Thain
Member
I'm by no means an expert, but I'm goignt o cast my vote for shoot `em `til they fall down. Then shoot `em `til they stop twitching. Then shoot once more.
Curious about 9x18 stopping power.
- Thread starter wbond
- Start date
- Status
.380 vs 9x18
I agree with you that a 9x18 is only marginally better stopping power than a .380, but I think that any addtional beyond the .380 is a big help. i.e. - even a little more power is a big help because the .380 is borderline. A little extra might get me over the borderline.
However, you make a good point about my being able to shoot a .380 more and practice more due to lower recoil. Also, my hand would be less likely to come unscrewed (literally) with .380.
Several senior members have also recommended I try a delayed blowback or locked breach 9mm Para. My local gun store suggested this in a Beretta. I'm told this reduces perceived recoil below 9x18.
I want to try all of the above. My hand, wrist, and thumb ought to tolerate enough shots of each to test each.
Thanks for your input, by the way.
I agree with you that a 9x18 is only marginally better stopping power than a .380, but I think that any addtional beyond the .380 is a big help. i.e. - even a little more power is a big help because the .380 is borderline. A little extra might get me over the borderline.
However, you make a good point about my being able to shoot a .380 more and practice more due to lower recoil. Also, my hand would be less likely to come unscrewed (literally) with .380.
Several senior members have also recommended I try a delayed blowback or locked breach 9mm Para. My local gun store suggested this in a Beretta. I'm told this reduces perceived recoil below 9x18.
I want to try all of the above. My hand, wrist, and thumb ought to tolerate enough shots of each to test each.
Thanks for your input, by the way.
gazpacho said:
Legality of Self Defense
Any self defense shooting is going to be reviewed by authorities. Do you want to go to prison?
I think that once the person (attacker) is no longer threatening you, you can't legally shoot them. Morally I don't think you should. If you are still shooting them after they are on the ground and incapacitated, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that was self defense.
A prosecutor would say (rightly so) that it was self defense until the attacker went down, but after that you had no need or right to shoot him further because he was no longer an attacker. You were the attacker after the other man down. That's what they'd say, and they'd be right.
If they can then prove the final shots after attacker already down killed him, you are in for a world of trouble. Probably man slaughter at least. This if you can prove that it was self defense while the man was on his feet, which will be harder to prove since you kept shooting him after he was "down and twitching".
Kicking a person who is down is considered attempted murder in some states. i.e. - if you continue to shoot (or kick or whatever) the attacker after they are down and incapacitated or no longer attacking, then you have become the attacker. Legally you will be punished severely.
Do you want to go to prison? Do you want to kill a man or just get him to stop attacking you? What is your true goal? If you just want him to stop attacking you, then why keep shooting him after he's "down and twitching" ?
You have the right to use deadly force only as long as a "reasonable person" would believe you were threatened. Do you think a reasonable judge or juror will think you were still threatened by a man who is "down and twitching".
For your own good, and for the good of other gun owners' rights, and for society, don't think so Rambo. Rambo went to prison, even in the movie. Remember that.
My goal and the proper goal is to shoot only as long as I perceive I am threatened. An attacker who has collapsed is no longer a threat, but don't turn you back on them just the same. I would continue shooting as long as they are coming toward me or still have a weapon in their hand. If they drop their weapon AND stop moving forward or back away, or if they collapse, I'd stop shooting, but still keep my gun aimed at ready. Once I was sure they were no longer a threat I'd lower my gun and call 911. If you don't call 911, you can be prosecuted for murder if the man dies for lack of medical care, even if the shooting was self defense. Remember that. I'm not saying I'd dial real fast though.
Think about these things in advance. Maybe consult your attorney. See what he says.
Thain said:I'm by no means an expert, but I'm goignt o cast my vote for shoot `em `til they fall down. Then shoot `em `til they stop twitching. Then shoot once more.
Any self defense shooting is going to be reviewed by authorities. Do you want to go to prison?
I think that once the person (attacker) is no longer threatening you, you can't legally shoot them. Morally I don't think you should. If you are still shooting them after they are on the ground and incapacitated, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that was self defense.
A prosecutor would say (rightly so) that it was self defense until the attacker went down, but after that you had no need or right to shoot him further because he was no longer an attacker. You were the attacker after the other man down. That's what they'd say, and they'd be right.
If they can then prove the final shots after attacker already down killed him, you are in for a world of trouble. Probably man slaughter at least. This if you can prove that it was self defense while the man was on his feet, which will be harder to prove since you kept shooting him after he was "down and twitching".
Kicking a person who is down is considered attempted murder in some states. i.e. - if you continue to shoot (or kick or whatever) the attacker after they are down and incapacitated or no longer attacking, then you have become the attacker. Legally you will be punished severely.
Do you want to go to prison? Do you want to kill a man or just get him to stop attacking you? What is your true goal? If you just want him to stop attacking you, then why keep shooting him after he's "down and twitching" ?
You have the right to use deadly force only as long as a "reasonable person" would believe you were threatened. Do you think a reasonable judge or juror will think you were still threatened by a man who is "down and twitching".
For your own good, and for the good of other gun owners' rights, and for society, don't think so Rambo. Rambo went to prison, even in the movie. Remember that.
My goal and the proper goal is to shoot only as long as I perceive I am threatened. An attacker who has collapsed is no longer a threat, but don't turn you back on them just the same. I would continue shooting as long as they are coming toward me or still have a weapon in their hand. If they drop their weapon AND stop moving forward or back away, or if they collapse, I'd stop shooting, but still keep my gun aimed at ready. Once I was sure they were no longer a threat I'd lower my gun and call 911. If you don't call 911, you can be prosecuted for murder if the man dies for lack of medical care, even if the shooting was self defense. Remember that. I'm not saying I'd dial real fast though.
Think about these things in advance. Maybe consult your attorney. See what he says.
thepanda
Member
wbond:
There was no personal attack and you missed the entire point of what I was saying.
If you're going to toss around a statistic such as "shot stop capability" you have to treat it as one. If it's 40% then it's 40% for EVERY SINGLE SHOT. Obviously many factors influence each shot and I tried to express that. Being shot once already definitely helps when trying to stop a threat, but that further proves why "shot stop capability" is an insignificant measurement-- it is a VARIABLE RATE and will be different every time the trigger is pulled. All I was attempting to say is that this statistic is misleading at best and multiplying it to come up with a mythical "3 shot stop" is even more inaccurate. I'm sorry that you took it as a personal attack. I didn't mean for it to come across as one.
You don't have to "address [my] comment about each shot being LESS likely to stop an attacker" because that would be foolish. The whole point of that statement was to point out how little sense employing your statistical logic makes. Obviously that point was lost on you.
I'm sorry if anything in this post sounds hostile, but I don't like coming online to a private message from a user with a "read receipt" that serves only to try and anger me. I was only trying to express why measuring the value of a cartridge in this manner is meaningless when there are far too many factors to consider.
Once again, I APOLOGIZE if you took my previous post as a personal attack. But I believe the manner in which you handled the entire situation was childish. I wished nothing other than to inform you as to why something was incorrect and offer my opinion. I believe that the entire point of a forum is to discuss facts and opinions and if you can’t read an opposing view without losing your cool I respectfully ask you to refrain from reading my posts.
There was no personal attack and you missed the entire point of what I was saying.
If you're going to toss around a statistic such as "shot stop capability" you have to treat it as one. If it's 40% then it's 40% for EVERY SINGLE SHOT. Obviously many factors influence each shot and I tried to express that. Being shot once already definitely helps when trying to stop a threat, but that further proves why "shot stop capability" is an insignificant measurement-- it is a VARIABLE RATE and will be different every time the trigger is pulled. All I was attempting to say is that this statistic is misleading at best and multiplying it to come up with a mythical "3 shot stop" is even more inaccurate. I'm sorry that you took it as a personal attack. I didn't mean for it to come across as one.
You don't have to "address [my] comment about each shot being LESS likely to stop an attacker" because that would be foolish. The whole point of that statement was to point out how little sense employing your statistical logic makes. Obviously that point was lost on you.
I'm sorry if anything in this post sounds hostile, but I don't like coming online to a private message from a user with a "read receipt" that serves only to try and anger me. I was only trying to express why measuring the value of a cartridge in this manner is meaningless when there are far too many factors to consider.
Once again, I APOLOGIZE if you took my previous post as a personal attack. But I believe the manner in which you handled the entire situation was childish. I wished nothing other than to inform you as to why something was incorrect and offer my opinion. I believe that the entire point of a forum is to discuss facts and opinions and if you can’t read an opposing view without losing your cool I respectfully ask you to refrain from reading my posts.
Thain
Member
wbond said:
Wow! Dial it down a little, wbond. Not only did you send me this in the main thread, you also sent it to me (verbatim) in a lengthy private message.
To begin with, I don't see how anyone could reasonably find my "advice" to be serious... Not only is it asine in its John Woo-esque violence, I mispell most of it, and I include one of them nice green smilies...
I apologize for wasting everyone elses time with this, but come on...
Okay, let me put it in serious terms sense humor doesn't seem to work.
Shot placement beats caliber, and volume of fire helps too. If your concerned about stopping someone, you shot them `til they stop.
I partly agree.
Your extreme sarcasm seemed insulting to me, but that's in the past. Let's not argue. Sorry I got so steamed.
As for not reading your posts, let's not be ridulous. No offense intended, but you read my post and thrashed it to the point of bordering on insult, if not actual insult. I over reacted to your post, but you first over reacted to my earlier post.
Let's both just cool down.
How can I not read your posts when they are about my posts?
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. When I started this thread, I invited everyone to agree, disagree, or debunk what I said. However, there is no need for excessive sarcassm. However, you say that was not your intent. OK. I take your word that that, which is why I apologized for gettng so steamed and sarcastic myself.
Go ahead and read my posts, which you obvisouly do since I'm the one who started this thread. That's OK. Disagree with me too, if you want. That's fine too.
Likewise I will read your posts too. After all they are about a subject I started and sometimes about my posts.
Let's just both disagree in a respectful manner.
I'll cool out. You do the same. Let's just live and let live. I'll try not to be overly sarcastic. I'd appreciate if you'd do the same.
I do agree with some of what you said, by the way. Especially, "Being shot once already definitely helps when trying to stop a threat, but that further proves why "shot stop capability" is an insignificant measurement-- it is a VARIABLE RATE and will be different every time the trigger is pulled." I agree with this, especially the "variable rate" part.
I don't have any hard feelings anymore. I hope you don't either. We both apologized. Let's make nice. We can respectfully disagree. There are some things we agree on too.
Your extreme sarcasm seemed insulting to me, but that's in the past. Let's not argue. Sorry I got so steamed.
As for not reading your posts, let's not be ridulous. No offense intended, but you read my post and thrashed it to the point of bordering on insult, if not actual insult. I over reacted to your post, but you first over reacted to my earlier post.
Let's both just cool down.
How can I not read your posts when they are about my posts?
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. When I started this thread, I invited everyone to agree, disagree, or debunk what I said. However, there is no need for excessive sarcassm. However, you say that was not your intent. OK. I take your word that that, which is why I apologized for gettng so steamed and sarcastic myself.
Go ahead and read my posts, which you obvisouly do since I'm the one who started this thread. That's OK. Disagree with me too, if you want. That's fine too.
Likewise I will read your posts too. After all they are about a subject I started and sometimes about my posts.
Let's just both disagree in a respectful manner.
I'll cool out. You do the same. Let's just live and let live. I'll try not to be overly sarcastic. I'd appreciate if you'd do the same.
I do agree with some of what you said, by the way. Especially, "Being shot once already definitely helps when trying to stop a threat, but that further proves why "shot stop capability" is an insignificant measurement-- it is a VARIABLE RATE and will be different every time the trigger is pulled." I agree with this, especially the "variable rate" part.
I don't have any hard feelings anymore. I hope you don't either. We both apologized. Let's make nice. We can respectfully disagree. There are some things we agree on too.
thepanda said:
Red Tornado
Member
Hey NoScreenName,
Would you mind posting the results of the #19 and #21 springs? I think the Mak's just a little snappy, and would love to get your opinion on the difference they make.
Thanks,
RT
Would you mind posting the results of the #19 and #21 springs? I think the Mak's just a little snappy, and would love to get your opinion on the difference they make.
Thanks,
RT
M2 Carbine
member
Red Tornado said:
For what it's worth, I use the 21 pound recoil spring in all my Makarovs (14) including the .380.
If you go from a new factory Makarov spring to a 19lb you probably won't notice much difference. The thing is, in the case of the "used" Makarovs you don't know how weak the spring is, so it's probably a good idea to change them out anyhow.
My preference for the 21lb spring is because I shoot my light hand-loads to the hottest ammo I can find or hand-load. The Mak functions 100% with the heavy spring.
BUT, I wouldn't consider using the 21lb spring in a defense pistol until I was satisfied that the particular Mak worked 100% with it.
abaddon
Member
Wbond-
www.makarov.com has muzzle brakes for the makarov. They'll thread your barrel and install the brake. It supposedly helps minimize recoil. I have no experience with them. They also give the added benefit of being a mounting platform for a tactical light.
I agree that a standard 9mm, especially a heavy one, could give you better recoil protection. But if you already have a Makarov and like it then the muzzle brake may be a good idea. It could make concealed carry more of a problem, however.
www.makarov.com has muzzle brakes for the makarov. They'll thread your barrel and install the brake. It supposedly helps minimize recoil. I have no experience with them. They also give the added benefit of being a mounting platform for a tactical light.
I agree that a standard 9mm, especially a heavy one, could give you better recoil protection. But if you already have a Makarov and like it then the muzzle brake may be a good idea. It could make concealed carry more of a problem, however.
MCgunner
Member
Wow, this thread is enlightening. I've learned from the experts here that energy doesn't matter, caliber doesn't matter, expansion doesn't matter, all that matters is bullet placement and PERHAPS penetration. Therefore, I'm thinking .17HMR with FMJ, preferably spitzer, ammo. I don't think it could get no better'n that. No recoil, accurate, and lots of penetration! Perhaps I could find one of those old S&Ws in .22 Jet, but cases might be a problem. That Raging Hornet thing would work, but it's not very concealable.
Tomac
Member
MCgunner, is the FBI considered "expert" enough for you?:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
Tomac
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
Tomac
Erich
Member
MCgunner, misrepresenting what folks say in a sarcastic rant is not very "High Road." If you've got something to say, why don't you just say it?
Actually, spitzers tend to tumble, which decreases their penetration a lot.
In any case, shot placement is priority #1, penetration is #2, and bullet size is a distant 3rd place. A .45 in the aorta will incapacitate in about 10 seconds, while a .22 in the same spot will do it in 11 seconds. Much of a difference? On the other hand, a .45 in the gut, which misses the spine, may never incapacitate a guy. He may walk into a hospital under his own power. If he does collapse, it'll be from pain, fear, or other psychological mechanisms. Same with a .22. Much of a difference? The only real difference due to hole size is the "in between" areas, like the liver, lungs, etc. And hits to those areas tend to take minutes, not seconds, to incapacitate, regardless of the caliber used. In a gunfight, there's not much of a difference between 1 min to incapacitation for a .45, and 10 min for a .22.
Energy doesn't even enter into the picture, since energy only correlates with temporary cavity, which is pretty worthless at handgun velocities.
CAnnoneer
Member
The problem is placement is not guaranteed. Even the best marksmen can miss once in a while, and strange things may happen. Statistics breaks down for small numbers. Thus I'd say that penetration is the most important and so, I consider FMJ to be perfectly good combat rounds.
