UZI Talk Forums
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Max11/15 IRM vs ARRM

  1. #41
    UZI Talk Supporter

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    65
    Performance wise is their any benefit to one vs another?

  2. #42
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by dnmccoy View Post
    Performance wise is their any benefit to one vs another?
    Read the forum man. Been tread and retread, but yea the irm is less tunable for different calibers. Sticking with 5.56 about the same.

  3. #43
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by IndustrialRescue View Post
    I have no plan to sell, ever.
    I wait a year, hole or no hole, it will have gained value.
    TASK, anyone?
    Nobody has talked about this, but once you have the hole it could be used for pistol caliber uppers too.

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaujo View Post
    Nobody has talked about this, but once you have the hole it could be used for pistol caliber uppers too.
    Just to be clear, the hole location for the M11/NINE Max-11/15/S.A.B.R.E. is above center and the Task hole is right in the center. Both holes are centered for their respective bolt groups. A hole that would be utilized for both systems would be oblong. The hole for the S.A.B.R.E. and Task for the M10 is the same location. Since the Max-10/15 has not been announced, I don't know where he plans the hole for that system. I hope the hole for the Max-10/15 will be in the center of the back plate of the M10.

    Scott

  5. #45
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,695
    I would think you could make a pistol caliber upper that uses the Lage hole though.

  6. #46
    Mr. Miata
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Jmacken37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    4,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
    I keep seeing people make similar comments. What kind of adapters are you using?

    I just keep the OEM stock latch and change stocks as needed. Am I missing something here?
    I suspect they have a fixed stock. Like you I like the QD feature and use a hunk of velcro to tighten the stock to receiver mating (thanks for showing me that Vegas!)
    AWWWW NUTS!

    REAL MEN DRIVE MIATAS

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaujo View Post
    I would think you could make a pistol caliber upper that uses the Lage hole though.
    Yes, it could be done, but if the rod on the pistol caliber bolt is off set from center ,would that tend to cock the bolt in the upper? I don't know, I am asking.

    Scott.

  8. #48
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother_Evil View Post
    Yes, it could be done, but if the rod on the pistol caliber bolt is off set from center ,would that tend to cock the bolt in the upper? I don't know, I am asking.

    Scott.
    No idea, but my thinking is if Lage designed it to articulate the buffer in a ar-15 buffer tube it should be similar. If the bolt is higher than the OEM upper bolt channel in the 11/15 that could indeed be an issue.

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,262
    It is similar. The center of the AR bolt group needs to be higher than the center of the pistol caliber upper bolt so there is room enough underneath the AR bolt group to add a sear catch so an off the shelf carrier can have the sear added. The spring and the extra mass of the buffer must be centered to the mass of the bolt group. To have the AR carrier be low enough to put the center of the carrier at the center of the factory upper, a custom carrier would need to be made and the whole upper redesigned for that lowered bore center. That would add a lot of expense so that there would be one hole for a Task style conversion. Since Richard doesn't do Task style conversions, I wouldn't think he would not invest all that time and money to modify the Max-11/15 for that system. Especially when an oblong hole would accomplish the same thing.

    Scott
    Last edited by Brother_Evil; Yesterday at 02:52 PM.

  10. #50
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,695
    Gotcha. Oblong hole it is ;-)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.