The North Eastern Arms NEA-15: Inside the Rifle

As is now known by virtually everyone in the Canadian black rifle scene, there is finally
a Canadian-made, production AR-15 available. Yes, Dlask builds AR-15s, yes, Alberta
Tactical Rifle builds AR-15s. Neither of those options come close to what is being done
by NEA: a Canadian AR-15, built by the thousand. This rifle, currently available as
either a 14.5” standard carbine, a 10.5” CQB carbine, or a 7.5” PDW, and soon to be
found in many more flavours including an 18” DMR configuration, is being produced by
the well-known North Eastern Arms. An offshoot of North Eastern Aerospace, NEA has
access to extensive machining and manufacturing capacity, which has allowed it to
expand quickly from building accessory rails and mounts into the much more demanding
field of complete arms manufacture.

As a new AR manufacturer, NEA is facing the usual gauntlet of skeptical and demanding
shooters, but this process is perhaps more intense than most companies experience: as the
first Canadian production AR, and the first complete firearm NEA has ever produced,
this rifle is facing an exceptional level of scrutiny.

Before continuing, allow me to point out that this is not a review. I am not taking an
NEA-15 to the range and confirming that it will shoot 200 or 400 or 1000 rounds. That
sort of testing is fun, of course, but fairly meaningless; “proving” a new rifle takes
multiple guns and thousands of rounds and is consequently outside the budget of most
shooters, some manufacturers, and definitely me. A single sample of a few hundred or
even a thousand rounds is not statistically significant: the internet is full of range reports
on mediocre firearms which still survived a trip to the local gravel pit.

Consequently, I have written instead a technical article examining the various

manufacturing aspects of the NEA-15 and comparing them to what can be considered the
template for a standard “Mil-Spec” AR-15, the US M4 Technical Data Package, or
“TDP”. This is the document which specifies the exact minimum standard to which an
M4 must be built in order to be accepted by the US military for service use. I would like
to point out that at this time, the list of manufacturers which actually build to this spec is
extremely short; theoretically only Colt and FN build true TDP rifles, and FN does not
sell its M16 commercially. A few other companies build what could be considered
essentially “TDP-Grade” guns; Bravo Company Machine and Daniel Defense are
obvious options. Mid-grade ARs such as Bushmaster and Armalite deviate fairly
noticeably from the TDP, and lower-tier machines such as Olympic and Hesse deviate
further still.

It is also important to recognize, however, that the TDP is one way to build a rifle, not the
only way to build a rifle. Following the TDP does ensure a fairly solid rifle. At the same
time, companies such as Knights Armament have also moved away from the TDP in
some areas, and in most people’s view have not built substandard guns as a result. So a
deviation from the TDP should perhaps not necessarily be an immediate concern; some
aspects of the document are decades old and may reflect outdated processes and
materials. For example, chrome lining of barrels was at one time the best option for
creating a durable barrel. Is that still the case? This is difficult to say. It was definitely
the best option in the 1960s, but whether it has been surpassed by the various
nitrocarburizing processes still seems to be up for debate. Most service rifles do still use
a chrome lined barrel, but that may be a byproduct of trying to get US weapons contracts
rather than an objective desire to make the best barrel possible.

I would also like to point out that North Eastern Arms did not go in to this project
intending to build a TDP-spec AR. The TDP was “referenced”, says Dave McFaul of
NEA, but not a major consideration. Instead, the decision was made to re-engineer the
AR from the perspective of an experienced aerospace manufacturer, and use the parts and
materials NEA’s engineers felt were most appropriate. How you feel about that is
therefore dependent on the amount of faith you have in NEA’s engineers. Personally I
have a severe faith allergy; this allergy is not specific to NEA by any stretch but exists
across the board against guns, cars, ideologies, and everything else. This is exactly why
this article exists: the average consumer cannot possibly engage in serious testing or
evaluation of a gun. What the prospective AR buyer can turn to is the Technical Data
Package, as that specification at least guarantees fairly dependable function under severe
conditions. The goal of this article, then, is to compare the NEA-15 to other, successful
rifles, so that the consumer can predict as much as possible the probability that the NEA
rifle will be satisfactory, functional, and effective. Note that nowhere in this list of
required traits appear terms like “pretty”, nor do I, or will I, describe a gun in terms of
“fit and finish”. These are aesthetic concerns and have no place in the technical
evaluation of a firearm as they do not reflect function. In my experience, aesthetics are
entirely personal and as a shooter who relies primarily on Glocks, my opinion on
aesthetics would not be trustworthy in any case.

BARREL

The barrel is manufactured of TDP-spec, ordnance-grade CMV steel. CMV has a

slightly lower carbon content than ORD 4150; this means that the NEA barrel has slightly
less tensile strength than an equivalent 4150 barrel, but greater yield strength and impact
resistance. Either way, CMV is listed specifically on the TDP as an approved steel and
there should be no concern about its use. For many years Colt was thought to be using
ORD 4150; recent independent testing has shown that if this was previously the case,
they have in fact transitioned to or are using CMV on at least some rifles. Green
Mountain Barrels – who incidentally supply approximately 40% of Colt’s barrels for the
M4 – use CMV extensively. Regardless, the performance differences between these
steels are so minute that it is improbable in the extreme that any user will be able to
discern the difference. The barrel steel gets a full thumbs up. I have a pretty good idea
where NEA is getting their barrel blanks from, although they will not release any names
and clammed up pretty quickly when I started getting close. I know that they are bound
by an agreement with the barrel manufacturer to not reveal the source, as is fairly
common in the industry. I will not reveal my suspicions because they are based in part
on comments made to me outside the context of this article, before there was any
discussion of me writing a technical review of the gun, and in any case I do not want to
put them in an awkward position with their suppliers. But I will say this: I have narrowed
down the possible sources a very long way. There are only a few possible sources for the
barrel blanks they are using, and I am almost certain I know who is supplying these.
Regardless of which of the few it is, you will not be disappointed with the NEA barrel,
I’ll put it that way.

The profile is what I would probably describe as “medium” - .850” from the chamber to
the gas block, and .750” from the block to the muzzle. I would say that is a little on the
heavy side of medium. In general I like a light barrel as I don’t find there to be much
difference in accuracy between light and heavy barrels on the AR platform – at least not
for the type of shooting I’m generally engaged in – and all else being equal, I’ll take a
lighter gun over a heavier one. Strangely, the NEA-15 is sufficiently light that I can see
why they went with a slightly heavier barrel; I was surprised when I picked it up. The
barrel weight was not nearly as noticeable as I expected. So the heavier barrel really does
not concern me. Furthermore, there is no “203 cut” on the barrel, which is nice. I will
never mount a grenade launcher to my gun so I hate seeing barrels with that cut; I have
never seen any testing done but I have a hard time imagining there would be any benefit
to that stepped-down section outside of mounting a grenade launcher.

The barrel lining is NEA’s proprietary ARC+ process. This is a nitrocarburizing

treatment similar to what many manufacturers have begun to use. NEA claims that there
are a few benefits to the treatment over chrome lining: greater concentricity than with
chrome lining, for example. This is one area in which NEA felt that the TDP was
holding back manufacturers; many advances in metal surface treatments have occurred
since barrel chroming was introduced in the 1960s, but the established doctrine of chrome
lining has, in NEA’s opinion at least, kept most builders from embracing new technology.
NEA’s lack of aspiration to enter the US market has given them the freedom to explore
other options. The superiority of the ARC+ treatment is difficult to verify; the process is
proprietary and NEA will give few details. In a declassified US military document,
testing indicates that chrome-alloy based linings are more wear resistant than
nitrocarburized barrels, however, the referenced testing is approximately half a century
out of date. It is now entirely possible that the situation has changed, but again, this is
difficult to verify. Glock has been using a nitrocarburization process on their guns for
decades to great effect; Smith and Wesson claim their nitrocarburized AR barrels have
superior wear characteristics to chrome-lined barrels. The legendary SIG 550 has a
nitrided barrel and has a standard service life between 20,000 and 30,000 rounds.
Without extremely expensive testing, there is no way to know for sure, but it seems
reasonable to me to conclude that the ARC+ process is at least a potentially legitimate
equivalent to chrome-lining. NEA has been fairly vocal about the quality of this
treatment; all non-military NEA barrels are carry a lifetime warrantee for excessive wear,
so if it doesn’t work out, they’re bearing the costs. It seems worthwhile to point out that
NEA do have experience with extremely high-stress aircraft components such as landing
gear. The design of landing gear includes a great deal of focus on metal surface
treatments, so I am hopeful that this will translate well into the design of the ARC+
process.
The treatment is applied before the attachment of the gas block, and is in fact applied to
both the barrel extension and gas block as well. The application of the ARC+ treatment
should not affect the dimensions of either part, as nitrocarburizing treatments are not a
finish or a coating, but a metal treatment which changes the molecular structure of the
base metal to a depth of about .005”.

The gas block is made in-house and is attached with set screws. This is not really my
preferred method – I like the TDP’s taper pin approach – but it’s worth considering that
the TDP is for a gun with a fixed front sight tower. It’s very common for low profile gas
blocks to be attached with set screws; this is done by both Larue and Vltor, for example.
On the other hand, I believe that Daniel Defense pins their gas blocks and there is no
question that a pinned block is more durable. Whether this is a serious concern on a gun
with a free-floated rail protecting the block, of course, is another matter.

Some examples of NEA guns have been shown with gas blocks indexed off of 12
o’clock. Functionally this is a non-issue unless they are way off, as the hole in the gas
block is substantially larger than the port in the barrel. If this aesthetics are an issue, you
can try re-indexing it yourself, although you may only end up with an appreciation of
why the indexing is not always dead on.

High pressure testing, or HPT, is done in-house by NEA, with a cartridge loaded to M197
HPT spec, which works out to approximately 70,000 PSI. Guns are not tested
individually, as the US Government demands, but on a batch level. The magnetic
particle inspection (MPI) is carried out by an independent third party. NEA declined to
give me any information on the party engaged in MPI testing the barrels, or to what
standards they were being held. I think this is a reasonable level of disclosure; not many
manufacturers are particularly interested in giving out the details of every third party they
deal with. NEA’s decision not to reveal the testing facility was probably wise: If I had
have gotten the name of the company, I would have contacted the company and tried to
con them into giving me information about exactly what testing and inspection criteria
they’d received. As it is, I think it’s fair to conclude that they received no particular
directions that would constitute anything outside the norm. NEA advised that “industry
standard” MP inspections are what they are getting and that seems legitimate to me.

I am of two minds on batch testing, however. On one hand, testing every single barrel is
the most thorough approach and there is a reason that the TDP specifies it. Colt
individually HPT and MPI their barrels and bolts; it is generally the mark of a “tier one”
manufacturer. On the other hand, it also means that every single Colt you can buy has
had a seriously overpressure round fired through it. If there are any flaws afterward, MPI
should reveal them, but at the same time, some wear and tear goes on any time you do
this. I doubt it’s an issue for most shooters, but if I also don’t think that proper batch
testing is really a big issue either. Perhaps a germane questions would be what
percentage of bolts and barrels from TDP guns actually fail HP testing; if this number is
extremely low, then batch testing is effectively as good or better than individually testing
each part. If this number is high, then obviously the user is much better off with parts
individually confirmed to have been built correctly. Unfortunately, rejection rates are
considered proprietary information by most manufacturers and are virtually impossible to
obtain. Further complicating the issue is the fact that bolts which are individually tested
are not necessarily sourced from the same manufacturers or built to the same standards as
bolts which are batch tested. Many companies which batch test are the same companies
which buy cheap or rejected parts; their bolts are therefore more likely to fail testing than
the bolts of companies engaged in thorough testing. Ultimately, it’s up to the user to
decide how they feel about batch testing. I would feel confident in a batch tested part
from the same run of parts going to a company which individually tests parts; less so in a
part from a different run. Ideally I prefer individual testing, despite the wear and tear on
the parts. Without more information about the failure rate that NEA has seen, it’s a bit of
an unknown. Of course, the reader should consider that batch testing is the norm rather
than the exception on mid-tier rifles such as the Smith & Wesson, for example. It’s an
indication of where NEA is positioning itself, not a “run for the hills” moment for most
buyers.

Barrels are available in both 5.56 and .223, not to mention the upcoming .300 Blackout.
This is significant primarily because many cheap ARs that are advertised as having 5.56
chambers actually have .223 chambers. The dimensions of these two cartridges are
extremely similar, but they are not identical and 5.56 is loaded to higher pressures. It’s
not especially likely that you’ll get yourself into immediate serious trouble by firing 5.56
in a .223 gun, but it’s possible and shooting it in a properly chambered 5.56 gun is a
much better idea. The fact that NEA sees these as two different chamberings and cut the
chamber differently depending on what the buyer wants is encouraging. Many of the
lower-tier guns are supplied with a “.223 or thereabouts” chamber, sometimes as a result
of incompetence, sometimes as a result of worn tooling; of these, some are stamped 5.56,
but will not admit a 5.56 chamber gauge. To recognize the difference is a necessary step
for a manufacturer, obviously. It’s almost sad to have to point this out, but incredibly
there are a surprising number of companies who do not seem to feel that it is important
enough to do it properly.

At this point it starts to become difficult to make comparisons between the NEA barrel
and a typical M4 carbine barrel. Much of what NEA is doing is proprietary information,
and they are using proprietary technology to accomplish some of their goals. Generally
speaking, the most sought-after carbine barrels tend to be cold hammer forged, as the
hammer forging process imparts a high degree of strength and durability to the steel.
North Eastern Arms describe their barrels as superior to cold hammer forged barrels,
which is an unusual claim. The treatment their barrels receive generates enough heat to
obviate the usual benefits imparted by the hammer forging process, but they also state
that their surface hardening treatment effectively stress-relieves the barrel while
hardening it, and produces a final result superior to a hammer forged product. That is
quite a claim and if true, these barrels should be pretty impressive. My initial response is
frankly skepticism; cold hammer forged barrels have been the barrels to beat for a long
time, and this is not the first time anyone has heard a company make grandiose claims
about a product. Those claims don’t often turn out to be true. It’s hard to imagine a
replacement that is superior to a hammer forged equivalent, and proving this would take a
lot of barrels and a lot of ammunition, and a hell of a lot of money, and is therefore
totally outside my ability to test.

But that is a factor which will not be apparent to many shooters. The average buyer of an
AR does not wear out his barrel; only extremely high volume shooters and institutional
buyers really stand to lose anything here. I would say only time will tell if the NEA
barrel treatment really does represent a step forward. I’m skeptical, but I can’t rule it out.
If you’re someone who can’t afford to gamble in any way on your barrel having a shorter
lifespan than that of a Colt M4, then you should track down a CHF barrel. For most of
us, it’s really a question of whether we’re interested in trying the NEA product or not.

Rifling is button-cut polygonal; this approach generally makes for accurate and durable
barrels. There is extensive debate on what type of rifling is best; the truth, like so much
in manufacturing, is that “it depends”. The most accurate barrels are usually traditional
single-pass cut rifling, however their lifespan is generally shorter than a typical button-
cut barrel, and more so with a polygonal rifled barrel. A polygonal rifled barrel can be
both accurate and durable – Noveske rifles generally feature polygonal barrels, and they
are known for their accuracy. Lothar-Walther barrels are frequently used in precision
applications, and are typically polygonal-rifled. It’s interesting to consider how many
suppliers of button-rifled, polygonal barrel blanks are actually out there. The number is
pretty small. Pac-Nor blanks are used extensively by Noveske; Lothar-Walther is the
other big name that springs to mind. Green Mountain is also a major supplier of
polygonal AR barrels. NEA refused to comment in any way on whose blanks they might
be using, but there are not many options, and all of the options are looking good. Dave
McFaul admitted that he thought that if NEA could name their supplier, it would be a
major selling feature. Based on the information I have collected…I agree.

Finally, barrels are held to a concentricity standard of 0.002”. That’s good. Bottom line:
the barrel is the core of any rifle and despite my skepticism about NEA’s rather extreme
claims regarding durability, the NEA barrel should perform very, very well.

BARREL EXTENSION

The NEA barrel extension is manufactured in-house, and treated with the same ARC+
process as the barrel. Both the extension and receiver are cut with M4 feed ramps. This
was a bit of a departure from early descriptions; I recall that in the very early discussions
of the NEA-15, there was talk of putting M4 feed ramps on the extension, but not on the
receiver. I am happy to say that this idea was abandoned; even though there is no real
issue with running an M4 extension in a rifle receiver, at least in semi-auto applications,
there is no reason not to go with proper M4 cuts.

One area I have seen some issues with on cheaper ARs is the alignment of the barrel
extension with the receiver; if the alignment is poor, then a lip or ledge is present on the
edge of the feed ramps on one side. NEA’s spokesperson, Dave McFaul, told me that
NEA’s position is that the receiver cuts must be made to line up as close as possible with
the barrel feed ramps, and that is my take as well. Thinking that is one thing and doing it
is another, but it is at least worth noting that this is a factor NEA feels is important in a
properly feeding rifle. A company that is indifferent to this aspect of assembly is
guaranteed to build ARs with feeding problems; a company that cares is less inclined to
run into this kind of trouble.

New barrel extensions that I have seen look a little rough; they seem to be ridged on the
inside, and chambers also look to have a slightly ridged appearance. I have seen this on
several guns, both in pictures and in person. I was able to feel ridges with my fingernail
on one. I can’t really say whether that’s an issue or not in practice; I have not heard
much about feeding issues so it may be entirely cosmetic. That is something that will
only come out with extensive use. In the meantime, if I were NEA that is something I
would probably look at improving, if only to ease the concerns of prospective buyers. I’ll
admit it makes me nervous, but if problems aren’t cropping up, then problems aren’t
cropping up.

BOLT CARRIER GROUP

The next part on my hit list was the bolt carrier group. There are a few things a company
can get wrong on a BCG, and ARs are a bit bolt sensitive so this was important to me to
check out. Furthermore, there was a bit of controversy surrounding the NEA bolt in the
weeks prior to the rifle’s release, so I wanted to clear that up as well.

First off, the rumours: it was claimed by some sources that the NEA bolt was being
supplied by a Taiwanese manufacturer. In a sense, this might not matter anyway; there
are certainly machine shops in Taiwan that are capable of turning out a quality bolt,
although the name that probably springs to most people’s minds is YFS: hardly the mark
of a quality manufacturer. At any rate the real question is whether the bolt is built to the
correct spec, but for the sake of pulling in the maximum amount of information, I did
question NEA about the Taiwanese bolt rumour.

Officially, NEA’s commentary was that the rumour was a simple result of their refusal to
provide information about the supplier. However, they did also admit that many
suppliers were looked at prior to choosing whoever they did eventually go with – in fact
NEA claimed to have looked at “every” supplier. I suspect that this is the origin of the
“Taiwan” rumour: NEA probably seriously considered a Taiwanese manufacturer. I
believe the rumour was probably not unfounded – in fact some people who were aware of
the project in the early days were told that bolts might be Taiwanese - however,
according to NEA, this is no longer correct; whoever they may have considered in the
past, the current supplier is not Taiwanese. In fact, the latest information from NEA is
that the bolt carriers are now made in-house and treated with NEA’s ARC+ nitriding
process.

Regardless of the country of origin, the technical details are the critical factor in
operation. The whole BCG meets the usual spec: the carrier is 8620 carbon steel, which
is 100% up to code, and the bolt itself is 158 Carpenter steel. These are the correct
materials for a TDP gun. The surface is shot-peened; again, this is exactly what one
would expect on a mil-spec bolt. Bolts are High Pressure Tested on a batch basis at the
same time as the barrels; the testing round, therefore, is also an M197-spec cartridge.
Magnetic Particle Inspection, similarly, is done by a third party. Again North Eastern
Arms would not release third party testing info, but described the testing as “industry
standard”. Again, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the testing standards are
legitimate HPT and MPI standards. In reality, we know very little about the specific
standards used by most AR manufacturers, so to be told “industry standards apply” is
about as good as it is generally going to get.

Gas key screws are staked from the side to prevent them from working loose; this is
relatively easy to check and really only needs to displace enough material to cause the
carrier wall to solidly contact the screws. Technically there is a spec for the amount of
torque that should be required to remove the screws; in reality my belief is that no
manufacturer actually tests this. If you want to be really thorough on checking your own
gun, you can see if the screws break loose under 55 inch-pounds of torque, or if they are
still in at 100 in-lbs. For all but the most obsessive, however, it’s pretty easy to just
eyeball the carrier and make sure the staking is solid.

Bolts are supplied with a standard extractor spring and insert. To condense the last page
of data into a few words, it appears that NEA has simply ordered proper, quality bolts,
assembled them with their own carrier, and the entire package should be good to go.

UPPER RECEIVER

Visually, what stands out about the NEA receiver is its rather brutal angularity; that’s
interesting aesthetically but somewhat outside the scope of this article and I won’t
comment on it much, other than to say that the looks will probably appeal to some and
not to others. I like it quite a bit, but as I said before, I like Glocks. I can’t really be
trusted in this matter. Still, there is something darkly attractive about the shape in my
opinion.

Returning to technical matters, the big controversy regarding the upper receiver has been
addressed at length elsewhere but I will revisit the topic here anyway: the choice of billet
6061-T6 aluminum rather than forged 7075, the industry standard.

There are two ways to look at this decision: in engineering terms, and in production
terms.

Engineering

From an engineering standpoint, NEA has argued that 6061-T6 is the right choice. They
may be correct; it is difficult to know. The overwhelming majority of AR uppers are
built from 7075; this dates back to the Vietnam War, when the US military found that
6061 receivers were corroding at the front pin pivot hole. Specifically, the issue they
were dealing with was intergranular galvanic corrosion; the corrosion which occurs when
two different metals are in electrical contact via an electrolytic solution. In this case, the
steel pivot pin was reacting with the 6061 in the perpetually damp Vietnam environment.
It is worth noting, however, that the 6061 receivers used in Vietnam were forgings, not
billets. Forged 6061 is prone to this type of intergranular corrosion, but billet 6061 is
actually more corrosion resistant than 7075. North Eastern Arms uses billet 6061; the
corrosion factor is therefore unlikely to be a concern. Additionally, the fact that 7075
receivers were introduced to alleviate corrosion issues rather than strength issues at least
implies that the strength of a 6061-T6 receiver is sufficient. NEA has augmented their
receivers by thickening the walls in some critical stress areas, although they consider the
specific dimensions to be a trade secret and would not comment further on the exact
changes made.

That said, some dimensions are constrained by the nature of the instrument; not every
wall can be thickened as the receiver must still interface correctly with the rest of the
rifle. Whether that is likely to be a problem or not is a separate question and not one that
I feel qualified to answer. What I can say is that after discussions with engineers and
machinists working in the field, the basic concerns I got back were that the trigger pin
holes may tend to elongate over time, and that the threads will possibly strip more easily.
That may be the case, although NEA are sufficiently confident that it is a non-issue that
they have offered a lifetime warranty on the receivers. Perhaps worth mentioning is that
none of the sources I talked to expressed a concern about the ultimate strength of the
material – that is to say that while some engineers wondered about possible hole
elongation, nobody worried that the gun would be prone to exploding next to a user’s
face.

That seems to make sense: manufacturing firearms is not exactly a low-liability venture.
I have a hard time envisioning an established company – and consider that while North
Eastern Arms is relatively new, it is an outgrowth of North Eastern Aerospace, which is
an established company with large contracts – taking a chance on using a material likely
to permanently disfigure hundreds or thousands of customers. Further, Colt was
sufficiently confident in 6061 to build receivers out of it for military usage. I don’t have
the resources to perform comparative testing, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that
6061-T6 will be adequate for use in AR-15 receivers. Incidentally, this was also the
opinion expressed to me by several engineers working in firearms related businesses.

In terms of rigidity and other performance characteristics under normal usage, the 6061
should be indistinguishable from a 7075 receiver; the elasticity of 6061 is described by a
number known as the Young’s Modulus; this number is virtually identical between 6061
and 7075. There are many methods of calculating stress, of course, and both yield and
ultimate strength must be considered in addition to the Young’s Modulus of a material,
but the basic explanation I have received from the engineers with whom I consulted for
this article was that the yield strength and ultimate strength of 6061 were more than
sufficient to handle normal AR operation; that they were not at serious risk for
catastrophic failure under any conditions, and that the elasticity of the material was
sufficient to ensure normal operation of the receiver.
Finally, neither the upper or lower receivers on an AR are particularly high-stress
components, which is exactly why they are made out of aluminum and not steel in the
first place. The combustion is entirely contained within the barrel, barrel extension, and
bolt assembly, all of which are ordnance-grade steel.

All that being said, the downside to 6061 is that it is softer. NEA did not thicken the
receiver walls because they had spare aluminum and just needed to use it up; they
thickened the receiver walls because on some level they felt it was warranted. In all
probability, that is simply a matter of having a safety factor built in to the gun, but
without access to the specific engineering carried out in the design of the receiver there is
no way to know for certain. 6061 is more likely to permanently deform under stress than
7075; that is why people have expressed concerns about the long term durability of the
trigger pin hole. I think it will be a matter of wait-and-see, but in the event that hole
elongation and thread durability becomes an issue, at least the user can rely on the NEA
warranty. That doesn’t help the professional user if the rifle is being used in an active
combat role, but then these issues are long-term durability issues that are more likely to
be resolved at an administrative level rather than immediate concerns that are going to
render the rifle inoperative during use.

Production

In production terms, the 6061-T6 billet receiver makes a lot of sense for NEA. Their
background in aerospace has involved a lot of parts design and manufacture in 6061 and
they are experienced in working with it and well-equipped to build from it.

There is also a legal advantage for NEA in working with 6061: the fact is that the reason
virtually every US manufacturer uses forged 7075 is because the forgings are readily
available in the US, cheaply. There are only a few sources of 7075 forgings as the dies to
create the forgings are prohibitively expensive, and none of these dies are available for
use in Canada. As a result, forged 7075 uppers would need to be imported from the US.
The catch is that these forgings would be controlled by ITAR, the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations. Not only would this add cost to the production and take control of the
process out of NEA’s hands, it would also restrict NEA’s ability to market the rifle
overseas. By using receivers built in-house, NEA has effectively sidestepped ITAR, and
made it much easier to sell the rifle both to private individuals and to law enforcement
and military organizations overseas.

LOWER RECEIVER

As with the upper receiver, the lower is built from 6061-T6 rather than 7075, for the same
reasons. A good lower receiver is important, but the reality is that with a few notable
exceptions, very few companies manage to seriously screw up a lower. It is often
described as “a box to put the parts in”. The critical areas are, of course, pin hole
location and dimension, magwell cuts, and receiver extension threads. I have not spec’d
out the NEA receiver, but I would not be surprised to discover that the transition from the
“box” section to the receiver extension is one area that has been reinforced with thicker
aluminum. An interesting experiment would be to strip a standard 7075 lower and a 6061
NEA lower, and measure the displaced volume of each; that would give some idea of
how much more material is being used on the 6061 receiver.

The holes appear to be in the correct spots, which is not surprising; I can think of a
manufacturer who had issues with incorrect pin hole dimensions but their failure on this
front quickly led to a fair amount of notoriety and I don’t think NEA has any desire to
experience this sort of damage to their reputation first hand. The guns work, which
indicates the holes are in the right spots and so on. The magwells are generous and flared
for smooth reloads and should work fine with all the usual suspects, from USGI to
Magpul Pmags. NEA have built lowers for AR mags before: they make a Swiss Arms
PE90/ SIG550 lower that takes AR mags, and a Heckler Koch G36 lower that takes AR
mags, and they have not had recent issues with the magwell spec on either of those units
to the best of my knowledge. The NEA-15 lower has a magwell done to the same spec,
so this aspect of the lower at least has been tested fairly thoroughly.

Having looked at the lower receiver itself, the next logical step is to consider the various
parts assembled into the receiver. The lower parts kit itself is listed as “mil-spec” but
that’s all the information I could pry out of the manufacturer. Realistically, as along as
the lower parts kit is in fact a mil-spec kit, and I really have no reason to doubt this, that’s
good enough for me. NEA has changed suppliers on the trigger spring after complaints
of excessive pull weights on the full-auto M4 springs. I did not get the chance to feel the
original trigger, so I can’t comment on that, but the current pull is not particularly heavy.
It’s pretty gritty out of the box, but then those of you who have felt a number of brand
new Colt triggers will know that gritty triggers on a service rifle are par for the course.
Users should clean the rifles, then fire them a few hundred times before worrying about
any grittiness they might initially feel. I have certainly not been concerned about any of
the trigger pulls that I have felt, at any rate. There is a new spring set coming from NEA
shortly which is being produced by one of their aerospace partners; NEA describe it as a
“competition” spring and while the specs have not been released and I don’t have
permission to include all the info…I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority
of users will find the new trigger and hammer springs to be a vast improvement.

One quibble I have with the NEA rifle is that in its standard configuration, it comes with
a commercial stock and receiver extension. That’s annoying to me; a commercial
extension means two things. One: fewer options for swapping out the stock; and two:
most commercial receiver extensions are extrusions of an often unknown aluminum
alloy. Mil-spec receiver extensions are milled out of 7075 and give you the most options
for changing out the stock. NEA do offer the rifle with a Troy Battleaxe stock and mil-
spec receiver extension, which solves half of the problem, but forces the buyer to either
purchase a stock they may or may not want, or to get a custom configuration, which is
just kind of a pain.

The explanation I have been given for the decision to include a commercial tube with the
standard rifle does make sense: NEA distributes their guns in markets where a mil-spec
receiver extension would be a controlled item, and by committing to volume purchases of
commercial tubes, they’re streamlining their assembly process and cutting costs. That is
good for the consumer in the sense that it has allowed them to lower the price, and it’s
not a big deal to change out the extension and stock, but for those buyers who demand
performance first, it’s a little annoying. It’s hardly a deal-breaker, though, and the fact
that you can get custom configurations from NEA does mitigate the issue for the most
part.

I was originally told that inside the receiver extension, I would find a standard carbine
buffer. Some people would prefer an H (heavy) buffer for a carbine, and generally
speaking I think that is the way to go. Imagine my surprise on popping open an NEA
carbine and discovering an H-stamped buffer…I am unclear on exactly when this change
was made, but clearly it was early in the production run. There are upsides and
downsides to either buffer, but the H seems to generally improve the function of most
carbines. A heavier buffer moves more slowly, generally decreasing wear and tear, and
some people find the recoil impulse softer on an H-buffered gun. On the other hand, if
you are primarily shooting non-NATO spec ammo – read softer, lighter loads – an H
buffer might be less reliable. It’s a bit of a guessing game for customers using unknown
ammo. Similarly built LMT guns are often equipped with a standard carbine buffer,
however, LMT gas ports are generally on the small side and this plays a role in
determining the correct buffer mass. Regardless, it appears that NEA guns are now
shipping with H buffers.

Initially, NEA rifles were shipped with the receiver extension castle nuts not staked. I
did not agree with this policy and I am happy to report that this has been changed, and I
have been informed as of today that the standard of all NEA guns going out the door is
now to have the castle nut torqued and staked. Anerobic adhesives (i.e. loctite) have been
used by some lower-grade manufacturers instead of staking the castle nut; that is not a
good idea. There have been many instances of loctite causing galling in that application
and it is a process that should be avoided. It’s not exactly an uncommon approach to AR
assembly in some circles, but it’s not the right way to do things. A torqued and staked
castle nut ensures reliability and should be considered mandatory on any properly built
gun.

ANODIZING

Both the upper and lower are treated with type III mil-spec anodizing. Anodizing is a
surface treatment – not a coating, but a treatment of the aluminum surface metal itself –
which hardens the material substantially. Type III is specified in the TDP along with
minimum thickness et cetera. That should be no problem with the NEA-15; the
somewhat grey tone of the gun is the result of the thickness of the anodized layer. At this
point I feel I should mention the issue of colour representation in photographs versus
reality; in person the NEA guns are not particularly light in colour. Many photographs on
the internet make them appear much greyer than they really are, if that is a concern for
anyone.
NEA declined to give specific details about the anodizing process they use, but explained
that this type of anodizing predates North Eastern Aerospace’s venture in to the firearms
market; it is a finish that they have used extensively in their aerospace division and on
other firearms parts. While NEA refused to give exact details about the process, they
described it as a “fairly common process” so I think it is fair to suggest that other than
taking the anodizing to a greater depth than most, there is nothing particularly unusual
about the treatment the guns are receiving.

One concern I had about the thickness of the anodizing was whether the rails were
properly designed to allow for the extra thickness of the anodized layer. This is because
although anodizing is a treatment and not a coating, it does cause a measurable build on
the surface of the aluminum. An anodized layer 0.002” thick will expand exterior
dimensions by 0.001”, for example. My concern was that one-piece mounts would not
slide correctly on to the rail, and that throw levers on quick-release mounts would fail to
close fully. I heard early rumours that there might be some issues with this but I suspect
that the rails in question were prototypes and not production versions. Since then, I have
been advised that some “loaner” guns may have made it in to the field with parts that
were not tumbled after being machined and anodized; that would explain some of the
rumours I heard in the first days of the NEA rifle release. NEA assured me that the
thickness of the anodized layer had been calculated in to the final dimensions of the
upper receiver and rail, and in retrospect that makes quite a bit of sense: while NEA may
be new to the AR game, they are not new to the picatinny/1913 rail game. I should know
– I have an NEA rail on my CZ858. Considering that the finish they are using is the
same finish they have always used, and that the rails are cut to the same spec as they have
always been, it makes sense that the rails should work as well as they always have.

FREE FLOAT RAIL

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the NEA hand guard. It’s a utilitarian
piece and the looks have clearly taken a backseat to the function of the thing. How you
feel about that is up to you; my initial reaction to it was lukewarm but I found the blunt
brutality of it began to appeal to me quite quickly. It has become known as the “slabside”
rail on account of the long blank sections on either side of the piece. There is a full
length rail at 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock, and short sections at the barrel end at 3 and 9
o’clock. The rail is attached to a standard factory barrel nut via two clamping sections at
3 and 9. This method is simple and effective; it’s similar to the mounting approach of
rails like the Troy TRX Extreme, although it uses two clamps instead of one. This style
of attachment works fairly well – even the single clamp rails that attach this way get a
fair amount of use and while I don’t think it’s the be-all-end-all mounting system, they
work fine. And that’s the single clamp. NEA’s double clamp does generate more
clamping force, so if the singles work, and the doubles are better, well, you get the idea.
All the clamping screw holes are helicoiled, which makes sense because they’re being put
under a fair amount of stress.
One concern I have about this type of mount, however, is the possibility for uneven
clamping. There have been reports about possible alignment issues with the rail; some
people have had a hard time getting sights to align once they are mounted. I suspect that
this may relate to the rail mounting system; if one side is torqued down more than the
other I think that the tendency will be for the rail to pull to one side. I would be inclined
to check this carefully on any rifle I owned personally. As a matter of fact, I suspect that
in the long run a new method of attachment is probably going to be developed simply
because while the two clamping points seem to work, they also seem to be the source of a
range of issues both for the user and for the manufacturer. We’ll see.

The clamping cuts have changed in dimension from the first models to the current
production rails – they’ve gotten shorter. The only reason for this was to decrease overall
deflection on the rail body, which, more than anything else, was an aesthetic concern, but
I think it was the right decision (and not just because I had been advocating that change
from the outset). The result is that the hand guard does not obviously deflect, which,
while possibly not generating any functional issues, just plain looked a little wrong, and
was guaranteed to have caused NEA a bunch of customer service headaches as people
called in complaining that their rifle was broken or defective.

I suspect that the deflection also affected the upper rail, which could potentially have
caused issues depending on what the user was mounting and where. Publicly, NEA have
stated that the changes were made to fix “aesthetic issues” and it did require the
destruction or abandonment of 200 fully machined rails by NEA, which was probably an
annoying financial hit and production delay. However, in response to the questions I
originally sent them, they have agreed that there were some rail alignment issues that the
new clamp dimensions corrected. Since the new design has been adopted, NEA has no
longer found issues with the alignment of the first lug. I was skeptical of this at first as I
looked at a photo of several guns which appeared to show misalignment between the first
rail lug and the upper, but I believe this was simply a matter of the variance in albedo
between the upper and the rail – one appeared to be reflecting more light than the other
and it generated an appearance of misalignment where there was none existed. Guns that
I have handled in person did in fact appear to align well.

One of the key features of the AR is modularity; the extensive use of the AR-type rifle in
western militaries has led to an unprecedented ability to swap out parts and accessories at
will. Bearing this in mind, I was curious to know if the NEA upper and hand guard
would fit a standard upper receiver or rail from any other manufacturers. Specifically,
there is an alignment tab on the rail which I wondered about; the tab fits into a notch on
the receiver and I was curious to know if this would work universally with other
receivers. The short answer is “almost”. The majority of receivers do have an alignment
notch in that location, but not all. There is a possibility that some of the small-run billet
uppers will not fit the NEA hand guard, but I’m told that ordinary factory uppers should
line up fine. That makes sense to me; if the rail system really won’t work with anything
else, what does that do to your market? Still, since the notch is fairly noticeable on the
NEA receiver, I thought I’d better make sure that there is not a requirement for a
specially machined upper to work with the rail.

NAMING NAMES…OR NOT

I did my best to pry information out of North Eastern Arms on every subject I could think
of, from parts to people. I think in total Dave McFaul and I have exchanged at least two
dozen emails as I hammered away on each little detail. Not that NEA weren’t pretty
forthcoming; the original document they sent me had the vast majority of answers I used
for this article. But any time I caught a rumour of anything, I’d hit them up again. Any
time I stumbled on a piece of data anywhere, I’d email Dave. He’s put up with a lot. The
one thing I absolutely could not get out of him, though, was names. I can not name a
single NEA supplier, and that’s clearly their intention. Does it bug me that I couldn’t
drag that out of them? A little, yes. Am I concerned about the quality of the suppliers
they’re using? No, I’m not. A direct quote from NEA simply reads, “all of our suppliers
are well known and well respected in the industry.” I had really hoped to come back with
some names so I could just say, “the bolts are XXX, so there you have it…buy one.”

I could not get names, though. On the basis of what I think everyone will probably agree
has been extensive research, my belief is that the suppliers are all legitimate, A-list
people. The barrel in particular leads me to believe that NEA have not had any real
desire to skimp on the parts they’ve included. But it would have been nice to know. I
suspect that eventually it will come out; secrets are difficult to keep forever. But in the
meantime, I’m confident enough to recommend the rifle.

The complete list of parts NOT made by NEA is short: the lower parts kit and the bolt,
and of course the stock assembly and grip. Everything else is made in-house, which is
pretty impressive. There was some chatter at one point when some potential buyers
heard that not ALL the parts were being made by NEA, and that is true, but in my
opinion it’s irrelevant and ultimately a bit wrong-headed to concern yourself with this
fact. A quality lower parts kit is much easier and cheaper to buy than to screw around
manufacturing, which is why so many ARs – yes, tier 1 ARs as well – just buy them from
companies that specialize in those parts. The only remaining internals not made by NEA
is the bolt…and NEA is tooling up to build those in house as well. This really is a
legitimately Canadian AR.

With so many of the parts being made on site, I asked if NEA had found any particular
part challenging to manufacture. I had a couple of reasons for asking this: for one, it just
seems like an obvious question. For another, my “involvement” with this rifle – and by
“involvement” I mean only that I’ve been following it closely from an outside
perspective, and writing a lot about it – has meant that I get a lot of communication from
people who either own these guns, or perhaps just looked one over and took pictures at a
range, and sent them to me with questions. Yes, that happened: I got “spy pics” from
someone at an NEA range day. I am not sure what they were shot with, but the quality
was surprisingly good, considering they appeared to have been taken surreptitiously.
Interestingly the person who took the photos sent them to me without prompting from me
– I had no idea this would happen, but it does show how interested some people have
been in the success or failure of this rifle.

That brings me to the other reason I asked NEA about parts that were challenging to
manufacture: the spy pics, and other pictures later posted to Canadiangunnuz.com,
revealed the ridges in the barrel extension and chamber I mentioned earlier. I was unsure
about whether these would be visible in person – as anyone who has spent time
photographing guns can tell you, there is a tendency for cameras to reveal things
seemingly at random: a smooth surface may appear blotchy on film, for example. I
thought that might be the case with the ridges, and when I read Earl Green’s excellent
review of his NEA-15, and noted that his gun was a pre-production sample, I thought for
sure that the ridges would be gone on production guns. As mentioned earlier, I was
wrong. There are noticeable ridges on the barrel extension and in the chamber and I am
unsure what to conclude from that. Time will tell if it is an issue or not.

It might be worth keeping in mind that we’re seeing a production run start up, here.
Unsurprisingly there have been some minor changes and I think that’s to be expected as
NEA get rolling: the change of the hand guard clamping system, for example, and the
search for a lighter trigger spring. Overall, I’m not worried about a couple of speed
bumps as we head down the runway. This research required to complete this article has
satisfied me that NEA are going in the right direction. Incidentally, the blunt answer to
the “any parts that were difficult to machine?” question was “No.”

In keeping with the “no names will be given” policy of North Eastern Arms, I was
stonewalled in my attempts to get any information about who is using their guns
overseas. To be 100% honest, this is a subject Jeff Hussey (of NEA, for those who don’t
know the name) and I had discussed in the past and again I have been given some
information on this which I would describe as “not intended for public release”. The
conversation during which this came up was a private one well before I had mentioned
any possibility of writing an in-depth piece on the NEA-15 and I am certain that if I had
suggested that as a possibility, I would not have been told anything about who has
purchased these guns. The official policy of NEA is not to comment and I will not
address it further, although I can confirm that yes, it is true that NEA sells to agencies
overseas. They have sold complete guns, and those guns are currently in service. As of
this writing, NEA has 5000 units on order with European Special Forces units, and their
rifles are in testing with a number of other agencies both abroad and here in North
America. The demand is now sufficient that NEA have been forced to stop taking orders
for the remainder of the year simply to catch up with their agency sales.

While refusing to give any client details, NEA did admit that they have users in the Law
Enforcement, Private Military Contracting and Special Forces communities, and that their
products are in use in the Middle East, North and South America, Europe and Africa.
Now, before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s remember that this is a description of ALL
of NEA’s products. Many people have seen photos of the Czech Special Forces units
using NEA parts on their guns, for example. So consider that this is not a claim that NEA
rifles are in service across the globe, although as I said, there have been agency sales
overseas of these rifles. Interestingly, NEA offers in-house financing for LE agencies
buying their guns. This is not absolutely unheard-of, but it’s not particularly common
either. A nice touch, I think.
Naturally I tried, and failed, to get information about how the NEA guns were selected by
the units that purchased them. I knew full well that there is no way that NEA would give
me information that would be obviously regarded as confidential by their clients, but my
policy going in to this was that I was going to knock on every door, no matter how
obviously boarded up it was. But NEA did tell me that the performance of the guns that
are currently being fielded has been rated as “fanfuckingtastic”. That’s encouraging.

Without input from NEA on the selection processes of foreign agencies, I think we can at
least guess that this is one are in which NEA can be extremely competitive: as I
mentioned earlier, they are not facing the kinds of ITAR restrictions which keeps Colts
and so on from being freely sold worldwide. That’s a good thing: foreign agency sales
are going to drive production, make for larger manufacturing runs, which will keep costs
down, and provide an incentive to keep quality high. The Canadian AR consumer stands
to benefit substantially from every major international sale NEA makes.

North Eastern Arms is a relative newcomer to the firearms industry, and an absolute
newcomer to the production of complete guns. The whole company is staffed by just a
handful of people with, as they freely admit, a lot of experience on the technical side, and
less on the marketing side. In a very short space of time, they’ve gone from zero to over
seventy products, built for eleven different platforms, and are now building five different
AR configurations with plans for three more in the immediate future. I think that as
consumers, we can forgive a few dips and bounces on the road to NEA’s success. I don’t
think anyone either within North Eastern Arms or outside of it would claim that there
haven’t been a few rocks in the road, but I believe NEA are committed to bringing
quality products and service to their customers. Their response to Earl Green’s review
was quick and decisive: he complained that their trigger springs were too heavy and NEA
found replacements, and swapped out springs for anyone who wanted the lighter pull.
Mr. Green brought up some assembly issues, and assembly procedures have been
changed. I’m happy about that: the gun industry has plenty of manufacturers that don’t
care much about the opinions of their customers and more of those is something we don’t
need. If NEA continue on the path they’re heading down, I think we can expect great
things from them.

In conclusion, if you’re still trying to make up your mind, my advice is as follows: this
gun is not, as of yet, a replacement for a Colt. I think it is a realistic competitor for guns
along the lines of Stag, Spike’s Tactical, Smith and Wesson, so on. It has some features
which interest me quite a bit – I think the barrel is very promising – and a few which
leave me a little cold, such as the rail attachment method. For Canadian consumers who
ordinarily cannot take advantage of instant warranty service from large US companies,
the NEA service commitment is a revelation. Customers who received guns from the
early batch which had been tested with a suppressor attached, and which had resultingly
unnoticed cycling issues, had their problems rectified immediately at no cost to the buyer,
NEA paying for return shipping and sending out new complete uppers without waiting
for the defective parts to arrive.
If you were weighing out the purchase of an AR in your head and the options you were
considering were Daniel Defense and Colt, I would probably not recommend an NEA to
you. If you were looking at a Stag, Smith and Wesson, or Core, I would say definitely
consider the NEA-15. If cost is something you don’t care about and you are happy to
spend two thousand dollars to get a premium rifle, I would go straight to the top tier guns
like Colt; consider though that I would say the same if this was an article about a Stag,
Armalite or Bushmaster. If cost is a factor to you, and to most shooters it is, I think the
NEA-15 is very hard to beat. It’s amazing to me that they have managed to bring this
package in to retail for a thousand bucks. I am sufficiently confident in the NEA rifle
that I will be buying one to run as my primary carbine for the next year or so; it will be
attending all shoots and classes with me. I expect it to perform well. I will be public
about things if it gives me any headaches, but frankly I don’t expect to have much to
complain about. If the gun performs as expected, I’ll be buying more.