Makarov as a main battle sidearm

[HIPOWER]

Anyone have info about how well the Makarov did in combat service with the commies? You hear a lot of legend and lore about the 1911 in combat. Do the reds have the same mystical affection for their Maks?

A related question - does anyone feel that the Mak is a viable main defense weapon for CCW and home defense? If TSHTF would you feel well armed with a 9x18 Makarov in your hand?

 

[JohnKSa]

It's getting toward the bottom end of commonly recommended self-defense handguns. That means there's more pressure on the shooter to put the bullet exactly where it needs to go and also to pick a bullet design that won't underpenetrate.

 

[cratz2]

Well, I've owned a couple of them and I know that not only are they less powerful than the full 9x19, but I can't shoot a Mak at 7 yards as quickly and accurately as a CZ PCR... Or even a considerably more powerful Glock 23... neither of which feel any heavier to my hip than the Mak.

Platform aside, I'd be willing to bet there isn't much difference in the effectiveness between, say, Barnaul Mak ammo and standard pressure Golden Sabers or Gold Dots in a similar barrel length 9x19.

For what it's worth, if the Mak is completely reliable, I'd feel comfortable carrying Barnaul ammo. But if I were expecting trouble, I'd rather have a gun that was easier to control at speed, firing a bigger/faster/better bullet while holding a greater capacity. And if I were truly expecting trouble, that handgun would only be expected to protect me while gaining access to an AR or a 590A.

 

[Jim K]

The Russian army, like most armies, did not consider the pistol a combat weapon. It was issued as a badge of office or as a weapon to use if some guy in the wrong uniform showed up unexpectedly and nothing else was handy. At worst it could be used to enforce discipline or to execute deserters or spies. None of those uses required great power.

The Makarov is a small, light, fast handling weapon with low recoil and is well suited for the intended purposes.

Jim

 

[jc2]

Actually, the Red Army appeared to consider the Makarov a last ditch defensive weapon, and it was designed more as a combat weapon than the above statement might indicate. While it was clearly designed to be used by soldiers under field conditions--not necessarily merely ornamental use--it certainly was not designed as a main battle sidearm.

 

[Jeff Timm]

The Makarov design phiosophy is different than the US Army view of the sidearm.

The Mak is intended for the Officer Class of the Soviet Union to carry under any and all circumstances. For police/security forces to carry as well. Occassionally other troops might have handguns, but mostly they would get a standard rifle, smg or carbine. Therefore a compact, concealable weapon is more suitable.

It seems a reasonable solution to the stated need.

I've only shot one Mak once. I liked it better than the PPK/S I briefly owned, or the Star DK I briefly owned.

FOR THE MONEY I don't think you can get a better sidearm than the surplus Maks I've seen lately. Around $250 here in FL Gunshops.

Geoff
Who might pick one up after his financial situation stabalizes.

 

[Onmilo]

Considering the Russian army is beginning to replace Makarovs with the 9X19 "Grach" pistol.,( these are basically a CZ75/Browning High Power/Makarov all smashed together, 17 round capacity), I would guess their opinion mirrors the rest of the world.
Small pistols make efficient personal defense weapons but something larger is needed for use as a main combat pistol.

 

[Teakwood]

IMHO, the Mak is more designed as a personal defense side arm and police weapon than that of a full combat weapon. It is, after all, a small pistol.

I have a dozen Maks and I love them for their reliability and simplicity of design. It is a very accurate small pistol, suitable for personal carry or bed-side table. If I were in combat, I would certainly want something larger (not a pistol), but for tucking in the pocket and walking down the street, give me a Mak.

 

[M2 Carbine]

What Teekwood said!!

When dressed for it I carry a 45 Kimber but wouldn't feel disadvantaged with a Mak.

BTW, Teek you have to get another Mak to get even, I have 2 more (like new) coming from AIM.
The "like new" are $140 in a new catalog I just got.

$120 used, they said the used show more wear than the last ones they had.



There's a Polish poster on GT called NESTER that said the other day the Russians weren't satisfied with the Makarov as their "combat" pistol.

As much as I like Maks, I'd rather have a 45 than 9x18 as a "combat" pistol.

 

[dogngun]

Maks are well and simply designed, accurate and one of the most reliable pistols ever made by anybody. If it was made in a larger caliber, it would be perfect, but it's not

It would make a great back up carry pistol.
I would not want to carry one as a primary weapon in a war.

Mark

 

[natedog]

The Makarov design phiosophy is different than the US Army view of the sidearm.

Just curious Tim, but what is the US Army view of the sidearm?

 

[denfoote]

The purpose of your sidearm is to shoot your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind!!!

That's the army's view of the pistol.

The Russian view was to use the Makarov to shoot prisnors in the back of the head.
It was affectionately known as the "9mm cure".

 

[c_yeager]

I think the Makarov was designed to be a sort of catch-all pistol. Pistols arent front line weapons and they arent decisive in battle. So they likely didnt want to have to design a whole slew of pistols for various tasks. As such the Makarov is a weapon that is at least ADEQUATE for virtually any task that a pistol would likely be put to.

Remember that the Russians didnt have the commercial pressure behind weapons developement that European and American weapons designers have had. Everything in the Russian arsenal was made to fill a role and once that role was filled it wasnt messed with unless absolutly necessary.

Ultimatly pistols are defensive in nature rather than offensive. The Mak from a military standpoint was intended to be employed as a last ditch weapon to defend the lives of officers. As such the doctrine behind the Makarov is a closer parrallell to personal defensive firearms than to front line military weapons.

 

[Drakejake]

The Makarov is obviously not a cannon or mortar but it is a great value for the gun aficionado. It is small, light, simple, well-made, accurate, and fun to shoot. The recoil is minimal. In contrast to several of the Commie handguns, the Mak is an attractive pistol which in some versions is nicely finished in polished blue. Prices for Bulgarians are quite reasonable. I enjoyed shooting my two East German models yesterday.

Drakejake

 

[jc2]

Apparently, part of the design criteria for the Mak was that it was to be used in and around armoured vehicles (as a personal weapon for tank crewmen). This resulted in small, handy sized weapon that is relatively "soldier-proof," and that could be comfortably worn while mounting and dismounting armoured vehicles (and fired out of viewing slots if worse came to worse).

Another thing to keep and mind (and very important), the Soviet Union had undoubtedly the most experienced and tested land army in the world at the time the Mak was designed (late 40s/early 50s). They had a very good idea--based on five long years of hard experience--of what was required in combat weapons (and they came up with the Mak). This would probably a good time to point out the US Armed Forces also considered a smaller and handier weapon (based on our WW2 experience) during the same time frame--we just didn't follow through.

While most of the thread has tended to emphasize the military role of the Mak, don't forget it was designed to and served effectively as a LE sidearm and undercover weapon throughout the Eastern Bloc.

 

[Jeff Timm]

natedog asked, "Just curious Tim, but what is the US Army view of the sidearm?"

After reading the introduction to the Request for Proposal, damned if I know!

The Army looked at all sorts of pistols and then insisted on an old fashioned double/single action large frame 9mm. The Army's only new pistols at the time of the M-9 selection, were .38 Revolvers for women with small hands.

Geoff
Who participated in an official discussion group (market research) I went in a big handgun fan, listened to the users and left a small handgun fan.

 

[lee n. field]

FOR THE MONEY I don't think you can get a better sidearm than the surplus Maks I've seen lately. Around $250 here in FL Gunshops.

!!

Would it bother you to know I picked up a Bulgarian Mak for $99 this last Sat.? They're normally running $169 around here.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Makarovs are well designed, accurate and nearly indestructable.
They are all steel and "Blow Back" design so they are a little on the heavy side for the power of the cartridge. IMHO.....
Are they in the same league as the 1911 no for a lot of reasons.
But then no other pistol in the world is....! yes I could be considered a 1911 snob, But I am also able to appreciate the qualities and engineering of the Pistolet Ma-Ka-Roff.

HEh HEH.. I also own shoot and love Kahr's and Kel-Tec's .

I carry daily one of the above or one of my Maks.

I have owned other makes of pistols but they are all gone, some I really miss like the old BHP ( the only 9mm I ever really liked beside my kahr and a CZ-75)

Do I feel the Makarov is a suitable battlefield or primary weapon, probably not when there are pistols like the 1911 around. OH yeah Russia had and probably still has them.

Of course you will have to forgive me leaving out the fantastic plastic pistols, like my PM9, since they weren't around yet.

O doubt that the Russians are really worried about the Germans using their own weapons against them these days. So why not phase out the old Ma-Ka-Roff's. Hells bells we replaed the battle proven 1911 in .45acp with the 9mm M9 for political reasons.

 

[SteelyDan]

The original question focused on whether it's a good choice for a battle sidearm or home defense/SHTF. My answer is "no." I think it's fine for what it is (a small, reliable semi-auto on the lower end of the power range), but there are a bunch of better choices for those roles. In my mind, the Makarov is a a very good choice if you're looking for a small, reliable, and inexpensive handgun, perhaps for CCW. They're also pretty accurate. But you can do much better for the intended stated uses, starting with 9mm and running up to .45s.

 

[Rival]

APS - battle sidearm of Soviet Union

Don't forget that PM (Pistolet Makarova) entered the service along with APS (Automatic Pistolet Stechkina)- these two guns were replacing TT-33.

PM was more of a light compact personal defence handgun, while APS was developed as a combat sidearm.

APS is a fully automatic pistol with special device that was slowing rate of fire to 600 rounds/minute. Together with formiddable weight and rather weak ammunition it makes it possible to actually control this handgun in fully automatic fire... It has 20 round magazine. It's bulky wooden holster that was doubling as a stock was later replaced with rather interesting metal folding stock (during Afgan war and still used today).

The APS was soon found to be too large and heavy for everyday carry, and was taken out of service and stored in arsenals. However they start given them out again during Afgan war, and later on to law enforcement and special forces after the collapse of Soviet Union. You can still find it in service, usually by FSB and other special forces.

APS has a reputation of accurate and reliable combat firearm, and is still being used in Russia today.

Size comparison between PM and APS

 

[NoScreenName]

I think it mainly depends on the flavor of the SHTF situation...

If it's hordes of zombies, then no... you are gonna need a high cap wondernine...

If it's some sort of domestic unrest/foreign invaders type situation... I think it fits the bill nicely...

very concealable...which is important because you won't neccesarily want everyone to know you are armed for various reasons...

Foreign troops are going to be disarming anyone and everyone, so open carry will be out in that situation...

civil unrest will be sort of similar possibly.. you don't want to go wandering around in your mall ninja tac gear including the thigh holster if there are troops or police patroling...

and

In an all out "the world has gone crazy" situation if there are no authorities around and you are on your own it is also unwise to "show your cards" so to speak... as anyone who you run into or happens to see you before you see them will have a good idea what they are up against and will plan accordingly to disarm you for their safety to do what they will with/to you and/or possibly take it from you for their own use...

and caliberwise it packs enough of a punch (with proper shot placement of course) to fill the exact role it was designed for...ie: a last ditch, close range weapon...

also, it is dead nuts reliable and not as susceptable to becoming inoperable if it gets a little dirty due to enviromental conditions or powder residue... trust me, I know both of these for a fact...

I think realistically you should not be considering taking only a pistol into any offensive situation and should be relying mainly on a shoulder weapon for any sort of shots in the double digit range...I mean honestly are you going to be taking long shots with any pistol in any kind of conceivable situation? You shouldn't be using a handgun to shoot at anything you can't hit by throwing a rock at is my opinion...

A friend who is former military has told me on several occaisions that a rifle is a main offensive weapon that can fill a defensive role if need be and a handgun is a secondary defensive weapon and you should never deviate from that mantra or forget it...but he has picked out his zombie killer guns already so take that for what it's worth...

So I think the Mak fills that role just fine as long as you are comfortable with it and proficient in it's use...

I have been known to carry my Mak as a primary weapon and it has it's place for a home defense weapon as well...

With that said, I would not feel like a weenie if all I had for a sidearm was my Mak... I enough 9x18 ammo to hold off the zombies...I hope...


But if I have time to make a choice I'm grabbing my Sig...

 

[No4Mk1*]

My 2 compact guns are a Makarov and Kahr P9. The Mak has never jammed, but the Kahr has. I therefore don't trust the Kahr and it never comes out of the safe. The Makarov gets carred when I carry.

Is it the best choice? probably not, but it is a gun that has NEVER jammed and it has acceptable power, so it is a VERY GOOD choice.

 

[Jeff Timm]

Missouri Mule opined: "Hells bells we replaed the battle proven 1911 in .45acp with the 9mm M9 for political reasons."

No, we replaced them because they were worn out, and the spares had all been used up. After incredible tests, the team selected the M9. Best of a bad lot?

Had I been in charge at the time, I would have specified the caliber and said to the manufacturers, "Gimme your best shot, 100 each and we'll let the troops test the sh*t out of them."

We would be manufacturing the Glock in this country, but that is no bad thing.

Geoff
Who favors the SIG 225 himself.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I didn't "opine" anything.
That is my feeling as was at the time many users i Knew, early to middle 80's.
The M9 was supposedly, intended to eliminate the need for multiple issue weapons, again at the time. .38 revolvers were still being issued to many if not most or even all female soldiers who could not minimally qualify with the 1911. You know the kinder, gentler more PC Army.

The M9 is much easier for many people to shoot due to much less recoil.

As far as the existing inventory of 1911 being worn out, how many 1911 manufactures exist in the USA today? A lot more than are making M9's.

I stand by my statements. I also feel the 1911 was phased out just because it is a fairly old design. Never mind the effectiveness of the round or the made in America by an American owned and controlled company.
Or the pistols overall simplicity compared to the berretta, the sig , the glock...........!

All of the other weapons I mentioned are fine pistols in their own rite.
And NO I am not one of those 1911 snobs. I like most pistols even commie gun like the Mak. I am not a large fan of the 9mmluger (or parabellum) but I
do like the CZ-75 far and above the Berretta.

I still beleive the M1911A1 was phased out in large part for one political reason or another.

So why is it so many elite military units use the 1911 platform when allowed a choice ? hearsay??

I don't feel underarmed with any of my pistols.
But, if I were called up for combat service tomorrow I would want the most effective battle proven side arm to go with me...1911 chambered for .45acp.

Ma-ka-Roff as pronounced in Russian or at least so I am told!

 

[jc2]

The 1911A1 was not "replaced for political reasons," unless you consider NATO standardization a "political reason." The Armed Forces hadn't bought any new 1911 since the 1940s, and existing inventories had been pretty well depleted. They were going to have to procure new pistols, period. Because of the need to procure new weapons anyway, the decision was made to go the 9x19, pistols trials were held, and the rest, as they say, is history. BTW, "so many elite military units use the 1911 platform" do NOT use the 1911 platforms--most use either the Beretta (Army SF) or the SIG (P226)--only a few very small Marine units still use the 1911 platform.