Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 23, 2017, 08:29:48 PM
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
| | |-+  Ejection chute jam
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Ejection chute jam  (Read 5125 times)
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2017, 04:12:52 PM »

So, a couple things here; First, I believe the reasoning for going away from the hinged ejection chute was mainly to make the rifle completely ambidextrous and uniform. With the hinged design, that wasnt possible. The removable panels allow the operator to quickly go from right to left eject.
The jamming questions are a little more complex for me to answer because I have experienced very few of them. The only malfunctions I have witnessed so far have been the type you see in the video, and a failure to extract caused by the rim being ripped off a case, ( I suspect it was poor quality brass, because the case easily fell out by dropping a short rod down the barrel). The scenario mentioned by Zeiram3f above doesn't seem possible due to the timing of the ejection sequence. In order for the bolt to travel forward, the last spent case MUST clear the inner chute. The only thing keeping it from being completely ejected out the chute would be foreign matter or mechanical damage, and in that case, the bolt would stop forward motion, and require chute removal as shown in the video. In either case, removing the chute, clearing any jams, and continuing to fire with or without the chute would be fine.

For those worried about the chute removal, it is easier than it looks. I always use a spent case because I hate using fingernails for it. But everybody else does.

Coldbore, have you guys developed a specified immediate and remedial action protocol for stoppages with the MDR? Most rifles use the Observe, then Tap, Rack, Bang method for immediate action.  
Observe, remove magazine, lock bolt to rear, physically remove any blockage before reloading and resuming firing for remedial action.  

Would standard immediate/remedial action protocols apply to the MDR or is there a modified MDR specific sequence involving the ejection port cover, or what have you?
This is what I'm curious about as well. Immediate and remedial action will be more difficult seeing that the ejection chute has to be physically removed to examine the chamber. This is the only point leaving me apprehensive about the MDR. I want to use this on patrol at some point and need to be able to clear malfunctions quickly and efficiently without worrying about losing pieces in the field.

Yes, this should be a concern for anyone who might use this weapon "tactically." Proficiency with immediate and remedial action are an integral component of any weapons training regimen. I'm surprised I havn't heard a lot of other people asking about this.

If DT doesn't describe a specific protocol to deal with this in their manual, then I might just leave the ejection port cover removed during firing. Other than when playing "tacticool" operator fantasy, how often does the average shooter really need to switch shoulders?  Unless you're specifically holding on a corner on your right side for more than like 10 seconds (and during such instances, a few casings bouncing off your chin will be the least of your concerns), you will likely never need to switch shoulders as most CQB and MOUT ops require constant pushing or moving forward of the element to prevent the loss of momentum.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 04:19:15 PM by Frostburg » Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,132



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2017, 09:28:53 PM »

Yes, this should be a concern for anyone who might use this weapon "tactically." Proficiency with immediate and remedial action are an integral component of any weapons training regimen. I'm surprised I havn't heard a lot of other people asking about this.

Based on the design, I would think that running the bolt would either clear the jam or prove beyond a doubt that you need to remove the cover. 

Quote
If DT doesn't describe a specific protocol to deal with this in their manual, then I might just leave the ejection port cover removed during firing. Other than when playing "tacticool" operator fantasy, how often does the average shooter really need to switch shoulders?  Unless you're specifically holding on a corner on your right side for more than like 10 seconds (and during such instances, a few casings bouncing off your chin will be the least of your concerns), you will likely never need to switch shoulders as most CQB and MOUT ops require constant pushing or moving forward of the element to prevent the loss of momentum.

How often does the average shooter expect to be in a firefight?  Fantasies aside, like any new weapon that is released, there will be a period of time when not just the manufacturer, but the training community put it through its paces to determine how to "run" it in various scenarios.  Until then, we can experiment ourselves or just wait and see what develops.
Logged

Kurt
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2017, 10:11:17 PM »

Yes, this should be a concern for anyone who might use this weapon "tactically." Proficiency with immediate and remedial action are an integral component of any weapons training regimen. I'm surprised I havn't heard a lot of other people asking about this.

Based on the design, I would think that running the bolt would either clear the jam or prove beyond a doubt that you need to remove the cover. 

Quote
If DT doesn't describe a specific protocol to deal with this in their manual, then I might just leave the ejection port cover removed during firing. Other than when playing "tacticool" operator fantasy, how often does the average shooter really need to switch shoulders?  Unless you're specifically holding on a corner on your right side for more than like 10 seconds (and during such instances, a few casings bouncing off your chin will be the least of your concerns), you will likely never need to switch shoulders as most CQB and MOUT ops require constant pushing or moving forward of the element to prevent the loss of momentum.

How often does the average shooter expect to be in a firefight?  Fantasies aside, like any new weapon that is released, there will be a period of time when not just the manufacturer, but the training community put it through its paces to determine how to "run" it in various scenarios.  Until then, we can experiment ourselves or just wait and see what develops.

Not everyone who will carry this rifle will be a civilian with a typical 9-5 job. The military, SWAT, or even PMCs in dangerous parts of the world might carry this rifle. 
Even civilians in a SHTF scenario might self-organize into squads/fireteams if they have the training or experience.

I do believe AR15s were fired in anger during the days of Hurricane Katrina. In fact, individuals banded together in neighborhoods to ward off would-be-intruders. They weren't operating like some tactical unit, but when designing a rifle, all these things need to be considered.

In all honesty, if I can't readily check the action visually, I might be tempted to keep the ejection cover removed just for that peace of mind. Being able to quickly peek at the action is important in the event of stoppages. Hopefully these things will be answered when the MDR comes to market.
Logged
Ascinder
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2017, 01:13:26 AM »

I guess I just fail to see the novelty of forward ejecting. At the range when I am collecting my brass for reloading, yeah, I get it, but if this was going to be my engagement weapon, I think I would just run the cover removed. Is there any real advantage to keeping it on besides keeping dust out? I can do that with a tearaway piece of tape. This seems like an unnecessary complication to add to an already tense situation (if being used for defense). I'm just not seeing any pros.
Logged
BrianK
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2017, 01:20:59 AM »

Then keep the cover off of it. Simple solution.

Some of us shoot lefty or righty as the situation presents itself. For us, ambi ejection is a huge plus. I won't consider a rifle anymore that doesn't allow for that. I have enough of those dinosaurs (and I love some of them). But I don't need any more of them. Just don't think that because you disregard that capability that others all feel the same way.

Don't get all hung up on this fix of a potential malfunction. I have no doubt that if it was an expected problem that DT would address it with far more than a video, but with a hardware fix. IMO they were just being up front and with full disclosure.

I'd love to know how many rounds were fired at Shot Show '17 and how many times that drill needed to be implemented. But these folks make guns and aren't PR flaks who can think of everything we can think up... they're kinda like us. They're shooters.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 01:38:04 AM by BrianK » Logged
Whoops
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2017, 02:56:39 AM »

I guess I just fail to see the novelty of forward ejecting. At the range when I am collecting my brass for reloading, yeah, I get it, but if this was going to be my engagement weapon, I think I would just run the cover removed. Is there any real advantage to keeping it on besides keeping dust out? I can do that with a tearaway piece of tape. This seems like an unnecessary complication to add to an already tense situation (if being used for defense). I'm just not seeing any pros.
Actually there are several I think. Think about Ian and Karl's mud tests: what is it that makes a rifle truly shine in those tests? Being completely sealed. That I think is what the ejection port cover will do.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2017, 03:02:43 AM »

I guess I just fail to see the novelty of forward ejecting. At the range when I am collecting my brass for reloading, yeah, I get it, but if this was going to be my engagement weapon, I think I would just run the cover removed. Is there any real advantage to keeping it on besides keeping dust out? I can do that with a tearaway piece of tape. This seems like an unnecessary complication to add to an already tense situation (if being used for defense). I'm just not seeing any pros.
Actually there are several I think. Think about Ian and Karl's mud tests: what is it that makes a rifle truly shine in those tests? Being completely sealed. That I think is what the ejection port cover will do.

Submerging a rifle under mud isn't exactly a major concern I would think about.  That being said, the RDB failed due to mud being packed in behind the bolt carrier group. Closed off/closed bolt designs like the AR or MDR would fare significantly better in that circumstance.  Still though, it's not exactly a very realistic test  unless you fall into quicksand or are trapped in a mudslide.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 03:05:26 AM by Frostburg » Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2017, 03:10:33 AM »

Then keep the cover off of it. Simple solution.

Some of us shoot lefty or righty as the situation presents itself. For us, ambi ejection is a huge plus. I won't consider a rifle anymore that doesn't allow for that. I have enough of those dinosaurs (and I love some of them). But I don't need any more of them. Just don't think that because you disregard that capability that others all feel the same way.

Don't get all hung up on this fix of a potential malfunction. I have no doubt that if it was an expected problem that DT would address it with far more than a video, but with a hardware fix. IMO they were just being up front and with full disclosure.

I'd love to know how many rounds were fired at Shot Show '17 and how many times that drill needed to be implemented. But these folks make guns and aren't PR flaks who can think of everything we can think up... they're kinda like us. They're shooters.

Just because a lot of shooters might use or like a design doesn't mean it's necessary from a practical standpoint.  It adds extra complexity that some could do without. The AUG allows one to rapidly change barrels, but I honestly don't feel that is necessary on a fighting rifle. Most assault rifle's don't have this feature.
Logged
Whoops
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2017, 04:52:21 AM »

Submerging a rifle under mud isn't exactly a major concern I would think about.  That being said, the RDB failed due to mud being packed in behind the bolt carrier group. Closed off/closed bolt designs like the AR or MDR would fare significantly better in that circumstance.  Still though, it's not exactly a very realistic test  unless you fall into quicksand or are trapped in a mudslide.
I go on really long hikes in the PNW, sometimes with a rifle, and while that test isn't realistic, there are times when having a closed system would have been incredibly useful due to trips/drops/whatever. Sure, it's not really a common problem, but it's a problem for me.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2017, 06:47:23 PM »

Honestly though, I think an AR15 and the MDR (I presume) would handle that test fine with the ejection port open.  The reason the RDB failed was because of the wide open cavity for the mud to fill up inside of. The AR and MDR both don't allow for many ingress points even when the ejection port is open, provided the bolt is home. Like, mud really filled up into the rear of the bolt carrier group of the RDB, and that's due to how the weapon is designed. I really imagine dropping an AR or MDR into a deep puddle of mud without the ejection port being closed and both should be fine, provided the bolt isn't locked open (thus allowing mud into the action). 

Also, look at the Tavor.
Logged
HBeretta
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 570



« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2017, 07:09:56 PM »

Honestly though, I think an AR15 and the MDR (I presume) would handle that test fine with the ejection port open.  The reason the RDB failed was because of the wide open cavity for the mud to fill up inside of. The AR and MDR both don't allow for many ingress points even when the ejection port is open, provided the bolt is home. Like, mud really filled up into the rear of the bolt carrier group of the RDB, and that's due to how the weapon is designed. I really imagine dropping an AR or MDR into a deep puddle of mud without the ejection port being closed and both should be fine, provided the bolt isn't locked open (thus allowing mud into the action). 

Also, look at the Tavor.

InRangeTV(Ian and Karl) vids for reference...ar15 passes the mud test pretty well.  on the bullpup side fs2000 might be the front runner...  i'm guessing if the MDR ejection chute cover is closed and you drop it in mud...you'd be just fine.  not sure about repeated testing with the cover open though.

ar15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

ak47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU&t=197s

more food for thought...
tavor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE

fs2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ6P44b9pDQ&list=PLbWy85JCQHtuvP_mrJsgW-kQDN1c0RTrx&index=1
Logged
Ascinder
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2017, 12:42:21 AM »

So let's say you're using this as your fighting rifle. Which is more likely? Submerging a rifle in mud (I have literally never done this nor see any reason to have to) or, having a jam. I have had plenty of jams over the years so I know which one I'd pick. You can always carry the cover with you if you anticipate needing it, but for general use under those conditions, I think it would be better served in a standby role. We aren't in the trenches of WWI or the jungles of Vietnam. I think mud is generally avoidable, and if you are taking the time to crawl/wade/muck through it, the extra few seconds it takes to throw on a dust cover aren't going to bankrupt you.
Logged
LockeCTH
^
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2017, 03:28:24 PM »

Just because a lot of shooters might use or like a design doesn't mean it's necessary from a practical standpoint.  It adds extra complexity that some could do without. The AUG allows one to rapidly change barrels, but I honestly don't feel that is necessary on a fighting rifle. Most assault rifle's don't have this feature.

And that's the beauty of the current MDR design (as far as we can tell): the MDR satisfies the needs of people in both camps:
  • If you want to cover up more of the action and get forward ejection at the cost of an extra potential point of failure (which testing will hopefully prove is minimal), then throw that cover on there.
  • If, as you say, you don't feel this feature is necessary, and don't want the extra potential point of failure, leave the cover off.

Boom. Everyone's happy. And if someone in either camp changes his or her mind, just remove or install the cover.

Assuming it works reliably, this strikes me as almost perfect design.
Logged
HBeretta
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 570



« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2017, 04:54:15 PM »

So let's say you're using this as your fighting rifle. Which is more likely? Submerging a rifle in mud (I have literally never done this nor see any reason to have to) or, having a jam. I have had plenty of jams over the years so I know which one I'd pick. You can always carry the cover with you if you anticipate needing it, but for general use under those conditions, I think it would be better served in a standby role. We aren't in the trenches of WWI or the jungles of Vietnam. I think mud is generally avoidable, and if you are taking the time to crawl/wade/muck through it, the extra few seconds it takes to throw on a dust cover aren't going to bankrupt you.

i do like how MAC runs various pistols through the 'gauntlet'...basically an elements test he's setup on his channel - water, dirt, sand & mud.  i pretty much agree though...how likely will a civilian have his rifle submerged in mud with the need to fire immediately afterwards?  i get the extremes taken as illustrated in the link below out of curiosity.  then again, maybe there are those with the notion, rare as it might be with regard to it turning to reality, that an instance may come up to where you're in an isolated location with your life being threatened and your rifle is your only means of defense and it happens to be raining and the ground is muddy and soaked and you suddenly trip on something as you retreat or prepare for the threat in a pool of mud and unfortunately in that instance you're needing your gun to fire to hold off the threat.  yeah i dropped the anchor with that sentence, but you all get the point...sh!t can happen.  believe it or not such tests might factor into purchase decisions.  anyway, link below of X95 mud test that went up today...yup it failed badly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUDc9wKoQgM

« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 04:58:40 PM by HBeretta » Logged
LockeCTH
^
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2017, 05:11:01 PM »

then again, maybe there are those with the notion, rare as it might be with regard to it turning to reality, that an instance may come up to where you're in an isolated location to where your rifle is your only means of defense and it happens to be raining and the ground is muddy and soaked and you suddenly trip on something as you retreat or prepare for the threat in a pool of mud and unfortunately in that instance you're needing your gun to fire to hold off the threat.  yeah i dropped the anchor with that sentence, but you all get the point...sh!t can happen.  believe it or not such tests might factor into purchase decisions.

I vividly remember a paintball experience from my teenage years: the field was a bit muddy from rain the previous day and I tripped hauling @$$ to one side of a barricade - slid on said @$$ right past the other end of the barricade and got a barrel full of mud in the process (literally full; with the way I instinctively tried to catch myself when I fell, I basically held my paintball gun almost parallel with the ground throughout my slide, with the tip of the barrel angled down into the mud of course.) It was extremely nerve-wracking sitting there scrambling, trying to get the barrel unscrewed and figure out how to get it clear of mud before someone could light me up. And all that was at stake then was a few welts and what was left of my bruised and muddied pride.

Paintball is an admittedly poor comparison to a situation involving real firearms. And the possibility of me ever ending up in a real situation that mirrors a paintball match is almost nonexistent. But HBeretta's point is a good one. As extreme as some of these torture tests get, they also provide a degree of insight into how to respond should you ever find yourself in such a situation, however unlikely they may be. Stranger things have happened.
Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,132



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2017, 09:35:15 PM »

I guess I just fail to see the novelty of forward ejecting. At the range when I am collecting my brass for reloading, yeah, I get it, but if this was going to be my engagement weapon, I think I would just run the cover removed. Is there any real advantage to keeping it on besides keeping dust out? I can do that with a tearaway piece of tape. This seems like an unnecessary complication to add to an already tense situation (if being used for defense). I'm just not seeing any pros.

After seeing this video, I'm all for keeping the rifle as sealed as possible.

https://youtu.be/SUDc9wKoQgM

Granted, I don't foresee ever getting the rifle that muddy, but I'll err on the side of caution.
Logged

Kurt
Ascinder
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2017, 12:20:33 AM »

I think if it was that bad, I'd drop down to my pistol until I could break it down and hose out the mud. I have literally never had my rifle muddy like that. A splash here and there, but I was always taught to keep your rifle high when it came to things that could get in there an keep it from working. Everyone's going to do it their own way, but in my experience jams are orders of magnitude more common than mud corrupting a receiver. I also live and work in high mountain desert, so not much mud in general to speak of. As always YMMV. It's too bad there isn't a place to stow the dust cover in the rifle like inside the stock.   
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2017, 01:45:25 AM »

They initially had the hinged design to the ejection port cover, but scrapped that design to accommodate the left handers. I say GHW ought to come up with an aftermarket hinge down replacement.

Honestly though, aside from falling in mud, I don't see the point of an ejection chute. Like the poster above me said, jams are far more common than mud. Plus, I like being able to peek and observe the bolt to see if it's open or closed in order to quickly visually determine the type of stoppage going on.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Online Online

Posts: 1,372


« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2017, 01:48:28 AM »

I guess I just fail to see the novelty of forward ejecting. At the range when I am collecting my brass for reloading, yeah, I get it, but if this was going to be my engagement weapon, I think I would just run the cover removed. Is there any real advantage to keeping it on besides keeping dust out? I can do that with a tearaway piece of tape. This seems like an unnecessary complication to add to an already tense situation (if being used for defense). I'm just not seeing any pros.

After seeing this video, I'm all for keeping the rifle as sealed as possible.

https://youtu.be/SUDc9wKoQgM

Granted, I don't foresee ever getting the rifle that muddy, but I'll err on the side of caution.

Many people have stated that this test is botched as you can see that the ejection port is completely covered by a wall of impermeable mud. If the ejecting casing has no exit point, a jam will surely occur. This would happen to an MDR with ejection chute as well.  The issue is that they did not shake off the rifle prior to firing like they have in previous weapon tests (What most people would normally do in that situation).
Logged
coldboremiracle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2017, 10:29:42 AM »

This would happen to an MDR with ejection chute as well. 
I disagree, the small surface of the MDR ejection cover, and the large amount of force behind it I believe would push right through mud, even heavy mud, piled on. This is of course my opinion, and yet to be seen in an actual test.
Logged

The first shot, is worth all the rest.

Follow me on FB, IG, YT

I work for Desert Tech, happy to help wherever I can.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 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!