I liked my Tavor SAR, I miss that rifle. I know Administrative Results enjoys his also, he says as much.
What people confuse though when the look at the SAR and call it dated is when the rifle was developed compared to when it came to the US market. The rifle’s development starts in 1995 and production in 2001. Our views on service rifles has changed a great deal since 1995. They’ve changed since 2007 when I first picked up an M16A4. The SAR came here in 2013. So to say that the features on the SAR are a bit dated makes sense, they are. Over a decade of war time experience made for changes.
But dated platforms still do work. The FAL, the AK, a 20″ AR-15 with fixed stock, and yes the SAR can all be efficiently run and serve their intended purposes. But they are going to fall short on some efficiencies that later platforms capitalize on. When I started service, an “ambi” gun was considered unnecessary. Today ambi is standard. For 1995 the SAR was very forward thinking, as were the ACR and SCAR developed near that time period, but by 2015 our wants on rifles had changed. While the SAR joining the market was a great thing the desirable performance envelope had moved on.
Thus the X95 quickly joined the market offerings with several improvements. The US market has several preferences that differ from the international market and the aftermarket pushed the SAR and X95 along too. The X95 has had several in unit production upgrades and if you have an older rifle, the parts will be different than on newer models.
We have two distinct versions of the Tavor that grew out of updated needs. We saw several iterative improvements to both of them. At a certain point in time it becomes time to shelve a design. SIG has shelved two MCX versions already and that rifle started in 2015.
Do we see the Tavor continue to evolve?
Yes. We still are in the aftermarket currently with places like Manticore and BLK LBL continuing to add options and aesthetic.
