NEA blemished lowers from SFRC

My pleasure..for the record I think your questions were entirely reasonable and prudent. I took no offense to them and would ask exactly the same thing if I were a spectator on this. Most magazine testing involves freebie guns and ammo for the tester, and most reviews are basically worthless because they're either questionably funded, or poorly recorded, or both.

So to check up on the relationship of the reviewer to the manufacturer is a very good idea IMO.
 
take no offense to this MIS....but i would tend to believe a review coming from one of the NEA "haters", rather than someone with direct contact to NEA headquarters. You say you paid for the gun, im not calling you a liar at all, but optics of it look bad.

Tell them to buck up a gun to one of the less enthused members here, and let them test it. A test by a guy who listens to, and believes what come out of their mouths is a Bias'd one IMO.

If its all peaches and cream like you, and they say it is, there should be nothing to worry about. The best way to convert the masses so to say, is to have your biggest nay sayers, get a better perspective on it. WHich would not happen, as the haters wont buck up, and spend money on a gun they perceive to be junk.

Again, not trying to be a ####, just giving my input on it. :)
 
jdman said:
take no offense to this MIS....but i would tend to believe a review coming from one of the NEA "haters", rather than someone with direct contact to NEA headquarters. You say you paid for the gun, im not calling you a liar at all, but optics of it look bad.

Tell them to buck up a gun to one of the less enthused members here, and let them test it. A test by a guy who listens to, and believes what come out of their mouths is a Bias'd one IMO.

If its all peaches and cream like you, and they say it is, there should be nothing to worry about. The best way to convert the masses so to say, is to have your biggest nay sayers, get a better perspective on it. WHich would not happen, as the haters wont buck up, and spend money on a gun they perceive to be junk.

Again, not trying to be a ####, just giving my input on it. :)
Click to expand...

No one is without bias. You haven't thought this through if you think that a review by Misanthorpist as "a guy who listens to, and believes what come out of their mouths" is somehow more biased than one by a "hater".

As your post and a few others clearly illustrate, the only thing that will convince the naysayers is time, plain and simple. Either time will show that NEA is up to scratch or it will show that they are not.

I look forward to Misanthropist's review, not because I am supremely confident in NEA's rifles, but because his is an opinion that is as knowledgeable and as objective as we are likely ever to find on this board. Show me a naysayer with as much knowledge and objectivity and I will gladly take up a collection to buy them an NEA to test and review.
 
RF,
perhaps you missed the part where he says he talks directly with the owner, on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

I agree he is a great candidate for a review, however since mcfail has left the frontline, i cant help but notice Mis, has stepped into that spotlight. This in itself presents a bias IMO. A hater so to speak will be without bias, as they have no fiduciary interest in the gun, or the future of the company. They paid nothing for it, and could care less if NEA goes tits up.
That is unbiased if you ask me.
 
jdman said:
RF,
perhaps you missed the part where he says he talks directly with the owner, on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

I agree he is a great candidate for a review, however since mcfail has left the frontline, i cant help but notice Mis, has stepped into that spotlight. This in itself presents a bias IMO. A hater so to speak will be without bias, as they have no fiduciary interest in the gun, or the future of the company. They paid nothing for it, and could care less if NEA goes t**s up.
That is unbiased if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the concept of "unbiased" when you think a "hater" should be given a rifle to test.... Maybe if said hater was to step up and say "hey, I'm better than his sh!t, I think I'll put my money where my mouth is"... Then we might get somewhere....

In the meantime, given my experience, I'd buy another one.
 
jdman said:
RF,
perhaps you missed the part where he says he talks directly with the owner, on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

I agree he is a great candidate for a review, however since mcfail has left the frontline, i cant help but notice Mis, has stepped into that spotlight. This in itself presents a bias IMO. A hater so to speak will be without bias, as they have no fiduciary interest in the gun, or the future of the company. They paid nothing for it, and could care less if NEA goes t**s up.
That is unbiased if you ask me.
Click to expand...

C'mon, call Mis a shill. You know you want to... I dare ya! ;)

The thing is we all have bias. Some people hate NEA for a lot of reasons other than the quality of their product, and I get that, but for those people the quality will never matter - they will always dislike the rifles. That is bias.
 
Runningfool said:
C'mon, call Mis a shill. You know you want to... I dare ya! ;)

The thing is we all have bias. Some people hate NEA for a lot of reasons other than the quality of their product, and I get that, but for those people the quality will never matter - they will always dislike the rifles. That is bias.
Click to expand...
i wouldnt call him a shill. ;)

I know his heart is in the right place, really i do.

I just see it differently i guess. Maybe im alone in this thinking? :confused:
 
If there were other comparable manufacturers of ARs in this country I would probably be talking to them pretty regularly as well.

I talk to a lot of people in the shooting, training, and firearms industry. That is the only reason I have much in the way of information...I definitely don't have the time or money to evaluate, for example, every 1911 manufacturer. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do even a cursory testing of the most common 1911s.

So what I do instead is talk to people in the industry who have tons and tons of experience, and I distill the information down to a general overview.

That requires me to talk with people from different manufacturers. I talk to Jeff pretty regularly because he's the owner of the only Canadian production AR company.

I don't do Dave's job at all. In fact, NEA has specifically decided not to have a forum presence, so even if I wanted to do that job, I couldn't. They don't want anyone to do it.

The only reason I post much about NEA here is that I suspect I am the most knowledgeable person outside of that company when it comes to their guns, and I don't think that it benefits the Black Rifles section to leave the NEA threads to the loudest posters, who may or may not have relevant TECHNICAL information.

I agree that there could be some perceived conflict of interest if you take the position that I do like the guys from NEA and I hope they get their issues sorted out and that things work out for them. But the only real issue there is that I do think Jeff is a decent guy. Even if I thought he was a total jerkoff, I would still want the NEA rifle to work because I would want there to be a quality domestic AR for Canadian shooters.

But I assure you I am absolutely committed to blunt, objective information. I would never tag my name to a rifle that didn't run just because I liked the guy who made it. What would happen if people bought it? It would ruin my name completely.

No, as anyone who knows me will tell you, I will give you the straight goods on any topic I discuss, whether it reflects well on me or not. I am a big, big believer in honesty and accountability. If things change in regards to my relationship with NEA, I'll post about it. If for some reason they hire me on, I'll say so (that is not part of the plan). If they give me a free gun I will say so. If the gun does not run, I will say so. All rounds will be logged and and all problems will be accounted for publicly.

Furthermore, I have been absolutely blunt with NEA about my plan for testing the gun. I warned them that I would be 100% factual in regards to its performance, whether they liked it or not.

As a matter of fact, they advised me that they preferred not to have too close a relationship with me just because they were concerned that the test would be influenced by that, and that they were only really interested in having their guns evaluated by objective third parties.

So while I speak to someone from NEA every few weeks, and like to be kept in the loop on what direction they're moving, I categorically do not allow that interaction to influence my decisions regarding their products.

As evidence I would submit that I have personally refused to buy one of their guns for the past year, because I didn't think they were reliable enough. I said from the beginning that I was not really interested in owning one of the first thousand, because I don't like being a beta tester - or at least I don't like being a PUBLIC beta tester at my cost. Anyone who wants me to beta guns at their cost is more than welcome to send me stuff.

So while I like them, I have never hid the fact that I wouldn't buy one of their rifles until they sorted out their QC. I think that's happened so I bought one.

We'll see if I'm right. I hope that I am but I am fully prepared to accept that I may not be.
 
SPRTN308 said:
I don't think you understand the concept of "unbiased" when you think a "hater" should be given a rifle to test.... Maybe if said hater was to step up and say "hey, I'm better than his sh!t, I think I'll put my money where my mouth is"... Then we might get somewhere....

In the meantime, given my experience, I'd buy another one.
Click to expand...

Why would a "hater" like myself pony up money for a rifle that I have no faith in?. And if the rifle proved to be a POS, I am not saying that it would but it could, how would I recover that money? I clearly couldn't sell it, after posting a negative report on the rifle, who would buy it?.
 
Well, I'll be in the same position if it doesn't run.

Regardless of your views on the company relative to mine, if I post a lengthy account of a gun sucking, it basically means I'll be out around a thousand bucks, plus the cost of whatever ammo goes through it. And that is exactly what I'll do if it won't run, in addition to having to eat crow on the company. I'm gambling a fair bit here.

Anyone who doesn't feel my review is sufficiently factual and impartial is certainly more than welcome to throw $1000-1500 of their money at the problem like I'm doing. Otherwise I think it's fair to suggest that that this is going to be as definitive a test as we're likely to see.
 
misanthropist said:
Well, I'll be in the same position if it doesn't run.

Regardless of your views on the company relative to mine, if I post a lengthy account of a gun sucking, it basically means I'll be out around a thousand bucks, plus the cost of whatever ammo goes through it. And that is exactly what I'll do if it won't run, in addition to having to eat crow on the company. I'm gambling a fair bit here.

Anyone who doesn't feel my review is sufficiently factual and impartial is certainly more than welcome to throw $1000-1500 of their money at the problem like I'm doing. Otherwise I think it's fair to suggest that that this is going to be as definitive a test as we're likely to see.
Click to expand...

I don't distrust your ability to provide an impartial review. You seem to have no axe to grind.
 
That's impressively ironic, considering my other hobby of reprofiling axes on a belt grinder.

But you are right. I have an information fetish and I have a real interest in relaying information. I want NEA to succeed...but only if their rifles are successful. I don't have a side as much as an interest in the whole topic.
 
misanthropist said:
Well, I'll be in the same position if it doesn't run.

Regardless of your views on the company relative to mine, if I post a lengthy account of a gun sucking, it basically means I'll be out around a thousand bucks, plus the cost of whatever ammo goes through it. And that is exactly what I'll do if it won't run, in addition to having to eat crow on the company. I'm gambling a fair bit here.

Anyone who doesn't feel my review is sufficiently factual and impartial is certainly more than welcome to throw $1000-1500 of their money at the problem like I'm doing. Otherwise I think it's fair to suggest that that this is going to be as definitive a test as we're likely to see.
Click to expand...

why do you keep going on about NEA, yes YOU like them, most don`t..and

you got some freebies when they started and you were making a 2000 page report on how their use of cheaper alloy was justified and better..:bsFlag:

You have been a big supporter of NEA until the sh*tstorm happened and then you were neutral and now your starting to justify and spread the love again..

not hating just staing the facts.. the broken NEA record is starting to play again :confused:

are your NEA buddies asking you to spread the NEA love again..hmm maybe another big product new AR launch coming to wipe out LMT this time???:rolleyes:
 
A) I don't think they have ever given me anything. Actually, while typing this post I remembered that they did ONCE give me a fiber optic front sight that they were doing a run of for the VZ. I never mounted it, because I don't really think FO sights belong on a gun that you might want to depend on. That's the ONLY item I ever got without paying for, and I didn't even bother to use it.

B) The only products of theirs I have ever had were VZ58 parts, which did work well

c) I was opposed to the use of 6061 and open about that...I don't THINK the use of 6061 is an issue technically but was completely annoyed they didn't use the 7000 series

D) I stopped recommending NEA anything because they had serious QC issues. I am still not recommending them, and won't unless the testing goes well.

E) Even if they were asking me to spread NEA love, which they probably wouldn't, but even if they did, I wouldn't. I am ONLY interested in quality guns. If NEA can build one, GREAT. That would be awesome from my perspective as a Canadian shooter. If not, that's unfortunate but thankfully we have more options in this country than we used to, and I will just go back to advising people to buy Daniels Defense. Which, incidentally, is my current advice, because I haven't wrung out an NEA rifle.

F)inally, I think I have been clear from the beginning: I wanted people to buy NEA rifles so they would work through their learning curve before I bought one. I have ALWAYS said that. Please be the beta testers so I can just buy a gun with the bugs worked out.

I am posting about them more recently because I have reason to believe the bugs are pretty much worked out.

I believe you are misinformed about me. In fact, if you believe I have received "freebies" from NEA, you are definitely misinformed.

I think it would be better if you stuck to posting stuff you actually KNOW to be true. That is not the same as posting stuff you BELIEVE to be true.
 
misanthropist said:
A) I don't think they have ever given me anything. Actually, while typing this post I remembered that they did ONCE give me a fiber optic front sight that they were doing a run of for the VZ. I never mounted it, because I don't really think FO sights belong on a gun that you might want to depend on. That's the ONLY item I ever got without paying for, and I didn't even bother to use it.

B) The only products of theirs I have ever had were VZ58 parts, which did work well

c) I was opposed to the use of 6061 and open about that...I don't THINK the use of 6061 is an issue technically but was completely annoyed they didn't use the 7000 series

D) I stopped recommending NEA anything because they had serious QC issues. I am still not recommending them, and won't unless the testing goes well.

E) Even if they were asking me to spread NEA love, which they probably wouldn't, but even if they did, I wouldn't. I am ONLY interested in quality guns. If NEA can build one, GREAT. That would be awesome from my perspective as a Canadian shooter. If not, that's unfortunate but thankfully we have more options in this country than we used to, and I will just go back to advising people to buy Daniels Defense. Which, incidentally, is my current advice, because I haven't wrung out an NEA rifle.

F)inally, I think I have been clear from the beginning: I wanted people to buy NEA rifles so they would work through their learning curve before I bought one. I have ALWAYS said that. Please be the beta testers so I can just buy a gun with the bugs worked out.

I am posting about them more recently because I have reason to believe the bugs are pretty much worked out.

I believe you are misinformed about me. In fact, if you believe I have received "freebies" from NEA, you are definitely misinformed.

I think it would be better if you stuck to posting stuff you actually KNOW to be true. That is not the same as posting stuff you BELIEVE to be true.
Click to expand...

I have always found your posts very honest and informative on different subjects not just NEA. I personally think it is a waste of your time and money doing a review on the NEA rifle here in Canada on a Canadian forum. Most people i think have made up their minds in Canada to stay away from NEA for the time being. NEA is still very active on SA public forums, your review maybe better served there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom