[10 Ringer']

Obviously, these two rounds are considered minimal due to thir light weight and small size. But isn't proper shot placement from a more controllable gun than a super light .357 or .40S&W just as or more important than the old "bigger is better" wisdom? Sure, a badguy hit with a sledgehammer will take it a lot worse than a prick from a little marble, but the other wisdom of hitting with a marble instead of missing with a sledgehammer may also hold true. Anyone care to argue either side or maybe carry .380 or Makarov instead of a big banger like .44 Magum or 45ACP? Thanks for the input.

Also, any late summer reading you'd all reccommend that looks at real shooting cases from calibers of all sizes... in a critical and unbiased way? Thanks again.

[PCRCCW]

Its a pretty simple reason and a couple of enigmatic ones also...Ill explain.

Yes, PLACEMENT is everything. Without it you have THE BIG 0!

In the world of Self Defence, CCW etc...there are many many variables and compromises.
The theory of placement and caliber is simple...shoot someone where you know you have a better and faster chance of stopping them in a quick manner. Granted..this is very common knowledge.

Now for the point....there are way to many variables that are out of your control in an encounter like this....Why not have the advantage in this situation when it IS WITHIN YOUR CONTROL!

A larger caliber that carries more weight and velocity, i.e. ENERGY, with proper bullet design and PLACEMENT will transfer "said energy" to the target and will/should result in a faster stopping BG. Thus the caliber arguement has merit.

With all of the stuff that can happen, Ill take all of the advantages I can that are WITHIN my control.

Mind you, this rule can go the other way also. A Casull will stop the BG quicker than a .380 when both are placed where they should be...but if on the chance you miss...your followup shots, which you may need very very badly, will be slower with the larger caliber than the smaller one.

The rule is simple..."Carry the largest caliber you can carry comfortably, 24 hrs a day and shoot very very well" If you choose the .380 as the largest caliber you shoot well...then you are following the rule as it applies to you.

Thats a good thing.

Shoot well

[jc2]

The major issue with the 9x17 and 9x18 is the currently available ammunition is unable to deliver both penetration and expansion. With JHPs you can get decent expansion, but penetration is just not sufficient. With FMJs, you can get decent penetration but no expansion. There is just no combination that works well with these little rounds.

As to the placement issue, placement does indeed trump all, but I'm not sure these little rounds are all that great for good placement. For the most part, the sights on these weapons are absolutely pitiful (e.g., the Makarov). Another problem with placement (at least for follow-up shots), it the blowback actions of the small handguns chambered for these rounds results in a far harsher recoil than one would feel with larger, more effective rounds. For example, a G26, which is comparable in size, is far easier to shoot rapidly and accurately which, of course, brings us to the final problem with these cartridges. In approximately the same size envelope, you can carry a 9x19 which does indeed give you a measurable increase effectiveness comparable to the calibres you mentioned with better "shootability" than the 9x17 and 9x18 in most available platforms.

[Richardson]

First, without sufficient penetration (requiring higher bullet mass and velocity), you won't stop the assault of anyone intent on doing you harm.

Second, bigger bullets make bigger holes. I don't buy into the "energy transfer" theory. Bullets incapacitate by either (1) hitting the central nervous system = immediate incapacitation, (2) tearing flesh & veins, resulting in lowered blood pressure or failure of heart & lungs = eventual capacitation [can be very quick, or very slow], and (3) causing sufficient pain = uncertain incapacitation.

The reason the .380 & 9x18 are considered marginal is because they have marginal diameter (without expansion) and marginal velocity. Even with hollow point bullets, the slower velocities mean they're even less likely to expand than their larger counterparts (which do not reliably expand). They are more likely to bounce off of a bone instead of breaking through it (as compared to 9mm, .40, .45, etc....). So you might end up with a bullet bouncing off of a sternum, or just making it through the abdominal muscles, REALLY pissing off someone intent on doing you harm, while not achieving incapacitation.

Even with all of that "pro big gun" talk, I think they're better than a .22lr. With good ammo (hot loads with hollow points), they can be very effective. If someone is pointing one at me, and even if I have the presence of mind to recognize that it's a .380, I am not likely to ignore it. But then, I am not one to seek out doing harm to others.

