User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/11/2019 8:13:57 PM EDT
[#1]
SRS-A2 is pretty cool...too bad they dont offer it in LH.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2019 8:18:41 PM EDT
[#2]
I really like microtech OTF knives, they're a much better knife than my mini infidel, but I'll never buy a microtech because I've seen too much BS from them. I have the same convictions with desert tech. They might have some great performing bolt guns but I will never own anything DT due to everything to date. You can't unsee it once your eyes have been opened.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2019 11:25:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The really good news is that it will be impossible to screw up a gas system on the SRS A2  Don't worry, you'll undoubtedly receive the same fine customer service they've shown MDR owners... which is why I walked away from the Delphi Tech bolt gun I had in my hands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2019 12:13:58 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where have you seen this information stating that the barrel extension needs to be opened up? The last I remember seeing from the Bullpup forums is ES Tactical gets the barrel extensions and gas blocks from DT. The only people I have seen that has the bigger extractor is from InRange and a guy from YouTube with a recent 6.5creedmoore barrel from ES Tactical and he said nothing about modding his rifle. Only other person I can think of with a bigger extractor is Garandthumb, he did not say anything about a different extractor. Just that he received a new bolt from DT. Where is this information your getting saying that they will need to be modified? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2019 11:38:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many Indian MIM parts are in that one? Don't worry, you'll undoubtedly receive the same fine customer service they've shown MDR owners... which is why I walked away from the Delphi Tech bolt gun I had in my hands. No, really. 
More seriously, the MIM isn't the problem... it's not fracturing, it's not physically the wrong size, the quality of the MIM they're using is fine. The problem I have with it is that due to the massive minimum order (relative to a niche firearms manufacturer) is large enough that it's been able to preclude rapid prototyping and changes. When you have to order a thousand of a given part, changing it up becomes more cost than it's worth. I figure that's why they've had to do so much damage control, sadly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2019 12:59:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bolt and barrel extension, for two. No, really.
More seriously, the MIM isn't the problem... it's not fracturing, it's not physically the wrong size, the quality of the MIM they're using is fine. The problem I have with it is that due to the massive minimum order (relative to a niche firearms manufacturer) is large enough that it's been able to preclude rapid prototyping and changes. When you have to order a thousand of a given part, changing it up becomes more cost than it's worth. I figure that's why they've had to do so much damage control, sadly. On S&W 3rd gens I look for the MIM fire control parts because they were better finished than the shoddy machining S&W was doing trying to get costs down. I think many of us are on the same page that DT is locked into "Version 1" parts by virtue of having to place such massive orders to get the cost savings of MIM. Either they take a huge loss on the parts or they try and do retrofit machining - seems clear they're going with the latter 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2019 2:33:06 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh I agree completely, though I'd word it slightly differently: it's not the fact that the parts are made by the MIM process that's the problem... On S&W 3rd gens I look for the MIM fire control parts because they were better finished than the shoddy machining S&W was doing trying to get costs down. I think many of us are on the same page that DT is locked into "Version 1" parts by virtue of having to place such massive orders to get the cost savings of MIM. Either they take a huge loss on the parts or they try and do retrofit machining - seems clear they're going with the latter But hey, MIM saves money, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2019 3:55:22 PM EDT
[#8]
So you’re saying they should have gotten the design finalized and actually working, prior to mass production? You don’t say.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2019 11:31:12 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you’re saying they should have gotten the design finalized and actually working, prior to mass production? You don’t say. 
It really is frustrating that they rushed, rather than continuing development and prototyping before starting to place orders for bulk MIM parts from overseas. What's done is done, though... best thing they could possibly do now is to fix the design 100%, confirm the fix, and then restart production with the MDR 2.0 or whatever. Offer replacement to MDR owners at a reduced cost to gain a tiny bit of goodwill back... but most of all, DT needs to stop pissing on people and tell them it's raining. More than anything, the hilariously blatant lies are hurting their rep. In this day and age of instant communications and widespread searches, they're doing real, lasting damage to themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2019 11:54:50 AM EDT
[#10]
MDR's only saving grace I think at this point is a flawless 5.56 release...with near perfect reviews...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2019 2:19:44 PM EDT
[#11]
I don't know about you guys but I'm looking forward to more explanation videos by the most awkward man on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2019 2:33:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about you guys but I'm looking forward to more explanation videos by the most awkward man on the internet. https://i.imgur.com/saAiiRz.gif
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2019 3:48:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about you guys but I'm looking forward to more explanation videos by the most awkward man on the internet. https://i.imgur.com/saAiiRz.gif Could you do better with the MDR for a product?!?!?!??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2019 4:09:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: cmon now, that's not fair! Could you do better with the MDR for a product?!?!?!??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2019 10:03:57 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reminds me of the goombas from the super Mario brothers movie. HOLY SHIT!  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2019 3:25:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MDR's only saving grace I think at this point is a flawless 5.56 release...with near perfect reviews... Yup, releasing a 9+ pound 5.56 bullpup at a price point over $2,000....they are going to crush it in the marketplace.  Sven Manticore Arms |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2019 3:29:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Normally I try not to comment on this stuff, but.... Yup, releasing a 9+ pound 5.56 bullpup at a price point over $2,000....they are going to crush it in the marketplace. Sven Manticore Arms |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2019 6:23:43 PM EDT
[#18]
So, is the only way for people to get their MDR to work by spending an extra $750 for the 5.56 conversion?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2019 8:14:05 PM EDT
[#19]
None of the DT conversion kits are available yet...so if you want a 5.56...it has to be a full rifle right now...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 12:33:18 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, is the only way for people to get their MDR to work by spending an extra $750 for the 5.56 conversion?
I just don't understand the heavy use of MIM for the MDR; it only makes sense economically when you start talking multiple dozens of thousands of parts. It's insane to commit to their use before making multiple thousands of examples for T&E as well as tolerance studies; if you can't hold the required geometry for function in 5000 rifles, you damn sure won't for 50,000. Not only do you need to be able to check the MIM parts coming in for conformity, you need to know what's acceptable in the first place, and that means lots of machined parts for initial test or pre-production. Was it ever realistic for Desert Tech to sell $2500 premium rifles in the kind of volume that justifies those production methods? Were they really expecting to make hundreds of millions of dollars on a single rifle?  And if the only way to keep the price below $3000 (even though we all know they'd sell a good number of them at $3000 if they worked) was to use MIM, why was the project not abandoned? Seems like madness doubling down on itself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 9:14:00 AM EDT
[#21]
The way I see it, if your buying a MDR a.5.56 conversion is a given....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 10:04:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is there any reason to believe that price won't also be increasing before they go on sale? BTW, a complete 5.56 RDB goes for less than that, now.
I just don't understand the heavy use of MIM for the MDR; it only makes sense economically when you start talking multiple dozens of thousands of parts. It's insane to commit to their use before making multiple thousands of examples for T&E as well as tolerance studies; if you can't hold the required geometry for function in 5000 rifles, you damn sure won't for 50,000. Not only do you need to be able to check the MIM parts coming in for conformity, you need to know what's acceptable in the first place, and that means lots of machined parts for initial test or pre-production. Was it ever realistic for Desert Tech to sell $2500 premium rifles in the kind of volume that justifies those production methods? Were they really expecting to make hundreds of millions of dollars on a single rifle? And if the only way to keep the price below $3000 (even though we all know they'd sell a good number of them at $3000 if they worked) was to use MIM, why was the project not abandoned? Seems like madness doubling down on itself.Just look at InRange's video how bad the MDR's recoil impulses are on setting 5 and 6...remember...the new plug setting 3 is the old setting 6...you think the SCAR17 was eating optics...the MDR will be right there, if not worst... .308 MDR is dead to me until they revise the system properly...the 5.56 MDR has a chance...but as someone else pointed out...who really wants a heavy 8+ lb 5.56 bully when all the others are 7lbs and much cheaper and be proven reliable...unlike the MDR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 10:24:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is there any reason to believe that price won't also be increasing before they go on sale? BTW, a complete 5.56 RDB goes for less than that, now.
I just don't understand the heavy use of MIM for the MDR; it only makes sense economically when you start talking multiple dozens of thousands of parts. It's insane to commit to their use before making multiple thousands of examples for T&E as well as tolerance studies; if you can't hold the required geometry for function in 5000 rifles, you damn sure won't for 50,000. Not only do you need to be able to check the MIM parts coming in for conformity, you need to know what's acceptable in the first place, and that means lots of machined parts for initial test or pre-production. Was it ever realistic for Desert Tech to sell $2500 premium rifles in the kind of volume that justifies those production methods? Were they really expecting to make hundreds of millions of dollars on a single rifle? And if the only way to keep the price below $3000 (even though we all know they'd sell a good number of them at $3000 if they worked) was to use MIM, why was the project not abandoned? Seems like madness doubling down on itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 10:57:43 AM EDT
[#24]
For someone only looking to run it in 5.56 I don't see the value in the mdr at all. It's overweight, crap plastics, questionable reliability, and on and on.
If someone just wants a 5.56 that works I'd look elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 11:04:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the end of the day it’s just a combat styled rifle it doesn’t have a match trigger or crazy accuracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 11:05:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knowing how the MIM industry works...DT is a very small fish in the pond...they are most likely are sitting on a minimum 10,000 quantity order contract (to even make it a sensible investment)...MIM can be great and better than most cast parts...the ticket is having a good supplier, with good tech and materials and the ability to hold tolerances. While I do not like how the rifle's metal parts are 90% MIM made in the Indian and Asian markets...it is safe to say that so far...the MIM parts are not the problem...but rather...a problem with the actual operating system as a whole...don't fool yourself guys with the recent "updated" gas plug...the 2019 gas plug is a band aid fix...all they did is introduce more gas into the system in all the previous settings (in just two weeks mind I ask, you really think it was properly tested against wear and tear....NOPE). Just look at InRange's video how bad the MDR's recoil impulses are on setting 5 and 6...remember...the new plug setting 3 is the old setting 6...you think the SCAR17 was eating optics...the MDR will be right there, if not worst... .308 MDR is dead to me until they revise the system properly...the 5.56 MDR has a chance...but as someone else pointed out...who really wants a heavy 8+ lb 5.56 bully when all the others are 7lbs and much cheaper and be proven reliable...unlike the MDR?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 11:36:27 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think one will run long enough to test the durability of the MIM parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 3:39:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Yeah when they don't run very well from the get go because of inherent flaws it makes it hard to troubleshoot further issues.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 4:23:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don’t think they would sell well at 3k. It’s not a scar where people have “sf uses it!” hype. It’s just an untested neat looking rifle with big problems that’s absurdly heavy for what it is in 5.56. At the end of the day it’s just a combat styled rifle it doesn’t have a match trigger or crazy accuracy. Besides novelty what does it do in 5.56 that an AR or AUG or tavor or galil ace or an arsenal 5.56 at a far lower price point do? Or in .308 a ptr 91, a fal, ar10, SCAR, or all the other battle rifles. It’s very niche, and it doesn’t work well on top of that plus problems showing clear or racking out a live round as in range showed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Is there any reason to believe that price won't also be increasing before they go on sale? BTW, a complete 5.56 RDB goes for less than that, now.
I just don't understand the heavy use of MIM for the MDR; it only makes sense economically when you start talking multiple dozens of thousands of parts. It's insane to commit to their use before making multiple thousands of examples for T&E as well as tolerance studies; if you can't hold the required geometry for function in 5000 rifles, you damn sure won't for 50,000. Not only do you need to be able to check the MIM parts coming in for conformity, you need to know what's acceptable in the first place, and that means lots of machined parts for initial test or pre-production. Was it ever realistic for Desert Tech to sell $2500 premium rifles in the kind of volume that justifies those production methods? Were they really expecting to make hundreds of millions of dollars on a single rifle? And if the only way to keep the price below $3000 (even though we all know they'd sell a good number of them at $3000 if they worked) was to use MIM, why was the project not abandoned? Seems like madness doubling down on itself.It was originally supposed to have many of those things you list, btw (though maybe heavily implied vs in writing) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 4:26:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Knowing how the MIM industry works...DT is a very small fish in the pond...they are most likely are sitting on a minimum 10,000 quantity order contract (to even make it a sensible investment)...MIM can be great and better than most cast parts...the ticket is having a good supplier, with good tech and materials and the ability to hold tolerances. While I do not like how the rifle's metal parts are 90% MIM made in the Indian and Asian markets...it is safe to say that so far...the MIM parts are not the problem...but rather...a problem with the actual operating system as a whole...don't fool yourself guys with the recent "updated" gas plug...the 2019 gas plug is a band aid fix...all they did is introduce more gas into the system in all the previous settings (in just two weeks mind I ask, you really think it was properly tested against wear and tear....NOPE). Just look at InRange's video how bad the MDR's recoil impulses are on setting 5 and 6...remember...the new plug setting 3 is the old setting 6...you think the SCAR17 was eating optics...the MDR will be right there, if not worst... .308 MDR is dead to me until they revise the system properly...the 5.56 MDR has a chance...but as someone else pointed out...who really wants a heavy 8+ lb 5.56 bully when all the others are 7lbs and much cheaper and be proven reliable...unlike the MDR? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Is there any reason to believe that price won't also be increasing before they go on sale? BTW, a complete 5.56 RDB goes for less than that, now.
I just don't understand the heavy use of MIM for the MDR; it only makes sense economically when you start talking multiple dozens of thousands of parts. It's insane to commit to their use before making multiple thousands of examples for T&E as well as tolerance studies; if you can't hold the required geometry for function in 5000 rifles, you damn sure won't for 50,000. Not only do you need to be able to check the MIM parts coming in for conformity, you need to know what's acceptable in the first place, and that means lots of machined parts for initial test or pre-production. Was it ever realistic for Desert Tech to sell $2500 premium rifles in the kind of volume that justifies those production methods? Were they really expecting to make hundreds of millions of dollars on a single rifle? And if the only way to keep the price below $3000 (even though we all know they'd sell a good number of them at $3000 if they worked) was to use MIM, why was the project not abandoned? Seems like madness doubling down on itself.Just look at InRange's video how bad the MDR's recoil impulses are on setting 5 and 6...remember...the new plug setting 3 is the old setting 6...you think the SCAR17 was eating optics...the MDR will be right there, if not worst... .308 MDR is dead to me until they revise the system properly...the 5.56 MDR has a chance...but as someone else pointed out...who really wants a heavy 8+ lb 5.56 bully when all the others are 7lbs and much cheaper and be proven reliable...unlike the MDR? Shitty MIM (tolerances, QC, as well as design) helped doom the R51 btw; everything but the frame, slide, and barrel is sheetmetal stamping or MIM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 4:51:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm just saying, for the volumes they were doing, billet machining seems more practical. Maybe foreign MIM is even more affordable than I imagine, though. Still a crazy move to go to that method out of the gate on a complicated mechanism, regardless the volume. Shitty MIM (tolerances, QC, as well as design) helped doom the R51 btw; everything but the frame, slide, and barrel is sheetmetal stamping or MIM. I don't have a problem with MIM...if they are of quality. The 200rd break-in requirement tells me that the tolerances are inconsistent and they need to be worn in... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 5:08:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to remember where some of the engineering team came from...Sig...Sig has been using foreign MIM manufacturers for years. I don't have a problem with MIM...if they are of quality. The 200rd break-in requirement tells me that the tolerances are inconsistent and they need to be worn in... It's a rube goldberg contraption that likely would require break in even if each and every component were machined from billet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 5:18:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not exactly correct. They could be and likely are incredibly consistent. But the complexity of the mechanism likely requires a greater level of precision than the process stability is able to produce to an acceptable level without requiring hand fitting, something the process is used to eliminate to begin with. So nominal dimensions are sized to MMC that will assemble, but with tolerance stacking possibly not function reliably until "broken in." It's a rube goldberg contraption that likely would require break in even if each and every component were machined from billet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 6:23:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can see that... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's not exactly correct. They could be and likely are incredibly consistent. But the complexity of the mechanism likely requires a greater level of precision than the process stability is able to produce to an acceptable level without requiring hand fitting, something the process is used to eliminate to begin with. So nominal dimensions are sized to MMC that will assemble, but with tolerance stacking possibly not function reliably until "broken in." It's a rube goldberg contraption that likely would require break in even if each and every component were machined from billet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 7:52:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a rube goldberg contraption that likely would require break in even if each and every component were machined from billet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 11:02:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: QFT - if I did sigline quotes, this would be one! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2019 11:59:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to remember where some of the engineering team came from...Sig...Sig has been using foreign MIM manufacturers for years. I don't have a problem with MIM...if they are of quality. The 200rd break-in requirement tells me that the tolerances are inconsistent and they need to be worn in... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I'm just saying, for the volumes they were doing, billet machining seems more practical. Maybe foreign MIM is even more affordable than I imagine, though. Still a crazy move to go to that method out of the gate on a complicated mechanism, regardless the volume. Shitty MIM (tolerances, QC, as well as design) helped doom the R51 btw; everything but the frame, slide, and barrel is sheetmetal stamping or MIM. I don't have a problem with MIM...if they are of quality. The 200rd break-in requirement tells me that the tolerances are inconsistent and they need to be worn in... Going from simple 1 or 2 piece machines (bolt actions) to a true complex working mechanism is a real trip. There's an entire field of engineering devoted to it; it is very difficult, and you often don't know what you don't know until it's too late, and things don't work because five layers of dimensions are *just* wrong enough in a certain permutation that your prototype managed to sneak through without issue. None of dealing with that is sexy, and it's easy for designers to want avoid it and managers to want to skip over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 12:01:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not exactly correct. They could be and likely are incredibly consistent. But the complexity of the mechanism likely requires a greater level of precision than the process stability is able to produce to an acceptable level without requiring hand fitting, something the process is used to eliminate to begin with. So nominal dimensions are sized to MMC that will assemble, but with tolerance stacking possibly not function reliably until "broken in." It's a rube goldberg contraption that likely would require break in even if each and every component were machined from billet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You have to remember where some of the engineering team came from...Sig...Sig has been using foreign MIM manufacturers for years. I don't have a problem with MIM...if they are of quality. The 200rd break-in requirement tells me that the tolerances are inconsistent and they need to be worn in... It's a rube goldberg contraption that likely would require break in even if each and every component were machined from billet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 8:53:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(I don't believe they knowingly put such a badly flawed system out; I do think they cheaped out on tearing by using in-house ammo) Worst case, they got too far along before someone caught it and said "too late now" and hoped nobody would notice before they started getting a return on their investment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 9:06:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So best case, their testers were ignorant enough to not test with a variety of ammo, which 99.99% of their customers would actually use. Worst case, they got too far along before someone caught it and said "too late now" and hoped nobody would notice before they started getting a return on their investment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 9:35:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would agree with your second scenario... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So best case, their testers were ignorant enough to not test with a variety of ammo, which 99.99% of their customers would actually use. Worst case, they got too far along before someone caught it and said "too late now" and hoped nobody would notice before they started getting a return on their investment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 9:53:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Actually yes...both...since they only tested the MDR with 3 ammo types...as officially stated in their InRange response video...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 10:33:55 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The real issue appears to be a peaky gas system that doesn't run ammo with a different pressure curve than what DT tested with (I don't believe they knowingly put such a badly flawed system out; I do think they cheaped out on tearing by using in-house ammo). MIM is not even a factor, there. On the plus side, I think that's easier to unfuck after the fact than to re-engineer the complex mechanism of the rifle's action itself. Not that anyone should have to unfuck a $2k+ rifle out of the box - only that I'm optimistic about my chances in making mine run right. And if I can do it, others can as well. Again, only a "plus side" for those of us already in for $2k or whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 10:46:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. On the plus side, I think that's easier to unfuck after the fact than to re-engineer the complex mechanism of the rifle's action itself. Not that anyone should have to unfuck a $2k+ rifle out of the box - only that I'm optimistic about my chances in making mine run right. And if I can do it, others can as well. Again, only a "plus side" for those of us already in for $2k or whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 10:53:33 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hate to disagree, but... I disagree. The bolt mass itself and overall reciprocating mass velocity seems to be quite a problem. To "unfuck" the rifle as-is will require (at the least) moving the gas system and adding mass to the carrier, or you'll end up getting it running by pushing the reciprocating parts even faster, causing battering to a severe degree. We probably disagree more on what exactly the problem and solution is than anything. I'm convinced my particular rifle's problem isn't reciprocating velocity, but acceleration and timing of that acceleration. Lower the rate of acceleration and delay the unlocking of the bolt until a lower chamber pressure is present than currently, and I believe mine would run quite well. ETA - note I've never, not once, had a malfunction related to low carrier velocity or inertia. Not failure to feed, not failure to LRBHO, not failure to eject, not failure to go into battery. Maybe if I can get it slowed down I will, but to date my failures are all related to ripping rims and leaving cases in the chamber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 10:58:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's far easier for me to move the gas system than to re-engineer everything going on behind the barrel extension. Removing the gas block, plugging the existing gas port, drilling a new gas port, turning a longer gas plunger - that's it. I don't care about the silly little section of pic rail and can come up with a way to eliminate any gap in the top rail after the fact, even if it means milling a new gas block with a cantilevered rail section. We probably disagree more on what exactly the problem and solution is than anything. I'm convinced my particular rifle's problem isn't reciprocating velocity, but acceleration and timing of that acceleration. Lower the rate of acceleration and delay the unlocking of the bolt until a lower chamber pressure is present than currently, and I believe mine would run quite well. ETA - note I've never, not once, had a malfunction related to low carrier velocity or inertia. Not failure to feed, not failure to LRBHO, not failure to eject, not failure to go into battery. Maybe if I can get it slowed down I will, but to date my failures are all related to ripping rims and leaving cases in the chamber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 11:11:29 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd rather just sell the stupid thing *At this point I think all the MDRs are lemons, but I mean one known by the owner to not run right vs one presumed not to run right by virtue of being an MDR... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 11:14:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Glad you have the capabilities to do so and more power to you...seriously mean that...but WHY spend all that time and money on something so junky? I'd rather just sell the stupid thing and get a proper AR10 if I was in many of your guy's/gal's shoes...at $2500 bucks...no one should re-engineer the freaking gun... And I can't sell it to someone without disclosing it's problems, which means I'll likely lose money on the deal if I can even find a buyer. I bought mine used, at a reasonable discount from new, and still think I'd lose my ass on it. There's only one gun I've ever owned and not been able to fix, and that was a Saiga 12 that would just randomly drop spent cartridges during extraction before the ejector could eject them. I sold it to someone with full disclosure on everything I'd done to the gun, both to try and resolve that issue as well as the other issues it had, for about half what I had into it, simply because I quit shooting open class 3 gun and didn't really care to spend any more time on a gun I wasn't very enthusiastic about for anything but 3 gun anyway. This is different. The only thing DT did right with this gun, is the concept and features, imo, and I want it to work. As far as ME having the capabilities, yes. But my other point is, if *I* can do it, then some shop or smith will be able to as well, so the people who are like me in appreciation of this rifles concept, without the capability to fix it, should have an option of sending it to someone for professional unfucking down the road. I think this bothers me less than a lot of people because I remember buying 1911s and immediately sending them to Novak or whomever to make them run right. To me the MDR is the tight fitting expensive 1911 of bullpups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 11:26:03 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's far easier for me to move the gas system than to re-engineer everything going on behind the barrel extension. Removing the gas block, plugging the existing gas port, drilling a new gas port, turning a longer gas plunger - that's it. I don't care about the silly little section of pic rail and can come up with a way to eliminate any gap in the top rail after the fact, even if it means milling a new gas block with a cantilevered rail section. We probably disagree more on what exactly the problem and solution is than anything. I'm convinced my particular rifle's problem isn't reciprocating velocity, but acceleration and timing of that acceleration. Lower the rate of acceleration and delay the unlocking of the bolt until a lower chamber pressure is present than currently, and I believe mine would run quite well. ETA - note I've never, not once, had a malfunction related to low carrier velocity or inertia. Not failure to feed, not failure to LRBHO, not failure to eject, not failure to go into battery. Maybe if I can get it slowed down I will, but to date my failures are all related to ripping rims and leaving cases in the chamber. ETA: I should clarify, I'm not saying the bolt velocity is low, I'm saying it's far above the "ideal" 4m/s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2019 12:05:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because as I've said, conceptually it's everything I want in a 7.62 bullpup. Everything. No other design does or offers everything I want. So I'm vested in making it work. And I can't sell it to someone without disclosing it's problems, which means I'll likely lose money on the deal if I can even find a buyer. I bought mine used, at a reasonable discount from new, and still think I'd lose my ass on it. There's only one gun I've ever owned and not been able to fix, and that was a Saiga 12 that would just randomly drop spent cartridges during extraction before the ejector could eject them. I sold it to someone with full disclosure on everything I'd done to the gun, both to try and resolve that issue as well as the other issues it had, for about half what I had into it, simply because I quit shooting open class 3 gun and didn't really care to spend any more time on a gun I wasn't very enthusiastic about for anything but 3 gun anyway. This is different. The only thing DT did right with this gun, is the concept and features, imo, and I want it to work. As far as ME having the capabilities, yes. But my other point is, if *I* can do it, then some shop or smith will be able to as well, so the people who are like me in appreciation of this rifles concept, without the capability to fix it, should have an option of sending it to someone for professional unfucking down the road. I think this bothers me less than a lot of people because I remember buying 1911s and immediately sending them to Novak or whomever to make them run right. To me the MDR is the tight fitting expensive 1911 of bullpups. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
