Sterling Arms R18 MK3

These look like some really positive, substantive changes. Not sure I'm a fan of the carbine-ish gas port placement but if it shoots then who cares I suppose. The Mk2 seemed to be plagued with mediocre accuracy, hopefully this iteration is an improvement.

I'll definitely be watching this one.
 
DaveMachine said:
These look like some really positive, substantive changes. Not sure I'm a fan of the carbine-ish gas port placement but if it shoots then who cares I suppose. The Mk2 seemed to be plagued with mediocre accuracy, hopefully this iteration is an improvement.

I'll definitely be watching this one.
Click to expand...
The Carbine-length Gas System is specifically intended to improve accuracy by reducing the Barrel-whip formerly created by the Mk2's multi-part, Rifle-length Piston slamming back and forth. The multi-part nature of the Piston, with its built-in "flex" (slop) meant that every operating cycle occurred with a slightly different degree of rearwards force, further exacerbating the basic Barrel-whip problem.
 
Last edited:
Certainly looks slick, though I wonder what the barrels are gonna be like. At this price point I'm not expecting it to be CHF, but it would be nice to have it as an option.
 
Cross94 said:
Certainly looks slick, though I wonder what the barrels are gonna be like. At this price point I'm not expecting it to be CHF, but it would be nice to have it as an option.
Click to expand...
The Lockhart Raven seems to have set the current standard for accurate, conventionally button-rifled Barrels on a Canadian-designed semi-automatic rifle. If LTAC can do it on the Raven (albeit with an Internal-Piston design versus Short-Stroke Piston), then the Sterling R18 Mk3 ought to be able to come close to the same standard. Watch and shoot. Firing the forthcoming Test Rifles for accuracy will tell the tale in the next month or two.....
 
I wasn't impressed with the Mk2s accuracy, or more importantly, its mediocre barrel quality for the price of the rifle.
But that was easily remedied with an easily obtainable aftermarket =/> 18.5" AR barrel with a rifle length gas hole and bog standard .75" diameter gas block journal. That rifle now toes the line.

This Mk3 looks promising, as long as the cost savings are not impacting on the quality of the barrel...
Maybe they can offer a 'standard' barrel and a 'DMR' or "match' upgrade?
 
beltfed said:
I wasn't impressed with the Mk2s accuracy, or more importantly, its mediocre barrel quality for the price of the rifle.
But that was easily remedied with an easily obtainable aftermarket =/> 18.5" AR barrel with a rifle length gas hole and bog standard .75" diameter gas block journal. That rifle now toes the line.

This Mk3 looks promising, as long as the cost savings are not impacting on the quality of the barrel...
Maybe they can offer a 'standard' barrel and a 'DMR' or "match' upgrade?
Click to expand...

I should be in a position to report on the Mk 3's initial accuracy "out of the box" so to speak, when I receive my promised Test Rifle. When that will be, I cannot say for certain.

JR Cox, as the principal designer of the R18 for Sterling Arms, seems to be placing an emphasis on increased accuracy over the Mk 2 with deliberate design aspects of the Mk3. For instance, the adoption of a Carbine-length, Short-Stroke Piston is specifically intended to reduce the Rifle-length Piston's interference with Barrel Harmonics. This necessitated the use of a heavier than desired Barrel on the Mk2, however even that was insufficient to mitigate the long Piston's interference with the Barrel Harmonics, negatively affecting accuracy. The use of a shorter, stiffer multi-part Piston will reduce harmonic intereference with the Barrel, thereby maximizing its inherent accuracy on the Mk3. The Mk3 Barrel will be a thinner profile than that used on the Mk2, thereby contributing to the overall weight reduction of more than 1/2 lb between the two versions of the rifle.

The cost savings which allow an MSRP $900 less than that of the R18 Mk2 are being realized through international sourcing of component parts. The T7075 Receivers are produced on state-of-the-art CNC robotic machinery to ISO standards in Turkey, for instance. The Gas blocks are sourced from another country. And so on, and so forth. Although off-shore sourcing of parts can lead to supply chain issues, Sterling Arms International are enthused by the cost savings possible by going this route. They intend to pass those savings directly on to the consumer, hence the very competitive $1800 price-point for the R18 Mk3. A superior design, built from better raw materials (T7075 Aluminum, vice softer 6061), machined to tighter tolerances, costing $900 less than its predecessor. So, what's not to like?
 
Last edited:
SAI has quoted producing 200 a month.

I´m curious if they can increase production quickly enough to meet demand if the $100 lower price and better perception puts them in the "go to" position that the WK180 used to hold for first time buyers
 
I understand there is 'no free lunch' and everything is a trade off.
Here's hoping they use properly stress relieved, quality barrels.

I'd be interested in taking one of the pre-production ones for a SR shoot...James - if you read this....hint, hint.
 
