For the people hoping that quality control will increase as the manufacturer's gain more experience...... this seems backwards to me. Upstarts should focus on quality control from the get go as it's easier to maintain a good reputation then repair a bad reputation.
RWA showed how to modernize the 180 platform correctly, having the metal side panels before the MCR came into being, and overall being of high quality, as I've seen no reports of failures of the rifles. But they did so in a boutique way, ensuring quality of a limited number of firearms at a premium cost. One could be argued at the time of their leaving the rifle market for oilfield work the market at the premium price was not strong enough to maintain production, especially with pre-crash oil filed work premium income beckoning. That was pre-OIC, however, and now I believe the market would bear the premium price happily to get a premium non-restricted semi-automatic firearm, should RWA or another manufacturer be willing to step into that market.
Kodiak, and Wolverine when they first started together, took a different tact. Hints of the OIC were in the wind, so the goal was to put out as many non-restricted firearms at the initial sub-$1000 price as rapidly as possible. They translated the stamped steel design to aluminum without the refinements pioneered by RWA, and coupled with manufacturing quality control problems, Kodiak had enough issues in both producing enough rifles and with overall rifle functionality that Wolverine parted ways with them. In effect, initial run of WKs could be seen as form of Kickstarter, with each purchase getting a somewhat less then refined firearm of intermittent quality, and helping finance the industry further to craft how to modernize mass production of the rifle with modern materials and methods.
Both Kodiak and Wolverine's later partner Spectre LTD took lessens learned from the pre-order/prototype-ish program, and have further refined the design. Kodiak has gone back and provided some of the improvements along the way to their prior customers, like the improved bolt carrier group, though there is some controversy whether the bolt handle attachment method change is an improvement. There are the occasional reports of piston failures, but those seem to be reducing with time, and can be somewhat alleviated by properly keeping everything loc-tited into place.
Spectre has added metal inserts first found on the RWA rifles to their design, and had few teething problems of their own, like the initial run of adhesive attached picatinny rails on some of the initial guns, occasional exceptionally poor quality butt stocks and use of a role pin in the BCG for some copies. Those seem to be now resolved.
I think we can say at this point, that overall the WK-180C is not a piece of junk. If an earlier version is purchased, especially one that has not been upgraded, you may run into some QC issues, but a newer version should function out of the box, barring warranty issues. If someone has warranty issues, like with anything, send it back.
Is the design as bullet-proof as an SKS? No, of course not. Canada is still refining the design of its own modernized version of the rifle, whereas the SKS is the definition of a mature weapons platform. The 180 design has come a long way, and if someone is willing accept that to have a modular, made-in-Canada semi-automatic rifle, that is their choice.
