I actually find that AE 55gr groups well out of my NEA 18" barrel too. I use a 4x optic so they're not quite as pretty as the OPs, but I'm pleased nonetheless. I'll take some pictures next range outting.
NEA 18" gun
- Thread starter wicked_police
- Start date
I actually find that AE 55gr groups well out of my NEA 18" barrel too. I use a 4x optic so they're not quite as pretty as the OPs, but I'm pleased nonetheless. I'll take some pictures next range outting.
I guess that fits in with most peoples skill level, combined with their ego and self image...
Aprilia Man
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Canadian "WET" Coast (Raincouver)
Nice shooting .....
Love those groups at 100m.
I need to get more range time with my NEA DMR as well.
Love those groups at 100m.
I need to get more range time with my NEA DMR as well.
Got mine a little while ago and was finally able to get a scope mounted and some rounds fired for accuracy.
To say I'm happy is an understatement... 10rd groups, ammo was all 55gr, American Eagle, and some PMC. I didn't have anything else with me. I'll try some heavier stuff once the snow is gone and it's a bit warmer.
Here it is. Scope (Vortex PST 6-24, ADM mount) is for another gun but I had a chance to get the 18" gun on the range so I just threw it on. Everything is factory except the stock (Troy), charging handle (Raptor) and the Grippod. I'm probably going to try a different stock and grip, and change out the trigger, as well as putting on an NEA brake instead of the flash hider.
So the questions I have are where does this rifle fit in and why choose this one over other brands/configurations. I don't want to get into negatives of NEA.
Here's why I ask. Good shooting and I like the new handguard over the old. But I have seen a Norinco with stock barrel shoot like that at 100 metres using 55pmc bronze. The barrel is hammer forged although also Chrome lined and did have an aftermarket free float hand rail along with low profile gas block. I mention this because the accuracy was also very good. The NEA barrel shows it shoots well. But it's shooting well in the top accuracy for hammer forged CL barrels. Maybe a bit better. But not in the SS league. As the OP went 18" then I'm assuming designated marksman and informal target was the idea.
So why not go with so something like a DPMS Recon or a S&W MP15 rifle? The recon has a SS barrel. Price point is around the same as the NEA 18". You get some extras like a magpul moe grip, moe ctr stock, flip up sights and AAC flash hider. Also 7075 forgings. Or the 5R rifled Thompson centre barrel with the S&W.
Looking forward to seeing how the NEA does with 62 and 69 grain ammo.
Would you recommend the NEA 18"? If so why?
Here's why I ask. Good shooting and I like the new handguard over the old. But I have seen a Norinco with stock barrel shoot like that at 100 metres using 55pmc bronze. The barrel is hammer forged although also Chrome lined and did have an aftermarket free float hand rail along with low profile gas block. I mention this because the accuracy was also very good. The NEA barrel shows it shoots well. But it's shooting well in the top accuracy for hammer forged CL barrels. Maybe a bit better. But not in the SS league. As the OP went 18" then I'm assuming designated marksman and informal target was the idea.
So why not go with so something like a DPMS Recon or a S&W MP15 rifle? The recon has a SS barrel. Price point is around the same as the NEA 18". You get some extras like a magpul moe grip, moe ctr stock, flip up sights and AAC flash hider. Also 7075 forgings. Or the 5R rifled Thompson centre barrel with the S&W.
Looking forward to seeing how the NEA does with 62 and 69 grain ammo.
Would you recommend the NEA 18"? If so why?
My personal reasons:
- Taking pride in something with "Made in Canada" written on the side, and
- Choosing 18" to meet 16" minimum for US travel. If NEA made a 16" barrel, the 18" would still be chosen for maximizing performance over a 16" barrel for hunting applications (in the US)
I am nothing but happy with my NEA rifles. I have 5 "NEA" ARs ranging from complete NEA primary parts (barrel, upper and lower, BCG) to guns with an NEA lower that are a mix of other manufacturers. Love them all!
The 18" is my favourite to shoot. Here's mine with the old style handguard:
Last edited:
My personal reasons:
- Taking pride in something with "Made in Canada" written on the side, and
- Choosing 18" to meet 16" minimum for US travel. If NEA made a 16" barrel, the 18" would still be chosen for maximizing performance over a 16" barrel for hunting applications (in the US)
I am nothing but happy with my NEA rifles. I have 5 "NEA" ARs ranging from complete NEA primary parts (barrel, upper and lower, BCG) to guns with an NEA lower that are a mix of other manufacturers. Love them all!
