Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is not to like with the Galil?
Yimmy    3/2/2007 10:43:06 AM
Just out of curiosity, why did the rifle not prove to be popular with Israel? The rifle is very closesly based on one of the finest Kalashnikov clones (the first Galils were produced on the machinery of the Finnish Valmet). There were no complaints that I know of concerning the Valmet, so whats wrong with the Galil? It has large 35 round magazines, must be reliable, uses 5.56mm... etc More to the point, South Africa used it for a fair while (still does?) under the guise of the R4, with success. The only account I have read of its use with South Africa, questioned its reliability a bit, but that was all (and I can't imagine M16A1's to be any more reliable). Was it just a matter of the small stature of the Israeli soldiers compared to South Africans?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Horsesoldier       3/20/2007 8:31:14 AM

As far as I'm concerned, The gas tube on the M-16 looks real shoddy and vulnerable to damage. The brittle plastic foregrips look perfect for breaking into little razor sharp shards, same for the aluminum heatguards underneath. 


Ie, I can reasonably imagine your gas tube getting pinched or blocked, resulting in higher pressure.  The tube ruptures, the resulting explosion shatters your foregrip and sprays  plastic shards from the foregrip up and possibly back into your face. Meanwhile, the ventholes in the bottom grip could result in you recieving some nasty burns to your palm. I've seen a rifle where something like that happened, except it wasn't the tube the blew, it was the main barrel. Some idiot at basic broke off part of a cleaning rod in thier barrel after qualifying, and just left it there for the next poor trainee to fire.

 

I have a real hatred for that gas tube. I don't trust anything I can't remove, clean, and inspect.


In 14 or so years around M16s, M4s, and civilian AR-15s, I've never seen, nor heard of, anything remotely resembling the failure you describe.  I also fail to see how the gas tube could get blocked or pinched unless the handguards on the rifle were already smashed.  And even then, the rifle and/or gas tube would not blow up, the rifle just would not cycle (barrel obstructions like you describe are entirely another story, and can be quite hazardous). 
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       3/20/2007 2:32:30 PM
Well it is ugly but that is a superficial thing. However you did ask what's not to like. All modern military small arms are ugly, unlike the old days of muskets and long rifles.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.       3/24/2007 6:45:36 PM
From what I've heard, another big factor was financing.  M-16s were covered by U.S. aid, since the weapons were made in the U.S., whereas the Galil, being made in Israel, couldn't be paid for with such aid monies.  Added to that, IIRC the majority of the M4 configured weapons being used by the IDF started out life as M-16A1s and were converted with parts from the U.S..  The military aid angle has also been mentioned regarding plans, or the suggestion of plans, to manufacture the Tavor in the United States (I don't recall exactly where I saw this).  If so, then the argument goes, they could be paid for with U.S. aid money and shipped to Israel for the IDF. 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       3/25/2007 10:49:50 PM

From what I've heard, another big factor was financing.  M-16s were covered by U.S. aid, since the weapons were made in the U.S., whereas the Galil, being made in Israel, couldn't be paid for with such aid monies.  Added to that, IIRC the majority of the M4 configured weapons being used by the IDF started out life as M-16A1s and were converted with parts from the U.S..  The military aid angle has also been mentioned regarding plans, or the suggestion of plans, to manufacture the Tavor in the United States (I don't recall exactly where I saw this).  If so, then the argument goes, they could be paid for with U.S. aid money and shipped to Israel for the IDF. 


It doesn't explain the Israeli preference for giving shooters like infantry troops the M16 based weapons and giving the guys who need PDWs the Galils, though.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       3/26/2007 11:34:01 AM
It makes sense to manufacture in the United States, besides the free aid of having the United States pay for the manufacture of your custom design, it will be easier to sell to Tavor to the America, be it as some sort of contender against the XM8, civilian carbine. Only that you need to fork out quite a bit to set up your manufacturing facility there.

An alternative could be to contract out to an established manufacturer there such as FN. ( In the past Uzis had been made by FN) But there is likely to be too much conflict of interest in such arrangements.

 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       4/11/2007 12:01:31 PM


I know about the double safety selector on both the left and right side of the Galil, but how does a rifle work with 2 safety selectors?

Is the clunky AK safety only some sort of a dust cover? Or does it also function as a safety and follows the safety on the left?
The Galil safeties both move each other.  You can use the right hand side standard AK sort of safety, and it will shift the left hand selector.  Or vice versa.  The downside of this is two fold, however -- first, that left hand selector needs some force behind it to move it.  Second, while you can swipe at it with your thumb, "safe" is the forward most position, so putting it on fire with your thumb requires a lot of force in a backwards direction.  Seems awkward at best, if not simply unworkable without moving a hand to the selector.  Perhaps some of the Israeli posters who have more experience with the rifle can clarify, but it looks slower to me than the selector on an M16/M4.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       4/12/2007 10:12:25 AM




I know about the double safety selector on both the left and right side of the Galil, but how does a rifle work with 2 safety selectors?

Is the clunky AK safety only some sort of a dust cover? Or does it also function as a safety and follows the safety on the left?

The Galil safeties both move each other.  You can use the right hand side standard AK sort of safety, and it will shift the left hand selector.  Or vice versa.  The downside of this is two fold, however -- first, that left hand selector needs some force behind it to move it.  Second, while you can swipe at it with your thumb, "safe" is the forward most position, so putting it on fire with your thumb requires a lot of force in a backwards direction.  Seems awkward at best, if not simply unworkable without moving a hand to the selector.  Perhaps some of the Israeli posters who have more experience with the rifle can clarify, but it looks slower to me than the selector on an M16/M4.
It is great to have ambidextrous safeties that are synchronized. Though it just adds to the weight, and from what you have said, it is easier to use the clunky AK selector, unless u use your left hand to engage safety.

I can't think of a reason as to why the AK selector is retained in the Galil, guess they really need it as a selector mechanism for the AK receiver, else it would be a really heavy just to use it as a dust cover.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       4/13/2007 9:26:08 AM

It is great to have ambidextrous safeties that are synchronized. Though it just adds to the weight, and from what you have said, it is easier to use the clunky AK selector, unless u use your left hand to engage safety.

I can't think of a reason as to why the AK selector is retained in the Galil, guess they really need it as a selector mechanism for the AK receiver, else it would be a really heavy just to use it as a dust cover.
Well, the problem is that the AK selector is horribly placed to engage and disengage for CQB shooting.  If you have really, really large hands you can finger sweep it off for quick firing, but even then it is awkward and slower to bring into action than an AR or FAL, for instance.  The left-side safety on the Galil in theory solves that problem, but in reality you can't take it off safe without breaking your grip on the weapon, so the only benefit is that you can put it on safe while maintaining your grip.
 
 
I believe the only reason they retained the design is that the Galil, internally, is pretty much an AK clone.  Replacing the AK safety mechanism with something like an FAL safety/selector (which the Israelis were quite familiar with) would have meant making major modifications to the AK action.  It was easier to just copy it.  While it has never been stated, I suspect that the safety/selector layout is one of the main reasons why Israeli special operations units don't use the Galil and prefer the much better designed AR-15 pattern.

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics