Tweet
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 No forward assist, which is now an outdated idea in which you attempted to force a round that won't chamber, harder into the chamber.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.
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.
Comment