Armory Sponsor
You Must Be Logged In To Vote
Posted: 5/5/2026 8:39:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Odinforever2000][Edited]
|
I kept hearing “bullpups aren’t accurate,” so I tracked my own results across multiple platforms. Thought this might be useful for anyone considering one.  METHODS (SUMMARY) - All groups fired from a stable bench setup using front and rear bags (no lead sleds or mechanical rests) - Same general shooting position and support method used across all rifles for consistency - 10-shot groups used - MOA calculated from measured group sizes at the target - Suppressed and unsuppressed data included where applicable - Optics zero verified prior to testing when changes were made - All recorded results included (no selective omission of poor groups) Ammo vs Rifle Accuracy (MOA) *Table is not formatted for mobile viewing.* Ammo Type RDB(1:9) MDRX(1:8W) K&M(1:8W) WLVRN(1:7) VHS-2(1:7) Tavor (1:7) SIG(1:7) StagAR (1:9)* AUG(16"1:9)* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 40gr VMAX 1.48 2.96 - 1.36 - - - - - 50gr VMAX 1.56-* 1.23 1.95 2.16 - 1.46 1.33 1.26 1.60 55gr ADI 1.92 1.26 - 1.36 0.89 2.20 1.69 2.05 2.07 62gr Sabre 1.44 - - 2.97 2.41 - - 2.57 2.07 69gr FGMM 1.90 - 2.05 1.48 1.47 2.48 2.56 1.69 3.00 77gr IMI - 0.94 1.23 1.24 2.42 - 1.73 1.46 - 85gr Badlands**2.84 1.05 - 1.69 1.43 1.74 3.22 2.84 1.78 *Not a Suppressed Setup -* average of (2) 10shot groups (1.3 and 1.8) ** Only 5 shot averages. Additional AUG Accuracy Data Short version: They absolutely can be accurate. Some are just picky, and a few platforms (looking at the RDB) are less bench-friendly than traditional AR setups due to things like balance and ejection geometry. AMMO PERFORMANCE ACROSS ALL RIFLES BEST UNIVERSAL LOAD: 77gr IMI Razorcore SMK - Most consistent across all rifles - ~0.94–1.73 MOA range BEST LIGHTWEIGHT LOAD: 50gr Fiocchi VMAX - Works in every rifle tested - ~1.2–1.6 MOA typical MID TIER (INCONSISTENT): 55–69gr range (mixed results) - Some standout groups - High variability between rifles TOP PERFORMING RIFLES (ALL PLATFORMS) (I have more groups tested just not pictured for some) MDRX 16" (1:8 Wylde) - Best: 0.94 MOA (77gr IMI Razorcore) - Consistently sub-1.3 MOA with multiple loads WLVRN 16" (1:7) - Best: ~1.24 MOA (77gr class) - Strong across 75–77gr + 85gr loads VHS-2 16" (1:7) - Best single result: 0.89 MOA (55gr ADI) - More ammo-sensitive, but capable of sub-MOA Stag AR15 16" (1:9) - Best: ~1.19 MOA (77gr AAC OTM) - Most flexible “budget baseline” rifle |
| Curious if the Tavor is the SAR or the X95? I have the Tavor SAR and it is more accurate for me with 69 grain SMK than 77 grain SMK with my reloads. I mostly shoot 55 grain FMJ and it has plenty of accuracy for my use. I took my Tavor to Wyoming and shot a lot of prairie dogs. I put a 2.5-10 scope on my Tavor and it worked a lot better than you’d think hitting pd way out there. |
|
Originally Posted By VASCAR2: Curious if the Tavor is the SAR or the X95? I have the Tavor SAR and it is more accurate for me with 69 grain SMK than 77 grain SMK with my reloads. I mostly shoot 55 grain FMJ and it has plenty of accuracy for my use. I took my Tavor to Wyoming and shot a lot of prairie dogs. I put a 2.5-10 scope on my Tavor and it worked a lot better than you’d think hitting pd way out there. Tavor Sar 18" Although I dont know what would make the X95 less accurate. I think the main change is the bolt on top piece. Both are 18" bbls 
|
|
Originally Posted By JCoop: Do you guys want this thread tacked/pinned? I think that would be cool. might allow me to add other ammo as I complete going through all the bullpups + my baseline ar15. Currently in testing (13 other ammo type/weights)- Some retesting for 10 shot groups instead of 2x5 shot averages: 55gr PMC Xtac 55gr Frontier 556 NATO M193 55gr Winchester M193 62gr Sabre Blade Black Tip 69gr AAC 5.56 NATO OTM 69gr Australian Munitions - ADI 69gr Nosler Match BTHP 73gr Federal Gold Berger OTM 75gr Hornady Match 223 77gr Nosler MatchGrade 223 77gr Bonefrog Match Burner OTM 77gr AAC 5.56 NATO OTM 85gr Barnes Matchburner |
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: OP - Thanks! I have a KelTec and it seems to be all over the board, as do some of the others. Do you feel this is more due to the ammo grain or brand? The KelTec RDB17 is probably the hardest bullpup to shoot accurately from the bench — at least with my setup. I think most of that comes from the downward-eject system, which is probably the only real downside to it. Even with a small rear bag, I still have to wear a glove or risk getting burned by the brass as it ejects. I also think it is somewhat ammo-sensitive (especially if you run a traditional suppressor), a lot of that comes down to the adjustable gas system. Allegedly, the preproduction RDBs (the 1:9s) are more finicky. If I had a 1:7 Id try to see how it groups with the 69gr Fed GMMK |
| I've set this thread to not archive. This is the kind of thread that makes arfcom great. |
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
"He didnt punch anybody. He punched an idea." DrFrige
Thomas Jefferson
"He didnt punch anybody. He punched an idea." DrFrige
Joined:
Sep 2022
Posts:
2623
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By voyager3: Surprising that MDRX was more accurate than WLVRN which had design changes specifically to make it more accurate. Yep — that was with a first-gen MDR rifle and barrel. Desert Tech also changed the .223 twist from 1:8 to 1:7 in the 16" barrels around the MDRX launch. Most of the changes really targeted the larger calibers anyway. Honestly, the WLVRN feels closer to what I thought they were going to release back in 2016. I talked to one of their sales reps, and he said the WLVRN accuracy bump over the MDRX is an average across all calibers, not just .223. I also remember him quoting ~40% improvement for the MDR(X) accuracy upgrade, which would theoretically put it ahead of the WLVRN in some cases. Realized while typing this — those MDRX results were with my upgraded chassis. I still have a stock MDR I can retest for a cleaner comparison.  Mdrx 556 Accuracy #MDRX #MDRXAccuracy I’ve always been a bit skeptical of the accuracy claims anyway, since the older-gen rifles already shoot very well in .223 and 6.5 CM… at least mine do. Also, compared to the MDR(X), I’ve tested around 20 different brands/types of ammo through the WLVRN, but only about 4 through the MDR so far. So I probably need to break the conversion kit back out and do more testing.. 
|
|
Originally Posted By mcantu: wow, very nice work! do you think that using suppressors adds a variable that makes the comparisons harder? Suppressors definitely add another variable — especially on bullpups and piston guns. In this comparison, I kept each rifle in its normal “as-configured” setup, so the goal wasn’t to isolate unsuppressed mechanical accuracy, but to capture real-world performance in the configuration each rifle is actually used in. In some cases suppression probably helped accuracy, and in others it may have hurt it. For example, the Tavor SAR’s 2+ MOA results were with a flow-through suppressor, and the WLVRN and MDRX were also tested with a flow-through suppressor. This makes suppression one of several interacting variables, along with gas system design, barrel length, and ammo selection. The MDRX in particular appears sensitive to timing and harmonic changes, where relatively small shifts in system behavior can affect group size. Removing suppressors entirely would also introduce a different set of variables rather than eliminate them, since many of these rifles change noticeably in recoil impulse, gas behavior, and POI when run unsuppressed. |
|
awesome thread. as a gentle request, you can use excel to make your table, and then post an image of the Excel table, which is a lot easier to read. your accuracy results in general are better than my own, I should retest. as others note, supressor usage is a non-standard variable. So great data, but now it's very specific to that configuration with that brand supressor. IMHO your MDRx and RDB data is atypically good, perhaps assisted by the supressor in that case. Which again, is damned good data to have, but very specific to that specific setup now. When time allows, and this is of course a request at your discretion, repeat testing with the supressors pulled off would be very interesting to see! Regardless - this is a kick ass post and I should go hit the range when time allows to follow your lead, and add to the body of data on this. I will say this, my AUG, MDRx, and RDB all seem to have POI shift issues at times. The RDB with heat, and also mine is sensitive to torque on how tight the handguard screws are applied, and as noted, can move POI a good bit as it heats up. My MDRx is intensely sensitive to ammo selection and will laterally shift several MOA with different ammo (6.5 CM), and my AUG can be sensitive to how it is held. But I should retest and quantify all that. |
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer: awesome thread. as a gentle request, you can use excel to make your table, and then post an image of the Excel table, which is a lot easier to read. your accuracy results in general are better than my own, I should retest. as others note, suppressor usage is a non-standard variable. So great data, but now it's very specific to that configuration with that brand suppressor. IMHO your MDRx and RDB data is atypically good, perhaps assisted by the suppressor in that case. Which again, is damned good data to have, but very specific to that specific setup now. When time allows, and this is of course a request at your discretion, repeat testing with the supressors pulled off would be very interesting to see! Regardless - this is a kick ass post and I should go hit the range when time allows to follow your lead, and add to the body of data on this. I will say this, my AUG, MDRx, and RDB all seem to have POI shift issues at times. the RDB with heat, and also mine is very sensitive to torque and how tight the handguard screws are applied, but as noted, can move a lot as it heats up. my MDRx is intensely sensitive to ammo selection and will shift several MOA with different ammo (6.5 CM), and my AUG can be sensitive to how its held. but I should retest and quantify all that. Thanks, I appreciate it, and yeah, posting the table as an image next time is probably the better move — the text formatting definitely gets rough on mobile. I actually don’t fully agree that suppressors are a “non-standard” variable at this point. Suppressed use has become pretty mainstream now, especially with cheaper cans, eForm approvals speeding up, and a lot of modern testing/reviews being done suppressed by default. The MDRX and WLVRN were tested with flowthrough suppressors, while the AUG and Stag AR15 and VHS/2 were unsuppressed, so the dataset definitely isn’t perfectly normalized. At the same time, removing suppressors would introduce a different set of variables since several of these rifles behave very differently unsuppressed. Your comments on POI shift and sensitivity line up pretty closely with what I’ve seen too. My MDRX especially seems very sensitive to ammo/timing changes, while the RDB seems more affected by heat and assembly tension. The AUG also seems pretty setup- and handling-sensitive. Also worth noting: the MDRX testing was done with the Accuracy Upgrade chassis installed (I included a video of the setup in the thread as well). I suspect that configuration contributes meaningfully to the rifle’s consistency. I’m also still learning the K&M M17S. My initial groups with it were honestly terrible until I put a can on it, and there’s very little documentation out there on its adjustable gas system or even clear markings/settings. That rifle alone has made me appreciate how much suppression and gas tuning can change behavior on these platforms. And agreed — more people posting structured data instead of just “my rifle shoots X MOA” would be great for the community. **These Tables may change as I shoot more**  The 6.5 CM data is mainly from two rifles (MDR/MDRX), but across multiple configurations — including suppressed/unsuppressed setups, the MDRX Accuracy Upgrade chassis, and an ES Tactical 1:7 twist barrel on one configuration. So it’s more focused on configuration effects than cross-rifle comparison.  The .308 data is a cross-platform comparison across multiple rifle systems (RFB, MDRX variants, WLVRN, bolt guns, and FAL/FA91 patterns) with differing barrel lengths and twist rates. It’s intended to show real-world performance trends rather than a tightly controlled single-variable test. *Clarification on the .308 data: the MDR is an original 16” MDR, while the 20” entry is an MDRX with the factory 20” barrel. Most of the dataset is also run in the standard factory chassis configuration, with only limited testing done using the Accuracy Upgrade chassis. The rest includes WLVRN, RFB, Howa, STG 58 FAL, and FA91 for cross-platform comparison.  |
|
Originally Posted By Box4: I may have missed it, but are there plans for other bullpup rifles? I’d like to see results for as many as possible. Great thread, and I hope it gets pinned. I’m not sure what you mean exactly — are there specific bullpups you’d like to see included? I’m open to testing more of them, but if I don’t already own one, I’d need to find someone willing to loan me theirs for testing. |
|
Originally Posted By vectorsc: What AR15 did you use? Stag Arms Ar15 16" M4/Government profile BBL 1:9 Twist Phase 5 FatMan Brake Areo Atlas S-one M-lok handguard. BCM Gunfighter Grip . Troy Ambi mag release. Timney Competition Trigger. Spikes Tactical ST-T2 buffer. B5 Systems PRS Stock. Nikon 2-10x40 IRT Laser scope. Its just a representative real-world AR that a normal enthusiast might own and in that context, the comparison is much fairer. |
|
I get it. Not really a great way to do it since the AR market expands and the bullpup market contracts. And most bullpups are only what they are. I think if I were picking an AR for this purpose, I would have selected one that was solidly in the same cost-box as the bullpups. It seems that if you averaged the cost of them it would be around $16/1700. Alternately, I might have selected an MR556A4 as the test gun, because its piston and shares a lot of similarities with most bullpup operating systems. Great testing, btw. |
|
Originally Posted By vectorsc: I get it. Not really a great way to do it since the AR market expands and the bullpup market contracts. And most bullpups are only what they are. I think if I were picking an AR for this purpose, I would have selected one that was solidly in the same cost-box as the bullpups. It seems that if you averaged the cost of them it would be around $16/1700. Alternately, I might have selected an MR556A4 as the test gun, because its piston and shares a lot of similarities with most bullpup operating systems. Great testing, btw. The average price of most of the Bullpups is around 2K, new. The exceptions being the Keltec weapons and out of production bullpups. That being said, I don't think price is a good metric to balance by as the Bullpup advantage is mobility which doesn't show up in accuracy tests and we know accuracy and cost have diminishing returns. For example a SCAR is twice the cost of those and probably in the same ballpark of accuracy, probably a bit worse. Note, an MR556A4 is also 4K. |
|
Originally Posted By FrozenIceman: The average price of most of the Bullpups is around 2K, new. The exceptions being the Keltec weapons and out of production bullpups. That being said, I don't think price is a good metric to balance by as the Bullpup advantage is mobility which doesn't show up in accuracy tests and we know accuracy and cost have diminishing returns. For example a SCAR is twice the cost of those and probably in the same ballpark of accuracy, probably a bit worse. Note, an MR556A4 is also 4K. I would think the idea is "I have $2k to spend on the base rifle, how does a bullpup compare accuracy wise?" Also, we have had amazing accuracy out of our VHS-2. I may try shooting it for groups today to see how it does with the 1 ammo I have on hand. |
|
Originally Posted By vectorsc: I understand what you are saying. The reason I'm sort of flipping around on it is that AR's have wildly different accuracy outcomes (and so do bullpups), and the AR here is a budget baseline model that is half the cost of the bullpups. I would think the idea is "I have $2k to spend on the base rifle, how does a bullpup compare accuracy wise?" Also, we have had amazing accuracy out of our VHS-2. I may try shooting it for groups today to see how it does with the 1 ammo I have on hand. Originally Posted By vectorsc: I understand what you are saying. The reason I'm sort of flipping around on it is that AR's have wildly different accuracy outcomes (and so do bullpups), and the AR here is a budget baseline model that is half the cost of the bullpups. I would think the idea is "I have $2k to spend on the base rifle, how does a bullpup compare accuracy wise?" Also, we have had amazing accuracy out of our VHS-2. I may try shooting it for groups today to see how it does with the 1 ammo I have on hand. That's a fair point. If the goal was a dedicated AR vs bullpup comparison, I can see the argument for using something in the same price range or stepping up to something like an MR556. I also included a SIG 556 as another piston reference point since it sits in that ~$1,500 “real-world rifle” category from when it was still in production. The intent here wasn’t a controlled lab comparison of platforms, but practical accuracy data from rifles people actually buy and shoot. Between an AR15, a piston rifle like the SIG 556, and multiple bullpups, I think it gives a more realistic cross-section of how these systems perform in typical configurations. The main takeaway for me wasn’t that one platform “wins,” but that accuracy is driven much more by individual rifle and load than by platform label alone. This project was mainly driven by repeated claims that bullpups aren’t accurate. I already had access to the AR and SIG, but every bullpup had to be acquired (or find someone with that particular bullpup) and tested with the same ammo, so there are practical limits to how controlled or exhaustive the dataset can be. My goal wasn't really to crown a winner between ARs and bullpups. It was to put some actual group data behind a topic that usually gets discussed in generalities. Originally Posted By FrozenIceman: The average price of most of the Bullpups is around 2K, new. The exceptions being the Keltec weapons and out of production bullpups. That being said, I don't think price is a good metric to balance by as the Bullpup advantage is mobility which doesn't show up in accuracy tests and we know accuracy and cost have diminishing returns. For example a SCAR is twice the cost of those and probably in the same ballpark of accuracy, probably a bit worse. Note, an MR556A4 is also 4K. Yeah, I think we’re basically on the same page. I agree price isn’t a perfect balancing metric, and accuracy definitely runs into diminishing returns pretty quickly once you’re in the “decent barrel + decent ammo” range. And I also agree the bullpup advantage is more about mobility/length than anything this kind of accuracy testing captures. The intent of my testing wasn’t really to normalize platforms by cost or declare winners/losers. It was just to put some real group data behind a claim I kept seeing repeated—that bullpups are inherently inaccurate rifles. Once you start getting into MR556s, SCARs, custom AR builds, etc., it stops being a platform comparison and turns into specific rifle configurations anyway. Appreciate you breaking it down though. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
156
EE: 0% (0)
UT, USA
Armory Sponsor