Tell me all about the AR180...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Morgan

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
546
...and 180B. Seems like a nice little rifle - uses AR15 magazines and fire control, different gas system, very light.

Please, let's not stoop to bashing the AR15 - I know about all of the suppossed problems, and have used it successfully for years.

Anyone have both? What do you think?
 
I've handled and fired ar-180s before, and I like them better than heavy barrelled ar-15s.


They handle almost as well as a mini-14, and have the magazine release and safety position of the AR.
 
I have a Bushy Dissipator and an AR-180B. The Bushy is my personal favorite because it was my first rifle. The 180 is is a nice little rifle, very light. The 180 also shoots much cleaner, using a gas piston system instead of direct gas. The only problems I've had with the 180 is that the length of pull is a little short for me(I have long arms) and the rifle shoots high even with the front sight cranked all the way up(look like I need a new front post). I really like my 180 and I have always thought the original was cooler looking than the M-16. The nice thing with the AR-180B's is that they use Ar-15 mags,sights, and trigger group. I recommend the Ar-180B to anyone looking for a .223 alternative to the AR-15.
 
There are twp main advantges to the AR-180 system. The first is that the receiver stays clean and the carbon stays in the fore-end where it does no harm. The second is that the bolt carrier rides on rods (like the M3 SMG) rather than being a tight fit within the receiver. This allows a lot more leeway for operating in places with lots of crud blowing around.

In addition, the springs are all either in the receiver or around the piston, so that a folding stock can be fitted (although the original stock was not a good arrangement), and there is no spring in the stock to become a problem if the rifle is used as a boat paddle.

The original AR-18 (the 180 is the semi-auto version) had a dust cover and a folding stock; both are gone from the "civilianized" AR-180B.

Jim
 
I like mine. So far, I have put about 2K rounds through it. I did have some failure to chamber problems about 1K into it, but the problem turned out to be a combination of very dirty Malasian Mil Sup ammo, and poor cleaning around th locking ring/bolts.

I have found my rifle as accurate as any of my AR types, except my preban HBAR Colt.
 
It seems to me to be a nice combination of the AK/Garand/HK style and the more common AR (M16/AR15) rifles, with some of the nicer components of each.

My department uses AR15s, so that's what I train with, but the 180 seems to be a very nice option, perhaps better for a battle gun.

Those who have used them, which would you choose for a quick fight, and which for a prolonged engagement?
 
I had a Sterling 180. Great gun. Sold it. Got an AR. Why? You can't fight history. I think the 180 is a superior gun as it is more reliable with a cleaner running system. However, parts and service for them are just not as prevalent as those for AR. Also, if you have friends who shoot AR's don't you want to be compatible if anything breaks loose?

I did.
 
I'll throw in another advantage and disadvantage.
Light weight!
According to the specs, the weight is just 6 pounds empty. Too many AR-15s are seriously overweight. Those heavy bull barrels are great on a spacegun or prarie pig rifle, but make for some slow wielding carbines. In today's contours you won't find a barrel much lighter in profile than a Colt Hbar. Same with those rifles overloaded with tactical toys: free float barrel tubes, all steel extended accessory rails, enormous optical sights, vertical grips, and jungle-clipped magazines. I've handled Les Baer AR-15 16" carbines that were pushing 11 pounds, and that is before ammo and optics. Shoots like a dream for as long as your arms can hold it up. Thats not to say that said accessories are not useful. Some are extremely useful in the right situations, but far too many rifles are outfitted like a giant swiss army knife, and handling suffers accordingly.

In my mind, carbines are meant to be short, light and handy. The new AR-180s are well balanced, and the light contour barrel combined with the polymer lower and furniture help to keep the weight in check. Yet they are still very accurate, despite having a skinny barrel by modern AR-15 standards.

Disadvantages:
Lack of modularity and expandability.
AR-15s are imminently customizable, perhaps more so than any other modern firearm. Do to the vast number of aftermarket parts, there are thousands of upper and lower combinations, limited only by the shooters wallet and standing regulations. Plus the owner of one lower may swap configurations in just a few seconds.

Lack of a chrome lined barrel. Not a huge deficit, as many AR's lack them today, but it is icing one the cake for a combat rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top