Well, as far as most people are concerned, penetration probably is the #1 concern. It's pretty hard to train in a realistic enough manner to actually increase hit probability and accuracy in an actual firefight. Penetration is definitely the #1 concern when comparing defense ammo, since 99% of the ammo out there has acceptable combat accuracy through a decent pistol. Of course, it then comes down to whether more is better, or if penetration beyond a certain point is fairly meaningless (Fackler says 14.5", MacPherson says 15", the FBI says 18"), and if it's worth sacrificing some of that "extra" penetration for the sake of expanded diameter.
And I agree 100% that there's nothing wrong with FMJ. There are so many things that can screw up a hollowpoint, that you may as well be shooting FMJ half the time anyway.
And I agree 100% that there's nothing wrong with FMJ. There are so many things that can screw up a hollowpoint, that you may as well be shooting FMJ half the time anyway.
9X18 stopping power
I guess I'm just too old but I don't understand WHY you would wish to carry a 9X18 when you can get a well made pistol in .40S&W in the same size package. You may have 1 less round in your mag, however with a well placed double tap with a 165 Gr. 40 S&W HP, you won't need the extra round. You must also remember when you are being grilled by the perps lawyer in the civil action, the more rounds you fire the better they'll like it.
I guess I'm just too old but I don't understand WHY you would wish to carry a 9X18 when you can get a well made pistol in .40S&W in the same size package. You may have 1 less round in your mag, however with a well placed double tap with a 165 Gr. 40 S&W HP, you won't need the extra round. You must also remember when you are being grilled by the perps lawyer in the civil action, the more rounds you fire the better they'll like it.
I don't understand WHY you would wish to carry a 9X18 when you can get a well made pistol in .40S&W in the same size package
1. For the money (~$140 at the time), the Makarov PM in 9x18 was an excellent value.
2. Reliable (not that pistols chambered for other rounds aren't), and extremely easy to strip/clean.
3. It was less expensive to shoot and practice with than .40S&W.
4. It was a milsurp, and it's somewhat difficult to find those in .40S&W.
5. I can recover quicker for followup shots than with the same size gun in .40S&W.
6. The grip, although not the best, fit my hand well.
Is the caliber a better defensively than .40S&W? Maybe not. It was my first pistol, and money was tighter then, so it made sense. I'm sure there's other people in the same boat. 'Available' doesn't always mean 'affordable.'
jmm
1. For the money (~$140 at the time), the Makarov PM in 9x18 was an excellent value.
2. Reliable (not that pistols chambered for other rounds aren't), and extremely easy to strip/clean.
3. It was less expensive to shoot and practice with than .40S&W.
4. It was a milsurp, and it's somewhat difficult to find those in .40S&W.
5. I can recover quicker for followup shots than with the same size gun in .40S&W.
6. The grip, although not the best, fit my hand well.
Is the caliber a better defensively than .40S&W? Maybe not. It was my first pistol, and money was tighter then, so it made sense. I'm sure there's other people in the same boat. 'Available' doesn't always mean 'affordable.'
jmm
BHPshooter
Member
The Taurus PT938 is not a locked breech. There are locked .380s out there, but I am unsure of what they are.
IMO, the Makarov has more felt recoil than a Browning HP. The Browning may be a 9mm Parabellum, but the Mak is much more sharp and snappy, to me...
Wes
Here's what I've discovered after using my 9x18 guns and getting experience
The hottest 9x18 rounds like Silver Bear 115 gr 9x18 give around 1050 fps from a CZ-83, or around 1010 from a stock Makarov. That is fairly potent stuff.
However, those type of potent ammos are very hard on a stock CZ-83 or Makarov (I own both).
For Makarov 9x18 , stiffer, stronger recoil springs are available to make the gun handle it, but my recoil sensitive hands cannot handle it.
For CZ-83 9x18, stiffer, stronger recoil springs are not available at this time, but Makarov.com says they will be offering them soon. So at this time, the gun can't really handle it over the long term and neither can my hands. With stiffer spring in future, the gun could handle it, but my hands still could NOT.
Therefore, for all practical purposes, the standard 9x18 ammo should be used. It gives a 95 gr bullet, 1030 fps from a Makarov, or about 1060 fps from a CZ-83. I'm speaking specifically of Federal Eagle 95 gr ball ammo here. This Eagle ammo is loaded a bit hotter than standard 9x18, but the stock guns can take it fine. It's only a little hot (unlike Silver Bear 115 gr which is very hot).
This means that for all practical purposes, the 9x18 has a substantial advantage over a .380, but is far below a .38 Special. Obviously it is way below a 9mm Parabellum.
All that said, I think the 9x18 is an excellent round for a smaller, lighter guns and is much better than a .380, but the 9x18 is no power house.
If .38 Spl +P and 9mm represent medium power, the 9x18 is far below that.
I think the 9x18 is the most powerful of the weak rounds. Overall, it's a decent round, but a .38 Spl is better and a 9mm Para is much better.
The only real comparison for a 9x18 is the .380 and it definately outclasses a .380 by a wide enough margin to make me still like the 9x18.
I recant any overly optimistic statements I previously made about the 9x18. I still like it and think it useful and usable, but there are better choices.
However, for a recoil sensitive person like myself, a Makarov with a rubber grip added, better sights added, and a stiffer than stock spring added (I like 19 lb), it is a good gun that is small enough, light enough to carry, yet tolderable on recoil . Same with CZ-83, except it's a bit heavy and large for easy carry in waistband or pocket.
For my recoil sensitive hands, the standard 9x18 ammo and slightly hot stuff like the Federal Eagle are usuable (with rubber grips, stiffer spring). The hotter 9x18 ammos kick to hard for my hands and are punishing to the guns (unless spring mod).
The hottest 9x18 rounds like Silver Bear 115 gr 9x18 give around 1050 fps from a CZ-83, or around 1010 from a stock Makarov. That is fairly potent stuff.
However, those type of potent ammos are very hard on a stock CZ-83 or Makarov (I own both).
For Makarov 9x18 , stiffer, stronger recoil springs are available to make the gun handle it, but my recoil sensitive hands cannot handle it.
For CZ-83 9x18, stiffer, stronger recoil springs are not available at this time, but Makarov.com says they will be offering them soon. So at this time, the gun can't really handle it over the long term and neither can my hands. With stiffer spring in future, the gun could handle it, but my hands still could NOT.
Therefore, for all practical purposes, the standard 9x18 ammo should be used. It gives a 95 gr bullet, 1030 fps from a Makarov, or about 1060 fps from a CZ-83. I'm speaking specifically of Federal Eagle 95 gr ball ammo here. This Eagle ammo is loaded a bit hotter than standard 9x18, but the stock guns can take it fine. It's only a little hot (unlike Silver Bear 115 gr which is very hot).
This means that for all practical purposes, the 9x18 has a substantial advantage over a .380, but is far below a .38 Special. Obviously it is way below a 9mm Parabellum.
All that said, I think the 9x18 is an excellent round for a smaller, lighter guns and is much better than a .380, but the 9x18 is no power house.
If .38 Spl +P and 9mm represent medium power, the 9x18 is far below that.
I think the 9x18 is the most powerful of the weak rounds. Overall, it's a decent round, but a .38 Spl is better and a 9mm Para is much better.
The only real comparison for a 9x18 is the .380 and it definately outclasses a .380 by a wide enough margin to make me still like the 9x18.
I recant any overly optimistic statements I previously made about the 9x18. I still like it and think it useful and usable, but there are better choices.
However, for a recoil sensitive person like myself, a Makarov with a rubber grip added, better sights added, and a stiffer than stock spring added (I like 19 lb), it is a good gun that is small enough, light enough to carry, yet tolderable on recoil . Same with CZ-83, except it's a bit heavy and large for easy carry in waistband or pocket.
For my recoil sensitive hands, the standard 9x18 ammo and slightly hot stuff like the Federal Eagle are usuable (with rubber grips, stiffer spring). The hotter 9x18 ammos kick to hard for my hands and are punishing to the guns (unless spring mod).
