Most reliable/easier maintenance ARX or Tavor/X95?

[Ron3]

Both have a good record. I had no functional problems with the Tavor I used to have.

ARX has adjustable gas and dual extractors and barrel even easier to remove.

Fair to say the ARX is going to be easier to maintain and more reliable?

I'm speaking to the commercial guns of course.

[ArmedNovelist]

I can't speak on the ARX except for the fact that I've never seen a 5.56mm model (and I work as an RSO). I have an older Tavor SAR. I have never had a reliability issue with the Tavor. I will admit, I would've liked to see an adjustable gas system on said piston rifle. That was a big detractor. I don't know that the ARX is more reliable though.

I'd suggest analyzing the why on that statement. Why the ARX? Under what conditions? What kind of failures are we talking about; operator error, ammunition or magazine failures?

I'd also note that I'd buy the X95 over the SAR, if I was starting out again.

[BBossman]

The difference in ergonomics and the manual of arms should be the deciding factor between those two

I have no experience or interest in bullpups so I won't comment on the Tavor, but I have owned an ARX for almost three years.

It has just over 4k through it with just a single shooter induced malfunction. All of the features work as designed and it will operate with little lubrication as outlined in the manual. After the intial cleaning and lubrication, I did not clean or lubricate the ARX for the first 1200 rounds with no degridation in performance, it was only guilt that caused me to clean it. Field stripping is far easier than most of the YT videos suggest, in fact most I've seen actually do it wrong, omitting a critical step before pulling the barrel. Cleaning was simple, pull the bolt carrier, wipe off the bolt, carrier and cam pin, apply a drop of oil to each extractor and the cam pin. Pull the barrel, drag a boresnake through it, reassemble... done. 1200 rounds didn't leave much to really clean.

As far as the "adjustable" gas... it only has two positions, "S" standard and "N" non-standard. The switch does not regulate gas in the gas block, but instead switches between the 2 gas ports in the barrel. I've never changed from "S", as I've never had a reason to.

The dual extractors may offer some benefit, but are primarily there as part of the switchable ejection feature, each alternately acting as the extractor or ejector depending on which direction you choose.

[WickedWillis]

I can't speak on the ARX, as I don't own one. Although I really like them from handling them at gun stores and shows. I do own a Tavor SAR, however. I have roughly 1100 rounds through mine, while only lightly cleaning and lubing it once. Only because I saw it was running pretty dry and I wasn't sure exactly how it was going to handle running dry. Disassembly is super easy due to the carrier system the Tavor uses.

The only issue I have had, is some light primer strikes on steel cased wolf 62gr. But from my understanding, wolf uses fairly stiff primers compared to some other manufacturers. It's been a solid gun for me so far.

Gas to the face is an issue with the Tavor though, as many others have mentioned. An adjustable gas block would have been super. I still haven't bought the seal plate for mine, but I need to. It obviously gets worse when you are doing rapid fire strings.

[RetroRevolver77]

Here is a simple dunk in the swamp test- between the Tavor, AR15, and AKM.

Tavor is from the beginning till 5:10, AR at 5:10, then AKM at 5:57.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE



7n6

[OIPactual]

I have a couple Beretta ARX100 rifles, and honestly, it's really hard for me to find something to complain about. I do not own a Tavor, however a good friend of mine has one that I shoot quite often. As far as long term durability, or reliability, it is my opinion you won't find much difference. These are both very high quality and extremely durable designs.

That being said, I prefer the ARX. It is much easier to learn coming from an AR15 background. The ability to shoot from your support side with the ARX is a huge bonus to me, and I really like how easy it is to field strip. I have about 2000 rounds through my latest one, and about 1700 of those have been suppressed. The rifle shoots great, has a quick and smooth recoil pulse, and is surprisingly accurate for a combat/defensive rifle. The other thing to consider is the price. Most stores will sell the ARX for less than 1500, and the Tavor is usually 1700, or more for the X95 in my area. For the price difference, there is no way I would go with the Tavor over the ARX.

I like the Tavor, and it beats the hell out of my FS2000, and AUG A3, but it's not enough of an advantage over the ARX, or even the AR15 to warrant buying that rifle over a DD or BCM.

Let us know what you decide on, if you do choose the ARX, do yourself a favor and buy the rail section from Beretta right away. Having a hand stop or small vfg greatly improved the ergos for me.

[Ron3]

Thanks.

Yes I am considering the ARX. Like was said, the role of the weapon is the first thing that should be considered since both check the box for quality and reliability.

IMO the IWI bullpups are better suited to doing things in a more urban setting. More of a sub-gun in a rifle caliber that can do some rifle work. Whereas the ARX is a full-time rifle. I'm aware they can be SBR'd easily but then there that 10-inch muzzle blast to deal with. Not putting a can on it because that introduces other issues.

Is that a fair assessment?

When I had my Tavor I recall not caring for how the chamber/locking area had limited access. Being able to just pull the barrel sounds wonderful.

Considering the price, I could buy an ARX 100 and 160 for the price of an X95.

[halmbarte]

I own both the ARX and Tavor and have shot both at our local shoot and move rifle match.

I'd give the Tavor points for a design that simpler than an AK. The basic strip of a Tavor leaves you with the recoiling parts and the rifle chassis and is enough for basic cleaning and lubrication. The basic strip on the ARX requires more time and leaves you with more pieces to keep track of.

The ARX keeps its recoiling parts cleaner as the stationary piston and moving cylinder keep powder fouling up front. The Tavor's long stroke gas piston does tend to dump fouling into the receiver. That said, neither rifle is nearly as bad as a standard AR for fouling or drying out lube with continued firing.

Both rifles are well designed and well made, and I'm still happy with both.

H

[ArmedNovelist]

Thanks.

Yes I am considering the ARX. Like was said, the role of the weapon is the first thing that should be considered since both check the box for quality and reliability.

IMO the IWI bullpups are better suited to doing things in a more urban setting. More of a sub-gun in a rifle caliber that can do some rifle work. Whereas the ARX is a full-time rifle. I'm aware they can be SBR'd easily but then there that 10-inch muzzle blast to deal with. Not putting a can on it because that introduces other issues.

Is that a fair assessment?

When I had my Tavor I recall not caring for how the chamber/locking area had limited access. Being able to just pull the barrel sounds wonderful.

Considering the price, I could buy an ARX 100 and 160 for the price of an X95.

I have suppressed my Tavor. Unfortunately, I don't find much use to do so. Swapped the AAC Blackout for a Troy Medieval. A bigger factor was that I didn't see a need to SBR a bullpup anyway. The SAR is as short as a Colt/DD MK18 clone build (10.5-inch) with the stock collapsed. The bullpup can do everything an SBR can do and then some (due to the 16-inch barrel) outside of urban scenarios. The X95 is more closely laid out to an AR by controls, which did make it easier to run by comparison to the SAR.

It's all about what you want first, because the reality is; you could always have both eventually. Haha

[Auto426]

Karl from InRangeTV posted a video today on cleaning the Tavor X95 that you may find interesting. To sum it up he was basically complaining that the bullpup design of the Tavor leaves areas inside of the gun that are not easily accessible unless the gun is completely detail stripped. He could not easily clean the area above the trigger and magazine releases by just field stripping the gun and that was a bit of a problem due to the mud test rendering one of the magazine releases inoperable. I have no experience with the Tavor, but that's something that I've never thought of.