The R18 Mk2 Review Pt 2 Live Fire Reliabllity and Accuracy Results

Status
Not open for further replies.
hey TSE, if you guys are still lurking here. What would be the odds of incorporating a folding charging handle onto this ?
not a big deal if no plans for it but just curious.
 
Ceiferiro said:
hey TSE, if you guys are still lurking here. What would be the odds of incorporating a folding charging handle onto this ?
not a big deal if no plans for it but just curious.
Click to expand...

While I can understand and appreciate the desire for a folding Charging Handle a-la the FN C1A1 battle rifle or the B+T upgrade, it may be one of those side-projects that is more trouble than it is worth. The original Belgian FAL had a fixed Charging Handle throughout its long production life and served just fine. The Handle on the R18 is quite low-profile, all things considered. It projects exactly 2cm (.75") from the side of the rifle. Some of that is over-hung by optic mounts, etc, meaning that the actual "projection" is a cm or less. Not really a big deal, in the grand scheme. Still, a "nice to have" down the road perhaps. For now, I am just pleased with the overall FAL-like concept of the R18 Charging Handle with its long Slider to cover the Receiver Cocking Slot. It is very well executed, with thick supporting Rails milled into the Upper Receiver.

For reference, the pictured optic is a Swampfox 1-10x 24mm LPVO in an American Defence QD Mount. After the Scope Turret is taken into account, the Charging Handle projects less than 1 cm from the side of the rifle. That said, there is still plenty of Charging Handle to grab onto without grazing your knuckles on the Optic Mount.


20211123-110215.jpg
 
Last edited:
JDForBrkFst said:
Bartok, thank you for such an indepth post on the stock options. It's to bad the Zhukov adapter is so bulky and awkward. It's second only to the ACR stock for non AR pattern stocks imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear you regarding the fitment of the Zhukov stock. It just doesn't quite "go" with the R18's rear end. The adapter extends the length of the Zhukov such that the miminum Length of Pull is roughly equivalent to an A2 Fixed Buttstock. There is nowhere less to go with the Zhukov unfolded and retracted. In contrast, the Midwest Industries Folding Adapter (that TSE also sells) results in a Buttstock that is quite a bit shorter with the Stock fully-retracted. It can readily accommodate persons of smaller stature whereas the Zhukov Buttstock cannot.
 
P11 said:
yikes
Click to expand...

Time to hit the gym, there big shooter.... Bushmaster ACR weighs 7.9 lbs bare-bones. B+T APC (NR) weighs 9 lbs. FAMAE SG 540 is 7.8 bs. WS MCR = 8 lbs, Tavor X-95 is 7.9 lbs. Based on the weights of available .223/5.56mm rifles in Canada, the R18 is as light as they come. Plus I seriously doubt the "truth" of some of those "internet" rifle weights. From first-hand comparison I can tell you that the wS MCR is an absolute pig compared to the R18, yet is listed as being the same weight? I don't think so, not with the WS MCR's heavy-weight barrel and steel Receiver Side-panels....
 
Bartok5 said:
Time to hit the gym, there big shooter.... Bushmaster ACR weighs 7.9 lbs bare-bones. B+T APC (NR) weighs 9 lbs. FAMAE SG 540 is 7.8 bs. WS MCR = 8 lbs, Tavor X-95 is 7.9 lbs. Based on the weights of available .223/5.56mm rifles in Canada, the R18 is as light as they come. Plus I seriously doubt the "truth" of some of those "internet" rifle weights. From first-hand comparison I can tell you that the wS MCR is an absolute pig compared to the R18, yet is listed as being the same weight? I don't think so, not with the WS MCR's heavy-weight barrel and steel Receiver Side-panels....
Click to expand...

LOL absolutely savage! I owned a WK180-c and it was near 10 pounds, my SG-542 is 8.5 (probably heavier than the 540 due to the beefier barrel?). 7.9 pounds is LIGHT for a mdern sporting rifle of this caliber in Canada. One can always skeletonize if they care that much about weight, but I don't know why the weight would matter that much if it's a dependable and sturdy gun.

If it doesn't work, you can always hit 'em with it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX0MB7pJtKs
 
Bartok5 said:
Time to hit the gym, there big shooter.... Bushmaster ACR weighs 7.9 lbs bare-bones. B+T APC (NR) weighs 9 lbs. FAMAE SG 540 is 7.8 bs. WS MCR = 8 lbs, Tavor X-95 is 7.9 lbs. Based on the weights of available .223/5.56mm rifles in Canada, the R18 is as light as they come. Plus I seriously doubt the "truth" of some of those "internet" rifle weights. From first-hand comparison I can tell you that the wS MCR is an absolute pig compared to the R18, yet is listed as being the same weight? I don't think so, not with the WS MCR's heavy-weight barrel and steel Receiver Side-panels....
Click to expand...

WWSD AR15, 4lbs 15 ounces, **Cries in AR15**
 
AskMeAboutMyBandcamp said:
LOL absolutely savage! I owned a WK180-c and it was near 10 pounds, my SG-542 is 8.5 (probably heavier than the 540 due to the beefier barrel?). 7.9 pounds is LIGHT for a mdern sporting rifle of this caliber in Canada. One can always skeletonize if they care that much about weight, but I don't know why the weight would matter that much if it's a dependable and sturdy gun.

If it doesn't work, you can always hit 'em with it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX0MB7pJtKs
Click to expand...

I just took the actual weight of my stripped-down FAMAE 5.56mm SG 540 and it comes in at a hefty 8lbs 13 oz, or 4.0 KG even on a USPS Postal Scale. "Internet" published weights are notoriously under-reported....

PS: Nice "Snatch" reference...
 
FraserGreen said:
WWSD AR15, 4lbs 15 ounces, **Cries in AR15**
Click to expand...

A lot of the weight savings on the WWSD is the polymer lower, which also includes a pure plastics stock and eliminates the need for an aluminum buffer tube. It took them a lot of time to get the polymer lower right, and the failures of the original polymer lower of the AR180B can tell you what can go wrong. It would be interesting to see someone like SBI see if they could one day 3D print a lower receiver with either the 1913 on the back or a built in plastic 180 reproduction stock, maybe screwing together two halves like with the Jard J180 lower, but I'm not sure if 3D printing is at the point of being strong enough to make a workable lower, or if the weight savings would even be worth the effort in development time, printing time, and material cost.

The WWSD also uses a carbon fiber handguard to reduce weight. As nice as that would be, the rifle is expensive enough in Canada without that, so that's a logical place to keep using a traditional aluminum hand rail.
 
WWSD is a niche project gun intended to see how lightweight the modern AR15 can get. Comparisons to an aluminum-receivered AR are not really fair. The WWSD may be lighter, but I'm willing to bet that it would fare poorly in a direct durability comparison (for instance). Everything is a compromise and there are no perfect solutions. Hence the variety of current options on the 5.56mm rifle market, even without the ubiquitous AR15.

With its stock pencil-profile Barrel, the 7.9lb R18 is actually one of the lightest 5.56 self-loading packages remaining on the Canadian market. Anyone looking for a lighter rifle ought to consider a bolt-action or a different calibre....
 
Last edited:
Ustauk said:
A lot of the weight savings on the WWSD is the polymer lower, which also includes a pure plastics stock and eliminates the need for an aluminum buffer tube. It took them a lot of time to get the polymer lower right, and the failures of the original polymer lower of the AR180B can tell you what can go wrong. It would be interesting to see someone like SBI see if they could one day 3D print a lower receiver with either the 1913 on the back or a built in plastic 180 reproduction stock, maybe screwing together two halves like with the Jard J180 lower, but I'm not sure if 3D printing is at the point of being strong enough to make a workable lower, or if the weight savings would even be worth the effort in development time, printing time, and material cost.

The WWSD also uses a carbon fiber handguard to reduce weight. As nice as that would be, the rifle is expensive enough in Canada without that, so that's a logical place to keep using a traditional aluminum hand rail.
Click to expand...

hmmm, Now I kinda want a KP15 lower on a BRN180
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
I'd hardly call the WWSD project 'niche.' It is available from a major American retailer in a ready-to-shoot configuration. While I'm sure SAI had good intentions, I still don't think we should be patting them on the back for making anything 'lightweight.' The receiver is still very chonky and the inclusion of a proprietary handguard eliminates any end-user customization.

Maybe I'm still just salty at the whole OIC rendering many modern sporting rifles safe queens especially when I could have an Non-Restricted one weighing in at 7.5 lbs with an LPVO attached. Also the X95 is heavy, but at least it can hide the weight being a bullpup, that excuse cannot apply to the R18.

Or maybe it's because I see what Brownells has done with the BRN180 and think that we could have attained something similar. 18.5" upper at 77oz, plus a typical MSR lower without any special parts at roughly 33oz has you at 6.875 lbs naked. You can joke about people 'hitting the gym' as much as you want, but you cannot deny after a full day of runnin' and gunnin' a lighter rifle is superior and more enjoyable to shoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom