Makarov as CCW
John Colosio
So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
Opinions on the effectiveness of 9x18?
Recommendations on ammo brand? (Corbon the best?)
--
John Colosio
Igo, California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find out about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
Patrick Graham
His is in .380..
He carries Hornady Custom ammo in it..
We did some penatration test on both 380 and 9x18 Mak
using fmj ammo, into 2x4s.. They seemed to be about the same.
John Colosio wrote in message <7c61ae$p54$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
#Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
#So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
#Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
#Opinions on the effectiveness of 9x18?
#Recommendations on ammo brand? (Corbon the best?)
CPH Buffalo
jcol...@snowcrest.net (John Colosio) wrote:
> ...
I have 2 Sigs a CZ, SP-101 and numberous other guns that most would think would be a better
carry gun.
But I always seem to carry my E. German Mak loaded with Corbon in my Old World belt slide for my
carry weapon.
Che'Gu Maru
> ...
I regularly carry mine loaded with either Corbons or Hornady HP's.
Basically, I rotate rounds out ever six months and get whatever is
cheapest at the time between the two.
My own impression is that the 9x18 Mak with a slightly larger diameter
bullet would have even better knock down power ia close up urban
situations than most 9mm, but would also have less penetration. But
that's just a guess...
colt45
John
Skb585
powerful 9X18 wouldn't be as good.... be careful of those sights though, might
wanna round the edges off with a file a bit, they bite!
Karl Bloss
wrote:
#Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
#So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
#Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
Yes, almost exclusively, but then I'm biased. :-)
#Opinions on the effectiveness of 9x18?
Somewhere between .380 and 9x19.
#Recommendations on ammo brand? (Corbon the best?)
I like Corbon because of their consistently superior velocity (>1000
ft/s). See:
http://makarov.com/corbon.html
I recommend a good holster. Of course, I recommend the Falco:
-Karl
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
aware of all the rants about stopping power calibres, but I prefer the
Mak because it is very reliable and managaable even in stress situations
and is very accurate. I'm very confident that I can hit what I aim at
with it, and that it will fire every time I pull the trigger.
CPH Buffalo
bl...@enter.net (Karl Bloss) wrote:
> ...
Karl is the expert....but I like the Old World Holster. The Corcon ammo is sure consistant.
Alogusz
Randy Evers
# Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
# So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
# Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
# Opinions on the effectiveness of 9x18?
# Recommendations on ammo brand? (Corbon the best?)
I carry mine nearly every day. It's absolutely reliable and accurate as
all hell. I have complete confidence in the gun.
9x18 ought to be a little bit (not a whole lot) more effective than a
.380. Plenty good enough if you can shoot.
Cor-Bon is the hottest that I've found. The Blazer Gold Dots seem to be
pretty hot, too, but I haven't chronographed them.
gay...@norcom2000.com
# wrote:
#
# #Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
# #So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
# #Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
#
# Yes, almost exclusively, but then I'm biased. :-)
#
# #Opinions on the effectiveness of 9x18?
#
# Somewhere between .380 and 9x19.
#
# #Recommendations on ammo brand? (Corbon the best?)
#
# I like Corbon because of their consistently superior velocity (>1000
# ft/s). See:
#
# http://makarov.com/corbon.html
#
# I recommend a good holster. Of course, I recommend the Falco:
#
# http://makarov.com/falco/
#
# -Karl
#
I certainly agree that the 9mm Makarov round is usually, *usually*
a bit more powerful than the .380. I also believe that perusal of
any data on the subject shows that it is much, much closer to the
.380 than to the 9mm. For example, the nominal velocity of the
Cor-Bon .380 offering is a 90 grain bullet at 1050 fps. The nominal
performance of the Cor-Bon 9mm Makarov is a 95 grain bullet at
1050 fps. A five graiin heavier bullet at the same nominal velocity.
Not a huge increase in power. If one subscribes to the One Shot
Stop method of rating handgun loads, the increase in OSS
effectiveness goes up very slightly as the power ratings go up
quite significantly. For example, a very good .380 might be rated
at 70 or 71 percent from a 3.5 inch barrel and a good standard
pressure 9mm from a 3.5 inch barrel is rated at about 78 percent.
In other words an increase of 80-100 pounds of energy (close to
a fifty percent increase in power over the .380 produces an
increase of 8 percentage points in the OSS rating, or about 10-11
percent increase. It follows that the Makarov with an increase of
power in the neighborhood of 5-6 percent is not likely to exhibit a
large increase in effectiveness. If it does, then those who say that
everyone should move to a .40 or .45 may have a valid point as they
are likely to be so much more effective that the "bad guy" will probably
fall down dead before a shot is fired. <g>. I think we worry too much
about minute points. We still have to hit the target. I believe that most
good .380 loads and most good Makarov loads are so close to each
other in effectiveness that the point is moot. BTW, I really do like the
Maks but I don't believe they are inherently "better".
Gary
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jerry
#Mag Safe also makes ammo for the Mak
I heard recently that they may discontinue the 9x18.
Jerry
I've carried one daily for about eight years, and feel well armed. The pistol
is utterly reliable (over 10,000 rounds through mine, and my wife's with "0"
malfunctions.) Plus it's surprisingly accurate.
Cor-Bon or Hornady are the best commercial loads. I personally carry a bit
hotter handload, at 1140 fps with a 95 gr bullet. (Yes I'm aware of the
liability myth, and dismiss it)
Check out Karl Bloss's web site at www.Makarov.com for a wealth of info, tech
help, and accessories. If you watch Shotgun News, or Gun List, you will often
see East Block ammo pretty cheap for practice, and if you reload, there plenty
of components available.
In a word, it's a great little pistol, and I doubt you can do any better in
that size and caliber range for any price!
Jerry
True
wrote:
#Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
#So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
#Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
#Opinions on the effectiveness of 9x18?
#Recommendations on ammo brand? (Corbon the best?)
********************
I carry the Bulgarian Mak with Corbon in 9 x 18! Got tired of messing
with holsters and now just mexican carry on the strong-side. Not
quite as fast as holster carry but a lot less hassle when I have to
change pants, belts, leave in car in restricted places, etc.
Also have the Russian Mak but don't like the sights for carry.
Put on Pearce grips shortly after getting the pistol and recommend
them over the standard issue which are not very ergonomic.
Double taps with the 9 x 18 *should* do the job!
True-
Alogusz
awww nuts! I just got a fax from Mag Safe, they mentioned that, but on their
flyer dated Feb 1, 1999, Mak ammo was still on there. Lets hope it stays (until
I buy a mak ;-)
piem...@hotmail.com
gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
# In article <7c8kuk$97v$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
# bl...@enter.net (Karl Bloss) wrote:
# # On 10 Mar 1999 09:58:22 -0500, jcol...@snowcrest.net (John Colosio)
# # wrote:
# #
# # #Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
# # #So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
# # #Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
# #
# # Yes, almost exclusively, but then I'm biased. :-)
# #
# #
# # Somewhere between .380 and 9x19.
# #
# #
# # I like Corbon because of their consistently superior velocity (>1000
# #
# # http://makarov.com/corbon.html
# #
# # I recommend a good holster. Of course, I recommend the Falco:
# #
# # http://makarov.com/falco/
# #
# #
# I certainly agree that the 9mm Makarov round is usually, *usually*
# any data on the subject shows that it is much, much closer to the
# .380 than to the 9mm.
True.
For example, the nominal velocity of the
# Cor-Bon .380 offering is a 90 grain bullet at 1050 fps. The nominal
# performance of the Cor-Bon 9mm Makarov is a 95 grain bullet at
# 1050 fps. A five graiin heavier bullet at the same nominal velocity.
# Not a huge increase in power.
However, the diameter of the bullet is also larger-- in fact larger than 9mm
Parabellum. Given adequate penetration-- fairly likely at >1000 fps-- I'd
think the round would be significantly more damaging, even excluding
expansion effects.
If one subscribes to the One Shot
# Stop method of rating handgun loads, the increase in OSS
# effectiveness goes up very slightly as the power ratings go up
# quite significantly. For example, a very good .380 might be rated
# at 70 or 71 percent from a 3.5 inch barrel and a good standard
# pressure 9mm from a 3.5 inch barrel is rated at about 78 percent.
# In other words an increase of 80-100 pounds of energy (close to
# a fifty percent increase in power over the .380 produces an
# increase of 8 percentage points in the OSS rating, or about 10-11
# percent increase. It follows that the Makarov with an increase of
# power in the neighborhood of 5-6 percent is not likely to exhibit a
# large increase in effectiveness. If it does, then those who say that
# everyone should move to a .40 or .45 may have a valid point as they
# are likely to be so much more effective that the "bad guy" will probably
# fall down dead before a shot is fired. <g>. I think we worry too much
# about minute points. We still have to hit the target. I believe that most
# good .380 loads and most good Makarov loads are so close to each
# other in effectiveness that the point is moot. BTW, I really do like the
# Maks but I don't believe they are inherently "better".
#
It appears they're somewhat more powerful than the .380, though as you say,
not enormously so. One interesting thing is that in looking at reloading
manuals is that while recommended chamber pressures for the .380 are usually
in the 15,000 range, pressures for the Mak are in the 20,000 area, and it's a
much larger case. Of course, 9mm Para pressures are above 30,000.
I wonder about this: if you were to replace the stock spring with one of the
more powerful springs available, would you be able to increase the power of
the load significantly? Mak experts? I ask this because I've never heard of
a Mak failing catastrophically, though I have heard of frame damage due to
peening.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
piem...@hotmail.com
je...@dittosrush.com (Jerry) wrote:
# In article <7c61ae$p54$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, jcol...@snowcrest.net (John
# Colosio) wrote:
# #Been waiting impatiently for my Makarov I have on order to arrive.
# #So I'll throw out a question for entertainment and my enlightenment.
# #Do you regularly carry a Makarov?
#
# is utterly reliable (over 10,000 rounds through mine, and my wife's with "0"
# malfunctions.) Plus it's surprisingly accurate.
#
# Cor-Bon or Hornady are the best commercial loads. I personally carry a bit
# hotter handload, at 1140 fps with a 95 gr bullet. (Yes I'm aware of the
# liability myth, and dismiss it)
#
Do you have a heavier than stock spring? Any damage to the pistol from that
load? I've wanted to develop a somewhat hotter load for mine, but wondered if
it would be safe.
MatQuig
#Got tired of messing
#with holsters and now just mexican carry on the strong-side. Not
#quite as fast as holster carry but a lot less hassle when I have to
#change pants, belts, leave in car in restricted places, etc.
#
Check out the little belt slide holster by Don Hume for the Mak. $20 and its
GREAT! MatQuig
gay...@norcom2000.com
alo...@aol.com (Alogusz) wrote:
# #I heard recently that they may discontinue the 9x18.
#
# awww nuts! I just got a fax from Mag Safe, they mentioned that, but on their
# flyer dated Feb 1, 1999, Mak ammo was still on there. Lets hope it stays (until
# I buy a mak ;-)
#
The original inventor and owner of Mag-Safe sold the company and I have
heard that they planned to downsize the rather astounding variety of loads
that he had offered and, quite sensibly from a business point of view,
concentrate on the more profitable calibers in terms of economies of
scale. Such possibilities are in large measure the reason that I decided
to let my Mak go (as much as I liked it). I think a good .380 will do
everything any Mak will do and ammor is much more common and
likely to stay that way. The Mak is a really enjoyable pistol and a
good bargain. Too bad.
Gary
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
gay...@norcom2000.com
piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
# In article <7cbbfb$h2o$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
# gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
<snipped>
#
# For example, the nominal velocity of the
# # Cor-Bon .380 offering is a 90 grain bullet at 1050 fps. The nominal
# # performance of the Cor-Bon 9mm Makarov is a 95 grain bullet at
# # 1050 fps. A five graiin heavier bullet at the same nominal velocity.
# # Not a huge increase in power.
#
# However, the diameter of the bullet is also larger-- in fact larger than 9mm
# Parabellum. Given adequate penetration-- fairly likely at >1000 fps-- I'd
# think the round would be significantly more damaging, even excluding
# expansion effects.
#
I understand that many shooters, especially hunters, talk a lot about
sectional density and such things. I must confess I don't know about
that. I have read some articles discounting the idea that a small
difference in diameter makes that much difference in effectiveness, but
I cannot state an informed opinion about that either. As I was posting
originally, I thought about the diameter difference. It might even have
been you who first brought it into this thread, come to think of it. You
may have a very good point there, I don't know. The difference is slight,
only .007 inch. Does that increased diameter plus a 5 or 6 percent
increase in power (at best) make a significant difference? I don't know
again. But, I appreciate you reminding me about the larger diameter. It
gives me something to roll around in my head for a while <g>. Of course,
it also might give me reason to regret letting go of my Bulgarian, in which
case perhaps I should holler at you for causing me grief. <bigger g>.
I think that ultimately my only objection to the Mak is the same as I have
with the .44 special. I like it a lot, but wanting to keep "working" calibers
to an easily-obtainable few, I have chosen to ignore those which are
deficient in quantities of easily obrtainable ammo. I may be wrong on that
one too, but that has been my thinking at any rate.
As a side thought, since you kinda refer to it in your post in referring to
"peening". Does anyone know how the quality of steel in a typical
Makarov, say a Bulgarian, compares to the steel used in a quality
.380 like an all-stainless Sig 230 or 232? I know there is more of it,
but how good it it? I hear conflicting reports. Thanks again and
take care.
Gary Ayers
Chuck Bridgeland
gay...@norcom2000.com writes:
#
## #I heard recently that they may discontinue the 9x18.
##
#scale. Such possibilities are in large measure the reason that I decided
#to let my Mak go (as much as I liked it). I think a good .380 will do
#everything any Mak will do and ammor is much more common and
#likely to stay that way.
Maks are available in .380 (as are.380 replacement barrels).
"Of course it's loaded."
chuck bridgeland,
chuckbri-AT-mwci-dot-net-dot-dead-dot-chicken
Che'Gu Maru
> ...
Well, as long as CCI keeps the Blazer hp, and Hornady and Corbon keep making the
caliber, I won't worry. Moreover, from what I understand, a 9x18 Mak can be easily
converted to .380 by changing out the barrel. Is that correct?
piem...@hotmail.com
gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
# I think that ultimately my only objection to the Mak is the same as I have
# with the .44 special. I like it a lot, but wanting to keep "working" calibers
# to an easily-obtainable few, I have chosen to ignore those which are
# deficient in quantities of easily obrtainable ammo. I may be wrong on that
# one too, but that has been my thinking at any rate.
Yours is probably the most practical approach, especially if you don't
reload. But I came to get the Mak through an economic analysis. My basic
criterion was bang per buck, so I got the Mak, 1000 rnds of reloadable ammo,
and dies to reload it-- all for a lot less than a premium .380. I shoot
every week, usually 200 rounds or more between several guns, so I decided
early on that I'd have to learn to reload, or I wouldn't be able to afford
it. While the Mak doesn't have the wide range of bullets available that you
see in calibers like 9mm, you can get both cast lead and electroplated
bullets for practice, and several premium jacketed bullets for carry.
Hornaday, Sierra, and Speer all make good bullets-- I use Speer Gold Dot.
#
# As a side thought, since you kinda refer to it in your post in referring to
# "peening". Does anyone know how the quality of steel in a typical
# Makarov, say a Bulgarian, compares to the steel used in a quality
# .380 like an all-stainless Sig 230 or 232? I know there is more of it,
# but how good it it? I hear conflicting reports. Thanks again and
# take care.
#
I'd have to defer to Mak and ComBloc experts, since I have no idea. But I've
put close to 3000 rnds through my Bulgarian Mak, and I can't see any wear,
other than the score line where the safety scrapes back and forth. I have to
admit, though, that I'm a cautious reloader, so most of these rounds weren't
very hot.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Colosio
# gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
#
# > ...
#
# Well, as long as CCI keeps the Blazer hp, and Hornady and Corbon keep making the
# caliber, I won't worry. Moreover, from what I understand, a 9x18 Mak can be easily
# converted to .380 by changing out the barrel. Is that correct?
#
They say you can change out the barrels. Found info on that at Makarov.com.
thanks
John
John Colosio
Igo, California
Jerry
#
#It appears they're somewhat more powerful than the .380, though as you say,
#not enormously so. One interesting thing is that in looking at reloading
#manuals is that while recommended chamber pressures for the .380 are usually
#in the 15,000 range, pressures for the Mak are in the 20,000 area, and it's a
#much larger case. Of course, 9mm Para pressures are above 30,000.
#
#I wonder about this: if you were to replace the stock spring with one of the
#more powerful springs available, would you be able to increase the power of
#the load significantly? Mak experts? I ask this because I've never heard of
#a Mak failing catastrophically, though I have heard of frame damage due to
#peening.
I'm no expert, but I use a 21# spring, and load my carry loads, a 95 gr XTP
JHP to 1140 fps for 274 ft/lbs. Although I practice with a lighter load, I
fire about 100 carry loads every month with no visible damage, and 100%
reliability. That is also my most accurate load. I've settled on this as best
for me, but I'm certain that the adventurous could go higher.
Jerry
gay...@norcom2000.com
"Che'Gu Maru" <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
# gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
#
# > ...
#
# Well, as long as CCI keeps the Blazer hp, and Hornady and Corbon keep making the
# caliber, I won't worry. Moreover, from what I understand, a 9x18 Mak can be easily
# converted to .380 by changing out the barrel. Is that correct?
#
with you that you should not worry. Maks are fine pistols. They just
don't fit into my own inventory. Good shooting.
Gary
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
gay...@norcom2000.com
piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
# In article <7cdn9c$p8i$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
# gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
#
<snipped>
#
# Yours is probably the most practical approach, especially if you don't
# reload. But I came to get the Mak through an economic analysis. My basic
# criterion was bang per buck, so I got the Mak, 1000 rnds of reloadable ammo,
# and dies to reload it-- all for a lot less than a premium .380. I shoot
# every week, usually 200 rounds or more between several guns, so I decided
# early on that I'd have to learn to reload, or I wouldn't be able to afford
# it. While the Mak doesn't have the wide range of bullets available that you
# see in calibers like 9mm, you can get both cast lead and electroplated
# bullets for practice, and several premium jacketed bullets for carry.
# Hornaday, Sierra, and Speer all make good bullets-- I use Speer Gold Dot.
#
<snipped>
#
# I'd have to defer to Mak and ComBloc experts, since I have no idea. But I've
# other than the score line where the safety scrapes back and forth. I have to
# admit, though, that I'm a cautious reloader, so most of these rounds weren't
# very hot.
#
I appreciate the reply on both your reasoning and your experience with
durability. That is what makes this board so useful. It really helps to
have the benefit of so many considerations and points of view.
Somewhere after picking up the Mak I got a chance to get a beautiful
Sig P-230 in stainless and I decided to let the Mak go. I been trying to
justify that action ever since. <g>. I really do like them though. My
Bulgarian was superbly accurate and apparently totally reliable.
Bill Nine Toes
#I understand that many shooters, especially hunters, talk a lot about
#sectional density and such things. I must confess I don't know about
#that. I have read some articles discounting the idea that a small
#difference in diameter makes that much difference in effectiveness, but
#I cannot state an informed opinion about that either. As I was posting
#originally, I thought about the diameter difference. It might even have
#been you who first brought it into this thread, come to think of it. You
#may have a very good point there, I don't know. The difference is slight,
#only .007 inch. Does that increased diameter plus a 5 or 6 percent
#increase in power (at best) make a significant difference? I don't know
#again. But, I appreciate you reminding me about the larger diameter. It
#gives me something to roll around in my head for a while <g>. Of course,
#it also might give me reason to regret letting go of my Bulgarian, in which
#case perhaps I should holler at you for causing me grief. <bigger g>.
#I think that ultimately my only objection to the Mak is the same as I have
#with the .44 special. I like it a lot, but wanting to keep "working"
calibers
#to an easily-obtainable few, I have chosen to ignore those which are
#deficient in quantities of easily obrtainable ammo. I may be wrong on that
#one too, but that has been my thinking at any rate.
#
I think that, alas, you've got a point about .44 special -- too many of the
commercial rounds are underpowered -- but the Mak's a different case.
There's more and more different ammo available for the Mak. Given that the
general consensus is that the better 380 loadings are, at present, about as
useful as the better .38 spl loads, the Mak, which is specced hotter, can't
be a bad choice.
The reason, as I understand it, that 44 spl loadings are underpowered is
because of the Charter Arms Bulldog, which can't take the real hot stuff --
but, still, there are quite useful loadings from CorBon and Magsafe.
Jerry
#In article <7ccajv$lfi$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,## awww nuts! I just got a fax from Mag Safe, they mentioned that, but on their
## flyer dated Feb 1, 1999, Mak ammo was still on there. Lets hope it stays
# (until
## I buy a mak ;-)
##
#The original inventor and owner of Mag-Safe sold the company and I have
#heard that they planned to downsize the rather astounding variety of loads
#that he had offered and, quite sensibly from a business point of view,
#concentrate on the more profitable calibers in terms of economies of
#scale. Such possibilities are in large measure the reason that I decided
#to let my Mak go (as much as I liked it). I think a good .380 will do
#everything any Mak will do and ammor is much more common and
#good bargain. Too bad.
Excluding the availability of a magic bullet, the Makarov is the most reliable
pistol I've ever carried, and that really is the primary consideration in my
book.
Alfredo Fernandez-Morrell
would not want to.
I'll take the 9X18 anyday over the 380.
tper...@my-dejanews.com
for a couple years before I got a deal on a S&W 915. I still grab the Mak
occasionally, mostly in the summer because its smaller than the 915. I would
recommend the Mak to anyone as a carry weapon/first handgun.
In article <7c9t0o$dgr$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
Randy Evers <liti...@icnet.net> wrote:
> ...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Nine Toes
the two, I don't know that I'd go to a whole lot of trouble to get one over
the other.
The Mak is a terrific gun. If they weren't so inexpensive, I bet that a lot
would still sell at, say, a $275 price level. 9mmM is about the limit at
which straight blowback operation is a good idea, and the fixed barrel makes
good accuracy a lot simpler than worrying about keeping the tightness of
lockup within acceptable parameters.
My only major quibble about it (well, I wish it were available in 9mmP oe 40
S&W, but besides that...) is with the firing pin resting on the primer. I
wish there were some cheap and reliable retrofit to convert it to an
inertial firing pin. (I assume that if there was, it would be prominently
mentioned on Karl Bloss' excellent http://www.makarov.com website.) My
minor quibble -- the inability to rack the slide while it's on safe -- is,
so I understand, subject to being fixed by a retrofit.
But, that said, as somebody who is comfortable carrying a .38 Special, I
don't feel undergunned with a Mak; the general consensus is that the better
loads of both do about the same damage on the receiving end.
Alfredo Fernandez-Morrell <morr...@fiu.edu> wrote in message
news:7ck0ng$d9m$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
> ...
MatQuig
<nine...@bigfoot.com> writes:
#hink that, alas, you've got a point about .44 special -- too many of the
#commercial rounds are underpowered -- but the Mak's a different case.
#There's more and more different ammo available for the Mak. Given that the
#general consensus is that the better 380 loadings are, at present, about as
#useful as the better .38 spl loads, the Mak, which is specced hotter, can't
#be a bad choice.
#
#The reason, as I understand it, that 44 spl loadings are underpowered is
#because of the Charter Arms Bulldog, which can't take the real hot stuff --
#but, still, there are quite useful loadings from CorBon and Magsafe.
#
This comparison of adequate to inadequate between the .44 Special and 9mm Mak
baffles me. On one hand, the .44 Spec. is regarded as obsolete, and on the
other, the 9mm Makarov beats the .380 and is "almost" as good as a .38 Special.
Even in a mild loading, the .44 Special seems to be able to cut a good swath,
reaching ever so close to the venerated .45 ACP. If a good solid .44 like the
S&W 696 can take a 7-7.5gr. of Unique under a 245-250 gr. SWC (the old
"Skeeter" load), then this even puts the .45 ACP to shame. I think a Rossi,
Taurus, or maybe even Charter might take an occasional diet of this for
defensive purposes, provided the shooter is sufficiently numb enough to take
the pounding to his hand. Any thoughts on this? I'd just trust my life to a
.44 Special BEFORE I'd chance it to the .380 or 9mm Mak, given the choice.
Concealment, of course, is another matter completely...MatQuig
gay...@norcom2000.com
je...@dittosrush.com (Jerry) wrote:
# In article <7ccunr$ncc$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
<snipped> Such possibilities are in large measure the reason that I decided
# #to let my Mak go (as much as I liked it). I think a good .380 will do
# #everything any Mak will do and ammor is much more common and
# #likely to stay that way. The Mak is a really enjoyable pistol and a
# #good bargain. Too bad.
#
# Excluding the availability of a magic bullet, the Makarov is the most reliable
# pistol I've ever carried, and that really is the primary consideration in my
# book.
#
I agree with you. I don't put much faith in magic bullets either. I was
trying to convey that, rightly or wrongly, I still think the Makarov is a
caliber that may not be around forever if importation dries up and since
I don't reload for it and don't plan to begin, I decided to rely on a more
common and readily available chambering. But, I have been wrong
plenty of times before and ten years from now offerings in 9mm M might
be coming out of our ears. Still I am reasonably confident that .380
will be around and available in more places than the Makarov. It
really IS a great pistol, though and I take pains to say that every time
I comment that I no longer have one. That is just my decision, not
a critique of the gun or the round. I certainly did not get rid of mine
because there might not be Mag-Safe available.
Gary
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
gay...@norcom2000.com
je...@dittosrush.com (Jerry) wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
#
# I'm no expert, but I use a 21# spring, and load my carry loads, a 95 gr XTP
# JHP to 1140 fps for 274 ft/lbs.
<snipped>
# Jerry
#
Jerry,
That is truly impressive and neatly trumps all my arguments. As for me,
for that kind of power I'll go with a little Smith and Wesson, but there
is absolutely no doubt that your load is superior to any .380. You also
seem to be answering my questions about durability. But, if you ever
break that little sucker doing that, in all fairness you gotta come back
here and tell us, OK? <g>
piem...@hotmail.com
gay...@norcom2000.com wrote:
#
# I appreciate the reply on both your reasoning and your experience with
# durability. That is what makes this board so useful. It really helps to
# have the benefit of so many considerations and points of view.
# Somewhere after picking up the Mak I got a chance to get a beautiful
# Sig P-230 in stainless and I decided to let the Mak go.
Well, I never saw a Sig I didn't like, so I can't blame you. I wish I could
afford to collect pistols, but I have to justify each acquisition on the
basis of utility. I do have a wish list, though. Currently a big bore
revolver with an 8" barrel (for hunting) is at the top, but right under it is
a Sig 220.
Joel Rosenberg
because it's inadequate for CCW. 9mmM, on the other hand, while formerly an
oddball, hard-to-get-in-a-variety-of-flavors caliber, is becoming more and more
mainstream, with more and more commercial loadings available.
I'm hoping the new S&W Airlite 44 Special works toward changing the former. I think
there's a good argument in favor of revolvers for civilian CCW, and another good
argument that .44 Special in a reasonably concealable package is one of the better
choices in revolvers for civilian CCW.
piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ...
John Garand
#In article <7citd6$8be$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, "Bill Nine Toes"
#<nine...@bigfoot.com> writes:
#
##hink that, alas, you've got a point about .44 special -- too many of the
snip
#reaching ever so close to the venerated .45 ACP. If a good solid .44 like the
#S&W 696 can take a 7-7.5gr. of Unique under a 245-250 gr. SWC (the old
#"Skeeter" load), then this even puts the .45 ACP to shame. I think a Rossi,
#Taurus, or maybe even Charter might take an occasional diet of this for
#defensive purposes, provided the shooter is sufficiently numb enough to take
#the pounding to his hand. Any thoughts on this? I'd just trust my life to a
#.44 Special BEFORE I'd chance it to the .380 or 9mm Mak, given the choice.
#Concealment, of course, is another matter completely...MatQuig
If concealment and "handiness" are not issues, fall back on the old
story about Elmer being asked "If you knew you were going to be in a
gunfight, what handgun would you take?" To which Elmer responded
"Handgun? Hell, if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight I'd take a
rifle!"
(the quote may be a trifle off, but you get the drift).
I'd take a 12 gauge over any of the above if concealment were not an
issue. Or any of the alleged "Assault Rifles" (better yet, the real
ones!). Etc.
John Grove
XTP's to 1250fps + without any indication of high pressure on the spent
cases. The slide racks back pretty hard even with a 21lb spring but I don't
have any fear of the gun coming apart in the near future, these guns are
tough!! If absolute accuracy were not the #1 concern, you could probably
load .356 9mm bullets to higher velocity than the 9mm Mak bullets and still
have decent defensive range accuracy. As a test, I used standard 9mm rounds
that were run through my bullet seater to fit the Mak magazine. They worked
fine but I don't think it was the safest thing I've ever done:-) It was only
a test to see if I could use the Mak if regular 9mm was the only ammo
available and I do not recommend it unless you have no other options.
John Grove
Michael Zimmet wrote in message <7cptjt$3sc$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
#In Rocky Raab's article, "Reloading the Makarov," appearing in
#the December 1993 issue of "American Rifleman," the author's gun
#withstood a load that sent a 95gr bullet on its way at 1374 fps,
#although Raab (wisely, in my opinion) decided that this load was
#too hot, and so he backed off.
Joel Rosenberg
John Garand wrote:
# On 16 Mar 1999 10:39:25 -0500, mat...@aol.com (MatQuig) wrote:
#
# #In article <7citd6$8be$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, "Bill Nine Toes"
# #<nine...@bigfoot.com> writes:
# #
# ##hink that, alas, you've got a point about .44 special -- too many of the
# snip
#
# #reaching ever so close to the venerated .45 ACP. If a good solid .44 like the
# #S&W 696 can take a 7-7.5gr. of Unique under a 245-250 gr. SWC (the old
# #"Skeeter" load), then this even puts the .45 ACP to shame. I think a Rossi,
# #Taurus, or maybe even Charter might take an occasional diet of this for
# #defensive purposes, provided the shooter is sufficiently numb enough to take
# #the pounding to his hand. Any thoughts on this? I'd just trust my life to a
# #.44 Special BEFORE I'd chance it to the .380 or 9mm Mak, given the choice.
# #Concealment, of course, is another matter completely...MatQuig
#
# If concealment and "handiness" are not issues, fall back on the old
# story about Elmer being asked "If you knew you were going to be in a
# gunfight, what handgun would you take?" To which Elmer responded
# "Handgun? Hell, if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight I'd take a
# rifle!"
Me, if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight, I'd take a train. To somewhere
else.
George Ham
for 380 auto?
George Ham
availability prevailed and I traded them off and started collecting
revolvers chambered for 38 special and or 357 magnum, a round for which
I also have a Winchester model 94. Also for the reloading bit, I become
rather anal retentive when I am forced to hunt for and pick up brass
after shooting.
George Ham
subject to the UCMJ you are a civilian, regardless of your employer or
profession.
Joel Rosenberg
are not subject to the UCMJ (which is not actually universal, as it applies
only to folks in the US military); and it is both dictionary and common
usage for police officers to refer to people who are not as "civilians."
George Ham wrote:
> ...
Alfredo Fernandez-Morrell
tried both. I still say the 9x18 is more powerful than the 380. I dont'
think a 380 will push as heavy a bullet as the 9X18. Every one of my
friends that bought the 380 (because of ammo availability) wished they
had bought what I have. I would still pick the 9X18, I don't care what
the "facts" are. The fact that you have to go to a +P to achieve the
performance of the other and spend extra money on +P ammo just does not
justify buying the 380 or for that matter go and change my barrel and
spend my money to make it a 380 like the original poster was inquiring
about. Before I change the barrel I would just go and buy one in a 380,
and save money. I think it is kind of dumb to buy a Mak in 9mm M, then
go and change the barrel to a 380. But getting back to my choice, I have
a Browning Hi Power in 9mmp, I have my Makarov in 9mmM, the way it was
designed, I have shot both the 380 and the 9mmM, and again I'll take the
9mm Makarov over the 380, anyday!
Robert P. Firriolo
<snip>
#I don't care what the "facts" are.
'Nuff said.
gay...@norcom2000.com
Alfredo Fernandez-Morrell <morr...@fiu.edu> wrote:
# I'llk repeat myself again. I'll take the 9X18 over the 380. I have
# tried both. I still say the 9x18 is more powerful than the 380. I dont'
# think a 380 will push as heavy a bullet as the 9X18. Every one of my
# friends that bought the 380 (because of ammo availability) wished they
# had bought what I have. I would still pick the 9X18, I don't care what
# the "facts" are. The fact that you have to go to a +P to achieve the
# performance of the other and spend extra money on +P ammo just does not
# justify buying the 380 or for that matter go and change my barrel and
# spend my money to make it a 380 like the original poster was inquiring
# about. Before I change the barrel I would just go and buy one in a 380,
# and save money. I think it is kind of dumb to buy a Mak in 9mm M, then
# go and change the barrel to a 380. But getting back to my choice, I have
# a Browning Hi Power in 9mmp, I have my Makarov in 9mmM, the way it was
# designed, I have shot both the 380 and the 9mmM, and again I'll take the
# 9mm Makarov over the 380, anyday!
#
Although I made my choice in caliber the .380 (and I have posted my reasons
for this in this thread) for many reasons other than "power", I agree that the
9mm M is more powerful. Not by much, but more powerful. Having said that,
I agree completely with the above poster in that I would always prefer a
handgun in the caliber for which it was designed, or the caliber in which it
has evolved. If I buy another Makarov (certainly a possibility, since I like
them quite well) it would definitely be in 9mm Makarov. However, I also
would not gainsay someone who made a different decision.
Gary
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Garand
<morr...@fiu.edu> wrote:
#I'llk repeat myself again. I'll take the 9X18 over the 380. I have
#tried both. I still say the 9x18 is more powerful than the 380. I dont'
#think a 380 will push as heavy a bullet as the 9X18. Every one of my
#friends that bought the 380 (because of ammo availability) wished they
#had bought what I have. I would still pick the 9X18, I don't care what
#the "facts" are. The fact that you have to go to a +P to achieve the
snip
Your personal confidence in the gun/cartridge combination is
sufficient reason for you to select it over the .380.
Joel Rosenberg
John Garand wrote in message <7dh441$fa2$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
#On 23 Mar 1999 10:06:07 -0500, Alfredo Fernandez-Morrell
#<morr...@fiu.edu> wrote:
#
##I'llk repeat myself again. I'll take the 9X18 over the 380. I have
##tried both. I still say the 9x18 is more powerful than the 380. I dont'
##think a 380 will push as heavy a bullet as the 9X18. Every one of my
##friends that bought the 380 (because of ammo availability) wished they
##had bought what I have. I would still pick the 9X18, I don't care what
##the "facts" are. The fact that you have to go to a +P to achieve the
#
#snip
#
#Your personal confidence in the gun/cartridge combination is
#sufficient reason for you to select it over the .380.
#
Absolutely. But the small difference in max SAAMI pressures isn't. (My
Mak, btw, is in 9mmM, not .380 -- but it if had come the other way, I
wouldn't have gone to the trouble of changing barrels for a trivial
difference in velocity.)
Che'Gu Maru
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
# John Garand wrote in message <7dh441$fa2$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
# #On 23 Mar 1999 10:06:07 -0500, Alfredo Fernandez-Morrell
# #<morr...@fiu.edu> wrote:
# #
# ##I'llk repeat myself again. I'll take the 9X18 over the 380. I have
# ##tried both. I still say the 9x18 is more powerful than the 380. I dont'
# ##think a 380 will push as heavy a bullet as the 9X18. Every one of my
# ##friends that bought the 380 (because of ammo availability) wished they
# ##had bought what I have. I would still pick the 9X18, I don't care what
# ##the "facts" are. The fact that you have to go to a +P to achieve the
# #
# #snip
# #
# #Your personal confidence in the gun/cartridge combination is
# #sufficient reason for you to select it over the .380.
# #
#
# Absolutely. But the small difference in max SAAMI pressures isn't. (My
# Mak, btw, is in 9mmM, not .380 -- but it if had come the other way, I
# wouldn't have gone to the trouble of changing barrels for a trivial
# difference in velocity.)
I agree, and am glad that mine also came in 9x18. But like you, I certainly
wouldn't rebarrel if I'd had a .380. By the way, you aren't the same Joel
Rosenberg whose written some fine SF/Fantasy stories, are you?