1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

We want TAVOR!

Discussion in 'New Version Suggestions' started by carnivore, May 8, 2001.

  1. poaw

    poaw You used to sleep easy at night.

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has poor backup sights, it lacks a shroud over the barrel, it doesn't have trigger grouping per se you have to just pull the trigger lightly, if you put the magazines in certain chemicals they melt, and the Australian Army has problems with ADs, it's lower weight makes it less controllable when firing burst, you have to remove it from a firing position to reload.
     
  2. ShakKen

    ShakKen Specops Spook

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2000
    Messages:
    3,608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Backup sights? What backup sights? You mean those turdly little cubes that Steyr sticks on top of the Swarovski? I always thought those were for scratching my back :rollseyes:
     
  3. jaunty

    jaunty If you disagree with me, you're wrong.

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats what thats for? I thought it was for scratching my nuts when I couldn't be bothered reaching down.

    The AUG is also @$$-heavy, which doesn't help the muzzle rise at all.
     
  4. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    so basically the aug sucks and looks fugly (especially compared to weapons like the TAR-21 and SAR-21
     
  5. Nerf Herder

    Nerf Herder The Scruffy Looking Man

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Optics are something people have differing opinions on what is good, and they can generally be replaced.
     
  6. Antikryzt

    Antikryzt Guest

    TAVOR...let's have it! From the research I just did about it, one of them sure is needed in INF. I suggest that if *any* bullpup weapon is going to be implemented, we should stay away from that crispy overdone AUG, for INF is "cutting edge," no? If it comes to the point where we have a full arsenal to choose from, of course people should have the wide choice from even among the bullpups, just make tavor our first one. Now where's that uzi?
     
  7. carnivore

    carnivore Built For The kill

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2001
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go Tavor!

    More israeli weapon please!
    lets start with the Uzi and then well have the tavor!
     
  8. Trak

    Trak Rampant Suicide Machine

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree, I think that Allied nations should keep as many common weapons as possible. Otherwise if we run into a serious situation we ( allied nations ) could suffer severe setbacks due to logistical problems. Parts, maintence equipment/ routines, and ammunition should be standardized on the basic infantry level so that supplies can go where they are needed when they are needed as quickly as possible.
     
  9. Nerf Herder

    Nerf Herder The Scruffy Looking Man

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said nothing about varying ammunition. And sometimes allies don't stay allies.
     
  10. Hannibal1

    Hannibal1 Forever sig-less

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    my thoughts

    starting at the most recent:
    "I disagree, I think that Allied nations should keep as many common weapons as possible. Otherwise if we run into a serious situation we ( allied nations ) could suffer severe setbacks due to logistical problems. Parts, maintence equipment/ routines, and ammunition should be standardized on the basic infantry level so that supplies can go where they are needed when they are needed as quickly as possible."

    There's no arguing with this point. One big flaw of NATO, as i saw it, was that they refused to standardize weapons, ammunition, and equipment, creating a potential theatre-wide logistical disaster.

    "poaw: Welding a VCR to an M4 is not what I'd call 'futuristic'."
    hehe, my thoughts exactly. However, he has a valid point if you look at the plans for the OICW and such.

    About the United States' allies using U.S. made assault weapons: Many of America's allies do not use the same weapons. I don't think the allies that use American rifles do so because of any superiority in quality, but because the situation which exists makes it convinient to make do with American guns.

    Recent news in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict(this is not an opinion): Israel has bombed a Palestinian-populated area in retaliation for a suicide bombing carried out by a Palestinian which was in turn meant to be retaliation for the killing for five practically defenseless palestinian police in a remote guard station(actually, it was a tin shack). I just wanted to point that chain of events out because it clearly shows the stupidity of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
     
  11. Trak

    Trak Rampant Suicide Machine

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I just wanted to point that chain of events out because it clearly shows the stupidity of both the Israelis and the Palestinians."

    /political rant on/

    I agree with that on a basic level. On another level this stuff is way beyond stupidity. It is almost like a hereditary animosity now. I honestly don't think that they will ever have peace because it has been going on for way too long ( I seem to remember something about the jawbone of an ass ) and there is too much blood between them. These people have always been at each others throats and there seems to be no end in sight.

    \political rant off\

    "There's no arguing with this point. One big flaw of NATO, as i saw it, was that they refused to standardize weapons, ammunition, and equipment, creating a potential theatre-wide logistical disaster."

    Yep, Warsaw would have kicked NATO's butt on this level, probably costing us heavily in an extended engagement. I also believe that NATO's reliance on overly complicated weapons and technical systems ( at least the US ones ) would have caused problems too. Our stuff probably would not perform well in an extended egagement. Any one remember the problems our M16's had in Vietnam? That is because the M16 field strips into over fifteen parts with the smallest part ( the firing pin ) being easily misplaced/damaged. Also it only took a small amount of debris to cause the weapon to jam completely. The AK 47 on the other hand field strips into about seven peices, is brutally simple in its design and can operate reliably with a bucket of mud inside of it. This pretty much illustrates the differences between American and Russian gear across the board.
     
  12. Nerf Herder

    Nerf Herder The Scruffy Looking Man

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    We all used the same ammunition. That's why there is 5.56NATO 7.62NATO 9mmNATO....get my point? The variation in the weapons was because each country needed a different type of gun. Or are you going to tell me the the Netherlands need a gun that's good for the desert?

    And you're wrong that is not the reason the M-16 had problems in Vietnam. There were a few reasons we had problems.

    1.) No cleaning kits were issued and the troops were told that M-16s were "self-cleaning" weapons.

    2.) The chamber was not chromed so that allowed it to deteriorate faster.

    3.)The military switched to lower quality gun powder which caused excessive fouling.

    The AK was also notoriously inaccurate, and had the trouble of the safety making a loud "click" which ruined some ambushes. That's not to say that the AK is a bad gun it's just not great.
     
  13. Puncher

    Puncher AFA member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are a few additional problems with the first M16 version:

    1) The flash hider was open in front, which could cause it to hang on grass, brush, small branches and similar. The M16A1 has a more normal flash hider which is closed in front.

    2) The ejection port was always open so the bolt was completely exposed to the elements (weather, dust), which in addition to the high susceptibility to dirt, could cause fouling. The M16A1 has a cover over the ejection port.

    3) The gas tapped from the barrel is directly forced back into the bolt to operate it, which means the smoke and schmuck of the powder is also directed back into the bolt, which causes it to become quite dirty after prolonged shooting. This is still the same, even with the M16A2. The G36, for example, stores the gas in a small metal "bulb" in the front, and then lets the gas back to the bolt. That means that only the bulb can get dirty, but the bolt stays completely clean (even after thousands of rounds fired without cleaning).

    4) If the gun gets a bit dirty and the bolt doesn't lock properly, there is no practical way to quickly force the bolt. The M16A1 has a handle on the sidew for you to ram the bolt closed. As an interesting sideline: In CS this handle is pulled to work the bolt, instead of the T-handle behind the carrying handle.

    5) Ammunition was being used at a horrendous rate. The M16A1 has a reduced theoretical rate of fire (about 100 to 200 rounds per minute lower), while the M16A2 has the 3-round burst instead of the full auto setting.
     
  14. Trak

    Trak Rampant Suicide Machine

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And you're wrong that is not the reason the M-16 had problems in Vietnam."

    So tell me Nerf Herder, how am I wrong? I know for a fact that many M16's failed to function in Vietnam because they were reassembled wrong or damaged after a feildstripping. What you stated is just more problems with the M16, I don't see how what you mentioned invalidates my statement.
     
  15. Nerf Herder

    Nerf Herder The Scruffy Looking Man

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's very possible that that occured. However, the majority of the time they didn't even fieldstrip the guns because they thought they were self-cleaning. So there was no reason to open them up. The things I mentioned were what caused the majority of the breaks.

    And puncher the G36 uses a system derived from the newer AR-18 system. If the army had been a little smarter we probably would have ended up with AR-18s instead of AR-15s.
     
  16. Hannibal1

    Hannibal1 Forever sig-less

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    about NATO

    "The variation in the weapons was because each country needed a different type of gun. Or are you going to tell me the the Netherlands need a gun that's good for the desert? "

    The idea of NATO was that each country would contribute to fighting on a cohesive front, instead of each country trying to defend only its own territory. Thus, troops from the Netherlands wouldn't necessarily be fighting in the Netherlands which is exactly why the whole alliance needed a standard weapon to simplify the logistics that is coming from every country, but only going to one front.
     
  17. carnivore

    carnivore Built For The kill

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2001
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    0
    To Hanibbal

    Well my friend, you should check your your source of information.
    We DON'T attack villages or houses of civilian wit no reason.
    The last airstrike was against Phalastinains police forces and mortar facility.
    I myself against this attack, cous i think it miss the point of hitting the people that responsible to the killing of innocent people, that went to the mall to make their weekend shopping.
    i see a war coming, a big war, and after that, when new leaders will take the place of the current leaders, which cant take the brave disition of peace proses.
    I think the two nations need to fell a war, to realize that peace is the only way to live.
    It sound terrible, and i hope im wrong, but the way things are going right now, this is only thing i see.

    Btw-WE WANT TAVOR!!!!
     
  18. Hannibal1

    Hannibal1 Forever sig-less

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can barely understand what you're saying Carnivore, but here goes...
    "Well my friend, you should check your your source of information."

    My source is a major American newspaper called The Washington Post. You can argue with them if you think they're guilty of false reporting.
     
  19. Trak

    Trak Rampant Suicide Machine

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nerf Herder

    Most of the adult males in my family at the time of Vietnam volunteered for service. I have heard all of them at one time or another complain about what a crappy weapon the M16 was and how it was a pain in the ass to feild strip it properly ie put it back together in a cleaner working condition. Maybe because they weren't stupid hippy draftees but southern guys who grew up around guns that they weren't dumb enough to believe this whole 'self cleaning' routine. I would never believe that myself because I have grown up around firearms. That self cleaning thing is about as true as a 'self cleaning' oven. I am not saying that the military didn't make this claim, I am just saying that if they did they were making a huge mistake that cost alot of people there lives.
     
  20. Dr.Dase

    Dr.Dase New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2001
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    What i've heard of the M16 in Vietnam, the major problem was that the weapon hadn't been tested with field ammunition. It was tested with a better, less fouling powder that expanded faster but gave a lower gas pressure in total. The standard issue ammunition used by troops expanded slower, and had higher gas pressure in total. This made the brass cartridge expand, as they do when fired, but with the standard powder, the high gas pressure made the cartridge keep expanded when the gas reached the action thingy (don't know the name in english, you know, where the gas is extracted to cycle the action) and thus the friction between the cartridge and chamber was way too high, and the extractor either tore through the cartridge base or jump the slit altogether. But the bolt was still moving back as supposed to, and stripped a round from the magazine, and tried to ram it in, but just stuck on the cartridge already in the chamber. Then, the unlucky trooper had to extract the magazine, cycle the bolt to drop the unspent round stuck, and use the cleaning rod to ram the spent cartridge out of the chamber. Repeat as necessary :)

    Another thing that also caused the cartridges to stick in the chamber, was a small mismatch between the original Armalite rifles and the Colt rifles. It seems like the Colt rifles were simply copied of the Armalite, and the chamber had a miniscule change in diameter, not much, but still enough to make the cartridge stick even more.

    This was remedied by chroming the chamber, but gave birth to another problem, the cartridge was extracted to easy, and the bolt went back too fast, and wore the back of the reciever down, and had to be fixed with additional recoil absorbers.

    Note, this is only what i've read, don't know if any of it is true, or just bogus, but it makes sense......
     

Share This Page