Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: New TAVOR IWI 5.56

  1. #1 New TAVOR IWI 5.56 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1
    Anyone have experience with this rifle? I read the US Army is considering using it over the M16.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by shaggy1b View Post
    I read the US Army is considering using it over the M16.
    Citation needed.
    The US is traditionally highly reluctant to use foreign designs, especially for armaments.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    If you're not familiar with this firearm. Here's a video:

    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    The army to a large degree has moved on from the M16 to the M4, a more modern variant with a much greater variety of optics mounting options.

    There's been exploration and falsehoods about replacing this series for more than 30 years. It is unlikely. There's already a huge investment in the supply chain for M4/M16 series, not just in weapons, but replacement parts, training programs to use them, training programs to repair them. And being that nearly every Soldier gets one, it's a monumental and expensive task to replace small arms. And for what purpose? The M4/M16, despite its flaws (and it has a few) generally does the job close enough to most proposed replacements to make it not worth the effort or cost to the tax payer.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I think we are all fascinated by anything the Israelis are into.

    This weapon seems to have a different ejection mechanism from the M 4 that should be less prone to jamming.

    I think it is called "piston / recoil" based vs. gas operated (M4). The gas operated design puts more fouling into the chamber.

    Also, this design is a smaller weapon that is favored by some special forces etc. and keeps the barrel length so that stopping power is not reduced as is the case with a shortened M4.

    The other "rumor" that floats around a lot is that the military may seek a larger caliber than the 5.56 to defeat body armor etc.

    This weapon does not address that at this time, but it at least keeps the velocity of the 5.56 up in a smaller weapon.

    It does seem to be designed to easily change calibers.

    Interesting.

    I am not into guns at this time; however, if the s.h.t.f., then this weapon looks like a good choice.

    However, I agree that it is probably too expensive to change, and there is a lot of political pressure to use an American manufacturer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    ...
    The US is traditionally highly reluctant to use foreign designs, especially for armaments.
    I suspect that the negative stories about the AEF's experience with the Chauchat has something to do with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    No, it doesn't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    No, it doesn't.
    You seem assured of that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    It has to do with "buying American". We 'murcans like to kill brown people with 'murcun guns.
    Phlogistician likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    No, it doesn't.
    You seem assured of that?
    No need to phrase it as question: I am absolutely sure about it.
    1) IF it had been the case that one bad experience was enough to put the US off using overseas designs how come numerous bad experiences with home-grown designs haven't put the military off certain domestic manufacturers?
    2) Is the US so blinkered that it assigns one bad FRENCH 1 design to "the rest of the world"?
    3) It's protectionism, as Mac pointed out: buy foreign and you not only put your own work force out of jobs but if you buy and even manufacture foreign designs you're still losing home design experience - as the UK has found out in some fields where buying foreign has meant that we no longer have the capability to design, let alone manufacture, certain items.
    4) The faults with the Chauchat were, by and large, US-induced anyway. If they'd stuck with the design as was, instead of f*cking about with it, the problems would have been considerably lessened if not eliminated altogether.

    1 Not picking on the French particularly, but you gave the example in question. I.e. one particular country != everyone BUT the USA.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; December 14th, 2013 at 07:09 PM.
    Phlogistician likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    3) It's protectionism, as Mac pointed out: buy foreign and you not only put your own work force out of jobs but if you buy and even manufacture foreign designs you're still losing home design experience - as the UK has found out in some fields where buying foreign has meant that we no longer have the capability to design, let alone manufacture, certain items.
    Besides that, if we buy foreign and become dependent on them for a crucial tactical item, then we're rolling the dice on whether they're going to agree with our military policy 5, 10, or 20 years on down the road.

    The USA is buddy buddy allies with Israel right now, but that could change real quick.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    This weapon seems to have a different ejection mechanism from the M 4 that should be less prone to jamming.
    Get any weapon dirty, it will jam. Quality of ammunition is more of a factor than design if you keep a weapon clean these days.

    I think it is called "piston / recoil" based vs. gas operated (M4). The gas operated design puts more fouling into the chamber.
    Mixing your terminology there, piston operated weapons are operated by gas in their 1st stage, recoil operated weapons are not. The AR15 platform can be either direct gas or piston operated. Pistons mean _less_ fouling of the breach.

    Also, this design is a smaller weapon that is favored by some special forces etc. and keeps the barrel length so that stopping power is not reduced as is the case with a shortened M4.
    Actually, no. The standard firearm of the British Armed forces is the SA80, another 'bullpup' design, yet our special forces often carry an AR15/M4 variant. Why? Because bullpups are kinda shite in FIBUA environments where you might want to shoot left handed, you have to use the cover that's presented to you, and that can mean taking shots left handed. A bullpup is going to push hot brass near your face, not ideal.

    The other "rumor" that floats around a lot is that the military may seek a larger caliber than the 5.56 to defeat body armor etc.
    Which is why a platoon will carry a multitude of weapons, and it rather depends on the theatre. NATO specifically moved _down_ in calibre to 5.56mm, so troops could carry more ammunition.


    It does seem to be designed to easily change calibers.
    Why would you be interested in that? Nobody is going to carry the spares (magazines, ammunition, bolt and carrier, barrel) in the field.


    I am not into guns at this time; however, if the s.h.t.f., then this weapon looks like a good choice.
    Anything is better than nothing come s.h.t.f. This is no better than an M4 however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •