Israel retiring the Tavor in favor of the M4

[Screwball]

I have a few ARs… but do have one of the Tavor SARs (original Tavor).

It is a nice rifle, and I set it up to suppress… which shooting it after I get my cans will be the deciding factor. It is a short package, so maybe 33” OAL with my Bushwhacker 46. If it works, I’ll keep it around. If not, I’ll look at selling and move money into other stuff.

The biggest issue I had with the Tavor was the trigger. Added cost, but the Geissele trigger pack and bow really made it a dream to shoot.

[DrkBlue]

On the original topic of the M4 replacing the Tavor, not a new story.

The Galil rifle had limited fielding with Israeli Army (IDF)… It was effectively replaced by the US-supplied M-16 in combat units from my understanding. The Galil ended up being a middling export project, with is probably the same story as the Tavor platform.

Although the Galil was the official service rifle of Israel from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, it was never the principal rifle used (in terms of numbers). Around 1975, 60,000 M16A1s from the U.S. Military Aid Program (MAP) began to arrive in Israel that were quickly integrated into IDF service. The cost of producing the Galil for all IDF forces was very expensive, and Israel continued to purchase M16s and later M4s with military credit from the US, which had replaced many Galils then in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil

I am far from an expert on the Israeli defense budget, but the whole system works on green and blue dollars. One color from the Israeli taxpayers and another from the US taxpayers. The net result is the Israelis are strategic about what they fund internally and what they buy from the effectively captive US dollars. I suspect the IDF’s Tavor fielding was mostly marketing.



Above stated, Uncle Sugar has used defense spending to prop up the US domestic manufacturers and to buy peace.
I am a fan of the net outcomes.

[HCM]

On the original topic of the M4 replacing the Tavor, not a new story.

The Galil rifle had limited fielding with Israeli Army (IDF)… It was effectively replaced by the US-supplied M-16 in combat units from my understanding. The Galil ended up being a middling export project, with is probably the same story as the Tavor platform.

Although the Galil was the official service rifle of Israel from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, it was never the principal rifle used (in terms of numbers). Around 1975, 60,000 M16A1s from the U.S. Military Aid Program (MAP) began to arrive in Israel that were quickly integrated into IDF service. The cost of producing the Galil for all IDF forces was very expensive, and Israel continued to purchase M16s and later M4s with military credit from the US, which had replaced many Galils then in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil

I am far from an expert on the Israeli defense budget, but the whole system works on green and blue dollars. One color from the Israeli taxpayers and another from the US taxpayers. The net result is the Israelis are strategic about what they fund internally and what they buy from the effectively captive US dollars. I suspect the IDF’s Tavor fielding was mostly marketing.



Above stated, Uncle Sugar has used defense spending to prop up the US domestic manufacturers and to buy peace.
I am a fan of the net outcomes.

My understanding was the Galil was unpopular in the 1980s Lebanon wars due to weight and many Galils wound up being used as a SAW equivalent via the 50 round mags.

[Coyotesfan97]

My understanding is that after the import Ban of 1989, which banned the further import of civilian semi-auto AUGs, Steyr did a bad job of supplying spare parts, which effected any AUGs used by police and law enforcement agencies.

Yep that’s exactly what happened to us.

[TGS]

Yep that’s exactly what happened to us.

Same with the HK53 too?

[Ed L]

No word on where the M4s are coming from. Israel does make both direct impingement and short stroke gas Piston ARs--similar in design to the HK416. I imagine that they are buying them using American foreign aid because that would be cheaper since the money must be spent on US made products. If that is the case I hope they are buying Colts because I want to see Colt get the business to keep them in a less precarious state.

Since this has morphed into a Bullpup into a bullpup conversation of sorts, I will share a bit of my history with them as they relate to ARs. Everyone is aware that the bullpup has a shorter overall length for the same length of barrel. But another factor that I've noticed is that their center of gravity is further back. I've found that this makes the gun less tiring to use in classes than a conventional rifle. This made the longer length of pull a non-issue for me.

How I got to the Bullpup:

I was previously using a Colt AR-15A2 Carbine with a 16" barrel and a 2 position collapsible stock that I bought in 1989 at T&T Gunnery back when you could buy such things in NY state. In 1999 I mounted an Aimpoint XD on a gooseneck mount that screwed into the carry handle and mounted kept the Aimpoint over the front handguard. While I later realized that this mounting was horrible for the balance and made the rifle front heavy, when I first shot the gun with the Aimpoint I really appreciated all of the advantages of a RDS over open sights. I took the gun to two carbine classes, including a CSAT on with Paul Howe. Though I still liked the gun, I found that the forward Aimpoint mount made it front heavy and the collapsible stocks two positions were either too long or too short.

In the spring of 2006 I came across an FN FS2000 bullpup at a gun show. It was one of the first 100 guns to be imported into the US and there was no info on it. I really liked its compactness and balance. An additional issue was that I was suffering from a pinched nerve at the time that effected my right arm and the FS2000 seemed like something that I could easily fire from my left shoulder. It was the strange chain of events of having the arm back problems and encountering an FS2000 at a gun show that led me to buy it within a few days. I was in the process of getting spinal injections for the pinched nerve and thankfully it got better. I wound up writing an article on the FS2000 for SWAT magazine, where I had to figure out certain manipulation issues because there was no body of knowledge available about it.

Here is a picture of the Colt Carbine that I had at the time set up next to an FN FAL 50.63 and and the FN FS2000. Since I no longer have that Colt A2 Carbine or the FS2000, these are the best comparative picture that I have on hand.



In 2007 I ran the FS2000 through a Pat Rogers Carbine class, and later bought a pre-ban AUGa2, since I really liked the bullpup concept and this was before Steyr was partnering with people and building AUGs in the US.

In 2008 I bought a Colt 6920. It was a completely different a multi position collapsible stock that allowed me to get a suitable length and it allowed me to mount the Aimpoint above the receiver which gave it much better balance than the older AR-15A2 carbine that I had. I still have the Steyr AUG, but have not shot it in many years. I would be completely okay with using it for a class, to go shooting, or for defensive purposes, but I pretty much moved over to the AR type longarm.

[HeavyDuty]

In the spring of 2006 I came across an FN FS2000 bullpup at a gun show. It was one of the first 100 guns to be imported into the US and there was no info on it. I really liked its compactness and balance. An additional issue was that I was suffering from a pinched nerve at the time that effected my right arm and the FS2000 seemed like something that I could easily fire from my left shoulder. It was the strange chain of events of having the arm back problems and encountering an FS2000 at a gun show that led me to buy it within a few days. I was in the process of getting spinal injections for the pinched nerve and thankfully it got better. I wound up writing an article on the FS2000 for SWAT magazine, where I had to figure out certain manipulation issues because there was no body of knowledge available about it.

An acquaintance had a FS2000, I’ve wanted one ever since. I seriously doubt it would ever happen, I chose a X-95 for my singular bullpup dalliance.

[Coyotesfan97]

Same with the HK53 too?

The 53s lasted longer than the AUGs. I know our HK armorer was always scrambling to get parts for them. I know from personally trying to order new ones HK didn’t put a priority on them. It was 18-24 months from order to delivery. IIRC they made them twice a year.

HK missed the boat as teams transitioned to ARs from MP5s. If they’d pushed the 53 as a replacement who knows how many they’d have sold. I loved the heavy, loud SOB. It was a great gun.

[HCM]

The 53s lasted longer than the AUGs. I know our HK armorer was always scrambling to get parts for them. I know from personally trying to order new ones HK didn’t put a priority on them. It was 18-24 months from order to delivery. IIRC they made them twice a year.

HK missed the boat as teams transitioned to ARs from MP5s. If they’d pushed the 53 as a replacement who knows how many they’d have sold. I loved the heavy, loud SOB. It was a great gun.

Given the market dominance of the MP5 pre GWOT the 5.56 market was theirs to lose.

[TGS]

@Coyotesfan97

Is it possible they didn't want to sell the HK53/HK33 because they wanted to push the newer hotness, the G36c and G36k? Or did HK not actually try to push that either with your agency, or at the very least the programs/departments you're aware of being obvious customers to pursue?