Greetings all. Looking at the recent X95 threads and started some research on the IWI site. These are offered in 18.5 and 16.5 inch versions. What does the extra 2 inches give or take from this weapon? Seems the AR platform has the opposite view - 14.5 (pin, weld) vs 16.5? What am I not understanding?

The obvious answers are that
longer barrel = more velocity = more bullet energy = greater ballistic effectiveness (wounding potential)
shorter barrel = a gun that’s handier to use and especially in confined spaces, but also more muzzle blast and noise

Personal opinion: the 14.5" fad is driven by the military’s adoption of that barrel length. It was probably chosen somewhat arbitrarily but with the purpose of having a handier gun, especially when used in confined spaces like inside a vehicle. For someone not in a situation like that, there is no practical reason to chose a shorter barrel. (14.5" does permit adding a permanent muzzle device of reasonable length to get it to the legal civilian length of 16".)

If I could do it all over again I’d go with the 18” barrel. After watching side by side ballistics tests on 16 vs 18 and 20 I’d much rather have the longer barrel, especially on a bull pup. That extra 2 in. Isn’t going to negatively affect anything, plus you get a bayonet lug on it.

I'm confused in this gun what exactly you think 2" inches gets you in terminal effects? Certainly on any round I might use seriously its a huh at any range I'm likely to ask my X95 to deliver. And the whole point of this gun is a compact package. This is a short range gun and velocity differences between 16.5 and 18.5 simply aren't something I'd be worrying about. But that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I'm confused in this gun what exactly you think 2" inches gets you in terminal effects? Certainly on any round I might use seriously its a huh at any range I'm likely to ask my X95 to deliver. And the whole point of this gun is a compact package. This is a short range gun and velocity differences between 16.5 and 18.5 simply aren't something I'd be worrying about. But that's just me.

I agree with your thoughts and that is why I posted the question.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I'm confused in this gun what exactly you think 2" inches gets you in terminal effects? Certainly on any round I might use seriously its a huh at any range I'm likely to ask my X95 to deliver. And the whole point of this gun is a compact package. This is a short range gun and velocity differences between 16.5 and 18.5 simply aren't something I'd be worrying about. But that's just me.

It's my understanding that the 18" barreled X95s were offered for residents of Canada, where their rules for ownership differ somewhat from ours (where 16"+ is okay for rifles).

Yea, I think you are overthinking this. If legal, get the shorter barrel. The 18.5 is merely a legality thing for some places. No reason to buy a bull pup with an extended barrel.

Go right to IWI and buy the other grip at the same time. The whole cutlass grip is my biggest complaint about the Tavor SAR.

I had the choice of 13" 16.5" and 18.5", I went with the 16.5".

I don't think the two inches will change the ballistics enough to make a difference in the way I plan to use it as a house gun.

Barrel Length only increases the velocity of the projectile. It doesn't inherently improve accuracy. Functionally the longer barrel will translate to about 50 ft/sec velocity increase per inch so you will have less muzzle drop.

https://rifleshooter.com/2015/...-inches-to-6-inches/

Your limitation in accuracy is the MOA of the rifle. I believe for that rifle you are looking at 2 to 2.5 MOA on the X95, worse on the SAR.

If you want something more accurate in bullpup form your next best option is the Desert Tech MDRx which is between 1 and 1.5 MOA.

So for the X95 at 400 yards you are looking at your shots hitting within a 10 inch diameter circle of where you aim assuming you account for muzzle drop and wind.

From, a Bullpup perspective, I argue there is no reason to go with a shorter barrel as a 20" barrel in an X95 will be about as long as an M4 with a 14" barrel.

quote:

Your limitation in accuracy is the MOA of the rifle. I believe for that rifle you are looking at 2 to 2.5 MOA on the X95, worse on the SAR.

Why do people keep saying this? It was the X95s that weren't matching the SAR accuracy. You have it backwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Azu7WdqWo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DhHpnzvqIQ

Because it is true.

https://www.range365.com/iwi-t...review-home-defense/

The difference is your reviews were not from a bench block.

For example your first review was 2 to 2.5 moa. Your second review was .5 to 3 moa on the same gun.

It was worse on the x95 at the start of production at 5 moa. However they fixed it with a redesign. I believe the bolt was contacting a chassis part in Operation.

quote:

Originally posted by FrozenIceman:
Because it is true.

https://www.range365.com/iwi-t...review-home-defense/

The difference is your reviews were not from a bench block.

For example your first review was 2 to 2.5 moa. Your second review was .5 to 3 moa on the same gun.

It was worse on the x95 at the start of production at 5 moa. However they fixed it with a redesign. I believe the bolt was contacting a chassis part in Operation.

Nope, not buying it.

I haven't read anything substantiative regarding IWI "Fixing" the well known X95 accuracy issues. Is there a Serial # range where this "fix" has supposedly occurred?

I was considering an X95, but was turned off buy the erratic groups they produce. Same for the new Tavor 7. Side-by side, the SAR will be more consistent than an X95 and both will be sub par compared to an AUG.

Yeah, I know you like your X95 and can probably work around it's accuracy issues, but objective observation will clearly show they have issues with accuracy and can't match a rack grade AR. The X95 brought a number of refinements to the Tavor platform such as the relocation of the magazine release, the ability to change the grip, better trigger. But accuracy was not one of those improvements. If they actually "fixed" the accuracy issues, there would be a lot of reviews on this "fix". Sadly, there isn't.

Since you claimed the X95 is more accurate than a SAR, how bout you post some side by side reviews showing the X95 demonstrating obviously better accuracy than the SAR. If you can't, then stop posting that the X95 is somehow more accurate than the SAR.