>>In my view the Strizh is a very impressive weapon!
>>I would have to say I would certainly hate to get shot by one!
Someone should explain to the author that the 9mm round is the thing you don’t want to get shot with, and that’s the same in any 9mm pistol.
When can I get one?
Looks very similar to the Springfield XD, which is a Czech design
Oh goody! This means that there will be a pile of Russian Makarovs for sale in America.
It looks like a good design.
But like anything mechanical, the jury is out until it can be PROVEN in use.
Interesting pistol. Thanx for posting. Hate to see the Mak go. Great little pistol by the way. Paid less than $100 for my first one.
As per link above, looks to me like a slimmer version of the old CZ concept.
Don't the special forces like the .45 Auto better than the 9mm? Or is tht just the US Special Forces?
They actually look to have gone 21st century for a change.
bling bling... 
Some interesting info here:
How it works:
The Browning tilted barrel design, in which the barrel and slide recoil together is very inexpensive to manufacture.
In this new design, there is a locking shoulder over the tube that drops down to unlock the reciprocating parts of the action when fired. Sort of a Lahti type dropping block.
So, the barrel is fixed and delivers more accuracy and manufacturing costs are nearly as low as the Browning design.
With a fixed barrel you have the design opportunity for automatic fire. You better have a good grip.... That’s why it is intended for special forces use.
The round is a 9×19 instead of the 9×18 and, to correct the article, the standard magazine is only 17 rounds, not 18.
Glock 17, look over your shoulder...
BTW, the frame cannot stabilize the .45 so don’t look for up-chambered versions, although the action may get copied. No patent apps in the US yet, hmmm, where is my drafting table?
A couple of added points:
The magazine release is right and left hand and the magazines have a magwell for fast reloads.
I am told that the trigger action is slightly uncomfortable, and the pull currently not able to be adjusted and is being reworked.
This side arm has no safety switch. It fires when the compression on the back of the grip equals the trigger pull.
Yes, they copied Browning here except that the Browning design doesn’t require both compressions to be the same. Browning is a simple release, allowing an independent trigger pull adjustment.
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*.
Now if it just get imported....
