Khimera Update
- Thread starter Esox
- Start date
Gunslingerdoc
Well-known member
the approval issue is the hard part - see Len savage's stuff. the recoil spring/buffer/mechanism cant be in the same unit as the receiver and ammo feed portion or atf will declare it a spuder gun and nix the idea....Basically the simplest way will involve a hole in the mac lower. alternatively one can make a 3 piece design with the lower and mid piece that interfaces with the lower and contains the recoil portion and then the upper...But this get complex and bulky as hell - savage sort of tried something along these lines less the recoil mech being in the mid portion and atf nixed it. Ive been playing with trying to come up a belt fed upper that would get approved and wasnt crazy complex for years and simple and approvable dont seem possible in the belt fed world but thats where the most buyers would be found....think shrike for a mac!
cockednlocked45
UZI Talk Supporter
How about a reciever adapter that is capable of accepting all the m16 uppers already out there and available. Just design a trigger group cradle that uses m16 fcg. Of course it would need a hole drilled but get over it. You could have a beltfed.
I'm an 07/02 and I'd be happy to help out as well. I don't have a TON of time to throw at this (I'm working on 9mm conversions for the Spitfire among a myriad of other things) but I'm happy to help in any way that I can.
I agree with this concept. The Mac lower plus Khimera plus AR upper might be a bit tall and un-tacticool but would really simplify the whole design and launch process as well as fine tuning of it all.
Battering ram NIB
UZI Talk Supporter,
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
- Messages
- 5,041
why does it have to be a M16 clone?
cant you just make a new rifle that shoots .223?
not trying to be rude, just curious why bother trying to make a mac look like a M16?....seems like a painful road and it wont ever quite look right in the end....wouldnt people be just as happy with a shorty .223 of a unique look/design of its own?
id be happy with another .223 to shoot and could care less that it clones a m16
cant you just make a new rifle that shoots .223?
not trying to be rude, just curious why bother trying to make a mac look like a M16?....seems like a painful road and it wont ever quite look right in the end....wouldnt people be just as happy with a shorty .223 of a unique look/design of its own?
id be happy with another .223 to shoot and could care less that it clones a m16
It isn't about making it look like an M16; it is about making it use off the shelf available everywhere parts.
That said, I don't think an adapter to run AR uppers will really work. Take an AR upper and put it as close as you can to a MAC lower in the right orientation. Way too high.
That said, I don't think an adapter to run AR uppers will really work. Take an AR upper and put it as close as you can to a MAC lower in the right orientation. Way too high.
bac0nfat
Well-known member
Marty, I'm sure others have offered this but I have solidworks, access to 5-axis CNC machines, and I own an M11/9....and I'd like to help with this project. Just let me know what to do.
Btw I'm not in it for money, just REALLY want my Mac to shoot .223
Btw I'm not in it for money, just REALLY want my Mac to shoot .223
happyswitch
Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2016
- Messages
- 6
To avoid needing a hole in the back of the receiver for a recoil rod (like the sabre, and likely to be an issue with batfe), what if this was designed to use one of the AR gas piston (op-rod) configurations instrlead of direct impingement? It would eliminate the need to drill any holes in the receiver...increasing the chance for batfe approval.
Just a though.
Just a though.
Concorde
Moderator, UZI Talk Life Member,
For all the reasons that people criticized them... such as being very heavy, lots of bolts to deal with disassembly/reassembly when cleaning, and all the proprietary parts that you can't get as spares...
It is possible I am misreading that, but the hole in the receiver, and moving the recoil system OUT of the upper, is why the SABRE was approved. If the recoil assembly is in the upper, along with the magwell, it is too easy to make a "sputter" gun. Basically an open bolt m/g with no means of stopping the bolt.
The Max-31 and AMP10/22 basically are, but they allow it because it doesn't change the caliber. And no one talks about it for obvious reasons.
They get weird when you want to shoot rifle calibers out of a submachinegun. They are a lot more forgiving when going down in power, e.g. .22lr conversions.
Note: This is BATFE logic, not my logic.
They get weird when you want to shoot rifle calibers out of a submachinegun. They are a lot more forgiving when going down in power, e.g. .22lr conversions.
Note: This is BATFE logic, not my logic.
IndustrialRescue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 696
And yet the shit STILL sells for more than when it was new.
Figure out a way to copy it, and cut costs, and you'll still sell EVERY upper you make.
Honestly, I'm gathering that folks care more about function over form.
Sure, the SABRE leaves a bit to be desired. But it works, and lets people go full auto in 223.
Beowulf
Well-known member
The only real benefit, if you can get the IP for it, is that it's already ATF approved. Otherwise, for another design, I'm assuming you'll have to go through the rigmarole getting the ATF to greenlight it.
yzfchet
UZI Talk Instigator, UZI Talk Life Member,
The real design efforts required would be for the physical dimension adjustments on an M16 upper receiver design with the addition of a mag well and magazine lock/release mechanism, the addition of an op rod/secondary bolt assembly, and the real tricky part of the whole mess: a cam (?) actuated assembly that would release a striker or hammer onto the firing pin once the round was in battery. That's where an ME will come in handy. I spoke with Sid T. (Ta, mate!) and he reports that the S.A.B.R.E. design has a potential flaw in the firing pin strike function. It appears that insufficient force/momentum is applied to the primer for ignition once residue begins to build in the receiver. The next design should offer plenty of margin in that department.
Real engineering innovation would make the package close to M16/AR-15 simplicity in disassembly, using the same pivot pin/takedown pin arrangement of the M16 design. It may be necessary to drill separate holes through the upper portion of the M11/9 lower transversely for the pivot and takedown pins. Big deal: you're all in or not for a rifle-caliber M16-like MG using your subgun lower. You can still use it as a subgun so no worries!
Using off-the-shelf M16/AR-15 barrels/barrel extensions mating to the same threaded front end as on M16 uppers, the same DI gas system, BCG, etc. you could have something that would resemble a Stoner design for the M11/9 lower. Only minor design adjustments would be required to mate to an M10 lower once the M11 design is completed.
The Khimera upper would need to incorporate the partial tubular guide channel for the BCG so it would fit into the M11/9 lower and still clear the sear. I would not try to incorporate single-shot capability on the first couple of iterations, unless a high probability of success method was determined.
Feel free to jump in on other requirements for this concept. Or dash it to pieces because...
-Chet
Real engineering innovation would make the package close to M16/AR-15 simplicity in disassembly, using the same pivot pin/takedown pin arrangement of the M16 design. It may be necessary to drill separate holes through the upper portion of the M11/9 lower transversely for the pivot and takedown pins. Big deal: you're all in or not for a rifle-caliber M16-like MG using your subgun lower. You can still use it as a subgun so no worries!
Using off-the-shelf M16/AR-15 barrels/barrel extensions mating to the same threaded front end as on M16 uppers, the same DI gas system, BCG, etc. you could have something that would resemble a Stoner design for the M11/9 lower. Only minor design adjustments would be required to mate to an M10 lower once the M11 design is completed.
The Khimera upper would need to incorporate the partial tubular guide channel for the BCG so it would fit into the M11/9 lower and still clear the sear. I would not try to incorporate single-shot capability on the first couple of iterations, unless a high probability of success method was determined.
Feel free to jump in on other requirements for this concept. Or dash it to pieces because...
-Chet
- Status
Please Visit our Sister Sites Below
Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter