Dirt, debris, and the 180 upper?
- Thread starter G.Mitchell
- Start date
I wonder if cassette style triggers would be less vulnerable to potential debris damage, or more so? Regardless, even Garandthumb said the BRN-180 would be fine for everyday average use, and the same could be said for the even more open Canadian 180 variants.
I believe less so, the What Would Stoner Do 2020 rifle may be moving to use a completely sealed trigger pack if I recall correctly from one of InRange's more recent videos.
Drop in Cassette style trigger pack is more vulnerable to dirt when it is retro fitted to a receiver that is not originally designed for it - the reason Giessele triggers were purchased en mass for government use while no one touched the after market "Cassette style" drop-ins.
Trigger packs could never be sealed, stealing space off the already tight lower receivers means debris has no where to go. When dirt is in, it can never come back out. After market AR comp trigger makers like the "Cassette style" drop ins because the factory can control the tolerance better without being hindered by the lower receiver hole placements.
Unless the entire receiver is designed from the ground up like the SIG pistol, after market drop-ins will always be less reliable in receiver that is not originally designed for them.
From the OEM standpoint, there is no reason to use a enclose drop in trigger pack. It adds cost for no reason, unlike the SIG pistol where the plastic grip is the cheap part designed to be interchangeable ( and disposable).
Last edited:
G.Mitchell
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Grande Prairie Alberta
Great comments.
I want the best possible firearm for all my uses. To me that means reliability even in very adverse conditions.
The open sides of the current 180 rifles are huge and welcome all levels of dirt, mud, debris, etc.
Where I live grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, wolves, wolverines, cougars, lynx, coyote, etc are all real threats. Having livestock, young kids, and helping care for neighboring livestock requires firearms that won’t fail due to mud, snow, ice, etc.
The Libs killed the ATRS Sporter and Stag-10 which were exceptionally reliable guns. Likewise the VZ58 which is another exceptionally reliable rifle.
I get that some folks only need flat range reliable. However some of us put our guns to use in less than ideal conditions and situations. I get the lie that “assault rifles” have no place in Canada. That lie is an easy sell to many. To me, and many of you, the prohibited rifles were exactly what we used as do it all rifles for wilderness use and livestock protection.
Sorry for the rant. Just trying to further clarify why I’m looking for a replacement for the OIC banned firearms.
I want the best possible firearm for all my uses. To me that means reliability even in very adverse conditions.
The open sides of the current 180 rifles are huge and welcome all levels of dirt, mud, debris, etc.
Where I live grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, wolves, wolverines, cougars, lynx, coyote, etc are all real threats. Having livestock, young kids, and helping care for neighboring livestock requires firearms that won’t fail due to mud, snow, ice, etc.
The Libs killed the ATRS Sporter and Stag-10 which were exceptionally reliable guns. Likewise the VZ58 which is another exceptionally reliable rifle.
I get that some folks only need flat range reliable. However some of us put our guns to use in less than ideal conditions and situations. I get the lie that “assault rifles” have no place in Canada. That lie is an easy sell to many. To me, and many of you, the prohibited rifles were exactly what we used as do it all rifles for wilderness use and livestock protection.
Sorry for the rant. Just trying to further clarify why I’m looking for a replacement for the OIC banned firearms.
Tavor 7 or APC, if you want something that will function reliably and will put down anything from a coyote to grizzly bears then I really think that's where you'll get your best outcome.
As much as I love the 180s 5.56 ain't going to cut it against a grizzly and even though they come in 7.62x39 I'd still push for more energy.
G.Mitchell
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Grande Prairie Alberta
Thank you. I’ll check those out. I agree a .308 is better than 5.56 for most uses. Each has a role to play but do it all .308 would be best when big bears are around too.
Have a 14” 870 all decked out but a semi auto rifle is a must for me too.
G.Mitchell
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Grande Prairie Alberta
Thanks. That is an improvement over both sides being open.
I think the Brownells/PWS rifle/upper is about as good as it gets with regards to having a more "enclosed" AR-180. I'm curious as to why the Canadian manufacturers of 180 type rifles chose to make the recess for the charging handle at the rear of the bcg vs at the front like the original AR-18 (and BRN-180). That necessarily makes the charging handle slot go almost to the rear of the receiver and makes it harder to add a small dust cover like the original AR-18 and BRN have. No AR-180 variant will ever be as enclosed as an AR-15 but I'd be happy with the Brownells/PWS version. That being said, my WS has been perfectly reliable for 2k rounds but it's not confidence inspiring to watch a cloud of dust just blow through it when the bolt locks back while I'm shooting prone, haha.
Last edited:
Yup, basically the same as the BRN-180 with the BRN having the advantage of the more conventional layout with regards to the stock/buffer tube mounting to the lower (which makes cleaning easier and I'm gonna assume the Jard will need more regular cleaning than the other 180s being DI).
Last edited:
Since there's no buffer tube spring, the buffer tube and stock can happily remain on the upper during takedown. The guide rods and return springs attach to a small plate retained by a standard AR retaining pin. When the pin is pushed out, the plate and attached guide rods and springs pop out the rear of the upper, above the buffer tube and socket.
It disassembles similar to a SBI LPC, with the lower rocking off a front lip after popping the rear retaining pin. The 180 panel/rods/spring is removed. The charging handle is then removed. The BCG can then be slid back, and drops out of the receiver. The upper is then an empty shell, easily cleaned, and the rest of the components are out and ready to be cleaned separately. Seems not too bad for cleaning.
Jard on YouTube said:
MCX is the basically an AR18 put into an AR receiver. The only way to seal the upper is either 1) AR T-hand or 2) using the bolt carrier like SCAR and G36. The problem with 2) is that all these designs add height to the receiver.
AK is open too, yes, it will stop working if enough sand gets through the slot into the trigger mech. But AK safety also serves as the dust cover. So dust cover up as soon as the firing stops will alleviate most of the issues.
There is a way to seal the receiver slot without the complicated spring loaded oscillating dust cover, which is that way SG55X does it. It involves riveting rubber skirts along the opening. your average small company will not want to go that route.
Yeah, no question I'd rather have an MCX (or a SCAR or G36) but that isn't really in the cards with our current crop of bull#### politicians making the rules. Hell, all of these debates about AR-180s wouldn't even happen if we had sensible gun laws and could use AR-15s in the field (or even the state of affairs prior to the OIC).
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
I think the charging handle solution used by the XCR-L works fairly well to keep dust/debris out. There is a track that the charging knob runs in that is covered with a flat piece of aluminum attached to the knob. Slot in the receiver is only open during charging the rifle the first time. If a dust cover was used, it'd be a fairly sealed system.
To adapt the XCR system to these rifles would take a bit of a design change and a bit of extra milling but I suspect it's very doable.
To adapt the XCR system to these rifles would take a bit of a design change and a bit of extra milling but I suspect it's very doable.
Yeah, it's not the end of the world and I'm curious to see how the Jard works out. By easier to clean I meant cleaning the chamber and barrel which you can do with a rigid cleaning rod when the stock/buffer is on the lower, vs having to use a flexible rod with this design.
^
If your cleaning rod is a little flexible, you may be able to feed it through the rear hole left when you take out the guide rod/recoil spring assembly and onto the barrel at an angle. If that doesn't work, a pipe cleaner style rod would definitely be needed.
If your cleaning rod is a little flexible, you may be able to feed it through the rear hole left when you take out the guide rod/recoil spring assembly and onto the barrel at an angle. If that doesn't work, a pipe cleaner style rod would definitely be needed.
