WK180 Gen 2 Broke Already

WarWolf

WarWolf

Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   1
Location
Kamloops, BC
So I was super on the hype train for the Gen 2. I had purposely stayed away from MCRs, Gen1 180, and all other 180 rifles because I hadn't found one to my liking.

I got the first rifle my LGS was selling and took ot to the range over the long weekend. At first I was completely happy with the rifle, ergos were great, holding great groups and I was reaching out to the 500 yard gong no problem. Took my rifle home and notice my safety was being sticky, so I took my rifle apart and this is what I found.

https://ibb.co/RQrHBcV
https://ibb.co/ZM7t8fZ
https://ibb.co/6RR1wvj
This is just from the hammer hitting the wall and I only shot 50 rounds. It may look minor but that's enough to pin my bolt release which then locks up my trigger group, which is causing issues with the safety to not work properly. It also raises the question of the heat treat for the rest of the receiver.

I've emailed and tried to call Kodiak Defense about this issue since Sunday and have yet to hear any word back. I'm usually not one to gripe but it's honestly frustrating deal with especially since you havent shot a 556 gun since 2020 to see.

I'm still giving Kodak Defense the benefit of the doubt but hopefully I hear from them soon.
 
Last edited:
Hard to see what we're looking at in those pics, but.......

The aluminum receivers are not heat treated after machining (as in no company heat treats aluminum receivers after machining). The bar stock is likely already 'T6' from the mill.

Even the 'hard anodizing' only provides some wear resistance on the surface........and it's not that hard to wear through it
 
I also can't see what the issue is, the pic actually hurt my brain to look at but if the hammer is hitting aluminum, and I don't care what type of aluminum, the aluminum will give. The question you should be asking is, why is any part of a steel hammer coming anywhere near to contacting aluminum?

As others have said, receivers aren't heat treated in sports rifles, all the stress of detonation is carried in the barrel chamber and bolt.
 
not a gen 2 wk, but on my rwa/lynx hybrid i had to remove a bunch of material there so that the hammer was only hitting the bolt carrier/firing pin. i think more than a few of the 180 clones have poor tolerances in that specific area.
 
Ahh, I had a timney impact and it would bring up in the wall and couldn’t hit the firing pin.
The hammer on the timney is a bit less pronounced than a regular hammer though.
The ALG act trigger had a more pronounced? Hammer and it worked great and I don’t think it hit the wall on contact with the firing pin. Not 100% sure though.
I thought at least when the bottom of the hammer hits the wall, it’s at least two flat surfaces making contact,so theoretically it should be fine.
Unless your hammer is hitting on an angle, like hitting the top of the wall and bending it?

Or maybe I’m reading your issue wrong and have no clue what I’m saying… lol
 
WarWolf said:
Slave labour
Click to expand...

Ain’t it a B!ych though! At least over here most only gotta work 40 hr weeks, for enough to pay the bills.. lol

Anyway, what the purpose of that piece of metal tab?

Wouldn’t the fBCG stop the forward movement of the hammer?
 
Would love to know what's going on here.

Please take pictures with a modern smartphone or camera instead of a potato and re-upload.
 
Subscribed. I think the fix will be minor. Doesn't appear to be a receiver issue. Looks like its the trigger group. Hopefully its just a one off.
 
Gen 1 carriers had the same heat treating problems. Did they really think surface anodizing is the same as proper heat treating?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom