CanadianGunNutz.com logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 12 of 42 FirstFirst ... 245678910111213141516171819202232 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 414

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

  1. #111
    CGN Regular Monster Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV426
    Posts
    163
    Great review Mark. Look forward to more of your reviews
    --
    We need another Conservative majority NOW

  2. #112
    CGN Regular Jacobean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SE ON
    Posts
    197
    My biggest gripe right now is the picatinny butt stock section... Why? WHen 90% of people will be using AR buffer tubes and stocks, and many will want an end plate sling part there, what the heck is the thought of putting a section of picatinny there, to add a buffer tube adapter, to screw a buffer tube into? If we are talking about saving cost on a base rifle, wouldn't machining the upper like any other AR15/MCR rear makes things easier, and maybe cheaper from a machine/extra piece perspective?

    Second point; with discussions in part 1 saying the Mk3 will ship with a folding stock... is this ONLY going to be a folding stock? Seems silly to force an entire run to be made in a version a minority will want. I see an overwhelming majoring of people just wanting a standard buffer tube/endplate back end on their rifle to run standard tube and stock versions.

  3. #113
    Super GunNutz Bartok5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Glorious Alberta!
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacobean View Post
    My biggest gripe right now is the picatinny butt stock section... Why? WHen 90% of people will be using AR buffer tubes and stocks, and many will want an end plate sling part there, what the heck is the thought of putting a section of picatinny there, to add a buffer tube adapter, to screw a buffer tube into? If we are talking about saving cost on a base rifle, wouldn't machining the upper like any other AR15/MCR rear makes things easier, and maybe cheaper from a machine/extra piece perspective?

    Second point; with discussions in part 1 saying the Mk3 will ship with a folding stock... is this ONLY going to be a folding stock? Seems silly to force an entire run to be made in a version a minority will want. I see an overwhelming majoring of people just wanting a standard buffer tube/endplate back end on their rifle to run standard tube and stock versions.

    If you look Stateside beyond the generic AR15 market, the Picatinny Buttstock interface is fast becoming the industry standard, as championed by SIG USA with their MCX and MPX lines. Unlike the standard AR Receiver Extension hole, the Picatinny rail offers a standardized QD attachment point for an unlimited variety of Buttstock styles. I see the attraction, particularly in the larger US market where "Pistol Braces" are a thing. In any case, I expect that the Canadian market will adapt to give consumers Picatinny Buttstock options if sufficient demand is generated by the R18 and/or other Canadian or US Modern Sporting offerings.

    Using the Picatinny system you can easily have a standard AR Receiver Extension, but are not confined to that particular design. That is the difference and the advantage of the Picatinny interface - its innate flexibility.

    Bear in mind that although the R18 Mk2 is a joint UK/Canadian venture aimed squarely at the post-OIC Canadian market, the possibility exists that the manufacturers also have other foreign markets in mind. In that context the Picatinny system offering a variety of fixed and folding/collapsing Buttstock options is likely a welcome and forward-looking feature.

    Where is this overwhelming majority of users preferring a standard AR Buttstock that you speak of? Are you sure that you are not confusing what YOU want with what the average R18 Mk3 user might prefer? Given the choice of a Folding Buttstock or a Fixed version, I'll take the Folder all day, every day for the sake of convenience during transport. If all Mk3s are sold with the Zhukov Folder (which is really the best of both worlds), then everyone should be satisfied. Don't need the folding capability? Then don't use it. Offering one Buttstock design that satisfies all camps is ideal for SAI, as they need only worry about a single "all singing, all dancing" product line.
    Last edited by Bartok5; 11-14-2021 at 04:38 PM.
    Mark C

  4. #114
    CGN Regular Iceman18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by the radium king View Post
    i think accuracy came up because the original review compared the rifle to the wk/ws. so, while most seem good with a 2-3 moa rifle out of the box, how does the stock accuracy of the r18 compare to a wk? that was where it all came from. even if the original review didn't make the comparison people would be doing it themselves regardless - twice the price, looks cooler, lighter but due to barrel and less accurate (comparatively) as a result? doesn't work so well in the cold. anything else about potential double ejectors or heavier springs is just speculation (albeit informed i suppose) that requires proving by the vendor and not the reviewer.
    Yeah some people would like them for hunting or target shooting so the more accuracy the better. My buddies WK is 1-2 MOA all day with standard ammo, but has suffered from reliability issues. If this new rifle can do the same 1-2 MOA and be built solid then itís a winner.

  5. #115
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    36,115
    For something like NSCC Service Rifle, a rifle that will consistently shoot under two minutes is competitive, able to shoot possibles at all ranges. One that will hold a minute and a half at all ranges is even better. After that, it is entirely up to the shooter.

    I've never seen the point of buffer tubes and the associated collapsible stocks on firearms that do not mechanically need a buffer tube. Install a proper stock that isn't compromised by the need for a buffer tube.
    Last edited by tiriaq; 11-14-2021 at 05:10 PM.

  6. #116
    CGN Regular Jacobean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SE ON
    Posts
    197
    Picatinny stock mount seems like "the latest flash in the pan" to me. More parts, forced longer LOP, more points of failure or parts that could come loose.

    I get it on the MPX as a sub gun, never saw the need on the MCX barring "cool factor". The whole folding stock craze has always appeared to me as a "nice to have, show off to your buddies once" type of shtick that rarely is implemented by the standard Canadian firearms owner, I suppose barring your transport point. But to that, I don't have a single case that can't fit my MCR so... moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bartok5 View Post
    unlimited variety of Buttstock styles.
    I don't really see a ton of variety, least of which here in Canada. Sure there are 100 stocks than can go on a tube, but besides fixed tube and folder, what else exists really? Which brings it to the next point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bartok5 View Post
    In any case, I expect that the Canadian market will adapt to give consumers Picatinny Buttstock options if sufficient demand is generated by the R18 and/or other Canadian or US Modern Sporting offerings.
    I am curious to see how many of the picatinny adapters have been sold for the other 180 variant offerings here, considering their posts have drummed up no more than 1.5 pgs of discussion. But it's a false sense of demand when a rifle like this is ONLY offered in this style. To be quite frank it makes no sense when folding stock adapters for AR style butt ends can be easily found in the Canadian market. Canadians don't use pistol braces because they're, well, dumb, and a solution to a problem we don't have. Just not convinced on the whole "way of the future for the industry".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bartok5 View Post
    Where is this overwhelming majority of users preferring a standard AR Buttstock that you speak of? Are you sure that you are not confusing what YOU want with what the average R18 Mk3 user might prefer? If all Mk3s are sold with the Zhukov Folder, then everyone should be satisfied. Don't need the folding capability? Then don't use it.
    See the vast majority of 180B variant photos uploaded by owners. It's the same market as the AR market, so it comes to reason the demands and wants would and should mirror it. I would not be satisfied with a Zhukov folder, for the reasons outlined in my second sentence at the top. Not to mention it's ugly (personal opinion) and alters the posn of your cheek weld on the stock when lengthened or shortened, where a CTR wouldn't. The "if you don't like it don't use it" is a silly argument when the cost of machining the rail and adding the adapter is baked into the rifle. Save the consumer a few bucks, make it an AR style rear, and let those who want a folder buy the adapter and make it so themselves.

    Just my $0.02 however I'm inclined to think that most would agree that it's reinventing a wheel.

  7. #117
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    178
    Bartok,

    Any idea when we will see more rounds/reliability data and are you going to be getting an “updated” version to highlight the changes? Accuracy is in the wheelhouse however still hoping to see wear and reliability info.

  8. #118
    The Shooting Edge - CGN Sponsor TSE JR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,256
    To all,

    I think there is a mis-conception here.

    We will have a zhukov folding adapter as an option. It fits on the picatinny.

    It is not mandatory.

    To each there own....

    And please keep in mind, this rifle was conceived to meet the market for the 90% of clients that want bells and whistles without any personal upgrading.

    I'm on my phone... so I'll review this thread tomorrow and answer any questions that have popped up.

    JR
    \"J.R."\
    CEO

    The Shooting Edge, Target Sports Canada, William Evans

  9. #119
    Super GunNutz Bartok5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Glorious Alberta!
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchCDN View Post
    Bartok,

    Any idea when we will see more rounds/reliability data and are you going to be getting an “updated” version to highlight the changes? Accuracy is in the wheelhouse however still hoping to see wear and reliability info.
    I should have the same Test Rifle back in my hands with strengthened Operating Springs by the end of the week, with further testing to follow. I have some different brands of ammo to try (eg. Win White Box 55 gr) as well as 3 different factory Match 77 gr loads. That ought to answer the accuracy potential question more conclusively.

    Unfortunately my returned Test Rifle will not have all of the other improvements that are now part of the Production Drawings. An Adjustable Gas Block to "balance" the increased Operating Spring tension comes immediately to mind as a desirable addition. However, Accuracy, Reliability and Wear/Tear testing will continue regardless. I will leave it to JR Cox and SAI to conduct their promised 1000-round, time-lapse video reliability test with the Production model of the R18 Mk2.
    Mark C

  10. #120
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartok5 View Post
    I should have the same Test Rifle back in my hands with strengthened Operating Springs by the end of the week, with further testing to follow. I have some different brands of ammo to try (eg. Win White Box 55 gr) as well as 3 different factory Match 77 gr loads. That ought to answer the accuracy potential question more conclusively.

    Unfortunately my returned Test Rifle will not have all of the other improvements that are now part of the Production Drawings. An Adjustable Gas Block to "balance" the increased Operating Spring tension comes immediately to mind as a desirable addition. However, Accuracy, Reliability and Wear/Tear testing will continue regardless. I will leave it to JR Cox and SAI to conduct their promised 1000-round, time-lapse video reliability test with the Production model of the R18 Mk2.
    Sounds excellent thanks so much!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •