Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2018, 12:26:57 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  Desert Tech MDR (Moderator: Heathsrow)
| | |-+  For 5.56 users, will the MDR be worth it?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print
Author Topic: For 5.56 users, will the MDR be worth it?  (Read 23230 times)
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2017, 06:24:42 PM »


I would say that combat is probably more of a proving ground for a weapon design than it is for the performance of a certain cartridge.  Weapon science has figured out how to test ammo performance pretty well at this point in the lab or in non-human soft targets.

I would put forward that when a weapon isn't fielded by a military, 2 and 3 gun matches can be used as a stand in for military trials. Of course I'd want to see unmodified weapons, and perhaps much larger courses of fire, but I think it cold be done with some confidence. It won't provide us with the massive fields of data military usage will, but it will be providing us data from people who tend to find the weakness in a weapons system incredibly quickly, whether the weakness lies is ergos, reliability, accuracy, etc... 2/3 gunners WILL identify an issue, and oftentimes, come up with a solution.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,696


« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2017, 07:30:20 PM »

It's not about any safe zones. But the concrete fact is that we know 5.56 works. How many bad-guys has .300bo or Wolverine killed? Has any LE SWAT team or military used these? If not, why not? Is there a reason professional organizations don't use these cartridges? Do they know something we don't?

I'd say that's a vast oversimplification of the situation.  No, they don't know something we don't, they just operate in a completely different paradigm than private citizens.  The parameters that guide their decisions often have little relevance to us.  We can go out and buy whatever we want whenever we want and we answer to nobody except ourselves.  For LE or military to make such a change, they have to spend a lot of money on testing and evaluation, talk to lots of experts, get it cleared by the legal departments while giving them no precedent to follow, etc.  It's a catch 22--"if the FBI, NYPD, LAPD, etc. aren't doing it, why should we do something different?" "They aren't doing it because nobody else is doing it."  "So then why should we do it if nobody else is doing it?"  Etc.

Law Enforcement ESPECIALLY is very sensitive to accusations of using too much force, being too Rambo-ized, etc.  So the linguine-spined bureaucrats are scared of the press finding out that they use bigger bullets than the military uses.  It wasn't until we had some real bad incidents that they even started letting patrol guys have rifles at all!

The military has their own concerns that go way beyond the question of cartridge effectiveness.  Supply chain, logistics, budget, weight vs quantity in the load-out, cost and hassle of a change-over, legacy compatibility, bureaucratic challenges, etc.

So yeah, I think the military and law enforcement can be used as a good argument to say that 5.56 is certainly adequate for certain applications, but they have little relevance to the question of whether we are safe using something else that we think might be even better.



However, if you're willing to trust the MDR which only has the claims of the company creating it to go by, why wouldn't you trust a cartridge which has data put out by many people independent of MDWS corroborating what they've said? Going by the logic of trusting the militaries choice of round, why would you take an MDR over an M4?

Very good points. Okay, so here's a question. If combat is essentially a proving zone for gear and weapons, how do we prove these cartridges like .300bo or wolverine if they are not being used anywhere near a combat situation?
Independent scientific analysis.

I don't trust the MDR any more than an M4 as it has no history. I want demonstrable reliability before I decide to purchase the MDR.  Once I have seen plenty of reviews and DT releases data and information concerning the MDR's capabilities, then I will go ahead and place an order.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,696


« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2017, 07:36:04 PM »

Very good points. Okay, so here's a question. If combat is essentially a proving zone for gear and weapons, how do we prove these cartridges like .300bo or wolverine if they are not being used anywhere near a combat situation?

I would say that combat is probably more of a proving ground for a weapon design than it is for the performance of a certain cartridge.  Weapon science has figured out how to test ammo performance pretty well at this point in the lab or in non-human soft targets.

As far as I'm concerned, the only testing I need would be what a bullet does to a small pig.  I know big pigs can have tough hides and thick bones so it may not be as relevant, but I figure a small pig can give us a pretty good indication of what a bullet would do in a human target.  And pigs are vermin so there's no emotional argument against testing on them.  Grin

To repeat what the other poster said--the military could test a new cartridge and conclude that it's superior to 5.56, but the threshold where it's so superior that it warrants a complete change-over is so high that nothing has reached it yet.  However, if you look at what specialty units are doing you don't see the bar so high.  For example, I think Dutch and British units just adopted .300 Blackout recently.

Okay, fair enough.

I still want my first MDR to be in 5.56 before the .308. It does the job. If I start looking into alternate cartridges and something really beats the 5.56 at what it's designed to do, then I might consider changing out. Who knows.
Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,036



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2017, 08:22:58 PM »

There are several other chambering that I've read about that are vastly superior to 5.56, the only real problem being the economy of scale, which it is up to us to create. We can do better and we can't rely on the military to be our guiding light for innovation. That comes from us and our acceptance of new technology and design.

The only way you'll have the economy of scale that you're hoping for is if the US military formally adopts it and retires the 5.56.  Even the 300 Blackout, arguably the biggest breakout cartridge of the past 15 years, is still quite pricey compared to run of the mill 5.56.
Logged

Kurt
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,036



WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2017, 08:37:00 PM »

Agreed with this, and to expand, I might add that the military has had trials where they determined this or that rifle is better than their current standard... And yet chose not to go with it. Again their issue being supply chains and logistics, not effectiveness.

Their issue was that the alternatives that they tested were not objectively superior enough across the board to warrant or justify a change of cartridge.  Study the ACR trials of the late 1980s/early 1990s and see how all the alternatives fared against a baseline M16A2 for more specifics.

Are there better options available?  Yes.  However, they aren't so much better in all areas to justify the change.  300BO has some major advantages, but it also comes with some disadvantages that the military isn't willing to deal with.  The 277 Wolverine is an untested cartridge that does have potential, but again, the pluses aren't enough to make it a viable contender.

Unless I can buy ammunition in sufficient quantities to both train and have some set aside for a rainy day, I'm not interested in the caliber as anything other than a novelty. 
Logged

Kurt
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,036



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2017, 08:40:50 PM »


I would say that combat is probably more of a proving ground for a weapon design than it is for the performance of a certain cartridge.  Weapon science has figured out how to test ammo performance pretty well at this point in the lab or in non-human soft targets.

I would put forward that when a weapon isn't fielded by a military, 2 and 3 gun matches can be used as a stand in for military trials. Of course I'd want to see unmodified weapons, and perhaps much larger courses of fire, but I think it cold be done with some confidence. It won't provide us with the massive fields of data military usage will, but it will be providing us data from people who tend to find the weakness in a weapons system incredibly quickly, whether the weakness lies is ergos, reliability, accuracy, etc... 2/3 gunners WILL identify an issue, and oftentimes, come up with a solution.

Matches might show quirks, but I doubt you're going to see a $3000 game gun be treated the same way an issue M-4 or M-16 is treated.  Matches might help, but I wouldn't use them as any sort of yardstick for performance beyond what the person behind the gun might be capable of when targets aren't shooting back.
Logged

Kurt
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2017, 09:59:18 PM »

Agreed with this, and to expand, I might add that the military has had trials where they determined this or that rifle is better than their current standard... And yet chose not to go with it. Again their issue being supply chains and logistics, not effectiveness.

Their issue was that the alternatives that they tested were not objectively superior enough across the board to warrant or justify a change of cartridge.  Study the ACR trials of the late 1980s/early 1990s and see how all the alternatives fared against a baseline M16A2 for more specifics.

Are there better options available?  Yes.  However, they aren't so much better in all areas to justify the change.  300BO has some major advantages, but it also comes with some disadvantages that the military isn't willing to deal with.  The 277 Wolverine is an untested cartridge that does have potential, but again, the pluses aren't enough to make it a viable contender.

Unless I can buy ammunition in sufficient quantities to both train and have some set aside for a rainy day, I'm not interested in the caliber as anything other than a novelty. 

My point was that of course you can't get .277 for the same amount as 5.56, rather, it's up to us as consumers to determine the best rounds we can and adopt them to get better products in existence.
Logged
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2017, 10:02:17 PM »


I would say that combat is probably more of a proving ground for a weapon design than it is for the performance of a certain cartridge.  Weapon science has figured out how to test ammo performance pretty well at this point in the lab or in non-human soft targets.

I would put forward that when a weapon isn't fielded by a military, 2 and 3 gun matches can be used as a stand in for military trials. Of course I'd want to see unmodified weapons, and perhaps much larger courses of fire, but I think it cold be done with some confidence. It won't provide us with the massive fields of data military usage will, but it will be providing us data from people who tend to find the weakness in a weapons system incredibly quickly, whether the weakness lies is ergos, reliability, accuracy, etc... 2/3 gunners WILL identify an issue, and oftentimes, come up with a solution.

Matches might show quirks, but I doubt you're going to see a $3000 game gun be treated the same way an issue M-4 or M-16 is treated.  Matches might help, but I wouldn't use them as any sort of yardstick for performance beyond what the person behind the gun might be capable of when targets aren't shooting back.

I am not talking about using $3k game guns as our base anyway though, rather standard firearms with minimal or no modifications. And you'll see 3-gunners find ways to break s*** all the time just due to the sheer volume of fire. Testers like nutnfancy should be more common too, guys who shoot a gun, dropping them, beating on them, shooting them not giving them a real rest for a long time. The gun world needs that kind of data. The closest thing we've got is 3 gun right now.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,696


« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2017, 10:14:09 PM »


I would say that combat is probably more of a proving ground for a weapon design than it is for the performance of a certain cartridge.  Weapon science has figured out how to test ammo performance pretty well at this point in the lab or in non-human soft targets.

I would put forward that when a weapon isn't fielded by a military, 2 and 3 gun matches can be used as a stand in for military trials. Of course I'd want to see unmodified weapons, and perhaps much larger courses of fire, but I think it cold be done with some confidence. It won't provide us with the massive fields of data military usage will, but it will be providing us data from people who tend to find the weakness in a weapons system incredibly quickly, whether the weakness lies is ergos, reliability, accuracy, etc... 2/3 gunners WILL identify an issue, and oftentimes, come up with a solution.

Matches might show quirks, but I doubt you're going to see a $3000 game gun be treated the same way an issue M-4 or M-16 is treated.  Matches might help, but I wouldn't use them as any sort of yardstick for performance beyond what the person behind the gun might be capable of when targets aren't shooting back.

I am not talking about using $3k game guns as our base anyway though, rather standard firearms with minimal or no modifications. And you'll see 3-gunners find ways to break s*** all the time just due to the sheer volume of fire. Testers like nutnfancy should be more common too, guys who shoot a gun, dropping them, beating on them, shooting them not giving them a real rest for a long time. The gun world needs that kind of data. The closest thing we've got is 3 gun right now.

That's nothing compared to a week or two in the field for an infantry unit. You've got troops running with full packs, flak-jackets, kevlar, night vision, etc in the mud or in stream beds for a days on end, running and diving onto the ground and just doing all sorts of abuse to issued gear.

Combine 3-gun with a week of "Tough Mudder," and that might be a better gauge.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 10:16:17 PM by Frostburg » Logged
MikeSmith
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278


« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2017, 12:15:37 AM »

I guess everybody can decide for themselves regarding their personal mission requirements, but I think us gun nuts get a bit too caught up in the "pursuit of perfect reliability" thing.  In real life (excluding zombie apocalypse or insurgent militia scenarios) even law enforcement will probably never put more than part of a magazine through their rifle in a 2 way engagement.  At most, in a terrorist scenario maybe what--a few magazines?  I bet even the cheapest Olympic Arms AR could get through as much ammo as you or any SWAT guy carries on him without a hiccup.  Anything else is more theoretical or less significant--a malfunction in a training class or at the range really isn't that big a deal, regardless of how the Internet reacts to it!  It's not like your go-to rifle won't be sitting there clean, oiled, and set up with quality ammo, so even if you have issues with a dirty gun and cheap ammo during a class it's really not that relevant.

If I know the warranty is good if I do have a problem, I couldn't care less about Desert Tech or anybody else proving reliability to me first before I'd buy.  A whole lot of Kel-Tec customers seem to agree with me on that.  Tongue
Logged
Siris
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2017, 12:40:09 AM »

I guess everybody can decide for themselves regarding their personal mission requirements, but I think us gun nuts get a bit too caught up in the "pursuit of perfect reliability" thing.  In real life (excluding zombie apocalypse or insurgent militia scenarios) even law enforcement will probably never put more than part of a magazine through their rifle in a 2 way engagement.  At most, in a terrorist scenario maybe what--a few magazines?  I bet even the cheapest Olympic Arms AR could get through as much ammo as you or any SWAT guy carries on him without a hiccup.  Anything else is more theoretical or less significant--a malfunction in a training class or at the range really isn't that big a deal, regardless of how the Internet reacts to it!  It's not like your go-to rifle won't be sitting there clean, oiled, and set up with quality ammo, so even if you have issues with a dirty gun and cheap ammo during a class it's really not that relevant.

If I know the warranty is good if I do have a problem, I couldn't care less about Desert Tech or anybody else proving reliability to me first before I'd buy.  A whole lot of Kel-Tec customers seem to agree with me on that.  Tongue

this makes me want to see the guys at iv8888 do an ultimate mdr meltdown
Logged

What ever happened to Democrat meaning drunken partying and pistol duels on the white house lawn, beating your would be assassin so senseless your security has to protect them from you, and one of your only two regrets is that you didn't kill your own vice president and running mate.
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,696


« Reply #51 on: January 14, 2017, 12:53:01 AM »

I guess everybody can decide for themselves regarding their personal mission requirements, but I think us gun nuts get a bit too caught up in the "pursuit of perfect reliability" thing.  In real life (excluding zombie apocalypse or insurgent militia scenarios) even law enforcement will probably never put more than part of a magazine through their rifle in a 2 way engagement.  At most, in a terrorist scenario maybe what--a few magazines?  I bet even the cheapest Olympic Arms AR could get through as much ammo as you or any SWAT guy carries on him without a hiccup.  Anything else is more theoretical or less significant--a malfunction in a training class or at the range really isn't that big a deal, regardless of how the Internet reacts to it!  It's not like your go-to rifle won't be sitting there clean, oiled, and set up with quality ammo, so even if you have issues with a dirty gun and cheap ammo during a class it's really not that relevant.

If I know the warranty is good if I do have a problem, I couldn't care less about Desert Tech or anybody else proving reliability to me first before I'd buy.  A whole lot of Kel-Tec customers seem to agree with me on that.  Tongue

I find it interesting that people hate on Keltec. Yes, their quality control is atrocious, but the RDB is currently the best shooting and handling 5.56 bullpup on the market today. In terms of ergonomics, controls, manual of arms, accuracy, trigger, lightweight, etc.  Reliability is the only issue, and that's a QC issue, not a design one.

I really hope the MDR is significantly better than the RDB, as I dislike all the other alternatives.
Logged
charliemike
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2017, 12:55:20 AM »

I guess everybody can decide for themselves regarding their personal mission requirements, but I think us gun nuts get a bit too caught up in the "pursuit of perfect reliability" thing

Has to survive the Hydraulic Press Test or no-buy.

https://youtu.be/SnFYYNqwznY
Logged
MikeSmith
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278


« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2017, 01:48:55 AM »

I find it interesting that people hate on Keltec. Yes, their quality control is atrocious, but the RDB is currently the best shooting and handling 5.56 bullpup on the market today. In terms of ergonomics, controls, manual of arms, accuracy, trigger, lightweight, etc.  Reliability is the only issue, and that's a QC issue, not a design one.

I really hope the MDR is significantly better than the RDB, as I dislike all the other alternatives.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was hating on Kel-Tec, but the attitude I often see from Kel-Tec owners is something like "yeah, I had problems but I sent it back under warranty and Kel-Tec fixed it quickly so I'm happy."  People excuse away the QC/reliability issues by saying "Don't worry about it, if you have a problem they are good about fixing it."

Why shouldn't the MDR get the same benefit of the doubt?  Smiley
Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,036



WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2017, 09:18:25 PM »

I find it interesting that people hate on Keltec. Yes, their quality control is atrocious, but the RDB is currently the best shooting and handling 5.56 bullpup on the market today. In terms of ergonomics, controls, manual of arms, accuracy, trigger, lightweight, etc.  Reliability is the only issue, and that's a QC issue, not a design one.

I really hope the MDR is significantly better than the RDB, as I dislike all the other alternatives.

I'm not hating on Kel-Tec, I just view them with a pint of skepticism.  They're innovative as hell, but their track record leaves a lot to be desired.  Remove the production delay issues and look solely at initial product quality, performance, and the percentage of units shipped that had to either be returned, retrofitted, or somehow fixed/modded by the user and that percentage is just way too high.  It looks like they've got something good with the RDB and once I get back on my feet (still out of work for way too long...) I'm planning on getting one. 

From a design perspective, the RDB has some features I'm not really fond of, namely not being able to easily access the chamber without cracking it open, but it's a sound design. 

As for reliability being a QC issue, I think it's also a design issue, too.  If the parts are made to spec, and it isn't reliable, then there's a fault in the design.

Logged

Kurt
HBeretta
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 947



« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2017, 12:47:48 AM »

I find it interesting that people hate on Keltec. Yes, their quality control is atrocious, but the RDB is currently the best shooting and handling 5.56 bullpup on the market today. In terms of ergonomics, controls, manual of arms, accuracy, trigger, lightweight, etc.  Reliability is the only issue, and that's a QC issue, not a design one.

I really hope the MDR is significantly better than the RDB, as I dislike all the other alternatives.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was hating on Kel-Tec, but the attitude I often see from Kel-Tec owners is something like "yeah, I had problems but I sent it back under warranty and Kel-Tec fixed it quickly so I'm happy."  People excuse away the QC/reliability issues by saying "Don't worry about it, if you have a problem they are good about fixing it."

Why shouldn't the MDR get the same benefit of the doubt?  Smiley

Mike i understood your point the first time and I think Frostburg misinterpreted what you were getting at.  And, i agree with you - the lifetime warranty and great customer service, at least in my experience, with kel-tec has me less worried about reliability.  moreover, once you've committed to your purchase and have in hands with this kind of reassurance you quickly realize that you're able to enjoy the gun a little more worry free.  also, over a period of time, you quickly realize whether or not you have a quality product that'll provide some longevity so it's a win win in my opinion.  

then again, it's much easier to take a chance on a $1000 gun vs a $2500 gun.  now to carry this further, i've read that kel-tec has about 200 employees and admittedly are a small growing company.  likewise, i've read desert tech is around the same size.  i've experienced kel-tec's customer service first hand.  they've been very responsive with me, polite and i have come through on several occasions with regard to service.  one would hope desert tech would provide the same level of customer service coupled with the pressure of keeping up with demand.  
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 01:02:07 AM by HBeretta » Logged
Steelviper
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 823



« Reply #56 on: January 15, 2017, 02:22:11 AM »

Sorry reliability is a must. 1st on the check list. I depend on a firearm for my life and the lives of those around me. Good to know Keltec will fix my rifle, after my funeral.
Used an RFB, until the receiver cracked and luckily only turned it into a single shot and didnt injure me. Took almost a year to get it back. It now sits in the safe.

For those of us that carry a gun for a living, and may only go on living because of a gun, 99% isn't good enough. Would you drive a car wear the brakes only worked 99% of the time?

**edited to correct spelling.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 09:51:53 AM by Steelviper » Logged
HBeretta
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 947



« Reply #57 on: January 15, 2017, 03:01:36 AM »

Sorry reliability is a must. 1st on the check list. I depend on a firearm for my life and the lives of those around me. Good to know Leltec will fix my rifle, after my funeral.
Used an RFB, until the receiver cracked and luckily only turned it into a single shot and didnt injure me. Took almost a year to get it back. It now sits in the safe.

For those of us that carry a gun for a living, and may only go on living because of a gun, 99% isn't good enough. Would you drive a car wear the brakes only worked 99% of the time?

newsflash...no gun is 100% reliable.
Logged
Steelviper
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 823



« Reply #58 on: January 15, 2017, 10:17:23 AM »

Never said 100% nothing mechanical is 100%. I inferred North of 99% percent. Preferably north of 99.9%. My current go to "work" AR has 4,875 rounds through it. During one range session it had one malfunction failure to eject. I couldn't re-create it and no problems before or after- that's 99.98%. I'll take that but Murphy is still out there and on the two way range he is a terrible unforgiving mother*****r.

So range, competition, hunting, and plinking 99 is great. But I won't risk my life on it. So Keltec stays a cool oddity. It died well short of 4,000 rounds (heck it didn't even have 2, 000 rounds in) and it failure was not something an immediate action drill or even remedial action could fix. It had to go to the factory to function again. No thanks Keltec is probably one of the most innovative companies out there but their designs go out to the public untested using us for Beta testing then between slow production rates and years to resolve initial batch defects- it's not worth it.


* IMG_1946.JPG (1363.73 KB, 3264x2448 - viewed 109 times.)
Logged
rtp
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 916


« Reply #59 on: January 15, 2017, 01:02:57 PM »

All I'm worried about is that the MDR overall as a platform will be idealized for the .308 caliber, and that
the 5.56 version will not have as much attention given, or that the 5.56 version will be "adapted" to the .308 platform. This would imply that theoretically the MDR as a native 5.56 platform might be constructed slightly differently and perhaps the tuning of the parts and dimensions would be more specific to the 5.56 caliber.  Idk if that made any sense.

The 5.56 MDR is in fact a magwell adapter, barrel and bolt.  There is no '5.56 only' platform which will not be convertible to .308, and there is no difference in the chassis/receiver between buying a .308 MDR or a 5.56 MDR aside from the bolt + barrel plus use of a magwell adapter or not (.308).

What other 'adaptation' or construction differences are you believing to exist in the future??   What parts 'tuned', or changed dimensions?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 01:31:51 PM by rtp » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!