X-95 still having accuracy issues?

[Aries144]

Are you familiar with the amount of work that goes into making a match M-14 pattern rifle? A match barrel is only a start.

It's not about magical barrel harmonics, it's about consistency. A design that doesn't free float the barrel can have different external pressure put on it shot to shot.

Right. What are those changes making more consistent? Is it more about preventing the shooter's grip or sling tension from flexing the barrel? Or were these techniques born as a way to help prevent barrels from flexing when heated prior to the introduction of modern heat treat and stress relief methods? If a cut rifled or properly stress relieved button rifled match barrel were used, would all of that work accomplish anything other than help eliminate shooter-induced barrel flex?

[gunf1ghter]

How much superior? Why is there an improvement? Can you answer these questions?



The Army must have Switched to the ACU pattern because it was superior as well. I mean, well, before they decided that it wasn't and switched to Multicam (or at least a government ripoff of Multicam). That beat it. Back when the two were first tested. Before ACU was selected.

What are barrel harmonics? How do barrel harmonics affect shot dispersion?



I do?! I had no idea I thought that! I thought I was just irritated that technology and methods exist in the US to inexpensively mass produce barrels capable of consistently producing lightweight sub 2.5 MOA barrels that don't appreciably shift POI when heated by extended strings of fire, but IWI isn't using them! Thank you for tell me what I think.

You are making a mountain out of a 1 MOA difference on a weapon designed for CQB.

It's tiring and ridiculous.

I think you're in the minority "getting irritated" that it doesn't shoot more accurately. It does the job it is designed to do, that's why I and others bought it. If you bought it to shoot small groups in paper targets from a bench rest then boo hoo, buy something else.

[Aries144]

It's tiring and ridiculous.

Enjoy putting the square peg through that round hole.

[Charlie Don't Surf]

The simple matter is, IWI either doesn't know how to make better mass production barrels or doesn't care.

Barrel makers in the US have learned how to make cheap mass produced barrels that consistently shoot about 2 MOA.

From a civilian perspective, I think people making derpy statements about the group size of holes in people's chests don't get it. For infantry combat, I can imagine why individual accuracy would be much less important, but that's not my area.

The Galil Ace has been showing to be a 2moa rifle. Must be the bullpup messing with the barrel.

[gunf1ghter]

Enjoy putting the square peg through that round hole.

I'm not the one griping that something doesn't perform in a way it was never designed to perform.

X95 Pros;

1. Highly compact but not NFA regulated. With slim butt pad and pinned muzzle brake or flash hider is only 27.5" long total length.
2. Rear weight bullpup design results in easier one handed operation, faster to get on target in some situations, etc.
2. Piston driven system is very reliable, rarely needs cleaning.
3. 2-3 MOA accurate @ 100 yards with factory ammunition.
4. Can be converted to a variety of calibers including 9mm, 300BLK and soon 7.62x54 and 5.45x39.

X95 Cons;

1. Expensive.
2. Bullpup design... requires ambi conversion for lefties, etc.
3. "only" 2-3 MOA accurate @ 100 yards with factory ammunition. Under rapid sustained fire some copies have been observed to "string" shots as far as 6-9 MOA from point of aim.
4. Heavy.
5. Parts are proprietary/expensive.

[tvfreakarms]

I'm not the one griping that something doesn't perform in a way it was never designed to perform.

X95 Pros;

1. Highly compact but not NFA regulated. With slim butt pad and pinned muzzle brake or flash hider is only 27.5" long total length.
2. Rear weight bullpup design results in easier one handed operation, faster to get on target in some situations, etc.
2. Piston driven system is very reliable, rarely needs cleaning.
3. 2-3 MOA accurate @ 100 yards with factory ammunition.
4. Can be converted to a variety of calibers including 9mm, 300BLK and soon 7.62x54 and 5.45x39.

X95 Cons;

1. Expensive.
2. Bullpup design... requires ambi conversion for lefties, etc.
3. "only" 2-3 MOA accurate @ 100 yards with factory ammunition. Under rapid sustained fire some copies have been observed to "string" shots as far as 6-9 MOA from point of aim.
4. Heavy.
5. Parts are proprietary/expensive.

Most semi rifle under sustained rapid use will open up a lot.

That's a moot point. You think when a military guy is getting fired at and he or she is shooting backing are doing 4moa groups?
Military guidelines of grouping is what 2 to 4 if I'm not mistaken.

Basically a tavor is pretty much an exact copy of the military version with obviously some changes.

The MDR is not a battle rifle and is not made for the military.
They wanted their rifles to be bench, paper target. And it's nothing wrong with that.

I'm sure the tavor 7 will be an improvement for accuracy since people don't get what the tavor was meant to be for in the first place.

It seems the tavor 7 is going to be free floated barrel.
Depending on the success, who knows this could be future designs of the next tavors/x95.

If you get the aftermarket trigger and lighting bow, match trigger and do your part, it will be a 1moa rifle.

But I do agree the tavor is on the expensive side. But so will the 556 MDR.



Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

[Cane55]

I don't understand why the Tavor is still significantly more accurate than the X95 yet are both almost identical barrels. Must be a design change from the Tavor to the X95. Larry Vickers said the X95 was designed for a 13" barrel, not a 16" barrel. Yet the Tavor was designed around the 16" barrel. I'm sure IWI could fix this if they needed to.

[5.56 Bonded SP]

Honestly. My Colt 6920 isn't much more accurate than my X95 with m193 or any similar ammo.

My X95 shoots a solid 2Moa very consistently!!!!!!
It doesn't shoot Sub moa like my ARs. But 2" five shot groups are what I'm getting, and I consider that more than adequate for a combat rifle.
I have one of the Early X95s, and it has shot 1" five shot groups. But average is 2" when I do my part.

I consider it a 2moa gun, and am more than happy with 2moa. I don't buy M4s or bullpup to shoot from a bench, and for me personally it takes a lot of effort to try and shoot 1moa or under even with my rem700, especially with environmental conditions like wind which is very common where I live.

[tvfreakarms]

Honestly. My Colt 6920 isn't much more accurate than my X95 with m193 or any similar ammo.

My X95 shoots a solid 2Moa very consistently!!!!!!
It doesn't shoot Sub moa like my ARs. But 2" five shot groups are what I'm getting, and I consider that more than adequate for a combat rifle.
I have one of the Early X95s, and it has shot 1" five shot groups. But average is 2" when I do my part.

I consider it a 2moa gun, and am more than happy with 2moa. I don't buy M4s or bullpup to shoot from a bench, and for me personally it takes a lot of effort to try and shoot 1moa or under even with my rem700, especially with environmental conditions like wind which is very common where I live.

Is that with stock trigger?

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

[5.56 Bonded SP]

Is that with stock trigger?

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

Yep stock trigger.
Triggers don't make guns more mechanically accurate, lighter triggers just help some people shoot better.