I am just asking from the point of usability, I dont know havent had much time behind firearms yet. The M305 is better for my pocket book, but, the 102 looks cool as all hell...
I'm sticking with my M305. I gave the 102 a fair shake. My friend has one and when it does actually shoot/you find a specific handload/off shelf ammo your rifle will work with, it's about on par with a basically tweaked M14 from what I've seen first hand. So it CAN be a good rifle, when it is.
Now with the 102, I have to guess if NEA is going to hit or miss when I roll the $2K dice.
I buy a $500 shipped Norc M305 off the EE
I expect the worst imaginable and if it shows up I can tune it up in basement for no money to shoot 2" groups all day. Sorry well, I can tune it up for no money except the cost of epoxy resin to bed the stock and some elbow grease.
That and I'm not a fan of massive heavy barrels that shoot like any old regular barrel lol
There is a 4 foot square steel plate at my range at the 600 meter distance. I can hit it with my M305 using bulk 7.62mm NATO 147gr FMJ almost every single shot.
Stock Norc except for USGI bedded stock and NM rear sights and I filed down the front post to precision thin, shooting off a bag from the prone.
I have witnesses who have seen me do this.
The thing about the M305 is you know exactly what to expect. They don't cost much and it doesn't actually cost $1K into the rifle to make it shoot very well like some people think. It costs almost nothing except reading up on sticky threads. Hell you can buy a pre tuned M14 doctor or whatever rifle for around $800 and you know that f**ker will go all day with any ammo any time.
NEA102 has proven reliability issues due to over tight chambers, heavy "match barrel" that shoots 2MOA at best anyway (if it doesn't jam up), picky on ammo, inconsistent from rifle to rifle, parts breaking off (extractors), zero information provided about the rifle from manufacturer even at direct request, proprietary parts so you can't even swap out the problematic NEA junk lol
In other words at least with Norinco M305 you know what to expect and they are $500 on the EE all over. Even if you get the worst example of an M305 possible you can fix it yourself easily
or even pay an extra $400 for a properly tuned one and you still have $1K left over for bulk ammo the thing will actually ####ing shoot.
And the 102? Well NEA keeps on NEA'ing lol People defend them even though they obviously rushed a gun to market barely developed with all sorts of QC issues. Why? I don't know. But I'm starting to understand why their reputation precedes them. That's why they are already on "Gen 2" They are basically selling the rifles as they troubleshoot them. Ask yourself this instead
"Should I wait for NEA to work all the bugs out by Gen 6 to buy one? And should I just buy a trusty old M305 until then?" To which I would reply a strong yes!
It really depends on what kind of guy you are/if you're hands on and like to learn and work on guns. I am. All of the Norc M305 deficiencies you may encounter are easily remedied. I know if I dropped $2K taxes and shipping in on a rifle that has parts braking off it, jams up hard with different types of ammo and didn't shoot any better than my "piece of junk Commy M14" with a manufacturer that can't even return answers to simple questions and I had to send the thing back I'd be ####ing raging mad instead of defending the company pulling these shenanigans like some kind of firearm owners Stockholm Syndrome but that's just me.
I'm out on the 102 until they sell me just a stripped upper and lower so I can build a rifle that actually shoots like an AR10 instead of some quasi "precision" overweight heavy barreled monstrosity that works 100% of the time 60% of the time lol
This is all just my personal opinion on the internet. Not "whining" "#####ing" or whatever else. Just personal observations on a public forum. Take it for what it is Sir.
