I think, you never handled any CQA otherwise you never ask this question.
Read it first then examine the CQA receivers.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:is-my-receiver-cast-or-forged&catid=7:general-questions
Thoughts on a Norinco CQA as a first 223 rifle purchase
- Thread starter GeorgeJure
- Start date
I think, you never handled any CQA otherwise you never ask this question.
Read it first then examine the CQA receivers.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:is-my-receiver-cast-or-forged&catid=7:general-questions
What kind of steel is it?
Is it worse than 4140/4150? I'd be interested in hearing why.
There are many barrels out there that are much better (and last much longer) than Colt barrels. That is why Colt Canada went with CHF barrels and double the chrome lining. Daniel Defense and BCM barrels are better than GI Colt barrels.
Norinco might have some products that have chitty heat treatments. But their steel can be very good when they want it to be. Take the 1911s for example.
As far as grouping goes, yeah those fantastic 3-4" groups with 55gr bulk ball ammo through Colts...outstanding. I am sure the Norinco will struggle to keep up.
Muskoka,
Yeah I know what you mean. I was talking about the average user here in Canada too. But the SOCOM barrel profile (and our SFW profile) still show that even a 4150 barrel (IF it has the GI cut) is still not enough to get the job done in sustained use anyway.
But the key is like you said, none of us are going to be breaking contact with mag dump after mag dump, and if you just shot them all day, I really, really don't think a Colt barrel comes out head and shoulders above a Nork barrel, even after 10,000 rounds.
LOL you know you kinda loose all credibility when you try to respond with insult rather than any hard data. I'll remind you that you still haven't provided any proof, documentation, or manufacturer spec to backup your claim that CQa receivers are forged 7075, and the that the barrel is CHF. You say - "Everything on wikipedia is not true"... With contributions like yours, there's plenty here that isn't as well... Forgive me when I say, The last thing here I trust is your examination and assessment based on an article you found at a now defunct manufacturers website.
Look, Like I said when I first posted here. I don't disparage anyone who owns and likes their CQa. And I certainly don't disparage anyone where the CQa was the best they could afford... Not at all... There's no doubt for many there's great value there. I just don't buy it when people try and claim its something it's not. And yes faizi I've handled and shot one (contrary to your post). As such, for me, based on that experience, I'll never buy one...
Last edited:
I dont need your certification for any credibility.
And when did I say that Norinco use 7075 aluminum?
They have their own formula of aluminum alloy which might close to 7075. And there is no MIM based AR15 receivers exist.cheers
Last edited:
ok I'm not a pro , this is just my experience
I purchased a CQA multi caliber package from marstar. Took the 223 out to the range and it worked 1st time and every time since. I clean it after every shoot. I have used different ammo through it without failure. I has used/abused it at various courses/schools. It does what it's made to do. just sayin'
I purchased a CQA multi caliber package from marstar. Took the 223 out to the range and it worked 1st time and every time since. I clean it after every shoot. I have used different ammo through it without failure. I has used/abused it at various courses/schools. It does what it's made to do. just sayin'
LOL again, do you have any supportive document to show how - "their own formula of aluminum alloy which might close to 7075". I just thought I'd underline the "might" in your own statement...
Do you have any supportive document to show that it's barrel is CHF?
http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco_CQ
From the link above - "While the American AR-15/M16 rifles are built in T70-74 aluminum, the Chinese Type CQ is built in T60-60 aluminum, used to allow the process of Metal Injection Molding to be used instead of forging"
I'm just looking for some fact is all. Right now it's a toss up between your say so, and Wikipedia LOL... This is part of the reason why I suggested the M&P Sporter II over the Norc to the OP. You at least know what your getting to some extent...
Last edited:
I don’t think you understand what those words mean. You have not offered any “empirical evidence” in your responses.
I don’t think you guys are being honest with your selves. For example if someone sides with your argument with a blantaly ridiculous statement I doubt you would be a inclined to dial it back to reality. The bottom line is it is you who is comparing a Colt to a Norc which is retarded. You don’t even know the barrel steel on the Norc or have the slightest specs on that Norc.
I am comparing their barrels. And there is no evidence based counterpoint that says they are less resistant than a Colt barrel.
Even against "inferior" barrels like the 4140 guns out there, the only time that is going to matter is if you are mag dumping lots and lots of full auto fire until the barrel is incredibly hot. We know, for a fact, that if the pace of fire is not going to be that wild, that many "inferior" barrels will last just as long.
And that the manufacturing process means something too. You can get better results out of a cold hammer forged barrel of lesser steel because of the crystalline structure than a "better" barrel that is not CHF produced.
You're right, I don't know what the specs of the Nork barrel are. But their 1911s are 5100 series steel. Better than a lot of North American guns (not saying the guns are better in every way, saying the steel they make them out of IS though. Try machining it sometime.) The earlier M14s were Rockwell C scale testing within GI spec in terms of bolts, and their barrels were just as good as GI barrels. Again, cut on some of both and see what you think. At the end of the day, saying "you don't know" effectively means "we don't know". And we don't
They've been shown to go over 10,000 rounds though.
And again, there is no real proof shown or offered that they are NOT going to withstand the use a Colt barrel will withstand. So yeah I would not bet much of my own money on a Colt (and there are much better barrels on the market than Colt barrels)
That was reasoning. Substantial. Actually putting forth rational arguments. Or you can go with arguments like:
"Retarded"
"Blatantly ridiculous"
"You don't understand what those words mean"
Your call.
Even against "inferior" barrels like the 4140 guns out there, the only time that is going to matter is if you are mag dumping lots and lots of full auto fire until the barrel is incredibly hot. We know, for a fact, that if the pace of fire is not going to be that wild, that many "inferior" barrels will last just as long.
And that the manufacturing process means something too. You can get better results out of a cold hammer forged barrel of lesser steel because of the crystalline structure than a "better" barrel that is not CHF produced.
You're right, I don't know what the specs of the Nork barrel are. But their 1911s are 5100 series steel. Better than a lot of North American guns (not saying the guns are better in every way, saying the steel they make them out of IS though. Try machining it sometime.) The earlier M14s were Rockwell C scale testing within GI spec in terms of bolts, and their barrels were just as good as GI barrels. Again, cut on some of both and see what you think. At the end of the day, saying "you don't know" effectively means "we don't know". And we don't
They've been shown to go over 10,000 rounds though.
And again, there is no real proof shown or offered that they are NOT going to withstand the use a Colt barrel will withstand. So yeah I would not bet much of my own money on a Colt (and there are much better barrels on the market than Colt barrels)
That was reasoning. Substantial. Actually putting forth rational arguments. Or you can go with arguments like:
"Retarded"
"Blatantly ridiculous"
"You don't understand what those words mean"
Your call.
To be clear, I am not saying the gun will be as reliable as any Colt, is nicely made as any Colt, contains parts which are as well made as any Colt, or that the fit and finish is as nice etc etc. I'm saying I doubt the barrel quality is much different, and that is all.
I'm not basing anything on Wikipedia. And its quite clear you're not basing anything you're saying on anything.... What I said was, it seems to be a "toss up" between the two sources; with you being one of them.... Where potentially, both of which are very much unreliable....
My point is... Who knows what materials or specs these things are made from, and to?...
I've asked you repeatedly; back up what you are claiming with some sort of documented fact. You have yet to be able to do so; and are clearly misunderstanding my past posts. I ask again, please cite the spec where the Norinco CQa uses - "their own formula of aluminum alloy which might close to 7075". and please cite where they use the Cold Hammer Forging process for their barrels... That's all I'm asking. Cite it...
Last edited:
You need to watch his video again. He says anywhere between 10-12k, that he doesn’t know for sure. He doesn’t say sweet #### all about anything other than the barrel being worn out. Your poor recollection of his video does not make your argument valid.
ETA: I don’t know the barrel steel used but CanAm has stated that the DA556 uses cold hammer forged barrels and I have no reason to believe the CQA would be any different. A lot of people have been very pleased with the accuracy of the lightweight DA556 barrels. Some even claim them more accurate than Colt SP1 barrels.
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DyRfHzvwkc
Thats the last video he made of it. No comments on anything but the burr by the gas port.
The interesting thing about that is that the original Colt M16s also often had a burr there, and it collected so much brass that the gauge used to verify barrel straightness would not fit. That is why the USMC thought the A1 barrels were bending and designed the pointless A2 barrel profile. When the A1 barrels were cleaned, the gauges showed they were just fine.
That came from Lt Col Dave Lutz who was on the A2 design board.
Thats the last video he made of it. No comments on anything but the burr by the gas port.
The interesting thing about that is that the original Colt M16s also often had a burr there, and it collected so much brass that the gauge used to verify barrel straightness would not fit. That is why the USMC thought the A1 barrels were bending and designed the pointless A2 barrel profile. When the A1 barrels were cleaned, the gauges showed they were just fine.
That came from Lt Col Dave Lutz who was on the A2 design board.
https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/dominion-arms-cq-a-rifle/
Read the description plz. DA556 is made in China too.
I guess by that logic the Palmetto State Armory PA-15 must be the same as the Knights SR-15 because it's "made" in the USA too... You’re citing a product description for a different rifle and saying - "It's made in China too"... At least there's some value in your post for the OP. If he goes with the Dominion DA556 he can at least deal with CanadaAmmo's decent customer service if it doesn't work... In all fairness I'd take that DA556 over the CQa if I had to pick between the two. I'd still take a S&W M&P Sporter II over both.
Last edited:
