WK180c Practical Review with Pics and Video

Travis Bickle said:
This is an open discussion thread so I don't see why it matters at all who chimes in period.
Anyhow,

Kodiak,

What is the solution if I send you my rifle again at my expense now for the second time, with my steel mags that do not feed because they all sit too low?

The issue may have come up rarely simply because most people having the issue simply buy new mags (I had to) to find ones that work. We're Canadians. Most of us are too ####ing polite for our own good even when we shouldn't be but I digress. ...
It's a clear and existing problem from this thread alone.
So again, what will the solution be if I have to spend another $50 to ship my rifle across the county to you just to "prove it"? At this point I'll be out $200 + between mags and shipping not counting time and frustration.

I'm not going to lie, seeing RWA manning up and admitting they messed up and offering a properly machined lower receiver no questions asked makes me wish I had paid twice the price at this point.

Instead I'm stuck with a defective product and a manufacturer telling me essentially I have to pay out of my pocket for the third time now to remedy it which implies it's my fault essentially by default.
My patience is wearing thin.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Mr. Bickle,

As I said to you in my email:

"If the rifle is at fault, we will of course repair or replace it with the same enthusiasm that we displayed the first time you contacted us. We make quality rifles and we stand behind our work. That said, we cannot vouch for every magazine on the market. When I asked if you could send it in with the magazines that were not working, it was so we could evaluate the functionality of the rifle, the magazines, and the rifle and magazines together. I can’t just mail you a new rifle on your word alone. In the interest of openness, I do need to tell you that if the rifle is functional, but your particular brand of magazine is at fault that we can’t warranty a product that we didn’t make. In that case we would ship the rifle back to you and email you an explanation as to why.

We have had at least two rifles previously come to us with the complaint that the magazines failed to function. I tested them with: a Kodiak Defence 5/30 steel magazine, both a new and a used Hera H3 5/30, an Armalite 5/20, an IMI 5/30 polymer, and an E-Lander XCR-L 10 rd magazine. In my mind, if the rifle functions with that variety of magazines then it’s not the rifle’s fault. (Again, to be open: those were ALL of the different types of magazines that we had in the shop when the first complaint came in – they weren’t cherry-picked, nor was any specific effort made to find every common or possible magazine.)

As to shipping. Our policy is for the customer to ship it to us. We perform the work gratis and pay return shipping. This policy is on your warranty card. I know that that isn’t what you want to hear, and I’m sorry, but that is the warranty procedure."

As I also said, I think that we're putting the cart before the horse. I don't know if your rifle is functional or if it's defective and I can't do anything for you if I can't examine it. We value our customers and want to make this right, but we need to see your rifle before we can figure out how to solve this.

Best wishes,




Owen
Assembly Manager
Kodiak Defence Inc.

(As always, if there are any owners of WK180Cs who are experiencing similar problems, or any problems at all, I encourage them to contact us at Service@KodiakDefence.com for resolution.)
 
Travis Bickle said:
Cyclone, I take it then that yours is also N/S with steel mags?
Click to expand...


For what it's worth: my S/N is apparently 400-series.

So a bit of an update: still a no-go on any metal LAR magazines I've tried. That said:

* Gen-3 PMAGS (i.e. they are polymer ones, just to be clear) seem to feed fine, and drop-free as well.

* "Okay" New Britain CT 5/20 metal mags seem to feed fine, and drop free as well.

* "NHMTG" metal 5/20 magazines seem to feed fine, and to drop free as well.

* The Canadian-flag "polymer mags that dare not speak their name" seem to feed fine, but do not drop-free.


Unsure if this information helps, but like I said, I want to be as fair as possible here.
 
Id personally be happy if it worked 100% with MFT mags cus IMO they are the best mags in Canada! but I understand the disapointment still...... A "quality" firearm should work with most if not ALL AR -15 magazines. Impossible? well somehow my old 1980s AR 15 A2 HBAR does it :rolleyes:
 
beltfed said:
I think some of you are forgetting that magazines are a consumable item...
Click to expand...

A rifle that is advertised as being compatible with magazines that turns out to not be is the issue here.

Magazines are consumable if you're a soldier in a war or a civilian target shooter with money to burn maybe. I'm neither.

At 37 bucks a pop taxes and shipping in they sure as hell are not consumable items to me.

To suggest that it makes a shred of sense to say that magazines which worked in every other firearm I've ever used them in are the cause of a malfunction is beyond ridiculous and insulting to my intelligence. The ####ing rifle was advertised to take STANAG mags. Some of them seem to and many others now confirm to not work. That's not a magazine issue it's a ####ing manufacturing and quality control issue of the product.

It doesn't matter how much spin you put on it. That's logical common sense.
 
Last edited:
I'm taking it back out to the range tomorrow with my norc ar 15.
People want to split hairs on this?
I'll be uploading a video tomorrow afternoon to prove this in one video with the ar15 and the 180 with all 4 steel mag types I have. Colt, nato, lar15, norc.
I'll shoot 3 rounds from each side by side swapping from rifle to rifle.
Stand by for this. It's not pretty.....
 
While I agree with your thoughts on this in general terms T.B., and most certainly in your situation I would fully expect the manufacturer to step up with tangible actions in correcting your rifle, it is a little much to expect these rifles to be compatible and fault free with every AR type magazine on the market. I know you’re not saying that, but it appears some coming out of the woodwork are alluding to that notion.

The sad fact is that the AR (STANAG) magazine design isn’t a great design to begin with and is the source of the majority of feeding and function issues. People face these issues with perfectly functioning ARs, and seemingly fine mags to this day from a design that has largely gone unchanged for ~60 years. Additionally, there is bound to be some dimensional differences from all of the types and manufactures out there whereby some will be bound to work better than others.

Regardless how long a mag lasts, like most reciprocating parts on the rifle, they will wear out - and therefore a consumable.
The springs and mag catch notches on Stanag mags can wear or get bent out of shape to a point where even the slightest deformation will induce stoppages. If I was closer, I’d certainly be willing to meet up and compare rifles and help chase the gremlin. Maybe someone in the ‘Chuck has one that works and you can compare? Anyhow, good luck with your rifle.
 
Rifle to rifle variance for sure. But mine don't work with ANY is the problem.
I'll prove it tomorrow. Stand by.

Here is my theory on why now. I asked a member on here to take some measurements of his 180b inside the upper receiver and his plastic lower as well.
My suspicion is now that they cloned the general dimensions of the 180b upper and lower receiver.
However when they switched from the barrel trunion design of the 180b to the Ar15 barrel system this changed the height upwards of the center axis of the barrel and also the feed ramps by default.
Higher also then in relation to the lower reciever which is likely (and apears to be from the measurements I've gathered) an exact copy of the 180b dimensions.
So higher also in relation to the location of the mag catch cutout.
The plastic type mags sit higher in my ar15 as well I've confirmed this.
Steel ones sit lower in my ar15 BUT they sit lower still well up enough to contact the ramp high enough in line with bolt making it irrelevant and allowing them to feed as designed.
THIS lower location of the steel mags is the actual place mags are supposed to sit. The plastic designs sit higher in AR'S but this causes no problems.
If they sat lower though......
Hence exactly why they are not working in this gun.
The mags are not the damned problem.
I'm assuming they caught this shortly after earliest ones out and likely modified the location of the mag catch which would explain why the later serials seem to feed better with them but this is speculation 100% to be clear.

I'll prove it tomorrow in one video. Stand by. It's not pretty...
 
Last edited:
My buddy is going to bring his Colt c7 as well.
So I'll have two control rifles to prove it sure as #### is NOT the mags. A "piece of junk" norinco and the almighty king of kings Colt diemaco c7.
Going to be a good one....
 
I'm fully intending to sell it with disclosure (now at a huge loss regardless) or return it to dealer for refund.
I'm done sinking money into this thing. Not another cent even on shipping for inspection or whatever on my dime again.
I'm not even mad at this point. Just really dissapointed with this whole thing.
Video will be up tomorrow.
 
beltfed said:
While I agree with your thoughts on this in general terms T.B., and most certainly in your situation I would fully expect the manufacturer to step up with tangible actions in correcting your rifle, it is a little much to expect these rifles to be compatible and fault free with every AR type magazine on the market. I know you’re not saying that, but it appears some coming out of the woodwork are alluding to that notion.
Click to expand...

Yea, the remington 7615p needed worked on lar15 mags for them to function correctly, and I guess judging from magpul's website, there are a few rifles that won't function with all average ar15 magazine, sa80, hk416, ect. hence why they make a few different kinds.

The average metal gi mag should be working though. It makes no difference to me since I'm going to sell off either my metal or plastic magazines to standardize my collection.
If one type actually didn't work in my 180 it'd make my decision easier.
 
Travis Bickle said:
I'm assuming they caught this shortly after earliest ones out and likely modified the location of the mag catch which would explain why the later serials seem to feed better with them but this is speculation 100% to be clear.

I'll prove it tomorrow in one video. Stand by. It's not pretty...
Click to expand...
Mag catch location was the first major issue with my lower design many years ago. While combining AR15 and AR18 blueprints, I screwed up on the first prototype. It's too late tonight, but tomorrow I'll pull up my blueprints and give you the exact dimension in relation to the FCG pins. As these parts must all be the same distance from the barrel centerline regardless of firearm, it's the best reference point. Not that it will likely help.

The original AR180B had similar feeding issues. I'm a bit shocked they didn't remedy this. It was well know. Hell, the just needed to go read my FAQ stickied in this forum.
 
Travis Bickle said:
I'm fully intending to sell it with disclosure (now at a huge loss regardless) or return it to dealer for refund.
I'm done sinking money into this thing. Not another cent even on shipping for inspection or whatever on my dime again.
I'm not even mad at this point. Just really dissapointed with this whole thing.
Video will be up tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Really Looking forward to video, thanks in advance
 
Armedsask said:
Mag catch location was the first major issue with my lower design many years ago. While combining AR15 and AR18 blueprints, I screwed up on the first prototype. It's too late tonight, but tomorrow I'll pull up my blueprints and give you the exact dimension in relation to the FCG pins. As these parts must all be the same distance from the barrel centerline regardless of firearm, it's the best reference point. Not that it will likely help.

The original AR180B had similar feeding issues. I'm a bit shocked they didn't remedy this. It was well know. Hell, the just needed to go read my FAQ stickied in this forum.
Click to expand...

Or, you know, blame mag brands that work in 6 other guns I've owned in the past.

Armedsask if you could post your stuff I'd love to see it brother.

Both the 180bs I owned had zero issues feeding anything. Plastic mags weren't even a thing back then. I used every brand of steel AR mag under the sun in those too and can't recall a single jam literally.

I found a difference in the relation of the bottom of the ramps from the top of the mag catch when comparing measurements of distance taken from buddies 180b and the 180c.
Im heading to the range in about 3 hours after I drop my little clones off at school lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom