User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 1:43:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ammo I previously talked about in video was the IMI 77gr OTM. I am releasing a video tomorrow where I shoot with the following: FGMM 69gr Black Hills 77gr OTM IMI 77 OTM Federal American Eagle 62gr I didn't have any M193 on hand to test, but I will do another test in a bit with a selection of 55gr ammo to see what I get. you said in the video that you didn't see a difference in groups with the ring removed but i definitely did. the groups were much more consistent overall, with less stringing and much smaller mean radii (a better measure of accuracy than extreme spread) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 2:26:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: you said in the video that you didn't see a difference in groups with the ring removed but i definitely did. the groups were much more consistent overall, with less stringing and much smaller mean radii (a better measure of accuracy than extreme spread) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The ammo I previously talked about in video was the IMI 77gr OTM. I am releasing a video tomorrow where I shoot with the following: FGMM 69gr Black Hills 77gr OTM IMI 77 OTM Federal American Eagle 62gr I didn't have any M193 on hand to test, but I will do another test in a bit with a selection of 55gr ammo to see what I get. you said in the video that you didn't see a difference in groups with the ring removed but i definitely did. the groups were much more consistent overall, with less stringing and much smaller mean radii (a better measure of accuracy than extreme spread) While the group sizes didn't reduce overall, you may be correct in that they became more consistent. That certainly seemed to be the case with FGMM. But with only having fired 15 rounds per ammo type in this test with the ring removed, I'm not comfortable saying its removal definitely stabilized group sizes. I was out there all darn day just doing these tests. I'll dedicate another day to further testing with lighter loads. I'll also do some testing off a rest vs. a bipod. I want to do practical accuracy tests too where I shoot standing, kneeling and prone at ranges out to 300 yards or more. Stay tuned, I'm far from done.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 4:46:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While the group sizes didn't reduce overall, you may be correct in that they became more consistent. That certainly seemed to be the case with FGMM. But with only having fired 15 rounds per ammo type in this test with the ring removed, I'm not comfortable saying its removal definitely stabilized group sizes. I was out there all darn day just doing these tests. I'll dedicate another day to further testing with lighter loads. I'll also do some testing off a rest vs. a bipod. I want to do practical accuracy tests too where I shoot standing, kneeling and prone at ranges out to 300 yards or more. Stay tuned, I'm far from done.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Azu7WdqWo
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ammo I previously talked about in video was the IMI 77gr OTM. I am releasing a video tomorrow where I shoot with the following: FGMM 69gr Black Hills 77gr OTM IMI 77 OTM Federal American Eagle 62gr I didn't have any M193 on hand to test, but I will do another test in a bit with a selection of 55gr ammo to see what I get. you said in the video that you didn't see a difference in groups with the ring removed but i definitely did. the groups were much more consistent overall, with less stringing and much smaller mean radii (a better measure of accuracy than extreme spread) While the group sizes didn't reduce overall, you may be correct in that they became more consistent. That certainly seemed to be the case with FGMM. But with only having fired 15 rounds per ammo type in this test with the ring removed, I'm not comfortable saying its removal definitely stabilized group sizes. I was out there all darn day just doing these tests. I'll dedicate another day to further testing with lighter loads. I'll also do some testing off a rest vs. a bipod. I want to do practical accuracy tests too where I shoot standing, kneeling and prone at ranges out to 300 yards or more. Stay tuned, I'm far from done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Azu7WdqWo
Great video as always Wonder why the Tavor is consistently more accurate? Ive seen several Tavors shoot consistent 1-1.5moa 5 shot groups The X95 is still plenty good enough for a fighting rifle but I would like a little more accuracy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 4:59:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Picked mine up 2 weeks ago and I really enjoy shooting it.
Since so many people are making a big deal out of the accuracy of the X95, I'm going to swap the scope off my 18" AR-15 and put it on my X95. I got some various XM193 and match ammo to try out. 
