Daniel Defence vs NEA

Suputin

Suputin

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Location
Alberta Defence Force - Liberal Welcoming Committe
I had an opportunity to test fire a brand new DD 16" rifle side by side with a brand new NEA 10" carbine.

Subjectively the triggers were virtually the same. I was a bit surprised as I had expected the NEA to be not great and the DD to be quite good. IMO neither was amazing and they were both pretty average for a factory trigger ..... a bit gritty and long.

So the NEA isn't nearly as bad as I had expected from a manufacturer who endlessly takes a beating on thsi board and the DD isn't nearlyas good as I had expected from a top tier rifle.
 
I don't think it's very fair to compare triggers as they are both stock triggers. I'm not saying they use the same LPKs but I know many companies source LPKs from the same manufacturer and just stamp their respective logos on them.

Perhaps compare the rails, fit and finish, etc. I'm sure you fill find a bigger difference there between the two.
 
You get alot for the NEA for the price we pay. Consider that it would be a $1300-$1400-$1500 gun if made in the USA after import fees, shipping and taxes.

It holds its own against the entry-mid level ar's in my opinion and is better than the lower bargain bin $1k imports we get. Sure you can get a cut corners domestic brand name AR without a dust cover, non-threaded pencil barrel super cheapo US made AR for around $1k but you are buying the worst of the best, its like buying a $30k mercedes, sure its a mercedes and you feel like your showing off, but everyone knows your just showing off for the brand name while looking kind of poor.

For the available barrel lengths and incorporated free-floated barrel alone the price is well worth it. Problems with her? NEA seems to have a solid reputation regarding returns and issues.

Other than a few serious obsessed haters on this website that go on a hunger strike everytime the word NEA is mentioned, there are quite a few NEA owners out there that seem to be quite happy with theirs. Heck even SFRC constantly claims they cannont keep up with sales demand of these rifles.


Inb4 shilling.
 
I would say it isn't a completely fair comparison as the DD is a price bracket above the DD.

I would expect somewhat better finish all around for the extra cost on the DD, otherwise I would be dissapointed with the DD not the NEA at that point.
 
I think the point of the comments about NEA are not about the initial feel out of the box but the long term survivability ,or lack there of, of the NEA's. Quality control issues may or may not effect the rifle you happen to get. This is where DD demonstrates a better consistency then NEA.
 
andrew3081 said:
Yes it is true that Daniel Defense is not as good as what people make it out to be.
But comparing DD to NEA is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think DD is as you say not as good as people make it out to be just like NEA is not as bad as people make it out to be. Since the OP considers DD to be "top-tier" then being a bit disappointed is not at all surprising.
The comparison made was subjective in regard to stock triggers not full rifles...not sure what is so ridiculous about comparing triggers.
 
I have seen posts in the past saying that the DD trigger was not that great, considering… it should be a bare bones mil-spec trigger. This is about what I would currently expect from booth companies, which is a good thing.

I would tend to agree with Runningfool...
 
You don't compare two manufacturers with a side by side "trigger test", that's bull:bigHug::bigHug::bigHug::bigHug: (A Colt won't feel any better by the way). You compare their track record for reliability and quality. Daniel Defense has a LOOOOOOOOOONG track record for perfect reliability and quality, innovation, knowledge and wonderful customer service, NEA has a LOOOOOONG track record for putting out crap and acting like idiots. Oh and they are messing up their lowers in ways nobody else has been able to do in the U.S. in the hunderds of thousands of lowers that have been made.

Saying "Daniel Defense is not as good as what people make it out to be" is a proof that this forum is not a place to seek any advice about AR-15's.

Comparing NEA to DD... it's pretty damn sad really.
 
Last edited:
Coming from someone respectable (which you still are) Suputin, I thought you would have at least discussed things like fit, finish, reliability, durability and accuracy rather than just judge the 2 rifles by the triggers. I know for a fact that my DD upper (just the barrel) is VERY accurate. The 7.0 Omega rail is of very high quality too. Just the trigger on its own is not enough to say whether the (insert brand of AR of your choice) makes up for the quality of the overall rifle and/or brand.
 
Dietz said:
You don't compare two manufacturers with a side by side "trigger test", that's bull:bigHug::bigHug::bigHug::bigHug: (A Colt won't feel any better by the way). You compare their track record for reliability and quality. Daniel Defense has a LOOOOOOOOOONG track record for perfect reliability and quality, innovation, knowledge and wonderful customer service, NEA has a LOOOOOONG track record for putting out crap and acting like idiots. Oh and they are messing up their lowers in ways nobody else has been able to do in the U.S. in the hunderds of thousands of lowers that have been made.

Saying "Daniel Defense is not as good as what people make it out to be" is a proof that this forum is not a place to seek any advice about AR-15's.

Comparing NEA to DD... it's pretty damn sad really.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud, all the OP was saying is that the stock triggers felt comparable! No need for the DD fanboys to jump off the roof and no need for the NEA fanboys to crack the champagne! Now where did I put that flute? ;)
 
EDX2308 said:
Coming from someone respectable (which you still are) Suputin, I thought you would have at least discussed things like fit, finish, reliability, durability and accuracy rather than just judge the 2 rifles by the triggers.
Click to expand...
to be fair, he works for NEA making suppressors, so i would take anything he says about NEA with a grain of salt.
 
Suputin said:
I had an opportunity to test fire a brand new DD 16" rifle side by side with a brand new NEA 10" carbine.

Subjectively the triggers were virtually the same. I was a bit surprised as I had expected the NEA to be not great and the DD to be quite good. IMO neither was amazing and they were both pretty average for a factory trigger ..... a bit gritty and long.

So the NEA isn't nearly as bad as I had expected from a manufacturer who endlessly takes a beating on thsi board and the DD isn't nearlyas good as I had expected from a top tier rifle.
Click to expand...

Unmmn, doesn't NEA and yourself still have a business relationship? You know where they manufacture your products and pay you royalties?

On another note, I was thinking that after the AWB in the states gets proclaimed, NEA likely stands to gain a windfall of business.
 
Dietz said:
Saying "Daniel Defense is not as good as what people make it out to be" is a proof that this forum is not a place to seek any advice about AR-15's.
Click to expand...

To clarify what I meant, it was in reference to the extremes of the 2 views. ie: I wouldn’t expect a DD to come with the same 4.5lb trigger my LMT did, I would expect a mil-spec trigger, but DD is spoken highly of on this board and some may misconstrued how top-tier it really is…

Furthermore, I will give Suputin the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he just test fired the 2 rifles and didn’t spend a bunch of intimate time with them…
 
Mirk said:
To clarify what I meant, it was in reference to the extremes of the 2 views. ie: I wouldn’t expect a DD to come with the same 4.5lb trigger my LMT did, I would expect a mil-spec trigger, but DD is spoken highly of on this board and some may misconstrued how top-tier it really is…

Furthermore, I will give Suputin the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he just test fired the 2 rifles and didn’t spend a bunch of intimate time with them…
Click to expand...

;) LMT do make good triggers, but the desing of the AR-15 GI trigger is hit and miss, LMT's lower parts are very sought-after and I know of one guy who sells LPK's in the U.S. with LMT components.

Both LMT and DD have multiple military contracts and very high levels of engineering and skills are put into their products. Most people simply care about looks, I actually prefer the "not perfect" finish of an LMT over the biography of logos on the new DD's.
 
Runningfool said:
For crying out loud, all the OP was saying is that the stock triggers felt comparable! No need for the DD fanboys to jump off the roof and no need for the NEA fanboys to crack the champagne! Now where did I put that flute? ;)
Click to expand...

OMG ! The crying and mewling is epic.

I made no comment on the relative quality, fit, finish, accuracy or durability of either rifle. I did not bash nor praise either rifle. I simply commented that upon sitting down with two reasonably like rifles, the firing experience was essentially the same which had not been my expectations going in. This was not a formal test and no conclusions were made.

If what I said offends your sensibilities or biases then that's your problem not mine. I have no agenda here.

FWIW. I do not work for NEA and never have worked for NEA. I design and build silencers not rifles. It is not my interest nor concern if you love or loathe NEA. I will never make a dime from the sale of NEA rifles.

I posted because like most people I had read all the negative comments and I had next to no experience with the NEA so I was somewhat surprised it was essentially the same shooting experience as the vaunted DD rifle.
 
EDX2308 said:
Coming from someone respectable (which you still are) Suputin, I thought you would have at least discussed things like fit, finish, reliability, durability and accuracy rather than just judge the 2 rifles by the triggers. I know for a fact that my DD upper (just the barrel) is VERY accurate. The 7.0 Omega rail is of very high quality too. Just the trigger on its own is not enough to say whether the (insert brand of AR of your choice) makes up for the quality of the overall rifle and/or brand.
Click to expand...

Respectable? Fer Christ sake don't tell my mother, she will start expecting more from me. :)

I'm not very interested in fit/finish beyond the basics. I have voiced my concerns about surface finish to NEA but they will ultimately make the rifle they choose to regardless of my thoughts. I own 4 AR's and every one of them is a bitsa gun. Performance is what interests me not the pedigree of individual parts.

The trigger is our ultimate interface with the rifle. IMO trigger feel is one of the most important aspects of performance. Of course a short range CQB rifle doesn't need a match trigger but my recent session involved marksmanship and not blasting so that is how I experienced these two rifles.

An AR is ultimately and AR so the firing experience is essentially the same regardless of who made it. This for me it mostly comes down to the trigger feel. Guys can :bigHug::bigHug::bigHug::bigHug::bigHug: and complain and whine about it as they like but a comparison of trigger feel is as valid an observation as any and a :bigHug::bigHug::bigHug::bigHug:ty trigger on an expensive rifle ruins the experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom