User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 8:11:28 AM EDT
I have found a bunch of articles and posts about x95 accuracy. Some of them really old, some of them more recent. The problem I have invariably found is that they all post data that is frankly not at all that useful to characterizing the rifle's capability. There are also wildly conflicting stories on what to expect, that all seem to be based on terribly inadequate data sets.
Is there any source anyone knows of that posts median radius and extreme spread of x95 shot groups? This would be FAR more descriptive of overall precision. |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 9:12:53 AM EDT
[#1]
https://youtu.be/XpbrECoqJ4M
Check this video out, X95 goes to 600 yards. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 10:49:06 AM EDT
[#2]
Yeah I have seen this video.
This is kind of the point I was making above. It is an anecdotal performance, but provides no usable data. It does demonstrate that the rifle can get on a torso sized target at 600 but that's about all it tells you. It doesn't tell you the consistency or the probability of making these hits, so if you shot this over and over and over again would it still perform that way and with what amount of probability? One performance doesn't tell you much, the average performance with the variance would though. Similarly, a five shot group with the extreme spread measurement will tell you what the rifle shot at ONE POINT IN TIME, but doesn't really tell you much about the probability of performance going forward. For that you need the circular error probable or the mean radius. This would allow you to tell the probability of making certain shots and understand the variance involved. I have found lots of people shooting it out to 600, and lots of people claiming it is a "6 moa gun", a "2 moa gun", and everything in between, but i haven't found anyone that has provided actual statistical data. Really a single ten shot group with the extreme spread and mean radius calculated would be profoundly useful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 11:06:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Dissident]
[#3]
Unfortunately, I think this is going to be a “buy a gun and see your gun shoots” sort of endeavor.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 12:19:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: semperfikurt]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dissident: Unfortunately, I think this is going to be a “buy a gun and see your gun shoots” sort of endeavor. Yeah. A buddy of mine has one so I am going to see if he will let me borrow it to get some data. I just figured hey this info has to exist somewhere, bizarrely it seems that it doesn't. Every time I read a claim or demonstration of the rifle's performance I immediately am hit with so many questions... With what ammo? you got a 2" shot group?... how many shot groups did you fire? is this an average group or a one off? You hit 600 yards... how many shots did that take? etc... Even on the MAC youtube channel he only really measured the extreme spread which doesn't tell you all that much without other information for context. Lots of talk but not much actual data. the Hornady podcast put it really succinctly: A extreme spread is a historical tool that tells you what the rifle did in the past. Mean radius is a predictive tool that tells you what the rifle is likely to do in the future. (paraphrasing) |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 12:22:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SyberSniper]
[#5]
^^^ What Dissident said...
I put all my load testing targets into 'On-Target' which also cacls the mean radius. Then at some time I can compare a particular load, shot several times over several years. I do this so I can find the best shooting re-loads for my rifles. Like you said, one session doesn't tell the whole story... even several sessions can only give you a general insight to the gun and ammo shot. Most of these "reviews" are not made to help you in your quest for data but to generate income and status for the authors, or to sell a product (the article/video is in itself a product). About all you can tell is how good the shooter was that day. Lots of things will affect the group size besides the gun... Ammo (big factor), Temp, Wind, Distance, Last night's bar bill... if I hit the 600yd gong 4 times I may not want to admit it took me 20 shots to do so... If you collect stats of several similar sessions over time, they may give you an idea how accurate your gun is with the ammo you shoot, will also indicate how well you are shooting and show any improvements over time. Kinda hard to do that with someone else's gun. IMO, the Tavor is a battle rifle not a sport rifle and is built to perform as such. If the IDF specs 4MOA and your example consistently shoots 3MOA (at the same distance) then be happy you got a good one. If it can't hit at 600, try 500 or 200 and work your way up. If you want a long range precision rifle, then see what everyone else is using and buy one of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 12:33:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Tomac]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SyberSniper: ^^^ What Dissident said... I put all my load testing targets into 'On-Target' which also cacls the mean radius. Then at some time I can compare a particular load, shot several times over several years. I do this so I can find the best shooting re-loads for my rifles. Like you said, one session doesn't tell the whole story... even several sessions can only give you a general insight to the gun and ammo shot. Most of these "reviews" are not made to help you in your quest for data but to generate income and status for the authors, or to sell a product (the article/video is in itself a product). About all you can tell is how the good the shooter was that day. Lots of things will affect the group size besides the gun... Ammo (big factor), Temp, Wind, Distance, Last night's bar bill... Collecting stats over several similar sessions over time may give you an idea how accurate your gun is with the ammo you shoot, but will also indicate how well you are shooting and show any small improvements along the way. IMO the Tavor is a battle rifle not a sport rifle and is built to perform as such. If the IDF specs 4MOA and your example consistently shoots 3MOA (at the same distance) then be happy you got a better one. If you want a long range precision rifle, then see what everyone else is using and buy one of those. This. I've heard (but not tried) that removing the barrel block that seals the fore end can improve accuracy by removing a pressure point from the barrel. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 12:49:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SyberSniper]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tomac: This. I've heard (but not tried) that removing the barrel block that seals the fore end can improve accuracy by removing a pressure point from the barrel. Does that have any negative consequences if removed? I've only had mine a short while and so far have tested 20 different loads (all 5-shot group at 100). Looking at mean radius, my best was 0.955" and average is 1.845" although there are quite a few 2"~2.5" groups. The same in MOA ranges from 1.07"~2.25"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 1:55:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Tomac]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SyberSniper: What is the design purpose of the barrel block? Does that have any negative consequences if removed? I've only had mine a short while and so far have tested 20 different loads (all 5-shot group at 100). Looking at mean radius, my best was 0.955" and average is 1.845" although there are quite a few 2"~2.5" groups. The same in MOA ranges from 1.07"~2.25" Purpose is to seal the front of the rifle against dust/dirt/sand infiltration (understandable in light of Israel's environment), there are no negative consequences I am aware of except allowing said dust/dirt/sand to enter at that point. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 2:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CJofFL]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tomac: Purpose is to seal the front of the rifle against dust/dirt/sand infiltration (understandable in light of Israel's environment), there are no negative consequences I am aware of except allowing said dust/dirt/sand to enter at that point. If that were the intended purpose, it's a poor design with a "V" shaped opening all the way through it. They refer to it as a foregrip stabilizer, so presumably it stabilizes the handguard... See drawing |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 3:11:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CJofFL: If that were the intended purpose, it's a poor design with a "V" shaped opening all the way through it. They refer to it as a foregrip stabilizer, so presumably it stabilizes the handguard... See drawing Agreed. Wondered about that myself when perusing the owner's manual. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/22/2023 3:54:47 PM EDT
[#11]
I cant post a view from my manual...
The barrel part linked to is not the dust protection plate referred to earlier. That block in my manual is attached as part of the barrel assembly. Some photos in the armors manual seem to suggest it is pinned on to the barrel - could be wrong... looks like it also can incorporate the bayonet lug on another model, so pinning might be a way to secure it... It does look like it could support the handguard. The dust plate (#16 in my manual) appears to sit over the barrel from the top and depending on position, just might cover that V opening - I can see where it could exert downward pressure on the barrel. For a range toy or northern woods use it might not be needed but if one expected to be shooting in the desert I think it would be advisable to keep it. |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 12/23/2023 1:07:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: jalacy]
[#12]
My X95 is a stock rifle with a pistol grip and a TA-31 on top. The video captures me taking it out to 600 yards. It's not a sub moa rifle by any stretch of the imagination but it can hit a full size IDPA at 600 all day. Since the video I have taken it out two more times and repeated the same course. Nobody else around here has one so I haven't shot another one. Mine may be on the better end of the accuracy scale. I enjoy the rifle and I have had it for several years now. My recommendation is to purchase one and try it. I have next week off, I can shoot some paper at 200 yards and see how it does from the bench if you like.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/23/2023 8:02:43 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SyberSniper: The barrel part linked to is not the dust protection plate referred to earlier. Regardless, the barrel part linked IS the part some talk about removing to take pressure off the barrel for better accuracy. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/23/2023 5:54:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SyberSniper]
[#14]
got it... that makes sense as it is hanging on the barrel...
looking around in that EV you linked, #47 looks very similar to the #16 dust cover part called out in my EV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2023 9:29:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: Yeah I have seen this video. This is kind of the point I was making above. It is an anecdotal performance, but provides no usable data. It does demonstrate that the rifle can get on a torso sized target at 600 but that's about all it tells you. It doesn't tell you the consistency or the probability of making these hits, so if you shot this over and over and over again would it still perform that way and with what amount of probability? One performance doesn't tell you much, the average performance with the variance would though. Similarly, a five shot group with the extreme spread measurement will tell you what the rifle shot at ONE POINT IN TIME, but doesn't really tell you much about the probability of performance going forward. For that you need the circular error probable or the mean radius. This would allow you to tell the probability of making certain shots and understand the variance involved. I have found lots of people shooting it out to 600, and lots of people claiming it is a "6 moa gun", a "2 moa gun", and everything in between, but i haven't found anyone that has provided actual statistical data. Really a single ten shot group with the extreme spread and mean radius calculated would be profoundly useful. Not sure what you want or expect out of a military issued, proven carbine that was designed for close quarter / urban combat? The X95 is not a DMR or sniper rifle, but the ability to hit a torso size plate at 600 yds is pretty damn good. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2023 6:38:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: Yeah I have seen this video. This is kind of the point I was making above. It is an anecdotal performance, but provides no usable data. It does demonstrate that the rifle can get on a torso sized target at 600 but that's about all it tells you. It doesn't tell you the consistency or the probability of making these hits, so if you shot this over and over and over again would it still perform that way and with what amount of probability? One performance doesn't tell you much, the average performance with the variance would though. Similarly, a five shot group with the extreme spread measurement will tell you what the rifle shot at ONE POINT IN TIME, but doesn't really tell you much about the probability of performance going forward. For that you need the circular error probable or the mean radius. This would allow you to tell the probability of making certain shots and understand the variance involved. I have found lots of people shooting it out to 600, and lots of people claiming it is a "6 moa gun", a "2 moa gun", and everything in between, but i haven't found anyone that has provided actual statistical data. Really a single ten shot group with the extreme spread and mean radius calculated would be profoundly useful. It’s a 3MOA gun Wasn’t designed to be anything more |
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 12/26/2023 8:00:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Odinforever2000]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SyberSniper: What is the design purpose of the barrel block? Does that have any negative consequences if removed? I've only had mine a short while and so far have tested 20 different loads (all 5-shot group at 100). Looking at mean radius, my best was 0.955" and average is 1.845" although there are quite a few 2"~2.5" groups. The same in MOA ranges from 1.07"~2.25" Which ammo got you into the 1moa range? I recently got a Sar and in averaging just under 1.5moa with 50gr Fiocchi (5 shot groups at 100 yards. Hellion didnt like that ammo..) 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/26/2023 9:29:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kenzo: Not sure what you want or expect out of a military issued, proven carbine that was designed for close quarter / urban combat? The X95 is not a DMR or sniper rifle, but the ability to hit a torso size plate at 600 yds is pretty damn good. I'm not expecting anything from the rifle. Read my original post. All I am asking for is usable data (not opinions or anecdotes) on what the rifle actually does. Here's the thing, suppose you have a "10 moa rifle"... you can still hit a torso plate at 600 with that... you just won't do it every single time. Now here's the practical question: it doesn't matter how many "moa" the rifle is, the thing that really matters is what is the PROBABILITY that you make that 600 yard torso shot? The military's acceptance standard for the m16 was not defined in how many moa the rifle was but what the mean radius was. They wanted mean radius to hit a 600 yard torso target, that means 50% probability of making that shot given the precision of the rifle. This explains why ground troops are trained to fire pairs of shots... it accounts for the hit probability. It is a game of knowing the shot dispersion and thus the accuracy probability. To know that you need the mean radius. Not to be uncharitable, but once again, I have noticed the internet and forums are completely awash in unsubstantiated claims about what the x95 does or doesn't do or how many "moa" it is. or how it was only designed for close combat....etc. What I have not found is data that describes it's shot dispersion (mean radius and extreme spread for a ten shot group for instance.) |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/26/2023 9:43:49 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jalacy: My X95 is a stock rifle with a pistol grip and a TA-31 on top. The video captures me taking it out to 600 yards. It's not a sub moa rifle by any stretch of the imagination but it can hit a full size IDPA at 600 all day. Since the video I have taken it out two more times and repeated the same course. Nobody else around here has one so I haven't shot another one. Mine may be on the better end of the accuracy scale. I enjoy the rifle and I have had it for several years now. My recommendation is to purchase one and try it. I have next week off, I can shoot some paper at 200 yards and see how it does from the bench if you like. Yeah it's a good video, I appreciate you filming that. If you could do a ten shot group and give the mean radius and extreme spread that would be profoundly useful and i would be greatly indebted! To your point ... It IS a 1 moa rifle though. All rifles are. The question is what is the probability of getting that hit? if your rifle is say 6 moa, there is still a statistical chance that your bullet happens to hit right inside 1moa. Every time you squeeze the trigger you are getting a random shot within the rifle's shot dispersion range. Now the more shots you fire, the more your group will expand and reach the stable average of 6moa, but that doesn't mean you won't hit that small target. You the shooter just need to understand what is a low probability shot and what is well within your rifle's precision capability. It's all a matter of probability. So why ten shot group and mean radius? if you get MR and ES for a decent sized group, you can model the entire bell curve for the rifles shot distribution. This may seem geeky and unnecessary but it's tremendously practical. Then you know what sized group the rifle will produce 50 percent of the time, and what it will produce 95 percent of the time (for this ammunition). This is very valuable info to have. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 12:37:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrozenIceman]
[#20]
Semper
Look at Odins's shot images of the SAR. It has mean radius on it, line 3 of each data box. As far as 1 moa Rifle goes. I believe the common understand is 100% of all shots inside the extreme spread with that one. Mean Radius is quite a bit easier to achieve compared to extreme spread. See Odins image with 3.2 moa extreme spread but a .5 moa mean radius for a comparison of how difficult extreme spread is to achieve over mean radius. Note Range Buddy isn't exactly doing extreme spread either on the first line. It is determining shot centroid and determining worst radius off two points from the calculated centroid. (It projects the smallest circle it can that connects the two worst points which may not be on opposite sides of the circle from eachother while keeping all other shots inside the projection). For more detail, the yellow cross hair appears to be the mean radius origin which is useful for zeroing and it provides the zero information too. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 8:45:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SyberSniper]
[#21]
Guess I can't post a pic directly - no web host site to link...
It was the older Lt. Green box oem.S&B 55gr fmj... 2941 fps 5 shot -MES-1.119", avg to center-0.5" AGM-0.955". Most of the time it is in the range of 1.5"~2.5". Also, this was with the stock 11# trigger - I haven't shot it with the current 5.5# and once I replace the crappy Nikon 3-9 I expect it will be better. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 9:06:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: ... It's all a matter of probability. So why ten shot group and mean radius? if you get MR and ES for a decent sized group, you can model the entire bell curve for the rifles shot distribution. This may seem geeky and unnecessary but it's tremendously practical. Then you know what sized group the rifle will produce 50 percent of the time, and what it will produce 95 percent of the time (for this ammunition). This is very valuable info to have. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 1:56:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrozenIceman]
[#23]
If Mean radius is what I think it is, it won't be a simple conversion of extreme spread to mean radius.
You need to convert the x and y coordinates of all your shots into a Cartesian system with the same origin. Then you average all X values and all Y values. This is your mean radius origin. You then use the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the distance (radius) from the new mean radius origin to each shot location. You then average all of the distances together and get the mean radius. Effectively what this does is remove any fliers from your accuracy calculations that happen infrequently which makes it a much much easier metric to achieve. As Semper said, using this tool pretty much make every gun will be 1 moa, including handguns. A 4 moa extreme spread gun will have a sub moa mean radius. So if you want a 1 moa extreme spread gun its equivalent in mean radius land would be like 0.25 moa. Which probably makes gun makers happy, they can claim 1 moa gun in the mean radius system legitimately when the shooting community assumed they used the extreme spread metric. It is worth noting that Hornady doesn't use mean radius for their gun evaluations when they did their 10 to 50 shot workups (in the same video they talk about mean radius). Extreme spread will be much more accurate to determine Rifle performance vs mean radius used for 'good enough'. |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 3:19:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Honestly man, I don't think what you're looking for exists anywhere. I don't even think that level of detailed data exists for AR barrels / rifles which have a much bigger following
Even if you found someone who collects all that data with their rifle, you only have a sample size of 1 rifle which isn't enough to tell you what you need to know |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 5:06:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrozenIceman: If Mean radius is what I think it is, it won't be a simple conversion of extreme spread to mean radius. You need to convert the x and y coordinates of all your shots into a Cartesian system with the same origin. Then you average all X values and all Y values. This is your mean radius origin. You then use the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the distance (radius) from the new mean radius origin to each shot location. You then average all of the distances together and get the mean radius. Effectively what this does is remove any fliers from your accuracy calculations that happen infrequently which makes it a much much easier metric to achieve. As Semper said, using this tool pretty much make every gun will be 1 moa, including handguns. A 4 moa extreme spread gun will have a sub moa mean radius. So if you want a 1 moa extreme spread gun its equivalent in mean radius land would be like 0.25 moa. Which probably makes gun makers happy, they can claim 1 moa gun in the mean radius system legitimately when the shooting community assumed they used the extreme spread metric. It is worth noting that Hornady doesn't use mean radius for their gun evaluations when they did their 10 to 50 shot workups (in the same video they talk about mean radius). Extreme spread will be much more accurate to determine Rifle performance vs mean radius used for 'good enough'. Almost all apps for figuring group sizes will figure mean radius when they do extreme spread. Just to give you a point of reference, the M193 accuracy spec calls for max mean radius of 2" at 200 yards, or 1" at 100. Match rounds usually have a mean radius of about 0.3" at 100 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 6:13:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Some of you make too much about this …
It’s a rifle designed to hit man size targets out to 500m with SS109 … |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 8:29:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrozenIceman]
[#27]
Originally Posted By mcantu: Almost all apps for figuring group sizes will figure mean radius when they do extreme spread. Just to give you a point of reference, the M193 accuracy spec calls for max mean radius of 2" at 200 yards, or 1" at 100. Match rounds usually have a mean radius of about 0.3" at 100 Agreed, apps are way better than trying to do them in excel. It is good to know that the rough estimates of extreme spread to mean radius are consistent with what we saw above. I like Range Buddy. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 8:34:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thehun06: Some of you make too much about this … It’s a rifle designed to hit man size targets out to 500m with SS109 … That is basically saying accuracy in guns doesn't matter, as pretty much every gun can put 4 rounds out of 5 into a 16" box at 500 yards. However I think if we had a free choice between the exact same gun where one barrel is 300% more accurate than the other we wouldn't choose the least accurate one because it was good enough. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/29/2023 8:36:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrozenIceman]
[#29]
Double Post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2023 8:41:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: thehun06]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrozenIceman: That is basically saying accuracy in guns doesn't matter, as pretty much every gun can put 4 rounds out of 5 into a 16" box at 500 yards. However I think if we had a free choice between the exact same gun where one barrel is 300% more accurate than the other we wouldn't choose the least accurate one because it was good enough. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrozenIceman: Originally Posted By thehun06: Some of you make too much about this … It’s a rifle designed to hit man size targets out to 500m with SS109 … That is basically saying accuracy in guns doesn't matter, as pretty much every gun can put 4 rounds out of 5 into a 16" box at 500 yards. However I think if we had a free choice between the exact same gun where one barrel is 300% more accurate than the other we wouldn't choose the least accurate one because it was good enough. Sure. Who wouldn't ... but you have to understand the rifle design ... you could add giant 1" bull barrel to the Tavor ... it wouldn't matter ... Accuracy wasn’t the primary design perimeter of this gun … the inherent design of the whole operating system is towards reliability and hitting man size targets within 500m with the IDFs ACOGs … The barrel isn't the issue on the Tavor accuracy wise ... you have a long stroke piston system (strike one) ... aluminum chassis inside a polymer body ... not infused to the polymer (strike two) ... the barrel lock up to trunnion (strike three) ... IWI created that weapon to be exceptionally effective within 300M and man hit capable to 500M with high reliability (long stroke) with ease of armorer servicing (semi QD barrel system) ... The accuracy "issue" is not the barrel really ... but rather the system around it ... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/31/2023 9:22:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SyberSniper]
[#31]
I wasn't very clear...
Since I use On-Target, and it gives me a lot of group stats including mean radius, and I have been inputting this info for over 15 years for several ARs, I have a lot of shot strings to pull from... I can already calculate the ES & mean radius in Excel and convert it to MOA for whatever distance it is shot at... What I was asking about is how to calc the 50%/95% shot distribution SemperFiKurt was referring to. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 12/31/2023 11:07:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrozenIceman]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thehun06: Sure. Who wouldn't ... but you have to understand the rifle design ... you could add giant 1" bull barrel to the Tavor ... it wouldn't matter ... Accuracy wasn’t the primary design perimeter of this gun … the inherent design of the whole operating system is towards reliability and hitting man size targets within 500m with the IDFs ACOGs … The barrel isn't the issue on the Tavor accuracy wise ... you have a long stroke piston system (strike one) ... aluminum chassis inside a polymer body ... not infused to the polymer (strike two) ... the barrel lock up to trunnion (strike three) ... IWI created that weapon to be exceptionally effective within 300M and man hit capable to 500M with high reliability (long stroke) with ease of armorer servicing (semi QD barrel system) ... The accuracy "issue" is not the barrel really ... but rather the system around it ... I understand, but the argument isn't that the X95 is bad. The argument is if it is more precise than other things and saying that it is good enough provides absolutely 0 comparable data to other guns like OP was saying. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/31/2023 11:35:47 PM EDT
[#33]
The internet is weird. It expects rack grade, issue rifles to have match rifle precision and if they don't, they suck and are a failure
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2024 3:36:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrozenIceman: I understand, but the argument isn't that the X95 is bad. The argument is if it is more precise than other things and saying that it is good enough provides absolutely 0 comparable data to other guns like OP was saying. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrozenIceman: Originally Posted By thehun06: Sure. Who wouldn't ... but you have to understand the rifle design ... you could add giant 1" bull barrel to the Tavor ... it wouldn't matter ... Accuracy wasn’t the primary design perimeter of this gun … the inherent design of the whole operating system is towards reliability and hitting man size targets within 500m with the IDFs ACOGs … The barrel isn't the issue on the Tavor accuracy wise ... you have a long stroke piston system (strike one) ... aluminum chassis inside a polymer body ... not infused to the polymer (strike two) ... the barrel lock up to trunnion (strike three) ... IWI created that weapon to be exceptionally effective within 300M and man hit capable to 500M with high reliability (long stroke) with ease of armorer servicing (semi QD barrel system) ... The accuracy "issue" is not the barrel really ... but rather the system around it ... I understand, but the argument isn't that the X95 is bad. The argument is if it is more precise than other things and saying that it is good enough provides absolutely 0 comparable data to other guns like OP was saying. It is a combat-derived rifle ... it will get combat accuracy just like practically all modern piston combat-derived rifles shooting M855/SS109 ... from having ran a ton of high end 5.56 guns over the years ... I can firmly tell you guys ... they all practical print the same with NATO ball ammo ... You will and can find a special load that will print exceptionally well ... but you aren't going to find that data really anywhere ... take for example ... the Mk262 round ... it was excellent out of my Mk12 ... but it was trash out of my Hk M27 IAR clone ... that didn't make the IAR crappy ... it just didn't like it ... both guns shot MKE SS109 at 2 MOA -5 shot group ... but maybe FGMM would have faired well out of the IAR ... who knows ... didn't have any at that time ... |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 1/1/2024 4:26:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrozenIceman]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thehun06: It is a combat-derived rifle ... it will get combat accuracy just like practically all modern piston combat-derived rifles shooting M855/SS109 ... from having ran a ton of high end 5.56 guns over the years ... I can firmly tell you guys ... they all practical print the same with NATO ball ammo ... You will and can find a special load that will print exceptionally well ... but you aren't going to find that data really anywhere ... take for example ... the Mk262 round ... it was excellent out of my Mk12 ... but it was trash out of my Hk M27 IAR clone ... that didn't make the IAR crappy ... it just didn't like it ... both guns shot MKE SS109 at 2 MOA -5 shot group ... but maybe FGMM would have faired well out of the IAR ... who knows ... didn't have any at that time ... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thehun06: It is a combat-derived rifle ... it will get combat accuracy just like practically all modern piston combat-derived rifles shooting M855/SS109 ... from having ran a ton of high end 5.56 guns over the years ... I can firmly tell you guys ... they all practical print the same with NATO ball ammo ... You will and can find a special load that will print exceptionally well ... but you aren't going to find that data really anywhere ... take for example ... the Mk262 round ... it was excellent out of my Mk12 ... but it was trash out of my Hk M27 IAR clone ... that didn't make the IAR crappy ... it just didn't like it ... both guns shot MKE SS109 at 2 MOA -5 shot group ... but maybe FGMM would have faired well out of the IAR ... who knows ... didn't have any at that time ... Again, the issue isn't that it isn't 'accurate enough.' The issue is not being able to compare one civilian rifle in the same category of weapon to the other. As civilians we don't care how the actual military weapon performs, as very few of us can actually buy a select fire Military issued Rifle. Compare a 2023 BMW to a 2021 BMW or a 2019 Tesla. Just because a Tesla is faster off the line to the others doesn't make the BMW's a bad car. If someone is asking for performance characteristics of one thing to another, they are considering the reasons to buy one over the other that isn't just the standard gun collector model where the only thing that matters is how cool it is. issue rifles to have match rifle precision and if they don't I already addressed this, no one is saying the X95 is bad because of its accuracy. Especially when most people aren't actually posting images of their accuracy results. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2024 3:58:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Rarely have enough time to shoot these days with small kids and shoot my ancient blackpowder stuff more when I do so no info on that part.
But on that part about about the stupid insert on the front of the handguard clamped on the barrel. My x95 is an early one. Pre dual ejectors from like a month or two after release. I eventually got a new bolt when I got a 18” barrel with bayonet lug and a matching handguard (the purpose built one for it has a cut out for the lug I Bubba dremeled my first one to fit while waiting on the factory one). First thing I did was pull off that thing and toss it. No negative effects. In my thinking it just transfers load from the handguard to a thin barrel and seems stupid and is as close to free floating the barrel post removal as you are getting with that design. Funny part about the thin barrel pretty much zero poi shift with my can but my heavy barrel ptr91 big poi shift. I’ve also never gotten “tavor face” shooting suppressed with only change being the shooting site spring. If you were by my neck of Va. I’d let ya pew it some if you’d post the data here. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:47:26 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SyberSniper: Do you happen to have an Excel formula for this calc?... or just point me in the right direction. I actually do, and it's awesome. I have a truckload of x95 data I can share also. It Is there a way to attach a file to this forum in a post? I'm looking but don't see a way. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:56:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: I actually do, and it's awesome. I have a truckload of x95 data I can share also. It Is there a way to attach a file to this forum in a post? I'm looking but don't see a way. Easiest way is to take screenshots of your excel and put it up on Imgur AND attach it directly to the post. Two locations, less chance of disappearing off ht internet when someone messes with one of them. |
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:01:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: scatterbrains]
[#39]
I used mine in gas gun matches for 4 matches last year. 200-700 yds 2moa targets. The rifle, an original SAR, with a Leupold mk5hd 2.5-10.
it worked great but past 400 on 2 moa targets and aac 77gr otm ammo it was very inconsistent on smaller targets. It is by far my favorite rifle but if your looking to shoot small targets at farther distances your gonna work for it. To put in perspective I went from a 40% hit rate to almost 80% when I built a specific recce style AR for the matches. Fullsize ipsc targets out to 700 not a problem. 2moa targets off props under a time constraint, was painful at best. ETA: I really need to look at dates and finish threads before I post lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:35:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: chibajoe]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tomac: This. I've heard (but not tried) that removing the barrel block that seals the fore end can improve accuracy by removing a pressure point from the barrel. Doesn't really make a difference. Mine is probably the least accurate rifle I own, and I own a mini-14 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/13/2024 10:33:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: semperfikurt]
[#41]
Here is the rough group data I have so far. I am going back and forth with IWI to figure out what is to be done about this, needless to say it's hot garbage, even for a rack grade service rifle. All groups are 10 shots each at 100 yards from a bipod on a bench with either a 4x ACOG or a 1-8 LPVO. Some of them are fired with the Geissele trigger pack. I shot 3 10-round groups of PMC XTAC M193 with the stock trigger pack, and then another 3 with the Geissele Super Sabra and the data was nearly identical. I would say there's maybe a .5 moa difference total in extreme spread, but once you factor in the mean radius and crunch the numbers, there was absolutely no improvement at all in effective range. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 9/13/2024 11:36:01 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: https://ibb.co/JtKZkMB Here is the rough group data I have so far. I am going back and forth with IWI to figure out what is to be done about this, needless to say it's hot garbage, even for a rack grade service rifle. All groups are 10 shots each at 100 yards from a bipod on a bench with either a 4x ACOG or a 1-8 LPVO. Some of them are fired with the Geissele trigger pack. I shot 3 10-round groups of PMC XTAC M193 with the stock trigger pack, and then another 3 with the Geissele Super Sabra and the data was nearly identical. I would say there's maybe a .5 moa difference total in extreme spread, but once you factor in the mean radius and crunch the numbers, there was absolutely no improvement at all in effective range. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 7:11:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcantu: the next step should be to have a known good shooter shoot groups with some of the same ammo That's me lol. I qualified Expert in the Marine Corps all 5 years that I was in, and was the high shooter in my platoon at Parris Island. Most of this was with iron sights only. The part of this picture that is strange to me is that even though the top two cartridges could be considered barely within what is acceptable for a service rifle, those are just milspec rounds. All the heavier grained match ammo shot much much worse, and far outside even what would pass as acceptable for a rack grade rifle given to any ground pounder. I don't know if it's just me but one thing I find PROFOUNDLY frustrating with firearm manufacturers is nobody shares the design specs for their weapons. When I spoke with IWI I was asking them what their design spec was for accuracy... what did you intend the rifle to be able to do when you designed it?--give me some numbers. It's really the only way to know what's going on. Either the rifle is out of spec and needs work, or this is what the thing was designed to do... For some reason it's quite a state secret. Everyone claims their factory "MOA guarantee" but again refuses to explain their testing procedure. Frustrating, especially since it gives so much room for the fudd lore to take over |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 9:45:45 AM EDT
[#44]
I can't speak to the X95 but both of my Tavor 7s shot 1 MOA with good ammo, despite online reports saying it's a 2-3 MOA gun with match ammo. But I do know IWI was pickier about the accuracy originally when developing the T7, but that changed at some point as they said they switched to favoring reliability more.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 12:04:12 PM EDT
[#45]
How many shots were you firing in that group to get 1 MOA? Is this an average of multiple groups? How many groups for that average? Or was this one group that hit 1 MOA? how many groups did you fire in order to get to that one group? etc...
I mean this in all charity and I'm not trying to be nitpicky or snarky but this speaks to my original post about needing data to go with claims of accuracy, because there are just too many questions to qualify what result someone is describing, and how they got that number. This is how manufacturers can claim pretty much whatever they want about their firearms accuracy by simply omitting the qualifying information. It's also the reason the internet is awash in claims that the x95 is a 1.5 moa gun, a 2 moa gun, a 3 moa gun, and a "combat accurate 6 moa gun" etc... A simple reality that goes almost entirely overlooked in the shooting community is the fact that GROUP SIZE WILL INCREASE AS YOU FIRE MORE SHOTS. So a 3-shot group will grow larger as you fire 5, then 10, then 20 etc.... up to about 50 shots where the group stabilizes. For this reason, without qualifying information, group size is a very poor measure of precision. Some examples to explain what I mean: I fire five, 3-shot groups, and one of them is 1 MOA, therefore I claim my rifle is 1 MOA since yes it did produce that group so that indicates what the rifle is capable of. or I fire five 3-shot groups and take the average of the five which results in an average of 2.5 MOA. I claim it is a 2.5 MOA gun since this is indicative of what it should do most of the time. Is this a "1 MOA gun" or a "2.5 MOA gun?" What if I stepped it up to groups of 5 or 10 shots? suddenly I'm looking at 3.5-4 moa groups. what now? DATA, WE NEED DATA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 1:25:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: chibajoe]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: https://ibb.co/JtKZkMB Here is the rough group data I have so far. I am going back and forth with IWI to figure out what is to be done about this, needless to say it's hot garbage, even for a rack grade service rifle. All groups are 10 shots each at 100 yards from a bipod on a bench with either a 4x ACOG or a 1-8 LPVO. Some of them are fired with the Geissele trigger pack. I shot 3 10-round groups of PMC XTAC M193 with the stock trigger pack, and then another 3 with the Geissele Super Sabra and the data was nearly identical. I would say there's maybe a .5 moa difference total in extreme spread, but once you factor in the mean radius and crunch the numbers, there was absolutely no improvement at all in effective range. This pretty much mirrors my findings with the X95. What I found interesting is that you will get a very good (sub 2MOA) group, and then there will be a flyer or two which completely tanks the overall accuracy calculation. It might be a misnomer to say that the rifle is not accurate, it's just not consistent (at least in my sampling of 2 that I've shot). I've noticed that a lot of people who claim the rifle (X95, NOT SAR ot Tav7) is accurate are only shooting 5 (or even 3) round groups. The accuracy issues seem to be limited to the X95, and maybe only the earlier ones. I have not shot a current production X95. ETA: In the X95's defense, I have shot steel cased Tula ammo through this thing that has locked up (solid) multiple other rifles, and did not have a single problem. IMI might have made the decision to sacrifice some accuracy for the ability to shoot any kind of crap ammo that might be issued (or found) on the battlefield. |
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 2:35:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Odinforever2000]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chibajoe: This pretty much mirrors my findings with the X95. What I found interesting is that you will get a very good (sub 2MOA) group, and then there will be a flyer or two which completely tanks the overall accuracy calculation. It might be a misnomer to say that the rifle is not accurate, it's just not consistent (at least in my sampling of 2 that I've shot). I've noticed that a lot of people who claim the rifle (X95, NOT SAR ot Tav7) is accurate are only shooting 5 (or even 3) round groups. The accuracy issues seem to be limited to the X95, and maybe only the earlier ones. I have not shot a current production X95. ETA: In the X95's defense, I have shot steel cased Tula ammo through this thing that has locked up (solid) multiple other rifles, and did not have a single problem. IMI might have made the decision to sacrifice some accuracy for the ability to shoot any kind of crap ammo that might be issued (or found) on the battlefield. I mean..I am one of those guys with a SAR (now also own an X95) posting 5 round groups (usually 2 tho and an average between them).. 10shot groups get spendy and really does come down to the shooter not making any mistakes during those 10 shots. (Just did the 1MOA All Day challenge and learned a thing or two from it) I even with those..As others have said, there seems to be something with that 1 round that grows the groups.. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 6:20:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: semperfikurt]
[#48]
I highly recommend watching these two videos. Yall seriously. They are geared toward precision rifle, but everything they are presenting it applicable to a fighting rifle just the same. This has been a public service announcement
 Ep. 050 - Your Groups Are Too Small | SAMPLE SIZE |  Measuring Precision: Extreme Spread is Dead! - Ep 14 Also this paper will get you going on mean radius and measuring marksmanship. Well worth reading and digesting. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA387108.pdf |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 6:39:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semperfikurt: I highly recommend watching these two videos. Yall seriously. They are geared toward precision rifle, but everything they are presenting it applicable to a fighting rifle just the same. This has been a public service announcement  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwumAGRmz2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9aMqaYO8CcAlso this paper will get you going on mean radius and measuring marksmanship. Well worth reading and digesting. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA387108.pdf OK. Mean radius is easier to understand..I like that second video much better. |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 6:56:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Great rifle. I don't expect bug holes. I choose it because it has ak piston system and shorter than a pistol carbine with much higher velocity. I get my 2X prism on target and have fun with it. It is a go to rifle if anything bad happens. No bench sandbag position for this rifle bragging tight groups. Soldier has control over most variables and gun is a small part.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
