CORE 15 M4 Explosion

EDX2308

EDX2308

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Location
Bring Cash, Penticton

I commented that the shooter should contact Federal for the reimbursement of the rifle. However CORE decided to do the replacing. I think this thread should be a good reminder of whether to contact the gun manufacturer or the ammunition manufacturer.

+1 for CORE. I don't own one but will inform people of their customer service.
 
There are pics out there of this happening to an NEA. Because of the machined receiver, it actually fully contained the explosion.
 
RSK said:
There are pics out there of this happening to an NEA. Because of the machined receiver, it actually fully contained the explosion.
Click to expand...

What? An NEA with that cheaper alloy and sketchy history?

Makes me like my 2 just a bit more :)
 
RSK said:
There are pics out there of this happening to an NEA. Because of the machined receiver, it actually fully contained the explosion.
Click to expand...

I remember the pics posted and the damage was very similar. It did not fully contain the explosion.
 
Is Federal really a higher than average culprit here? Would you, for example, be safer running Norinco/MFS/TulAmmo if you planned to put a few thousand rounds down range for practice?
 
Runningfool said:
Not sure if these are the pics you are referring to but here is a thread showing pics of NEA failure testing. I'm not sure what "fully" containing the explosion means exactly but I'd say these contained it fairly well.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...-lower-receiver/page5?highlight=NEA+explosion
Click to expand...

To clarify, I'm not saying the NEA performed poorly under it's respective kaboom, just that I believe it incorrect to say it 'fully contained' the explosion.

In NEA's case, they have a thicker receiver so I would be inclined to agree that it may not 'peel' like a forged one (being thinner) might.

But depending on what caused the kaboom it's hard to make a comparison between the two (For example, if the round that exploded in one gun was just too hot a lot and the other was loaded with pistol powder)
 
NEAs have a thicker receiver?
The rear corners of the NEA lower receiver's magazine well are extremely thin, because of the method used to cut the magazine well.
 
tiriaq said:
NEAs have a thicker receiver?
The rear corners of the NEA lower receiver's magazine well are extremely thin, because of the method used to cut the magazine well.
Click to expand...

Recent ones I've seen appear thicker compared to my early gen. I suppose that is a moot point now though since they are switching to forged receivers.
 
tiriaq said:
NEAs have a thicker receiver?
The rear corners of the NEA lower receiver's magazine well are extremely thin, because of the method used to cut the magazine well.
Click to expand...

Some manufacturers use a thick walled upper, ATRS, NEA, POF and some Vltor uppers to name a few.
 
If you look at the photos of the lower in this thread, it is badly bulged. A thin weak spot would likely fracture.
 
myles said:
wow! so will federal pay for a new gun or are you just SOL. Would it be conciderd a manufactoring issue?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to figure out, has anyone gotten a cheque in the mail from Federal? Everyone here so far is talking about other brands and past explosions etc. The real topic is "who is responsible if there is an explosion? The owner? The ammo manufacturer? or the Rifle maker?
 
You guys need to see the original NEA Kaboom thread. It's the one that started giving NEA a bad wrap in the first place.

It's been all but erased from CGN. Maybe use google cache or internet wayback machine to find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom