North Eastern Arms 12.5" AR review: range trip 2
- Thread starter misanthropist
- Start date
i was going to do this today too.
Wondered if it was no news is good news, or if it was a case of dont ask, dont tell.
No news is good news but I have not been shooting it much.
I will be taking it through a course in two weeks' time. I'll give everyone a good update then.
I will be taking it through a course in two weeks' time. I'll give everyone a good update then.
I agree.... I'm drooling for a .260 AR.... 18" barrel or maybe a 20" with a 7" twist for the 139 gr Scenars. Too bad that they would have to be restricted.
In the mean time my NEA lower is doing just fine!
Cheers,
Barney
I agree.... I'm drooling for a .260 AR.... 18" barrel or maybe a 20" with a 7" twist for the 139 gr Scenars. Too bad that they would have to be restricted.
In the mean time my NEA lower is doing just fine!
Cheers,
Barney
If they built a real AR-10 it could be non-restricted. I think there are about 3 non-restricted AR-10s in the country. Modern AR-10s are nothing more than an AR-15 chambered in .308 with all the appropriate dimensions enlarged.
As an aside, from a design and stress concentration standpoint 6061 milled and 7075 forged parts are both better off with radiused interior corners exceeding the internal dimensions of a 90 degree inner corner. This is unimaginatively called a stress relief cut in the parts design industry.
I have no idea if NEA did this on purpose, or if is to make up for a lack of EDM machinery, but from a design standpoint in my personal opinion, it's a feature and not a detriment.
It would be nice if the outer dimension of the receiver in this area were left a bit thicker, or alternately, the stress-relief cuts could be smaller diameter and still be effective - but I would not eliminate them. In my view they improve the durability of the lower over the long haul.
For a similar application, look at post-WW2 (or modified WW2) operating rods. Refurbed rods had stress-relief cuts added where the rod transitions from rectangular cross-section to round.
I have no idea if NEA did this on purpose, or if is to make up for a lack of EDM machinery, but from a design standpoint in my personal opinion, it's a feature and not a detriment.
It would be nice if the outer dimension of the receiver in this area were left a bit thicker, or alternately, the stress-relief cuts could be smaller diameter and still be effective - but I would not eliminate them. In my view they improve the durability of the lower over the long haul.
For a similar application, look at post-WW2 (or modified WW2) operating rods. Refurbed rods had stress-relief cuts added where the rod transitions from rectangular cross-section to round.
Actually their latest lowers have been thickened in that spot, although they didn't run into any problems with the old dimensions.
The course is Earl's low light course. Carbine section is only 500 rounds, but still a useful data point IMO.
Out of the two of us I doubt very much that Earl is the one who should be worrying.
MarkArma180
CGN Regular
- Location
- Kelowna , B.C.
Great thread looking forward to an update
Not enough time to do a really comprehensive write-up but I had no issues with the carbine at all. I did get one failure to lock back on a gen 1 Pmag that has twitched in the past on other guns so that mag has been deadlined. But the gun was fine.
I will say though that the round count was not high. I would have to go back now and see how much ammo I burned but offhand I would say it felt like maybe 250.
I showed the gun to Earl and he thought I'd swapped out the internals when he felt the trigger pull. So it's definitely a big improvement on past editions.
The other thing that I think jumped out was the BCG, which seems to be absolutely impervious to carbon build-up. Round count is around 2000 now (will have to check records and count ammo from yesterday to get an exact figure) and the carbon wipes off with your finger.
So at this point I would say my gun is fine and I like the ARC+ coating a lot. In fact if I had to give an ups/downs on the gun right now it would look like this:
Good:
Barrel is awesome. These are killer barrels.
ARC+ surface treatment. I am a total believer and basically uninterested in chrome lined barrels anymore (although I have nothing against them and they work fine, I think that technology is outdated now and you can do better).
Bad:
Still just don't really like the side-clamp rail. It works fine, but it's pretty ugly. I know the next gen rail is coming but I might just throw something else on anyway.
Other than that, it's an AR. It performs like an AR. I lube it and shoot it. It's pretty soft-shooting, I'll say that. The 12.5 feels like a 16 to me.
So sample size is one, but my 12.5 is working well and I would not hesitate to use it for any application for which I'd use any other AR.
I will say though that the round count was not high. I would have to go back now and see how much ammo I burned but offhand I would say it felt like maybe 250.
I showed the gun to Earl and he thought I'd swapped out the internals when he felt the trigger pull. So it's definitely a big improvement on past editions.
The other thing that I think jumped out was the BCG, which seems to be absolutely impervious to carbon build-up. Round count is around 2000 now (will have to check records and count ammo from yesterday to get an exact figure) and the carbon wipes off with your finger.
So at this point I would say my gun is fine and I like the ARC+ coating a lot. In fact if I had to give an ups/downs on the gun right now it would look like this:
Good:
Barrel is awesome. These are killer barrels.
ARC+ surface treatment. I am a total believer and basically uninterested in chrome lined barrels anymore (although I have nothing against them and they work fine, I think that technology is outdated now and you can do better).
Bad:
Still just don't really like the side-clamp rail. It works fine, but it's pretty ugly. I know the next gen rail is coming but I might just throw something else on anyway.
Other than that, it's an AR. It performs like an AR. I lube it and shoot it. It's pretty soft-shooting, I'll say that. The 12.5 feels like a 16 to me.
So sample size is one, but my 12.5 is working well and I would not hesitate to use it for any application for which I'd use any other AR.
Ordinarily...either testing, laziness, or this weird form of Internet gun bravado which causes people to gloat in their lack of maintenance.
For me it's usually laziness. In this case, just to make sure it's a gun that will survive abuse, laziness, and Internet gun bravado.
Although frankly ARs are pretty forgiving of minimal maintenance. As long as it gets lubed, it's probably going to be fine.
For me it's usually laziness. In this case, just to make sure it's a gun that will survive abuse, laziness, and Internet gun bravado.
Although frankly ARs are pretty forgiving of minimal maintenance. As long as it gets lubed, it's probably going to be fine.
Thanks for the reply. I have a 14.5" carbine on the way and intend to treat it well and examine closely after shooting and cleaning, at least until the novelty wears off.
Kinda like polishing new leather shoes when I was a kid. (God, that was a long time ago!)
Kinda like polishing new leather shoes when I was a kid. (God, that was a long time ago!)
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
misanthropist, does NEA make, or have plans to make, a 14" mid-length gas, mid or heavy profile barrel?
I believe that mids are an immediately upcoming development but I know the CCS stock is taking up a lot of their production time so I don't want to speculate on dates.
I would guess barrel profiles would continue at the current mid weight...Jeff has never expressed much interest in my suggestion for lighter weight options.
I would guess barrel profiles would continue at the current mid weight...Jeff has never expressed much interest in my suggestion for lighter weight options.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Thanks for the response, just starting to shop parts for a new upper and I'm wanting to try a 14" to compliment my 10".
My pleasure entirely, of course.
FWIW I think a 14.5 NEA barrel would be an Afghan-grade laser beam. With a 1-4 or 1-6 I think it would be absolutely deadly for a very, very long way.
I have never shot the 12.5 past 70m...but it's bolt gun accurate at that range. Using AE Tac I think I'm running up against the limits of the ammo, accuracy wise.
I have some Mk 262 mod 1 that I was actually given by a good friend...really want to dial the gun in a bit and then check that out at 1/2/3/4/500m...but at the same time I really don't want to give up that precious stuff. I need to sort out a decent intermediate range optic and then get to work off a rest to see what it will do. I just treat it like a carbine which is almost a waste of the barrel's accuracy, although it makes a perfectly good carbine, of course.
Anyway I hate to paint in broad strokes because the devil is in the details and I'm not here to pretend that NEA's QC has always been great, so I don't like to give unqualified statements about the entire system. They've gotten better at building guns and more selective about their components, at least if my rack-grade 12.5 is any guide. Whether that will forever translate in to a higher state of QC is tough to say; I mean it's not like Colt or S&W haven't had phases of great Q and phases of poor, so I imagine some degree of fluctuation will always exist.
But I will say this: if I could only have NEA barrels, ever, for the rest of my life, I would be absolutely 100% fine with that. It's accurate as hell and totally idiot-proof as far as corrosion etc. I really, really like the barrel.
In some ways it's sort of a strange discussion, I guess, because beyond saying "man, that's an accurate barrel" what can I really say? The rest of the gun is an AR and unless something breaks, functionally they're all about the same to me. I'm not really a connoisseur of guns, when it comes right down to it. I want stuff that goes bang when I expect it to and makes holes in unsurprising locations, and any gun that does that is pretty much fine by me. So I really can't complain about the 12.5 at all.
FWIW I think a 14.5 NEA barrel would be an Afghan-grade laser beam. With a 1-4 or 1-6 I think it would be absolutely deadly for a very, very long way.
I have never shot the 12.5 past 70m...but it's bolt gun accurate at that range. Using AE Tac I think I'm running up against the limits of the ammo, accuracy wise.
I have some Mk 262 mod 1 that I was actually given by a good friend...really want to dial the gun in a bit and then check that out at 1/2/3/4/500m...but at the same time I really don't want to give up that precious stuff. I need to sort out a decent intermediate range optic and then get to work off a rest to see what it will do. I just treat it like a carbine which is almost a waste of the barrel's accuracy, although it makes a perfectly good carbine, of course.
Anyway I hate to paint in broad strokes because the devil is in the details and I'm not here to pretend that NEA's QC has always been great, so I don't like to give unqualified statements about the entire system. They've gotten better at building guns and more selective about their components, at least if my rack-grade 12.5 is any guide. Whether that will forever translate in to a higher state of QC is tough to say; I mean it's not like Colt or S&W haven't had phases of great Q and phases of poor, so I imagine some degree of fluctuation will always exist.
But I will say this: if I could only have NEA barrels, ever, for the rest of my life, I would be absolutely 100% fine with that. It's accurate as hell and totally idiot-proof as far as corrosion etc. I really, really like the barrel.
In some ways it's sort of a strange discussion, I guess, because beyond saying "man, that's an accurate barrel" what can I really say? The rest of the gun is an AR and unless something breaks, functionally they're all about the same to me. I'm not really a connoisseur of guns, when it comes right down to it. I want stuff that goes bang when I expect it to and makes holes in unsurprising locations, and any gun that does that is pretty much fine by me. So I really can't complain about the 12.5 at all.
