Canadian made "black" rifle

fhg1893 said:
Want:
Non-restricted
7.62x39mm
Feeds off AK Mags
Picatinny rail
Semi-automatic
Chrome-lined barrel
Crowd-funded development
Designed and made in Canada
Price point approx < $1500

equals
15156.jpeg
Click to expand...

I'm with this guy
 
Daver_II said:
Rabble Rabble Rabble.... #### M+M we will build our own!!!
Rabble, rabble, CANADIAN MADE!!!

Rabble...

Rabble...


*goes home*


Man, Gun owners are fickle.

Think about it, ALL NR Canadian made black guns are limited production, and very expensive.
The market is Just too small.

Even the most reasonable priced NR rifle, which mostly uses standardized parts (BCL-102) is $1800, and it has a market elsewhere in the world.

Any other NR Canadian Black rifles are $$$.


Sure it could be done, but The R+D and Machining required would make it cost prohibitive.

American companies can do it because if the potential customer base, which Canada does not have.



I am not trying to be negative, but NEA/BCL has experience in this matter, look how long the NEA-25... I mean BCL-102 took.
Or the ATRS MH or MV.
Click to expand...

Rabble? Fickle?. What intellectual homosexual dinner party did you just come from?
 
It's nice to see where these conversations are going, not exactly what I expected, but good to see none the less. I don't think it's really about coming up with the ultimate modular black rifle, even though that's what many of us desire.

I'm interested in modularity, but it doesn't need to follow the standard AR patterns etc.. and doesn't have to be something it's not. A simple, unique rifle that is durable, reliable, ergonomic and suited for Canadian conditions.

Needed:

Good irons
Scopeable

Highly desirable:

Adjustable Gas System
Different caliber support in the same envelope, quick detaching not needed, but affordable swappable uppers would be nice.
Rear trunnion for tradition or alternation black rifle stock adapters
 
Last edited:
technomad said:
I wasn't too interested in the AR180 at first, really wanted to get my hands on a reasonably priced M10X..

But the more I read about it and imagine a few improvements, I think it could be a great easyish win!

STANAG mag compatible milled receiver, AR grip/trigger and ambi controls. Use a straight AK stock as a dirt cheap factory option, then people can upgrade to one of the many after-market folders available if they want.

Make classic style uppers in both .223 and x39, and then work on an IUR style upper that more closely resembles the M10X later.

If CanAm can pull that off at a reasonable price, it might be tough to stop buying them! lol
Click to expand...

Sounds good, however I don't think any AK stocks are bolt-on, no cheap mass produced ones at any rate.
 
Given the choice between swapping out:

--the barrel only (receiver stays put)

OR

--The entire upper, as with an AR-15

What would you choose, and why?

Swapping the upper half of receiver would add additional cost the every change. Not just for the extra 1/2 receiver, but for dedicated optics as well.
But optics that stay with each swap do not need re-sighting.
Any other issues/concerns?





Given the choice between:

Classic wood furniture (AK style)

OR

Modern plastic and aluminum
My vision is for a complete line of modular, interchangeable parts that could accommodate both looks.
 
Last edited:
CraigNConnor said:
kiss your reliability out the window with swappable magwells...
Click to expand...

So how does HK do it? Oh ya, easily and I've owned 3 HK SL8's and they were all 100% reliable.

870P said:
I'm not crazy about an AR-180 type design as they are ugly and chintzy feeling and have never been particularly successful for a reason.
Click to expand...

They were not successful because the US military was already committed to the M-16 when Eugene designed the 18. MR Stoner actually designed the AR-18 as an improvement over the AR that could be built cheaper and was more reliable. The only reason the AR-18 didn't take off was the timing of it's release.
The Canadian versions we have are excellent rifles, the problem with them is the total lack of parts support. The fear of the polymer lower breaking is not worth worrying about, the ones that broke were either from the batch that Armalite said was from a bad batch of polymer they got from their supplier or from owner abuse from letting the upper swing open and slam into the lower which by the way could break an AR-15 as well if you had a 19 inch barrel on one then let it swing open.

Travis Bickle said:
I'm good with the 180b. It's an excellent rifle. I owned two over the years.
Only reason I sold them was because complete lack of critical parts availability.
It could be produced for very little. Especially with the polymer lowers. It would be a licensing problem though if it were a reproduction. Armalite still owns it I believe.
That would likely drive up the cost (royalties) I would assume.
Not sure what else people want in a simple, cheap, reliable semi auto in this country? Hell it took AR15 FCG and mags. I'm thinking a lot of people who hate on the rifle have likely never shot one or owned one for a period of time. Just parroting posts from this website mostly.
Click to expand...

Exactly

Travis Bickle said:
Aye the 102.
$1840 is close enough to $2K to be "near $2K" for me.

Anyhow, it's clearly not a proven product yet. It has quality control issues, very tight chambers leading to proven reliability issues, rifle to rifle inconsistency, rifle to rifle accuracy results.
There are other design flaws which turn me off it but they are personal opinions so I'll spare repeating myself.
I know the party line in Canada is to never critique a new NR that was hyped up to be the second coming of Christ answer to our prayers yadda yadda lol I like to call a spade a spade and I don't like the taste of kool-aide....
Click to expand...

Yup, the "match chamber was a huge mistake on a rifle with a poopy barrel, made the rifle finicky with ammo and they still can't shoot consistently.

Sunchild2071 said:
QC issues. Love my BCL. Hope the few that have issues get it resolved. Other new rifles seem to have been given credit for Gen1 teething issues. But not the BCL 102. I'm aware of former NEA history. This is a new rifle. Teething issues.
Click to expand...

Not teething issues, the 102 was the NEA-25 before this and was said to be very reliable and capable of 1 moa accuracy (NEA's words).
The rifle has a ton of potential but by the time you upgrade the stuff that needs to be upgraded you could have bought a better rifle.
If you luck out and get one that was built well you have a very good rifle that can easily be a great rifle with a trigger and barrel upgrade. If all you want is reliability I would find a compatible fairly cheap standard 20 inch AR-10 barrel and be done with it. I don't think all 102's are bad, not even most of them. The problem I see is that there are simply too many issues so far considering how few are in circulation. Every company has teething issues with a new product but they've actually had the 102 (or something very close to it) for a while now. What's killing them for me is the inconsistent manufacturing, they should all be built well and be reliable, I can live with a cheap barrel that strings as it warms up but it has to be reliable and they should all come out of the factory that way. Their QC is still very poor if we're seeing this many issues from the first batch.

OCCAM said:
Well what is required for good accuracy? Good ammo, good barrel, tight lockup, tuned or controlled gas. Its not that hard.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to build a rifle for under $1000 and you throw a $300+ barrel into it that doesn't leave much for the rest of the rifle. If you want a barrel that is truly capable of consistently shooting 1 moa or better you need to spend $500 and sometimes more. By consistently I mean cold, warm, hot, a properly stress relieved barrel can do that, what 90% of barrels do is call themselves match because they cut a tight chamber but like we see with almost every rifle on the market they shoot well if you shoot one shot every 3-5 minutes and keep the barrel temp consistent but if you pick up the pace you get stringing as the barrel warms up and doesn't expand evenly.


I think a slightly modified AR-180B would be a perfect rifle for us. Give it a CNC'd upper/lower with a fixed rail (and hopefully keep the iron sights) to keep the price down unless Armalite has a few crates of the stamped uppers kicking around, a polymer lower with some reinforcement at the front pin to calm down the chicken littles, and change it to take AR-15 barrels so we can buy the cheap version for $1000 then upgrade to a readily available high end barrel and trigger if desired. One thing the 180 needs if it going to have a rail on top is a different stock design, you get a very poor cheek weld (more of a chin weld) with them the way they are because the stock is designed to be used with the low irons.

One thing everyone needs to do is forget about accuracy, with a cheap barrel it's not going to be 1 moa or 2 moa, it's going to be 3-4 moa with normal ammo and maybe 2-3 moa with premium. If you want a precision shooter then you have to put on your big boy pants and tell the wife that you are the man and you will buy what you want then just go out and buy a Modern Hunter and if your ammo is up to it as well as if your shooting skills are up to it you will see 1 moa groups.
Considering that we are talking about a $1000 or less (entry level) firearm here that is probably going to get fed surplus or some type of cheap fodder let's just concentrate on getting a reliable NR rifle that takes STANAG magazines.
Being able to swap to a x39 barrel would also be a great addition to the design but as TooTall said I would want it to have a totally redesigned bolt head. Maybe an XCR/AR180 hybrid of sorts.
 
Last edited:
tootall said:
Given the choice between swapping out:

--the barrel only (receiver stays put)

OR

--The entire upper, as with an AR-15

What would you choose, and why?

Swapping the upper half of receiver would add additional cost the every change. Not just for the extra 1/2 receiver, but for dedicated optics as well.
But optics that stay with each swap do not need re-sighting.
Any other issues/concerns?





Given the choice between:

Classic wood furniture (AK style)

OR

Modern plastic and aluminum
My vision is for a complete line of modular, interchangeable parts that could accommodate both looks.
Click to expand...


I prefer swapping the whole upper, so optics don’t have to be re-zero’d. Assuming additional uppers will be available. I bet less than 5% of people who have a rifle with ‘easy caliber conversions’ actually take advantage of that option.
 
There are pros and cons of each, and it really depends on the use one has for the rifle and how it's optics are attached and configured.

When it comes to rezeroing - it also depends on use and optics and how well the barrel retention mechanism works. I like two uppers, one configured short / intermediate range, and one configured long range. Now between those two, I use multiple barrels that are quick change.

I use both dedicated uppers and barrel swaps in my XCR-L's. This allows long and short range options ready to go with dedicated optics, but the cost gets really high if you want to do this for every combination (obviously). One upper has a red dot and the other is scoped. Both are MOA based with reticle designs of my preference.

Within self set range limits the ballistics are close enough for red dot, and precise enough with MOA based FFP scopes to know where various cals' will hit with existing dope records and loads on hand. One could use quality QD mounts for optic types and use one upper, but I find it's a little more limiting in practical use. Also those quality qd mounts can run the cost of stripped uppers, and can still be questionable in holding zero's (depending on hard use).

My XCR-M doesn't have dedicated uppers, they're just too damn expensive. The only saving grace here is that it's mostly just scoped, no red dot because it's intentionally set up for range.


I really like classic looks, but I need some adjustability most often. Having both options is good, but having to choose, I would go modern polymers, even over aluminum.

tootall said:
Given the choice between swapping out:

--the barrel only (receiver stays put)

OR

--The entire upper, as with an AR-15

What would you choose, and why?

Swapping the upper half of receiver would add additional cost the every change. Not just for the extra 1/2 receiver, but for dedicated optics as well.
But optics that stay with each swap do not need re-sighting.
Any other issues/concerns?





Given the choice between:

Classic wood furniture (AK style)

OR

Modern plastic and aluminum
My vision is for a complete line of modular, interchangeable parts that could accommodate both looks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am agreeable for either swappable barrel or the upper.

I would like to see a full length rail onto the hand guard from the upper with modern furniture.

I think stang mags would be the way to go so we weren't limited to only 5 round mags. I agree we should focus on reliability and function and leave the barrel as something to upgrade later if one chooses.

Terms of caliber I dont have preference but like the idea of 556 or x39.
 
A while back ,I asked if it is possible to feed 5.45x39 Russain from an AR-15 mag.
A quick Google seems to suggest that YES it is possible, but the follower needs to be changed.
Possibly the body shape needs more curve too.
But the magwell can remain the same. :)
Same situation as for the 7.62x39.

So, one gun could allow for:
5.45x39, 5.56x45 (and all rounds based on it), 7.62x39 (and 6.5 Grendel based on it), and even heavy hitters like .450 Bushmaster and .458 SOCOM.
Naturally, this would require a barrel and bolt head swap.
 
Yes, that makes sense. Given our mag restrictions mag curve isn't that big a deal for what it can feed, but feed lips and followers could probably be tweaked.

tootall said:
A while back ,I asked if it is possible to feed 5.45x39 Russain from an AR-15 mag.
A quick Google seems to suggest that YES it is possible, but the follower needs to be changed.
Possibly the body shape needs more curve too.
But the magwell can remain the same. :)
Same situation as for the 7.62x39.

So, one gun could allow for:
5.45x39, 5.56x45 (and all rounds based on it), 7.62x39 (and 6.5 Grendel based on it), and even heavy hitters like .450 Bushmaster and .458 SOCOM.
Naturally, this would require a barrel and bolt head swap.
Click to expand...
 
Way to much ar 180b talk. One cgner gave a really good description of that rifle and that was "craptastic". This project could be way better
 
agreed, it could. that's why many are referring to an improved 180

if we're looking for a cheap/easy/quick win, then the already NR 180 is a good base to work from. definitely need to get a stronger lower receiver if it's to be the base of a modular platform, and making it compatible with as many AR/AK parts as possible keeps costs down, and makes owner customization easy. here's a quick rundown of how I figured the 'DA180C' platform could evolve. (wouldn't expect all of this to be released at once..)

1. DA180C: NATO Edition. Milled aluminum AR180B lower with ambi controls and basic AK stock. 5.56 upper with irons, a pic rail and classic synthetic handguard
2. DA180C: NATO Deluxe. Same as above, but with a magpul zhukov folding stock, and a handguard with MLOK slots. Choice of BLK/FDE/ODG furniture
3. DA180C: Hunter Edition. Wood furniture for the woods! Lose the irons, add a higher quality barrel, and offer the upper in x39 as well as 5.56
4. DA180C: Warsaw Edition. Keep the wood, bring back irons but go for a cheaper barrel. New lower variant that takes AK mags. (likely FRT delay) Uppers in 5.45 and 7.62 x39
5. DA180C: SuckIt10X Edition. Pick either NATO or Warsaw lower, Adjustable gas IUR with AR15 barrel/bolt compatibility for maximum after-market customization

Likely impossible to make everybody happy.. but I figure the above is modular enough, with enough flexibility and variety to satisfy a good portion of the market
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom