Well, I finally got out to the range to shoot the X95, and... it shot about everybody is saying it shoots: 4-5 MOA.

Just for fun, I also brought out my K&M M17S and shot it back to back with the X95.  So, without further ado, the contenders:

In this corner, weighing in at just a touch under 10 pounds, the new kid on the block, the Israeli Weapons Industries Tavor X95!




In the other corner, weighing in at a not exactly svelte 9.5 pounds, everybody's favorite underdog, the K&M Arms M17S!




The Ref for this fight will be the venerable parts bin special, Les Baer uppered AR




The not so pretty results:







The bullpups were shot off a rest (this one, to be specific), the Baer off the bench using its bipod.
The M17S had some help from one of the other people at the range, but in general held slightly tighter groups than the X95.  
The Baer shot... well, about what you would expect, despite being the last targets shot at the end of the day (when I was getting pretty tired).  
The Federal ammo targets for the bullpups are MIA, but were consistent with the other targets.

So, what's the take away?  Well, no new, radical info was discovered by me: the X95 looks like its a 4-5 MOA gun.  I suspect that with better magnification and some getting used to the trigger, I might be able to get the groups down to 3-4 MOA, but I don't see this thing shooting sub-MOA groups regardless of what ammo you feed it.  Speaking of the trigger, it's long, heavy and both the break and reset are vague, which doesn't help with getting the group size down.  Shooting the X95 back to back with the M17S really highlights what an amazing job Ken has been able to do with the trigger.

That's...just as terrible as the rest.

Glad I snagged a Tavor.

Yeah, big fan of the Tavor over the x95. IMO, the x95 wasn't needed. Tavor does the job better

Yeah, my happy face was very absent this weekend.

Everyone and their brother demanded the x95...and now everyone has seen that all that glitters isn't gold.

Thanks for the write up, pics and being another m17s owner chibajoe.
As was said, I'm damn glad I didn't drop a dime on the x95.

I would have thought the m17s would have done better but my experience with it on paper has been at 50 yds and steel at 200.

Ive read many accuracy reports over the past week and its amazing that most of them the guys are getting around 2moa but for some reason there are some getting 4-6 moa.

Experience tells me from accuracy reports of hundreds of other rifle that the difference is either the shooter or the rifle.. Id love to see some one who is getting 2moa get together with someone getting 4-6 moa and swap rifles for an accuracy report.

Im really interested to confirm that it is some of the rifles that are the problem and why.

I've put a lot of rounds through my BM m17S', and they are consistently 2-3 MOA guns with steel cased ammo.  This is the first time I've taken the K&M out to 100 yards, and the first time using this scope, so I'm reasonably certain I can get better accuracy out of it with a bit more trigger time.  The same can be said about the X95, once I get used to the scope and do something about the awful trigger.

Overall, the Tavor was shooting about 4.5 MOA, the M17S about 3.5 MOA, which isn't terrible.

Pretty much everybody is getting 3-5 MOA out of the X95, not 2 MOA.  I think you're mistaking it for the original Tavor.

I don't get it. Both of my Tavors hold 2 moa no problem, same as my AUG's.

The X95 is based on the original Tavor, right? What could have changed? That accuracy is worse than my AK's and FAL, by quite a bit.

From watching all the video of X95 testing, it looks like the X95 might be a 2 MOA rifle with heavy ammo.  The guys getting good accuracy with the gun were shooting 77gr and 79gr OTM; shoot 55gr or 62gr ball through it and the groups open up significantly.  If that's the case, then I would suspect the rifling on the barrel is too fast.  It might just be that this initial batch of guns got rifled on the tight end of 1:7, which would over stabilize the lighter bullets and cause the weird inconsistency that everyone is seeing.

in one of the tests i saw they used American Eagle 50gr tipped varmint rounds and those did very well.  



 

Im not mistaken and in a sense it depends on the data, but the 3 moa is a good line to split the camps ill give you that. In broader term it looks about 65% 3 moa or less and 35% 3 moa or more. Ive watching this pretty close because i think there is something going on and figure there is a problem with some of the rifles but the shooter can affect as well. Its closer to 50/50% if we split it at 2.5 and ive seen several owners post under 2 moa. Taking it all with a grain of salt and trust.

I know just from whats been posted by actual owners here and not heresay your the only one i can find getting 3 moa plus from the 4 threads ive read. I need to test mine as well but a quick out of the box 15 rnd group standing, iron sights, with 55 grn steel case wolf and i was in a 6 ring, thats irrelevant but it makes me think it would do significantly better vised or slower more concentrated course of fire.

I know mac and some firearmblog guys got around 3.5 i believe.

Heres some good data from a TFB TEST i believe i recorded correctly and shows the same rifle likes some ammo significantly better than others and that may be why we see so much variation in spreads, but one thing is for sure........most groups show horizontal variation and an average of 3.5 across all the ammo. Regardless this extensive test is just one rifle.
Some of the spread size changes  are due to different holds as well. Its a good thing in my opinion xm193 shoots well out of it.

There is definantly something to work out on these rifles and i believe MAC said taking the handgaurd/barrel bushing out helped the horizontal variation.

IMI M193.                  4.0"
IMI M855.                  4.7"
IMI RAZOR 69.         3.2"/4.6"
IMI RAZOR 77.         3.1"/3.1"

FED XM193.             2.5"/2.4"

WOLF POLY.             4.5"

REM UMC.                3.1"

FGMM 77.                 2.2"
FGMM 69.                 3.8"/2.1"/2.9"2.4"

HORNADY MATCH 75.     4.4"
HORNADY SUPERMATCH 77.        3.9"

NOSLER 77.              3.3"/2.4"/3.0"/3.5"

FIOCCHI 69.              5.7"/4.5"/2.8"/3.1"


Im not argueing but i think its better cutting through the talk and  focusing on what is likely a problem in some % of rifles (as usual). Also as usual IMI ammunition is a poor performer.

Interesting read and info. Subscribed to see where this is heading

It would be good to take a rifle shooting over 4 moa and at least use a better grouping ammo and replace the trigger with one better suited for precision work if thats what everyone is focusing on.

I know my AR's benefitted significantly from POF drop in 4.5 and 3.5 lb triggers and the x95 i have does have some creep and grit to it but its a military trigger.

2-3 MOA would make this an interesting rifle to me, more so if it was closer to the 2 side. But at 4-5 MOa this thing is a flop, OP you should maybe consider selling it while you can still get a good price for it. Its too bad, I was excited to see what these things would do. That M17s on the other hand is pretty darn cool, I hadn't seen that before.

Sorry, I should have clarified that 4-5 MOA seems typical for this gun with standard ball ammo; the gun clearly (apparently?) can do better with some ammo, but even in the tests where they are getting 2" groups, there is no consistency; they'll get a 2" group, then a 4" group, then another 2" group.  Also, I have yet to see anyone shoot a 10 round 2" group; no matter what ammo is used, the gun seems to like throwing flyers.  There is definitely something weird going on with the X95s, that's for sure.  I plan to revisit this after I order a larger variety of ammo and toss a bigger scope on the thing.

Eh, it's about as accurate as my Mini-14 after it gets hot.  I haven't sold the Mini-14, so I doubt I'll be selling the X95.

A heavy/gritty trigger won't prevent even a semi-decent shooter from getting a sub 2" group as long as the rifle isn't an inherently innacurate POS.

After getting 3 and 4 MOA groups with type of ammo imaginable . I straps mine down in a vice to see what the mechanical accuracy was. Still got 3-4moa. Oddly enough my best groups come from 55gr wolf gold 2.75" and my poorest group come from Fed xm855 5"

This is the usa the fed xm193 is the closest we have to standard ball ammo it it shot under 3moa with that. TFB's average was 3.5, only certain ammo types shot poorly and those were mostly heavier projo's.

Your plan of action is a good idea. I just think its overboard to make blanket statement that this rifle is 4-5 moa across the board when clearly its not. Data data data

I can somewhat agree, i dont know what qualifies a semi decent shooter for you but its rediculous to say that long pull and roughness doesnt affect the average shooter. Most people go completely past reset before pulling the trigger again, we have no idea the quality and experience of these shooters posting any of these results.

And with this result it tells me something maybe is up with some of the rifles and the way the barrel contacts other components. I think it should be better vised up unless your just a bench boss

Do the original tavors have the barrel bushings?

On the flip side im interested  in the ammo type accuracy across different rifles, im seeing some rifles shoot 1-2 moa larger groups with the same anmo compared to other shooters with same anmo and same rifles.

Its either the shooters or some of the rifles, im more swayed its some of the rifles. I think we should all see what our groups do with the front bushing out.

it was the 16" barrel AUG.  this was with Steyr made barrels though...i wonder if there are accuracy differences between the Sabre and FN made AUG barrels?



 

I tried everything to get better accuracy out of it. I really like everything else about it. As for the AUG I had a early sabre , they both shot about  the same cold but the sabre would open up more than the AUGs with the FN barrels. The FN barrels(16") tend to hold tight consistent groups as long and you heat them up too much. In my experience anyway.

Was there an accuracy test done with a sled for the Sar?

Funny you ask, i went and did some digging. TFB did a test on it and got 3 moa average so i went and read some various forums....mainly bullpupforum and most people were getting 2-3 moa with bery few saying they were getting 1.5 moa out of the SAR. Ive never owned or had trigger time on one personally.

They blamed the trigger on TFB, but as someone already stated they must be poor shooters because triggers dont affect semi decent shooter
Guess we can throw out thier x95 test now

I need to cut my yard tonight but i might skip out of work early and throw this guy in a vise real quick with a scope and see what it does, i did a rapid course of fire with it a couple days ago at 80 and was in a 6 ring with irons without even really focusing. Irrelevant to the issue at hand but i was happy with it.





There are also reports from all other bullpups shooting 3–4 moa and some shooting 1-1.5 moa

Here is MAC's video where is minorly references TFB's group results

https://youtu.be/c4Azu7WdqWo

I wonder what differences the are in these as well

I am assuming you are referring me me?  If so actually I was saying that changing out the trigger from a rather crappy 10lb trigger to a decent 5lb decent trigger isn't going to make a decent shooter's groups drop from 5" to 2" at 100yds as if by magic.  Plenty of decent shooters can get sub 2" 5-shot groups at 100yds with a mil-spec AR-15 trigger and even a little magnification (like an ACOG).  Putting in a Larue MBT may shrink the groups some but it isn't going to cause a rifle that is only capable of 3" groups to magically be capable of 1" or under groups.

All a better trigger does is allow the shooter to more easily achieve the accuracy potential of the rifle.  The same can be accomplished though by practice and/or discipline when shooting a rifle with a heavier/crappier trigger though.  I don't believe the trigger is the limiting factor for the X95 as MAC wasn't able to get that great of groups in his test either and I am pretty sure he is a decent shooter or else spending $7K+ on his DTA SRS-A1 was a pretty poor investment.

I've never got better than 3-5moa from my SAR or my X95, I get or got 1-2 moa from my all of my AUGs and my FS2k.  It's not the trigger. Maybe I just don't know how to shoot Israeli bullpups or maybe I just got unlucky with them but my experience is what it is.

So after blazing through cutting the grass and weed eating tonight i quickly set up, through a nikon prostaff on the x95, and shot 3 - 5 rnd strings prone on the porch out to an approximate 100yrd target.....give or take a yard.

Monarch steel case hollow point 55 grn 1.89"
Wolf steel case fmj 55 grn                       2.32"
PMC XTAC brass case 55grn                 4.34" ()
In that order no cool down except to change a mag. Temp around 80*F and humidity around 75%


Color me completely surprised that the cheapest ammo did the best. I am dumbfounded by the variance through all these different ammo types. I was entirely convinced beforehand the pmc would perform the best from previous experience with it.

I also didnt have and horizontal stringing but i did have vertical stringing with the PMC. The 4 rnds were under 2.25 inch by a hair but the fifth sent it way out, id like to call it a flier but it wasnt.

Im still pleased with a 26" rifle that performed as it did considering it wasnt purpose built for tight groups.

I seem to remember people talking about accuracy problems with the Tavor SAR's when they came out too.

Any rifle that can't stay under 3 MOA shooting 223/5.56 is hot garabage given the inherent accuracy of this round.  Geez, most AKs are around 4 MOA in 7.62x39.

After all these wonderful reports I am extremely glad I didn't buy one ASAP. Either they fix the issue or I will not buy this rifle.

how the heck is .223/5.56 inherently accurate compared to other rounds without taking into account ALL the other factors that affect accuracy? Like powder charge, case dimensions to chamber fit, bullet type-seating-crimp, grain weight of projectile, rifle action design and shooters hold, weather, need i go on?

Your biased blanket statement is ignorantly smothering

Its good to have as much info to make an informed decision for sure.

IWI i think ha the stance that this is a CQC rifle and accuracy is fine.......and to that id agree at this point. It would be nice if it shot all ammo sub 2moa but thats not what the rifle is about. Ive had stg58 fal's that shot 1 moa groups and then an l1a1 fal that would shoot 4 moa, same thing with mausers, and pretty much any other battle rifle. Some rifles just are more accurate it seems even within the same family or rifle type.

Its a great urban warfare rifle or pdw.

As with most rifles you feed it what it likes the best if you want tight groups

3MOA is fine for bullpups. I had an AUG that would hang around 2 to 3 moa depending on ammo....same for my present bullpup which is an RDB from KelTec.   Bullpups excel at what they are intended for....I can still pound torsos at 300 yards with either an AUG or the RDB....I'm sure the Tavor and the X95 will do.

I wouldnt buy a Tavor or an X95 myself...cost too much for what they are imo...But they arent bad guns