M11/15 Prototype

[cockednlocked45]

I'm cool with drilling 100 holes to shoot more than the Uzi guys ...wait I already can.

 

[A&S Conversions]

... can there be a version without the M4 feed ramps for 20 inch rifle type barrels that don't have the extended cuts?

Actually I have extended the feed ramps of a couple of old barrels. Dremel actually makes a stone for chainsaw chain sharpening that is very close to the feed ramp in the barrel extension. You can use that stone to deepen the original style feed ramps to match the M4 ramps. Part of why I deepened the feed ramps is sometimes the point of the rounds hits that flat spot below the barrel extension. I'm sure that is why Colt started started doing deeper feed ramps.

Scott

 

[XxLT250RxX]

I too think the open-bolt platform is begging for a heavy barrel and yuuuge mags/drums. I might actually have a reason to get one of those 150 rd Armatac drums and set the stupid thing up on a pintle mount with AA sights.

Dangit seriously, I'm going to buy a couple of these things and throw the barrels in the parts bin.

^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^

 

[PDXsparky]

All this consternation about drilling a hole in a piece of sheet metal.

How about we shelve the M11 design and go right to the Uzi. After all, it came from the factory with the hole already there.

:allright :bow

In for the Uzi-15

 

[SecondAmend]

All this consternation about drilling a hole in a piece of sheet metal.

How about we shelve the M11 design and go right to the Uzi. After all, it came from the factory with the hole already there.

:allright :bow

Thompsons also have a hole in the rear, and it's for the buffer pilot rod. BUT, those receivers, unlike the Ingram and SWD designs, were designed with the hole in mind. In fact, the M1 Thompson has a more beefy receiver rear than the 21 and 28 models specifically to take the added stress of not having a Blish device.

When I finally get the M11-380 (maybe that transfer will be done this summer), there is no way I'd ever drill a hole in it, anywhere, especially where there is continual stress during operation.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Vector 9mm]

That is the one curiosity I have about this project and shooting rifle calibers out of MAC's-what is the stress load going to be on the rear of the receiver? We have all seen the pictures of welds popping. Or would there be any energy transfer since the op rod extends through the back of the receiver to a conventional AR buffer system?

 

[bac0nfat]

I'm not an export but the op rod pushes on the buffer which pushes on the spring which pushes on the rear of the buffer tube. Basically it's going to be trying to push the stock adapter off the back of the receiver, so I think it's going to come down to how well the stock adapter is designed and built. The fact that there is a buffer and spring though should dampen the shock so it's not so violent.

 

[mak91]

Any stress will be on the mounting point of the stock adapter to the receiver and the front take down pin since the upper and lower will be pushing against each other. Its different than the factory bolt setup on the macs which is pushing against the back plate of the receiver and front take down pin.

 

[SecondAmend]

Perhaps I should have been more clear above. My concern is mainly with what happens to the rear of a M10 and or M11 receiver with a third hole when one goes back to hammering it with the standard upper installed, not when shooting with a TASK, SABRE, M11/15, or other upper that imparts the recoil force through a recoil rod to a buffer system. Images come to mind of early Ingrams, before the reinforcing was added, having egged front pin holes, and AR-15s with egged hammer pin holes from being shot with 9 mm uppers that had unramped bolts.

I'm also concerned about the inevitably long term loss in value to a modified receiver regardless of any structural effects.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[TheColtCollector]

Perhaps I should have been more clear above. My concern is mainly with what happens to the rear of a M10 and or M11 receiver with a third hole when one goes back to hammering it with the standard upper installed, not when shooting with a TASK, SABRE, M11/15, or other upper that imparts the recoil force through a recoil rod to a buffer system. Images come to mind of early Ingrams, before the reinforcing was added, having egged front pin holes, and AR-15s with egged hammer pin holes from being shot with 9 mm uppers that had unramped bolts.

I'm also concerned about the inevitably long term loss in value to a modified receiver regardless of any structural effects.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

You should check out some of the repairs Sam at practical solutions has done. Mine looked like it was run over by car and now it looks brand spanking new, seriously. He has fixed OOB that have blown of side plates. Even if you exhibited damage from this upper, (with Richards extensive R&D i don't think this will be a problem) I have no doubt he can fix any hole or wear

 

[Garrett]

My concern is mainly with what happens to the rear of a M10 and or M11 receiver with a third hole when one goes back to hammering it with the standard upper installed, not when shooting with a TASK, SABRE, M11/15, or other upper that imparts the recoil force through a recoil rod to a buffer system...

And that is a valid concern. We are takling about what was designed essentially as a cheap "throw away" gun. Because of an artificial scarcity, the value has risen dramatically. But that doesn't mean it's still not a cheaply produced item.

I can report I've shot tens of thousands of rounds through my gun with various Lage and OEM recoil systems, after having drilled the hole. The gun looks no worse for it. If course, I started with a gun that had back plate repairs before I ever bought it. Maybe that makes it stronger than a standard receiver... or maybe weaker.

In any event, the hole is in a low-stress area and is not likely to induce a failure. And if it does, it's just sheet metal, and easily repaired.

I'm sure there are some for whom it is not worth it to drill a hole in their expensive receiver. And that's okay! It's their gun. They can do what they want with it. I'm not going to try to convince someone otherwise. I wanted a competitive gun, but didn't want to drill my valuable Powder Springs receiver. So I bought a "cheap" M11/9 and drilled that one. But that was when either gun could be had for less than $1000. Buying another gun sometimes isn't an option any more.

So take your gun and do what you think is best. And be sure to enjoy it along the way!

 

[m11stuff@hotmail.com]

A MAX-11 mk2 bolt weighs 1 pound, 14 ounces. The prototype MAX-11/15 bolt, buffer, operating rod and sear weigh 1 pound 2 ounces. The buffer reduces some of the rearward recoil and the camming of the bolt locking into the barrel extension reduces some of the forward motion. I'll do the math, but I do not believe the MAX-11/15 will cause anymore wear and tear than the OEM upper and bolt.

 

[CoffeeFreak]

Perhaps I should have been more clear above. My concern is mainly with what happens to the rear of a M10 and or M11 receiver with a third hole when one goes back to hammering it with the standard upper installed, not when shooting with a TASK, SABRE, M11/15, or other upper that imparts the recoil force through a recoil rod to a buffer system. Images come to mind of early Ingrams, before the reinforcing was added, having egged front pin holes, and AR-15s with egged hammer pin holes from being shot with 9 mm uppers that had unramped bolts.

I'm also concerned about the inevitably long term loss in value to a modified receiver regardless of any structural effects.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

I think all the answers missed your question. The impact of the standard upper and by that I think you mean OEM upper and bolt. I have experienced weld breaks without any hole with the OEM upper and bolt and had to fix them. I have seen others damaged too. I personally wouldn't recommend the OEM setup period. Stick with the slowfire uppers and bolts if you want to preserve your gun for future generations. The hole is nothing and is easy to fix if you wanted to. As others said Sam can fix it easily like it never happened. I don't think the hole will hurt the weapon structurally it's cosmetic. Watching Richard's testing videos I'm impressed with what looks like a very light to no felt recoil probably due to the advanced primer ignition. I think he could have a winner there.

 

[bigmacster]

I think all the answers missed your question. The impact of the standard upper and by that I think you mean OEM upper and bolt. I have experienced weld breaks without any hole with the OEM upper and bolt and had to fix them. I have seen others damaged too. I personally wouldn't recommend the OEM setup period. Stick with the slowfire uppers and bolts if you want to preserve your gun for future generations. The hole is nothing and is easy to fix if you wanted to. As others said Sam can fix it easily like it never happened. I don't think the hole will hurt the weapon structurally it's cosmetic. Watching Richard's testing videos I'm impressed with what looks like a very light to no felt recoil probably due to the advanced primer ignition. I think he could have a winner there.

Dude, reading that makes me feel a lot better. I consider you probably the most knowledgeable person there is on the M11/Nine right now with Lage a close second. So let me ask you this, are you going to buy one and drill a hole in your upper?

 

[CoffeeFreak]

YES!

 

[Tall Pine]

YES!

:love

 

[West_Texas_King]

Well, the simple way to look at it...where do all the breaks happen on M11's? Along the weld seam.
If the damage was from deforming the rear plate and denting it out, then having a hole there might be cause for re-evaluation, but that doesn't happen.
It breaks at the weld and the plate itself is stronger than the mediocre welds that they came with.
Bolt thrust is spread out more or less evenly across the plate due to the buffer and steel plate on the recoil assembly.
So, having a hole there does not reduce structural integrity of the rear plate, since the weakest point will break long before the loss in strength from a hole comes into play.

I've been shooting cases and cases of ammo through mine with a stock bolt and a macjack with no issues, everything is holding together just fine with no signs of stress.

 

[finbox]

I wish this would somehow work on the nine/11-15/Lage

https://www.rainierarms.com/fightli...new-products-3-13-17&utm_content=New+Products

 

[IndustrialRescue]

I wish this would somehow work on the nine/11-15/Lage

https://www.rainierarms.com/fightli...new-products-3-13-17&utm_content=New+Products

Buy one, and send it to Richard, or CoffeeFreak, or Mak91, or Gotgraham making a Sabre.. They could probably figure out a way to make it work, lol.

 

[gotgraham]

Buy one, and send it to Richard, or CoffeeFreak, or Mak91, or Gotgraham making a Sabre.. They could probably figure out a way to make it work, lol.

Haha I think the most promising belt fed type arrangement for this upper would be the Colt / Ciener conversion. It requires no top cover. Some mods to the upper / carrier, but certainly could be doable (potentially). I don't mean for this to muddy up this thread. Just food for thought.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1087