PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with MAC-10?


RickB
May 20, 2005, 10:55 AM
I've recently become a huge fan of the writings of Peter Kokalis, since subscribing to Shotgun News. Whenever he's discussing machineguns, subguns in particular, he never misses an opportunity to condemn the MAC-10. Anyone know why he doesn't like it?

tanstaafl4y
May 20, 2005, 01:34 PM
I can't speak for that writer. I have a fair amount of training with a MP-5, have "fired for familiarzation" a carbine length uzi, Mac-10 and Sten.

For me the size and weight (and mostly lack of training) with the Mac-10 made it difficult to control. I feel that one area where the 9mm round excells is the sub-gun. Mind you this is based on gut rather than science and research.

Casp_A
May 20, 2005, 01:53 PM
I haven't used the MAC-10, which is .45 acp, but I have used the M-11/9 in 9x19mm. I thought it was fantastic, supprizingly accurate. I only used it on semi-auto though. Supposedly the rate of fire is 1600 rpm for the M-11/9 and 1100 or 1200 for the M-10. That is a pretty high rate of fire and pretty hard to control for a weapon of that size.

MGRacer
May 21, 2005, 01:27 AM
Peter's opinion aside, there is nothing wrong with a Mac 10. There may be a little bit of snobbery in some folks opinion of the Mac since they are the most economical FA these days. They are a fun gun, spare parts are easy to find and cheap (except for 9mm mags for the M10/9) and there are a lot of parts that you can change to customize the gun to your taste. The Mac's folding stock leaves a lot to be desired -- that is one downside. They also fire fast and some have refered to them as a bullet hose. I have a couple of Mac's and they run and run and run. Here is one with an original style two stage suppressor: http://www.hunt101.com/img/247301.jpg

mete
May 21, 2005, 10:42 AM
The original MAC was designed as a throw away gun.IIRC that meant about 500 rounds then throw it away !!

Ozzieman
May 21, 2005, 02:33 PM
That most of the people that say bad things ether havent shot one or if they have shot it, shot it hollywood stupid fasion.
Which means you point in the general direction and pull the trigger until flame and noise stops and you have just knock 4 bad guys through the wall at 100 yards.
And yes that way with out a flash surpressor and really strong hands there a piece of crap.
But you have to remember what they were desiged to do, Open a door pull the trigger and sweep the room, all the bad guys are dead, that simple.
They will never be compaired to an MP5, never but for what they were designed to do and when they were designed, there hard to beat.
Lets face it even a Uzzi is crappy compaired to an MP5, that still dosent keep it from being a good gun.
And if these idddiddiouts keep saying what a piece of crap they are.
I wounder what they would do if some one walked up to them and said
"Here, have a free Mac-10 with all the legal paper work."
Suppose any of these critics would turn it down. :barf:

Hkmp5sd
May 21, 2005, 03:59 PM
MAC TRIVIA:

Back in 1970, when Military Armament Corporation took over the MAC ownership, they hyped the MAC-10 as the replacement for the government's Colt M1911A1 .45 ACP pistol.

As for Peter Kokalis and the MAC, it was hate at first sight. In a 1986 "Weapon Test & Evaluation" of the MAC for Soldier of Fortune, his overall rating was:

If you like to throw lead all over the scenery and listen to sounds akin to Hitler's Zipper (the MG42 GPMG), then be my guest. Class 3 dealers can purchase an M11/9mm for $218 complete with one magazine, loader, hand strap and cleaning rod. As for me, these ghastly little guns hold no allure. In my opinion, they have already done far too much to blacken the image of full-auto weapons collecting to ever receive any praise from me.

Dave Haven
May 21, 2005, 10:36 PM
With the shoulder stock extended (and used) and a suppressor attached and used as a foregrip and using controlled bursts, the MAC-10 is an absolute kick in the <posterior> to shoot. :) It also works quite well on semi-auto.
The sights leave a bit to be desired.

MGRacer
May 22, 2005, 12:21 PM
The sights leave a bit to be desired.

Very true. I have been thinking about mounting a reddot sight on mine and using a M16 type stock. That would really improve the gun. I shot one last weekend that was setup that way and it was a lot easier to use.

Hkmp5sd
May 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Hk sights, red dot sights, AR stock, Hk side-folder, muzzle brakes, vertical foregrips, snail drums...

http://www.wapahani.com/tom-m11-2.jpg
http://www.wapahani.com/mac.jpg
http://www.wapahani.com/macswdm119taskconversion.jpg
http://www.mac10.net/images/380_burner.jpg

MeekAndMild
May 22, 2005, 08:12 PM
From the perspective of my own abysmal ignorance I would think the M-10 is a minimal MG.

When this type gun came out I thought of buying a semiauto pistol version, but saw its steel is thin, the welds make thinner spots. The gun is light and short, making it a possibly decent pistol, but the spot welds threw me off and I passed up the buy.

boofus
May 22, 2005, 09:59 PM
What MAC did you see that was thin skinned? My Texas/SWD M10/9 was built like a brick. That sucker weighed more than my FNC does, maybe 8.5-9 lbs. The steel must have been 2-3mm thick all around.

RickB
May 26, 2005, 01:10 PM
Thanks for the responses. When I took the free machine gun class at Front Sight, I was expecting to shoot a M11/9, but our class shot Uzis. I was very impressed with the latter; as I'm primarily a pistol shooter, I liked the pistol-style configuration and controls. My only exposure to the M10 is/was repeated viewings of John Wayne's "McQ", Robert Redford's "Three Days of the Condor", and some Chuck Norris movie where he has two of them in a dual shoulder rig; movie makers seem to love it. It appears, from the single quote, that Kokalis doesn't like the gun precisely because its public image is that of the big screen bullet-sprayer, and without any corresponding benefit to the collecting community? He specifically mentions collecting, and maybe that's his perspective.
PS I love the pictured gun with the side-folder and dot sight.

Hkmp5sd
May 26, 2005, 02:40 PM
and some Chuck Norris movie where he has two of them in a dual shoulder rig;
Invasion USA

I have a DeSantis shoulder rig for my M11/9. Looks cool. Totally useless.

Ultima-Ratio
May 26, 2005, 03:23 PM
Hello, first off the MAC-10 is a totally different gun than the M-11 (BTW the real MAC-11 is a FA .380)
The MAC-10 is either 9mm or .45acp also.
IME in daily use the only failures came from worn buffers and every uptenth thounds of rounds the foring pin wore down to a nub which was easily replaced with a bit of silver solder and drill rod :)

jefnvk
May 26, 2005, 04:05 PM
I shot the MAC10 and MP5 side by side one day. No doubt in my mind, I much prefer the MAC over the MP5. Just seemed more my style or something, and the .45 didn't hurt its case either.

smince
May 28, 2005, 12:11 PM
Not 100%, but I think Chuck had a pair of F/A Uzi pistols (Micro-Uzi?) in "Invasion USA".

Paladin Press has a book of weapons tests by Kokalis. Pretty good read.

MeekAndMild
May 30, 2005, 01:35 PM
What MAC did you see that was thin skinned? Got no idea. that was 15-20 years ago.

T WARD
June 7, 2005, 10:45 AM
Of the select-fire stuff I've shot, I hit pretty well with the M16, not quite as well with the ak and mp5. I shot poorly with the uzi, and couldn't hit jack with the mac 10. Had someone tell me the mac would be great for cleaning out a elevator.

CastleBravo
June 7, 2005, 09:21 PM
I've shot a 9mm MAC-10 a couple times. It was reliable. It also got so hot after a couple mags that it was no longer stabilizing the bullets as they left the barrel; instead of seeing "*" holes in the target, you saw "-" as the bullets went through the target SIDEWAYS. Quite freakish to see. :eek:

Obviously, accuracy was nowhere near what an MP-5 could deliver. But there is probably something to be said for hitting somebody with "satan's minus signs" at close range. :eek: :eek:

Randy in Arizona
June 11, 2005, 09:43 AM
Having once had the privilege of seeing some of Peter Kokalis' Toys, (and still having swollen salivary glands from the experience) I'd guess that Peter tends toward traditional, high quality machineguns. :cool: :cool: :cool:

It is his money, and his choice!

PS, Sorry about the puddles of drool on the floor, Peter! And I promise not to eat Mexican food beforehand if I ever get invited back. :o :o :o

Nanuk
July 14, 2005, 10:28 PM
I shot a full auto MAC 10 a lot in the 80's. As was previously posted, stock extended, using the suppressor it was a hoot to shoot. Accurate and controllable in bursts. I dont know what the cyclic rate was but it was a hoser.. :D

Crosshair
July 14, 2005, 10:46 PM
Probably like Hi-Points, some people think cheap = bad. Where it really should be cheap = better than nothing. Some cheap guns are trash and some are a good value. Hi-Points are good and reliable, taking them apart can be a chore the first time you do it. Probably the same thing with the MAC.

Zsnark
July 16, 2005, 03:40 AM
I shot the MAC10 (in 9mm), the Uzi (standard size), and the MP5. I did these all at the same sitting in the late 80s.

The MP5 is a dream. It handles well, is accurate, and ergonomic.

The Uzi was really good but not up to the MP5...a little clumsy.

The MAC10...it's like something you banged together in your garage from leftover sheet metal, etc.

I suppose one can be trained to overcome it's inherent lacks but why?

You know why?, because it's cheap. I wouldn't want to depend on something as clumsy and cumbersome if I could lay my hands on an Uzi and preferably an MP5.

AAW

rwilson452
July 16, 2005, 11:01 AM
A long time ago uncle let me shoot the mac in .45ACP. without the suppressor it was a bear all over the place with a short burst. with the suppressor it was nice. IMNSHO opinion the supressor is a must for full auto use

Zsnark
July 23, 2005, 01:00 AM
Sounds like you got the inexpensive ($), but "hardway" experience w MAC10. When I shot it, I never had the suppresor off...it was attached the whole time. I guess I might have liked it better had I not experienced the others, MP5 and Uzi, in the very same session.

Also, sounds like you were a serious user. I was sampling SMGs on my credit card.

Still, I stand by my opinion.

Incidentally, the MAC jammed several times. It's rivals were flawless in function.

AAW

AK103K
July 23, 2005, 07:16 AM
The MAC's, even without a suppressor or extension are not hard to shoot or control. They can be quite accurate, even in full auto, if you are capable and know the technique required to shoot ANY full auto weapon. I think Ozzieman summed it up well here "...That most of the people that say bad things ether havent shot one or if they have shot it, shot it hollywood stupid fasion.", and that goes for most full auto guns. I own both a M11/9mm and an MP5 and have shot a good number of the others at some point, including the original MAC's. If you shoot the MAC with a good Weaver type hold and the stock extended, you can easily dump a full mag into the center of an IPSC at 10-15 yards in one squeeze of the trigger. Takes about a second and a half, less if your using SMG rated ammo. Its like anything else, you need to learn how to properly work it. My kids both have been shooting my MP5 since they were 5 and both were shooting my MAC by 7 or 8 and had no troubles putting good bursts into what they were shooting at. They were better at this age than a good number of the adults that wanted to try, including some supposed "combat vets". You can instantly tell who knows how to shoot a full auto gun properly. Its very obvious.

Dave Haven
July 23, 2005, 09:06 PM
You can instantly tell who knows how to shoot a full auto gun properly. Its very obvious.Yup! Those who use the sights and fire controlled bursts are the most dangerous to the bad guys. :cool: Those who "spray and pray" just waste ammo. :p

CobrayCommando
July 30, 2005, 08:16 PM
There is a place and time to use the "spray and pray" technique, and it is really one of the main uses the designer(s) had in mind while developing it. They seemed to make only a half hearted attempt at making it convertible to a full size SMG with the addition of a suppressor, but the wire stock ****canned that idea...

You know I've always wondered how well the British technique of pushing the SMG against a sling works. I know some of you must have experience with it, mind letting me in on it?

AK103K
July 30, 2005, 08:27 PM
I have an MP5 and have shot it that way. It works well enough, but still isnt as good as a stock of any type. It is a good technique to have in your pocket. I have no trouble with the MAC's wire stock, although it does wear on your cheek after awhile with SMG ammo.

Zsnark
August 1, 2005, 03:05 AM
Hi!

'scuse me, but the fathers (and, maybe, mothers) of the MAC10, designed it for Pray and Spray!?

I find that very hard to believe. As I remember, the idea was for a cheap, full auto, compact weapon. Sorta' a latter day STEN or M3.

I notice that nobody in the world ever adopted it as a standard weapon.

Do I understand the concept of Pray and Spray correctly; point it and hope for a target in the general vicinity.

Who would design specifically for that purpose, unless you were designing a close range assassin's piece, which I don't think is what the originators had in mind.

I used to know the history of MAC, age seems to have blurred details. But, I believe the originator, whose name I cannot recollect was a guy who believed in SMGs, which at the time, the U.S. military had written off as irrelevant.

In the 50s and 60s, SMGs were eliminated from our official suite of arms.

AAW

guy sajer
August 9, 2005, 04:29 PM
I'm well satisfied with mine . It's reliable and not hard to control . It also has thick sheet metal and welds . ;) :cool:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=27518

John2
August 19, 2005, 01:19 PM
In my opinion, Peter Kokalis is a Prima Donna when it comes to firearms. He looks down his nose at the Mac 10 while embracing H&K, UZI. If he were not a gun writer, he would be writing for Road & Track or other magazines extolling the vertue of Ferrari, Porche, Lamborghini over the likes of Ford, Chevy, Chrysler (with a rare diverstion when discussing the GT40, Vette and Viper). I don't know his financial well being. If he is wealthy, then he is a wealthy prima donna who can afford his tastes. If he is like the rest of us (poor), then he lives in a world of make believe snobbery; a wannabe Ferrari driver in a world of Chevys. Pay him no mind. Enjoy the Mac. If you can, the UZI and H&K. Don't look down on anything or anyone, least your lineage be called into question. :eek:

Casp_A
August 19, 2005, 01:31 PM
Zsnark, the M-10 was designed by Gordon Ingram.

Ultima-Ratio
August 19, 2005, 04:02 PM
:confused: So somewhere in this thread Peter K is quoted as saying he shot a M-11 (the bogus brand POC) and not a MAC-10 in 9mm!

shaggy
August 19, 2005, 04:10 PM
So somewhere in this thread Peter K is quoted as saying he shot a M-11 (the bogus brand POC) and not a MAC-10 in 9mm!

Have you owned or shot an SWD?

ottosear
August 20, 2005, 12:06 PM
resale value on transferable M.G.'s has went nuts! however my new jersey mac was $418 in 1988 now $2800?? my norrell mk. 2 sten $425 in '88 now
$4000 abouts. or how a sendra/B.F.A. M16 lower? $950 now $9k see the connection? all about a 10x increase! but the lowly MAC, still a bridesmaid!!! P.S. im NOT SELLING this is only to make a point. that the only fault i can come up with besides the control learning curve is the investment value. :cool: otto

Zsnark
August 28, 2005, 04:05 PM
:D

Casp_A, thanks for the info about design of the MAC10. Who ws he, what was he involved in, etc. I seem to remember a guy whose name was Werbell, or something similar being involved in birthing the unlovely SMG. Does that ring any bells for you or am I halucinating.

AAW

wardog
August 28, 2005, 10:33 PM
Here's some interesting info:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/012001/Mac10History.htm

Also, check out
http://www.mac10talk.com/

Ozzieman
September 10, 2005, 07:28 AM
To say one is better than the other is missing a big point, there desighns are years apart and there use has a different nature.
Both the Uzzi and the HK are guns for long term use and more of a weapon of war, the Mac 10 was desighn for quick in and out, TO open a door point the gun in pull the trigger and sweep the room, every one dies.
And as anothe person said it here, a throw away weapon.
For what they were disighned to be, I found the Mac to be a very well desighned gun with very good weight and controlability.
Would I take one to a pistole competion, no dont think so.
BUt if I had to go into a house with lots of armed bad guys.
I would pick up a Mac10 over a uzzi or HK becouse I know the gun and can handle one.
Thank god I dont get paid to do that kind of work.
But to have some one bad mouth the gun, personaly I think he has his head where the sun does not shine. :cool:

smince
September 10, 2005, 07:38 AM
BUt if I had to go into a house with lots of armed bad guys I would pick up a Mac10 over a uzzi or HK becouse I know the gun and can handle one. Thank god I dont get paid to do that kind of work.

Why is it then that all the SRT/HRT/SWAT guys that DO get paid to do that kind of work don't choose the MAC10? :rolleyes:

AK103K
September 10, 2005, 07:56 AM
...TO open a door point the gun in pull the trigger and sweep the room, every one dies.
I disagree here. None of them, including the MAC type guns, work "spray and pray", they all need to be deliberately aimed at what you want to shoot if you want to make good hits. The MAC's do have a better shot at "possibly" making a lucky hit with a sweep due to their higher rate of fire, but your still going to have large gaps between rounds as the gun is swung, and an empty gun(or very close to it) by the end of the sweep. If you dont pick your target and shoot for COM, your in for iffy results at best and are relying more on luck than anything else.

If I had to pick between the MAC and MP5, I wouldnt hesitate to take the MP5. Its just a lot more versatile gun with a wider range of uses. Choosing between the MAC and Uzi would be a harder choice.

wardog
September 10, 2005, 11:41 AM
Why is it then that all the SRT/HRT/SWAT guys that DO get paid to do that kind of work don't choose the MAC10?

They used to. I used to work for a guy who at one time was a SWAT Team commander many years ago and they used suppressed MAC 10's when they wanted to.

I like the MAC but think for LE there are simply better choices. The MP5 with its closed bolt design, good sights and sight radius, ergonominc controls, controllability, & reliability makes a strong case and has earned its share of sales.

There are accessories for the MAC to address just about every criticism, but these are going to add cost.

As far as I know new full auto MAC's are not being made. Transferrable MAC's go for around $3K. No LE agency would pay $3K for a 30 year old MAC when they can pay less than $1K for a new HK or something else new.

Now if some company made a new full auto MAC with good sights, lower rate of fire for better control, more ergonomic placement of controls, modular design, more accurate (perhaps closed bolt) and added a few innovations they might have a chance at some LE agency sales. It seems the subgun is being phased out in favor of short 5.56's, so I wouldn't be making big investments in a new subgun company just trying to start up.

smince
September 10, 2005, 12:04 PM
Now if some company made a new full auto MAC with good sights, lower rate of fire for better control, more ergonomic placement of controls, modular design, more accurate (perhaps closed bolt) and added a few innovations they might have a chance at some LE agency sales.

Well, If it needs all that, it doesn't seem to be such a good design afterall.... :rolleyes:

I'm not an expert with any of them, but have done more than just fired them to be familiar with the three discussed here. MP5 first, then UZI, then MAC10 would be my choice, in that order. But there are a few I would put in between the MP5 and the MAC, given a choice.

CobrayCommando
September 10, 2005, 01:05 PM
I think someone should make an all metal, very heavy SMG, of MAC size, with a quality side folding stock (or one like the MP5 has), ROF of 1200 RPM, accurate and reliable, closed bolt, with good sights and a couple off picatinny rails.

There are modifications out there that turn a MAC into that, for about 2000 dollars or so, plus the cost of the gun.

Personally I don't see a problem with the rate of fire. Use bursts at long range, and full auto when its best (room distance).

IMO if someone made a new gun like that (heavy, suppressor, full auto, high ROF and in 9mm and .45), and built with the quality of an MP5, I think SWAT teams and such would start using it. They've used MACs and American 180s before, I think they just stopped because those companies had a rocky time staying in business, and then the MP5 came along.

czc3513
September 21, 2005, 04:46 PM
I think Ruger makes a mac 10 clone with slower rof and closed bolt operation.
Check world.guns.ru (http://www.world.guns.ru)

FDzerzhinsky
September 21, 2005, 09:01 PM
*tosses in two cents*

I don't like the MAC simply because of it's look and the hype it gets. It simply looks too much like a "thug gun," but I could simply be succumbing to Hollywood stereotypes. Also, it just doesn't look as good as the other SMGs out there, and presentation is a good part of what people buy -- well, at least what I would buy. :D

Anyways, that's my two cents. Take it or leave it.

Bo1
September 28, 2005, 03:25 PM
Actually there is not anything wrong with the old mac 10/m11s as they i :) ntroduced a lot of first timers to the wonderful world of full auto ownership,they might not be the best weapon out there but the hold up well and are easy to work on,Military Armament Corp are the better of macs,granted they do not hold the mystic of a belt fed mg34.But then what does?If you have one just enjoy

AK103K
September 28, 2005, 04:04 PM
....granted they do not hold the mystic of a belt fed mg34.
There's always that MG34 conversion that uses your MAC lower to run it. :D

wardog
September 28, 2005, 09:24 PM
There's always that MG34 conversion that uses your MAC lower to run it.

Do you have a link?

AK103K
September 29, 2005, 04:03 AM
Let me look around, I'm sure I've got it here somewhere.

shaggy
September 29, 2005, 09:51 AM
There is currently no MG34 upper conversion for the MAC type guns. BRP makes an MG34 upper conversion unit for the M16; the XMG-99 - it runs about $4k.

From what I've heard, either Len Savage or Ernie from SOCOM (and quite possibly both working together since Ernie seems to still be having some legal troubles) are re-starting the RPD upper project for the MAC. Again, as I understand it, the price should be around $4k, but I've also heard prices could be as high as $7k.

AK103K
September 29, 2005, 01:06 PM
There is currently no MG34 upper conversion for the MAC type guns.
This does now seem to be the case. The link I had is now dead, as are the couple I found while doing a search. I do remember seeing one with a M11/9mm lower replacing the trigger group of a MG34. They even had video if I remember correctly.

Zsnark
September 29, 2005, 02:59 PM
Hi there SMG buffs,

I have both items mentioned earlier. Here I present my opinion, I won't share the other at present.

Seems to me that if you did all the things the MAC needs to make it better you'd have an entirely different piece. Also, it would cost many bucks.

Going back to my original admittedely cursory experience with MAC 10 (in 9mm), Uzi (full size, folder, 9mm), and the MP5. I repeat that the H&K MP5 is a thoroghbred, the Uzi is a workman's tool, and the MAC 10 is a cheapie along the lines of the WW2 Sten gun. It works. I ain't any where near perfect.

You really can't compare the MAC because it was designed for cheap, mass production and I am sure if Ingram, the designer, sat back and conjured up a perfect SMG it would have been better in every way than the one which was produced.

Thought I'd throw my two centys in to keep the conversation going.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1704085#
Big Grin
AAW

shaggy
September 29, 2005, 03:21 PM
The MAC type guns can indeed be made competitive with far more expensive guns, and at quite a reasonable cost overall. The results of the national subgun matches at KCR are testament to that - M11 shooters often beat MP5's in the open class. The TASK slow-fire conversion only costs a few hundred bucks, or can be done at home if you've handy with tools. Richard Lage is in the process of developing a slow-fire upper which brings the RoF down to about 600rpm. The crude sights of the M11 can be replaced with an HK type sights. Personally, I've used an almost bone-stock M11 in competition and done better than guys with far more expensive guns (all that was done to mine was a k-grip was added, and the wobbly wire stock was welded to the open position). Practice makes perfect, and while an out of the box M11 is no match for an MP5, some modifications can make it competitive for a shooter who takes the time to practice. All in all, for significantly less than the price of a $14,000 MP5 or a $6500 Uzi, an M11 can be modified to be quite competitive with those weapons.

Sleuth
September 30, 2005, 03:22 PM
I have had the chance to shoot around 200 different machinguns over the last 20 years (I have some very nice friends with big collections), including most variations of the MAC. In it's original format, straight from the factory, the MAC is (compared to almost all others) bulky, awkward, blocky, crude, and hard to hit with. It is totally lacking any ergonomics, grace or style.

It is inexpensive, reliable (if well maintained), and, as noted, can be modified into something it is not, a controllable, usefull, subgun.

It's a mostly free country, if you like it, by all means buy and enjoy one.

czc3513
October 3, 2005, 04:20 AM
Have you seen this before?
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg37-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/smg/ruger_mp9.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/smg/ruger_mp9.gif

CQBArms
October 3, 2005, 08:21 AM
Problem with that is it's a post sample and not a transferable.

Sleuth
October 3, 2005, 12:01 PM
I got to shoot one of those as well - the only problem I had with it was because of the design of the stock, it pulled at my beard with ever shot. It made it less than pleasurable.

Is Ruger still making them??