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

One of the more interesting discussions here in a while thats forsure.

I think it's safe to assume NEA has done their homework on this. I would bet that there were many hours spent around the table discussing this in their boardroom.

BTW we gotta be different OK! we're Canadian eh! :rockOn:
 
Navy Gunner said:
Any reason why you're only going with a standard A2 birdcage FH. Have you considered producing your own or going with something produced in Canada?
Click to expand...

Our enhanced rifles will have our flash hider on them, the standard will have a birdcage (this was a cost saving measure). As well, many organizations just want an A2 so we had to bring some in anyways.

We will also be offering a SPEX Brake on some of our rifles.
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Neither series of aluminum will contain a kaboom. 6061 is fine as the upper and lower are not load bearing parts of the AR rifle. Everything that is, is made of hardened steel.
Click to expand...

Agreed throttle.X2

I've worked with 6061 for over 30 years. It is tough, meaning strong yet still possessing ductility. Once the failure to the Steel (Bolt/barrel lugs) occurs, the increased ductility of the 6061-T6 vs 7076, may help contain flying parts by stretching and absorbing the flying debris, or at least slowing them through the greater stretching before failure, instead of fracturing due to lesser ductility. UTS and hardness alone as in the 7075, on same dimensions as the 6061 may not neccesarrily mean encapsulation of the kaboom, but a fracture from the lack of ductility, causing projectiles from the receiver itself. This is only speculation on how the softer may contain blast and fracture less. If that makes any sense at all.
Just my two cents worth,.... unless there were data someone could link us to on controlled kabooms of both receiver materials in actual firearms, I'd probaly hide behind the 6061.If I had a receiver milled from a 6061 Billet like the extrusions I use at work, I would think it would be good to go.I'm probaly worst off right now behind my so called pot metal AR's receiver:eek:. As to wear on sliding surfaces and holding dimensional tolerances, the 7000 series may be the ticket. I know its what you want if your vehicle is going to get Aluminum armour plate.
 
50calshooter said:
I think it's safe to assume NEA has done their homework on this. I would bet that there were many hours spent around the table discussing this in their boardroom.
Click to expand...
Yes, NEA seems to take great pride in it's products, and I could never see them being happy releasing anything below average onto the market.
It'd be like Lamborghini selling a cavalier.

Trying not to kiss ass, but it's the feeling I get. Time will tell.
 
Gunnerlove said:
Nope that is 5083 H38.
Click to expand...

Gunner we use 5086 in ship hulls. I think the 5083 is for general structural use where good ductility especially on breaking corners is used. I just did a whole lot of procedures last summer using 5086 and 6061, and it qualifies us for 5083 series as well. This plate is in no way near the toughness of 6061. I call 6061 the unintended armour plate, and when you work it or weld it you can see why.


PS....just did a quick search it does say 5083-H131 as Aluminum armour plate but thats weldable and some say composite layers. I was thinling along the lines of more ballistic qualities in the plated inherent hardness like the non weldable 7000 series.
 
Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to clear this up for those with concerns. You summed up in a couple posts what would have had to been translated from techno-gibberish from our engineers and taken me a week to convey.

I let the metallurgists and engineers spec the material, we just design the goods.

- Dave
 
Gunnerlove said:
I am wondering how much additional flex there is going to be when fired prone and off support 6061 vs 7075.
Click to expand...

Matweb quotes Young's Modulus as 10,000,000psi for 6061-T6 and 10,400,000psi for 7075-T6, so the 7075 upper will be 4% stiffer based solely on material properies. Yield and tensile strengths have nothing to do with stiffness. The lower yield of 6061 will cause it to permanently deform at lower stresses than 7075, but I doubt that many people bend their AR uppers unless they use it as a pry bar.

Mark
 
The fact of the matter is that, if they were sneaky, NEA could have said their receivers were 6061 and no one would have ever noticed.

The 7075 vs. 6061 debate is completely ridiculous. The only reason anyone expects 7075 is because it is the status quo and had been deemed the better material.

I can faithfully say that the NEA rifles will perform on par or better with any other AR15 out there. I have two on order and will beat the ever loving #### out of them. I'm confident they will work just fine.

As for Kabooms, has any other rifle ever been scrutinized based on it's ability to contain a KB? Come on, you people are grasping at straws.

I don't buy rifles based on their ability to contain catastrophic failures. I buy them based on their ability to not have catostrophic failures.
 
This is kind of a useless arguement for I would guess every user on this forum. Funny how there were no threads on the material of the norc uppers being strong enough or able to contain a catastrophic failure....

I'm going to get an NEA gun, and probably end up using it more than my SR-15 just to get some rounds through it and see how it works.

And depending on how I like the upper, will probably put it on my SR-15 lower just because of the ambi comtrols.
 
Contrary to popular opinion, mil spec is not any indicator of quality. The military procurement policy is not "let's buy the best thing we can!" It never has been and it never will be... there are always a million other factors at play, like interchangeability of parts and service tools, ability to meet demand nationally for parts and production, price, incentives, etc etc. We as Canadians should know this; we scrapped the Avro Arrow and bought these:

5076672334_eacf871d6d_b.jpg


Sometimes mil spec just means cheap, crappy, and prone to spontaneous combustion.
 
RememberTheSomme said:
Gunner we use 5086 in ship hulls. I think the 5083 is for general structural use where good ductility especially on breaking corners is used. I just did a whole lot of procedures last summer using 5086 and 6061, and it qualifies us for 5083 series as well. This plate is in no way near the toughness of 6061. I call 6061 the unintended armour plate, and when you work it or weld it you can see why.


PS....just did a quick search it does say 5083-H131 as Aluminum armour plate but thats weldable and some say composite layers. I was thinling along the lines of more ballistic qualities in the plated inherent hardness like the non weldable 7000 series.
Click to expand...

I am looking at a stack of 60"x60"x6" slabs right now and it is 5083.

Some 7000 series is weldable, it is #####y but it is weldable.
 
RememberTheSomme said:
Agreed throttle.X2

I've worked with 6061 for over 30 years. It is tough, meaning strong yet still possessing ductility. Once the failure to the Steel (Bolt/barrel lugs) occurs, the increased ductility of the 6061-T6 vs 7076, may help contain flying parts by stretching and absorbing the flying debris, or at least slowing them through the greater stretching before failure, instead of fracturing due to lesser ductility. UTS and hardness alone as in the 7075, on same dimensions as the 6061 may not neccesarrily mean encapsulation of the kaboom, but a fracture from the lack of ductility, causing projectiles from the receiver itself.
Click to expand...

Back in the days of muzzle loading cannon, brass was preferred to cast iron. When cast iron blew, it was like shrapnel from a fragmentation bomb. :eek: Brass just stretched.
 
dfritter1 said:
We as Canadians should know this; we scrapped the Avro Arrow and bought these:
Click to expand...

Actually we bought Bomarcs (nuclear-armed missiles that would have killed more Canadians than letting the Russians through) and then, when it finally soaked through to the Ottawa bigwigs that airplanes are not obsolete, CF101 Voodoos. I always hated Voodoos.

(Don't get me started on CF5 Freedom Fighters! :mad:)
 
Kveldulf said:
Actually we bought Bomarcs (nuclear-armed missiles that would have killed more Canadians than letting the Russians through) and then, when it finally soaked through to the Ottawa bigwigs that airplanes are not obsolete, CF101 Voodoos. I always hated Voodoos.

(Don't get me started on CF5 Freedom Fighters! :mad:)
Click to expand...

Oh for God sakes man, the only thing cooler at an Air Show than the 101 was a Phantom. Both had hard light burners and they really excited the crowds being lit as a Brace turned away. Wrong forum but I'd take a lightning anyday over that over rated icon assembled at Malton.:canadaFlag::p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom