why a makrov over a CZ82?

Just another point that's worth mentioning... check out the captive extractor design on the Makarov... These things were made to run on spotty Combloc ammo...

Great Thinking, Innovative Design for its time and Great Reliability...

BSA1, I'm not sure what you mean when you say you have not found a source for Makarov magazines. GunBroker.com seems to be swarming with them, and so is Ebay. Did I miss something?

I am a cz 82 fan

The only MAKAROV chambered pistol I have ever shot is the CZ82. I bought one of the those really cheap police trade-ins and was amazed as the smoothness of the trigger. About the same as a BERETTA 92D I compared to it.
The CZ shoots very well and the overdone target grip is quite comfortable, even if it makes pressing the magazine release button a pain. Simple field stripping follows the WALTHER PP/PPK method of pulling down the trigger guard.
As I would consider both the MAK'S and the CZ82 a holster gun, the CZ 82 has a definite advantage in magazine capacity.

The biggest negative is the CZ style of frame mounted safety which does not decock the pistol. I consider this unsafe.


If I could find a .380ACP at a similar price, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Jim

justin22885 said:

the simplicity angle is the one i was looking for, im attracted to blowback pistols for their mechanical simplicity over recoil operated models, and the makarov seems significantly simpler than the rest.. curious though.. how well does the makarov handle loads that are a tad over pressure such as czech military spec ammunition which i believe was loaded up to 25kpsi? does the CZ82 have a heavier slide to handle this or what?

Click to expand...

My EG Makarov has handled all the different ammunition currently available in the market fine. If you find any recoil battering occurring, which is rare, you can always switch to a heavier recoil spring from Wolff.

Bottom line...these pistols were designed to work with a wide variety of crappy COMBLOC ammo, so another advantage for the Makarov design.

Both my CZ82 and IJ70 feed my XTP handloads and Hornady factory ammo like poop thru a goose. The only ammo I have any issues with was a batch of Silver Bear JHP that wouldn't feed 100% in either gun.

MikeJackmin said:

The Mak has one significant advantage of the CZ - a hammer-drop safety.

If your pistol is intended as a defensive arm, you'll frequently need to chamber a round and then safely lower the hammer. I'm perfectly comfortable with lowering the hammer under my thumb, but I can understand why others would not be.

You could carry the CZ in condition one (loaded chamber, thumb safety on) but there is no firing pin block or grip safety to back it up. A dropped gun could fire, a small but significant risk that every person would need to evaluate for themselves.

Click to expand...

The hammer-drop safety of the Makarov lets you lower the hammer more confortably, but I don't think it's got a firing pin block, either. It's a low mass firing pin -- which the designer THOUGHT wouldn't cause a discharge if dropped, but that's not a proven fact, and the firing pin is not retarded by a firing pin spring (as is the case with the CZ and most guns with inertial firing pins.) It's arguably possible that it could fire if dropped on it's muzzle, too. The big difference then is that it's a bit easier drop the hammer on the PM than the CZ. I wouldn't drop the hammer on a gun carried cocked & locked-- I'd continue to carry the CZ cocked & locked until I was ready to drop the mag and rack the slide to empty the chamber.

(I haven't heard accidental discharge due to muzzle-down drops for either of these weapons... or even rumors of them.)

I've had several of both, including one of the very nice West German Suhl-made Maks. I much prefer the CZ-82. I'll agree that the Makarov is a simpler design, but the CZ is a very good design, has greater capacity, and is -- at least for most folks -- more pleasant to shoot and at least as easy to shoot well.

Both are excellent, but I prefer the slimmer Makarov. An interesting comparison would be the hi cap Mak and the Czech 82.

A CZ82 is too big for me to pocket carry. My Russian Mak is my favorite carry piece and it's just stupid simple to take apart.

The Mak is slimmer and smaller, and clearly better for pocket carry -- but I'm not sure I'd try pocket carry with one.

I did pocket carry for a while -- at first with a Beretta Tomcat, then with a P3AT and the similar LCP, and later still with the much bigger PF9 -- all with good, leather pocket holsters. I tried them drawing at the range, too. I came to believe that if the Stuff ever Hit the Fan, it wouldn't be where or when I wanted it to (like when I'm standing or walking); instead, it'll probably be as I'm getting in or our of a car, while I'm belted in behind the wheel (as with a car jacking), sitting in a booth or at a table in a restaurant, or in some equally contrained position. I I'd rather face the unknown with a belt slide or IWB holster, but I understand why others feel differently.

The nice thing about the P3AT or LCP, was that you COULD carry them in a shirt pocket.

When I pocket carry it's usually because I have a full size on my hip.

Justin--i would not carry a 1911 either

Justin,

I do not consider the 1911 style NON HAMMER DROPPING SAFETY to be safe. My own experience and my observation of other officers carrying duty guns is that a pistol should be either a safe action like the GLOCK or SPRINGFIELD ARMORY pistols ( I know that there are others) or a NON SAFETY-DECOCKER like the SIG pistols or the BERETTA G models.
I have seen more than one officer holster a still cocked and SAFETY OFF handgun!

The traditional hammer dropping safety as originally used by the WALTHER PP and many other pistols since then leaves the possibility of the safety being left on.

I know others disagree, but my own experience is what I am going on.
Accidents will always happen, I just prefer to put the odds in my favor.


Jim

My own experience and my observation of other officers carrying duty guns is that a pistol should be either a safe action like the GLOCK or SPRINGFIELD ARMORY pistols..............I have seen more than one officer holster a still cocked and SAFETY OFF handgun!

Click to expand...

What's the difference between holstering a 1911 with the safety off and holstering a Glock that doesn't have one???

What's the difference between holstering a 1911 with the safety off and holstering a Glock that doesn't have one???

Click to expand...

Well, the only real difference is that the 1911, if the hammer is cocked, might be more easily negligently discharged than the Glock -- A true SA trigger is likely to be lighter than the Glock hybrid DA trigger -- but the same things that would cause the 1911 or any other SA gun (cocked with safety off) to fire while being holstered would also likely cause a Glock to fire, too. If so, the "more easily" part may be irrelevant -- as either gun might be easily negligently discharged if a foreign article is in the holster.

If either gun is DROPPED while holstering, the one with a firing pin block would be safer. Some updated 1911 and other SA designs do have functional firing pin blocks, and that is true of most modern designs.

The 1911 has a grip safety. The Glock doesn't.

Walt Sherrill said:

Well, the only real difference is that the 1911, if the hammer is cocked, might be more easily negligently discharged than the Glock -- A true SA trigger is likely to be lighter than the Glock hybrid DA trigger -- but the same things that would cause the 1911 or any other SA gun (cocked with safety off) to fire while being holstered would also likely cause a Glock to fire, too.

Click to expand...

I could argue that holstering a cocked 1911 with the manual safety disengaged is less unsafe than holstering a Glock.

The 1911 requires pressure on the grip safety, which ideally would be covered by the shooter's hand but not engaged during holstering. Same applies to the Springfield XD but not many other guns. The Glock will fire if the trigger is pulled, even if pulled by a defective holster.

Not recommending the practice of course.

The 1911 has a grip safety. The Glock doesn't.

Click to expand...

You're right, but...

Depressing the grip safety allows the gun to fire. It may all depend on how easily that grip safety can be engaged, and that might vary pretty widely from gun to gun.

If there's something IN the holster that can engage the trigger as the gun is being holstered and the thumb safety is NOT engaged, unless you handle the gun in a way that totally avoids pressure on the grip safety, it seems as though it might still be possible to have a ND with a 1911. If you push it into the holster just right (i.e., the wrong way, maybe with a finger or thumb on the grip safety), that grip safety might not prevent a ND.

With my XDM Competition, on the other hand, I've sometimes found that it's not always easy to engage the grip safety when firing the gun!

That said, I wouldn't consider holstering any "cocked" hammer-fired SA semiauto without first engaging the thumb safety.

.

If there's something IN the holster that can engage the trigger as the gun is being holstered and the thumb safety is NOT engaged, unless you handle the gun in a way that totally avoids pressure on the grip safety, it seems as though it might still be possible to have a ND with a 1911.

Click to expand...

So worst case scenario it's the same danger as a Glock is evertime you holster it.

My wife and I both have Maks, and I obtained and installed the Simson-Suhl improved safety - you can rack the slide with the safety engaged - for both.

Something about which anyone owning or wanting a Mak should be aware: because the firing pin is free-floating, racking the slide will cause it to tap the primer of the round in the chamber. This isn't a problem unless the round has been re-chambered several times, say the weapon has been cleared for storage, etc. However, repeated chambering of the same round can cause the primer to detonate, firing the weapon.

A friend of mine discovered this the hard way when he blew out the window in his car while loading his Mak. (No one was hurt, no harm done except the window). He told me this after I had gotten a Mak, and I checked the primer of the round in the chamber, and, sure enough, there was a pretty significant dimple.

Just something to keep in mind. We still love our Maks, and I still carry mine sometimes.

With four Maks (EG, Bulgy and comm. Russian), a CZ-82 and Polish P-83, tough question, but no clear answer.

Do you guys/gals know that thinner, Wooden grips can sometimes be found for the CZ-82?
The different ergos are not quite as natural, but feels much more like a single-stack Makarov, and really nice trigger.

Maybe handle a CZ-82 with the satin/nickel finish, and then decide.

Janos: Thanks for the safety tip. That could save a limb or a life.

I have a Biakal Rusisn commercial Makarov, a Bulgarian 'circle 10' Makarov, a Radom P64, and a CZ 82. The P64 is a nice looking gun, but uncomfortable to shoot. The two Makarovs are comfortable to shoot, but the sights suck. The CZ 82 is unusual looking with its small thin slide and fat grip, but it's very accurate, comfortable to shoot, and has friendly ambidextrous controls. My CZ 82 was the first CZ I ever owned and lead me ultimately to a decent collection of CZ 75's. It's. It my favorite CZ, but it is my favorite gun chambered in 9x18M