What happened to the AR-18?

[AlexanderA]

A straight up copy of the AR18 would be prohibitively expensive

That's ironic, given that the main rationale for the original AR-18 was that it was cheaper to produce than the AR-15. Of course, by now the tooling for the AR-15 has been completely amortized, while a resurrected AR-18 would require all-new tooling.

A project to resurrect the Daewoo K2 would probably be easier, since the tooling could be imported from Korea (provided the Administration was cooperative).

Another gun that I'd like to see made again would be a semiautomatic version of the Stoner 63, with all the parts to make the various configurations. The Robinson M96 Expeditionary rifle was an attempt at this, but they didn't follow through. (Also it was fairly removed from the original prototype.)

FN is selling a semiautomatic version of the M249 squad automatic, for a list price of $8,000. If people are willing to pay that much for an M249, it would seem they would pay as much for a Stoner 63.

 

[shoobe01]

Not the fixed stock or anything. The generally mediocre CQ, the non-reinforced plastic stocks (squishy), pretty terrible triggers on every one I touched despite the same design, and so on. If some were better, good but I never saw one so never dropped the money on one.

Price-wise, always seemed odd anyone with a decent machine shop seems to be able to make most any parts kit folded steel receiver pretty cheap, but couldn't make the designed-for-cheap-production AR18 well somehow.

 

[ttarp]

That's ironic, given that the main rationale for the original AR-18 was that it was cheaper to produce than the AR-15.

Its the same reason sheet metal Hk's and clones cost so much, for mass production stamping bending and welding can be very cheap, and also relatively easy to repair, but in the quantities of the civilian market it just doesn't work out that way. But then again, AK's are sheet metal and can be had cheap, or for as much as Hk's, so I may be missing something somewhere along the way...

 

[AlexanderA]

But then again, AK's are sheet metal and can be had cheap, or for as much as Hk's, so I may be missing something somewhere along the way...

Look at the huge price difference between genuine H&K's and PTR clones. I think a big factor is not the inherent cost of production, but monopolistic market domination. In other words, H&K can pad its prices because it has the market power to do so.

On old designs such as the AR-18 and the Stoner 63, a favorable factor regarding their revival is that the original patent and trademark protections have lapsed. Anyone could make a clone without fear of being sued for infringement. Of course you couldn't use the word "ArmaLite" since it's currently in use (unless you got a licensing agreement).

 

[d2wing]

AK's were real cheap when they were made in high volume on amortized equipment by communist labor. Also I don't think clones are in any way equal to factory H&K anything. I have no experience with 180's, but I read they were liked by Seals because they took very good care of them but in trials with ordinary soldiers they were not reliable due to maintenance requirements.

 

[Siscowet]

Had one for 10 years. It was both handy and accurate once I shimmed the folding stock. AlexanderA’s post covered it well.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Its the same reason sheet metal Hk's and clones cost so much, for mass production stamping bending and welding can be very cheap, and also relatively easy to repair, but in the quantities of the civilian market it just doesn't work out that way. But then again, AK's are sheet metal and can be had cheap, or for as much as Hk's, so I may be missing something somewhere along the way...

No, you didn't miss anything. But, look at an AR-180's lower and then look at an AK receiver, one is basically a "C" channel, the other is a fairly complicated multi-stage stamping.

 

[AlexanderA]

No, you didn't miss anything. But, look at an AR-180's lower and then look at an AK receiver, one is basically a "C" channel, the other is a fairly complicated multi-stage stamping.

If the AR-180 was to be resurrected, the most feasible way would be to forget the stamped receiver, and make it out of machined aluminum. This is exactly what NoDak Spud is doing (complete with faux "spot welds"). But their product doesn't really replicate the original AR-180, but is a replacement for the polymer AR-180B receiver.

 

[lysanderxiii]

AK's were real cheap when they were made in high volume on amortized equipment by communist labor. Also I don't think clones are in any way equal to factory H&K anything. I have no experience with 180's, but I read they were liked by Seals because they took very good care of them but in trials with ordinary soldiers they were not reliable due to maintenance requirements.

SEALs never used AR-18s.

They did used Stoner's other design: the Stoner 63 LMG, aka the Mk 23. Mod 0. As to the Stoner 63 being a maintenance headache or nightmare (depending on the source), the USMC did trials of the Stoner 63 rifle with a number of recruit platoons at MCRD Parris Island in 1963. In the final report, the DIs said that teaching the recruits to properly maintain the Stoner was easier than with the M1 or M14. They also reported that the Stoner armed recruits had higher qualification scores. Concurrent with the MCRD trials there were trials at Quantico with regular Fleet Marines with the rifle, carbine, magazine fed LMG and the belt fed LMG. These Marines also did not report any undo trouble keeping the weapons in proper running condition. In fact, these report recommended the adoption of the Stoner 63 (XM22, rifle and XM 207, belt fed LMG). However, there were two things that caused this not to happen: 1) HQ USMC stated that the 7.62mm round was to be maintained as the standard rifle ammunition, thus the M14 would remain, and 2) the Army did not like the idea, as it would be in direct competition with the new XM16.

 

[mgmorden]

If the AR-180 was to be resurrected, the most feasible way would be to forget the stamped receiver, and make it out of machined aluminum. This is exactly what NoDak Spud is doing (complete with faux "spot welds"). But their product doesn't really replicate the original AR-180, but is a replacement for the polymer AR-180B receiver.

It's also not quite a full replacement, but Brownells just announced the BRN-180 at Shot Show this year. It's basically a modernized AR-180 upper adapted to fit on top of an AR-15 lower.

 

[S.B.]

I guess I'm the dummy here 'cause I only remember the AR 180?
Steve

 

[CapnMac]

Timeline runs like this:
We all know about the AR-15
The AR-16 was a stamped receiver weapon in 7.62nato
The AR-17 was an auto-loading shotgun.
The AR-18 was the AR-16, but in 5.56nato. It, like the AR-16 was meant to be produced in places without super-precise maching tools available.

The AR-18 did not get much traction on its own (if spawning a number of derivities). So, it went dormant for a long time. Until resurrected as the AR-180, and later the AR-180B. But, by that time, the cost of AR-15 had fallen (functionally) so low as to remove any cost advantage for the AR-18/180 series. Which also had not had the benefit of nearly 40 years of constant development and improvement. No reason to play with Duplo when there are so many Legos about.

Now, we also have to remember to not confuse the Ar-18/180 with the "American 180" which was diffferent critter altogether (vaguely looked like a tommy gun with a flat pan magazine on top and was a full-auto .22lr.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Timeline runs like this:
We all know about the AR-15
The AR-16 was a stamped receiver weapon in 7.62nato
The AR-17 was an auto-loading shotgun.
The AR-18 was the AR-16, but in 5.56nato. It, like the AR-16 was meant to be produced in places without super-precise maching tools available.

The AR-18 did not get much traction on its own (if spawning a number of derivities). So, it went dormant for a long time. Until resurrected as the AR-180, and later the AR-180B. But, by that time, the cost of AR-15 had fallen (functionally) so low as to remove any cost advantage for the AR-18/180 series. Which also had not had the benefit of nearly 40 years of constant development and improvement. No reason to play with Duplo when there are so many Legos about.

Now, we also have to remember to not confuse the Ar-18/180 with the "American 180" which was diffferent critter altogether (vaguely looked like a tommy gun with a flat pan magazine on top and was a full-auto .22lr.

"So, it went dormant for a long time."

I dunno about that.

The AR-18 came out in 1963, tested by various places during the 1964-1967 time period. The semi-automatic AR-180 was introduced to the market in 1969 with the Costa Mesa models, moving to the Howa in 1970 and continuing until 1974, then it was picked up by Sterling in 1979, production there ending in 1985.

After 1985 is when the AR-18/AR-180 went dormant, until production of the AR-180B started in 2001.

 

[AlexanderA]

The majority (about 60%) of AR-180's are Sterlings, but they are considerably worse in quality than those of the previous two manufacturers. The best things about the Sterlings are their dual-use steel magazines.

As I understand it, what stopped AR-180 production at Howa was the Japanese constitutional provision that barred arms sales to countries involved in war, and the U.S. was involved in Vietnam at the time. (Apparently it took the Japanese authorities a while to catch up to this fact.) My Howa came with little knock-out inserts on the bayonet lug to prevent a bayonet from latching. 5 seconds with a hammer and punch took care of that problem.

By the time AR-180 production started at Sterling, the Colt AR-15 had regained its footing. As I recall, the Sterling was a bit cheaper than the Colt AR-15, but not enough so to make up for the poor quality. I was a collector of "black rifles" in those days, and I already had a Costa Mesa and a Howa, but I refused to buy a Sterling because of the dropoff in quality. I couldn't justify the purchase just for the sake of completion of the series.

 

[CapnMac]

I dunno about that.

Was speaking figuratively, not literally. And, was more leaning towards new production sales, rather than secondary market sales.

Was intending a partial comparison to the doldrums that Auto-ordinance had during the 20s.

Further, to parallel how timing somewhat "doomed" both arms.

Eagle--later ArmaLite, pushed their AR-180A out as a way to bolster sales during the AWB. But they didn't act fast enough. They were also very tardy in getting the 180B to market, as well.

Could a truly modernized 18/180 sell? Polymer lower, stanag magwell, folding stock, price point around $600--maybe. But, it's a fully saturated AR-15 market. There are almost no other self-loaders in current production, not by market share. But, you would have to find a way to market to people who did not want to "lego" their rifles.