Khimera Update

[lokifox]

Agreed on not worrying about single fire. I mean, it would be great... But an open bolt rifle isn't generally a precision instrument anyway.

 

[Gunslingerdoc]

I think the idea of using a stock or tubular upper and using the recoil of a modified bolt to supply the energy to operate the upper would be the way to go. it solves the hole in the lower issue (likely you'd be playing with weight and springs on your pseudo bolt) and removes the atf offending feed, receiver, recoil mech from the upper....basically inserting a sightless modified mac upper inside the rifle or even belt fed upper...if it worked you would have gotten past the atf issues at least based on their past objections.

 

[West_Texas_King]

Chet, I had a similar idea of trying to use an adapter plate to make a stock AR upper fit to the M11 lower.
Keep in mind that this is mostly me goofing around with nothing better to do...
I marked the very edge of rear magazine position on the upper so I knew how far back I could go and still allow for a mag to be inserted forward of the M11 lower.
This puts the rear takedown lug directly over the M11 feed ramp, which means you couldn't pin the upper to the lower even if you wanted to drill a hole.

That's where the adapter plate comes in. It would match the upper and lower together with a magwell in the front.
You simply install the adapter plate to the M11 like any other upper, and install the AR upper no different than if you were pinning it to an AR lower.
Yes, it would be taller, but the sabre is pretty tall too.
From there, all one would need is to attach a sear catch and recoil rod like a sabre.
Now, you could make some sort of mounting block to install in the magwell as an additional anchor point for the adapter plate to make it really solid, but I don't see it as a necessity.
It might even allow you to change out the magwell from AR to AK later on.

I don't think it would be a problem with the ATF since it's just an adapter plate.
AR uppers aren't firearms either, and having the adapter on the upper wouldn't change that.
Could be a very simple and cheap alternative.

I got the idea from the AM180 upper that was in development for the M11, it appeared externally that it was nothing more than an AM15 fitted to the M11 with an adapter plate.
This is another thing I wish to explore...someday.....

 

[Geolemer]

Stock AR Uppers? I Like This!

 

[cockednlocked45]

This is what I've been saying all along!

 

[ballistic1]

Please note my heavy interest for this in M11A1

 

[lokifox]

Seems to me like trying to jam the striker mechanism into a bolt carrier would be troublesome.

Besides, wasn't part of the reason the Sabre was GTG was the new design that couldn't essentially turn an AR-15 into a MG.

If all the inner workings were somehow crammed into a stock AR upper what would stop someone from pinning it to an AR lower and letting it fly?

ETA - Just musing here, but if releasing the bolt was accomplished via the sear on an M11, and everything else was contained within an AR-15 upper, all you would have to do is pull the charging handle and let it run away on an AR lower. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Geolemer]

It would be hard to do, but think about it. If you could run every mac upper plus every Ar upper. The world would be your oyster. Research and development maybe slightly more but production cost would be so much cheaper. Just an adapter plus A trigger pack. Even if you had A few ATF rejections, just tweak the design slightly until it's approved.

 

[IndustrialRescue]

Seems to me like trying to jam the striker mechanism into a bolt carrier would be troublesome.

Besides, wasn't part of the reason the Sabre was GTG was the new design that couldn't essentially turn an AR-15 into a MG.

If all the inner workings were somehow crammed into a stock AR upper what would stop someone from pinning it to an AR lower and letting it fly?

ETA - Just musing here, but if releasing the bolt was accomplished via the sear on an M11, and everything else was contained within an AR-15 upper, all you would have to do is pull the charging handle and let it run away on an AR lower. Maybe I'm wrong.

Releasing the bolt, unless the firing pin is fixed, wouldn't work on a hammer fired AR15 lower. No auto disconnect setup. Wouldn't even fire once, much less cycle.

But a fixed firing pin could pose concerns, yes.

Guess it depends on how the hell you manage to build the bcg.

 

[Hey]

x

 

[lokifox]

Releasing the bolt, unless the firing pin is fixed, wouldn't work on a hammer fired AR15 lower. No auto disconnect setup. Wouldn't even fire once, much less cycle.

But a fixed firing pin could pose concerns, yes.

Guess it depends on how the hell you manage to build the bcg.

Exactly what I was getting at. Hard to visualize it from my lackluster lexicon but essentially if you had a striker mechanism contained within the BCG that released at the moment the bolt fully locked and via that mechanical action, it would cause any standard AR to be a sputter gun.

The idea of cramming everything into a standard AR upper just seems like a bad idea to me.

If the "adapter" housed a M16 FCG to make the magic work the adapter itself would be a MG, right?

I'm not an expert by any means nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night but I think reverse engineering a SABRE carrier and firing mechanism and combining that with the original features of the Khimera like the standard BBL and handguard would be the right path.

I'm just patiently awaiting what the much smarter people here come up with!

 

[ChuckB]

What about a closed bolt F/A M11 conversion to use the AR upper, meaning a hammer in the lower?

 

[IndustrialRescue]

What about a closed bolt F/A M11 conversion to use the AR upper, meaning a hammer in the lower?

In that case, you might want to get with CoffeeFreak...

 

[cockednlocked45]

The adapter should do nothing but pin the ar upper to the lower. And have a magwell. The bolt should either be modified to an open bolt and use the oem fcg, or left alone as a closed bolt and the fcg be modified. It should be a drop in trigger pack.

And of course it should use the sabre recoil system. That was brilliant.

 

[cockednlocked45]

If the bolt was left alone as a closed bolt and a new fcg was developed, any belt fed ar upper will/could work on your m11/9

 

[West_Texas_King]

To get around the issue of converting an AR into a sputter gun, you would simply make the sear catch (let's just call it the bolt adapter) pull double duty.
It would fix the firing pin for open bolt operation, and would also work outside of the upper (the sear catch would have to be outside the rear takedown lug to catch the M11's sear), and thus precluding its use on AR's.
I'm just imagining something that goes into the rear of the carrier all the way up to the firing pin, and bolted in not unlike the old sear trips that were used on cut carriers.
Protruding from the rear of the carrier, the bolt adapter would go around the rear takedown lug to interface with the M11 catch.
A recoil rod similar to the sabre could be installed in the bolt adapter as well.

So, while it might sound inelegant, it would also not be compatible with an AR...even though it still utilizes milspec AR BCG's.

That's it. An adapter plate with a built in magwell, a bolt adapter, and a buffer tube style stock...you're ready to rock all of your standard AR uppers.
You can even use a standard charging handle with it, or use a Shrike/Valkyrie upper with the bolt adapter.
I'm by no means an engineer or mechanic, I just like to spitball frankengun ideas.

 

[Geolemer]

How about AR type guns like the LWRC system that is open bolt in full auto. I think the M-231 is also open bolt. I think using Standard AR uppers be everybody's first choice.

 

[yzfchet]

I probably wasn't clear in my earlier message idea.

The components on the inside & on the outside of the upper would be stock AR-15/M16 as much as possible, but the upper receiver body itself would be a specially designed, elongated & likely taller version of an AR-15 upper.

The M11 lower's trigger & sear would need to be depressed in order for the upper to release the positively restrained striker or hammer (unique design) to hit the firing pin once the bolt is rotated and in battery. I can see that a spring retarded firing pin will be required in order to prevent slam firing and independent upper runaway/MG capability.

This would require modification to and requirement for a specially designed bolt carrier, but since the actuator rod to engage the recoil spring in the stock has to be welded onto the rear of the BC anyway, you're not really giving anything up. The modification would be minor from the stock version.

If the differences between stock uppers and the Khimera were: 1) unique upper receiver body 2) unique bolt carrier/actuator 3) unique striker or hammer assembly, and 4) unique magazine feed assembly which would require an M11 lower for secure attachment to the upper, then I'd call that a win so long as the upper could quickly and easily be detached and opened for field cleaning and/or repair. The main difference between this and the SABRE would be the ease of access to the BCG and inner components, a somewhat lighter weight, and the ease of adapting extant sighting, lighting, and VFG accessories similar to stock AR-15/M16 uppers.

This is not far removed from the SABRE design; it is basically an improvement on that. The SABRE already uses stock AR barrels/barrel extensions, stock bolts, and utilizes STANAG magazines. Having a non-reciprocating cocking handle on the left side is a great idea and should be duplicated. Re-use of forward assist (questionable value), ejection port hardware, and magazine latch and release hardware would be ideal. I'd add the bolt lock/release hardware to the re-use list but I think the AR/M16 design sucks and can easily be improved.

Picatinny rail on top and there you go. I'll buy one.

 

[A&S Conversions]

Wow, I like where this is headed! I'm also willing to help out as part of Team Khimara however I can. I do have some suggestions to consider going forward:

1. The Khimera is useless to nearly all of us unless it gets BATFE Tech Branch approval. I'd suggest that the collective knowledgebase here screen potential designs based on current policies for such uppers. Once a candidate is downselected, the solidworks design should be submitted to the Tech Branch for review. If they don't have any issues with it, then the first prototype could be made and submitted with high probability for approval. It would probably be smart to have an 07FFL/02SOT make and submit it just in case the prototype ends up as a machine gun.

It is my limited understanding that the NFA Technology Branch doesn't have a huge budget/unlimited funds. Somehow sending them a computer based design seems problematic. The Tech Branch isn't an engineering design shop. It is a Govt. entity. It would seem to me that whomever does this Khimara upper, an actual "upper" of the basic principal of operation to be used needs to be submitted. The Tech Branch would evaluate it and decide if what was submitted was or was not a firearm. As with the XMG, if the Tech Branch rules that the design is a firearm (and must be transferred via a 4473) then selling that firearm as a full auto conversion would be problematic. I think programing should be for final design, as it is expensive.

Try to eliminate the need for drilling a hole in the rear of the receiver from both a technical and BATFE standpoint. My opinion is that sales would probably be 25% greater or more without the required hole. But, if you absolutely have to drill a hole to get it approved, then so be it. Drill baby drill!

That to me seems very sound. I think I have a design that will pass muster with the Tech Branch that will not require the hole in the RR.

Keep as many standard AR-15 parts as possible. From a consumer's standpoint, I would like to be able to just buy a stripped Khimera upper and whatever else may be required that is non-standard to an AR-15 (likely the carrier, recoil system, etc.). This would allow me to buy and replace whatever barrel length/caliber I want, use whatever handguard I prefer, etc. I would be much more likely to buy multiple uppers for even one lower (think $$ sales). Plus, it would drive manufacturing costs down (i.e., margins up) for sales of complete upper halves.

While it might be easier for some buyers to deal with final assembly with their own parts, that puts more of the reputation of the product in the consumer's hands. It is my intention to sell complete upper package that I have tested for function. So when the consumer receives the product, I'll know it will function. My plan is basic direct impingement AR function, using a quality basic fore end. If then the consumer chooses to add/change parts, that is on him. But to send a stripped upper (other than the specialty parts) and have the consumer put junk out of spec parts in it, then post all over the internet that it won't run and the upper kit is junk is not how I would want my business to be.

Keep it light weight. Use aluminum alloy wherever possible and put it on a strict design diet.

Absolutely, the AR is based on being made from light weight aluminum "receivers". The basic shape of a AR A3 upper is what the fore end would connect to in my "upper" design. I think the biggest fault of the S.A.B.R.R.E. upper was how heavy it was. Right behind that is all the specialty parts that I don't think was needed. Why A.A. didn't use a standard fore end, I don't know. But that is not how I wish to build.

Keep it simple. While interchangable mag-wells is a nice concept, the standard AR mag-well is more than sufficient IMHO. If all goes well, then roll out another upper with an AK mag-well that will accept drums, but keep everything else standard AR (like the MM-47)...not AK.

You of course are entitled to your opinion, but to me one of the big advantages of the AR-15/M16 is that it is that it is modular. I think the MGI lower system with their interchangeable magwells are the ultimate in modularity. Time will tell how best to do that and costs, but that is my intention to start with.

I'd actually suggest targeting the design around the M11-A1 platform first. This would allow an easy design modification to the M11/9mm since they are exactly the same except for the added length at the rear of the receiver. Retrofitting the other way would likely be much more difficult. Including the M11-A1 would also increase sales. Hopefully this would also help with the eventual M-10 design since it is essentially a scaled up M11-A1.

While that sounds great, we are talking about a rifle caliber upper, to start with based on the AR. To me the M11-A1 is too small to get everything to fit. There is also just the shear numbers. It is my limited understanding that the lion share of transferable MAC style RRs are M11/9. Quite a ways behind that is M10 (both M10/9 and M10/45). There are what a couple thousand M11/M11-A1s? Not every owner is going to buy a rifle caliber conversion. Why does Richard make so few M11 (not M11/9) products? Because they don't sell. What percentage of current owners would buy a rifle conversion? One percent or even less? Especially to get a MAC style RR rifle conversion business off the ground, the initial product, I feel, should be a conversion for the vast majority of the possible buyers. I don't think the sales numbers would be there for the M11-A1. As time goes by, I would be willing to look at the M11. I don't currently own one. Eventually I'd like to, but that would be down the road.

Keep the price point reasonable. We Mac owners generally don't have as much spare cash as other MG owners.

The whole point of using as many AR-15/M16 parts as possible is the price, quality and availability reason. "Re inventing the wheel" i.e.making custom parts is expensive. I plan to use as many "off the shelf" quality parts as possible to keep costs down. I'd like to keep the actual "upper" cost down. Run a Beta C or two and change out the upper. Pistons are expensive and don't address barrel heat. Changing the "upper" with the hot barrel to an "upper" with a cool barrel does.

I think if you keep as much of the design standard AR parts based, this legitimately opens the door to an eventual belt fed upper design. The Valkyrie Armament belt feed system would likely be a good candidate and they seemed willing to partner with the SlideFire people, so might be interested in partnering with Team Khimera.

v/r,
Esox

Call George or write him an email. His contact info http://www.beltfedar.com/belt_feed_conversions/ has the phone # on the bottom of the page and his email is on the link at the bottom. The last I knew George's belt fed design is still tied up with the Slidefire company for the next year or two, I can't remeber.

As I've posted previously, I have a design for a rifle caliber conversion upper that I think will "past muster" with the Tech Branch and won't be considered a firearm, without drilling a hole in the RR. I don't have the ability to build all of the prototype myself. I have a shop locally that can build part of it. I think I have the possibility of someone else that can build the second part so I can finish it. I'm basing the prototype on the AK mechanism because it is a sheet metal design. The MAC style RRs are also based on sheet metal. So I can do some of the fabrication myself.

In my mind I need a cheap prototype of my basic design. Once I get a ruling that what I want to do is not a firearm, then I'm willing to invest in the programing for CNC machined aluminum based on the AR. Eventually I'd like a conversion based on other firearm mechanisms, but that is down the road. I left home the end of February and just got home two weeks ago today. On June 24 my family and I are leaving Las Vegas and moving to Southern New Hampshire. I just don't have the time to chase down the prototype right now. Once we are settled, this is very high on my list. But I need to move first. I bought my RPB M10 as a lark as I already own a DIAS and Fleming HK sear. I bought my M11/9 specifically for this upper idea. I think the two models cover almost 95% of MAC style RR. I sincerely wish "Team Khimara" all the luck in the world. It is my understanding that my design differs from the Khimara concept. I don't really want to get into the details as I am hoping to patent the difference and turn this into a full time small shop business like Lage. A guy can hope.

Scott

 

[West_Texas_King]

I'd happily buy your upper as well as the Khimera...I already have a Sabre upper.
I think it's great to have options, even if both of them turn out to be excellent uppers there's always something that sets one apart from the other and makes it fun to shoot.
That's why I bought a tungsten bolt and a factory M11 upper as opposed to simply being happy with my Lage uppers.
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks there's room for two options even with a limited customer base.
I wish you luck and above all the time to get your upper on the market soon...like tomorrow LOL