Makarov vs. Springfield Hellcat

Dirty Harry Callahan said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

I wouldn't want to get shot by either.

JayFramer said:

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

Click to expand...

Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

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

OLDSTER said:

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

Click to expand...

That doesn’t surprise me.

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!!!!

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.

I'm just not a fan of tactical tupperware. When it is a striker fired weapon with a crappy 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.

“Tactical Tupperware”

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

JayFramer said:

“Tactical Tupperware”

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

SHEEEEZ !! This is a tough crowd.

In other news, Aim has Bulgarian Maks.

JayFramer said:

“Tactical Tupperware”

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

OLDSTER said:

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

Click to expand...

My curmudgeonly old fart's opinion...