When it comes to weapons and the name “Ingram” is mentioned, one usually thinks of the notorious MAC-10 which is well-known from action movies. But until then it was a long way and much of Ingram’s history is little known. With his early submachine guns, he achieved only moderate success. As well, with the set-up of a production facility in Peru.

As in many countries, surplus military weapons were available at reasonable prices in the United States in the early post-war years. During this time, the entrepreneur and amateur gunmaker Gordon B. Ingram tried to gain a foothold in the competitive arms market with a cost-effective submachine gun. In May 1949, he founded the Police Ordnance Company (POC) based in El Monte, California. As the name implies, the weapons were intended for police forces and other armed state organizations. With production maturity of the first submachine gun, the company relocated to Los Angeles.

Ingram’s “Model 6” looks like an MP Thompson at first glance. That was intentional, because for the potential customers it should be a familiar sight. In terms of production technology, however, the weapon was much simpler, and, thus, priced far below the competition. The housing consists of a steel tube with screwed end cap. The trigger assembly is in a box-shaped sheet metal housing that also forms the magazine well. The only safety option is a recess in the housing into which the handle of the cocked bolt can be hooked. The weapon therefore does not offer any special innovations. It’s blowback-operated and fires from the open bolt, in which the bolt is held fully rearward by the sear when cocked. The shooter can choose between single and fully automatic fire, depending on how far the trigger is pulled. The weapon was offered from 1949 in three configurations: The “Police” version had a wooden foregrip like that of the Thompson 1928 and a barrel with cooling ribs, the “Guard” version, however, a plain wooden forearm and a heavier barrel without cooling ribs. The “Military” version in turn had additional protected sights, eyelets for a carrying sling, and a 10-inch spike-shaped bayonet, which was stored inside the forearm in reversed position when not required. Ingram considered drum magazines to be too complicated, which is why he offered only a box magazine for 30 cartridges.

The Police Ordnance Company was able to sell a larger number of the Model 6 in various designs until 1952. But the big commercial success never came. Even the improved Model 7 with manual fire selector sold badly. Gordon Ingram had actually speculated that the simple design would make his weapons attractive, especially for smaller states with lower budgets. But only the Cuban navy and the Thai army bought a small number of weapons.

Looking for more customers, the POC salesman R.B. Morten established contact with the Peruvian government. After the war, Morten studied at the University of San Marcos and now had good connections with businesspeople and government agencies in Peru. The Peruvian army had great interest in Ingram’s submachine gun. Soon after the presentation of the weapon, the idea of ​​a domestic weapons production came up. The Peruvian government drafted a procurement plan with the military leadership and, after brief negotiations with the Police Ordnance Company, represented by Wilson Sologuren Perez, a contract was signed in 1951: the first 500 weapons were to be manufactured by the POC in Los Angeles. Another 1,500 weapons were then to be made by Fabrica de Armas Los Andes S.A. in the Peruvian port city of Callao. Until then, the POC would get all the necessary tools and machines and import them to Peru. In addition, the POC was responsible for setting up the factory and organizing serial production. Peruvian workers had to be instructed in the operation of the machines and the technique of the weapon’s manufacture. The weapon design corresponded to the Military Model 6 in.45 ACP, but with slight adjustments to the local manufacturing possibilities. The Peruvian National Police first wanted weapons in 9x19mm, but the military’s interests took precedence. According to the contract, one delivered unit included a submachine gun with one 30 round magazine, a woven fabric sling, and a bayonet. The latter was practically unsuitable for a fight, though it may rather have served to intimidate demonstrators and insurgents.

The price per unit for the weapons to be manufactured in Los Angeles was agreed at $100. This included the packaging in wooden transport crates, which were lined with zinc for possible long-term storage in the South American climate. For the weapons to be produced in Callao, the price per unit was 1,000 Peruvian Soles. For mutual protection, an irrevocable letter of credit amounting to 1,500,000 Soles and a term of 12 months was deposited with a Peruvian bank immediately after signing the contract. The first third had to be paid after arrival of all machines at the factory. Within a period of 120 days, serial production should start and after 750 manufactured weapons, the second instalment was to be paid. By the payout of the last installment, the remaining 750 weapons had to be completed. Overall, the deadline for the contract was eight months from the start of series production.

The other points of the contract related to the time afterwards. Thus, the capacity of the factory should be designed for the possibility of at least 1,000 weapon-per-month follow-on production. In addition, the construction of a cartridge factory was planned. The Police Ordnance Company had to advise on this project from planning to commissioning. The Peruvian government reserved the right to export the weapons and ammunition produced in Peru to any other country except the directly neighboring countries of Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Chile.

