makarov vs. s&w 642
- Thread starter cliffjr
- Start date
- Status
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
From the ''horsepower'' POV then the Smith has it I guess but ..... I do feel that overall the Mak has the edge on concealability. The round is not to be sneezed at IMO .. and that lil gun with even modest practice can manage good shot placement ... and it's very robust too.
Either will serve you well .. but my vote is Mak!
Either will serve you well .. but my vote is Mak!
Stephen A. Camp
Moderator In Memoriam
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,430
Hello. Perhaps this will be of some interest:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm
Best.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm
Best.
Valkman
Member
Welcome to the forums!
For me I'd pick the 642, but for my wife I'd pick my Rusky Mak. 12 rounds of .380 should do well for her.
For me I'd pick the 642, but for my wife I'd pick my Rusky Mak. 12 rounds of .380 should do well for her.
I'd take the Makarov (and I did, it's what I carry 50% of the time). I find it to be a great little gun that can take a beating and keep working. I can keep a nice group inside a paper plate sized target at 15 yards with no problems. The Wolf ammo is a little hot though, I would recomend some other brand of ammo for practice. I generally have my carry piece loaded with blazer hollow points.
Makarov - definately.
I carry an EG Makarov about 90% of the time, a full-size Springfield Armory 1911 the other 10%.
You should be able to find Barnaul brand hollow-points at a gun show for $6-$10 for a box of 50. That is cheap enough to be able to practice with what you carry on a regular basis.
TD
I carry an EG Makarov about 90% of the time, a full-size Springfield Armory 1911 the other 10%.
You should be able to find Barnaul brand hollow-points at a gun show for $6-$10 for a box of 50. That is cheap enough to be able to practice with what you carry on a regular basis.
TD
I have both and carry both
I'm sure either will do the job with good shot placement. Each has it's trade off. The 642 is as easy as putting a wallet in my front pocket. It is so light that even loaded, I almost forget it is even there. I think that pocket carry is the most for of concealed carry IHO of course. The Mak is stone cold reiable, but it's weight lends itself to IWB carry. Some have found it good for pocket carry, but I feel it is a little too heavy for that. Why not both? Maks can be picked up for less that 200.00 and I bought my 642 used (if 15 shots is considered used) for 300.00. Concealed handguns are like shoes for women. It just depends on what you want to wear fof that day. Hi Steve.
Robert.
I'm sure either will do the job with good shot placement. Each has it's trade off. The 642 is as easy as putting a wallet in my front pocket. It is so light that even loaded, I almost forget it is even there. I think that pocket carry is the most for of concealed carry IHO of course. The Mak is stone cold reiable, but it's weight lends itself to IWB carry. Some have found it good for pocket carry, but I feel it is a little too heavy for that. Why not both? Maks can be picked up for less that 200.00 and I bought my 642 used (if 15 shots is considered used) for 300.00. Concealed handguns are like shoes for women. It just depends on what you want to wear fof that day. Hi Steve.
Robert.
fastbolt
Member
Dunno, it depends ... let's see ...
One chambers an easy-to-find, inexpensive caliber, which is generally accepted as nominally adequate for defensive purposes. It's produced by an American company, which employs Americans. It has a lifetime warranty to the original owner, and is produced on state-of-the-art CNC equipment, using the most modern materials available anywhere. It's lightweight, and easily lawfully carried and concealed. It's reliable ...
The other one is a Commbloc surplus pistol, manufactured to standards that might be a bit less exacting. It uses a caliber that's somewhere "inbetween" a couple of other popular calibers, one of which is often considered as a less powerful, "pocket pistol" caliber. The ammunition isn't exactly generally available, produced by all of the major manufacturers, or consistently inexpensive. Who knows how much research has gone into the design and performance of the bullets used in this caliber, when it comes to currently accepted penetration & expansion standards in conventional test mediums and scenarios. What kind of warranty does it have offered by the manufacturer, again???
Hey, if you like collecting inexpensive, foreign-made weapons, regardless of whether it's chambered in a "common" caliber in this country, or regardless of whatever type of warranty, repair and parts support is easily available for it ... go for it.
I actually saw someone come through a CCW course with one, and it functioned with FMJ for the required 36 rounds. Of course, then the guy asked how many cops used one as an off duty weapon ...
One chambers an easy-to-find, inexpensive caliber, which is generally accepted as nominally adequate for defensive purposes. It's produced by an American company, which employs Americans. It has a lifetime warranty to the original owner, and is produced on state-of-the-art CNC equipment, using the most modern materials available anywhere. It's lightweight, and easily lawfully carried and concealed. It's reliable ...
The other one is a Commbloc surplus pistol, manufactured to standards that might be a bit less exacting. It uses a caliber that's somewhere "inbetween" a couple of other popular calibers, one of which is often considered as a less powerful, "pocket pistol" caliber. The ammunition isn't exactly generally available, produced by all of the major manufacturers, or consistently inexpensive. Who knows how much research has gone into the design and performance of the bullets used in this caliber, when it comes to currently accepted penetration & expansion standards in conventional test mediums and scenarios. What kind of warranty does it have offered by the manufacturer, again???
Hey, if you like collecting inexpensive, foreign-made weapons, regardless of whether it's chambered in a "common" caliber in this country, or regardless of whatever type of warranty, repair and parts support is easily available for it ... go for it.
I actually saw someone come through a CCW course with one, and it functioned with FMJ for the required 36 rounds. Of course, then the guy asked how many cops used one as an off duty weapon ...
Fastbolt,
You have never shot one or handled one I see. If so, you might change your opinion. Ammo for the Mak is made by many American companies (Winchester, Corbon, Glaser, American Eagle, CCI Blazer to just name a few) and dies are available for reloading if you so desire. The 9X18 does not give up much of anything to a .38 special coming out of a 2 inch Snub. Although, I agree there are more loadings for the .38 than the 9X18.
The Mak does not need a lifetime warranty as it rarely has any problems. And even so, it would be fairly easy for the owner to fix most of them himself. Granted the person needs to be mechanically inclined although only minimally so. Parts are also readily available and inexpensive. Speaking of warranties, I have needed to use them for Ruger, S&W, Para Ord, Taurus and Kimber right out of the box. So much for modern day machining and exacting standards.
There are differing qualities between the Mak's with the East German probably being the most refined but all of them work. Both of my EG's will digest hollow points or ball without any problem and did so straight out of the box.
I personally find the Mak slightly easier to conceal than my 640 but the difference is minimal and is more a perception. The magazines, however, are definitely easier to carry than speed loaders. Both are accurate with the edge going to the Mak.
You may want to do a little research here on THR, TFL and other sites on the Makarov. You may be surprised by want you learn. Better yet, buy one for yourself and get some first hand experience.
No offence is intended w/ the above. I just think you will be surprised by the quality and qualities of the Makarov with a little more research.
You have never shot one or handled one I see. If so, you might change your opinion. Ammo for the Mak is made by many American companies (Winchester, Corbon, Glaser, American Eagle, CCI Blazer to just name a few) and dies are available for reloading if you so desire. The 9X18 does not give up much of anything to a .38 special coming out of a 2 inch Snub. Although, I agree there are more loadings for the .38 than the 9X18.
The Mak does not need a lifetime warranty as it rarely has any problems. And even so, it would be fairly easy for the owner to fix most of them himself. Granted the person needs to be mechanically inclined although only minimally so. Parts are also readily available and inexpensive. Speaking of warranties, I have needed to use them for Ruger, S&W, Para Ord, Taurus and Kimber right out of the box. So much for modern day machining and exacting standards.
There are differing qualities between the Mak's with the East German probably being the most refined but all of them work. Both of my EG's will digest hollow points or ball without any problem and did so straight out of the box.
I personally find the Mak slightly easier to conceal than my 640 but the difference is minimal and is more a perception. The magazines, however, are definitely easier to carry than speed loaders. Both are accurate with the edge going to the Mak.
You may want to do a little research here on THR, TFL and other sites on the Makarov. You may be surprised by want you learn. Better yet, buy one for yourself and get some first hand experience.
No offence is intended w/ the above. I just think you will be surprised by the quality and qualities of the Makarov with a little more research.
Last edited:
Stephen A. Camp
Moderator In Memoriam
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,430
Hello. Ammo's readily available for the Makarov; I just ordered another case of it on-line today. IF a Mak shooter does happen to break a part, they're readily available at reasonable prices.
Some will agree and some won't in the comparison of the Mak to the .38 Special, but let's get back on that aspect of the thread rather than getting off on personal arguments that will inevitably lead this thread downhill.
Thanks in advance.
Best.
Some will agree and some won't in the comparison of the Mak to the .38 Special, but let's get back on that aspect of the thread rather than getting off on personal arguments that will inevitably lead this thread downhill.
Thanks in advance.
Best.
fastbolt
Member
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?
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?
fastbolt
Member
Stephen A. Camp
NOW I finish posting my reply and see your posting ... You must've posted while I was typing ...
I hope you consider the content and nature of my last post in keeping with your request.
fb
NOW I finish posting my reply and see your posting ... You must've posted while I was typing ...
I hope you consider the content and nature of my last post in keeping with your request.
fb
Stephen A. Camp
Moderator In Memoriam
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,430
Hello. I suspect we were both typing about the same time; anyway that's what I'm going to assume.
Let's just all get back on the Makarov vs the snub thing.
As my own post indicated via the link, I LIKE the Makarov, but prefer the .38 Snub for protection between the two. That's what works for me and I prefer the slightly heavier bullets available.
Others will feel differently.
Best.
Let's just all get back on the Makarov vs the snub thing.
As my own post indicated via the link, I LIKE the Makarov, but prefer the .38 Snub for protection between the two. That's what works for me and I prefer the slightly heavier bullets available.
Others will feel differently.
Best.
Fastbolt,
I did not take offence to your first post nor your second. I just wanted to let the original poster know that there were some options out there and it wasn't a desert for the Makarov's. You made some valid points and I was adding some valid counterpoints. It was not my intent to flame you for your post. I admit, I did get the impression that you had limited personal experience with the Makarov. My bad.
I did not disagree with your choice in the J frame as I have and carry one as well. The S&W uses 125gr +P Golden Sabers and the Mak 95gr Barnaul.
Regards,
steelhead
I did not take offence to your first post nor your second. I just wanted to let the original poster know that there were some options out there and it wasn't a desert for the Makarov's. You made some valid points and I was adding some valid counterpoints. It was not my intent to flame you for your post. I admit, I did get the impression that you had limited personal experience with the Makarov. My bad.
I did not disagree with your choice in the J frame as I have and carry one as well. The S&W uses 125gr +P Golden Sabers and the Mak 95gr Barnaul.
Regards,
steelhead
Frenchy
Member
I've owned 2 East German models of the Makarov, and have found them to be top shelf in the fit & finish dept. Accuracy & reliability has been a Hallmark of this 50 + year Russian design.
With that being said, I would opt for the Smith 642 for both cartridge and concealability. 15 ounces of stainless simplicity in a hammerless design, is the ticket for me.
With that being said, I would opt for the Smith 642 for both cartridge and concealability. 15 ounces of stainless simplicity in a hammerless design, is the ticket for me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
