CQA made of inferior alumenium

Judging by voids and other imperfections I've observed, some of the Chinese AR15 clones are castings.

That, or incredibly poor quality billet was used for the forging.

That being said, the average nose picker would never out shoot one.
 
Armedsask said:
Judging by voids and other imperfections I've observed, some of the Chinese AR15 clones are castings.

That, or incredibly poor quality billet was used for the forging.

That being said, the average nose picker would never out shoot one.
Click to expand...

But why buying a Norinco when there's much better options out there for not that much more money?
 
adamg said:
99QJYuH.jpg
Click to expand...

damn near pissed myself!!!!!!!!!
 
I saw an article about NEA weapons ending up in the middle east, used in real combat, holding up just fine. Must be magic they didn't disintegrate on the boat ride over there based off these couch commander crowds opinion. lol
 
wannabe said:
are NEA's not also 6061???
Click to expand...

Along with a vast quantity of other Ar15s built since they were introduced in Vietnam (though the military switched to 7075 due to corrosion issues in Vietnam. Not because of strength issues.) At least up until relatively recently when manufacturers realized they could charge even more for 7075, and consumers could then turn up their noses at "Inferior alloys"

There is literally nothing wrong with 6061. Other that it is more frustrating to machine than 7075
 
Last edited:
DT741 said:
Ever seen or heard of a 10k rounds NEA ? Seen a lot of Norinco though :p
Click to expand...

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...An-NEA15-Looks-Like-After-Close-To-10K-Rounds

Now you have.
I still have that rifle and it’s all just as it was, though it doesn’t get much play-time anymore. I stopped keeping records of how many rounds I’ve put through it. I still can’t help but laugh when I read that thread and see deitz lose his sh!t over a bit of wear on a gas key after 10K rounds :d
 
FoxAlpha said:
Back in the day when your choices for an AR were 800 dollar Norinco or 2800 dollar Colt/LMT etc we did what we had to, to get into the game.

Now a days there is zero excuse for buying either when you can buy a S&W for 650.00 or aero receivers for 100.00.
Click to expand...

I have been familiar with the AR market since the late 80s and to my memory there has never been a time when a $2800 AR was the only option for quality.

In 1990 when a real Colt Sporter HBAR was the outlandish price of $900 you could buy an Olympic Arms for $700.

Since then the price of Colt's or other marquee brands has gone up to maybe $2200 when the supply was tight and our exchange rate was terrible, in the 2005-2010 window. But by then there was lots of options that could be had for 30% less: Bushmaster, Armalite, RRA, Stag.
 
End of the day 7075 is harder than 6061 - 6061 has a higher zinc content making not as hard. If the lower is anodized there is really no difference, unless you are a discerning fellow.

Most of the more "cost effective" Billet options on the market in Canada are 6061 (BCL102, FX-9), Noveske, Mega and the rest of the lowers machined from solid billet (coming from the US) are usually 7075.

First gun.........buy the Smith, can't beat the price and lots of room to grow from there.
 
I had not thought about it until you guys pointed it out. But it was not long ago that the Norinco CQA was the only affordable way to get started. I got my first AR about 7 years ago and there wasn't much selection. Even Bushmasters seemed expensive.

At least several thousand through mine and a broken extractor and broken firing pin were the only issues.
Had a round blow apart in the chamber of my very first norc AR and it handled the incident perfectly.
It was unusable, but the gun stayed together.
 
Last edited:
Norinco M14 receivers were made out of compressed cardboard. Then somebody actually tested the hardness, and they were just fine. Chinese thing made from Chinesium! Therefore bad!
 
rimlick said:
I saw an article about NEA weapons ending up in the middle east, used in real combat, holding up just fine. Must be magic they didn't disintegrate on the boat ride over there based off these couch commander crowds opinion. lol
Click to expand...

Most of them probably worked fine after 2 trips back for warranty, only a few soldiers were caught on the battlefield without a functioning rifle. Probably user error though :p JK

I own an NEA receiver set and it works fine, but I wouldn't trust anything else from their shop unless I could inspect it prior to purchase.
NEA are capable of making a nice rifle, unfortunately they only seem to do it 75-80% of the time, the rest are junk that the QC department should have pulled but were too busy napping to catch before they went out to customers.

NEA makes entry level cheap rifles and as far as I can tell that's the only reason they keep selling. People don't know any better and like the price tag. Sometimes you're lucky and you get one that works and sometimes you're not so lucky.



As for the original post about inferior aluminum. 7075 is a harder aluminum but plenty of AR's and other rifles are made with 6061. It's not an issue as long as it gets anodized so the surface is hard and doesn't wear quickly and so the holes don't oval out or get loose. If you can put enough rounds through your 6061 rifle to wear it out you could probably justify spending some more money and buying a quality rifle to start with.

If you buy the cheapest rifle on the market why would you be surprised if it doesn't last as long as a Colt or KAC? There's more to the price than just the brand name.
 
Last edited:
6061 – MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Ultimate Tensile Strength 45000 psi
Tensile Yield Strength 40000 psi
Fatigue Strength 14000 psi
Shear Strength 30000 psi
Hardness, Rockwell 40
Machinability 50%
7075 – MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Ultimate Tensile Strength 83000 psi
Tensile Yield Strength 73000 psi
Fatigue Strength 23000 psi
Shear Strength 48000 psi
Hardness, Rockwell 53.5
Machinability 70%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom