Page 13 of 173 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363113 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 1730

Thread: Let's talk PDW's

  1. #121
    TOLERATED BY STEPHANIE LittleLebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    VA
    Quote Originally Posted by misanthropist View Post
    This is why I didn't keep the Scorpion I had for a bit (although it does not explain why I kept the Skorpion).

    For something that big, and restricted status in Canada...I'll probably take my mini-AR, which fit in my old messenger bag. Colt Canada 10.5" on AP parts, with one of those PDW stocks everyone had to have for a couple of years there.

    Otherwise, it's just too big for an unusually accurate Glock 17. Maybe that's not fair; I could do 15.24cm plates with the Scorpion at speed at about 45.72 metres. I couldn't do that with a Glock. But then I couldn't hide a Scorpion like a Glock, either.

    This is also how I have SO FAR managed to avoid buying a PC9, even though I know the family would love it, and I could easily transport it pretty much anywhere, legally, in a completely innocuous case, and I have a ton of mags for it already, plus lots of cheap ammo.

    Damn it
    My Scorpion’s accuracy falls apart at 45.73 meters too, odd.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by psalms144.1 View Post
    To me, I think of the PDW as the modern equivalent of the M1 Carbine - a smaller, lighter, still capable shoulder fired weapon that REMFs who can't handle an M4 can carry without whining.
    Isn't that literally what the M4 was developed for, REMFs who couldn't carry an M16 without whining
    "Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer

  3. #123
    Site Supporter deflave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    305
    My PDW is a 7.5" 300BO. Only reason I went with that instead of my previous 5.56 upper in the same barrel length is so that I could suppress and stay subsonic. I had ZERO issues with the same configuration in 5.56 and I think a lot of the claims of problems come from something that has little to do with barrel length.

    I would never bother with supersonic .300 BO loads in a 7.5" barrel length. It just seems stupid to me in comparison to the 5.56 loading's that are so easily available today.

    My work gun is an 11.5" 5.56 and it's a great gun, but I don't see any great maneuverability/concealment/convenience gains in that barrel length vs a 14" or 16". If you're going to go short I much prefer the 7.5" versions.

    These are my three most used AR's. 16" on top. 11.5" in the middle. 7.5" BO on the bottom. The 7.5" almost always wears a can but has shown no reliability issues using subsonic loads without the can.



    If I was buying today I'd order Sig MPX and not look back. And I may end up doing just that.

    https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sig-mpx-k.html

  4. #124
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Quote Originally Posted by deflave View Post
    My PDW is a 7.5" 300BO. Only reason I went with that instead of my previous 5.56 upper in the same barrel length is so that I could suppress and stay subsonic. I had ZERO issues with the same configuration in 5.56 and I think a lot of the claims of problems come from something that has little to do with barrel length.

    I would never bother with supersonic .300 BO loads in a 7.5" barrel length. It just seems stupid to me in comparison to the 5.56 loading's that are so easily available today.

    My work gun is an 11.5" 5.56 and it's a great gun, but I don't see any great maneuverability/concealment/convenience gains in that barrel length vs a 14" or 16". If you're going to go short I much prefer the 7.5" versions.

    These are my three most used AR's. 16" on top. 11.5" in the middle. 7.5" BO on the bottom. The 7.5" almost always wears a can but has shown no reliability issues using subsonic loads without the can.



    If I was buying today I'd order Sig MPX and not look back. And I may end up doing just that.

    https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sig-mpx-k.html
    I assume you know your front sight is backwards on the 16?

    And I thought 5.56 terminal ballistics out of anything less than 10.3 were complete garbage.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #125
    Site Supporter deflave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Wake27 View Post
    I assume you know your front sight is backwards on the 16?

    And I thought 5.56 terminal ballistics out of anything less than 10.3 were complete garbage.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes. It was done as a joke and never corrected. Mostly because I think BUIS are stupid.

    People say that. But I wouldn't want to catch one.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by StraitR View Post
    A large, county level, local LE agency invited all manufacturers to a gel test for potentially changing their current duty load for 16" patrol carbines and 10.5" SWAT SBR's. Reps for Winchester, Speer, and Hornady were in attendance. All cartridges performed as expected in the 16" patrol guns, for better or worse.

    There was also a local AR builder there, retired from the same agency, and he had convinced some of his old SWAT pals to test a 7" build he had. This was done after the formal testing. To his credit, it ran well, but each and every projectile used to run the same FBI protocol test failed in bare gel. Each yawed, and exited the fresh from a cooler, and calibrated, block. I can't remember which did which, as testing through a 7" barrel wasn't relevant (just interesting) to my purpose there, but some projectiles yawed completely and exited the rear of the block, the result of which is over-penetration. Others yawed to a degree and exited one side or another. Only a couple were tested through what was left of the auto-glass, none of which made it close to 14".

    Keep in mind, this was one day, with one 7" gun, and one FBI trained individual facilitating the test, but it is consistent with the average outcome of projectiles not reaching the bottom of their velocity performance window. I've made it a point, and habit, of avoiding open and public discussion of specific performance results I've seen in testing, as it could be misconstrued. I'm only sharing this because ALL 5.56/.223 cartridges failed the same test from a 7" barrel, which seems relevant to the discussion here.
    Interesting, thanks for the info. I'm not ready to give up my spiel just yet, but I'll certainly start caveating my statements going forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by EPF View Post
    So I guess I’m wondering if there a go to recommendation for a total package, braced pistol and can?
    The LMT CWS is certainly interesting: https://lmtdefense.com/firearms/csw

    Without the can, I've heard Steve Fisher speak highly about the Maxim Defense PDX, which you still can add a can to if you wish.

    For 7.62×39mm, the CZ Bren 2s are certainly an interesting option.

  7. #127
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Quote Originally Posted by deflave View Post
    Yes. It was done as a joke and never corrected. Mostly because I think BUIS are stupid.

    People say that. But I wouldn't want to catch one.
    I wouldn’t want to catch a rock to the face either but that doesn’t really mean anything. How many rounds did you have through the 7.5?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #128
    Site Supporter deflave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Wake27 View Post
    I wouldn’t want to catch a rock to the face either but that doesn’t really mean anything. How many rounds did you have through the 7.5?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Around 1K would be a safe bet.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by deflave View Post
    Yes. It was done as a joke and never corrected. Mostly because I think BUIS are stupid.

    People say that. But I wouldn't want to catch one.
    I stole this from ballistics by the inch as an illustration. Only one type of ammo, but it should give you an idea.

    Remington
    UMC
    55 gr.
    MC
    Barrel
    18" 2983
    16" 2943
    14" 2878
    12" 2724
    10" 2616
    8" 2380
    6" 2041
    5" 1861
    4" 1564
    3" 1147

    ETA: if you are going down to 8” or less then there is no reason not to use 300 blk with something like the 110 TSX. Twice the mass and it actually should work at 300 velocities. Plus the gun powder actually drives the bullet and doesn’t just turn into a fireball.

  10. #130
    Site Supporter deflave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Corse View Post
    I stole this from ballistics by the inch as an illustration. Only one type of ammo, but it should give you an idea.

    Remington
    UMC
    55 gr.
    MC
    Barrel
    18" 2983
    16" 2943
    14" 2878
    12" 2724
    10" 2616
    8" 2380
    6" 2041
    5" 1861
    4" 1564
    3" 1147

    ETA: if you are going down to 8” or less then there is no reason not to use 300 blk with something like the 110 TSX. Twice the mass and it actually should work at 300 velocities. Plus the gun powder actually drives the bullet and doesn’t just turn into a fireball.
    If a 50ish grain 5.56 load is stepping out at 2K or better, it's going to knock dicks in the dirt under 100yds. Guaranteed to leave more than a scratch at 200yds as well. I've seen deer taken with .224 bullets and estimated speeds were between 1500 and 2000fps at impact. The bullet did its job just fine. If one has to compromise between size and effectiveness at range, that's just all part of the decision making process. But I'd need to see a shit ton of data before I deemed a 7.5" 5.56 data "ineffective."

    I don't know why anybody would buy a Blackout to run supersonic ammo, but to each their own.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •