An IDF trainer I took a class with told us that one of the big driving forces of the Tavor development was for use at checkpoints. In tight quarters with people who may or may not be bad guys, you can have one hand on your rifle with the but under your arm, maintaining control, and keeping it at a kind of low-ish ready position while using your other hand to deal with documents and other administrative tasks. When doing that with a regular rifle, the dominant arm with the rifle tires quickly since so much of the weight is forward of the hand. With a bullpup, more of that weight is rearward and balances better. There's a shorter lever arm to move that weight through.

The Tavor makes a decent amount of sense from the perspective of the IDF. They rely heavily on the HIFV's (things like the Namer and Nakpadon) and most operations are in heavily urbanised areas where you'll rarely have to do long-range shooting and mud is not a problem, but being able to manoeuver through some tight alleyways and compact houses is a primary issue. It seems very much a doorkicker's gun and does that one specific job much better than anything else.

I think there's a couple things missing from the 'why bullpup?' discussion here. In fairness, I did not know about this until fairly recently, and assumed that the only reason for using a bullpup would be shortened overall length (and in fairness, I still just thought they were cool). However, Stone et al did a study with 48 shooters using both traditional rifles and bullpups (including an AR and a FS2000), in a course that required them to engage multiple targets at relatively close range, and found four salient points: 1. The shooters thought they were better with traditional rifles (with which they had the most experience), but, 2. Actually, they were more accurate at shooting close range targets with a lot of target switching using the bullpups. This is something one of the Israeli soldiers who worked with the Tavor talked about as well, that it was better for close range target switching and acquisition. 3. Bullpups gave measurably greater shooter stability. 4. Reloads were slightly slower, but the difference was so small as to be statistically insignificant. So, even though M4s are more accurate for long range shots, for CQB, bullpups seem (assuming Stone's results are replicable and reliable) to perhaps be slightly better for practical use. Not so much better that the traditional rifle is bad, though. But it's an interesting result nonetheless. Reference: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720813509107

The issues that surround the X95 are as follows (from a general American public perspective)... 1. It's not a US rifle, we are proud of our firearms heritage, so when a new rifle comes out that looks cool and performs excellent in a wide variety of environments and situations we tend to get a bit jealous that we did not create it. 2. For most civilian shooters it's all about MOA accuracy when dropping $1,500+ on a rifle, IWI wanted to sell the US Civilian and LE market their true version that their soldiers are issued, its made with military grade accuracy in mind, and it even out performs military accuracy standards for a general service rifle. 3. Further regarding accuracy complaints about the X-95, most do not realize this but FN makes the US M4's and M16's that our military is issued, their accuracy testing that is done on ALL service rifles has to meet the bare minimum of 4 MOA @ 100 yards to pass fielding inspection before they are shipped out to an armory for issue. Most of the M4's and M16's shoot on average 3 MOA. Note that rifles shooting 4 MOA from the factory are usually sent back until they shoot 3 MOA as per request by military doctrine, 4 MOA is the absolute acceptable minimum by armorers. 4. 3 MOA??? DISGUSTING!!! No, not really. 3 MOA @ 100 yards = 3 inches of spread at 100 yards, the average human TORSO is approximately 18.3 inches wide standing square on arms to the side (remember it's not a videogame where it's all about the headshots). All professional soldiers and operators are taught to shoot CENTER OF MASS, there are lots of vitals in the COM area and it's also a larger more prominent target. 5. 5.56x45mm rounds from a 20 inch M16 barrel (using M855A1 as an example) are POINT effective rated to 550 meters/602 yards, so let's do some easy math... 1 MOA @ 100 yards (91.44 meters) = 1 inch of spread (1.0472 inch true) @ 100 yards... Average human torso is 18.3 inches wide.... this means that at worst 4 MOA (which anything worse than 4 MOA does not leave the factory) you will be able to engage center of mass targets out to 500m with a high degree of accuracy to cause a potentially incapacitating wound. At 3 MOA you have full point target range effectiveness from a 5.56mm cartridge, 3 MOA is PERFECTLY COMBAT ACCEPTABLE FOR A GENERAL PURPOSE RIFLE. 6. IWI has reported through their internal testing that the average MOA of an X-95 leaving the factory has a 2.5 MOA, you are WELL within military service rifle accuracy specifications. 7. Everyone likes to think they shoot like a ****ing laser beam, dead accurate, most people are lucky to produce 3 MOA from a 1 MOA rifle, and that is not an exaggeration. Even basic military trained soldiers are lucky to produce 3 MOA at the range. 8. Ammunition used also plays a big factor is MOA accuracy, this gets quite involved and will produce different results between 2 of the same firearms. Is the X-95 a crap firearm for the money? NO Is the X-95 a sniper weapon system or a Designated Marksman Rifle? NO Is the X-95 a military grade service rifle? YES Does it meet or exceed US & NATO accuracy tests? YES Can you make an X-95 shoot Sub MOA? YES (its expensive but it's entirely possible) Is the X-95 worth the average $1,800 USD price tag? ITS UP TO THE PURCHASER Is the X-95 a good SHTF (**** hit the fan) rifle / Home Defense Rifle? ABSOLUTELY

5 years later: Karl is still an excellent shooter. He has somehow always looked like an old man when he runs and moves in matches. Despite his odd gait , posture and movement, he is very efficient. I never used to appreciate these videos the way I do now. Time changes all things in one way or another. Classic high quality content.

If you don't have to do this whole stage with your willie in the wind what's the point?

It will be interesting to see how Karl feels about his door kicker AR since it seem largely built to fulfill the same roles as the Tavor.

You guys really summed up my feelings on bullpups perfectly. Also I noticed that the presentation on this series of videos has changed a bit, unless that happened earlier and I hadn't noticed. I like the changes.

12:54 It took me three minutes and asking an expert to find the charging handle on the first AR I ever picked up. All my experience up until then had been with bolt-action rifles, and what little I knew of semi-autos was that there was such a thing as a charging handle, and it's usually forward or middle on one side or the other.

I don't think i have seen a bullet casing get stuck in wood before like at 1:22

Wasn't the Tavor x95 as adopted by the Israeli military even shorter than the civilian version? I remember seeing that they had a barrel as short as 11", making it not a 600m rifle that fits in an APC, but a 300m rifle that fits in a messenger bag.

I had the same experience with my X-95. Once its time to pull the trigger it's cake. And the back weight makes it rest very easily on armor when aiming. Very, very light feeling.

Kudos to Karl for putting his initial impressions aside and giving the rifle a fair shake.

Great video. I have enjoyed watching this match quite a bit

This series is fantastic. Thanks guys!

When its a Video from Karl, AWESOME! When its a video from Ian, AWESOME!! When they make a video together its BLOODY AWESOME!

You guys are an awesome team. The best.

I just picked up an X95 (well 8 days ago. 2 more days to go. Guess where I live) I can't wait to get out there with it. I wanted something different. I've been shooting an M16 for 10 years now but the military wont let me take it home. I do plan on getting an AR15 at some point but not until I move out of state. Thanks for the video.

I think even though the mechanical accuracy isn't amazing, there are merits for a military desire for high velocity when you consider that body armor is becoming more and more common, and velocity really matters for penetration.

Great fun, great info as food for thought! :) Thanks guys!

the ejection of the casings on the x95 can be more suitable for weak side shooting if your using 77gr projectiles, ive noticed personally on my x95 that if I'm just using 55gr plinking ammo the case will eject at the 4 to 5 oclock position relative to a right hand shooter, but will eject at 2 to 3 oclock position with the 77gr stuff. So maybe load some more premium ammo if you know youre going to go ambi with it.... great vids guys!

I like that a Scud Hunter was handling the timer for you.

Great vid and conversation, thanks!

My experience across the variety of my endeavors in life I have found fix 2 to 4 powers to be the most practical choice. 5.56 to 338, auto to bolt.

im not sure if tavor vs a custom DMR is a good comparison, a good comparison might be a tavor vs a custom 10.5 inch barrel custom AR

I look forward to the day Ian dances like a fool after he finally beats Karl. Lol!

Well, I can't disagree with any of your points individually. I will also say that the gun is not as versatile, or adaptable and is certainly not as good a value as an AR, and would probably not be my choice as an only rifle. Having said that, it handles really well, due not only to it's short OAL, but also It's rearward C.G., which is a second advantage of the bullpup. This is why it feels funny when you pick it up, but it is also why you can swing it so fast and hold it up much longer without getting the shakes. Two other points: First, It is not a particularly accurate gun compared to a 14" inch or longer AR, but 10" guns really tend to open up at a distance, no longer having the stability or terminal performance beyond just a couple hundred yards. This particular Tavor is about a 2.5 moa gun at 100 and is still so at 400, and while your average 16" AR will out shoot it here, your average 10" AR will not. Second, at least for me (body type and stance have some bearing here), I don't have any problem switching shoulders with this rifle. It is disconcerting at first, because the brass is flying just in front of your face (sometimes very close), but after a few mags in different positions, I am confident that the deflector is effective and the brass flies clear; a conclusion that has been reaffirmed since. For me, it was just a matter of time on the riffle to get confidence in this.

Just shoot it left handed already, the ejection port isn't a concern. The brass may skim you but won't burn you in the very short time it may or may not make contact. Also its a piston gun so you won't eat much gas. I've shot the tavor sar from just about every position i can think of and the ejection port has never been an issue with or without my tactical face rug. Let it show you its flaws rather than assume they are there then try to find the tavor way around it. For the most part you did a good job with that.

Another, I think more important reason why you want a long barrel rather than range, is to give the 5.56 cartridge (which, where I come from, tends to be M193) more velocity out to 300m to penetrate armour, foliage and to yaw. 20" barrel bullpups can be shorter (31") than 10.5" CAR-15s (33")!

I have the original Tavor(left handed version) and I chose a 3x prism scope for it. Still good for close work but can go out to distance . The Tavor bullpup does not lend itself well for rested bipod shooting at longer ranges.

Y'all need to check out the osprey global 3×9. It made for the ar platform and the eye relief on it truly amazing. It has to me about 8 or 10in. The scope is as clear as any $800 or even $1200 scope I've used.

It's been really fun watching this series of videos guys. You're in AZ correct? I'm interested in attending one of those matches in the future. Can you point me in the direction of more info?

I think the Israelis started to focus on urban warfare doctrine around the time of adopting this firearm.

I like the tavor. It's different and very good for urban combat.

Best side by side yet

An important bullpup factor that I think it often missed is for the future. Suppressors are starting to be issued in a more widespread manner and going to a bullpup will allow a decent length barrel to go with a suppressor, while not having a musket-length overall package. If that Desertech MDR turns out well or if Keltec would ever make a tougher version of the RDB, then those would be the ideal platform to have say a 14-inch barrel with a removable suppressor on the end that adds another 4-5 inches. The US Army and Marines started going with the carbine length weapons more and more because the 20-inch barrel M16's were too long. As soon as you add a suppressor to those 14.5 inch barrels, you are almost back at the same length.

Great video series. Have you guys thought of doing similar trials with guns you question or don't like in order to see if your point of view changes kind of like Karl's?

It is entirely possible to shoot a right hand configured bullpup off the left shoulder. It can even be done with the L85, despite it having a reciprocating cocking handle, and is a currently taught TTP in CQB training.

AKM vs M16A1! Classic Vietnam scenario, 20rd mag loaded w/18 and no forward assist, andone stage involves the guns getting a bit of dust on them, and one stage involves lots of physical movement - will the extra weight of the AK tire you fast enough to make a difference?

Watching this series, I didn't see any reloads for the rifles. How do you think that this would or could change the times that Ian and Karl shot? Keep up the great work guys.

A department near me has gone to the Tavor for their patrol rifle. There are a lot of older 20s 30s and so on apartment buildings and rather then deal with the hassle of an SBR they chose the Tavor. This is NJ so things are a bit different here.

Tavor vs RDB?? I don't know how long you'll have the Tavor but if you still have the RDB it would be neat to see them head-to-head, especially in some stages that require reloads.

Every time I see the WWSD project ARs, my only thought is "The Scout Rifle is dead! Long live the Scout Rifle." Considering modern design factors, I think that these guns are more capable than anything Cooper could have wished for. He would probably want a .308 version, but with modern cartridges (like 6.8SPC or 6.5Grendel), I think he would consider even the AR15 platform plenty capable. Really, the cartridge and backup sights are the only places where your guns don't meet the letter of the specification. But like you mentioned in the project intro video, backup irons are not a huge concern with modern optics.

Awesome video! Great look at a Tavor. Is that a 50 cal in the background at 16:50?

Would have like to hear Ian’s comments on the 92s

Honestly i really like the look of that AR

I think the bullpup really fits a niche role. It's more of a replacement to the sub machine gun or pdw than a service rifle replacement. Outfitting a squad leader with one makes sense or vehicle drivers and tankers. It's use should be limited to relatively short engagements while providing the advantage of ammo commonality to the rest of the squad.

Okay, I'm not the only one who heard the horse while they're talking about the Tavor, am I?

Over time, accuracy of bullpup's will increase, Just as a note, the L85 while has a monsterus levels of (saying kindly as a brit) problems, the accuracy is top notch for it Barrle length so we bullpup designers are getting there slowly.

Seeing as you are quite interested in challenging yourselves and you keep talking about, how much of the day-to-day problems of the Tavor and bullpups in general are probably issues of training (oneself)... What would you say to letting the interested viewers fund you the gun and you in turn keep working with it and from time to time provide us with updates on how it's working for you? And I don't mean having you concentrate on mainly that gun in your shooting for a time from here to somewhere, but take it out every now and then and actually get to know the gun as one of your own. I'd love for you to be able to take it out whenever you feel like it might be an interesting tool for specific task, without having to try and get one from somewhere. I'd also like to see you actually work with the ambi part and not shy away from it due to not knowing if it works for you, but instead doing it or not, based on your knowledge on how it works for you. Most of us have seen how divisive bullpups and especially the Tavor these days have been, where people praise them or berate them. You're the one and only firearms media representatives (in my admittedly limited intake), that I remember seeing actually come from disliking the gun and the platform, but still giving it a proper chance and actually coming to change your opinions to a degree. I'd love to see you take it further and see if it really is just being so used to something so different, a platform very suited for a certain task being shoehorned into another or indeed just "may work for you, but ultimately not my thing". For this, I for one would be willing to donate a two digit sum of international monetary units and I do think I might not be alone. I don't really care what the gun in question would be, as long as it's a contemporary bullpup design. Probably a Tavor X95 or the RDB would be the current favourites. I also propose that it would indeed be best for you to let "us" pay for it, so you have nothing but time invested in the base cost and it's paid for "anonymously, by the people" and not donated by a aingular party with a specific agenda. The bullpup has been gaining a fair bit of traction and I would very much like to see someone like you addressing these questions with real usage data in the present (within the next five or so years) and not as Ian's in-depth video 20-30 years from now. Thank you!

At some point I want a Tavor, I shot an Aug and didn't much care for it due to ergonomic problems (granted I was shorter then), but the Tavor feels better. I still prefer conventional rifles, but I am curious. I don't have a suppressor nor can I shoot 600+ yards. About half of the problems don't apply currently, though thst could change.

Have you guys ever thought of doing a patreon match? Thus randomly select some people who support you on parteon, make sure they can make it, and take a have a few people selected in reserve just incase some have last minute changes. Because i think that would be neat, but i can also understand it being quite a hassle to set up. But would allow you guys to meet the fans and maybe set up a unique type of match.

Lesson learned: If you're going to ambush a sniper, you'll live longer if you happen to be the guy farthest to his right.

I wish we had these matches in Texas.

Good times. I can't remember exactly what optic the US is using on 5.56 DMR's. I thought it might be a Leupold 2-8x, which would make a lot of sense. The Mk262 ammo, from what i hear, is capable to 500 yds or so, whereas the green tip peters out by about 300, especially from an M4. When i finally start handloading, i may load up some 75 or 77 gr and test them on longer range varmints in my Savage Axis.

Seems like Ian had a bit of an advantage as he is more trained in using the righty/lefty switch. I will admit the Tavor is not as off-side friendly.

As both of them stated the bullpup series of rifles were really designed way back when the military ideology was "mechanised infantry" intermediate rounds and troops riding to battle. It fits that niche only in my opinion. Having shot the SA80 and FAMAS I would not choose a bullpup as my go to rifle in a non-military combat situation.

I never shot a Tavor but I heard that the reason for the inaccuracy is not having a free floated barrel. The hand guard sits on the last 4 inches of the barrel and when shooting, your likely to put different pressure on the barrel. Basically forcing flyers with your hand. Not sure if that's true.

You are saying Ian is going to focus on the AR for a while but I give him three matches _tops_ before swapping out the optic for a vernier tang sight to test/prove some point.

Is there technology where we can get the same amount of effectiveness out of a shorter barrel?

What do you guys think of the New Lithgow F90 Atrax Bullpup rife.

I have a feeling that Ian's beautiful slanted prone pose is going to end up as a meme on the internet

karl, you don't have to hide your love for bullpups.....................................................

You guys should offer that configuration of ar15 for sale. Maybe call it "the inrange DMR." I would get one if you do start selling them. Also it would be awesome in an ar10 configuration.

hey Karl and Ian! great video and a couple of questions. first, Karl where can I find that holster. second is the carbon fiber rail on the wwsd m-lok and where can I get it? I forgot if you said in the introduction video where it was from, I think you may of glossed passed it.

I can confirm the accuracy issue with the Tavor. I was only able to hit a steel gong 3/4 of the time prone supported at 200 yards. It was never supposed to have a 16in barrel, it was designed for a 14.5.

checkout the leupold Mark AR ~1.5x4

Can you properly rest a bullpup on a support ,say a bipod or a sandbag? I can't really imagine how that would work, especially since the center of gravity seems to be at the grip and not between grip and support. I've never actually shot one so I'm curious.

It's kinda sad that such kind of "combat oriented" match shooting is illegal here in Germany :(

Can you guys do a gewehr 43 vs a m1 garand or a svt 40

Mil spec ar is also a 2.5 to 3.0 mom gun? What your point?

Eh if you're in Canada you can't really get non restricted AR-15's so this a great alternative that you can take into the woods etc

Karl... does your opinion of the Tavor influence your opinion of other bullpups? I don't mean this negatively... I'm thinking about the Steyr Aug and the RDB. It would be interesting to see you run those pieces through the same rigors as the Tavor. I know that would probably be a nightmare for you, but I value your opinion.

How about trying a 2x or 1.5x scope? Also, you should work with a company to sell your WWSD AR for a fundraiser.

Wonder if PS-90 would work better for that?

With the loss of accuracy at range, and the issues of the ejection port making ambi use unpleasant, where do you stand in terms of employing something like a Tavor over something like a P90, in its intended role as seen by the forces who employ them like the Israelis? If the only advantages, as you've explained, are the short length and relative ease of maneuverability in tight CBQ urban settings, would the bottom ejection pattern and smaller bullet allowing you to carry more ammo be better, in your opinions? Or perhaps the Tavor vs the RDB, if retaining 5.56 is important? Do you think the Tavor would benefit from a bottom ejection port, or perhaps even ejecting in a novel way like the FS2000?

