Some have asked about one or the other of these rifles. Since I have both I will try to compare and contrast them. Let me begin with a picture:


As one can see they are similar in size and general layout. They both use AR stocks and pistol grips.  The JRC uses an AR forearm and FCG parts. (trigger) while the TNW rifle uses their proprietary FCG. The TNW does not use a forearm as it has a removable barrel assembly. More on that later.

As for fit, these rifles are very much the same size and LOP. The TNW is a bit lighter. The JRC uses a quad rail forearm. While some find this desirable its not my personal favorite. I find it uncomfortable to hold. Also, I have no plans on loading down a rifle like this with a bunch of heavy, unneeded junk to make it into a beast to handle. PCC's should be light and quick. The TNW being the light of the two is a bit faster to handle. But the difference is very small and not a deal changer.

Finish on both rifles is good to excellent. The JRC looks a bit more polished, the TNW, like many of their products, looks utilitarian. Its machined quite well but the JRC just looks a bit flashier. Again, this is not a deal changer to me, I like them both. Both use a sturdy machined aluminum receiver and trigger housing. I don't think either will wear out any time soon.

Features:
Both rifles offer the option of caliber change. On either it runs in the $200 range, give or take. A nice option for sure. Both are offered in 9mm, .40 and .45. The TNW's all use Glock magazines. The JRC's uses Glock magazines but in addition you can get the .45 in a model that  uses 1911 mags.  JRC says they will build you one in a different magazine configuration....if you will order 800 of them to cover the design costs.

The safety on the JRC is the standard style that you are accustom to on an AR. On the TNW its a push button just ahead of the trigger. The JRC does win on this point as its much easier to operate.

The TWN has a barrel that removes quickly without tools. The barrel nut has a spring retaining pin and it just screws in by hand. (See photo). You can make the JRC into a quick removable barrel rifle but you must buy a special optional forearm from them to do this. Meanwhile the JRC has a threaded barrel, the TNW  does not.

The TNW apart:


The TNW is very quick and easy to disassemble without tools. The barrel unscrews. The bolt can then be removed from the front of the receiver and easily broken down. The "lower" is held on by two push pins. On the JRC this process is not quite as easy. Tools are required and you have to remove some screws to take it apart.

Both rifles are ambidextrous, that is you can set them up for left or right handed users. There is a slight difference here as on the TNW the charging handle must remain on the right side while on the JRC it can change to either side. Neither rifle has a last round bolt hold-open. This feature I would love on both but its a no-go for either.

Function:
I have taken both rifles out on the same day with the same magazines and ammo. I can't tell you there is much difference between them. Both function quite well with a minimum of issues,  mostly ammo related as I learn which rounds work best. I have tested both with 95 to 147 grain bullets of various nose shapes with magazines of all sizes from 10 to 33 rounds. All seemed to have functioned will with either rifle. I have tested them with both factory OEM Glock mags as well as KCI's. Either firearm will function with any magazine for the most part. There are some random combinations of magazine and bullet styles that don't feed as well as others but that is not unusual for any PCC.

Accuracy:  No large difference. Maybe the JRC might edge out the TNW but again, that varies some with ammo. The JRC comes sans sights or optics, you install your favorite aiming device. The TNW does come with a scope and mounts. However, its an NCStar and nothing to write home about. On my rifle I never installed the scope, I just went straight to a red dot as did the JRC

Quirks: The barrel nut on the TNW needs checked from time to time. I have noticed it can work loose a bit when doing a lot of shooting. But, it is a simple matter to just give it a little twist with you hand to insure its tight. As for the JRC, I haven't noticed anything note worth yet.

Price: Pricing can vary by region or greed of your LGC. A shop near me had the JRC's jacked up but then put them on sale and got the price down to what it should have been. On average the JRC is about $100 more than the TNW, again, depending on when and where you buy it.

And the winner is:   YOU    if you buy either of these rifles. Both are quality firearms that you can trust in. If I had to pick just one I would give a sight edge to my JRC. I understand there were some hiccups on the first ones but the newest models seem to have the kinks worked out just fine. I am glad I waited... If I could have only one of the two I would lean towards the JRC. That said, it does come at a price. Mine was on-sale and still about $100 more than my TNW.  Is it worth the extra C note" Well that depends. If you like the idea of a "take down" rifle then the TNW wins. If that part means less to you and you want a rifle that you can do a high volume of shooting with I would go with the JRC. Again, both use the same Glock Magazines. (after getting these rifles I went out and bought a G-17 so I could use my rifle magazines... )

Now, I next have to go out and compare the JRC to my other PCC's. I save that for another day.



Top to bottom:
Marlin Camp Carbine in a Choate Stock
Just Right Carbine
TNW Aero Survival Rifle
Beretta Storm Carbine
On the left:  Hi-Point TS carbine (Low dollar but high in function)
On the right: The real deal...an early Kel-Tec Sub9  ( not the new neutered plastic receiver Sub2000).

Good write-up!

What is the weight of each gun?

Thanks, great review!

Someone asked about weight. This is totally from memory but if I recall the JRC weights in at just under seven pounds. The TNW is under six pounds. So, the JRC is a bit more than a pound heavier. It has a bit more metal in the receiver area and the hand guard is hanging out there. Its not a big deal but you can tell a little difference when you pick them up.

I do like the JRC more than my 9mm AR. For whatever reason the 9mm AR always felt heavier than it should have. Of course compared to my  Beretta Storm or my Kel-Tec Sub 9 the 9mm AR is a lard arse heavy SOB.

The JRC uses Glock magazines and many will love it for that reason. TNW went the same route. My Kel-Tec uses S&W 59 mags which were all the rage back in the day. The Marlin Camp 9 Carbine also uses the S&W 59 mags so that helps some. The Storm uses Beretta 92 mags which are easy to come by. So, this commonality in magazines helps somewhat. When you have a variety of firearms you become well aware of just how big an expense magazines can become. Now, if I could just get CZ to build a nice PCC that uses the "75" series of mags I would be very happy.

Good review..........I have been looking for a PPC, and the JRC looks like it will fit the bill perfectly. Now if I can decide between the 9mm and the .45. I don't own a Glock , but I will go with the Glock mag option as they can be found relatively easy

What's the buffer set up on this?  Is it a standard AR buffer and spring?  Is the receiver extension milspec/commercial?  

Info on that would be helpful if people want to get to SBR and suppress.  It looks like it could be very very handy with a barrel cut just in front of the shroud...

Thanks for the review. I like the TNW.

The JRC look like an AR-15 mated with a brick

You must really hate PCC's

Actually the JRC is a fine piece of work. I wanted a 9mm AR to add to my collection. I had fiver or so PCC's and a dozen or so AR's already. I put together two  9mm AR's just so I would understand them better. Even though they were, after tuning, reliable, they just never quite clicked. The one on a CMMG dedicated lower was flawless in performance. The one built with a Cav Arms lower had the right feel and balance but never shot as accurately as I felt it should.

Wanting to try all things new just so I had personal experience I decided to try a JRC. I waited for two years while they sorted things out. Well, now that they have it Just Right I got one and its a fine rifle. It is not as light as the ASR or my Beretta Storm, that is true. But, its not really heavy either. The things I like about it are:  Perfect, flawless operation with any magazine or ammo that I run in it. Then the accuracy. It groups as well at 100 yards as my 9mm AR (RRA barrel) would do at 25 yards. Its a smooth shooter that uses AR furniture and FCG. The only thing it lacks is a BHOA on last round. I can live with that as all the other operations are so perfect. Glock magazines are readily available and it even hums along on those dirt cheap Korean ones.

My Marlin 9 Camp is a nice rifle. Shoots smoothly with the Wolff recoil spring ( A little heavier than factory) and a Black Jack buffer.  The new "AR type" stock helps too. But the JRC will out shoot it every time with 115 and 124 bullets.

The Beretta Storm is light and compact. Its stone reliable and drama free. However, if you are going to shoot a few hundred rounds for fun the JRC is more comfortable and beats you up less. The JRC has a nice buffer system in it.

The ASR, as stated, is a fun little light weight rifle. Its compact and handy. Shoots pretty smoothly with a AR style buffer. If you want light and handy (as it comes apart in 15 seconds) you go with the ASR. If you want to go shoot hundreds of rounds at a time you take the JRC.  Each has its place. Guess that is why I think five different PCC's are not enough while others wonder why you have more than one. Each has its strong points. Why compromise when life is so short?