The R18 Mk2 Review Pt 2 Live Fire Reliabllity and Accuracy Results
- Thread starter Bartok5
- Start date
- Status
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.
This thread is for discussion of the new rifle, so is (in my estimation) a great place to waste time! That said, what is this TSE "list" you speak of, and how does one get their name on it?!?
Last edited:
How about 5k. Let's put your money where your mouth is. Let's say the cost of a new APC.
You obviously can't read so there's no point in furthering discourse with you.
You have no cut off point? 4 to 5 MOA is good then?
Not everyone is using these for pop can shooting, or whatever.
If nobody cared about accuracy the why all the aftermarket parts that enhance accuracy?
Barrels,triggers etc?
I think these guns shooting 2 ,3MOA are acceptable .
But if you start adding good triggers, good barrels ,etc then 1 MOA should be doable with good components.
I’ve owned them all pretty much and with the right hand loads, they’re all capable of MOA ish.
God knows I’ve spent a small fortune on reloading/shooting the Xlr/MS/Jard/su16, and could only get MOA.
If I recall The couple of MS I’ve owned were shooting a little Les than MOA, but not constantly enough for me to call it a consistent sub 1 MOA rifle.
I’m sure there are hand loaders who are way more anal than me, who could do better.
I’m sure this is a great off the shelf rifle for the plinkers,3 gunners but for me , I’d rather a sort of partially built set.
I’d like to be able to choose my own barrel/ trigger.
I don’t really care about the rest.
I’ve settled for that.
brownbear53
CGN Regular
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
Let him be, he's just mad he cant afford the APC, and the fact that he has now observed how the R18 mk2 is just a polished wk180
xD
Appreciated for spending tons of your time on testing and writing up. I would think the info you passed is fair enough and sufficient for the people who willing to buy. I got the following response from TSE for “list”
“ At this time we are not taking pre-orders, however I am keeping a list of people interested. If you wanted to provide me with your name and phone number I am more than happy to add you to the list.
Once we have production rifles available to sell we will be contacting those on our list to confirm order at that time.
We do not yet have a firm launch date, however it can be expected within the next week or two.
Thanks again for your interest. “
Let's do 250 let's be reasonable.
5X5 all under 1 MOA with no fliers allowed. Find a 3rd party witness and I will pay them $50 to meet you at the range unless you are in YYC.
Cold bore included.
You want 1 attempt or 2?
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.
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:
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 it’s a winner.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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
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
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.
- Status
