Tavor SAR in 6.5 Grendel?

[VASCAR2]

I have been following the release of the Tavor SAR ( Semi Auto Rifle) over the last couple of weeks. I've been following the threads on the Bullpup Forum, AR15.COM,& M4.net. The general conversation indicates the Tavor SAR is very close to being ambidextrous, plus being a simple robust design. The Tavor TAR series appear to have matured into a serviceable MIL/LE weapon.

There were discussions on the Bullpup forum of a 6.5 Grendal conversion, requiring a bolt and barrel similar to AR-15 conversions. Since the Tavor SAR uses STANG AR-15 mags this seems like a doable conversion. In my opinion the 6.5 Grendel is a superior intermediate cartridge to the 5.56. There are currently two barrel options for the Tavor SAR, 16.5" & 18".

From what I have read the Tavor is favored for it's compactness and usefulness in CQB and motorized troops. My question would concern the practicality of a 6.5 Grendel Bullpup. I don't think the added recoil would adversely affect a semi-auto Bullpup. I don't know if a full auto 6.5 Grendal Tavor TAR would be controllable in CQB environments?

Of the Bullpup rifles currently in use I like the features of the Tavor. Do you think a Bullpup Tavor SAR in 6.5 G has the capability to efficiently extend the range of the Tavor beyond 300 meters. The barrel on the Tavor seems to have good mass and appears to be free floated. The height of the sights over the bore is similar or less than AR-15/M-4. Does the Bullpup design lend itself to being a stable platform to extend the range for the solider, or are the ergo's such that the design does not lend itself to precision long range shooting?

I have shot bull pups but not in a Tactical/CQB scenario. The Tavor is scheduled to be chambered in 9 MM, 5.45 X 39 soon. There is supposedly future plans to introduce a 300 Blackout and 22 LR conversions. Anyone else here believe a 6.5 Grendel Tavor SAR would be a viable Bullpup?

[Variable]

Viable? Probably. They'd have to be able to keep up with orders for their current offerings though, and that'd probably shelve it for a long time unless the parts were offered by a third party.

I've been watching it off and on a bit too. I'd like to see how the accuracy turns out for the general populace, how bad the trigger really is or isn't, and what mods pop up for it and/or problems.

An 18" Tavor in Grendel would be pretty nice I'd think.

[VASCAR2]

I found a post which states the barrel is not free floated. Another post on the Bullpup forum showed where someone measured the trigger pull on the FS2000, AUG and Tavor. All three trigger pulls were described as typical mushy Bullpup trigger and measured 10 lbs.

A third party was working on a 7.62 X 39 bolt/barrel conversion for the Tavor SAR. This sparked the interest in the 6.5 Grendel Tavor SAR.

[appleseed-kdc]

When everything else is right, a poor trigger makes all the difference on long range shots.

Besides, in addition to the current 5.56 in different lengths, styles and colors, they have to release for sale the currently announced lot of:-

1) Left hand bolts.

2) Accessories.

3) 9mm kit

4) 5.45 kit.

After that, I would expect a .22LR blowback kit for economical practice shooting.

They will then have to choose between the 6.5 Grendel, 300AAC and 6.8spc.

Don't see it happening for many years.

YMMV.

[adamjp]

I don't know about bullpups being 'typical' with a mushy trigger.

The AUG has a somewhat mushy trigger, but it is intended to be a BATTLE rifle, not some range queen. Last time I used an M4 it did not have that crisp light trigger that you see on a typical target rifle. Both battle rifles favour trigger pulls that require deliberate pressure.

If you try a bullpup bolt or pump gun you will find that the trigger is quite good, perhaps not at Jewel standard, but better than factory Remington 700. Miles ahead of the Remington 7600 series pumps or Marlin leverguns.

[appleseed-kdc]

I bought my wife a FN FS2000 several years ago.

I improved the trigger with the neu trigger. Makes it more slick.

But still, I can shoot a lot better at 600 yards with my Robarms XCR than I can with the FS2000.

Step that up to 800 yards for a Grendel 6.5, you get the picture. In addition to the bullet mass, typically around 123gr (compared to 55, 62, 77gr for the 5.56), the benefit of the Grendel is its ballistics at range. Without a excellent trigger, you are going to lose accuracy due incredibly minor movements during the trigger squeeze process. That's just the way it is.

So beyond having larger mass bullets, I don't see a lot of benefit and don't see it happening for at least 3-years, if at all.

All the long distance shooters replace their triggers with Geisele, Timney, AR Gold etc.

[Keep The Change]

Having had an FS2000, I can concure that the trigger is not very good. It's not gritty like a mil-spec AR trigger, but it definitely creeps. But it is built for CQB and trigger crispness is not an issue. I think it is great ergonomically for CQB but I would think in short-mid range (100 yards) would be a quick acquisition. Very cool and easy to control and recoil basically goes straight back into you with no muzzle rise.

I'm curious though, appleseed, how accurate was the FS2000 at the longer ranges?

[LRRPF52]

One thing that bothers me about the Tavor design even in 5.56 is the dwell time. I have yet to feel how one cycles, but the gas block location is very close to the chamber. It looks a little shorter than an AR15 CLGS, but I haven't been able to measure one.

The optic mount is also attached to the barrel directly, which was intended to eliminate loss of zero. I personally think that's a terrible idea for a number of reasons:

* g input directly into the optics & electro-optical aiming devices
* heat transfer from the barrel directly into the optics and EO systems

The FS2000 and FN2000 feel like shouldering a large, fat fish. It is impossible to establish a proper cheek-to-stock weld without leaning your head over, or canting the gun, unless you have an extremely narrow mandible, and abnormally-wide inter-pupilary spread.

[Keep The Change]

Haha! "Shouldering a large, fat fish". I have heard the term used, "It's like holding a Tuna".

I will agree that the fore grip was too big and I would opt for the tri-rail at the fore end and use a vertical grip. This allows the use of lights/laser sights as well. It does have some gerth to it. But having not spent a lot of time handling and using AR's before getting the FS2000, it was comfortable for me. Although a wider cheek weld would've been nice. I feel the same way about the Magpul STR's or the MFT Stocks. I need a cheek weld.

Agreed on the optic mounting to the barrel. I'm not nearly experienced like you guys on weaponry, but the engineer inside of me thought of the same things you are saying about having optics mounted to the barrel.

Aren't Israeli's completely replacing the AR with these now?

[VASCAR2]

I think only the IDF model with the Meprolight M-21 sight attach directly to the barrel. The 16 1/2" and 18" flat top rail model Tavor SAR are a little different and designed to meet firearms regulations in the US. The Canadian model is closer in design to the Israeli Military model. Supposedly minor changes were made to the Tavor SAR to preclude converting it to select fire so the Tavor could be sold to civilians in the US.

[Trooper]

Anyone seen the current issue of American Rifleman? It has the Tavor on the cover.

A sidebar in the article states that they are planning to sell a 9mm and 7.62x39 barrel/bolt setup for the Tavor. My guess is that a Grendel could be in the future.

Most of the Gen III battle rifles are modular. Look at the new Beretta AXR160 or the Faxon Firearms rifles.

[LRRPF52]

I saw the ARAK-21 at SHOT. Barrel isn't free-floated, and the sight above bore height is an issue for me.

The Czechs and Poles have some knock-offs of the ACR and SCAR that are interesting. There are detailed posts in the Mil/LE section of the forum about them.

[Bronz]

Or you could juat say the thing is fugly.

[appleseed-kdc]

appleseed-500-600-meters.jpg

A sidebar in the article states that they are planning to sell a 9mm and 7.62x39 barrel/bolt setup for the Tavor.

No it doesn't. Read it again. Its say's "Russian 5.45x39".


ADD: to my previous Two posts. Reading them again, some people may interpret that I am against using 6.5 Grendel for the Tavor. I am not. Let me break it down into Two parts.

1) I think it will be some years before any other caliber beyond the announced 9mm & 5.45x39, and possible 22LR become available. ie. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8SPC, 300AAC or even the 7.62x39

2) I dislike the 5.56. You can't even shoot deer in almost every state with it so why choose to use use it against a man. Using multiple rounds to bring your enemy down or penetrate cars and other barriers defeats the 'more rounds carried' argument as far as I am concerned. I bought the Robarms XCR with the 7.62x39 kit for Two reasons. a) I had Two widely available calibers. b) The 7.63x39 gave me lots of ft/lbs and barrier penetration should I ever need it.

I also have a Grendel 6.5 AR and would love to have the Tavor in that round for commonality.

I like the 120-130gr bullets. They double the ft/lb for the same speed and do a lot more damage than the 5.56 to people and barriers. Especially at range as speed bleeds off.

One good thing about the Grendel, is that Wolf and Barnaul have built a factory dedicated to 6.5 Grendel that should be producing 1,000,000 inexpensive (think AK prices) steel cased rounds a month by the end of the year. Apparently, it changed from a run on their current lines to a new factory so production was delayed.

As far as the FN FS2000 at range. I only shot about 10-rounds as opposed to 100 ? with my XCR, 18.6 inch barrel, Lake City 5.56 Appleseed style, sling, prone acog ta51 fixed 4x at 500 & 600 meters. I had about an 18 inch horizontal and 24 inch vertical at 500 and 30+ inch vertical at 600. The FS2000 was only 500 and I had few of the 10 rounds on target so I stopped. I have a picture somewhere of the XCR hits.

I didn't try the 7.62x39 at range, but I should. I'll try and add it next time I go to the long range. Maybe I will try the FS2000 again.

In conclusion...Yes, i would like a Tavor in 6.5 Grendel (or 7.62x39 for that matter), but I don't expect it for years.

[VASCAR2]

The thread on the Bullpup forum indicated they were trying to get a 6.5 Grendel barrel and bolt from a different source than IWI. I could see an after market barrel and bolt becoming available before IWI would offer the Tavor in 6.5 Grendel. Apparently the currently offered Tavor SAR's barrel is not free floated. Add the heavy trigger pull and it is going to work against shooting the Tavor accurately at long range.

Other than 5.56 availability I still prefer the performance of the 6.5 Grendel over the 5.56. If I were to buy the Tavor I would prefer to have it chambered in 6.5 Grendel.