NEA Issues *WARNING*

Status
Not open for further replies.
GuiltySpark said:
Edited post because I was going off topic but That's exactly what I said. Elcan and Eotech don't seem to fret over customer service too much, probably thanks to military contracts.
Click to expand...
buy from a reputable dealer, and they will make it right if any issues. don't do grey market, unless you can afford to play that game.
 
I want to cheer for NEA as a Canadian company, I really do.

But this thread is a perfect example of why everyone who wants an AR should just suck it up and buy a Daniel Defense to begin with.

You'll feel the better quality right from the start, you'll have more confidence shooting it, you'll have more pride of ownership having it, and you'll never have any quality issues like this.
 
Sumppi said:
Here's my experience with my NEA 18 DMR -rifle.

First off, the chamber was unfinished, it left a nasty "belt" in the fired brass.
20140705_180606_Android_zpssl6izmlz.jpg


After a gunsmith cleaned the chamber up, there weren't any issues for about a year.

Then the bolt broke in in half. At that point, round count was about 3400.
IMG_20150803_090602_zpsnfwex3sk.jpg

The broken bolt got replaced with a chromed bolt from NEA.

After just 340 rounds, trouble started again. The locking lugs of the new bolt had considerable deformation.
Also, pieces from the lugs were chipped off.
IMG_20150920_195720_zpsaqd1qyc7.jpg


And once again, the gun was sent to a gunsmith to be inspected.

The gunsmith inspected the rifle and these are his findings:
Headspace is 0.12 millimetres(or 0.0047 inches) over the C.I.P.(equivalent of SAAMI) maximum (Headspace was OK when the replacement bolt was installed).
Barrel extension is most likely damaged too as headspace was over the maximum with numerous different bolts.

The BHO groove in the lower receiver has been deformed, bolt doesn't lock back with empty magazines.
IMG_20150922_082106_zpso9hqyf9q.jpg


The upper receiver is also really worn out; for example, charging handle is reaaally loose in the upper.

Total round count with the rifle is little over 3700
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood but; the second bolt does not appear to be chromed.......
 
Chemist said:
As everyone knows, we do a ton of business with NEA.

A couple qns for you:

1) how old is the gun? It looks light grey which makes it look like an older model. The picture is also dated 2014 so I am assuming its an older one.

and

2) that bolt, where did it come from as neither of them appear to be NEA bolts. The black bolt that broke in half isn't NEA (you'll see a logo engraved on it...looks like a lions head with a crown maybe) and the replacement one you got has the same logo on it. NEA doesn't put a logo on the bolts they make. I can see a logo'd bolt on an older gun as they used to purchase them but not a new bolt. I just sent they picture of that bolt to NEA to verify as it didn't look like one of theirs and they verified it isn't an NEA bolt. NEA bolts are now nickel plated and that one isn't...it looks grey. It is also machined differently than one of their bolts.

Ryan
Click to expand...

The crowned lion mark is a Finnish proof mark, so that particular mark has nothing to do with the maker.
 
Pretty sure those bolt marks are proof marks and not maker's marks.
The marks are those illustrated in the Birmingham Proof House's catalogue of foreign proof marks.
 
I honestly think that NEA gets an unfair bad rep based on early product. Virtually any new company will have manufacturing hiccups in early products. It's how the manufacturer responds in regards to product problems that will make or break them.

Last winter we tested an NEA 14.5 at work and sure enough it performed poorly. The safety seized up and it felt like a rattle can, however it was an early model which was sent for testing. A buddy of mine bought a newer generation rifle (with the black finish and the raised NEA logo on the lower) and it has been totally flawless.

In the big world of guns, they are still pretty new and their product development and quality seems to be improving on a daily basis. I think a customer who buys the most current generation NEA can honestly expect a decent product for the money. Remember these are not 3,000$ rifles. If thy were, sure maybe we have grounds to complain a little but for the price, a new NEA is not a bad rifle.
 
tiriaq said:
Pretty sure those bolt marks are proof marks and not maker's marks.
The marks are those illustrated in the Birmingham Proof House's catalogue of foreign proof marks.
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting those are nea bolts that have been proofed by a Finnish company?

And how does smoothing out a chamber resolve a chamber defect that leads to brass expanding into a "belt"???? Wouldn't the belt just be larger and smoother afterwards?

That post of Sumppi's is odd on a number of levels....
 
Last edited:
Proofing is standard in Europe. Wouldn't matter who made the bolts or the rifles, proofing would still occur.

Regardless of who made those bolts, they are pooched, and the barrel extension is likely damaged as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom