X95 Durability?
- Thread starter Xathane
- Start date
Thanks for your contribution.
I would hope all the material is consistent throughout the platform and agree that the main body and high end polymers today are extremely robust. I'm simply expressing my concern as it appears to be the thinnest and most vulnerable area with exception to perhaps the flip up sights. I run my gear hard and have high expectations surrounding a $3k piece of kit.
I would hope all the material is consistent throughout the platform and agree that the main body and high end polymers today are extremely robust. I'm simply expressing my concern as it appears to be the thinnest and most vulnerable area with exception to perhaps the flip up sights. I run my gear hard and have high expectations surrounding a $3k piece of kit.
I've put thousands of rounds through both the TAR21 and X95 and the only part to ever show damage from excessive use was the charging handle on the TAR - and it was an issue the X95 would not have.
The bolt catch is only a vulnerable part if you treat it with serious neglect after removing it from the rifle.
The backup sights are just that: backups. They are made with the understanding you will likely never use them. They take up no rail space, but can be finely zeroed. It's a game of trade-offs and I think they nailed it.
Last edited:
I really don't think so. Having extensive experience with both, the X95 has a plethora of very minor changes to fix small problems with the TAR21.
The gap between the pistol grip and the magazine well is much smaller on the X95. While I personally don't think "accidentally dropping a mag by bumping the release" was ever a problem with the TAR21, it WOULD have been a problem with the X95. You can see on the polymer shell that they intended for the original release to be there, but they had to relocate it out of necessity. I think it's a good tradeoff for the shorter length of pull - with a flat buttplate, the X95 has a LOP a little shorter than an M16A1.
The side charging handle, similarly, is not as intuitive as the forward one, but fixes some issues. As has been noted, it makes it easy to mount accessories. Another reason is the very long cocking handle bar on the old TAR21 was at an odd angle, and would also flex with use, and scrape against the gas block. This would make it VERY stiff to charge. The X95's charging handle bar is not only short and rigid, but in-line with the travel of the bolt carrier. Having the channel closed off by the railed handguard also makes it infinitely easier to remove the handle and cocking bar on disassembly.
Even the cutlass handguard on the X95 has been made flat on the bottom, and more vertical in front. This lets you keep the "6 points of contact" method, but makes it much easier to shoot prone or off a rest, something that could be very awkward to do with the old TAR.
The X95 is a bigger upgrade than it looks, I made the switch and never looked back. I have seen no accuracy difference between them.
I also prefer the Tavor over the X95. I much prefer the foward charging handle on the Tavor then the moved back one on the X95. I also like the hand grip better so I can do the 6 point Israeli grip on it. Much harder to do or impossible on a X95. Also the Tavor is a little bit lighter in weight then the X95 despite the X95 being smaller overall in size. As for the front rails, I had enough room to mount my stuff on them for the Tavor. Sure the X95 rail set up is infinitely better, but I made do on the Tavor.
[Youtube]xJWXZwmFkfw&t=169s[/youtube]
I've gotten a pretty consistent 2.5" at 100m using M193 of different makes. Federal, IMI, PMC
2.5" to 3.5" at a 100 meters if the ammunition is good and the shooter does his part is typical. A decent or average quality AR15 will generally beat out a Tavor or X95 for accuracy. But that should be expected. The AR15 has about 30 years of more age of tuning the platform for better results.
Allot of people complain about the accuracy of the Tavor or X95. They are idiots. They are expecting close to or sub 1 MOA results at a 100 meters from a rifle that was designed for putting rounds into the center of mass of a middle eastern guy at CQB range. The accuracy is just fine on the Tavor platform.
Last edited:
PinaKaleada
CGN Regular
- Location
- South of most
For TAR21 and X95 type weapons, you can tighten the group a little by being mindful of any canting of the rifle since it has a high sight over bore distance. However even if you do your job, you get fliers on the X95 all the long so TAR21 would have slightly better accuracy.
But you didn’t buy these guns for 1-2 moa accuracy did you? Haha! As a blaster I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway unless I’m shooting off a rest with magnified optics.
Everyone keeps telling me these are 'battle rifles". The M14 just has a hit a 6" group a 100 yards to be good enough for the US Army.
A lot of these rifles are ammo sensitive. It can shoot one manufacturer ammo better than the other.
Saying that, my experience of X95 it is a 3MOA system with most commonly available ammo.
But if you think about it, without LRF telling exactly the range and holdover most people with rifles are only 200m system together ( cartridge irrelevant). The ideal 20"X20" targets standing still in the open rarely exist in the real world. So whether it is a 1.5 or 3MOA rifle, it really doesn't matter. To engage anything over 200m, one needs a good (sizable and minimum movement) target exposure, accurate enough range/holder over for the particular exposure, time to sort out the ballistic solution and enough precision off the ammo/rifle to exploit. Really, for that sort of shooting out in the field one really needs to get into a precision rig with enough help from LAD and ballistic assistance to be effective. Otherwise it is just a lot of people firing or adjust for effect (if you can see the misses).
But of course, if you are getting to 6MOA it is a bit of a problem even at 200m.
Saying that, my experience of X95 it is a 3MOA system with most commonly available ammo.
But if you think about it, without LRF telling exactly the range and holdover most people with rifles are only 200m system together ( cartridge irrelevant). The ideal 20"X20" targets standing still in the open rarely exist in the real world. So whether it is a 1.5 or 3MOA rifle, it really doesn't matter. To engage anything over 200m, one needs a good (sizable and minimum movement) target exposure, accurate enough range/holder over for the particular exposure, time to sort out the ballistic solution and enough precision off the ammo/rifle to exploit. Really, for that sort of shooting out in the field one really needs to get into a precision rig with enough help from LAD and ballistic assistance to be effective. Otherwise it is just a lot of people firing or adjust for effect (if you can see the misses).
But of course, if you are getting to 6MOA it is a bit of a problem even at 200m.
Maybe under certain conditions. I was out shooting at 200 the other day and even a slight breeze can nudge you into a miss on a target that normally seems effortless to hit. Once you take into account concealment, movement, return fire, adrenaline, and the fact you're probably sucking wind, 300 seems like a real stretch for an individual rifleman.
No kidding, I can rest both my arms on my chest comfortably. That makes for a very stable offhand shooting position.
Indeed you have to severely #### up in order to damage the bolt catch. I lightly bent my bolt catch after making the rookie mistake of somehow unlodging the catch and accidentally sending my hammer home so inorder to get things back together I had to do some weird trickery with a cleaning rod and trying to reset the trigger. It hardly had a noticeable bend to it but was enough to not lock the bolt. All it took was a little elbow grease and a hammer and i haven't had any issues with it now.
