New WK180-C

Murray 3-D said:
Its the same inconvenience....
Click to expand...

Except that when the bolt locks open, you know the magazine is empty.
When I am shooting an AR, my right hand rarely leaves the grip. Left hand does the magazine changes, action release. Pushing the lollipop vs flicking the CH isn't much of an inconvenience.
 
Moe said:
I have to wonder about the choice of aluminum. They are building this out of 6061 yet I believe most ARs are the harder 7075.

Moe
Click to expand...

Again, this is based on a design that originally had a polymer lower and they worked very well unless people were really rough with them. Any aluminum has to be drastically better than the polymer ones.
 
8 ball said:
Again, this is based on a design that originally had a polymer lower and they worked very well unless people were really rough with them. Any aluminum has to be drastically better than the polymer ones.
Click to expand...

Even Daniel Defense and BCM make their receivers out of 6061, and they don't exactly have a reputation for poor quality. 6061 is plenty strong enough, and only premium (expensive) receivers are 7075.
 
Hihi962 said:
Just simply cheaper to machine, common sense. If you don't shoot much, no big deal, but it will clearly wear out faster, it has to.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have no clue about the things you talk about.

6061 is cheaper and much easier to find than 7075. The machining difference is trivial, any aluminum is much softer than TiN coated tool steel.

There is no reason it would wear out faster. Aluminum parts riding directly on steel parts would be expected to have a very short life, which is why the lowers are coated, regardless of alloy. The steel rides on the coating, the receivers last virtually forever.
 
8 ball said:
This is designed very closely after a gun that is already proven. Shouldn't be hard to make a good copy run well...
Click to expand...

It just happened that Kodiak has already tried to copy a gun that is already proven - CZ858/VZ58 and I would not call their attempt successful.
 
Because the bolt carrier runs on the twin guide rods, the stress on the upper is reduced. If moulded synthetic would work for the lower, machined aluminum would have to be at least as good. Don't know that 6061 or 7075 makes that much difference in the design.
 
6061/7075 alloy makes no difference in a 180B.

A strong aluminum alloy is beneficial in an AR15 because the BCG rides directly on the upper

No such benefit exists in a 180B. The BCG rides on steel guide rods.

The pressure that a 180B upper experiences is nowhere close to that of an AR15 as a result.

So why the insistence on 7075? Ignorance.
 
Why do people want stripped receiver sets? Must just be the catch phrase of the day or something. Anyone with any knowledge can see this is not an AR-15 and therefore would require proprietary parts which would mean buying your receiver set then buying the rest of the parts from them. Maybe the barrel and trigger group are AR-15 compatible but the rest of it looks like it's more AR180 (hence the name) which isn't an easy gun to find parts for.
Just buy the complete rifle, it's not a high end product and is not the type of parts you'd start with for your dream build or a precision semi auto.

I'm not sure why they went with the medium profile barrel, I predict 2-5 MOA depending on the barrel (factory or aftermarket) with no barrel producing better than 2 MOA no matter what ammo you feed it. This is a plinker not a DMR and I doubt anything will make it better than a fun plinker. Would have made more sense to me to go with a light profile and keep it as light as possible.

It looks like an interesting rifle and the price is good. Hopefully the quality is better than the Kodiak SKS chassis I handled a couple days ago, machining was sloppy with tooling marks. As long as it's reliable it should do well though at $1000.

Another non restricted semi on the market is always a good thing, well done Wolverine :)
 
They said the med profile barrel was cheaper than a light profile barrel. They are making this rifle as affordable as humanly possible.
 
tiriaq said:
You don't rack the charging handle to reload. It locks back when the magazine is empty. You just pull back slightly and release. It is not like an AK.
Click to expand...

Its the same idea to me. Whether I have to bump the charging handle, or run it from closed bolt, I prefer to seat mag and then press bolt release with my thumb. I don't care for bringing my off-hand from mag, to charging handle, to forend. I'd prefer to skip a step by pressing a bolt release.
Not saying its inconvenient necessarily, just not my preference. I also like to actuate the slide release on a pistol with my dominant hand instead of my off hand or rack the slide on a reload.
 
Lungorthin said:
Its the same to me. I prefer to seat mag and then press bolt release with my thumb.
Not saying its inconvenient necessarily, just not my preference. I also like to actuate the slide release on a pistol with my dominant hand instead of my off hand or rack the slide on a reload.
Click to expand...

Get a MD or MV rifle then, they have all of the features of an AR. This is not supposed to be a high speed low drag rifle.
 
tiriaq said:
Because the bolt carrier runs on the twin guide rods, the stress on the upper is reduced. If moulded synthetic would work for the lower, machined aluminum would have to be at least as good. Don't know that 6061 or 7075 makes that much difference in the design.
Click to expand...

JaredP said:
6061/7075 alloy makes no difference in a 180B.

A strong aluminum alloy is beneficial in an AR15 because the BCG rides directly on the upper

No such benefit exists in a 180B. The BCG rides on steel guide rods.

The pressure that a 180B upper experiences is nowhere close to that of an AR15 as a result.

So why the insistence on 7075? Ignorance.
Click to expand...

On the point where the BCG rides the twin guide rods and spring, anyone know if there is a chance for a carrier tilt?
 
SteelCap said:
On the point where the BCG rides the twin guide rods and spring, anyone know if there is a chance for a carrier tilt?
Click to expand...

Carrier tilt is from people trying to shoe-horn a piston into an AR15 without properly engineering it. A properly engineered piston rifle is entirely different.
 
SteelCap said:
On the point where the BCG rides the twin guide rods and spring, anyone know if there is a chance for a carrier tilt?
Click to expand...

Long time 180B owner here. Never been an issue from my experience. There's actually a third point of contact. The bolt cam pin runs in a track on the left side of the upper. Not sure if that will end up being a high wear area over time on these new guns though.
 
SteelCap said:
On the point where the BCG rides the twin guide rods and spring, anyone know if there is a chance for a carrier tilt?
Click to expand...

Not if it's built like an AR180. The carrier doesn't go back into the buffer tube either so not really something to worry about. This is not an AR-15 and shares almost nothing with one in the operating system.

Lungorthin said:
Its the same idea to me. Whether I have to bump the charging handle, or run it from closed bolt, I prefer to seat mag and then press bolt release with my thumb. I don't care for bringing my off-hand from mag, to charging handle, to forend. I'd prefer to skip a step by pressing a bolt release.
Not saying its inconvenient necessarily, just not my preference. I also like to actuate the slide release on a pistol with my dominant hand instead of my off hand or rack the slide on a reload.
Click to expand...

Ever try learning something new? It's not very hard to get used to and once you've trained yourself to do it you can reload just as fast. But, as Driller pointed out, this is not a high speed low drag competition rifle looking to take over the top spot on the 3-gun circuit. It's a cheap, entry level plinking rifle for having fun with that lets guys on a tight budget get into a non restricted semi. If you're a competitive shooter or are used to nice things this won't be something you'll want in your collection. The manufacturer is best known for SKS accessories so don't expect this to be the same quality as a Daniel Defense or other quality AR.
 
Last edited:
cr5 said:
Why do people want stripped receiver sets? Must just be the catch phrase of the day or something. Anyone with any knowledge can see this is not an AR-15 and therefore would require proprietary parts which would mean buying your receiver set then buying the rest of the parts from them. Maybe the barrel and trigger group are AR-15 compatible but the rest of it looks like it's more AR180 (hence the name) which isn't an easy gun to find parts for.
Just buy the complete rifle, it's not a high end product and is not the type of parts you'd start with for your dream build or a precision semi auto.

I'm not sure why they went with the medium profile barrel, I predict 2-5 MOA depending on the barrel (factory or aftermarket) with no barrel producing better than 2 MOA no matter what ammo you feed it. This is a plinker not a DMR and I doubt anything will make it better than a fun plinker. Would have made more sense to me to go with a light profile and keep it as light as possible.

It looks like an interesting rifle and the price is good. Hopefully the quality is better than the Kodiak SKS chassis I handled a couple days ago, machining was sloppy with tooling marks. As long as it's reliable it should do well though at $1000.

Another non restricted semi on the market is always a good thing, well done Wolverine :)
Click to expand...

They are not releasing receivers, only completed rifles.
If we look back to the AR-18, the only things holding back Eugene Stoner and ArmaLite from reusing AR-15 architecture in the AR-18 was Patent protected intellectual property they sold to Colt along with the AR-15 & AR-10. There is none of that holding this new rifle back.
I’m going to go on a hunch that aside from the upper and lower receiver, bolt, carrier and gas components the rest is AR compatible - and it makes perfect sense to do so.
- this spells to me that barrel is fitted to upper receiver, just like AR-15, and threaded down centering barrel with receiver.
- bolt in carrier floated and centres on barrel extension just as AR-15.
- floated handguards allowing disconnect of furniture to gas system.
If the gas system is floated there is no reason for this not to achieve HK-223/416 and SL-8 level of accuracy with a good barrel and ammo - that’s moa/sub-moa territory. Proven in the HK systems - which borrowed (copied) heavily from the AR-18 action in the first place.
- guys bothered about the receivers - these are cases, no different than AR-15 receivers.


cr5 said:
It's a cheap, entry level plinking rifle for having fun with that lets guys on a tight budget get into a non restricted semi. If you're a competitive shooter or are used to nice things this won't be something you'll want in your collection.
Click to expand...

- nope, I’ve got plent of spendy gun stuff in the safes, and I was one of the first out of the gate when sales opened up.
-my prediction is this thing is going to be a Wolf in sheeps clothing, its going to be an AR killing sleeper - if it’s modified to suit.
 
BattleRife said:
It sounds like you have no clue about the things you talk about.

6061 is cheaper and much easier to find than 7075. The machining difference is trivial, any aluminum is much softer than TiN coated tool steel.

There is no reason it would wear out faster. Aluminum parts riding directly on steel parts would be expected to have a very short life, which is why the lowers are coated, regardless of alloy. The steel rides on the coating, the receivers last virtually forever.
Click to expand...

What ru suggesting here ???? that the running surfaces of ur standard aluminum receiver AR, JR carbine, ASR, MR1, XCR and most semi auto shotguns are all coated to prevent the steel parts from wearing them out ?!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom