Why has the AR-18 failed to catch on in the US?

[LilGucci]

Some of the guns I lusted at owning are made by European manufacturers utilizing some variation of Stoner's AR-18 operating system design. The B&T APC 308. The CZ Bren 2 308. The FN SCAR. The HK G36 and 416. The SIG lineup of guns, especially the MCX. Even the Tavor and Aug Steyer have some lineage to this design.

I love AR-15's and AR-10's. But why did the AR-18 design never catch on in the US? You have the Remington ACR and the Robinson XCR-L. But it never caught on amongst manufacturers. Was it the lack of standardization? Would a military contract have helped standardize it and therefore popularize it?

 

[dgheriani]

The AR-18 was mostly designed to be less expensive to produce than the AR-15, mostly by virtue of not needing a forged receiver. I'd imagine never getting a substantial military contract combined with the AR-15 just flooding most markets is why it never really caught on.

Believe it or not, AR-180 variants are very popular up in Canada since AR-15s got banned. They're all made on a CNC (instead of stamped) and use AR-15 mags, barrels, grips, stocks, and some handguards.

 

[GUNNER10]

Some of the guns I lusted at owning are made by European manufacturers utilizing some variation of Stoner's AR-18 operating system design. The B&T APC 308. The CZ Bren 2 308. The FN SCAR. The HK G36 and 416. The SIG lineup of guns, especially the MCX. Even the Tavor and Aug Steyer have some lineage to this design.

I love AR-15's and AR-10's. But why did the AR-18 design never catch on in the US? You have the Remington ACR and the Robinson XCR-L. But it never caught on amongst manufacturers. Was it the lack of standardization? Would a military contract have helped standardize it and therefore popularize it?

I think we are trending towards the AR18.

I think part of the reason that it never caught on was for a few reasons. that all tie back to the early 2000's. The original AWB had come to an end, the global war on terrorism kicked off, The DoD tossed a ton of money at improving the AR platform, and by default a lot updates made their way to commercial AR and that lead to a cheaper, more refined rifle vs anything AR18 based.

until recently there really hasn't been anything AR18 based that can offer the user the same flexibility as the AR15. take the Scar for example, its been out for almost 15 years at this point, and it still has the same pencil barrel and 2008 length hand guards. They don't produce accuracy barrels for either the mk16 or mk17, they also didn't until recently produce a 300BO PDW barrel for the Mk16. If one gets a Mk 20 they have to purchase a Mk17 to run a light weight barrel. While I had a scar and think its a decent rifle, its sorta of retarded.

I think that is starting to change with the MCX which makes sense that Sig USA despite its ties to europe is really a US based company at this point and all the engineers sales people understand what the shooting community wants. I think that the lack of a shooting community hurts European manufactures and leaves them playing catch up or selling to Eu miltaries.

I think a large scale DoD contract for a AR18 based rifle would have a similar impact as it did for the AR15.

Ill probably grab one of the new MCX Spears in the next year or so.

 

[acudaowner]

 

[hlee]

Why?

Not made by KAC, LMT, DD, etc for the fan boys. Not precise enough for the high end semi auto shopper. Not cheap enough for the “is a semi auto” shopper. Everything the AR18 does, the AR15 does in a much more supportive 3rd party environment.

The BRN-18 is cool, but I can just about get 2 complete rifles for what they want for an upper. Brownells is essentially the only source for parts. And, the guts are proprietary. Above that, DI guns are generally more precise than piston guns.

It’s fun. It folds. Is shoots. Cool, but it doesn’t tick any functional boxes that the AR15 didn’t already cover. All in all, the AR18 is just too little, too late for the American market.

 

[cas6969]

I think part of the reason that it never caught on was for a few reasons. that all tie back to the early 2000's.

I'm confused. They started making them in 1969. They'd been out of production for 15 plus years by then.


They were cheaper to make, but why would the US want that? They weren't going to change platforms in the middle of a war to save money. That's big business, big bucks, big votes nobody would mess with. Had it been a WW2 type situation, save time/money/resources, then maybe.

 

[BravoSector1]

I agree with others that we may be trending towards piston system semi-autos, especially with the introduction of the Spear series from Sig Sauer. DI rifles will always be around. They can be altered or repaired with basic tools at home.

 

[K2e2vin]

I think piston guns are getting more popular as more people are running suppressors. A lot less effort to keep gas out of your face in addition to most of the piston guns having a simple adjustable gas block.

 

[ut755ln]

I think piston guns are getting more popular as more people are running suppressors. A lot less effort to keep gas out of your face in addition to most of the piston guns having a simple adjustable gas block.

100% this and the military is trying to avoid gas to the face as a health concern. It is one of the reasons why you are seeing a bunch of flow through cans and piston rifles of various stripes.

 

[LilGucci]

think that the lack of a shooting community hurts European manufactures and leaves them playing catch up or selling to Eu miltaries.

I think a large scale DoD contract for a AR18 based rifle would have a similar impact as it did for the AR15.

Exactly. And it would help to standardize the platform so that it can reduce costs and limit barriers to entry. Once we have a standard, you can see PSA, BCM, and the rest feel more comfortable offering up one of their own at a more affordable price, especially if they were mass-produced. But standardization needs a large-scale contract to force everyone into line.

 

[LilGucci]

Why?

Not made by KAC, LMT, DD, etc for the fan boys. Not precise enough for the high end semi auto shopper. Not cheap enough for the “is a semi auto” shopper. Everything the AR18 does, the AR15 does in a much more supportive 3rd party environment.

The BRN-18 is cool, but I can just about get 2 complete rifles for what they want for an upper. Brownells is essentially the only source for parts. And, the guts are proprietary. Above that, DI guns are generally more precise than piston guns.

It’s fun. It folds. Is shoots. Cool, but it doesn’t tick any functional boxes that the AR15 didn’t already cover. All in all, the AR18 is just too little, too late for the American market.

But just as the AR 15 has been refined, don't you think that AR-18 models, given a bigger investment, can make greater leaps in accuracy? If it was standardized, like let's say we got Sig and some of the other European models to co-develop a rifle for NATO that the US would buy in addition to the SIG Spear, don't you think all of that investment could produce a rifle that is more accurate and affordable? I feel that everyone doing their own thing with the AR-18 instead of a set standard kind of keeps prices high, and keeps new players from entering into this market.

 

[lash]

And we need to be forced into line why?

 

[LilGucci]

100% this and the military is trying to avoid gas to the face as a health concern. It is one of the reasons why you are seeing a bunch of flow through cans and piston rifles of various stripes.

I hope this is the case too. When I build out my AR's, they will be mostly shot suppressed. A less gassy system will be greatly welcomed.

 

[LilGucci]

And we need to be forced into line why?

We don't have to be forced into any line. I just think that BCM and PSA and Aero could make a fine AR-18 that is affordable and reliable if the platform received some kind of standardization. I think AR-18's would be so much more popular if that was the case.

 

[RUTGERS95]

because, and this is the only reason, it sucks compared to the AR15 as it does nothing better and is behind in every category.

 

[hlee]

But just as the AR 15 has been refined, don't you think that AR-18 models, given a bigger investment, can make greater leaps in accuracy? If it was standardized, like let's say we got Sig and some of the other European models to co-develop a rifle for NATO that the US would buy in addition to the SIG Spear, don't you think all of that investment could produce a rifle that is more accurate and affordable? I feel that everyone doing their own thing with the AR-18 instead of a set standard kind of keeps prices high, and keeps new players from entering into this market.

For a platform other than the AR15 to take off, it needs to offer something substantial over the AR15. For the American civilian market, it does not. Full stop. It is an answer in search of a question. But, it is an option to obsess over, instead of making a decision…

 

[LilGucci]

For a platform other than the AR15 to take off, it needs to offer something substantial over the AR15. For the American civilian market, it does not. Full stop. It is an answer in search of a question. But, it is an option to obsess over, instead of making a decision…

Its the aesthetics and the lack of a buffer tube that is really appealing to me, plus the lack of gas to the face since I will be shooting mostly suppressed. I cannot tell but I think the new Palmetto State Armory Jakl is an AR-18 variant, if companies license the design from them they can not only improve it but help to standardize it. I think the design has a lot more potential than bullpups and bullpups solve the question of having a longer barrel in a shorter overall package. Imagine if Aero were to throw their weight behind a Jakl clone or help develop the successor, I think there is tons of potential there if we got more quality mass-produced market players involved.

 

[Bjshocky]

The modern sig sauer company that sells products in the US is actually a privately owned American company, not a subsidiary of a European one.

With that fact, and the prevalence of MCXs in the civilian world, police, and military: I'd say the Ar-18 has done pretty well.

 

[acudaowner]

even better question is why does remington or those that bought it don't remake there ectronx rifle again it bombed in sales when primers were 6c a piece but now that you can hardly get any of them and it's way more than 6 cents a pop with only a one time use unless your into reloading them , it would be nice to only need on box of 1k for ever instead of a primer it's a spark plug allowing a small charge to pass through into the powder to start the ignition there is no hazardous charge as they do nothing and they last crazy long time used with a 9 volt battery in the gun . it came in 243 win , 220 swift or , 22-250 add some more or different flavors to the mix and I might just sell now .