** Your NEA102 build **

9.6lbs?! I hope that's not correct but if it is then I think they really missed the mark.

To me the whole point of a non-restricted is so I can use it for everything. Hunting, plinking, competition, etc... The original AR10 weighed around 7.3lbs. That was with a 20" barrel, carry handle and iron sights. There is no reason that a modern rendition can't meet that same weight. In fact, with no carry handle or irons there is no reason it can't weigh closer to or potentially under 7lbs.

I don't get why NEA only makes medium/heavy profile barrels. It's not 1995 anymore. Most people have been going the opposite direction with government and pencil profile become more popular. Unless you're doing a SDM style build there is no need.

I'd be tempted to just turn it down but Tiriaq brings up a good point about the nitride finish.

Still looking forward to peoples reviews/opinions but the weight has killed it as a potential purchase for myself.
 
DaveMachine said:
I think 7.3 lbs might be a bit optimistic. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the weight of the steel/aluminum barreled model. I do agree with you though that they could slim these rifles down a bit.

Personally, I'd love to spin one of these barrels on.

http://faxonfirearms.com/18-big-gunner-308-win-rifle-length-4150-qpq/
Click to expand...

Except then it would be restricted.
Just another medium profile anyway so what advantage would it give over the factory barrel?
Maybe you meant to link this one http://faxonfirearms.com/20-pencil-308-win-rifle-length-4150-qpq/

Leg said:
9.6lbs?! I hope that's not correct but if it is then I think they really missed the mark.

To me the whole point of a non-restricted is so I can use it for everything. Hunting, plinking, competition, etc... The original AR10 weighed around 7.3lbs. That was with a 20" barrel, carry handle and iron sights. There is no reason that a modern rendition can't meet that same weight. In fact, with no carry handle or irons there is no reason it can't weigh closer to or potentially under 7lbs.

I don't get why NEA only makes medium/heavy profile barrels. It's not 1995 anymore. Most people have been going the opposite direction with government and pencil profile become more popular. Unless you're doing a SDM style build there is no need.

I'd be tempted to just turn it down but Tiriaq brings up a good point about the nitride finish.

Still looking forward to peoples reviews/opinions but the weight has killed it as a potential purchase for myself.
Click to expand...

About a pound heavier than a 223 and it kills it for you? Go find an AR-15 with an 18.6 inch medium profile barrel and tell us how much it weighs. You don't get to take the weight of a 7.5 inch light weight AR build or the weight of a Rem 700 mountain-lite and compare it to this rifle and complain that it's too heavy, it's like comparing a Dodge one ton diesel to a Hyundai. You realize this is a larger rifle than an AR-15 in every dimension? The difference between a medium profile and a pencil barrel is nowhere near 2 pounds so where else would you suggest they remove weight to get it down to your magic I'll buy it weight?
They probably use medium profile because any rifle that can't shoot sub 2 moa is garbage according to what everyone on this site says, if they use a pencil profile it will start wandering after three shots and everyone will complain. There is always a trade-off and if you want something that can handle some heat and continue to shoot half decently you need a little thicker barrel. Very few people with any common sense buy a rifle like this for a one or two shot a day hunting trip, most will appreciate the medium profile when they're blasting away at the range or their favorite gravel pit or farm when the accuracy is more consistent after three XCR-M pistol mags. Most people who hunt with their black rifles know they would be better off with a Remington 700 but choose to use their black rifle because they can and think it's pretty cool to hunt with, that lasts for a couple years then most will go back to a bolt action for hunting and the black rifle for fun.

If you can't handle carrying a 10 pound rifle you may want to start hitting the gym instead of the xbox or just keep using a bolt action for hunting. In my mind a little extra weight is a good thing, the rifle will be much smoother to shoot at 9 pounds than 7.
Even my modern hunter is 9 pounds without optic and I have the carbon wrapped barrel and a light stock so if you compare apples to apples NEA actually did it right because if you were to trade the carbon barrel for the medium profile barrel the NEA would be lighter than the modern hunter. Oops, but then the NEA would be a $3000 rifle and no one would buy it because no one in their right mind would pay that much for an NEA product.
 
Last edited:
Havent weighed my g2 dpms, which is a scaled up ar15 in 308, but i suspect even with the small frame it is a good bit heavier than my 223s. More material on the 102 it only makes sense to be heavy. At the price point they are not going to use exotic materials to keep it light.
 
cr5 said:
Except then it would be restricted.
Just another medium profile anyway so what advantage would it give over the factory barrel?
Maybe you meant to link this one http://faxonfirearms.com/20-pencil-308-win-rifle-length-4150-qpq/



About a pound heavier than a 223 and it kills it for you? Go find an AR-15 with an 18.6 inch medium profile barrel and tell us how much it weighs. You don't get to take the weight of a 7.5 inch light weight AR build or the weight of a Rem 700 mountain-lite and compare it to this rifle and complain that it's too heavy, it's like comparing a Dodge one ton diesel to a Hyundai. You realize this is a larger rifle than an AR-15 in every dimension? The difference between a medium profile and a pencil barrel is nowhere near 2 pounds so where else would you suggest they remove weight to get it down to your magic I'll buy it weight?
They probably use medium profile because any rifle that can't shoot sub 2 moa is garbage according to what everyone on this site says, if they use a pencil profile it will start wandering after three shots and everyone will complain. There is always a trade-off and if you want something that can handle some heat and continue to shoot half decently you need a little thicker barrel. Very few people with any common sense buy a rifle like this for a one or two shot a day hunting trip, most will appreciate the medium profile when they're blasting away at the range or their favorite gravel pit or farm when the accuracy is more consistent after three XCR-M pistol mags. Most people who hunt with their black rifles know they would be better off with a Remington 700 but choose to use their black rifle because they can and think it's pretty cool to hunt with, that lasts for a couple years then most will go back to a bolt action for hunting and the black rifle for fun.

If you can't handle carrying a 10 pound rifle you may want to start hitting the gym instead of the xbox or just keep using a bolt action for hunting. In my mind a little extra weight is a good thing, the rifle will be much smoother to shoot at 9 pounds than 7.
Even my modern hunter is 9 pounds without optic and I have the carbon wrapped barrel and a light stock so if you compare apples to apples NEA actually did it right because if you were to trade the carbon barrel for the medium profile barrel the NEA would be lighter than the modern hunter. Oops, but then the NEA would be a $3000 rifle and no one would buy it because no one in their right mind would pay that much for an NEA product.
Click to expand...

We need a "LIKE" button !
 
Leg said:
9.6lbs?! I hope that's not correct but if it is then I think they really missed the mark.

To me the whole point of a non-restricted is so I can use it for everything. Hunting, plinking, competition, etc... The original AR10 weighed around 7.3lbs. That was with a 20" barrel, carry handle and iron sights. There is no reason that a modern rendition can't meet that same weight. In fact, with no carry handle or irons there is no reason it can't weigh closer to or potentially under 7lbs.

I don't get why NEA only makes medium/heavy profile barrels. It's not 1995 anymore. Most people have been going the opposite direction with government and pencil profile become more popular. Unless you're doing a SDM style build there is no need.

I'd be tempted to just turn it down but Tiriaq brings up a good point about the nitride finish.

Still looking forward to peoples reviews/opinions but the weight has killed it as a potential purchase for myself.
Click to expand...

Do you really want an aluminum (sullaloy) barrel? I don't . Other wise they were closer to 9lbs.
 
so g2 and nea102 about the same price with nea being slightly more expensive

my g2 with acog optic and a full 10 round mag is 8.5 pounds

it has nothing to do with hitting he gym or stop being a pvssy., it has to do with modern materials, and innovative quality manufacturing which is what I expect, and what you should expect as well.

so this is wayyyyy too heavy

ill still buy one with my own hard earned money just so that I can do aside by side comparison and post it here, ill be as objective as possible.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to wait for the initial rush of panic buying to slow down and then get one. When I get it I will do what I do with every other rifle I buy... NOT SPEND A DIME ON STUFF FOR IT UNTIL I AM SATISFIED. Yup I have a spare scope, bipod and miscellaneous goodies for mounting just for this purpose. All my spare stuff came off a couple used guns I bought so I have very little expense into it. Only once it passes my reliability and accuracy expectations will I start to think about what I want to put on it. Better strategy then spending a bunch for extras just to find out your not happy
 
mikethebike said:
so g2 and nea102 about the same price with nea being slightly more expensive

my g2 with acog optic and a full 10 round mag is 8.5 pounds

it has nothing to do with hitting he gym or stop being a pvssy., it has to do with modern materials, and innovative quality manufacturing which is what I expect, and what you should expect as well.

so this is wayyyyy too heavy

ill still buy one with my own hard earned money just so that I can do aside by side comparison and post it here, ill be as objective as possible.
Click to expand...

That's confusing, a DPMS G2 recon with a 16" barrel is 8.5lbs bare.
 
Uisge said:
That's confusing, a DPMS G2 recon with a 16" barrel is 8.5lbs bare.
Click to expand...

heavy quad rail to midwest rail, 10 round mags weigh less, tiny new ta33 acog

E73BA8AF-78CB-4AFD-AE61-824490A751AB_zps83gjmegt.jpg
 
Last edited:
mikethebike said:
so g2 and nea102 about the same price with nea being slightly more expensive

my g2 with acog optic and a full 10 round mag is 8.5 pounds

it has nothing to do with hitting he gym or stop being a pvssy., it has to do with modern materials, and innovative quality manufacturing which is what I expect, and what you should expect as well.

so this is wayyyyy too heavy

ill still buy one with my own hard earned money just so that I can do aside by side comparison and post it here, ill be as objective as possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thank you. Gotta love the "hit the gym" comments that always come out when someone talks about weight. Whining? Really? This rifle, if the weight of 9.6lbs is accurate, weighs over two pounds more than the rifle it is supposed to be based on. Closer to 9lbs? Do you guys even bother to check any of your info? The Sullaloy barrel version weighed less than 7lbs (6.85 according to wiki). The Sudan rifles weighed 7.3lbs. Couldn't find numbers for the Potuguese rifles but I believe that it weighed more but was still under 8lbs.

I'm sure that some people will prefer the medium profile, I just don't happen to be one of them. No big deal, it's just my opinion. Why people seemed to get so butt hurt by my comments is beyond me. People may not agree but I think these rifles would appeal to a larger customer base if it shed some weight.
 
The DPMS is a scaled up AR-15 so it should be slightly lighter and the original AR-10 had a thin barrel and polymer or fiberglass furniture (not sure which and don't care enough to look it up) which would drop weight from what the NEA-102 has.
People carried FAL's and M-14's with full battle gear for days not that many years ago, why is everyone so worried about a pound or two difference on a rifle you rarely go further than 100m from your truck with? If you think it's too heavy to carry around hunting then hunt with something else. Just because you think it's too heavy to hunt with doesn't mean NEA missed the boat. I know some would prefer an almost exact replica of the original AR-10 but I think the majority prefer what NEA built and sales will reflect that.
 
What I'm struggling with is that there seems to be an idea that the 102 is inherently heavier. Is the receiver made out of depleted uranium? Otherwise it's probably close in weight to all the rest, the modularity of this rifle means it could be kitted out lighter or heavier. If someone said I'd rather wait for a light profile barrel version for lighter weight I'd have no problem with that, but that's not the argument, it's NEA didn't use modern materials and processes or something to that effect. It's the same alloys and construction as far as I can tell, so why the dramatics about it being a boat ancor?
 
RFLR-G2REC
Caliber Weight (lbs) Length Barrel Upper Reciever Twist
.308/7.62 NATO 8.5lbs 38" 16" 416 Stainless Forged 7075 T6 A3 Flattop 1x10

8.5 pounds stock. But shorter barrel. So really not apples to apples comparing to the NEA102.
Optics inconsequential, as both can be outfitted with same optics, so just take optics out of the picture.
"heavy quad rail to midwest rail" takes us further from apples to apples, by now not comparing stock kit as supplied by manufacturer. Not same class or barrel length.

JMHO; it's all just a bunch of chest puffing, schlong swinging, know it all BS, until someone actually puts a NEA102 in their hands, and spits enough down the barrel to get a feel for it (with good ammo, might I add). Everything else is just supposition and guessing.

Entertaining mindless reading to pass the time, until it gets here.

Love the boat anchor references, also. Read the threads where the jist is about the media, liberals, etc., are just sensationalizing. And yet, right here, talk of boat anchors from people who have not laid a hand on the rifle.

Anyways, back to your regularly scheduled programming. Me, I'm happy to wait patiently and read the threads, until time comes to put some in a mag of my (soon to be mine) NEA102, and let them fly. Looking forward to it, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom