Reply With QuoteBoth weapons sound like great weapons the only thing that would make each one better from my point of view is if they had ironsites but then again the sites they use are pretty reliable.
Tavor vs. XM8
i would like to see wht your opinions are on this, perphaps comparison is better because both weapons are still being developed
Both weapons sound like great weapons the only thing that would make each one better from my point of view is if they had ironsites but then again the sites they use are pretty reliable.
Not another 'some weapon vs another weapon' thread
I wonder if theres any statistics as to how many combat scopes actually get broken these days... Seems like the only thing people say about new weapons these days is to bitch about the lack of ironsOriginally Posted by Sayeret
the XM8 is supposed to have backup sights of some kind. dont remember if they were iron or just a non-battery dependant glass one
You got to be kidding, the Tavor is no comparson to the XM8.
Bullpup is never a solution to the military. can't transition, slow mag reload and all the explosion right next to your cheek. all that trading for the short length package with a standard size barrel. Bullpup is a nice concept but the conventional configuration is still the best design.
Why no comparison? Tavor and another bull-pups are already used by military forces, about use of XM8 still can say no more than about use G36.
We can now compare both weapons conctruction, which rifle is more reliable, accurate, easy to modern etc.
We can also compare both weapons conception, conventional rifles vs bull-pups. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages but guns of both systems are in use and still developing.
With the recent demand for the compactness of the M4, but the complaint's about the poor terminal effects of the 5.56 through the short barrel, it seems to me that a bullpup is the obvious step.
The tavor has an ~18" barrel.
The base XM-8 is supposed to come with a 12" barrel standard.
This means M855 out of the Tavor should fragment out to around 100 meters, but M855 from the XM-8 will likely only fragment out to around 20 meters.
For compactness and terminal effects, I'd say Tavor wins (even though the XM-8 is only about 4 inches longer extended)
As for the other aspects, such as reliability, ruggidness, ease of maintinence, and so forth I don't know enough about the two to say....
It just depends on whether or not you think the advantages are worth the drawbacks.
Tavor is only in use by the Isreali forces only after the M4 proven to be a better and cheaper system. But due to the IMI insistance and politiking the Tavor made it into service.
Of course Other bullpup has been in military service. British has their L85, The Aussie with the F88 or Aussteyr, Austrian with the Original Steyr AUG and the Signapore and South African using their inhouse design. SAR21 and CR21.
L85 even with the HK upgrade has been lacking. The AUG although the most successful bullpup to date it is still not up to true operating tempo. Maybe this is why the British and Aussie SAS still prefer the M4. As far as the L85 and the AUG, it is tough to make the rifle compatible with all the accessories on the market. This is another downside. Of course B&T made some very nice rail mount for both the AUG and the L85.
SAR21 and Tavor is a nice weapon, but still it is limited to the host country. interest elsewhere is very limited.
The SA CR21 is basically a repackaged R4 or Galil. nothing innovation about it. The SA success story is in their ultra reliable and superbly designed SS77 system.
Bullpup service some military but the majority of the service rifle is still in the conventional sense.
Yes, I did mention the longer barrel in a shorter package. This seem to be the only advantage of the bullpup desing. to over come its other flews is to redesign the rifle to..... well the conventional configuration.
XM8 is in the testing stage but the rave review from Army is pretty impressive. I still think XM8 is just another 5.56 platform that the M16 system can easily acomplish but in order for the XM29 to move forward, the XM8 is the only system available on the market to reintergrate back into the XM29 system.
fragment out to 20M?? Can you support that or this is just a claim based on your assumption??
XM8 with the 12 inch barrel is the basica version that meet reintergration back to the XM29 project in the future when the technology will catch up with the weight require for all the sub systems.
SMGLee, there is some reason of developing L85/L86, FAMAS, Tavor 2 or AUG A2 and making new FN F2000 and QBZ-95. You wrote "no kiddind" but you have to see that saying "no kidding" in this case is kidding. There were military bull-pups few years ago, there are now and probably there would be new. Example of F2000 shows that with some disadvantages of this system constructors can deal.
Did (and do?) L85 lacking becouse if it is bull-pup? Is infrantry and other services using bull-pups still miliraty formations, or military are only special forces?
The majority od the military service rifle are still good old AKBullpup service some military but the majority of the service rifle is still in the conventional sense.), are not military becouse still in minority? No argument for me.
There is no fault (and no kidding) in comparing two modern weapons, made for similar tasks in different systems.
I do not know how about M855/SS109, but M193 stop to fragment below velocity 650m/s, with ~800m/s there were not more than ten fragments (S. Kochanski, Brygady antyterrorystyczne, Warszawa 1992; author used dr Facklers stats).
If you go by facklers 2,700 fps statement, out of a 12" barrel, m855 should fragment out to about 20 meters. It's common knowledge that the wounding potential of the 5.56 is highly dependant on it's muzzle velocity, which of course is dependant on barrel length.fragment out to 20M?? Can you support that or this is just a claim based on your assumption??
Source for the approximate distance is from ammo oracle
I'd also like to see how well F2000 does.
In that case, give them a 16" barrel now, and when it's time to "re-integrate" use 12" barrels :PXM8 with the 12 inch barrel is the basica version that meet reintergration back to the XM29 project in the future when the technology will catch up with the weight require for all the sub systems.
Course, we could always switch to 6.8 spc
as far as fragmentation, a 12 inch barrel will not loose that much velocity at 20m. The 12 inch barrel will be as effective to 100m as a 16 inch barrel.SMGLee, there is some reason of developing L85/L86, FAMAS, Tavor 2 or AUG A2 and making new FN F2000 and QBZ-95. You wrote "no kiddind" but you have to see that saying "no kidding" in this case is kidding. There were military bull-pups few years ago, there are now and probably there would be new. Example of F2000 shows that with some disadvantages of this system constructors can deal.
Did (and do?) L85 lacking becouse if it is bull-pup? Is infrantry and other services using bull-pups still miliraty formations, or military are only special forces?
The majority od the military service rifle are still good old AKBullpup service some military but the majority of the service rifle is still in the conventional sense.
There is no fault (and no kidding) in comparing two modern weapons, made for similar tasks in different systems.
I do not know how about M855/SS109, but M193 stop to fragment below velocity 650m/s, with ~800m/s there were not more than ten fragments (S. Kochanski, Brygady antyterrorystyczne, Warszawa 1992; author used dr Facklers stats).
F2000 has not been proven to be reliable in combat enviroment. too much varible in the extraction system that pull the empty casing upwards and insert it into the extraction tube. I agree the F2000 is the closest to solving the bullpup problem.
I have shot almost everything listed except the CR21. compare to a standard M4 or G36, the bullpup is not as ideal as the conventional design.
Kiddind and Kidding, it is a typo. slap a Chinaman for mis type.:P
This is just my humble opinion, I majored in Arts and craft. Your opinion may vary.
No, the point is, out of a 12" barrel the round will never get to the velocity the round gets to out of a 16" barrel. That's why the distance to 2,700 fps is smaller. It won't be "just as effective".as far as fragmentation, a 12 inch barrel will not loose that much velocity at 20m. The 12 inch barrel will be as effective to 100m as a 16 inch barrel.
XM8 with the 12.5 inch barrel can reach the velocity of 2695 which is enough to deliver the fragmentation you need out to 100m
Currently SPec Op communities are using the 10.5 Crane CQB upper with excellent result.
Brother, i too like to see a longer barrel option on the XM8 but at this time the 12.5 inch barrel will be the standard for the reintergration but what the military will ultimately choose as the deployed configuration is still up in the air.
Posting Permissions
