Because our engineers that develop high-stress aircraft components (including military landing systems) chose it as the best material for the job. Just because something is done one way for a period of time does not mean that it is the only way, and failure to explore other options and heed the advice of experts with much more experience and knowledge than myself would be an error.
Bottom line, there is not enough stress in an AR receiver to warrant it.
We are not anchored to the past, we are looking to move forward.
We're confidant enough with the choice to guarentee the rifle with a lifetime warranty.
But there are two main reasons.. The milspec standard was written quite some time ago and was written to a single product(s) with no scope for deviation. Note; 7075 is easier to forge, and 90%+ receivers are made from several common sources of forgings.
Interesting viewpoint, however you have not shared any validated data in response to your selection criteria I'm afraid other than circular logic.
So, basically your argument, when viewed fundamentally, boils down to the fact that the MIL-spec is incorrect in it's section of a high tensile alloy as it was misinformed and instead, your selection of a much lower strength alloy is acceptable due to the fact it was 'selected by your engineers'. By extension, the references and studies that these specifications are based off are also all in error as 'proved' by 'your engineers'.
I was under the impression that firearms are over-designed to encompass failure against most plausible eventualities, given the serious repercussions of a catastrophic failure to the user, and it appears that your design - simply due to using a much weaker alloy - is not accounting for the same safety margins that the original design is built for. This philosophy of maintaining safety margins has not, to my knowledge, changed since 'a long time ago'.
A lifetime warranty is a poor substitute as NEA is capitalizing on the fact that none of your rifles will be exposed to, with all due respect, anywhere near the same rigours as a military rifle would be. However, there was a reason why the MIL-spec (and supporting industry specifications) are written for a higher grade of alloy - to enhance durability and to ensure that the safety margins are safeguarded. It amuses me that even the
Chinese are using the 7075 when they could be saving a bundle by using 6061 if they bought into your logic.
As the one deviating from the norm, the onus is on NEA to prove that your selected grade of alloy takes into account all safety parameters of the original design. This takes a little more than a "show and tell" day and requires detailed analysis and testing of the extreme scenarios that it could be subjected to.
To close, I congratulate you on introducing a "Canadian Made" firearm, even if it is a less rugged and capable 'replica' of an established design.
I look forward to an
enlightening conversation
