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

[Bartok5]

good review, but seems light on the apparent accuracy and failure to feed issues. note that a stronger recoil spring to fix the feed issue will make that weak ejection you also noted worse, hey. either tolerances are too tight (or needs more lube) or design flaw. more shooting; don't rush to market. imagine the squawk if your gun doesn't run as well (or isn't as accurate) as other canadian-made options at half the price.

In my informed experience, the weak cycling has nothing whatsoever to do with tolerances nor lubrication. As best I can determine, the tolerances within the operating system are appropriate with all moving parts free of fitment issues or interference. There is no discernable tolerance-stacking leading to either binding nor excessive play/slop. Similarly, I have been around the block enough in my 55 trips around the sun with 34 of those in the Army infantry to know how to properly and adequately lubricate a firearm. Thanks for the "pro tip" though....

The problem, as I correctly identified it, is weak Operating Springs which lack the necessary power to positively strip the top round out of a 5-round magazine stack from the Bolt-Catch/Bolt Release position. That's it, that's all. We're not talking rocket-surgery to properly balance an adjustable gas system once adequately stiff Operating Springs have been sourced and installed. The current Springs are adequate when a clean R18 is cycled indoors at room-temperature. Where the problem arises is when the temperature drops, lube wears thin, and/or the action becomes fouled. If there is no reserve of operating power built into the springs (compensated for with increased Gas Operating Pressure), then the rifle will falter at the first opportunity under field operating conditions.

Properly-tensioned Operating Springs paired with an Adjustable Gas Block are the answer to the R18 Mk2's primary identified shortcoming. Period.

[Bartok5]

To quote Bartok5

"So, all things considered, is the juice worth the squeeze? The street price for the Mk2 with the fixed, AR-style Collapsing Buttstock will be approximately $2,600, with the later Mk3 (Zhukov Folder, Ejection Port Cover, QD Handquard) coming in at a few hundred more. Given the relative dearth of any AR-alternatives in this price-range, I think that the R18 hits a strategic “sweet spot” in terms of pricing. What you get for that extra $1,100 over the cost of an WS-MCR are the vastly improved ergonomics of the heavily revised Lower Receiver with its familiar AR-style control suite and 1913 Buttstock interface, a streamlined and improved (eg. Non-Reciprocating) Charging Handle, Upper Receiver, and a decent Barrel/Bolt combination capable of sub-2 MOA with factory Match ammunifion. On top of that, you receive a rifle with attractive aesthetics and a relatively smooth, streamlined appearance. "

Can you please re try the accuracy with a stock trigger because you were getting "sub-2 MOA" with a roughly $300 trigger. This drives the price up from 2600 to 2900 and is not a fair or accurate representation of what the $2600 price tag gets you. Unless this is the trigger that comes with the rifle?

Why would I deliberately compromise my ability to wring maximum accuracy from the test rifles by conducting accuracy testing with the HEAVY, stock, mil-spec trigger? That makes zero sense to me, and is akin to shooting for accuracy with iron sights when a magnified optic is available to you. If you want to try to maximize accuracy after handicapping yourself with a stock mil-spec trigger then by all means go for it. However, that is not how I test for accuracy. Rather, I do so by first eliminating all of the negative variables that I possibly can, to include (first and foremost) a heavy, stock, mil-spec trigger. If you want to achieve maximum accuracy from a Modern Sporting Rifle you are going to have to invest in an upgraded trigger - even if it is only one of those $100 ALG self-lubricating plated Trigger sets. The Canadian-manufactured $300 TriggerTech system happens to be my "go-to" accuracy upgrade. To me, the additional expense on top of the rifle's base price is simply the cost of "tweaking" my rifle to suit my tastes and desires.

If you really want to know how accurately the rifle shoots with the stock trigger? Just add another inch to the size of each group that I recorded yesterday. That ought to get you close....

[700-223]

Bartok5 and JR thanks for providing the rifle, time and effort for the review. Bartok5, I’ll send some $ your way to defray your ammo costs. PM incoming.

JR, any chance you’re sending one of these to Calibre magazine for review? Like many Canadians, I lost my MSR’s to the great boating accident of April 2020. Haven’t made up my mind yet about purchasing a replacement, but like what I see and would enjoy reading more.

[TSE JR]

Bartok5 and JR thanks for providing the rifle, time and effort for the review. Bartok5, I’ll send some $ your way to defray your ammo costs. PM incoming.

JR, any chance you’re sending one of these to Calibre magazine for review? Like many Canadians, I lost my MSR’s to the great boating accident of April 2020. Haven’t made up my mind yet about purchasing a replacement, but like what I see and would enjoy reading more.

We've never been taken up by Calibre for anything to review before, so I do not know but I doubt it.

JR

[MitchCDN]

Why would I deliberately compromise my ability to wring maximum accuracy from the test rifles by conducting accuracy testing with the HEAVY, stock, mil-spec trigger? That makes zero sense to me, and is akin to shooting for accuracy with iron sights when a magnified optic is available to you. If you want to try to maximize accuracy after handicapping yourself with a stock mil-spec trigger then by all means go for it. However, that is not how I test for accuracy. Rather, I do so by first eliminating all of the negative variables that I possibly can, to include (first and foremost) a heavy, stock, mil-spec trigger. If you want to achieve maximum accuracy from a Modern Sporting Rifle you are going to have to invest in an upgraded trigger - even if it is only one of those $100 ALG self-lubricating plated Trigger sets. The Canadian-manufactured $300 TriggerTech system happens to be my "go-to" accuracy upgrade. To me, the additional expense on top of the rifle's base price is simply the cost of "tweaking" my rifle to suit my tastes and desires.

If you really want to know how accurately the rifle shoots with the stock trigger? Just add another inch to the size of each group that I recorded yesterday. That ought to get you close....

Then don’t say a 2600 dollar rifle shoots sub 2 MOA when it doesn’t. A trigger is much different than an optic. Everyone knows they will be installing irons or an optic of some sort as that is aftermarket hardware that doesn’t come with the rifle. The rifle comes with a trigger Some folks want to see stock rifle accuracy tests. In fact every single test I have ever seen on the internet of a rifle is in its stock form unless they are testing the trigger. Of course they too out optics on for the tests but that is understood. Kind of like you need to put gas in the car for it to go but you don’t change the engine before testing it.

Also I don’t want to get into an internet war here and I really thought the stock trigger request was reasonable.

[the radium king]

In my informed experience, the weak cycling has nothing whatsoever to do with tolerances nor lubrication. As best I can determine, the tolerances within the operating system are appropriate with all moving parts free of fitment issues or interference. There is no discernable tolerance-stacking leading to either binding nor excessive play/slop. Similarly, I have been around the block enough in my 55 trips around the sun with 34 of those in the Army infantry to know how to properly and adequately lubricate a firearm. Thanks for the "pro tip" though....

The problem, as I correctly identified it, is weak Operating Springs which lack the necessary power to positively strip the top round out of a 5-round magazine stack from the Bolt-Catch/Bolt Release position. That's it, that's all. We're not talking rocket-surgery to properly balance an adjustable gas system once adequately stiff Operating Springs have been sourced and installed. The current Springs are adequate when a clean R18 is cycled indoors at room-temperature. Where the problem arises is when the temperature drops, lube wears thin, and/or the action becomes fouled. If there is no reserve of operating power built into the springs (compensated for with increased Gas Operating Pressure), then the rifle will falter at the first opportunity under field operating conditions.

Properly-tensioned Operating Springs paired with an Adjustable Gas Block are the answer to the R18 Mk2's primary identified shortcoming. Period.

happy to provide more pro tips ... if ability to cycle in changes with temps then you might be getting into issues with differential contraction of the various materials used. since, as you state, you know how to lube a gun for conditions so that can't be the cause. if that is the case you can increase spring weight to ensure function but would begin to see wear of components. like i said before - more shooting; the wolverine guys lost a lot of market by brining their product to market too soon and without enough rounds through.

[700-223]

Then don’t say a 2600 dollar rifle shoots sub 2 MOA when it doesn’t. A trigger is much different than an optic. Everyone knows they will be installing irons or an optic of some sort as that is aftermarket hardware that doesn’t come with the rifle. The rifle comes with a trigger Some folks want to see stock rifle accuracy tests. In fact every single test I have ever seen on the internet of a rifle is in its stock form unless they are testing the trigger. Of course they too out optics on for the tests but that is understood. Kind of like you need to put gas in the car for it to go but you don’t change the engine before testing it.

Also I don’t want to get into an internet war here and I really thought the stock trigger request was reasonable.

Maybe not unreasonable request, but this is an unpaid review. As the testing methodology is described in the review, I can’t fault him for choosing to test accuracy with an aftermarket trigger. Basically, anyway you like it if you are donating the time and money to do the work. Other than getting a first look, there is no benefit to Bartok5.

Like the idea of the time lapse video for 1000 rounds for reliability and wear.

[MitchCDN]

Maybe not unreasonable request, but this is an unpaid review. As the testing methodology is described in the review, I can’t fault him for choosing to test accuracy with an aftermarket trigger. Basically, anyway you like it if you are donating the time and money to do the work. Other than getting a first look, there is no benefit to Bartok5.

Like the idea of the time lapse video for 1000 rounds for reliability and wear.

I think your sentiment is reasonable and well stated and I appreciate that!

[Bartok5]

Then don’t say a 2600 dollar rifle shoots sub 2 MOA when it doesn’t. A trigger is much different than an optic. Everyone knows they will be installing irons or an optic of some sort as that is aftermarket hardware that doesn’t come with the rifle. The rifle comes with a trigger Some folks want to see stock rifle accuracy tests. In fact every single test I have ever seen on the internet of a rifle is in its stock form unless they are testing the trigger. Of course they too out optics on for the tests but that is understood. Kind of like you need to put gas in the car for it to go but you don’t change the engine before testing it.

Also I don’t want to get into an internet war here and I really thought the stock trigger request was reasonable.

The point that I was trying to make (and evidently failed at) is that you can deliberately handicap your accuracy potential, but to what purpose? Why pick iron sights with their inherent challenges over the simplicity of a suitable optic? Why shoot for accuracy with a stock mil-spec Trigger when there is a world of different and far superior after-market Triggers available? Why shoot bulk ball ammo if affordable match loads are available? And so on, and so forth.

Each of the above variables has a positive or negative impact on accuracy results. I am not interested in making the process any more challenging than it need be. If we can minimize the influence of the individual firer on the accuracy equation, we are left with results that speak more to the mechanical potential of the firearm than the abilities of the firer.. By adopting my preferred aftermarket trigger I am simply minimizing my individual influence on the results, if that makes any sense.

At the end of the day it is my review done in the manner that I believe best serves the interests of the reader. I gave you the specs for the stock mil-spec Trigger and my impressions of it in Part 1 of my review. I'm afraid that will have to suffice until such time as you purchase your own production rifle and conduct your own accuracy testing. My continued testing will be with the TriggerTech installed because it minimizes my personal influence over the accuracy results.

[MitchCDN]

The point that I was trying to make (and evidently failed at) is that you can deliberately handicap your accuracy potential, but to what purpose? Why pick iron sights with their inherent challenges over the simplicity of a suitable optic? Why shoot for accuracy with a stock mil-spec Trigger when there is a world of different and far superior after-market Triggers available? Why shoot bulk ball ammo if affordable match loads are available? And so on, and so forth.

Each of the above variables has a positive or negative impact on accuracy results. I am not interested in making the process any more challenging than it need be. If we can minimize the influence of the individual firer on the accuracy equation, we are left with results that speak more to the mechanical potential of the firearm than the abilities of the firer.. By adopting my preferred aftermarket trigger I am simply minimizing my individual influence on the results, if that makes any sense.

At the end of the day it is my review done in the manner that I believe best serves the interests of the reader. I gave you the specs for the stock mil-spec Trigger and my impressions of it in Part 1 of my review. I'm afraid that will have to suffice until such time as you purchase your own production rifle and conduct your own accuracy testing. My continued testing will be with the TriggerTech installed because it minimizes my personal influence over the accuracy results.

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.