New AR failure to fire **Solved operator error**

misanthropist said:
Because to me, it isn't a "they" on the internet selling guns and maybe getting wires crossed or making a typo or being misunderstood or taken out of context, it's Jeff, who I was talking to about music which is an unrelated passion of his, directly telling me something, personally, from one guy to another, as we have talked in the past about a number of different subjects, some gun related, some not.

So for me it's not remotely probable that he just flat out lied about this. It would be the equivalent of sitting on the deck with one of your friends, and having him, out of the blue, mention that some issue he was having at work was the result of some accounting error he hadn't known about, and then later someone suggesting that your friend was lying about it. If you know your friend, you know how likely or not that would be.

I mean really, here are the two options:

1) the gun was never test fired. It left the shop without being checked, and somebody at NEA included fake brass with it so someone would think it had been test fired. It arrived at the store, wasn't racked, then was sold to someone who discovered a known issue with a bunch of NEA guns. The customer sent it back and NEA acknowleged the problem because they'd had a run of guns with the same issue, but in this case, they then test fired the upper without telling anyone, sent the upper back to the retailer pretending it had been previously test fired, and then surreptitiously released the (false) information that it had been test fired through an unsuspecting third party during a private conversation in the hopes that that person would reveal the prior testing, thus absolving NEA of one of a number of complaints, most of which they openly accept. The unsuspecting retailer looks at the gun and corroborates that part of the story, despite being complicit in a seperate conspiracy in which he falsely claims that the gun could be racked depending on how it was held, but that is a lie;

2) the customer was mistaken about the gun having been test fired.

I mean I'm not saying scenario 1 does not explain the situation...but does it REALLY seem more probable than scenario 2?
Click to expand...

It only seems more probable If you believe #1 that dweenz is lying about the firearm being unusable out of the box, I believe dweenz because he has no financial stake in this, and his version of events has been consistent. #2 that a person, Ryan with an obvious financial interest in all of this who has given multiple contradictory accounts of what he did or didn't do is telling the truth.
 
mg4201 said:
It only seems more probable If you believe #1 that dweenz is lying about the firearm being unusable out of the box, I believe dweenz because he has no financial stake in this, and his version of events has been consistent. #2 that a person, Ryan with an obvious financial interest in all of this who has given multiple contradictory accounts of what he did or didn't do is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Lol,

You are awesome, disambiguation must be your speciality.
 
Chemist said:
I personally cocked Dweenz gun before it left as I do all NEA's before they leave here. I did so from the low ready not shouldered.

I have his gun right here, with his repair job he did...filed the plate a bit.


Ryan
Click to expand...

How did you #### mine with no BCG in it?
 
mg4201 said:
It only seems more probable If you believe #1 that dweenz is lying about the firearm being unusable out of the box, I believe dweenz because he has no financial stake in this, and his version of events has been consistent. #2 that a person, Ryan with an obvious financial interest in all of this who has given multiple contradictory accounts of what he did or didn't do is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Or that he is simply mistaken.

He may well have run the CH from a dozen positions and found that it did not work...maybe none of those positions generated enough upward pressure to clear the plate.

After all, he himself observed that the upper at least had been fired, so the worst case scenario is that it was fired on a different lower.

Why NEA would swap lowers over and over as they try to get guns out the door is not clear to me, though.
 
Interestingly I was just chatting with someone from NEA and his description of their testing trap put it fairly low...apparently they don't test from a normal shooting position, they shoot from around the waist.

My guess, then, is that their shooting position is similar to the position Ryan was running the charge handle from.

According to them, uppers and lowers are tested and shipped, which frankly makes sense as it would be extra work to then swap lowers, and you would have an untested combo, basically making the test firing a waste of time and ammo. Even if you only view NEA as a self-interested business, it's hard to think of a reason they would test the guns, change them, and then cross their fingers and ship the untested version. Why do the extra work for an untested end result?

So by far the most reasonable conclusion here is that the gun was fired. If it was fired, it was probably possible to run the charge handle from some angle or other at that time.

Whether something changed between that time and Dweenz's experience with it is about the only question I personally have left...is it possible that the washer shifted somehow, etc.

Otherwise this seems simply to be another example of the known previous issue with NEA guns in which some were assembled with an out of spec plate.

In general, though, that plate could not have been WAY too big, just because the funs which were shipped that way were, I believe, getting test fired.

So in most cases the interference cannot have been so great that it would have blocked any CH movement.
 
this whole back and forth is not accomplishing anything.

-Could the rifle be fired and produce empty casings? Possibly if the CH was pulled back a certain way.
-Was it 100% assembled right/all parts to spec/fire 100% of the time? No.

There are other ways to ####/charge/reload the rifle and the CH does not move back every time you fire
 
misanthropist said:
Interestingly I was just chatting with someone from NEA and his description of their testing trap put it fairly low...apparently they don't test from a normal shooting position, they shoot from around the waist.

My guess, then, is that their shooting position is similar to the position Ryan was running the charge handle from.

According to them, uppers and lowers are tested and shipped, which frankly makes sense as it would be extra work to then swap lowers, and you would have an untested combo, basically making the test firing a waste of time and ammo. Even if you only view NEA as a self-interested business, it's hard to think of a reason they would test the guns, change them, and then cross their fingers and ship the untested version. Why do the extra work for an untested end result?

So by far the most reasonable conclusion here is that the gun was fired. If it was fired, it was probably possible to run the charge handle from some angle or other at that time.

Whether something changed between that time and Dweenz's experience with it is about the only question I personally have left...is it possible that the washer shifted somehow, etc.

Otherwise this seems simply to be another example of the known previous issue with NEA guns in which some were assembled with an out of spec plate.

In general, though, that plate could not have been WAY too big, just because the funs which were shipped that way were, I believe, getting test fired.

So in most cases the interference cannot have been so great that it would have blocked any CH movement.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable, I guess.

But you know, the thing I keep thinking is that if NEA had released their product on M4C, in the same fashion as they have/had on CGN, I think they would have gotten absolutely crucified.

I hope they have worked out the kinks, I really do. However, a lot of people; you especially as a knowledgeable user and customer, have tried to tell them the right way to go to the civilian market with these rifles, and they really didn't listen....

If they had used you as their spokesman/internet forum dude, I think things would have gone much better for them. Or even if they had a good conversation with you and actually implemented some of your suggestions. The report you wrote gives them lots of good areas they should work on. It's all there for them....
 
misanthropist said:
Interestingly I was just chatting with someone from NEA and his description of their testing trap put it fairly low...apparently they don't test from a normal shooting position, they shoot from around the waist.

My guess, then, is that their shooting position is similar to the position Ryan was running the charge handle from.

According to them, uppers and lowers are tested and shipped, which frankly makes sense as it would be extra work to then swap lowers, and you would have an untested combo, basically making the test firing a waste of time and ammo. Even if you only view NEA as a self-interested business, it's hard to think of a reason they would test the guns, change them, and then cross their fingers and ship the untested version. Why do the extra work for an untested end result?

So by far the most reasonable conclusion here is that the gun was fired. If it was fired, it was probably possible to run the charge handle from some angle or other at that time.

Whether something changed between that time and Dweenz's experience with it is about the only question I personally have left...is it possible that the washer shifted somehow, etc.

Otherwise this seems simply to be another example of the known previous issue with NEA guns in which some were assembled with an out of spec plate.

In general, though, that plate could not have been WAY too big, just because the funs which were shipped that way were, I believe, getting test fired.

So in most cases the interference cannot have been so great that it would have blocked any CH movement.
Click to expand...

Well that is what dweenz reported, his pictures seem to support that as well. Imo the scenario of the gun being tested with a different lower than it was shipped with makes some sense from one perspective. That is that testing it with a "known to work" lower eliminates variables. Then if the assembly doesn't fire the tester knows that the upper is to blame. Also the gun being tested in this manner is a scenario that fits all the elements of this incident. It explains how a gun with a non functioning lower (bad trigger parts, too big sling plate) could have been fired as Dweens recently reported. Whether we will ever know for sure is up in the air. For what it's worth I enjoyed our conversation on this matter.
 
Clobbersauras said:
Sounds reasonable, I guess.

But you know, the thing I keep thinking is that if NEA had released their product on M4C, in the same fashion as they have/had on CGN, I think they would have gotten absolutely crucified.

I hope they have worked out the kinks, I really do. However, a lot of people; you especially as a knowledgeable user and customer, have tried to tell them the right way to go to the civilian market with these rifles, and they really didn't listen....

If they had used you as their spokesman/internet forum dude, I think things would have gone much better for them. Or even if they had a good conversation with you and actually implemented some of your suggestions. The report you wrote gives them lots of good areas they should work on. It's all there for them....
Click to expand...
They definitely should have done that and paid me enormous amounts of money for it.

I do agree that on M4C they would have been eaten alive...that is partly because M4C is the major leagues, and partly because they have a seemingly unshakeable fascination with the M4 TDP.

There are a lot of reasons for that, some good, some not so good.

But yeah, this is a cake walk compared to what would have happened over there.


Anyway a properly functioning rifle should be able to #### the charge handle at any angle, that is definitely true. But a rifle that has interference issues between the charge handle and the end plate might make that angle significant...the AR by design has some play between the upper and lower so it's fairly possible to imagine a scenario in which upward pressure on the CH relative to the lower might allow a borderline rifle to work, when another angle might not.

Obviously that's indicative of a problem, I am not saying a normal gun should do this. I am just looking for an explanation of how multiple parties could be telling different stories about the same gun, and still each be telling the truth.

I think this has actually been one of the more productive and rational NEA threads, come to think of it.
 
Chemist said:
I remember correctly yours had a BCG in it and I took it out to check the staking and forgot to put it back it.

Ryan
Click to expand...

I know...just messing with you. And the issue was promptly remedied and SFRC is my go to on-line store because they ####ing rock. Truth.
 
MG42
HOLY CRAP COMBINE YOUR POSTS.

AND SHUT THE #### UP ALREADY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THE BUYER IS SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICE HE RECEIVED

Please combine your posts.

Its getting to the point of me wanting to buy one just to get on your nerves. Then brag about how it shoots out of the box.
 
FastFord58 said:
My upper was test fired, but the lower had clearly not been. For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

This is odd… someone randomly claimed their upper was test fired but not the lower… before anyone had suggested this is what happened to dweenz NEA… Strange indeed…

It is pretty clear to me that some facts are not lining up here… Everyone isn’t lying, something is going on and arguing about it as you guys have been is not helping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom