In a request for information released yesterday to industry, United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) seeks to identify potential sources within the national technology and industrial base with the ability to provide a conversion kit for the M4A1 to create a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) system:
-Complete Kit to include upper receiver and butt stock kit
-Any tools required to complete an operational conversion
-A light and sound reducing suppressor that can be attached to the system when needed
PDW Kit specifics: The kit must be adaptable to the standard M4A1 lower receiver, any modification to the lower receiver must be reversible and nonpermanent. The kit must be in .300 Blackout (BLK) cartridge, total system weight, including the M4A1 lower in not to exceed 5.5lbs. Length with stock extended not to extend 26″ length with stock collapsed or folded shall be 17″ (T), 15″ (O) and a height not to exceed 7.5″. Weapon shall be fully functional when collapsed or folded. Kit should include a 5.56mm barrel that can be changed from .300 BLK to 5.56mm in less than 3 minutes. Accuracy shall be 3.0 MOA (T), 2.0 MOA (O) @100 yds. and 5.0 MOA (T), 3.0 MOA (O) @ 300 yds. both in .300 BLK supersonic.
While there are numerous solutions on the market, based on the mention of a folding stock, it sounds like someone is interested in the SIG SAUER MCX kit.
Interested parties have until 10 April to submit their information. Visit WWW.FBO.GOV for more information.
MCX seems custom made for this.
But stranger things have happened. I have a feel this will more than likely go no where at this time.
Correct me if I’m wrong, don’t think the MCX upper is capable of functioning on a standard lower which the contract requries?
Yes it is. Just needs the stock adapter.
You need to read SSD more.
https://ssdaily.tempurl.host/2015/02/09/ar-lower-receiver-extension-adapter-for-sig-mcx-upper/
https://ssdaily.tempurl.host/2016/01/27/post-shot-show-wrapup-sig-mcx-lower-receiver-adapter/
I think it will even function without it although I wouldn’t want to run it like that on purpose.
The MCX got the LVAW, correct? Seems like a shoe-in.
*shoo-in
Really I just want Q Honey Badgers to win, even though I doubt they even submit.
Disregard missed the barrel change requirement.
Honey Badger barrel is threaded in, not at all like an AR-15. I’d be willing to bet you could swap them in under 3 minutes.
I know Q said they would only offer the HB in .300Blk, but I bet that could change for the right money.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BRJqWNLFQYC/
The barrel change issue will preclude many current AR uppers.
Kevin has till April. I’m sure he has something in the vault 😉
I knew they liked the MCX, interesting to see they liked it so much.
300 blk out …oh my
Didn’t/doesn’t the MCX have some reliability issues? I’ve not handled/shot one, so I have no first hand info. just things I’ve heard/read.
Military Arms Channel had some issues with water , and Nutnfancy( I know watched it for the gun not him) had a weird spring kink issue, but other than those two I haven’t seen any .
Nutnfancy had the spring issue because he used a standard AR-15 lower WITHOUT the adapter
He also appears to have re-assembled it incorrectly.
The new bolt carrier assembly was supposed to have pinned retainers, to prevent the Nutnfancies of the world from doing that. But so far, it hasn’t materialized.
Rumor has it there is another change in the bolt carrier assembly coming. I’m hopeful they get the spring retainer improved.
Fun fact: The spring retainer on the MPX is metal, but on the MCX it’s plastic.