The IDF will equip its troops with the new Tavor assault rifl

IMRA ^ | 7-24-02

[SJackson]

The IDF will equip its troops with the new Tavor assault rifle, manufactured by Israel Military Industries.

Globes' correspondent 23 July 2002

Hebrew daily "Yediot Ahronot" reports that the IDF will equip its troops with the new Tavor assault rifle, manufactured by Israel Military Industries (IMI), the IDF Army Headquarters decided yesterday. The decision will shortly be sent to IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon for approval.

Most IDF troops currently use the obsolescent US M-16 or Israeli Galil rifle. The IDF decided a new, more advanced rifle was needed. The two alternatives were the Tavor and the M-4, an updated version of the short M-16. The advantage of the M-4 is it could be bought with US military aid.

Both rifles underwent extended testing in the past year. The Tavor was given to soldiers in the Givati infantry brigade, and the M-4 to the Nahal infantry brigade. Both rifles saw operational use in the fighting in the territories.

Yesterday, GOC Army Headquarters Maj.-Gen. Yiftah Ron Tal convened a meeting that decided that the Tavor will be the IDF's next rifle. The IDF will shortly open negotiations with IMI to finalize delivery details.

The Tavor is equipped with an Israeli-built integral reflex optical reflective sight. The rifle's rearward center of gravity provides easy aiming, including in the standing position. The rifle passed many firing tests, proving effective in difficult field conditions. Givati infantrymen, who have used the Tavor for months, have heaped praise on the new rifle, saying it was very comfortable, accurate and always reliable on the battlefield.

[MrB]

I think we can come up with our own technology

Unfortunately, with the laws that we have in this country, it is illegal for the common individual entrepeneur to invent a better full auto military rifle.

The best ideas can come out of someone's garage more often than from a gov't contractor.

[xsrdx]

Everything I've looked at substantiates the Galil as direct M62/ AK copy, not sure where I came across the M16 influence but the only "influence" I can confirm is the move to better materials and tighter tolerances.

The question then is why did IMI develop the Galil, unless it was simply to adapt a well made AK (M62) to 5.56mm prior to introduction of the 5.56mm M76 Valmet. Otherwise it would certainly appear simpler to license produce the M76.

[xsrdx]

"(Gal)...worked up a 5.56 mm version of the AK47 using a barrel, bolt face, parts, and 30-shot box magazines from the American Stoner 63 Weapons system . The test weapon showed excellent promise. In the next step, preparation of a production model, IMI engineers purchased samples of the Valmet M62 from the European-American firm Interarms.... To these Finnish receivers, his production people mounted barrels machined from Colt M16 barrel blanks. A modified Stoner 63 magazine was evolved for the rifle. (Ezell,The AK47 Story at 207-09)."

Perhaps it was the use of Stoner 63 parts and M16 barrel blanks that evolved into "M16/AK hybrid", when in fact it appears they were selected primarily to serve as suitable 5.56mm components in an AK based design.

[Shooter 2.5]

Here is where the problem arose. I knew for a fact that IMI made the Desert Eagle. You were sure that the Baby Eagle was made by Tanfoglio. Magnum Research lists the Desert Eagle and the Baby Eagle as theirs. I believe through an admittedly hap-hazard search that Magnum Research is the Distributor and possibly the designer of one or both in the U.S.. That's what caused the problem.
Anyway, IMI doesn't need our influence. They are a formidable firearms industry on their own.

[archy]

That is surprising and doesn't mesh with what I understood to be the case, especially since they (AK vs. Valmet/ARM) will be different calibers.

Different calibers, and thus differing bolt faces for their respective cartridges, but the same internal receiver dimensions, bolt rail heights and width, and overall length of carrier travel. There are differences between the AK and Galil or Valmet stock [square fitting as opposed to round] and in the foreend furniture and sights, but nothing overly drastic. The Galil uses an ambidextrous safety/selector lever, since when its stock is folded across the right side of the barrel, access to the Kalishnikov-design lever is limited. But the external dimensions of the rifles' bolts, as they ride in their respective carriers, is the same.

Magazine wells and catch assemblies are a bit different, again, not too severely so.

IIRC, the initial comments made regarding the Galil, when first introduced, made reference to evolved changes to the operating system, inspired by the Stoner designs, in order to enhance lock up and thus accuracy. Galil's use M16 magazines so the geometry has to be slightly different in the lower receiver.

Nope. Galils use a magazine derived from Stoner's M62 Stoner LMG, as used by the US Navy SEALS in it's belt-fed Mark 23 version. The magazine for a .223 Valmet M76 can be made to work in a Galil with a little careful attention to the magazine catch lug. There is an adapter to allow the use of the M16 rifle magazine in the Galil, but most Israeli tank crew prefer the steel Galil magazines, less likely to dent than the aluminum M16 mags, and which hold 35 or 50 rounds in the Galil, rather than the m16 rifle's 30-round capacity.

Now I am curious - since building a licensed Valmet in 556 would be cheaper, why bother developing the Galil?

The sights are arrangesd somewhat differently, but the Israelis wanted a number of features specificly for their theater of operations and to replace the conglomoration of FAL rifles, FALO and FN-Model D BAR automatic rifles, Uzi SMGs and US M1 carbines and AK47s previously in use. And they wanted a full-auto capability more controllable than their FAL rifles had been, particularly by female Israeli troops. And of course, the Israelis had no manufacturing rights for international sales of their previous automatic rifle, the Belgian FAL.

Note too that the Swedes considered the adoption of the FFV-890C Galil variant before deciding on the FNC as their replacement for their older H&K G3s before choosing the FN-C carbine as their *AK5* current-issue rifle instead.

That was a particularly clean Galil variant, and might have become as salable to other Scandanavian nations and their neighbours as the Galil has proven to be: to Guatemala, South Africa and Estonia, among others- and maybe Turkey, if they don't go for the Tavors.

[archy]

Everything I've looked at substantiates the Galil as direct M62/ AK copy, not sure where I came across the M16 influence but the only "influence" I can confirm is the move to better materials and tighter tolerances.

The question then is why did IMI develop the Galil, unless it was simply to adapt a well made AK (M62) to 5.56mm prior to introduction of the 5.56mm M76 Valmet. Otherwise it would certainly appear simpler to license produce the M76.

Note that the Galil receiver is indeed machined, but not forged, but rather cut from bar stock/ billet material. That the design appeared as CNC machine tools made the labor expense of producing such a design less of a negative factor didn't hurt a bit.

Note too, that the Finns have now abandoned the stamped-receiver rk/76 in 5,56mm NATO, and that likewise the initial 1947-50 *type 1* Kalishnikov production that utilized a stamped receiver was withdrawn by the Soviet Army and replaced with the second version milled receiver design commonly encountered in Vietnam, standard until the modernized AKM version appeared circa 1959.

There have also been reports of failures of some stamped SVD Dragonov and PSL rifle receivers when using heavy-bullet 7,62x54r ammunition meant for the PK [Kalishnikov design again!] light machinegun, well beyond the pressure and velocity levels of the AK47s 7,62x39mm M43 cartridge, but which may still show a possible limitation of the circa-1959 stamped-receiver AKM *third-generation* AK design- as do RPK Squad Auto Weapons, built with thicker sheet metal material than their AKM brethern.

[Stat-boy]

The Baby Eagles are actually made by Tanfoglio, whose guns are sold here under the EAA Witness brand. They may also make the Desert Eagle, I'm not sure.

Here is where the problem arose. I knew for a fact that IMI made the Desert Eagle. You were sure that the Baby Eagle was made by Tanfoglio. Magnum Research lists the Desert Eagle and the Baby Eagle as theirs. I believe through an admittedly hap-hazard search that Magnum Research is the Distributor and possibly the designer of one or both in the U.S.. That's what caused the problem. Anyway, IMI doesn't need our influence. They are a formidable firearms industry on their own.

Magnum Research is a company founded by an engineer from Wisconsin (or some other North-West state), and IMI produced the Desert Eagle as part of a joint venture. The Baby Eagle that we are talking about is a smaller gun using the same technology as the Desert Eagle. As I understand it, Magnum Research sells the Baby Eagle, and IMI calls it “Jericho.” Tangoglio is an Italian company that has a connection to EAA Witness, but the EAA Witness handguns are nothing like the Desert Eagle or the Baby Eagle. Although a Desert Eagle or a Baby Eagle may look similar to 1911 style guns on the outside, the design on the inside is completely different.

[Shooter 2.5]

Thanks for the clarification. I did some more research and found that Tanfoglio has nothing to do with the Baby Eagle. The confusion came from a pistol that they called Baby. They have a Baby Standard and a Baby Combat. The Witness that you mentioned is based on a CZ 75 design.
Before I would say that the other poster is completely wrong, there still may be some licensing contracts to manufacture in different countries that I don't know about.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

You'd think someone with the last name Barrett would know better than to have their finger on the trigger; even if it has a lock on it!?

[Shooter 2.5]

Yeah, you're a gun nut. All I checked for was a wedding ring. After I noticed all the rings, I started to wonder how many tattoos she had.

[Myrddin]

Don't forget the BFR (Bigger,Finest, Revolver) .... I have a healthy respect for any revolver that can shoot 45/70 Government.

I love my BFR in 45/70. It took me a while to work up a reliable and safe load. The manufacturer specs the max pressure at 31,000 PSI. That is all they will tell you about making loads for the BFR. Any load that is safe in the BFR is fine in the Marlin 1895G as well. What a pleasant pair in the field.

[killjoy]

I feel VERY SORRY for an troops who are issued these things. The Israelis do a lot of house clearing and a bullpup design makes this very difficult to do. When doing house clearing, you need to change which shoulder the gun is mounted on. When going around a right hand corner, you mount the gun on your left shoulder to help keep as much of your body behind cover as possible. The opposite goes for moving around a left hand corner, the weapon is mounted on the right shoulder.

A bullpup design makes this impossible without having rounds ejected DIRECTLY into your face. In order to use this gun, if you are going around a right hand corner, the gun must stay mounted on your right shoulder. This exposes most of your body to enemy fire. If this post is true, I feel bad for the troops who have to use this gun.

[SJackson]

Your criticism makes sense, though I'm not particularly qualified to dispute it either. And the IDF doesn't exactly "prepare" the house the way we would (and they should) before clearing.

In the recesses of my mind (archy would know, thus the ping) I think I remember a bullpup version of the M14, developed very early on, perhaps in the transition from the Garand, rejected for similar reasons, the ejection was too close to the face.

[archy]

Consider the following *rathunt* in Chechnya, using full-length AKs by Russian AMAN troops. They do things a little differently than I've been taught, but it appears they'd be MUCH better off in their circumstances with a few bullpups.

Their underbarrel bloopers seem to work okay, though.

-archy-/-

[archy]

A bullpup design makes this impossible without having rounds ejected DIRECTLY into your face. In order to use this gun, if you are going around a right hand corner, the gun must stay mounted on your right shoulder. This exposes most of your body to enemy fire. If this post is true, I feel bad for the troops who have to use this gun.

Nah, it's just that some current designs still toss the brass out the side. The new Taiwanese design ejects forward in line with the barrel, I believe, and a couple of downward-ejecting possibilities come to mind as well, though that can complicat mountin a grenade launcher beneath. But there's nothing inherent in the design that requires fired brass to come out the side....

-archy-/-

[killjoy]

Nah, it's just that some current designs still toss the brass out the side. The new Taiwanese design ejects forward in line with the barrel,

True, although current designs such as the AUG and the SA80 will eject the brass straight into your face if fired from the wrong shoulder. Based on the pictures of this 'new' Israeli rifle, it appears to eject the brass out the side in the same way. Whether it ejects it forward or not, a bad cheek weld will still put it squarly into your face with a high chance of it bouncing back into the ejection port jamming up the gun. I doubt US special forces will be trading their M4s for this thing anytime soon.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Actually I was checking out her chest and then noticed her finger on the trigger, ala Dianne Fineswine's infamous picture.

[Jack Black]

A bullpup design makes this impossible without having rounds ejected DIRECTLY into your face. In order to use this gun, if you are going around a right hand corner, the gun must stay mounted on your right shoulder. This exposes most of your body to enemy fire. If this post is true, I feel bad for the troops who have to use this gun.

The FN 2000 ejects out of the bottom front of the reciever. They have a picture of it on their web page.

[Travis McGee]

Any opinions on bullpups and room clearing? (See 52)

[dennisw]

No, as soon as it had something to do with the (U.S. subsidized) Israeli military.
___________________________________

Take your Ritalin. This article is about a made in Israel weapon that has nothing to do with the United States. Though the US does provide military aid to Israel, at the same time we sell billions of dollars in weaponry to Arab nations and have been spending billions to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Arab welfare bum nations get far more money from Washinton DC than does Israel.