PDW competition 2, underpowered SBR flamethrower boogaloo

>tfw no MCX-K in .22 TCM
>tfw no MP7 clone in .22 TCM

I have no face and I must scream.

>>34941587
But .22 TCM is shit. It can't handle longer bullets like 5.7x28mm can so you're just stuck with normal pistol bullets. Extra power doesn't matter if your bullet selection is so limited that you can't take advantage of that extra power.

File: 1499327393096.jpg (23KB, 500x342px)

23KB, 500x342px

>5.56 or .300 Blk out of a handgun-length barrel
But why? What's the fucking point?

>>34941563
>>5.56 or .300 Blk out of a handgun-length barrel
I wonder if the right 5.56 ammo would still be useful in close range.

>>34941563
>rattler
That's great considering their guns are pieces of shit

>>34941610
I would be on board with 300 BLK out of an 8". Needs a piston system and side-folding stock

>>34941633
The new M855A1 will still fragment from a 7.5" barrel (compared to the older Mk262 Mod 1 which could only do so at close range from a 9.5"-10" barrel IIRC), but I highly doubt it can from a 5.5" barrel. Any rifle ammunition that doesn't fragment is just going to perform like pistol ammunition unless it hits a select few organs like the liver.

M855A1 from a 7.5" barrel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIKdstJP7Qw

>>34941563
>So instead of new bottle necked high velocity pistol ammunition in neat new designs
Literally no one wants this. No one wants to buy yet another boutique cartridge in a specialty gun. No one wants to try and make the next 5.7.

>>34941610
Barrier blind loads in each cartridge still are very much usable out to 100 yards.

The purpose of this is to appeal to agencies who are still holding on to their sub guns by giving them a comparably sized package with a bit more utility. For the consumer market its just a novelty.

>>34941743
I was thinking more along the lines of 50gr TSX. The A1 is pretty crazy though

>>34941563
>into a room to consume all the oxygen in it instead of actually having to clear rooms normally.

>>34941610
The snowflake PDW round was one of the single biggest factors behind the concept being relegated to incredibly niche roles and nothing more. The fact they ditched that and acknowledged that specialized 5.56 can do everything they wanted ehile not tacking on a retarded logistics complication is only surprising in the sense that it took them that long to admit it.

>>34941753
>>34941816
Boutique cartridges actually make sense for this role, considering you can get the same level of performance as 5.56 from as short of a barrel as they need to meet these requirements while having much lower ammunition weight, smaller ammunition, and lower recoil, not to mention you're already losing parts compatibility with existing guns anyways. Besides, they want .300 BLK as an option for it anyways so it isn't like they're ruling out boutique ammunition.

So far there's only been the 5.5" 300 BLK, still working on the 5.5 inch 5.56 mcx if we even do it at all. But the 5.5 300 BLK is a definite

>>34941878
The US military is the way it is, for better or worse, because it does logistics well for how fucking huge of an organization that it is, despite what it looks like at the small level.

File: Sig MCX SBR, HK MP5SD, HK MP5K, Sig MCX Rattler.jpg (244KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 768x1024px

>>34941563
Holy shit, would that gun even be 15" long with the muzzle brake and stock removed?

File: pdw_main.jpg (76KB, 1281x630px)

76KB, 1281x630px

maybe a consideration of 6.5x35mm?

>>34941602
>.22 TCM is shit
It only takes a barrel swap to fire 9mm out of the same gun, which also means it doesn't need a custom mag well. And the gun isn't >$1000 and plastic, and armscor is actually decent about distribution and pricing for ammo.

5.7x28 isn't terrible, especially because ammo is coming down in price, but on those points alone .22 tcm is better.

File: 22 TCM beside 22 TCM 9R.jpg (7KB, 188x268px)

7KB, 188x268px

>>34943239
>It only takes a barrel swap to fire 9mm out of the same gun
Being able to swap the barrel and use pistol ammunition that isn't shit isn't an advantage. Also, .22 TCM is already shit in its original full size form that requires a .38 Super/.45 ACP length mag well (since it's based on .38 Super, not 9mm). The .22 TCM 9R that's actually compatible with regular 9mm magwells is restricted to a ridiculous extent and I don't think anyone would actually consider it for any practical use.

>And the gun isn't >$1000 and plastic, and armscor is actually decent about distribution and pricing for ammo.
All of this is meaningless when the cartridge it shoots is objectively shit. It can't cause much damage by tumbling like 5.7x28mm can, it doesn't allow for long enough bullets to fit a decent weight steel core or a long enough hollow point bullet to actually expand enough to compete with other existing ammunition in wound size, and it doesn't allow for more aerodynamic bullets that offer flatter trajectories and more energy down range. Even existing 9mm AP ammunition will outperform the .22 TCM. .22 TCM is the glorified .22 Magnum that people have always accused 5.7x28mm of being.

>>34942991
How well does that flashider work on the bottom one? thinking of swapping the brake for my mount.

>>34943682
That's a picture of a prototype gun.

>>34943682
>>34944416
looks like sig's qd suppressor mount

File: sw76-2.jpg (16KB, 650x341px)

16KB, 650x341px

>>34941563
At that point they should just bring back the fucking S&W M76

>>34943071
Oh man, time update that design with .300 blackout.

File: 1488020988437.png (40KB, 759x458px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 759x458px

>>34944736
>at that point they should bring back this gun that meets absolutely none of the requirements that the military is asking for and is completely outclassed by guns already being issued
wat

>>34944983
Cut down the barrel to their requirements and it'd be way better than being deafened and blinded by a 5" barrel 5.56. Probably more powerful too.
>is completely outclassed
Ah yes, I'm a big fan of shooting 55 grain projectiles at under 2000 FPS.

>>34945170
>Cut down the barrel to their requirements and it'd be way better than being deafened and blinded by a 5" barrel 5.56. Probably more powerful too.
The M76 is 22.5" long with the stock folded and has an 8" barrel. In order to meet the maximum OAL of 17" for this competition you'd need to shorten the barrel to 2.5" or less, and if you wanted it the gun to be the same length as the Sig Rattler in the OP you'd need to shorten the barrel to 1.5". Maybe consider an actually practical subgun.

>Ah yes, I'm a big fan of shooting 55 grain projectiles at under 2000 FPS.
>I'm a nigger who can't read
I specified guns already being issued, such as the Mk 18 which is about the same size as the S&W M76.

>>34945337
>Maybe consider an actually practical subgun
I would, but the military is usually too cheap for anything close to ideal, and they probably still have them.
>Mk 18
Oh look, a gun meeting none of the requirements of the challenge. Nice try moving the goalposts though.
>I specified guns already being issued
>I'm a nigger who can't read my own posts

>>34945492
>Oh look, a gun meeting none of the requirements of the challenge. Nice try moving the goalposts though.
I said:
>and is completely outclassed by guns already being issued
Nowhere did I specify those guns met the requirements, just that the M76 was completely outclassed.

>5.5" barrel
what
the fuck

>>34946098
.300 Blackout achieves it's maximum velocity out of a 9" barrel. At 5.5", it's mostly there already.

>>34946544
It makes sense for .300 BLK, but for 5.56 it's ridiculous.

>>34947405
The 5.56 requirement is just for emergency compatibility. This is supposed to replace the MP7 for the SEALs. The idea is that the assault team will go in with .300 BLK and suppressors while a team with 5.56 rifles and LMG will provide overwatch. If things get hairy, the guys with the PDWs can swap to 5.56 and use ammo with the rest of the platoon

>>34943071
>>34944813
KAC PDW upper, in .300 Blackout, modified to work with a standard AR lower, would be god-tier

File: 556 vs 300 barrel length specs.jpg (100KB, 799x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 799x600px

>>34946544
yeah I guess it's not that bad for .300 Blk
pic related, rando specs I found online

File: 12353453.jpg (14KB, 600x216px)

14KB, 600x216px

>>34941563

>>34949324
>picture is a comparison with M193 that isn't considered for serious use anymore rather than the heavier Mk262 Mod 1 that people actually consider for short barrel use
The Mk262 Mod 1 can hit about 1019 ft lbs of energy from a 10" barrel, closing that distance significantly.
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?129892-Ballistics-Mk-262-Mod-1-and-IMI-Equivalent