Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated Centerfire rifles, carbines and other gas operated rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-01-2013, 9:33 AM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default The Israeli Tavor TAR-21

According to Gun Tests Magazine (which accepts no advertising and is the only objective firearms pub I'm aware of), the Israeli Army has now fully adopted this battle rifle, having transitioned away from the M-16 type platform.

The reason this is interesting to me is that the Israelis are more or less in a constant state of armed conflict and have a highly trained and competent Army with an outstanding track record. So, the decision to transition from the M-16 and move to a really modern design had huge consequences for them.

As we all know, the U.S. military itself has seriously considered replacing our main battle rifle, off and on, for some time. Oversimplifying, what seems to happen is that the suits in the Pentagon block it with budget issues; now, under the Obama regime, which seems to want to adopt a quasi-isolationist posture in the world, and divert military funding to social programs, it looks like our Army will have to keep living with a 50 year old (albeit improved) battle rifle.

I'm not being critical of the M-16 itself, but I'm saying that in my view our Army deserves the very best, up to date soldier's rifle and caliber we can give them, and we ought to get on with developing and fielding the replacement. To me, this is as important, if not more important, than the next new F-35 strike fighter.

Apparently the Israelis made that decision as to their own Army. Also, it appears the Israelis developed absolute clarity about their requirements in developing the TAR-21. They seem to feel that urban combat will constitute a sufficient percentage of future fighting that the soldier's rifle should be optimized for that scenario, not for 800 meter shots across Afghan mountain ridges, or 500 meter shots from the edge of your forest to the edge of the WWII Germans' forest. Leave that to the sniper boys, and every company now has embedded snipers as I understand it.

Some features: The TAR-21 is a gas piston design, not direct gas impingement. Because it's a bullpup, it has a 16.5 or 18 inch barrel (or shorter) while still being very compact. They elected to stay with the 5.56 round and it will accept standard NATO magazines. They have conversion kits for 9mm and 5.45 Russian. It has an excellent mag release just like the U.S. M14 rifle had (no tiny button), and which is also found on the Ruger Mini-14. It has a non-reciprocating bolt handle. No forward assist, which is now an outdated idea in which you attempted to force a round that won't chamber, harder into the chamber. If said round doesn't fully chamber, then you have yourself a problem and you are not firing at the enemy until you dig out the offending round somehow. With a bolt handle, you don't attempt to chamber a failure to feed; you eject it and chamber another round and get on with the fighting, just as you would with a semi-auto pistol.

This link below is a Wikipedia article on it which seems to be pretty accurate and thorough, although it doesn't exactly reflect that the Israeli Army, not just special forces, have standardized on this weapon. In summary, it's interesting to look at what a modern, feared Army has decided its soldiers should be carrying. I'd like to see the U.S. Army get on with developing and deploying a new design, whether it's this or something else. It doesn't have to be super high tech with all sorts of onboard electronics. You're looking at one example of the future of battle rifles for grunts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:11 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 7,862
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I personally think the creation and adoption of the Tavor by the IDF was mostly a political decision. IIRC, the Israeli's receive X amount of US aid every year and one of the strings attached is they must purchase X amount of US military goods with some of the aid money. So they would use some of it to buy US small arms. And as we all know, those aid amounts are subject to political manipulation by the US. Depending on how friendly the current US administration is to Israel affects their aid packages from year to year.

So to prevent disruptions in the supply chain for their military, it was in their best interest to develop in-house arms to replace the aging M16. They've been making guns for decades (Galils, Uzi's, and others). They even have their own jet fighters just-in-case. So it was no surprise they eventually targeted their main battle rifle. Especially since the M16 platform is showing it's age despite improvements over the years.

But there are plenty of other existing contenders that the IDF could have chosen from if the only criteria was a better/newer gun. Even our own special ops community often uses those other weapons depending on the mission. But the Israeli's still chose to design their own. I don't think it was because nothing out there fit the bill, I think they just didn't want to be reliant on a supply chain that could potentially and suddenly be cut-off depending on the political situation in the US or Europe. We all know that the European and American politicians have been getting less friendly to Israel.

And is the Tavor really an improvement? Supposedly the trigger is awful, not unlike most bullpups. The weight of the rifle certainly isn't any lighter than the M16. In fact, it's heavier. Inherent accuracy isn't anything to brag about either. Its main benefits are the compact size, gas piston, and close-in weight distribution because of the bullpup design. If the trigger were far better, it was more accurate, and they could make it lighter than the M16, I might agree that it truly is a better design.

But who knows, maybe those improvements will come in future Tavors.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater

Last edited by k1dude; 09-01-2013 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:23 AM
safety-1st's Avatar
safety-1st safety-1st is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,302
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Good to know we have a very well equipped and powerful ally in the region. They can be our boots on the ground while we supply the air superiority and our drones.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:32 AM
razgriz183 razgriz183 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 154
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

Business politics was more involved in the decision to keep the M4/M16

US Army wanted a new platform since the 90's and had stopped signifcant funding and research around 2006. Colt was a huge factor in stopping the research. Systems like the fs2000 and xm8 were scrapped because colt argued that it wasn't a major improvement to current rifles and was not a smart rifle that the DoD originally asked for.

So colt bought their way back into the us military for another 50 or so years
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:02 AM
INFAMOUS762X39's Avatar
INFAMOUS762X39 INFAMOUS762X39 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Southern San Andreas Fault
Posts: 1,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safety-1st View Post
Good to know we have a very well equipped and powerful ally in the region. They can be our boots on the ground while we supply the air superiority and our drones.
Yes, they are well equipped. You can thank US Tax payers.


Anyways, I personally think the Tavor feels like a plastic VCR.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:14 AM
jchen76@gmail.com jchen76@gmail.com is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,017
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

As a owner of Daniel Defense AR and Tavor (16.5) model, the AR is great all purpose, but the Tavor shines in close quarter. Either rifle would do just fine for normal range/civi use. The Israelis chose the Tavor due to its reliability factor when in the desert during active operations.

The use of STANAG pattern mags is a major plus, the Israeli army has millions of AR mags that won't need to surplus'd. The M16/M4 variant in the arsenal will probably be issued to rear-echelon troops and police.

Yes, the Tavor trigger isn't the best compared to AR trigger we are spoiled on, but how many other different rifle variants has an average person shot? Try HK91/83 trigger, AK, FN FAL, Steyr Aug, all these battle rifles and you'll see that Tavor isn't so bad after all. There's already shops making mods to the trigger right now, the quick Tavor trigger job floating around has owners proclaiming it to be the solution to the awful trigger pull.

Last edited by jchen76@gmail.com; 09-01-2013 at 11:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:15 AM
Windex Windex is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 179
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I did handle a Tavor in a shop in AZ. It was heavy. However, once you put it on your shoulder it was amazing how it felt. I don't know if it's necessarily any better than the M4.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:34 AM
Flogger23m Flogger23m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Default

I am sure the Tavor is a great rifle, but a few things:

1) Small arms tech is more or less the same as it was 50 years ago. Aside from optics, NVGs + lasers nothing has changed significantly. The overall combat difference between someone with an FN FAL, AK, M16 or SCAR is probably going to be very small assuming the soldier is equipped with said improvements.

2) The differences in tech something like the F-35 or F-22 brings to the table over the F-16/F-15C is far greater than anything small arms. How the F-35 pans out overall is still to be seen but it does incorporate to significant technology improvements over the F-16 which make a much bigger difference on the battlefield compared to any semi auto rifle produced within the past 50 years.

3) Israel has a decently large weapons industry. Getting cheap M16/M4s is good, but they can not make a profit from them. Perhaps they can license them for sale, but it is a crowded market. The Galil sold well to various countries, and the Tavor is as well. Seems like a good business decision to make extra money.

4) Dependence. In the 70s Israel was starting to loose ground resulting in the USA initiated a large resupply effort, including giving them A-4s and thousands of M16s. This resulted in an Oil embargo for the West. With that in mind, I am sure other countries might not be so ready to help Israel in a time of war again. With local production they do not have to worry about being resupplied by foreign sources.

5) Israel fights local wars, which tend to be in urban areas. A bullpup makes more sense here. They know their terrian and have a limited combat area and do lots of dismounting from vehicles. The USA fights wars all over the world in all kinds of terrian; sometimes longer ranges where the shortened length is not as useful.

Lots of other things to consider. The M16 may or may not be the best rifle out there, I don't know, but the differences between it and other similar weapons are pretty small.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:38 AM
Varg Vikernes's Avatar
Varg Vikernes Varg Vikernes is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bay Area SF
Posts: 2,767
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Trigger is supposed to be bad, along with every other bullpup.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:41 AM
Josh3239's Avatar
Josh3239 Josh3239 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 9,028
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Well said! I'd imagine the selection of the rifle had a lot more to do with choosing a shorter rifle made in Israel. I really don't think it was much more than that. Foreign aid to Israel, I believe, neither helps Israel nor the US, it hurts both nations. Besides, Israel has a long history with the rest of the world (not just including, but particularly the USA) with arms embargos.

It is a great rifle for what it is meant to do really. Better than the AR? Not according to an overwhelming amount of reviews I've read from American and Canadian Tavor owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1dude View Post
I personally think the creation and adoption of the Tavor by the IDF was mostly a political decision. IIRC, the Israeli's receive X amount of US aid every year and one of the strings attached is they must purchase X amount of US military goods with some of the aid money. So they would use some of it to buy US small arms. And as we all know, those aid amounts are subject to political manipulation by the US. Depending on how friendly the current US administration is to Israel affects their aid packages from year to year.

So to prevent disruptions in the supply chain for their military, it was in their best interest to develop in-house arms to replace the aging M16. They've been making guns for decades (Galils, Uzi's, and others). They even have their own jet fighters just-in-case. So it was no surprise they eventually targeted their main battle rifle. Especially since the M16 platform is showing it's age despite improvements over the years.

But there are plenty of other existing contenders that the IDF could have chosen from if the only criteria was a better/newer gun. Even our own special ops community often uses those other weapons depending on the mission. But the Israeli's still chose to design their own. I don't think it was because nothing out there fit the bill, I think they just didn't want to be reliant on a supply chain that could potentially and suddenly be cut-off depending on the political situation in the US or Europe. We all know that the European and American politicians have been getting less friendly to Israel.

And is the Tavor really an improvement? Supposedly the trigger is awful, not unlike most bullpups. The weight of the rifle certainly isn't any lighter than the M16. In fact, it's heavier. Inherent accuracy isn't anything to brag about either. Its main benefits are the compact size, gas piston, and close-in weight distribution because of the bullpup design. If the trigger were far better, it was more accurate, and they could make it lighter than the M16, I might agree that it truly is a better design.

But who knows, maybe those improvements will come in future Tavors.
__________________
Proud NRA Life Member As Of 2016


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas, American socialist
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-01-2013, 2:01 PM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I didn't mean to suggest that the U.S. should reduce emphasis on the F-35; the opposite, in fact. We really need that bird to replace the aging F/A-18, F-16 etc. My main point is that the U.S. Army should be given a green light for an M4/M16 replacement. It won't happen under the Obama regime, though.

I agree that Israel wisely has to have its own independent sources of arms incl. armor and aircraft. So, they presumably started with a clean sheet of paper and ended up with the TAR-21. They could have easily negotiated a license, if it's even necessary given the limited life span of patents, to manufacture M4/M16 rifles in Israel until Kingdom come if they wanted to. They made a studied decision to move away from that aging platform. That's the part that is interesting to me.
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-01-2013, 2:47 PM
INFAMOUS762X39's Avatar
INFAMOUS762X39 INFAMOUS762X39 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Southern San Andreas Fault
Posts: 1,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
I didn't mean to suggest that the U.S. should reduce emphasis on the F-35; the opposite, in fact. We really need that bird to replace the aging F/A-18, F-16 etc. My main point is that the U.S. Army should be given a green light for an M4/M16 replacement. It won't happen under the Obama regime, though.
In my opinion, U.S should kill the deeply troubled F-35A program and transfer the funds and recoverable technology to future F-22A and F-22C production. The economies of scale will result in a lower unit cost, saving around $50 to $70 million per aircraft.

The Sukhoi PAK-FA will likely cost half the price of an F-35 and be fully operational that much sooner.

The Army was given the green light for a new Individual Carbine. On 13 June 2013, the U.S. Army formally cancelled the Individual Carbine competition. $30+ million was being spent on testing. A 12–18-month testing phase commenced and over 1 million rounds were to be fired.

Last edited by INFAMOUS762X39; 09-01-2013 at 2:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-01-2013, 3:19 PM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFAMOUS762X39 View Post

The Army was given the green light for a new Individual Carbine. On 13 June 2013, the U.S. Army formally cancelled the Individual Carbine competition. $30+ million was being spent on testing. A 12–18-month testing phase commenced and over 1 million rounds were to be fired.
Yes, but why did the Army cancel the competition?
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-01-2013, 3:55 PM
starsnuffer starsnuffer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It's a good, idiot proof gun for a conscript army.

-W
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-01-2013, 3:57 PM
starsnuffer starsnuffer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
Yes, but why did the Army cancel the competition?
The Army canceled the last two decades worth of primary arms development programs. It has a lot to do with US companies inability to develop a superior weapon and submit it to these competitions and the lobbying preventing a foreign company from supplying the MBR (even though FN is now the main supplier of the M16/M4 platform)

-W
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-01-2013, 4:01 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,534
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Looks like it's being used in the US too by at least one PD: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...vor-sar-rifle/
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-01-2013, 4:09 PM
Nodda Duma's Avatar
Nodda Duma Nodda Duma is online now
Live Free Or Die
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brookline, NH
Posts: 3,457
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Ok listen, I've talked to Israeli soldiers...quite a few actually.. and what I learned was that they thought the M-16 is the better weapon. However, the Tavor was selected because it is home-grown.

Now that might be surprising to you. After all you've probably the Tavor is better. Don't blame you... after all, no one ever listens to the guy on the ground, right?

That said, the Tavor is fine. It strips down like an M-16 and the internals will look familiar if you've stripped an M-16. This was critical to avoid a learning curve and logistical mess... Something the Israelis couldn't afford when they could come under attack any day.

BTW the M-16's you'll see them carry are old, beat-up, but operate flawlessly and are as meticulously cared for as you'd expect of soldiers who carry them pretty much everywhere they go.
__________________
Looking for photos for your wall?
Help feed my children by clicking here.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-01-2013, 4:14 PM
MrPlink's Avatar
MrPlink MrPlink is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portland / East Bay
Posts: 12,537
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

K1 Dude nailed it. There is a strong political element here which people want to read into a statement of the technical viability of one system over the other.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-01-2013, 4:15 PM
CWDraco CWDraco is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Camarillo
Posts: 3,366
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I had the chance to "play" with a Tavor for several hours firing nearly 800 rounds. I think its better for urban short term warfare that's it.

A force that is expected to travel world wide and operate on a supply system with the vast majority of repair and maintenance done by the user and expected to maintain a high level of warfare would not want a Tavor.

IMHO any US LEA would be very happy using them. Most civilians wanting a SD/HD weapon would be happy with it. The US Military would not.

If Israel had to worry about worldwide deployment, they would stick with the AR platform.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2013, 4:15 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,196
iTrader: 72 / 99%
Default

Given the size differentials it's sorta silly to compare what the Isreal army does compared to the US military..
__________________
"Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Theodore Roosevelt

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-02-2013, 9:57 AM
thmpr's Avatar
thmpr thmpr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,825
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

I would like own one just because..nothing more nothing less. I believe the AR (14.5") with a sopmod fully collpased, and a match trigger is enough for me...just my opinion.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-02-2013, 9:59 AM
viper37's Avatar
viper37 viper37 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ШДSНIПGTѲП
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The M-16 works just fine. Don't fix what's not broken. Call of Duty =/= Real world.
__________________
"Of all the branches of men in the forces, there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the Submariners." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-02-2013, 10:17 AM
BigPun762's Avatar
BigPun762 BigPun762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I don't see it being a much better package over the M16/M4. It may be more reliable but by how much? Can it simply handle a bit more dirt than an M4? Or can it be dragged through the mud and be able to shoot like an AK? I doubt it's the latter. I think they chose it because they wanted a rifle that was THEIR own. An M4 is very good for urban scenarios as you can tell south of the border. The Mex Marines switched from a full battle cartridge to a small 5.56 due to kicking down narco doors and having a G3 being hard to maneuver in tight spaces. The M4 has proven a very good urban combat rifle there and it is highly praised. And the 5.56 leaves narcs just as dead as .308s. But I also think their FX-05 will replace the M4 later on due to the fact they'll eventually want something of their own as well. I don't see the Tavor being better than the M4 in CQB, I think they are on par.

Another reason I believe the M4 hasn't been replaced is due to other rifles not bringing anything extra to the table. I mean reliability is huge but if a properly soldier is trained to maintain his rifle it is not a big deal. I think the costs of replacing a standard infantry rifle outweigh the benefits of it and it's another reason they won't replace it. I don't see the M4 being replaced until something that brings someone new to the table and is worth the expense is developed.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-02-2013, 11:01 AM
INFAMOUS762X39's Avatar
INFAMOUS762X39 INFAMOUS762X39 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Southern San Andreas Fault
Posts: 1,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
Yes, but why did the Army cancel the competition?
After half an hour of light research, I simply do not have a solid answer to that..

What I did learn is that the Army went from using Colt M4s -> Remington M4s -> and now FN M4s? Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-02-2013, 2:45 PM
6114DAVE's Avatar
6114DAVE 6114DAVE is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster,CA
Posts: 4,071
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
I didn't mean to suggest that the U.S. should reduce emphasis on the F-35; the opposite, in fact. We really need that bird to replace the aging F/A-18, F-16 etc. My main point is that the U.S. Army should be given a green light for an M4/M16 replacement. It won't happen under the Obama regime, though.

I agree that Israel wisely has to have its own independent sources of arms incl. armor and aircraft. So, they presumably started with a clean sheet of paper and ended up with the TAR-21. They could have easily negotiated a license, if it's even necessary given the limited life span of patents, to manufacture M4/M16 rifles in Israel until Kingdom come if they wanted to. They made a studied decision to move away from that aging platform. That's the part that is interesting to me.
irael is looking to buy f35's
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:01 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.