"Israel still stands."

We let out a collective sigh of relief at the news: another day for us bullpups to live. We had already lost too much ground to those accursed AR-types as it is. Nations that had once stood as vindication of our ideals had slipped back into the orbit of the conventional rifles. China, New Zealand, France...what if we were next? Will there still be a tomorrow for us?

- SAR-21, Bullpup Forces, stationed in Singapore.

What have china now?

QBZ-191

they haven't gone through with replacing all of their QBZ95s tho

Interesting... looks to be pretty much a copy of the Masada/ACR.

I was skeptical of this, the x95 makes sense for an army that spends a lot of time in urban terrain and APCs
They are probably going to get more modern AR uppers for all those old colt rifles they have.

And also conscripts who have no prior experience with the AR. Most IDF soldiers have never handled a weapon outside of service. So they don't have any training scars. This is actually the main reason that the Tavor was initially fielded to only new recruits.

Check out the TFB podcast where they talk to the Tavor guy from IWI.

and yet not one elite force in Israel wants it or uses it..... they all use Ar's as does every elite unit in the western world including those in the British army who relies mainly on the crappy Enfield

Yes. There are at least three manufacturers of these here in Israel. Look up EMTAN-Carmiel for instance.

You're correct. There are 5 weapon manufacturers in Israel, of which three make ARs. However, going with any of them would require a lengthy RFP vs. purchasing more M4 from the U.S.

Reeeee! The M4 is superior!

Or free.

It is, which is why the professional users in Israel, which have a choice in the matter, including the IDF SF, are using M4... Just like the SF of UK, Australia, etc.

When it comes to Israels , foreign stuff is the stuff they get for free or at massive discount , not just US , they are regularly shaking down half of Europe for free

That's actually not entirely true, but either way budget or cost was not a major factor in this decision. Small arms are very cheap with a brand new factory M4 costing around $700. We're not talking fighter jets here. The average IDF infantry soldier, let alone a SF one, already carries dozens of thousands of dollars in weapon optics, night vision, communication, and other specialized gear. Also, note that the IDF SF, selected the cheaper option here (M4) vs. the more expensive X95...

If it were simply a matter of "we" like the M4 more, than the IDF could have easily stayed in country & gone with the IWI Arad. It is a M4 gas piston platform that would satisfy those that like the platform with the added reliability of the gas piston. But they didn't. They went with a US model because it was probably offered for close to free. Money talks & BS walks. Those other countries that have also gone with the M4 also probably get them for close to nothing vs the expensive quality rifles like the AUG (Australia) that they normally use.
And yes, there is the benefit of commonality with other services that they work with throughout the world.
That said, don't for get that next year the replacement for the M4 will be decided. Even the US Army wants it gone.

Firstly, Arad is a brand new and unproven gun, plus procuring it will involve a lengthy RFP unlike procuring more M4 from the existing contract/arrangement. Secondly, budget is a non-issue here. Note that the IDF SF actually selected the cheaper option here (M4) vs. the more expensive one (X95)... Also, "expensive quality rifles like the AUG (Australia)"? You realize that Australia's own SF prefer the M4 over the AUG, right?

The Arad is well proven. IWI for starters runs all there designs through 10,000 rounds for testing. Change a spring, the 10K starts all over again. Please.. Services go to M4s because they get them for nothing. These give a ways are subsidies to US makers at the tax payers expense here in the States..

Also, M4s are the reason why every infantry company in IDF have air compressor.

If they were going to replace with anything wouldnt they replace with the IWI Carmel?

Unlikely, the Carmel is a new and unproven design. If anything it would likely the IWI Arad, which is a LMT/HK416 type high-end piston AR.

Nothing is proven until it is

Yes, but Guiney pigs usually doesn't fare too well... You want to avoid being one if you can, especially if you're a country in constant combat.

Remember watching History Channel's Tales of the Gun way back when and they mentioned the Tavor when it was still in its early design and testing phase.

"To better understand the gun, is to better understand history"

I haven't watched that show in ages!

Shame, they would have been making a good decision going back to the M4.

Israel and Australia, holding onto their bullpups until the end of chemical propulsion.....

You mean the superior layout?

Bullpup master race?

Most everybody else, holding onto the extra foot of wood or plastic (originally designed to keep an arquebus flashpan away from the shooter's face) ~150 years after the invention of effective cartridge breechloaders 😛

*works 'arquebus' into a converstion*
10 points! https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

If the antiquation fits . . .

and Austria and Croatia and Slovenia and some more ?! ...

Don't forget the UK... In all three cases it was done mostly to support a local manufacturer. The Tavor decision took place in 2002, when IWI was part of then government-owned IMI. Also for all three countries (UK, Australia, Israel), you can see which platform the SF selected which speaks for itself...

Couldn't the SF decision be driven primarily by other factors, eg. commonality of training/grip/ergo with other SFs they train with, or compatibility of accessories with other SFs?

The issue is that the bullpup rifles including the Tavor have many limitations - little real estate for mounting optics and accessories in conjunctions with modern shooting technique like c clamp, bad triggers, can't adjust the stock to fit different soldiers sizes or different scenarios (plate carrier, low vis carrier, no plate carrier), limited modulatory compared to AR platforms, and so on. In summary, bullpups solve for one problem that is a longer barrel in a more compact form factor but introduce many others. Even all the LE in Israel, including the renown Tier 1 counterterrorism unit YAMAM, are 100% on M4.

Hm. I'd say most of these problems are solvable.

Eg. the C-clamp - doable with any length of weapon and even length of pull - you just rotate the body relative to the rifle so that your support hand gets extended and elbow locked.

Ditto the length-of-pull adjustment - every sniper rifle which has non-collapsible buttstock has the same problem, and all solve it using adjustable buttpad.

The real estate for optics may be partially unsolvable depending on how much eye relief and hardware the operator needs, yes. Long scope plus NV amplifier plus upper-mounted LAM would be an impossible combination. However more "normal" combos like scope+screw-on-NVm, Eotech+zoom etc. would fit.

So the most important reasons from your list remain the aftermarket accessories aka "AR-15 LEGO", and commonality of training and techniques. Which is, however, to a large extent function of AR-15's market share dominance and not function of the design itself.

(For the record, I personally very dislike shooting bullpups and I love AR-15.)

Sure, anything is possible, but why spend so much time and money when a $700 M4 can do it all out of the box? BTW, check out the second photo in the article. That is the current IDF standard issue 15" flattop X95 fitted with ACOG and the new Elbit thermal sight. Not much rail space is left for LAM, flashlight, or anything else, and the ACOG has to be nearly all the way back to the shooter eye.

Yes, I was taken aback why didn't they went for a full-length rail. Does the X95 front handguard need to be disassembled for cleaning or something?

Not really, it's just a very short platform, and when you factor the need for a minimal eye relief for the primary optic, you get a limited rail space. I think the missed opportunity for IWI with the introduction of the current IDF standard issue 15" flattop X95 was to introduce free floating and longer handguards that extend to the flash hider. That would have help address the rail space issue while also improving accuracy. And while we at it, make them out of aluminium for improved rigidity, kind of like the aftermarket MANTICORE ones.

Magnetic propulsion age will see more bullpups, not less

These breaking news stories don’t happen by accident. There must be grumbling within the ranks about the Tavor. Then what happens is politics rears it’s ugly head and bad policy continues in order to save face or to protect special interest profits.

For further context - in the IDF the Tavor is used primarily by 3 infantry brigades as mentioned in the article. The rest of the IDF combat force uses M4 variants. This includes all Special Forces units, the other 2 infantry brigades and combat engineers among many others.

The IDF can say whatever they want, the fact of the matter is this:

No serious unit with in the IDF, let alone the elite ones, and neither Israeli police, border patrol, Shabak (FBI) will ever touch a Tavor let alone use it, they all tried, they all stayed with the much superior M4 as do all elite forces in the entire Western world

The Tavor will be kicked out of the IDF once the ARAD is ready in large amounts - not a fact, but a well thought observation

My res' unit was switched to Tavor, we all hate it and take the M4 any day

Whoever broke these 'news' is completely ignorant with regards to the impact of sand on the DI M4 versus piston Tavor, something the Israeli testing would easily and quickly discern... The Tavor and the recent Carmel were built for those desert conditions, are piston systems, far more reliable, ergonomic and with the ability to maximise the potential of the 5.56 with longer barrels but also very good ergonomically, better than the M4, for CQB... Bullpups are MADE for CQB and for ergonomics, for carrying in vehicles, for deploying and with training, are in fact better than the M4 in every aspect that matters to the soldier... Of course, if you trained all your life with an AR-15 or AR-10 weapon, you will think the bullpup is alien... But if you trained all your life with the bullpup, you will think the same thing about the M4... So, why would a country with one of the best arms manufacturerer, the IWI, buy an inferior US gun for desert and CQB warfare...? Hell, even the Marines circumvented the procurement programs to get the piston HK416 in their inventory to replace the M4... if THAT is not a declaration of M4's obsolescence, I don't know what is...

good to know

I kind of miss my Tavor X95, but IWI's stubborn refusal to give us the .300BO SBR pissed me off. Lackluster aftermarket support wasn't helping matters, either.

I hear that the Taliban have some good deals on M-4's..........

I get a feeling that someone overstepped their authority & may have gotten their pecker thwacked for it. I also get a stinking feeling that someone may have been getting their palms greased with what are quickly becoming worthless US dollars.
Glad to see that IWI is still the 1st choice. Now just improve the accuracy of the rifle :>)

I would guess that everyone who is issued a micro-Tavor is begging for a suppressor. It cannot be enjoyable to have sonic explosions that close to your ears.