Kodiak Defence 180NSR .223/5.56 Non-Restricted Rifle
- Thread starter awesomealvin
- Start date
^^^this^^^ will get me into the game
^^^Yes to this. Less troublesome for WK as well, they'll only need to focus on the QC and delivery of two parts. If they sell a receiver set for say $500-$600 range, it'll sell like hotcakes. And I bet they'll make more profits than selling the entire $1100 rifle.
The SLR and ATRS MS can use some competition.
I can't say I'm a big fan of the new design.
Last time I saw something that tall it was a bullpup with a sight bridge on top.
It looks like an abomination - something that was put together by a committee whose members weren't all on the same page.
I don't understand why the time and effort wasn't spent refining the WK180 to meet the original objectives.
1. Get rid of left side port (Right hand ejection only). Less machining costs.
2. Cut the hammer spring down to improve pull weight (without sacrificing ignition).
3. Add a bolt release (aka RWA).
4. Fix the Picatinny rail issue.
5. Add the brass deflector (and if you are maching it anyways add the ejection port cover mounting tabs).
6 Add ejection port cover.
7. Tolerance the carrier hole for the charging handle correctly and add a bigger magnet. Reduced cost as you are now only doing one side.
8. Fix the relationship between the pistol grip angle.
9. Index the charging handle so it can't rotate - you can then add flats to the handle so the required slot in the upper can be a smaller diameter (Less crap to get in when you are crawling around foxholes).
10. Alternatively, remove the bolt release (extra cost) and have the charging handle on the left side. Good for both left and right-hand shooters.
11. These changes could be incorporated for the same price as having to add additional material (height), machining (longer machining time) , and components (bolt release, AR charging handle, modified carrier (for AR charging handle)).
This thing reminds me of RWA's franken bolt side opening design. May work - but it is ugly as sin.
Last time I saw something that tall it was a bullpup with a sight bridge on top.
It looks like an abomination - something that was put together by a committee whose members weren't all on the same page.
I don't understand why the time and effort wasn't spent refining the WK180 to meet the original objectives.
1. Get rid of left side port (Right hand ejection only). Less machining costs.
2. Cut the hammer spring down to improve pull weight (without sacrificing ignition).
3. Add a bolt release (aka RWA).
4. Fix the Picatinny rail issue.
5. Add the brass deflector (and if you are maching it anyways add the ejection port cover mounting tabs).
6 Add ejection port cover.
7. Tolerance the carrier hole for the charging handle correctly and add a bigger magnet. Reduced cost as you are now only doing one side.
8. Fix the relationship between the pistol grip angle.
9. Index the charging handle so it can't rotate - you can then add flats to the handle so the required slot in the upper can be a smaller diameter (Less crap to get in when you are crawling around foxholes).
10. Alternatively, remove the bolt release (extra cost) and have the charging handle on the left side. Good for both left and right-hand shooters.
11. These changes could be incorporated for the same price as having to add additional material (height), machining (longer machining time) , and components (bolt release, AR charging handle, modified carrier (for AR charging handle)).
This thing reminds me of RWA's franken bolt side opening design. May work - but it is ugly as sin.
What is this pic rail issue I've been hearing about? I don't have a WK180C but I'm trying to figure out what new NR .223 to go for and this issue has been mentioned a few times but not in detail?
