TAVOR vs. SCAR: new rifle!

Two very different rifles. I've handled a Tavor and like the feel a lot. However I've never shot one. I did shoot a real deal select fire Mk17 and I gotta say it's a sweet rifle. They do however have a reputation of eating s scopes though so do some research before you through an optic on it.

On the other hand if you guys are having serious problems with your M4s there is something wrong with your rifles or you guys aren't lubing then right.

During my recent visit to Israel, the IDF at the Lebanese border assured me that "Tavor is number one!"
I've ordered one...

They are quite different. I have an FDE Scar 17. And I have an AUG. I love both but the size, the length, the cartridge... all different. Like comparing a Colt 1911 and a Ruger LCR in .38 Special.

If you like the feel of the Tavor, go for it. The Scar 17 really is the "better rifle" in many ways but it is a bigger package firing a larger round.

Gregg

They are different rifles but both are set up to be easy to convert to if you're used to the M15/M4 series.

The biggest thing is the different (much better) location of the CH on both and the Tavor's bolt and mag release.

Either one is very well made and designed, so the final choice depends on what you're doing. I would point out that .223 is 1/2 to 2/3rds the price of .308.

BSW

I have both rifles and both have very good points. I prefer the harder hitting .308, but I also like the fact that the Tavor can use my AR mags. The FN mags can get pricey. They both have a good feel but I did have to change out the FN's charging handle with an angled one, due to my knuckles getting scraped on the EOtech with the standard one. It was made by GG&G and was very resonable, the mags on the other hand cost 38.00 each and I almost got rid of the FN because the FN store never had any in stock and their autorized dealers charged 50.00 each at the time. Luckily I contacted FN just as they were shipping out mags and had them reserve me 7.

The Tavor also has its downsides, like not many after market mods and the fact that they changed their minds about the 5.45 version.

Personally I would pick the SCAR 17 over the Tavor, but I wouldn't get rid of the Tavor.

I've both.

New shooters like the Tavor much better for the low recoil and easy to hold rearward center of mass. They tend to shoot it better than an AR, despite the lousy trigger, because of this.

The SCAR 17S is amazingly light for a .308 "battle rifle", I was apprehensive firing it the first time given the felt recoil of the significantly heavier SIG 716, but the muzzle brake is amazingly effective (but terrible for the people next to you) so it recoils closer to a 7.62x39 AR than the .308 SIG.

If you want a different caliber I'd take the SCAR 17S over about anything else out there unless the price was just too much for you (it was almost 50% more than the SIG). If you want 5.56 and ammo/mag commonality with your AR the Tavor wins.

SCAR mags are just flat out over priced.

I greatly prefer the 7.62x51mm NATO to the 5.56mm NATO in a fighting rifle, so the SCAR gets my vote. To me, accurate aimed .308 firepower is more effective than inaccurate rapid 5.56mm fire.

I fired a Tavor not too long ago. I think the owner had the rear sight set too far back, made it seem like a ghost ring. Not a bad gun, But it just seemed alien to me. I think I'd appreciate the more conventional and much more power SCAR if I had to storm the beaches or whatnot.

I've been eyeballing bullpups for years, but none quite floated my boat until the Tavor came along (I've had one for about 18 months). The more I read and live with it, the more satisfied I am with the purchase.

AFA calibers, I was just cruising over at IWI's site today and notice their X95 makes mention of soon to be available 300 AAC conversion kit (would it also fit the regular Tavor?). If you want something bigger than 5.56, maybe the 300 AAC would be closer to the .308 you're considering?

I keep looking at 300 AAC, but so far haven't taken the plunge - a Tavor in 300 AAC might push me over the edge?

And I know many don't like the triggers (they are perfectly fine for regular combat conditions I have read).

Click to expand...

It's all what you're used to (and are willing to learn).
I grew up on DA revolvers - the trigger bothers me not a whit.

I actually saw a YouTube video of Jerry Miculek from the 2014 SHOT Show, where the fellow interviewing him told him a lot of folks complain about the Tavor's trigger.
Jerry sez since he was a revolver shooter by trade, he actually preferred the Tavor's "long, heavy" trigger and the interaction it provided.

Mebbe everybody should have to learn on DA revolvers!

.556 or .308...
If I needed a short range varmint rifle Tavor would be at or near the top of my list.
I sold my SCAR 16 to get the 17.
I'm trying to get down to 4 types of ammo... .556 didn't make the cut.

Aside from the short overall length, the Tavor does not perform any better than a decent AR. Aside from being short, it doesnt really bring much to the table. I'd rather pack a 5.5lb AR thats a few inches longer than the porky 8lb Tavor.

I vote for the Scar 17. Its the current pinnacle of its genre.

Aside from the short overall length, the Tavor does not perform any better than a decent AR. Aside from being short, it doesnt really bring much to the table. I'd rather pack a 5.5lb AR thats a few inches longer than the porky 8lb Tavor.

Click to expand...

For me, having the superior ballistics out of a package that's shorter, handier, better ergonomics, better balance, and a superior design is worth the trade off in weight and price for me.

Another point that's often missed is that a bullpup's weight is centered to the rear of the pistol grip, letting you partially support the weight with your shoulder, which is much less fatiguing.

If you think those things are important, get a Tavor. If not, don't.

BSW

Hard to compare those 2 because they are so different. My thoughts were for .556 I would just build a decent AR for less money and skip the tavor, scar 16, etc. Then the scar 17 came along and I had to get one. For that purpose rifle it's just as good as it gets right now.

The only 2 downsides to the scar 17 are magazine cost and ammo cost compared to .556 rifles that take AR mags. Once you get past that, it's no contest.

I have both as well and the Tavor would be my choice. It is such a neat little rifle.

- Tavor handles extremely well and you'll be able to afford more ammo
- Tavor trigger sucks but not nearly as bad as the SCAR17 (Both require G-Trigger upgrades)
- Tavor has a 9mm option available if that matters to you
- Tavor CH doesn't reciprocate
- Tavor is easier to find an optic that will survive on the rifle
- Tavor has built in QD sling attachment points
- Tavor CH doesn't interfere with optic mounts

Neither rifle is particularly accurate and while the SCAR is light, I don't find it to be light recoiling as others seem to perceive. The SCAR really doesn't excel at anything, other than being light weight, which to some is enough. If you're dead set on .308 there are better options on the market in my view.

But it really comes down to your intended use. Two very different calibers and two very different rifles.

Neither rifle is particularly accurate

Click to expand...

I, along with many Scar 17 owners would beg to differ. I easily get sub 1" groups using 168 gr ammo.

Redlg155 said:

I, along with many Scar 17 owners would beg to differ. I easily get sub 1" groups using 168 gr ammo.

Click to expand...

Not really, it is widely known as being battle rifle accurate only. Sub MOA groups are possible, but hardly the norm or easy.

With standard ball ammo I agree. For us hand loaders getting MOA groups with the SCAR 17 is not that difficult. If you are interested in some load data just ask.

I spent my money on a Tavor.

Neither rifle is particularly accurate and while the SCAR is light, I don't find it to be light recoiling as others seem to perceive.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that. I've owned/shot the FAL, PTR91, M1A and AR10 platforms and the SCAR has noticeably less recoil than any of them. It's not even a close comparison in recoil. It is also more accurate than most of those (not the AR10 because they vary too much to compare). It is also lighter than any of those and more ergonomic to most people than most of them also. Not to mention it has a folding stock and it's very easy to add qd sling attachments for not much money.

I do agree that is doesn't really excel at anything....but it's pretty darn good at everything it's supposed to do. No other battle rifle really excels at any one particular thing anyways.

Nothing against the Tavor at all of course. They are nice.....it's kind of crazy to compare a 556 bullpup to a .308 battle rifle anyways. Apples and oranges (and a $1000 price difference too). The SCAR isn't perfect but nothing really is.

With standard ball ammo I agree. For us hand loaders getting MOA groups with the SCAR 17 is not that difficult. If you are interested in some load data just ask.

Click to expand...

I roll my own and on a great day I can squeeze a few sub MOA groups out of my SCAR. Most range trips are consistently 1.5 - 2.5 MOA which by a number owners accounts is fairly normal for the rifle.

Don't believe me search M4C for SCAR accuracy.

I've shot 150 - 155 - 165 - 168 - 175 gr bullets using I4895, Varget and I4064. My best results have been with I4064 and 165gr HPBT, using Lapua brass.

It might be that it is particularly picky but I'd have read that by now. It appears to be a 1.5+ MOA rifle under normal conditions, even with very good hand loads. I know for certain it isn't just me......

I disagree with that.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised as lots of people talk about how light the recoil is.....I don't see it.

The recoil of my A3 stocked HK91is more manageable than my SCAR. There is absolutely no comparison between it and my MR762. The MR is roughly 1/2 the recoil of the SCAR and I attribute that to weight. Face it, as light as the rifle is there is no getting around physics. The SCAR has no magical properties that allows you to defy physics.

I'd put my SCAR about on par with my SAKO bolt .308 gun from a recoil perspective.

I own then both. Though given your military and arms experience I feel like a goof offering up advice. But here goes:
1. The difference in the round. Do you want a 308, plan to carry a bunch, want to pay the price for 'em and have to reach out and touch something at those distances?
2. They are equivalently reliable. Which means, incredibly so. Cleaning them should be considered a hobby rather than a requirement.
3. Though I've never run in to the problem, I suspect that freeing a jam in the SCAR would be easier than the Tavor. Or at least more familiar for an AR expert (um, that would be you). Though I must admit that Tavor allows you to pull most of the internals with a quick slide of the end cap, and pull the trigger assembly with ten seconds of 'slight of hand'. So any significant jam should be found and expunged very quickly as well.
4. Balance. Face it, bull pups (i.e. Tavor's) are just better balanced. Having more weight on or near your should allows you to stay in the 'ready' state far longer, and far more accurately, whether you're planning to fire or just using the optic to scan. In fact I came very close to buying a Kel-Tek RFB for the bull pup reason but the reviews just wouldn't allow me to pull the trigger (so to speak).
You have a big problem here bro'. You know your s^%t, you've got the checkbook, and they are both true love bombs.
Maybe I should pose it a different way. Although I dislike when people say 'just buy both!' (like you can print money like the Fed), you should consider whether you could imagine ultimately owning both, and in that context, which do you want first? If you have an AR or two, get the SCAR. If you don't, just get the Tavor and wait to get the Heavy. By then, Desert Tech might be shipping their bull pup semi-auto and I'm sure it will be excellent (see reference to needing a big checking account).
FWIW, it I had to narrow down all of my 'battle-like' guns, it would be the Tavor, Scar17 and MP5 (MP94). They are the holy trinity of the best of the best.
Just my opinion of course but I was a stick and rudder guy back in the day so we don't know s%^t about this stuff
B

wally said:

I've both.

New shooters like the Tavor much better for the low recoil and easy to hold rearward center of mass. They tend to shoot it better than an AR, despite the lousy trigger, because of this.

The SCAR 17S is amazingly light for a .308 "battle rifle", I was apprehensive firing it the first time given the felt recoil of the significantly heavier SIG 716, but the muzzle brake is amazingly effective (but terrible for the people next to you) so it recoils closer to a 7.62x39 AR than the .308 SIG.

If you want a different caliber I'd take the SCAR 17S over about anything else out there unless the price was just too much for you (it was almost 50% more than the SIG). If you want 5.56 and ammo/mag commonality with your AR the Tavor wins.

SCAR mags are just flat out over priced.

Click to expand...

well, superior until you run out of ammo, the guy with the 5.56 has easily twice as much per weight.

A little surprised at seeing the comments on Scar 17 accuracy-I'm not a great shot, yet mine too has achieved 1" groups using off the shelf match ammo (Federal 168 or Remington).

Here's an interesting comparison in it's accuracy to an REPR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLBF_Gkg91U
Also, the Scar's NOT known for it's great trigger, yet he still had 3/4" group using the factory trigger.

Note he's had 2 of them and a friend had another, all of which had the same accuracy.

IMO, it is unquestionably a reliable 1" MOA rifle.

On my SCAR17, I ditched the folding stock. Got an adapter and stuck an AR collapsible stock on it. The folding stock flat out sucks - if you have facial hair, it pulls it out, if you shoot prone, the raised area around the button to fold down will bruise your cheek bone.



As far as recoil, once I pulled the stock compensator off and put on a Smith Vortex to make it highpower legal, recoil went from a "heavy slap" to "holy cripes".

First time I shot prone rapid fire at a high power event my first trigger press fired three rounds bump fire. I'd forgot to strap down the right shoulder of my Creedmoor coat and it provided enough of a spring. Funny thing though even with the accidental bump fire, at 300 yards I got all 3 rounds of fire on the SR-3C target - 10 (x), 9, and 8 (climbing up the paper). I snugged it in and didn't repeat the incident again.

I wouldn't want to shoot the SCAR without the shooting coat, not without the compensator on. You think it hits heavy with that muzzle brake on, try taking it off. It's brutal.

Anyway it's accurate enough and the stock sights are great. I have no problem getting Master scores with it in match rifle class, in across the course on both NM and regional 80 shot courses, with the stock trigger. (Only changes made were the stock and the brake, and removal of the bottom rail.)



Unfortunately the side rails are integral to the structural integrity of the receiver so you cannot remove them. (I tried, and they have a leaf spring inside that locks in the nut that holds your 3-piece receiver together - it was a stone cold rotten pain of a job to get the rail back on again - much cussing involved over a multiple-hour period...).

I can't comment on the TAVOR as I don't own one and haven't shot one, but the SCAR17 is a solid rifle.

I keep a Leupold Vari-X 4 LR scope on ARMS quick throw rings handy with a harris ultralight bipod in the case (plus bottom rail and bolts for it), for load development and longer range play.

(This pic was taken before I ditched the folder)



SCAR vs. Tavor is a strange argument unless IWI really does go through with the 7.62 version (I heard rumors about it 2 years ago but haven't seen any 7.62 versions yet?) - the ultimate answer is going to be "are you going to use it to shoot out to 600+ yards?" Or "are you going to do a lot more close in shooting?"

One is better than the other at each of those, and you really can't have that *both* ways.