I think something like the Tavor is a good example how you can standardize one just one weapon and still have something capable in all common combat situations. Ideas like the US and Swiss have of every solider being a capable rifle man are really unrealistic especially if you look at stuff like actuall, realistic combat accuracy. I think the US doctrine is actually very valid if you think on militia level (Swiss too) if every sepetated solider can be an sniper that's really a big problem for any invader also you don't really need to take stuff like APC's into consideration. where, as you pointed out, the bullpup really shines...

house to house and house to apc like in say northern Ireland would take MP5 or FAL or M16 or Bullpup

What kind of stock is Ian sporting on his rifle?

"When nature calls, there is no call waiting."

If accuracy is the problem the Kel-Tec RDB also solves the ambidextrous issues

Recommendation for next time. Run the stage twice each (once with each gun) and then calculate the average dispersion between the guns. This way you somewhat eliminate the difference between shooters.

I think it did better than the ak on the mud test

it's not about replacing sub machine guns i. the IDF there isn't even full auto its about the fact that most battles here in israel are fought in urban area's and its simply a lot more easy to use a shorter rifle in such situations now the IDF has a very short amount of time to train soldiers and a tight budget so we dont learn to shoot off hand so the amby problems are not relevant....there is allot more i can tell and if someone out there wants to know i can answer more questions but at the end the tavor and x95 were designed for the IDF and not a replacement for some other weapons so like you said that's how it is when you're used to a gun

So my question is how similar and different are Karl"s and Ian"s pistols? So Ian has the 92S but Karl has the M92A1, correct? Why does it seem like Karl's M92A1 is more accurate? Do you think it's the shooter, or the wear on the different pistols? As far as I know, there is no practical difference in shooting either pistol, the main difference between them is the magazine release and the rail or lack thereof. But what do you think Karl?

I’d like to see this comparison with a Mk 18 clone..

Test the rdb

I don't hate the Tavor from the little I've handled one...but I don't get why anyone would spend the coin on one when they're well over a grand

Ian is like the less-weird Jamie Hyneman of guns.

so would an AR of similar total length to the X95 have the same accuracy at 600 yards? Because that's kind of what it sounded like you were saying. I think it's worth noting that even if that is true, many people can't buy an AR that short, or at least are not willing to go through that process.

from what I hear the M16 and M4 both shoot about 4.5 moa so 3 moa is a bit better but could be wrong about the M16 and M4

4:20 - 4:33 - Karl's non-stop fingering of the Tavor's ejection port-area made me more than a little uncomfortable.

Could some of the reason you were so surprised and impressed by the Tavor was the low expectations you had going into it?

All this has ultimately shown me is that, given the choice as a private shooter, bullpups don't make sense because of a huge number of quality of life issues, compounded by the saturation of AR platforms. I have shot several bullpups, and with the L85 as my basis, as a military issue rifle it has served fine since it's A2 model became standard. When it is your only rifle, and it is the rifle everyone uses, all these issues become moot points.

IMHO, as an ex-infantryman, engagements with a 5.56 out from 300m-600m, is pointless. You ever try hitting a stationary target at 600m with 5.56 ? Now try doing that with a moving target and wind adjustments, all the while trying trying to deal with the other distractions that take place during an engagement. Hell, I know guys who were in before me and were using the FALs. Even with that round, out to 300m on a moving target was a crap shoot (Somalia). Other than relearning the Manual of Arms of the Tavor platform, I personally feel it takes the advantage over the M4 platform (and I own a DD M4v5). I don't care about MOA unless I'm at the range and keeping score. What I do care about is if I can consistantly keep my groups within a pie plate out to 300m while sucking wind.

It would have been funny to see Karl miss one shot for 60 seconds :D

#showsomelovetobullpups

Two gun match barricade do not shoot.

do a hezbollah vs idf match, tavor and jericho vs akms and glock

Karl looks genuinely sad at the end of the conclusion.