From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Original M-11 versus later SWD M-11/9[edit]

(Note to anyone whos going to edit this article: This article is about the original M-11, and not the later SWD M-11/9 which is a different gun. Also, please give your reasons for changing/removing any if this information and review what has been said in the discussion tab.)

Stop talking about the SWD M-11/9 in this article. The name of this article is MAC-11, which IS the .380 ACP gun that was designed by Gordon Ingram, the inventer of the M-10 and the founder of the Military armament Corparation. The SWD M-11/9 isnt really a MAC at all; it was not designed by Ingram, and was never built at 'MAC'. This is talked about in the link in the sources area. also, the sub-heading "THE .380 VERSION OF THE M-11 NOT AS POPULAR AS THE 9MM VERSION" this does not need to be said since this article is not about 9mm m-11's, which is the completely different SWD m-11/9, again, this article has nothing to do with a an SWD M-11. and this sub-heading sounds completely non-academic. (OC) (7/12/06)

Ok, someone (ip: wrongly edited the article and replaced correct information with the common misunderstandings surrounding this weapon. I'm going to revert back to an older article and make some changes. I will add sources later when have access to physical source i have. (OC) (7/7/06)

Bolded title, wikify and linked magazine to magazine artillery.--Dakota 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That last should have been Magazine (firearm) not artillery. Fixed it... Georgewilliamherbert 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Meters versus yards[edit]

This is so stupid: “ranges up to 30 yards—but averages about 25 meters." Did someone actually compare yards to meters? These are 2 different types of measurements and are like comparing apples to oranges! [unsigned]

Not at all. They both measure the same aspect of physical reality: distance. They can be interconverted. 25 meters = 27.34 yards. The sentence could be rewritten as "ranges up to 30 yards—but averages about 27.34 yards" or, actually, for those who have a true engineer's understanding of sig figs, it would be better as "[…] about 27 yards". (To stet the 0.34 would be specious precision in this context.) Either way, there is nothing wrong with the physics of the sentence as written. The copyediting, well, you could argue for sticking to one unit consistently, for those readers who don't understand how to compare units.
BTW, an analogy: As of the date that I am writing this, 20 U.S. dollars = 2434.8 Japanese yen. If I said that "the current price of a taxi ride from hotel X to airport Y ranges up to 20 USD, but averages about 2100 JPY", that would be monetarily exactly the same as to say "[…] about 17.25 USD". Its financial meaning would be perfectly fine. Its copyediting might beg for consistency.
HOWEVER, I just went back and read the sentence in its context, and the clause "—but averages about 25 meters" really doesn't belong there at all, not for any unit-conversion reason, but simply because what's being talked about is a general range up to which the fire tends to be devastating. Two or three yards either way isn't any kind of meaningful differentiation on that kind of variable anyway. So I am going to go delete that clause. Lumbercutter 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Considered to be slightly gay"[edit]

The section on limited use had a comment that read:

"considered to not have enough stopping power, and to be slightly gay."

I'm no weapons expert, but I don't think "gay" is a proper, unbiased, and unopinionated description of the MAC-11. NDale 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment was relating to the .380 ACP round rather than the MAC-11, but I agree that it should be removed :). Also, while the .380 ACP is considered a bit underpowered, that probably doesn't much matter if you're firing twenty of them every second! Mark Grant 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Why is this weapon categorized as a firearm component? (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Picture[edit]

I've swapped the infobox pictures again. The article is about the Ingram Mac-11 submachine gun in .380ACP, so the infobox really should have a picture of the actual weapon in question. The Cobray semi-automatic pistol in 9x19mm is similarly named, but is not the subject of the article. A reference and picture of said is great since it is a Mac-clone though.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)