Maccabee defence VS SLR coyote

Gatehouse said:
Anybody know what NEA was using when they were still NEA and building AR15s?

6061 or 7075?
Click to expand...



I don't think anyone answered this question but from the conversation, it sounds like NEA was using 6061.

If that's the case, I don't see the problem with the material because of my real experience with NEA rifles. I picked up a number of them when they were on for a god price and they have been shot extensively. All have new barrels now. In my experience the NEA barrel extensions and bolts will break after heavy use, but the 6061 uppers don't "wear out"- If wearing out is the problem?

I am no AR15 or metal expert, but I do have guns that have high round counts- much higher than the average guy is going to put through most AR15's.

Maybe the whole conversation with regards to the material being used for the Coyote is redundant because of round count. For the most part, the guys that are dumping thousands of rounds per year from a single firearm are competing and training at a range,so they don't really care if the AR15 is restricted for those purposes. Whereas a Coyote is likely not going to see mag dump after mag dump.
 
Gatehouse said:
I don't think anyone answered this question but from the conversation, it sounds like NEA was using 6061.
Click to expand...

AR upper from NEA was made from 6061 billet, yes, but they thickened some wall to be more resistant. More rigidity and more material to help the energy and stress to "relief".



By the way guys, we don't know much about that for now but:

MDI SLR: 7075
BCL SLR: 6061, with "steel reinforcement"...
 
Last edited:
Every time CGN discusses 6061 vs 7075, the entire world gets stupider.

I'm also a CNC machinist. Therefore I'm an expert in metallurgy because my job consists of pushing a green button that tells the machine to start. For billet machined civilian uppers and lowers, 6061 is more than enough for 99. 9% of users. You can't disagree with me because I'm a CNC machinist and am therefore an expert.

If you are going to disagree, your reason has to be more than "7075 is more better because it's a bigger number".

And the guy that said 7075 is more expensive only because it's harder to cut, completely wrong. The material alone is at least double the price of 6061 before you even touch it.
 
Armedsask said:
Every time CGN discusses 6061 vs 7075, the entire world gets stupider.

I'm also a CNC machinist. Therefore I'm an expert in metallurgy because my job consists of pushing a green button that tells the machine to start. For billet machined civilian uppers and lowers, 6061 is more than enough for 99. 9% of users. You can't disagree with me because I'm a CNC machinist and am therefore an expert.

If you are going to disagree, your reason has to be more than "7075 is more better because it's a bigger number".

And the guy that said 7075 is more expensive only because it's harder to cut, completely wrong. The material alone is at least double the price of 6061 before you even touch it.
Click to expand...


Ok button pusher, explain me with majority of AR upper are made from 7075 ?
Why NEA have to thickened some wall on the upper ?
Why BCL have a reinforcement steel in the lower and not MDI ?

And how did you now the price of the material if your a button pusher ?

I just finish a drawing and conception of a alpinist ice pick, made from 7075 because 6061 cannot take it btw, and no, i dont know your supplier but 7075 is 25 to 35% more for my 2 suppliers.

May be you can help me, take all a say in this thread and defend your point like i did.
 
Last edited:
Armedsask said:
Every time CGN discusses 6061 vs 7075, the entire world gets stupider.

I'm also a CNC machinist. Therefore I'm an expert in metallurgy because my job consists of pushing a green button that tells the machine to start. For billet machined civilian uppers and lowers, 6061 is more than enough for 99. 9% of users. You can't disagree with me because I'm a CNC machinist and am therefore an expert.

If you are going to disagree, your reason has to be more than "7075 is more better because it's a bigger number".

And the guy that said 7075 is more expensive only because it's harder to cut, completely wrong. The material alone is at least double the price of 6061 before you even touch it.
Click to expand...

LMAO! THANK YOU. I've worked with some incredible machinists. I've also witnessed a "machinist" watch his 7/8" drill turn purple, then blue, then start smoking, and eventually seize into a part (stalling the lathe lol) while spinning double what he should have, without using coolant.....lol. There is good and bad in every crowd.
 
g3ntleBird said:
So yes your right, most of the stress are on the barrel and the barrel extension. But where this energy is going ? In majority on the upper, simple as that.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the pressure generated by the burn, or the recoil forces? The burn is held by the Steel components, the Aluminum holds everything togerther, so it must play a role, but intuitively the Aluminum Alloy Receivers play very little role in containing the stress of the expanding gas, all of that pressure has to be vented by the time the bolt unlocks. All this stress you seem so concerned about is gone at this point. Nothing of consequence into the Receivers.


Its way more complicated, its not like putting a upper in a vice to crunch it. Thats just pressure. We are talking about stress resilience.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is, you seem to be assuming the receivers play a large role in supporting the chamber, and bolt, they don't appear to. The Upper and Lower are built to be as Soldier proof as possible. Meaning that when 180 lbs of guy with 100 lbs of kit, steps off 10' embankment in the dark, and lands on his rifle, hopefully not up his ass, that it might, and I do mean might still work. I'm positive they could make the upper receiver half as strong if all it had to do is hold the steel parts together as they did their thing.

We're talking about two STRONG Alloys here, not comparing pot metal to Titanium.
 
Last edited:
^Comparing an alpine climbing ice pick to a receiver is flat out ridiculous.

g3ntleBird said:
How do you screw your barrel on your AR ? Where is the bolt on your AR ? The upper is not a case. This is the part keeping all the gun together, its the heart of the AR, way before the lower.
Just think about it, where is the energy and figure out how the stress travel in the gun. This is why polymer lower can work and the polymer upper was a fail.
Click to expand...

When it boils down the upper receiver only holds the barrel, barrel extension and bolt together to allow them to do their thing. Nothing more and nothing less.
You could strip away the upper receiver, put those three items together and successfully fire a round. The only thing the upper is doing is allowing that process to be repeatable.
Beyond hanging the barrel and glass off of it, there is no stress on the upper receiver.
Look at guns like the Tavor and G36 - receivers made of polymer. Sure the bearing surfaces are metal, but they are not taking pressures or stresses of firing.


Anyhow, your argument is flawed and I'm done trying to convince you you're wrong. Believe whatever it is you want.
 
Last edited:
g3ntleBird said:
Ok button pusher, explain me with majority of AR upper are made from 7075 ?
Why NEA have to thickened some wall on the upper ?
Why BCL have a reinforcement steel in the lower and not MDI ?

And how did you now the price of the material if your a button pusher ?

I just finish a drawing and conception of a alpinist ice pick, made from 7075 because 6061 cannot take it btw, and no, i dont know your supplier but 7075 is 25 to 35% more for my 2 suppliers.

May be you can help me, take all a say in this thread and defend your point like i did.
Click to expand...

Lmao, an ice pick is not an AR receiver.
 
Where i compare ice pick and AR ? I say "made from 7075 because 6061 cannot take it btw"
Is that a comparison for you guys, really ?

Everyone here do not reply to a lot of question i ask in this thread. That mean a lot.
 
redshooter said:
Are you talking about the pressure generated by the burn, or the recoil forces? The burn is held by the Steel components, the Aluminum holds everything togerther, so it must play a role, but intuitively the Aluminum Alloy Receivers play very little role in containing the stress of the expanding gas, all of that pressure has to be vented by the time the bolt unlocks. All this stress you seem so concerned about is gone at this point. Nothing of consequence into the Receivers.




I don't think it is, you seem to be assuming the receivers play a large role in supporting the chamber, and bolt, they don't appear to. The Upper and Lower are built to be as Soldier proof as possible. Meaning that when 180 lbs of guy with 100 lbs of kit, steps off 10' embankment in the dark, and lands on his rifle, hopefully not up his ass, that it might, and I do mean might still work. I'm positive they could make the upper receiver half as strong if all it had to do is hold the steel parts together as they did their thing.

We're talking about two STRONG Alloys here, not comparing pot metal to Titanium.
Click to expand...


No i think you don't get the point. I never talk about the force taken by the chamber or the bolt.
 
g3ntleBird said:
Where i compare ice pick and AR ? I say "made from 7075 because 6061 cannot take it btw"
Is that a comparison for you guys, really ?

Everyone here do not reply to a lot of question i ask in this thread. That mean a lot.
Click to expand...

I use to Climb, if you make the pick out of Aluminum, any kind of Aluminum, you're going to be testing your pro. The shaft then yes 7075 should be superior, but not because of outright strength but strength to weight. You haven't been asking Questions, you've been making assertions. You also haven't addressed the fact that NEA has been using this Alloy since they started, and there seems to be zero problems related to the use of 6061. You also haven't addressed the assertion by several who appear to have knowledge in your field that 6061 is perfectly adequate in this application. It's like arguing that your wang is 0.005" longer than mine when I've knocked up your wife...
 
Last edited:
redshooter said:
I use to Climb, if you make the pick out of Aluminum, any kind of Aluminum, you're going to be testing your pro. The shaft then yes 7075 should be superior, but not because of outright strength but strength to weight. You haven't been asking Questions, you've been making assertions. You for example haven't addressed the fact that NEA has been using this Alloy since they started, and there seems to be zero problems related to the use of 6061. You also haven't addressed the assertion by several who appear to have knowledge in your field that 6061 is perfectly adequate in this application. It's like arguing that your wang is 0.005" longer than mine when I've knocked up your wife...
Click to expand...

Ok let's talk about "strenght to weight" my pro, what does it mean for you ?
We use 7075 for ice pick because of the stress resilience, with time (and flex) 6061 will deform. Thats not "strenght to weight". 7075 flex too.

Yes NEA use 6061, but they thickened the wall to have more rigidity and and stress relief on the upper. Why i did that ?
Why BCL put steel reinforcement in the lower and not MDI ? (same drawing)

Because my #### is 0.005" longer ?

By the way your comparaison with polymer gun is way more idiot than talk about ice pick.
 
g3ntleBird said:
By the way your comparaison with polymer gun is way more idiot than talk about ice pick.
Click to expand...

I'll conceed my short term memory is a bit suspect these days so I had to go back and look...no plastic.

I suppose there's Fan Boys for everything, 7075, different, but as long as it doesn't cause a Murder I guess we should be ok with it.

In the end you seem to glossing over one thing, 6061 is in use as a Receiver, both Lower and Upper, with no problems. What's your answer to that? How do you reduce that stress?

Finally this Steel reinforcement your talking about, why indeed, since 6061 has proven more than adequate for something like 5-10 years. Why in the hell would they go through the bother using 6061 if it needed to be reinforced with steel? That would be pretty mental wouldn't it.
 
redshooter said:
I'll conceed my short term memory is a bit suspect these days so I had to go back and look...no plastic.

I suppose there's Fan Boys for everything, 7075, different, but as long as it doesn't cause a Murder I guess we should be ok with it.

In the end you seem to glossing over one thing, 6061 is in use as a Receiver, both Lower and Upper, with no problems. What's your answer to that? How do you reduce that stress?

Finally this Steel reinforcement your talking about, why indeed, since 6061 has proven more than adequate for something like 5-10 years. Why in the hell would they go through the bother using 6061 if it needed to be reinforced with steel? That would be pretty mental wouldn't it.
Click to expand...

From BCL on Instagram
To get the rifle to the consumer for 1500 bucks, we have to sell it to our distributor for less than 1000 who then sells it to his dealers for 1250. 7075 is significantly more expensive and the coyote would cost almost 3000 bucks if we made it in 7075 after distributor and dealer markups. We also steel reinforced the lower receiver which adds strength well beyond 7075
Click to expand...

Thats a curious thing, reinforce 6061..

How use 6061 as upper ? Within thickening wall ? And why NEA thickening the wall if 6061 do the job ?
 
g3ntleBird said:
A corvette can run without any carbon fiber. And my "comparison" with ice pick is #### ? lol
Click to expand...

Dude have you been drinking? Are you trolling us? "A Corvette can run without Carbon Fiber", do you "get" what I'm saying? It really doesn't appear to be the case. Incidentally your Ice "Pick" should be made of Steel, the Pick is Steel, Ice "Picks" are not made of Aluminum. Part of what leads me to believe that I shouldn't believe you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom