Break in period?

this
>hey, the gun you just sold me had 15 malfunctions in the first 100 rounds
>oh, don't worry, it's just breaking in

if it isn't self delusion, it's the seller deluding you

Attached: 1501799514038.jpg (480x480, 35K)

How is the RDB now?

InRange videos from years ago showed that they loved the thing for being such a big step up from the norm for these newborn bullpups. Certainly miles ahead of where the MDR is right now and without specifically needing a break in period (and then still failing on NATO surplus).

Attached: 669572m2_ts.jpg (1155x1155, 50K)

The MDR has such a mechanically intensive ejection process that it requires keeping the gas system at full blast. That is why adjusting the gas key requires removing the handguard, cause you won't be changing it.

Yeah after like thousands not after the 15-20 rounds fudds put through a gun every 3 months. It's easier to just track how often you go shooting, then how much you typically shoot a gun in a range session to determine the wear on the barrel and of course just conduct visual inspections.

I record rounds fired in all of my guns for maintenance purposes.

I was thinking the same thing. Tbh I'm actually thinking about getting the RDB as my first gun since I like bullpup memes and am also disabled(a lefty).

Best part is that it just works...assuming you don't throw it in mud. Does anyone have an RFB? How does it shoot? How's the recoil? I'm interested in it but I also don't want to assblast my shitty noguns body and just be a shitter since I don't have much experience firing rifles.

I dont record every shot but I keep a rough track for cleaning and just to for my own record. That's a little OCD
I bet his guns are immaculate tho

So then why can the manufacturer just put that shit on a machine after the gun is all built and put together and just cycle the fuck out of the action a few hundred times so it mates the shit better

They can't really help it. The system they are using relies on the ejector arm having enough force at the very end of the bolt movement to push the case or unspent cartridge into an elastic clip. The problem is twofold;
1. they need to have a random force: bolt thrust from gas that comes from cartridge OR manual strength
2. overcome another random force: arm kicks round and it has to push through the clip at varying odd angles, then it has to stick and not bounce back.

Had they used a more mechanically rigid system it would work better. Even if it ends up more complex it can be more reliable so as long as the parts don't rely as much on random factors and can shuffle the round into the ejection port in a consistent way.

They should and dont. Because the vast majority of gun owners only shoot their guns once or twice. Ever. And the margians to sell to these idiots is too important to help some autist not have to deal with a break in period.

I own an RDB, AUG, and an FS2000.

The RDB shoots great, and mine has been trouble free. Having said that, it doesn't feel well built at all. I do not think it will last as long as the AUG or the FS2000. if you are buying a bullpup for recreation or LARPing the RDB is great.

The AUG is my favorite bullpup I have used btw.

I may be retarded, but I would think you need the heat from actual discharging, as that would effect expansion/retraction of metal component, tho I'm sure your suggestion could help that some.

Because you don't want to pay the extra money that would cost.

I've got an AUG and have been eyeballing FS2000 lately; worth it? Do you have one with the optic or rail?

Clearly it just needs a premium version that is functionally the same but built out of sturdier parts, like maybe aluminum instead of plastic. And a dust cover for the ejection port so that it can pass a harsh mud test.

No

All guns should be broken in and shot repeatedly until proven reliable before leaving the factory, no exceptions. Where are the damned quality broof marks these days?

You could just gauge your barrels and chambers.

uhh no, no you couldn't

that has never been a thing, the only thing they used to do and still probably do today is proof test the chamber

Except what happens when you have lots of guns that take same bullet then what do?

Only say this pile of 1000 goes with this gun and nothing else? That's gay and unfeasible for all but only the fuddiest of fudds

alright Todd

It's fine. It's a good AR alternative for the price and probably the best (and really only) entry level bullpup. But it's also still a $900 gun and performs as such.

Attached: 20180323_095258.jpg (2495x1514, 3.19M)

>Does anyone have an RFB? How does it shoot? How's the recoil?
Fine, mine has been dead nuts reliable with DSA mags. Was a little picky about which surplus mags would fit and feed well, but that's kinda expected. Recoil isn't bad but long firing sessions can really wear on your face, so I recommend that little kydex cheek piece they sell.

I work in manufacturing and we have quite a few machines (all kinds of function testers, pistons, presses, stress testers, weight distribution modulators, etc.) for QC that test and use our products the same way they would be when the customer gets them. Believe it or not, these machines are all very simple machines that once the upfront cost is paid, they add very little cost that we account for in the product.

For a $2500+ dollar gun they could pay some fucking retard to cycle the thing 500 times if it's such a necessary part of functioning.

Mine has the optic, it's okay. I bought the gun for the memes, it's really not that great at anything.

It's been reliable and hasn't given me too many issues. It looks really unwieldy, but in actual use is pretty slick.

I'm fine with polymer, it just feels really really cheap. Also, I don't care for the mud test results much, they are what they are. I've found my RDB to function well in Sandy conditions in the Utah desert which is all I can ask for imo.

I do it for recoil assembly replacements, etc.

when will keltec make the 308 RDB so i can LARP as a jump-jet ODST

Attached: RDB with RDB-S handguard.jpg (4128x2322, 578K)

They can but youre too cheap to pay for it you stupid fucking little piece of shit. So you make do with pieces that come off an assembly line and arent hand fitted to each other over the course of the guns build. Faggot.

>claims to work in manufacturing
>unironically think's it would make sense to add an extra half an hour to every single product and create bottleneck by forcing every gun to be cycled by a machine or hire someone to do it.

Attached: retard juice.png (374x535, 177K)

I keep a rough estimate, so I can at least check on shit that should be replaced after X amount of rounds.

>Angry MDR cuck who can't admit his rifles a piece of shit

Don't defend companies who have shitty practices faggot. Demand better.

Yeah dumbass because it saves us millions on returns and customer service issues. My company has been in business almost 80 years now and in the past 20 years that we have invested in our QC department we have had customer service issues related to major defects cut down to nearly 0. When you ship as physically large of a product as we do in the quantities we do per order, it makes sense to make sure the shit that goes out the door works the first time so we don't have to send service techs out to the customer site to fix the product or bring them a new one.

you dumbasses, cycling a gun does not constitute as proper break in if the gun requires such, you need to fire it, and surprise surprise no manufactured wants to waste 200 rounds for every single gun

>>When you ship as physically large of a product as we do in the quantities we do per order,
>adding a bottleneck that physically limits how many items can leave in a day because every single one needs to be manually cycled or tested through a few machines, instead of just spending a little more time actually doing proper finishing work on the parts so they work properly without creating production bottlenecks

Products don't leave in a day anywhere other than the food industry. Products leave in a queue/batches usually a few times a week and are staged prior to that. Please stop posting you know nothing.

There's bottlenecks everywhere in everything fuck head it's a matter of picking and choosing which ones are necessary and which ones can be removed to maximize profit.

There would be physical wear and people don't want to buy "new" guns that have been used like that.

I'm really not following your stupidity here. 150 rifles would fit in a single truck no problem. He'll you could easily cram close to probably 500 or more on a truck.

And you apparently deleted because you realized how dumb you are.

>need to send out a shipment of 150 rifles
>someone or something has to (on the optimistic side) spend 10-15 minute cycling each rifle before leaving the door
>nearly a day of man hours to get one batch ready for shipment
or
>just add one more operation to the manufacturing process and properly deburr and smooth out wear surfaces instead of paying someone to cycle a gun when a machine could literally do it in seconds with the proper cutting tools.

You've apparently never had shutdown calls then.

Yeah no shit option 2 but apparently gun manufacturers can't do that without it somehow taking the gun into custom handfitting non mass producible price territory, so we're left with you need to shoot 200 rounds to break it in yourself and any problems with functionality aren't ours, they're yours because you didn't do xyz

No sorry we only hire whites

....

What?

If it only takes 15 minutes of cycling the gun to make it work flawlessly, everyone shouls be doing it themselves after they buy a gun.

If you are in manufacturing and acknowledge it would be better for them to just improve the machining a bit, why did you even bother saying something as stupid as them paying someone to cycle the gun 500 times instead of just spending an few minutes deburring and doing better surface finishing on the points of contact in the operating mechanism for proper operation?

he was the one implying cycling the guns would make them work better, not me

Because it goes back to the OP and claim by the gun manufacturers that there's a break in period that's necessary ontop of their manufacturing processes. It's not about what my company does, we don't make guns and our QC is all for functionality and durability testing. You're fighting with them not me. Where did I ever say anywhere in any post that better machining wouldn't work as some sort of solution? It's obviously not a viable solution for gun manufacturers since they're not doing it, but instead requiring mandatory break in periods that the customer must front the bill for.

"I'll pay you a hundred bucks to shoot my fucking gun 200 times first".

MDR obviously has some problems due to that ejection system. It's like a push through machinegun, they need heavier recoil springs because the action of pushing a cartridge through robs the bolt of energy when chambering.
Opposed to pull through ones like PKM where some of the recoil energy is used in removing the next cartridge, so you don't need as heavy of a recoil spring and can have a lighter gun in general.

There's a little truth to it, most from the past though. The idea is not a lot different than an engine break in.
Basically metal parts that rub against each other do better after wearing into each other as a more perfect fit, so parts are made tighter than required to allow everything to mate up.
Obviously modern precision has those parts fitting much better off the line now than in the past but there is still room for break in.

Break in periods are a thing for most machines. Ever bought a new car? I guess the idea is that you build it with extremely tight tolerances so that way it wears in before wearing out. That being said, I've never done anything different when I break in a new gun, and I've likewise never had a malfunction I attributed to any break in issues. Just my experience though, and I'm sure it depends on the gun in question.

So then the next question is if a gun manufacturer required a break in period for their gun and the thing malfunctions 20% or 30% of the time during that break in period, is that then justified or is the gun just a piece of shit destined for a lifetime of problems?

If I buy a new car and it's still in some sort of break in period what kind of quirks are acceptable? Cause I expect the thing to run when I start the ignition, turn when I crank the wheel, go and stop when I manipulate the pedals, and get me from point a to point b without shitting the bed or killing me.

Shouldn't a break in period just be to make everything operate a little smoother, but still regardless prior to a break I'm period the thing still function 100% correctly or is that asking too much?

You're not asking too much. Modern gun companies are abusing the concept as an excuse for poor engineering and baseline performance.

Not every gun company is SIG

Even when the port covers are removed it still malfunctions like a motherfucker. There's something inherently flawed with the gun and it's not just the ejection system.

I think a lot of people here seem to have their heads in AR mode where they think of something built with 50 different parts from 10 different manufacturers. I can understand those needing to mesh together a little better when you have brand X of bolt, brand Y of receiver, and brand Z of barrel, but talking complete guns like the MDR where the company oversees, engineers and specs everything, I have a harder time seeing an excuse.

I know that, but that's part of many problems.

>Shouldn't a break in period just be to make everything operate a little smoother,
Basically yes with modern precision manufacturing.
You can still run into malfunctions depending on how rough or tight things are since it's not perfect, but it should be quite rare from reputable brands

In my retarded brain, I'm thinking the biggest trouble is with the port cover that pushes the empty case into the forward ejection chute. If I remember correctly it uses the momentum of the bolt carrier to actuate it. And since the bolt carrier has to move out of the way before it pushes the case, it's nearly at the end of its travel before it can operate it and therefore may not have enough energy to push the case into the chute or even out of the open port. I'm guessing this is why they have to make it run super hard to get it to work. Does that seem like that might plausibly be the problem?

>what is an RFB

Its not plausibly its almost certain. There's a lot going on in the last stretch of bolt travel AND the beginning of the return stroke.

That's what I mean, obviously push through belts are not exactly the same thing, but the idea is that on the closing of the action, it has to push a cartridge through an opening that is tightly holding on to a cartridge case, which robs the carrier of energy.
Which needs it to either have a heavier recoil spring in the case of push through MG's or causing it to fail to eject as well as failure to feed in the MDR.
It not only has to try and push the cartridge through the ejection chute, it has to feed from the magazine, which robs the carrier of so much energy that it not only fails to eject, but only partially feeds a round.
Over gassing it plus heavy springs would probably help.
I wasn't paying super close attention to the inrange and garand thumb videos, but I recall it having problems even with the cover off as well.
I am curious to see if you downloaded it to like 5 in the mag and had the ejection cover off if it would run reliably at lower than over gassed settings because no interference from the ejection mechanism and the rounds are easier to feed due to less spring pressure on the last few rounds.

How2fix MDR
1. Longer bolt travel for softer recoil, so it will have to be redesigned with a longer stock.
2. Then instead of a arm ejector, use a standard spring ejector, remove the ability to swap ejection sides.
3. Add a curved rotating plate that is cammed by some surface on the bolt; this plate is timed to close and block the ejected cartridge just as it leaves and before it bounces back.
4. The bolt pushes this blocker plate back into position when it moves back forwards, simple. Might need a spring loaded latch to keep it securely held in the open position.
5. Bolt kicks round forwards and out as usual except the round is now loosely held in the ejection chute and can fall out on its own if gun rotated facing down.
6. Bolt may need an assistant mechanism to reach out further, but that's not too hard. Maybe a little foot that sticks out as its moving forward to make sure it touches the cartridge and punts it.
7. Finally make the ejection port cover be hinged and easily opened with fingers. Only disassembly should require a tool like a used case. Now you can visually inspect and stick your finger inside if necessary.

>Except what happens when you have lots of guns that take same bullet then what do?
When you load mags, take note of how many you load, and which gun you're shooting them in. Then you just have to multiply the number of mags you used in a gun by however many rounds you loaded into them. Unless you were switching magazines between guns and shooting a lot of different guns in one range session, it shouldn't be too hard to keep track of which mags you were using where. It'd be like a minute of 3rd grade math after every range trip

Yeah I don't know why they went with the swappable sides if it chucks the rounds out to the front anyway. If it was more dedicated then the cases would probably not get caught as easily as they do.

>How2fix MDR

Attached: 1264725947_e587.jpg (600x393, 440K)

Break-ins only really apply to cheap shit or bad QC products. For instance, a Bersa Thunder has a 200 round break-in because they have high school shop class level welding. A Sig P229 has a break-in because it's ass.