This was far and away the most asked question last week.  "How does your X95 group?"  I answered that over the weekend.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the results from bulk ammo but with Federal Match gold, I can say it's a 2" gun at 100 yards.  I need to find more ammo it really likes.

Kinda bothersome, and I've been trying to decide between a Tavor and X95 before the election. I just bought my first AR15 the other day.

I'm glad I didn't have to rein in my desire to buy one.

Very informative vid.
Thanks.

God i hope they address this problem asap. I really want a x95

Conjecture as to why?

That is pretty bad for a 8 pound rifle and 16 inch barrel. 5moa with standard issue ammo shooting from a rest. I am extremely glad I did not buy this rifle and waited for the reviews.

My steyr shoots 2moa with wolf gold. Maybe 2.5 moa if I'm I'm not doing my part... And that's with the crappy Aug trigger.

I was also hyped up for this gun.

I can't justify $1800 for a "modern" gun that is only slightly more accurate with most match ammo than some of my AKs shooting Wolf.  Plus, my AKs actually weigh less than a Tavor/X95.

I'm sure it works great for the IDF.  But I'm not in the IDF and I have choices and the use of my own money to consider.  This gun is a pass for me, there are better ways to spend that kind of cash.

I'm kind of in the same boat with not buying this anymore. I saved my refund money specifically for an ODG X95 and with all of these reports I'm out unless they can improve the accuracy somehow.

Me too, I want one but the performance should be better for.

Thanks for the video and sharing your results - very much appreciated.


Unfortunately, it looks like this is a pass for me as well unless IWI can find a way to address this issue.

The whole "not intended to be a precision rifle" argument is bunk  - there is no excuse for that kind of performance from a rifle at this price point, regardless of intended purpose. 4-5MOA may be fine for clearing an apartment building in Gaza, but why settle for that? For a current production rifle using modern design and construction techniques, how is it possible to end up with that level of accuracy? Even off the shelf parts can do better.

I've got a few budget frankenguns that come in under half the cost of the X95 and have no problem holding 2-3MOA, even with cheap or surplus ammo. Personally, I can't justify dumping $1800 into a rifle that requires match-grade ammunition just to bring it up to the level of less expensive guns shooting surplus ball. It wasn't designed as a precision target rifle, so why does it need match grade ammo to reach a reasonable level of performance?

Even for a run and gun "fun" rifle, I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask for 2-3MOA performance with plain-Jane ball ammo.

I wanted one of these in ODG so badly I could taste it. Now I'm glad that I haven't received the "back in stock" call. I'm really hoping that these are just early production issues and they get sorted out sooner rather than later. I still want one, but not unless I start seeing some better results from folks with first-hand experience.

Disappointing, but it looks like I'm going to have to go AUG for now.

Also very disappointed in the accuracy results for the X95. Maybe IWI will fix the problems but as of now I'm not holding my breath.

Double tap

In my limited testing,mine shot fine with 62 grain SP ammo (2-2.5").  With a large reticle CQB sight as well.  Other have reported similar groups with 55 gr. Ball. I can't say what's going on. My bench technique was not as stable I would normally have an AR, but the X95 shot about as well. I'm puzzled by everything and hate to see folks get turned off. I'm very happy with mine so far.

When I run good ammo and a NF optic with my tavor I get about MOA given the awkward bag setup.  I have the Geissele trigger.  I run an aimpoint given it's role. But I agree that if 4-5moa is the x95 design, I can get a century ak for 1/4 the price and have the same result.  IWI needs to address this.  As a lefty the x95 appeals but my wallet is in purgatory unless there is an update.

I agree with robotizing
My Steyr Aug A 3 with a 16 inch 1 in 9 twist barrel will shoot Wolf Gold 55 grain into a 2 inch, five shot group using a red dot at 100 yards
Why does a poster say he wants a Tavor because he is a lefty? I have shot them and although a lefty can shoot a righty Tavor, it is very distracting to have the brass fly an inch from your face.
If you set it up for a left ejection, now righties have a problem shooting your gun.
I have my Aug set up for left ejection, and my son can switch it to right ejection (using his bolt)  in less than one minute

Again, I can't say what's happening, but it seems quite a few of us are reporting 2.5" or less groups with a range of ammo from our X95's.  They seem to be in line with AUG's and M4's.  Maybe we need to compile a list of what we're shooting.  I got slightly less than 2.5" at 100 yards with Federal 62.gr SP ammo.  I believe it's XM223SP1.  It's .223 Rem. pressure and a bonded bullet.  That's all I shot and I didn't have any real pressure on the hand guard, just my hand on the FVG and my wrist on the bag.  The bulk of the support was just the pistol grip resting on the bag.  Since much of the balance is there, it's works very well.  I wonder if the guys trying to bench the rifle in standard fashion with the butt and the front on bags/bipods are experiencing pressure issues, as MAC suspected in his vid.  Tavor shooters seem to really like the grip bipod thingies, and that supports the balance part of the rifle (about what I was doing with a bag).  that could also explain why the Tavor/X95 seems to excel off-hand.

I also shot off-hand, one-handed (against my shoulder) and had no problem hitting a 100 yard torso target.  That was cool!

Sorry but various reports by reliable sources say otherwise...2.5 moa is not what most people have reported so far.

You're correct, that's why I say I can't understand what's happening exactly.  Some people are beginning to do more "real world" testing in off-hand, prone, etc. positions.  That interests me more and I'm curious to see what we learn as more of this sort of info comes out.  Mine shot well, so have several others.  that being said, several respected people have gotten not so stellar results, and that's troubling.  I liked my technique of resting the pistol grip on the bag, as I'm suspicious about what effect bipods and sand bags have on the hand guard.

To clarify, I'm not questioning anyone's results, just stating that several have posted here and on other forums about their X95's shooting less than 3" @100.  I want to know what's going on as well.  Ultimately, I very pleased with mine, BUT I want IWI to take a serious look at this "issue".

I have found resting the pistol grip on a sandbag and not on the front end of my AUGs (pistol grip folded, or resting the barrel on a bag) has produced consistent groups of 2" sometimes a little less (@100 yds.). There was a definite POA/POI shift differential when rested on the barrel or on the folded grip. I hope that is the same issue with the X95, a new one is sitting in my basement just waiting to be wrung out.

I shot a friends before I knew about this thread and wasn't impressed with the accuracy, I held the handguard close to the muzzle while shooting.  I was reluctant to buy one but I did and shot mine resting the pistol grip on the bench with 55 gr XM 193 and the back up irons . I was surprised at a 50 yard sighting in it was  as accurate as my 6920 and I wish I  remembered what ammo we used with the first rifle so I either got a bad 6920 or a good X95. I'am not the best shot but as long as I can hit a torso sized target at distance I'am happy and yes my range is 200 yards.  These are not bolt guns, they are combat rifles.

Thanks for this post. Have you by chance checked out the top rail? Are the screws nice and tight? I see some people getting erratic groups, and others seem to get more consistent 2 MOA groups. Makes me wonder if the top rail isn't tightened correctly from the factory...

I shot my x95 everyway possible and never got better than 3" that said I never noticed any POI shift in any of the 4 AUGs I've owned when moving off the VFG or removing the bbl for that matter.

This.

Can't bring myself to buy a gun that groups that way. My AK does better.

Unacceptable.

Here's my 100 yard group with my X95 resting the grip on a bag and holding the FVG and resting my wrist on the same bag.  I used a 1.5 ACOG with what must be a 4 MOA dot reticle (it covered at least 4 1" target squares at 100).  Factory trigger and it was my first range session with any IWI product and really the first time I spent much trigger time on a bull pup.  A hair less than 2.5" with Federal 62 gr. SP ammo.


Shooting off-hand at a vital/torso without arms sized plate at 100 yards was very easy, including one-handed using my shoulder.  Even fast 100 yard double taps was easy.  I have no issues with my X95's accuracy and the handling rocks.

I'm really starting to wonder if this accuracy "issue" as not being an x95 parts/quality problem but more of an improper assembly issue.  Remember, the Tavor originally had an ITL/MARS sight fixed to barrel and bore sighted to avoid these problems. Normally, the optic stayed mounted with the barrel for that reason. As an aircraft mechanic I've seen something thought so minor as torquing, when improperly done like over/under, something binding, or out of sequence torqing cause a whole lot of problems. Looking at the assembly parts schematic there are about 5-6 "items" from the barrel mounting, handguard fitting, or the top rail, that if any one of those or multiple items are not done properly, not fitting, incorrect torquing, etc., "stacking", domino effect, could definitely cause these problems.

I agree this should not be happening but if it were me, I'd start with the following and eliminate some items. I'd remove the top rail, handguard, rail mounts on the barrel, and barrel. I'd check, remount and torque the rail grabbers to the barrel. The top rail is mounted to those so if they are loose, the rail will be loose. I'd probably mount the rail and my optic and laser boresight them on a bench just to have something to start from, then remove the optic rail. Then I'd check the barrel fit and remount making sure it's locked in properly. Then I'd look at whether the handguard is seated properly before securing it. Same goes for the top rail. The original Tavor and x95's in IDF service did not rest on top or fit into the receivers and act as a "close out" they just rails were mounted to the barrels and the top of the receivers were wide open. I'm wondering if they are tight in the receivers and when you screw the rail down since it's attached directly to the barrel it's acting like a prybar causing barrel movement. I'm not overly concerned with that Teflon ring on the barrel. Again, over the years, as an aircraft mechanic, I've seen things that were "put together" and appeared to fit along with improper fitting or torquing cause a whole lot of problems that were not apparent till they move around a bit and heat up. I'm not ex-military, just an avid collector and average shooter and my x95 is pulling 2" groups on a bench with an ITL/MARS sight with 350 rounds of various PMC 55gr, IMI m193, and Igman m193 ammo. Just my 2 cents.

Great point and thanks for the reminder. That is what I am going to do with mine. I had a related issue a few years ago with a used Scar (inconsistent groupings)-found that the barrel was not torqued properly.

Has anyone heard anything from IWI on this issue?