Makarov - safe to carry condition one?


PDA






abaddon
August 7, 2004, 09:29 AM
I guess the title explains it all. By condition one I mean with a round chambered, the hammer back and safety on. My suspicion is that it's not safe but I'm not very familiar with the action of the gun.

Jeff

If you enjoyed reading about "Makarov - safe to carry condition one?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jefmad
August 7, 2004, 09:40 AM
The safety is also a decocker so condition 1 is really tough to achieve.

Soap
August 7, 2004, 09:48 AM
Yup, like jefmad sez, when you engage the safety it decocks the hammer.

Teakwood
August 7, 2004, 09:53 AM
Condition 1 is not possible with the Mak since (as noted above) the safety is also a de-cocker and engaging the safety completey locks up the pistol. When the safety is engaged, the hammer is blocked from hitting the firing pin.

Since the Mak is a DA/SA pistol, it is unnecessary to attempt to carry it in condition 1 like a .45, which is a SA pistol. Simply carry it with a round in the chamber and safety off since it is DA/SA and has a firing pin block.

abaddon
August 7, 2004, 10:51 AM
Okay, didn't know that. The reason I ask is because I'm not a fan of DA/SA and was hoping there was a way to use it only in single action. I don't like having the first pull of the trigger being different from the second - it seems like it'd make double-taps harder and would mess up your general accuracy. Is there a way to do some amateur gunsmithing and make it a single action gun? Or not exactly single action but to disable the de-cocker so that it could be used as DA/SA or just SA?

Also, what is the purpose of having an exposed hammer on a DA/SA gun? Is it so you can take the safety off and cock the hammer? I can't see anyone having time to do that in most self-defense situations.

(edited to clarify something)

grendelbane
August 7, 2004, 11:48 AM
I wouldn't trust the Mak with a round chambered and the safety off. I have seen one discharge when the hammer was struck.

Fortunately it was a controlled experiment. I ceased to carry mine in that fashion promptly.

The Evil Empire made some nice weapons, but they were not always overly concerned about safety.

George Hill
August 7, 2004, 12:12 PM
You know, a long time ago people would just use a thumb to cock the hammer back.

I guess that's too much effort in our pushbutton remote control world these days.

/idle thoughts.

alamo
August 7, 2004, 12:20 PM
Also, what is the purpose of having an exposed hammer on a DA/SA gun? Is it so you can take the safety off and cock the hammer? I can't see anyone having time to do that in most self-defense situations.

Same reason double action revolvers have an exposed hammer.

M2 Carbine
August 7, 2004, 02:46 PM
The only way I carry a Mak is with a round in the chamber and the safety off.

Most of the time I'll cock the hammer before firing.

Been using the same method for 50 years with semi autos so I don't think I'll change now.


See the above two posts.:)

lazhuward
August 7, 2004, 02:51 PM
The hammer on the Mak is blocked from hitting the firing pin even if the safety is off. It has a "safe" notch that's kind of similar to a half-cock notch. The trigger has to be pulled for the hammer to fall past this notch and strike the firing pin. The hammer will decock to the safe notch when you use the safety/decocker.

Putting the safety on doesn't lock or block the firing pin though. If you shake the gun, you can hear the firing pin slide back and forth. It taps against the primer of a chambered round.

The Mak is a great gun and a great design, but you should probably accept it for what it is. Trying to make it SA or DAO or whatever is wrought with danger.

49hudson
August 7, 2004, 03:24 PM
makarov.com was selling a safety made in East Germany that would allow you to carry in condition one.
Don't know if any are still for sale.
I think it was called the Simpson-Shul safety.
You might give Makarov dot com a call.

JohnKSa
August 7, 2004, 03:26 PM
I wouldn't trust the Mak with a round chambered and the safety off. I have seen one discharge when the hammer was struck.There are only two ways that can happen. Either the hammer was struck with enough force to break internal parts, or it was struck while the trigger was held to the rear.

There is an interlock which prevents the hammer from contacting the firing pin unless the trigger is held to the rear.

It's true there is no firing pin safety, but in spite of that Maks are pretty safe with one chambered--even with the safety off.

grendelbane
August 7, 2004, 03:52 PM
There are only two ways that can happen. Either the hammer was struck with enough force to break internal parts, or it was struck while the trigger was held to the rear.

Sorry to have to disagree with you. This mak fired, and there was not that much force applied to the hammer. Nor was the trigger held to the rear.

Of coure, it may have been struck a heavier blow earlier, which did break something!

FWIW, I don't trust the CZ52 with the safety off, or the CZ50. Both of these have a firing pin lock similar to the Colt series 80 system. I have made both of these fire also.

Teakwood
August 7, 2004, 04:46 PM
I carry my Mak chambered with safety off and hammer down. I can rip off the first few shots as well as about anyone. When I took my CCW exam, I used my EG Mak and had to fire 48 rounds from a mixture off postions. The first round in every mag was always DA. The target wound up with a nice 6-inch ragged hole in the middle.

If you insist on carrying a piece cocked and locked, then I suggest you find something like a model 1911 and forget the Mak.

abaddon
August 7, 2004, 08:55 PM
Sigh. All right, I guess my hopes of getting an inexpensive single action have been dashed once again. Although I may check out that East German safety 49hudson mentioned.

JohnKSa
August 7, 2004, 09:47 PM
grendelbane,

Ok, let me rephrase my statement.There are only two ways that can happen on a MAK that is not already broken. Either the hammer was struck with enough force to break internal parts, or it was struck while the trigger was held to the rear.The design of the pistol will NOT allow the hammer to contact the firing pin unless parts are broken or the trigger is held fully to the rear. Obviously if the gun is damaged before the test, all bets are off.I don't trust the CZ52 with the safety off, or the CZ50. Both of these have a firing pin lock similar to the Colt series 80 system. I have made both of these fire also.Ok, I'll bite--how did you manage that? If the gun is not broken or defective the firing pin safety will prevent the firing pin from contacting the primer unless the trigger is fully to the rear. There is an aftermarket firing pin for the CZ-52 that disables the firing pin safety and there was a mod to fix some CZ-52s that had defective firing pin blocks--could one of those be a factor here? If the gun has the mod it will have a 'Z' stamped on the trigger guard. I don't know much about the CZ-50 pistols...

jc2
August 7, 2004, 10:13 PM
Although I may check out that East German safety 49hudson mentioned.
Don't get your hopes up. That's NOT how the Simpson-Suhl safety work. 49hudson is passing on bad information.

grendelbane
August 7, 2004, 10:18 PM
Well, I just checked the CZ52, and there is no Z anywhere. So this may explain why it fired.

In any case, firing pin locks and other safety devices are mechanical objects, and Murphy is always looking for a place to make an appearance.

I used these as range guns only, so it was not a problem. For carry, I prefer a SIG.

Maks are great, but if I had to carry one, I would use the safety.

Zundfolge
August 7, 2004, 11:06 PM
jc2 is correct. The Simson Suhl safety allows the slide to be racked with the safety on (which cannot be done with a regular Mak) so you can press check or clear the pistol with the safety engaged.

jc2
August 7, 2004, 11:33 PM
I pretty sure the safety on the Mak locks the firing (but does not block it). I would guess that if a Mak is hit hard enough with the safety off, the firing pin could conceivably be propelled forward with enough force ignite the primer (regardless of the hammer). The Mak does pass the drop test for California (but that may be with the safety engaged) so I'd say it would have to be a heck of blow (or a soft primer or a primer seated to high). I know the 1911 can fire when dropped, and it has an inertial firing pin which the Mak doesn't.

Teakwood
August 7, 2004, 11:49 PM
The Mak is designed to disenage when the trigger moves forward. The hammer cannot strike the firing pin unless the trigger in pulled, or unless parts are broken.

As to the safety:
"Manual safety is located on the left side of the slide, and, when engaged, safely brings hammer down from cocked position, and then locks the hammer, sear and slide."

wally
August 8, 2004, 12:19 AM
Sigh. All right, I guess my hopes of getting an inexpensive single action have been dashed once again.

Don't give up! I found a very nice RAP 440 .40 S&W at a gun show for $200.

"Tripe action" safety like on the newer Taurus PT92 -- Cock'N'Locked or push past off for decock and DA/SA carry like with SIG or Beretta 92. They are made in 9mm and .40 S&W both are significantly more powerful than 9mm Mak and the gun is about the same size and weight as my Maks

--wally.

Cruiseron
August 8, 2004, 12:10 PM
It is 9MM but the Star BM is an excellant buy if you have a dealer near you that will place the order.
http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Star_Model_BM_9mm.html#a22
It is one sweet gun already broken in. Really like mine.

abaddon
August 9, 2004, 09:50 PM
Star BM? I've never heard of it. It looks like a 1911 style pistol. Are they reliable? How many rounds can it carry in the mags?

Jeff

If you enjoyed reading about "Makarov - safe to carry condition one?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!