X95 or MK18 type rifle

AR: Cheaper, but restricted. X95: Expensive, but non-restricted.

If money is not an issue, I'm going X95 without hesitation. Then again I already have an AR as well.
 
X95 is not an accurate rifle - I say that as an X95 owner. It will have superior velocity/range when compared to a shorty AR though, and it handles/balances nice.

AR15 is gonna be restricted so will be a range only toy.
 
I had this very same question, already had the Tavor, so I bought the DD MK18 to go with it. Almost the same OAL as each other. Get both and appreciate both for different reasons.
 
The X95 is not as accurate... my XCR L is more accurate but I find myself loving the X95 the more I shoot it when I use my friend’s... still will not give up my XCR but do plan on getting an x95.
 
I love my X95. It's not meant to be a bench rest gun; so don't treat it as such. That being said; I still walk away with second and third place medals with it at military shoots.

I'll be buying another x95 in the future. Just waiting for the "SBR" version to land here. My AR just collects dust now.
 
Groups from ARF:

blog
 
The X95 won't be as accurate as the AR because it's effectively built like an AK--looser tolerances are employed for added reliability in order to preserve functionality in dry and dusty Mid-Eastern conditions. When the purpose of the rifle is combat, and the intended operators of the gun are concerned with hitting man-sized targets at 50m or less, the difference between a 1" group or a 2-3" group is no difference at all.

In an ideal world, I'd have one of each. :)
 
First question: where do you mainly shoot ?

Mainly in the wild, get a X95. Mostly on an approved range ? Get a MK18 type AR.

If you plan on shooting 3guns or CQB Matches, get a Mk18 type AR.

Bullpup rifle, NR or not, dont do it for me and I don't care if AR are restricted, so I went the Mk18 way
 
Mainly range... I already have an AR and just want another tactical rifle. I like the X95 design and I also like bullpups, but a shorter AR also speaks to me and the fact that parts would be easy to swap between both AR seems logic to me!
 
Melnibonean said:
Not to hijack, just genuinely curious as to why the old are better than the new.

And do you mean Gen 1 Tavors or Gen 2 (or whatever they're up to now)
Click to expand...

All the original Gen Tavor are basically, mechanically, and functionally the same. Just different rails, sights, mount options.

I agree with Ebola. I have a Gen 2.5 Tavor. I’ve shot the X95 in both .223 and 9mm. They are fine guns but, for some reason, doesn’t turn my crank.

I think, for a new buyer who has never tried either, the X95 is more intuitive and a better choice. For those of us who have owned a TAR-21 for a while, we just got used to the manual of arms and the x95 doesn’t really offer anything we would pay $2000 to change.
For that, I just use the AR! Since I’m more of a range shooter anyways, I hardly ever use my Tavor.

That was why I asked the OP for his purpose for the rifle. I much prefer an AR for range use.
 
Melnibonean said:
Not to hijack, just genuinely curious as to why the old are better than the new.

And do you mean Gen 1 Tavors or Gen 2 (or whatever they're up to now)
Click to expand...
First thing is first. I think the Tavor is more estheticly pleasing to the eye then the X95. Tavors are lighter then the X95s despite the X95 being slightly smaller in stature. I also prefer the foward mounted charging handle on the Tavor as oppsed to the charging handle being in the middle of the X95. The bipod on the grip is a nice addition if you go that way on a Tavor. This isn't doable on the X95.

The only thing I think is a good upgrade is the new mag release on the X95. Other then that it doesn't turn my crank. I would stick with a gen 1 tavor with a rail kit to a gen 2.5 Tavor before taking a X95 if I had a choice.

If you never owned a Tavor before, by all means get a X95. Otherwise I would never upgrade to a X95.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom