Anybody CCW military surplus pistols?

[ZeSpectre]

I'm not aware of any rounds we can purchase for the guns you mentioned that can penetrate level 3a soft armor.

Just playing devil's advocate... but 7.62x25 FMJ just might do that. Sure would be an interesting test.

 

[mavracer]

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.

gee the internet is a great place to get your information.have you actually shot a mak and a glock 23 didn't think so or you wouldn't make a prepostous statement.

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

.
the last gunshow I was at there were several p-64s and pa-63s for less than $150 having known many owners of both they are both reliable designs leaving someone on a tight budget $ for ammo.

 

[Cosmoline]

Someone else mentioned the 1895 Nagant. For God's sake WHY? This has to be the WORST choice out there for a defensive pistol. This design was obsolete before WWI! It's got a Clunky 20 pound DA pull, a horrible site picture, and the cartridge that it fires is a .30 Caliber FMJ slug going less than 1,000 feet per second. Good luck reloading this thing too. Gyuh! the Nagant is a Curio and Relic best relegated to the safe and to range trips.

The Nagant served in two world wars and many lesser conflicts. Though not overly potent, it's incredibly durable and reliable. It was a popular battlefield pickup by Germans, Finns and others. The Russians liked them, too. And lord knows it put a whole lot of men under ground. The big limitation is the difficulty in getting anything but target level ammo for it stateside.

The good news is, Wolf Gold is supposedly coming out with the famous "pig" load in the near future. Loaded with something along those lines--a 97 grain FN slug running out a about 1,000 to 1,100 fps, I wouldn't feel unprotected. Sure there are more potent rounds, but that's on par with a .38 Special and will suffice.

You can also handload for it, often using .30 carbine or .32-20 brass and special die sets. It is kind of a PINA though. I reloaded some fiocchi brass but it was a very complex undertaking.

I've got a .32 ACP cylinder for mine and it works quite well with the same POI as the regular cylinder. And of course you can load .32 S&W, S&W Long and H&R if you're not afraid of some brass getting shaved off at you.

 

[Cosmoline]

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.

Is decreased weight such a good thing? I found my Walther PP in .32 ACP to be vastly easier to shoot and much easier to shoot accurately than the more modern Beretta 3032 that weighed a lot less and was much smaller. The Walther was a nice solid steel package, with enough room for my hand and a lot of stability. As a consequence I could burn out the .32 at an awesome rate, drilling a spruce tree at 20 yards in a matter of seconds with the whole magazine. If I tried that with the Tomcat my hand would have been more mangled than the tree.

Likewise, the Maks have a nice stable steel platform. A little more weight int he holster, but not such a bad thing when you're trying to get a bead on someone shooting back at you.

Personally, I think folks who opt for 9x19's in these ultra compact packages are nuts. Give me old and heavy!

 

[Ed Ames]

As far as rules changing and finding "studies", can you cite a study that shows a significant difference in combat effectiveness between 9x18 and 9x19?

My comment about fat and "some other factor" was mostly intended for entertainment purposes. None the less, it is hard to argue that 7.62x25 is a lot worse than 327mag for overpenetration danger. Both throw light and fast chunks of metal. Seems like Ruger thinks the .327mag is good for relatively large guns (GP100 is a 2.2 pounder IIRC, Tokarev is lighter at 2 pounds) and it sounds pretty useful to me.

Body armor is a raising of the bar but as far as I know the real response is to move away from old school "COM" targeting. That's doubly true when you throw in the FBI "stopping" study information. Now your makarov or CZ-82, small but very accurate, starts making more sense again.

If you consider fanny pack carry viable (I don't for myself... I've never worn a fanny pack and if I started now everyone I know and deal with would say "hmm... I know what he's doing..." and that's not good) then all of the guns (except the lebel) mentioned in this thread are acceptable. If you aren't going for the fanny pack they *may* be acceptable. The fact that a gun is made for the commercial trade, or the military trade, does not matter to its performance for you today. What matters is how well you can use it, how well it works, and how well you care for it.

 

[M2 Carbine]

But I digress. Do any of you carry older surplus pistols? If not, why not?

While my carry choice is a Crimson Trace equipped Kimber Tactical Ultra II and recently a Kimber Ultra Covert II, I'd also carry the Makarov at times, except for one thing. Crimson Trace doesn't make their laser for Makarovs.
The only ammo I'd carry for defense in the Makarov is 120 grain Silver Bear JHP (1,000 FPS) or my 1,100+ FPS Hornady XTP or Gold Dot hand-loads.
The 120 grain SB load hasn't been available for quite a while, but I've got a good stock of it.

Any gun I'd seriously consider using as a first line defense gun must be equipped with a (good) laser.

For me the CZ52 is too big for carry. I have considered using it as a car gun loaded with reloads using the Hornady 85gr XTP bullets but I've got other guns in the cars.

I have three Polish P-64's and a Hungarian PA-63 that I might also carry once in a while but no lasers on those either.

Then to I'd consider the CZ83 in 9x18, especially because of the higher capacity magazines, but again, no laser. Also mine isn't 100% reliable with JHP bullets.

 

[jonnyc]

I have, and will sometimes carry, my Sistema 1911, EG Makarov, Israeli surp Hi-Power. Overseas I carried a 1936 "Eagle" Radom.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Soybom,

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.

The 7.62x25 travelling over 1,450 ft/s can supposedly penetrate basic level IIIA and Sellier and Bellot regularly runs over 1500 and often 1550 ft/s.
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/ballistic-chart.php

 

[sixgunner455]

Nothing wrong with a 1911, Makarov or PA-63. Most of the other true "military surplus" handguns are more spotty, to my way of thinking. Police surplus, like a nice K frame, is a different matter, and very nice.

 

[Soybomb]

gee the internet is a great place to get your information.have you actually shot a mak and a glock 23 didn't think so or you wouldn't make a prepostous statement.

The original statement was same dimensions, how close is the weight on those two? Why .40? Why didn't you stick with the 9mm like I originally suggested for a recoil sensitive shooter? Of course a locked breech is only going to be worth so much, but if we keep the step up in caliber a bit less drastic I think most shooters will find them pretty comparable.

As far as rules changing and finding "studies", can you cite a study that shows a significant difference in combat effectiveness between 9x18 and 9x19?

I'm unaware of any regarding 9x18 specifically, I can't say I've looked, but leo organzations are moving to where they don't authorize guns below .38 special as backup guns, and 9x18 does perform at a level below that.

The 7.62x25 travelling over 1,450 ft/s can supposedly penetrate basic level IIIA and Sellier and Bellot regularly runs over 1500 and often 1550 ft/s.
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-ar...stic-chart.php

I believe that chart is showing that their level 3a+ defeats the 1440-1540 lead core ammo. Their 3b armor defeated it with a steel core. Isn't S&B lead core? I'd want to investigate it further but what they rate as 3b doesn't seem like anything that I've heard of defeating 3a armor from others. I will believe it when I see it done. I wonder if we could convince theboxotruth to test out the 7.62x25 against some scrap 3a.....

 

[Ed Ames]

I'm unaware of any regarding 9x18 specifically, I can't say I've looked, but leo organzations are moving to where they don't authorize guns below .38 special as backup guns, and 9x18 does perform at a level below that.

Huh?

158gr LRN 38SP has about 208fpe.
95gr HP 9x18Mak has about 231fpe.

..and...

38sp has a diameter of 0.357"
9x18mak has a diameter of 0.365".

I'm just not seeing where you are coming from, factually speaking.

 

[Soybomb]

The difference isn't kinetic energy or bullet diameter, energy isn't how handgun ammo performance is evaluated, we want to look at the actual wound the round can create. A full wadcutter will crush more tissue than a round nose fmj. If we go to expanding bullets the .38spl round will likely be heavier (as you demonstrated 158 vs 95 gr), have more momentum, and more likely to penetrate adequately, something the mak round has trouble doing if it expands.

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000397#000000
Actually, all of the 9 x 18 mm rounds illustrated showed the exact same problems that occur with the sub-optimal .380 ACP loads: when they have good expansion, penetration is insufficient; when penetration is adequate, then expansion is minimal. In either event, 9 x 19 mm loads and pistols far surpass the Makarov and its 9 x 18 mm cartridge.

For comparison the speer 135gr +P .38spl gold dot shot from a 2" j-frame through 4 layers of denim penetrated 13.6", expanded to .53" and weighed 134.1gr. I have never seen a 9x18 round that can do that, although I'm always open to new data

 

[1911Tuner]

A basically stock 1943 USGI Colt is one in my carry rotation, though I don't carry it often enough these days since I got started with an early pre-80 Combat Commander and an early 90s vintage Springfield 5-inch 1911A1.

 

[Ed Ames]

9x18mak and 38sp compare fairly well.

38sp+p is slightly different game. +P isn't even recommended for quite a few concealed carry guns.

As for performance in expansion.... from that page you sent it doesn't look too bad to me.

To excerpt from that listing:
Hornady 95gr (XTP) penetrated an average of 9.5" (+/-.23") with an avg. expansion of .61" and all rounds expanded.
CCI Blazer 90gr penetrated 11.5 inches (+/- 0.1") with an expansion of .605"
All rounds expanded.

I'm not sure how much better 13" at .5" expansion is than 11.5" or even 9.5" at .6" -- I just did a quick measurement and it appears that the deepest part of my chest is somewhere around 10" front to back and I'm not the smallest person around so if we ignore bones for the moment the 9x18 would have a fair chance of lodging under a person's back skin or passing out at fairly low velocity. Sounds pretty reasonable. I might opt for less expansion and more penetration (maybe aim for .5") but those results are well inside the "acceptable" range.

 

[Soybomb]

9x18mak and 38sp compare fairly well.

If you restrict it to standard pressure you'll be left with choosing between an expanding 9x18 round that won't penetrate to the recommend depths, a 9x18 fmj, or the better crushing of a full cutter in .38 spl. I'd still go with the .38spl.

If you're interested in learning more about ballistics I'd encourage you to poke around the forum I linked to. There is some really great reading including lots of journal articles in the stickies at the top of the forum. This is a great first read http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm Measuing your chest cavity from front to rear doesn't begin to cover why most of the experts say at least 12-14" minimum penetration. Among the many reasons why, seldom does an attacker present you with an unobstructed straight on shot at their heart. Bullets often wind up taking a lesss than straight path through the body, having to pass through more of the body because the attacker is standing at an angle to you, having to pass through arms that are out in front of the attackers body, etc.

To illustrate this further, using the 10" deep thing and your body, it sounds like your claim is essentially that a bullet that penetrates 10" is going to be likely near the back of the body for a significant part of the population right? There was a study in the 1991 Wound Ballistics Review Jounal by Eugene Wolberg where he checked out the real world performance of the 9mm 147 gr winchester load in those shot by the san diego pd. In this study they measured 28 wound channels from the bodies. The average length of the wound was 13.2" Two rounds had penetrated to 13.5-14.5" and were stopped just under the skin. Wolberg speculated that they could have penetrated more deeply but that the skin has a "holding in" effect. The most shallow wound was 10", and the deepest was 17" Neither of those two were about to exit the body.

We will all come to our own conclusions on this, but if 10" will wind up penetrating as deep as you speculate, I'd expect the real world average to be much lower and to have seen that many of those bullets would have left the body.

 

[Ed Ames]

Actually, I said "ignore bones" for a reason. I don't think the bullet would go anything like 10" in real life because it would be almost guaranteed to hit bones, plus skin is pretty tough and can separate and "bag" a bit.

All of that said, I don't find the performance unacceptably bad either. It is past my "minimum" mark. Would I prefer an .88 magnum? Probably. But good enough is good enough.

 

[Seminole]

I carry something else now, but when I first began carrying my choice was a Bulgarian Makarov. I chose it because it was cheap ($125.00 at the time!) available, and I could conceal it. Yes it's heavy, but no heavier than some other guns that are frequently carried.

I've thought about going through a combat handgun class with my CZ-82 just for the fun of it.

If either one of those is what you can afford, buy it, buy enough ammo to get plenty of practice, buy a good holster and a belt to hang it on, and get some training. You'll have enough gun--the rest is up to you.

 

[skud_dusty]

I sometimes carry a P64 as a BUG. Sometimes, I'll carry it as my main...pretty rare though.

 

[mavracer]

For comparison the speer 135gr +P .38spl gold dot shot from a 2" j-frame through 4 layers of denim penetrated 13.6", expanded to .53" and weighed 134.1gr. I have never seen a 9x18 round that can do that, although I'm always open to new data

here you go this is from www.brassfetcher.com AKA je223 on THR

Shot 3 : Silver Bear 115gr JHP. Impacted at 993 ft/sec, penetrated to 12.6" (corrected). Average diameter was 0.513".

bottom line nobody here is trying to say a milsurp 9X18 is the best CCW mearly that it would be a viable option on a budget.

 

[Ed Ames]

brassfetcher has a lot of interesting info.

CZ-52 firing wolf 85gr JHP

Three shot average at 10':
1329fps, 13.3" penetration, .462" expanded diameter

That site has a lot of great info that pretty much reveals what we've been saying all along. The military rounds fall about where common sense would say they fall. The 9x18 is not a 9x19 but it isn't a 32acp either.

The decision to use these guns really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the rounds or any perceived obsolescence. It has to do with whether the guns appeal to you for some reason. Maybe price, maybe "use what you want anyway", maybe quality, maybe something else. If they aren't what gives you warm fuzzies then move on... but don't think that just because you wouldn't get a warm fuzzy the decision is a bad one.

Basically what the "buy a used glock" people on this thread are saying is that it makes more sense to them to buy a 5 year old used toyota as a first car than to buy a 20 year old BMW. Does it? Don't ask me. Some people don't want toyotas. I've driven them. Nothing impressed me. Yawn. I have no plans to ever own one. I've also driven old BMWs and you know what? They were better than toyotas on day one and they are still better today even if they have more dings and need more attention. Same with some of these old military pistols. When I was back in "first car" days I didn't buy a used toyota. I certainly didn't buy the crappy entry level cars like fords and geos. I got an old BMW. It was cheap because it wasn't "executive class" any more. In other words, it no longer served the original mission (sort of like military pistols no longer serve their original mission) yet it was built with quality and even with sunburned paint and 300,000 mile on the clock it was fast and precise and easy to work on and a lot of fun. I put about 160,000 miles on it before I passed it on to someone else. At the end of the day I had less than the purchase price of a decent used toyota in that car *total* (including fuel and insurance). For me, the military surplus pistols are like old BMWs... basically high quality but older and you've got to know the limitations. They'll still get you where you need to go though. Learn them and you'll be happy. Or don't and be happy anyway.

Shoot wha'cha brung and be happy.

 

[mavracer]

dang Ed I've been with ya til now first you hammer my beloved 32 acp(BTW I only use euro spec ammo) then you lump my Ford with a geo.

 

[Ed Ames]

LOL

I just couldn't remember the model... escort? Sounds right. I rented one once and it was about the worst car ever. Scary to drive, marginal power, lousy gas mileage, and the color was horrible too. There was nothing good about that car. Hyundai makes better cars by a mile. Someone tried to sell me a geo *something* once and it was funny as anything... poor woman was so excited until I tried to sit in the driver's seat. Slid all the way back I could get my legs in, seatback cranked back my head wasn't banging on the roof... I could actually sit in the car but man I wouldn't want to go over a speed bump. Yikes.

I have nothing against the .32acp but as far as I can tell all of the military rounds we've talked about (possibly excepting the nagant) hit harder.

 

[Soybomb]

here you go this is from www.brassfetcher.com AKA je223 on THR

Certainly to each his own, but I wouldn't base my decision of adequate performance on a 1 bullet test into an out of spec block. The golden loki results claim to be in a spec block and at least a 3 shot average through denim layers. I don't see anything on the brass fetcher site to indicate bare gel or layers of fabric. Note the over 2" penetration difference on the hornady round between the two tests. I would want to see more testing and more consistent results before I decided that silver bear broke into the acceptable expansion and penetration category. Ballistics gelatin is supposed to be a benchmark, if you're getting that dramatic of a difference on the same bullet from the same gun, I would want more testing. Ymmv.

 

[golden]

Stopping Power

Since ED AMES asked about it, try the book STOPPING POWER by Evan MARSHALL and Edward SANOW. It goes into a fair amount about the studies conducted.
It also shows gives anything equal to the .38 special 158 grain round nose lead load a 50% chance of stopping an opponent.

Jim

 

[sixgunner455]

Uh, oh.