Kodiak Defense WR762 and CZ858 photo comparison

aka_ryan

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
138   0   0
Location
Ontario
Hi folks, I received my WR762 with deluxe wood from Wolverine recently, I know a lot of you is uncertain about the new receiver made by Kodiak Defense so I decided to do a photo comparison (not a review), so you guys can see for yourself and decide. Personally, I think this cz858 copy is a go, Westrifle definitely scored on this one. Mine came with the "candadian edition" wood stock as well as the special laser engraving on the bolt carrier. The quality of the wood is superb, very nice wood grain and texture, feels really good in hand, looks beautiful on the new receiver. Anyways, no photo no truth right? Here we go...



Some overview shots

gvZPefo.jpg


QTcsGCz.jpg





With my original CZ858 below

u9Mjejl.jpg


o9EIkSb.jpg





Closer look

Ca1E6xS.jpg


7f9nZbb.jpg


m7duEuH.jpg


OgcyCMz.jpg


JuKEnLl.jpg


gMTxocy.jpg


tAkbkwi.jpg


FtY1lIN.jpg


LrpMl34.jpg


DE7xjcj.jpg


AtbV60d.jpg


63vz8Pl.jpg






Right side receiver comparison (Top: WR762 Bottom: CZ858)

7f9nZbb.jpg


79eE74t.jpg


FhH2EWD.jpg


flOSY3u.jpg



Note on the photos above, you can see there is an "L" shaped tooling mark just above the safety switch on the receiver of WR762, very subtle but you can see it if you hold the rifle close enough.


RVzG1wI.jpg


wEdSLrg.jpg






Left side receiver comparison (Top: WR762 Bottom: CZ858)

tAkbkwi.jpg


8LINBKb.jpg


ks2XCuQ.jpg


LDDbqBc.jpg



Notice the hairline tooling mark on WR762 in the photo above, one on the lower rear corner of the receiver and one just above the trigger guard. Again, very subtle.


9uk9hVw.jpg


cRlXuyW.jpg



Another hairline tooling mark towards the front lower corner of the receiver.





Bottow view of receiver (Top: WR762 Bottom: CZ858)


G7N2ZSF.jpg


2VEzTCS.jpg






Top view of the receiver (side by side comparison)

pCDuflV.jpg


YkeyU3q.jpg


iQZqZRY.jpg


quCAuKE.jpg


jfAPB9H.jpg


UqgmWnU.jpg


kXOjyrD.jpg


ebFBEK2.jpg



Appears the front corners are drilled on the WR762 receiver rather than cut to 90 degrees as in the CZ.






Top view with handguard and gas piston removed


vvTE1BD.jpg







The WR762 I got from Wolverin came with CZ surplus barrel so not much difference, but I believe the rest of WR762 made by Kodiak all come with Canadian made barrel.


KjnvuyU.jpg






And all the parts are CZ surplus on both rifles

VjencSY.jpg


r1fSgqh.jpg






Overall, I think Kodiak did a good job on the 858 receiver, with the following issues noticed, mostly cosmetic in nature.

1) Minor tooling marks noticed on the exterior of the receiver, on both sides. But is very subtle, not a deal killer to me.
2) The front corners of the receiver are drilled instead of a 90 degree cut. Not a deal killer either, but I would definitely like see that improved in future productions.
3) When removing the gas piston from the WR762, there appears to be some binding between the rear of the gas piston and the housing under the rear sight. On the CZ858, simply tilt the front the piston and it will slide out, but on the WR762, the piston will stuck once tilted and requires a bit of pull to get it out. However, when the piston is installed and seated, it travels freely back and forth so I don't think there should be any concern regarding its operation.
4) The take down pin is a bit tight, but requires no tools to get it out, just have to push/pull it harder, and I'm sure it will loosen up over time.

So far that's the only issues I've noticed, none of them is a deal killer to me but could be improved. From an aesthetic perspective, I have to give credit to Kodiak. Overall, I think the receiver is well done! Hope you guys enjoyed the photos!


Cheers
 
Last edited:
90deg corners are prone to cracking. The drilled corners relieve stress.

Man, I sure hope my parts kit becomes a rifle! Looks sharp.


Really? Thanks for sharing. I'm not an expert on that, I was under the impression that the drilling was done because it was easier to do than cutting a straight corner...
 
Is the ejector part of the receiver on the WR?
Not crazy about the font they used, but at least it's hard to see.
 
Great pictorial, thanks OP.
Some questionable changes in design, more metal left in the places where it's not needed (another 0.2-0.3 kg of weight?).
 
My criticisms:

1) the front raceway flanges are cut 90 degrees by the barrel face instead of 120 degrees like on a real receiver. The 90 degree cut will make these more prone to cracking.

2) The markings... please reduce them to 2mm height and put them somewhere that doesn't look like an advertisement. Get rid of the goofy maple leaf on the sight housing please.

3) The receiver lightening cuts on the WR receiver are way too short - why aren't they copying the 858 external contours? Why make it un-necessarily heavy?

4) The ejector is no replaceable in these new receivers, on real 858 receivers, it's a replaceable part. Long term viability?

5) What is the heat treatment on the receivers? Does it match the originals? Have the WR's been torture tested for thousands of rounds to see if their process is the equal of the military process? Big unknown here...?

I have no issues with the plunge cuts - they will relieve stress in those areas and make cracking less likely. Not bad from a materials science perspective.
 
My criticisms:

1) the front raceway flanges are cut 90 degrees by the barrel face instead of 120 degrees like on a real receiver. The 90 degree cut will make these more prone to cracking.

2) The markings... please reduce them to 2mm height and put them somewhere that doesn't look like an advertisement. Get rid of the goofy maple leaf on the sight housing please.

3) The receiver lightening cuts on the WR receiver are way too short - why aren't they copying the 858 external contours? Why make it un-necessarily heavy?

4) The ejector is no replaceable in these new receivers, on real 858 receivers, it's a replaceable part. Long term viability?

5) What is the heat treatment on the receivers? Does it match the originals? Have the WR's been torture tested for thousands of rounds to see if their process is the equal of the military process? Big unknown here...?

I have no issues with the plunge cuts - they will relieve stress in those areas and make cracking less likely. Not bad from a materials science perspective.

Good questions. I choose to avoid all these by using a t81 or m10x instead.
 
Great pictorial, thanks OP.
Some questionable changes in design, more metal left in the places where it's not needed (another 0.2-0.3 kg of weight?).

Note sure by how much but it does felt heavier in hand, part of it could be the wood furnitures too, will be swapping on the barf wood to see how it handles
 
My criticisms:

1) the front raceway flanges are cut 90 degrees by the barrel face instead of 120 degrees like on a real receiver. The 90 degree cut will make these more prone to cracking.

2) The markings... please reduce them to 2mm height and put them somewhere that doesn't look like an advertisement. Get rid of the goofy maple leaf on the sight housing please.

3) The receiver lightening cuts on the WR receiver are way too short - why aren't they copying the 858 external contours? Why make it un-necessarily heavy?

4) The ejector is no replaceable in these new receivers, on real 858 receivers, it's a replaceable part. Long term viability?

5) What is the heat treatment on the receivers? Does it match the originals? Have the WR's been torture tested for thousands of rounds to see if their process is the equal of the military process? Big unknown here...?

I have no issues with the plunge cuts - they will relieve stress in those areas and make cracking less likely. Not bad from a materials science perspective.


Great questions, I'm in particular interested in the heat treatment too, been going through other threads but it doesn't seem WR has provided any insights. Hope someone could chime in...
 
Back
Top Bottom