the IDF has so far only changedone inf brigade to the Tavor, and they did their training on both M16 and Tavor

Originally Posted by c/Commander

Also, training is not an ongoing process when you're switching to an entirely new basic infantry weapon

Well,... all I can say is that you must be in the only force in the world where training is not an ongoing process at all times. Even in units on active service training is ongoing. The use of new equipment and advanced proficiency in using the old equipment never stops, unless of course you think you know it all and your level of proficiency can't be improved.

Armed forces of all nationalities undertake changes in equipment regularly and it is never viewed as a problem, unless of course you consider improving your equipment is a problem. Not to mention a weapon that was far better suited to the style of warfare being conducted at the time.

During the Vietnam era the US changed over from the M-14 to the M-16, and even taking into account the excessive fouling problems experienced in the early stages, the average bloke in the field was more than pleased to change over to a lighter weapon and lighter ammo.

The problem was later found to be a problem caused more by ammunition and poor cleaning practices rather than a weapon fault. Never the less in the end the introduction of the new weapon was viewed as a great improvement by the grunt in the field. This weapon of course is the great grand daddy of your present M-4 series & etc., which if we adopted your view, you would not have. In fact you might well still have the Springfield 06 or something even older.

If your technology is not advancing, you are effectively going backward, as the rest of the world will not wait for you.

lol well, it depends. somtimes you have things that seem advanced but are just rubbish. i still think the IDF shold have kep the Galil and not taken the M16.

Originally Posted by senojekips

During the Vietnam era the US changed over from the M-14 to the M-16, and even taking into account the excessive fouling problems experienced in the early stages, the average bloke in the field was more than pleased to change over to a lighter weapon and lighter ammo.

The problem was later found to be a problem caused more by ammunition and poor cleaning practices rather than a weapon fault.

You mean that it was a problem caused by unfamiliarity with new equipment and misinformation about that equipment? You can't train troops with an entirely new weapon in the middle of a war zone as effectively as you can during peacetime.

Your point about the M1903 Springfield is also invalid. Bolt action to semiautomatic is a big change. Semiautomatic to automatic is a big change. The 7.62 to 5.56 change, however, is still controversial, because the benefits that it provided during the Vietnam era are disappearing in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts - there are many calls for changes to intermediate caliber rounds. I'm not suggesting that the bullpup is a bad idea; I just don't think we should charge in immediately just because it's the "latest and greatest". Tried and true might not be the best strategy for a more technologically advanced unit such as an air force, but it seems to work quite well for grunts.

Unfortunately I know nothing of the Galil other than it was regarded by all who knew it as a fine weapon. You might find the answer to your question to be more of political expediency than for real practical reasons.

The only gripe I ever heard about the Galil was that it was heavy. It was 5.56mm with an AK-style action, correct?

The K-2 is a 5.56mm with a AK style kind of gas system. It's a fine weapon but it needs better furniture and is a little left handed shooter unfriendly (but you get used to that).

M-16's not very lefty-friendly either - no side-ejecting rifle is going to be very friendly to left-handed shooters, even with a case deflector. Which bullpup rifles eject downward?

The galil was heavy and had bad sights. the first problem is not a huge one and the second is easily fixed, and was infact solved in later veriants.

Originally Posted by c/Commander

You mean that it was a problem caused by unfamiliarity with new equipment and misinformation about that equipment? You can't train troops with an entirely new weapon in the middle of a war zone as effectively as you can during peacetime.

Your point about the M1903 Springfield is also invalid. Bolt action to semiautomatic is a big change. Semiautomatic to automatic is a big change. The 7.62 to 5.56 change, however, is still controversial, because the benefits that it provided during the Vietnam era are disappearing in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts - there are many calls for changes to intermediate caliber rounds. I'm not suggesting that the bullpup is a bad idea; I just don't think we should charge in immediately just because it's the "latest and greatest". Tried and true might not be the best strategy for an air force, but it seems to work quite well for grunts.

My point about the chances you quoted was merely to emphasise that change is not an insurmountable problem, it is happening all the time, In fact it's not a problem at all. Not all the changes we have made have been big ones, in fact the majority are not, it's called improvement.

Every now and again we fall on our bum, but if we feel that the occasional risk of failure outweighs the end result we will go nowhere. There will always be a excuse from someone as to why "now" is not the time to do things.

In actual fact most changes of this kind are done in time of war, when it would normally be considered inappropriate, as this is when shortcomings in our equipment become most apparent. (Plus in peacetime forces don't have the "money" allocated to allow it)