7075-t6 vs 6061-t6 in a lower receiver

[DMcFaul]

I'm sorry that this has thread has fallen victim to the chronic NEA-itis that a few people have and cant shake. It's a virulent disease that causes tics-tremors and often early onset Tourette's. Please excuse their language. Fear not, it's been found to not be contagious and is more of a nuisance than anything.

Regardless, I hope that people are still able to sort through the mess and enjoy the insight and information that has been shared by several sources. It has been refreshing to see around here, especially a 6061 vs 7075 thread of all things, turn out to have this much actual information in to share from so many sources. There is likely more 'real' information, testimonial and photographic evidence of this merits of 6061 in AR use in this very thread than anywhere else on the net now. And it is the only place that you will find pictures of destructive testing results in the application. There's a lot to be said for that, and I hope people will see through the detritus to be able to reference or refer back to this in the future.

NEA may have had some issues (and may still will, I'm not affiliated with them). However I swear some of you would be complaining if Dave etc handed you a bag of gold, as you'd complained he made you through your back out.

Some may call you psychic as well as your other talents, but I think you've been around long enough that you've seen this before.

Again it comes down to marketing and product differentation which frankly KAC are masters of. NEA's choice of Going with 6061 was stupid from a marketing perspective. Very short sighted.

That is your opinion only. If you were privy to how many outstanding orders NEA has due to their short sighted or non existent marketing, and I am, you likely wouldn't assume that. To add, their choice of materials and processing was the key factor in many of those client sales. Perhaps maybe their marketing strategy wasn't quite what you thought it was. I can't go into sales figures, but they're doing just fine with their current direction. It's an unfortunate realization, but your opinion on the topic is actually in the slim minority.

The fact that NEA makes a sub standard AR. Thge fact that the management of NEA has no issue with lying and shilling. The fact that they released rifles that look like crap and had many out of spec parts ( triggers gas tubes). Why don't you ask dave about that gas key he installed, the one that was chewed up by an angle grinder?

Saying it more doesn't make it true. Please at least attempt to fact check your allegations if you're going to take time out of your day to derail someones conversation. I am sorry to inform you, but I have never installed a single gas key on any NEA carrier. Ever. If you don't know what MY job was with NEA how can you claim to have any knowledge as to what they as a company have done?

You would be disappointed to discover that NEA has made more ARs than any other manufacturer in this country, with the exception if COLT, and more than several manufacturers down south tat have been around for much longer... despite a few people's uninformed and obvious crusades against them. No one grows that fast without knowing (and learning) a few things. NEA has received advice and techniques from some of the foremost experts in the field from Tier 1 manufacturers, barrel makers and parts manufacturers. Did they make any mistakes? Hell yes, but who hasn't? But those mistakes have forged what NEA is today as a company, and they are far stronger because of it. If you know of someone in the industry that has never made a mistake please let me know so I can head hunt them for my clients. The difference is how you react to those mistakes and whether you learn from them. Throughout it all what has never been a concern internally, or with consultants in the field is their choice of materials. NEA is on the cutting edge on several materials and processes and many other professionals have voiced their praise for them sticking with their decisions and using what many of them simply can not. Whether it be because they are tied to the MilStd or their markets demands, or have decided that the controversy is not worth the change so they are unable to be creative in that particular regard. And rightly so. Using MilStd materials is easy. They're readily available. But not wanting to make just another product just like everyone else's is admirable. It is also a very keen marketing strategy to exploit areas in which the platform has been ill suited in the past and make it the new norm. But NEA is not alone in this field. Companies have been using 6061-t6 in receivers LONG before NEA came around. And likely will long in to the future. The bottom line is if someone has the 'opinion' that it is the wrong choice for the application, but the clients are more than satisfied, who is correct? I'm sorry to say that supply and demand makes the world go round and if you are to be successful in any field and want to make a living at it you had better be able to look to the future, exploit your niche and capitalize on your success. NEA has done that in spades.. in large part because of their "stupid" choice of materials. Stupid like a fox. If you are going to step outside of the status quo in this industry you need to do it at the beginning and make your stand. Hopefully you can survive it, many more have tried and failed than have flourished in this industry. It's cut throat.

In all the consultations and inquiries with experts do you know what was never brought up as a concern was the use of materials they had chosen. In fact I recall a big name in the industry saying that he wished he could use 6061 in their receivers but it wasn't worth the pain they would face by the community. But if a companies end user is happy with the product, then who are you to say they should change it? Based on? It can't be based on their effective marketing and extraordinary sales numbers.

But I digress, as usual a very informative and open discussion gets rammed into the ditch by the usual subjects. And it also goes to show that regardless of fact, industry info, industry experts or real-life personal experience none of it holds a candle to the 'facts' and opinions generated by those that have never done it. But that is indicative of the new society we live in now as not a discussion that is suited for this topic and I have gone on long enough about it.


I also find it amusing that for all the hate a few people have, and how far out of their way they go to bring up the same utter falsehoods.. every time they do every single NEA-15 rifle that's available flies off the shelf. There are a few people in this very thread that have sold more NEA-15's in Canada than I did. They really should start setting up a trust fund for your kids.

BTW MG.. I don't work directly for NEA anymore, so it's ok.. you can like me now.

 

[kombayotch]

The fact that NEA makes a sub standard AR. Thge fact that the management of NEA has no issue with lying and shilling. The fact that they released rifles that look like crap and had many out of spec parts ( triggers gas tubes). Why don't you ask dave about that gas key he installed, the one that was chewed up by an angle grinder?

Or, how about we stick to the topic of metallurgy and not deviate into NEA bashing.

 

[Kosmic]

I don't know where you guys got the info but last I checked 7075 was 2x more expensive than 6061.

 

[CarbineOne]

Now what I don't get is a KAC representative stating it's good enough. Frankly it's not. People aren't paying ridiculous amounts of money on KAC rifles in Canada because they need the features. If that were the case no one in their right minds would buy KAC rifles. Norinco would be king.

Again it comes down to marketing and product differentation which frankly KAC are masters of.

People don't buy KAC's because their receivers are made of magical Goddamn fairy alloy; They buy them due to the innovation they present and the changes they bring to the rather mundane world of black rifles.

If what you said was true, no one would buy anything but Colt's, because they have all the ticks in your stupid checklist.

 

[Leibermuster]

6061 is fine for any semi-auto shooting.
Nice to see NEA is still plugging along there, my buddy ordered one of there rifles and once I inspect it to see where they are at, and if they are up to my standard all be picking one up sooner rather than later.

Special Thanks to KevinB for adding his knowledge here, perhaps CGN should be paying him to grace us with his presence...lol.

 

[DMcFaul]

I don't know where you guys got the info but last I checked 7075 was 2x more expensive than 6061.

That's better than the 5x you had a few minutes ago.

Buy in bulk and leverage your purchases with an Aerospace company. A percent expense is still relative to the buyer. I would surmise that several factors come into final pricing if you are a low use consumer vs a high use. Regardless of the price of raw materials, in the specific application with NEA in this instance, cost was not one of the determining factors. It certainly can and will be with other manufacturers as material cost can be a large portion of any project. And of course every cost starting from bringing it in the back door has compounding margins applied to it right through to the consumer level. What the consumer pays for 1oz of material is massively more than what the manufacturer bought it for. But the consumer is paying for the profit/labor/material of the manufacturer, the profit/labor of the distributor and the profit/labor of the retailer. For some companies a $10 increase in material cost can be the deciding factor between even being able to sell the end product. But if you are able to purchase in bulk, manufacturer on state of the art machines, and rely on the experience of expert engineers you can easily offset those costs. Most cant. Most of the machinery used in this industry is decades old and down right medieval in terms of the industry. There are companies that make IMO some of the best rifles ever made using machines that do one step at a time and wouldn't see the light of day in any reputable aerospace shop. But they know how to use them like no other. Theres where your cost comes from, not from the choice of material, labor and machine time.

Is the argument of 6061 vs 7075 in terms of material cost a sound one? It can be. But remember that most 7075 receivers are forged and made for far less even though the material itself is more expensive. In terms of apples to apples billet vs billet, the costs are more a factor of technology and labor than materials cost.

 

[Epoxy7]

People don't buy KAC's because their receivers are made of magical Goddamn fairy alloy; They buy them due to the innovation they present and the changes they bring to the rather mundane world of black rifles.

If what you said was true, no one would buy anything but Colt's, because they have all the ticks in your stupid checklist.

They buy them because they are top grade in all their components, innovative, and have that "top operator" image. Pretty much HK only watered down a bit since unlike HK you can actually buy KAC products that are in use. Same margetting ploy overall. It works.

If KAC made 6061 lowers and said it was good enough they would lose their hard earned image. Again not because the alloy won't work but because it's not to the standards they havecmade their reputation off. I don't see them making any AR lowers with 6061 do you? In fact the only company other than NEA doing so that I can think of is DPMS. High volume, low prices. The exact opposite of KAC's image and marketting.

 

[Epoxy7]

Or, how about we stick to the topic of metallurgy and not deviate into NEA bashing.

With all do respect I have to say DMcFaul baited that response. A lot of the BS in his posts attacked and labelled anyone not towing the NEA company propaganda line.

 

[CarbineOne]

They buy them because they are top grade in all their components, innovative, and have that "top operator" image. Pretty much HK only watered down a bit since unlike HK you can actually buy KAC products that are in use. Same margetting ploy overall. It works.

If KAC made 6061 lowers and said it was good enough they would lose their hard earned image. Again not because the alloy won't work but because it's not to the standards they havecmade their reputation off. I don't see them making any AR lowers with 6061 do you? In fact the only company other than NEA doing so that I can think of is DPMS. High volume, low prices. The exact opposite of KAC's image and marketting.

Two of the three items in your list would fit a quite few companies.

We can be honest: The biggest reason 80% of the AR-15's are the way they are on the market today, is because the M4 TDP hasn't (fundamentally) changed in 20 odd years (and longer for the M16). You'd think there is a better material to make bolts out of than Carpenter-158. Unless material science has been stagnant since Vietnam.

 

[KevinB]

Clearly a 1958 tool steel is still #1

The same way that MagPhos is still the #1 coating...

A buddy of mine runs a machine shop that make a lot of AR parts for smaller companies - Forgings (7075) are used as they are economical, and most of the work is already done.


Before you start bemoaning the merits of the material in lowers, (and for a real hue and cry check out Magnesium lowers) look at the other parts. The Lower and Upper bear insignificantly small loads - the barrel, barrel extension and bolt are the main issues in an AR where one would be crazy to start playing material games.

 

[Epoxy7]

DMcFaul,

Reading your posts is like reading a politicians views. Lots of double speak with tons of ways out. NEA business practices ooze sleeze.

The marketing here was for a feature rich good quality AR rifle made with NA parts and as much of it Canadian as possibly. Problems started and the customer service was excellent. But it started to become aparent that early adopters were Beta testers. Also that the real business model was to sell these in AR impovershed countries where good stuff was unobtanium or cost prohibitive. Essentially Norinco of New Zealand and South Africa.

As for the 6021. I recall the first threads and posts on this project. I remember how all the features were listed but not the grade of alluminum. A poster pushed for this info until it was reluctantly released. Them the Sh1t storm started over metal choices. In other words it was known from the outset this choice wasn't going to be popular. It was a business decision no doubt geared for their "over seas" orders, not Canadians. Instead Canadians get told it's good enough. The choice was obviously made for financial reasons not the spin that it's just as good which is what we got.

Alloy costs, machining time and wear/tear on those machines. Since the "over seas" market was the real goal quantity over quality no doubt won. Take those savings over X thousand of rifles and it's significant. Meanwhile the Canadian Beta testing continued.

As for the other companies wishing they could make lowers out of 6061. No kidding. I bet they wish they could make lowers out of cardboard or pop cans and label it as environmentally friendly. Cost and manufacturing wise it would be great. That doesn't mean it's a better product or just as good. The reasoning behind it isn't what's being presented.

It wouldn't surprise me to see NEA eventually go to 7075. No doubt there will be some spin on the reasoning which doesn't reflect the real reasons.

For the OP if you're building a target rifle or cheap plinker then sure go for a 6061 lower if you like it and the price is right. If you're building a military style rifle or plan on putting a lot of expensive parts then spend the extra. The extra cost is minimal and you won't have any doubts regarding the specs matching your goals for the project.