NEA 15 (16 or 18") vrs M&P 15 Sport 2.

ShotgunNut

ShotgunNut

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island BC Canada
Contemplating my first, possibly my only AR. It would be nice to get one Made in Canada from Nea if I could. Watching vids on youtube they seem to be more commonly less reliable the shorter the barrel they have but the 14-18" barreled Neas look great in terms of reliability. I am slightly nationally biased in this decision although my second choice would be the M&P 15 Sport 2. Not looking for high end just the best AR I can get under $1000. Feedback appreciated, thanks.
 
I would buy the Smith,,, I'm sure there is nothing wrong with the newer NEA's, but on past reputation alone I would pass. As far as ammo goes, there is always a sale from one of the site sponsors, if not, wait for one, it won't be long lol.
Cabelas just had a great deal that many of us jumped on,, usually if there is a good deal someone will post it here, be ready to jump on it, the good deals seem to sell out quickly :)
 
You can get a nice, gently used NEA on here for around the same price as A new SW sport 2. The NEA is made in Canada but both come with a lifetime warranty. Some people like lifetime warranties because it implies a high quality product the company is standing behind, on the other hand some people think lifetime warranty gives people a false sense of security and doesn't imply quality. It depends on what you prefer. I own both and I feel the NEA is a higher quality rifle, I have had no issues with my sport 2 but the build quality feels noticeably lower than the NEA. I have had zero reliability issues with either and both are good buys in my book.

Cheers,

Ben
 
pygmalion2020 said:
You can get a nice, gently used NEA on here for around the same price as A new SW sport 2. The NEA is made in Canada but both come with a lifetime warranty. Some people like lifetime warranties because it implies a high quality product the company is standing behind, on the other hand some people think lifetime warranty gives people a false sense of security and doesn't imply quality. It depends on what you prefer. I own both and I feel the NEA is a higher quality rifle, I have had no issues with my sport 2 but the build quality feels noticeably lower than the NEA. I have had zero reliability issues with either and both are good buys in my book.

Cheers,

Ben
Click to expand...

Thanks for the good feedback. What barrel length do you have on your Nea?
 
My friend has a sport II. I have gotten to use it quite a bit at the range. I have had various other ar manufactures. I have never used a magpul flip up rear sight and was pleasantly surprised how accurate I can be with it at 100m (distance of our range). I like the 1/9 twist rate, 16'' barrel was great. I usually have a1/a2 receivers and prefer carry handle irons.

Pros- cheap, accurate enough you can plink all day with just the rear flip up magpul sight.
Cons- Cheap handguard, Cheap rear sight, (I wasn't a huge fan of the finish). You would have to consider sight picture and front post clearance/certain magnification if you choose to put some glass on it. Or throw an aimpoint, Eotech and cowitness it perhaps.

NEA- Never shot one. I do like the finish more, 18'' barrel would be what I want. Flat top upper so you can mount quite a few options of glass. You could buy nice match set of iron sights.

In the end it depends how much you are going to put in to it. If all you want to do is plink with iron sights then pick up a nice carry handle or rear match sight for the sport II. If you want possibly a variable/fixed glass etc then I would go NEA but thats how I would look at it, every ones different.
 
Last edited:
I have no problems with a magnified optic on my Sport II. My Vortex Strike Eagle at 1x you see a faint post under the reticle, at 6x it disappears. My Burris P.E.P.R. mount would be considered 1/3 co-witness but since it has QR levers, I can pop it off quickly if I want to use irons. Reattach the scope and it is zeroed.

wpB2Mrn.jpg
 
Last edited:
I like that set up! ^^^ at 1x I would imagine so, last optic I used was 3.4x28 and I could still see the front post at the bottom of my sight picture through my elcan c79a2. With the perp perhaps by 2-3x the front post is not in the sight picture?
 
Last edited:
rodngun said:
I like that set up! ^^^ at 1x I would imagine so, last optic I used was 3.4x28 and I could still see the front post at the bottom of my sight picture through my elcan c79a2. With the perp perhaps by 2-3x the front post is not in the sight picture?
Click to expand...

As best I can illustrate here is what it looks like through the Strike Eagle, starting at 1x then 2x. By 3x and higher it virtually disappears. The front sight post also drops out of field as you increase the magnification. I might add, at 1x, seeing the front sight albeit blurry does help with parallax, by positioning the blurry front sight post on the vertical black bar of the reticle, you have pretty much eliminated close quarters parallax.

TGausXS.jpg


fwkPM9r.jpg
 
Great post and pictures. I just wanted the OP to consider the above that will be in his sight picture of his sport II on a low variable or low variable fixed optics vs using flip up irons on a flat top on a NEA where they won't be in clear view through his optic regardless of low or low fixed variable optics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom