn't blocking the ejection port.
And like I said, the 18" gun gives you rifle muzzle velocity at a length shorter than my 10" SBR.

Because of the short length, I can't help but think what a great designated marksman's gun this would make in something like 6.5 Grendel with a 24" bbl.

i see this as more of a general bullpup issue, not tavor issue.
 
Thats a cop out.

IWI advertises the Tavor as ambi. The shill gun rags parrot that. Its NOT ambidextrous. In right handed form, it is the MOST lefty hostile firearm I've ever used.

It doesn't matter if its a bullpup issue. Steyr didn't go around calling the Aug ambidextrous. Not everyone knows the intricacies of bullpups.

By the way. Keltec gets around that by ejecting rounds out the front.
 
I followed the same thinking, and just sold my Tavor as I continue to wait on the tax stamp.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Thats a cop out.

IWI advertises the Tavor as ambi. The shill gun rags parrot that. Its NOT ambidextrous. In right handed form, it is the MOST lefty hostile firearm I've ever used.

It doesn't matter if its a bullpup issue. Steyr didn't go around calling the Aug ambidextrous. Not everyone knows the intricacies of bullpups.

By the way. Keltec gets around that by ejecting rounds out the front.

This is a very good post.

- - - Updated - - -

I followed the same thinking, and just sold my Tavor as I continue to wait on the tax stamp.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...


Also had a Tavor, and sold it...
 
Thats a cop out.

IWI advertises the Tavor as ambi. The shill gun rags parrot that. Its NOT ambidextrous. In right handed form, it is the MOST lefty hostile firearm I've ever used.

It doesn't matter if its a bullpup issue. Steyr didn't go around calling the Aug ambidextrous. Not everyone knows the intricacies of bullpups.

By the way. Keltec gets around that by ejecting rounds out the front.

I had presumed the "ambi" feature from videos such as this

http://youtu.be/9155MuJcT88

But after your issues, I went back and watched again and there does seem to be a different cheek weld for the right handed shooter shooting lefty.
 
I know you've made up your mind about the AUG, but i cant see the Tavor being any better. Watched the video and IMHO the Aug is easier to disassemble, barrel is much easier to remove, it's not any less ambi than the Tavor, and the caliber conversion is hardly clunky on the AUG considering its only 3 parts and can be switched in about 2 minutes.
 
Back
Top Bottom