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.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
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.
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.
how much does she weigh naked?
7.5pounds was listed in the part 1 if I recall correctlyOriginally Posted by P11
thank you
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.
Last edited by Bartok5; 11-23-2021 at 02:49 PM.
Mark C
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.
Mark C
7.9 lbs
Back to the Range on Thursday if all goes according to plan. Supposed to be +8C that day....
Mark C
yikes
Posting Permissions
