rudukai13
Pro Internet User
https://www.fluxdefense.com/shop/mp17-pistol-brace-version
Turn your P320 FCU and slide assembly into a shoulderable subgun with non-reciprocating optic mount
NEW Flux Defense MP17 P320 chassis with stock or brace
- Thread starter rudukai13
- Start date
https://www.fluxdefense.com/shop/mp17-pistol-brace-version
Turn your P320 FCU and slide assembly into a shoulderable subgun with non-reciprocating optic mount
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
Recondo2117
Amateur
I’m interested to see some reviews on this. It seems like a great method for a bag gun with some more benefits than just a RDS on a handgun.
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
Looks like it fits in a relatively small bag. Could even be a briefcase/messenger bag gun. In that role it would be best to use a thumb safety FCU
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
I honestly wonder if any military units might end up utilizing this for certain missions, reconfiguring their M17s quickly and easily. Seems it would be rather useful in certain PDW roles.
I was surprised that no company submitted something like this for the Army Sub Compact Weapon (SCW) program. Magazine and parts compatibility with their newly purchased standard handguns, conversion kits that would be cheaper than purchasing completely new firearms, and much smaller/lighter than any other SMG that was submitted to the SCW program
I was surprised that no company submitted something like this for the Army Sub Compact Weapon (SCW) program. Magazine and parts compatibility with their newly purchased standard handguns, conversion kits that would be cheaper than purchasing completely new firearms, and much smaller/lighter than any other SMG that was submitted to the SCW program
Sunshine_Shooter
Established
@rudukai13 Thumb safety is a must for this weapon in a bag, no doubt. Holstered I can see not having a thumb safety, but in a bag I'd make it mandatory.
I think B&T's TP9(?) submission was the closest to a pistol of all the gun subbed, and it was less pistol than this newest offering from Flux. Hindsight being 20/20, and seeing everything that wasn't a traditionally-formatted sub gun was rejected, the Flux 320 chassis and anything else similar would have been rejected. I do think that it fits the SCW program's stated goals better than what they picked, though.
I think B&T's TP9(?) submission was the closest to a pistol of all the gun subbed, and it was less pistol than this newest offering from Flux. Hindsight being 20/20, and seeing everything that wasn't a traditionally-formatted sub gun was rejected, the Flux 320 chassis and anything else similar would have been rejected. I do think that it fits the SCW program's stated goals better than what they picked, though.
If what you are looking for is a concealable pistol caliber PDW, then I can’t think of anything better on the market.
For me that raises a question: Here in the end of 2019, is there a role for pistol caliber PDWs?
With the Trijicon Type 2 line of RMRs showing impressive durability as a slide mounted handgun RDS, does the ability to shoulder fire a short barreled pistol caliber PDW justify the extra size and weight over a handgun with an RDS? I want to say yes, but I am not totally convinced one way or the other. I would be very curious to see some sort of side by side comparison.
For me that raises a question: Here in the end of 2019, is there a role for pistol caliber PDWs?
With the Trijicon Type 2 line of RMRs showing impressive durability as a slide mounted handgun RDS, does the ability to shoulder fire a short barreled pistol caliber PDW justify the extra size and weight over a handgun with an RDS? I want to say yes, but I am not totally convinced one way or the other. I would be very curious to see some sort of side by side comparison.
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
I do believe this and other platforms like it (Flux’s products for Glocks and the B&T USW for example) can offer an advantage in a particular niche of professional use beyond the entirely reasonable “because it’s cool and I want one” purchase justification, but I seem to be too tired at this late hour to properly articulate my thoughts on the matter. I’ll post a more thorough reply in the morning when I have a chance to organize my thoughts and make the best form of the argument in favor of ultra-compact holsterable-shoulderable pistol-caliber subguns
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
Ok, finally had a chance to sit down and record my thoughts on Medic_Mak’s question. In my opinion, the professional-use niche for these types of platforms is the narrow segment of individuals who already only carry a pistol as their primary firearm and have the potential need to extend the effective accurate range of their handgun via the benefits of additional stabilization. The intent is obviously not to replace a true rifle, but to augment the performance capabilities and enhance the shootability of a primary handgun.
As we all know, any time you can better stabilize a firearm by providing additional points of contact to brace the firearm against the shooters body, the platform becomes much more stable which results in greater accuracy and faster split times for taking multiple shots.
In my post late last night I alluded to these firearms as being in a particular classification of “holsterable-shoulderable pistol-caliber subguns.” This would include such platforms as this Flux MP17 chassis, Flux’s similar products for Glock platforms, the B&T USW, and would arguably include more legacy platforms such as the B&T TP9 (when equipped with either a stock or pistol brace). These are platforms defined (at least by me) by their ability to 1. Be carried in what would be roughly considered a traditional manner for a standard handgun (holstered, on the hip, either openly or concealed), and 2. Be shot both in traditional pistol grip mechanics, and then quickly deploying a stock or brace that can be shouldered providing further stabilization and increasing the overall accuracy and effective range of the weapon-shooter interface. The primary benefits of these particular platforms over what one might consider a more “traditional” subgun design (Examples including the MP5, Sig MPX, B&T APC9, etc) would mainly be compactness (which aids in concealment should it be a requirement) and the method of carry (holstered at the hip vs sling).
This all said, I still fully expect that the bulk of purchases of these types of platforms will still be made by civilian/casual shooters, who simply want one because they like the features or unique capabilities of the system; and of course there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that
As we all know, any time you can better stabilize a firearm by providing additional points of contact to brace the firearm against the shooters body, the platform becomes much more stable which results in greater accuracy and faster split times for taking multiple shots.
In my post late last night I alluded to these firearms as being in a particular classification of “holsterable-shoulderable pistol-caliber subguns.” This would include such platforms as this Flux MP17 chassis, Flux’s similar products for Glock platforms, the B&T USW, and would arguably include more legacy platforms such as the B&T TP9 (when equipped with either a stock or pistol brace). These are platforms defined (at least by me) by their ability to 1. Be carried in what would be roughly considered a traditional manner for a standard handgun (holstered, on the hip, either openly or concealed), and 2. Be shot both in traditional pistol grip mechanics, and then quickly deploying a stock or brace that can be shouldered providing further stabilization and increasing the overall accuracy and effective range of the weapon-shooter interface. The primary benefits of these particular platforms over what one might consider a more “traditional” subgun design (Examples including the MP5, Sig MPX, B&T APC9, etc) would mainly be compactness (which aids in concealment should it be a requirement) and the method of carry (holstered at the hip vs sling).
This all said, I still fully expect that the bulk of purchases of these types of platforms will still be made by civilian/casual shooters, who simply want one because they like the features or unique capabilities of the system; and of course there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
It all comes down to one basic truth: Within a defined role, a shooter will (or at least should) carry the most effective tool for their job. Ask any patrol officer or CCW civilian, if they could carry a firearm that had all the capabilities of a rifle but was no more difficult to manage than a pistol, they would of course jump at the chance.
These new products - designed to add the shoulderable capability of a rifle to pistol-sized platforms while maintaining the most compact possible overall configuration - are the industry attempting to provide that hypothetical pistol-sized-rifle to the users who want it
These new products - designed to add the shoulderable capability of a rifle to pistol-sized platforms while maintaining the most compact possible overall configuration - are the industry attempting to provide that hypothetical pistol-sized-rifle to the users who want it