Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Noveske

Magpul PTS PDR-C

Recommended Posts

What with all the back and forth, this has been a bit of a downer for me, but I am grateful to the lads for the take-down, review and so on for saving me the money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does G&P.

 

No they don't, not the shiny SS kinds that Ares always uses

 

And I don't know what stock you got for your G36K cause they've been using metal nozzles over the old plastic ones for some time now.

 

Regardless, anyone who's familiar with both Ares internals and has cracked open a PDR/ACR can logically see the very close connection.

 

Even if PTS and Ares were not in a formal business relationship, there is absolutely no way to deny that there was "idea sharing".

 

So any PTS claims that they have never ever dealt with Ares and that their designs are not Ares inspired or that their guns are not OEM by Ares simply cannot be made.  It's an outright lie.

 

I don't mind if they just fessed up that they made a mistake in going with Ares designs again and just promise not to do it again in the future.

 

If they're already in bed with KWA for GBBs and the ERG rifles, why couldn't they just do all their designs with KWA from now on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me stir the shat here and ask : which AEG does not share the same design/idea? A 6mm BB being blown out by a piston driven by a spring. Which part of it doesnt look like the same for each AEG?

I agree the PDR has shared similar solutions for problems encountered in say the Tavor, namely the trigger. But similar solution =\= OEM. 

 

I dont know if the gearbox of the PDR is good design or not. If it works, then its good. Time will tell. You can always build an AEG with Titanium and plasma cutting technology that costs millions, but it wont be a good design either. 

 

My $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No they don't, not the shiny SS kinds that Ares always uses

 

And I don't know what stock you got for your G36K cause they've been using metal nozzles over the old plastic ones for some time now.

 

Regardless, anyone who's familiar with both Ares internals and has cracked open a PDR/ACR can logically see the very close connection.

 

Even if PTS and Ares were not in a formal business relationship, there is absolutely no way to deny that there was "idea sharing".

 

So any PTS claims that they have never ever dealt with Ares and that their designs are not Ares inspired or that their guns are not OEM by Ares simply cannot be made.  It's an outright lie.

 

I don't mind if they just fessed up that they made a mistake in going with Ares designs again and just promise not to do it again in the future.

 

If they're already in bed with KWA for GBBs and the ERG rifles, why couldn't they just do all their designs with KWA from now on?

 

 

You were talking about full/type-0 cylinders, now you are talking about the finish of the cylinders? other companies use shiny cylinders too.

Every G&P M4 comes with a full cylinder, no matter what the barrel length is.

I've bought more than 5 the past 4 years so far, going from stubby killers to SAM-R lengths,

not even mentioning the number of repairs and maintenances I have performed over the years as a comparison.

It's a popular platform after all.

 

My Ares G36c EBB nozzle is plastic, and so is the nozzle on my LMG.

Ares G36c EBB bought at Ehobby asia.

fm3vdf.jpg

Ares LMG bought at WGC.

zbiwz.jpg

 

 

What to do you mean with "they've been using metal nozzles over the old plastic ones for some time now" 1 year? 6 months?

 

I am not stating that you are wrong, in turn we should be wary of different OEM for the same brand.

 

You are 100% right when it comes to the very close resemblance of their gearboxes compared to Ares.

Since they "invented" it and not until very recently, Chinese manufacturers are using the same MO.

 

But how many companies share a very close resemblance to a TM V2 gearbox over the past 20 years?

 

Like Berggy says, anyone with the tools and know-how these days can manufacture a gearbox depending on it's clients specifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learned that the hard way.

 

Concerning the losing ten bbs when you remove the mag issue: cut a small slot at the front of the feed tube and fit an o-ring over it to retain bbs while in the tube.

 

Please illustrate that with pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know this may be a bit off topic, but any word on how the PDR fires, or performs?

 
 

 

It fires like an AEG.  LOL

 

I've mentioned it runs at about 330FPS (~1.25J @ 0.25g bbs)

 

What would you like to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the magazine release for the gun? Also, could you provide more pictures of the trigger bar system please?

 

Actually, it's one of the poorly designed features of the gun.  It's very stiff and requires a lot of force to activate.  I thought that over time it would loosen up, but upon examining the mechanism further, there are a lot of friction/stress points.  It operates via a cam which pushes the rod on the right side of the gun backwards, operating another cam that pushes the magazine catch through the gearbox.  The actual catch is located on the other side (left) of the gearbox.

 

I hilighted the v-shaped cam since the original pic was full of grease:

d10d53b4-25cf-4237-8e7b-09b0bf0f7658_zps

 

1bad263d-1883-4fef-a01e-4574f363d787_zps

 

de1efc76-b9ba-49b4-a6f2-477a7a296d66_zps

 

As IBMedic stated before, a mechanism which pulls the rod instead of pushing it would have been more intuitive and reduce the chance of the rod bending.

 

I'll try to get more pictures up tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was meaning in terms of range/accuracy/consistency/spread  etc. 

 

these are important things to me from an airsoft gun.  I would hope that out the box that it fired very well. for example TM guns may have plastic internals and externals can be creaky etc. but they generally fire like rail guns. There have been very few TM guns I have fired out the box that have not hit the mark every time.  Just want to know what kind of baseline performance I can expect out of the box with this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather stick a wasps nest up my butt hole than pay 320 quid ( uk price) for one of these .

Body wise and external design I had high hopes for this gun . But after having seen the internals and the lack of improvement over the acr internals I will give this a wide berth unless it pops up in a bargain bin somewhere ..

You would think that after the acr complaints and faults someone would have taken note and said let's improve and solve the problems before releasing this box again in another gun ..

By the time you have added the work time and parts costs to make this a viable skirmish gun you will be coasting towards the 400 pound mark

Which could buy you a realsword 97b which has top rate internals and qc .

Even the aps bullpup gun is looking like the better option for an m4 mag firing bullpup which is a real shame .

PTs please , please change your internals oem and link up with a decent manufacturer of Airsoft gearboxes , g&g, Lonex , g&p .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few notes from reading some of the posts in this thread.

JG's FET is a copy of Terry's (ExtremeFire) old FET designs IIRC, and albeit not being made of the best hardware available the FETs were okay according to Terry on ASM.  MOSFETs aren't that expensive when buying bulk.  ASM people charge like 15 bucks for a IR3034 FET, and those are the top of the line stuff at retail cost.  Doubt a manufacturer would need to pay 15 bucks per FET if they wanted to add it into their AEGs, and I doubt many of you will object to paying 15 bucks more for your typical AEG if it does come with a nice FET.  I believe FETs aren't included in most manufactured guns is because of the ignorance of the manufacturer, or that they have no trained labour to build the FETs so they don't bother doing it.  That; or it's a 'good enough' thing if they sell guns without a FET.  Why bother paying for extra labour costs in building + installing a FET when ~70%-80% of the market doesn't care about it.

 

For the trigger feel; unless you shim the trigger trolley with your typical FET; you won't see a more realistic trigger feel, or better trigger response that you can practically sense unless your stock gun was horribly inefficient.  With a FET installed you'll still have a gummy trigger albeit you'll have a clearer picture of when the trigger mech activates rather than a range where the trigger completes the circut by arcing between the trigger contacts.

 

IIRC ARES was the OEM for STAR before right?  So my assumption would be the OEM for STAR/ARES like internals to fall under the latter's brand.

 

As for the G&P being a full cylinder; they actually taper.  I don't remember if the M16 ones taper but your standard carbine ones do.  So it's technically not a full cylinder volume when you actually run one of the G&P cylinders, or at least it wasn't designed that way.  Perhaps if you swapped the piston o-ring with something slightly bigger than your typical undersized stock ones it might as well act as a full cylinder.

 

As for a 'hard' nub that cannot deform; I suppose that only works well with s soft bucking which has an internal nub that can deform.  Your bb is not meant to pass through a hard object pinching down onto the barrel; that will cause jams.  You always need something that can deform to apply pressure on the bb.

 

On the ergonomics of the PDR; I haven't read up on it's actual design but IIRC it was designed for vehicle crews to use in an oh *suitcase* situation.  The gun was designed to be as compact as possible yet able to allow the operators to actually run the gun (not just shooting it, but activating mag catches, charging the bolt, etc.).  This is probably why the PDR-C doesn't come with BUIS because if you're stuck in a vehicle and need a fully automatic weapon spewing lead downrange ASAP; aiming precisely would not be something you need to do.  Plus; if it's a SHTF gun, I'd run a microdot or a pair of fixed irons instead...having flip ups seem to defeat the purpose of the gun.

 

^Just read uscmCorps's post; so I guess I'm pretty much correct in my assumptions.

 

The A&K Masada was built from pictures from a customer's order to A&K.  Somebody chipped in a huge amount of cash to get A&K to develop it and they did it from pictures of the Masada prototype; which is why the size is smaller than the real ACR as it's slightly off from A&K taking dimensions off pictures on the internet.  A&K's Masada is technically not a clone (of another airsoft gun) and it's design had nothing to do with PTS's ACR.

 

Oh and NeoVeNoM; for ARES to sue IBMedic they have to find out who the username is registered to; along with proving actual loss incurred from slander IIRC :P  I have my law of tort book nearby but I don't want to sift through pages of defamation again XD  But suing in libel/slander is not that easy XD

 

And Berggy; I think IBMedic is talking about the materials and the way the internals are finished when he compared the PDR internals with ARES.  To say "which AEG does not share the same design/idea? A 6mm BB being blown out by a piston driven by a spring. Which part of it doesnt look like the same for each AEG?" is not addressing the question properly (same with NeoVeNoM's argument that everyone copies TM's V2 gearboxes).  Not many factories in China can produce airsoft parts because it's somewhat taboo (illegal for gun parts, but I think even internal bits are a bit taboo as well when it's associated with airsoft).  When certain brands seem to have a similar item constructed of similar materials, it's probably from the same OEM, e.g. King Arms gears = SHS gears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're saying the The PDR doesn't have back up sights because tank crews as just suppose to spray the 20 round short pmags down range without a care where the bullets are going?

By that logic what's the point in even having a top rail? All the prototype images of the original real steel (real polymer?) have optics and buis on there.

They are not in the PTS PDr box for the same reason as the streamline PTS acr, cost cutting. And not for the consumers benefit :P

Edited by coolurjets
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're saying the The PDR doesn't have back up sights because tank crews as just suppose to spray the 20 round short pmags down range without a care where the bullets are going?

 

By that logic what's the point in even having a top rail? All the prototype images of the original real steel (real polymer?) have optics and buis on there.

 

They are not in the PTS PDr box for the same reason as the streamline PTS acr, cost cutting. And not for the consumers benefit :P

 

:rolleyes: 

 

It's meant to replace the role of a pistol in a SHTF situation and when needed can have the ability of a SBR.  Typical pistol engagement ranges from what I remember reading was around 50 yards, which is 45.72 meters.  Are you telling me you can't hit something in the torso at 46 meters without aiming devices?

 

Magpul reps say that it has the capability of reaching out to 100 yards if needed, which is 91.44 meters.  I'm sure I can also deliver suppressive fire in the general direction of someone shooting at me at that range too without the use of any aiming devices.  

 

That, and the PDR being chambered in 556 means that logistics in getting ammunition would be easier as it's assumed everyone in the field carries 556 (the friendlies, of course).

 

The top rail is meant for diversity in the PDR's role.  If needed, you can always run an optic (one would think an micro aimpoint would be the optic of choice as it as battery life measured in years) if you think it's not an issue with increasing the size of the weapon; or if you anticipate being shot at from around 100 yards when engaged in the worst case scenario and you can afford to shove an optic on it.

 

Checking the pictures of the prototypes out on google images actually show that only a few pics of the PDR have BUIS and some don't, with only the RDS attached.  Don't you think sample pics of the prototype PDR does not reflect what it was actually intended for?  I'm sure slapping a pair of BUIS on the sample for people to play with is purely for marketing it.  If the gun was designed for the SHTF situation are you telling me you'll have time to pop the two BUIS's up and THEN engage the enemy?  Just because the gun as a rail doesn't mean it conforms to the role it was developed for.  You can slap a 20x magnification scope on the PDR too; does that mean I can shoot that thing out to 600 meters?

 

So, being a SHTF weapon; if you're really being engaged at distances where you can't possibly use the PDR without optics; I'm sure you'll have time to actually get to cover and use the other weapon you're carrying.  I find the PDR to be a reaction gun rather than something you're seriously meant to carry on the field as your main gun when *suitcase* happens.

 

As for PTS not including the MBUS; I was trying to imply that they probably saw a win-win situation where they can justify the lack of MBUSs on their PDR and save on costs as well.

 

Do note; I am in no way defending the PTS PDR-C AEG.  What I AM defending is the concept of the real PDR; what it was designed for and why I find it ridiculous that the PDR-C should come with flip ups like the MBUS rather than fixed sights when the gun was designed as a SHTF weapon; which is what uscmCorps said, what the Magpul rep said on youtube, and is somewhat a logical interpretation of the PDR's role when you take a look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: 

 

It's meant to replace the role of a pistol in a SHTF situation and when needed can have the ability of a SBR.  Typical pistol engagement ranges from what I remember reading was around 50 yards, which is 45.72 meters.  Are you telling me you can't hit something in the torso at 46 meters without aiming devices?

 

Magpul reps say that it has the capability of reaching out to 100 yards if needed, which is 91.44 meters.  I'm sure I can also deliver suppressive fire in the general direction of someone shooting at me at that range too without the use of any aiming devices.  

I absolutely agree that the PDR is a backup weapon meant for very bad situations which is not meant to be pinpoint accurate and cannot compare to a rifle, but I have to disagree with your specific examples.

 

I would argue it's a little bit the other way around - tank crews are issued M4 Carbines to begin with, but their size means that the carbines are kept in a specific place in the tank, not with the crew. So if something made the vehicle burn, and everyone is bailing out of a different hatch, a PDR strapped to the crewman's gear would make more sense than an M4 sitting in the tank, even with the loss in firepower.

 

That's why the PDR has a 10.5 inch barrel. They wanted to match the Mk 18 / CQBR and other short AR-type rifles. Also why it has a rifle-style magazine release, rather than something actuated by the thumb.

 

Also, I'm fairly certain the 100-yard comment is partially due to the fact that the 10.5'' barrel in 5.56 loses a good deal of its effectiveness past that envelope. SBR users can attest to a 10.5 being able to accurately and lethally strike targets far past that range, and logically the PDR should be no different with the proper sights and shooter. It's not a matter of suppressive fire, or what range the weapon is mechanically accurate to, IMHO - it's more a comment regarding the ability of the 5.56 round to effectively put down a target and penetrate individual body armor at that given range. Sorta like FN advertising the P90's "effective" range by the range where it can still penetrate the CRISAT standard target (titanium plate + kevlar.)

 

And yes, on a cold range most shooters can strike a target at 50 meters consistently. But remember most modern militaries state that a handgun's effective range sighted is fifty meters. Plus, research from guys like Massad Ayoob, Evan Marshall and the FBI point out that most handgun fights are under 7 yards and tend to have a lot of misses. Bailing out of a burning vehicle isn't generally conducive to range-perfect, no stress shooting, so I personally believe that sights are a crucial part of the PDR, which is why they included an optics rail to allow the end-user to make that choice.

 

 

The top rail is meant for diversity in the PDR's role.  If needed, you can always run an optic (one would think an micro aimpoint would be the optic of choice as it as battery life measured in years) if you think it's not an issue with increasing the size of the weapon; or if you anticipate being shot at from around 100 yards when engaged in the worst case scenario and you can afford to shove an optic on it.

If the PDR did replace the M4 and M9 in a PDW role, it would have to be fairly comparable to the other 5.56 weapons system. With the recent conflicts in places like Afghanistan, it's entirely possible to be stranded for hours without additional supplies, weapons or manpower - I mean, if you had access to optics and time to zero, I don't think your situation would be dire enough to really need a PDW.

 

Having range is fairly necessary, and the military isn't particularly fond of unaimed fire - so, in all reality I think sights would be an integral part of the weapon in a military context - and folding ones, for use with the holster that Magpul was pushing.

 

 

Checking the pictures of the prototypes out on google images actually show that only a few pics of the PDR have BUIS and some don't, with only the RDS attached.  Don't you think sample pics of the prototype PDR does not reflect what it was actually intended for?  I'm sure slapping a pair of BUIS on the sample for people to play with is purely for marketing it.  If the gun was designed for the SHTF situation are you telling me you'll have time to pop the two BUIS's up and THEN engage the enemy?  Just because the gun as a rail doesn't mean it conforms to the role it was developed for.  You can slap a 20x magnification scope on the PDR too; does that mean I can shoot that thing out to 600 meters?

It's worth noting that the PDR Brochure (which used to be available on their site), the demonstrations at shotshow and such - any picture that basically showed Magpul's direct involvement in had optics and / or iron sights. The PDR's appearance at shotshow for Magpul PTS is probably the first time the thing was showcased without sights.

 

As for specific sights, fixed irons would be simple, but remember Magpul did advertise a holster for the weapon - folding sights would probably be more usable than even the smallest of optics or fixed iron sights. Plus, the persons issued these PDWs would be handling high explosives, expensive radio equipment, driving trucks, operating multi-million dollar aircraft and armored fighting vehicles - they would probably have the dexterity to flip up their sights and squeeze the trigger. Even if they didn't, the folding irons don't get in the way of making a reflexive shot if they're not folded up.

 

 

So, being a SHTF weapon; if you're really being engaged at distances where you can't possibly use the PDR without optics; I'm sure you'll have time to actually get to cover and use the other weapon you're carrying.  I find the PDR to be a reaction gun rather than something you're seriously meant to carry on the field as your main gun when *suitcase* happens.

 

As for PTS not including the MBUS; I was trying to imply that they probably saw a win-win situation where they can justify the lack of MBUSs on their PDR and save on costs as well.

 

Do note; I am in no way defending the PTS PDR-C AEG.  What I AM defending is the concept of the real PDR; what it was designed for and why I find it ridiculous that the PDR-C should come with flip ups like the MBUS rather than fixed sights when the gun was designed as a SHTF weapon; which is what uscmCorps said, what the Magpul rep said on youtube, and is somewhat a logical interpretation of the PDR's role when you take a look at it.

 

Right, cover and tactics is what rules a firefight. But, if after making it to cover and spotting the shooter, you cannot actually return fire accurately because your weapon system lacks sights, the whole PDW concept falls flat on its face, because you don't have the range advantage over a pistol that is crucial to the concept.

 

In real life, I would imagine Magpul would sell the gun to the military with a case, tools, spare mags and sights. But in airsoft, there's no obligation to give a complete package, and PTS would have to take a whole lot of MBUS sights off production to throw onto every PDR that left the factory - and knowing that they're not everyone's choice of BUIS, not including them was probably not a bad decision, like you said.

 

 

 

That real-steel tangent aside, I am rather disappointed the PTS product has these issues for Novekse. I was looking for a PDW to make running my M79 or sniper rifle more viable.

Edited by John_234
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

 

Actually; my example was never about being for tank crews (even though I know the PDR was also marketed for those roles) primarily because I have no knowledge of how tank crews operate.  My idea of having the PDR was always something of shooting out of a small van or pickup truck in the sitting position.

 

I wrote something about the effective range of the mk18 in my previous post before I deleted it due to being irrelevant; but a quick look on wiki says that the mk18 has an effective range out to 300 meters.  I would assume the same effective range provided the barrel length, twist and ammunition used was the same as the mk18s that can hit out to 300 meters.  Yeah I agree with the bullet penetration thing being the max effective range; I think I should clarify that the suppressive fire thing I talked about is set in a scenario where you want the opfor to duck their heads down and give you enough time to get to cover from a vehicle and switch to something that is more effective.

 

The pistol thing was just a comparison of the ranges I would think Magpul designed the PDR to be used for in a close-up ambush situation.  Disregarding what the typical pistol engagement distances are; assuming if your pistol is meant to be effective out to 50 meters then I think the PDR should be effective out to that range too if you find yourself pulling out a PDR instead of a pistol when the situation arises.  And at those distances; I doubt anyone with some time with a replica or real steel gun would not be able to fit a torso sized targets without aiming.

 

I couldn't find the brochure you talked about in my previous post as the wiki link to it was also missing.  But I've never heard that Magpul designed a holster for the PDR; so that's news to me.  Regardless; I have the conception that the PDR was designed for the worst case scenario where you need an ultra compact weapon that can run 556 ammo and you need more firepower than a pistol; hence why it makes sense that the PDR doesn't have irons built into it; and that in certain scenarios where it's SHTF I highly doubt you need any aiming devices to engage the enemy with the PDR.  I would think that if irons were integral to the PDR; they would have integrated small flip ups on the PDR as a result; rather than allowing you to put on iron sights and therefore increasing the bulk of the gun.  I don't see why having the ACR or URXII style integrated flip up front sights and a low profile flip up rear sight wouldn't have been implemented if irons were really needed.

 

As for returning fire after getting to cover; I always thought the PDR was meant to be a secondary firearm; hence replacing a pistol when used.  I never said that one should engage with a compact PDW without sights once you're in cover; but you should transition to your long arms which should have the proper sights for engaging at distances.

 

Basically yes; every gun should come with some sort of aiming device, but my understanding of the PDR is that it was designed for the most limiting situations possible; where you have very limited space to store it; have very little time to engage the enemy with it, and it was to remain as a secondary firearm that gets you out of the SHTF situations before you have the time to switch back to your long gun.  Hence why I don't see why flip ups should be used in that case, or if you need an aiming device the rail allows you to slap a T1 micro on it and call it a day as those practically don't break; and even if they do you still have a ghost ring to aim with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

But you really would be surprised at how humans perform under stress. I mean, everyone is different - Jim Cirillo got into a hostage scenario with the NYPD stakeout team and took out the hostage takers with clean headshots with a dinky .38 revolver.

 

In contrast, you have an example in Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down. I forget who did it, but there was a Ranger who ran into a Somali with an AK. Both roughly a street's length away from each other ripped off rounds without ever hitting - even though he had a belt-fed machine gun. You also have shootings like Angel Alvarez's case, where the cops shot five people standing behind their target by accident. Most people don't perform very well in life-threatening stresses, so I think all the implements for weapon accuracy as you can have available is the most logical approach.

 

The gun isn't designed for the sort of people who do missions in civilian vehicles, executive protection or LEO work. Such agencies don't have to worry so much about resupplying a given type of ammo due to the sort-term nature of their work. The STANAG compatibility is part of the PDR being intended, IMO, as a military PDW.

 

It's designed to minimize the impact on the normal operations of personnel while offering an effective weapon, worst comes to worst. You're not going from a situation where you have bad firepower to better firepower. It's going to be the other way around if you need a PDW in a military context.

 

Tank takes an RPG to the engine, things start burning. You don't have access to that main gun and a bunch of machine guns if you decide to bail because of risk of ammo cook-off or just burning to death. At that point, the weapon you leap out of the tank with is going to be your best and only weapon until you can escape or await reinforcements. Normally for say, US crews in the Abrams these would be M9 pistols and M4 carbines in the crew compartment.

 

In that situation, the advantage of the PDR is they don't have to linger in a burning tank to get their defensive weapons out. The crew bails out through the two top hatches and the forward driver's hatch, all going different directions and moving as fast as they can to cover, not having to stick around and grab a rifle since they have it attached to them. It's a limited situation because their resources and available weapons are limited, so their PDW has to be as capable as possible.

 

That's why I think folding sights that don't interfere with the holster and allow accuracy at range are important to the concept and would be used in real life. You're already giving up a lot to a rifle, you don't really want to skip sights on what may be your only weapon in a given scenario.

 

This is less of a problem in airsoft, where a whole lot of people just aim by tracking their trail of BBs until it hits the target. Not everyone who wants the PDR wants iron sights, and combined with the cost of including them, I can see why PTS made that decision on the sights - though, like you I'm not taking this to mean I endorse the new PDR at all this early on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just throw in here that you *could* slap on MP7 sights which gives you low profile Hi-Viz 3 dot pistol sight when folded and accurate long-range iron sights when unfolded.

So both able to be fast and accurate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

 

You raised some points that I've never thought about, so I guess I was wrong in my assumptions :)

 

I'll just throw in here that you *could* slap on MP7 sights which gives you low profile Hi-Viz 3 dot pistol sight when folded and accurate long-range iron sights when unfolded.

So both able to be fast and accurate.

 

I thought about shoving some H&K diopters if I had bought the PDR, but I would think there might be cheekweld issues having the sights sit slightly lower than your typical AR sights.  The pistol sights would have the same issues I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raised some points that I've never thought about, so I guess I was wrong in my assumptions :)

I'm sure it could be used in the manner you described, if needed though. The thought inspires some pretty nice PMC loadouts, don't you think?

 

 

I'll just throw in here that you *could* slap on MP7 sights which gives you low profile Hi-Viz 3 dot pistol sight when folded and accurate long-range iron sights when unfolded.

So both able to be fast and accurate.

I assume it is designed to be fairly liveable with AR-height irons, and the MP7 sights folded up are about that height... so why not? I tried to get a set for this P90 TR I have lying around, but eventually settled for some generic folding irons. I think I should have still gone for the HK ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.