jdk, my brain don't always function.

You're sort of like me. I think you wanted a Tavor or X95 because it's different, and it's super short and handy, and just fun. I'll be building another 6.8 ARP AR15 if I don't get to buy my original one back. It's actually at a friend's gun store right now, and I have it there for him to sell and he's got an AK I need to pick up for my son. So, we'll have an AR, an AK, and a Tavor here.

I have some money coming to me, so if my 6.8 isn't sold before I get the insurance check, I'll get my old glory back.

The reason I think the accuracy issue is something in the way of pressure on the barrel or something, some contact or other thing, is that not every X95 has the problem, and none of the Tavors did. I think it will be figured out, and the owners may be able to fix it, or the company will repair them, and subsequent rifles won't have the issue.

One other thing, is that the Tavor / X95 doesn't respond well when rested on a bag in the traditional manner, ie, forearm on the bag. The best way is forming a pocket and resting the grip in it, then setting up something or the rear. It's a different kind of rifle, and something that is different enough that shooters are having to do things a little differently than with a traditional weapon.

I'm going to get a friend to work on a project for me. We're going to start with a nice wood board, and mount and mold our own bags that will cradle the Tavor and X95 correctly. After we get it done, we'll look at slotted holes to allow the movement of the bags, raising and lowering, and then work on getting a phenolic plastic version built.

Right now, my rest is a rim and tire from my son's mustang ( factory, he has 5 stars on it now ). I rest the grip on the rubber of the tire, and use the left hand to work the stock in the shoulder pocket. It's not great, but it works for now.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_43/463656_Tavor_accuracy_experiment.html

See that thread.  I got 1.4-1.5" with my DMR competition load and 1.75" from my junk 55gr training load out of my SAR at 100Y.  

My AUG A3 is just as accurate.  

My Tavor SAR has treated me well. On a nice day with a proper target that provides a good sight pic with my EoTech, (no magnification) I can get 1 moa groups pretty consistently. Very rare to exceed 2" at 100'. For a rest I simply rest the bottom of the pistol grip on a rear rifle bag. This is with XM193 and unmolested stock trigger.

I have a X-95 coming next week so I guess I'll see what all the hub bub is about. Hoping it's as blown out of proportion as the SAR trigger crisis that was also all about nothing.

I have been very impressed with the accuracy out of my Tavor. After I purchased it from the initial pre-order years ago, I slapped a Meprolight M21 sight, AAC SDN6 suppressor, and zeroed it at 50yds using SS109 62gr ammo. Here are photos from that:

Well done.

ETA: J_MONEY, are you using the OEM trigger? If so, do you plan on leaving it as is?

I was using the OEM trigger when these photos were taken. Since then, I've swapped it out with a Geissele hammer pack. The Geissele wasn't out back then or I would have been running it all along.

SS109/M855 is expected to be 4moa.  Try some match ammo and a magnified optic.  I have and MY tavor gets about .75-2" group given good ammo.  As good as an off the rack AR, nope.  But it's not designed for that.  I have the Geissele trigger and bow. The x95 has not held to that but I have no first hand experience.  

I will say that heavier rounds are more accurate with my gun.  

As much as I hate nutnfancys full feature stuff he did a review on the X95 and was having the same stringing and inconsistent accuracy ..... Video was uploaded 5 days ago

Cool. Yeah I haven't done anything to the trigger on mine yet. Actually kind of like it as is. Hasn't had any negative effects on my shooting so far.

My AUG prints almost exactly the same groups at 100Y with my 55gr junk load.  About 1.8" twice in a row.  

I'm wondering if it's the way the rails are attached to the guns rather than the barrels that seem to be causing the inconsistency.  If the scopes and red dots are mounted to a non-rail that moves from vibrations, loose bolts, or bad fit up, I could see that causing issues.

I'm sure the rifle is capable of tight groups with match ammo, but turning it into an SPR was never the intent. I have it set up for CQB and the only ammo it will ever eat is going to be ball. If I ever get bored maybe I'll slap a scope on it and try match ammo, but I have plenty of AR's set up for that exact purpose.

I was trying to show here how I rested the gun, and how I didn't really wait so many seconds between groups to be perfect as far as cooling the barrel the same each shot. This was only 25 yards, but it is with XM193 Fed 5.56NATO, and the center dot in the MTAC is huge, and pretty well covers the one inch square on the target. The first four went into the same hole just about, and the fifth shot I called high, you can see me waving my hand. The others, I really , really rushed them. I was starting to get a little dizzy , hadn't felt like eating yet and it was hot out. I changed my cheek position on the last five from the first five. The thing is, it's really easy to do on this gun. You have to get down a lot lower to get a correct sight picture without going with the higher aftermarket rail, which I will be doing. Again,. the center dot covers about an inch at 25 yards. I was zeroing it at 25 because with the height over bore on this thing, I've missed two coons and a fox at 15 yards when it was zeroed at 100, just can't get used to aiming with the bottom of the ring. Turn it 18.5 clicks and I'll be back at 100 yard zero for longer shots.


This video will play. These are from my security cams, which are perfectly clear, and are perfectly clear on playback here, but loaded to photobucket they get really grainy and glitchy.

[URL=http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy172/pavlovwolf/P012202-3_zps1g6hdabx.mp4]</a>

Can't get the things to play. I can do youtube but not the ones from photobucket.





You can see that the cheek position and eye placement moved the shots left, but they're still in a small group of their own. Had I not got hurried and changed up, they would likely have all been where the originals were. This is again, a 4x scope which is plenty at 25 yards, but the dot is 4moa. I believe 100% that with a 10X with a fine crosshair this gun and ammo, even with me shooting, would hold a group the same size as what it printed there, and if there was a crosshair in this scope, it would have shrank the group by at least half.

I did get that fox tonight btw. I have it on video, and I'll load it up and post it here if it looks decent. It was a solid hit, since I could actually hold the dot on him instead of trying to hold the bottom of the ring.

This is the reticle, and with a 100 yard zero the little hole in the bottom ring is where you have to aim inside of 25 yards. If you aim with the center dot, the bullet impact will be there at 15 yards, and at the dot above it at 25, which at 15 yards is larger than the palm of your hand. A nearly four inch height over bore is killer.

And thank you for hitting the nail on the head.  The AR is an enigma in that it's compact and can be a very accurate rifle.  CQB weapons like my lovely MP5 are not MOA guns.  My Tavor may be the high side of the curve and I dropped a scope on it.  My application is the same as yours, it's got cheap HD ammo and in my trunk.  I mount an aimpoint and it's an ND weapon.  Even at 4 MOA I am minute of bad guy at 200 yards.  

I actually love the ergonomics over the AR and the compactness.  I do believe the x95, for some reason, has an accuracy gap vs the tavor given user reports.  Why?  No idea, haven't fingered one myself.  But should there be a legitimate issue with the new design, they need to address is.  Again, I can't comment from first hand experience.  

I was ready to buy a Tavor X95 earlier last week until I read all the threads like these.  That's too much cash for something that shoots as bad or worse than an AK.  I'll just get another AK and better optics for less overall money if they don't improve the accuracy somehow.

But that would be a double-edged sword for IWI if they "fix" it.  Going forward, sales would improve.  But it would be at the cost of current owners sending them back in to get the "design problem" fixed on theirs.  So I think it's probably not going to be improved unless X95 sales are low enough for them to handle the "recalls" or unless they release an updated model and disassociate it with the current X95 somehow.

Just go Tavor, there really isn't enough difference between the two to matter. I've found the Tavor mag release faster, the charging handle difference is an improvement, but nothing you'd really benefit a lot from, and the slight difference in LOP only matters if you're really small, or are wearing full out battle gear. The trigger on my Tavor is actually pretty decent since I took the extra return spring out. The Tavor doesn't have the accuracy issues, and lots of guys are getting 1-2moa depending on load.

To the guy up top saying 4moa is a body shot at 200 yards, it's actually 500 yards give or take 50 yards either way. The average male torso is between 18-22" wide at the shoulder/ chest. So the average of that, 20" is 4moa.  At 500 yards, you take 4moa and multiply it times the distance , 5, and you get 20".  

For the Tavors shooting 2moa, you're talking about 10" at that distance.

Most Tavors I see shooting non surplus or hand loads are down about 1.25 moa, so with that , 500 yards would give you 6.25", so torso hits out to beyond the 5.56's performance window.

Agree. In spite of the whining about accuracy I went ahead and bought an X95 to go with my Tavor. Could not be happier so far. It performs at least as well as other bullpup rifles I have (Tavor, FS2000, AUG) in addition to AR and AK. Some people have implied their WASR is superior to the X95. Lol! Hilarious BS. I suspect they haven't touched the X95.Try shooting 20-30 rounds offhand at 100 yards side by side with each rifle. You will quickly understand where that extra money went.

 
Wow I wouldn't ever say a WASR or really any AK is better than the X-95 or Tavor, but I have to admit if I remember right my WASR did group better with cheap Tula than my X-95 does with pretty decent stuff!

my WASR would print better groups than my X95 also (from a rest) free hand the x95 was better. My AUG shoots better than either.

I am considering either the Tavor B18B (18 inch barrel) or the X-95 with the 16.5 inch barrel....

I like that the Tavor has the 18 inch barrel as 5.56 likes to lose velocity quick when fired out of shorter barrels (usually 20 inches or less), but I am not trying to make this a 600m 5.56 rifle, as its a "rack grade battle rifle" and would most likely not be pushed out past 300 meters at most.

That being said, given the ergonomics, price per value, relative accuracy, reliability (yes internally they are almost exactly the same, most of the major parts are interchangeable from what I have seen), and general opinions are what I am interested in at this point.


My options I am looking into are as follows.....

Tavor B18B

Rifle cost
Geissele Super Sabra Pack /w Lightning Bow Trigger (Gen 3)
Midwest MLOK Rail /w rails as needed
Vortex VMX-3T 3x Magnifier /w Vortex SPARC AR
Manticore Arms Gasketed Ejection Port Cover
Manticore Arms LUMA Selector
Manticore Arms Curved Buttpad

Expected Cost around $2400 USD (I work for a firearms distributor, I get nice things at discounted prices)


X-95B 16.5

Rifle Cost
Geissele Super Sabra Pack /w Lightning Bow Trigger (Gen 3)
Vortex VMX-3T 3x Magnifier /w Vortex SPARC AR
Manticore Arms Gasketed Ejection Port Cover
Manticore Arms LUMA Selector
Manticore Arms Curved Buttpad

Estimated Cost $2200 USD



I am just unsure of where to go from here, I am hoping for 2 MOA - 3 MOA at 100 meters with this setup, I have rifle experience through ROTC rifle team years ago, I qualified Expert Marksman in ROTC, was part of a state competing precision rifle team (practiced out of St. Petersburg Florida @ WAC range), so I know how to shoot, I am not the best but I am proficient enough to achieve good results. Am I looking for too much out of this rifle, which would be the better between the two in your respective opinions?

Thanks.

Spartan, it really comes down to preference.  Think long and hard about what you want out of the gun.  I was initially enamored with the 18" barrel idea.  But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized my personal draw to the bullpup was compactness.  Yours may be compactness with a long barrel, mine was how compact can I get without dropping below 16".  Modern ammo works very well with 16" barrel velocity, and I believe this is due to the popularity of that length and manufacturers engineering loads for it.  The top (IMHO) rounds like Federal 62 gr. fusion, in .223 pressure, actually works very well at considerably lower speeds.  So, the 16.5" was just the ticket for me and losing a mere 1.5" hardly effects speed anyway.  A 20" barrel, such as the AUG can use, is better if you want a long barrel, as 20" is what the 5.56 was designed for.  The X95 is the absolute minimum in barrel and OAL without being an SBR.  Couple that with the fact the X95 is generally more compact than the SAR, even with the short barrel, and that sealed the deal.  I also prefer the X95's handling, but again, this is a very personal and subjective thing.  I highly advise handling both.  The answer will likely come to you very quickly.

ETA: My X95 shoots about 2.25" from the bench with the above mentioned Federal load, but it shoots like a death ray off-hand.  FWIW.

Thanks for the input, I think if I want to shoot tight groups out of the X95 I would opt for a Sierra Tipped Match King around the 69 grain area, should provide good end speed out at 300m, and my friend has a professional grade reloading press at his house with all the dyes and primers for 5.56 and .300 Blackout, which I would also like to get the barrel for, and I know they are making one if they have not yet for the X-95. I wanted to ask you opinon on the X-95's mag release, I have heard its a bit stiff due to the bullpup nature compared to that of an AR-15, this again is the nature of the beast considering where the magazines are in relation to the release.

For the most part much of the ammo I will be running with likely be M193, and M855 for plinking like 99% of people use, Black Hills 69 Grain TMK loads for when I will not be able to reload or want to for sake of being lazy when I want to shoot for some distance. But for SHTF defense I am considering Hornady TAP 75 grain rounds, aside from the 55 grain M193 rounds which should not present an issue with a 1/7 twist, most of these rounds should stabilize well at 100-300 meters (the M193 would be used for 100m plinking, not much more, and there it should do perfectly fine), again hoping I will attain the 2-3 MOA accuracy that I am looking for in my SHTF defense rifle.

I think the rifling twist is overblown myself and wouldn't worry one bit between 55 and 77gr.  At least for general use.  In match shooting every tiny thing is evaluated for good reason.   Individual guns will have a preference and it seems luck of the draw.  Mine shoots fine with 62 gr. and that's what I was hoping for.
I like the mag release on the X95.  It's a little stiffer, but feels bigger than an AR's.  I haven't had a problem, but I also haven't run drills with my X95, like I have with ARs.  I believe that with stress, the mag release would be a non-issue, and when plinking it's certainly not a problem.  The SAR release seems like a great idea for those not totally accustomed to the AR release.  I shoot both, and need to maintain AR muscle memory, so prefer a similar set-up.

Thanks again for that, I think I might go with the X-95, I like the design a bit more, seems to give more function per cost, and I am quite sure with the Geissele trigger upgrades it would be a real pleasure to shoot, I have heard with a decent muzzle break on it that you actually have similar recoil to that of a .22 LR, is this true?

No regrets about buying my X95. I had an ejecting issue ( break in ), but that's the only hiccup I had. The rifle does what I need it to do.

Has anyone tested a newly manufactured X95 to see if the accuracy issues are still present?

Another question:

Do the Tavor SAR barrels fit the X95?

If so, if you take a known accurate SAR barrel and swap it to the X95, does the accuracy worsen?  If yes, then its something with the design of the rifle.  If no, then it's something to do with the barrels manufactured for the X95.

They won't without some work, due to the cocking ears on the Tavor's barrel. The x95 has a different charging handle location.