Hey Guys,
Well, after many years of procrastination, I finally broke down and picked up an original Armalite AR-180. I've toyed with them on and off over the past 20 years, but never got serious for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the AR-18 was never adopted by an established military force. Yes, they were very popular with the Irish Republican Army (the "Widowmaker"), but they never found favour with any reputable military. Second, the AR-18s and AR-180s that I handled over the years always struck me (perhaps naively) as being overly cheap and flimsy. More on that in a moment, but in hindsight I an not ashamed to state that I have since revised my opinion of Armalite's "red-headed step-child".
I should state from the outset that I have handled many an Armalite AR-18/180 over the past 25 years - back in the day when the select-fire 12(2) 18s were still fairly common, and the 12(5) 180s sold over the counter to anyone with $700 in their pocket. I toyed with the idea of picking up a 180 as far back as 1985, but the license-built Japanese Howa-built examples that I kept running into were less than impressive. I'm not just talking about the rough "utilitarian" appearance, but very sloppy fit and finish, rattly plastic furniture, floppy folding stock lock-up, etc. Not to mention hugely garish "HOWA MACHINE FACTORY" markings all down the left side of the upper receiver. Yecchhhh!
At the same time, I had the pleasure of putting several hundred rounds down-range through an original Armalite Costa-Mesa factory AR-18 (select-fire), and found the rifle to be a surprising delight. In my mind at the time (circa 1994) it was everything that the AR-15/M-16/C-series should have been. I was very impressed. More positive bolt-closure, gas-piston-driven action, equal ergonomics, etc. Pretty darned cool, even if it did look like an apprentice welder's term-project.
Then there were the Sterling England manufactured AR-180's. They were the last licensed manufacturer to enter the game, and their AR-180s reportedly fell somewhere between the original Costa Mesa guns (of which only a few thousand were made) and the Howa version (which was much rougher). I handled quite a few Sterlings over the years, and was never that impressed. Spotty bluing, rough welds, spongy handguards, floppy butt-stocks, etc.
From what I've read though, Sterling got their act together as time went on. As the last licensed manufacturer of the original AR-18/180 design, they made several improvements to the rifle over their 15-odd years of production (ending in the mid-1980's). Improvements included tightening the upper/lower receiver interface, strengthening the plastic furniture, tightening up the folding stock's locking mechanism, etc.
Which brings us to the present, with me finally picking up an AR-180. Yeah, it is a "paperweight" thanks to the current SAP-refusal idiocy. But the price was certainly right, and this was the one readily-available Armalite design that I was still missing from my collection. Handling it again, I was reminded of the fact that "form follows function", and in the case of this particular late-model Sterling (one of the last 2500 produced in the mid 1980's), they had undergone significant structural improvement. There is less upper/lower receiver play than most of my AR-15 style rifles. The folding stock actually locks-up tight. The action is very smooth and forceful. There is no wobble nor "give" in the rigidity of the handguards. In other words, it is a very sturdy and lightweight 5.56mm rifle. I could do without the blued finish, but that is how they all came from the factory. Don't ask me why, when parkerizing is no more expensive. Who need's nicely blued spot-welds?!?!
Now that I own one and have enjoyed some "quality time" with it, I am more impressed than ever. I bought this particular AR-180 because it was ridiculously cheap (even for a post-SAP paperweight), in near-mint condition (less than 100 rds by my estimation), and because I didn't have an example of the design in my collection. But now that I actually have one in-hand? I am surprised to admit that is a very well-designed and capable rifle. Yeah, the AR-180 is ugly as sin - like I said earlier, "form follows function". But it is functional in the extreme. Furthermore, judging by my several hundred rounds through a select-fire AR-18 many years ago, the design is very, very sound in terms of pure performance.
The AR-18/180 series are renowned for their reliability and exemplary accuracy despite their stamped (including the trigger components) and welded manufacture. Go figure. The Armalite crew pushed the AR-180 as the superior successor to the AR-15 series, but were shut down because the latter had already been type-classified by the US Airforce and Army. More's the pity, because I am now convinced that had it enjoyed the same developmental "love and attention", the AR-180 design would have far out-performed the direct gas-impingement AR-15 series. Which at the end of the day was always intended for much larger tolerances associated with the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. It comes as no surprise to me that the AR-18's basic design has been copied almost verbatim for several current-issue military rifles/carbines including the (poorly executed) SA-80 and the more successfull G-36.
Pros?
- Piston-driven action which does not "crap where it eats".
- Very ergonomic - akin to the AR-15 series, but with the addition of an ambi selector switch. It "feels right" for a right-handed shooter, but less so for a lefty. The cocking handle is accessible (extends above the receiver's top), but the mag-catch is a "righty" affair.
- Hard-chromed bolt. Not that it ever gets very dirty thanks to the piston gas system.
- Bolt-Carrier rides on twin "guide rods" with action springs. No requirement for the bolt-carrier to contact the upper receiver, resulting in generous tolerances for foreign matter and fouling. Minimal friction amongst the working parts of the action.
- Above system allows a truly folding stock for ease of storage (but lack of adjustable length of pull associated with wearing of body armour).
- Very "snappy" action, which leaves no doubt that a round has been chambered. Fixed cocking lever acts as postive forward assist - no need for a secondary system. However, fixed cocking handle reciprocates with bolt-travel.
- Cheap to manufacture, and surprisingly "solid" (eg. minimal play between components) despite stamped and welded manufacture.
Cons?
- Fixed, reciprocating cocking handle - could catch on kit, even though it is situated on the right side of the receiver away from right-handed firer's LBV.
- Folding stock hinge and lock-up system (two vertical spring-loaded detent pins) is comparatively weak and somewhat awkward to manipulate. The FAL system is far superior, but then again I've seen worse....
- Trigger mech is comprised of stamped sheet-metal. As a result, the trigger-pull is a bit heavier and grittier compared to an AR-15.
- Blued finish. What were they thinking, even back in the 1960's? Humidity? Not good.
Accounting for all of the above, I am very impressed with the basic design of the AR-18/180 family. Considering that the design has seen only incremental (mostly strength/fit) improvement since the 1960's, this rifle easily holds its own against modern competing designs. Had it benefitted from the same 25 years of continual improvement that the AR-15 series has? I am firmly convinced that the AR-18/180 would have been predominant. I mean really, what's not to like (besides appearances)? As a basic infantry rifle it is reliable, rugged, cheap to manufacture, and eminently capable of performing the required function. Truth be told, I would have no qualms about carrying one in harm's way. I strongly suspect that it would tolerate the talcum sand of our current operating evironments far better than the "C" series of weapons that we currently employ - replete with their comparably tight tolerances, etc.
In hindsight based on long-delayed ownership, it is no surprise to me that the basic operating system of the AR-18/180 has been adopted for numerous current-issue military firearms. The gas system is a model of simplicity and function. Yeah, the SA-80 serves as an example of "how to screw up a good thing". But the faults of the SA-80 have far more to do with its "re-design" and manufacture than the basic operating system. The HK G36 provides a suitable counterpoint (polymer construction notwithstanding). For my money, the basic AR-18/180 is a very capable weapon.
OK, enough of the subjective pontificating. Here are a couple of pics to stimulate conversation:
Right Side:
"
Right Side (Stock folded):
Left Side Receiver:
By all means, if you have something (useful) to add about the AR-18/180 series, then please chip in. I for one, am suddenly pretty enamoured with the design. Yeah, it could use a few "tweaks" which the AR-180B didn't necessarily provide. But that is in the context of a design that hasn't much changed since the 1960s. For what it is, the AR-18/180 is "OK" by me....
Cheers,
Mark C
Well, after many years of procrastination, I finally broke down and picked up an original Armalite AR-180. I've toyed with them on and off over the past 20 years, but never got serious for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the AR-18 was never adopted by an established military force. Yes, they were very popular with the Irish Republican Army (the "Widowmaker"), but they never found favour with any reputable military. Second, the AR-18s and AR-180s that I handled over the years always struck me (perhaps naively) as being overly cheap and flimsy. More on that in a moment, but in hindsight I an not ashamed to state that I have since revised my opinion of Armalite's "red-headed step-child".
I should state from the outset that I have handled many an Armalite AR-18/180 over the past 25 years - back in the day when the select-fire 12(2) 18s were still fairly common, and the 12(5) 180s sold over the counter to anyone with $700 in their pocket. I toyed with the idea of picking up a 180 as far back as 1985, but the license-built Japanese Howa-built examples that I kept running into were less than impressive. I'm not just talking about the rough "utilitarian" appearance, but very sloppy fit and finish, rattly plastic furniture, floppy folding stock lock-up, etc. Not to mention hugely garish "HOWA MACHINE FACTORY" markings all down the left side of the upper receiver. Yecchhhh!
At the same time, I had the pleasure of putting several hundred rounds down-range through an original Armalite Costa-Mesa factory AR-18 (select-fire), and found the rifle to be a surprising delight. In my mind at the time (circa 1994) it was everything that the AR-15/M-16/C-series should have been. I was very impressed. More positive bolt-closure, gas-piston-driven action, equal ergonomics, etc. Pretty darned cool, even if it did look like an apprentice welder's term-project.
Then there were the Sterling England manufactured AR-180's. They were the last licensed manufacturer to enter the game, and their AR-180s reportedly fell somewhere between the original Costa Mesa guns (of which only a few thousand were made) and the Howa version (which was much rougher). I handled quite a few Sterlings over the years, and was never that impressed. Spotty bluing, rough welds, spongy handguards, floppy butt-stocks, etc.
From what I've read though, Sterling got their act together as time went on. As the last licensed manufacturer of the original AR-18/180 design, they made several improvements to the rifle over their 15-odd years of production (ending in the mid-1980's). Improvements included tightening the upper/lower receiver interface, strengthening the plastic furniture, tightening up the folding stock's locking mechanism, etc.
Which brings us to the present, with me finally picking up an AR-180. Yeah, it is a "paperweight" thanks to the current SAP-refusal idiocy. But the price was certainly right, and this was the one readily-available Armalite design that I was still missing from my collection. Handling it again, I was reminded of the fact that "form follows function", and in the case of this particular late-model Sterling (one of the last 2500 produced in the mid 1980's), they had undergone significant structural improvement. There is less upper/lower receiver play than most of my AR-15 style rifles. The folding stock actually locks-up tight. The action is very smooth and forceful. There is no wobble nor "give" in the rigidity of the handguards. In other words, it is a very sturdy and lightweight 5.56mm rifle. I could do without the blued finish, but that is how they all came from the factory. Don't ask me why, when parkerizing is no more expensive. Who need's nicely blued spot-welds?!?!
Now that I own one and have enjoyed some "quality time" with it, I am more impressed than ever. I bought this particular AR-180 because it was ridiculously cheap (even for a post-SAP paperweight), in near-mint condition (less than 100 rds by my estimation), and because I didn't have an example of the design in my collection. But now that I actually have one in-hand? I am surprised to admit that is a very well-designed and capable rifle. Yeah, the AR-180 is ugly as sin - like I said earlier, "form follows function". But it is functional in the extreme. Furthermore, judging by my several hundred rounds through a select-fire AR-18 many years ago, the design is very, very sound in terms of pure performance.
The AR-18/180 series are renowned for their reliability and exemplary accuracy despite their stamped (including the trigger components) and welded manufacture. Go figure. The Armalite crew pushed the AR-180 as the superior successor to the AR-15 series, but were shut down because the latter had already been type-classified by the US Airforce and Army. More's the pity, because I am now convinced that had it enjoyed the same developmental "love and attention", the AR-180 design would have far out-performed the direct gas-impingement AR-15 series. Which at the end of the day was always intended for much larger tolerances associated with the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. It comes as no surprise to me that the AR-18's basic design has been copied almost verbatim for several current-issue military rifles/carbines including the (poorly executed) SA-80 and the more successfull G-36.
Pros?
- Piston-driven action which does not "crap where it eats".
- Very ergonomic - akin to the AR-15 series, but with the addition of an ambi selector switch. It "feels right" for a right-handed shooter, but less so for a lefty. The cocking handle is accessible (extends above the receiver's top), but the mag-catch is a "righty" affair.
- Hard-chromed bolt. Not that it ever gets very dirty thanks to the piston gas system.
- Bolt-Carrier rides on twin "guide rods" with action springs. No requirement for the bolt-carrier to contact the upper receiver, resulting in generous tolerances for foreign matter and fouling. Minimal friction amongst the working parts of the action.
- Above system allows a truly folding stock for ease of storage (but lack of adjustable length of pull associated with wearing of body armour).
- Very "snappy" action, which leaves no doubt that a round has been chambered. Fixed cocking lever acts as postive forward assist - no need for a secondary system. However, fixed cocking handle reciprocates with bolt-travel.
- Cheap to manufacture, and surprisingly "solid" (eg. minimal play between components) despite stamped and welded manufacture.
Cons?
- Fixed, reciprocating cocking handle - could catch on kit, even though it is situated on the right side of the receiver away from right-handed firer's LBV.
- Folding stock hinge and lock-up system (two vertical spring-loaded detent pins) is comparatively weak and somewhat awkward to manipulate. The FAL system is far superior, but then again I've seen worse....
- Trigger mech is comprised of stamped sheet-metal. As a result, the trigger-pull is a bit heavier and grittier compared to an AR-15.
- Blued finish. What were they thinking, even back in the 1960's? Humidity? Not good.
Accounting for all of the above, I am very impressed with the basic design of the AR-18/180 family. Considering that the design has seen only incremental (mostly strength/fit) improvement since the 1960's, this rifle easily holds its own against modern competing designs. Had it benefitted from the same 25 years of continual improvement that the AR-15 series has? I am firmly convinced that the AR-18/180 would have been predominant. I mean really, what's not to like (besides appearances)? As a basic infantry rifle it is reliable, rugged, cheap to manufacture, and eminently capable of performing the required function. Truth be told, I would have no qualms about carrying one in harm's way. I strongly suspect that it would tolerate the talcum sand of our current operating evironments far better than the "C" series of weapons that we currently employ - replete with their comparably tight tolerances, etc.
In hindsight based on long-delayed ownership, it is no surprise to me that the basic operating system of the AR-18/180 has been adopted for numerous current-issue military firearms. The gas system is a model of simplicity and function. Yeah, the SA-80 serves as an example of "how to screw up a good thing". But the faults of the SA-80 have far more to do with its "re-design" and manufacture than the basic operating system. The HK G36 provides a suitable counterpoint (polymer construction notwithstanding). For my money, the basic AR-18/180 is a very capable weapon.
OK, enough of the subjective pontificating. Here are a couple of pics to stimulate conversation:
Right Side:
Right Side (Stock folded):
Left Side Receiver:
By all means, if you have something (useful) to add about the AR-18/180 series, then please chip in. I for one, am suddenly pretty enamoured with the design. Yeah, it could use a few "tweaks" which the AR-180B didn't necessarily provide. But that is in the context of a design that hasn't much changed since the 1960s. For what it is, the AR-18/180 is "OK" by me....
Cheers,
Mark C
