Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2017, 03:45:29 PM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  IWI Tavor & X-95
| | |-+  Tavor X95 Accuracy review
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: Tavor X95 Accuracy review  (Read 16795 times)
Rick53
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,194


« Reply #60 on: April 14, 2017, 10:46:18 AM »

Bump
Do you really believe Some or Most can't really shoot?

After having working on a public firing range for 2 years. Yes absolutely.
LOL Totally agree: It's like Golf. Everyone hits a driver 300 yards. Then when you play a round they just have an off day;)
Logged
RadScorpius
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2017, 11:49:44 AM »

Bump
Do you really believe Some or Most can't really shoot?

After having working on a public firing range for 2 years. Yes absolutely.

After seeing someone shoot themselves, I second that.
Logged
Rastoff
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2017, 12:34:48 AM »

The comparison between the Tavor which has TWO basic variants (SAR & X95) and the AR platform are unrealistic beyond the fact that they both use the same magazines and ammo. The AR has been in use for over FIFTY years and has evolved and proliferated to where there is literally no realistic way to define the number of variants.
You're forgetting one thing, what makes the AR accurate has not changed since it was first accepted by the military. Sure, there are a lot of upgrades, but the basic barrel, upper, lower, BCG, are all the same and can easily be bought on the open market. They shot 1MOA back then and do the same now.

The Tavor simply isn't as good when it comes to accuracy. In my opinion, the Tavor has better ergonomics and is easier to maintain. I'll put up with a 2MOA accuracy if it works better in every other way.
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
Major54
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2017, 02:21:25 AM »

They can be bought now, yes but simply did not exist in the civilian world ten years in. And we'll have to simply agree to disagree. The USAF issue AR-15 didn't have the forward assist and with its original pencil barrel with its 1 in 12 twist rate was not anywhere close to an MOA rifle.

I didn't fire more than 2500-3000 rounds with multiple examples but never saw one that could stay anywhere close to MOA accuracy. Yes, if you were restricting yourself to three round groups at a snails pace, under two inches but their variant was also prone to stoppages due to the powder used in that era and the lack of a forward assist. Sorry but I experienced enough hours to know that era variant with M193 simply wasn't a 1 inch rifle.

My agency trained with their tactical teams extensively and were allowed use of their rifles in said training due to my agency's head living in the 1950's mentality and thinking a civilian tactical unit was well served with revolvers and shotguns. As one of our two "counter-snipers", I was stuck with an off the shelf Remington 700 BDL in .223!

At any rate, the layout may have been very similar to current but similar is not the same. My only point was that an evolved and purpose built AR today was decades in the making. I myself own sub-MOA AR's but still find the comparison of the AR evolved to a bullpup designed by a small military for its specific needs not relevant. I do agree that two inches with my X95 is amply adequate for the purposes it is employed.
Logged

“In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.” ― Robert Frost
RadScorpius
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2017, 04:02:57 AM »

Projectiles coming out of the 1 in 12 twist barrel were barely stabilized which contributed to the lesser accuracy.
Logged
Hivedr.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2017, 04:31:32 PM »

The comparison between the Tavor which has TWO basic variants (SAR & X95) and the AR platform are unrealistic beyond the fact that they both use the same magazines and ammo. The AR has been in use for over FIFTY years and has evolved and proliferated to where there is literally no realistic way to define the number of variants.
You're forgetting one thing, what makes the AR accurate has not changed since it was first accepted by the military. Sure, there are a lot of upgrades, but the basic barrel, upper, lower, BCG, are all the same and can easily be bought on the open market. They shot 1MOA back then and do the same now.

The Tavor simply isn't as good when it comes to accuracy. In my opinion, the Tavor has better ergonomics and is easier to maintain. I'll put up with a 2MOA accuracy if it works better in every other
way.

With regard to the original AR shooting 1 moa. I have been shooting AR for more than 35 years and bought my first Colt AR15 A2 gray "slab side"  back in the mid 80s (a gun I still have to this day, well all the parts for anyways). It and subsequent other Colts I bought back in the 80s and 90s have never shot 1 moa groups. At best even with after market triggers (of then and now) they have turned in 2.5"-3" groups with match ammo and topped with a quality optic. Once the uppers were changed out over the last decade or so with free floated barrels of more recent manufacture the story changed. Even my first Colt now
packs a new upper and trigger group, but it still does not turn in 1 moa groups as the upper to lower fit
 is not as tight as ones currently available. In fact all five of my 80-90 vintage Colt lowers are sloppy and loose by today's standards. This alone precludes them from achieving the magical 1 moa. Now my more current ARs from other manufactures with tight fitting upper to lowers and free floated barrels are easily 1 moa guns. Point to all this is the AR did not start out in it's first 25years of life as an off the shelf 1moa gun like many of today's AR offerings.  

1 moa on an old school (pre 2000) off the shelf Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS or Armilite (yes those were the big names back then and really the only game in town) AR15 20" or 16" with stock trigger is a guy telling a story. In my 35 years of experience with the rifle covering countless range sessions both professional and personal I never saw this "1 moa rifle" even once. Sure sometimes rounds would touch and make small groups but it could not be repeated over and over. If a rifle can not repeat a similar 1 moa group  over and over it can not be considered a 1 moa gun. If that were the case, both my X95s would be easy 1 moa rifles.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 08:11:26 PM by Hivedr. » Logged
Rastoff
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2017, 05:27:23 PM »

I didn't fire more than 2500-3000 rounds with multiple examples but never saw one that could stay anywhere close to MOA accuracy.
You obviously have more experience than I with the original. All the 20" M16 clones I've fired could shoot MOA if you did your part. But I don't have more than 500 rounds through what I've used. I also forgot about the 1:14 and 1:12 barrels. They weren't good at all unless compared to an AK.

You are also correct that the X95 is an infant in comparison. The double ejector bolt is a good example of how IWI is not sitting on their laurels. I expect it will continue to improve.
I do agree that two inches with my X95 is amply adequate for the purposes it is employed.
Indeed.
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
Major54
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2017, 06:08:39 PM »

At my age, it's not so much the quality of experiences but the sheer quantity as the younger guys are so glad to remind me. I also had access to the least used in combat USAF issue variant. They were sad. Their rifles were actually stamped AR-15 on the lower receivers.

A lot of the fouling was due to the nasty ammo propellant. After so many documented in combat stoppages that led to deaths and injuries with the initial flake powder (which literally clogged the gas tube), the first few waves of replacement was focused on the desired type (bead) to get it to our brave soldiers in Viet Nam.

The first few replacement propellants were so nasty that the USAF version without the forward assist would often choke in less than a hundred rounds especially when firing full auto. Back on thread topic, I am glad they worked it out and agree that today's AR can be had in true, consistent MOA for under a thousand bucks.

For my civilian LEO duties though, current X95's are very capable of two inches and under with our issue Federal bonded 62 grain soft points. The Speer Gold Dot 64 grain is also an excellent performer in most X95's. All it takes is patience and learning the handling differences and characteristics of the X95.
Logged

“In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.” ― Robert Frost
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!