North Eastern Arms 12.5" AR review: range trip 2

misanthropist said:
I do, however, specifically advise people to seek out an NEA barrel. I know what it is and it is not what I would have guessed at all, and now that I know I would definitely, definitely try to track one down for any DMR project I was going to take on.
Click to expand...

I picked up an 18" NEA barrel from FabSports for a DMR type build, and I must say am quite impressed with it. My buddy and I took it out to the range and was shooting at a regular sized playing card at 200 yrds. Now, we didn't hit it easily 60% of the time, however it's because I was using a 1-4x scope, so seeing it was difficult. And making corrections wasn't the easiest, definitely shooter error. But it was very accurate, if we missed the playing card, it would have hit right around it. And we were using MFS 55gr ammo, nothing fancy. I'm sure I could tighten it up with better shooting fundamentals and maybe better ammo.

But yea, I'd recommend an NEA to anyone as well.
 
Suputin said:
Honestly, I'd expect a little more knowledge from a professional like yourself. Go take a close look at an AR lower and it will quickly become obvious why that .040" dimension is not overly critical.

When you actually look at an AR lower you will see a band of thicker material a bit below the upper edge of the magwell. As we can all agree the lower is not really a stressed part, there should be more than enough strength in that area. While I too would like to see a bit more meat in that portion of the lower, nobody has yet surfaced with an NEA lower that has split on that location.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, the measurement in that area is not critical to the firearms operation. Hence my comment about being fine for range use. However, the .040 of material is a bit thin for my liking, and admittedly yours. That "uncritical" area could easily be damaged by hard use. 6061 at .040 is not that strong. So let's say it does get damaged. End of the world, no. Mag retention/insertion issues, possibly. Weakened the surrounding area and likened the possibility of further failure, very likely under further hard use.

Not sure why you would bring my professionalism into question though when you would admittedly like to see more material there yourself. As a design and manufacture professional I doubt you would let something like that get past QC, would you?
 
easy said:
Thank you for your time coming forth with this review.


However, what you call the "spool" on the firing pin, whether it's an AR15 firing pin, or an M16 one, it is not intended to stop the bolt travel rearward during lock-up. The cam pin is tasked with that. The firing pin "retaining pin" is just that, it retains the firing pin in the BCG. Its function is not anything that would bend it as shown in your photos. As such, its hardness is immaterial in its function and needs not be anything other than the harness of most hardware store cotter pins.

If ... when your bolt is sitting all the way back into the carrier, (in lock-up position), and your firing pin does not have ~ 1/16" floating space back and forth, something is out of tolerance.

I believe the issue lies in the tolerance between the cam pin rear position hole in the carrier and the FP retaining pin hole in the carrier. And that points to an out-of-spec carrier.

Looking back, I seem to recall NEA owners with difficulty removing and inserting the FP retaining pin. This could be the reason why.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment. When I get home I will lock it back and check the free play.

I'm aware the FPRP shouldn't be the backstop for the FP, but I have seen a lot of guns where there is some degree of contact and retaining pins getting a little bent is relatively common even on TDP guns as far as I know.

But I admit I am neither a gunsmith nor a particular expert on the AR platform. I have owned several and shot them a bit and probably have more shooting experience and training than the overwhelming majority of gun owners, and I have a strong inclination towards accumulating, recording, and sorting information...but that is the extent of my qualifications.
 
Allen Gun Works said:
That "uncritical" area could easily be damaged by hard use. 6061 at .040 is not that strong.
Click to expand...

that's false... no amount of hard USE will damage that area of the gun... shooting bullets, being dropped from waist height, or thrown to the ground or dump barrels (all of which I do frequently) show no signs of weakening anything.

ABUSE on the other hand, like driving your truck over it, using the magwell as a hammer, throwing it off a 4 story building, MAYBE, but all the plastic bits on an AR, or the scope will break long before that (super tough scopes maybe excluded)
 
They are not deploying with them, though...not that I think that the magwell thickness is an issue. But just throwing it out there...I do know that the NEA guns are seeing a ton of use by those guys but to my knowledge it is entirely in a training capacity, which while interesting is not going to lead to broken lowers.

Again I really don't see this as a critical area and I find it hard to imagine them getting broken in the field but just for the record, nobody is claiming that any JTF guys are deploying with NEA guns.
 
lakermetal said:
If their rifles weren't able to handle "hard" use then I highly doubt our Special forces troops would be using these guns( and yes they are actually using them). Not to mention all of the global military contracts NEA has acquired over the past year and a half or so would have ever materialized if this was the case. I run the Sh!t out of mine at the tactical rifle courses we teach and have no problems.

It seems whomever posts for Allan has had it out for these guys since day one if memory serves me right.
Click to expand...

It's often said that extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence...and the claim the the CF's special forces are using NEA is certainly a claim that needs to be expanded upon.
 
Exactly. So the latest claim to fame is that the JTF use NEA in training... Is that for a heavy blunt object, battering ram or door stop? ;) I'll echo the sentiments of Allen Gun Works: "Too little, too late". That being said, for those of you that have an NEA and enjoy it - more power to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Allen Gun Works said:
Hard use on all those tactical carbine courses and barrel dumps must be hell on a rifle. Perhaps I should have said "real world hard use". Something some of us actually do and understand. Driving a truck over a rifle intentionally is just dumb. Having it bounce around in a vehicle or bang off a hard object while you are on the move is more realistic. Has an NEA ever failed in this area, no. Would it fail before most under the right circumstance, yes.
Click to expand...

again, I put my NEA through "hard" use as you describe it, throwing, banging, dropping, ect... except i call that NORMAL use, and it has no stress at all from it, let alone in the mag well, assuming it would fail more then most is just an assumption.

again, the PLASTIC parts will break, on ANY AR before the aluminum does, NEA or otherwise, bumping and banging them will not break the magwell, it just wont... you would have to do something extremely stupid to break the gun.

I would love to see some proof that the canadian special forces were using NEA too, (training or otherwise) thats an interesting story, but Id need proof otherwise its just rumours...

gave canadian manufacturing a bad name? more like put a name to canadian manufacturing... no one else in canada is putting out rifles in the #'s NEA is... can you name another canadian manufacturer with the amount of international contracts as NEA? NZ, SA, germany ect ect all have bought plenty of rifles off them.

the only people giving canadian manufacturers a bad name is the people crucifying NEA for not being perfect, when NO manufacturer is perfect.
 
Although I don't know who lakermetal is, I'll just point out that his avatar is the logo for TDSA Canada and assuming he is an employee there, then he would probably be aware of some of the training that is run using NEA guns. I think some of it has been conducted there. I do not know whether it is supported by the Canadian government at all...it may well be that there are simply private training courses with limited enrolment, for which NEA supplies guns. I am not privy to any particular details about who exactly is involved in the training or what the focus is on. I am certainly not claiming that the military buys NEA-15s for their high-speed guys, or for anyone else. To my knowledge they do not.

But while I don't know that lakermetal is not an employee of NEA (since I don't know who he is) I would guess it's more likely that he is an employee of an organization that has seen a lot of training done with NEA guns, and may know enough of the inside details that it's very possible for him to appear to be shilling.

I do not ever bring up the events NEA provides guns for because I don't see the point in trying to explain or prove any of it - and living 3000 miles west of where it all happens, it would be basically impossible for me to prove anything with pictures anyway - but just to forestall the inevitable perception that lakermetal works for NEA, I'll say only this: it's quite likely that he does not, and while I am not able to provide proof or details of any sort, those of you who believe my word, or my general attachment to personal integrity, or whatever, may take this for what you think that word is worth: what he is saying is probably substantially more true than most here realize. Whether they would be very happy to see anyone talking about it here is something else, I think.

I would hopefully like to keep this thread focused on the performance of my particular rifle, and I will not willingly mention the above again, and I have no further details to add, for a number of reasons. I say this in the hope that we will not now see a thread on the subject. I don't think any proof is available, so nobody would get any information from it. Obviously I can't prevent guys from discussing it, but I doubt very much that anyone from NEA or any relevant organization will participate. It would therefore just be a dogpile of people without any information. If that's what people want to do, naturally that's an option, but please at least have the consideration to do it in a different thread, if it's something you really need to do in the first place.
 
Well if JTF use NEA guns good if they don't who cares. NEA has come a long way then when they started with AR15s. For us shoot dogs they do the job and if the zombies come a 5.56 with blow there head off from an NEA the same it will from any other AR with minimal function ion problems.

They did do one thing they said they where from the get go and it was to build an affordable Canadian made AR 15. All products go through growing pains when it is a completely new product for a company.

They are a lot better now then they were and will most likely get even better in time again. If you have an NEA just enjoy it and shoot.
 
The concept behind this thread - misanthropist's review of his experiences with his rifle - is a good one. The time and effort he is making is appreciated.
A lot of posts are being made which are not related to his review of this rifle.
Let's keep this thread on track.
 
hey miso, question about the stocks they are issuing now, did the facotry NEA stock come with QD sling attach points, or just the buffer plate sling mount?
 
FWIW I ran into this thread on a silencer board. Someone decided to see just how thin an aluminum tube for a .22 rimfire suppressor could be made before it failed. He got all the way down to a .005" wall thickness before the tube burst. Kind of shows just how durable a metal aluminum can be, even when surprisingly thin.

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=98534
 
^^means nothing in this application. .005" is almost as thin as a coke can.

With a thin mag well you would be worried about dropping, banging, crushing the wall during normal use, leading to a probable crack. I would hazard a guess that for normal bench use and plinking 0.040" would be fine. Put it to harsher use; three gun, course work, training with movement and you will get a better idea how it would hold up. I believe Misanthropist isn't interested in bench shooting or plinking with this rifle so I'm sure his further testing will be more likely to reveal any issues than the majority of shooters on this board.
 
I am definitely more interested in "hard use" guns. Nothing I am going to do is likely to be any harder on the gun than an overcharge leading to catastrophic bolt failure, though.


http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?767451-NEA-15-Ka-Boom


Realistically, if the gun didn't blow up - and perhaps most significantly in the context of this discussion if the thinnest part of the receiver did not crack - under these conditions, I would guess it is likely to be a non-issue.

Consider that 6061 has different properties that 7076, which cannot necessarily be summed up simply as "strength". The ductility, for instance, may allow 6061 to bend at the corners of the magwell when 7076 would shatter.

Furthermore, the radiusing of the corners may enhance the tendency of the magwell to flex rather than crack. I am not saying that it does; I'm not sure. I'm not an engineer and I can't really present any technical arguments on the matter. But looking at the pictures of the kaboom, I'd say "looks like it should hold up ok".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom