Denix Ingram MAC-11, metal, dummy

No text or detailed review this time, just thought you might enjoy pictures ;-)

Since I read Mark's post about using Denix MAC-11 to repair MGC MAC-11 I thought of getting a Denix, putting MGC internals in it and seeing if it would work. It seems that Denix used MGC as a base, not sure if they copied a model or bought molds.

Denix produced this dummy model quite some time ago, as far as I know it is not available anymore. Still I hoped that some day one would find its way to me. It recently did, when a local photographer was selling out props he used for photo sessions - MAC-11 among them.

Overall quality seems a tad better than recent models, though you can see that there is not much attention to finish details. Even box is the ugliest I've seen for modelguns so far. Model is nicely heavy and gives more idea what's it like to hold a real MAC. Surface finish is rough in places, with machining marks.
Magazine is operational - current Denix models have no spring/follower. Sight is useless because cocking handle (made of ugly plastic) sticks up way too much and blocks line of sight! Bolt is made of plastic that is seriously damaged every time it slams metal after you pull trigger. It is some sort of HW that crumbles and peels away instead of cracking as ABS would do. Upper receiver is different inside than MGC, follows a different disassembly procedure. Barrel seems to be permanently installed, so swapping it for a modelgun one might be tricky.

Denix used almost the same markings as MGC, but replaced Ingram logo with their own, and modified text on right side of upper to "MGD Modelguns Denix", as well as changed manufacture location to Spain.

Proper review and comparison will be done when Police finally releases my MGC MAC-11.
For now enjoy the pictures :-)















Separation of upper/lower receiver. Push on the lever under frame, then push out pin.









At the last picture through "window" you can see bolt. Front face (to the left) is damaged.

To complete disassembly screw in the bottom has to be removed, as well as the cocking handle. Handle is a bit difficult, seems not made to be removed often. After unscrewing these parts you can finally remove bolt (no pictures).

Nice review smootik!

The Denix models are pretty crappy aren't they? The castings are fairly poor and they are barely finished after casting. The do have some potential though, if the parts are filed/sanded etc. to shape. I had high hopes that the Denix corp would re lease the M11 again with better molds but, i don't see that happening any time soon.

The upper receiver is a difficult part to try to modify as the casting (as you note) is quite different. I was the most disappointed with this part of the gun . If the upper was closer to the MGC then the Denix would have been more popular. The bolt too, is very poor in casting etc. i think that it is low grade of styrene plastic not HW or ABS.

The quality of the Denix replicas has been improving lately. (The new mp40's) They look like the management of the company has been changed or something as the castings look better according to the picture on the net that i have seen.

Now, what's this about your MGC Mac?

Yeah, finish could definitely use some help... Weight and cold touch compensate for the finish, so it's not as bad as I were afraid :-) You are also right about bolt material, it's something of much lower quality.

As for the story, check this thread:
https://mp40modelguns.forumotion.net/modelgun-general-discussion-f1/importing-modelgun-via-police--t1866.htm
I was supposed to get the model back in June, but of course it's holidays and no progress :-/

May I ask what you have payed for this model?
On a Belgian site there is an ad of one of those too, but they ask 100€ and I don't think this model is worth 100€, right?

About 80 EUR, though I hoped to get it cheaper - there was another person who bargained for this model.
I think it was a fair price. I would probably pay max. 100EUR, as I have not seen this model anywhere else.

I am quite happy with it for quality/price - before purchase I had my expectations set much lower.

That's a price I expected and it seems to me that it is worth about that too, but not more.
I forgot to mention 1 thing: the piece to settle the gun to your shoulder is missing (the sliding piece is there), so 100€ is way too much. Maybe I will find another one some day

Now that I have MGC HW version (late production after 2000) I quickly tried swapping upper/lower between them. Unfortunately it doesn't work without permanent modifications of MGC parts.

MGC model is 3-5mm longer. When you insert MGC upper into Denix lower, the main assembly holes near front do not align and it's not possible to put this Frankenstein together properly. If just holding, trigger won't work as things are positioned differently. Trying to make it work correctly would take shorting MGC upper, and then most likely inspecting how the moving parts align inside.
Denix upper inside MGC lower does not work too, because it has additional rails (for guiding the bolt) cast near the back and they interfere with a part of lower that should slide in there. Rails could be cut off, but I just don't see reason to make this combination (non-firing upper).

Denix shoulder stock will work in MGC (it's shorter and latches correctly), but MGC stock does not latch inside Denix because it is these few mms longer and when the front hits end of receiver, cutout for latching is not aligned properly.

MGC magazine inserts and locks fine inside Denix.

Overall one can see that even if these models look fairly similar, there is a number of differences in how the insides have been designed. This is most likely to make it easier to manufacture/assemble, not for realism.

MGC HW version looks better than Denix - clean, elegant lines - and even without extra weight it feels good. HW material is of excellent quality on this one, much more realistic than older ABS version. When I saw this model for the first time, I understood why it was easily mistaken for a real weapon during Customs check.

So which version of MGC do you own Smootik - the one with shorter magazine (?25 rds?) or the one with the longer mag (?32 rds?) and the suppressor as well?

MGC came with both mags (long one has mangled lips), no suppressor, no box/paperwork.

I'll post more details eventually in a separate review :-)

smootik wrote:

MGC came with both mags (long one has mangled lips), no suppressor, no box/paperwork.

I'll post more details eventually in a separate review :-)

Ive had my Denix model mac 10 for some years, infact ive had 2 , the first one i bought about ten years ago, but unfortunatley the sholder butt snapped off its carrier , all i had done was applied a little pressure into my sholder whilst holding it then , "SNAP " !!!, that went back to the shop !,so do treat the little mac ten with tlc, its a good wall hanger, just dont let gravity get the better of it. My second one is fine , hence i learned with the first !, it has a silencer & looks the part amuncst my fine collection.

Thank you for useful tips, and welcome to the forum! :-)

smootik wrote:

Thank you for useful tips, and welcome to the forum! :-)

Thank You

mp40 wrote:

Nice review smootik!

The Denix models are pretty crappy aren't they? The castings are fairly poor and they are barely finished after casting. The do have some potential though, if the parts are filed/sanded etc. to shape. I had high hopes that the Denix corp would re lease the M11 again with better molds but, i don't see that happening any time soon.

The upper receiver is a difficult part to try to modify as the casting (as you note) is quite different. I was the most disappointed with this part of the gun . If the upper was closer to the MGC then the Denix would have been more popular. The bolt too, is very poor in casting etc. i think that it is low grade of styrene plastic not HW or ABS.

The quality of the Denix replicas has been improving lately. (The new mp40's) They look like the management of the company has been changed or something as the castings look better according to the picture on the net that i have seen.

Now, what's this about your MGC Mac?

Just reading your review on the denix Mac 11 , ive owned one for sometime & unfortuneatley the plastic styrene slide bolt is starting to fall apart, haven't even dry fired it much !!, i guess ive got to live with that, long gone are the days of dry fire

Here's a comparison between Denix (darker) and MGC (lighter) Ingram MAC11 models.

01) upper receiver and bolt (MGC top)



02) upper receiver underside (MGC top)

• front section has slightly different details
  
• removeable plate on Denix (screwed onto receiver)
  
• hole in Denix barrel is for plate screw, hole in MGC barrel is for detonator pin grub screw
  

03) bolt underside (MGC top)

• damaged front face of Denix bolt
  
• differently mounted handle: push-through hole in MGC, screw in Denix
  
• diffferent extractor, MGC has a visible pin
  
• single bolt rod/spring in Denix, dual rods in MGC
  
• rubber buffer on MGC bolt end plate
  

04) bolt side (MGC top)
Note various details, especially protrusion for mounting charging handle on top of Denix bolt.



05) upper receiver and bolt mix (Denix receiver, MGC bolt)
Looks ok, but only visually.



06) lower receivers (MGC top)
Note overall differences.



07) front of lower receivers (MGC top)

• well-defined edges of MGC vs roughs of Denix
  
• differences in internals, obvious width/thickness variation
  

08) back of lower receivers (MGC top)
Note completely different plate near receiver back (right of photo).
This is one of things that prevent proper alignement of mixed upper/lower receivers.



09) charging handle
Denix upper receiver with a screw-on handle made of ugly plastic.
Below MGC handle which is a push-and-twist-to-lock design.



10) bolt detail (MGC back)
Different details of bolt construction, and of finish.



11) MGC lower, Denix upper receiver
It won't fit, it's as far as it goes.



12) Denix lower, MGC upper receiver
It won't fit either, also as far as it goes.