Richardson

[Richardson]

In agreement with jc2,

The recoil of these rounds seems harsh (snappy) for their power. The recoil on my .45 is "easier" than on my Makarov, because it is not as "snappy". The .45 gives a bigger push, but the Makarov is more uncomfortable (even with Makawrap or Pearce grips).

But the Makarov is a very accurate design. The sights could indeed be improved, but the pistol is accurate.

Richardson

[PCRCCW]

All good points and Ill agree with most of it...BUT.

Second, bigger bullets make bigger holes. I don't buy into the "energy transfer" theory. Bullets incapacitate by either (1) hitting the central nervous system = immediate incapacitation, (2) tearing flesh & veins, resulting in lowered blood pressure or failure of heart & lungs = eventual capacitation [can be very quick, or very slow], and (3) causing sufficient pain = uncertain incapacitation.


Question...by my definition of "transferred energy", thus velocity to expand the JHP and bullet weight, usually diameter and ht, more bullet to expand..the more transerred energy you have in a certain round= the more damage should occur.

So whats to argue? If you have placement and the energy is transferred to its target...the resulting effect on the target is more damage/temp. cavity/shock to the system= theoretically faster stopping target.

Without a bullet being able to transfer its energy, such as a FMJ through non vital tissue, the tartet may not even know hes hit until the shock wears off and he feels ALOT OF PAIN. By my def. of transferred energy...all or most of the energy produced by a certain round, be it a 22 or Casull, will be taken by the vital areas and damage/shock produced. Without it you may as well shoot at their feet. In essence anyway.

Shoot well.

[4v50 Gary]

Concur with PCRCCW - shot placement is everything. Bullet with the biggest diameter or highest velocity doesn't do much if shot placement is there. Of course, you can miss & still kill a fellow if your shot is a 12 pound cannonball. Read about deaths like that during the American Revolution or the War of the Rebellion.

[gbelleh]

I don't agree at all that .380 guns kick more harshly than a .45. I have a Bersa .380, Makarov 9x18 and a Walther PPK/S. All of them have less perceived recoil (to me) than any of my .45s.

To me, there is hardly any kick at all in the .380s I listed above. Follow up shots are very fast and accurate (certainly at 7 yards or less).

I've taken quite a few new shooters to the range and none of them were upset by the recoil of the Bersa, but most found small 9mms and .45s unpleasant.

[Keith]

If in doubt, shoot them twice.

Keith

[Marko Kloos]

If in doubt, shoot them twice.

Hey, if I am attacked with lethal force, the term "double tap" won't be in my vocabulary. I'll be pulling that trigger until I run out of either bullets, bad guys, or Markos. This holds true whether I carry a .32, .380, 9mm, or .357 Magnum loaded with Deerstopper loads.

[Keith]

The remark was made only partly tongue-in-cheek.

When you get right down to it, all handguns are marginal when it comes to "stopping power" and frankly, my eyes start to roll a bit when people get too dogmatic about caliber selection.

Bullet placement trumps caliber. The type of ammo used trumps caliber. Training trumps caliber. In fact, just about everything trumps caliber!

A .380 ball in the forehead is a better stopper than a 10mm "Tactical-Black-Exploder-Death-Round" landing in the chest.

These sort of discussions tend to imply that the 50 foot-pounds of energy difference between one caliber and another are all that stand between you and a horrible death. In fact though (as you say), you are probably going to keep shooting your piece until the attacker falls down or it's empty.

In the vast majority of cases (if you've trained enough), it isn't going to matter whether those shots were delivered with a .45 or a .32. The man is going to be mighty sick if six .32 rounds have just landed in the center of his chest. His problems have just started and yours have just ended.

Keith

[444]

1) They lack penetration.
2) They lack the velocity nessessary to ensure reliable bullet expansion.

In theory, they are fine. For these mythical internet head shots made under stress, they certainly would work. If the bad guy was facing you wearing minimal clothing, they would work. If you were able to deliver multiple hits all right in the vitals they would work. In other words, under ideal conditons, they work great. I just don't want to stake my life that the condtions will be ideal if I ever need to use my defensive pistol.
I also disagree with the idea that shot placement is EVERYTHING. To take an extreme position; I could have perfect shot placement with an airsoft gun. I could empty the whole mag into the "A" zone, but the gun itself isn't capable of stopping the bad guy unless he decides he wants to stop. You have to have at least a minimum of "power" along with good shot placement to obtain best results. The less "power" you have the better your shot placement has to be. With minimal calibers, it has to be perfect; something that is very difficult to do under extreme stress. Also, the orientation of the target has to be perfect to reach the vitals. For example, if the bad guy is holding a gun out in front of his chest, in order to make that perfect shot, you have to shoot through his arms. That probably isn't going to work with a minimal caliber. Again, if he is standing there in the standard anatomical position and you carefully place the shots, you will probably be good to go. Most of the time, bad guys don't stand there and give you that kind of opportunity.

[BigG]

1. The 380 was originally designed by Browning for small, light, blowback operated pocket pistols, therefore they only could have light bullets to balance with the slide weight. The BIG advantage to these old fashioned 380s was the small streamlined size, lack of protrusions, etc. Look at a commercial Browning 1910.

2. The Makarov is neither small nor light. I would guesstimate that it is about the size of many locked breech 9mms.

3. Bullet placement is fine in theory but there are too many stories of WWII soldiers shot smack in the forehead with army rifles who lived to tell of it for me to totally subscribe to that. One of the Rigby (IIRC) (British Arms Maker) family was shot in the forehead with a German 8mm and concluded spitzer bullets did not penetrate well.

4. My idea is the heavier weight the better, the bigger the caliber the better. YMMV

[Keith]

One of the Rigby (IIRC) (British Arms Maker) family was shot in the forehead with a German 8mm and concluded spitzer bullets did not penetrate well.

Methinks this Rigby fellow probably told that story after abusing the scotch and sherry at his club!

Keith

[BigG]

:D Keith, if you don't believe me, ask John "Pondoro" Taylor who related the story in "African Rifles and Cartridges." ...Wait a minute. What do you mean he's dead? :uhoh: :D

[Keith]

Oh, I believe the story was told by this Rigby fellow and repeated by others, I just don't believe it happened in the way it is portrayed.

A human forehead will not stop an 8mm rifle round unless it has first passed through a dirt berm, another soldier, richocheted off a rock, etc.

Keith

[BigG]

Keith, I may have neglected to mention it glanced off his [Rigby's] forehead. My dad also related a similar story where his foxhole buddy was hit in the front of his GI helmet but the bullet passed between the helmet and helmet liner and passed out the back. Lucky for him. :uhoh:

That is why the British manstopper bullets and elephant stoppers usually have a blunt, almost hemispherical, round nose.

[hillbilly]

Somebody else here hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.

With handguns, all calibers are marginal.

A single power-stroke to the head with a tomahawk is much more of a fight stopper than any practical handgun.

That being said, if I'm going to have a marginal fight stopper as a weapon, I want the biggest, baddest, most powerful end of that marginal spectrum.

hillbilly

[fastbolt]

A VERY optimistic advertising of the penetration & expansion capabilities of the excellent Winchester RA380T, T-Series 95gr L/E load, tested by Winchester out of a 3.75" barrel @ 1,000fps ...

4 Layers denim/gelatin - 7.95"/.64
Heavy cloth/gelatin - 7.85"/.54

Uh-uh, not me ...

I carried a neat little Browning .380 double column magazine pistol for a short while when I was still a young cop ... as well as a .25 ACP & a couple of .22's ...

Not anymore ...

[JohnKSa]

The major issue with the 9x17 and 9x18 is the currently available ammunition is unable to deliver both penetration and expansion.
Not much left to say--that sums it up.

As a result, some actually advocate that you carry FMJ in these two rounds to make sure penetration is adequate.

[P95Carry]

Just had delivered 500 rnds of BrownBear .308 FMJ ... great price ...... and once my KelTec P-3 AT comes thru ...... that ammo will suffice for carry ..... on the small number of occasions i shall feel forced to pocket carry something small.

That will still serve me better than my mouse .22 semi ... at present all I have for real small. I shall want penetration ... and shot placement as ever ..... is crucial .... but I doubt there are many who would willingly stand in the way of six shots coming at em from even this humble cal.

[sgt127]

"Just had delivered 500 rnds of BrownBear .308 FMJ"

Damn straight P95!!!! You shoot anybody with a .308 out of that Kel-Tec, he's going down!!! Even if it is FMJ! :what: :what:

[P95Carry]

:D :D .. damn sgt ... just seen my typo.!! Oops ..... might be a prob chambering too but as you say .. ''they will go down''!!:p

I did ..... of course, mean Brown Bear .380. Sorta smaller ain't it.!

[PCRCCW]

Did I mention that I have a Derringer that shoots 300 Weath. Mags?
Does silver bear make center fire handgun ammo for those too? :neener: :evil: JOKE :what:

Shoot well

[sarge48]

I carried a full size Gov'ment for years. 3 blown discs later I carry mainly a EG Makarov and sometimes a Kel-tec P32. I shoot both of these pistols well. I shoot the EG Makarov very well. They'll do there job if you do your job.

Besides the Makarov has not has bobble to date. I can't say that about any other semi auto I owned or been issued.

I also have no illusions of my pistol's mission. European police units have used and still use "mouser" rounds.:p

[jc2]

I also have no illusions of my pistol's mission. European police units have used and still use "mouser" rounds
Actually, most European (Western, anyway) LE agencies switched to the 9x19 in the 70s (due largely to the inadequacy of the 7.65 Browning and 9mmK). It's from the German police trials that we have the excellent P5 (Walther), P6 (Sig 225) and P7 (H&K)--probably the best single stacks 9x19 handguns ever.

[Jim March]

It's all about physics.

To get a hollowpoint to expand, there's three factors:

a) Speed;

b) hollowpoint size;

c) does it have a jacket or not?

In the 380 and 9x18, you have to use a JHP. To get it to feed right, you have a limit on the hollowpoint size and shape. So you've got to get it moving to overcome these deficiencies...but to get speed, you have to give up bullet weight.

So you can have penetration with hardball, or expansion (you hope!) with JHPs but not both.

Now look at the 38+P (even with a 2" tube).

One huge limit is gone - feedramp compatibility. You can run a hollowpoint cavity like a shot glass. Check out the Winchester 130+P Supreme some time. You can also ditch the jacket entirely and run 158s (penetration, anyone?).

It's all about not having to design around the feedramp...with well-chosen ammo, the 38+P snubbie is far more effective than the raw "ballistic energy" numbers suggest.

They've been geekin' baddies since Elliot Ness walked a beat in uniform.

:cool:

[Haycreek]

Don't underestimate a good 380, I mostly carry a Glock 23, sometimes a gov't sized 1911, but, my CZ 83 will fire five rounds more accurately and considerable faster, than either the G 23 or 1911. I seldom carry the CZ 83, but it is very accurate and faster than either. If it was my only handgun, I would not be unconfortable.

[denfoote]

For the most part, the sights on these weapons are absolutely pitiful (e.g., the Makarov). Another problem with placement (at least for follow-up shots), it the blowback actions of the small handguns chambered for these rounds results in a far harsher recoil than one would feel with larger, more effective rounds.

Gee, you forgot to tell that to my East Deutsch Makarov!! Maybe it should stop printing three inch groups at 25 yards WITH STOCK SIGHTS!!! :rolleyes: Maybe the rest of them should just start throwing rounds all over the place too!! ;) There is nothing wrong with the stock sights on a Mak!! They work just fine for me and I wear bifocals!!

As for recoil, you're kidding, right!! This is a jest!! :p
You can't mean that Pistolet Makarova has greater recoil than......say.......a Glock 36!!!! :eek:

As for effective caliber, the goof who tried a daylight breakin of my house, sure did not want to have that "ineffective" 9x18 round heading in his direction!! :evil: He turned heals and ran!!! :D I'd call that pretty effective!!!! :cool:

[jc2]

Aw, c'mon denfoote. I know you gotta know the difference between sights and accuracy. The factory sights on a Makarov are just not in the same class as say those of a G26 (or even a CZ 83 or Bersa)--just like the factory sights on a straight milsurp 1911A1 or in the the same class as a current production XSE (even though they may be equally accurate). The remark stands--the sights are pitiful.

As to the recoil, I was thinking along the lines of a G26 or K9 NOT a G36--I guess I should have been more specific. The recoil on a blowback is harsher is a fact (though it's probably less a factor for Mak because it is such a heavyweight). I would guess you would find the recoil of SMC-918 (alloy framed, PPK-sized 9x18) a little more challenging than that of your PM. The recoil on the smaller, lighter .380s is generally harsher due to the blowback design than that of the competing nines. As for you uninvited "guest," he would have probably found a Baby Browning (.25 ACP) equally discouraging.

