Steelhead,
Thanks for the pleasant response ...
I HAVE handled and shot one, though ...
I realize the ammunition is marginally produced by a coupel of major American companies, and some smaller ones ... but it's not generally as easy to find on the store shelves I visit from time to time. Perhaps that will change if these surplus weapons become more popular. I must have missed the loads offered in Golden sabre, Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok (regular & PD versions), T-Series and Bonded Tactical. I mistakenly thought the loadings available were mostly in generic JHP's ...
Since I actually know a fellow that carried one for a while, I've maintained a general interest in browsing among the thread topics mentioning them among the various forums I occasionally visit ... and I've read both good and not-so-good experiences posted by various folks that own them. Not surprising, as that's pretty much how it goes with any firearm.
I DO prefer buying new & used weapons which have easily available warranty and/or technical support ... although I'm glad to hear the parts are available should they be necessary.
I still stand by my personal opinions and reasoning about why I'd select the J-frame over the Mak ...
The thoughts I listed were those I came up with while sitting here considering IF I WOULD be inclined to ever buy one of those little surplus pistols, and I arrived at the conclusion that I wouldn't. That being the case ... for ME ... I would choose the other option, or answer, offered in the thread poster's question. While I have only limited personal experience with Mak pistols, I DO have a bit more experience with J-frames, especially the 642 ... and I own one of those.
Isn't that what he asked? Or, would it have been simply better if I responded "Yes" to one, and "No" to the other, without sharing any thoughts and opinions?
Too bad my comments struck you as me being a know-it-all, tadyson ... I didn't intend for it to be taken that way, and I've often commented that I certainly DON'T consider myself any sort of an "expert" ... let alone try to give anyone else that impression, either on purpose or by implication. If I offended you, I apologize.
Lighten up ... Or not ...
If my "No" vote for using a Mak offended you because of any personal fondness for the weapon, then perhaps it would placate you if I said that I disliked some other make/model/caliber of weapon which I've previously handled, fired, and decided afterward against personally owning ... such as most any Walther PPK/S .380 ACP. I've seen far too many of them malfunction and fail to complete even limited qualification ranges, even using FMJ ammunition. I wouldn't choose one of them, compared against a 642 J-frame, either.
So ... I suppose to answer the poster's question in a manner that might be as potentionally least offensive as possible, and least likjly to "step on anyone's toes" when it came to pride-of-ownership and personal preference issues ...
I think the "concealability" consideration is totally subjective, although I DO agree that the weight of the Mak is a bit better balanced when a belt holster of some type is used. I think the 642 is a better "pocket" weapon, both in weight and generally overall "smoothness", if only because of the Mak's sights.
I think the 642 may be easier to draw and present under stress, if a pocket holster is used, and the pocket mouth is the least bit tight, but that's just my opinion ... and the next 5 folks might have 6 different opinions in that regard.
I agree it's easier to reload using a spare magazine than it is to reload from speedloaders, speedstrips, belt carriers, or loose rounds ... but I've also found it's easier to comfortably carry and conceal spare .38 ammunition in various easily accessible pockets than it is magazines, especially using speedstrips. I practice reloading a LOT, regardless of whether I'm using pistol or revolver.
Also, while a magazine related malfunction may be a bit awkward, or even difficult, to clear ... and require the use of a second magazine ... a small revolver generally won't suffer from the same potentionally time-consuming malfunctions. No limp wristing, no double feeds, no weakened magazine springs, no failures-to-extract, no loss of slide momentum and "short travel" if the revolver is inadvertantly pulled close to the torso (see it happen a lot with pistols, especially when folks are wearing jackets and bulky cool, weather clothing).
True, most of these are ammunition related and shooter maintenance related to varying degrees ... as well as training issues ... but these are some of the reasons that I'd choose a small revolver (of minimal caliber) over a small pistol for some defensive purposes.
Caliber? Well, I've commented many times that I personally prefer not to carry any defensive weapon chambered in a caliber of less than .38 Special ... and I prefer to use defensive ammunition which uses a bullet weight of somewhere between 125gr-158gr, at that ...
The Mak doesn't meet MY desires in that regard, and although I've never used "muzzle energy" as a make-or-break yardstick, I will probably continue to be influenced such that I prefer heavier bullets than many small pocket pistol calibers are able to use ...
By the way, when I last qualified someone who was using a Mak as one of their CCW weapons, I didn't tell him he'd chosen poorly, either. His choice, his weapon, he did fine ... not a problem. Same thing for the single cop I qualified with a Mak as an off duty weapon a while back. Anything wrong with that?