Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
6/25/2018 7:04:05 PM
Posted: 6/30/2018 1:41:29 PM EDT
I seen people say that the newer X95 took care of the issue with the poor accuracy. But does any one know what caused the issue in the first place, and can a first gen x95 be fixed?
Link Posted: 6/30/2018 7:22:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2018 7:27:04 PM EDT by VASCAR2]
I don't think IWI acknowledged there was an accuracy problem with the X95. There is speculation IWI changed the crown or tightened specs on barrels. The barrel is not free floated and being a long stroke gas piston with lighter weight profile barrel is not conducive to top accuracy.

I look at the Tavor SAR & X95 as a cross between AK reliability and combat accuracy with cartridge/ballistics and mags of an AR-15 in a very compact package. My Tavor is easily a 2-2.5 MOA gun with 55 grain M-193. I have no trouble hitting man sized silhouettes at 100 yards off hand. The Tavor is best in CQB and is not a very good gun for shooting groups off the bench. My SAR is more accurate with 55 grain M-193 than M-855 and shoots 69 grain SMK better than 75-77 grain match bullets even though it is 1:7 twist.

The only malfunction I’ve encountered with my Tavor was when I was shooting off the bench with a Caldwell brass catcher. The brass catcher prevented a spent brass from being ejected. Only mod to my SAR was a Geissele Super Sabra, flash light with tape switch, sling and EO Tech.

I put a 2.5-10 scope on my SAR and shot numerous prairie dogs in Wy at various distances with the original trigger pack. I hit way more pd’s than I missed but I was using 69 grain SMK which are the most accurate bullet I’ve shot in my SAR.

I figure most Tavor X95 are between 1.5-3 MOA depending on ammo. If that isn’t good enough accuracy to meet your criteria I would suggest a different firearm.
Link Posted: 6/30/2018 11:18:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2018 11:25:32 PM EDT by Kwisak]
I don’t know that they necessarily have an issue. Most manufacturers would say that’s combat accuracy and it’s good to go. They aren’t sold as a precision rifle after all. Very few designs get under that 1 moa early in their life cycle. While it is all over the place from reports and you have to take that with a grain and all but some are saying under 2 moa repeatable, which to me is acceptable. That said the guy who goes and buys reman for 22c a round and expects 1 moa because a guy did it with match is ridiculous. About a month back a guy was pissed his new bolt action( I think it was the ruger) wasn’t hitting under 2 moa. Was using shit ammo and yanking the crap out of his trigger.
Link Posted: 7/1/2018 5:06:57 PM EDT
Thats all good, if I was able to get 2-3 moa, but 4-5 sucks. I have used 62 grain 69 and 77 grain.
Link Posted: 7/1/2018 6:44:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kwisak:
I don't know that they necessarily have an issue. Most manufacturers would say that's combat accuracy and it's good to go. They aren't sold as a precision rifle after all. Very few designs get under that 1 moa early in their life cycle. While it is all over the place from reports and you have to take that with a grain and all but some are saying under 2 moa repeatable, which to me is acceptable. That said the guy who goes and buys reman for 22c a round and expects 1 moa because a guy did it with match is ridiculous. About a month back a guy was pissed his new bolt action( I think it was the ruger) wasn't hitting under 2 moa. Was using shit ammo and yanking the crap out of his trigger.
View Quote
I think what made the issue stand out more was that it was shooting worse than the Tavor
Link Posted: 7/2/2018 3:08:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mcantu:

I think what made the issue stand out more was that it was shooting worse than the Tavor
View Quote
I think that was subjective. I saw a lot of tavor’s getting the same as x95’s. I really don’t think there was a big MOA change if any at all. I do think you can get a Tavor/x95 that will do 1.5 moa and get one from the same shop that will do 3.
Link Posted: 7/2/2018 5:09:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ceanes:
Thats all good, if I was able to get 2-3 moa, but 4-5 sucks. I have used 62 grain 69 and 77 grain.
View Quote
What series of serial number do you have? I remember reading there were 2 different prefixes.

I tested with mine quite a bit and noticed a poi change on how i pulled on the rifle. I used a lead sled and sand bags and after i found where the mag release was rubbing the barrel in one spot, it seemed to settle at about 2moa. I think it needed an adjustable gas system and a stiffer stock and it would have been alot better accuracy wise. But im just guessing.
Link Posted: 7/3/2018 8:42:27 AM EDT
It's SS#T0046XXX , in ODG
Link Posted: 7/4/2018 12:36:08 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ceanes:
It's SS#T0046XXX , in ODG
View Quote
Gotcha, mine is fde and s# t9005xxx. But not the newest gen with the dual ejectors. I remember reading about the Guns with just numbers, then the T00xxx..and T900xxx... and from what was said there is no order of which is older or newer. But the dual ejectors is definitely newer. At some point guys said they noticed the crown was recut on there rifles. It seems as tho iwi just doesnt care to keep a running serial number.
Link Posted: 7/4/2018 8:48:01 AM EDT
Thank you, for the information. Y'all have a happy and safe 4th of July.
Link Posted: 7/5/2018 7:46:55 PM EDT
FYI, back in October 2016, I emailed IWI about the serial number flavors trying to find the birthday of my X95. This is part of a conversation I had with a customer rep:

-------------------

Again, we're only the guys that import and assemble these weapons. We have no say in serial assignments. When I was working with our gunsmith, he was explaining the "different flavors" you guys caught on, and there's no significant rhyme or reason for one, or the other, or the other. The T9xxxxxx serials came and went, and the T0xxxxxx guns are being built currently. As far as what they designate: Maybe a higher-up in Israel understands the differences. Or maybe they had three different guys in charge at three different times.

I like cars and I like guns, and in both of these industries you'll find idiosyncrasies that are insignificant to designers, but that drive faithful masses crazy (read: Ford Motor Company). I think it's safe to say that this is the case with the Tavor serialization system. I hope this helps out with your guys' consternation, even though I'm sure it won't. Have a good day, and keep shooting!

Sincerely,

Colin Martin
Customer Service
Link Posted: Yesterday 8:54:36 PM EDT
I had an X95 for a while. It was one of the newer ones with the dual ejectors.

It's not that the gun itself was inaccurate. The gun was about 2-2.5 MOA. The issue is due to the design of the gun, it was harder to achieve this accuracy than compared to shooting an AR platform. It took more effort for me than it did to achieve the same results from a gun like a Colt 6920. Shooting the X95 from a bench takes a slightly different approach to bench resting the gun than whit an AR.

The X95 also has a higher sight to bore axis which means I had to learn new holdovers from what I'm used to using with my AR's.

If I was only looking for a gun for home defense and had limited experience with AR platform rifles, I'd have kept my X95. But I want to be able to use my guns out to about 200-300 yards. I could do that with my X95. But it took more effort than it did with one of my AR's. I could learn the new holdovers associated with the X95, but I have 35 years experience with the AR platform. So in the end, I ended up selling off the X95. But I didn't sell the gun off due to it being inaccurate.
Top Top