Is it out dated already ?? Or is just that they want a local made product to spend our money on?

http://www.timesofis...om-to-the-m-16/

IMO it's out dated, not that it's not equally effective, but a bullpup will rock and roll in an urban setting. Companies have been reinventing how the buffer system works, it's just hard to beat out the cost and simplicity of an m-16..

The Bill of Rights: Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Not available in MA, NJ, NY, CA, IL, DC. Restrictions apply.

 

haha! I had a t shirt made up that said something like that

maybe/hopefully they will sell us the parts kits to the m16's like they did with their 1919's when they replaced them. one can only dream. nice supple of spare parts.

wasnt sure what the title meant at first as Shalom means hello as well as goodbye....also peace...kinda like the Hawaiian word Aloha......Shaloha?

I'm not sure if having the M16 in service for nearly half a century is a testament to the gun or to the military's stubbornness.

The Tavor has been making its rounds for quite some time now with the IDF; nice to finally see its going to be made service-wide.

 

As for our military ever transitioning, so many attempts, but I don't think there will ever be any real traction any time soon. The people who make legislation and budgets still think the military fights conventional wars (or finds the need to feed their lobbyists). And the ones who are actually fighting the new types of warfare already use their own tools of the trade as they see fit. Everyone else is kind of left in the wind.

IWI's factory in Harrisburg PA is not that far. I wonder if the Tavor will be Jersey-legal. I suppose question is what they do at the muzzle-end of the barrel.

 

http://www.iwi.us/tavor.html

I'm not sure if having the M16 in service for nearly half a century is a testament to the gun or to the military's stubbornness.

 

In my opinion it IS a testament to the platform. Keep in mind that the IDF has plenty of Galil's, FAL's etc etc on hand but CHOOSE to field the AR platform. It was preferred over the others.

I dunno if anyone ever tried using a bullpup design but for my money they are a pain in the ass to shoot and reload from a lot of positions, to say nothing that most of them place your support hand in a silly position or leave you with very limited handguard space accessories. That last one isn't an issue for civilians but look at the pile of stuff building up on military rifles.

 

I'm guessing the primary reason they chose the Tavor is in country manufacturing and support plus national pride. None of those are bad ideas if the rifle works.

I'm not sure if having the M16 in service for nearly half a century is a testament to the gun or to the military's stubbornness.

 

Both. Its got its issues, but nothing better has come along to be a worthy and economical replacement until maybe recently. Honestly, the best chance we had in replacing the damned thing was when Gene Stoner came up with the AR-18 as a replacement. Piston driven, same ergonomics, cheaper to produce (stamped instead of milled). Unfortunately, the military stuck with the M-16 and passed up on that.

 

Amazingly enough, the M16/M4 have been our longest serving service rifle (While the M14 is still used, it is not a standard issue weapon)... that's pretty hard to beat.

Both. Its got its issues, but nothing better has come along to be a worthy and economical replacement until maybe recently. Honestly, the best chance we had in replacing the damned thing was when Gene Stoner came up with the AR-18 as a replacement. Piston driven, same ergonomics, cheaper to produce (stamped instead of milled). Unfortunately, the military stuck with the M-16 and passed up on that.

 

Amazingly enough, the M16/M4 have been our longest serving service rifle (While the M14 is still used, it is not a standard issue weapon)... that's pretty hard to beat.

 

Question: Was the M16 economic at the time of its introduction relative to it's replacement, the M14? Or is it now economical because it has been in production for 50 years?

Question: Was the M16 economic at the time of its introduction relative to it's replacement, the M14? Or is it now economical because it has been in production for 50 years?

 

Yes, by virtue of the ammunition it used, the weight of the ammunition, and the number of rounds a soldier can carry. I'm not too sure of the difference in weapons cost, but once the M-16 was selected, the US Government got out of the Service Rifle game and Springfield Armory closed.

 

But the important thing in terms of economics between the M-16 and M-14 is the ammo.

Does anyone have information on Tavor MoA accuracy?

 

FutureWeapons clip claims 300meters as maximum range to hit a head&shoulder silhouette. So that's about 6MoA?

 

Great for CQB. But seems a terrible sacrifice if you want an all-purpose tool.

I don't think Future Weapons ever got that technical. It's probably between 1-3 moa if I had to take a guess.

I dunno if anyone ever tried using a bullpup design but for my money they are a pain in the ass to shoot and reload from a lot of positions, to say nothing that most of them place your support hand in a silly position or leave you with very limited handguard space accessories. That last one isn't an issue for civilians but look at the pile of stuff building up on military rifles.

 

I'm guessing the primary reason they chose the Tavor is in country manufacturing and support plus national pride. None of those are bad ideas if the rifle works.

 

First part is ENTIRELY a training Issue Vlad..., as far as the Accessorizing..IDF has never really gotten into that from what I;ve seen, their rifles are almost always plain-jane Rifles or Carbines..MAYBE an aftermarket light or VFG, but that's about it...they dont really go for the gear queer look. They get a lot of their Military hardware from us, for the longest time they kept their small arms primarily from IMI (Galil, Uzi, IMI CZ copy) I think they have been smarting over getting their primary Rifle platform from us for a long time, plus it gives IMI the cash to keep in-country. it's certainly a National Pride issue, but also a Political one..they REALLY dont like being called our "Pawns" in the region..this is a way of showing their independance. As far as the rifle itself, they have done what the British DIDNT Do...namely make sure the damn thing worked before issuing it Forces-Wide. if the British had worked out the bugs in the L-85 BEFORE putting it in the field they wouldnt have looked as stupid as they did when HK had to rebiuld and half re-engineer the entire platform.

Question: Was the M16 economic at the time of its introduction relative to it's replacement, the M14? Or is it now economical because it has been in production for 50 years?

As Dev said the savings in Ammunition alone was huge..but the cost per piece was less as well. Aluminum Forgings for the receivers as opposed to Steel, Plastic Stocks and furniture, as opposed to wood. the stocks and other plastic parts could be molded assembled and bonded by the dozen in the time it took the machines to hog out one wooden stock from a blank. Plus as time has gone by and better machining and manufacturing processes have become available (Wire EDM for instance) the speed and tolerances have gotten even better. Look at a GOOD standard 20" AR, (Bushy, Remington, Colt) as opposed to an M-1A you're talking almost double the price for the Springfield..because it's MUCH more labor-intensive to produce.

Idunno KD, Im thinking weak side barracade is a PITA with the bullpups that eject out the right side. I know this is why the British hate patrolling the right side of a street with theirs.

Glad they are replacing them.

 

When I was in Israel a few years ago, we were around ALOT of IDF. You should of seen their AR's. Beat to shit, and yes, all plain jane.

Idunno KD, Im thinking weak side barracade is a PITA with the bullpups that eject out the right side. I know this is why the British hate patrolling the right side of a street with theirs.

 

Thats kinda what I'm alluding to. Even if you have ambi ejection (although that won't help you with off-side shooting, unless it ejects forward or down), prone reloads are going be interesting. I have serious issues with the ergonomics of forcing the support hand that close to the muzzle and yet so close to the body as well. I also have issues with ability to support the rifle on a improvised rest that may not always be in the sweet spot. Not a NJ issue, but there is also no adjusting the length of pull and that may matter if the shooter is small, tall, wearing body armor, wearing winter gear. Ok the last one may not matter in the middle east as much.

Israel wants a domestic firearms industry and will continue to build one with our money.

They have been building their own munitions for years. It makes sense to make your own guns since they already produce large weaponry. At present its the first time in over 30 years that we've had new fighter technology that Israel hasn't shook down for us. FMS