Talk:MAC-10

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The "American Uzi" reference doesn't make much sense to me. It is just as foolish to fire the Uzi (any version) in one hand as it is to fire a MAC-10 in this manner. The weapons are similar in other respects - open bolt in the original configuations, small size (leading them to be classified as machine pistols in some cases), and a straight removable magazine that goes into the pistol grip (and often extends beyond it noticeably). In both cases the receiver is made of stamped steel. Of course, Hollywood depicts both weapons in a similarly incorrect manner (fired in one hand, or even with one in each hand). I suggest modifying the reference to list the design similarities first, and note the similarity in (incorrect) depiction second. GorbashKazdar 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simply because the name "Uzi" is better known to the public, and since the general appearance of both guns is similar (blocky receiver and a long magazine in the straight pistol grip), uneducated observer might confuse the two. I had my semi-automatic MAC clone called "Uzi" by an acquaintance of mine. --68.81.29.74 03:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted incorrect information. Someone wrongfully stated that the MAC-11 is the 9mm version of this weapon, and the "MAC-12" is the .380 ACP version. In fact, the MAC-10 is available as either a .45 ACP or 9mm weapon, and the MAC-11 is a more compact weapon available in either 9mm or .380 -- the "MAC-12" does not exist.

strangely, the closed bolt semi-auto version of the m-11 .380acp is somtimes called the "m-12". I dont know why. If anyone has inforation on why it has this name, please add it under the "m-11" link at the bottom. I think it might be to differentiate between the old open-bolt semi-auto verson.

Note to the above poster about the MAC-11. The original MAC-11 from Gordon Ingrams' company was only in .380acp. The later M-11 that came in 9mm was made by, i believe, SWD, is actually called the M-11/nine (the word 'nine' is actually spelled out). This gun looks a little different from Ingrams' M-11 because it had a longer reciever.

Annyone care to explain why (closed bolt) semi-auto versions of the MAC-10 were still called MAC-10, yet Cobray made a semi-auto .380 ACP version of the M-11 called M-12? Amidpesky (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wasn't this weapon also featured in Enter the Matrix? Or was it a similarly-named clone?70.25.138.179 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this section to it's own page (MAC-10 in popular culture) in an attempt to clean up the article, because apart from argument on whether such exhaustive lists should be part of the main article, it was just getting too long. See previous similar discussion on the

Replaced the Template with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox created by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 11:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tags, because the reference to the new separate page MAC-10 in popular culture solves this issue as per the standard with such popular culture sections. Deon Steyn 08:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the

I posted a picture of a vintage MAC 10 with Power Spring suppressor. It is one of a batch a local US Marshall/ Class III dealer bought when the original company was phasing out. He has been using this one for three plus decades and has found it totally reliable. --Mcumpston (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes, because the original paragraph was writing in a totally unacceptable style (Criminals are ultra cheap (except for flashy "kingpins"). Again see

Removed the sentence "This is not even remotely true.", because it is redundant to state that a "myth" is not true or to ascribe a degree of untruthfulness, it is either a myth or it is not. Also added bulleted points and made some sentences more compact and logical. Deon Steyn 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deon a proposition can be true or false. a myth can be true or false. some but not all propositions are true. all myths involve propositions. now please see my statements below. 78.86.176.22 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no "MAC-12", Cobray (and later Leinad) did produce a scaled-down version of the MAC-11 called the M-12. The M-12 was available in .380 ACP only and came standard with a nearly flush 12 round clip (for concealment). Magazines are available up to 32 rounds. This firearm was produced in an open-bolt and later closed-bolt semi-automatic only versions, with the former being banned due to the ease in which it could be converted to fire in fully-automatic mode. I work in the firearms industry and see these from time to time, and they are very interesting little pieces.

I have never heard that the Delta Force used the Ingram. The weapons that they adopted were the Grease Gun, MP-5, and Colt carbines. Does the writer of the entry care to shed some light on this?

-Chin, Cheng-chuan

I'm 100% certain that the person who made the 'delta force' entry in the article did this as some sort of joke. I was thinking about it 'delta force' and 'mac-10' and thought where I heard the 2 together. Then this picture popped into my head:

http://img76.photobucket.com/albums/v230/pifpobal/Frikis/norris244.jpg

As you can see, the person who added that is a dumbass. Yes, the mac-10 was in the Delta-Froce... the 1986 movie...

Those are Mini Uzis. Some guy 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are Micro-Uzis. —The preceding

Dylan comment was added by 71.227.210.125 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

The connection is obvious, that wasn't my question. My question is, what is your reasoning that

MAC 10

weapon page, particularly with a whole section / paragraph? They are obviously connected, but most connections just get a wiki link, and some don't even get that.

Thanks for replying here. Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that

RedNeckIQ55

I personally do not find a rapper to be particularly significant to the gun, it's significant to the rapper, but it makes no real difference to the gun. If you ask me the extent of any popular culture section for the MAC-10 should be a mention that even though it was praised and extolled in movies, it never achieved commercial success. On a side note, I have never heard of a rapper named "Mack 10" and I think if you were to ask the average person about him they probably would not know who he is. They might know about the gun though. So my opinion is that "Mack 10" does not need to be mentioned.

Remember, the general rule of significance is if you can go to an average person, ask them about it, and they know. Like how many people know about James Bond and the

You probly havn't hed of Mack 10 cause you don't listen to gangsta rap. I bet you like classics like Elvis o Mozart. Mack 10 represents black people not yo white people. - BlackBrotherX7

More

Mozart, but that is beside the point, my main question is whether or not Mack 10's name makes any difference to the Mac 10. Does it make the Mac 10 more well known? Does it influence public perception of the Mac 10? Would it have made any difference if he had named himself AK-47, rather than Mack 10? I personally think that no public knowledge or perception of the Mac 10 would have been any different if he had chosen a different name. Also, many people won't really find it interesting that his name is Mack 10, and those who care, probably already know.--LWF 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

All I did was put it under "Popculture" and that iz it. If tha PPK can have a refrence to James Bound then MAC-10 could have a refrence to Mack-10. - BlackBrotherX7

The PPK is a special case. Most everyone knows about it thanks to James Bond. I'm not sure if Mack 10 has had quite the same effect. I'm not going to remove the reference but someone else might. Especially since pop culture sections are supposed to be avoided by wikipedia policy.--LWF 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is tha same only otha way around. MAC-10 inspired Mack-10's name hence it is important.- BlackBrotherX7

Yes, but how has that affected the MAC-10? If it has had no effect on the MAC-10 then it doesn't need to be here.--LWF 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was effected by the MAC-10. MAC-10 is popular among rap songs and Mack-10's name is a homage to tha gun. All rappers and Black people know this. - BlackBrotherX7

As far as culture impact is concerned, James Bond and the PPK have been well known as icons together for many decades. The rapper MAC-10, while popular in some circles, has yet to survive the test of time. I have the feeling, unless he gets killed outside a hotel, that MAC-10 will probably not be as famous in ten years, as James Bond, and even the black community will have forgotten him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.3.107 (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am that "dumbass" who wrote that the MAC10 is used by DELTA force. I did NOT write it as a joke, I have personnaly seen members of DELTA in Iraq using MAC10s, and I'm positive that they weren't Uzi series weapons. I just couldn't find anything on the internet to cite as a source. QZX —The preceding

I believe you, but there's a difference between "one, or a few, members of SOF-D are carrying MAC-10s" and "SOF-D generally issues, or issues notable quantities of, MAC-10s". If you look hard enough at US special forces units, and those of many other countries, you find that nearly every notable modern weapon's been used by many special forces units. It's only worth making as a note in an article if it's a commonly or officially issued regular weapon, or used in a particularly notable manner.

If you have info suggesting that SOF-D has regularly issued MAC-10s, then by all means get it properly referenced and include it. Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, FYI, Its SFOD-D. (Special Forces Operational Detachment-D(elta). Trasel (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on adding a section devoted to the many semi-automatic only pistol and carbine variants? It might be of interest. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there should be a mention and/or section. There are probably more semi-auto pistol and carbine variants around than the original FA version. Might be good to include a variants section, divided out by the type of selector. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece Arms makes a semiautomatic variant of the MAC-10 called the MPA-10. Their website is https://www.masterpiecearms.com I don't know too much about them, but I'll add a section for semi-automatic variants and put up all I know about them. | Phillip Bromley (Talk) 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added info about the MPA-10 in the Nomenclature and Variants section. Tell me what you think about it. | Phillip Bromley (Talk) 05:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are any objections, I think it might be a good idea to clean up this article a little. I'd like to see the 'Calibers' section converted to a 'Variants' section. This section could include both

All the information in the article is still there, I just moved it around to make it look nice and easy to find. | Phillip Bromley (Talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to merge the MAC-11 back into this page. It's no more than a caliber-conversion variant. If you have any objections here is your chance to voice them.

Agree. It's a simple variant in a different caliber, and needs to be merged per

this one. — DanMP5 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Good find, I'll need to hunt down any other isolated pages, there were a dozen or so start-ups that all made clones of the MAC. Let me know if you find any more. I'll work on this page up somewhere closer to the weekend.

Koalorka (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On a slightly different note, what would you say about reverting the page title back to the proper "M10"? I just get a bit uneasy when popular culture begins to dictate nomenclature.

Koalorka (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose. I feel there are sufficient differences in the two that it is more than a mere variant. I would support merging M-11/9 information into the M-11 article, however.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an M11/9 page? Oh my..

Koalorka (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Vulcan M-11-9 pretty sad, too...not even the Cobray version  :) !--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose - How about a merge/cleanup of all the M11 stuff and if there's any M10 miscellany...the same for that. Have a solid article on each and then depending on size, etc...look into a merging of the two? Maybe the same with Tec-9, DC-9, KG-99 if those are out there as well?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, but I probably won't get a chance to do any major work for the next week.

Koalorka (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Agree with Μολὼν λαβέ's plan of cleaning up the two articles first, than reviewing them from that point.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor the majority of readers are hugely concerned with technical details about a gun, although there is plainly a place for those here. What people are interested in is where, how and why this was and will in future be used to injure and kill people, backed up by references.

this is not a technical manual, or forum for fteishistic firearms enthusiasts to impress the universe with their knowledge. largely unreferenced knowledge as it goes.

lets clear this up please and write an article that diderot might recognize as encyclopedic user: duracell 78.86.176.22 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the gun articles are like this, there seems to be little interest (possibly due to a lack of sources?) in anything other than technical specifications. As it happens the 'urban dictionary' of all things is better on this gun - apparently it was used by gangsters in the 80s apparently. 130.216.234.86 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"how and why this was and will in future be used to injure and kill people'? That's an extremely POV attitude not likely to pass muster. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was .45 ACP or 9mm more popular amongst CIA agents and Navy Seals utilizing the MAC-10? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.73.53 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MAC-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guncity.co.nz/9mm-cobra-rhodesian-mac10-uzi-hybird-xidp156426.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified 2 external links on MAC-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429102525/http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/jersey_arms_v_secretary.txt to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/jersey_arms_v_secretary.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714044554/https://www.masterpiecearms.com/products.php?cat=14 to https://www.masterpiecearms.com/products.php?cat=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MAC-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108160712/http://www.gunmallusa.com/gunmallusa/prepareInventory.do?cat=18&storeNumber=1 to http://www.gunmallusa.com/gunmallusa/prepareInventory.do?cat=18&storeNumber=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote "146 mm (4.49 inches)", please check your math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.156.244 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]