User Panel
Quoted:
Heck that just gave me an idea that would be relatively simple to try as an experiment. A new gas plug that was quite long compared to the OEM design. But hollow, to act as an expansion chamber. That would slow bolt acceleration initially. I'm just unsure how much, or if it would even be enough to act differently. View Quote 15. In general the piston/ plug chamber volume seems on the small side. There's been quite a debate about the effects of this on the chamber dwell time in the MDR. While shooting 168 gr and higher I have seem a steep increase in pressure signs and torn rims. This seems to be a problem other users are encountering. I'm curious if this is a result of the heavier bullets on the dwell time of possibly a chamber issue? What would you recommend? a. We experimented with the chamber diameter, it did require a larger gas hole to cycle the rifle with a bigger chamber but it did not change the dwell time. The current gas-block location and chamber volume is very similar to that found on the FN Scar Heavy rifles. |
|
|
Quoted:
Heck that just gave me an idea that would be relatively simple to try as an experiment. A new gas plug that was quite long compared to the OEM design. But hollow, to act as an expansion chamber. That would slow bolt acceleration initially. I'm just unsure how much, or if it would even be enough to act differently. View Quote |
|
Quoted: You would be surprised how much 'starting volume' changes the dynamics of a gas system. An old trick in the AK crowd was to drill a blind hole into the face of a piston when a gun was running overgassed, as an intermediate step before slotting the sealing surfaces. View Quote |
|
|
That was actually a little worse than I expected. Wow.
I think it's gonna be hard to scream bias or stupidity on that one as well. |
|
Quoted:
GarandThumb's Review ... View Quote |
|
I'm honestly surprised he had ejection and chute related malfunctions and no mention of having to knock stuck cases out.
|
|
Yikes, that review was as professionally done as one could do given the circumstances, and yet the takeaway was do not waste your money on this POS.
Scathing in the most unbiased manner. That'll destroy the MDR long-term. |
|
Quoted:
Yikes, that review was as professionally done as one could do given the circumstances, and yet the takeaway was do not waste your money on this POS. Scathing in the most unbiased manner. That'll destroy the MDR long-term. View Quote |
|
To me the greatest part of the video was when he introduced the "gunk" test...it failed...then he threw a SCAR, DD and a pistol into the same gunk...all worked...
DT needs to stop the production of the MDRs immediately and remedy the situation while they still can...if they go about business as usual from this point on (meaning telling us how awesome and flawless it is)...they will fail. The gun failed with TRUE, M80 milspec ammo...plus with the ammo that DT provided for GT to run...along with all the latest updates...still failed...failed with the cover off... DT it is TIME TO ACT...recall it...and fix it...it is 100% obvious that the new gas plug, bolt head with wider extractor is NOT THE SOLUTION...nor is taking off the chute.... When at the end of the video GT recommends to save money and spend it on training instead...that should be the sign for DT to stop monkeying around.... |
|
The more I think about it...
His mud wasn't test wasn't calibrated to DT standards. If he had used the proper test the mdr would have functioned perfectly while the scar, DD and m17 failed. |
|
Just like a trigger pull gauge, our d*mb*ss MDR owners don't know how to use mud correctly, so those results are invalid.
|
|
Quoted: Right, most YouTube reviewers (in general, not just the gun world) are so exaggerated and speak in hyperbole. OMGITSTHEWORSTEVAR!!!1! Where here GT was going pretty far out of his way to speak precisely and professionally. Several times I got the impression he was trying to speak politically or even nicely, while still trying to balance that with his honest assessment. It was kinda awkward at times to watch. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The more I think about it... His mud wasn't test wasn't calibrated to DT standards. If he had used the proper test the mdr would have functioned perfectly while the scar, DD and m17 failed. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: Well you know...in DT's testing environment (back of a warehouse) the MDR runs fine...well over 15,000+ rounds .... if anyone believes that crap anymore is a fool. The MDR was never thoroughly tested...its quite obvious... View Quote |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Dang you turned a corner. You were so hopeful and optimistic, not as much as a select few but still. Lol View Quote Originally sold my Tavor to fund one...I am right back into a Tavor SAR...got tired of waiting...my only hope now for a 308 bullpup is the Tavor 7 (or if Keltec would design the RFB with SR25 mags)...or a completely different MDR...say...MDR2.0... I mean ... in all seriousness ... how on earth does DT expect people to say ok ... I will give $2500 bucks and spend ridiculous amounts of ammo just to see if it would finally work ... not sure if many will take that risk anymore with it. Glad some have found sustained, reliable function...but even those people have had to DIY modify the $2500 gun to some degree..which should never ever never ever should be needed...at that price point... |
|
|
I had the side chute issue similar to GarandThumb, but only with Federal XM80C out of eight different brands I've fired, including Silver Bear.
I sincerely hope these two very public failures spur DT to take a hard look at the issues and fix this; I really want my MDR to work properly and have been holding off making any tweaks to it hoping they'd rectify everything with a factory fix. |
|
Quoted:
But muh MDR passed NATO testing! View Quote My current belief is that no such thing exists and it’s more a paperwork thing for a nation to get nato stock numbers on small arms than anything else. Therefore when a company boasts about such a thing they are being less than truthful. There are some standard rounds so Uncle Sugar can provide easy resupply on ammo and then it’s free game for weapons and magazines. Even then some nations blow off the standard rifle round thing even. Example the Czechs joined nato in 99 and still haven’t fully gotten rid of their 7.62/39 vz. 58s for the Brens yet unless I’m mistaken. Lastly of course the MDR doesn’t function after encountering water it’s a desert technology |
|
This is the US military, which I believe mirrors NATO testing https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481861.pdf
Now NATO has the requirement: NATO, 2001. NATO AC/225 (LG/3-SG/1) D/14 and NATO AC/225(LG/3)D/7 as well as TPVD 637-81 but I cannot find a copy of it. Czech have long gone moved on from the Vz.58s...Hungary (joined NATO in 97) also just recently adopted the BRENs over the AK-63D and AMD-65...I believe NATO requires a switch over once their former firearms go end of life...for their standard army...now most NATO countries and their SF units switch over to NATO 5.56/7.62 weapons fairly instantly once joined...I know Hungary received a shipment of M4s and other US/German/Austrian small arms for their SF and TEK. Recently...Hungary adopted the KAC M110 as their DMR... |
|
|
Quoted:
This is the US military, which I believe mirrors NATO testing https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481861.pdf Now NATO has the requirement: NATO, 2001. NATO AC/225 (LG/3-SG/1) D/14 and NATO AC/225(LG/3)D/7 as well as TPVD 637-81 but I cannot find a copy of it. Czech have long gone moved on from the Vz.58s...Hungary (joined NATO in 97) also just recently adopted the BRENs over the AK-63D and AMD-65...I believe NATO requires a switch over once their former firearms go end of life...for their standard army...now most NATO countries and their SF units switch over to NATO 5.56/7.62 weapons fairly instantly once joined...I know Hungary received a shipment of M4s and other US/German/Austrian small arms for their SF and TEK. Recently...Hungary adopted the KAC M110 as their DMR... View Quote I'd argue the long gone part since the bren adoption has been slow and there was the whole 5.56 ak they developed early on after their break from the USSR and its eventual demise that went no were from lack of funds but yes all countries do seem to conform eventually which makes sense since member countries are supposed to standardize what they can. So far found a nice presentation the Army made for im guessing schooling logistics folks on NATO interchangeability rules. Mostly focuses on ammunition. Part about ammunition that makes me raise the BS flag again to private companies making claims of them submitting their stuff for nato tests. To be fair this is ammunition standards though and not small arms themselves. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2011/smallarms/WednesdayInter12315Pellegrino.pdf "It is NOT possible for manufacturers or non-NATO nations to independently submit ammunition for NATO Production Testing" pgs. 19 - 24 are interesting because they dust over Nato Nominated weapons aka members weapons that ammunition must function in for it to get approval. not really relevant but the timeline on pg.27 is interesting. The bulk of the standardization efforts have happened post cold war on it. Which seems strange since NATO has lost most of its purpose since then. Though it could make sense financially since most members have stripped their militaries to the bone since then and making sure everything is standardized means when they send a token group of servicemen out they can fully rely on US logistics. NATO is also a huge political statement as well as its functional purpose. Example state department release on states open to nato membership from 1997. https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html "NATO membership is potentially open to all of Europe's emerging democracies that share the alliance's values and are ready to meet the obligations of membership. There is no checklist for membership. We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements: --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. --New members must be making progress toward a market economy. --Their military forces must be under firm civilian control. --They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. --They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces." So you are right about them having to be migrating to more NATO compatible systems I wouldn't doubt that id just point out that politically that means they can take their sweet time about it especially with the militaries being under democratic civilian control parts being listed before compatibility. Lastly I hope this didn't come off argumentative that isn't my intention. Hopefully more people will dig into this and we can get even more information. Lots of interesting info in a tech forum thread is always good. Especially one thats gone on for 54 pages and is mostly speculation and jokes including horrifically bad ones from me . |
|
Oh no...not at all...NATO is just...well..confusing if you aren't in it...
Now...the US drives many NATO requirements......NATO AC/225 is the standard testing procedures (there are several within the AC/225 designation)...but I cannot find a single piece of PDF file online about it... However...looking at DT's drop test video...it mirrors the US file I posted... |
|
Quoted:
Serious question on this has anyone ever found any documentation on nato testing of small arms? Like a list of tests how they are performed how many units in the test for a proper sample size etc? Any beaurocratic multi state body like that should surely have that written out (in multiple languages even) if it does in fact exist. I remember a few years ago googling to see if f I could find anything to no avail. View Quote |
|
I'd like to see them do a test based on the test the Swiss did on the Sig 550
http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/ |
|
Quoted:
I'd like to see them http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/ View Quote |
|
I have a test I wish the mdr could pass.
Go to your local sporting goods/hunting store. Buy a box of each type 308 they have on the shelf. Dump them in a bucket and mix. Load a mag and run through it without failure. |
|
|
Quoted:
I have a test I wish the mdr could pass. Go to your local sporting goods/hunting store. Buy a box of each type 308 they have on the shelf. Dump them in a bucket and mix. Load a mag and run through it without failure. View Quote On the plus side, at least they can say they shipped rifles out. |
|
Quoted:
Standards might be a little too high there. On the plus side, at least they can say they shipped rifles out. View Quote |
|
|
|
|
|
Every .308 / 7.62x51 rifle I've owned would run anything I fed it. Even the worst of the bunch, a Century Arms FAL.
Century Arms FAL HK 91 DSA FAL DPMS LR 308T M1A Scout M1A Nation Match All ate factory .308 , every kind of Surplus NATO available, and Wolf. None of them ever had any issues feeding anything, ever. None were over $1500. There's no excuse for a $2500 rifle to have any issues at all, period. If this MDR can't be reliable with all ammo right out of the box when you get it home, it's not worth spit, and the owners should be given full refunds. I would never put up with that bullshit at any price over $300. |
|
If you have the bandwidth prepare for much detail and information overload:
DT announces .223 MDR initial shipment. Would have thought this would be a bigger announcement with more fanfare. |
|
Quoted:
Every .308 / 7.62x51 rifle I've owned would run anything I fed it. Even the worst of the bunch, a Century Arms FAL. Century Arms FAL HK 91 DSA FAL DPMS LR 308T M1A Scout M1A Nation Match All ate factory .308 , every kind of Surplus NATO available, and Wolf. None of them ever had any issues feeding anything, ever. None were over $1500. There's no excuse for a $2500 rifle to have any issues at all, period. If this MDR can't be reliable with all ammo right out of the box when you get it home, it's not worth spit, and the owners should be given full refunds. I would never put up with that bullshit at any price over $300. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
If you have the bandwidth prepare for much detail and information overload: DT announces .223 MDR initial shipment. Would have thought this would be a bigger announcement with more fanfare. View Quote Hey, who knows... the bolt velocity/mass might be more suitable in 5.56x45mm. The gun might actually run, in that case, and only be a thousand dollars and three pounds more than the Tavor. |
|
Did they ship with the ejection chute or not and a list of approved ammunition?
|
|
More than likely not...there is hope as the 5.56 a lot easier to work with...if it doesn't function...they are dead in the water.
|
|
|
Do we even know if it is .223 or 5.56 or Wylde?
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a blackout on reviews between now and SHOT, hope I'm wrong but as stated wouldn't be surprised. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.