[epijunkie67]

I know they both use the same round and same magazines. The 180B is much lighter than the other ARs and I assume it has a lot fewer "toys" that can be used with it. Aside from that what about the important stuff? Accuracy? Relability? Sturdy? Recoil?

Why would I get this instead of a standard RRA (or any other major builder) AR? Or to reverse it, why would I get any other AR instead of getting this?

http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar180b.htm
Versus
http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/m15a2.htm

[Nimitz]

it tells you right in the descriptions....

"The lower on ArmaLite®'s new AR-180B™ is made of a high strength polymer"

"The upper is formed sheet metal like the 1st Gen AR-180™"

compared to a forged steel one.

Chad

[Otony]

"compared to a forged steel one"

Excuse me, are we referring to the forged ALUMINUM uppers on an AR? Some of which are cast ALUMINUM rather than forged? And can also be made from polymer?

Those uppers?

[Nimitz]

"compared to a forged steel one"

Excuse me, are we referring to the forged ALUMINUM uppers on an AR? Some of which are cast ALUMINUM rather than forged? And can also be made from polymer?

Those uppers?

forged aluminum...my apologies.

Chad

[epijunkie67]

it tells you right in the descriptions....

"The lower on ArmaLite®'s new AR-180B™ is made of a high strength polymer"

"The upper is formed sheet metal like the 1st Gen AR-180™"

compared to a forged steel one.

Chad

This tells me nothing about how it compares to a bushmaster or RRA AR style weapon in terms of reliability, recoil, or any number of other areas. Is this going to be a jam-matic? Does it tend to be a 3 MOA kind of gun ala the mini 14s? It's lighter, so how does recoil compare to a regular AR?

[MacPelto]

The gas system on the 180 is more like an Ak than it is like the AR15. The only thing that they have in common is the mags and trigger group.

Mac

[Deer Hunter]

I hear that the gas systems on the AR-180 are much cleaner than the ones on the AR-15 clones. The same system is used on Bushmaster's M17S.

[Jim K]

The AR-18 (selective fire) and AR-180 (semi-auto) use a piston type gas system, similar to that of the G.43 or Russian SVT. The AR-15/M16 uses a gas tube with a direct gas impingement on the bolt carrier. Further, the latter system vents exhausted gas through the bolt carrier and has to use special rings to keep the gas out of the bolt locking areas.

The AR-18 system keeps all the gas in the front under the handguard, so it is much easier to clean and keep clean. It is also much cheaper to make and "stock rifle" accuracy is about the same as the AR-15. (Specially "tuned" AR-15/M16 rifles have been on the ranges for quite a while and have turned in some excellent scores; no one has spent that kind of time and effort on the AR-18/180.) Other advantages are that the AR-18 bolt rides on guide rods (like the M3 SMG) allowing plenty of clearance for dirt and mud so they don't stop the gun, and the recoil springs are easy to get to for cleaning. There is no spring in the butt stock, a definite advantage in a military rifle.

IMHO, the AR-18 would have been adopted by the Army if it had come along sooner, but when it did, the investment in the M16 was simply too great.

(The AR-180B differs from the AR-180 in having a polymer lower, a fixed stock instead of a folding stock, and no ejection port cover. It takes M16 magazines where the original AR-18/180 used a similar but not interchangeable magazine.)

Jim

[MechAg94]

That is interesting. I need to keep that rifle in mind later on. Might have to get one sometime. :)

[Dave Markowitz]

The most significant difference between an AR-15 and an AR-180B is the gas system. The AR-15 gas system is of the direct impingment type. I.e., there is no gas piston. The gas tapped from the bore is directed through the gas tube to strike the bolt carrier directly and work the action.

In contrast, the AR-180B's gas system uses a more conventional gas system (derived from the Soviet SVT-40) whereby the gas tapped from the bore pushes on a gas piston, which in turn pushes on the bolt carrier to work the action.

I owned an AR-180B and have owned a couple of AR-15s. The AR-180B is a much cleaner system in that very little gas gets back into the receiver to foul the action. Unfortunately, my AR-180B was very sensitive to which magazines it liked. It would not reliably work will all of my AR-15/M-16 mags. Since I bought it used I didn't want to pay ArmaLite to get it fixed and it got traded off on a Ruger P-90 that runs as close to 100% as any man-made machine can. I do like the feel of the AR-180B so I may eventually buy another.

[Otony]

Ya know Chad, I found out today that the wife didn't pay the registration on her car...for the last 6 months! She just forgot, and that happens. Of course, I was not pleased, mind you, but I was more polite to her than I was to you. Sorry for my excessive enthusiasm in correcting you.:o

[Nimitz]

Ya know Chad, I found out today that the wife didn't pay the registration on her car...for the last 6 months! She just forgot, and that happens. Of course, I was not pleased, mind you, but I was more polite to her than I was to you. Sorry for my excessive enthusiasm in correcting you.:o

Tony no problem...sometimes I try to sound intelligent and just screw it up...:uhoh:

no hard feelings.

Chad

[9mmepiphany]

the ar-18/180 was designed as an improvement over the ar-15/m-16 much like the p35 was over the 1911

[middy]

The 180B is much lighter than the other ARs
Ummm... no it isn't.

[Fingolfin]

I don't believe there is a chromed lined barrel option for the 180B either. I have heard the chambers are cut a little tighter than should be for an assault rifle, but no personal experience with that. It's very sad Armalite doesn't wish to update and improve the design, as I think it would sell very well if priced right. I think it costs a little too much even in it's current form.

[BigG]

The original AR18 also had a proprietary mag, not the same as an AR15. That was a down side, so the ability to use AR15 mags is an improvement.

The AR18s usually had a side folding stock since they didn't have a recoil spring tube like an AR15.

[Grunt]

There's two problems with the AR-180B that I see. First is the charging handle slot doesn't have the dust cover like the original AR-180 had to prevent dirt and debris from entering the action. The second and biggest problem is the pivot pin area of the lower receiver. Several shooters have had this area crack and break mainly because of allowing the upper to pivot down too fast but also because it's a fragile area. NOT GOOD for a rifle of this design. Given the choice of cleaning out a dirty M-16/AR-15 or a broken lower reciever of an AR-180B, I'll take the dirty M-16/AR-15 any day.

[TechBrute]

The AR-180 is pretty much a non-event with the rollout of the XCR. It has never had much of a following, and has not really shown itself to outdo existing alternatives. It uses the 5.56, which is unpopular in some circles. It uses a gas piston, which is unpopular in some circles. It uses a polymer reciever, which is unpopular in some circles. It is not modular like some of its competitors. It has not won over a professional user base.

But really, it's a great little rifle. It just could have been so much more...

[Grunt]

Has the XCR actually been rolled out yet? I've been hearing for quite a while that they were coming, they were coming, they were coming.... but I have yet to see one in person. As much as I'm not all that thrilled with the AR-180B, at least they are available for sale. The XCR might be another good rifle the day they ever bring it to market rather than pre-production sales.

[TechBrute]

I don't believe it is out yet, no.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The AR180B also isn't designed for the kind of sustained fire an AR15 can handle. It will get too warm to hold if you really run it. Also, the proprietary scope mount that mimics the original AR180 is worthless. I am not sure why Armalite went that route instead of just slapping a Picatinny rail on the top of the receiver. The one thing the AR180 does have going for it is price; but it is still expensive enough to be non-competitive with the Keltec SU-16 and Ruger Mini-14 while still being only $100 or so less than low-end ARs.

[Jeff Timm]

The AR-18 was intended to be a cheap substitute for an M-16, it could be produced without the cast and machined upper and lower aluminum pieces, on simple sheet metal production equipment. Shades of the M-3 Grease Gun!

The Howa produced guns from Japan were excellent, BUT the Japanese government blocked sales to anyone who really needed weapons. Manufacture shifted to Sterling of England, which immediately cost "improved" the design and the quality was "Terribly British" accent on the Terrible. The design survives as the basis for the British SA-80, which had to be seriously redesigned by H&K before it became reasonably reliable.

The AR-180B is an effort to capitalize on the Stoner reputation and build a lower cost rifle with plastic and stamped steel, using as many common parts with the AR-15 type rifles as possible to keep the price down. It could have used a few "product improvements."

Geoff
Who will stick with his wood and steel Mini-14 thanks. :cool:

[bnolsen]

I've had an AR-180b for a little over a year now.

It's cleverly designed and very light. However it's an incomplete design.

Nice points:
- There's about zero fouling in the chamber , perhaps a few large, loose powder grains (i've only used wolf). The chamber only need be wiped out with a rag.
- The rifle is very light.
- The trigger group parts are ar-15
- The trigger group is set in a very sturdy piece of steel, much heavier duty than the vepr 308 receiver. This plate is embedded into the polymer.
- After market scope mount works extremely well.
- ACE makes a receiver adapter for their side folders (I think)
- Bolt carrier is very simple and free floats on the 2 guide rods.
- Extremely accurate
- Very good ergonomics.

Bad points:
- The lower receiver with the hinge pin is plastic. Way too easy to accidentally break.
- Child sized pistol grip. Wish I could replace it
- Child sized butt stock. Should replace it.
- Guide rods & springs seem a bit delicate.
- No place to mount more *stuff*.
- Gas rod gets the carbon buildup.

The lack of polish means it's not a suitable AR-15 replacement. The SU-16 has a bigger following and is cheaper.

Basically Armalite is this product's biggest enemy. They don't seem to care enough to make it happen.

Now if they refined the design and released it in a 7.62x51 format (AR-160) they'd have a rifle which would seriously challenge the AR-10. I'd love to have one chambered in 260 remington (6.5x51). Since civilians can't have it select-fire, go bigger.

If the amount of money the US sunk into the AR-15 had been sunk into the ar-18 instead...we'd have ourselves such a way better rifle now.

The XCR would be nice but it's an entirely different class of rifle. To buy a rifle you can hold and aim starts at $1800. No way no how the AR-18 is even close to that.

[modifiedbrowning]

www.stormwerkz.com
www.aceltdusa.com

[Jeff Timm]

This just in, while Googling another topic:

http://www.ar-180.com/AR-180vsAR-180b.php

Haddn't seen it before.

Geoff
Who believes in Serendipity! <Insert Jimminy Cricket song here.> :D