Makarov vs. Springfield Hellcat

[JayFramer]

Instead of derailing a thread asking about Walther PPK’s compared to newer offerings, I decided to make this thread comparing another cousin to the Walther (the Makarov) to one of the most modern defensive handguns that is in the same size class as it and the Walther. This is just my opinion and largely for fun so please don’t be too upset with me if your opinion differs.

Here is my pristine German Makarov PM next to a modern defensive handgun, the Springfield Hellcat:



Both of these guns have a lot going for them and I like them a whole lot. But, as good as the Makarov is, for a fighting handgun in 2020 it comes up short on all levels compared to more modern offerings such as the aforementioned Hellcat.

Both guns are very similar in size. The Makarov is actually a tiny bit thicker in the slide and grip areas, making it an ever so slightly fatter platform. The Hellcat is smaller in length and width dimensions. The Hellcat is also just 17 ounces unloaded while the all-Steel Makarov pushes the scales at 26 ounces, heavier than most modern full-sized striker-fired duty pistols.

Using flush fit magazines the Makarov only holds 8 rounds vs 11 in the Hellcat. The Hellcat is available with a +2 magazine the brings its overall height equal to the Makarov but offers 13+1 rounds. There are no magazine extensions for the Makarov that I am aware of.

Ballistically, the 9x18mm cartridge is marginally more powerful than .380 ACP, producing approx. 230 ft-lbs. There is a lack of good performing hollow point ammunition for this caliber, the best all around being the Hornady Critical Defense load (pictures above).

9x19mm Para even when fired from the short 3” barrels of micro pistols such as the Hellcat still produce more velocity, use heavier bullets, with energies as much as 60% more in the low to mid 300 ft-lbs range. The pictured Federal HST Standard pressure 124 grain load produces 340 ft-lbs out of the Hellcat.

Of course, energy isn’t everything but there are tremendously superior performing bullets (such as the Federal HST) for the 9x19mm that give excellent expansion and penetration characteristics even from micro barrels. The 9x18mm Makarov comes up short with most leadings, it just doesn’t have nearly the same bullet selection or ballistic capabilities.

Ergonomics are subjective but up and down the Springfield has the Makarov best in most respects. Sights are better, grip Texture is superior, trigger is better, the list goes on and on. Both guns are a bit snappy but despite the Makarov being heavier and firing a weaker round, its straight blowback operation actually make it just as snappy as the lighter Hellcat using a recoil operated system. Reliability of both guns is excellent. Both have been torture tested and passed with flying colors and various internet videos on the subject are available. The Hellcat has the primary advantage in being designed to feed hollow points from the get go, the older Makarov can and will occasionally choke on certain hollow point designs.

Years ago I carried a Bulgarian Makarov as my primary CCW gun. Now, we have far better options. Would a Makarov still work? Of course it would. Is it obsolete? No. By definition, it is not. It’s still used all over the world.

But here in America where we have much better options, I’d pick the Springfield Hellcat every single time.

-Jay

[Echo40]

I'll take the Makarov.

I've already got the whole utilitarian EDC thing covered, so when it comes to cool, oldschool, all-metal pistols versus that latest polymer wonder 9, the cool, oldschool, all-metal pistol wins. I don't care how many bullets fit into the magazine, how lightweight it is, or any of that jazz.

[mk70ss]

Would love to own your Mak for a range gun and because it definitely has a cool factor. But for a carry gun, I will take the Hellcat.

[ISCS Yoda]

I personally prefer compact, all metal pistols like the CS-9 and 6906 in 9mm or the CS-45 in .45 ACP. Or even an old SIG P-230 on .380. Among others, and I have others. I have only one negative comment about the Makarov:

But here in America where we have much better options,

Especially in ammunition - the reason I don't own a Makarov is so I don't have to add another caliber to the arsenal, especially a European one. Probably not particularly difficult to obtain but, still, I prefer American.

The Makarov is, however, a very cool gun and it IS all metal.

And I do apologize for the fact that I have found the polymer framed Walther CCP to be so outstanding that I have switched to it as a carry gun if I don't carry a revolver. Size, weight, reliability, etc. I wish is was all metal!

[rockquarry]

I've had a Makarov .380; well made pistol that's accurate even with cast bullets at 25 yards. As I recall, it would feed most or all bullet nose designs reliably. And, it looks like a pistol.

I'll bet the Hellcat is a decent gun if you can get past the looks and what appears to be a funky, Glock-type trigger. Can these be safely carried without a holster?

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by rockquarry

I've had a Makarov .380; well made pistol that's accurate even with cast bullets at 25 yards. As I recall, it would feed most or all bullet nose designs reliably. And, it looks like a pistol.

I'll bet the Hellcat is a decent gun if you can get past the looks and what appears to be a funky, Glock-type trigger. Can these be safely carried without a holster?

Most here would agree it’s generally not a good idea to carry any pistol without a holster for several reasons.

[Echo40]

Originally Posted by rockquarry

Can these be safely carried without a holster?

I suppose they "could" be carried without a holster, but they really shouldn't be because of the inherent safety risks involved, not to mention how quickly it could get pocket lint caked up inside which could be detrimental towards reliability.
If you want to pocket carry, then more power to you, but I would recommend getting a pocket holster.

[rockquarry]

My question was regarding the Hellcat, not guns with other trigger types.

[Echo40]

My point stands regardless.

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan

My point stands regardless.

Listen to Inspector Callahan. He’s been around the block.

[rockquarry]

I won't argue carrying without a holster. That can safely be done depending on the gun.

I was not certain this was a Glock-type trigger in the Hellcat but mentioned that it appeared to be, hence my question on safely carrying such a gun. None of this is argument worthy; it was a simple question.

[cadmike]

Jay, I really don’t disagree with anything you wrote. But the Makarov does have one distinct “advantage” If you will, over the Springfield. Cool factor. For some, that’s enough.

Your Makarov looks like a really nice one. Thanks.

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by cadmike

Jay, I really don’t disagree with anything you wrote. But the Makarov does have one distinct “advantage” If you will, over the Springfield. Cool factor. For some, that’s enough.

Your Makarov looks like a really nice one. Thanks.

Thanks! Nostalgia and “cool factor” are a tremendous part of this forum. We wouldn’t have half the threads we have if not for older folks showing off their new vintage revolvers and milsurps.

But at the end of the day, if we’re being pragmatic about it, there are superior tools for self defense in this day and age. I love the old guns just as much as any, but sometimes the new ones are just better for the job at hand.

[Echo40]

Personally, I disagree with the assertion that smaller, lighter pistols chambered in more powerful cartridges are objectively superior to bigger, heavier pistols chambered in less powerful cartridges.

Case in point, I used to carry a Walther PPK/S, but last Summer I swapped it out for the smaller, lighter Ruger LCP. However, the Ruger is by no means a better pistol, in fact, the argument could be made that it's actually worse because while it's easier to carry in lighter clothing, it's nowhere near as accurate nor shootable as the PPK/S due to the fixed barrel, full grip, better sights, and longer sight radius.

I suspect that the same may ring true of the SA Hellcat and Makarov PM, albeit to a lesser degree.

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan

Personally, I disagree with the assertion that smaller, lighter pistols chambered in more powerful cartridges are objectively superior to bigger, heavier pistols chambered in less powerful cartridges.

Case in point, I used to carry a Walther PPK/S, but last Summer I swapped it out for the smaller, lighter Ruger LCP. However, the Ruger is by no means a better pistol, in fact, the argument could be made that it's actually worse because while it's easier to carry in lighter clothing, it's nowhere near as accurate nor shootable as the PPK/S due to the fixed barrel, full grip, better sights, and longer sight radius.

I suspect that the same may ring true of the SA Hellcat and Makarov PM, albeit to a lesser degree.

I have not found this to be true with my examples.

The Makarov is straight blowback and the recoil is just as bad as the Hellcat, but the sights are much worse. Practical accuracy is almost identical.

It’s easy to sit back and try and cherry pick benefits from archaic designs, but if you’ve actually owned and shot both (as I have), maybe it wouldn’t be so cut and dry and the gun designed in 1940-when could conceivably take a bow to the gun designed in 20XX... a lot has advanced in 70 years...

The cloud of nostalgia reigns supreme on this forum. Do I feel lucky?

Not really.

That’s why I carry the most advanced, most capable sidearm I can reasonably get away with in everyday attire.

And that isn’t a Makarov.

[scoobysnacker]

I have a couple of Makarovs, a pristine EG like the OP's and a Russian doublestack. I don't mind the weight or smaller caliber, it makes for easy shooting.

Risking a slight hijack, I think the better option is the CZ 82. 12 rds of 9x18, which never disappeared or escalated in price like 9x19 (and other common calibers) did. Frame-mounted cock and lock safety. Good sights, good ergodynamics (feels good in the hand, points naturally for me).

BTW, the doublestack Mak I have also chambers 12, if you can find mags. I really don't mind the safety on the slide, as it decocks and there are other guns with the same design. The biggest gripe I have with that is the Euro heel mag release, but for 1 mag's worth of shooting, it's fine.

[Rudi]

Being old school the things I like about the Mak close the deal for me. SA/DA operation, loaded chamber indicator and all steel construction. Have not handled the Hellcat but don't like that type of trigger. Got rid of all my Glocks many moons ago.

[rockquarry]

Originally Posted by Rudi

Being old school the things I like about the Mak close the deal for me. SA/DA operation, loaded chamber indicator and all steel construction. Have not handled the Hellcat but don't like that type of trigger. Got rid of all my Glocks many moons ago.

I certainly agree with your comments, but some equate "new" with "improved" and that's often not the case.

[RobertJ.]

Originally Posted by rockquarry

I've had a Makarov .380; well made pistol that's accurate even with cast bullets at 25 yards. As I recall, it would feed most or all bullet nose designs reliably. And, it looks like a pistol.

I have a commercial Russian in .380, and it's one of just a few autos I've owned that has never, not even once, malfunctioned with any type of ammo.

[Echo40]

Originally Posted by JayFramer

It’s easy to sit back and try and cherry pick benefits from archaic designs, but if you’ve actually owned and shot both (as I have), maybe it wouldn’t be so cut and dry and the gun designed in 1940-when could conceivably take a bow to the gun designed in 20XX... a lot has advanced in 70 years...

To be fair, nothing on the present market could ever possibly compete with the firearms of 20XX.

I mean, really... The Mega Buster has infinite ammo and can be charged up for increased damage potential, so obviously firearms designs of the 1940s can't compete with it.

GAME OVER

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan

To be fair, nothing on the present market could ever possibly compete with the firearms of 20XX.

I mean, really... The Mega Buster has infinite ammo and can be charged up for increased damage potential, so obviously firearms designs of the 1940s can't compete with it.

GAME OVER

Umm... not sure what you mean by “charged up for increased damage” but okay?

[S-W4EVER]

I prefer my Makarovs (both Bulgarian). I have large hands, they fit my hands perfectly without any hammer-bite and they’re easy to maintain. It’s a good design. Only problem is finding 9x18 ammo locally.

[clang444]

I wouldn't want to get shot by either.

[Bullzaye]

Originally Posted by JayFramer

Umm... not sure what you mean by “charged up for increased damage” but okay?

Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

[OLDSTER]

The Mak all day for me. But have to admit, I'm old fashion and don't own any Tupperware handguns

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by OLDSTER

The Mak all day for me. But have to admit, I'm old fashion and don't own any Tupperware handguns

That doesn’t surprise me.

[BAM-BAM]

Let me make an observation on the "weight of the gun" issue. I've concealed carried a handgun since 1978....... that's 42 years for those from "Rio Linda"(sp?).

I started out carrying guns like 1911 Combat Commanders, 3" K-frame Smiths, Sig 220s and a Beretta 92 Compact.............. all over 40oz plus loaded.

I'm not a police officer carrying a handgun on a "Bat belt" weighing in at 5-10 lbs (?) with a S&W 5906 or 4566 and 4 spare mags...... or a Special Forces operator carrying an AR and 70-100 lbs of gear. For them...... ozs. are pounds....... over the course of a shift or humping a special op.

My EDC since 1990 has been a 25 oz S&W 3913 in a Milt Sparks Summer Special II IWB holster with one or two extra mags. a single cell AAA flashlight and a Benchmade North Fork 2.9" folder...12-18 hours a day. No big deal!!!!!

While it makes for good threads and posts........ I think many make too much over the difference between 25 and 17 oz pistols.

LOL

Don't get me started on the concealability of a "single sided vs ambi safety" !!!!!!!

Or why 8+1 will get you killed but 10+1 guarantees survival!!!!

[Racer X]

I'm kind of disgusted that Springfield is completely ignoring the KelTec P-11 when they talk about size and capacity. You can get the flush fit 12 rd mags and you have 12+1. Springfield started out bragging about 10+1 in that size package.

[BB57]

I'm just not a fan of tactical tupperware. When it is a striker fired weapon with a ****** Glock style trigger with the safeties tied to the trigger, I'm even less thrilled.

Between the Makarov and the Hellcat, I'd take the Makarov any day of the week.

That said, I prefer the CZ 2075 RAMI for a small concealed carry pistol. It holds 10 rounds in the regular magazine but will also use a 14 round magazine with a finger extension and will use any of the CZ magazines up to the 18 round tactical magazine - so your spare mag options are wide open.

Its an all metal pistol with steel slide and aluminum frame and has much better balance than a polymer framed pistol.

[JayFramer]

“Tactical Tupperware”

Wow, you geezers really need to wake up and recognize it isn’t 1975 anymore!

[Bullzaye]

Originally Posted by JayFramer

“Tactical Tupperware”

Wow, you geezers really need to wake up and recognize it isn’t 1975 anymore!

Calling people names really scores points for you.

People have differing opinions...that's why there isn't just "one" pistol being manufactured. If you can't convince them with logic, facts & figures...maybe just "let it go". Just some friendly advice.

[malph]

It is really a question of reliabilty and the shooter's ability to use the gun effectively.

If that Makarov, PPK, 1911, ... is reliable and the nut behind the butt is good with the thing, the materials used and trigger type are not so important.

I personally think number if rounds a gun carries and being the smallest, lightest are not always so important.

Obviously the user has to be able to conceal the gun. If the user can conceal it, shoot it well and it's reliable the choice in gun is not so important.

The object won't save you. Your ability using that object might.

There are many people I'd rather have on my side in a fight even if they are armed with a heavy, steal framed single stack pistol.

Conversely, there are many people I've seen at the range, armed with the latest P365 or Gucci Glock pistol with all the tactical upgrades that I don't feel safe shooting next to.

What is that old saying? The Indian is more important than the arrow?

At the same time, us older, ahem I mean mature guys should not close our minds to things that might help us be more effective.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[OLDSTER]

SHEEEEZ !! This is a tough crowd.

[ladder13]

In other news, Aim has Bulgarian Maks.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by JayFramer

“Tactical Tupperware”

Wow, you geezers really need to wake up and recognize it isn’t 1975 anymore!

Your "it isn't 1975 anymore!" wording is a little ironic.

I was 10 in 1975, that probably makes me a "geezer".

Coincidentally the CZ 75 was introduced in 1975 (in case you ever wondered where the "75" came from).

"Wonder nines" were a thing in 1975, although the term itself didn't come along until a few years later. Originally the term was used sarcastically by the geezers of that era who were really tired of younger, less experienced shooters knocking pistols like the 1911, Hi Power, etc. It was also a play off the WWII German referenced to war winning "wonder weapons". They all knew how that turned out, since they'd been there. A few years later still the term "wonder nine" was used by people promoting them for LEO use, either ignoring the sarcasm or just being too clueless to recognize it in the first place. I suspect the latter.

Here's the ironic part.

The CZ 75 was one of the wonder nines being promoted and while I was still a 1911 and BHP fan, I also saw the merit in the new generation of pistols.

Other wonder nines included the Heckler & Koch VP70 (1970) the Smith & Wesson Model 59 (1971), Beretta 92 (1975), Steyr GB (1981), SIG Sauer P226 (1984), Walther P88 (1988) and slightly out of order, but...drum roll please...the Glock 17 (1982).

In case you have trouble with math, there was just 7 years between the introduction of the the CZ 75 and the the first Glock.

In comparison, the CZ 2075 wasn't introduced until 2007, 25 years after the Glock 17.

----

My distaste for the Glock is only tangentially related to the frame material:

- The best Glock trigger (or trigger on a striker fired pistol of any make) I ever pulled still felt like it belonged on a staple gun.

- the Glock trigger, and any other trigger on a striker fired weapon where all the safeties are tied to a fairly short and ball park light (I use the term very loosely here) pull trigger, has some limitations in concealed carry and holster selection that need to be respected - and often are not.

- Glocks have gone through what? Five generations now? The grip still feels blockly and still doesn't fit my hand in any of it's 9mm iterations.

- There are some polymer framed 9mm pistols that have decent grips that fit my hands well, but the balance is always off. That's just me, but what shoots well in my hand is what matters.

- I can draw from concealment and put the first round on an 8 inch plate at 25 yards in 1.5 seconds with a CZ 75 PCR - the pistol I usually carry in warm weather. (The smaller CZ 75 RAMI is my beach gun, as well as my dressy occasion, gotta-have-a-tucked-in-shirt gun).

It's just me, but I just don't shoot polymer framed pistols as well, so why would I choose one? For the record there are also a lot of alloy and steel frame pistols I don't shoot as well either and I also avoid them for personal use.

-----

About a year ago I was shooting in an indoor range in the twin cities in the lane next to an LEOs and a couple of his friends who were practicing "tactical" shooting at 5 to 7 yards. I was practicing bullseye with one of my High Standard Victors at 25 yards.

After a bit the LEO commented on my small groups, and then dismissively said "we're not into that accuracy stuff, we're into shooting fast".

My 54 year old "geezer" self noted holes scattered randomly all over his 5 yard target, so I just smiled and nodded politely and he went back to his lane. I pulled my target in, ran a B-27 out to 10 yards drew my concealed carry pistol and did three really fast failure to stop drills, landing the first rounds in the 10 ring or x ring, the second rounds in the 9 or 10 ring and the third rounds in the center of the head. I re-holstered my pistol and noticed the officer looking at me. I nodded and smiled and said "It's all accuracy stuff".

Over the years I've done something similar numerous times to demonstrate that shooting fast doesn't have to mean shooting inaccurately. Provided you learn the basics, learn to "shoot slow fast", and practice enough, you'll shoot very fast while still shooting reasonably small groups.

BUT...doing that also requires a pistol that fits your hand well, and also has a reasonably decent trigger. A little more weight in the pistol usually helps as well.

---

In summary, I don't know how old you are. (Just a guess, but I'm going to go with "12".) I'm pretty sure you are probably younger than the Glock 17 (38 years old for the math impaired).

If you live long enough you'll achieve "geezer" status yourself and recognize the value of experience and the advantages of feeling comfortable in your own skin, with no pressure to just follow the crowd.

[malph]

BB57. We are roughly the same age. I have a couple of years on you but we are basically the same generation.

I don't disagree with anything you said but there is a flipside. There are those amongst us who's minds are so made up that they won't consider anything newer that might help them. Like guns with sights they can actually see or guns that are more reliable or guns with more power and shootability than what they are currently carry.

All I'm saying is it can cut both ways. This comment is not aimed at you at all. Im just saying it's best if we all keep an open mind.

When a thread like this gets started, it sometimes feels people wanting others to validate their choices rather than a desire for honest feedback. It quickly becomes an echo chamber.

A guy can carry a blunderbuss for all i care. But if someone asks my opinion about that, I will give them an honest one.

[BigBill]

I waited over three decades to get a pistol in 9 mm. I chose a cz85db used but unshot nib for $300. I was so impressed with its accuracy I purchased a new cz83 in 9 mm mak over the Russian makarov for $230. Soon after the surplus cz82’s were offered for $189. Then a cz83 in 380 acp showed up. I like the chambered double action first shot.

I find the cz line of pistols to be awesome in quality.

The weight of the handgun for cc’s carry is I cc’s a 7.5” and 5.5” Redhawk shoulder holstered ever since they been offered.

[SC_Mike]

I'd have to look at the proven track record of any carry weapon first, then see if I shoot it well.

If I had to choose between the two I'd pick the SA due to its being a 9x19. That gives you many ammo options, as well as parts and accessories perhaps more plentiful and at less cost.

Just my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

[BAM-BAM]

I'd have more CZ's if I hadn't been so invested in Third Gen Smiths when the CZ became readily available in the US. The CZ rifle line is one of the best bang for buck value out there IMO

I've only got a full size 75b 9mm and a .22 Kadet on the handgun side. .

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by OLDSTER

The Mak all day for me. But have to admit, I'm old fashion and don't own any Tupperware handguns

My curmudgeonly old fart's opinion...

[BB57]

Originally Posted by malph

.../

/...All I'm saying is it can cut both ways. This comment is not aimed at you at all. I'm just saying it's best if we all keep an open mind.

When a thread like this gets started, it sometimes feels people wanting others to validate their choices rather than a desire for honest feedback. It quickly becomes an echo chamber. .../

/...

Sadly that seems to be the case on most issues, not just gun related issues.

Critical thinking is out of fashion. People come to "know" what they think they "know" because "someone said" and they happen to agree with that someone and/or regard that someone as some sort of authority.

It has little or nothing to do with actual experience, logic, or any other form of validation other than "a lot of people believe it so it must be true". That's the echo chamber you describe and none of them have any clue they are perpetuating an ad populum logical fallacy.

On the flip side, if they disagree with that someone, rather than let that challenge their own thinking and belief(s) and then seek to validate what they think they know through empirical evidence, testing, etc, they just ignore it. That's the closed mindedness you mention.

-----

Most people today are also pretty poor when it comes to qualifying statements - identifying when they are applicable and when they are not.

For example someone will insist that carrying a full size automatic with a capacity of 15 + 1 to 18+1 rounds along with 2 spare magazines is important for concealed carry. The basis for this argument is either "that's what law enforcement officers carry" or the related "I might encounter multiple assailants", which is just a variant of the LEO argument.

LEOs might need that high capacity and two spare mags because they go looking for trouble in dark places and/or serve warrants or otherwise get into situations that might involve multiple assailants.

Armed citizens, at least armed citizens with brains and any degree of situational awareness do not.

Recognizing the qualifications around a statement of fact is important in setting priorities and finding a balanced response to a problem.

For example, I have a CZ SP101 tactical with 18 round magazines and it's great for tactical shooting. But it is large and heavy. With 2 spare magazines it's really heavy and if I had to carry it all day long in concealed carry, sooner or later I just wouldn't. It would do me zero good in the truck or on the dresser when I was inside the local stab and grab getting the wife ice cream at midnight.

In contrast, the pistol by itself isn't bad, but a CZ 75 PCR is better - lighter, smaller, but still very controllable and it still carries 14+1 - for concealed carry purposes. And when concealment really matters the CZ 2075 is a lot smaller and lighter, yet still easy to shoot well and it still has 10+1 capacity.

In the winter or in the woods where I value more penetration a S&W 686+ is a good choice, even though it "only" holds 7 rounds.

In short, I'm not looking for "what LEOs carry", or even what I used to carry as an LEO. Instead I'm looking for the best balance in meeting my perceived needs across a spectrum of comfort, concealment, effectiveness and my ability to shoot it well.

Shooters don't achieve that just listening to some guy talk about what is "best".

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Well, I'm kinda up there but not quite geezer status and I posit the following:
Colt SAA were the bpmb when they ccame out. The very best, a vast improvement over the black powder muzzle loaders that preceeded them.
Then the S&W Military and Police took over. GREAT guns and an improvement over the load it one at a time SAA PLUS it was double action:eeK: BUt people still loved the SAA. Thne 1911 came around and that was the bulls nuts and it co-existed nicely. Better designs were introduced-easier manufacture, etc and while the 1911 ia a favorite of many for very good reason, let's face it-there are semi autos that are better made and of better design. Also remember that beautiful color case hardening was to harden metal first. The looks were a pleasing extra. Form always follows function. Which is why stainless evolved-it protects against corrosion than blued. Oh and the modern computer manufacturing, while not nearly as romantic as a hand fitted firearm does produce a better more consistent item at an affordable price. Bamboo flyrods were the bomb way back when, but I'll take a high modulus graphite rod over them any day. But I can still appreciate the craftsmanship that went into the bamboo rod.
I love my revolvers-but I also love the rugged simplicity of a striker fired plastic semi auto. I LOVE my A5 but honestly the Benelli SBE is a better gun. And much as I hate to say it, the Benelli is much better suited to duck hunting than the Winchester Model 21.
And I have not yet even started on military guns
SO it's all good. We oldsters still love the guns we grew up with, but if we are honest-there are better ones being made today.

[PALADIN85020]

Maks - I've got a few
But then again, too few to mention.

I tried to get 'em all
and saw it through without exception...

John

[THE PILGRIM]

It’s Milt’s fault - My old Buddy Milt hand carried the first Makarov ever in the USA.
He was assigned to British Army Intelligence and passing them money to buy stuff.
One of the items they bought were Makarovs and he took one to Aberdeen.
He was also involved in our first RPG acquisition, but he didn’t hand carry those!

[Echo40]

Originally Posted by ladder13

In other news, Aim has Bulgarian Maks.

You got me all excited for nothing... Yeah, they have Bulgarian Makarovs, in what appears to be in *ahem* "well-worn" condition for $370.



Hard pass for me. Their $220 Romanian Tokarevs are a much better value.

[JayFramer]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry Callahan

You got me all excited for nothing... Yeah, they have Bulgarian Makarovs, in what appears to be in *ahem* "well-worn" condition for $370.



Hard pass for me. Their $220 Romanian Tokarevs are a much better value.

Yeah that’s not a good deal. I have three I bought in pristine condition with all accesories and even the maintenance log books and matching magazines for $300 each about 5 years ago.

Just waiting for the right time to sell them. The values have been climbing nicely.

[6518John]

Originally Posted by JayFramer

“Tactical Tupperware”

Wow, you geezers really need to wake up and recognize it isn’t 1975 anymore!

Jay—I am confused. I remembered looking at the interesting thread “How Old is Everyone” you indicated you are 80 plus years old?

http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/...-everyone.html

[Echo40]

I'm beginning to think that JayFramer might just enjoy posting controversial topics and going against the grain because I could have sworn that maybe a year ago I saw a thread by him asking about carrying a Single Action Army type revolver in which he was strongly opposed to anyone who said anything even suggesting that there might be better choices, then a few month latter a similar thread about J-Frame Snubbies, and now he's turned completely around and is apparently strongly opposed to anyone carrying anything but the latest and greatest double-stack semiautomatic pistols.

So yeah, unless I'm very much mistaken (other folks have had "JayFrame" in their user names here) or his opinions have changed completely in a very short span of time, I'm going to be bold here and assume that perhaps his opinions aren't quite genuine, ergo anything he says shouldn't be taken at face value.

But hey, if he really is indeed a self-loathing 80+ Year Old who uses derogatory terms for elderly people as insults for everyone who disagrees with his uncharacteristically progressive views on Self-Defense/Firearms, then I would like to take this opportunity to inform everyone that I am in fact related to Werewolves/Vampires and thus I personally feel that anyone who carries anything less than blessed silver-jacketed hallowpoint bullets which expand into a crucifix shape aren't taking their Self-Defense seriously because there are a lot of not-so-friendly Werewolves, Vampires, and other unholy creatures of the night out there who prey on underprepared human beings.

[THE PILGRIM]

I don’t often carry an Auto-
Revolver guy that I am-
But when I do, I carry a Kahr Runt 9.
Yes, I carry in a pocket holster.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by 6518John

Jay—I am confused. I remembered looking at the interesting thread “How Old is Everyone” you indicated you are 80 plus years old?

http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/...-everyone.html

Sharp eye, John.