...

Bombsquad68 said:
Honest question, and this is coming from someone with a couple of the WK-180C ordered, but has never handled an AR180 type rifle. Are you blown away with the fact it's non-restricted only or would this hold a candle to an M&P Sport 2 or PSA PA 15 head to head?

I look at a PSA with 4150V barrel (sometimes CHF), 7075 forged reciever, EPT trigger etc and am impressed at the value there, but if you've handled both, how does the $1000-1100 180C hold up against a $600-700 AR-15?
Click to expand...

At that point it becomes a matter of opinion based on customizeability, aftermarket parts availability, track record, cost, blah blah blah etc. Personally so far I think this rifle could shoot as well or better in a competition than an AR-15. It is so simple of a design, yet so effective.
 
driller212 said:
At that point it becomes a matter of opinion based on customizeability, aftermarket parts availability, track record, cost, blah blah blah etc. Personally so far I think this rifle could shoot as well or better in a competition than an AR-15. It is so simple of a design, yet so effective.
Click to expand...

Stoner designed the AR-180/AR-18 as a replacement for the AR-15/M-16 design. It's simpler and cheaper to build and is a very reliable design. The AR-15 will have an accuracy advantage if both were fitted with equal barrels but since I have piston rifles that are capable of 1 MOA or better I doubt the differences in accuracy are going to be enough for most average shooters to notice during regular field shooting and only measurable if shooting from the bench which is not what either rifle was designed to do.

This site has some good info and history of the rifle.

http://www.angelfire.com/sk3/volkarmorycustoms/ar180b.htm
 
My vid is live. Quality will get better once youtube finishes its magic. It should help curb the urge for those waiting. I didn't work hard on it, but I'm not getting paid to do it either :p

[youtube]72Jp-3sNoEc[/youtube]
 
I used mine this last weekend at a service rifle competition. I did the proper break in and then had it zeroed for 100 Metres. Rifle ran flawlessly using tight lar mags and I have tried cmag 5 rounder through it as well. No issues and was hitting the target at 500 using my 55 grain ammo. Trigger is noticeable better after a couple hundred rounds and will only improve I am sure. At this price point I am very satisfied with the rifle. I can wait for fall hunting and hopefully getting some coyotes.
 
Kingjenky said:
Nice review...but I gotta say it is a butt ass ugly rifle.
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

emerson said:
Some of the happiest men I know chose their wives for functionality, not modelling. Nice to see a cheap gun perform well out of the gate.
Click to expand...

Truer words have never been spoken!
Compatibility, Performance, Attributes... And in that order!!! If you mix them up, you do so at your own peril...

Cheers
Jay
 
cr5 said:
Stoner designed the AR-180/AR-18 as a replacement for the AR-15/M-16 design. It's simpler and cheaper to build and is a very reliable design. The AR-15 will have an accuracy advantage if both were fitted with equal barrels but since I have piston rifles that are capable of 1 MOA or better I doubt the differences in accuracy are going to be enough for most average shooters to notice during regular field shooting and only measurable if shooting from the bench which is not what either rifle was designed to do.

This site has some good info and history of the rifle.

http://www.angelfire.com/sk3/volkarmorycustoms/ar180b.htm
Click to expand...


AR18 was designed to work with lower manufacturing capabilities. The twin guide rod design was conveniently borrowed by the SIG MCX., but in the MCX the bolt carrier is riding on the receiver on 4 touching points like the AR and it doesn't depends on the guide rods for alignment . AR18 BGC was hung on the 2 guide rods, and the rails are more like "guides". It is done this way so that tolerance could be more sloppy with the wielding construction. The end result is that the bolt to extension mating is more sloppy than an AR, or other modern designs like SCAR. It is not a design for utmost accuracy, but it is easier to make.

The open slot for the charging handle to move back, without a cover like in the FNC, SG55X and the original AR18, also means sand and grit can get into the lower receiver. It is the same problem with the AK, and what stops an AK from working if the safety is not on. People just need to be careful and don't think the rifle is impregnable
 
greentips said:
AR18 was designed to work with lower manufacturing capabilities. The twin guide rod design was conveniently borrowed by the SIG MCX., but in the MCX the bolt carrier is riding on the receiver on 4 touching points like the AR and it doesn't depends on the guide rods for alignment . AR18 BGC was hung on the 2 guide rods, and the rails are more like "guides". It is done this way so that tolerance could be more sloppy with the wielding construction. The end result is that the bolt to extension mating is more sloppy than an AR, or other modern designs like SCAR. It is not a design for utmost accuracy, but it is easier to make.

The open slot for the charging handle to move back, without a cover like in the FNC, SG55X and the original AR18, also means sand and grit can get into the lower receiver. It is the same problem with the AK, and what stops an AK from working if the safety is not on. People just need to be careful and don't think the rifle is impregnable
Click to expand...

Exactly. I also have a problem with the mall ninjas here wanting the most reliable rifle in the world for their couple of times a year they hit the range with it lol

If you want utmost reliability and "impregnability" you have to pay for it generally speaking. I personally have no issue with the openings in the receiver as I don't plan on shoving a bunch of sand and gravel into it haha. This rifle was designed to be affordable and functional, and adding dust covers would have increased the cost significantly.
 
driller212 said:
Exactly. I also have a problem with the mall ninjas here wanting the most reliable rifle in the world for their couple of times a year they hit the range with it lol

If you want utmost reliability and "impregnability" you have to pay for it generally speaking. I personally have no issue with the openings in the receiver as I don't plan on shoving a bunch of sand and gravel into it haha. This rifle was designed to be affordable and functional, and adding dust covers would have increased the cost significantly.
Click to expand...

Yup, I love my 180B-2, it's simple, reliable, and easy to clean. The large openings aren't really a problem for me as a civilian, I don't foolishly throw my rifles in the dirt and then shoot them, and since no one is ever shooting back at me I don't have to worry about it if I do get something inside it, I'll crack it open and wipe it out before shooting it again. Even if rifles have loose enough tollerances to shoot with dirt in them it's still accelerating wear on the moving parts so I see no point in abusing my rifles for no reason.

I wasn't going to buy one of these but the changes made look good and it will let me keep the original with a lower round count.
I might need to sell a 223 semi one of these days, I was showing my rifles to a visitor the other day and realized I have 4 non restricted 223's and 3 non restricted 308 class semi's, it's kinda getting out of hand and I've still got a Modern Sporter receiver set to buy, then add one of these. Getting to where it will be true when my buddies say I have enough rifles and ammo to outfit a small army :p
 
cr5 said:
Yup, I love my 180B-2, it's simple, reliable, and easy to clean. The large openings aren't really a problem for me as a civilian, I don't foolishly throw my rifles in the dirt and then shoot them, and since no one is ever shooting back at me I don't have to worry about it if I do get something inside it, I'll crack it open and wipe it out before shooting it again. Even if rifles have loose enough tollerances to shoot with dirt in them it's still accelerating wear on the moving parts so I see no point in abusing my rifles for no reason.

I wasn't going to buy one of these but the changes made look good and it will let me keep the original with a lower round count.
I might need to sell a 223 semi one of these days, I was showing my rifles to a visitor the other day and realized I have 4 non restricted 223's and 3 non restricted 308 class semi's, it's kinda getting out of hand and I've still got a Modern Sporter receiver set to buy, then add one of these. Getting to where it will be true when my buddies say I have enough rifles and ammo to outfit a small army :p
Click to expand...

Can always just plug the charging handle hole you aren't using as well.

I just use leftover Magpul MLOK Rail Covers on mine.

https://imgur.com/a/mmjZ3z7
 
Bombsquad68 said:
Honest question, and this is coming from someone with a couple of the WK-180C ordered, but has never handled an AR180 type rifle. Are you blown away with the fact it's non-restricted only or would this hold a candle to an M&P Sport 2 or PSA PA 15 head to head?

I look at a PSA with 4150V barrel (sometimes CHF), 7075 forged reciever, EPT trigger etc and am impressed at the value there, but if you've handled both, how does the $1000-1100 180C hold up against a $600-700 AR-15?
Click to expand...


Asking the real questions here.. I wish I could tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom