NEA AR-15's

NEA's are as craptacular as it gets. I have worked with two that required me to work on both to get them to function properly. As a person who has owned almost every brand of ARs (from Norinco to Noveske), YOU COULD NOT PAY ME TO OWN AN NEA. You may get one that works, but why risk it. My advice would be to buy a Norinco. I have owned two and have never experienced a failure with either (have competed with them). Just because they are built in Canada (I won't wade into that debate), doesn't mean you should support garbage.

The prices of ARs have dropped dramatically over the past two years. If your budget would accomodate it, go with Colt or Daniel Defense. But I would recommend Norinco ARs to anybody.
 
FrankieT said:
NEA's are as craptacular as it gets. I have worked with two that required me to work on both to get them to function properly. As a person who has owned almost every brand of ARs (from Norinco to Noveske), YOU COULD NOT PAY ME TO OWN AN NEA. You may get one that works, but why risk it. My advice would be to buy a Norinco. I have owned two and have never experienced a failure with either (have competed with them). Just because they are built in Canada (I won't wade into that debate), doesn't mean you should support garbage.

The prices of ARs have dropped dramatically over the past two years. If your budget would accomodate it, go with Colt or Daniel Defense. But I would recommend Norinco ARs to anybody.
Click to expand...

So you would rather purchase a Chinese piece of chit over a good Canadian made brand. Shame on you!
 
To the OP

Best would be to find someone local who is willing to let you try theirs.

Try a bunch of makes then make your own decisions. If you have never owned or shot an AR before this is the route I would go.

Opinions are like a certain orifice. Everyone has one.

There are NEA haters and NEA users who like their NEA-15 rifles. It seems most are entrenched in their own positions.

If you are in Calgary send me a pm.


Marc
 
@ Sqr...Chit? Hardly. I have never had a failure with either Norinco (one 14.5", one 10.5"). Accuracy is about 2-3 MOA depending on ammo. Price is inexpensive. Other than the finish on the receiver, they are EXACTLY what you want in a rifle. And the fact that the finish is crap on the Norinco has led me to treat them harsher than my other ARs. The fact that I treat them harsher than my other ARs and they never fail just proves they are NOT chit. I use them as loaners on courses with new shooters, or for students that have their NEAs or other ARs fail to run reliably. I don't have time to troubleshoot a students rifle when it fails. We need to get shooting. Calling NEA a good Canadian brand is a joke, at least in the AR world. Again, I have personally witnessed NEA ARs chit the bed in my courses. I have never seen a Norinco do that. All AR brands can have issues. It just seems that the NEAs I have seen all have problems of some sort, right from the factory. Two of which I refused to let students continue with because they were that bad that I worked on them overnight to get them to function for the second day of the course.
 
Last edited:
FrankieT said:
Haha. Your post just got funnier when I read one of your previous posts...

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1258005-NEA-upper-and-non-NEA-lower-fitment?p=11557710&viewfull=1#post11557710

You have had issues yourself. Taking a dremel to an upper from a "good Canadian" company doesn't make sense
Click to expand...

I will never say that you get a perfect fit between brands when mixing and matching. As for the dremel I noticed that my new Precision Aero upper has smaller channels like the NE upper so this would likely require modification if I wanted to use the Phase 5 charging handle. Having said that my new MI billet upper has larger charging handle notches that would require zero modification for my P5 hardware. As you can see from my Avatar I am an old true blue Canadian supporter and would never never purchase or promote a Chinese brand, especially when my good looking mug is so close to that rifle.
 
Hmm. I mite spend the extra money are get a Daniel Defance or Ruger AR-15. or buy a Colt Canada Upper and get a lower parts kit...
 
Nea15 was my first ar
Not by any means top quality
But I did learn a lot from it
what works and what doesn't
It helped me decide how to build my custom ar15 with areo and troy components

I do not regret owning a nea15 as I still have it and I functions flawless
 
if you want to really get p'd off. Those of you buying due to the lower price of the NEA's, on ar15, a guy showed his walmart receipts for 2 magpul 6920's discounted from 1200 to 899 to $500 each.

I know several guys with norc ar's, 1 even sold his safe queen colt hbars for a norc for fun. None have had any issues with their norcs.
 
I have two NEA-15s that I built from NEA parts. The 12.5" has about 4000 rounds through it with only one issue. The retaining spring on the dust cover fell out during a CQB clinic. I called NEA and they sent me a replacement dust cover and spring/detent/retainer out the same day.

I also have a Colt Canada SA20 that I use for Service Rifle. It is an excellent rifle and I haven't had any issues with it at all.

My NEA-15 14.5" is a safe queen that I have only had out a couple of times, since I use my ACR as my backup for CQB and SR.

Both my NEAs are the older, billet versions with the old-style rails.
 
cr5 said:
You're right, it's the least a company should do when an item makes it out the door and has problems. The point is that NEA does do that and that's more customer support than you'll get from a lot of companies. Try sending a US built rifle back for warranty, some have a Canadian service center and others you rely on the importer or retailer for assistance.
When I had my brand new HK USP Tactical explode in my hand I had to send it back to the importer and they immediately said I was using handloads therefore no warranty and they sent it back. I couldn't get them to talk to me about it or even discuss options for me paying to repair it. They wanted nothing to do with it once they got my money and decided it wasn't a warranty issue.
Every company has growing pains and NEA had a few, they changed suppliers to get rid of the bad bolts they were getting and they've been improving their product steadily since then.

I won't write off NEA just because they had some problems in the past and still have the odd issue from time to time. I think they make a good AR for an entry level price. And the upper, lower and BCG I run in my 16 inch build work well and fit with any brand of parts I throw at it. I like knowing that if I have trouble with any of my NEA parts that it's just a quick email or phone call and the problem will be on it's way to being corrected.
Their rifles are no where near the quality of my PWS but at more than double the cost I expect my PWS to be a better rifle.

Would I pick NEA as my go to rifle for WROL? No.
Would I pick NEA as a decent AR to make some holes in paper and ring some gongs at the range? Of course.
My life doesn't depend on my rifle and if I have an issue I like that I know it will be dealt with promptly and directly by the manufacturer at no cost to me.
Click to expand...


NEA's teething problems is an excuse. The AR has been around for over half a century and NEA is hardly offering something new as far as materials or design are concerned. Teething issues are short lived, NEA's have been far from short lived and are far from teething, complete bolt failures and grinder marks on bolt carriers is not teething.

Don't ever buy something because it has a killer warranty. That warranty is only valid if the company decides to honour it, and if the company is still operating. Firearms should be especially scrutinized before purchase as any warranty work (as you found out) can be a hassle if it has to travel trans border. The warranty is something I never even consider before a purchase. If I am not confident the product will last it's lifetime without needing to be sent back then I won't buy it. A warranty is like insurance, nice to have buy something I never want to use.

Up until recently NEA prices were far from entry level. There are far far better rifles for sale that were the same price or close to that of an NEA. Their recent price drop is likely due to stagnant sales. I'm not a Norc fan by any means but their rifles tend to run and can be had for even less than an NEA. You said you wouldn't trust your life to an NEA, and you may never have to; but I have to ask this question: What is the difference between a rifle you would trust your life to and one you wouldn't?? My bet(read- the answer) is quality and craftsmanship. So you're ok with a sub par plinker but wouldn't accept such if your life depended on it.

The other big mystery I keep hearing is "entry/starter" AR. If someone's "budget" is only enough for a Norc or an NEA then it's ok to get one. The logic is that once the individual has decided they want a better quality AR(or optic or other accessory) they can save for one. This logic isn't logic at all. Follow my example below.

Say you scored a sweet NEA(haha) for $700. You buy it and shoot the life out of it but decide you want a better rifle. You buy a PWS for instance for $2500. For a guy on a budget you have now spent $3200 to get the good quality AR and now have a low quality and well used AR that you don't shoot and won't recover much if any value from reselling. The alternative for the "budget" is to simply save for a longer period of time(or reallocate ones priorities to free up some capital) and buy a quality rifle the first time. The risk of a lemon is greatly reduced, the enjoyment is assured and if need be it holds a higher resale value. Buying twice when someone is "on a budget" makes absolutely no sense. What I see in this plan is an excuse or validation in buying a low quality product sooner than waiting for the high quality one..


TW25B
 
I own a Norc, a Palmeto State Armory, built up, a Dominion Arms, and 3 NEAs.

I find they all work well, but they are different. The NEAs are heavy. I prefer a heavy gun for offhand shooting, tt seems more stable.

The Norc was my first and has been 100. It has a ambi mag release, which I use and really like.

I would have no hesitation to buy another NEA, or the other makes.
 
TW25B said:
NEA's teething problems is an excuse. The AR has been around for over half a century and NEA is hardly offering something new as far as materials or design are concerned. Teething issues are short lived, NEA's have been far from short lived and are far from teething, complete bolt failures and grinder marks on bolt carriers is not teething.

Don't ever buy something because it has a killer warranty. That warranty is only valid if the company decides to honour it, and if the company is still operating. Firearms should be especially scrutinized before purchase as any warranty work (as you found out) can be a hassle if it has to travel trans border. The warranty is something I never even consider before a purchase. If I am not confident the product will last it's lifetime without needing to be sent back then I won't buy it. A warranty is like insurance, nice to have buy something I never want to use.

Up until recently NEA prices were far from entry level. There are far far better rifles for sale that were the same price or close to that of an NEA. Their recent price drop is likely due to stagnant sales. I'm not a Norc fan by any means but their rifles tend to run and can be had for even less than an NEA. You said you wouldn't trust your life to an NEA, and you may never have to; but I have to ask this question: What is the difference between a rifle you would trust your life to and one you wouldn't?? My bet(read- the answer) is quality and craftsmanship. So you're ok with a sub par plinker but wouldn't accept such if your life depended on it.

The other big mystery I keep hearing is "entry/starter" AR. If someone's "budget" is only enough for a Norc or an NEA then it's ok to get one. The logic is that once the individual has decided they want a better quality AR(or optic or other accessory) they can save for one. This logic isn't logic at all. Follow my example below.

Say you scored a sweet NEA(haha) for $700. You buy it and shoot the life out of it but decide you want a better rifle. You buy a PWS for instance for $2500. For a guy on a budget you have now spent $3200 to get the good quality AR and now have a low quality and well used AR that you don't shoot and won't recover much if any value from reselling. The alternative for the "budget" is to simply save for a longer period of time(or reallocate ones priorities to free up some capital) and buy a quality rifle the first time. The risk of a lemon is greatly reduced, the enjoyment is assured and if need be it holds a higher resale value. Buying twice when someone is "on a budget" makes absolutely no sense. What I see in this plan is an excuse or validation in buying a low quality product sooner than waiting for the high quality one..


TW25B
Click to expand...

Very good points, with Core and Windham on the market now it's nice to have some alternatives for people in the $1000ish price range.
I agree that buying cheap while saving for a high end rifle is dumb and costs more in the long run but some guys are never going to move up and just want a cheapish AR to bang around with while we're still allowed to own them.

Your comment about me be ok with a sub par plinker but no ok with it for defending my life? Yup, absolutely. If I could only have one rifle then I agree with you 100% and would only own my PWS. The reality of my situation is that I own 3 AR lowers and 4 uppers and not long ago I was up to 6 complete AR's. I've tried most brands and I do have a couple that I like better than others but my experiences with NEA products have been good so far and I have friends that run them in 3 gun without issues. If it runs it's good enough for me for what we're allowed to use them for. If I was buying it for battle, competition, hunting or if it was non restricted I would spend the same money on all my AR's that I did on my PWS or my ACR. For a range toy though I don't see the point in getting overly carried away just to go punch holes in paper and ring gongs.

And I would never buy a Norc M-forgery, most of the stories of guys trying to throw aftermarket parts on them sounds like you need to hand fit most parts which tells me they are out of spec by a fair margin. Sure they run but if I have to hand fit any parts I buy to replace broken or worn out parts then I'm not interested. They are like the T-97, a disposable rifle that is only good for a parts rifle for the one you buy to replace it then hope something different breaks on the next one. Hell, I won't even run norc ammo in my AR's. Junk.
 
Ganderite said:
I own a Norc, a Palmeto State Armory, built up, a Dominion Arms, and 3 NEAs.

I find they all work well, but they are different. The NEAs are heavy. I prefer a heavy gun for offhand shooting, tt seems more stable.

The Norc was my first and has been 100. It has a ambi mag release, which I use and really like.

I would have no hesitation to buy another NEA, or the other makes.
Click to expand...

Correct me if i am wrong but didn't you have problems with two of the three NEA rifles you own?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom