The NEA rifles...who else is in the "Seen 'em" club?

[North Eastern Arms]

You are 100% correct about 7075 being much more expensive to buy than 6061... not so sure about your claim that there is no real downside to using 6061.

It is my understanding that 7075 is about 3 times stronger than 7075 (another reason it's cheaper to use 6061 since it will cut faster and faster is cheaper)... but the industry standard is 7075 and the Milspec stipulates 7075 as well. There is more to "milspec" than just drilling the holes in the right place... it sets standards for tolerances, materials, material treatments, testing protocols, etc..

In the end when you reduce the quality of materials you reduce the quality of the end product. I'm not saying for a minute that the proposed NEA rifle isn't a great gun at a great price.... in fact I think it is. What I am saying is that if you use lower quality materials (6061 for example) to achieve lower pricing, you can't at the same time claim to be of the same quality and spec as companies that conform to the higher standards. I make that statement because NEA specifically stated:

"other then the price tag and lack of a free float quad rail..... we are pretty much in line with LMT. (post #10 made 6-18-2011)

The truth is the product is nothing like what LMT produces... not in materials, treatments, specifications or testing protocols. LMT produces Military Grade firearms... NEA is producing a "military style" firearm. There is a huge difference and it goes way beyond just their choice to use 6061 for their receivers.

Again, I am NOT knocking NEA in any way... I think they've done a good thing and I'm glad to see a Canadian company producing firearms here in Canada... I have no doubt they will sell very well and in fact I think they are a great answer to the Norinco M4.

"Just as good as" doesn't mean the same as... and often proves to be untrue.

Mark

Don't worry, didn't take anything personally. being the new kid on the block we're going to have to expect some criticism and skepticism. We know that we have a lot of eyes on us because of this project, and several of the "big dogs" are sweating a little at what's going up here in little old Canada. But Questar being a retailer that would directly stand to lose from our success.. your concern and uninformed information is a little less than professional. If you didn't intend it as such, I apologize; it is sometimes hard to receive the true meaning of electronic conversations. And I'll take it as a misinterpretation. Regardless, perhaps the reasons we opted for what we have should be explained.

By definition, a MilSpec rifle must be tested and inspected by the government. Only rifles made for the US Government are classed as "MilSpec" at all. No, again by definition our rifle is not milspec; Nor are many of the US-made rifles on the market that are claiming to be. There is a difference between true "milspec" and equal to milspec and even greater than milspec. I can name MANY companies making "milspec" rifles that are garbage..

That being said, our rifle is being made to an exceptional standard. MilStd. is not the acme of production, it is a list of requirements that the US Government has laid out in order for companies to be able to provide them with the "Minimum acceptable standard". It was devised to provide the US Government agencies with an standardization system within the various government agencies. It was not created as, nor is it the pinnacle of production standards.. it is to ensure that the selector in the desk jockeys rifle in the armory in New haven is replaceable with that of the Marines on board a ship in the Gulf of Aden.

MilSpec is a highly overused and over rated term. If you look at all of our specs, treatments, materials and design characteristics, most far exceed the MilStd. Some such as the design of our barrel, dry-Film Lubricant, and barrel treatment automatically put it outside of the milspec.

6061 T6 is used in many rifles.. However because of the many available alloys used in the industry, MilStd spells out one ->7075. They have their reasons for it, we have their reasons for using 6061. The reason why the "industry standard" is 7075 is because the industry "is in the USA", and every manufacturer theres only hope for large contracts, is with the military. Ergo.. it better be Milspec. There are also many reasons why 6061 is preferred in many aerospace applications. It's not a cost saving measure.. there are many other places we could have shaved dollars. Our company has over 50 years in aerospace development so we are just using what we know works to provide the appropriate end-result. The rest of the world does not demand US MilStd, so why limit your design when your market is not the US.. it is the markets that the US is unable to reach that have our attention.

afterall.. there's companies making receivers out of pot metal and even plastic lowers. I'd hope that 6061 rates above that. That being said however, the components used in these rifles that are not of our own manufacture are in fact Milspec, have been inspected and where required even MPI'd. We have our own QA control system and testing in place for our products.


Milspec is an overused term.. it is a standard. There are MilStd's for everything from firearms to underwear. And since we're not interested in providing either to the US Government, we'll go our own route. We are Canadian and therefore not bound by US Standards and definitions.


As for the Canadian Sporting use community.. these rifles will more than meet their need. "Milspec" or not. And all we can do is put our product where our mouth is and let the masses decide. Our government, military and overseas clients are happy with what they have seen so far and the specs we are providing, we trust you all will as well.

- Dave

 

[North Eastern Arms]

Mark,

First off let me start by saying before making this post i spoke to engineers and metallurgists from two major aircraft manufacturers as well as the owner of Canada's largest Processing house for Boeing/Bombarider programs. As well my back ground is 15 years in aerospace which include being a Machinists apprentice, buyer, processing buyer and production planner on both the V-22 and F18 ef landing gear programs. Your experience is obviously wikipedia.....

Your information is incorrect. 7075 is not even close to 3x stronger then 6061T6
The tensile strength is not even twice as high assuming the 7075 has been heat treated to max hardness. which doesn't matter anyways because there is no stresses in this application that come close to causing the 35000 psi tensile strength to fail on a 6061 upper/lower receiver. The surface hardness once anodized is identical between the two types of Aluminum.

Want to know what the difference between running the gun in 7075 to 6061 would be on the overall price tag? $150, not much at all. But when NEA was started we promised we would not buy into the industry BS of ramming what is not required down peoples throats.

You are 100% correct about 7075 being much more expensive to buy than 6061... not so sure about your claim that there is no real downside to using 6061.

It is my understanding that 7075 is about 3 times stronger than 7075 (another reason it's cheaper to use 6061 since it will cut faster and faster is cheaper)... but the industry standard is 7075 and the Milspec stipulates 7075 as well. There is more to "milspec" than just drilling the holes in the right place... it sets standards for tolerances, materials, material treatments, testing protocols, etc..

As for testing protocols and quality standards, we are both ISO and AS9100 certified which is better then 99% of the "milspec" manufacturers in the U.S

n the end when you reduce the quality of materials you reduce the quality of the end product. I'm not saying for a minute that the proposed NEA rifle isn't a great gun at a great price.... in fact I think it is. What I am saying is that if you use lower quality materials (6061 for example) to achieve lower pricing, you can't at the same time claim to be of the same quality and spec as companies that conform to the higher standards. I make that statement because NEA specifically stated:

Actually, we are going to surpass them considering our coatings are superior to theirs. again i reference above, your complete and utter lack of understanding of metallurgy.

For instance, we will be the first in the world to use a nasa recognized chrome replacement coating on our barrels which far exceeds gas nitriding for prolonging barrel life, which doesnt matter anyway because the milspec barrel life is far under what it would take to shoot out a non chrome lined barrel. If you want to argue this point i will put you directly in touch with our friends from barrett. Our upper is dry film lubed and on our enhanced version our carrier will also be coated.

The truth is the product is nothing like what LMT produces... not in materials, treatments, specifications or testing protocols. LMT produces Military Grade firearms... NEA is producing a "military style" firearm. There is a huge difference and it goes way beyond just their choice to use 6061 for their receivers.

Im not quite sure why you claim to know of what our testing protocols are but i assure you they are sufficient to satisfy a major nato ally who have already given us a letter requesting several rifles for test and eval. I wont take any credit for setting up our testing regime, it is being administered by former Mil personal involved in the testing/verification process.

Not to mention, our entire barrel manufacturing and testing process was put in place by former and now exclusive barrel supplier to "Barrett"


Your whole entire post is quite sad, i'm not sure why you feel the need to say what you think we are not in order to push your product.


Jeff

 

[TV-PressPass]

The internet is a nasty place.

I'll reserve my judgement for the range.

 

[FastFord58]

popcorn.gif

I really can't wait to see pics of these rifles. Any ETA on pics, or would that line up with your website overhaul at the end of the month or so?

 

[North Eastern Arms]

The internet is a nasty place.

I'll reserve my judgement for the range.

It truly is.

 

[GSDX2]

The internet is a nasty place.

I'll reserve my judgement for the range.

Well and truly said...but it has b**bies!

 

[bjs7293]

Mark,

First off let me start by saying before making this post i spoke to engineers and metallurgists from two major aircraft manufacturers as well as the owner of Canada's largest Processing house for Boeing/Bombarider programs. As well my back ground is 15 years in aerospace which include being a Machinists apprentice, buyer, processing buyer and production planner on both the V-22 and F18 ef landing gear programs. Your experience is obviously wikipedia.....

Your information is incorrect. 7075 is not even close to 3x stronger then 6061T6
The tensile strength is not even twice as high assuming the 7075 has been heat treated to max hardness. which doesn't matter anyways because there is no stresses in this application that come close to causing the 35000 psi tensile strength to fail on a 6061 upper/lower receiver. The surface hardness once anodized is identical between the two types of Aluminum.

Want to know what the difference between running the gun in 7075 to 6061 would be on the overall price tag? $150, not much at all. But when NEA was started we promised we would not buy into the industry BS of ramming what is not required down peoples throats.


As for testing protocols and quality standards, we are both ISO and AS9100 certified which is better then 99% of the "milspec" manufacturers in the U.S




Actually, we are going to surpass them considering our coatings are superior to theirs. again i reference above, your complete and utter lack of understanding of metallurgy.

For instance, we will be the first in the world to use a nasa recognized chrome replacement coating on our barrels which far exceeds gas nitriding for prolonging barrel life, which doesnt matter anyway because the milspec barrel life is far under what it would take to shoot out a non chrome lined barrel. If you want to argue this point i will put you directly in touch with our friends from barrett. Our upper is dry film lubed and on our enhanced version our carrier will also be coated.









Im not quite sure why you claim to know of what our testing protocols are but i assure you they are sufficient to satisfy a major nato ally who have already given us a letter requesting several rifles for test and eval. I wont take any credit for setting up our testing regime, it is being administered by former Mil personal involved in the testing/verification process.

Not to mention, our entire barrel manufacturing and testing process was put in place by former and now exclusive barrel supplier to "Barrett"


Your whole entire post is quite sad, i'm not sure why you feel the need to say what you think we are not in order to push your product.


Jeff

You have just supplied enough information about your processes to go over most peoples heads. From reading the comments from people on this thread and others the masses out there only care if it's Canadian made and priced right. Your product could be made of Pot metal and plastic as you put it and the people still would be satisfied. I think when your product comes to market you will have a winner My question to you is this, with all these superior processes that are Incorporated into your product what will the warranty be on the complete rifle?

 

[North Eastern Arms]

You have just supplied enough information about your processes to go over most peoples heads. From reading the comments from people on this thread and others the masses out there only care if it's Canadian made and priced right. Your product could be made of Pot metal and plastic as you put it and the people still would be satisfied. I think when your product comes to market you will have a winner My question to you is this, with all these superior processes that are Incorporated into your product what will the warranty be on the complete rifle?

3 year limited warranty on the complete rifle and life time on the upper and lower receiver.

 

[North Eastern Arms]

And yes, in my opinion, the BLK is a better choice for the reasons I stated and the reasons you stated yourself. Its SAAMI standardized and therefore there will be more components and tools available at cheaper prices. You said yourself your using a BLK reamer. But, to each their own. Sorry for trying to be helpful.

I spent the weekend in alberta shooting the blk, Its a great round, i am in love and NEA will be rolling out an 300blk upper this year. I think after our range day, there was one failure to fire and it was my fault but i blame that on my surroundings. I think i was light headed and giddy from being in what is easily the greatest province in the country. We are seriously considering opening an R&D facility in the Calgary area which means we will have an excuse to be there often. The sub par hockey teams will take some getting used to, but i think its manageable.

Jeff

 

[Questar]

I don't know your "testing standards" any more than you know LMT's, which is why I questioned (and still do) your comparing yourself to LMT. That was what I responded to. As for the suggestion that I am worried about the threat to my AR business, and that is what motivated my post, you couldn't be more wrong... but then you don't know me so say whatever you like if it makes you feel better.

There is an awful lot that you have not yet made public about your processes, etc... perhaps you never will... but you made the comparison to LMT and I simply stated some facts that I'm aware of directly from LMT (not wikipedia ). You confirmed what I said yourself when you indicated that you saved @ $150 by using a less expensive grade of material than nearly every other commercial manufacturer in the industry... whether the strength difference is 1x or 3x isn't the issue... the material is softer, weaker.

I'm not looking to argue with you... was not criticizing your product and made that very clear... simply pointing out that your claim to be the equal of LMT is unfounded (or should I say unproven) at this point.

If it was wrong for me to suggest that your LMT comment was unfounded and unproven then so be it... show me the proof... start by showing me the specifications and testing protocols for LMT which you stated you were equal to... the point is you don't have those specs so you can't know if you do or do not meet or exceed them. Without knowing LMT specs you can't claim to be equal to them.

Karl Lewis came from the aircraft industry... he created Eagle arms originally... he's been doing this (designing and building) AR's for decades. He's been filling US Military and Foreign military contracts for a long time... and continues to supply military grade firearms to those entities. His company and his products have a long history that show what they are and what they can do. They make pretty much every major component and sub component in the gun themselves, with only a few exceptions, (some pins, springs, gas tubes, etc.)... are you claiming the same thing?

I'm a bit amused that you make comments to the effect that "my knowledge came from wikipedia"... you don't know me and you have no idea where my knowledge was acquired... but you are free to think what you like... if you choose to respond by insulting me then so be it. It does not change what I said.

You have chosen to build an AR using different materials than the rest of the industry and to set your own "standards" and testing criteria... specifics of which you have not released. I have no issue with that... said so right up front... what I have issue with is you yourself started all of this by comparing your product to LMT's for quality and standards... I questioned the validity of your statement then... and I still do.

You are promoting a "Canadian made" AR but have never actually stated how much of the gun your company is actually producing itself, how much you buy from other commerical manufacturers and how much of what they supply is actually manufactured in Canada. Some people just assume that Canadian made AR means every component in the gun is Canadian made... but all that's really necessary to be called a "Canadian built" rifle is a Canadian made lower receiver and assembly in Canada.

Tell you what... you let me know when you have a rifle available and I'll buy it from you... at full retail... then we'll get it tested using LMT's protocols and see what components pass their tests and what does not... then we'll know whether you were right or wrong when you stated your rifle was comparable to LMT... until then I will continue to question your statement.

Again I will say that I am a fan of what you are trying to do and the rifle you are producing (from the little info you've released), and I think it will be an excellent offering in the Canadian market, regardless of what you think of me or my previous post

Mark

 

[Chizzy]

I think after our range day, there was one failure to fire and it was my fault ....

I am just curious; how many rounds were fired through your gun(s) during your range day.

I may need to pick up one of your guns when they become available.

Regards,

Chizzy

 

[North Eastern Arms]

Again I will say that I am a fan of what you are trying to do and the rifle you are producing (from the little info you've released), and I think it will be an excellent offering in the Canadian market, regardless of what you think of me or my previous post

Mark

I thought quite highly of you until you posted in our thread the way you did. I never compared our testing standards to anyone, what i did compare was the quality of products and the manner in which they are assembled and secured to/in the rifle as well as extra features. Many of our 6061 components are already in use in conflict zones with NATO forces, they all seem to be content with 6061 components.

And yes, LMT have publicly released their testing practices as they claim to build a milspec rifle which means at a minimum it must conform to the prescribed testing protocols that make milspec, milspec.

Anything that needs to be pressure tested, magged, penetrant tested, staked etc have been done or will be done as we complete components for our build, which will put us inline (other then using 6061) with what LMT, D.D etc offer.

you keep going back to this 6061 is softer, please cite a single test showing 6061 is "softer" and a liability as a material for the AR platform. You do understand the the AR "milspec" criteria goes back to the 60's and has changed little since then. Its out dated and does not take into consideration modern/current knowledge of materials and manufacturing processes.

BTW, we dont need you to approve/test our rifles, it is already being done by a former SAS armorer who is now on contract with us. We have millions invested in this venture, we are not here to play business, this is not a game to us, we are here to make money and sell a Canadian product on a world wide scale. If you question our resolve consider that 2 years ago we did not exist and as of today have released 60+ products, 15+ of which have seen active duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with both state/federal police forces in North America, Europe and Asia. We have spared no expense on machines, consultants, marketing reps and shortly lobbying, we are not going anywhere regardless of threads like this that attempt to down play our product.

If i seem bitter, i'm not. Im just tired that standard operating procedure within Canada is not to sell product on its own merits but to tell everyone else what your competitions product is not. One thing NEA will never to publicly is what has just been done in this thread. We market our products based on their merit, not of the limitations of competitors. Those that have to bash to raise their own product often find it is because it is their product that is lacking. But that's not for us to decide. We have no interest in the quality or assets of any other design because we are not building them. We are building our rifle, incorporating our designs and technology not found in any other rifle anywhere. If some people are threatened by a new company shooting at a higher level off the start then maybe they better pick up the pace, because we have our next year + scheduled and we aren't slowing down for a moment.


Mark, What you did here, is on the same scale as OneShot Tactical walking into one of your LMT threads and posting these and then saying, yup, not bad, good enough for the Canadian market but not on the same scale as Knights for quality.

Those pictures btw are from a gun that was sold in Canada.

Jeff

 

[zimmineee]

I spent the weekend in alberta shooting the blk, Its a great round, i am in love and NEA will be rolling out an 300blk upper this year. I think after our range day, there was one failure to fire and it was my fault but i blame that on my surroundings. I think i was light headed and giddy from being in what is easily the greatest province in the country. We are seriously considering opening an R&D facility in the Calgary area which means we will have an excuse to be there often. The sub par hockey teams will take some getting used to, but i think its manageable.

Jeff

I'm sure there will be allot of people who would jump at the chance of picking up a 300blk upper or even just a barrel. I definitely would like one (or two) in the 10.5" range. I won't hold my breath for any of the other dealers to bring in any 300blk products so you got my sale once you bring them in.

As far as the argument between Whisper vs 300blk. In my opinion there is no argument, 300blk is the way to go for the main reason it has the saami classification meaning there should eventually be a decent variety of manufactured ammo available in the future.

 

[misanthropist]

It would be interesting to see an NEA gun put through LMT's testing regime, but it would be hard to know what the results meant unless they just came out and said, "it passed all our tests".

If there was a failure, there would always be suspicion that having the rifle tested by a competitor resulted in questionable testing procedures etc...that might not be true, but everyone would always wonder.

But if I weren't trying to cut my expenses so drastically after taking on a mortgage, I would probably donate a gun to that project myself, just to see the results.

 

[North Eastern Arms]

...tap

 

[Questar]

I thought quite highly of you until you posted in our thread the way you did. Jeff

I did not realize that this was your thread... it is in the Black & Green Rifles section (not your NEA Forum) and it was started by "Misanthropist" not by NEA. I thought it was a general discussion thread and open to anyone... you seem to feel differently.

I also did not post anything until you yourself brought up a comparison to LMT and in respone to your own posting, I posted my opinion of what you stated.

Not sure I understand how doing so was bad behaviour on my part.

So... you win... say whatever you like... post whatever pictures you like... compare yourself to whoever you like... call me whatever you like... I'll leave "your thread" now... sorry I intruded.

Mark

 

[Claven2]

I b t l.

 

[effinggoof]

I did not realize that this was your thread... it is in the Black & Green Rifles section (not your NEA Forum) and it was started by "Misanthropist" not by NEA. I thought it was a general discussion thread and open to anyone... you seem to feel differently.

I also did not post anything until you yourself brought up a comparison to LMT and in respone to your own posting, I posted my opinion of what you stated.

Not sure I understand how doing so was bad behaviour on my part.

So... you win... say whatever you like... post whatever pictures you like... compare yourself to whoever you like... call me whatever you like... I'll leave "your thread" now... sorry I intruded.

Mark

Dude...it's not his thread, and it's not his forum.

The forum at large welcomes this discussion, and it's perfectly reasonable for the LMT importer to call out competitors who name drop his brand.

May the best AR win.

 

[mullet maniac]

"sub par hockey teams"??!!

 

[North Eastern Arms]

This has gone nowhere fast.

Mark, feel free to drop by for a shoot... We can talk shop then.

I'm not interested in comparing our products to those of another manufacturer. They are not the same product, they are different; it is meant to be different. We have the chance to 'be different' and strike out and I think our clients will appreciate our product for it. We're not interested in following the same old mold and standard. But until you have one in your hands I'd kindly ask that you refrain from discounting it based solely on conjecture and what you believe it "not" to be.

LMT makes some fine rifles but we're not making LMT rifles here and I think we have explained that. Jeff's comment was only a topic of "value", not of quality. We prefer to earn that the old fashioned way and allow our customers to chose based on those merits. We don't have the time or inclination to tear apart everyone else's product to build ours up.. there's easier ways.

Thanks,

...Dave