Closed Thread Subscribe

Taepodong-2 · 31st January 2012

THE TAVAR THIRTY SIX

The older version of the VHS that looked like a FAMAS was much better. There's also supposed to be a version with a G36 optic.

Also they're taking so long to finalize a design for it that Croatia is pretty much ditching it for the G36 anyway.

**catbarf** · 31st January 2012

iFail posted:

also lol carry handle. You don't need a carry handle on an assault rifle, that shit is so 90s.

And where, master gunsmith, would the sights go?

Lizzrd · 31st January 2012

On the top side?

**catbarf** · 31st January 2012

Lizzrd posted:

On the top side?

It's a bullpup. Have you ever tried firing a bullpup rifle without raised sights? It's not very intuitive and is more than a bit awkward. A carry handle is there to raise the sights so you don't have to wrench your head over at an awkward angle just to use the ironsights. They COULD just have very tall sights (like, for example, the Vepr prototypes), but they might as well just put them on a carry handle and add that little bit of extra functionality.

**BBOOBBYY!** · 31st January 2012

Functionality that soldiers get into trouble for, because military doesn't allow them to carry their guns by the "carrying handle". Just because they appear to "lose muzzle control"

notrabies · 31st January 2012

I find the regular Tavor's sight does the job just fine.

**catbarf** · 31st January 2012

notrabies posted:

I find the regular Tavor's sight does the job just fine.

Notice how the Tavor's sights are raised, extending upwards from the body to put them in the same sight plane as the optics that are almost always used instead- almost as tall as carry handle ironsights. Almost all bullpups that don't have carry handles have very tall sights, or they're mounted higher (like on the F2000). If the Tavor had AK or AR15 style sights, it'd be near-unusable.

Carry handles aren't useless embellishment. Believe it or not, but the actual firearm design firm that created the weapon may know a little bit more about firearm design than random airsofters on the Internet.

Lizzrd · 31st January 2012

catbarf posted:

Have you ever tried firing a bullpup rifle without raised sights?

No, should I have?

Edited:

But yeah hadn't really thought about that.

Still don't need the metal bridge between the sights though.

Edited:

But yeah hadn't really thought about that.

Still don't need the metal bridge between the sights though.

Uncle Bourbon · 31st January 2012

Lizzrd posted:

No, should I have?

Edited:

But yeah hadn't really thought about that.

Still don't need the metal bridge between the sights though.

Edited:

But yeah hadn't really thought about that.

Still don't need the metal bridge between the sights though.

Maybe the carry handle is to increase it's structural strength?

notrabies · 31st January 2012

catbarf posted:

Notice how the Tavor's sights are raised, extending upwards from the body to put them in the same sight plane as the optics that are almost always used instead- almost as tall as carry handle ironsights. Almost all bullpups that don't have carry handles have very tall sights, or they're mounted higher (like on the F2000). If the Tavor had AK or AR15 style sights, it'd be near-unusable.

Carry handles aren't useless embellishment. Believe it or not, but the actual firearm design firm that created the weapon may know a little bit more about firearm design than random airsofters on the Internet.

Uhh, that was my point though, you're stealing it.
Raised sights are fine, carry handles are lame/not useful.

**catbarf** · 31st January 2012

notrabies posted:

Uhh, that was my point though, you're stealing it.
Raised sights are fine, carry handles are lame/not useful.

The point is, the only difference between the two is a bar of metal between the sights. Said bar of metal can also be used to carry the gun (whether an official practice or not), and provides a raised platform to put optics on, which has ergonomic advantages. There are other more minor things too, like structural integrity and keeping dirt away from the ejection port or charging handle.

Part of the P90's design, for example, is the raised rail on which the ironsights are mounted. With a scope or sight, this allows the user to quickly and easily bring the gun to the shoulder, lining up naturally with the sight. It's the same principle as the Thompson's angled stock, but keeps the stock in line with the action, so it doesn't produce off-axis recoil.

The point is that the carry handle is there for a reason. Have you ever wondered why issued M4s and M16s retain the carry handle, even though it's removable and could be ditched entirely?

notrabies · 31st January 2012

catbarf posted:

The point is, the only difference between the two is a bar of metal between the sights. Said bar of metal can also be used to carry the gun (whether an official practice or not), and provides a raised platform to put optics on, which has ergonomic advantages. There are other more minor things too, like structural integrity and keeping dirt away from the ejection port or charging handle.

Part of the P90's design, for example, is the raised rail on which the ironsights are mounted. With a scope or sight, this allows the user to quickly and easily bring the gun to the shoulder, lining up naturally with the sight. It's the same principle as the Thompson's angled stock, but keeps the stock in line with the action, so it doesn't produce off-axis recoil.

The point is that the carry handle is there for a reason. Have you ever wondered why issued M4s and M16s retain the carry handle, even though it's removable and could be ditched entirely?

To each his own I guess.
I find optics easiest to see through when mounted on a midprofile mount/rings, carry handle optics only seem valuable with a facemask on. Rear raised sight will still keep dirt away from the charging handle, but not so much with the ejection port. Structural integrity went out the window when they made the handle detachable, the RIS does that now.

The P90 is a whole other ballpark. Its magazine requires the sights to be the way they are, but they don't have carry handles on them anyways.

I think the reason that the carry handle is still on the rifles is because there's no reason to replace them besides the looks, which is completely irrelevant to its purpose. When you add cost of new rear sights into the mix it becomes completely pointless.

Once again, my issue is not with raised sights, but with the handle, it accomplishes next to nothing on a modern AR. Only time I'd use a carry handle is in airsoft where I'm actually allowed to grab it. Even still I find a sling with one hand on the handguard/pistol grip preferable.

iFail · 31st January 2012

catbarf posted:

Notice how the Tavor's sights are raised, extending upwards from the body to put them in the same sight plane as the optics that are almost always used instead- almost as tall as carry handle ironsights. Almost all bullpups that don't have carry handles have very tall sights, or they're mounted higher (like on the F2000). If the Tavor had AK or AR15 style sights, it'd be near-unusable.

Carry handles aren't useless embellishment. Believe it or not, but the actual firearm design firm that created the weapon may know a little bit more about firearm design than random airsofters on the Internet.

Raised sights, sure. useless piece of metal generating weight inbetween them? nah. It really doesn't help me in any way, and mounting optics is easier with a top rail below the sight plane like on a ar15. This allows generous space for night optics and allows a IR laser to mount on the top rail. If you want a taller optic mount, there are things like the larue QD mounts which raise them up to a cowitness height.

Edited:

catbarf posted:

The point is, the only difference between the two is a bar of metal between the sights. Said bar of metal can also be used to carry the gun (whether an official practice or not), and provides a raised platform to put optics on, which has ergonomic advantages. There are other more minor things too, like structural integrity and keeping dirt away from the ejection port or charging handle.

Part of the P90's design, for example, is the raised rail on which the ironsights are mounted. With a scope or sight, this allows the user to quickly and easily bring the gun to the shoulder, lining up naturally with the sight. It's the same principle as the Thompson's angled stock, but keeps the stock in line with the action, so it doesn't produce off-axis recoil.

The point is that the carry handle is there for a reason. Have you ever wondered why issued M4s and M16s retain the carry handle, even though it's removable and could be ditched entirely?

Also, recent m4s and m16s aren't using the carry handle, depending on branch they will likely have the TA31RCO or an eotech. In conjunction with these, they use the Matech BUIS, or for SF types they use the Knight's Armament.

Edited:

You act like a carry handle is the only way to get optics mounted higher up. It's not. There are a lot of companies out there that produce QD optics mounts that put them at a good height, while maintaining the cheekweld.

Edited:

Also, Catbarf, I get that you're a cool guy around here, CIA dad and all that shit, but I really don't need any of your fucking condescending tone. "master gunsmith"? You literally don't know anything important about me or where I spend my time. I'm fine with reasoned debate, but I don't appreciate you just coming in and starting up with a "you don't know shit" type remark. You want to question my credibility, then attack my argument, not me.

wallyroberto_2 · 1st February 2012

So now Isreal will lose holy war because of that gun

Taepodong-2 · 1st February 2012

wallyroberto_2 posted:

So now Isreal will lose holy war because of that gun

It's a Croatian gun designed for the Croatian army though. It has nothing to do with Israel.

**venom** · 1st February 2012

iFail posted:

Also, Catbarf, I get that you're a cool guy around here, CIA dad and all that shit, but I really don't need any of your fucking condescending tone. "master gunsmith"? You literally don't know anything important about me or where I spend my time. I'm fine with reasoned debate, but I don't appreciate you just coming in and starting up with a "you don't know shit" type remark. You want to question my credibility, then attack my argument, not me.

I actually almost don't notice it anymore, all of catbarf's arguments are in that same tone

iFail · 1st February 2012

I don't get why they revamped it already. It seems like all the changes are just to make it look like a tavor?

Taepodong-2 · 1st February 2012

iFail posted:

I don't get why they revamped it already. It seems like all the changes are just to make it look like a tavor?

Apparently the one Codemoney posted was a prototype and the current production model is the FAMAS looking version

I've also seen a version with a G36 optic.

Edited:

Not really a G36 optic, but it still looks like an optic built in to the carrying handle

**venom** · 1st February 2012

it almost looks like a FAMAS if kel-tec had designed it

**FloaterTWO** · 1st February 2012

Do those take G36 mags?

If so, airsoft versions would be cool if they're compatible with existing G36 mags. FAMAS mags over here are hard to come by.

iFail · 1st February 2012

i think they're proprietary.

Taepodong-2 · 1st February 2012

It uses STANAG compatible mags.

iFail · 1st February 2012

derp you already said that. i'm a fucking idiot

Edited:

those mag linking nubs seem like a pain tho. Having multiple mag linked up probably wouldn't be as comfortable as on a conventional rifle.

**Kill001** · 1st February 2012

I actually really want a famas now for some reason

gbb would be pretty rad but I want kwa or something to make a metal aeg one

**cardfan212** · 1st February 2012

I actually really want to get a TM FAMAS.

cpt.armadillo · 1st February 2012

This page is gross.

**cardfan212** · 1st February 2012

You're gross.

**Stupideye** · 1st February 2012

cardfan212 posted:

I actually really want to get a TM FAMAS.

I used to have one, externally they feel really plasticy and creaky but it's a really neat gun. you can upgrade it apparently since some v2 and v3 gearbox parts are compatible with the v1 gearbox it uses (probably with some modification - don't remember where I read about this, check ASC).

**catbarf** · 1st February 2012

iFail posted:

Also, recent m4s and m16s aren't using the carry handle, depending on branch they will likely have the TA31RCO or an eotech. In conjunction with these, they use the Matech BUIS, or for SF types they use the Knight's Armament.

Slowly but surely, optics are becoming the new standard. When they're not used, though, you almost always see the carry handles on the rifles. Having them raised as high as the carry handle provides makes it a lot easier to aim- the handle isn't strictly necessary, and there are alternatives, but that piece of metal is cheap, effective, and hard to damage. It's not intrinsically better, but it's not intrinsically worse.

iFail posted:

Also, Catbarf, I get that you're a cool guy around here, CIA dad and all that shit, but I really don't need any of your fucking condescending tone. "master gunsmith"? You literally don't know anything important about me or where I spend my time. I'm fine with reasoned debate, but I don't appreciate you just coming in and starting up with a "you don't know shit" type remark. You want to question my credibility, then attack my argument, not me.

Sorry, I know I can be a bit flippant/sarcastic sometimes and end up coming across as an asshole. It was really just the 'lol carry handle. You don't need a carry handle on an assault rifle, that shit is so 90s' comment that got on my nerves, I see a lot of airsofters make wild claims about real steel firearms and it gets annoying. I'm usually pretty level when it comes to other subjects, it's just guns that get me. I dunno why, probably the number of people in my major (game design) who think they're gun experts thanks to CoD.

So, sorry for being a dick about it.