Why did the Soviets swap from the TT33 to the Makarov?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing not mentioned so far.

The Makarov transition and expansion was during the post WWII Cold War era. In the European theater 9mm Kurz aka 9mm Corto aka 380 was fairly common in both the civilian and even with some military. The Makarov design will chamber and fire a 9x17 380 round while the 9x18 Makarov round is too big to chamber in the Western 380s. If things had gone south that would mean the Soviet troops could use any 380 ammo acquired in the field if necessary but the NATO troops could not use captured Soviet ammo.
 
jar said:
One thing not mentioned so far.

The Makarov transition and expansion was during the post WWII Cold War era. In the European theater 9mm Kurz aka 9mm Corto aka 380 was fairly common in both the civilian and even with some military. The Makarov design will chamber and fire a 9x17 380 round while the 9x18 Makarov round is too big to chamber in the Western 380s. If things had gone south that would mean the Soviet troops could use any 380 ammo acquired in the field if necessary but the NATO troops could not use captured Soviet ammo.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why the soviet choose the slightly larger 9mm Mak, but it could be like you say so they could use .380 in their guns, but not the opposite. The russian rail gauge was a different size that was not compatible with many European rail cars.
The primary region where Russian gauge is used is the former Soviet Union (CIS states, Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine), Mongolia and Finland, with about 225,000 km (140,000 mi) of track. Russian gauge is the second most common gauge in the world, after 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) standard gauge.[3]
Click to expand...
The Russian gauge was at one time used in USA and UK many years, but is said to have all been converted to the standard gauge for those areas.
In 1827, Horatio Allen, the chief engineer of the South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company, prescribed the usage of 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge and many other railroads in Southern United States adopted this gauge. The presence of several distinct gauges was a major disadvantage to the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. In 1886, when around 11,500 miles (18,500 km) of 5 ft gauge track existed in the United States, almost all of the railroads using that gauge were converted to 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm), the gauge then used by the Pennsylvania Railroad
Click to expand...
 
barnetmill said:
I am not sure why the soviet choose the slightly larger 9mm Mak, but it could be like you say so they could use .380 in their guns, but not the opposite.
Click to expand...
Look up the 9x18 Ultra.

That’s where they came up with the inspiration.
 
Browning said:
Look up the 9x18 Ultra.

That’s where they came up with the inspiration.
Click to expand...
Look up the 9mm browning long that was used in the fn 1903 pistol.
Cartridge 9×20mmSR Browning Long
Action Blowback
Feed system 7-round (9mm) box magazine
Since the 1903 was used by nearby Sweden the Russians have always been aware of that pistol.

The FN Model 1903 is based on the same mechanical design as the Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless, which Browning sold to both companies (and others as well), but enlarged to handle the more powerful 9mm Browning Long cartridge. Due to its reliability, accuracy, light weight, and quick reloading, the M1903 was an issued sidearm for many police forces and militaries.
Click to expand...
The 1903 showed that more power cartridge than the .380 could be used in a blow back pistol as did the later astra 400 did for 9mm largo.
the 9mm ultra was developed later than 1903 and might have influenced the 9mm makarov cartridge. No one really knows.
It was originally developed in the 1936 for use by the Luftwaffe, but was not adopted at that time.[1] In the 1972–1973 time frame, Walther introduced the Walther PP Super chambered in the cartridge for the West German Police.[1] It might have been influenced by a relative success of Soviet 9×18mm Makarov, although most observe in the opposite (the Ultra cartridge is usually agreed to have been the design basis for the Makarov, with similar case length and a slightly wider and shorter projectile). It is often interpreted to be meant as an intermediate round between 9×17mm and 9×19mm
Click to expand...
FN 1903

FN_Model_1903_002_%28cropped%29.jpg
 
FWIW, I dimly recall reading something that claimed the Soviets were dissatisfied with the TT30/33's button magazine release because it sometimes released the magazine inside the holster or at some other inopportune time. That was supposed to be the reason they used the heel release on the Makarov.
 
Just like a huge chunk of other post World War II ‘Russian’ designs, the 9mm Mak owes its lineage to captured German technology.

They didn’t use a semi rimmed cartridge, they used that one.
 
I have always thought that the profile of the browning 1903 influenced the TT33. The controls of course are different and TT33 has an external hammer. But, that hammer is recessed to give it the profile of a hammerless gun. I know that the russians studied other guns and copied parts of them to put on their weapons.

upload_2019-12-3_10-23-12.png
 
Last edited:
barnetmill said:
Are you sure they are and not maybe mim parts like what glock and other western designs use. I could find no details of how the various MAK type pistols are actually manufactured. Can you give a source for how the parts are made.
I assume that the parts are steel and not even ruger does casting for many of the small parts. Easier to use bar stock for stressed parts.
anyway please give a source.
Click to expand...
MIM wasn't around when the Makarov production started in 1951, the polymer binders used are a recent development. Precision casting was just becoming "precision" in the 1950s.

I read that precision casting was used in an East German article on the PM.
 
lysanderxiii said:
MIM wasn't around when the Makarov production started in 1951, the polymer binders used are a recent development. Precision casting was just becoming "precision" in the 1950s.

I read that precision casting was used in an East German article on the PM.
Click to expand...

Apparently it was like the AK, with the very first using a lot machining and then later for the MAK there was casting when the technology was up and running for the USSR. It is likely now days that new MAK may have sintered parts in them. https://www.all4shooters.com/en/sho...8mm-semi-automatic-pistol-technical-analysis/
Nowadays, many of these parts would be made through sintering, metal injection molding, or other one-phase procedures − and indeed some are. The original Makarov components were instead obtained out of forged steel blanks, through complicated and expensive machining procedures.
Sintering procedures were already in use in Germany by the 1920s, but even after World War 2, Soviet manufacturing technology was not mature enough to implement it. Many smaller parts of PM were thus originally machined; later, they were produced by precision casting techniques rather than powder sintering.

Sure, workmanship costs were not a factor in the Soviet Union, but simpler manufacturing procedures were, as most of the Soviet gun plants workers back in the day had a very low degree of specialization; most of the previous-generations, more skilled workers had been replaced by women in the factories and sent to die in World War 2, and the training of a new generation of properly trained workers would take time.
Click to expand...
 
As said earlier, the Mak is an officer's pistol. A lot of Wehrmacht officers in WWII carried .32 Walthers for the same reasons - convenience. Pistols are largely ceremonial for officers, so why lug around a big hunk of iron all day?
 
Tallball said:
FWIW, I dimly recall reading something that claimed the Soviets were dissatisfied with the TT30/33's button magazine release because it sometimes released the magazine inside the holster or at some other inopportune time. That was supposed to be the reason they used the heel release on the Makarov.
Click to expand...
I have noticed that pistols when carried in a soft holster that have side button mag releases will release the mag due to the bodies pressing against during intense pressure from physical activity. I have had this happen with more than one gun. Especially likely with pocket pistols carried in a soft holster.
 
My OPINION of this matter, which I developed over a 50 year period, is that the Soviets actually used humans to test the power floor necessary for the kind of incapacity they were after. They came to the same conclusion as Mafia hit men and earlier police depts in US and the 9mm Ultra project that slightly above .380 performance allows an unlocked breech and basically a .38 Special revolver ballistics.
 
Gordon said:
My OPINION of this matter, which I developed over a 50 year period, is that the Soviets actually used humans to test the power floor necessary for the kind of incapacity they were after. They came to the same conclusion as Mafia hit men and earlier police depts in US and the 9mm Ultra project that slightly above .380 performance allows an unlocked breech and basically a .38 Special revolver ballistics.
Click to expand...

The human's used for tests, coincidentally, were politically undesireable, of course.

Better to have the slug defeat the skull, scramble the contents, but not exit. ;)

Edit: can you imagine how deafening a 7.62x25 would be, in a basement!

:rofl:
 
Last edited:
Steve762us said:
The human's used for tests, coincidentally, were politically undesireable, of course.

Better to have the slug defeat the skull, scramble the contents, but not exit. ;)

Edit: can you imagine how deafening a 7.62x25 would be, in a basement!

:rofl:
Click to expand...
A .357 mag revolver is worse and at one time that was a standard SD and police cartridge.
 
barnetmill said:
Sintering procedures were already in use in Germany by the 1920s,
Click to expand...
Sintering and MIM are not exactly the same thing.

While both use heat and pressure to coalesce metal powder into a solid, MIM uses plastic binders to hold the metal powder in shape during heating, allowing very complex shapes to be made quickly and cheaply. In the 1920s-40s, mechanical means where required to apply pressure, so only more basic shapes could be done. One of the big volume items made by sintering by the Germans were steel bullet cores.
 
barnetmill said:
Two of the reasons for the russians choosing the load. It was similar to what was used in the bolo mauser pistols that the Bolsheviks thought highly of and 2nd it is claimed that they could use the same barrel tooling on both the 7.62x25 and 7.62x54 barrels.
Click to expand...

DING! DING! DING! DING! Winnah, winnah, chicken dinnah! THIS seems like the logic of the pragmatic Russian M.O.D., at the time.
For many military organizations, the pistol is more of a sign or badge of rank, rather than an offensive weapon. Meant for SD, in a fluid combat environment.

OTOH, I've admired the Makarov round, a little wider than the 380, yet not as much penetration as the 9mm Luger, seems almost designed to get a perfect energy dump into it's intended target.
 
lysanderxiii said:
Sintering and MIM are not exactly the same thing.

While both use heat and pressure to coalesce metal powder into a solid, MIM uses plastic binders to hold the metal powder in shape during heating, allowing very complex shapes to be made quickly and cheaply. In the 1920s-40s, mechanical means where required to apply pressure, so only more basic shapes could be done. One of the big volume items made by sintering by the Germans were steel bullet cores.
Click to expand...

Thanks, lysanderxiii. That's the kind of thing I like learning about.
 
Gordon said:
My OPINION of this matter, which I developed over a 50 year period, is that the Soviets actually used humans to test the power floor necessary for the kind of incapacity they were after. They came to the same conclusion as Mafia hit men and earlier police depts in US and the 9mm Ultra project that slightly above .380 performance allows an unlocked breech and basically a .38 Special revolver ballistics.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Chinese are doing the same thing to their criminals. They execute a lot of people every year. China has been accused for holding prisoners until such time that a foreign national organ recipient pays the organ fee. I suppose O positive prisoners have a very short lifetime after the verdict!

No doubt the Soviets compared results after shooting 22,000 Polish prisoners at Katyn. What I read was that each Pole was shot kneeling, behind the ear. If someone was keeping records of bang flops, versus bang thrashes, they could make some very statistically valid decisions on bullet lethality.
 
Slamfire said:
I wonder if the Chinese are doing the same thing to their criminals. They execute a lot of people every year. China has been accused for holding prisoners until such time that a foreign national organ recipient pays the organ fee. I suppose O positive prisoners have a very short lifetime after the verdict!

No doubt the Soviets compared results after shooting 22,000 Polish prisoners at Katyn. What I read was that each Pole was shot kneeling, behind the ear. If someone was keeping records of bang flops, versus bang thrashes, they could make some very statistically valid decisions on bullet lethality.
Click to expand...
How the chinese it do when they are in a hurry.
upload_2019-12-5_20-49-38.png
How they train for street corner execution

upload_2019-12-5_20-50-35.jpeg
 
NIGHTLORD40K said:
Considering that most of the postwar pistol issue would be to high ranking officers and political compliance units, secret police, etc, Im sure they requested something lighter and concealable.
Click to expand...
They had that tho in the PSM pistol, which is a lot smaller than the Makarov.

My guess is that the Makarov is a lot cheaper to produce and easier to make than the Soviet 1911 AKA the Tokarev.
 
NIGHTLORD40K said:
Considering that most of the postwar pistol issue would be to high ranking officers and political compliance units, secret police, etc, Im sure they requested something lighter and concealable.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with this as not actually researching... More "secret police" than combat...

Plus, I assume easier to make
 
barnetmill said:
One reason for the change is perhaps for better over safety. The T33 other than a half cock safety, has no other safety.
Click to expand...
This. The DA/SA Walther-like action of the Makarov makes a lot more sense.

"In Soviet Union, you don't shoot pistol; pistol shoot YOU."
 
What is the point of all the guesswork if archive documents exist that plainly explain the objectives of the program?
The objectives were simple:
#1 Make it safer
#2 Increase stopping action for self-defense of officers
#3 Lighter and more compact weapon
The production expense was a wash, although PM takes less raw materials and machining than TT. As the manufacturing continued, its processes were gradually streamlined, leading to a significant decrease in cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
CZ-52, Tokarev, or Makarov
2 3
Replies
62
Views
8K
woad_yurt
W
N
  • Locked
9x39mm Soviet
Replies
0
Views
671
Nullcone
N
grampster
  • Locked
Some interesting info from Iraq
Replies
3
Views
412
Low-Sci
L
texagun
  • Locked
Interesting Information From Iraq
Replies
7
Views
1K
Headless Thompson Gunner
H
D
  • Locked
Weapons/tactics report from Iraq.
Replies
1
Views
552
Jeff White
J
Back
Top