My biggest question is will a mk3 upper fit on a mk2 lower? I have been very happy with my mk2 for years and thousands of rds. If 12.5 uppers would be come available that fit on mk2 lowers im sure sai would sell lots of them.
 
Scatter.John said:
My biggest question is will a mk3 upper fit on a mk2 lower? I have been very happy with my mk2 for years and thousands of rds. If 12.5 uppers would be come available that fit on mk2 lowers im sure sai would sell lots of them.
Click to expand...
I believe this is the case, as the lower has to remain unchanged to allow use of the same FRT and avoid the need for Crypro-style five round proprietary mags.
 
Ustauk said:
I believe this is the case, as the lower has to remain unchanged to allow use of the same FRT and avoid the need for Crypro-style five round proprietary mags.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. But also my hope is that sterling will sell uppers separately of the lowers.
 
Ustauk said:
I believe this is the case, as the lower has to remain unchanged to allow use of the same FRT and avoid the need for Crypro-style five round proprietary mags.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your information regarding the requirement for Lower Receivers to remain strictly unchanged from one firearm version to the next? I ask because the R18 Mk3 Lower is significantly different from the Mk2. It is made of a different alloy, it now has an ambidextrous Bolt Catch/Release, a protective Ridge around the Magazine Release Button, much cleaner lines, and so forth. It therefore stands to reason that the Mk3 Takedown Pins MAY be in different locations than those of the Mk2 rifle. I am not saying that they ARE in different locations, just that they COULD BE - subject to confirmation, of course. I do not currently have that information, but will confirm compatibility between the Mk2 and MK3 Receivers once I receive my Test Rifle. Meanwhile, let's get to the bottom of this business regarding the sacrosanct nature of Lower Receivers insofar as subsequent variants are concerned....

Source?
 
Last edited:
I had an opportunity to handle one of these at TACCOM 2024. My overall impression was actually "slightly disappointed" - the Sterling Arms R18 MkII that I picked up and handled at TACCOM 2022 felt sturdier and I actually preferred the older, larger charging handle. I don't know if the stock they had mounted on the display model at TACCOM 2024 is the stock they intend to sell it with, but it felt loose and wobbly and on the particular model I was using, the selector switch was stiff to the point that I thought it had a 45 degree throw at first - you really had to /push/ it through to 90 degrees. I mentioned this to the sales rep there and he said that he agreed that it was unusually stiff and they would get it looked at.

Now, all of these things are possibly unique to one instance of the rifle, but in my mind, if you bring a rifle to a trade show, it should exemplify your quality standards. I liked the feel of the Sterling R18 Mk II - it felt well assembled and machined. When I picked up the Mk III this past Saturday, it felt loose, and a number of components rattled when I shook the rifle - my general impression was that it was not as well-made as the Mk II.

Again, it could be just a one-off, or maybe I'm being overly critical. Other people may have their own observations. I did not have the time or opportunity to really get into the rifle - so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

I will add that I want SAI to succeed, like all Canadian manufacturers (more choice = more competition, more competition = better quality eventually), so I hope this was just a bad impression and not representative of the quality of the Mk III as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Still hunting for a good semi auto rifle in 5.56. I had a gen 1 wk180 that was straight trash, sold it at a loss. Picked up a BCL Siberian and to the surprise of no one, it was also trash. I flip flopped between the x95 and the Raven. Grabbed a x95 and discovered I absolutely HATE bullpups. I will keep it because it is really cool and reliable but the question is, do I order a raven or hold out for some of the new offerings coming to the table. Crypto, R18 MK3, Gen 2 Templar.....
 
Bartok5 said:
Where are you getting your information regarding the requirement for Lower Receivers to remain strictly unchanged from one firearm version to the next? I ask because the R18 Mk3 Lower is significantly different from the Mk2. It is made of a different alloy, it now has an ambidextrous Bolt Catch/Release, a protective Ridge around the Magazine Release Button, much cleaner lines, and so forth. It therefore stands to reason that the Mk3 Takedown Pins MAY be in different locations than those of the Mk2 rifle. I am not saying that they ARE in different locations, just that they COULD BE - subject to confirmation, of course. I do not currently have that information, but will confirm compatibility between the Mk2 and MK3 Receivers once I receive my Test Rifle. Meanwhile, let's get to the bottom of this business regarding the sacrosanct nature of Lower Receivers insofar as subsequent variants are concerned....

Source?
Click to expand...
It was in an interview with the lead fellow from Sterling at Taccom. When I get home later I will see if I can find the correct one and post a link and timestamp.
 
Ustauk said:
It was in an interview with the lead fellow from Sterling at Taccom. When I get home later I will see if I can find the correct one and post a link and timestamp.
Click to expand...
Looks like I got a Kodiak interview mixed up with a Sterling interview. After reviewing the interview, their are differences like the bolt release and metal type that will prevent the Mk3 upper from fitting a Mark 2 lower, my bad. JR did say they can't skew too much away from the MK design, as some commonality is needed to use the existing FRT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom