9mm Mak

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I pocket carry a Russian .380 Makarov as my backup gun. Picked it up for $195 over a year ago. I trust it's reliability more than my primary carry. Maybe I'm just young but I don't find it to heavy at all even when I pocket carry it. Sometimes I find myself feeling my pocket after being out and about for awhile to see if I actually have it with me.

 

[Ibmikey]

Agtman, Now you need to go to Grips4U and get a neat set of checkered walnut panels to make that 82 into a real beauty. I bought them for all three of my CZ 82's.
Back to the Mak's, someone earlier on said they are addicting but I cannot agree--- already with a Russian, E G, and one Bulgarian from the unissued batch ( my buddy FFL dealer bought four). I got to thinking I had one and he had three---I bought a second but it still seemed unfair that he had two, as many as I had---- so I bought a third and he told me the last one is not for sale! Ha ha. Add those to my P 83, two P 64's, FEG SMC, PA 63, three CZ 82's, three Tokorev's but no Chinese Mak....still looking.

 

[Lj1941]

I love my CZ 82. It is the most accurate handgun in my safe. I carried it for a while until I got my 40C M & P. It is languishing unused at the present but I will never get rid of it. I hand load for it but always carried Silver Bear HPs because of their availability and accuracy.

 

[agtman]

Agtman, Now you need to go to Grips4U and get a neat set of checkered walnut panels to make that 82 into a real beauty. I bought them for all three of my CZ 82's.

Yep, upgrading the grips is on the To-Do list.

 

[JonB]

I bought one of the unissued Bulgarian Maks. Stupid accurate and fun the shoot. I need another. And an IWB holster.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I have an EG Makarov. While I pack a Glock (and my most favorite ccw is the super slim Glock 43 9mm) I could just as easily pack the EG.

It's not the gun, it's the shooter. Practice often and realistically.

Deaf

 

[Panzerschwein]

While the CZ-82s are very nice, have you tried checking the availability and prices on them lately?

They just aren't available on the open market anymore, and when you can find them, the prices are sky high compared to what they used to be. They are collector's guns now, no longer imported and likely never will be again. Parts availability is also going to be a problem on down the road. It is also a thick pistol due to its double stack magazine.

The Makarov does not have these problems. Parts are available EVERYWHERE and the excellent unissued Bulgarian Maks have flooded the market in recent years. Basically brand new guns, inexpensive, with gobs and gobs of cheap spare parts available. They will continue to be used in the US for years to come on a regular basis while the CZ-82 will be relegated to an oddity by most as they simply won't be obtainable.

 

[Girodin]

The Mak is an iconic pistol. It is rugged and highly reliable. Its a gun one should own if they are into service pistols. It has a proven track record. That said I wouldn't recommend it as a carry gun. Not that it couldn't fill that role but there are much better choices IMHO.

My Maks have the worst DA triggers of any of DA/SA guns I have enough time on to form an opinion (sig, HK, CZ, ruger, S&W). The safeties on mine are stiff and difficult to manipulate. The heal mag release slows down reloads. The sights aren't very good. Ammo is cheaper for the 9x19 and there are better/more defensive loads available in 9x19.

I would much rather carry something like a PPS, Shield, G43, etc. Again a mak could get it, done but my mak would frankly be one of the very last guns in a service caliber that I would choose to carry.

I prefer the CZ 82 to the Mak as well. The trigger on the CZ the best DA/SA trigger I have used. It has However the CZ is not a small gun at all. It is about the size of G19 when you compare them side by side and I would MUCH rather carry a G19 or even a G26 which is a smaller gun that the CZ. That said the CZ while objectively better IMHO is not as iconic and is not a replacement to owning a Mak for the reasons I would buy one.

In sum, get a Mak, they are a gun worth owning. However, buy a more modern gun for carry. Although the Taurus quality is a bit hit and miss. A proven 709 could fill that role for another $200 or a shield for less than $350. I need to shoot both on a shot timer, but it wouldn't surprise me if I was able to shoot my Kahr CM9 better than my Maks and it is much smaller form factor.

It's not the gun, it's the shooter. Practice often and realistically.

Yes, the shooter matters, a lot. However some guns are easier to shoot well and just objectively better. Equipment makes a difference. This is why competitive shooting has different classes and restrictions on equipment. I'm never going to shoot an LCP as well as a Glock 34 or a 1911.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I'm never going to shoot an LCP as well as a Glock 34 or a 1911.

Yes, but you may have that LCP and not that Glock for the simple reason it carries better.

Hence I use a Glock 26 and 43 for my two carry guns and in IDPA I use another Glock 26!

I don't pack my Glock 35 (yes I have one, AR15.COM version) nor my 1911(s).

Deaf

 

[Girodin]

Correct, so once again we see that equipment does matter. It is easier to carry some guns than others. It is easier to shoot some guns than others. There are in my estimation and experience a number of guns that carry as well or better than a Mak and are easier to shoot well too.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Correct, so once again we see that equipment does matter. It is easier to carry some guns than others. It is easier to shoot some guns than others. There are in my estimation and experience a number of guns that carry as well or better than a Mak and are easier to shoot well too.

Well it depends. Maybe the Mak shoots better for him. Or fits his hand better. Or he just has more confidence in it.

But whatever one decides to pack, get real real good with it.

Deaf

 

[agtman]

* * * Parts availability is also going to be a problem on down the road. It is also a thick pistol due to its double stack magazine.

Dude, a CZ 82 is no "thicker" in the grip than any .380 double-stack, which means the girth of its grip is a lot thinner than any 9mm (or larger caliber) double-stack pistol.

As far as "parts availability," or even actually needing any, the CZ 82 is a military/police pistol. You can confidently shoot it to melt-down before needing any parts. I shoot mine like I stole it ... off a dead Commie.

The one exception is the original Commie-crap plastic grips. They've been known to crack at the edge by the thumb safety. However, the 82's grips are also the easiest - and most easily found part - to replace.

 

[towboat_er]

I own both and prefer the CZ82 very much. I bought the Russian in 380 back in the early 90's. I liked the CZ82's so well I bought 5 when I could get them for less than $200.

 

[Girodin]

Well it depends. Maybe the Mak shoots better for him. Or fits his hand better. Or he just has more confidence in it.

You'll note my statement was qualified with in "my estimation." I'd wager many others would too but it's up to them to see for themselves if they like. For those without the resources or desire to buy a bunch of different guns they may find someone else's experience a useful datapoint to consider.

Dude, a CZ 82 is no "thicker" in the grip than any .380 double-stack, which means the girth of its grip is a lot thinner than any 9mm (or larger caliber) double-stack pistol.

I'll try and take some side by side pictures, but I would not describe the CZ 82's grip as being a lot thinner than that of a glock 19.

 

[Girodin]

I hate to tell you agtman but you are in fact mistaken; the CZ 82 has a thicker grip than a 9mm Glock. I just put calipers on each. I'm not able to upload the photos from my phone. I need to resize them first I think. However the measurements were 1.17 for the glock and 1.30 for the CZ which was basically the same size as a canik 55 stingray (CZ clone) in 9x19 but I didn't snap a picture so I do not recall the exact measurement.

I will see if I can get the pics to load. I also snapped some picture but not measurements comparing a mak to a G26. I'm going to stick with saying the 26 is close enough in size that there's no practical difference but I find the 26 to be a better shooter with better holster options, better sights, and Chambers's in a better cartridge. All in all for a carry gun I'd take the G26. If I wanted something smaller than that I'd be looking at one of the many single stack 9x19 options.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Dude, a CZ 82 is no "thicker" in the grip than any .380 double-stack, which means the girth of its grip is a lot thinner than any 9mm (or larger caliber) double-stack pistol.

As far as "parts availability," or even actually needing any, the CZ 82 is a military/police pistol. You can confidently shoot it to melt-down before needing any parts. I shoot mine like I stole it ... off a dead Commie.

The one exception is the original Commie-crap plastic grips. They've been known to crack at the edge by the thumb safety. However, the 82's grips are also the easiest - and most easily found part - to replace.

Dude, a CZ 82 is no "thicker" in the grip than any .380 double-stack, which means the girth of its grip is a lot thinner than any 9mm (or larger caliber) double-stack pistol.

As far as "parts availability," or even actually needing any, the CZ 82 is a military/police pistol. You can confidently shoot it to melt-down before needing any parts. I shoot mine like I stole it ... off a dead Commie.

The one exception is the original Commie-crap plastic grips. They've been known to crack at the edge by the thumb safety. However, the 82's grips are also the easiest - and most easily found part - to replace.

DUDE, a CZ-82 is far thicker in the grip area than a Makarov. This does make a big difference for me in terms of concealing the gun.

 

[Girodin]

Here are the pictures.

 

[bikerdoc]

One of the reasons I really like it is it basicly the same size as my CZ 75 Compact but thinner. Carries real comfortable and comforting.

 

[wojownik]

DUDE, a CZ-82 is far thicker in the grip area than a Makarov. This does make a big difference for me in terms of concealing the gun.

I think you guys are talking past each other. Agtman was comparing the CZ-82 to double stack .380s, not the single stack Makarov PM. The single stack PM of couse has a slimmer grip than a double stack.

 

[agtman]

I think you guys are talking past each other. Agtman was comparing the CZ-82 to double stack .380s, not the single stack Makarov PM. The single stack PM of couse has a slimmer grip than a double stack.

Correct, ... which is what I said in my post (#37).

Girodin, I appreciate your pics and the fact that you took the time to do measurements. But are you really comparing apples to apples?

Are you measuring the thinnest part of the G26's grip and the thickest part of the CZ82's?

Not arguing, just asking.

 

[Girodin]

I tried to measure each fairly measuring the thickest point of each guns grip. There is not much difference from top to bottom with either pistol. At any rate, I think it's very safe to say the CZ is not any thinner let alone much thinner. The CZ is a deceptively large gun. It's for any practical purposes about the size of a G19. Most people seem to think it is smaller but when you handle them side by side you realize it's really not.

I just grabbed a quick measurement on a Mak. It was just under 1.1 measuring in the middle of the grip. I measured a single stack polymer Kahr and it was 0.9, the smallest of the lot. Again, in each case trying to take a good faith measurement. I have no dog in the fight just trying to provide some real info. Have shot and used a number of the guns being discussed I have formed an opinion about them, how they compare and made my own choices of what to carry. I'm happy to offer insight if it helps someone else but at the end of the day it really doesn't make on wit of difference to me what they chose.

For what it's worth while I was getting the guns together to take the pictures I compared the DA/SA triggers of a few guns and the Mak was by far the worst.

 

[agtman]

I just grabbed a quick measurement on a Mak. It was just under 1.1 measuring in the middle of the grip. I measured a single stack polymer Kahr and it was 0.9, the smallest of the lot.

Yeah, not disputing the thinness of the single-stack 9mmMaks or single-stack .380s, like the old Colt Mustangs.

We're talking about double-stack guns in those calibers.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I pocket carry a .380 Makarov as a backup. It's my most trusted handgun.

 

[Girodin]

Yeah, not disputing the thinness of the single-stack 9mmMaks or single-stack .380s, like the old Colt Mustangs.

We're talking about double-stack guns in those calibers.

Actually we were talking about the makarov and its use as a ccw. maybe you missed that. I'm aware of the incorrect assertion you made earlier and have already refuted it. Which interestingly enough was met by you accusing me of fudging the measurements all while ignoring how inane and inaccurate your original assertion was. Rather than accuse me,why not just realize, and maybe even acknowledge, that it wouldn't matter where I put the calipers on either gun, there was no freaking way the CZ could be "much thinner."

The measurement on the mak and the kahr was simply providing some additional info since the thread is actually about the Makarov and using one as ccw. You might note it was in a new paragraph. I thought the OP might find the info of how a mak compares to a single stack 9x19 useful. Some people like to learn facts as opposed to spout of misinformation (like the silly idea that an old surplus service pistol will never ever possibly need any spare parts simply because it was a military and police pistol). I'll leave it to you to provide any more "facts" in this thread.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I pack either a Glock 26 or 43, depending on the dress code, but I'd have no qualms packing my EG Makarov. Fits my hands very well and the Mak shoots very strait.

Actual weight is no biggie as the Makarov is not all that heavy.

The most important things are the gun it fits your hand, is accurate,reasonably powerful, and reliable. And if for CCW, slim.

And don't sweat the .1 inch difference in thickness not an oz or so more weight.

Deaf