If you had to pick one, would you take a Sten MkII or an Ingram M10/9? This applies specifically to the guns in their original factory configurations; no Lage products allowed! It’s hard to come up with a mass-production SMG that isn’t obviously better than a MkII Sten, but the stock Ingrams might make the cut…the MAC is a more compact package, but has even worse handling than the Sten in some ways (which is a remarkable achievement!). So if you have to pick one, which would it be?
Percussion
Lindsay’s Two-Shot US Army Musket
Lot 1197 in the September 2019 RIA auction. John Parker Lindsay patented a superposed, 2-shot muzzleloading rifle action in 1860, and remarkably, was able to get a contract to sell them to the US Federal […]
Single Shot Rifles
Fosbery’s Breechloading Rifle
Col George Vincent Fosbery, V.C., was a definite devotee of small arms design as well as being a bona fide war hero – a combination that isn’t as common as one might expect. He is […]
Flintlock
Wilson’s Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock Musket
The Wilson family was a gunmaking dynasty in London that began in 1730 when Richard Wilson was accepted as a Master Gunmaker by the Gunmakers’ Company. Wilson’s eldest son William Wilson would receive the same […]
sten! I’ve shot both stock and it’s more easily controllable
Regarding magazine loading keep in mind that STEN magazine was supposed to be used in conjunction with FILLER to facilitate loading, see https://youtu.be/1-n-NwjRm5w?t=180 Was similar device offered for Ingram, if yes how much years after introduction of magazine itself?
The Sten.
If you run out of ammo, or the gun stops working, you can use it as a club.
Links to add-ons from Richard Lague(sp?)?
Max-11.com
Lage manufacturing: https://www.max-11.com/M11.php
See also: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/ians-customs-lage-max11a1-15-light-machine-gun/
Choose the Sten Mark II if you value historical significance, simplicity, and reliability. Opt for the Ingram MAC-11 if you need a modern, compact weapon with a high rate of fire for tactical applications. Your choice should ultimately align with your specific needs and preferences.
I fit a Suomi butt stock and made a wooden forearm for my STEN. Now it’s super comfortable to shoot. Sometimes problems just need a little bit of work to fix.
“(…)a little bit of work(…)”
If you need STENoid with better ergonomics at cost of being more work-requiring to make then use ROFSTEN https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/ROFSTEN
In defense of MAC, a modified version was maybe the 6th or 7th subgun i ever shot.
Had a wooden Uzi stock, a faux silencer fore end and some severe rate reduction.
Was actually very controllable, easy to keep 2-3 round bursts on a 12” plate at like 35 yards.
In today’s world of widely-available intermediate cartridge assault rifles, the tactical utility of anything vaguely submachinegun-like is questionable.
Even for police roles/missions.
Given that, I’d suggest making your choice based on whatever floats your boat the highest. Historical? STEN. Modern tacticool? Ingram.
Personally, I think that a lot of the reason that the Ingram didn’t go anywhere with an actual military contract had a lot to do with that entire “short/small” issue; if you’ve ever seen a submachinegun firer lose control of their gun, you’ll know it’s usually because they’ve managed to somehow munge it all up. Observed a small-frame individual suffer either a failure to get their Uzi stock into a locked condition or said stock collapsed on them, and because of the way the damn thing was being held, it wound up spraying 9mm everywhere. Only by the grace of an exceedingly generous God did they manage to miss everyone on the firing line, that day.
My take is that anything that doesn’t have a good, solid stock and some actual length on it that affords a proper forward grip is a bad, bad idea for most shooters. I would not procure a folding-stock Uzi or Ingram that didn’t have a full-time suppressor on it for love nor money… Accidents waiting to happen in the hands of the inexperienced.
Oh, BTW… That spinning Uzi of death? In the hands of a Federal agent, doing training on a military range they’d done a “straphang” on, rather than open one for themselves. I threw them off of it after that display of weapons-handling skill. They were outraged, seeming to think that such idiocy was “normal”. Being as we had a heavily trafficked civilian road behind us, I wasn’t happy about it, at all.
No arguments, on any of it.
I’ve used both, Sten MK II 9mm, and MAC-10 in both 9mm and .45 persuasions. I found the .45 MAC to be less of a handful than the 9mm due to having a somewhat lower rate of fire. On single-shot, it was pretty accurate out to 50 meters, which is about all you can ask of a suppressed .45 anything. (Yes, I know the DeLisle .45 SMLE is supposedly accurate to 400 meters; I remain to be convinced of that.)
Mostly, I agree that the MAC in all versions badly needs a proper shoulder stock. So did Mitchell Werbell, apparently.
https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/m10-full-auto-for-sale-rare/491652
Note that this was a mid-1970s development, after the MAC had been “on the market” long enough to generate customer feedback.
I can’t help thinking that the Marlin Camp9 and Camp45, the Beretta CX4 9mm carbine, and especially the Hi-Point .45 carbines, all owe something to this design.
I also can’t help thinking that if someone thinks they need something like this, they really need an M4 in 5.56 x 45mm.
clear ether
eon
“(…)Beretta CX4 9mm(…)owe something to this(…)”
Err… Now I have hard time to link said Ingram design and said Italdesign Giugiaro creation.
“(…)need and(…)5.56 x 45mm(…)”
Cx4 was one of trinity introduced by Beretta, other parts were Px4 automatic pistol and Rx4 https://modernfirearms.net/en/civilian-rifles/italy-civilian-rifles/beretta-rx4-eng/ so they seems to acknowledge from beginning that there is also need for 5,56 x 45 mm self-loader.
“(…)anything that doesn’t have a good, solid stock and some actual length on it that affords a proper forward grip is a bad, bad idea(…)”
Then you would be probably better served by older Ingram design namely Model 6
http://modernfirearms.net/en/submachine-guns/u-s-a-submachine-guns/ingram-m6-eng/
that is if you are ready accept to bigger size and mass and most importantly capacity lower than in STEN (30 vs 32).
I have a MAC-11. With the stock 32-round magazine and the selector set to “rock and roll” it’s about a four-shot gun for most shooters. After many, many magazines of practice, I was eventually able to tickle 3 or 4 shot bursts from it. The cyclic rate is ridiculously high. At half the rate, or even a third, it would be much more useful, at least if your concept of useful is akin to “actually hitting anything.”
Despite careful warnings and demonstrations, almost every new shooter winds up squeezing off at least half a magazine, in a big curving arc up and toward their shooting hand side. Best to only put a few rounds in each mag when newbies are learning how to control it.
The MAC-11 is hilariously good fun, but it’s a toy, not a serious firearm. Besides the cyclic rate, the accuracy is… basically nonexistent, with the open bolt slamming back and forth, and the nasty trigger slap. And though it’s a bit bigger than a 1911 and only shoots a .380 ACP, it’s like trying to hold on to an enraged honey badger on full-auto, and bounces around in your hand in semi.
In a “need a gun” situation, I’d prefer any ordinary pistol, or perhaps a real SMG like the Sten or an M3, though I haven’t actually had a chance to shoot one of those.
The MAC saw some combat with some SA REECE comandos.
STEN runs. MAC jams.
I would not take 1st for granted, especially considering wobbly magazine well of MkII.
Sten, you can club ze German with it; better’ly… If needed.