[9x19]

denfoote might not agree, but here is the picture of my Bulgarian Makarov with Novak sights... installed by me! :D

It is such a nice pistol once it has sights you can use!

[WhoKnowsWho]

Nice!

[12 Volt Man]

Nice!!! I was thinking of sending mine off to get Novaks put on. I was wondering what it took to do it yourself? If it can be done easy, I may as well do it myself. First off, where did you order the sites from? Did you get front and back? What modifications did you have to make to the slide? Thanks!

[Handy]

Well done! Brings the Mak up to speed.

What was involved in the installation?

[9x19]

Installing the Novaks (made for the Colt Mustang) involves milling the slide front and rear for the sights.

I get the sights from Brownells, and I recently bought a bench-top mini milling machine that works just great for this type of work.

[Zundfolge]

While its neet you did it yourself, I don't think thats the best route for most of us (because the milling machine will cost you more then having a gunsmith do it) :p

I sent my slide off to the guys at www.makarov.com and they did an awsome job installing the Novak sights (they also do Ashley Express sights too).


This weekend I finaly got to shoot my Mak with its new sights and it makes a significant difference ... like I got a new (and better) gun.

I highly recommend that anyone with a Mak get the Novaks.

[LiquidTension]

I never have understood why people buy a cheap gun and then spend just as much money on accessories for it. Why not just buy something better to begin with? :neener:

My dad just got rid of his Mak. Irked me that he didn't let me have it :mad: They are excellent weapons for the price, but the factory sights ARE pretty horrible.

[Marko]

Liquid:

No flame here. But to answer your question: Basically, because there's a difference between sinking money into a cheap gun as opposed to improving an inexpensive gun. The Makarov falls into the latter category. Let's say I take my lowly $140 ARSENAL Bulgarian. Then I easily strip it down to its basic 26 parts and smooth the sear, trigger, and feed ramp (about a half hour's work and no money involved). Then I put a $150 moly-coated Novak-equipped BEAST Enterprises slide on it. I've only got $290 into a rock-sold reliable pistol that I prefer to anything in its class, regardless of price. My point being, that the end result is a superb and exceptionally reliable pistol that costs the same as, or less than, pistols of comparable quality.

Take care. Marko

[denfoote]

Nice!! Unnecessary, but nice!!!! :D

[Keith]

Marko, nice reply there!

The Mak is certainly a worthy recipient of an upgrade.

Keith

[C. H. Luke]

Nice Job!


FYI:

George Fischer at Makarov.Com LLC can do them for $130.
$ includes retunn shipping & test firing too.

[BevrFevr]

by the time you are done with sight and grips and whatever you could have a cz83.

The only things that hold true to both guns are reliablity and accuracy but you can't put enough money into a mak to make it equal in other respects to a cz.

If you own a mak you have a slide mounted safety, If you have a slide mounted safety I will always be laughing at you not with you.

-bevr

[9x19]

Mak's have a safety?!

So that's what that thing is... I thought it was just a decocker with a missing spring... that's how I use it... I mean, really... a safety on a DA? Now THAT is funny!

[Ebbtide]

I never have understood why people buy a cheap gun and then spend just as much money on accessories for it. Why not just buy something better to begin with?

Not sure you are looking for an answer, but as a hobby, it is enjoyable.

I think we all pick and choose how we spend our disposable income and pass our time. Some folks collect lighters, fix cars, imporve their home, woodwork, or even go to the movies. Some folks like to tinker with firearms.

Anyhow, the mak looks nice.

ehenz

[9x19]

Thanks for the comments folks... and it is a hobby type past time for me, as I have no yearnings to be a "Professional" gunsmith, though there are a few friends who might benefit from my newly developed skills. :D

[BevrFevr]

The rest of the time it is a SA and an SA without a safety ain't that funny is it?

-bevr

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. I really like your sight job and think it enhances an already nice pistol. I have a similar Novak-sighted Mak. Now, I can see the sights with my aging eyes and enjoy the pistol more. To each his own, but I think it was a very nice enhancement.

Best.

[Marko]

BevrFevr wrote:

The rest of the time it is a SA and an SA without a safety ain't that funny is it?

Somebody better tell Walther. And Beretta. And Smith & Wesson. And Bersa. And FEG. And... ;)

[BevrFevr]

What are you trying to say?

Do all of those manufacturers make single actions without safeties? And if they do are you leading us to believe that you think it is funny that they do?

:confused:
-bevr

[Marko]

BevrFevr:

No flame intended. My reply was obviously a poor attempt at some lighthearted humor. I had taken your quote to mean you were describing the Makarov's manual of arms as being SA without a safety. In return, I was attempting to point out that while the Makarov does not have a safety in SA mode, it does have a decocker --- quite similar in nature to pistols from numerous other manufacturers. My apologies if I misinterpreted your quote.

As for the CZ83, it is a wonderful pistol. I'm currently on my third. And while it does have advantages over my Makarovs (mainly capacity and fit & finsh), it has some drawbacks too:

For rational reasons or not, many folks are not comfortable with the CZ83's "cocked & locked" concept. The Mak's decocking safety gives them greater peace of mind. Also, the CZ's DA pull is quite long. And not everyone finds the CZ's doublestack grip to be ergonomically to their liking. For that matter, overall, the CZ is not nearly as svelte as the Mak. Personally, I find the Mak easier to conceal and more comfortable to carry. Your mileage may vary.

The Makarov is also much simpler in design. It has less than 30 parts. The CZ has more than double that. A person of only moderate mechanical skills can detail strip a Mak and put it back together in a matter of minutes. Not so, the CZ.

But we've strayed from the original subject of this thread -- improving the sight picture of a Makarov. While the CZ83's sights are worlds better than the Mak's stock combat sights, the Novak-style sights offer a sight picture even more distinct than the stock CZ sights.

Further to your debatable premise of not being able to sink enough money into a Mak to make it the equal of a CZ83, one could also argue you could not sink enough money into a CZ83 to make it the equal of a PCR -- a superb pistol of nominally larger size and cost, but with a decidedly more potent caliber. See how this logic could be projected out?

I think Mr. Camp summed it up best with his "to each his own, but...a very nice enhancement" quote. Each of us has our own desires and preferences when it comes to firearms. And each of those preferences involves tradeoffs. It's an individual's perogative to decide with which ratio of compromises between size, capacity, caliber and cost that individual is comfortable. And the beauty of that is it gives us, the consumer, so many choices to choose from. If someone makes an improvement to a gun, and if that improvement (regardless of cost) brings the person satisfaction, I have a hard time making an argument against it.

By the way, nice job 9x19.

Take care. Marko

[9x19]

BevrFevr,

Once the first shot is fired, and the hammer is back... if you aren't going to fire again, all it needs is a de-cokcer (which the Mak has), casue once the hammer is down, its DA again, and again, a safety on one a DA IS a funny thing (as it is wholly un-necessary)!

At least to me... :D

[BevrFevr]

Marko (I spelled it right this time),

We did seem to have some wires crossed and thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for the insights. A well written rebuttal. And yes to each his own and everthing I say is very debatable.

Part of my own debatable view is that I still agree with LiquidTension. Another debatable view I have is that I dislike slide mounted safety/decockers. In general I greatly dislike decockers but will accept them in certain circumstances.

9x19,

I like your work and should have said so earlier. I think that safeties on pure double actions generally aren't neccesary. I would argue that some DA's are safer than others though. On DA/SA guns with light trigger pulls I think safeties are a good idea.

-bevr

[Marko]

BevrFevr:

Thank you. And a well written and reasoned response on your part to my rebuttal.

For the record, as much as I like my Maks, I prefer frame mounted decockers such as those found on the CZ PCR or most SIGs.

Take care. Marko

[9x19]

Bevr,

Thanks for the nice comment.

There aren't many DA/SAs out there that allow cocked and locked carry, though the CZs and Taurus PT-92 are notable exceptions.

On most DA/SA's, once the firing's done, you simply need a way to lower the hammer safely, once that is done, (and IMO) there is no need of a safety any more than there is need of one on a revolver.

{Psst, don't tell Phoenix any of this, cause I've heard they might be adding ANOTHER safety to their HP-22! :evil: }

[BevrFevr]

I practice what I preach, The only three DA/SA's I've had in my stable are CZs, Tauruses and Rugers. I had a Ruger but sold it because it had a slide mounted decocker. Traded the Taurus for an AK but regret that as now I have neither and wish I had both.

Sig's are another story although they are frame mounted the controls are in the wrong place. I like sig alot if it were not for that fact. And yes my tastes keep me form owning alot of otherwise quality firearms.

-bevr