New AR failure to fire **Solved operator error**
- Thread starter Tiwaz
- Start date
The shilling bugs me, the "satain incident" does not as their involvment was limited to handing over information other sponsors had forwarded to them regarding Satain's connection to BC Tactical, which I think they had a legitimate right to do. Much like with USP, they didn't "have satain banned". CGN's administration banned satain for failing to disclose his business relationship with BC Tactical. NEA just tipped off CGN about that relationship.
But neither of these topics directly relate to the technical quality of the guns they sell, and that's the part I'm primarily interested in.
When they have screwed up their guns, THAT has been an issue for me and I have argued for stricter QC at NEA from day one. But then they have been implementing that; I can tell you that they brought up a guy from a tier 1 manufacturer to advise them on their assembly and QC processes recently, for instance.
Their issues have not been the result of indifference...it has just been a learning cve compounded by rapid growth.
I do not blame anyone for slamming NEA's QC. But I do think it's worthwhile to restrict the criticisms to events which have actually occurred.
But neither of these topics directly relate to the technical quality of the guns they sell, and that's the part I'm primarily interested in.
When they have screwed up their guns, THAT has been an issue for me and I have argued for stricter QC at NEA from day one. But then they have been implementing that; I can tell you that they brought up a guy from a tier 1 manufacturer to advise them on their assembly and QC processes recently, for instance.
Their issues have not been the result of indifference...it has just been a learning cve compounded by rapid growth.
I do not blame anyone for slamming NEA's QC. But I do think it's worthwhile to restrict the criticisms to events which have actually occurred.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
When being the operative word here, which has happened altogether too frequently. I appreciate that while they have made efforts to improve QC, releasing subsequent batches of rifles that each exhibited a different array of problems after said QC improvement(s) didn't exactly instil confidence.
The fact that the Canadian market really seems to be an afterthought is kind of a sticking point as well. Why do SA and NZ sing such high praises of NEA? Either they don't have the same frame-of-reference for AR15 comparison or the QC for the rifles that went to those countries is far superior than what we've seen here.
We've been getting the sloppy seconds lol
I could only speculate on why the SA and NZ guns have neen better received...I don't know what their familiarity with ARs is so it's possible they are less discerning for sure...on the other hand maybe that's not the case; I just don't know.
It's possible the testing of guns going far away was more thorough; warranty work would be a bigger headache so they might have been more carefully checked.
I think it's also possible that the first guns going out were buggier than later ones, and they went to Canada.
But again we're starting to drift in to talking about stuff other than the performance of the guns quite a bit here and that is exactly what I often notice about the NEA threads. People talk about what are effectively "hurt feelings" issues. Satain got banned. USP got banned. NEA likes South Africa more than Canada.
I guess I don't blame anyone for having hurt feelings over whatever...but it doesn't really change what "tier" you should put NEA guns on.
It's possible the testing of guns going far away was more thorough; warranty work would be a bigger headache so they might have been more carefully checked.
I think it's also possible that the first guns going out were buggier than later ones, and they went to Canada.
But again we're starting to drift in to talking about stuff other than the performance of the guns quite a bit here and that is exactly what I often notice about the NEA threads. People talk about what are effectively "hurt feelings" issues. Satain got banned. USP got banned. NEA likes South Africa more than Canada.
I guess I don't blame anyone for having hurt feelings over whatever...but it doesn't really change what "tier" you should put NEA guns on.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
And that would be...?
Seems to depend wildly on the individual gun...personally I would not be able to put anything with questionable taiwanese LPKs etc anywhere but tier 3, but I know the gen 4 NEA stuff has no chinese parts at all...every bit is made in a legit western country so I am hoping the current round will be solid tier 2 guns.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Where does that put the pre-gen 4 stuff though?
Tier 3 IMO, some good parts but unfortunately impossible to trust that they will run out of the box.
Of course that puts them in with Bushmaster and RRA etc, which many on this forum probably still swear by...including, no doubt, many who rip NEA stuff.
It would seem that according to the end user DWEENZ this report is not correct.here is a direct quote
Trader Rating: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: BC
Posts: 986 My new NEA15 CQB Problems out of the box....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got it finaly,
NEA 15 CQB Immediately had an issue... the charging handle would not come to the rear turns out the plate that you tighten the castle nut against was sitting a couple mils high. not waiting another 6 weeks for them to repair or replace such a minor issue i filed it down enough to get the charging handle to come back. seems strange it could have left the factory in this condition. also the fit of upper to lower has a bit of wiggle to it i noticed this right away. anybody else have this same problem? other than these 2 issues everything looks good.
So it would seem that I was correct all along. Dweenz had to modify his NEA AR in order for it to ####. so we are at the same point we were before a rifle that doesn't shoot came with empties
Ryan unless you were at NEA when the rifle was "tested" or have made a forensic comparison of the casings dweenz recieved and those that were fired from his rifle you really can't say that. And if the time line dweenz gave was accurate then you only examined the rifle AFTER he modded the out of spec sling plate. Further if a rifle can only be cocked by pulling up and back on the charging handle to make it clear the out of spec parts then would you call that rifle properly tested?.
Davy Crockett
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Fraser Valley
What's your dog in this fight MG4201? You sure seem to have a personal issue with NEA. Did they kick your dog? Push you off your bike when you were a kid? Make fun of your mom maybe?
What Ryan seems to be saying is the gun could be cocked if the pressure on the charging handle was upward. I don't see him claiming to have matched shell casings to rifles.
The way some of you have taken this on as a personal vendetta is ridiculous. It's been done to death.
No dog in this fight at all. But what NEA did was wrong, and dishonest. They were charging Canadian gun owners to beta test their rifles, telling BS stories about testing, shilling and when they got caught, USP the guy who busted them got banned. They lied, and worse still they gave Canadian manufacturing a black eye. read what I wrote, I never said that Ryan claimed to have matched cases. The hyperbole in you post was quite good though; "personal vendetta" nicely done.
Last edited:
No, I don't talk to him daily or even weekly. I am heading out of the country for a couple of weeks just now and probably won't get the chance until I get back.
From the sounds of things though, the interference was minor and would not have prevented the gun from firing, if Ryan of SFRC didn't notice the interference when hand cocking from low ready.
My guess is that the interference was only apparent when the CH was pulled straight back or with a bit of downward pressure, and possibly then would still be a bit dependent on the grip of the user on the upper.
My point is not that the rifle was perfect or even acceptable - clearly it was not.
However it does seem to be fairly easy to explain how proof brass could have been shipped with the rifle; from the sounds of things it probably would have fired just fine.
Dweenz notes that there was interference between the CH and the plate...but I don't see any mention of it being fired in this condition. It might not have been noticeable during firing, particularly if the shooter is inclined to grip the handguard pretty forcefully.
I am therefore back to wondering if any instances of guns being shipped with phony test brass can actually be shown to have occurred?
I understand that a bunch of people are not satisfied with the quality of the rifles NEA released and I am very sympathetic to that. I am not impressed with "tier 3" guns. In particular I'm a bit choked because there are a bunch of good parts contained within the NEA rifles, and I think they could be very good guns if not let down by some small parts issues.
What I don't really get is how a bunch of people seem to have taken issue with NEA guns to the point that they seem to think NEA guns are somehow radically worse than a dozen other options that get no mention here at all.
In this thread the top complaints I have seen have been that NEA got USP banned, that they got Satain banned, that they shilled for their own products, and that they included fake proof brass with their guns.
Only one of those actually took place, and yeah, it's bad and I'm definitely against it. But the reality just does not seem to be as severe as I see it being depicted.
Just to be honest here... No I could not charge the handle no matter upward pressure or not....Ryan you told me you never had the chance to "inspect" my rifle before it was sent out when i spoke with you on the phone about it...this is my honest account. I don't want to keep rehashing the past but i don't like dishonesty either.
Flame away....
Flame away....
Go back and read what dweenz wrote; I quoted him several posts above this one He wrote " the charging handle would not come to the rear" thats not interference thats a failure to function. Denying that it happened doesn't change it.
