You mean subject this "utility/truck gun" as he calls it to service rifle type testing conditions before casting statements about supreme reliability and quality, come on now don't use logic that upsets people quickly.
WK180C Gen 2 or something else?
- Thread starter CUSTOM441
- Start date
You mean subject this "utility/truck gun" as he calls it to service rifle type testing conditions before casting statements about supreme reliability and quality, come on now don't use logic that upsets people quickly.
Non-phixion
CGN frequent flyer
Yeah I mean who would want to see a manufacturer torture test their gun and have proof it can reach an actual high round count in the tens of thousands rather than using their customer base as the guinea pigs. Apparently 2000 rounds is the new standard for a high round count. However 2000 rounds is nothing, that is light work for a gun on a rental line. I've seen the Bushmaster ACR run over 50K rounds plus, the TAR21 last over 100K, as well as DD MK18's and M4's. Maybe my standards for what constitutes high round counts are higher than other people because of my exposure to working with them.
Well considering the government hasn't given me a cheque for my AR yet, I'm not pressed to buy anything at the moment. Ideally Bill C-21 gets reversed some how and I keep the rifle I want, which is the one I already own. My budget is based on the $1337 proposed by the feds to buyback my rifle + whatever cash I think is reasonable to get a decent rifle. Until the money is in my bank and my AR is no longer in my house, I'm not buying anything.
Have to agree here - 2k rounds is nothing. For me it's an extreme amount, but as a buyer I find comfort knowing that military firearms are tested to rigorous, battlefield conditions over tens of thousands of rounds. Making similar claims after 2000rds seems pretty bold IYAM. As mentioned before, I want a rifle that WILL work.
If the claims are true then the Templar still seems like a decent choice. Time will tell.
Re-read the thread. He's not looking to swap bugger all over to a MS Receiver set except the left-overs from his sale of an AR15 back to the government. That means accessoriess, optic, etc. Not the internal bits and pieces, which would go to the "buyback" in order to generate the necessary funds to buy the Receiver set in the first place.
Those of you insisting on high round-counts in the tens of thousands of rounds in order to somehow "certify" a domestic re-design as serviceable need to reevaluate based on reality. No domestic re-design of the AR180 has even reached such a count, excepting perhaps the WK-180, and that is sperad out over hundreds (thousands?) of end-users over a number of years to collectively reach those counts. Rifles made of aluminum and steel don't melt in the sun like a popsicle. They are durable materials which , if fittted together properly and lubricated at wear points, will easily last a lifetime of routine usage. It doesn't take 10K rounds to determine if a rifle is reliable. I would suggest that 2K rounds without cleaning and zero malfunctions is more than adequate for a reliability and durability test, which the Templar has already passed with flying colours (with video evidence) at Triggercon. It also doesn't take 10K rounds to determine if a rifle is accurate. That can be done (as I did yesterday) in as little as 50 rounds using multiple brands and loads of ammo. The Canadian AR180-based utility rifles are not military service rifles, nor are they semi-automatic versions of one. They are boutique-manufactured rifles based on a well-established and oft-copied 60 year-old design. The basic AR180 design was solid back then, and it is still solid today. It is honestly not rocket science to build a durable and reliable AR180 derivative rifle when countless examples exist to copy. A repeat of an established design should not require tens of thousands of proof rounds to recertify, even if the manufacturer attempts substantive change.
Last edited:
Ya, didn’t realize he had to give up the complete gun.
Just buy a wk/Templar /Spectre whatever.
I doubt your ever going into battle with that anyway..
These should be fine for a bit of target shooting/ hunting.
If you want something for 3 gun or is it 1 gun now? Then the Restrictioned CZ seems to be the answer.
Just buy a wk/Templar /Spectre whatever.
I doubt your ever going into battle with that anyway..
These should be fine for a bit of target shooting/ hunting.
If you want something for 3 gun or is it 1 gun now? Then the Restrictioned CZ seems to be the answer.
You might want to consider that this govt is hot to ban anything it can and the non-res rifles not caught up in the current ban are a sore spot with the anti-gun forces in this country. There is no guarantee there will be any semi-auto rifles available to buy by the time you get your AR15 buy back cheque. IF you desire to have a rifle for fun and defence in the future, it would be prudent to buy one now, while you still can. Just saying' ...............
Prior to two years ago I did not own a single non-res semi-auto rifle. After the AR's got whacked w the ban hammer, I went out and bought an undisclosed number of non-res semi-auto rifles because I'm not gonna be disarmed by an authoritarian leftist govt.
Non-phixion
CGN frequent flyer
The OP would be wise to move parts over into an MS set, you can still shoot and hunt with them regardless of the myths on here. Bartok I personally haven't seen their buy back structure regarding whether the gun is required to have all the components to meet that pricing. I'm genuinely interested if you have any more information on this you could refer to. I saw this bull#### coming and reregistered all mine to stripped receivers before #### head announced the OIC ban. That will suck big time for anyone surrendering a fully built rifle versus keeping their parts for a rainy(communist liberal regime) day instead of surrendering the upper and lower alone.
Hahaha, this is rich bartok, with all the pages on this forum alone about snapped pistons, gas blocks not being properly affixed and loose screws everywhere from factory with these garbage rod 180 variants and you're saying it's not rocket science. If it is not rocket science, then why does this elude Canadian manufacturers and why do they produce crap that the end user has to deal with within 2000 rounds?
Non-phixion
CGN frequent flyer
I echo your sentiments on this big time. We have been walking hand in hand towards stone grip communism with the liberals, they are doing everything to consolidate power and have a monopoly on force. Even if it means selling a kidney to get the gun you really want, right now would be the time. We are in a race against time.
421SuperDuty
Regular
- Location
- 中华人民共和国加拿大省
I mean you are right if the firearm's goal is to be a civilian instagram queen that fires a few hundred rounds per year and has the luxury of spare parts, but the 180 variants are meant to fill the void left by the banning of tried-and-true muck-and-grime hell-and-back infantry rifle types that people expect to last a lifetime of hard abuse. Again, you are right, but that's misunderstanding what buyers really *want* as opposed to what they necessarily *need*.
I don't have any more factual information than anyone else when it comes to the requirements of the still-born "Buyback" program. At the risk of applying logic to anything the goverment does, I will posit that if you have an AR15 registered as "Receiver Only" you will not be required to surrender anything more than the stripped Lower Receiver in order to receive a pre-determined percentage of the $1300 maximum currently assigned to the AR15 rifle/carbine. If your firearm is registered as a complete firearm, then I would expect that as a minimum you will have to surrender both the Upper and Lower Receivers in order to be compliant, as both are considered Prohibited devices under the forthcoming legislation. Whether or not those Upper and Lower Receivers are required to be fully functional remains to be seen, and it may very well be possible to strip everything out in order to surrender just the empty Receiver halves. In that case, I would again expect you to receive just a percentage of the $1300 max value for an AR15. Of course, the powers that be may insist that you surrender a fully functional fiream in order to receive the maximum amount of compansation. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I'd be willing to bet that the program designers haven't even gone down that particular rabbit-hole yet!
If you think about the firearm failures that you listed in the second part of your post, the vast majority are experienced with a two specific companies' offerings. Not all Canadian firearms manufacturers produce crap, but those who do are incompetent bordering on dangerous.
The SAI R18 Mk2 and (IMHO) the new Spectre/Crusader Templar are both fine for their intended purpose as civilan sporting rifles. Yes, there are things that I would change if I were the Templar's Chief Designer, however that is not to say that the rifle in its current form is not good to go, because I believe that it is. Too heavy? Yes. Floppy folded Buttstock? Yes. Marginally acceptable external finish? Some say yes, some say no. And so on and so forth. But as it currently sits, the Templar runs well and it shoots straight. It just needs a diet, a different Buttstock interface and a little more time in the tumbler to smooth out the Lower Receiver finish that currently drives Grove nuts.
Last edited:
So I'm right after all? LOL...
At the end of the day, the VAST majority of Canadian firearms ARE Instagram Queens that are LUCKY to fire a couple of hundred rounds in any given year! Most folks work in the cities where leisure time is scarce and ranges are remote. This is particularly true in so-called "Central Canada", where the majority of the population is concentrated in the Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal/Quebec City urban centers and coonnecting corridors.
Those very few outlier firearms enthusiasts who indulge in high round-count competition with a rifle/carbine would be well-advised to purchase the semi-automatic variant of an established military or police service rifle such as the CZ Bren 2, Bushmaster ACR, FAMAE SG 540, HK G36/SL8, X95 or B+T APC.
The Canadian-manufactured "boutique" AR180 derivatives should not be confused with genuine military service rifles. And vice-versa. The domestic AR180s lack the optimal materials (T6061 aluminum versus 7071), processes (chrome-lined Chambers and Bores, forged Receivers), features (Select fire) and exhaustive testing regimes to become certified as serrvice weapons. They are not one and the same. They are civilian sporting rifles, period.
Last edited:
Absolute denial of reality is the only conclusion.
One moment money doesn't matter and then the next moment you don't have the cash on hand as soon as realistic testing that pretty much every manufacture completes during R&D phase is mentioned, funny how that works.
Could you link the video evidence showing the rifle shooting 2000 rounds without issues and no pauses in the footage?
Your ability to make endless excuses for a poorly designed and produced firearm is amazing.
I am astounded at this point.
Why in the world, would I (or anyone else) spend $7K testinig a rifle to satisfy YOU?!?!? Who is living in absolute denial of reality now?!? LOL! Thanks, but I have FAR better things to spend $7K on. Pretty sad when you have to resort to commenting on personal finances in order to get in (supposed) jabs.
I don't have video evidence in additioni to that provided by Crusader Arms and Code of Arms. Unlike you however, I choose to believe the vendor when they state that the firearm exceeded 2K rounds at Triggercon with only lubrication to keep it running. Sure, they could lie about it, but why would they? Sure, lots of reasons. Believe what you want - you apparently have an agenda to support!
What in my point about service rifles versus domestically-manufactured sporting rifles would you like to refute as false? And where are these excuses you speak of? Anyone with a modicum of experience knows that the domestic AR180 clones are not serious "service rifles" by either definition or design. What is so astounding about that? (PS - you apparently astound easily)
I really don't understand your purpose in this thread Grove (aside from trolling, that is). It seems you are here just to tear down everything positive that anyone has to say about Canadian vendors generally, and the Spectre Inc/Crusader Arms product in particular. I'm growing weary of countering your ceaseless negativity, not to mention your (deliberately?) obtuse perspective on certain things. You haven't worn me down, so no worries there. It is much moreso that I am bored to tears and starting to repeat myself. So you go ahead and get everything off your chest here while I take a time out from this thread. I'll go hang out in the Templar thread.
As far as I'm concerned the OP can do whatever he wants with his hypotheical windfall from the possible sale of his AR15 to the government as part of the non-existent "buyback" program. Who knows? By then there could be half a dozen new designs to argue about on the internet....
Last edited:
Considering the number of SKS sold in this country one might suggest what CDNs want is something super cheap that goes BANG. For lots of people the price is a MAJOR factor in a purchase. The WK180 fills that niche in a non-restricted, Canadian made rifle.
If I was in this position, I'd TOTALLY have the BD44 / MP44 listed on #######. Super cool rifle and rare as hen's teeth in Canada.
Last edited:
Your first mistake is to try to assign logic to a govt program.
The definition of a firearm has been long codified as the receiver .... and no other part. Yes, the latest idiocy makes an upper receiver a prohibited device, but that doesn't change anything wrt the rest of the parts. There is NOTHING the feds can do to compel AR owners to hand in anything other than the lower receiver. The choice to hand in or not, the upper receiver is up to the individual, with the understanding those are prohibited devices.
Sure, the federal buy back may choose to only pay a portion of the price for a stripped receiver but that again is up to the individual to accept or not.
People seem to get the whole "registered as a stripped receiver" thing backwards. IF a firearm is registered as a stripped receiver then the owner must notify CFC if that status changes. The reverse, a receiver not registered as "receiver only" does not mean nor convey anything with respect to the number of parts installed on the receiver. It is entirely possible to strip a receiver completely to its component parts and never tell CFC, nor is their any requirement to. It doesn't change anything.
In the event we eventually are forced to hand in our AR receivers, there is nothing preventing people handing in only a stripped receiver. No other parts ('kept the stripped upper) are controlled in any manner and you are free to do whatever you want with them.
You gloated your wealth in the first place so that is the only reason I made any comment in regard to it.
Clearly the manufacturer is the one who should be spending money to ensure their product will achieve a certain service life they can guarantee but alas the customers are filling this role on the fly so the long term durability is unknown even by the factory.
I've praised other manufactures for their quality of work while discussing these 180 pattern rifles but I'm not going to hand out participation ribbons for people rushing rifles full of issues to the market.
Yes I do have an agenda, I just want to see the best quality firearms produced by Canadians for Canadians to purchase but we keep getting endless lemons put in front of us and told to be grateful its available because of the current politics.
There you have it my whole motive/agenda right out in the open.
You gloated your wealth in the first place so that is the only reason I made any comment in regard to it.
Clearly the manufacturer is the one who should be spending money to ensure their product will achieve a certain service life they can guarantee but alas the customers are filling this role on the fly so the long term durability is unknown even by the factory.
I've praised other manufactures for their quality of work while discussing these 180 pattern rifles but I'm not going to hand out participation ribbons for people rushing rifles full of issues to the market.
Yes I do have an agenda, I just want to see the best quality firearms produced by Canadians for Canadians to purchase but we keep getting endless lemons put in front of us and told to be grateful its available because of the current politics.
There you have it my whole motive/agenda right out in the open.
just to be clear, I wasn't gloating. In fact, I made a point of saying how fortunate I consider myself to be financially comfortable these days. My actual point was that I can buy pretty much any fireaarm that interests me, yet I chose to buy a Templar after I had the opportunity to examine one in detail at my LGS. That alone, ought to tell you something aside from the fact that I was bored and looking for something new to buy. Not my problem if my point escapes you though....
We share the same agenda, just have very different ways of going about achieving our shared aim. I apply the "honey" by contacting the vendor and trying to work with them to improve what is already a satisfactory product. You apply the "vinegar" and.... well.... we whall see, I suppose. I wonder who will get results first?
Last edited:
You are absolutely correct as I understand the Firearms Act. My point was that while you are free to hand in a stripped Receiver, the government is equally free to pay you a pittance for it as a small percentage of the overall compensation amount they would otherwise pay you for a complete, operable firearm.
