Tar 21 vs x95
- Thread starter doublelung
- Start date
Ive shot a few thousand rounds through mine between the range, farm, and 3gun and I've yet to have a single issue with the X95.
Seriously reliable gun. IWI made a great product. With an aimpoint I was hitting steel targets (1 for 1) at 150, 250, 300 and 400 yards. (During a match)
The one gripe I have is with the mechanical offset being greater than other rifles. But if you know your offset its not hard to aim a little higher at 15yards and below.
Seriously reliable gun. IWI made a great product. With an aimpoint I was hitting steel targets (1 for 1) at 150, 250, 300 and 400 yards. (During a match)
The one gripe I have is with the mechanical offset being greater than other rifles. But if you know your offset its not hard to aim a little higher at 15yards and below.
I was perfectly content to stick with my TAR21 until I started thinking about the design quirks I would change on it - and then realized the X95 made a lot of those changes. (The magazine release wan't even one of them. I prefer the original trigger release but with the shorter LOP it wasn't viable to keep it on the X95)
It really is an upgrade. Also I think the X95 trigger is hands down better than the Gen2.5 TAR trigger.
It really is an upgrade. Also I think the X95 trigger is hands down better than the Gen2.5 TAR trigger.
I don't think the Trigger on X95 is "mechanically" any better than the TAR21, it is the same thing.
The TAR21 copied the grip angle of the original M16, but the trigger reach is more than a M16 ( and I also think it is just a bit fatter). X95 has a grip angle like the BCM gunfighter grip. Because of this, the finger feels a lighter trigger because it is easier to exercise the finger muscle when the wrist does't need to make an angle.
The TAR21 copied the grip angle of the original M16, but the trigger reach is more than a M16 ( and I also think it is just a bit fatter). X95 has a grip angle like the BCM gunfighter grip. Because of this, the finger feels a lighter trigger because it is easier to exercise the finger muscle when the wrist does't need to make an angle.
It's not just lighter, it has a crisper break. I'm having trouble finding images and I don't have my TAR anymore, but as I recall, the Gen2.5 trigger pack had sear engagement on both sides of the hammer, while the X95 has sear engagement only on the trigger bar side, which would explain the improvement in feel. Wish I still had it to examine the mechanical differences more closely, but the X95 trigger pack seems to abandon some of the AK elements in favor of something closer to an AR15.
TV-PressPass
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Mountains, Alberta
Solid writeup there Epoxy!
Strange you are saying they are the same trigger, because on the IWI US website, the trigger packs for the SAR and the X95 are different models and prices:
For the X95:
https://iwi.us/product/tavor-x95-fire-control-pack/
For the SAR:
https://iwi.us/product/tavor-sar-fire-control-pack/
Specifically, the SAR fire control pack is rated at 10 pounds trigger pull, while the X95 fire control group claims "Reduced trigger pull weight when compared with the original Tavor® SAR; now 4.5 to 6.5 Lbs."
These are all spare parts, not upgrade parts. While the grip angle will change the feel of the trigger, IWI USA claims the trigger for the X95 is improved.
PinaKaleada
CGN Regular
- Location
- South of most
I thought the X95 trigger sear engages on the side of the hammer, while the TAR21 sear engages the bottom flange of the hammer, like an AR15 Mil-Spec set up.
The distance that the X95 sear engagement is of a large radius away from the pivot of the hammer, hence it can create a uniform disengagement. Force = friction of sear + sear/trigger spring.
The TAR21 sear engagement is much closer to the pivot and often has a “positive engagement” angle so Force = Hammer spring + sear friction + sear/trigger spring.
I like the X95 a little more as it seems to be lighter without sacrificing hammer force.
The distance that the X95 sear engagement is of a large radius away from the pivot of the hammer, hence it can create a uniform disengagement. Force = friction of sear + sear/trigger spring.
The TAR21 sear engagement is much closer to the pivot and often has a “positive engagement” angle so Force = Hammer spring + sear friction + sear/trigger spring.
I like the X95 a little more as it seems to be lighter without sacrificing hammer force.
I used to have a Tavor, nothing wrong with it. But if I had to do it again, I'd get an X95 because I liked the ergonomics better when I handled it. This is assuming the accuracy is comparable between the two.
I've used bullpup rifles professionally for years and I've got to say the tavor just felt awkward. I particularly disliked the magazine release and I could understand if people regularly bumped it and dropped mags. The ergonomics of the x95 seem superior for me personally but I'm concerned with early reports regarding relatively low accuracy. I heard quotes around 4 MOA which is kinda disgraceful for such a premium cost rifle. Even the original tavor was meant to have better accuracy than the x95. Maybe things are different but I still feel the name is tarnished.
I've gotten pretty consistent 2-2.5MOA accuracy out of mine using bulk M193, which is on par with what caliber magazine found in their review. I'm perfectly happy with that. The early american rifles seem to have meh accuracy across the board, but the ones we got seem just fine. I have a few ideas on why that is but I'm no expert.
Lungorthin
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
I've had my Tavor since 2014 and I've never accidentally bumped the mag release on it, nor have any of my friends who have tried it.
Even new people I've brought to the range haven't bumped it, and more often then not when I ask which was their favorite to shoot, they say the Tavor. And I typically bring out my ACR, RDB, and AR.
And I've shot a golfball at 100yds with the first shot, I think its accurate enough. Upgraded trigger pack helps.
