|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 20, 2005, 10:55 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
What's wrong with MAC-10?
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?
|
May 20, 2005, 01:34 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 136
|
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.
__________________
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" -popularized by Sci-Fi author Robert A Heinlein |
May 20, 2005, 01:53 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2004
Posts: 495
|
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.
__________________
Johnny was a chemist's son, but Johnny is no more. What Johnny thought was H2O was H2SO4. |
May 21, 2005, 01:27 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2005
Posts: 130
|
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:
|
May 21, 2005, 10:42 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
The original MAC was designed as a throw away gun.IIRC that meant about 500 rounds then throw it away !!
|
May 21, 2005, 02:33 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 6,117
|
I think one reasion you hear bad things is
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: |
May 21, 2005, 03:59 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
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: Quote:
|
|
May 21, 2005, 10:36 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2000
Location: near Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 790
|
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.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member FCSA Life Member Subs are cool, but belt-feds RULE! |
May 22, 2005, 12:21 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2005
Posts: 130
|
Quote:
|
|
May 22, 2005, 01:05 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Go for it!!
Hk sights, red dot sights, AR stock, Hk side-folder, muzzle brakes, vertical foregrips, snail drums...
|
May 22, 2005, 08:12 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
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. |
May 22, 2005, 09:59 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: JesusLand,TX
Posts: 371
|
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.
|
May 26, 2005, 01:10 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
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. |
May 26, 2005, 02:40 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
I have a DeSantis shoulder rig for my M11/9. Looks cool. Totally useless. |
|
May 26, 2005, 03:23 PM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 227
|
Good Grief!
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 |
May 26, 2005, 04:05 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 2004
Location: MI Tech
Posts: 1,791
|
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.
|
May 28, 2005, 12:11 PM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
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. |
May 30, 2005, 01:35 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Quote:
|
|
June 7, 2005, 10:45 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 117
|
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.
|
June 7, 2005, 09:21 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 1999
Posts: 2,144
|
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.
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. |
June 11, 2005, 09:43 AM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: April 22, 2005
Location: East of The Democratic People's Repuplic of Tucson.
Posts: 58
|
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.
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. |
July 14, 2005, 10:28 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
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..
|
July 14, 2005, 10:46 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
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.
|
July 16, 2005, 03:40 AM | #24 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11
|
MAC10...echhh!
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 |
July 16, 2005, 11:01 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
mac 10
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
|
|
|