Actually, most European (Western, anyway) LE agencies switched to the 9x19 in the 70s (due largely to the inadequacy of the 7.65 Browning and 9mmK). It's from the German police trials that we have the excellent P5 (Walther), P6 (Sig 225) and P7 (H&K)--probably the best single stacks 9x19 handguns ever.
Why is the .380 and 9x18 so marginal?
- Thread starter 10 Ringer'
- Start date
- Status
Jim March
Member
It's all about physics.
To get a hollowpoint to expand, there's three factors:
a) Speed;
b) hollowpoint size;
c) does it have a jacket or not?
In the 380 and 9x18, you have to use a JHP. To get it to feed right, you have a limit on the hollowpoint size and shape. So you've got to get it moving to overcome these deficiencies...but to get speed, you have to give up bullet weight.
So you can have penetration with hardball, or expansion (you hope!) with JHPs but not both.
Now look at the 38+P (even with a 2" tube).
One huge limit is gone - feedramp compatibility. You can run a hollowpoint cavity like a shot glass. Check out the Winchester 130+P Supreme some time. You can also ditch the jacket entirely and run 158s (penetration, anyone?).
It's all about not having to design around the feedramp...with well-chosen ammo, the 38+P snubbie is far more effective than the raw "ballistic energy" numbers suggest.
They've been geekin' baddies since Elliot Ness walked a beat in uniform.
To get a hollowpoint to expand, there's three factors:
a) Speed;
b) hollowpoint size;
c) does it have a jacket or not?
In the 380 and 9x18, you have to use a JHP. To get it to feed right, you have a limit on the hollowpoint size and shape. So you've got to get it moving to overcome these deficiencies...but to get speed, you have to give up bullet weight.
So you can have penetration with hardball, or expansion (you hope!) with JHPs but not both.
Now look at the 38+P (even with a 2" tube).
One huge limit is gone - feedramp compatibility. You can run a hollowpoint cavity like a shot glass. Check out the Winchester 130+P Supreme some time. You can also ditch the jacket entirely and run 158s (penetration, anyone?).
It's all about not having to design around the feedramp...with well-chosen ammo, the 38+P snubbie is far more effective than the raw "ballistic energy" numbers suggest.
They've been geekin' baddies since Elliot Ness walked a beat in uniform.
Haycreek
Member
.380 Marginal ?
Don't underestimate a good 380, I mostly carry a Glock 23, sometimes a gov't sized 1911, but, my CZ 83 will fire five rounds more accurately and considerable faster, than either the G 23 or 1911. I seldom carry the CZ 83, but it is very accurate and faster than either. If it was my only handgun, I would not be unconfortable.
Don't underestimate a good 380, I mostly carry a Glock 23, sometimes a gov't sized 1911, but, my CZ 83 will fire five rounds more accurately and considerable faster, than either the G 23 or 1911. I seldom carry the CZ 83, but it is very accurate and faster than either. If it was my only handgun, I would not be unconfortable.
denfoote
Member
Gee, you forgot to tell that to my East Deutsch Makarov!! Maybe it should stop printing three inch groups at 25 yards WITH STOCK SIGHTS!!!
Maybe the rest of them should just start throwing rounds all over the place too!! There is nothing wrong with the stock sights on a Mak!! They work just fine for me and I wear bifocals!!As for recoil, you're kidding, right!! This is a jest!!
You can't mean that Pistolet Makarova has greater recoil than......say.......a Glock 36!!!!
As for effective caliber, the goof who tried a daylight breakin of my house, sure did not want to have that "ineffective" 9x18 round heading in his direction!!
He turned heals and ran!!! I'd call that pretty effective!!!! Aw, c'mon denfoote. I know you gotta know the difference between sights and accuracy. The factory sights on a Makarov are just not in the same class as say those of a G26 (or even a CZ 83 or Bersa)--just like the factory sights on a straight milsurp 1911A1 or in the the same class as a current production XSE (even though they may be equally accurate). The remark stands--the sights are pitiful.
As to the recoil, I was thinking along the lines of a G26 or K9 NOT a G36--I guess I should have been more specific. The recoil on a blowback is harsher is a fact (though it's probably less a factor for Mak because it is such a heavyweight). I would guess you would find the recoil of SMC-918 (alloy framed, PPK-sized 9x18) a little more challenging than that of your PM. The recoil on the smaller, lighter .380s is generally harsher due to the blowback design than that of the competing nines. As for you uninvited "guest," he would have probably found a Baby Browning (.25 ACP) equally discouraging.
Don't get me wrong. I like these little weapons and have shot them a lot. I enjoy them and am shopping for EG Mak myself, but the question was "Why is the .380 and 9x18 so marginal?"
As to the recoil, I was thinking along the lines of a G26 or K9 NOT a G36--I guess I should have been more specific. The recoil on a blowback is harsher is a fact (though it's probably less a factor for Mak because it is such a heavyweight). I would guess you would find the recoil of SMC-918 (alloy framed, PPK-sized 9x18) a little more challenging than that of your PM. The recoil on the smaller, lighter .380s is generally harsher due to the blowback design than that of the competing nines. As for you uninvited "guest," he would have probably found a Baby Browning (.25 ACP) equally discouraging.
Don't get me wrong. I like these little weapons and have shot them a lot. I enjoy them and am shopping for EG Mak myself, but the question was "Why is the .380 and 9x18 so marginal?"
PCRCCW
Member
"Don't get me wrong. I like these little weapons and have shot them a lot. I enjoy them and am shopping for EG Mak myself, but the question was "Why is the .380 and 9x18 so marginal?"
Because in todays world, the smaller blowback rounds are not as effective in stopping a BG as a larger, faster bullet. Smaller guns that hold more ammo of a better chambering are available. Simple.
Does it make the Mak/.380 a bad choice for CCW...hell no, just not my first choice.
Does it mean its not an effective caliber....hell no, there are just "more proven" larger calibers in smaller guns now.
It doesnt make the Mak/.380 a "must not carry" caliber by anymeans....
Just that most people can find what they think are "better CCW guns"
To each their own..........Shoot well
Because in todays world, the smaller blowback rounds are not as effective in stopping a BG as a larger, faster bullet. Smaller guns that hold more ammo of a better chambering are available. Simple.
Does it make the Mak/.380 a bad choice for CCW...hell no, just not my first choice.
Does it mean its not an effective caliber....hell no, there are just "more proven" larger calibers in smaller guns now.
It doesnt make the Mak/.380 a "must not carry" caliber by anymeans....
Just that most people can find what they think are "better CCW guns"
To each their own..........Shoot well
denfoote
Member
Awwwww, that's ok JC.
I just get riled when somebody picks on Comrade Makarov's creation!!
I have a soft spot for the little guys!!
I just get riled when somebody picks on Comrade Makarov's creation!!
I have a soft spot for the little guys!!
The stock sights on a Makarov are not very good for the pistol's intended purpose (combat pistol). Sure, on the range, they are adequate. But under less than ideal conditons, their shortcomings become apparent, such as fast target aquision (sp), shooting in low light, picking up the sights quickly after firing, and picking up the sights when firing at multiple targets. The Mak is a good inexpensive handgun. I own three (Bulgarian, Russian commerical, and an EG). But they are not the best tool for the job. Do you need the BEST tool for the job ? Maybe not, it is just a question of what your life is worth to you. However, you may have practiced until your hands blead and through practice have overcome all this.
"my CZ 83 will fire five rounds more accurately and considerable faster, than either the G 23 or 1911"
Note that this is with you firing the gun. This doesn't mean that someone with more skill couldn't fire a 1911 faster than you can with your CZ, and no, I am not the guy. But there are guys out there that can do a five second El Presidente' with a 1911 with all A-zone hits. And, with a larger caliber, you might not need to fire five rounds. Certainly if there are multiple threats, you wouldn't want to fire five rounds into the first guy before addressing the others.
"my CZ 83 will fire five rounds more accurately and considerable faster, than either the G 23 or 1911"
Note that this is with you firing the gun. This doesn't mean that someone with more skill couldn't fire a 1911 faster than you can with your CZ, and no, I am not the guy. But there are guys out there that can do a five second El Presidente' with a 1911 with all A-zone hits. And, with a larger caliber, you might not need to fire five rounds. Certainly if there are multiple threats, you wouldn't want to fire five rounds into the first guy before addressing the others.
WheelMan
Member
It seems to be that once you get past that "minimum required power" (somewhere between airsoft pellet and 16 inch navel gun ), you have to ask yourself, how much better is the next best thing. I think what some of the above folks are saying is that the bigger your caliber (both in speed and size) gets the more you can miss that "perfect placement" and still get a good stop. I think what you'll find though is that increased placement leeway for bigger round isn't that much. The area of a human body you have to hit with a 9x19 to cause an instant stop probably looks very similar to the same area for a .45acp.
I used to be of the opinion that the mechanism of handgun wounding is wound channel size alone.. so I want the biggest bore hollowpoint I can find, given it has sufficient penetration. (.45 acp) I still think that's true but I realized my goal is not to cause wounding but to cause falling down on the ground. So I don't want to dig a big wound channel I want to put a chunk of lead in the boiler room.
This led me to the realization that the platform is infinitely more important than the projectile. The gun that allows you the best opportunity to rapidly bring accurate (and multiple) fire on your target will give you the best chance of causing a stop, given the ammo used has the minimum requirements of penetration. Compared to how important weapon selection is ammo choice is almost a non-issue.
So my personal theory has migrated from .45 acp in a 1911 to 9mm in a BHP. I can bring more accurate and more rapid fire on the target with this platform. I also train to continue hitting the target (as rapidly as accuracy will allow) until it's on the floor. My HP give me 18 chances to do this I feel the loss of power from the .45 to the 9mm is insignificant compared to the increased ability to hit with the 9mm (for me of couse... some people probably shoot better with a .44 magnum than I do with a 9mm).
I also like to eliminate uncertainties if possible, so I use fmj. Why worry about hollowpoints expanding when I can just know I'm going to be punching 9mm holes. Yes over penetration is an issue, but when you look at the odds of ever shooting someone with a handgun combined with the odds of something you don't want to shoot actually being behind them it's not something I worry about. Besides a wide wound cavity is nice, but a deep one is critical.
), you have to ask yourself, how much better is the next best thing. I think what some of the above folks are saying is that the bigger your caliber (both in speed and size) gets the more you can miss that "perfect placement" and still get a good stop. I think what you'll find though is that increased placement leeway for bigger round isn't that much. The area of a human body you have to hit with a 9x19 to cause an instant stop probably looks very similar to the same area for a .45acp.I used to be of the opinion that the mechanism of handgun wounding is wound channel size alone.. so I want the biggest bore hollowpoint I can find, given it has sufficient penetration. (.45 acp) I still think that's true but I realized my goal is not to cause wounding but to cause falling down on the ground. So I don't want to dig a big wound channel I want to put a chunk of lead in the boiler room.
This led me to the realization that the platform is infinitely more important than the projectile. The gun that allows you the best opportunity to rapidly bring accurate (and multiple) fire on your target will give you the best chance of causing a stop, given the ammo used has the minimum requirements of penetration. Compared to how important weapon selection is ammo choice is almost a non-issue.
So my personal theory has migrated from .45 acp in a 1911 to 9mm in a BHP. I can bring more accurate and more rapid fire on the target with this platform. I also train to continue hitting the target (as rapidly as accuracy will allow) until it's on the floor. My HP give me 18 chances to do this I feel the loss of power from the .45 to the 9mm is insignificant compared to the increased ability to hit with the 9mm (for me of couse... some people probably shoot better with a .44 magnum than I do with a 9mm).
I also like to eliminate uncertainties if possible, so I use fmj. Why worry about hollowpoints expanding when I can just know I'm going to be punching 9mm holes. Yes over penetration is an issue, but when you look at the odds of ever shooting someone with a handgun combined with the odds of something you don't want to shoot actually being behind them it's not something I worry about. Besides a wide wound cavity is nice, but a deep one is critical.
denfoote
Member
I submit that the sights ARE adequate for the pistol's ACTUAL use, which was executing prisoners by shooting them behind the left ear!!
sarge48
Member
I'm with denfoote. It is not really what you shoot with but, how well you can shoot it.
For the size and weight of a Makarov yes, you could carry a Glock mini, Kahr mini, .357 snub, or and Officers lightweight .45 ACP. (Many Others Too)
The Mak just works for me. And it works everytime. I've tried most of the others above and I still come back to carrying the Mak.
I had Novak night sights installed on my Mak.
For the size and weight of a Makarov yes, you could carry a Glock mini, Kahr mini, .357 snub, or and Officers lightweight .45 ACP. (Many Others Too)
The Mak just works for me. And it works everytime. I've tried most of the others above and I still come back to carrying the Mak.
I had Novak night sights installed on my Mak.
usnavymasterchief
member
What WHEELMAN said, I agree with him completely.
I carry a Kahr K40 (.40cal) because it's very reliable and it tucks into my love handles really well. I feel that if I ever have a need to defend myself, seven rounds of .40cal just going in the general direction of the BG should get the job done, hopefully hitting him 2 or 3 times or maybe just scaring him to death. However if the situation ever presents itself (and I doubt it ever will) that I KNOW I'm going to have to defend myself, shot placement becomes much more important to me than concealability so I'd rather have my Glock 19 (9mm) because I shoot it rapid fire much more accurately than the Kahr, better yet I'd rather have the old 12 gauge semi auto.
Face facts, when it comes right down to it, you're going to be scared s--tless, and I really don't think you're going to take the time to worry about sight aquisition. I was taught the 3 to 5 rule. Most gunfights occur within 3 to 5 feet, last 3 to 5 seconds and 3 to 5 rounds are fired. So it's over before you know it and hopefully you will be the one still on your feet. IMHO, in a real gunfight, shot placement becomes a matter of luck rather than a matter skill for the average person.
But on the other side of the coin, if you train, train, train and practice, practice practice, you stand a far better chance of surviving. Ask any Marine or Soldier whose been there, when the SHTF and the bullets start to fly and all your training and practice comes into play, you are scared s--tless but because of your training and practice, your reactions become automatic and hopefully you will survive.
I carry a Kahr K40 (.40cal) because it's very reliable and it tucks into my love handles really well. I feel that if I ever have a need to defend myself, seven rounds of .40cal just going in the general direction of the BG should get the job done, hopefully hitting him 2 or 3 times or maybe just scaring him to death. However if the situation ever presents itself (and I doubt it ever will) that I KNOW I'm going to have to defend myself, shot placement becomes much more important to me than concealability so I'd rather have my Glock 19 (9mm) because I shoot it rapid fire much more accurately than the Kahr, better yet I'd rather have the old 12 gauge semi auto.
Face facts, when it comes right down to it, you're going to be scared s--tless, and I really don't think you're going to take the time to worry about sight aquisition. I was taught the 3 to 5 rule. Most gunfights occur within 3 to 5 feet, last 3 to 5 seconds and 3 to 5 rounds are fired. So it's over before you know it and hopefully you will be the one still on your feet. IMHO, in a real gunfight, shot placement becomes a matter of luck rather than a matter skill for the average person.
But on the other side of the coin, if you train, train, train and practice, practice practice, you stand a far better chance of surviving. Ask any Marine or Soldier whose been there, when the SHTF and the bullets start to fly and all your training and practice comes into play, you are scared s--tless but because of your training and practice, your reactions become automatic and hopefully you will survive.
I carry a Makarov in 9mm Makarov/9X18. I DO NOT FEEL UNDERGUNNED. I reload, and my carry ammo is my own, homemade, 9mm Mak +P with 95 gr Hornady XTPs. I have done some informal expasion tests, and this load does expand, every time.
And I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. I've shot both baby glocks (26 and 27) and Makarovs, and the Glocks kick MUCH harder. The 27 wants to jump right out of my hands. Ouch...
I think the Mak has several advantages over the baby Glocks:
#1: Cost. You can buy 3 Maks and have money left over for ammo for what it costs you to buy a Glock
#2: Concealablity. The Glock is too "fat", the Mak hides much better...
#3: Control. I can shoot faster and with more accuracy with a Mak
#4: Reliablity. I have NEVER seen a Makarov Jam, and I've done a fair amout of shooting with Maks... I HAVE seen Glocks jam...
Ya, I'd like the Makarov better if it was chambered for 9mm Luger, but you can't always have everything. 9mm Mak is not exaclty a wimpy round, and I dout anyone here would be willing to stand in front of a Mak when it goes off...
And I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. I've shot both baby glocks (26 and 27) and Makarovs, and the Glocks kick MUCH harder. The 27 wants to jump right out of my hands. Ouch...
I think the Mak has several advantages over the baby Glocks:
#1: Cost. You can buy 3 Maks and have money left over for ammo for what it costs you to buy a Glock
#2: Concealablity. The Glock is too "fat", the Mak hides much better...
#3: Control. I can shoot faster and with more accuracy with a Mak
#4: Reliablity. I have NEVER seen a Makarov Jam, and I've done a fair amout of shooting with Maks... I HAVE seen Glocks jam...
Ya, I'd like the Makarov better if it was chambered for 9mm Luger, but you can't always have everything. 9mm Mak is not exaclty a wimpy round, and I dout anyone here would be willing to stand in front of a Mak when it goes off...
FTF with Win ammo.Richardson
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 172
PCRCCW,
I think, by your definition of "energy transfer", we probably agree more than disagree. My comment was really directed at the concept that "energy transfer", by itself, is a good way of measuring "stopping power". A Mack truck hitting you at 1.0 mph transfers more energy than any common caliber rifle, but it is not lethal unless you trip and get run over.
I'd re-phrase things to say, "In as much as increasing energy levels increase the destruction of tissues, "energy tranfer" can be useful in determining stopping power." I would discount the terminal effects of heat and temporary cavity effects, and focus on the energy required to expand the bullet and drive it through clothes, bone, and flesh. Yes, without any energy transfer, one may as well shoot at the feet. But a .22 lr in the eye is a great stopper without much energy transfer.
All of that brings us back to shot placement, and having sufficient energy to drive a bullet through a significant amount flesh, regardless of what percent of that energy stays within the recipient.
Richardson
I think, by your definition of "energy transfer", we probably agree more than disagree. My comment was really directed at the concept that "energy transfer", by itself, is a good way of measuring "stopping power". A Mack truck hitting you at 1.0 mph transfers more energy than any common caliber rifle, but it is not lethal unless you trip and get run over.
I'd re-phrase things to say, "In as much as increasing energy levels increase the destruction of tissues, "energy tranfer" can be useful in determining stopping power." I would discount the terminal effects of heat and temporary cavity effects, and focus on the energy required to expand the bullet and drive it through clothes, bone, and flesh. Yes, without any energy transfer, one may as well shoot at the feet. But a .22 lr in the eye is a great stopper without much energy transfer.
All of that brings us back to shot placement, and having sufficient energy to drive a bullet through a significant amount flesh, regardless of what percent of that energy stays within the recipient.
Richardson
Richardson
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 172
Back to the Mak.....
I have two. They're reliable and accurate, and reasonably concealable (though that is not an option in my state). I think they're one of the best buys around, if one understands their limitations. For CCW, they fit the budget of and size demands of a lot of people. For a primary home defense handgun, I think they lack power. I'd rather have a Kahr .40 or a .44 Taurus Bulldog for CCW, but I would gratefully take the Makarov if those other choices were not available.
Richardson
I have two. They're reliable and accurate, and reasonably concealable (though that is not an option in my state). I think they're one of the best buys around, if one understands their limitations. For CCW, they fit the budget of and size demands of a lot of people. For a primary home defense handgun, I think they lack power. I'd rather have a Kahr .40 or a .44 Taurus Bulldog for CCW, but I would gratefully take the Makarov if those other choices were not available.
Richardson
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
