It's here: NEA-15 unboxing photos

North Eastern Arms said:
If we had what you guys dump into IRD we'd be putting monkeys on the moon for sh!ts & giggles, not making guns. ;)

Because we're new to this field we have to rely on the experience of the engineers that have been cutting ships in the aerospace side of the table for years. Some of what they do translates well.. some does not. Uncle Sam has deep R&D pockets in the defense aerospace sector, we just suck at the teet of that past knowledge and production.
Click to expand...
I get where you guys are coming from and no doubt you're aware that in general I am a big believer in NEA products and use them a lot.

But this is why I find the decision to go with 6061 for the upper to be confusing.

It seems like every other builder has gone to 7075. I think that the XM16e1s and early e2s were 6061, and I believe that VLTOR did a run of early VIS uppers in 6061, but I also believe they switched to 6013 almost immediately. I do not know if the 6061s were just prototypes or if any were released. And their MUR is 7075.

I get that your engineers think 6061 is the best metal for this...but frankly even though I don't expect to run in to trouble on it I really struggle with this decision. It seems very unusual to me that when every other serious AR builder is using 7075 for their uppers, that a company with a engineers from a different field are going to get better results by using what is ordinarily seen as a cheaper and weaker material.

As I say, I am really behind this project and I fully intend to run NEA rifles for the foreseeable future. But this decision is very, very hard for me to wrap my head around. What information am I missing here that makes 6061 better for me as an end user than 7075? Every time I attempt to research this I get people expressing concerns about thread strength and pin hole elongation, and it always ends with people who appear knowledgeable (to someone like me at least, without a metallurgical or machining background) saying to me, "look, it will probably be okay, but it's definitely second best, and why don't you just get one of the eight million forged 7075 uppers out there? Everybody KNOWS that alloy works, and that's why everybody uses it."

It is really hard for me to justify saying, "well, somebody from another industry thinks this is good enough for me."

Now I will be the first to admit that I am not in law enforcement, or in the military, and I do not work at a post office. So odds of me needing to shoot people with this or any other gun are virtually zero. So 6061 probably IS good enough for me. I get that. If my gun breaks down that probably just means I will walk back to the bench, grab my backup, and return to the drill. But at the same time, a Taurus pistol is probably good enough for me for exactly the same reasons. But I don't own Tauruses. I own Glocks, and it's staying that way because I like quality.

So I would personally really enjoy seeing the technical FAQ on this specific subject because it is the ONE thing about these guns that I am having a hard time with.
 
misanthropist said:
I get where you guys are coming from and no doubt you're aware that in general I am a big believer in NEA products and use them a lot.

But this is why I find the decision to go with 6061 for the upper to be confusing.

It seems like every other builder has gone to 7075. I think that the XM16e1s and early e2s were 6061, and I believe that VLTOR did a run of early VIS uppers in 6061, but I also believe they switched to 6013 almost immediately. I do not know if the 6061s were just prototypes or if any were released. And their MUR is 7075.

I get that your engineers think 6061 is the best metal for this...but frankly even though I don't expect to run in to trouble on it I really struggle with this decision. It seems very unusual to me that when every other serious AR builder is using 7075 for their uppers, that a company with a engineers from a different field are going to get better results by using what is ordinarily seen as a cheaper and weaker material.

As I say, I am really behind this project and I fully intend to run NEA rifles for the foreseeable future. But this decision is very, very hard for me to wrap my head around. What information am I missing here that makes 6061 better for me as an end user than 7075? Every time I attempt to research this I get people expressing concerns about thread strength and pin hole elongation, and it always ends with people who appear knowledgeable (to someone like me at least, without a metallurgical or machining background) saying to me, "look, it will probably be okay, but it's definitely second best, and why don't you just get one of the eight million forged 7075 uppers out there? Everybody KNOWS that alloy works, and that's why everybody uses it."

It is really hard for me to justify saying, "well, somebody from another industry thinks this is good enough for me."

Now I will be the first to admit that I am not in law enforcement, or in the military, and I do not work at a post office. So odds of me needing to shoot people with this or any other gun are virtually zero. So 6061 probably IS good enough for me. I get that. If my gun breaks down that probably just means I will walk back to the bench, grab my backup, and return to the drill. But at the same time, a Taurus pistol is probably good enough for me for exactly the same reasons. But I don't own Tauruses. I own Glocks, and it's staying that way because I like quality.

So I would personally really enjoy seeing the technical FAQ on this specific subject because it is the ONE thing about these guns that I am having a hard time with.
Click to expand...

You make some very good points. I to am very interested in the NEA rifle as well but there has been alot of unanswered questions that have been posted in other threads. One question is are aircraft parts engineers the same as the engineers in the firearms industry. Maybe some firearms industry experts (KevenB) could chime in here in regards to the 6061 vs 7075.
 
I'll start off by saying an NEA will be my next firearm purchase. With the steller track record aerospace engineers have with guns I have to give them credit that they know what they're doing. However as they've stated it was NOT a cost saving feature, I would be very interested to hear why exactly. This seems to be the biggest issue people are having with the rifles by far.
 
The bottom line is that the engineers looked at the design,. crunched the numbers and 6061-T6 is what they recommended.

Keep in mind that a lot of the concerns in the past with 6061 vs 7075 again are an apples to apples comparison. Our receivers are billet and have a little more material in them than the forged 7075 receivers. 7075 forges well, 6061 mills well. The US Spec states 7075, so if you have any hopes and aspirations of getting a platform looked at for defense in the US, well, follow the spec. Again though we're leaning on the experience of our engineers and trusting them to make the right decision based on that experience, not the past practices of other companies. We can make them out of 7075 and increase the cost of the rifles. But it's not going to give you a better product. I'd like to say we don't care, but we do care that our product comes in at a good price and does what it's supposed to.

Some processes are written in stone.. some things you MUST do to make it work, others there is some freedom to move around. Since the US Military Meat Grinder is not on our shopping list of clients, we have the freedom to step outside the box. Again, time will tell. If it happens that the receivers turn to dust, good news, they're warrantied for life and we're going to have to eat it. If they explode into a million pieces in your face, we're going to eat that too.. we're not interested in cutting corners. We're interested in choosing the right components and material for the application. We're not taking on a venture at this level to make a POS product that's going to fall apart in a year. We can't afford it.

I can tell you that the material chosen has not been an issue for any of our clients, whether Civilian, MIL or Private.

That being said.. they still make receivers out of plastic. ;)
 
NEA,

I'm sure I know the answer to this but I'll ask anyway. Were your engineers made aware of the fact that 7075 is "industry standard"?

I really see it as a non-issue for me, I'm just curious if the guys were give all the facts to make an informed decision with when choosing the raw material.

I like what you guys do, and the way you do it. A NEA-15 will be my first AR for sure, but I want to see the enhanced ones before committing to a regular model. Unless KevinB wants to give me an SR-15 as a Christmas present. I'd be fine with that :D
 
GIGGIDY said:
NEA,

I'm sure I know the answer to this but I'll ask anyway. Were your engineers made aware of the fact that 7075 is "industry standard"?
Click to expand...

Yes, however there is a lot of discussion over "why" it is the standard. Easiest answer.. 90% of AR's are made from forgings from just a few places. They are all 7075 because it forges well. It's not like they are being given a choice.

The other reason is again, the spec calls for it. There is no provision for billet receivers, so those that are are cut from 7075 to keep to the standard. The milspec doesn't list a 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.. It's very black and white. But it is that way to create a "standard", because for the military, standardization is more important than innovation. We don't care what the US milspec calls for.. we're not US. We are making a product that has to perform a job... not a job for that particular client. If we wanted to build a rifle for US duty, we'd have to get on board and follow along. And that'd just make us just another AR ont he market in a great big fishbowl. We have the oppertunity to step aside and take another path. And the fact is, the rest of the world could give a rats-a$$ what the US wants or has decreed. The fact that we're stepping away from that is very appealing to our clients.

Just because it was done one way by others doesn't mean it's the only way. I fear that many companies go with the norm so they don't have to explain their reasoning through the life of the product. (we've been backing up our decision for nearly a year now).

We could switch to 7075 today, kick up the price to cover it and not have to justify the reasoning. It would be done. Would you have a better product? Not likely.. you would have a more expensive one (slightly). However, we're standing by the experience of our engineers that have made their living creating high-stress components. They're the experts, not us. So we are letting them run with it. And that is a good enough reason for us... hope it is for you too.
 
They way I understand it is:

7075 is US Mil Standard
The Industry has just been following suit to meet that requirement all these years, NEA is not selling to the US Gov, and therefor is in the position to do it's own thing.

When did the US settle on 7075?
 
Like I said, 6061 vs 7075 is a non-issue in my view. I was just curious if the engineers were told what was used most often and still came back to 6061 as the preferred material. I suspected, and you confirmed, that they were.

If they believe it is the best suited to the application, I'm on board with it. Like you said, they have the expertise not me.

Rock on and don't let the haters get to ya, we need companies like NEA who are not afraid to think outside the box and try new things. Its the only way we will find improvements to already great designs.
 
I got to "fondle";) one today at Target Sports and I must say it looks and feels great...didn't have time to shoot one at their range though. Very nice, very nice indeed! THANKS NEA FOR MAKING SUCH A ###Y CANADIAN MADE RIFLE!
 
Runningfool said:
I got to "fondle";) one today at Target Sports and I must say it looks and feels great...didn't have time to shoot one at their range though. Very nice, very nice indeed! THANKS NEA FOR MAKING SUCH A ###Y CANADIAN MADE RIFLE!
Click to expand...


Better not have been my 10.5 :slap:

LOL...

cant have the ol girl whoring around before i pick her up...ahaha
 
NEA,

Excellent posts. That being said your product is facing a couple of issues right now. Perception being the first. I have no doubt your engineers are right. Heck the DPMS LR-308 AR10 rifles aren't milspec. They do however work very well for a consumer grade product. What your engineers however didn't recognize was marketting and the AR15 crowds mindset. Also the AR15 arena is fairly crowded. The famous AR15 list should have been considered for marketting purposes if nothing else. Keep in mind a large part of crowd you're marketing to at this point is the mall ninja. If it isn't what JTF2, delta force, or whatever elite unit is using then they will snub their nose at it. Also keep in mind those that really are experts will want what they know and trust.

If this product had a 20", 24" and 26" bull barrel precision barrel with match trigger and shot sub .5 moa out of the box well that crowd wouldn't care about the alluminum specs. They only care how it shoots, the fit/finish and reliability. Of course this market is limited due to the restricted status of the AR.

Another point. Esthetics. Looks sell. Which car do you think sells better the super sleek car or the well built box at the same price level. I like your railed fore end but you need to figure a way to hide those side points on it. I'm sure it works fine but it lacks the polished look.

This thread has been a good read and Ive been following this rifle on CGN. So don't get me wrong Im not trying to be overly critical. I'm just trying to put some non engineering perspective on this and why it matters even if technically it shouldn't. Ultimately your price point for features is the ACE up your sleeve. I look forward to seeing reviews and range tests on this product.
 
We are in the unique position to be able to do our own thing and make a living at it without having to bend to the masses.

As for the "looks" of the forend... it works really well. It does the job. And we binned $40k worth of quad rails just to shorten the length of the cut for "looks". That's as far as we're willing to change the design. ;) It is what it is.


I suppose when we're able to discuss who's actually requested or received rifles on the "ninja" side of the plate maybe the ones more concerned with the association of the product will come around. Regardless, we're happy with the course we're on without having to toe the old guards line.
 
Last edited:
I guess the bottom line is that if we wanted to toe the line and make just another AR we could have. But why? We had the opportunity to strike out on our own a little, nothing serious, it's still an AR, but we went with it. In the end another forged AR with the same plastic hanging off it is the same as all the rest.. it just has a different name on it.

If you like a KAC gun, get a KAC ..
If you like a LMT gun, get a LMT..
..If you like a NEA gun, get a NEA.

Everyone has different preferences, why try and change that? I'd rather people liked our gun for what it is and not because it's the same as someone else's..

There are some great gun makers out there and there are a lot more cookie cutter ones. We hope to one day be along side those ones that decide to take the chances and make some products that aren't the norm. But we understand that the great ones are the ones doing this, and the cookie cutters are still sitting in the bakery..
 
misanthropist said:
I found the looks of the rail grew on me very quickly. It is kind of brutal in appearance.
Click to expand...

You know what.. it just feels right. It almost has the same grip as a B&T rail for the SIG/Swiss 55x. It's big, but light and your hand just wants to grab it. It's one of the first thing people comment on when they hold it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom