dasmi
Member
If I could carry, I'd carry my Bulgarian Makarov.
Anybody CCW military surplus pistols?
- Thread starter BReilley
- Start date
- Status
Novus Collectus
Member
Brian Williams:
I would not call it a copy, it IS a Colt.
AZAndy
Member
While not really an "old milsurp" considering that it's not C&R eligible, I find the FEG PA-63 to be a pretty darn good carry piece. You can get one for $100. It's light. It's slim. It shoots 9x18, which in hollowpoint is a decent defense load. Form-factor-wise, it's a PPK/S, more or less, so it points very nicely. The double action is pretty bad, to be sure-- mine both measure 16-18 lbs. But the single action is not at all shabby, and one can always cock the hammer for the first shot-- if there's enough of a panic to get a shot off, that DA pull isn't going to seem like anything anyway.
I have a new PA-63 that I've put a thousand trouble-free rounds through, and an older one that is well-used that similarly gives no problems whatever. They're plenty accurate enough for carry purposes. If only my 1911 were as reliable...
Carried one of these for several years, and decided on a whim to go to a Bersa .380CC instead (mostly because the design just appealed to me). I still pack a PA-63 from time to time for a change of pace.
A.
I have a new PA-63 that I've put a thousand trouble-free rounds through, and an older one that is well-used that similarly gives no problems whatever. They're plenty accurate enough for carry purposes. If only my 1911 were as reliable...
Carried one of these for several years, and decided on a whim to go to a Bersa .380CC instead (mostly because the design just appealed to me). I still pack a PA-63 from time to time for a change of pace.
A.
32 Magnum
Member
milsurp for ccw
Count me in on the PA-63. Also have carried an RG-59 (where the PA-63 is similar to the PP, the -59 is similar to the PPK) and a couple times a CZ-82.
Count me in on the PA-63. Also have carried an RG-59 (where the PA-63 is similar to the PP, the -59 is similar to the PPK) and a couple times a CZ-82.
Obsolete
As far as being obsolete. I have been carrying on and off duty for the past 16 years. My own experience and my comments are based on that.
I have had to carry a gun and sometimes a lot more for up to 16 hours at a time. Try wearing a 1911 all day and see how you feel about it?
I draw the line on a concealed carry gun at @ 24 ounces. It can be heavier or lighter. I prefer it not to be heavier and find the polymer frame guns are just right. NO MIL SURPLUS OFFERS THIS WEIGHT WITH 9m.m. +P power. Tell me if you know one.
The 1911 and nearly every other MILSURP gun that has a low price that I have examined have had poor sights. The sights on most modern guns are much better and you can get NIGHT SITES AS WELL.
I looked at a ROCK ISLAND today. Great price, poor sights.
My experience with 1911 pistols started with COLT. EVERY COLT I OWNED and those of just about everyone I knew (we were all into 1911/.45ACP back then) needed a ramp job and new sights. I do not think it a bold statement since I personally observed it over and over. Same for most autos back then (1975 to 1985). The only pistol that I ever fired from that era that was 100% with hollow points was a French MAB 15.
As for rust, note that police departments love the polymer frame and tennifer type finishes. They see what happens all the time. Talk with a firearms instructor and ask them if blued guns will rust.
In the 1980’s, the feed anything BERETTA 92, SIG 226 and GLOCKS took over the police handgun business. Since then, most autos have been made to feed properly. Again, my observation and experience.
I have to ask why you would want to carry MAK when you can get a 9m.m. for maybe $50.00 more?
I paid $350.00 for my last BERETTA 96. It was a used police trade in, but came with a Safariland paddle holster, 3 mags and night sites. I have also seen RUGER P 95 and SMITH and WESSON Sigma pistols at the gun show for $300.00 brand new. I would take either over a MAK or CZ-82. More power, more capacity, what is wrong with that?
Several comments have mentioned that milsurp guns are reliable because the military used them. I disagree. The LUGER was never known for reliability. Has anyone forgotten the M-16A1 fiasco?
Some are incredibly reliable. The AK-47 is the standard for this. The much vaunted BROWNING High Power is 100% with 12 rounds in the mag. Put in 13 in an older gun and it will jam. Just a matter of time. NOTE THAT SOME SERIOUS HIGH POWER USERS FORBID PUTTING 13 ROUNDS IN A MAG.
Someone commented on my putting a price on your life remark. I never mentioned ANY CUSTOM 1911’s or anything else like that.
Every gun I have mentioned COSTS UNDER $400.00. If you are willing to take a police demo, you can get a BERETTA 92 or 96 in NEW condition. I know this because I have bought 2 guns this way. I have also seen a Double Action Only WALTHER P-99 for $350.00. Do you consider that too much to pay to survive a gunfight?
Last shot. A comment about preferring to face an amateur with a CUSTOM 1911 instead of a competent MAK user.
My question. Would you prefer to face a competent:
1 MAK user
2 GLOCK 19 user with a mag full of +P
3 TAURUS user with a cylinder full of .38 special +P
4 BERETTA 96G user with a mag full of 155 grain .40 caliber
I would prefer to face none, but the MAK is the least threatening to me.
Just my opinions.
Jim
As far as being obsolete. I have been carrying on and off duty for the past 16 years. My own experience and my comments are based on that.
I have had to carry a gun and sometimes a lot more for up to 16 hours at a time. Try wearing a 1911 all day and see how you feel about it?
I draw the line on a concealed carry gun at @ 24 ounces. It can be heavier or lighter. I prefer it not to be heavier and find the polymer frame guns are just right. NO MIL SURPLUS OFFERS THIS WEIGHT WITH 9m.m. +P power. Tell me if you know one.
The 1911 and nearly every other MILSURP gun that has a low price that I have examined have had poor sights. The sights on most modern guns are much better and you can get NIGHT SITES AS WELL.
I looked at a ROCK ISLAND today. Great price, poor sights.
My experience with 1911 pistols started with COLT. EVERY COLT I OWNED and those of just about everyone I knew (we were all into 1911/.45ACP back then) needed a ramp job and new sights. I do not think it a bold statement since I personally observed it over and over. Same for most autos back then (1975 to 1985). The only pistol that I ever fired from that era that was 100% with hollow points was a French MAB 15.
As for rust, note that police departments love the polymer frame and tennifer type finishes. They see what happens all the time. Talk with a firearms instructor and ask them if blued guns will rust.
In the 1980’s, the feed anything BERETTA 92, SIG 226 and GLOCKS took over the police handgun business. Since then, most autos have been made to feed properly. Again, my observation and experience.
I have to ask why you would want to carry MAK when you can get a 9m.m. for maybe $50.00 more?
I paid $350.00 for my last BERETTA 96. It was a used police trade in, but came with a Safariland paddle holster, 3 mags and night sites. I have also seen RUGER P 95 and SMITH and WESSON Sigma pistols at the gun show for $300.00 brand new. I would take either over a MAK or CZ-82. More power, more capacity, what is wrong with that?
Several comments have mentioned that milsurp guns are reliable because the military used them. I disagree. The LUGER was never known for reliability. Has anyone forgotten the M-16A1 fiasco?
Some are incredibly reliable. The AK-47 is the standard for this. The much vaunted BROWNING High Power is 100% with 12 rounds in the mag. Put in 13 in an older gun and it will jam. Just a matter of time. NOTE THAT SOME SERIOUS HIGH POWER USERS FORBID PUTTING 13 ROUNDS IN A MAG.
Someone commented on my putting a price on your life remark. I never mentioned ANY CUSTOM 1911’s or anything else like that.
Every gun I have mentioned COSTS UNDER $400.00. If you are willing to take a police demo, you can get a BERETTA 92 or 96 in NEW condition. I know this because I have bought 2 guns this way. I have also seen a Double Action Only WALTHER P-99 for $350.00. Do you consider that too much to pay to survive a gunfight?
Last shot. A comment about preferring to face an amateur with a CUSTOM 1911 instead of a competent MAK user.
My question. Would you prefer to face a competent:
1 MAK user
2 GLOCK 19 user with a mag full of +P
3 TAURUS user with a cylinder full of .38 special +P
4 BERETTA 96G user with a mag full of 155 grain .40 caliber
I would prefer to face none, but the MAK is the least threatening to me.
Just my opinions.
Jim
Ed Ames
Member
That last argument is bizarre. Only thing you could be arguing is that it might take you longer to bleed out with a Mak. Shrug. They can all deliver a mortal wound with each pull of the trigger. Faced with a competent user of any of them you are dead.
The Milsurp/commercial argument isn't the same as the .25acp/.45acp argument. The fact that a gun is chambered in .25ACP means that it is much less likely to be able to deliver a lethal wound. Maybe because of winter clothes, maybe even because of fat. The fact that it is chambered in 9x18, 7.62x25, 9x23, .455 webley, .45acp, or even 7.62x38 really doesn't make any difference to the lethality. They will all irreparably harm your CNS quite effectively.
The middle argument, about cost, isn't relevant. In fact it is out dated and backwards. An East German Mak will run you over $300 and you can get a Keltec brand new for $280. Does that mean the East German Mak is a better gun now? For that matter, a Soviet Mak will run you $585 today from one of the standard C&R sellers. Does that make it even MORE effective? Or is the cost really not relevant to this discussion?
I don't see it as a cost issue. The issues are:
1) Does it fit within your usability envelope? Weight may be a real factor for you. Weight may not be a factor at all for someone else. Type of carry, physical condition, environment, and other factors all influence this decision.
2) Can you use it effectively? This has to do with your training and the gun. If you have sight issues you may want to fit tritium sights (which are available off the shelf for some milsurps and can be fitted to any of them). If you have other ergo issues you may need to change guns.
3) Is it sufficiently effective? Carrying one of the .22LR TT33s (which were built as military training guns) wouldn't be the smartest thing you could do even though they are quite expensive. A 1911, makarov, etc. is plenty effective.
The Milsurp/commercial argument isn't the same as the .25acp/.45acp argument. The fact that a gun is chambered in .25ACP means that it is much less likely to be able to deliver a lethal wound. Maybe because of winter clothes, maybe even because of fat. The fact that it is chambered in 9x18, 7.62x25, 9x23, .455 webley, .45acp, or even 7.62x38 really doesn't make any difference to the lethality. They will all irreparably harm your CNS quite effectively.
The middle argument, about cost, isn't relevant. In fact it is out dated and backwards. An East German Mak will run you over $300 and you can get a Keltec brand new for $280. Does that mean the East German Mak is a better gun now? For that matter, a Soviet Mak will run you $585 today from one of the standard C&R sellers. Does that make it even MORE effective? Or is the cost really not relevant to this discussion?
I don't see it as a cost issue. The issues are:
1) Does it fit within your usability envelope? Weight may be a real factor for you. Weight may not be a factor at all for someone else. Type of carry, physical condition, environment, and other factors all influence this decision.
2) Can you use it effectively? This has to do with your training and the gun. If you have sight issues you may want to fit tritium sights (which are available off the shelf for some milsurps and can be fitted to any of them). If you have other ergo issues you may need to change guns.
3) Is it sufficiently effective? Carrying one of the .22LR TT33s (which were built as military training guns) wouldn't be the smartest thing you could do even though they are quite expensive. A 1911, makarov, etc. is plenty effective.
Incorrect. Hornady offers a 9x18 XTP/HP cartridge. https://www.hornady.com/shop/?ps_se...&category_id=0bda98269a991e54ff51361a7b3b2aba
Geronimo45
Member
Part of that comes from the underloaded US 9mm Parabellum. (at least some) US pistol rounds have been underloaded from the outset. Compare American .32 ACP with S&B, for example.
The Luger had an odd recoil system that would work within a certain tolerance of energy/pressures. Toggle-lock setup isn't the most robust thing out there - timing can be fouled up nicely with underloaded rounds - and overloaded, too, I expect.
AGREE to DISAGREE
Ed AMES,
I cannot agree with you there. A 9m.m. MAK round is a little more powerful than a .380ACP. I am willing to carry a .380, but prefer to stack the odds in my favor.
Why carry a MAK, when a 9m.m. is a much more powerful round. My 9m.m. ammo is at the low end of the .357 magnum power range. My .40 caliber ammo is at the high .357 magnum range.
Do you really think that the MAK is equal to that?
Also, if I have to shoot someone, I am not trying to hurt their central nervous system. I want to shut it down. Hurting them may get me or someone killed before they bleed out.
I worked with one officer who only used BLACK TALON. He wanted a complete penetration to increase bleed out. I considered it really dangerous with a risk of hitting an unintended target.
Oh, has anybody added night sites to their gun lately. It is not cheap if you go for a quality brand. Try shooting in the dark. It is hard enough with them.
Jim
Ed AMES,
I cannot agree with you there. A 9m.m. MAK round is a little more powerful than a .380ACP. I am willing to carry a .380, but prefer to stack the odds in my favor.
Why carry a MAK, when a 9m.m. is a much more powerful round. My 9m.m. ammo is at the low end of the .357 magnum power range. My .40 caliber ammo is at the high .357 magnum range.
Do you really think that the MAK is equal to that?
Also, if I have to shoot someone, I am not trying to hurt their central nervous system. I want to shut it down. Hurting them may get me or someone killed before they bleed out.
I worked with one officer who only used BLACK TALON. He wanted a complete penetration to increase bleed out. I considered it really dangerous with a risk of hitting an unintended target.
Oh, has anybody added night sites to their gun lately. It is not cheap if you go for a quality brand. Try shooting in the dark. It is hard enough with them.
Jim
macadore
Member
I frequently carry a P64 with aftermarket springs. It is extremely reliable. It is also extremely unpleasant to shoot because it has the energy of a 38 Special in a firearm the size of a PPK. IMO, the recoil is worse than a 4 inch 44 Magnum. The slide also cuts the web of my and when I shoot it. However, it is very easy to conceal and very fast on target at point and shoot ranges. The sights are useable if you have time to aim, but they are not designed for target shooting. I wish someone would make night sites for the P64 and grips that protect the web of the hand. Even with the aftermarket parts, if they were available, it would still be somewhat less expensive than a Walther PPK. The PPK has better sights and does not cut my hand. It also costs more than twice as much as the P64. IMO, it is not twice the handgun.
The CZ52 has a reputation for breaking firing pins. For me, that disqualifies it as a personal defense weapon. I like the CZ 82 and find it an instinctive pointer. However, if I was going to carry a firearm that size, I would get a something that fired a more powerful round. I also have a PA63 with aftermarket springs. It is as reliable as the P64. Even though it is slightly larger than the P64, the recoil is about the same and it does not cut my hand. It is large enough to make it more difficult to get in and out of the pocket.
The CZ52 has a reputation for breaking firing pins. For me, that disqualifies it as a personal defense weapon. I like the CZ 82 and find it an instinctive pointer. However, if I was going to carry a firearm that size, I would get a something that fired a more powerful round. I also have a PA63 with aftermarket springs. It is as reliable as the P64. Even though it is slightly larger than the P64, the recoil is about the same and it does not cut my hand. It is large enough to make it more difficult to get in and out of the pocket.
OK I'm not sure after this statement if your paying enough attention to try to reason with. But I'll try.
as to the above statement If you have to shoot someond you bettwer DAMN SURE BE TRYING TO DAMAGE THEIR CNS BECAUSE THATS HOW TO STOP THEM and I'm not aware of a way to shut down CNS without damage.
since you want to turn this into a caliber war,I'll simply use the same arguement that always works SOME PEOPLE CAN'T HANDLE THE RECOIL OF A 9MM or 40 IN A MAK SIZE PACKAGE, and would be be better served with accuratly placed 9X18
Sorry for yelling
tinygnat219
Member
Strat81,
Good point. I missed that load. However, I can rattle off 13-14 9MMP defensive ammo selections, while the Makarov chambering offers much fewer. My original point stands as there is a real lack of serious defensive ammo choices for most of these obscure rounds.
tinygnat219
Member
Ed Ames,
I disagree here. The OP's original intent was about not having 500 bucks or more to invest in a SD gun. He was thinking about milsurp handguns because their price, in part, is very attractive. Cost is VERY relavent to his question, and for a little more, or a little less money, he can get something modern that doesn't have the milsurp pistol drawbacks.
fletcher
Member
And Bulgarians, which are just as reliable, can still be had for $250. Still a good Benjamin cheaper than most new, or used, more modern pistols of the same size.
tinygnat219
Member
Ed Ames,
I appreciate the comments and look forward to more from you Ed.
It's a good thing we are free to disagree!
The CZ-52 fires a supersonic .30 caliber projectile that is meant for penetration. If you are unconcerned about overpenetration from a FMJ Projectile, you are more in violation of the 4 rules than someone else who doesn't carry a gun shooting hypervelocity FMJ rounds. It's also been proven over and over that JHP bullets are better for stopping an assailant from hurting you because they deposit most of their energy in the target. This is why most modern defensive ammunition today has a Hollow Point concept floating around with it.
The Nagant shouldn't be a choice for a defensive firearm at all. Ok, so the round's not subsonic, my fault. My previous remarks on this outdated Curio are just as prevalent here minus the subsonic one
To me, the Makarov is a decent choice, but there are much better choices out there for the same amount or decreased weight than what Makarovs go for now. As for ankle carry, that's strictly a personal choice and not one that I'd personally go for (too limited, hard to draw quickly, lots of weight flapping around). As for ammo choices, defensive ammo is still limited for this pistol, and while the Horaday is a nice load it's hard to find and expensive.
I appreciate the comments and look forward to more from you Ed.
ZeSpectre
Member
I'm a big fan of the CZ-52...for fun. Would NOT recommend it for a carry weapon for all of the reasons listed by other posters.
The CZ-82/83 is a great gun (especially for the price) but the ammo availability recently SUCKS and the price has gone up to .357 magnum range for the ammo.
Still out of everything the OP listed, I'd go with a CZ-82.
The CZ-82/83 is a great gun (especially for the price) but the ammo availability recently SUCKS and the price has gone up to .357 magnum range for the ammo.
Still out of everything the OP listed, I'd go with a CZ-82.
Joe Demko
Member
All other things being equal, a competent user should make you feel mortally threatened when armed with any of those pieces since all are perfectly capable of ending your life with a single shot.
let me ask this question for anyone who does not think a mil-surp would make a Ok carry gun.
who would you be more scared of the guy who spent his budgeted $ on a glock and one box of the latest greatest ammo or the guy who bought a P-64 and a case of ammo and 5 boxes of hornady SD ammo and has shot the case of ammo and 4 boxes of hornady without a jam?
BTW he has also become a more proficient shot and knows his weapon.
who would you be more scared of the guy who spent his budgeted $ on a glock and one box of the latest greatest ammo or the guy who bought a P-64 and a case of ammo and 5 boxes of hornady SD ammo and has shot the case of ammo and 4 boxes of hornady without a jam?
BTW he has also become a more proficient shot and knows his weapon.
TimboKhan
Member
I don't think cost is ever a determining factor in surviving a gunfight. I think that skill far outweighs any argument about cost. If you have the skills to use a Nagant pistol to defend yourself because that's all you have had to practice with, thats the best gun for the job. I would agree that there are better, more modern guns around, but cost isn't the determining factor.
Ed Ames
Member
As the ominous rumble sound-track begins, the deep bass voice of our pitch-man, so carefully enunciated, says:
The threat has changed. Fat people, body armor, and probably some other factor I'm not aware of mean you need a powerful round with increased penetration. That's why the smart shooter chooses a small high velocity bullet that can punch through protective armor, mounds of fat, and deep muscle and bone to deliver a stopping wound fast with minimal recoil to ensure quick follow-up shots and maximum control.
This baby is sold.
Seriously. FN 5.7, 327mag, 7.62x25... all operate on roughly the same theory, for roughly the same reasons. So does the 7.62x38R in it's military loading. I'd hesitate to pick an FMJ round in any of these, but then I'm not sure why it's needed for the tok either.
I don't think there's a signficant difference between a 9mm mak and a .40 in a CCW situation. Both are enough gun. Both will deter those that can be deterred, can stop those who can be stopped, and neither is a universal talisman.
I think some of the arguments will always ring hollow to some people and always make sense to others. Ammo availability is something I've had to deal with. I just can't see the problem for any of these guns. I would strongly discourage anyone from buying a 8mm french ordinance revolver ("lebel" as some call it) as a CCW *or* range gun because ammo is rare. It is easily available for toks, maks, 1911s, and even nagants.
Cost I'll buy until you start talking "indigent". I'll also say there is more to it than simply "dollars to be ready to carry." In my case for example I have perfectly acceptable commercially made guns available. They range from full size double-stack 9's to airweight revolvers. Yet there are many circumstances where a Nagant would be all I was willing to risk. Kayaking might be one innocent example. I've lost things from boats even when they were well secured. You make a mistake and suddenly you are being held upside down and shaken. Aluminum or plastic would be much harder to recover (magnetism is your friend). A nagant at $90 for a steel revolver seems like an excellent choice. In fact I think you'd be HARD pressed to name a better choice.
Many military guns are not ideal carry guns. They were designed for a different role. Even the CZ-82 is a big block of steel when you get down to it. However, they tend to be high quality machinery and if your circumstances allow there's nothing wrong with them. There are a fair number of people who think the only way to carry is in a fanny pack and once you've gone to that extreme you could pack a TT-33 or CZ-52 without any problem. They are popular with the 1911 crowd for that very reason.
I'm not advocating any particular choice. I have been playing around with carrying a CZ-82 around the house for the last few days and it's easy to forget about. It's still rather thick but it points extremely well for me. It gives me "raise the gun and the sight picture is perfect" ergonomics that I haven't gotten from many of my commercial guns. The Mak and cz-82 are on the small end of the military gun range though and most are larger.
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
Considering I've never felt under-armed with cap and ball revolvers and antique cartridge revolvers, I do not agree with the "throw away the old, only the new is good" way of thinking. I've carried a Nagant occasionally and I see no reason not to carry other surplus guns.
ArkansasHunter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 26
My personal carry pistol is a CZ 82 Mil-Surp that I bought from Aim Surpless.
I paid the extra 10 bucks to hand pick and got what looks like an unissed one.
It looks new !
It's o.k. for winter carry, but for summer it's a little bulky in the grip area, matter of fact I got my concealed carry permit useing my CZ 82. When we went to the range.
My CZ out shot every gun there and just about every name brand pistol was there.
I was Expert with it shooting Winchester FMJ the Federal brand 9X18 went all over the target practising.
It's a good choice for concealed carry and the price is right.
My other concealed carry pistol is a KelTec 32 auto that I carry in a Uncle Mike's billfold type holster which is smaller and more comfortable to carry.
The CZ 82 is heavy and some say the grip is to wide, but it's not any wider than my son's Glock he carrys concealed...A.H
I paid the extra 10 bucks to hand pick and got what looks like an unissed one.
It looks new !
It's o.k. for winter carry, but for summer it's a little bulky in the grip area, matter of fact I got my concealed carry permit useing my CZ 82. When we went to the range.
My CZ out shot every gun there and just about every name brand pistol was there.
I was Expert with it shooting Winchester FMJ the Federal brand 9X18 went all over the target practising.
It's a good choice for concealed carry and the price is right.
My other concealed carry pistol is a KelTec 32 auto that I carry in a Uncle Mike's billfold type holster which is smaller and more comfortable to carry.
The CZ 82 is heavy and some say the grip is to wide, but it's not any wider than my son's Glock he carrys concealed...A.H
Last edited:
Had A Great Ccw Gun
Breilly,
I carried a Makarov for years and wish I'd never sold it. It has all the qualities you mentioned.
I then carried a Kel Tec P11. It's smaller and lighter than the Mak but nowhere near as easy to field strip and clean.
Right now I carry a S&W Sigma. It field strips just as easily as a Glock but is big for a CCW gun. I'm buying another P11 and won't hesitate to buy another Mak if I can find one for a reasonable price. Unfortunately for me Maks are now selling for 3 times what they did when I bought mine in 2000. :banghead:
Breilly,
I carried a Makarov for years and wish I'd never sold it. It has all the qualities you mentioned.
I then carried a Kel Tec P11. It's smaller and lighter than the Mak but nowhere near as easy to field strip and clean.
Right now I carry a S&W Sigma. It field strips just as easily as a Glock but is big for a CCW gun. I'm buying another P11 and won't hesitate to buy another Mak if I can find one for a reasonable price. Unfortunately for me Maks are now selling for 3 times what they did when I bought mine in 2000. :banghead:
I disagree, the 9mm is going to be a locked breech gun and the .380 or makarov is going to be blowback usually. I don't think most people are going to feel a recoil reduction in it.
Can you cite somewhere that the experts like Dr. Roberts are saying that people have gotten so fat that the old standards for penetration no longer apply? I'm not sure that people have gotten that circus fat in the last 10-15 years that these things weren't accounted for or are an actual problems.
I'm not aware of any rounds we can purchase for the guns you mentioned that can penetrate level 3a soft armor. If you're concerned about people in body armor I would think you'd be concerned about more than just real thin stuff.
I'd also be more worried about the guy who will hit me with a .22 than miss me with a .45, but I'm not sure what the point of this is. There are cheap enough modern guns available that the OP can buy and still have plenty of money left for practice ammo. It is assumed that he will practice and become proficient with whatever he purchases. Given the situation we actually have here, a shooter proficient and practiced with his gun, I'd feel as though my chances of survival are less if he has a 9x19 instead of 9x18.
- Status
Similar threads