Last edited:
QUOTE
The .32 ACP has or should decent 3 shot stop power. I base this on it's one shot stop capability, which I don't remember for sure, but I think was around 40%. However, multiply that by 3 and you are well over 100%.
END QUOTE
Your serious? OSS figures don't work like that. If you read Marshalls book he has figures on 2 shot shootings as well and the percentages only go up about 5% per load. Another thing to consider is Marshalls work is hottly debated and even Evan himself says not to take his figures literally. But use them as a comparision point instead. Basically if he says a load has 96% stopping power don't count on it stopping someone 96% of the time. Just use it and assume its better than a load rated at 76%.
As for the Mak. I know I will get flamed but I can not recommend them. Their underpowered, have terrible sights and triggers. If your low on funds look for a nice used Smith model 10 in 38 special or work some extra shifts and get a used Glock 17.
Pat
The .32 ACP has or should decent 3 shot stop power. I base this on it's one shot stop capability, which I don't remember for sure, but I think was around 40%. However, multiply that by 3 and you are well over 100%.
END QUOTE
Your serious? OSS figures don't work like that. If you read Marshalls book he has figures on 2 shot shootings as well and the percentages only go up about 5% per load. Another thing to consider is Marshalls work is hottly debated and even Evan himself says not to take his figures literally. But use them as a comparision point instead. Basically if he says a load has 96% stopping power don't count on it stopping someone 96% of the time. Just use it and assume its better than a load rated at 76%.
As for the Mak. I know I will get flamed but I can not recommend them. Their underpowered, have terrible sights and triggers. If your low on funds look for a nice used Smith model 10 in 38 special or work some extra shifts and get a used Glock 17.
Pat
Tomac
Member
355sigfan, this is no flame but if a pistol is accurate, reliable and the bullet penetrates deeply enough to reach the vitals (like the Mak) then what's not to recommend? Personally, I find revolvers (like the Model 10) much harder to shoot fast & accurately than the Mak. I've owned the Glock 17, 19 & 26 and none of them would shoot as accurately for me as the Mak (go figure, YMMV). Is the Mak perfect? No, but I both know and trust what it can do enough that it's both my nightstand & primary CCW piece.
Tomac
Tomac
There is more to life than pure penetration. The mak will penetrate enough with ball ammo. Not with JHP's. Bigger holes bleed more. A .358 hole is not as good as a .75 caliber hole caused from a expanding 9mm jhp. If you like your Mak thats great. But the cartridge is underpowered. Even the Russians are dropping it for 9x19.
Pat
Pat
Tomac
Member
I agree that the Mak w/lighter JHP's doesn't have sufficient penetration to suit me. That's why my carry load is the 115gr JHP @1,000fps. I also agree that bigger holes can bleed more. However, given the same determined and aggressive attacker w/identical shot placement just how much practical difference would we see between the 9x18 115gr JHP & any other defensive load (115gr 9mm JHP, 185gr .45 JHP, your fav load, etc...)
Hard data, please, no supposition or speculation. If you cannot provide hard data then it becomes just a matter of opinion. The Mak is underpowered? By who's definition? A change in military caliber isn't always to improve performance (ex: the US dropped the .45 for the 9mm, does that mean the 9mm is a more effective round just because our military switched to it?)
Tomac
Hard data, please, no supposition or speculation. If you cannot provide hard data then it becomes just a matter of opinion. The Mak is underpowered? By who's definition? A change in military caliber isn't always to improve performance (ex: the US dropped the .45 for the 9mm, does that mean the 9mm is a more effective round just because our military switched to it?)
Tomac
I know of no factory 115 grain mak load doing 1000 fps. Even if it did exist (sounds like a reloaders hand grenade to me) its not likley to expand and penetrate 12 inches. 115 grain 9mm bullets are designed to open at faster velocities usually. The Mak just does not have the horsepower. Its limited by its blow back action.
pat
pat
- Status