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

Status
Not open for further replies.
MitchCDN said:
And that is completely fair and I appreciate and understand what you are doing. However this is a review of a SAI with Triggertech trigger not a stock SAI. Thus the price of 2600 does not achieve the sub 2 MOA therefore a caveat must me placed on that data. Those are my only points and I believe whilst you make valid points so do I.

Additionally I am interested in this rifle, I am not trying to be contrarian to others opinions. I just wanted to see if it was 3 MOA or less with the stock trigger and reliable as that’s all I’m concerned about. If it were I would leave the stock trigger in the firearm.
Click to expand...

Based entirey upon differing skill-sets, you may very well be able to wring 2 MOA out of the stock, mil-spec Trigger, whereas I cannot. But just because I cannot manage to shoot a mil-spec Trigger well, does that mean the rifle's accuracy ought to be condemned? THAT is the uncertainty and variability of results that adopting an easier to use aftermarket Trigger helps to eliminate.

Is it an SAI R18 k2 with a TriggerTech installed for accuracy testing? Yes, as I have clearly and repeatedly stated. It is also an SAI with a Leupold Mk5 optic installed that the rifle does not ship stock with. It is also an SAI with a B5 SOPMOD Buttstock installed, which I personally prefer over the stock Magpul MOE. The R18 Mk2 also does not ship with Back-up Iron Sights, nor does the factory package include a Magpul Vertical Forward Grip and MLOK Sling Attachment Point. But I installed those additional accessories on the test rifle for my personal convenience. Does the presence of any of the above "add-ons" fundamentally compromise or alter the results of my user review? You evidently think that they do. My opinion differs. My review however, so my methods and rules.
 
Bartok5 said:
Based entirey upon differing skill-sets, you may very well be able to wring 2 MOA out of the stock, mil-spec Trigger, whereas I cannot. But just because I cannot manage to shoot a mil-spec Trigger well, does that mean the rifle's accuracy ought to be condemned? THAT is the uncertainty and variability of results that adopting an easier to use aftermarket Trigger helps to eliminate.

Is it an SAI R18 k2 with a TriggerTech installed for accuracy testing? Yes, as I have clearly and repeatedly stated. It is also an SAI with a Leupold Mk5 optic installed that the rifle does not ship stock with. It is also an SAI with a B5 SOPMOD Buttstock installed, which I personally prefer over the stock Magpul MOE. The R18 Mk2 also does not ship with Back-up Iron Sights, nor does the factory package include a Magpul Vertical Forward Grip and MLOK Sling Attachment Point. But I installed those additional accessories on the test rifle for my personal convenience. Does the presence of any of the above "add-ons" fundamentally compromise or alter the results of my user review? You evidently think that they do. My opinion differs. My review however, so my methods and rules.
Click to expand...

I simply requested a stock trigger accuracy test. I apologize if I have offended you that was not my intent. There is no need to explain your methods or anything of that nature as of course they were your testing protocol. Thank you again for your review and if no one wants to do a stock trigger review that is totally cool!
 
MitchCDN said:
I simply requested a stock trigger accuracy test. I apologize if I have offended you that was not my intent. There is no need to explain your methods or anything of that nature as of course they were your testing protocol. Thank you again for your review and if no one wants to do a stock trigger review that is totally cool!
Click to expand...

Not at all offended! Just trying to help you to understand why I did things the way that I did. It's all good!
 
Bartok5 said:
Not at all offended! Just trying to help you to understand why I did things the way that I did. It's all good!
Click to expand...

Excellent and thank you…it makes sense to me and I appreciate the positive discussion. It is wonderful to be able to discuss things we are passionate about and enjoy without upsetting one another and in the process learn!
 
TSE JR said:
View attachment 538194

In Bartok5's part 1, he did some pretty decent photos with the rifle disassembled.

Beltfed.... here you go.

JR
Click to expand...

I can see that profile not lending the rifle any favours in the accuracy department.

Have you guys spun on a decent barrel with known accuracy potential just for giggles?

Are you thinking .441" or other sized bolt faces for alternative calibers (or is it too early yet)?
 
Truly appreciate the honest review, as well as the well thought out responses to peoples questions. From the review it would seem to me this was a real world setup for accuracy - instead of being bolted to a bench with almost zero human involvement, which IMHO is a false number that I know I will never personally hit. Nor do I care to, but I am sure some of you can - I go to enjoy and am happy to get a decent group if I can, with something of reasonable build and price - as stated by Bartok "the sweet spot"

ok - back to counting the hidden pennies from the wife.
 
beltfed said:
I can see that profile not lending the rifle any favours in the accuracy department.

Have you guys spun on a decent barrel with known accuracy potential just for giggles?

Are you thinking .441" or other sized bolt faces for alternative calibers (or is it too early yet)?
Click to expand...

2" group with M855 is adequate. This is about the same with similar 18" AR in the same weight class or BRN180 seen around.

There are two markets here, some people want a 7.5lb rifle , someone wants sub MOA rifles. You cannot please both worlds. Seriously, let these guy make the first run and add more variants down the road once the product stabilizes. At this stage, the manufacturer needs to finalize all the critical changes and so the production prototypes can be made to test the consistency of the production line output.

Personally, it shows that fluting does nothing, and probably amplify any effect of stress in material induced during manufacturing. My suggestion is to get rid of that fluting - it adds an extra station to the barrel manufacturing and slows down through put. I know some people like the bling bling and it is a product differentiation move to create premium, but IMHO it is not worth it.

I would rather money spent on making sure premium metallurgical quality in the vital parts - no one cares about fluting if BCG cracks and bolt lug shears, or things like push rod shearing, or extractor failure, cam pin shearing or retaining pin snapping. Make sure the manufacturing process is down and a jig is made so the gas block is always lined up true to the receiver, even if the installer is a monkey. Returns and recalls eat up profit quickly in small runs.
 
greentips said:
2" group with M855 is adequate. This is about the same with similar 18" AR in the same weight class or BRN180 seen around.

There are two markets here, some people want a 7.5lb rifle , someone wants sub MOA rifles. You cannot please both worlds. Seriously, let these guy make the first run and add more variants down the road once the product stabilizes. At this stage, the manufacturer needs to finalize all the critical changes and so the production prototypes can be made to test the consistency of the production line output.

Personally, it shows that fluting does nothing, and probably amplify any effect of stress in material induced during manufacturing. My suggestion is to get rid of that fluting - it adds an extra station to the barrel manufacturing and slows down through put. I know some people like the bling bling and it is a product differentiation move to create premium, but IMHO it is not worth it.

I would rather money spent on making sure premium metallurgical quality in the vital parts - no one cares about fluting if BCG cracks and bolt lug shears, or things like push rod shearing, or extractor failure, cam pin shearing or retaining pin snapping. Make sure the manufacturing process is down and a jig is made so the gas block is always lined up true to the receiver, even if the installer is a monkey. Returns and recalls eat up profit quickly in small runs.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
Fluting is meant for weight reduction and increased barrel surface area for cooling. Looking at the amount fluted on this barrel the weight reduction is barely discernible and cooling? Well, we're not going full auto here so...
 
^ agreed on all points. I would say though that not only is 2" groupings adequate, it is accurately reflective of the vast majority of semi-autos on the market.
 
After the first round of testing, have the fasteners loosened at all on the gas system? I'm hoping the rifle length system alleviates the force on the system compared to the WK or MCR, which slowly pounds themselves apart with their carbine length gas ports, requiring use of thread locker on their fasteners.
 
cuto85 said:
First things first, I'd like to thank the fellas for bringing another MS Semi to the market. We should all be proud of the domestic efforts to bring the scene up to speed again.

That being said, I don't think the ticket correlates with the accuracy. It may be ugly, but 2 different MCR's I've tested are consistently sub-MOA with 62gr X-TAC and even better with 77gr GMM. With FINELY tuned handloads I was seeing 0.5 at the bench. I'm really hoping you just had an off day or a subpar unit because at the very least i was hoping for a minute from the X-TAC. I'll be looking forward to seeing other range reviews. Thanks for your time and effort Mark.
Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen.

.5MOA out of a discount semi? Doubt it...

GAP Rifles out of the states produces bolt actions with a 3/8s MOA guarantee. You aren't coming close with a 1500 semi.
 
Ryan.M.Anderson said:
Pics or it didn't happen.

.5MOA out of a discount semi? Doubt it...

GAP Rifles out of the states produces bolt actions with a 3/8s MOA guarantee. You aren't coming close with a 1500 semi.
Click to expand...

There is a video on you tube showing the accuracy comparison between the other 180b variants from a very trusted source albeit a different shooter than the OP of this thread which could 100 percent change the outcome of the results.
 
Might I be so bold as to suggest designing a folding charging handle like that which was on the FNC1?

When I am running and gunning with my MCR and pistol the knob-like charging handle digs into my chest when I drop it onto the sling to deploy my pistol. I understand this is not possible with the MCR charging handle because it is reciprocating. But with a non-reciprocating charging handle this is a definite possibility.

Thoughts?
 
The only thing that loosened under use were the four Handguard Retaining Screws, which was my fault as I only had them finger-tight for fear of over-torquing the Steel Screws in the Aluminum Threads.

I have invested in 3 different commercial Match Ammo loads for my next round of Test-firing in order to obtain definitive accuracy results (limited, of course, by my ability).

While I too would prefer a flat-stowed, Folding Charging Handle it must be recognized that this will introduce additional cost, complexity, and a potential failure Point to the design where none currently exists. Personally I an content with the fixed CH design. It provides positive purchase in a reasonably low-profile package.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the review Bartok5! Keep doing it any way you please - lots of us are quietly appreciative of your efforts to give us insight into this rifle as possibly a great alternative to our safe queens.

And thanks to JR/TSE for bringing this to us Canucks despite the risks. I think we should all be supporting any company willing to step up for our hobby in the face of all the headwinds…
 
Bartok5 said:
The only thing that loosened under use were the four Handguard Retaining Screws, which was my fault as I only had them finger-tight for fear of over-torquing the Steel Screws in the Aluminum Threads.

I have invested in 3 different commercial Match Ammo loads for my next round of Test-firing in order to obtain definitive accuracy results (limited, of course, by my ability).

While I too would prefer a flat-stowed, Folding Charging Handle it must be recognized that this will introduce additional cost, complexity, and a potential failure Point to the design where none currently exists. Personally I an content with the fixed CH design. It provides positive purchase in a reasonably low-profile package.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like there's anything preventing a third party manufacturer from creating a folding charging handle, correct? Paging Maple Ridge Armoury...
 
MitchCDN said:
There is a video on you tube showing the accuracy comparison between the other 180b variants from a very trusted source albeit a different shooter than the OP of this thread which could 100 percent change the outcome of the results.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the huntinggearguy vid?

He didn't even get below 1"

I think this gun is great for what it is. Same with the other 180Bs - discount semi autos for the Canadian market. They are not supposed to be super accurate and never will be.

And on CGN - pics or it didn't happen. I don't think there is a semi auto on the "my gun can shoot 5X5 under 1 MOA thread.
 
Ryan.M.Anderson said:
Are you referring to the huntinggearguy vid?

He didn't even get below 1"

I think this gun is great for what it is. Same with the other 180Bs - discount semi autos for the Canadian market. They are not supposed to be super accurate and never will be.

And on CGN - pics or it didn't happen. I don't think there is a semi auto on the "my gun can shoot 5X5 under 1 MOA thread.
Click to expand...

Yes sir, his best was .8 I believe in that video. His results were very decent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom