So you're accusing them of making Faxon deviate from their standard processes...why again?  Once more, it isn't like they had Green Mountain cut the barrels (not that there'd be anything wrong with than anyhow) so why the umbrage?  Just because they claim to be highest quality when they are really just good quality.  OMG just watch me faint in shock at a marketing-heavy company exaggerate slightly.

You can’t comprehend can you.

I stated that FAXON is not known nor does produce 4140 barrels. Therefore, DT spec’d 4140...which is the cheapest option in barrel material...

It is really not that hard to understand...

You might think it’s ok to chose the cheapest materials while asking premium price. I’m the opposite. I expect premium when a premium price is charged. Pretty simple. Don’t care what brand it is.

And yet Faxon doesn't do that material...so how can that be?  I think verification is in order, just to make sure there isn't a mistake on the ad-copy or something.

If Faxon's tooled up to run the other alloys, that means it likely isn't cheaper to switch stock material...especially when we're talking low quantities.  An off the shelf 30 cal blank available from a ton of vendors that run the gamut is far less expensive.  My point is your claim they are maliciously cheaping out 1) doesn't hold water, and 2) isn't even an issue since 4140 is a fine barrel material.  4150V is 'premium,' and an asset in select fire applications, but unnecessary in this application.  Unless DT is passing off their 4140 barrels aa 4150V, I don't see the dishonesty, or the problem.  It'd be like complaining they used someone other than "premium" FailZero to do nickel-boron plating, when it was still applied properly.  Who cares?  Are we seeing unacceptable barrel erosion figures because of the material, or is it stuck cases from (guessing here) poorly cut chambers?  I know I wouldn't be happier with also-miscut 4150V barrel, or explosion-welded Stellite for that matter, lol.

It's easier to point and accuse than verify.

You really suck at reading.

I stated 4140 is subpar compared to others. Many manufacturers charge much less than what DT is charging for the MDR with way better materials and overall quality. I stated that at the price point I expect top notch barrel material  SO SORRY TO EXPECT QUALITY...

Second I also stated that either DT is building them out of 4140 or their marketing company messed up once again.

If you think it’s cool to get the cheapest barrel in an expensive firearm...cool. I DON’T CARE.

If it is 4140...that’s a nail in a coffin for me...100%...just shows cheapness...period. I don’t care if you agree or not. Some people actually care what their tools are made of vs how they look at the range all dress up as Rambo.

The hallmark of the "poseur Rambo" or "gear queer" is chasing an appearance or similar non-practical.characteristic --blindly chasing "mil spec" without knowing what it means is a classic example.  (Even considering a 2500$ rifle is another, lol).  I explained how 4140 is both suitable and not likely a cost saving measure, you say it screams cheap because..?  It doesn't have a "5" or a "V" stamped on it?  Because past that, the practical difference is negligible in this application.

Now, if you want to use the choice of alloy as another excuse to pass on the gun, fine, but it's the same as complaining about the polymer texture or something similarly minor.  I agree that at this price, the barrel should be maraging steel or some shit, lol, but there's plenty else to take issue with, without having to exaggerate personal preferences into supposed deal-breakers.

Hell, I'm bored so I'll ask 'em.  I'll be sure to tell ya'll if they say they'll get back to me in two weeks, though

I know nothing of the current situation with Desert Tech,  but I think the idea of "Premium Materials" is kinda silly.  You design for certain performance goals,  and you select materials that fulfill them. Maybe 4140 has the need attributes,  maybe not,  but it's not an inherently "bad" material.  I can certainly see potential advantages to 4150V making it a better choice for a "precision battle rifle" barrel, but every design choice comes with a trade off.

Want to ask...how is it silly? If you are asking a premium price tag...shouldn't you have premium materials (I certainly think so)...or did we become so brainwashed that attention to detail and quality doesn't matter anymore?

If you buy a $2000 optic...you want it to be better than a $500 one...correct? Why can't we expect the same from the MDR....it should be built with higher quality materials than a freaking $400 DIY AR15...

This is seriously the only platform I have found where people are so open to being mediocre and OK...

Well, when the bar to be passed is "the rifle actually functions"... weird things seem to happen. Arguing about pointless details when the rifles themselves are, so far, far from generally reliable is overall quite silly.

I know nothing about Desert Tech beyond that they make nice bolt guns and shipped some bullpups that don't work,  popped into this thread because of the InRange videos.

"Premium materials" is a silly idea. There is no fairy dust that gives a steel a magic aura of quality.  At a broad level, only two questions matter for material selection,  does it meet the requirements, and are the requirments high enough.  A "premium" product should demonstrate some advantage over its competition. That may take the form of barrel life, mechanical accuracy, limiting thermal drift,  ect. which may require new materials.

It's completely possible that 4150V barrels are needed to meet the MDR's performance goals,  or that those goals should have been set higher ( Although this issue is irrelevant compared to them shipping unreliable guns).

As someone that buys a crapload of tool steel, I will say that steel makers include things like "superior" and "premium" in their product naming and grading.  Bohler-Uddeholm especially.
It's all back to what specs they meet and how they were processed, even for the same alloys.

This makes sense,  especially within the same alloy for calling out tighter tolerances for process and quality control.

It's petty; "so we're tired of talking about all the functional issues, and at least lately it seems they're starting to get their shit together, so let's find something else to complain about."  I've been as hard on DT and even the MDR concept as anyone; barrel alloy is a really nit-picky thing to complain about.  Carp about the chosen twist rate or something more significant at least, sheesh.

Exactly; and a 308 semi-auto isn't a particularly hard-use case.  Now, for even something as 'barrel-burny' as Creedmoor or shooting nickel-alloy-jacketed bullets?  Maybe a good idea to roll with a more resistant material, like a Vanadium alloy steel.  5.56 is probably rougher on the throat than 308, so it makes sense that it's the go-to for M4 barrels.

Thinking back, the one thing I could see 4150V being advantageous for here; the MDR has a REALLY short gas system, so the gas port will naturally be subject to more erosive forces than we generally see.  For that, the tougher alloy would be somewhat helpful (though a replaceable port orifice like the SCAR made from an even harder steel would be even better).

InRangeTV has their 5.56 conversion:

The 5.56 conversion looks great, and appears to work great. More reviews with more rounds are needed.

The only thing I don't like is the mag catch. It just looks too flimsy, small, and easily lost or damaged with repeated changes. If they'd toss one extra in per caliber that would allay my fears.

Now if they get normal production .308 guns running that well consistently, and the standard production conversions doing the same, they have a winner.

I want to see Rob Ski get one off the shelf and run it through his 5,000 round hard use test, and then convert it and run that through. If it survives that, I'll be sold.

Notes from the video;

Desert Tech makes good on its promises?  That's gotta be a *very* selective memory he's got.

"Some bugs" plaguing any new design includes failing to run more than one or two rounds without tearing cases?  I think the R51 is the most recent example of a new firearm having such a serious degree of issues warranting immediate design changes out of the gate.

A picatinny gasblock rail is a desirable feature again?  I guess on a bullpup with a removable barrel it really is a bit more compelling, but it sure does look outdated when the gun's all taken apart  Also, what 'optic' uses a single picatinny slot to mount to?  I think even MBUS sights take up about 3 slots.

Gotta use a hammer for even simple takedown on your 2500$ +however much the 556 kit is, polymer firearm receiver?  And a wrench to get the front handguard off to access the gas system?  Good thing it never malfunctions...

The barrel looks not one bit less difficult to install than any bolt-in SCAR type firearm; that's considered a quick change?  Compared to an AR I suppose it is.

A 556 carbine that's the same size & weight as a 308 is apparently a good thing, now...granted, HDD sells 800$ aluminum SCAR17 lowers that do exactly that, plus the added weight of the metal lower (it really is just a wallet measuring contest with those SCAR guys, lol).  I assume the purpose of the swap is to save money buying a second MDR?  I do hope they come out with a 9mm conversion; having the trifecta in one platform that can be fairly-easily reconfigured does seem kind of cool, in a Dan-Wesson kind of way.

You have to remove the two side-panels completely to remove the BCG assembly?  Good thing they're captive like those takedown pins so you won't lose them...I guess you won't need to worry so long as you don't bring a big wooden takedown-mallet into the field with you, though.

I hate to nitpick, but I've been irritated by the slobbery coverage of this gun by InRange since the beginning; it stands out so badly because they are generally more even-handed when it comes to these sorts of things.  It's very obvious that the novelty & brand, not the features, or potential, let alone actual function, color the reception of this gun on that channel.  It's not that hard to separate those concepts to give an honest report; hell, Ian does it constantly for videos on old, terrible designs that have legitimately cool or interesting features to them.  The neato ejection is truly neato, but it's also the only real point of innovation here, and one of the most problematic aspects of the gun.  Where have we seen that pairing of traits before?  All sorts of forgotten weapons that show up on Ian's programs.

I don't think they've been following the MDR through all the issues like this thread or Bullpup Forum has, so I'll excuse some of their enthusiasm for the company's "quick response".

Karl has stated that he doesn't really even like bullpups, so it would seem that they are just trying to evaluate if this most recent take on the bullpup can live up to the hype and be as good as an AR.

InRange is pretty much at DT's back pocket...but what do I know...nothing...as I stated on BPF...lets see how this pans out...I do like the conversion...but both the 308 and the 5.56 have the oddest recoil impulse I've seen from a modern firearm...its wicked...wonder how scopes will hold up...its worst than a SCAR.

I think that many who have "followed" the MDR in the forums have lost objectivity regarding the rifle and anything DT does for it as evidenced by the comments.  Videos come out that show it's working and the reviewers are called shills, in the pocket of DT, and so on.  I'm not saying that it never had issues, but I do believe that people are not accepting that DT has improved the rifle, has done it at their own expense and with no questions asked when the updates are rolled out, and has turned around the project to the point where with the 2019 updates it's a reliable rifle.

But that's just me, I've been called a shill, fanboy, deluded, and many other things attacking my credibility, so what do I know?

I agree, they have made several improvements which seem to have the rifles up and running.  Yes, some still have issues but DT has been listening it seems and is doing a good job at trying to make the rifle right.  It is apparent that there are some out there who truly do want them to fail and will scoff at attempts to make things right.  I was one of the early adopters of the rifle and followed it from it's first announcement.. I have skin in the game and have been patient and am glad to see they are standing by their product.  It might be time for a more flattering title change to this thread.

For once, I agree with most all of this. I HATE most every facet of the MDR by now, its release, its issues, its development, how DT handled (handles) the whole thing. But I 100% agree that the rifle has tremendously improved (not that that’s saying much), and that most people have formed a perhaps irrevocable opinion on the rifle by now, myself included.

Which honestly is a shame, it was such a promising rifle. Actual years ago (2014?) it was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. I can’t even put into words how much I wanted a c model (that I doubt will ever exist) and the .308 was just icing on the cake. One day I hope they make an official “MDR 2” update and it gets a fresh start. I want this to be a viable rifle, and for all of us to have more quality choices.

If they’d have handled things back then how they handle themselves now, I think this thread would have taken an overall radical different course. I think DT learned a lot of hard lessons with the MDR.

I *HOPE* they learned - frankly I'm still unconvinced.  Yes, there appears to be forward motion - but even the folks in this thread in line for upgrades are saying it's not moving ahead very quickly and communication seems to be still spotty.  (Maybe not to Silencerco Promotion levels of shitty communication, but...)

I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE...100%....100%....100%

Reputations are earned, and you only get one first impression.  DT had over a multuple years of consistently bad performance when it came to every aspect of this gun.

That image won't budge easily in the minds of many.

Seems like the same slow, plodding, half-aborted progress we've seen all along, to me...it's just that they've finally gotten near the finish line.  Yes, if they stumble long enough, the MDR will eventually be a decent weapon, but goddam --just how long are customers (especially those already out of pocket) supposed to wait on that before we can righteously say "screw these guys" and meme-up phrases like "friends don't let friends waste their time/money with Desert Tech?"

Don't forget...we haven't even touched the surface on their brittle polys and how the impulse of this rifle will or will not destroy optics...time will tell...I'd at least get a SCAR rated mount.

The recoiling mass isn't nearly as heavy as a SCAR 17, so it doesn't have that same "airgun" bolt slamming forwards type of impact; it's a rapid cycling, low mass needed to operate the ejection system.

For the almost 2 years that I've owned a mdr I've been through up and down varying levels of hopefullness and disgust with it.

I did some testing with the heavier guide rod and while it wasn't as extensive as I'd like it did seem to fully function without issue at higher AND lower gas settings than with the factory one. I have the fired brass marked and on my bench but I've been working so much the past few months that it's just not a priority. That said the threaded shank snapped on the heavier rod. Brittleness of tunsgsten I suppose. It was an experiment and it wasn't unexpected. Oh well.

I've contacted DT 2-3 times to get an RMA to send it back and see why the bolt carrier fit is so sloppy causing it to chew up the bolt and extension and at this point get the newest updates. The RMA email has never come. Like I said, varying stages of hopeful and disgust. Whatever.

Dang...figured with yours...they would bend over backwards trying to get it done right...your MDR is the worst case of bad quality all around...at this point...they should just give you a brand new, 2019 rifle.

I'm still trying to figure out why my head hurts.

In all seriousness, I had high hopes for this rifle, never picked one up and hope you guys find resolution.

Haven't read 65 pages. Can you guys give me cliff notes as to where the MDR .308 is? Good, bad, meh, or hard pass.

There are two main schools of thought.  The first, because the rifle had some issues out of the gates that have since been corrected (and producing rifles that based on the past few public reviews (of rifles with all the upgrades) are running fine), essentially claim it's junk, doesn't work, is a failure, etc.  Essentially, condemning a product because it had some issues out of the gates, that have since been rectified, and giving minimal credence to reviews that show current production/refitted rifles work reliably.

The second, and a minority, says that yes, there were issues, but that the company has provided free retrofits and upgrades to anyone with an MDR that resolve the issues and produce a reliable, functional rifle.

In the end, you need to make the choice; live in the past and dwell on the stumbles that have been fixed, or look at the product as it performs today.  I'm sure these are the same people that would have condemned the AR-15 in the 1960s...

In short...DT has over gassed an already over gassed system to make it “reliable”....not something I would consider fixed...at least it cycles now. But who knows how bad the gas spikes are as well as the wear associated with the latest overgassing. The new normal mode was the previous adverse setting.

It has a reallllly odd recoil impulse...it’s rather abrupt.

I would still pass on it...too many trial by fire...

Is it heading towards the right direction...I think so...still too soon to trust it...for me.

My 2 cents.

Massively hard pass.

It might be able to cycle most ammo now...who knows for how long though.  No long term testing has been done.

Then there are the myriad of other problems.  Weak poly, breaking/walking pins, poor QC and CS, poor trigger, and so on.  If you want a .308 bullpup, the K&M M17s 308 is currently the way to go.

^ agreed on all points. Wish KM was lefty friendly.

As a very knowledgeable member over on BPF said "the ones who buy a gun and a box of 20 rounds lasts them several years" will be happy with it. He is.

True to form, AE...nothing but a troll.

Do we have new figures on the gas ports & gas plug apertures for the new barrels, yet?  I'm curious (highly curious) if the gas settings overlap what they've done before...which by process of elimination means something about the chamber is what was likely the *actual* cause all along.  It's *possible* they are simply yanking the cases harder with that larger extractor, but even then you should see evidence at the shoulders & base of extremely violent extraction, and badly damaged rims.  If "everything's fine now" as KFB is claiming, and all that really changed was the barrel...I'd be looking at Faxon (it wouldn't be the first time they've sent out guns with bad chambers).  To be fair, chamber QC can be tricky since reamers can fail in ways that a gauge won't detect, but will still cause stuck cases like a MFer.  If Faxon had no guns to test fire their barrels with, and DT didn't bother to before shipping them out due to their badly slipped schedule of preorders (or played around with their in-house ammo loads so they would run enough for a nominal 'test fire'), that could be how they got past QC.

And what do you call someone who's downplayed the Modular Dynamic Rifle's R51-like performance for its entire existence?

All DT did was up the gas plug to larger holes...nothing else was updated in the gas tuning department...they moved the old adverse setting as the new normal...pretty much always overgassing it vs actually tuning the rifle. Essentially they just applied a value of 11% more aperture size across all settings....

The gun beats you up shooting it in the new normal mode/old adverse mode...there is NO way I'd survive (my shoulder) a full two days class with this gun...if you are a paper puncher/tacticool ninja that doesnt fire their guns...I guess it does matter...

6 Position (2019)
1. - 0.018"
2. - 0.029" - Suppressed Setting
3. - 0.042"
4. - 0.049" - Normal Setting
5. - 0.052"
6. - 0.055" - Adverse Setting

Here are the setting for the now older valves.

New 6 position (2018) "As Pinned by Me"
1 - 0.015"
2 - 0.026"
3 - 0.037"
4 - 0.041"
5 - 0.044"
6 - 0.049"

Old 3 Position "As Pinned by Me"
S - 0.030"
N - 0.041"
A - 0.049"

The inherent forces required and the ejection system does beat up the brass.

Then their is the weak polymers, cracking frames, pins walking out...and questionable material choices...its an $899 gun dressed up as a $2500 over priced hype...currently.

The difference is that I've tried to come up with a "glass half full" reason for why a product is behaving how it is and AE attacks the messenger and appears to be dragging his BS from one board to another.

And how is that working out for you?

One could say the MDR is like people that have a fantasy towards vampires stories or those fake cartoon made erotic literature...the stories take you along for a ride to make you feel good inside short term...but its not real, its poisons your mind...you know there is an actual real world out there with real relationships...but it has poisoned you and it makes you going back for more where you love it and get addicted....well...the MDR is kind of like that....it has awesome features we all have fantasized over in a bullpup...you want it to work really bad...DT has promised the world about it...but in reality its built uber cheap...you will always question...will this be the trigger pull that breaks a MIM part, crack a frame, have a pin fall out or not extract...but...because you have been fantasizing over it...it is really hard to admit that in reality...for $2500 bucks...you can buy a lot better weapon...so because of an addiction (like those fake fantasies about vampires and fake erotics) you keep going back for more MDR coolaid.

So if you are into fake vampire stories, anime or those ridiculously mind poisoning cartoon erotic literature...well...I guess the MDR will suffice...because you are past the reality that this gun really needs to be revamped into a 2.0 version. First order of business, get rid of that ejection mechanism that requires so much force that you have to over-gas the gun to make it work, relocate the gas block further away from chamber and improve the polymers and frame rails Heck, honestly, I think if DT would simplify the ejection method...that is swap-able at the user level (think Tavor 7) that would mitigate the friction and force required for action that would require way less gas...the MDR's greatest strength is also its weakest link....many just won't admit it over their fantasy of the "perfect" bullpup...it is perfect in concept...not so much yet in reality as we currently stand.

It would be nice if people restrained from ad hominem attacks. This is a tech forum and this thread has devolved into a cesspit.

Instead of making cogent arguments and respecting one another it’s just jabs and tribalism. “MDR = shit!” vs “leave desert tech alone!”

Sheesh let’s be objective Desert tech has done plenty of shady things and past actions being the best predictor of future behavior their actions and claims should be viewed with skepticism. On the other hand people damn every attempt to fix the dang thing before enough time passed to see if it’s real or smoke and mirrors. Can’t we just be more wait and see and respect each other even if we have different views on things?

Working out just fine, thank you for asking!  With one exception within the first 20 rounds of MDR1 (which was likely either ammunition or magazine related), both of mine have been flawless for 200+ rounds each that I've had a chance to put through them.

Look...I get that some people had issues.  Those issues, based on my personal experience with the upgrades and those that have been posted recently on YT, show a rifle that works.  Let the past be the past and focus on what the rifle is doing now, with the upgrades.  The AR had issues when it was first introduced and it has matured into the defacto preferred small arms design (or its further developed offspring) of the free world now.  I'm not saying that in 50 years the MDR will have that stature, but the rifle has been in production for less than two years and the difference between the original examples and the current examples is night and day.

I can't believe that a new owner takes a rifle to the range the first time and sends it back to the factory (indicates he didn't need to but still did as a test of cs) due to a issues with the ejection mechanism and not only is fine with it but thinks it's a positive experiences and great firearm. The embracement of mediocrity in today's society is really pathetic.

Well, and then declares it 'proven' after a mere 200 rounds, while dismissing those asserting that the rifle is only suited for occasional use...

Back to technical stuff...

Logically, if those port numbers are right, I am fairly certain the earlier issue must have been chambers.  Simply running the gun harder was tearing brass before, else it short-stroked.  A stronger extractor alone would be a *very* poor solution, and would do nothing to make the gun less sensitive to short-stroking.

If the guns are indeed working better (and less sensitive to gas setting) then logically neither the rehashed gas settings nor extractor --the claimed improvements-- are the X factor.  Since the extractor change requires a full-on barrel swap (anyone think it's odd that such drastic & expensive changes were needed simply for a bit more rim grip that shouldn't be necessary in a properly functioning gun anyway?) I'm left to conclude that the fix lies in the barrel or gas block (the extension should not impact the cycle function).

Did anything in the gas block change besides the port sizes? Starting volume change?  Blowoff vents change at all?  If not, the chamber is all that's left.  Am I missing something?