MAC 10 Ammunition
Page 1 of 2

Author:  DoggySoldier [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  MAC 10 Ammunition


You all know the MAC is a very cool weapon. Disastrous at longer range but okay. You all know that is slurps up one clip in a second. My problem with this is, that a MAC only carries with 2 clips!! This is especially that kinda weapon that has to be reloaded after each kill, and i think it would be a good change to give it more clips with it. I mean like, 4/6. In real those thing arent heavy, and it uses pistol bullets, so it dont defects realism. This is how i think about it.


Author:  chosn1 [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:39 am ]
Post subject: 

I dont use it much, but your aboslouty right about it slurping ammo up. However i find 2 clips more than enough for my standards.

Author:  flyhead(cn) [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:33 am ]
Post subject: 

true, mac10 chews through ammo like a bitch. most swat teams that use mac10 (not very often) often have like 6 or 7 clips. another option would be to use semi auto and tap fast. or pick up another mac10 if you see one. btw the mac11 has a retarded rate of fire at 1600 rounds a minute when chambered in the .380acp caliber. that means you could 30 bullets into someones head in a couple seconds :mrgreen:

Author:  DoggySoldier [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:23 am ]
Post subject: 

okay. FUNNY :P

but how do you think about more clips for the mac mate?

Author:  flyhead(cn) [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:33 am ]
Post subject: 

definitely with you. 6,7 clips outta balance the fact that its such a small weapon. (i was gonna say innacurate and weak but its the complete opposite..). more clips would make the mac10 more long lasting and effective assault weapon, and would make the mac10 " a real gun", not like the "disposable gun" impression that we have. anyways 6 clips or die :!: :!: :!: :evil:

Author:  DoggySoldier [ Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:45 pm ]
Post subject: 


Author:  hoak [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 

The MAC-10 is a very powerful CQC weapon IRL, and at 1100 RPM it can be more effective then a shotgun.

I took this fact to it's logical conclusion when I coded the Micro-UZI in Internationl Crime Syndicate which fires at an even higher rate of 1250 RPM:

Extract From ICS Design Doc wrote:
The ICS Micro UZI fires at a much higher rate very much like the real weapon (though still not nearly the astonishing 1,250 RPM of a real Micro UZI) and is very deadly at close range. The sheer intensity of the Micro UZI's 'high volume' fire is well balanced by its being very inaccurate, the fact that you will have an empty magazine in under three seconds if you spray, and that it's 9mm rounds are some of the lowest power projectiles in the game as they are fired from a very shortest barrel weapon in the game. To be effective you will have to very carefully manage ammunition and aim. Tne Micro UZI will be most effective when moving and maneuvering for cover, empliying stealth and using ammunition judiciously -- the UZI is an enormously powerful and fun weapon. The best tactics using the UZI are to counter-intuitively rush under fire -- getting as close as possible as fast as possible to mitigate the inaccuracy of the weapon.

We had to mitigate the real rate of fire of the weapon because the id Software engine(s) net-code can not support rates of fire this high, the results are similar...

While the Ingram MAC-10 fires more powerful ammunition, it climbs even more dramatically, vibrates like a blender full of rocks, and is empty almost instantly if you don't have a light trigger finger... Carefully managed the MAC-10, Micro UZI, PDW, and TMP are high powered accurate 'Assault' class machine pistols...

And BTW, none of the weapons in any version of True Combat, any FPS realism shooter, Action/Arcade or Tactical Realism potraying modern warfare include any weapons that use "Clips"; they all use "MAGAZINES"! Not a big deal to some, but it's a distinction that's as on/off as calling your Hard Drive a "Floppy"...


Author:  flyhead(cn) [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:08 am ]
Post subject: 

which is beter?? .380acp or .45? i think 45 but dunno

Author:  hoak [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

LOL, hh gawd, don't go there -- the arguments of .357 Magnum vs, .38 APC vs, 10mm vs, .45 APC go on and on...

It all boils down to what you like, how strong of a shooter you are (control), the range of engagement, and a lot of nit picking detail.

There is the general and relatively reasonable argument that larger heavier caliber ammunition has single shot stopping power lacking in lighter ammunition -- but suffers less range and accuracy, due to lower velocity and profile. Where the lighter rounds give the shooter more control, more ammunition in a magazine, but questionable stopping power.

All the calibers mentioned above are powerful handgun rounds, especially so in their heavier propellent load variants.

Here's the full text of a post to Defense Review that sumerizes some (though not all) of the considerations in comparing ammunition performance:

I was talking with one of my brothers about some different calibers and velocities. Something we often talk about. This led to the IPSC's Power Factor, which is simply Bullet Weight in Grains, Times Velocity, Divided by 1,000. This is an easy formula that one can use when comparing loads... but doesn't take into effect Caliber. W x V / 1000= PF. Nice - but not enough. I personally think Caliber is a CRITICAL FACTOR in a defensive bullet.

I have been thinking about this for a few minutes now, and I think I have another similar formula that will be more accurate when looking at and comparing different loads.
One of the most popular methods of comparison is the M&S OSS%. I think the M&S study has some merit, but the study, due to its critical flaws, has been debunked as junk science. (more on that later) So a simple mathematical formula like what the IPSC uses should be of some help. IPSC's goal was to create a certain level that allows people to compete on a more even playing field.

This is a new scale... So the numbers are going to look different, but bare with me. Once you starting running this formula with different calibers and loads, you will see some interesting results:

Bullet Weight in Grains, Times Caliber, Times Velocity, Divided by 1000 = Defensive Power Factor or DPF for short.

For 9MM and such you of course use its actual measured Caliber .355 or what ever your bullet is actually sized at. 10MM is .40 cal etc.

Example: A 230 grain .45 load: 230*.45= 103.5 *900/1000 = DPF 93.15

Smaller caliber bullets will have smaller numbers, and mouse guns will look more like mouse guns that they are on this scale. That's why we call them Mouse Guns. Don’t get pissed at me if your choice of a carry package looks wimpy.

No – the DPF its not perfect... but its simple. K.I.S.S! That is the whole point.

Just for fun - lets look at the .454 Casull: 300 grain bullet, .45 caliber, 1650 FPS speed = DPF of 222.75! Too Bad that .454 Casull pistols make poor Carry Guns!

The DPF Formula works on rifles as well, but you need to change the scale. For Rifles, don’t divide by 1000… Divide it by 100.

Now, the Speed Freak guys that think faster is better might be getting a little irked here. But I think this is showing a more accurate picture. I mean, everyone knows .308 hits harder than .223, so these numbers should not surprise you. You have a bigger caliber, heavier bullet... it will hit harder that a smaller, lighter one. That's physics. Putting Egos aside - I think that this is a simple and easy way to compare loads. I am not suggesting you compare Rifle calibers to Handgun Calibers in terms of effectiveness - but it is useful when comparing Rifles to Rifles... Such as .223 and .243... And .300 to .338 etc

Will this end the 9MM vs. .45 debate? No. (but it should, damn it!) The speed guys continue to talk about Hydro Static Shock. I don’t have a formula that factors in Hydro Static Shock... as we don’t have a way to accurately measure that. The 9MM vs .45 debate is one of the eternal issues for the gun culture to talk about. Personally, I favor making as big of a hole in my target as I can.

To full understand the DPF theory, one must understand the background to the ISPC Power Factor. The reason for the two different classes has to do with scoring. A 9mm typically has much less recoil then a .45. This way, the playing field is somewhat equal. However, a 9mm bullet can still make major (.38 Super). On the other hand, it'll have much harsher recoil then a minor 9mm. The reverse can be applied to the .40 S&W. It can be shot in the minor or major class depending on the PF. This is where reloading is a big bonus.

IPSC PF = wt * V / 1000

Where: wt=weight in grains, and V=velocity in fps

Major is from 175 up. 200 gr. .45 bullet at 900 feet/second = 180 power factor.

Minor is from 125 to 174.999. 125 gr. 9mm bullet at 1000 feet/second = 125 power factor.

Adding the caliber to the formula gives us a yard stick for it’s defensive potential. This formula favors bigger calibers, and heavier bullets... But then again - IPSC's formula was weight friendly too and people can moan about hydrostatic shock but that fact is bigger caliber bullets make bigger holes. If you have ever seen with your own eyes the dead bodies of people shot with handguns... you see just the hole and wound channel... You don’t see any temporary wound cavity.

.38 Casull, .38 Super, .357 SIG... I think the formula is fair to those as well because they are all actually firing similar sized bullets. Let’s be real… they are all “Fast Nines” launching the same pills. The only differences that matter here are the weight of the slug being launched and the velocity it’s launched at.

Let’s look at the smaller calibers for a sec. Run your favorite .32ACP load against other .32ACP loads. Now compare the .32ACP vs. .380ACP. Toss in the new .32NAA cartridge. What about .22 vs. .25?

I think once you starting lining everything up you will see that everything falls into place rather nicely and anything with a DPF over 40 is a potent load that you could carry for CCW with confidence.

Bullet types are interesting... Hollow points don’t always expand. How could you factor that in the equation and keep it simple? Probability of expanded caliber after the bullet stops, Starfire vs. Hydra shoks? Lets not go there. But - if you want - it might be fair to give your self a .5 point bonus to your hollow points should they expand as advertised. That’s up to you. Use the formula as you like.

The first person that raises there hand to ask about SHOT SHELLS will be flogged by chanting nude Gregorian monks with whips!

Okay, what about shot shells? What the hell. Let’s go ahead and look at that for a bit.

Since shot shell loads are so different, the only to give these a rating, is to combine the DPF scores of the individual shot within. This will give you the POTENTIAL DPF, since the shot will spread on the target and many of the pellets may miss. You'll need a micrometer to measure some of these... Do the DPF on one... then multiply that against the number of pellets. Same thing with loads that have different sized pellets. Factor all the different sizes. Potential is all you can have on the shotshells, but it still works. Now some shotgun guys are going to complain about something here, but give it a rest. Take comfort in the DPF score of one of your slugs! Judas Priest!

You can’t create a formula that will take EVERYTHING into account including expansion, fragmenting, and shot placement. It gets too complicated. Can't be done. Simply can not be done. Because you would have to factor in bullet shape, jacket thickness, the target’s mass, air density and humidity… a million things.

Now, more on M&S ratings. Marshall and Sanow's theory is erroneous. They gathered police shooting and autopsy reports. Then culled out all cases where an individual that was shot received only a single gunshot wound. That wound had to belong to the upper torso (what we commonly call Center of Mass.. COM). All other shootings were thrown away and were no longer part of the analysis. Marshall and Sanow then took all of one hit reports and determined how many of them resulted in a "stop," which they define as a “cessation of hostility within a certain time period”. The figure represented a percentage of all the single COM hit cases, is the official "one shot stop percentage" for that caliber. Their study is dramatically flawed due to the discarding all incidents where it took more then one shot to stop an individual. The reason for the flaw happens when you must use deadly force, you keep shooting until the person stops attacking you. Therefore, the odds are extremely high that if you only fire at someone once, it is because he stopped attacking you after one shot and fell over dead. In those cases where only one shot is fired and the attacker did not stop, that is likely due to the BG taking your gun, or killed you.

Many of the forensic studies show that a single shot to the CNS (central nervous system) will result in an immediate stop. However, the difficulty of a CNS shot is very high. The majority of CNS shots are by good luck. Marshall and Sanow ignored several variables like the type of firearm used (barrel length, rifling type and rate of twist, etc), specific shot placement, angle of shot, etc. Yet, all COM results were discarded by M&S.

It’s humorous looking at their 93 to 96% "one shot stoppers." On the other hand, most people are aware that handguns simply aren’t that powerful. One only needs to ask an EMT. If a 96% on shot stops meant that a round had a 96% chance of stopping an individual, then shooting someone twice with that round should yield a 99.8% chance of stopping the attacker. That’s as close to 100% as you can get, and no one is suggesting that a double tap with any handgun ammo can guarantee a stop. What about the other 90+ percent of shooting incidents where there were multiple shots to the COM? Why didn't the attacker die after one shot if it's a 90+% one shot stopper?

Basically what I’m blabbing is, there are no fool proof formulas. Marshall and Sanow do have some good points. However, a majority of their study is flawed. If they had relied more heavily upon physics and ALL shooting reports, their study would’ve been more realistic.

My advice is carry the biggest, most comfortable caliber that YOU WILL HAVE WITH YOU AT ALL TIMES. It’s pointless to say that the 44 mag is the best CCW if it’s impractical for you to conceal. If you can’t hide it well, then you can’t carry it. If you can’t carry it, then what is the point? It’s better to have any gun in a defensive situation then no gun at all.

So - where does this leave us? With a simple formula easy enough to run in your head while shopping for ammo or looking at two pistols and your thinking which one is for you. It is a mental Ballistics Gel Test.

If your looking for a formula for determining the Magic Bullet - It isn’t gunna happen, there is no Magic Bullet... Only in the movies. Even the Seeker Bullets from the Movie "Runaway" didn't work 100%. Maybe .50BMG could be it, but you can't that fit that into a 1911...

It should be pretty obvious just from the variables discussed a lot of arguments and counter arguments and counter arguments can be raised -- such as this one:

This is a nice exercise in mathematics and physics, but essentially meaningless, as it is based on a false premise. You claim that "I personally think Caliber is a CRITICAL FACTOR in a defensive bullet." It is a nice personal thought, but if there is one thing that history has shown us over and over again it is that caliber is the LEAST important factor in what is needed for personal defense. Another error is when you state that "A 9mm typically has much less recoil then a .45." Such a broad sweeping statement simply is not accurate. Some 9mm loads have much more recoil than some .45 loads, and of course many times the firearm design is quite different,which will have a large bearing on the felt recoil effect. Then you make that classical assumption of "but that fact is bigger caliber bullets make bigger holes." Again, this is demonstrably false, and even if it were true no one has shown a proven relationship between bigger holes and better terminal effect in shootings. You are correct, that there is no Magic Bullet out there. Rather than wasting time and energy on searching for it, or figuring up bizarre formulas that have no meaning, save the time and effort, buy whatever gun and caliber you like to shoot and carry, and buy whatever current designer ammo is on sale. You will be as well armed as someone who has used all the formulas.

And this rebuttal:

You called me out about 9MM recoil. I said "A 9mm typically has much less recoil then a .45." and then you say “Some 9mm loads have much more recoil than some .45 loads” That’s nice Darm… You just helped me make my point. 9mm typically, or generally, or usually recoils less than .45ACP… then you roll out “Some 9mm loads are stronger than Some .45 loads.” And your right, but I was speaking in general terms and your obviously looks at some specific loads. Now, I have a box of some real pussycat .45 loads that recoil nice and soft. These loads are not your average .45 ACP loading. But that doesn’t change anything regarding the generalized statement that I made. No I didn’t take into consideration in my generalized comment about the hot +P loads that are available, or the +P+ loads that you can get… No, I didn’t mention them or take them into account because my general statement was a general statement… and that general statement remains true regardless of whatever hot-rodder load your talking about.

Okay, then you call me out on my statement "I personally think Caliber is a CRITICAL FACTOR in a defensive bullet." And you also throw down on my statement "but that fact is bigger caliber bullets make bigger holes." And then you go and say “Again, this is demonstrably false, and even if it were true no one has shown a proven relationship between bigger holes and better terminal effect in shootings.” Darm, just because I didn’t quote from your typical gun related junk science sources doesn’t mean what I said lacks currency. The .45 ACP hard ball will destroy 50% more tissue than 9mm hardball. The same goes for these calibers when using Hollowpoints. A bigger bullet can expand to a bigger diameter than a smaller bullet. When 9MM apologists talk about caliber and expansion they are always careful to not take into account the larger slugs expansion as well. They will instead give glowing reports of the 9MM’s ability to blossom like an onion at the Outback Steak House, but wont say boo about the .45’s ability to do the same. The fact remains – Bigger Bullets make Bigger Holes. Bigger holes mean more tissue damaged. More tissue damaged means more bleeding. Faster blood less means quicker incapacitation, quicker physiological collapse. No, I’m not reading gun rags and getting information from cats selling more issues. Instead, I’ve talked with people who know a little more about the subject then your average gun writer. No offense to gun writers – but Trauma Surgeons are better educated on the subject of wound trauma than the part time cop/word smith. Talking to them, it all comes down to a very simple formula for the best chances of stopping a bad guy in his tracks:
You make a big hole in him that goes deep into vital organs. Shot placement is critical, but that’s not what I was talking about was it? In order to make that big hole, it helps the effort if your using a bigger caliber. The fallacy of hydrostatic shock is BS. Velocity is nice, but that’s only the vehicle to allow the bullet to go deep and expand. More on this in a bit…

You seem to have missed the point of the DPF. Please read my article again. Next time your out at the shop looking at your next ammo purchase – look at all the options. I like .45, so I’ll continue to use .45 as my example. There are different factory loads lets just say they are all Hollowpoints. You want the most effective fight stopper possible. You have your normal 230 grain JHP loads, then you have some 185 grain loads, some 185 +P loads, and then there are those two boxes of 165 grain +P loads. Damn, this is getting to be like picking out your next bottle of shampoo! Lots of options here. How do you know which one is the best for you? This is where the DPF comes in. Now, you can figure out in your head… you might have to use your fingers, or maybe you might have to ask the clerk for a pencil and paper… but I designed this to be used in head. You take these loads and look at the numbers, take into consideration your guns barrel length and any change to velocity that it might give you… Now you have the ability to make a more educated choice on your ammunition purchase. Let’s run a couple numbers.
230 grains, times .45, times 900 FPS, divided by 1000 = 93.
185 grains, times .45, times 1150 FPS, divided by 1000 = 95.
165 grains, times .45, times 1300 FPS, divided by 1000 = 96.

So you see that the 165 grain load has the edge. Yes it’s splitting hairs, but it is showing you what the differences are in the outcome. For example, what if that 230 grain load is not 900, but 950? What is the outcome then? Turns the above numbers on it’s head, doesn’t it?
You can use the DPF to help you make the choice between the different options on that NAA Guardian… Hmmm, do I want the .32ACP, or the upcoming .25NAA Guardian? You can use the DPF to help you. What about that 127 grain 9MM load? How does it stack up to the 147 grain load? Or the little 115 load?

Or you can just read the rags and find what is current in the Bullet of the Month club. I don’t buy into the bullet of the month thing. Golden Sabers, Gold Dots, Star Fires, Talons… judas priest… They are all different, but end up doing the same thing – making holes. I’m not factoring in anything extra about the slug – the DPF is the same for FMJ as it is JHP. I think its BS to say that the Dots are 8% more effective than the Sabers or what ever have you… The regular JHP is less effective as a fight stopper than Talon is by 14% or whatever. I think that’s all crap. I really don’t think that the person getting shot is going to feel the difference. I don’t think the guy in the ER is going to be seeing a difference either.

But to try and offer some kind of definitive answer to what is "better" you'd need a lot of specifics, like: does the weapon need to be concealable, will it be used as a primary or backup weapon, is the weapon's role offensive or defensive, how strong and skilled is the shooter, what kind of scenario will the weapon be used in (ie. mean range to contact, yes/no logistic support for ammunition etc.)...

Given clear answers to all that some handguns are just preposterous for some shooters, in some scenarios....


Author:  TheDamned [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dear GOD that's an impressive bit of pasting.

Why 2 clips, in my opinion the bloody gun is powerful enough as a rushing weapon without allowing 6 - 10 barages of bullets per map. You just have to use it smartly. Firing across a 30 m + yard is utterly ridiculous. Use the pistol, more accurate and better travel-rate. When you storm a corner or a small room, strap on the mac10 and destroy everyone with an intense volley of bullets and a largish spike in fps.

Author:  hoak [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:42 am ]
Post subject: 

While I agree with the sentiment of your post Damned, the MAC-10 does not employ "Clips", nor does any weapon in or slated for TC:E, they all use Magazines.

Clips are used to load magazines, and were not in general use since roughly the end of World War II...

These are images of one kind of Clip:

Image Image

And here is a picture of a Magazine:


Sorry but that one is like fingernails on the chalk board for me, or someone calling a rifle a shotgun or a handgun a rifle...

Author:  flyhead(cn) [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:41 am ]
Post subject: 

i just remembered that .380acp=9mmkurz. 9mm is ok but it bounces off anything hard lol so forget about the 380. though thats balanced by being able to empty 30 bullets into someones body in a second 8) btw why are some mags curved and some straight?? like the famas mag that has 25 rounds is straight, the m16stanag mags are curved, the ump45 mags are straight, but the mp5 is curved?? is it smth to do with the fact that the bullets are stacked?? *looks at hoak waiting expectantly for a scientific explanation*

Author:  hoak [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Ok, I'll try... :?

While it's possible to make any magazine for any weapon curved or box like; the shape of the ammunition case or shell generally determines the best shape for most effective feed.

You'll notice some ammunition cases have a larger flange and are more tapered, which will make them slop around a lot in a box magazine, so by curving the mag each round lays flatter and tighter to each adjacent round and feed more smoothly. .45 and 9mm rounds by way of counter example are nice clean little cylinders for the most part and work fine in a perfectly box like magazine...

While I agree 9mm is a rather wimpy round, most weapons that fire it do have very low recoil, offer a high effective ROF, and there are rather exotic and high performance 9mm loads and projectiles -- from steel tipped martlets, to PTFE jackted armor piercing rounds... You're generally correct though; their low mass and high velocity does make them prone to ric, and spaul... But the argument goes that when you have 2 to 3 (or more) smaller rounds in an magazine for every larger round, where most will probably be able fire at twice (or more) the rate of the larger round, and fire more accurately, the bounced or spauled round won't matter -- and there is veracity to that approach as well... Your opposition is no more or less stopped if he has the back of his head blown off with a .45 ACP, or his face and skull ventelated and rattling with half a dozen 9mm rounds...

If I were a less trained marksman I'd go for the ligher, easier to handle, control and faster firing weapon, that offered more ammunition... The skilled 'Man Of War' that stays cool under pressure who's marksmanship is his unquestioned stock & trade will generally perfer the higher caliber, more accurate and powerful weapon -- and aimed seim-automatic fire. You'll see the same prevail in realistic games were players with cool heads and weapons on semi-auto consistently prevail. For me it's one of the watermarks of not just realistic game design, but good game-play as well as deeper marsmanship skills are required...


Author:  TheDamned [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

hoak wrote:

Sorry but that one is like fingernails on the chalk board for me, or someone calling a rifle a shotgun or a handgun a rifle...

I'm sure you wouldn't be completely satisfied unless you found something to poke at, so no harm. What they are called is of course of secondary importance to the point I was making, and regardless of labeling an orange a tangerine, the point was understandale.

Thanks for the longwinded and picture-filled lecture on the differences though. You have changed my life in profound ways.

Author:  flyhead(cn) [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:20 am ]
Post subject: 

im satisfied :D

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group