Looks like IMI is trying to restart domestic supply of weapons to the IDF…
American special forces recently received a number of dual-caliber Micro-Tavor (MTAR) assault rifles for testing ahead of a decision of whether to purchase the new weapon, developed and manufactured by Israel Weapon Industries, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The Micro-Tavor
The MTAR is the micro-version of the Tavor assault rifle, jointly developed by the IDF and IMI as a replacement for the US-made M-16. US special forces who are testing the MTAR include the Green Berets, the Navy Seals and other elite units.
The Tavor utilizes a “bullpup” design that shortens the overall length but not at the expense of the barrel, which is 33 centimeters long. This configuration enables it to be used in urban warfare, but also to have a range of more than 500 meters, due to the relatively long barrel.
The MTAR has dual-caliber capability, meaning it can operate as an assault rifle, like an M-16, and with the use of a compact conversion kit turn into a submachine gun, like the Uzi. This makes it ideal for special forces that use different weapons.
The Tavor comes in different variations. The CTAR commando version is used by the IDF, which purchased 15,000 units in 2002. The weapon has a sniper and grenade-launcher variant. It is being used in India, Portugal, Georgia, Colombia and Thailand.
I’ve played breifly with the systems, and I’m 100% on with Dano’s assessment that no bullpup will every get a serious look simply due to their many liabilities that outweight their one advantage of being short.
Would you be so kind as to offer some of those liabilities up for consideration? I have my ideas about what they might be but I’m not a pro like you guys are. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter…
I’m with you… I’m surprised that instead of licensing domestic AR production, an IMI M4, of either the Colt or HK variant, that the IMI and the IDF are actually producing / purchasing this…
I think it had more to do with having domestically produced arms for the IDF than anything else…
Its virtually impossible to shoot them ambi - which is a necessity even if we dont like doing it.
IA/RA’s - stoppages, further actions, reloads.
Shooting in confined areas - I’ve bounced casing back into the action on some systems while shooting in less than open areas- and was unaware (partilla my faul and not being familiar with the system) the casing where bouncing back.
Light and Lasers - and GL mounting to some point (depedant upon version).
Safety – I’m not keen on anything than can have a catostrophic failure by my head neck area.
If we ever get techie enough to have railguns or handheld beam weapons - then maybe we could put a battery pack back there
The only bullpup that I am somewhat comfortable with is the AMP DSR-1, its a bolt gun…
I am sure Dano and some of the others can come up with more CONS as well
What about the FN 2000? It ejects out the front/bottom and should solve the abidexterous issue.
Some of the guys I work with have them on a regional SERT team that they train with and seem to really like them. When our schedules line up I intend to go to a training session with them and check it out for myself.