Don't get me wrong. I like these little weapons and have shot them a lot. I enjoy them and am shopping for EG Mak myself, but the question was "Why is the .380 and 9x18 so marginal?"

[PCRCCW]

"Don't get me wrong. I like these little weapons and have shot them a lot. I enjoy them and am shopping for EG Mak myself, but the question was "Why is the .380 and 9x18 so marginal?"

Because in todays world, the smaller blowback rounds are not as effective in stopping a BG as a larger, faster bullet. Smaller guns that hold more ammo of a better chambering are available. Simple.

Does it make the Mak/.380 a bad choice for CCW...hell no, just not my first choice.

Does it mean its not an effective caliber....hell no, there are just "more proven" larger calibers in smaller guns now.

It doesnt make the Mak/.380 a "must not carry" caliber by anymeans....
Just that most people can find what they think are "better CCW guns"

To each their own..........Shoot well

[denfoote]

Awwwww, that's ok JC.
I just get riled when somebody picks on Comrade Makarov's creation!! :D
I have a soft spot for the little guys!! ;)

[444]

The stock sights on a Makarov are not very good for the pistol's intended purpose (combat pistol). Sure, on the range, they are adequate. But under less than ideal conditons, their shortcomings become apparent, such as fast target aquision (sp), shooting in low light, picking up the sights quickly after firing, and picking up the sights when firing at multiple targets. The Mak is a good inexpensive handgun. I own three (Bulgarian, Russian commerical, and an EG). But they are not the best tool for the job. Do you need the BEST tool for the job ? Maybe not, it is just a question of what your life is worth to you. However, you may have practiced until your hands blead and through practice have overcome all this.

"my CZ 83 will fire five rounds more accurately and considerable faster, than either the G 23 or 1911"
Note that this is with you firing the gun. This doesn't mean that someone with more skill couldn't fire a 1911 faster than you can with your CZ, and no, I am not the guy. But there are guys out there that can do a five second El Presidente' with a 1911 with all A-zone hits. And, with a larger caliber, you might not need to fire five rounds. Certainly if there are multiple threats, you wouldn't want to fire five rounds into the first guy before addressing the others.

[WheelMan]

It seems to be that once you get past that "minimum required power" (somewhere between airsoft pellet and 16 inch navel gun :) ), you have to ask yourself, how much better is the next best thing. I think what some of the above folks are saying is that the bigger your caliber (both in speed and size) gets the more you can miss that "perfect placement" and still get a good stop. I think what you'll find though is that increased placement leeway for bigger round isn't that much. The area of a human body you have to hit with a 9x19 to cause an instant stop probably looks very similar to the same area for a .45acp.

I used to be of the opinion that the mechanism of handgun wounding is wound channel size alone.. so I want the biggest bore hollowpoint I can find, given it has sufficient penetration. (.45 acp) I still think that's true but I realized my goal is not to cause wounding but to cause falling down on the ground. So I don't want to dig a big wound channel I want to put a chunk of lead in the boiler room.

This led me to the realization that the platform is infinitely more important than the projectile. The gun that allows you the best opportunity to rapidly bring accurate (and multiple) fire on your target will give you the best chance of causing a stop, given the ammo used has the minimum requirements of penetration. Compared to how important weapon selection is ammo choice is almost a non-issue.

So my personal theory has migrated from .45 acp in a 1911 to 9mm in a BHP. I can bring more accurate and more rapid fire on the target with this platform. I also train to continue hitting the target (as rapidly as accuracy will allow) until it's on the floor. My HP give me 18 chances to do this I feel the loss of power from the .45 to the 9mm is insignificant compared to the increased ability to hit with the 9mm (for me of couse... some people probably shoot better with a .44 magnum than I do with a 9mm).

I also like to eliminate uncertainties if possible, so I use fmj. Why worry about hollowpoints expanding when I can just know I'm going to be punching 9mm holes. Yes over penetration is an issue, but when you look at the odds of ever shooting someone with a handgun combined with the odds of something you don't want to shoot actually being behind them it's not something I worry about. Besides a wide wound cavity is nice, but a deep one is critical.

[denfoote]

The stock sights on a Makarov are not very good for the pistol's intended purpose (combat pistol).

I submit that the sights ARE adequate for the pistol's ACTUAL use, which was executing prisoners by shooting them behind the left ear!! ;)

[sarge48]

I'm with denfoote. It is not really what you shoot with but, how well you can shoot it.

