| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:MAC-10
Additional Variants
Screen-Used Variants
Other Variants
MAC-10/11
Other derivatives
Airsoft Images
Discussion
Such a silly looking gun. :D - Mr. Wolf 15:57, 4 November 2011 (CDT)
- Clearly, ergonomics or controllability were not high on Gordon Ingram's list of priorities when designing this weapon, otherwise this oversized machine pistol wouldn't be missing a more convenient place to put your non-trigger hand out of the box, or be saddled with an inconveniently fast firing rate. There is a conversion kit that fixes those problems, however, and something like that would be nice to see in a movie one day. --Mazryonh 22:16, 4 November 2011 (CDT)
- Um, I was talking about the MasterPiece Arms MPA930T. :\ Even though it's not that good I still think the regular MAC-10 looks fairly cool.
Had the wrong version, but I'll leave the old one up too since it has discussion. Evil Tim 05:29, 7 November 2011 (CST)
- Still a silly looking gun. :D - Mr. Wolf 15:25, 7 November 2011 (CST)
What round capacity is that extended magazine on the MPA9305? --Mazryonh 12:33, 9 November 2011 (CST)
- 30 Evil Tim 12:35, 9 November 2011 (CST)
Vietnam
I'm not sure, but a website claimed that the MAC-10 saw service in the Vietnam War. Is that true? - Kenny99 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It's true that the original MAC-10 did see some limited use by Special Forces over the years. Basically it was considered a throwaway weapon that could be used and then ditched if one needed to. The suppressor it had at the time was great for that era and it ended the lives of a few sentries. Still the Uzi was a superior weapon that ended up way more popular. Rockwolf66 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember a long time ago reading an article in Soldier of Fortune which included some pics of SOF founder Robert K. Brown from his 5th SF Group days wearing the MAC-10 in a hip holster arrangement. The article included something which stated that the US military allegedly was considering replacing the M1911 with the MAC-10 and how Brown, among others, was grateful that such a thing never happened. --Charon68 06:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Congo
How come there isn't a link to Congo
New links
Can anyone add Congo 1995 on to the site. beggarsclan
Ok, sign your posts, and be more specific about what you want. Do you mean the Congo page? If you mean something else, you can make it yourself. --Jackbel 08:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
MAC-10 used by german special forces
Hello,
the article claims that the MAC-10 was used by West-German special-ops at one time. I'm quite familiar with the german military and police forces, and I have never heard of the MAC-10 being used by either of them execpt maybe for evaluation. Can somebody specify which unit is supposed to have used the gun? Thank you in advance.
Gmb 01:36, 5 March 2012 (CST)
Possible deletion?
The updated picture on this file is clearly not a MAC-10 but rather most likely a Cobray since it has the lengthened receiver. I tried to revert it to the older pic (which is an Ingram) but it seems that might not have worked.. If need be, there's another picture of this type anyway - I'd be happy to replace this pic with the other one on the pages it's used on (there ain't that many) if someone thinks this can be deleted. StanTheMan (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
- The update of an image becomes visible only after some time. Or you can change the size of the thumb for 1 px, and the new version of the image would be seen immediatly (like I've done with the image above). Greg-Z (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
- Yeah I see it now, it's cool. I didn't think about the 1px thing. Anyway, since the reversion went fine deleting the 'real' pic is now kinda optional, either way. StanTheMan (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
- Deleted. --Funkychinaman (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
- Yeah I see it now, it's cool. I didn't think about the 1px thing. Anyway, since the reversion went fine deleting the 'real' pic is now kinda optional, either way. StanTheMan (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
Difference between MAC-10/11 in terms of appearance?
Is there a way to tell them apart? Ominae (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2017 (EST)
- Mainly just size - the receiver on a 11 is not as tall as that on a 10 and components like the front sight, cocking knob and the regular folding stock appear larger on the 11 opposed to the 10. It is pretty subtle though. The stock is probably your best bet - notice how when it looks folded 'normal' it has a gap between it and the rear sight, as opposed to the MAC-10 where it actually touches the sight, an above MAC-11 image shows it folded to where it touches the sight, note there how it has a steeper angle that that of the 10 because of the shorter receiver. StanTheMan (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2017 (EST)
- The MAC-11 is pretty much just a baby version of the MAC-10 so it is pretty difficult to tell them apart. Pretty much the only reliable difference is that the MAC-11 is much smaller, being not much bigger than a regular pistol as oppsoed to the MAC-10 which is more like a brick. These guns are airsoft, but the comaprison shows the difference in size between the two models. The reason I say that size is the only "reliable" indicator that I am aware of is that there are other indicators, but the problem is that the features of these guns vary a lot with manufacturer and when they were made. For example, a lot of MAC-10s have a flared sections on each size of the bottom of the magazine well, but not all. However, I beleive that this feature is never present on MAC-11s, so if you see this it is safe to say that it is a MAC-10. Similarly, I have never seen a MAC-10 without the holes in the sight protectors, so if there is a gun without holes it is a MAC-11, however not all MAC-11s have these holes. If it is hard to judge the size of a gun, the best you can really do is look at the proportions. For example, on an 11 the stock release button will be closer to the grip than the back of the receiver and on a 10 it is the other way round, and the back of the ejection port on 11s tends to be farther forward relative to the back of the magazine well, stuff like that. Another rough sort of guide is that on a 10 the ejection port is kind of the same size as the opening of the trigger guard, as opposed to the 11 where it is noticeably smaller. --commando552 (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2017 (EST)
"Barrel Extensions"
I've noticed that these guns (and some others) are often seen with shrouded "barrel extensions". Does this mean that they just have a smooth tube attached to the end of the barrel, or that the extension is an actual piece of rifled barrel screwed onto the existing one? And, if not the latter, would such a thing be feasible? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
Ingram Mark III, IV, and V
So, I came across a picture of a supposed catalog that allegedly was sent to Spanish speaking countries during the 80s in that weird time when Ingram tried branching out to global militaries, and found some absolutely ridiculous offerings, like a carbine sized version of the MAC-10 in .45 Winchester and .50 Ingram Magnum. I tried looking info online, and I could only find basic information, and some dude making jokes about compensation, would anyone happen to have any more information about them? Here are the photos I managed to snag from an auction and a forum. https://imgur.com/a/D9xVjzJ I'm fairly certain the photos are the wrong way around, since what it's calling the Mark IV which is chambered in .45 ACP is smaller than the one chambered in .22 Winchester Magnum. --yocapo32 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2022 (EST)