Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2020, 05:01:36 PM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . Desert Tech . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  Desert Tech MDR (Moderators: kfeltenberger, Heathsrow)
| | |-+  MDRX SE Video review
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: MDRX SE Video review  (Read 3054 times)
coldboremiracle
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



WWW
« on: February 10, 2020, 11:32:55 AM »

IV8888 shoots the new MDRX SE 556


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpjVIAPmf2s
Logged

The first shot, is worth all the rest.

Follow me on FB, IG, YT
Box
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2020, 03:18:00 PM »

Concerning 5.56, does the MDRX SE have less kick than the forward eject/regular MDR in 5.56?

5.56 is a rather gentle caliber, but I noticed surprising recoil with the regular 5.56.  I’m wondering if the side eject is better for recoil than the scissor mechanism with forward eject.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 03:21:33 PM by Box » Logged
Box
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2020, 03:19:43 PM »

.
Logged
coldboremiracle
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2020, 03:25:11 PM »

Concerning 5.56, does the MDRX SE have less kick than the forward eject/regular MDR in 5.56?

I wouldn't say its enough to notice, the MDRX comes with the ratchet compensator which takes off what little recoil there is. So if you paired an MDRX aside and MDR, the X will feel like less recoil. I dont think the SE vs. FE difference is enough to notice.
Logged

The first shot, is worth all the rest.

Follow me on FB, IG, YT
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,939


« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2020, 11:24:02 AM »

Side eject...is how the MDR should have been released from the get go....
Logged
whiskey91lima
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609


« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2020, 01:49:01 PM »

Side eject...is how the MDR should have been released from the get go....

Nah the forward eject was and is a good innovation. They should have done some more R&D fine tuning it to work.
Logged
kfeltenberger
Global Moderator
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,609



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2020, 07:54:47 PM »

The only real question I'd like answered about the MDR development is why they changed the gas block from being at the front end of the handguard to between the handguard and receiver.  Having a BUIS on the barrel that is zeroed was a great idea.
Logged

Kurt
Kublah
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2020, 09:07:21 PM »

Yeah, it would be really nice to see the 20" with a long gas system to reduce the bolt carrier speed, or something? I really dont know enough about how they designed it. I am however really excited about the side eject. There are only two reasons I do not have one yet... I really want it in 300blk, and I really want to see some reviews with suppressors.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,948


« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2020, 11:43:30 PM »

Side eject...is how the MDR should have been released from the get go....

Nah the forward eject was and is a good innovation. They should have done some more R&D fine tuning it to work.

I don't see why. You're right handed? Keep your rifle in right handed configuration. You're left handed? Swap to left handed configuration. Simple as that. Quickly switching shoulders midway through a string of shooting is a gimmick. But one that many bullpup manufacturers love to pitch. Ambi shooting is nice, but I don't think it's necessary.
Logged
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,939


« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2020, 01:54:13 PM »

^^^ this
Logged
whiskey91lima
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609


« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2020, 06:32:59 PM »

Fair enough, plus the release would have gone much smoother since the root of most of the issues was the forward eject.
Logged
Zolkalf
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 383



« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2020, 07:15:00 PM »

Is SE coming for the 308 and 6.5?
Logged

Track the liars down and then remove their crowns!
Zolkalf on PubG
Kublah
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2020, 10:17:25 PM »

I sincerely hope so, and soon. The forward eject is a pretty cool design but I am really excited about the side eject.
Logged
Box
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2020, 07:56:33 PM »

It would interesting if DT made an MDR DE (downward eject), like the RDB and PS90.  

They could keep the removable and swappable ejection covers, but make them just panels instead. The panels could be used to pop off quickly and provide an easy way to visually  check the chamber.   Lack of an easy and quick way to check the chamber is a frequent criticism of a rifle like the RDB.   This would solve that.

Plus, downward ejection seems more reliable than forward eject at this point.

Thoughts?
Logged
coldboremiracle
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2020, 10:03:57 PM »

It would interesting if DT made an MDR DE (downward eject), like the RDB and PS90.  

They could keep the removable and swappable ejection covers, but make them just panels instead. The panels could be used to pop off quickly and provide an easy way to visually  check the chamber.   Lack of an easy and quick way to check the chamber is a frequent criticism of a rifle like the RDB.   This would solve that.

Plus, downward ejection seems more reliable than forward eject at this point.

Thoughts?

HOw is down ejection more reliable? Completely redesigning the MDR seems like a very unlikely possibility.
Logged

The first shot, is worth all the rest.

Follow me on FB, IG, YT
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,939


« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2020, 11:56:06 PM »

I’m not too big of a fan of downward eject.
Logged
Box
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 304


« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2020, 03:12:00 PM »

It would interesting if DT made an MDR DE (downward eject), like the RDB and PS90.  

They could keep the removable and swappable ejection covers, but make them just panels instead. The panels could be used to pop off quickly and provide an easy way to visually  check the chamber.   Lack of an easy and quick way to check the chamber is a frequent criticism of a rifle like the RDB.   This would solve that.

Plus, downward ejection seems more reliable than forward eject at this point.

Thoughts?

HOw is down ejection more reliable? Completely redesigning the MDR seems like a very unlikely possibility.


The downward (DE) system used by the PS90 and RDB has proven to be very reliable.  In contrast, the unreliability of the forward ejection (FE) on the MDR has been its been biggest Achilles heel.

It might take a redesign, but the RDB’s method for DE is extremely simple. It definitely wouldn’t need all the attention of DT’s attempt at FE.
Logged
thehun
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,939


« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2020, 05:39:07 PM »

It would interesting if DT made an MDR DE (downward eject), like the RDB and PS90.  

They could keep the removable and swappable ejection covers, but make them just panels instead. The panels could be used to pop off quickly and provide an easy way to visually  check the chamber.   Lack of an easy and quick way to check the chamber is a frequent criticism of a rifle like the RDB.   This would solve that.

Plus, downward ejection seems more reliable than forward eject at this point.

Thoughts?

HOw is down ejection more reliable? Completely redesigning the MDR seems like a very unlikely possibility.


The downward (DE) system used by the PS90 and RDB has proven to be very reliable.  In contrast, the unreliability of the forward ejection (FE) on the MDR has been its been biggest Achilles heel.

It might take a redesign, but the RDB’s method for DE is extremely simple. It definitely wouldn’t need all the attention of DT’s attempt at FE.

This is true. I think the RFB and FS2000 has one of the best designs as far as forward eject...
Logged
whiskey91lima
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609


« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2020, 08:26:48 PM »

It would interesting if DT made an MDR DE (downward eject), like the RDB and PS90.  

They could keep the removable and swappable ejection covers, but make them just panels instead. The panels could be used to pop off quickly and provide an easy way to visually  check the chamber.   Lack of an easy and quick way to check the chamber is a frequent criticism of a rifle like the RDB.   This would solve that.

Plus, downward ejection seems more reliable than forward eject at this point.

Thoughts?

HOw is down ejection more reliable? Completely redesigning the MDR seems like a very unlikely possibility.


The downward (DE) system used by the PS90 and RDB has proven to be very reliable.  In contrast, the unreliability of the forward ejection (FE) on the MDR has been its been biggest Achilles heel.

It might take a redesign, but the RDB’s method for DE is extremely simple. It definitely wouldn’t need all the attention of DT’s attempt at FE.

Doesn't DE fundamentally require to bolt to travel at least the length of the case past the magazine if the magazine is on the bottom? Meaning that the stroke length must be at least twice the length of the cartridge. This just isn't feasible for 308, no?
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,948


« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2020, 02:28:29 AM »

It would interesting if DT made an MDR DE (downward eject), like the RDB and PS90.  

They could keep the removable and swappable ejection covers, but make them just panels instead. The panels could be used to pop off quickly and provide an easy way to visually  check the chamber.   Lack of an easy and quick way to check the chamber is a frequent criticism of a rifle like the RDB.   This would solve that.

Plus, downward ejection seems more reliable than forward eject at this point.

Thoughts?

HOw is down ejection more reliable? Completely redesigning the MDR seems like a very unlikely possibility.


The downward (DE) system used by the PS90 and RDB has proven to be very reliable.  In contrast, the unreliability of the forward ejection (FE) on the MDR has been its been biggest Achilles heel.

It might take a redesign, but the RDB’s method for DE is extremely simple. It definitely wouldn’t need all the attention of DT’s attempt at FE.

Doesn't DE fundamentally require to bolt to travel at least the length of the case past the magazine if the magazine is on the bottom? Meaning that the stroke length must be at least twice the length of the cartridge. This just isn't feasible for 308, no?

Why don't they just shorten the length of the bolt/bolt carrier? It seems to me that the only important part of entire bolt carrier assembly is the face of the bolt. The part that grips and locks the case rim, and the ejector pin. Everything behind that surface is just support functionality. So just shorten up everything behind it. Easy peasy. If they are worried about it not having enough mass or whatever, just make it thicker, beefier and wider. The contact surface area with the case head and rim is the only part that really matters. I see no reason why they can't make the entire bolt/bolt carrier assembly like 0.5 inch long from the bolt face to the rear-most portion of the entire bolt/bolt carrier assembly.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!