MAC, awesome videos as always. Your suppressed X95 video convinced me to get one. I currently waiting for 2 suppressors to be released from ATF jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 5:22:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Picked mine up 2 weeks ago and I really enjoy shooting it. Since so many people are making a big deal out of the accuracy of the X95, I'm going to swap the scope off my 18" AR-15 and put it on my X95. I got some various XM193 and match ammo to try out. MAC, awesome videos as always. Your suppressed X95 video convinced me to get one. I currently waiting for 2 suppressors to be released from ATF jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 5:22:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Picked mine up 2 weeks ago and I really enjoy shooting it. Since so many people are making a big deal out of the accuracy of the X95, I'm going to swap the scope off my 18" AR-15 and put it on my X95. I got some various XM193 and match ammo to try out. MAC, awesome videos as always. Your suppressed X95 video convinced me to get one. I currently waiting for 2 suppressors to be released from ATF jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 5:22:48 PM EDT
[#7]
I have no idea how I double-tapped that post...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 5:59:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great looking rifle. What cans are you waiting on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Picked mine up 2 weeks ago and I really enjoy shooting it. Since so many people are making a big deal out of the accuracy of the X95, I'm going to swap the scope off my 18" AR-15 and put it on my X95. I got some various XM193 and match ammo to try out. MAC, awesome videos as always. Your suppressed X95 video convinced me to get one. I currently waiting for 2 suppressors to be released from ATF jail. A Rugged Suppressors Surge 7.62 and a SilencerCo Octane 9. I knew I should of gotten the 5.56 end cap and flash hider for the Surge when I ordered the suppressors. Everyone is out of stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 6:38:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Awesome video Mac thanks....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2016 11:20:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryGood video by MAC (was surprised to see my pictures rolled in at the beginning)... not surprised to see that his results are about the same as mine. I did think removing the barrel ring would make a little more difference than it did, but I agree with many of the comments that it seemed to be slightly more consistent with it out. I look forward to seeing the future tests with 55 grain ammo and some XM193. I went back to the range about a week and a half ago now with the intent to do a 50 round test with IMI M193 (ten 5 shot groups), without the barrel cooling. I put ten 1 inch target dots on a cardboard silhouette and shot the first three groups. By the end of the third I could see that it was going to be almost impossible to distinguish the groups from one another given the group size and dot spacing. I dropped down to a lower dot and fired a fourth group and stopped. The results were roughly 4 MOA with the IMI M193: 
I would like to see a similar test with Federal XM193 which judging by my earlier groups with it would do better. Even within the same ammo profile (M193) the X95 appears to have very clear preferences (Federal vs IMI, etc). Once again I pulled the Vortex PST and put it on an AR, this time a 14.5" BCM with an enhanced lightweight barrel. Shot a couple of groups with the IMI M193 that were about 1.75" each. Generally, the X95 is a 2 - 4 MOA rifle and fairly inconsistent. I think that is becoming very clear as more data comes in. Again I will say that for its intended purpose, being a combat minded bullpup, that is probably sufficient. Ultimately I decided to sell mine and picked up a Sig MCX the same day... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 8:42:33 AM EDT
[#11]
While the accuracy issues is far from fully explored, I hope IWI is tracking this and seeing if there is an easy fix. We already know the aftermarket companies are hard at work on many things for the X95, and we know they're watching this as well (bravo for the support, BTW). To echo many others, this accuracy is fine for the intended purpose, it's not what most of us would like from this rifle, myself included. Thanks to all for time spent testing and documenting. Wherever you fall in the discussion, data is good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 1:47:28 PM EDT
[#12]
3 to 4 inch groups with M193 or M855 doesn't bother me, what bothers me are the groups MAC had found in his video using high quality ammo.
I own an AUG A3 and X95, and for the price of admission to the Bullpup game one would expect better accuracy. Which is weird because my AUG is inherently more accurate than my X95, not to mention the barrel is a quick detached system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 2:14:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good video by MAC (was surprised to see my pictures rolled in at the beginning)... not surprised to see that his results are about the same as mine. I did think removing the barrel ring would make a little more difference than it did, but I agree with many of the comments that it seemed to be slightly more consistent with it out. I look forward to seeing the future tests with 55 grain ammo and some XM193. I went back to the range about a week and a half ago now with the intent to do a 50 round test with IMI M193 (ten 5 shot groups), without the barrel cooling. I put ten 1 inch target dots on a cardboard silhouette and shot the first three groups. By the end of the third I could see that it was going to be almost impossible to distinguish the groups from one another given the group size and dot spacing. I dropped down to a lower dot and fired a fourth group and stopped. The results were roughly 4 MOA with the IMI M193: <a href="http://s33.photobucket.com/user/OR_05Taco/media/AB1_6198_zpsurzjwah7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d99/OR_05Taco/AB1_6198_zpsurzjwah7.jpg</a> I would like to see a similar test with Federal XM193 which judging by my earlier groups with it would do better. Even within the same ammo profile (M193) the X95 appears to have very clear preferences (Federal vs IMI, etc). Once again I pulled the Vortex PST and put it on an AR, this time a 14.5" BCM with an enhanced lightweight barrel. Shot a couple of groups with the IMI M193 that were about 1.75" each. Generally, the X95 is a 2 - 4 MOA rifle and fairly inconsistent. I think that is becoming very clear as more data comes in. Again I will say that for its intended purpose, being a combat minded bullpup, that is probably sufficient. Ultimately I decided to sell mine and picked up a Sig MCX the same day... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good video by MAC (was surprised to see my pictures rolled in at the beginning)... not surprised to see that his results are about the same as mine. I did think removing the barrel ring would make a little more difference than it did, but I agree with many of the comments that it seemed to be slightly more consistent with it out. I look forward to seeing the future tests with 55 grain ammo and some XM193. I went back to the range about a week and a half ago now with the intent to do a 50 round test with IMI M193 (ten 5 shot groups), without the barrel cooling. I put ten 1 inch target dots on a cardboard silhouette and shot the first three groups. By the end of the third I could see that it was going to be almost impossible to distinguish the groups from one another given the group size and dot spacing. I dropped down to a lower dot and fired a fourth group and stopped. The results were roughly 4 MOA with the IMI M193: <a href="http://s33.photobucket.com/user/OR_05Taco/media/AB1_6198_zpsurzjwah7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d99/OR_05Taco/AB1_6198_zpsurzjwah7.jpg</a> I would like to see a similar test with Federal XM193 which judging by my earlier groups with it would do better. Even within the same ammo profile (M193) the X95 appears to have very clear preferences (Federal vs IMI, etc). Once again I pulled the Vortex PST and put it on an AR, this time a 14.5" BCM with an enhanced lightweight barrel. Shot a couple of groups with the IMI M193 that were about 1.75" each. Generally, the X95 is a 2 - 4 MOA rifle and fairly inconsistent. I think that is becoming very clear as more data comes in. Again I will say that for its intended purpose, being a combat minded bullpup, that is probably sufficient. Ultimately I decided to sell mine and picked up a Sig MCX the same day... That is almost AK accuracy... I'm glad I haven't pulled the trigger on an x95. I guess I'll stick to my aug. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 3:48:11 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm holding off on this rifle as well....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:06:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Ok, after MAC's video I pulled off the forward and aft polymer barrel supports. I know MAC removed the forward support but I wanted the rifle to be completely free floating.
I won't be able to make it to the range for a couple of weeks, can other X95 owners try this and see if it helps? The process was simple, remove the pistol grip with a Phillips head screw driver and use a Hex key to remove the hand guard screw. It will slip out with ease. I also noticed the barrel profile is very thin, I'm guessing it wouldn't take much to heat up the barrel. I haven't seen the barrel in its entirety, it could be stepped down from the chamber end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:19:01 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 6:55:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Totally off subject but how do you like the manticore arms switchblock? I want them for my augs... They are on my long list of wants from those guys haha..... Looks like it would be perfecto..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 7:55:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Totally off subject but how do you like the manticore arms switchblock? I want them for my augs... They are on my long list of wants from those guys haha..... Looks like it would be perfecto.. It was a "must have" for me, I hated the oem charging handle. Instal was easy, drive out a roll pin and follow the directions. It will appear flimsy at first with a lot of play. Once you charge the weapon it will feel solid and it folds "closed" when it goes back to the forward position due to inertia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 8:01:56 PM EDT
[#19]
I wonder if its a barrel issue. The Tavor barrels were made in Israel and the X95's in the USA, correct?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 8:25:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if its a barrel issue. The Tavor barrels were made in Israel and the X95's in the USA, correct? No. X95 barrels are made in Israel also: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:52:03 PM EDT
[#21]
How do the barrel crowns look?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 10:09:38 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is almost AK accuracy... I'm glad I haven't pulled the trigger on an x95. I guess I'll stick to my aug. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good video by MAC (was surprised to see my pictures rolled in at the beginning)... not surprised to see that his results are about the same as mine. I did think removing the barrel ring would make a little more difference than it did, but I agree with many of the comments that it seemed to be slightly more consistent with it out. I look forward to seeing the future tests with 55 grain ammo and some XM193. I went back to the range about a week and a half ago now with the intent to do a 50 round test with IMI M193 (ten 5 shot groups), without the barrel cooling. I put ten 1 inch target dots on a cardboard silhouette and shot the first three groups. By the end of the third I could see that it was going to be almost impossible to distinguish the groups from one another given the group size and dot spacing. I dropped down to a lower dot and fired a fourth group and stopped. The results were roughly 4 MOA with the IMI M193: <a href="http://s33.photobucket.com/user/OR_05Taco/media/AB1_6198_zpsurzjwah7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d99/OR_05Taco/AB1_6198_zpsurzjwah7.jpg</a> I would like to see a similar test with Federal XM193 which judging by my earlier groups with it would do better. Even within the same ammo profile (M193) the X95 appears to have very clear preferences (Federal vs IMI, etc). Once again I pulled the Vortex PST and put it on an AR, this time a 14.5" BCM with an enhanced lightweight barrel. Shot a couple of groups with the IMI M193 that were about 1.75" each. Generally, the X95 is a 2 - 4 MOA rifle and fairly inconsistent. I think that is becoming very clear as more data comes in. Again I will say that for its intended purpose, being a combat minded bullpup, that is probably sufficient. Ultimately I decided to sell mine and picked up a Sig MCX the same day... That is almost AK accuracy... I'm glad I haven't pulled the trigger on an x95. I guess I'll stick to my aug. Most arsenals shoot bi-metal jacketed bullets around 2moa.. Military 7n6 is usually around 1.5 with a good shooter, so don't go putting down ak's, they are more accurate than this plastic fantastic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 1:59:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Been a part of the forum for a little while but mostly trolling around the CZ Scorpion thread and now this. I got my X95 a few weeks ago but haven't had an opportunity to shoot it yet because I've been waiting for some shims and a QD brake for my suppressor and simply haven't had a chance to get to the range. Anyway, I got all of that in yesterday and was installing it and noticed once I had it positioned correctly, torqued, etc. that the alignment tool I was using didn't give me a warm fuzzy. I.e. I was a little nervous about end cap (or possibly baffle) strike. I was wondering if anyone else has seen this issue. Not sure if its the "smaller" shoulder (for lack of a better description) on the barrel or the shims themselves that came with the brake or misaligned threading or something else. I'm still somewhat new to the suppressor game, so I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be. The alignment rod wasn't completely centered with just the brake either, so of course it was amplified once the can was added. I did put the brake on a LaRue barrel I had laying around and it looked fine (of course normal length threading and not as much "shimming" as the X95), so I don't think it's the brake. Could be operator/installer error too of course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 2:12:59 PM EDT
[#24]
I'm betting that it's a barrel quality issue than the weapon itself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 9:07:32 PM EDT
[#25]
The problem with these groups is mainly on the horizontal axis. If the issue was the barrel, the spreads would be off equally on the vertical and horizontal axis according to a random distribution. But on the vertical axis a lot of the groups look acceptable.
I would wager that the issue here is just that it's very awkward to shoot it bench rested and as a result there is a lot of horizontal movement (just as we know of from the Tavor). Maybe if you held it in a vice you would eliminate this movement. The Tavors (and bullpups in general) are bad to shoot benchrested and that movement of a rifle on its rest is usually what leads to those kind horizontal spreads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 10:24:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with these groups is mainly on the horizontal axis. If the issue was the barrel, the spreads would be off equally on the vertical and horizontal axis according to a random distribution. But on the vertical axis a lot of the groups look acceptable. I would wager that the issue here is just that it's very awkward to shoot it bench rested and as a result there is a lot of horizontal movement (just as we know of from the Tavor). Maybe if you held it in a vice you would eliminate this movement. The Tavors (and bullpups in general) are bad to shoot benchrested and that movement of a rifle on its rest is usually what leads to those kind horizontal spreads. So are you implying that everyone sucks at shooting this rifle but no one sucks at shooting the original tavor |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2016 2:57:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With the AUG, I used the American Defense mount with a rise for the X95. The height of the optic was way too low, and the rise was a cheap fix. Both optics are 1.5x Micro ACOG's. <a href="http://s1184.photobucket.com/user/USN-Riverine/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20160504_160629_zpsu2asm5dv.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z336/USN-Riverine/Mobile%20Uploads/20160504_160629_zpsu2asm5dv.jpg</a> USN-Riverine - You're using the AD-B2-6MM Riser? Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2016 1:36:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USN-Riverine - You're using the AD-B2-6MM Riser? Thanks Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With the AUG, I used the American Defense mount with a rise for the X95. The height of the optic was way too low, and the rise was a cheap fix. Both optics are 1.5x Micro ACOG's. <a href="http://s1184.photobucket.com/user/USN-Riverine/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20160504_160629_zpsu2asm5dv.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z336/USN-Riverine/Mobile%20Uploads/20160504_160629_zpsu2asm5dv.jpg</a> USN-Riverine - You're using the AD-B2-6MM Riser? Thanks Yes, it's a great combo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2016 8:38:06 PM EDT
[#29]
According to this video, he gets 2 moa groups no problem. Doesn't seem any different to the Tavor to me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4rRuJz6J_s |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2016 9:39:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Shot clays at 400 today? In the wind? I think this weopon is more then capable of what it is designed for... Dime size groups... Probably not... Smoking someone shooting at you... More then capable.... Love this weopon system...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2016 11:24:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Considered this rifle for coyote hunting but 6 to 10 inch groups at 200 yds for 1800.00 No Way
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2016 5:59:18 AM EDT
[#32]
I'm happy with performance of this weapon system. For $1700 it does lack <1 MOA but then again you pay for a rifle performance in a compact package. Yes, it is pricy for a less than stellar accuracy but I am happy with it because it beats slinging my 11lbs billet upper/lower 14.6" SS custom barrel AR15 that shoots sub-moa without trying. As a consumer you pay for compat package (especially SBR version) by giving up sub-moa that is ideal in my application of <15 yards rifle/pistol league at my local range.
At the end of the day it is battle proven and ideal for CQB environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2016 9:30:17 AM EDT
[#33]
zdenstk, If you don't mind spending more or shopping and waiting, the AUG M1 would probably be ideal for you. Especially one of the longer barreled models.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2016 6:00:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do the barrel crowns look? Answered my own question and pulled the FH off mine: Looks like every other typical AR15 barrel I've seen. Does the amount of torque that attaches the top rail to the rest of the gun affect accuracy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2016 11:17:53 AM EDT
[#35]
I'm out of the loop, anyone have the normal trigger guard grip for sale yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 6:14:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Bump for any trigger guard info from NRA show?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 9:34:24 PM EDT
[#37]
Can anyone advise if the Thorntail mount fits on the X95 rails? I'm trying to figure out how to get a scout light pushed farther out. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 9:57:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are you implying that everyone sucks at shooting this rifle but no one sucks at shooting the original tavor Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with these groups is mainly on the horizontal axis. If the issue was the barrel, the spreads would be off equally on the vertical and horizontal axis according to a random distribution. But on the vertical axis a lot of the groups look acceptable. I would wager that the issue here is just that it's very awkward to shoot it bench rested and as a result there is a lot of horizontal movement (just as we know of from the Tavor). Maybe if you held it in a vice you would eliminate this movement. The Tavors (and bullpups in general) are bad to shoot benchrested and that movement of a rifle on its rest is usually what leads to those kind horizontal spreads. So are you implying that everyone sucks at shooting this rifle but no one sucks at shooting the original tavor I just posted a thread of groups from my Tavor. All under 2" but 77gr was the best at 1.4" and 1.5". Pics of the groups are there. Yes, not being able to stabilize the gun is most definitely a primary issue. I definitely felt it. The front end is round, and the gun wants to roll from side to side. With a magazine sticking out the back, there's no way to get a rear bag underneath it. I wound up using a sand sock up front, and using my hand partially under the magazine to do what I could. It was a terrible position. IOW - Everybody sucks at shooting these when it comes to testing accuracy potential. To me, testing the X95 side by side with a Tavor would take the shooter and the set-up out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2016 9:07:40 AM EDT
[#39]
what they need is a picitinny mount which qd's onto the rail and then its a long flat piece with a bipod mount on the end of it. that way you can have the bipod out further and the rifles a little more stabilized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 12:35:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Finally had a chance to get to the range today, but I forgot to bring FGMM 77gr and Winchester Match 77gr.
Here's the ammo that I didn't forget to bring. 
I used a Caldwell Rock BR rest and a rear bag. I had to remove the rear spiked leg because it was getting in the way. The scope is a Nightforce SHV 4-14X50 F1 that was on my 18" AR-15. The barrel bushing was removed prior to shooting groups. 
American Eagle AR223 55gr 
American Eagle AR556 XM193 55gr 
IMI M193 55gr 
PMC X-TAC XP193 55gr 
PMC X-TAC MATCH OTM 77gr 
Hornady Match BTHP 75gr 
I'm a average shooter at best but I'm still somewhat disappointed by the accuracy. Even though it's not as accurate as my other rifles, I still like it. It just feels so compact and balanced. I now see the appeal of a bullpup. A buddy of my has AUG and I'll probably pick one up as well. I got the chance to shoot a Tavor with a Geissele Super Sabra Trigger w/Lighthing Bow and it was definitely crisper than the X95 trigger. Since I'm a Geissele fanboy(have them in 2 ARs), I'll get them sometime in the future. After shooting the X95, I decided to shoot my Remington 700 to make myself feel better. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 12:49:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Finally had a chance to get to the range today... Thanks very much for the report. I find this so disappointing. I want very much to buy this rifle, but reports like this show a level of accuracy that would be absolutely unacceptable to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:34:53 AM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 9:51:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Anyone know when the 18" model will be released? or will there be one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 10:31:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Has a cause for the inaccuracy been established? Is there a way to fix it?
I keep hearing about the barrel bushings or perhaps even the twist rate on the barrel but what else contributes toward inaccuracy? Could it be due to flexing of the polymer body/chasis? Could it likely be a cheap fix or is a redesign needed to work out these problems? How does it stack up against the original tavor in terms of accuracy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 4:13:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has a cause for the inaccuracy been established? Is there a way to fix it? I keep hearing about the barrel bushings or perhaps even the twist rate on the barrel but what else contributes toward inaccuracy? Could it be due to flexing of the polymer body/chasis? Could it likely be a cheap fix or is a redesign needed to work out these problems? How does it stack up against the original tavor in terms of accuracy? According to owners the original tavor shoots smaller groups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 9:39:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Anyone have the ability to take a cast of the chamber? I wonder how it looks compared to premium and rack-grade AR barrels.
Also, has anyone tightened their rail screws? Maybe it's something as simple as a loose top rail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 5:20:39 PM EDT
[#47]
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone have the ability to take a cast of the chamber? I wonder how it looks compared to premium and rack-grade AR barrels. Also, has anyone tightened their rail screws? Maybe it's something as simple as a loose top rail. Ill look at my chamber tonight as i havent even given it a glance. My rail is tight and anywhere from near moa to 5 moa depending on ammo seems to be the norm. Im fine its not a dmr with dmr accuracy, shoots the cheapest stuff the best and thats a plus for me as well. Watch out hezbollah. Im interested after a few hundred rounds what it does |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 6:24:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Gonna just throw mine away....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 8:44:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Has anyone looked to make sure the rail grabbers on the barrel assembly are mounted and tightened correctly?? The rail is not directly mounted to the barrel, it is screwed into those mounts. So even if the rail is "tight", the mounts it screws into could not be correctly torqued allowing the rail to shift when heated up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 10:54:05 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
