Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 18, 2017, 10:34:57 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
| | |-+  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 12224 times)
HBeretta
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 819



« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2017, 01:45:47 AM »

I am curious, as I am primarily interested in the MDR as a 5.56 fighting rifle, and if the 5.56 version will be
all that it's cracked up to be. I have come to understand recently that .308 will be the primary caliber for the platform, and 5.56 is more of a "side-kick" to it. I'm not terribly interested in a .308 MDR, but instead 5.56. I get that DT has spent considerable time with the .308 version and that version is their pride and joy.  While they are showing off .308 groups, the 5.56 version is still being developed. 

I mean, how will the 5.56 version stack up against the .308 version? Is it even worth it to get the MDR if
you are only interested in 5.56?  I mean, there are other options for 5.56 such as the Tavor, etc, but none of whom offer the revolutionary design and features of the MDR.

Frostburg, if you want a bullpup designed specifically for the .556, then you may want to seriously consider a Lithgow F90 Atrax. They'll be $500+ less than the MDR, and if all continues to go as planned, you'll be able to get your hands on the civilian version before the .556 MDR is available. Since i absolutely hate the Tavor, I won't encourage you in that direction.

I'm pretty sure the .556 MDR is going to be one heck of a rifle, but I can see how someone wanting a rifle specifically designed for the .556 might be discouraged by the MDR platform. In answer to your question, I do believe the MDR will be worth it, even in .556.

i'm very excited for that f90 as well...appears to be pretty accurate too.
Logged
Ascinder
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 453



« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2017, 05:33:34 AM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.
Logged
slowcorrado
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2017, 10:05:27 AM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.

Cartridge availability.  Also sadly, I can afford to shoot 5.56 more often than either other caliber......  This may not be an issue for some.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:52:02 AM by slowcorrado » Logged
Slateman
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2017, 12:50:16 PM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.

Cartridge availability.  Also sadly, I can afford to shoot 5.56 more often than either other caliber......  This may not be an issue for some.
This and, frankly, .300 BLK has limited range particularly when you're looking for a more precision-oriented round.
Logged
MikeSmith
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2017, 01:01:02 PM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.

5.56 hits the sweet spot for many applications.  Ammo is affordable and available everywhere in great quantity, recoil is light, compatible weapon platforms are abundant and can be very cheap (for those who need that), ammo is lightweight, common magazine capacity is high, those magazines are cheap, etc. all while the terminal effect on the target at "normal" ranges (e.g. civilian applications and not military) is excellent with the right bullets.

Sure, if you hit a human target at 600 yards with 855, you may do little other than poke a .22 inch hole through it.  If you are in a military engagement that may be much less than satisfactory!  But for any typical civilian engagement (real world self defense) the range is probably going to be less than 100 yards, and out to maybe 200 yards even out of a short barrel with quality ammo the effect on target is going to be substantial and accomplish the desired effect, assuming the marksmanship is adequate.  So I'm quite confident that 5.56 will do anything I need a rifle to do as a civilian.

That being said, I love the idea of getting so much more without sacrificing much with a .308 MDR!  Many people think .308 is just for long distance and will over-penetrate at close ranges, but there are cartridges available that won't even penetrate as far in gel as 9mm yet would deliver devastating energy on a human target at close range.  If you are going to do a lot of training with the MDR, you can easily calculate how many rounds you have to shoot before a 5.56 conversion pays for itself in ammo savings.  But even if you don't go that route, spending a few hundred dollars on ammo for training is not that big a deal compared to what you are gaining!

.300 Blackout is certainly becoming more popular as more ammo choices become available, but for me it gives the most advantages over 5.56 in short barrels.  I wouldn't want an AR SBR in anything other than .300 Blackout.  And in the case of the MDR-C, I can't imagine why anybody would want to choose 5.56 over .300 Blk--I can't imagine a better PDW design!

Otherwise, if you're comparing .300 Blk to 5.56 with a 16" barrel for both the .300 does probably offer ballistic advantages under 300 yards?) but it may not be enough to overcome the higher ammo prices, less availability (getting better), and lower platform distribution for some people.  Like the previous post said, once you go beyond 300 yards it doesn't do as well as 5.56 for precision shooting but that's more of a target shooting application than a tactical application for civilians, in my opinion.
Logged
LockeCTH
^
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2017, 03:47:49 PM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.

Personally, this is pretty similar to my line of thought. (Not that I would begrudge anyone their excitement over just about any gun in just about any caliber - the more the merrier.)

The thought of the range and power of a .308 (or 6.5 Creedmoor) in a short, light, accurate package, like the MDR is shaping up to be, is a very happy thought indeed. IMO there are already plenty of solid available options for 5.56 bullpups (but the more the merrier!) But there's not much out there currently for the larger calibers.

With that said, I have no personal experience with 6.5 Creedmoor or with bullpups (...yet *fingers crossed*) so a happy thought may be all that it is. But it's one I intend to investigate fully, while thoroughly enjoy said investigation every step of the way.
Logged
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2017, 04:00:05 PM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.

Personally, this is pretty similar to my line of thought. (Not that I would begrudge anyone their excitement over just about any gun in just about any caliber - the more the merrier.)

The thought of the range and power of a .308 (or 6.5 Creedmoor) in a short, light, accurate package, like the MDR is shaping up to be, is a very happy thought indeed. IMO there are already plenty of solid available options for 5.56 bullpups (but the more the merrier!) But there's not much out there currently for the larger calibers.

With that said, I have no personal experience with 6.5 Creedmoor or with bullpups (...yet *fingers crossed*) so a happy thought may be all that it is. But it's one I intend to investigate fully, while thoroughly enjoy said investigation every step of the way.

Personally, if I am to get an MDR (which despite my irritation regarding marketing and rice increases and such, I might of the reviews make it seem worthwhile), I intend fully to get special snowflake caliber barrels for it (idk what the aftermarket will look like though). .338 federal, 6.547 Lapua, and .277 wolverine being my current favorites.
Logged
spector762
.
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2017, 05:07:56 PM »

i dont know if anyone noticed  the trigger reset looks decently short for a bullpup getting very excited folks
Logged
INV136
.
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 453


« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2017, 05:18:09 PM »

I have 0 interest in a 5.56 caliber MDR. I have a Steyr Aug that covers the 5.56 bullpup role exceptionally well. The only interest I have in the MDR is in .308 caliber. I have looked at the K&M 17 .308 and I prefer the ergonomics of the MDR. I also had a KelTec RFB .308 and it was not satisfactory because of some issues with the rifle and issues I had with various magazines. Since Steyr doesn't make a .308 Aug, the MDR looks to me to be the next best thing. I also have 0 interest in caliber change kits for the MDR.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,584


« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2017, 05:51:28 PM »

I may be the only one here, but I fail to see the appeal of .556 when you have 300BLK and .308. You have better(IMHO) capability with those two rounds, and they effectively edge out .556 in this case. What's the actual advantage of .556 here? Seems like a leftover compromise to me.

Personally, this is pretty similar to my line of thought. (Not that I would begrudge anyone their excitement over just about any gun in just about any caliber - the more the merrier.)

The thought of the range and power of a .308 (or 6.5 Creedmoor) in a short, light, accurate package, like the MDR is shaping up to be, is a very happy thought indeed. IMO there are already plenty of solid available options for 5.56 bullpups (but the more the merrier!) But there's not much out there currently for the larger calibers.

With that said, I have no personal experience with 6.5 Creedmoor or with bullpups (...yet *fingers crossed*) so a happy thought may be all that it is. But it's one I intend to investigate fully, while thoroughly enjoy said investigation every step of the way.

See, from my perspective, before the MDR (and also somewhat the RDB), all previous bullpup iterations have had some notable drawbacks as a "5.56 fighting rifle." None of which could really top the M16/M4 at their role. I want a good fighting rifle that covers the role of an infantry M16 or M4 in 5.56, but in a bullpup format.  I have tried and shot most of the other common military 5.56 bullpup rifles, and they all fall short in some way or another.

I don't like the location of the magazine release on the AUG. It makes speed reloads much slower, nor do I like its forward grip. I dislike the weight and large groups I get with the Tavor. The RDB nearly has it all, but its quality is suspect. The MDR though has to potential to be the 5.56 standard service rifle that the M16 and M4 should have been.

I am not really into "fad" calibers rifles. The 5.56 has gotten the job done in war-zones for decades, and I see no reason to jump onto every hot new cartridge that comes out. Admittedly, I don't know much about most of these new, trendier cartridges, and everyone seems to love them. I know people have issues with the 5.56 cartridge, but it's been the cartridge used successfully by professional infantrymen for a long time now.
Logged
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2017, 09:37:19 PM »

I know people have issues with the 5.56 cartridge, but it's been the cartridge used successfully by professional infantrymen for a long time now.

So was .30-06

And while I'm at it, the M4 is a fine 5.56 fighting rifle. It's been doing its job just fine.

Just because it was successful doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim much higher. 5.56 has a lot of issues and many cartridges seem to be finding ways to remedy them with little to no compromise. An example (which I admit I haven't researched in a while) is .277 wolverine. Nipping the heels of 6.8 SPC when loaded supersonic, and close to the suppressed performance of .300 Blackout when loaded subsonic. I will say it does have a higher weight/round then 5.56, but I think the amount is small enough and there is a great enough performance increase to make that cartridge well worth it. 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.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,584


« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2017, 10:20:04 PM »

I know people have issues with the 5.56 cartridge, but it's been the cartridge used successfully by professional infantrymen for a long time now.

So was .30-06

And while I'm at it, the M4 is a fine 5.56 fighting rifle. It's been doing its job just fine.

Just because it was successful doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim much higher. 5.56 has a lot of issues and many cartridges seem to be finding ways to remedy them with little to no compromise. An example (which I admit I haven't researched in a while) is .277 wolverine. Nipping the heels of 6.8 SPC when loaded supersonic, and close to the suppressed performance of .300 Blackout when loaded subsonic. I will say it does have a higher weight/round then 5.56, but I think the amount is small enough and there is a great enough performance increase to make that cartridge well worth it. 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.

I don't disagree that there may be better cartridges than the 5.56 to fill the role for the military assault rifle. I'm sure there are plenty of interesting innovations out there, but 5.56 is simply war tested and approved. We can talk about ballistics tests and math all we want; the 5.56 has already been there and done that. It's proven. Its metrics can be measured in tons of dead bad-guys. The other cartridges we are talking about have not yet done so.

As for the military being the 'guiding light for innovation,' I agree that we should not be constrained solely to military ways and methods. But the fact is that the military often and unbelievably, does what they do for good reason, and there are many things you will find 'acceptable' within the civilian tactical community that would fail when put head to head against standard military tech or protocol in a war-zone.  While the military is not the end-all be-all, wars do however demonstrate very clearly what works and what fails.
Logged
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2017, 10:25:18 PM »

I don't disagree that there may be better cartridges than the 5.56 to fill the role for the military assault rifle. I'm sure there are plenty of interesting innovations out there, but 5.56 is simply war tested and approved. We can talk about ballistics tests and math all we want; the 5.56 has already been there and done that. It's proven. Its metrics can be measured in tons of dead bad-guys. The other cartridges we are talking about have not yet done so.

As for the military being the 'guiding light for innovation,' I agree that we should not be constrained solely to military ways and methods. But the fact is that the military often and unbelievably, does what they do for good reason, and there are many things you will find 'acceptable' within the civilian tactical community that would fail when put head to head against standard military tech or protocol in a war-zone.  While the military is not the end-all be-all, wars do however demonstrate very clearly what works and what fails.

Your point is staying in safe zones in the best way to go and I guess I can't fault your for that. However I would advise that you can't win the jackpot if you don't roll the dice.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,584


« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2017, 10:53:07 PM »

I don't disagree that there may be better cartridges than the 5.56 to fill the role for the military assault rifle. I'm sure there are plenty of interesting innovations out there, but 5.56 is simply war tested and approved. We can talk about ballistics tests and math all we want; the 5.56 has already been there and done that. It's proven. Its metrics can be measured in tons of dead bad-guys. The other cartridges we are talking about have not yet done so.

As for the military being the 'guiding light for innovation,' I agree that we should not be constrained solely to military ways and methods. But the fact is that the military often and unbelievably, does what they do for good reason, and there are many things you will find 'acceptable' within the civilian tactical community that would fail when put head to head against standard military tech or protocol in a war-zone.  While the military is not the end-all be-all, wars do however demonstrate very clearly what works and what fails.

Your point is staying in safe zones in the best way to go and I guess I can't fault your for that. However I would advise that you can't win the jackpot if you don't roll the dice.

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?
Logged
Siris
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 231


« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2017, 12:34:05 AM »

I don't disagree that there may be better cartridges than the 5.56 to fill the role for the military assault rifle. I'm sure there are plenty of interesting innovations out there, but 5.56 is simply war tested and approved. We can talk about ballistics tests and math all we want; the 5.56 has already been there and done that. It's proven. Its metrics can be measured in tons of dead bad-guys. The other cartridges we are talking about have not yet done so.

As for the military being the 'guiding light for innovation,' I agree that we should not be constrained solely to military ways and methods. But the fact is that the military often and unbelievably, does what they do for good reason, and there are many things you will find 'acceptable' within the civilian tactical community that would fail when put head to head against standard military tech or protocol in a war-zone.  While the military is not the end-all be-all, wars do however demonstrate very clearly what works and what fails.

Your point is staying in safe zones in the best way to go and I guess I can't fault your for that. However I would advise that you can't win the jackpot if you don't roll the dice.

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?

Supply and politics, see the FAL and the .308 and read up on how the us basically forced Europe into accepting a larger round because of the NATO agreements. Also consider the monumental scale of rearming and retooling not only the US military but also all the militaries of our allies. And when you factor the cost of that into the equation along with the logistics it's quite a staggering proposition. Now i'm not sayying that 5.56 is superior or vice versa but the truth is that these sort of changes are going to be slow and messy at best in the most ideal of situations.
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: 1,584


« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2017, 01:05:42 PM »

I don't disagree that there may be better cartridges than the 5.56 to fill the role for the military assault rifle. I'm sure there are plenty of interesting innovations out there, but 5.56 is simply war tested and approved. We can talk about ballistics tests and math all we want; the 5.56 has already been there and done that. It's proven. Its metrics can be measured in tons of dead bad-guys. The other cartridges we are talking about have not yet done so.

As for the military being the 'guiding light for innovation,' I agree that we should not be constrained solely to military ways and methods. But the fact is that the military often and unbelievably, does what they do for good reason, and there are many things you will find 'acceptable' within the civilian tactical community that would fail when put head to head against standard military tech or protocol in a war-zone.  While the military is not the end-all be-all, wars do however demonstrate very clearly what works and what fails.

Your point is staying in safe zones in the best way to go and I guess I can't fault your for that. However I would advise that you can't win the jackpot if you don't roll the dice.

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?

Supply and politics, see the FAL and the .308 and read up on how the us basically forced Europe into accepting a larger round because of the NATO agreements. Also consider the monumental scale of rearming and retooling not only the US military but also all the militaries of our allies. And when you factor the cost of that into the equation along with the logistics it's quite a staggering proposition. Now i'm not sayying that 5.56 is superior or vice versa but the truth is that these sort of changes are going to be slow and messy at best in the most ideal of situations.

I understand that there is the issue of massive supply and scale when it comes to the U.S. military and NATO countries. But honestly, the U.S. military literally throws money away at times. We would at least see smaller units, security elements, MEU(SOC)s, U.S. SOCOM units fielding different calibers if the military liked them enough. Also, law enforcement such as local and state SWAT teams are not nearly as bound to equipment uniformity as the military is. You also have units such as F.B.I. HRT that likely has their pick of equipment, as well as DEA, ICE and other Federal law enforcement entities. And they nearly all use the venerable 5.56 cartridge fired from the M4 platform.

I've also personally known the cartridge to do its job right. The farthest distance being when I witnessed a squad buddy drop a man standing 600meters away using an M16A4 rifle while resting off the roof of a humvee that I was operating. (My own rifle that I loaned to him, mind you)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 01:39:59 PM by Frostburg » Logged
MikeSmith
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2017, 03:14:15 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.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,584


« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2017, 05:49:31 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.

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?
Logged
Whoops
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2017, 05:59:40 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.

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.

In terms of effectiveness, nothing beats science. You will never find a round that is more effective than scientific analysis says it should be. You won't find 5.56 that hits harder than .308, you won't find .308 that is as precise at a distance as 6.5 creedmoor, etc...

Ignoring scientific analysis for the experiences in the military is certainly staying in the safe zone of equipment and such. Of course, with my pet round .277 wolverine, folks who jumped on the bandwagon could be dressing up the numbers to justify it to themselves, or their equipment could be inaccurate, or any other error. 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.
Logged
MikeSmith
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2017, 06:09:49 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.
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!