The 18" is my favourite to shoot. Here's mine with the old style handguard:
The pride of "made in Canada" only really means anything to me if it's the best. The Canada space arm, winning in hockey, the Canadian C7 rifle, the Avro Arrow etc. I'll buy Canadian if it's comparable and close in price. I won't pay more for less just because it says made in Canada on it. My national pride doesn't make me slow at making decent financial decisions.
Don't get me wrong the price point was very good and this along with the Norks no doubt helped bring down prices in Canada. But now with increased competition and companies specializing in importing we have more options than ever at lower prices than we've seen before.
The 16" DPMS recon seems to me it fits traveling to the US criteria is a budget NA made rifle and is the same price point. As for 18" barrel. If going that length I would want a stainless match quality barrel. Personally I'd like 20" if for target or up to 24" if for target/varmint. Othtwise I'd probably stick to 16".
Some more details on the NEA barrel might clear this up. 1:7 twist I'm guessing and melonite or whatever coating instead of chrome lined. Chamber? Match or duty?
I considered one of these a ways back and ultimately wasn't sure where the 18" non SS barrel fit in. Plus I think I'd prefer a 1:8 twist for that application.
Need to see some ammo testing with 62 grain, 69 grain and some 70 grain stuff. If it shoots like a match barrel then question answered regarding the barrel length and choice.
My personal reasons:
- Taking pride in something with "Made in Canada" written on the side, and
- Choosing 18" to meet 16" minimum for US travel. If NEA made a 16" barrel, the 18" would still be chosen for maximizing performance over a 16" barrel for hunting applications (in the US)
I am nothing but happy with my NEA rifles. I have 5 "NEA" ARs ranging from complete NEA primary parts (barrel, upper and lower, BCG) to guns with an NEA lower that are a mix of other manufacturers. Love them all!
The 18" is my favourite to shoot. Here's mine with the old style handguard:
The pride of "made in Canada" only really means anything to me if it's the best. The Canada space arm, winning in hockey, the Canadian C7 rifle, the Avro Arrow etc. I'll buy Canadian if it's comparable and close in price. I won't pay more for less just because it says made in Canada on it. My national pride doesn't make me slow at making decent financial decisions.
Don't get me wrong the price point was very good and this along with the Norks no doubt helped bring down prices in Canada. But now with increased competition and companies specializing in importing we have more options than ever at lower prices than we've seen before.
The 16" DPMS recon seems to me it fits traveling to the US criteria is a budget NA made rifle and is the same price point. As for 18" barrel. If going that length I would want a stainless match quality barrel. Personally I'd like 20" if for target or up to 24" if for target/varmint. Othtwise I'd probably stick to 16".
When you say it's one of your favourite rifles to shoot... I'm a gunnut. Why is it your favourite to shoot? I'm sorry but the "it's really good" explanation doesn't cut it for me. I don't really want a subjective opinion based on nothing. May I suggest it may be your favourite because it has a softer recoil pulse due to the rifle length gas system on 18" length vs most companies using the brisker carbine length system with the 16" barrel. Or this along with 18" being a good compromise in balance and weight between the 16" and 20" barrels. That I could understand.
Some more details on the NEA barrel might clear this up. 1:7 twist I'm guessing and melonite or whatever coating instead of chrome lined. Chamber? Match or duty?
I considered one of these a ways back when NEA first started up and ultimately wasn't sure where the 18" non SS barrel fit in. Plus I think I'd prefer a 1:8 twist for that application. I came back to the 18" a few years ago when the KAC 18" krieger barreled rifles hit the shelves. Ultimately cost and not being entirely sure how it fit for my uses helped me keep some discipline. I hovered on that purchase page more than a few times.
Need to see some ammo testing with 62 grain, 69 grain and some 70 grain stuff. If it shoots like a match barrel then question answered regarding the barrel length and choice.
Last edited:
My 18" NEA has shot under an inch from day one with 75 & 77 grain handloads.
The 18" barrels are 1:7, with the dimensions being ~.75 from the gasblock forward, and something like .8xx back to the barrel extension. Pretty heavy, but with a pretty straight contour. I've had mine apart a number of times back when I was messing with it. Installed it myself after waiting forever for some of the first ones to come out. The barrels are ARC+ coated, which from what I've read on the subject, simply means some sort of gas plasma nitriding, however, this is a bit of a secret, and I based this conclusion on reasearching the various forms of nitriding on the market, and their applications, and the fact that NEA wasn't as sublte as they thought they were by caling it "ARC+" (meaning ionized....) Anyway, becuase there are some on here who get uptite over others making assumptions, let's just leave it at that. I'm assuming. And truthfully don't care one way or another.
The fact that NEA warranties their barrels for life pretty much makes it a moot point anyways.
They are hands down the best bang for the buck for both accuracy, cost, and apparent reliability. I'm surprised by the 55 grain groupings though, as mine shoots AE 55 grain mediocre at best, but then shoots fantastic with 75 grain hornady's behind Varget. Night and day, consistently. I know I have some photo's around this forum with my results.
All that being said, without a doubt I wish I'd gone custom with my barrel from day one, and think it's pretty much a "what do I really want out of my rifle" type decision. If you don't want to spend a lot, prepare to have your expectation exceeded with an NEA barrel. Seriously, no one will believe how little you paid for it when they see the results. On the other hand, I'd probably sleep better at night if I'd had the barrel made exactly the way I wanted. I'd much prefer a 1:8 Wylde I think.
But then again, I only paid $254 for my 18" barrel. They are seriously hard to beat for the money.
The 18" barrels are 1:7, with the dimensions being ~.75 from the gasblock forward, and something like .8xx back to the barrel extension. Pretty heavy, but with a pretty straight contour. I've had mine apart a number of times back when I was messing with it. Installed it myself after waiting forever for some of the first ones to come out. The barrels are ARC+ coated, which from what I've read on the subject, simply means some sort of gas plasma nitriding, however, this is a bit of a secret, and I based this conclusion on reasearching the various forms of nitriding on the market, and their applications, and the fact that NEA wasn't as sublte as they thought they were by caling it "ARC+" (meaning ionized....) Anyway, becuase there are some on here who get uptite over others making assumptions, let's just leave it at that. I'm assuming. And truthfully don't care one way or another.
The fact that NEA warranties their barrels for life pretty much makes it a moot point anyways.
They are hands down the best bang for the buck for both accuracy, cost, and apparent reliability. I'm surprised by the 55 grain groupings though, as mine shoots AE 55 grain mediocre at best, but then shoots fantastic with 75 grain hornady's behind Varget. Night and day, consistently. I know I have some photo's around this forum with my results.
All that being said, without a doubt I wish I'd gone custom with my barrel from day one, and think it's pretty much a "what do I really want out of my rifle" type decision. If you don't want to spend a lot, prepare to have your expectation exceeded with an NEA barrel. Seriously, no one will believe how little you paid for it when they see the results. On the other hand, I'd probably sleep better at night if I'd had the barrel made exactly the way I wanted. I'd much prefer a 1:8 Wylde I think.
But then again, I only paid $254 for my 18" barrel. They are seriously hard to beat for the money.
Epoxy, I'm not sure I understand your argument.
What makes you think the NEA bbl is not SS? As it has been ARC treated does it really matter if it is SS or another alloy? In fact SS has less strength than chromoly steel. Chromoly was used to make match barrels for decades. SS is not a better material for rifle barrels other than it suffers less from corrosion if not cleaned properly.
I don't know what chamber NEA uses but again, does it really matter? A semi-auto first has to function and second has to be accurate. A "match" chamber is really just a standard chamber hand fitted to minimal headspace tolerances. The 223 is a SAAMI spec'd round and as such has defined dimensions. The vast majority of the difference in the "chamber" between different reamers is actually all in the throat.
I also don't think that match grade AR's are nearly as accurate as you might think. Perusing the latest "Book of the AR" magazine I noted that the high end AR's being tested all tend to print 1.5" and greater groups. Few produce groups smaller than this range and even then it will only be a group or two which is not indicative of the rifle's true accuracy level.
Wicked Police's experience with the NEA shows it to be well within the accuracy range of some of the tier one rifles available.
I have inspected a number of the latest iterations of the NEA rifles and they are A LOT nicer than the chinese rifles, which look like they were hand filed from melted beer cans by slave labour. There is also the consideration that some of the chinese parts and spec's are not compatible with the majority of western made AR's. Go look up some of the threads detailing what is required to remove a chinese front sight or barrel nut.
We seem to have a major inferiority complex here in Canada with anything actually made here. NEA took a ton of flack for using high quality 6061 billet when it was actually shown by a few people who did the homework that 6061 is a better alloy for receivers. The chinese will use anything they can get their hands on as evidenced by lead in children's toys and poison in dog food yet nobody on CGN so much as questions what slag might be in the chinese rifle receivers? The Americans are making AR receivers out of plastic and we eat our own because they have the smarts to use a superior alloy that just doesn't happen to be what AR's have traditionally been made from.
The term MIL SPEC is thrown about on this forum an awful lot by people who have no clue what it actually means. Mil Spec is not the best. It is what the military specified when the rifle was originally produced ..... 50+ years ago. The fact that the Mil Spec has not been updated even though updated alloys and methods have evolved in the last half decade is ludicrous and yet people mindlessly blather on about mil spec being the best and anything not adhering is somehow inferior.
The military has their reasons for what they spec and little of that has to do with accuracy. As ex-military I can assure you they are more than happy if the average soldier can produce a 4" group. I've seen soldiers who couldn't hit the broad side of an MLVW.
The NEA is a good rifle at a good price. And it is made in Canada.
What makes you think the NEA bbl is not SS? As it has been ARC treated does it really matter if it is SS or another alloy? In fact SS has less strength than chromoly steel. Chromoly was used to make match barrels for decades. SS is not a better material for rifle barrels other than it suffers less from corrosion if not cleaned properly.
I don't know what chamber NEA uses but again, does it really matter? A semi-auto first has to function and second has to be accurate. A "match" chamber is really just a standard chamber hand fitted to minimal headspace tolerances. The 223 is a SAAMI spec'd round and as such has defined dimensions. The vast majority of the difference in the "chamber" between different reamers is actually all in the throat.
I also don't think that match grade AR's are nearly as accurate as you might think. Perusing the latest "Book of the AR" magazine I noted that the high end AR's being tested all tend to print 1.5" and greater groups. Few produce groups smaller than this range and even then it will only be a group or two which is not indicative of the rifle's true accuracy level.
Wicked Police's experience with the NEA shows it to be well within the accuracy range of some of the tier one rifles available.
I have inspected a number of the latest iterations of the NEA rifles and they are A LOT nicer than the chinese rifles, which look like they were hand filed from melted beer cans by slave labour. There is also the consideration that some of the chinese parts and spec's are not compatible with the majority of western made AR's. Go look up some of the threads detailing what is required to remove a chinese front sight or barrel nut.
We seem to have a major inferiority complex here in Canada with anything actually made here. NEA took a ton of flack for using high quality 6061 billet when it was actually shown by a few people who did the homework that 6061 is a better alloy for receivers. The chinese will use anything they can get their hands on as evidenced by lead in children's toys and poison in dog food yet nobody on CGN so much as questions what slag might be in the chinese rifle receivers? The Americans are making AR receivers out of plastic and we eat our own because they have the smarts to use a superior alloy that just doesn't happen to be what AR's have traditionally been made from.
The term MIL SPEC is thrown about on this forum an awful lot by people who have no clue what it actually means. Mil Spec is not the best. It is what the military specified when the rifle was originally produced ..... 50+ years ago. The fact that the Mil Spec has not been updated even though updated alloys and methods have evolved in the last half decade is ludicrous and yet people mindlessly blather on about mil spec being the best and anything not adhering is somehow inferior.
The military has their reasons for what they spec and little of that has to do with accuracy. As ex-military I can assure you they are more than happy if the average soldier can produce a 4" group. I've seen soldiers who couldn't hit the broad side of an MLVW.
The NEA is a good rifle at a good price. And it is made in Canada.
NEA has potential, but I still think that they have a long way to go to be considered anything other then a budget AR manufacture in Canada, on par with Norinco more or less. The finish they use on barrels and other steel parts are the worst in the industry, splotchy, uneven, and inconsistent. Even the light grey receiver finish is completely out of place in the market.
Black nitride or parking steel parts, proper black annodizing on receivers would be a small but huge improvement.
There is definitely a market for a quality Canadian made AR priced between a Nork or ATRS ...
Black nitride or parking steel parts, proper black annodizing on receivers would be a small but huge improvement.
There is definitely a market for a quality Canadian made AR priced between a Nork or ATRS ...
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
Thanks for providing your subjective opinions on the NEA-15's appearance but I thought this post was about accuracy?
The finish on their steel barrels worst in the industry? It may not be pretty but I can assure you it is extremely durable. Pretty barrels are important to some, others place priority on function. And the light grey finish on the receivers? You should call Colt and advise them on how "proper black anodizing on receivers would be a small but huge improvement".
First off I'm not making an argument. I'm not getting sucked into infractions and being banded. Thanks though.
I'm trying to figure out what exactly we have here. I don't know if the NEA barrel is stainless or not. Although I'm sure they would say so if it was. Unfortunately you also have to read between the lines at what isn't said.
6061 may be better in some cases. I know my DPMS LR308 budget based comercial rifle was 6061 billet and extruded. It's a target rifle. So far no problems although they have since changed to 7029. It's worth noting Armalite used 7175 for the AR10 and normal 7075 for the AR15. I use the AR10 as an example because there is no milspec so it's telling the choices and changes.
I read book of the AR but don't put as much stock in the acuracy parts when I see them running firearms I know excell with one type of ammo yet they shoot everything else. Mel's Sniperhide for example touted the usual all factory rifles are the same mentality yet the loved the Tika and gave it high marks for accuracy. When it cane time to review the 5R the tested it with ammo other than the well known 168 federal gold standard which these rifles are known to shoot sub .5 moa with. Even then it outshot the Tikka but only marginally with the ammo they chose. Yet it shot decent according to the review not the accuracy raves the Tikka received even though it shot as well or better. In otherwords I take those reports with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the barrel info. That is interesting stuff. A good read too.
As for price etc. A DPMS Recon 5.56 comes with SS 16" barrel and is a comparable price. Again competition and new importers have made this possible. I do consider the NEA in the lower AR quality group. That was the market they were originally chasing. The low price to high performance ratio market. Your decent budget rifle.
Again trying to figure out the role advantages/disadvantages of the 18" barrel. For me I think I'm still stuck on the 16" and 20" systems. But maybe there are things I missed. Which is why I asked.
I know WP has had some very fancy firearms. So I'm more than a bit curious here. Although he seems to be avoiding getting into it. I value his posts and know I'm not going to be reading any fanboy crap. Frankly the accuracy looks good and with fairly inexpensive ammo. That's a plus. Just wondering what it can do with match grade ammo. Also interested in the choice of firearm along with barrel length.
I make no bones about not being in the market for one of these for various reasons. It's still an interesting read. Also I know like myself that WP isn't as brand loyal as many others. One thing I hated about past threads was the "hater" labeling crap. Make no mistake. I have zero brand loyalty. If a product is good then I say so. If not or I like one product but don't like their other stuff then I say so. Beretta for example. Love the CX4 storm, not fond of the PX4 pistol. Kel-Tec I only own the RFB. I'm not interested in other Kel-Tec products at this time. Figured I better get that crud out of the way. Hopefully this thread doesn't go to crap. So far it's interesting and why I signed up for CGN.
Got mine a little while ago and was finally able to get a scope mounted and some rounds fired for accuracy.
To say I'm happy is an understatement... 10rd groups, ammo was all 55gr, American Eagle, and some PMC. I didn't have anything else with me. I'll try some heavier stuff once the snow is gone and it's a bit warmer.
That barrel is printing like a $500-600 match barrel should. With FMJ. I think you have a keeper.
Looking forward to further test results.
For all others with similar barrels and not so similar results - no two barrels are identical - they very much have individual traits.
And I think the nut behind the trigger has a bit to do with it also...
I dont think its news that the NEA barrels shoot well, that was one area that's been consistent for them, and several threads confirming accuracy. Just saying if the finish was better, sales would be better. There has been more then one thread where a new owner was fairly disappointed with the finish on a new barrel. They retail in the same range as DD barrels do and DD has a positive reputation, and I'd bet accuracy is on par. But hey, if they are not open to improving their product, no sweat off my nuts. Just seems like such an easy fix. If I'm looking at 2 barrels, one looks like it was stained with a paint brush, other looks perfect and both shoot the same guess where my money is going?
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I think they are open to improving. Here are Chemist's own words on this very issue in October of this year:
"I just spoke with the owner of NEA and we discussed the blotchy finish on the barrels. They are going to work with the company that nitrates them to try and come up with a more even looking finish. Since April more than 1000 NEA's have been sold in Canada as well as 100-150 individual barrels. This is only the second time anyone has brought up the blotchy look to the finish. As such it's never really been something even looked at. NEA promised me they will come up with a solution for future batches of barrels that should result in a more visually appealing look."
The 18" DMR is actually a mid-length gas system: they can shoot well, but my personal preference would have been a 20" with a rifle length system. That's just me though.
They are pac nor barrel blanks.[/QUOTE]
The DMR specifically, or all their barrels?
And since when? That was not their supplier when I was doing stuff for them.
