The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 23, 2005, 01:00 AM   #26
Zsnark
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11
Mac10

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
Zsnark is offline  
Old July 23, 2005, 07:16 AM   #27
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 9,788
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.
AK103K is offline  
Old July 23, 2005, 09:06 PM   #28
Dave Haven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2000
Location: near Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 790
Quote:
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. Those who "spray and pray" just waste ammo.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
FCSA Life Member
Subs are cool, but belt-feds RULE!
Dave Haven is offline  
Old July 30, 2005, 08:16 PM   #29
CobrayCommando
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2004
Posts: 1,631
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?
CobrayCommando is offline  
Old July 30, 2005, 08:27 PM   #30
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 9,788
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.
AK103K is offline  
Old August 1, 2005, 03:05 AM   #31
Zsnark
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11
Designed for Pray and Spray?

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
Zsnark is offline  
Old August 9, 2005, 04:29 PM   #32
guy sajer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 329
I'm well satisfied with mine . It's reliable and not hard to control . It also has thick sheet metal and welds .

__________________
Mitch

Please support Crimson Trace Grips , Mossberg and Beretta . They support our troops .
guy sajer is offline  
Old August 19, 2005, 01:19 PM   #33
John2
Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2005
Posts: 39
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.
John2 is offline  
Old August 19, 2005, 01:31 PM   #34
Casp_A
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2004
Posts: 495
Zsnark, the M-10 was designed by Gordon Ingram.
__________________
Johnny was a chemist's son, but Johnny is no more. What Johnny thought was H2O was H2SO4.
Casp_A is offline  
Old August 19, 2005, 04:02 PM   #35
Ultima-Ratio
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 227
Lmao!

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!
Ultima-Ratio is offline  
Old August 19, 2005, 04:10 PM   #36
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
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?
shaggy is offline  
Old August 20, 2005, 12:06 PM   #37
ottosear
Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Posts: 20
the macs BIGGEST problem??

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. otto
ottosear is offline  
Old August 28, 2005, 04:05 PM   #38
Zsnark
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11
MAC10 developers



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
Zsnark is offline  
Old August 28, 2005, 10:33 PM   #39
wardog
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 46
Here's some interesting info:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20...c10History.htm

Also, check out
http://www.mac10talk.com/
wardog is offline  
Old September 10, 2005, 07:28 AM   #40
Ozzieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 6,117
Have owned two mac's and fired both HK's and Uzzi

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.
Ozzieman is offline  
Old September 10, 2005, 07:38 AM   #41
smince
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
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?
smince is offline  
Old September 10, 2005, 07:56 AM   #42
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 9,788
Quote:
...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.
AK103K is offline  
Old September 10, 2005, 11:41 AM   #43
wardog
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 46
Quote:
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.
wardog is offline  
Old September 10, 2005, 12:04 PM   #44
smince
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
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....

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.
smince is offline  
Old September 10, 2005, 01:05 PM   #45
CobrayCommando
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2004
Posts: 1,631
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.
CobrayCommando is offline  
Old September 21, 2005, 04:46 PM   #46
czc3513
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2005
Location: Oregon.
Posts: 709
I think Ruger makes a mac 10 clone with slower rof and closed bolt operation.
Check world.guns.ru
__________________
"HEDP: High Explosive Donkey Punch"
czc3513 is offline  
Old September 21, 2005, 09:01 PM   #47
FDzerzhinsky
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2005
Location: Around
Posts: 5
*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.

Anyways, that's my two cents. Take it or leave it.
__________________
F. K. Dzerzhinsky
No, there is no relation to the Chekist
That one n00b
After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. -- President George W. Bush
FDzerzhinsky is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:25 PM   #48
Bo1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2005
Posts: 8
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
Bo1 is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:04 PM   #49
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 9,788
Quote:
....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.
AK103K is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 09:24 PM   #50
wardog
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 46
Quote:
There's always that MG34 conversion that uses your MAC lower to run it.
Do you have a link?
wardog is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12033 seconds with 8 queries