Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/4/2001 12:55:28 PM EST
What countries, if any, adopted the AR-180 into service. I know it was a cheaper competitor to the AR-15 rifle, did any countries buy it?
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 1:12:56 PM EST
The Ar-18 had a bad habit of breaking parts during extended testing and no country ever adopted it as a military weapon.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 1:43:26 PM EST
I read somewhere it had a history of parts breakage too, but I don't know what tests were performed by who and what parts broke. I think I saw a test result somewhere indicating it had promise and potential, but the design wasn't sufficiently mature or something along those lines. It also had to deal in the marketplace with the by-then-firmly-entrenched M16, which the U.S. was pushing. Never adopted by a country, seen in Northern Ireland with the IRA, design lives on in some form with the Singapore Assault Rifle (SAR-80), the dreadful Brit rifle whose designation escapes me at the moment, and the HK G36.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 1:48:06 PM EST
Think, if it had 40 years of military service the kind of rifle it would be.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 2:06:02 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 7:34:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2001 7:32:09 PM EST by Dave_G]
The SAR80 (Sterling Assault Rifle) was a bullpupped AR-18. The L85A1 is a bastardized SAR80. I can find no evidence of the AR18/180 being adopted as general issue by any country.
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 6:13:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2001 6:18:28 AM EST by LARRYG]
One of the percieved drawbacks was that it was stamped instead of forged. That was seen as primitive. Gee, how many well respected stamped military rifles are in use today? Kind of makes you wonder. I love my AR15's, but having 3 original 180's, I have to say it is no slouch by any definition. I like the gas system better. ArmaLite is reintroducing the 180 very soon.
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 6:18:45 AM EST
The plastic was "old tech" and pretty brittle compared to the stuff now. I've seen hinges crack on the buttstock. Also I know a guy who lost his charging handle while cleaning it (boy that cost some bucks to replace!). Figure if it had as much development as the AR-15/M-16, it would be an even better rifle than they are today. The AR-18/180 was intended for local production in countries that had limited industry. Stamped steel and welds and all that made it easy to make. Problem was it was the height of the Cold War, so it was easier to get M-16s or AKs for free, than to buy and produce ANY gun in their own factories. Great gun, bad timing. Ross
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 7:37:27 AM EST
the ar18 was designed to cost $25 a copy in 1967. had it gone thru the millions (over 500+) million dollars of r&d the m16 has gone thru - it would be a greater gun. the spirit of the ar18 lives on in the sa80, hk g36/sl81 and the bushmaster m17s! i think a few thousand were sold here and there but no mass adoption. the ira seemed to have liked alot! it would be interesting to see how the new "armalite" ar180 fares... steve
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 8:12:28 AM EST
The Australian mfg Leader and the Australian Automatic Arms SAP and SAR were also based on the AR18/AR180.
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 11:16:56 AM EST
I remember reading in one of Jnae's small arms annuals that a small number of the AR-18s was purchased by some Afircian country. The AR-18's gas system has been copied by the British for the SA80/L85, Singapore's SAR80/88, Taiwain's Type 65 rifle, the Leader from Austrailia, Buushmaster's current bullpup rifle, and HK's G36. It would had probably a better rifle to adopt back then because of the ball power charge in the .223 rounds. Providing that Armalite had not done some stupid decision marking in regards to the production of the AR-18s.
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 12:19:41 PM EST
Where does the AR 18/180 throw the brass it ejects? It doesn't require a brass deflector for us lefties does it?
Top Top