Are There Any Owners That Find The Hole In The Receiver A Dealbreaker M11/15?

[A&S Conversions]

It is great that Richard Lage is refining the S.A.B.R.E. style direct impingement upper that MAK91 built. As with the rest of the Lage products, I am sure Richard will provide a high quality product at a reasonable price. The M11/15 will certainly add more versatility to the MAC style series of RR machineguns. I was wondering if there were any owners that like the concept but can't accept putting a hole in the back of the receiver? My M11/NINE came to me with a S.A.B.R.E. hole (sadly no S.A.B.R.E. ). My M10/9 came to me with an Uzi magwell conversion and a spot on the S.A.B.R.E. list. So I had Jim Weaver do a TASK conversion while I waited for the transfer. In the M10, the TASK hole and S.A.B.R.E. holes are the same location.

Obviously with over 400 on the M11/15 list, there's plenty of owners that don't mind putting a hole in the back of the receiver. Of those that don't want to have the hole, is that an absolute? Or are you open to the possibility but want to see the concept proved out? I was just wondering why you would not have the hole done.

For those who are are happy to have the hole in your receiver, good for you. I'm not looking to have a pole or a multiple page debate. If you want to post why everyone should do that, please start your own thread. I'm interested in the specifics of why not instead of "you should".

Scott

 

[TheColtCollector]

I think for those unwilling it's the hole to be drilled plus the large speculated price of the upper itself. I'm curious to see how the other 9mm uppers work once the hole is drilled

 

[Garrett]

I'm curious to see how the other 9mm uppers work once the hole is drilled

The hole makes no difference with any other upper. The bolt back plate covers it up from inside the receiver. The only issue is cosmetic, and most stocks on the market cover the back plate anyway.

I drilled this one in the early 2000s and never looked back. When I sold off my other MACs to fund other NFA stuff, it was the drilled gun that I kept. It's just more versatile because of it. And if I wanted to sell it, I could still realize a 10x increase over what I paid for the gun.

Not seeing much down-side here. But that's just my opinion. Those on the fence should definitely hold off on doing it. At least until after my number comes up for the MAX-11/15.

 

[Mac11FA]

My M11/9 already has the hole as it was TASK converted.

 

[SecondAmend]

Any accessory that requires drilling any hole(s), cutting any slot(s), welding on any lug(s), or otherwise modifying the lower is a deal breaker for me.

 

[MPA guy]

If able to convert my gun to allow multiple calibers, as the Max15 should do, I wouldn't really care if I had to grind the rear plate off altogether.

 

[Mackjack]

Look at it this way.... Does it even affect the resale that much? If you wanted to plug it later, couldn't you?

 

[Battering ram NIB]

The fact that the hole can be filled back in and refinished for $350 should mean that it makes no difference

When you sell refinish it

 

[mak91]

To be able to convert my m11 into a m16 like firearm at a fraction of its price I would be willing to drill multiple holes in my receiver as long as it didn't prevent it from working as normal with other m11 uppers or seriously compromise the receiver. Ever since Richard said he would take my prototype, refine it and add it to his product line every thread about the max11/15 is full of "the hole" issue and / or questions about how much damage firing a .223 round from the m11 is going to do to the receiver. Rybread has a 10 page thread about a m11 12ga project and all I see is "add me to the list" no questioning on what a 12 qa might do to the lower. The SARBE should have enough units out there that if there was a issue with the receivers holding up to .223 or 9mm uppers not functioning because of the hole we would know about it by now and I don't remember the "hole issue" being that big a deal when AA was producing the SABRE so why is it now? Like Scott I am curious to know.

 

[Hey...]

Won't drill mine.

I predict over time not having the hole drilled will be mentioned in the sale description as a selling point.
Virgin lowers. Lol

 

[greenpeas]

Not a deal breaker for me. I already had my grip converted to a sten and now I'm going to have it converted back to oem. Just doing my best to support the economy.

 

[Sten]

Not an issue for me. I drilled my own as soon as I purchased a saber and it was on the way. For something that can be quickly and easily fixed that does not adversely affect weapon functionality, it was a no brainer in my opinion. Besides, as someone already mentioned, a stock effectively hides the hole anyway and there's already a back-plate with the buffer, so it's all good.

 

[root]

When the MAX 10/15 is ready for the MAC-10 lower I'll drill my own hole in the gun.
I have a feeling setup time in the 4 jaw or on the mill will take longer to do then the hole.

Since the original TASK upper many have been drilled and I've never heard of one being filled back in.
So to me NO it doesn't hurt the resale or purchase option to me.

Like I said the rear hole isn't new or uncommon due to the TASK setup and it was the TASK that started all these uppers down the rabbit hole the MAC series guns are now enjoying.

Rich

 

[mike_phoenix]

I'm not performing the hole drilling because I like to keep my receivers in the original configuration.
I'm waiting to see the finished product and how things turn out. If I decide I want one, I'll possible
buy a Mac with the hole in it or have the hole drilled.

I reason I'm kind of considering buying in the future is because Rich is making the product and he
has staying power and supports his products. Others have come and gone and some with people's
money and no product.

 

[sniperdoc]

It can always be filled in and refinished

 

[Gaujo]

I think for those unwilling it's the hole to be drilled plus the large speculated price of the upper itself. I'm curious to see how the other 9mm uppers work once the hole is drilled

Good point. It will have the most impact on baby Macs if slow fire 9mm setups were constructed.

 

[Captain murrica]

If I had a choice I’d prefer no hole necessary, but I don’t and a hole can be fixed if needed. I think I’m more worried about the price that’s been thrown around than I am of the hole in the receiver. I know cheaper than m16 blah blah but I’m not going there in this thread.

 

[boomer535]

The only problem I would have is if I had to drill the hole. I would need some kind of template so I didn't screw it up. As I see it the M11/15 upper would require the buffer tube/stock to be bolted on the receiver so it would be harder to put other uppers on it. If I got the M11/15 upper I would dedicate one receiver to just the M11/15 and use my second M11/9 for the CF-W bolt upper and other drop in SMG uppers. So one M11/9 would be a SMG and the other in rifle caliber.

 

[boomer535]

Won't drill mine.

I predict over time not having the hole drilled will be mentioned in the sale description as a selling point.
Virgin lowers. Lol

I agree. If the M11/15 upper works as good as it looks, then most transferrable m11/9s will be sold for this conversion in the future.

 

[ccosby]

I can't speak for the m11 but I do have a m10. It has been rewelded, converted to standard parts(texas gun) and refinished already. I don't see the hole in the back being an issue. Hell you could replace the back piece and repark the gun if you really decided you didn't like the hole.