Get yourself an ACOG and shorter barrel and better grips, Jesus. Fricking horribly ugly setup.
it did tho. plenty of guns use short-stroke gas pistons.
Kind of. Most modern short stroke fighting rifles are riffling off the G36, with the slimmer, superior buffer spring design, rather than an actual “AR-18 but modern” idea like the AUG.
Hardly matters though. The AR is just so damn good that neither of those designs does enough better to dethrone the king. And I say that as someone who has owned and loved multiple select-fire G36s.
>doesn't mention the brake or say to get a suppressor
so you're saying he should have a <16" barrel .308 with a muzzle brake? also >empty newlines for no reason
you type like a gay and your shit's all moronic
Right, I forgot to mention getting an AAC brake. It’s the only good look for a SCAR. >B-but it’s not the best for a can
I don’t care, I don’t use cans. Gimmie that Baja Blast, hell yeah.
Considering that most modern service rifles are based on the AR-18's operating system, I'd say that it did catch on. At the time it was released though everybody either already paid Colt for the AR-15 licensing, were developing their own proprietary version of the AR-18 or were combloc and forced to have Kalashnikov derivatives.
Late to the party and less appealing than its predecessor. Most customers who were going to buy an M16 already had when the AR18 came out, and those that were on the fence were not going to be easily swayed because the AR18 has a distinctly worse feel to a contemporary M16 (reassuring milled receiver vs hollow stamped, same brittle creaking furniture of early m16s but without the internal heat shield to give it structure, etc). By the time the next wave of 5.56 adoptions came around in the late 80s/early 90s, there were better guns around, some of which were literally repackaged AR18 actions with more modern features (at least for the time, like integrated optics).
the idea behind the AR-18 was it was simplified so middle income countries could manufacture it domestically, but the problem is, unless you're on the naughty list for the USA, It's easier just to buy something made by them or their allies. And if you're a middle income country and you can't just write a check to FN or H&K you get the USSR, or DDR, or Yugoslavia to sell you guns or set up a factory for you.
The only real reason to set up local production is to subsidize manufacturing and hope it grows beyond State Rifle Factory #1.
Manufacturing technology made mass production of AR15s cheap and easy and negated the main advantage the AR18 had, but it's action still had valuable qualities and so almost every modern rifle which isn't an AR10/15 derivative or AK derivative is in fact an AR18 derivative.
I have one....if you handle it then you will know. It's neat...It's NOT as good as an AR. No, not even close. There are tons of other 5.56s I would rather have.
Because the main selling point of being easier to manufacture isn't that great when it still requires you to set up manufacturing. You may as well spend a little more and get AR-15 tooling instead.
US military went with one of the strangest hunks of shit ever made instead. Still to this day no other rifles used the charging handle or buffer tube design that Stoner used. The US always picks the inferior gun. In 50 years people will be asking why didn't pick the GD bullpup while 30 other countries adopted a copy of it.
>no other rifles used the charging handle or buffer tube design that Stoner used.
For the AR15 (piece of shit) and for good reason, because those design choices fricking suck.
turns out foreign resistances are almost always too small and too gorilla to make new sheet metals, almost always relegated to cannibalize old surplus.
The niche for massive amount of stamped sheet metal gun existed for a short while in asian country without the industry for aluminum or lathe. They are either taken by FN's FAL, AK if commie, or DIY mutt rifles that is a mix of study and borrow from existing guns of sheet metal, and long stroke gas piston, foreign engineering professional's class and company making the core work and offering licensed production.
As soon as they has a pile of sheet metal rifles, they immediately go after forged M4 clones afterwards.
it's because you just won't stop touching yourself at night
Too old.
Because ur gay
it did tho. plenty of guns use short-stroke gas pistons.
>all lumpy and misshapen
>nasty stamped folds
>higher risk of a misfire or mag is utterly barren
ARs peak at 15.
But it did
I love that album
Get yourself an ACOG and shorter barrel and better grips, Jesus. Fricking horribly ugly setup.
Kind of. Most modern short stroke fighting rifles are riffling off the G36, with the slimmer, superior buffer spring design, rather than an actual “AR-18 but modern” idea like the AUG.
Hardly matters though. The AR is just so damn good that neither of those designs does enough better to dethrone the king. And I say that as someone who has owned and loved multiple select-fire G36s.
>doesn't mention the brake or say to get a suppressor
so you're saying he should have a <16" barrel .308 with a muzzle brake? also
>empty newlines for no reason
you type like a gay and your shit's all moronic
Right, I forgot to mention getting an AAC brake. It’s the only good look for a SCAR.
>B-but it’s not the best for a can
I don’t care, I don’t use cans. Gimmie that Baja Blast, hell yeah.
Nothing wrong with the A2
I'll only get a LEDCog once my Vortex kicks the bucket. This b***h is going strong for being $450
>vortex
>factory md
>unchopped barrel
I can see exactly where the budget ran out
Considering that most modern service rifles are based on the AR-18's operating system, I'd say that it did catch on. At the time it was released though everybody either already paid Colt for the AR-15 licensing, were developing their own proprietary version of the AR-18 or were combloc and forced to have Kalashnikov derivatives.
Late to the party and less appealing than its predecessor. Most customers who were going to buy an M16 already had when the AR18 came out, and those that were on the fence were not going to be easily swayed because the AR18 has a distinctly worse feel to a contemporary M16 (reassuring milled receiver vs hollow stamped, same brittle creaking furniture of early m16s but without the internal heat shield to give it structure, etc). By the time the next wave of 5.56 adoptions came around in the late 80s/early 90s, there were better guns around, some of which were literally repackaged AR18 actions with more modern features (at least for the time, like integrated optics).
the idea behind the AR-18 was it was simplified so middle income countries could manufacture it domestically, but the problem is, unless you're on the naughty list for the USA, It's easier just to buy something made by them or their allies. And if you're a middle income country and you can't just write a check to FN or H&K you get the USSR, or DDR, or Yugoslavia to sell you guns or set up a factory for you.
The only real reason to set up local production is to subsidize manufacturing and hope it grows beyond State Rifle Factory #1.
Tried to take the AKM market share while being less reliable and more expensive
US military didn't adopt it, and American gun owners only care about whatever the military (and police) use
It's stamped.
It would have been great in WW2. Imagine an AR18 firing softpoint 5.45 replacing the BAR.
The look and feel but the inner workings became refined and got used in other weapons.
Manufacturing technology made mass production of AR15s cheap and easy and negated the main advantage the AR18 had, but it's action still had valuable qualities and so almost every modern rifle which isn't an AR10/15 derivative or AK derivative is in fact an AR18 derivative.
what are the big macro differences between a design like the AK and the AR-18?
gas system, bolt design.
I have one....if you handle it then you will know. It's neat...It's NOT as good as an AR. No, not even close. There are tons of other 5.56s I would rather have.
It has living descendants OP. like the 416.
Because the main selling point of being easier to manufacture isn't that great when it still requires you to set up manufacturing. You may as well spend a little more and get AR-15 tooling instead.
US military went with one of the strangest hunks of shit ever made instead. Still to this day no other rifles used the charging handle or buffer tube design that Stoner used. The US always picks the inferior gun. In 50 years people will be asking why didn't pick the GD bullpup while 30 other countries adopted a copy of it.
>no other rifles used the charging handle or buffer tube design that Stoner used.
For the AR15 (piece of shit) and for good reason, because those design choices fricking suck.
turns out foreign resistances are almost always too small and too gorilla to make new sheet metals, almost always relegated to cannibalize old surplus.
The niche for massive amount of stamped sheet metal gun existed for a short while in asian country without the industry for aluminum or lathe. They are either taken by FN's FAL, AK if commie, or DIY mutt rifles that is a mix of study and borrow from existing guns of sheet metal, and long stroke gas piston, foreign engineering professional's class and company making the core work and offering licensed production.
As soon as they has a pile of sheet metal rifles, they immediately go after forged M4 clones afterwards.
Every modern piston driven rifle is based off it.