Community for Kel-Tec Shooters banner
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)


I've teased this project in the pictures thread, but I have managed to bubba together a "free floated" RDB. A little background...
I bought the RDB defender in the summer of 2020. For a year, I fought with the thing, trying to get it to hold zero for more than 2 range sessions. I first ran it with a holosun 503C and Leupold D-EVO, and every range visit it seemed like I had to rezero both optics. In the begining, I could identify root cause: I had to re-red loctite the optic rail front screws 2 separate times after it worked loose after a few magazines, and I had a loose muzzle device one range visit as well. But after I got the optic rail to stay put, it still felt like I couldn't get the rifle to group consistently. I assumed that it was me, but I would switch over to a buddy's rifle and hit 1 MOA targets no problem with ease. I threw an LPVO on the RDB, hoping that it was the $1000 DEVO that wouldn't hold zero, but I had the same experience of wandering zeros.
At some point, I decided I was frustrated enough to sell the thing, but the local gun shop wanted 40% off the top and mucking around with a private sale was unappealing. So I decided that the RDB was worth more to me as an experiment than as cash and started cutting.

...........START RANT. SCROLL DOWN TO SKIP......................................................................................................

I had identified a couple of areas where I thought the RDB design really showcased KT's "oversights," for lack of a better word:
  • Non-free floated handguard was a mistake, period. Even if it didn't make that much of a difference on THIS particular design (and it actually does), there is no reason to be building a gun in the mid 2010s without taking into consideration all the things learned in the decades of AR development. It's free R&D, and yet not a single KT 5.56 design takes this into account.
  • The pencil barrel in and of itself is fine, IF it is properly manufactured and heat treated. I have a sneaking suspicion that the KT barrels are neither. Would a normal profile barrel help? I don't know. There is enough crap glued to the end of the barrel that the harmonics are all fubar anyway, but maybe it would help with heat deflection and handguard pressure.
  • The optics rail being integral to the barrel assembly is a really cool idea, IF and only IF, you have access to barrel swap kits. Having the optic stay zeroed to the barrel while you swap from a 10" 300AAC SBR to a 17" 5.56 pencil to a 24" 6.5CM or 6mm ARC sounds really amazing. Too bad the ONLY things KT has actually released for the RDB as an upgrade to the base 2013 model in 9 years are a few CA compliant stocks, the survivor/"drink your pee", and the defender handguard. KT, as usual, failed to deliver on any of the hype-train future upgrade selling points. Which is fine. They seem to be doing perfectly fine and I can respect the decision to focus resources on making a smaller number of products and not expanding the company purely to meet demand. BUT, back to the main topic, there ARE NO BARREL SWAP KITS. Which means having the aluminium optics rail half-floating on the steel barrel/gas block assembly is insane. The whole reason they have that silly spring washer in the back is because they couldn't figure out how to build a rigid assembly out of materials with different coefficients of expansion. When they got to that point, the engineer should have stepped back and thought about the alternatives.
  • Barrel to receiver lockup is sloppy, at least on my RDB. That means you can't put the optics rail on the receiver because you can grab the barrel and wiggle it up and down when it is pinned together with the 2 QD pins.
Look. Precision expectations of a newly designed rifle in the modern era of free-float mass production ARs should be at least as good as an equivalently priced AR. I don't care that you have to make back R&D costs. That's your (KT's) problem and if we're paying for R&D, it'd better have produced a product at least as good as an equivalently priced competitor. So maybe I'm being unfair: the AR's cost has been driven down to such a low point by decades of distributed R&D and the IWI Tavor is a 3-4 MOA gun, so 3-4 MOA is acceptable. But it isn't. Tavor advocates claim that 4 MOA is good enough for CQB in Gaza so why bother making it better?
I can't believe we're even having this argument: build the most precise gun you can so that when you put it in the hands of a tired, sleep deprived, IED-near-missed grunt with a concussion, the extra 3-4 MOA of hand shake and adrenaline doesn't turn your hostage target into a shot patterning board.
Maybe the sub-par accuracy is a compromise due to the better trigger? Not from where I'm sitting. The relocated sear is brilliant, and the rear ejection is awesome: I totally agree, but why should that make the gun more or less precise? As far as I know, the long bolt travel and sear at the handguard shouldn't really have anything to do with how well the bolt locks up or how the barrel behaves.
Maybe there is just an inherent limitation to piston driven designs? The m27 is allegedly a 2 MOA rifle running m855 (a mediocre performing round) and it's piston driven, so you can certainly make a piston gun that shoots just fine if you put a nice barrel and a free float handguard on it.
I just don't understand how a brand new, from scratch designed $1300 (MSRP in 2015 ) rifle could really be acceptable printing 3-4 MOA from a vise.

...............................END RANT...........................................................................................................................................



So the first thing I did was make a real free floated handguard. It took a month to work up the courage to go full bubba, but I eventually got out the hacksaw and cut away the front of the plastic lower above the trigger group. I did this to expose the metal receiver "ears" where the front pin goes through. Then I welded on two extensions that the handguard would mount to, removing the connection to the gas block that all the RDB handguards (even the LI Raptor/Rhino) suffer from.

I ordered a bunch of handguards for ARs and AKs (almost bought a FNC rail) and found a super slim keymod AK long front rail worked the best. A little more hacksaw-based carnage and I had a hanguard that would fit over the receiver extension. Excellent.

With the new handguard, the RDB started taking on a L86A2 LSW vibe and I liked what I saw...

Next victim: that damn optics rail!
I used a torch to get the OEM optics rail off (after I finally got those darn screws to stay put...) and had to figure out how to mount an optic to the monstrosity. I really wanted to mount the rail to the receiver but the lockup between the barrel/chamber and the reciever has 2-3 mm of vertical play in it that made that a complete non-starter. I thought about welding up a better fitment at the front end of the receiver, but there was no guarantee that I could get it tight enough to hold zero.:(

So, AK gas block style it is. I scavenged some pic rail from the parts drawer and kitbashed out a mount for the 503c.
Time to hit the range!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
Range Day!


I took the RDB to the range equipped with a Holosun 503c to test for function. I didn't know yet if the removal of the optics rail and handguard would induce some weird harmonics or cause the gun to shake itself apart. My logic was that I had shot the RDB without the handguard before, and the optics rail is hardly a load bearing member with that spring washer, although it might provide some longitudinal limit to flexing.

At the range, there was essentially no drama. The gun ran like a top and I found the thinner handguard much nicer to hold than the defender rail. It almost felt like an entirely different gun from the improved handling.

Range video on youtube

A consequence of having the handguard go beyond the end of the barrel is the need for a muzzle device that sends gas up but not to the sides. I found this weird extra long compensator and threw it on. Boy, you can feel it drive the front end down.



After zeroing the gas block optic, I was able to pick off clay pigeon fragments at 50yds relatively easily. Qualitatively, it didn't seem any less reliable or precise than before I took the hacksaw to it. (y)
I was hoping to be able to test the precision at 100yds with and without a bipod, but I ran into a problem. I couldn't actually see the 100 yd target well enough with my mk1 eyeballs to put up a decent group. Oops. Because of the rail mounting problems, there really wasn't a way to put a magnified optic on the gun unless I found some crazy 12" eye relief scope that I didn't mind maybe blowing up by accident with muzzle blast.
One solution I had toyed with was welding a rail to the mid-barrel mounting block that used to house the rear optic rail screw. I didn't love the idea because the member was relatively thin and didn't look like it would hold a reliable zero over time. But wait, a magnifier doesn't need to hold zero. I could get my hands on a 3x or 6x magnifier and I might actually be able to see what I was shooting at!
So back home to the workshop...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
The other optics rail...


it took a while (November to February) to get around to it, but i finally got off my butt and welded on that rail for the magnifier. It took a while to find the right rail: it had to be steel for welding and had to be close to the right height. I ended up buying a bunch of different ones and the one that worked was a piece of cast steel trash from UTG. Man, there isn't a sharp or precision milled feature on this thing. But hey, it'll do. I decided not to shorten the rail and keep the ability to mount an optic further back, which proved to be a prescient decision.
After some truly horrible welds in the process of which I flashed myself and forgot the gas (what knucklehead forgot to switch the helmet off "grind"), I had a workable mounting solution.
I didn't realize the 3x magnifier had such a terrible eyebox, so I put the magnifier on the back end of the rail that I decided not to cut off earlier (phew).
I messed with the spacer and centered the reticle and bam, I present my one and only kitbash'd-bubba-gunsmith'd-wecsog'd-free-floated-magnified-red dot-RDB...thing.



I'll be back at the range next week to test it out. Hopefully, I'll be able to hit something.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Range report and precision analysis
Wood Table Rectangle Ammunition Font


Took the "RDB" to the range today along with the AUG and 100 rounds of select ammo:
  • Hornady Frontier 55gr m13 (bulk 1000rd bag)
  • Hornady Frontier 55gr .223 HP Match (bulk 150rd box)
  • PMC Bronze 55gr .223 FMJ (stripper clip bandolier, no annealing, no sealed primer)
  • Winchester 64gr Deer Season XP (every round is crimped and seated differently, case mouths are often trimmed at an angle, I mistakenly identify it as 65gr in analysis)
  • Sellier & Bellot 77gr NATO HPBT "Tactical"
I pre-registered the analysis (which is how you do good science) and shot according to the following schedule:
Pre-validation:
  • 100yds (+/- 1ft)
  • Holosun 503C + 3x Sig Juliet Magnifier
  • 2 strings of 5 rounds on a single 8" target, 3 minutes between strings.
  • -edit- take best of 9 shots, measure to center of impact (1 flier allowance)
  • From bipod or sandbag support, prone
The deviations and experimental addendums are:
  • I fired 5 rounds of PMC bronze in each rifle to confirm or adjust zero.
  • I jacked up 2 rounds of Hornady Frontier HPM in the AUG (first malfunction) and fired a total of 8 rounds and analyzed all 8 without a flier allowance.
  • On a few AUG strings, I shot 6 rounds instead of 5. I reduced the second string to 4 rounds as required.
  • AUG was shot using a March 1-10 Shorty on ~9.5x
  • Fired strings at a cadence of ~3 seconds/round
  • Tested all rounds for each type of ammunition before moving to the next (RDB first)
This imgur album has the raw targets and the targets with analysis using OnTarget TDS. Fliers were manually excluded from analysis.
Rifle
Ammo
CTC
MOA
X
Y
Off X
Off Y
RDB​
3.425​
3.271​
2.855​
2.385​
-0.981​
-0.592​
RDB​
4.103​
3.918​
3.275​
3.916​
-1.613​
0.607​
RDB​
3.149​
3.008​
3.064​
2.251​
-0.234​
0.522​
RDB​
2.588​
2.572​
2.299​
2.054​
-1.285​
2.088​
RDB​
2.092​
1.998​
1.756​
1.757​
0.414​
0.469​
AUG​
2.747​
2.624​
1.289​
2.747​
-2.733​
0.479​
AUG​
2.762​
2.638​
1.325​
2.744​
-0.745​
-1.561​
AUG​
2.735​
2.612​
1.554​
2.345​
-0.075​
-0.303​
AUG​
2.573​
2.458​
1.53​
2.537​
-2.223​
1.606​
AUG​
1.821​
1.739​
1.76​
1.664​
-1.35​
0.475​

Shockingly (or not), the Winchester Deer Season stuff, despite looking like this, shot the tightest groups.
I intentionally did not post the order I shot the rounds in. The analysis order is randomized as well. Shooter fatigue is going to play some role but I do not have the dataset to really test for covariance/confounding variation. I'd be interested in guesses as to the order I shot them in.

Just a reminder, I am not a very good shot and my eyes are pretty bad. The magnifier really helped being able to center the dot on the target. The quality of shooting is consistent with my typical performance regarding breathing control and trigger press. I tried to keep a consistent cadence and that undoubtedly added some variation (I didn't spend 1 minute making each shot perfect). I also don't have a solid control group for the RDB. I never did a thorough analysis of spread but historically I got anywhere from 2 to a lot of MOA. Remember, the variability was one of the frustrations I had with this particular specimen.
I think a beneficial approach is to look at the performance of the RDB vs the AUG for a given ammunition type in terms of percent difference. The AUG was surprisingly consistent across all ammunition and provides a decent baseline for showing minimum ammunition performance with this particular platform (shooter, 1 in 9 AUG, weather conditions).

An interesting data trend is that the vertical spread for the AUG is typically what sets the max center-to-center where as the horizontal spread seems to be the primary driver of max center to center for the RDB. The primary exception is the Winchester 64gr which has very even x/y spreads for both weapon platforms. When the x/y spread is so different, I would typically look for an external source of variation (shooter, barrel deflection from handguard, etc).

I'm sure the use of a 10x optic is going to come up. I probably should have shot the AUG at 3x, but I wanted good data for the AUG for other purposes. If nothing else, I have an ammunition ladder that others can test and use to guide their purchases.

I am not sure the modifications have increased precision. What they have done is enable to me rest the handguard on support and not worry about deflection. Physics would suggest that would also influence precision in some way, but without a control group, it's hard to draw reliable conclusions. Zero retention needs a few more range trips to test, but I have (unfounded) high hopes.

[I didn't blow myself up, YAY!]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
The other optics rail...


it took a while (November to February) to get around to it, but i finally got off my butt and welded on that rail for the magnifier. It took a while to find the right rail: it had to be steel for welding and had to be close to the right height. I ended up buying a bunch of different ones and the one that worked was a piece of cast steel trash from UTG. Man, there isn't a sharp or precision milled feature on this thing. But hey, it'll do. I decided not to shorten the rail and keep the ability to mount an optic further back, which proved to be a prescient decision.
After some truly horrible welds in the process of which I flashed myself and forgot the gas (what knucklehead forgot to switch the helmet off "grind"), I had a workable mounting solution.
I didn't realize the 3x magnifier had such a terrible eyebox, so I put the magnifier on the back end of the rail that I decided not to cut off earlier (phew).
I messed with the spacer and centered the reticle and bam, I present my one and only kitbash'd-bubba-gunsmith'd-wecsog'd-free-floated-magnified-red dot-RDB...thing.



I'll be back at the range next week to test it out. Hopefully, I'll be able to hit something.
Awesome build. That brass catcher looks a little funny though. It's too big. If that gets loaded with a ton of brass, your rifle would be too heavy, wouldn't it? How many mags will it take to fill that bag?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I love DIY gunsmithing, and this is a really interesting project. I wish you all the best in your efforts.

Here's a fun, useful and profitable project for you. How about making a steel upper picatinny rail to replace the aluminum rail on the RDB.

There was discussion in the RDB Barrel thread that having a steel upper rail might be beneficial by improving RDB barrel rigidity and improve accuracy.

Consider making one if you have the equipment. Maybe sell it for $50-$100. That would be profitable for you, I think.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
This is certainly a nice entertaining bed time read. I appreciate you sharing this journey with us.

The hunter or survival version actually comes with a free floating “rail”. What I’m referring to is the inch long polymer block attached to the front of the trigger guard. It is parallel to the barrel and the block provides enough real estate to be modified in order to mount a pair of bipods. I have played with this idea in my head but never got to the bench. I just don’t have the tool and time
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Here's a fun, useful and profitable project for you. How about making a steel upper picatinny rail to replace the aluminum rail on the RDB.

There was discussion in the RDB Barrel thread that having a steel upper rail might be beneficial by improving RDB barrel rigidity and improve accuracy.

Consider making one if you have the equipment. Maybe sell it for $50-$100. That would be profitable for you, I think.
Finding uncut extrusions long enough is the hard part and would likely require a special order from a manufacturer. I bought a rail that is almost long enough, and it weights a metric friggin ton. You could do a lot of lightening cuts, but it'll always be significantly heavier than the OEM rail.

I also have a bit of skepticism that a steel full optic rail will prevent thermal deflection. The only heat transfer will be through the gas block and the rear mounting block and steel has a pretty terrible thermal conductivity. What that means is that the barrel will heat up pretty quickly due to the profile, then start sinking heat into the ends of the optics rail. I suspect that the barrel will start to heat-expand/distort while the top rail remains the same length, causing the barrel to deflect up. Then, if you manage to heat soak the rail through the gas block, you might see the POI return to the cold barrel first few shots.
That said, i can't say for sure what would happen.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
This is certainly a nice entertaining bed time read. I appreciate you sharing this journey with us.
I'm glad you enjoyed the read. I tried to make it interesting; the first draft was much less interesting.

The hunter or survival version actually comes with a free floating “rail”. What I’m referring to is the inch long polymer block attached to the front of the trigger guard. It is parallel to the barrel and the block provides enough real estate to be modified in order to mount a pair of bipods. I have played with this idea in my head but never got to the bench. I just don’t have the tool and time
I remember that came up in discussion a while back and I think the general consensus was that it was probably not sturdy enough to really be load bearing. I would be interested to see if it works.

When I ran the unmodified RDB from the bench, I would take the handguard off and rest the trigger guard on the shooting rest. I found having a bipod that far back seriously compromises the usefulness of a bipod.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Awesome build. That brass catcher looks a little funny though. It's too big. If that gets loaded with a ton of brass, your rifle would be too heavy, wouldn't it? How many mags will it take to fill that bag?
I've never filled it, but it's the standard bag that comes with the cheapo brass catchers that others here have documented on how to modify for the RDB. I imagine 3-4 mags, but It'd probably pull off the gun from weight first. The other thing to note is that when you have 1 or 2 mags in it, you don't have to worry too much about the brass going back up the cloaca as the bag just flops over when going prone or shooting in odd angles. more than that and i would start to worry.

FYI, if you manage to get brass up there behind the bolt, I have been able to induce all sorts of nasty ranging from a double-feed due to short stroking the bolt, to a bolt over-ride that has a 50-50 clearance rate (easier to clear a live round), to getting the brass case stuck sideways in front of the buffer that was a real pain to get out after the bolt smashed it in there. (All testing done on a closed course with a bubba driver. Do not attempt at home) 🤪
 

· Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
If you wanted a 2 MOA or lower bullpup, why didn't you just get an MDR in 5.56 or an AUG instead of butchering an RDB? Bullpups were never meant to be precision rifles. They are workhorses that are more than capable of performing the task for which they were designed - CQB in a compact, easy to maneuver package.
 

· Registered
RFB18 (Gen1) RDB17 (1:9 )
Joined
·
723 Posts
If you wanted a 2 MOA or lower bullpup, why didn't you just get an MDR in 5.56 or an AUG instead of butchering an RDB? Bullpups were never meant to be precision rifles. They are workhorses that are more than capable of performing the task for which they were designed - CQB in a compact, easy to maneuver package.
I have and MDR(X) and and RDB..You can get below 2 moa in both guns.. Just depends on what your gun likes to shoot.
The MDR is stupid heavy (at 9lbs) in 556 FE. Both the AUG and MDR are ALOT more expensive than the RDB.If was looking to DIY a gun, the RDB would be it due to price alone.
...And that might lead to options for this rifle in the future..
 

· Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
If you wanted a 2 MOA or lower bullpup, why didn't you just get an MDR in 5.56 or an AUG instead of butchering an RDB? Bullpups were never meant to be precision rifles. They are workhorses that are more than capable of performing the task for which they were designed - CQB in a compact, easy to maneuver package.
You're clearly trying to start a fight here and while I would be wise to ignore the provocation, I'm clearly not that bright. ;)

First, I would argue that the driving force behind the bullpup design was not CQB. Modern CQB, as we know it, is the justification for selling bullpup designs to the modern civilian market. Small arms development during the cold war was driven by large combined arms conflict in the plains and woods of eastern europe. MOUT was of minimal concern compared to fitting a squad+ inside an APC while maintaining adequate barrel length to keep the 55gr effective.
In fact, the AR platform already meets the needs of people who actually need to do CQB for a living: a suppressed 10.5" 300AAC is perfectly ballistically capable out to any reasonable CQB range. But wait, what happens if you just HAVE to take a 200yd shot on in hostage situation and the only gun on hand is a shorty AR? Well a 3+ MOA bullpup with a 20" barrel is not going to make that situation any better. A 1.5-2 MOA rifle, bullpup or not, is the answer. Having a longer barrel for extending the effective range of the cartridge doesn't mean jack if you can't hit what you're aiming at (unless collateral damage isn't a concern). Turns out you can make a short AR that easily shoots <2MOA. Problem solved.

I don't agree with everything Karl had to say about bullpups, but the discussion on inrangetv is worth a watch.

You say bullpups are workhorse rifles that don't have to be precision rifles. Why can't a workhorse rifle be precise? Why can't a precise rifle be a workhorse? I point to the m27 again: piston driven, free floated, 2MOA M855, fielded by the USMC. Why does being a bullpup give any gun a pass on precision? The AUG is a 45 year old design. The FAMAS is over 50. The LA85 is somewhere in between. All those guns were designed when 3-4 MOA was a reasonable limit of precision considering the available technology and metallurgy, especially considering optics were not common. It's not the 1970s anymore. There is no reason why you can't build a bullpup that is both precise and rugged. The MDR was almost there: it suffers from the barrel swap curse and could use a dedicated 556 stock to cut some weight (not to mention DT's terrible launch and teething issues)

There are a bunch of "new" military bullpups being tested or already fielded including the F90, the VHS-2, and the BR18. I would assume that they are all "workhorses." If Lithgow haven't screwed the pooch, I can't imagine it not being a 2MOA rifle out of the box. Early reports of the VHS-2 seems like it's a solid 2MOA or better. It can be done, it has been done. (Hell, I bet a modern FAMAS with the lever delay action and a modern manufacture barrel would be sub 2.5MOA easily. It's already free floated.)

You're welcome to believe that precision doesn't matter in CQB, but I think it's an excuse to justify mediocrity.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
I have and MDR(X) and and RDB..You can get below 2 moa in both guns.. Just depends on what your gun likes to shoot.
The MDR is stupid heavy (at 9lbs) in 556 FE. Both the AUG and MDR are ALOT more expensive than the RDB.If was looking to DIY a gun, the RDB would be it due to price alone.
...And that might lead to options for this rifle in the future..
Agreed. The RDB is capable of sub 2 MOA accuracy with the right ammo. But no chopping or welding is necessary.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
You're clearly trying to start a fight here and while I would be wise to ignore the provocation, I'm clearly not that bright. ;)

First, I would argue that the driving force behind the bullpup design was not CQB. Modern CQB, as we know it, is the justification for selling bullpup designs to the modern civilian market. Small arms development during the cold war was driven by large combined arms conflict in the plains and woods of eastern europe. MOUT was of minimal concern compared to fitting a squad+ inside an APC while maintaining adequate barrel length to keep the 55gr effective.
In fact, the AR platform already meets the needs of people who actually need to do CQB for a living: a suppressed 10.5" 300AAC is perfectly ballistically capable out to any reasonable CQB range. But wait, what happens if you just HAVE to take a 200yd shot on in hostage situation and the only gun on hand is a shorty AR? Well a 3+ MOA bullpup with a 20" barrel is not going to make that situation any better. A 1.5-2 MOA rifle, bullpup or not, is the answer. Having a longer barrel for extending the effective range of the cartridge doesn't mean jack if you can't hit what you're aiming at (unless collateral damage isn't a concern). Turns out you can make a short AR that easily shoots <2MOA. Problem solved.

I don't agree with everything Karl had to say about bullpups, but the discussion on inrangetv is worth a watch.

You say bullpups are workhorse rifles that don't have to be precision rifles. Why can't a workhorse rifle be precise? Why can't a precise rifle be a workhorse? I point to the m27 again: piston driven, free floated, 2MOA M855, fielded by the USMC. Why does being a bullpup give any gun a pass on precision? The AUG is a 45 year old design. The FAMAS is over 50. The LA85 is somewhere in between. All those guns were designed when 3-4 MOA was a reasonable limit of precision considering the available technology and metallurgy, especially considering optics were not common. It's not the 1970s anymore. There is no reason why you can't build a bullpup that is both precise and rugged. The MDR was almost there: it suffers from the barrel swap curse and could use a dedicated 556 stock to cut some weight (not to mention DT's terrible launch and teething issues)

There are a bunch of "new" military bullpups being tested or already fielded including the F90, the VHS-2, and the BR18. I would assume that they are all "workhorses." If Lithgow haven't screwed the pooch, I can't imagine it not being a 2MOA rifle out of the box. Early reports of the VHS-2 seems like it's a solid 2MOA or better. It can be done, it has been done. (Hell, I bet a modern FAMAS with the lever delay action and a modern manufacture barrel would be sub 2.5MOA easily. It's already free floated.)

You're welcome to believe that precision doesn't matter in CQB, but I think it's an excuse to justify mediocrity.
I don't know about you, but I can make head shots (eight inch plate) with my RFB and RDB at 200 yds, and I don't consider either to be a precision rifle. I've shot my RFB in 3-gun matches with targets out to 800 yards and never had issues hitting what I was aiming for. Still not a precision rifle. The average M4/M16 out of the armory is not a precision rifle. Can they make precise shots? Sure. But that is not what they were designed for. We as civilians have the luxury now of being able to buy or build an AR capable of being precision rifles.

The AUG is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. The RDB is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. The MDR is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. The K&M M17s is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. The Hellion is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. The PS90 is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. The FS2000 is capable of sub 2 MOA groups. That is more than precise enough for CQB, which is what all of these rifles were designed for.

If I want to shoot a precision (sub MOA) semi-auto capable of short to long ranges, I'll grab my 6.5 Grendel AR.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I don't know about you, but I can make head shots (eight inch plate) with my RFB and RDB at 200 yds, and I don't consider either to be a precision rifle. I've shot my RFB in 3-gun matches with targets out to 800 yards and never had issues hitting what I was aiming for. Still not a precision rifle. The average M4/M16 out of the armory is not a precision rifle. Can they make precise shots? Sure. But that is not what they were designed for. We as civilians have the luxury now of being able to buy or build an AR capable of being precision rifles.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 8 inch shots at 200 yds - Isn't that 4MOA? So, that is nothing to brag about. Any mediocre shooter could probably do 4MOA, am I right?
 

· Registered
RFB18 (Gen1) RDB17 (1:9 )
Joined
·
723 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 8 inch shots at 200 yds - Isn't that 4MOA? So, that is nothing to brag about. Any mediocre shooter could probably do 4MOA, am I right?
He is saying he can hit the plate not the size of the groups he produces on the plate.
Which, depending on your optic choice, surroundings, target visibility, cross winds, could be quite difficult., Trying to hold tiny groups at 100 yards with a 1or 3x prism (Which is whats on my RFB,RDB and AK) is not super easy...But I do it and thats why I say the RDB can do 1" and 1.5inch groups with the right ammo (and my low magnification scope)
Remember the bullseye targets most folks put up at 100 yards are generally 10x12...But that tells you nothing about the groups produced hitting it...
I have ended up with people shooting my target at 100 yards...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
He is saying he can hit the plate not the size of the groups he produces on the plate.
Which, depending on your optic choice, surroundings, target visibility, cross winds, could be quite difficult., Trying to hold tiny groups at 100 yards with a 1or 3x prism (Which is whats on my RFB,RDB and AK) is not super easy...But I do it and thats why I say the RDB can do 1" and 1.5inch groups with the right ammo (and my low magnification scope)
Remember the bullseye targets most folks put up at 100 yards are generally 10x12...But that tells you nothing about the groups produced hitting it...
I have ended up with people shooting my target at 100 yards...
Essentially he is saying he can hit an 8" target. To me he is saying that his groups are within that 8" target, which to me means he is getting 8" groups at 200 yds which directly translates to 4" groups at 100 yds or 4MOA. I don't know where you are inferring that his groups within that 8" target is actually smaller than that 8".
 

· Registered
RFB18 (Gen1) RDB17 (1:9 )
Joined
·
723 Posts
Essentially he is saying he can hit an 8" target. To me he is saying that his groups are within that 8" target, which to me means he is getting 8" groups at 200 yds which directly translates to 4" groups at 100 yds or 4MOA. I don't know where you are inferring that his groups within that 8" target is actually smaller than that 8".
Because Ive shot at steel..I can hit an 8 inch targets but my groups are not 8 inches wide on the target. This is why I shoot at paper targets (with a powerful spotting scope) where I can see what groups I'm producing the paper itself is 10x12.The information you arent getting in MadRonin statement was how small the groups were at that distance on that media.

We also dont know if this was on a rest..prone..offhand..If it was off hand thats some good shooting.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top