Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 25, 2020, 01:41:44 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . Desert Tech . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  IWI TAVOR
| | |-+  IWI Tavor SAR & X-95
| | | |-+  X95 not accurate? Bah
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: X95 not accurate? Bah  (Read 751 times)
Rastoff
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« on: February 09, 2020, 03:22:33 PM »

Yes, it's a battle rifle and not a precision rifle. Yes, 2.5MOA is plenty good enough for that purpose. That doesn't mean it can't be better.

I have been using the cheapest ammo I can find for a long time now. Mostly I use Wolf Gold 55gr rounds. With them I'm able to achieve 2.5MOA easily. Usually my groups are under that, but it is an honest representation of what the gun can do when I do my part.

However, everyone tells me that heavier bullets work better in 1:7 twist barrels, which the X95 is. So, I broke down and bought some better ammo.

Today I went to the range with Hornady Black cartridges with 75gr bullets (BTHP). I have an 18.5" barrel with 1:7 twist. I was using a Trijicon TA33R-8 ACOG. Here are two groups:

First one-


Second one after a slight adjustment to the right-


I could probably bring the scope down another click, but this is pretty good.
Distance is 100 yards. It was a toasty 35įF and calm wind <1mph.

As you can see from the pictures, I didn't have a really good point to focus on. I was aiming at the bottom of a circle. So, some of this could just be variation in my hold point, but with these groups I can say I was being fairly consistent.

Yes, I know these are just 3 shot groups and the precision guys will all say that this is not valid group. Well, I don't care. I was zeroing the scope and I achieved that. A .8MOA group followed by a 1MOA group demonstrates repeatability.

No, I'm not trying to say that I've turned my X95 into a precision rifle. My point with all this is that you can get reasonable precision from this gun. I can confidently say that this rifle will shoot 1.5MOA with decent ammo. I have some more ammo. If I get time, I will repeat this test with a better target which should give me a more consistent hold point.

Just for the record, I followed these two groups with a group at 300 yards that was about 4", but I forgot to get a picture. Sad
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
Tvfreakarms
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2020, 03:48:25 PM »

I wonder what's more accurate,  the sar or the x95

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Logged
rjhyland
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2020, 05:13:51 PM »

Nice shooting. Tavors like the heavies.
Logged
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,772


« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2020, 08:10:51 PM »

I wonder what's more accurate,  the sar or the x95

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk



The shooter Wink in my experience the SAR holds accuracy longer than the X95...do a 5-shot group with a X95 and it starts to open up...where as the SAR holds it.

But this post proves that in the right hands...a Tavor can do its thing as good as all...

Logged
badbobdcop
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2020, 01:12:54 PM »

The X95 is not a range gun.  I hate range guns.  I own and have built several.  My most practical range gun is the Desert Tech SRS.  Itís 46 oz Vortex Razor 4.5 to 27 scope is better than your ACOG.  On a good day I can have fun shooting clay pigeons at 1000 yards, or at least putting a scare into them. Recently, I was helping a friend with a pest control problem on his ranch.  A morning of walking through the brush, hills, creeks, and other obstacles relegated the highly accurate rifle to the truck.  The X95 and the Tavor 7 took its place.

There is a lot more to an effective firearm than accuracy.  For me the best I can get out of my X95 is about 1.5 moa. But I donít use a lot of range stuff.  No bipod, (gets caught in the brush), no bags (not going to carry them around in the field).  Use a 20 round mag, put the cutlass grip right on the ground, hold the forearm, steady the sight, work the trigger.

The X95 is fast.  If you used to shoot plates with an AR-15 you will swing the X95 so fast you will over run them. 
The X95 is reliable.  I have never had a stoppage in the X95, or the SAR, that I could trace to the weapon. 
The X95 is lethal.  It can produce a fight stopping blow with one round at range.  The IDF did a ballistics comparison using ordnance gel at 200 meters.  The X95 with a 77 grain round produced a wound channel that matched a 7.62 FMJ at the same range.  You can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 rounds.
I will always be seeking to improve the accuracy of my X95 but for now, for me there is nothing better. 
Logged
cciman
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2020, 04:25:16 PM »

Shows what is possible to be done.  Now try that after doing 20 jumping jacks.

"Accuracy" is a scientific topic that few people approach scientifically on gun boards.

Very frustrating to see these threads: So many variables that are not controlled whenever "accuracy" is discussed.

The biggest variable is the person operating the weapon, ie. the shooter.    Even with the same gun, under the same conditions with the same ammo, same optics, and same zero, another shooter may not get similar results and claim just the opposite-- that the x95 is only a combat accurate weapon.
Logged
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,772


« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2020, 05:29:22 PM »

Shows what is possible to be done.  Now try that after doing 20 jumping jacks.

"Accuracy" is a scientific topic that few people approach scientifically on gun boards.

Very frustrating to see these threads: So many variables that are not controlled whenever "accuracy" is discussed.

The biggest variable is the person operating the weapon, ie. the shooter.    Even with the same gun, under the same conditions with the same ammo, same optics, and same zero, another shooter may not get similar results and claim just the opposite-- that the x95 is only a combat accurate weapon.


Most people that complain about accuracy of a rifle have never stepped foot into a carbine class...they are very good at being range tacticool pajama ninjas though...because every .25 MOA counts...

The best part are people that complain about their handguns not shooting accurately at 7 yards and blame it on their sights...
Logged
Rastoff
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2020, 01:47:42 AM »

There is a lot more to an effective firearm than accuracy.  For me the best I can get out of my X95 is about 1.5 moa. But I donít use a lot of range stuff.  No bipod, (gets caught in the brush), no bags (not going to carry them around in the field).  Use a 20 round mag, put the cutlass grip right on the ground, hold the forearm, steady the sight, work the trigger.
Indeed, I completely agree with this statement.

However, accuracy is still part of the equation.
Logged

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

Posts: 263



« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2020, 06:16:36 PM »


Most people that complain about accuracy of a rifle have never stepped foot into a carbine class...they are very good at being range tacticool pajama ninjas though...because every .25 MOA counts...

The best part are people that complain about their handguns not shooting accurately at 7 yards and blame it on their sights...

More often than not, they blame it on the whole gun:  too loose, awful trigger, poor/canted sights, design or manufacturing defect.  Then complain about s***ty serviceafter the manufacturer returns it as "within spec" whatever that is.

To be fair, to actually test accuracy, you do have to have a logical, rigorous approach and some careful mythbuster style hardware setups - ie Ransom rest or sled to isolate out the human factor, and a way to measure the consistency of the ammo.  That determines the ability of the gun.  Reliable testing requires good samples (higher numbers).

Bowling a 300 game, or getting  a hole in one golf, does not mean you are a good bowler or golfer, nor that the bowling ball or club is any good.  3 rounds is not a good strong sample.  If you shoot 50-1000 rounds and create a ragged hole that is only 1.5" in diameter, then we can be more confident in the statistical analysis.

After that, it is the consistency of the Rob Leathams or Brian Zins that can take advantage of the guns accuracy at that point...even if the gun can can make ragged 1.5" holes ate 100 yards, easy to bet real money that a regular human cannot without shooting supported, and cheats like benchrest or optics, other enhancements.  So at that point what is the mootness of the "accuracy"?
Logged
Rastoff
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2020, 04:42:34 AM »

Bowling a 300 game, or getting  a hole in one golf, does not mean you are a good bowler or golfer, nor that the bowling ball or club is any good.  3 rounds is not a good strong sample.  If you shoot 50-1000 rounds and create a ragged hole that is only 1.5" in diameter, then we can be more confident in the statistical analysis.
You're correct that three shots is not a "strong" sample. To use proper statistical terms (if you're going to bring up statistical analysis) then you would say, "...the population is too small to determine a statistical significance" and you'd be correct.

It is generally accepted that 30 is a large enough population to derive a statistical significance. In this case we have to ask if it's 30 shots or 30 groups that we would need? The answer falls into two categories (as you've correctly stated already) the gun and the shooter. Another way to say it is the part and the system.

If we want to know how good the gun is, we have to isolate it to as few variables as possible. Yes, we'd have to lock it in a sled or rest or some device to hold it still while being shot. Also, we'd have to have a really good sighting system to ensure we used the same POA every time. What I did here was more of a system test; shooter and gun. Let's face it, while the ACOG is tops in its field, it's not the correct tool to really be precise. Neither is resting the gun on a bipod without any rear support, the most stable platform. But, we have to run with what we got.

Do I need 1,000 shots to get a realistic view of what the gun is capable of? No, I don't think so, but we do need more than three. Two, repeatable groups is a good beginning.

After that, it is the consistency of the Rob Leathams or Brian Zins that can take advantage of the guns accuracy at that point...even if the gun can can make ragged 1.5" holes ate 100 yards, easy to bet real money that a regular human cannot without shooting supported, and cheats like benchrest or optics, other enhancements.  So at that point what is the mootness of the "accuracy"?
Adding the human back into the equation is now more of a system test. What is the system capable of as a whole? When I started this thread I was looking at just the gun. I wasn't trying to get a definitive answer, but I was trying to determine if a heavier bullet helped; it did.

To really test the system though, we need to add a few features to the test. For a gun like this, it needs to be tested while in conditions similar to what it would be used under. Like adding time pressure and removing the supports. I don't think using bench rests or optics are "cheating", but they aren't representative of how it was designed to be used. So, I have this little test:


This is a target I made with 3", 4" and 5" circles. The 4" circle was used while standing at 35 yards and prone (unsupported, no part of the gun can touch the ground) at 100 yards. The 3" circle was used at 75 yards, prone and the 5" circle was used at 50 yards, standing. I used a timer, you can see the times.  Yes, the times are too long, but I made this to practice for a different test. The red circle represents the two shots taken at 35 yards. Shots were taken one at a time.

This is a better test of the "system" because it doesn't just include the human element, but it adds some pressure and instability.



In the end this is all just a hobby. I make no claims on being an expert on this. It's just another data point you can file away or toss out. I just like sharing what I'm learning about this really wonderful gun.
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,772


« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2020, 09:12:39 AM »

One time I was at the range and a guy was bragging how good he shot his handgun...I kindly asked him was that standing, kneeling, walking or how was it shot. Mind you he wasn't bragging about the handgun shooting well but him.

He replied..in a sled... Roll Eyes

I then kindly challenged him, do you think you can do this while slowly walking towards your target...of course with his manliness he replied...yeah...he couldn't hit the target until he was about 5 yards away...mind you we were only at the 25 yard handgun range...I simply recommended him to take a class and learn his gun...he packed up and left...

Unfortunately many are just like him ... they are range warriors that have never ever taken a class to help with their system of choice. But they sure do look tough with their Affliction shirts, chest rigs and all the Chris Costa moves at the range...oh and dont forget the skinny jeans.
Logged
Tvfreakarms
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2020, 05:38:37 PM »

Battle rifle doesnt mean it is 10moa or its "good enough".
Yes some folks are way too picky.

If it's 1 to 2moa, that's should be good for what the rifle is.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Logged
Rastoff
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2020, 10:30:35 PM »

Unfortunately many are just like him ... they are range warriors that have never ever taken a class to help with their system of choice. But they sure do look tough with their Affliction shirts, chest rigs and all the Chris Costa moves at the range...oh and dont forget the skinny jeans.
Wait, did you just call me a poser?  Shocked
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,772


« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2020, 10:30:09 AM »

What...no...re-read my post...I was referring to the interaction I had with a person at the range...
Logged
Rastoff
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2020, 06:12:07 PM »

What...no...re-read my post...I was referring to the interaction I had with a person at the range...
That's what I thought. I'm just having some fun with you.
Logged

Remember, you can post here because they died over there.
Freedom isn't free.
Pages: [1] 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!