Forgive me, but... the names are supposed to be confidential, but you leaked it anyway to.... win a pissing contest? All due respect sir...
Sterling Arms International R18 Mk3 Part 1 Review - Specifications and Initial Impressions
- Thread starter Bartok5
- Start date
Forgive me, but... the names are supposed to be confidential, but you leaked it anyway to.... win a pissing contest? All due respect sir...
You are correct. It is a slight down-grade from the Barrel on the $2700 Mk2. To get to the $1800 Mk3 some compromises were necessary, including a less expensive Barrel. If the Barrel cannot meet the minimum 2.5 MOA guarantee on the pre-production test rifles, then presumably the barrel will be upgraded until such time as the accuracy requirement is met through independent testing like mine and Iceman106's.
For those wanting accuracy better than 2.5 MOA, SAI will be publishing the full Barrel specifications and drawings online so that Canadian and foreign Barrel manufacturers can spin up tubes with carbine-length gas systems specifically to fit the R18 Mk3. It should not be an issue to obtain a match-grade barrel once everyone is up and running with the new platform.
For those clamouring for an "independent" source of info on the new rifle, Sierra64 Riflecraft out of St Albert, AB will also appparently be live-fire testing the R18 Mk3 just as soon as the new in-spec Canadian Bolts are ready. Sierra64 is run by Mr Ben Klick, a retired Canadian Army Master Sniper and combat veteran of the Somalia deployment for those curious about his bonafides.
E.T.A. - You can add your own ambi Selector if you so desire. Not everyone (myself included) likes an ambi selector as it frequently interferes with the Trigger Finger of Right-handed firers. The same goes for the Magazine Release. Those wanting an ambi system can easily install one just by swapping out the Magazine Release for a Norgon, Strike Industries, Troy, or Battle Arms Development ambi version, all of which are available from RDSC.
Last edited:
This thread has been a wild ride. Sad to see this level of fighting happening over a rifle and its maker. I suppose tensions are rather high in the community right now.
For those still reading and hoping to get a better idea of what this rifle is really capable of doing, it is quite possible that the Mk3 will be put through testing by us at CFET in the near future.
For those still reading and hoping to get a better idea of what this rifle is really capable of doing, it is quite possible that the Mk3 will be put through testing by us at CFET in the near future.
No, I do not. To my knowledge it has not yet been designed.
Nope, not to win a pissing contest - to address my comments to the specific person I suspected of posting. CSC is a company with multiple employees. To address my comments to "CSC" is tantamount to addressing a room full of people. THAT was my reasoning, along with the fact that James B's name is already public domain, directly associated with his company. Doesn't matter anyways. I did it, he did it, it is done. Let's focus on the RIFLE please.
Please show me the "snarky apprehension" of an unassociated party taking a look at the gun. I mentioned in post 343 that Sierra 64 Riflecraft's proprietor will conduct live testing of the rifle. I also arranged for and mentioned that Iceman106 will be joining me for the live-fire testing as an independent eye. So zero apprehension here.....
Would it not make more sense for CFET to evaluate a pre-production sample so that their input can be incorporated into the production rifles? It is considerably more difficult to incorporate rolling changes once production has commenced....
FOCUS ON THE RIFLE, NOT THE DRAMA!
Last edited:
I literally suggested a few pages back that anyone interested should wait for someone else take a look at the gun on its merits and leave the drama on the table and you took offense to that suggestion and thought I was attacking you.
Quite frankly you're just embarrassing your friend at this point. I was interested in this rifle and it has so much going for it but your behaviour is actively dragging it down.
Whatever. I am trying to keep this thread on track and people like you keep dredging up the drama. You just did it, so please give it a rest already. If you don't like what you see or what I have to say, then CGN is a big place - take a break and come back later. Or don't. I have no control over that, so it is not my concern. As long as people are here askiing questions about the RIFLE itself, I will answer them to the best of my abilty.
My friend is not embarassed by me - I just spoke with him this morning. To the contrary, he is understandably busy with other concerns at the moment, and is both happy and thankful that I am able to assist him by covering off questions on CGN in his absence. A LOT of information has been shared about this new platform here, but despite this some insist on generating unconnected business-related drama. It is both distracting and unnecessary.
FOCUS ON THE RIFLE, NOT THE DRAMA!
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I think at this point it's best to just let this dumpster fire float away. There is no saving it and bringing it back to the original topic sadly.
So long as people keep posting questions about the rifle I will be here to answer what I can. You are absolutely correct that the rest of it is a gross waste of perfectly good electrons.
So how does this rifle compare to something like the FAMAE?
I know Bartok has one so his input would be appreciated
Yes I know the FAMAE costs a fair bit more then what the MK3 does but curious as to his opinion on the matter
I know Bartok has one so his input would be appreciated
Yes I know the FAMAE costs a fair bit more then what the MK3 does but curious as to his opinion on the matter
Well, if we're talking the FAMAE SG540, they both share the 5.56mm cartridge, but that's about where the similarities end. The FAMAE is a Long-Stroke Piston system, adopted from the AK47 and the Stg44 before it. It has an adjustable Gas Block with 2 settings. The R18 Mk3 uses a Short-Stroke Piston system, more akin to the M1 Carbine and popular today on AR180-derivative carbines such as the SIG MCX. It is the MCX that the Mk3 specifically gets the design of its captive internals from, with a direct lineage through the Mk2 back to the AR180B. The Mk3 uses a Self-Regulating Gas Block, which "sips" as much gas as is needed to reliably operate the system and vents the excess.
The FAMAE is sheet steel construction with a workmanlike epoxy-based painted finish over parkerizing. The R18 Mk3 is Type 3 Hardcoat Anodized T7075 Aluminum Alloy with Melonited steel components. Both surface treatments are durable enough in their own right.
The FAMAE is somewhat heavier than the R18, when simillarly equipped with an Arken 1-8x LPVO. The FAMAE takes proprietary Mags unless fitted with a conversion system, whereas thee Mk3 accepts STANAG Mags. I am not sure how sturdy and reliable the FAMAE STANAG Mag conversion is, as many are made of 3D-printed plastic. The propriertary polymer Mags of the SG540 are very well made, however they are expensive and difficult to source in Canada.
The ergonomics of the R18 match those of the SG-540 only if the R18 is retrofitted with an aftermarket Ambi Selector Switch and Mag Release. therwise, the controls of the FAMAE are ambi aside from the Charging Handle. Both Rifles are side-charging, however the R18 Mk3 follows Western convention and places the Charging Handle (CH) on the Left whereas the FAMAE puts it AK-style on the Right. The R18 has an adjustable buttstock for Length of Pull (LOP), whereas the stock SG-540 has a fixed LOP. An adapter is available for the SG540 to use a Zhukov folding/adjustable Buttstock or a factory Folding Buttstock can be sourced. Either route is going to be expensive ($250 for the Zhukov Stock and $150 for the Adapter) wiith the factory Folding Buttstock in particular being extremely rare and pricey on the resale market ($400+).
The R18 Mk3 has a far superior Trigger in the Triggertech Duty cassette that comes standard. The FAMAE Trigger can be tuned so that it functions as a 2-stage trigger, however there is no way to adjust the heavier Trigger Pull Weight of the SG540.
Finally (at least for now), the R18 Mk3 can make good use of the vast AR15 aftermarket for selected parts (eg. Extractors, Ejectors) and accessories (Lights, lasers, grips) with its extensive 7-columns of 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11 O'Clock MLOK slots. In addition, the Mk3 has a full-length Picatinny Top Rail for the mounting of Optics and Laser designators. The FAMAE is extremely limited in terms of aftermarket support and there is virtually nothing on the open market in Canada that will fit the rifle aside from the aforementioned Mag Conversion "Kit" and the occsional (expensive) MLOK Handguard. The FAMAE makes use of a removable, Receiver-length Picatinny Top Rail for Optics mounting.
At the end of the day? I can't tell you which is the "better" platform as I have yet to test-fire the R18 Mk3. My FAMAE is dead-nuts reliable, with zero issues aside from its violent and erratic, AK-like Brass ejection. It is a 2 MOA rifle with 69gr or 75gr factory match ammo and more like 2.5-3 MOA with bulk 55gr PMC Bronze. Extensive live-firing will determine whether the pre-production R18 Mk3 rifle is a solid design or not. I strongly suspect that it will function just fine, given that the operating system and its component parts are all proven in other military and civilian firearms. R18 Mk3 Accuracy is yet to be determined, but is warrantied to be 2.5 MOA with Bulk ammo.
Live-fire testing of the 25x Pre-Production Test Rifles will re-start just as soon as SAI receives properly toleranced (proprietary) Bolts from its Canadian sub-contractor. My Accuracy and Reliability testing will comence at the same time. Results will be passed along in a new thread under the title "R18 Mk3 - Part 2 Performance Review" (or words to that effect).
Last edited:
If they do come out with 7.62x39, I hope they support stanag mags and sell separate uppers. I'm looking forward to the next parts of the review and life fire updates.
Hi Bartok
We entirely agree that it would be easier to incorporate changes pre-production but that is not our purpose. We test production rifles and provide our full report (which doesn´t just cover how the rifle performed but warranty and so forth) so that Canadian consumers have information on what is available for them to buy and how well they stick to their warranty should we need to use it. This means we have to buy a production model. The other thing is that the issues we find in production models tell the consumer just how much R&D or T&E the manufacturer put into the gun or at least what levels of performance the manufacture was willing to produce at the given price point. For example the BCL Siberian was so bad that we had to stop after 4000 rounds and 3 warranty trips but we made sure to mention specific people in the warranty department.
We can´t justify spending $7000 running 6000 rounds through a pre-prod gun to just do SAI´s work for them. Now of course if we were provided a rifle and ammo as a group of shooters have been (it´s worth checking if the ammo was provided, we might have that wrong) we´d happily provide feedback.
Transparency is key to us aswell, if we were to take any pre-prod models and test them we´d need to consider how best to talk about what we recommended vs what was put into action which is something not every manufacturer would be content with.
The best report we can possibly write is the most boring, short and unremarkable one where we have very little to talk about. Why? because that means the gun did what it should.
PinaKaleada
CGN Regular
- Location
- South of most
The results from testing a random production model is infinitely more valuable than a hand picked rifle sent to you from the company.
Sure, I can see both sides of the pre-production/production testing and validation debate. It simply means that consumers will have to wait longer for the CFET test results, and that CFET's recommended improvements may not be immediately inocorporated nto the already running production line. I reckon that would depend how necessary and complex those changes are within the overall production cycle. I'm no maunfacturing engineer, so cannot say how changes affect continued production and vice-versa.
As for SAI sending CFET a "tuned" rifle, that could happen if the company were looking to pad their results regardless of whether the rifle provided is a pre or post-production sample, so I don't see PinaKaleada's point. Unless CFET is buying the rifle with their own funds, based on a random sampling, the potential for tampering is there either way. I am convinced that SAI will provide a standard sample as they are as interested in the test results as the next guy, but who really knows. Perhaps SAI could allow CFET to purchase one randomly at production cost - I dunno the ins and outs of the SAI/CFET arrangement. Not my scene.
Regardless of the specific arrangements, I think the CFET testing is a great idea if it will finally put to rest all of the bizarro "X-files" conspiracy theories and doubts about the new platform. It will either sink or swim on its merits, exactly as it should be. I probably won't wait for the CFET Test results, but I enjoy being an early adopter and tinkering with "new" designs. YMMV.
As for SAI sending CFET a "tuned" rifle, that could happen if the company were looking to pad their results regardless of whether the rifle provided is a pre or post-production sample, so I don't see PinaKaleada's point. Unless CFET is buying the rifle with their own funds, based on a random sampling, the potential for tampering is there either way. I am convinced that SAI will provide a standard sample as they are as interested in the test results as the next guy, but who really knows. Perhaps SAI could allow CFET to purchase one randomly at production cost - I dunno the ins and outs of the SAI/CFET arrangement. Not my scene.
Regardless of the specific arrangements, I think the CFET testing is a great idea if it will finally put to rest all of the bizarro "X-files" conspiracy theories and doubts about the new platform. It will either sink or swim on its merits, exactly as it should be. I probably won't wait for the CFET Test results, but I enjoy being an early adopter and tinkering with "new" designs. YMMV.
