| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:IMI Tavor series: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:It's still odd to be me because the official stats for the standard-length TAVOR-21 claim it is of similar length to the widely-used Colt M4 carbine, and yet has the bullpup's advantage of better barrel length (close to the M16's actually). From what I've read, muzzle velocity is key to the 5.56mm round's effectiveness so it can fragment properly along its cannelure, and sacrificing that for a shorter barrel length means you're just putting 5.56mm holes in people rather than perforating their organs wholesale with every shot as more muzzle velocity would result in. Of course, I suppose the IDF is good enough to put enough of those 5.56mm holes in the urban-lurking terrorists they're hunting using short-controlled bursts, but I'm of the persuasion to make every shot count. I also know that while comfort is one thing towards the move for lighter rifles, isn't military training largely about acclimating oneself to this kind of fatigue (or getting a sling so you can hang the rifle off your shoulders when not in use)? It wasn't so long ago many soldiers were lugging around 9-pound M1 Garand rifles, for instance. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | :It's still odd to be me because the official stats for the standard-length TAVOR-21 claim it is of similar length to the widely-used Colt M4 carbine, and yet has the bullpup's advantage of better barrel length (close to the M16's actually). From what I've read, muzzle velocity is key to the 5.56mm round's effectiveness so it can fragment properly along its cannelure, and sacrificing that for a shorter barrel length means you're just putting 5.56mm holes in people rather than perforating their organs wholesale with every shot as more muzzle velocity would result in. Of course, I suppose the IDF is good enough to put enough of those 5.56mm holes in the urban-lurking terrorists they're hunting using short-controlled bursts, but I'm of the persuasion to make every shot count. I also know that while comfort is one thing towards the move for lighter rifles, isn't military training largely about acclimating oneself to this kind of fatigue (or getting a sling so you can hang the rifle off your shoulders when not in use)? It wasn't so long ago many soldiers were lugging around 9-pound M1 Garand rifles, for instance. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
They weren't loaded with 20-30 pounds of armor back then. --[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:45, 12 September 2010
At an end the standard TAR-21's reign is. And not short enough it was . . .
Does anyone know why the IDF is ditching the standard-length TAR-21 and going with the Micro version as the standard-issue weapon? I thought that since the original was a bullpup rifle, it managed to be "comfortably short" and yet retain the necessary barrel length to achieve the velocity necessary to get its 5.56x45mm rounds to fragment reliably at long enough ranges. Going for the MTAR is not going to be good for long range accuracy and damage, perhaps not even midrange for the 5.56mm round it's firing. Did they go for the MTAR so as to give the IDF's female conscripts a more comfortable weapon for those with arms too short to comfortably carry and fire the standard-length rifle? Or is it because the IDF only expect to be shooting up "enemy combatants" in urban "terrorist incidents" in the near future, rather than traipse around shooting up neighbouring countries, as they recently did in Lebanon?
It seems odd that they would purposely change the standard-issue weapon to a downgraded version, when the original should be short enough already. --Mazryonh 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not like they can't put long barrels on again. I'd be willing to bet that the Israelis have plenty of the longer barrels stashed somewhere, just in case.--Mandolin 12:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it's about making it more comfortable for smaller sized women, as far as I know the only area where the size changes between models is the hand guard and barrel. The reason is likely due to most of Israels combat zones being urban rather than large open fields or mountains. And since you can easily change the 5.56 MTAR into a 9mm SMG, it saves time and likely costs by being able to just train everyone with the same weapon system. Add in the loss of .71 pounds (Soldiers are usually armed 24/7) and you've got a better choice for the world they're in. --Crazycrankle 15:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's still odd to be me because the official stats for the standard-length TAVOR-21 claim it is of similar length to the widely-used Colt M4 carbine, and yet has the bullpup's advantage of better barrel length (close to the M16's actually). From what I've read, muzzle velocity is key to the 5.56mm round's effectiveness so it can fragment properly along its cannelure, and sacrificing that for a shorter barrel length means you're just putting 5.56mm holes in people rather than perforating their organs wholesale with every shot as more muzzle velocity would result in. Of course, I suppose the IDF is good enough to put enough of those 5.56mm holes in the urban-lurking terrorists they're hunting using short-controlled bursts, but I'm of the persuasion to make every shot count. I also know that while comfort is one thing towards the move for lighter rifles, isn't military training largely about acclimating oneself to this kind of fatigue (or getting a sling so you can hang the rifle off your shoulders when not in use)? It wasn't so long ago many soldiers were lugging around 9-pound M1 Garand rifles, for instance. --Mazryonh 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
They weren't loaded with 20-30 pounds of armor back then. --Mandolin 01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)