Per the Chiappa(sp?), I look for this area of design to continue. Increased controlability for larger calibers.
Sorry about the size of the pic - not my control.
Posted on 06/24/2012 5:52:22 AM PDT by kronos77
>>>>Dont Makarovs take a 9x18 caliber? I have read it is a very meager round. Russian troops in Afghanistan said the only use it was was shooting yourself so you didnt get captured.>>>>
AFAIK, Russians rarely took sidearms to battle, let alone Afghanis didn’t took them prisoners after Badaber uprising in spring 1985 there a few dozen Soviet and ANA POWs captured Pakistani ISI base, killing some 200 officers including CIA operatives.
The Russians have long been known for making “out of the box” small arms. Of course, most of these were stinkers, which you might expect, but some of them were remarkably effective, based on their *axioms of use*.
For example, the AK-47 is likely the most popular rifle in the world, but why? Because its axioms of use were “cheap to make, reliable, and easy to maintain”. And it fit all of these criteria to a ‘t’. So the Russians, and later the Chinese, cranked these rifles out like cookies, and every third world country in the world wanted them.
First, they could buy a bunch at the price. Second, they could take a lot of abuse and still work. And third, an illiterate, incompetent peasant farmer who had never seen a machine before, could be taught to use it (if not effectively), in just a minute or two; and be trained to clean its three user serviceable parts in just a few more minutes.
At the same time, the *other* very popular rifle was the M-16, and why was that? Because it and its ammo was expensive to make, made only by the US, but free to the user, given as a gift; it was very prone to breakage and failure; and it was extremely hard to clean. With the added bonus that its high velocity round was technically a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
From a rifle standpoint it was a p.o.s., but the price was right, which was to be friendly, more or less, to the US, or at least be an enemy to our enemy.
This is not to say the AK-47 was perfect, far from it, but both it and the M-16 fit very well into their respective *axioms of use*.
The Russians have long been known for making “out of the box” small arms. Of course, most of these were stinkers, which you might expect, but some of them were remarkably effective, based on their *axioms of use*.
For example, the AK-47 is likely the most popular rifle in the world, but why? Because its axioms of use were “cheap to make, reliable, and easy to maintain”. And it fit all of these criteria to a ‘t’. So the Russians, and later the Chinese, cranked these rifles out like cookies, and every third world country in the world wanted them.
First, they could buy a bunch at the price. Second, they could take a lot of abuse and still work. And third, an illiterate, incompetent peasant farmer who had never seen a machine before, could be taught to use it (if not effectively), in just a minute or two; and be trained to clean its three user serviceable parts in just a few more minutes.
At the same time, the *other* very popular rifle was the M-16, and why was that? Because it and its ammo was expensive to make, made only by the US, but free to the user, given as a gift; it was very prone to breakage and failure; and it was extremely hard to clean. With the added bonus that its high velocity round was technically a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
From a rifle standpoint it was a p.o.s., but the price was right, which was to be friendly, more or less, to the US, or at least be an enemy to our enemy.
This is not to say the AK-47 was perfect, far from it, but both it and the M-16 fit very well into their respective *axioms of use*.
Exactly!
GMTA
Exactly!
GMTA
Ballistically, it is very similar to .38 Special.
I've got a CZ82 that I CC regularly. It's plenty powerful enough for self defense (it's been the standard caliber for police and military in com-block countries for decades).
“Russians copying someone else’s design. No way”
They did NOT copy it.
They invented it for themselves also, first.
Now if it just get imported....
The Mak round is basically a glorified .380 round.
I really like the Mak for a reasonably priced glovebox/console pistol.
I just remembered, that old Argentine .380 was a Bersa.
The TT-33 and Soviet Bloc varients, as well as the Czech CZ-52 pistol, take what I opine is the World’s most under appreciated sidearm round, the bottle-necked 7.62 X 25mm or .30 Tokarev.
It is based on the earlier .30 Mauser round developed for the Mauser M1896 “Broomhandle” pistol which was the most powerful military sidearm of it’s day.
Several submachine guns were also chambered for the .30 Tok, including the notorious PPSH “buzz-saw” used in the Korean War. Apparently they still show up over in Afghanistan from time to time.
Muzzle velocity for this round is typically around 1650 FPS with a 90-grain bullet out of the sidearm for 550 foot pounds of energy. I think that it is the most powerful sidearm cartridge commonly issued in anyone’s military.
With military hardball ammo it will penetrate like an ice pick; it has been demonstrated to defeat current issue kevlar helmets and most common body armor.
It will reputedly shatter the engine block of most vehicles and quickly disable them.
I call my CZ-52 my “Pocket carbine”.
In combat it tends to over penetrate, transfering little of it’s significant energy to the target unless it hits major bone mass, and posing considerable risk to collaterals.
Some of the Southern boys like it for hunting wild boars.
The Russians abandoned the TT-33 after WW-II because it was “too powerful”. That’s what I’ve read anyway.
For KGB use the .30 Tok being a supersonic round does not suppress all that well, making discrete disappearances and liquidations a little messy perhaps.
The “Russian Mafia” reputedly favors the Tokarev for settling accounts - which it will do quite decisively.
The 9X18mm Makarov that replaced it is the most powerful cartridge that can be practically used in a straight blowback action pistol, which the Makarov and the CZ-82 are.
I love my little CZ-82 and it is my regular CWP carry piece. With it’s polygonal bore (like a Glock) it is amazingly accurate for a little pocket popper. With it’s M-1911 style controls, 12 round magazine and fine workmanship I prefer it over the Mak, although the Maks have their cult followings and are very good for what they were designed to do.
The 9X18 is what I consider a minimum defensive round, but with a 12 round rack and double action, the little CZ-82 tends to make up for it’s shortcomings.
I’ m not impressed by any 9mm for military use, but that’s the PC round these days, and I’m Old school.
The Spetznaz probably gets these with threaded barrels for suppression along with a few other tricks the average Grunt won’t see.
Good video here:(1st one)
Defense Review
“Looks very similar to the Springfield XD, which is a Czech design”
Springfield design, made in Croatia. If this new Russian Strizh is anywhere near as good, then it is a great pistol. Better in .45 acp, though.
Interesting. Wonder if the Russians gave it a more powerful round than the Makarov? I’ve heard the Makarov round is underpowered.
I was careful to stock up on a bunch of Bulgarian milsurp along with conventional S&B FMJ. The Bulgarian stuff is Berdan primed, nasty and corrosive. Fits the bill for tough-hided customers. Just means that I’ve got to clean the TTC as soon as possible after shooting that stuff through it.
S&B also makes some nice JHP, too.
BTW, my TTC is almost as old as I am - date stamped 1953.
Actually the Spanish Astra 400 and 600 handled the 9mm Largo and 9mm Luger with no problems at all and they were straight blowback.
They were quite a bit more powerful that the 9mm Mak.
Now the 9mm Makarov probably is about as good a platform for a powerful blowback pocket pistol.
Good point on the Astras, but they were sort of an exception to the general rule, being full sized military pistols with beefy recoil springs around the barrels making them a bit awkward to operate and difficult to field strip and re assemble. You generally won’t find one that was in service very long without a badly battered or cracked frame.
The 9mm Largo was a 9X21mm IIRC, and a really good round which never got the credit I think it deserved. The STAR “B” series (I think) pistols which used a Browning lock up system did a much better job of handling it than the Astras did.
The SMGs by and large used the blowback system with the more powerful rounds like the 9mm, .45ACP and .30 Tok, but the bolts weigh a couple or three pounds for the mass / inertia required.
Totally impractical for a handgun, especially a compact one like the Makarov.
The famous “Tommy Gun” weighed more than the M-1 Garand Infantry main battle rifle, and most of that was in the bolt, which also functioned as the hammer/striker and firing pin.
On the Czech Weapons forum on “Gunboards”
http://www.gunboards.com/forums/
we speculated about a modern DA auto in 7.62 X 25mm (which is a whole ‘nuther animal using JHP bullets) with a hi cap double stack mag.
I don’t know if a polymer frame would handle the old TOK round for very long, but you could try it I suppose.
I’m surprised that the Russians felt so compelled to conform to the NATO standard 9X19mm. They could have done a lot worse than to return to the good old .30 Tokarev.
That will do anything these newfangled 5.7mm FN dandys will do IMHO and then some. It’s tactical obsolescence has been grossly exaggerated, as most of us who still shoot the old Tokarev can attest.
If you load a 110 - 120 gr. bullet in it you can make it just subsonic and run it through a suppressor while still cycling the action and packing a respectable wallop downrange, too.
The Russians had a bloody good thing going with the old TOK round, and I’m a little baffled why they abandoned it in favor of a relatively anemic 9mm which Soldiers over the past century or so have come to generally mistrust. Neither can I imagine the infamous Spetznaz Warriors being afraid of a sidearm that is loud and kicks a little.
I got a 9mm barrel for one of my CZ-52s but after firing the TOKS in it, the 9mms were absolutely “anticlimactic”.
I don’t think spetsnaz has ever used Makarov en-masse. They still used TT-33, APS and recently GSh-18 sidearms. Makarov known as a cop’s gun, and some cops still used Tokarevs there.
Makarovs were issued to regular troops whose combat roles is not about to have a full-sized assault rifle (pilots, tankers, nurses, cooks) but they rarely used it as well, sticking to APS and shortened AKs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.