For the size and weight of a Makarov yes, you could carry a Glock mini, Kahr mini, .357 snub, or and Officers lightweight .45 ACP. (Many Others Too)

The Mak just works for me. And it works everytime. I've tried most of the others above and I still come back to carrying the Mak.

I had Novak night sights installed on my Mak.;)

[usnavymasterchief]

What WHEELMAN said, I agree with him completely.
I carry a Kahr K40 (.40cal) because it's very reliable and it tucks into my love handles really well. I feel that if I ever have a need to defend myself, seven rounds of .40cal just going in the general direction of the BG should get the job done, hopefully hitting him 2 or 3 times or maybe just scaring him to death. However if the situation ever presents itself (and I doubt it ever will) that I KNOW I'm going to have to defend myself, shot placement becomes much more important to me than concealability so I'd rather have my Glock 19 (9mm) because I shoot it rapid fire much more accurately than the Kahr, better yet I'd rather have the old 12 gauge semi auto.
Face facts, when it comes right down to it, you're going to be scared s--tless, and I really don't think you're going to take the time to worry about sight aquisition. I was taught the 3 to 5 rule. Most gunfights occur within 3 to 5 feet, last 3 to 5 seconds and 3 to 5 rounds are fired. So it's over before you know it and hopefully you will be the one still on your feet. IMHO, in a real gunfight, shot placement becomes a matter of luck rather than a matter skill for the average person.
But on the other side of the coin, if you train, train, train and practice, practice practice, you stand a far better chance of surviving. Ask any Marine or Soldier whose been there, when the SHTF and the bullets start to fly and all your training and practice comes into play, you are scared s--tless but because of your training and practice, your reactions become automatic and hopefully you will survive.

[David4516]

I carry a Makarov in 9mm Makarov/9X18. I DO NOT FEEL UNDERGUNNED. I reload, and my carry ammo is my own, homemade, 9mm Mak +P with 95 gr Hornady XTPs. I have done some informal expasion tests, and this load does expand, every time.

And I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. I've shot both baby glocks (26 and 27) and Makarovs, and the Glocks kick MUCH harder. The 27 wants to jump right out of my hands. Ouch...

I think the Mak has several advantages over the baby Glocks:

#1: Cost. You can buy 3 Maks and have money left over for ammo for what it costs you to buy a Glock

#2: Concealablity. The Glock is too "fat", the Mak hides much better...

#3: Control. I can shoot faster and with more accuracy with a Mak

#4: Reliablity. I have NEVER seen a Makarov Jam, and I've done a fair amout of shooting with Maks... I HAVE seen Glocks jam...

Ya, I'd like the Makarov better if it was chambered for 9mm Luger, but you can't always have everything. 9mm Mak is not exaclty a wimpy round, and I dout anyone here would be willing to stand in front of a Mak when it goes off...

[citizen]

Thread drift???????

The ONLY time I had a jam with a Mak was when I was qualifying with it; never before, never since.:what: FTF with Win ammo.:confused:

[Richardson]

PCRCCW,

I think, by your definition of "energy transfer", we probably agree more than disagree. My comment was really directed at the concept that "energy transfer", by itself, is a good way of measuring "stopping power". A Mack truck hitting you at 1.0 mph transfers more energy than any common caliber rifle, but it is not lethal unless you trip and get run over.

I'd re-phrase things to say, "In as much as increasing energy levels increase the destruction of tissues, "energy tranfer" can be useful in determining stopping power." I would discount the terminal effects of heat and temporary cavity effects, and focus on the energy required to expand the bullet and drive it through clothes, bone, and flesh. Yes, without any energy transfer, one may as well shoot at the feet. But a .22 lr in the eye is a great stopper without much energy transfer.

All of that brings us back to shot placement, and having sufficient energy to drive a bullet through a significant amount flesh, regardless of what percent of that energy stays within the recipient.


Richardson

[Richardson]

Back to the Mak.....

I have two. They're reliable and accurate, and reasonably concealable (though that is not an option in my state). I think they're one of the best buys around, if one understands their limitations. For CCW, they fit the budget of and size demands of a lot of people. For a primary home defense handgun, I think they lack power. I'd rather have a Kahr .40 or a .44 Taurus Bulldog for CCW, but I would gratefully take the Makarov if those other choices were not available.

Richardson