Magpul's PDR: Gone, but not forgotten ...

[Army Chief]

There are relatively few otherwise unobtainable things in life that I really wish for. An Aston Martin might make the list, but otherwise I'm a reasonably content kind of guy; that said, there is one thing that has whet my appetite since the first moment that I saw the concept a year or two ago: Magpul's PDR.




For those who may not be familiar with this little R&D blaster, think FN P90, only in a more battleworthy (5.56mm x 45mm) caliber. While this would seem to be the pinnacle of emerging weapons tech, no production decision was ever announced, and it would appear that the PDR simply disappeared into the back shops at Boulder. Granted, the P90 is a mature design that is already in production, but who wants to be tied to a largely unobtainable and proprietary cartridge?

In any event, as a study in emerging weapons tech and design, perhaps it might be worthwhile to go back and see what we missed with the non-emergence of the PDR. Here are a few resources to get you back up to speed:

PDR Tech Sheet from Magpul.com

PDR-related videos on YouTube

Defense Review PDR Article

Wikipedia Stub Article on the PDR

Ah, what might have been. It's hard to imagine a more perfect SBR. Sure, this thing probably would have kicked like a mule, forced you to re-learn everything that you ever knew about manipulations, and demanded a very careful manual of arms, but ... just consider the possibilities.

Perhaps this concept will enjoy some kind of reemergence in time, but as an example of forward-thinking design and next-generation ergodynamics, I find a lot here to like.

AC

[Stickman]

I handled it a few years back, its got a great feel to it.

[Army Chief]

Stick,

Did they just build the one mockup, or was there some attempt to produce a functional prototype as well? I'm a bit sketchy on the details.

AC

[Army Chief]

... and apparently, I am not alone in that. LOL

AC

[Stickman]

No comment on this for right now. I'm not 100% sure on an answer, and don't want to spout off internet BS.

I'm also not sure what options are being explored with the PDR. I can think of a few immediate applications, but there is a priority order to things.

[Army Chief]

Stick,

Your response would seem to suggest that the PDR may simply be an idea whose time has not yet come, as opposed to a design project which has run its course.

Here's hoping that they keep this particular iron in the fires ... I would buy three, no matter what they asked for them.

AC

[Ryo]

Well I know mid last year Drake said it was still on the table.. don't know if it is still, but I would think so since this probably would have a large audience. I know I would get in line to buy it, assuming it comes in a legal length 16" barrel.

[Hojutsu]

Ya gotta know I would be in for at least one

[Army Chief]

It occurs to me that, even if they went with a non-SBR application for Class 1 fielding, this would still be an extremely compact rifle. An additional 3.5" really wouldn't be that objectionable, and it might actually be a good thing in terms of making the blast a bit more manageable. Better yet, a permanently-attached Krink would probably solve both problems at once. I just see this system as having far too much promise to sit in the Boulder back shops indefinitely.

AC

[TehLlama]

A better question: is this a system that we'd still be interested in if MagPul passed the development torch partially to another firm?

I know the way the ACR has drawn tremendous amounts of ire unjustified or justified, but if that's the only way we'd see a PDR in the near future, would you be as excited?

Incidentally, it seems inherently compatible with the previous AWB, so barring any extreme legislative stupidity (e.g. banning of magazine fed centerfired anything) this would still be quite available.


I would also submit that MagPul would incur tremendous amounts of soiled udergarments if they merely released a picture of a PDR mockup with MBUS and an EMag hanging out the bottom.

[Army Chief]

An excellent point to ponder.

I don't know anyone who followed the development of the Masada that wasn't taken aback by the Bushmaster production decision. I gave -- and continue to give -- Magpul management the benefit of the doubt on this decision, but to suggest that it hasn't led to almost universal disappointment would be a pretty transparent attempt at deception. I'll not go down the well-worn path of lamenting how Bushmaster seems to have wasted a commercial fielding opportunity in hopes of meeting with success in yet another military trial, but in some ways this runs so contrary to logic as to make me wonder if perhaps the weapon itself just wasn't ready for full-scale production.

Is this commentary at all relevant to the PDR's prospects? I'm sure that I do not know. What I do know is that the concept is sufficiently novel as to warrant serious interest even if the journey to production is a difficult one. It is unfortunate that Magpul cannot be the one bringing these concepts to market, but it would take an almost unbelievably incompetent production partner to sour my interest in the PDR. I don't think that Magpul is capable of that kind of misstep, and I'm quite certain that they've learned a great deal from the ACR saga. Hope springs eternal, but to my mind, this is an easy call, as the PDR concept is simply too strong to leave on the drawing board.

AC

[Army Chief]

Incidentally, it seems inherently compatible with the previous AWB, so barring any extreme legislative stupidity (e.g. banning of magazine fed centerfired anything) this would still be quite available.

I hadn't even considered this. Granted, the law could always change in a subsequent revision, but you're entirely correct: the PDR-C flies pretty low under the "evil features" radar: no pistol grip, no conventional flash suppressor, no bayonet lug, no collapsible stock, etc.

Interesting!

AC

[Army Chief]

On closer inspection, it would appear that the prototype PDR is equipped with the little-known Levang Linear Compensator. Most of us are more immediately familiar with the Noveske KX3, but it might be interesting to see the two units compared side-by-side in a future review. The design principles certainly differ, but they perform a very similar function for these SBR-specific applications. This is surely fodder for a new thread, but if you've got experience with the Levang unit, your thoughts and impressions -- or even a user review -- would be most welcome.

AC

[Ryo]

I was doing a search and finally found one comment about the owner having both the Levang Linear Compensator and the Noveske KX3. He said he liked both of them, but he felt the KX3 directed the blast better. Of course the KX3 cost $100 more.

I would be interested finding out more as well.

[Keebsley]

I've used the Levang comp and I can say that it works just as well as the Noveske KX3. For 1/5 the price of a KX3, it's definitely worth while. Not to take away from the KX3 since Noveske makes killer stuff but I'm currently trying to find a levang for my SBR and they are nonexistant.