Sterling Arms International R18 Mk3 Part 1 Review - Specifications and Initial Impressions

Bartok5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether preproduction or from early series manufacture, it is a single piece being tested. Major design or production errors should be evident, but experience with a larger sample is more indicative. I know an individual who worked for a large manufacturer who destruction tested a hundred-odd rifles. It took Kalashnikov's design bureau a year to refine the design of the AK trigger group. I don't know that any Canadian manufacturer of these 180B based rifles is able to invest in the time and money to do exhaustive pre-release development and testing. The potential sales volume is just not there in the Canadian market. Sell 5,000 rifles with a net return of $500 each - that's two and a half million bucks. Not chump change, but in this day and age it isn't all that much.
You really have to give credit to those trying to design and manufacture these products considering the hurdles in their path.
I personally have no interest in the personal politics and intrigue that has been derailing this thread.
Let's keep the discussion focused on the rifle. There is the potential for this rifle to fill a niche in the market, and making it available would be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Bartok5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m uninformed about this but does CFET buy the test guns with their own funds?
 
Roog said:
Mr Bartok. Do you know what kind of mags the 7.62x39 version will use?
Click to expand...

That would be a tough call.
Guys like me with AK mags would like to put them to use, as we can't use them on the 12x's for the foreseeable future.
But I do understand the desire for the 10 rounder (762x39) AR pattern mags to be used.
 
PinaKaleada said:
I’m uninformed about this but does CFET buy the test guns with their own funds?
Click to expand...
We receive donations on patreon to help fund the buying of ammo/rifles to test, as well as donated ammo.

When it comes to donated rifles we are very careful as there is the obvious opportunity for a manufacturer to hand select a rifle to be tested.

At present, The only donated rifle we have tested was the BCL Siberian that was donated to us by a retailer (BCL was not aware of this until the rifle was already in hand). At least to my memory.
 
zupermann said:
That would be a tough call.
Guys like me with AK mags would like to put them to use, as we can't use them on the 12x's for the foreseeable future.
But I do understand the desire for the 10 rounder (762x39) AR pattern mags to be used.
Click to expand...
Cheap easily available 5 and 10rnd magazines that will fit in the existing mag well?
Or AK mags and a 95% new gun?

That makes for a quick cost benefit analysis.
 
Bartok5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's great news. I can wholly vouch for Ben Klick. He's a great guy, knows his 💩
 
I was rather impressed with the quality of coating/ finish the various internal metal components when you showed me the pre production model Bartok. To the naked eye it looked like HKish quality, vs what im used to seeing on guns like the WK180 or WS MCR etc or most canadian made cope guns.
 
Bartok5 said:
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).

View attachment 831340

View attachment 831341
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed info!
Just wanting to justify getting another 5.56 rifle, I have the SG540-1 I think it is and I do like it a lot
was curious how the R-18 stacks up compared to it
 
gutinater said:
I was rather impressed with the quality of coating/ finish the various internal metal components when you showed me the pre production model Bartok. To the naked eye it looked like HKish quality, vs what im used to seeing on guns like the WK180 or WS MCR etc or most canadian made cope guns.
Click to expand...
What can I say? You have a thoroughly-experienced eye, having worked in that end of the industry. You are most welcome to help me with test-firing of the Mk 3 at CHAS once I get the new Canadian Bolt. Keep in touch to coordinate a day.
 
Gunnerlove said:
Cheap easily available 5 and 10rnd magazines that will fit in the existing mag well?
Or AK mags and a 95% new gun?

That makes for a quick cost benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

Excellent point on the magwell size and design cost savings!!
But I think J.Cox expressed a desire to sell/distribute in the USA eventually, where AK mags are cheap and highly regarded.
I wonder about the pros and cons for an AK mag model for that market, or for Europe.
 
MistyMountainSupply said:
They always disclose it, as far as I am aware they have paid for every firearm they have tested (unless they've said otherwise and I missed it) and have someone order it that no one is familiar with, to ensure it's not handpicked.
Click to expand...
That's correct.

- we bought the WK181
- we were lent the BCL Siberian new from a retailer

We do not accept production firearms from manufacturers.

We do accept factory ammunition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom