Would Having A Tungsten Weighted M10 Bolt Have Made A Difference To MAC?

[A&S Conversions]

This was posted on another thread:

Most definitely

What’s that rpm? 7-900

They would have sold thousands more and been way more popular

Instead of derailing the other thread, I thought I would make another thread.

Would have making the original MAC guns with tungsten alloy or tungsten weighted bolts improve the original guns? Absolutely it would, but that would make the gun just the opposite of the original design. The tungsten bolts of today are made from a tungsten steel alloy. I don't if such an alloy was commercially available in the 70s. If it was, it would be incredibly expensive to work with. Which is just the opposite of of the whole premise of the M10 and M11 guns in the first place. As I recall the original government price was around $75 each. The M10 bolt is large enough to add tungsten weights. But that might very well have doubled or tripled the unit price. You would think that the management of MAC would have looked into that. My guess would be that the unit costs would be so high that the government wouldn't be interested. It is my understanding that MAC's whole focus was to sell the M10 for second echelon troops. Open bolt subguns were going away. I would think with the additional cost of tungsten, the total price would be getting so much closer to closed bolt modern subguns with better ergonomics.

Spending $750 on a slow fire bolt for a five figure machinegun today, seems like no big deal. But doubling or tripling the original price for a cheap sheetmetal gun in the early 70s is not so much. The original bolts were cast steel with the minimum amount of machining as possible. Machining tungsten is not so easy, but adding a couple of tungsten plugs is not going to add the amount of mass needed to slow the cyclic rate adequately. The M11A1 tungsten alloy bolt will work with all the M11 variants. The M10 doesn't represent even half of the transferable Mac style family of RRs. The M10 tungsten bolt had too much mass at something over four pounds. Somewhere between two and two and a half pounds seems to be the sweet spot for 9mm. I would think .45 might want a little more. To machine off a pound and a half from that big of a chunk of tungsten alloy would be very expensive.

So, at least to me, 900+ RPM subgun would have required way too much training to make a MAC viable for second echelon troops. That is why the government didn't buy the original '21 Thompsons or the M10 MACs. But having to use enough tungsten to make the cyclic rate reasonable, makes the gun too expensive to put up with being open bolt, piss poor sights, and a flimsy stock. YMMV.

Scott

 

[BlackBelt]

I believe you are spot-on in your post.
I was a bit disappointed when the heavy bolts for the M10's never materialized. However, the explanation that the heavy bolts could beat the guns to death made sense.

 

[majinebz]

I think it gets to a point of you can go too slow. I only see the tungsten bolt a viable option if you do not want to drill your receiver. I dont think the M10/11 was ever going to go beyond were it was especially after it went defunct in the 70s; regardless of what that bolt was made of. And Ingram selling this to the military for Vietnam use? The Mil could have had UZI or just used old stock WW2 grease guns/ Thompsons (and some individuals in SOG and LRRP did)

A cheaper alternative was always the TASK, and gives it a stable usable stock system. You can change your ROF (not just to H-H3 buffers, but solid machined buffers, hydraulic buffers which are rate reducing by design (minimal) or lighter or stronger springs, even flat wire or double spring systems. Or rifle length stocks instead of a carbine. All of these things were available at the time of the manufacturing of the M10 and M11. The sights, that could be a very easy fix.

I know the TASK slow fire was not around at the time of the manufacturing of the M10/11, but if they wanted to, they could figure it out.

The tungsten bolt, which the ROF can not be adjusted, cutting some chunks out of pricey metal? Nahhh....

Besides, who likes to go slow man? I like to go fast!!! I like my MG to go fast!!!!!

 

[A&S Conversions]

I think that the original MAC would have been a possibility of government contracts if the cyclic rate had been somewhat lower and they had a better compact stock. Not Grease Gun slow but 700 to 750 RPM. The biggest advantage of the original guns was their size. Being a little larger than a handgun there was a holster that held an extra mag. Other than carrying an actual handgun, all of the alternatives listed would have needed to be slung. For many second echelon troops, a slung firearm doesn't fit well with their primary job. Helicopter pilots eventually got the MP5K. The MP5K has a better stock and can be carried with something other than a sling.

Sure fast is fun. But the Government contract that MAC was looking for, was looking for utility, not fun. When I lived in Las Vegas, there is a monthly subgun match. There was a father and son team that used a M11/NINE with a better stock and a factory upper. They were at a disadvantage because instead of a one or two round burst, they would fire three to five rounds per burst. So they would make more mag changes which took more time.

Yes, the TASK slow fire system certainly slows the M11/NINE to a cyclic rate that can win matches. I own a M10 that has been modified by one of the original designers of the TASK system. But the M10 has very little room behind the bolt. I can slow down the ROF to the point of short stroke, but still can't get reliable single shots in AUTO.

My point is that MAC would never get the Government contracts it was chasing without addressing the high cyclic rate and a better stock. Certainly there are many more options for the Mac style family of RRs today because of the Hews Amendment. But I am talking about the original MAC guns and why the company had a flawed product for the market that they were trying to sell to. I think that is why both MAC and RPB both went under.

Scott

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

I think that the original MAC would have been a possibility of government contracts if the cyclic rate had been somewhat lower and they had a better compact stock. Not Grease Gun slow but 700 to 750 RPM. The biggest advantage of the original guns was their size. Being a little larger than a handgun there was a holster that held an extra mag. Other than carrying an actual handgun, all of the alternatives listed would have needed to be slung. For many second echelon troops, a slung firearm doesn't fit well with their primary job. Helicopter pilots eventually got the MP5K. The MP5K has a better stock and can be carried with something other than a sling.

Sure fast is fun. But the Government contract that MAC was looking for, was looking for utility, not fun. When I lived in Las Vegas, there is a monthly subgun match. There was a father and son team that used a M11/NINE with a better stock and a factory upper. They were at a disadvantage because instead of a one or two round burst, they would fire three to five rounds per burst. So they would make more mag changes which took more time.

Yes, the TASK slow fire system certainly slows the M11/NINE to a cyclic rate that can win matches. I own a M10 that has been modified by one of the original designers of the TASK system. But the M10 has very little room behind the bolt. I can slow down the ROF to the point of short stroke, but still can't get reliable single shots in AUTO.

My point is that MAC would never get the Government contracts it was chasing without addressing the high cyclic rate and a better stock. Certainly there are many more options for the Mac style family of RRs today because of the Hews Amendment. But I am talking about the original MAC guns and why the company had a flawed product for the market that they were trying to sell to. I think that is why both MAC and RPB both went under.

Scott

RPB went under because of the BATF banning the sale of their open bolt semi auto. RPB had already harnesses the civilian market by the early 80s and Wayne Daniel was quite the shrewd businessman… Wayne made more money off the MAC design, selling SMG parts kits, suppressor parts kits and open bolt semi autos to civilians, than MAC could have dreamed off with the small government contracts they managed to procure. Wayne Daniel couldn’t have cared less about a government contract (although RPB did secure a handful of small military purchases both foreign and domestic), they were too busy selling 10s of thousands of open bolt, semi autos to the general public along with a full line of “INGRAM” accessories, parts and paraphernalia. The popularity and hype of the Ingram in the late 70s early 80s amongst the civilian populace was at its peak, everybody wanted one and dealers couldn’t stock enough of them to keep up with the demand. If the BATF hadn’t imposed the ban on the M10 SAP, RPB would have continued to see great success throughout the remainder of the decade and possibly longer.

MAC on the other hand…. They were dreaming if they truly believed they were gonna replace the 1911 with the .380 M11, extra holster mag or not …. Werbell was a pretty slick snake oil salesman, but not slick enough… even with military higher ups shilling his product and optomistic billionaires cluelessly investing in it (some of them even thought they were investing in “mufflers” for engines and wanted to use them on snow mobiles, which is why MAC was originally “Environmental Industries” or something to that effect) they were doomed from the start trying to push that platform as a suitable replacement for the entire US Army. The M10 and M11 just could not possibly suit the widespread needs of the military, it was a very niche weapon and more or less useless in the hands of the typical infantryman. Sure a tungsten bolt could have helped, but it would have defeated the entire purpose of the cheap stamped design, and they might as well have been manufacturing tommy guns at those kind of prices. It was a cool idea but it wasn’t meant to be.

 

[majinebz]

I saw that MAC was trying to get the MIL to buy the M10 for the 1911 handgun replacement!!!??? Insanity!! Like how did they even sell that idea to investors?? "We got someone at the pentagon whos gonna buy our box SMG to replace a tried and tested and accurate sidearm".. sure... Defunct by 1975.

I have paintball markers that cost more then what I paid for both my M10s. Its a toy to me, not a weapon.

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

I saw that MAC was trying to get the MIL to buy the M10 for the 1911 handgun replacement!!!??? Insanity!! Like how did they even sell that idea to investors?? "We got someone at the pentagon whos gonna buy our box SMG to replace a tried and tested and accurate sidearm".. sure... Defunct by 1975.

I have paintball markers that cost more then what I paid for both my M10s. Its a toy to me, not a weapon.

It was the little M11 they were hoping to do this with, still just as ridiculous… werbell even had a few military higher ups on his payroll who would go around shilling his product telling potential investors that he had insider info that they were gonna be adopting the M11 as the service weapons.

 

[Galil#1]

NO.

 

[majinebz]

Good info, besides the MAC book I do not know that much on the history of MAC, RPB, SWD or any other variant company that produced the box SMG.

 

[Gaujo]

Probably no because even if W cost the same as steel, it's too heavy for the M10. Had SWD figured out how to cheaply incorporate a lead core into the steel bolt, maybe, but only in the m11/9, but that wasn't a MAC product and didn't exist until SWD made it years later.

Now, MAC did make a prototype which was basically the same receiver length as a 11/9, so I guess it's theoretically possible for MAC with that.

 

[majinebz]

max-10 w/ task conversion question.

Hey, Has anyone tried a MAX-10 upper with a TASK slowfire conversion? Thinking about trying this, but I do not know if it would work as intended. I would like to slow my max-10/9 rof down to around 550 rpm Any input/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

www.uzitalk.com

Hahha here is me wanting to slow down my 9mm TX SWD but with the max10 on it... guess I wanted it slow at one point in time.....

 

[Mackjack]

I don’t think the original designers/owners/investors wanted to go slow. High rpm was the selling feature back then, not the downside it is now. Back then you could just buy another gun, now you can’t…. Different reasons and perspectives for different times

 

[A&S Conversions]

I don’t think the original designers/owners/investors wanted to go slow. High rpm was the selling feature back then, not the downside it is now. Back then you could just buy another gun, now you can’t…. Different reasons and perspectives for different times

Would you hand your Mac style RR with a full mag and the selector in the Auto position, to an inexperienced shooter? It takes practice to control a subgun with a very high cyclic rate. I know that I absolutely would not. Back in the 20s Auto Ordinance tried to sell the Thompson of 1921 (900 rpm) to the Army and Navy (Marines) . AO didn't get much for sales until they slowed the 21 down with a heavier actuator to make the Thompson model of 1928 (750 rpm).

It takes more training to fire a full auto Mac than it does a handgun. The whole point of the Mac was that it was cheap, had a stock (sort of) and was easily carried like a handgun. But with such a high rate of fire, it would take more time and money to train the second echelon troops that would carry it. It is my understanding that the Government didn't have any interest in the Mac because of the high cyclic rate.

Scott

 

[dalbert]

NO.

I agree with gall#1 that the answer to the subject of this thread is no.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

Probably no because even if W cost the same as steel, it's too heavy for the M10. Had SWD figured out how to cheaply incorporate a lead core into the steel bolt, maybe, but only in the m11/9, but that wasn't a MAC product and didn't exist until SWD made it years later.

Now, MAC did make a prototype which was basically the same receiver length as a 11/9, so I guess it's theoretically possible for MAC with that.

That prototype was made by RPB, which was Wayne Daniel, same guy as SWD. I believe it was Wayne and max atchisson that designed the proto-slo M10 and M11 prototypes, but it may have been John Foote. It wasn’t a MAC design though. It was designed in 81-82 and then RPB shut down in 82… Wayne started back up in 83 under the SWD name and started production of the 11/9 which was basically the protoslo slo fire M11 .380 prototype chambered in 9mm. They abandoned the M10 slo fire in favor of the 11/9

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

I don’t think the original designers/owners/investors wanted to go slow. High rpm was the selling feature back then, not the downside it is now. Back then you could just buy another gun, now you can’t…. Different reasons and perspectives for different times

This.

 

[A&S Conversions]

I don’t think the original designers/owners/investors wanted to go slow. High rpm was the selling feature back then, not the downside it is now. Back then you could just buy another gun, now you can’t…. Different reasons and perspectives for different times

Well, I disagree. Auto Ordinance couldn't sell the Thompson Model of 1921 submachinegun (ROF 900 RPM) to the US government until Auto Ordinance developed the Model of 1928 (ROF 750 RPM). It takes much more time and practice to control an original Mac configuration than it does with a slow fire configuration. Especially since the original Mac design would be for second echelon troops, with very limited firearms training, there were no significant sales to the government.

Scott

ETA that the focus of MAC sales was US Government sales. Originally the M16 had 20 round mags and in the 80s as part of the M16A2 "upgrade" the three round burst was added to the standard infantry rifle. The Ordinance Department was very concerned about how quickly ammo is consumed. So a weapon for second echelon troops that is more challenging to use and burns ammo faster because of the high cyclic rate, would not be a positive selling point for the MAC style RRs for the biggest customer MAC and RPB wanted to sell to.

 

[Galil#1]

Good points and counterpoints, different views in this subject is all cool. We can all learn something new each day but still die stupid ha ha. Appreciate all you good folks!

 

[cherenkov]

Were the "Stephensville" Hollow steel (Lead (Pb) filled bolts heavier?

I seem to recall reading they were drawn up as a cost savings and would think the density of lead (although not as heavy as Wolfram/Tungsten) is still heavier than steel and may have had a slow down effect on the bolt.
I'm sure there was a cost effective way to do it, and it may have saved MAC But in those days I suspect the feat of rate of fire was part of the technological achievement - Like an SR-71 of the gun world - breaking a speed record - Was anyone in bureaucracies really familiar with a subgun use enough to know there a speed that is too fast? Isn't faster better? everybody loves a speed record.

In truth I think what killed MAC was that they didn't have the right political partners and coffers in the military defense industry - I think Werbell liked working from the bottom-up with feedback in the field and started in the field versus a start in US politics and work your way down to the need. The state department ban on exporting readily suppressed firearms should have also applied to Colt an the AR15/M16 as well but it didn't - My hunch is MAC just didn't line the pockets of the right politicians and it died as a result of house politics in the military industrial complex not because of faulty products.

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

Well, I disagree. Auto Ordinance couldn't sell the Thompson Model of 1921 submachinegun (ROF 900 RPM) to the US government until Auto Ordinance developed the Model of 1928 (ROF 750 RPM). It takes much more time and practice to control an original Mac configuration than it does with a slow fire configuration. Especially since the original Mac design would be for second echelon troops, with very limited firearms training, there were no significant sales to the government.

Scott

ETA that the focus of MAC sales was US Government sales. Originally the M16 had 20 round mags and in the 80s as part of the M16A2 "upgrade" the three round burst was added to the standard infantry rifle. The Ordinance Department was very concerned about how quickly ammo is consumed. So a weapon for second echelon troops that is more challenging to use and burns ammo faster because of the high cyclic rate, would not be a positive selling point for the MAC style RRs for the biggest customer MAC and RPB wanted to sell to.

The biggest customer RPB wanted to sell to was the civilian market… and that’s why they actually made money. MAC on the other hand was determined to get that gov contract. I think they viewed the extremely high ROF as somewhat of a selling feature.. but the implementing of a semi auto select fire option was at the request of the US military. It was the M11, not M10, that werbell had really considered the ideal candidate for a big military contract, and the M11 is the gun that was pushed on the US army as a replacement for the 1911. The MAC was never touted as a replacement for the infantry rifle, only the sidearm. That said, there was talk of only having to carry a sidearm if it was the Ingram M11, with its wire stock and full auto feature… but it was being pushed as a replacement for the standard issue handgun.