One interesting aspect is security: the Peruvian government was responsible for protecting the entire factory, administrative buildings, test shooting range, and other facilities. The costs of police and possible military operations were not allowed to be charged to the Police Ordnance Company. In case of war, the POC had to concentrate fully on the production of submachine guns and neglect all minor work.

Gordon Ingram personally traveled to Peru and spent over a year completing the assignment. The U.S.-made weapons were delivered quickly, but then the first problems arose. Ingram had determined the necessary machine requirements, but the import company supplied machines that partly did not correspond to its description. For example, instead of the versatile, easy to maintain sine bar rifling machine, a far less suitable broaching machine was used, whose broaches, after wear or breakage, could only be obtained at a high price from a particular company in the United States. And Morten’s Peruvian partner in Lima suddenly confronted him with an unjustified $5,000 sales commission claim. The case came to court in Los Angeles and after a short negotiation was decided in favor of the POC. But the loser fought back – he used a feud between Peruvian President Manuel Odría and the Minister of War to influence relations against the Police Ordnance Company. Shortly before the completion of the last run of weapons, Ingram received a letter out of the blue telling him that he was not going to be paid for his last month’s work. A reason was not mentioned. But Ingram sensed that serious trouble was brewing and left Peru shortly thereafter. The contractually guaranteed last instalment was never paid.

Gordon Ingram had not become rich through this deal. Also, sales in the U.S. continued to be very low. At the end of November 1954, the Police Ordnance Company went out of business. A former colleague, John Arnold, bought (in cooperation with the National Ordnance company) all the machinery and the weapon parts in stock. He immediately traveled to Peru and visited the factory Los Andes. He probably hoped for new business relationships, but nothing came of it. Irritated by his unexpected appearance, the police told him to leave the country immediately or he risked arrest. This concluded the last chapter of Ingram’s adventure in Peru.

Overall, the Fabrica de Armas Los Andes produced about 8,000 submachine guns in .45 ACP. The 9mm version requested by the police never went into production in Peru. All weapons show the Peruvian crest behind the ejection port on the top of the receiver and differ in some details from the American model. While the Model 6 from U.S. production is available on the collector’s market today, the Peruvian model is quite a rarity.

Ingram Model 6 Technical Data:

A Brief History of Ingram and MAC

Gordon Bailey Ingram was born in Los Angeles, California on 30 December 1924. Ingram conceived a series of submachine guns that eventually led to his Model 10.

Ingram’s first .45 caliber submachine gun was made in 1946 and was designated the Lightening Model 5. Since there already were M1, M2 and M3 U.S. submachine guns, Ingram started with the designation M5, skipping M4 in case the Ordnance Department was planning to introduce another weapon.

During 1949, the somewhat successful Ingram Model 6 was introduced. Ingram also designed submachine guns, Models 7, 8, and 9, of which few were built. They were all similar in design to his Model 6.

In 1964, Gordon Ingram began to concentrate on a basic inexpensive weapon aimed primarily at the third-world market. While working at the Erquiaga Arms Company in California, Ingram made the first prototype of his Model 10 submachine gun. The M10 was radically different from any of Ingram’s previous designs. The Model 10 was designed to produce a high volume of fire at close range, and does so quite reliably.  

After leaving the Erquiaga Arms Company, Gordon Ingram attempted to find a major arms company to manufacture and market his Model 10 submachine gun. Ingram contacted over twenty domestic and foreign arms companies; all declined his offer.

Mitchell L. WerBell III’s primary business was designing and manufacturing sound suppressors. When WerBell learned of Ingram’s Model 10 submachine gun, he realized the compact weapon, fitted with one of his SIONICS suppressors, would be perfect as a concealable weapon with plenty of firepower.

After a deal was struck between WerBell and Ingram, the name of the company was changed from SIONICS to the Military Armament Corporation. In order to expand business operations further, the under-financed MAC organization was taken over by Quantum Ordnance Bankers Inc. Quantum was a group of investors that pumped millions of dollars into the company.

Shortly after the Quantum takeover of MAC, a bitter struggle broke out over policies, procedures, and operations. WerBell and Ingram were both forced out of the company. Quantum management then permanently changed the name of the Ingram submachine gun, to which they held all rights, to the MAC submachine gun (Military Armament Corporation). The Model 10 and Model 11 (renamed as “M10” and “M11”) receivers with Ingram’s name on them were pulled from the production line and placed in storage. Receiver production continued without the Ingram name, which was replaced by the name “MAC” on all M10 and M11 submachine guns. All weapon manuals, literature and advertising had the Ingram name replaced with MAC.

Company mismanagement and proposed government contracts that never materialized eventually forced the Military Armament Corporation into bankruptcy during 1975. The assets of MAC were auctioned off in June of 1976. Gordon Ingram passed away on November 4, 2004, with little personal or financial success from his submachine gun efforts.

The MAC Lives On…

Today, the Ingram Model 10, or MAC-10 as it’s more popularly called, is a very well-known submachine gun. The Model 10 and its variants have been produced under a number of names including the original Military Armament Corporation (Georgia), RPB Industries, Inc. SWD Incorporated, Military Armament Corporation (Texas), Jersey Arms Works and by Section Five LTD of Great Britain.

The MAC Models 10 and 11, and SWD’s M11/Nine, had always been at the lower end of the popularity scale with NFA enthusiasts. Their fast cyclic rate, while exhilarating, resulted in poor accuracy and tedious magazine loading. Over the years there have been several attempts by companies and individuals to tame the MAC’s cyclic rate and make them more ergonomic.   

The Inspiration

Organized submachine gun competitions, originated around the 1970s. Early contests were largely dominated by those wielding Thompsons, which soon gave way when HK 94 to MP5 submachine gun conversions became available. The MP5 soon became the submachine gun of choice for serious competitors. One disadvantage to the MP5 was their high price.

As in many endeavors, those with the best (read ‘expensive’) equipment usually prevail. However, Americans love an underdog, which what the MAC-type series of guns would certainly qualify as when attempting to compete with MP5 submachine guns in a contest environment. This is probably the mindset that began the evolution of MAC-type guns to be competitive. The first known transformation into a competition weapon was of an SWD M11/Nine, and was by individuals from the Triad Action Shooter’s Klub or TASK. Their earliest modifications included a wooden buttstock, a muzzle brake, and a red-dot sight.

The original TASK M11/Nine design continued to evolve becoming more ergonomic and reducing the cyclic rate to approximately 500-550 rounds per minute. In capable hands, with these modifications, the underdog M11/Nine was able to record times that could compete with, and often beat, the MP5, M16/9mm and UZIs in the Modern and Open division events. The (relatively) inexpensive MAC-type submachine guns modified for competition opened up participation in the matches for those who could not afford an expensive weapon to be competitive.      

Enter Lage Manufacturing LLC

Richard Lage bought his first machine gun, a SWD M11/Nine in 2000. After shooting it for less than a year, the novelty wore off and he wanted to find a way to slow it down. It wasn’t long until Mr. Lage decided to convert his M11/Nine to the very popular TASK Slow Fire configuration, he made some improvements and created the Lage MAX-11/9 for the TASK conversion. There were only 22 of the MAX-11/9 upper receivers produced.

Mr. Lage’s efforts continued, resulting in a very successful line of upper receivers and accessories under the Lage Manufacturing brand, all designed to reduce the M10, M11 and SWD’s M11/Nine submachine gun’s cyclic rate and improve their ergonomics, some models were configured to use the 71-round Suomi drum magazines.

The Latest and Greatest

After the success of his line of upper receivers, Richard Lage had a number of requests for a rifle caliber upper receiver for the MACs. Retaining the recoil of the .223/5.56 round in a short MAC receiver was a challenge. Such a conversion had been attempted before by Alliance Armament with their 556 S.A.B.R.E. The unit was heavy, bulky and it did not sell very well. Before long the S.A.B.R.E. upper was dropped from production.

Lage was hesitant to embark on such a project, believing that after a labor-intensive development process there was a possibility that the BATF would not approve it. In addition, Richard was basically a subgun guy and wasn’t excited about a rifle caliber MAC. A customer and MAC enthusiast by the name of Mike Burrows had designed a .223 upper receiver for the M11/Nine. He offered it to Lage to develop and put in production, in exchange for four production upper receivers. With the initial groundwork done by Mr. Burrows, Richard submitted the prototype to BATF for approval, if approved, he could start refining the upper for production. BATF approved the upper receiver for the M11/Nine in 90 days. However, the MAX-11A1/15 and MAX-10/15 was submitted in July of 2019 and wasn’t approved until December 2021!

Initially, an AR spring and buffer in the buttstock of the conversion was used to handle the recoil of the 5.56mm cartridge. This was called the external AR Recoil Mechanism (ARRM). This required drilling a hole in the back of the receiver to allow a rod from the bolt carrier to push on the buffer and spring assembly in the stock. Many potential customers were reluctant to modify an expensive registered receiver, thus the concept was not well received and dropped from production. Lage also developed an upper with a completely self-contained recoil mechanism inside of the receiver. This Internal Recoil Mechanism (IRM) did not require any alterations to the receiver. Both have features that are covered in U.S. Patent 10,794,647 B2.

The Lage .223/5.56 conversions are designated as; the MAX-11/15 for the M11/Nine, MAX-M11A1/15 for the M11/.380, and the MAX-10/15 for the 9mm and .45 Model 10. The handguard of the upper receiver conversion is made of 7075 black anodized aluminum 20-inches in length, with a Picatinny rail on top for mounting optics, and M-LOK mounting points on the sides. The system uses standard AR magazines. The barrel is 10.5-inches in length, chambered for 5.56 x 45mm/.223 ammunition. Rifling twist is 1:7, muzzle threads are 1/2-28 with a M16A1 style flash suppressor. An Odin Works adjustable gas block is installed on the barrel to allow the gas system to be tuned for specific ammunition. A non-reciprocating charging handle is located on the left side. A shell deflector is provided for left-handed shooters. At the rear of the upper is a rubber gas seal to keep blowback gas away from the operator’s face when firing with a sound suppressor. The Lage system fires from an open-bolt and allows both full-auto and semi-auto operation. The cyclic rate is approximately 790-950 RPM. Weight of a MAX-10/15 mounted on a MAC 10 receiver with buttstock and loaded 30-round magazine is 9 pounds, 7 ounces.

The upper is not considered a firearm, so no license is required to purchase one. They are for submachine guns only and will not convert a semi-auto MAC to full-auto.

What would Gordon Ingram think of Lage’s conversions? I think he would be impressed.

Resources

• “The MAC Man: Gordon B. Ingram and His Submachine Guns” available from Chipotle Publishing LLC.
• Lage Manufacturing, LLC
• Special thanks to Richard Lage for his contributions to this article.

By Lee Arten

The Ingram Model 6 in .45 ACP, made by the Police Ordnance Company of Los Angeles, CA is a very simple gun. In this case, however, simple works. Externally the Model 6 bears some resemblance to the Thompson, especially in the police model with the vertical handgrip. Looking at drawings of both guns shows that the Thompson has a lot more going on inside to get basically the same results as the Ingram.

Internally, the tubular receiver, the large spring and heavy bolt look similar to those in the STEn, the Sterling and some other open bolt subguns. Despite that the Ingram is a singular design. One difference between it and other subguns from about the same era is that the trigger functions as the selector. A short pull gives semi-auto fire, and pulling it back as far as possible allows for full-auto. According to Military Small Arms of the 20th Century “the system is today, fairly commonplace, but at the time of the Ingram’s introduction was still something of a novelty”.

I’d never used such a trigger until I bought the Ingram Model 6 Military, one of the Stembridge Movie guns from Long Mountain Outfitters. I wasn’t sure if I’d like it, but I’ve been impressed. Single shots are very easy to squeeze off, and despite the “double action” feature, the trigger is better than that on some other subguns.

The Ingram starts out about a half pound heavier empty than the M50 Reising, the subgun I’ve shot most. It gains about three quarters of a pound over a loaded Reising with the addition of a full 30 round magazine and runs faster than the Reising, too. With reloads my Reising runs about 575 rpm according to a Speed Timer 3000. The same timer puts the Ingram at 600 rpm with the same loads. That is just what the specs in The World’s Submachine Gun Vol 1 by Nelson say it should be.

Despite running faster than the Reising, the Ingram seemed more controllable. My friend Mike, my son, Isaac and I had all shot Reisings and MP5’s before. Mike had also shot Thompsons and some other subguns at Knob Creek on a visit a few years ago. I’d fired others including Thompsons, a Mauser 712 machinepistol, and the Beretta 38/42. The night we shot the M6 for the first time, the targets were Beast Products steel bowling pin swingers set at about 15 yards. We shot single shots and bursts and didn’t find the targets hard to hit with the Ingram despite the open bolt subguns’ reputation for aim-destroying clunk and vibration. At that range we didn’t think even the MP5 would have shot much better. Because of the Reising’s hard trigger, the Ingram was easier to shoot. Controllability seemed to be enhanced by the M6’s heavy tubular receiver. The Ingram was almost six inches shorter than the Reising and most of the M6’s weight seemed to be between the hands.

In burst fire the Ingram didn’t seem to start to rear up and jolt backward until after the first several rounds had gone down range. Fired in short bursts, it stayed on the target quite well. It didn’t hang like an M3, but the M3 runs about 250 rpm slower, too.

We were shooting in a gravel pit and had only an hour before dark. Because time was short, we put whatever reloads came to hand into the Ingram mag. Sometimes there were nickel and brass cased ammo with FMJ and RNL bullets mixed in the same magazine. With a singular exception they all fired. The exception was the last round loaded into the magazine. That round didn’t feed, except once in a short-loaded stick. Instead, it would get bumped forward into the front of the magazine or the edge of the chamber. Lead bullets were gashed and pushed back into the case. Reloads with hardball weren’t cut, but the bullets were sometimes pushed back. Something will have to be done about that, but there were no other problems in our short session. I’d brought some Winchester hardball along in case the Ingram was finicky, but never opened the box. Altogether we fired about 200 reloads in an hour. Some were fired through the Reising but most were fired in the Ingram.

More shooting of the Ingram showed it to work as well with light Bullseye loads with lead 230 grain round nose bullets, as with hardball equivalent loads with 230 grain FMJs. The problem with the last round in the magazine still occurred but seemed to happen less often than the first time I shot the gun. Several people left the range grinning, wanting more time on the Ingram. A friend who had been at the session called me a few days later. During the conversation he said he was tumbling a bunch of 45 brass which were going to be loaded and reserved for use in my subguns, particularly the Model 6. I need more friends like that.

The sights on the Ingram impressed me. Several subguns I’ve fired seemed to have the sights stuck on as an afterthought. A STEn I saw a couple of years ago had no front sight. When I drew that to the attention of the guy running the rental operation, he said, “Oh yeah, it fell off. We’ll have to put it back on.”

That kind of casual attitude is not encouraged by the Ingram’s sights. The rear sight is a peep, adjustable for windage with reference marks on the sight base. It is protected by two large ears which somewhat resemble those on the Swedish K. The front sight is also sturdy and has protective wings on either side. I thought the sights on the Model 6 were quite usable. Nelson’s book says they are set for 100 yards and I don’t anticipate shooting any subgun much farther than that. One hundred yards and beyond is Garand or M1A territory.

The World’s Submachine Guns gives the Ingram’s particulars as: Blowback operation, selective fire, cyclic rate 600 rpm Made in 9mm, .45 ACP and .38 Super Length without bayonet 30 inches, with bayonet 37 inches Nine inch round barrel Unloaded weight 7.25 pounds, loaded weight 9 pounds Magazine capacity 30 rounds. Box magazine made of seamless steel tubing. Six lands and grooves with a right hand twist.

The book doesn’t mention it but the gun has a two-piece wooden stock and sling swivels. I like wooden stocks and the Ingram’s fits me quite well.

I took the Ingram to the range and fired it semi-auto from the bench with reloads using Bullseye, Unique and Clays powders and 230 grain FMJ bullets. The loads were made using Winchester Large Pistol Primers and Remington-Peters nickel-plated cases. The Ingram seemed to like 4.3 grains of Bullseye. At 25 yards I shot four slugs into two inches and then threw a flier that stretched the group to three and a half inches. At 50 yards I got three shots into two inches on the edge of the target. The other two of the five were off in the much-ventilated back board and lost. The Unique load worked better than the Clays load but threw more and wider fliers than the Bullseye rounds. The Clays load I used threw seven-inch groups at 25 yards, OK for short range blasting but not for much else. The M6 trigger made it easy to shoot single shots. I never felt I might slip over and fire two or three instead of one.

Gordon B. Ingram developed several other subguns before the most famous of his inventions, the MAC 10. The Model 7, which fired from a close bolt and was chambered for the .38 Super, looked alot like the Model 6, at least in pictures. The Model 8, which was produced in Thailand, was an update of the Model 6. The Model 9 featured a folding wire stock and was shorter, lighter and chambered only for the 9mm Parabellum. The MAC 10 took the same trends to what I think is an extreme. Along with the subguns mentioned earlier I’ve also shot a suppressed MAC 10. Every other subgun I’ve fired felt better, and I shot better with them.

Recently, I’ve noticed that a lot of work is being done to MACs and the various MAC clones. There have been several articles in Small Arms Review detailing how to re-stock and re-sight these guns, and how to slow them down so they are of more use in competition shooting. Every issue of Shotgun News had ads for new stocks, handguards and barrels. Match photos show competitors using MACs tricked out with these, and other accessories. When I see these revamped guns, I can’t help but think that all the ad-ons merely bring these guns somewhere near the weight, length and utility of an original Model. 6.