9x17, 9x18, 9x19

"Which led to the legend that the Russians did not want NATO to be able to use captured Soviet ammo but wanted to be able to shoot our .380s in a pinch. Wonder where they thought they would get them?

.44 AMP's story is more plausible."

Actually, neither one is particularly plausible.

By the time the 9mm Makarov was developed and in the hands of troops, the .380 Auto was a relic in the armed forces of the West, and had never been issued widely as a primary side arm for any of the major combatants that the Soviets would likely encounter.

There are a number of theories, including the one in Wikipedia:

"The fact that the Soviet military required that their ammunition should be incompatible with NATO firearms is a myth, as caliber in the USSR is measured between the lands in the rifling and not the grooves. As such, 9×18mm Makarov ammunition uses a larger diameter bullet than other common 9 mm rounds, measuring 9.27 mm (0.365 in), compared with 9.017 mm (0.355 in) for 9×19mm Parabellum. After its introduction in 1951, the 9×18mm Makarov round spread throughout the militaries of Eastern Bloc nations."

There's also the theory that the Soviets wanted to ensure that if their troops encountered 9mm Luger rounds and loaded them by mistake that it wouldn't wreck the gun because the smaller Luger bullet would bleed enough chamber pressure past it that it wouldn't be a problem.

Then there's the theory that the it was developed as a straight-walled case because that worked better in the Stechkin semi-auto/full auto pistol. That one's a problem because Stechkin originally developed his pistol for 7.62 Tokarev and it worked just fine...


The probable real reason is that the Soviets just liked to do things their own way.
 
Mike Irwin said:
The probable real reason is that the Soviets just liked to do things their own way.
Click to expand...
The official explanation would be that the 9.2mm projectile is scientifically proven to be the best for attaining true Socialism, whilst the 9mm projectile is an inferior empirical choice favored only by bourgeois Western imperialists, because [insert pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo]. ;)
 
It also might be that the Russians felt that a pistol was a short-range, personal defense weapon, and wanted to use a simple blowback system. They went to a larger bullet to increase bullet mass for greater lethality while not exceeding the capability of the blowback action. Most stories about using captured guns or ammunition are nonsense; I know of no nation that planned to depend on captured weapons or ammunition, or that was concerned about an enemy capturing and using theirs.

FWIW, the 9mm Steyr is not the same as the 9mm Bergmann-Bayard (9mm Largo in Spanish service). The cartridges are similar but not identical and will not always interchange.

Jim
 
" They went to a larger bullet to increase bullet mass for greater lethality while not exceeding the capability of the blowback action."

Except...

That they didn't.

General consensus is that the 9x18 Makarov was a variation on the 9x18 Ultra, which was developed by Walther for the Luftwaffe in the mid 1930s. The Russians captured the Walther works, so it's very likely that they got the information on the Ultra cartridge.

The ultra used a 100-gr. bullet in the 1000 fps range, apparently the absolute upper end of what they thought was feasible.

But the 9mm Makarov was designed with a 95-gr. bullet in the 1000-1050 fps range, or roughly the same as the .380 ACP.
 
Jim Watson said:
There was - may still even be an open cold case - where a man was apparently shot with a .380 round fired from a Makarov.
Click to expand...
But that wasn't a Makarov pistol, it was (I believe) a CZ-82 with a replacement .380 ACP barrel. Or maybe it was a Makarov pistol with a replacement barrel. In any case, the government went on a search for companies who sold .380 barrels for 9x18 pistols, and my fuzzy recollection is that at least one such supplier (whose mailings I used to receive) was forced out of business.
 
But that wasn't a Makarov pistol, it was (I believe) a CZ-82 with a replacement .380 ACP barrel. Or maybe it was a Makarov pistol with a replacement barrel.
Click to expand...

It was a Makarov with aftermarket barrel.

and my fuzzy recollection is that at least one such supplier (whose mailings I used to receive) was forced out of business.
Click to expand...

Federal? I'm not sure they were forced out, or just went bust.

I have a Federal .380 Mak barrel I picked up for cheap from Numrich, and a barrel press. Got no use for it right now, as my one and only remaining Mak is a Russian Baikal .380.
 
The question still remains, why did the Soviets go to 9.2mm?

If they wanted a blowback 9mm, they probably had the tooling and design data for the Luftwaffe Ultra captured in what became East Germany.

Is there a clue in the ability to expand 9mm P cases straight, trim a millimeter, and load with .364" bullets for the Mak?
 
FWIW factory .380 commercial Baikal IJ-70 Makarovs exist. I've heard tell that the only differences are the markings and the barrel; mags, extractor, and recoil springs are the same as 9x18 guns.
James K said:
Most stories about using captured guns or ammunition are nonsense; I know of no nation that planned to depend on captured weapons or ammunition...
Click to expand...
During the Cold War, the Soviets did put NATO charging receptacles on their aircraft in addition to Warsaw Pact receptacles, but I'll admit that planning to use captured airfields is a little different. :)
 
"The question still remains, why did the Soviets go to 9.2mm?"

I personally think that the true answer is... because they could.

There is some indication that they originally intended to use the new round with a small, blowback machine pistol (other than the Stechken), and in such applications a straight walled case (as opposed to a taper) does have some advantages.
 
"I've heard tell that the only differences are the markings and the barrel; mags, extractor, and recoil springs are the same as 9x18 guns."

True.
 
I know of no nation that planned to depend on captured weapons or ammunition...
Click to expand...
I'd say the opposite, honestly.
If you're on the same landmass as your opponent, then the probability exists that the frontlines will move around during a big conflict.

The Glock, Zastava, CZ, Radom etc factories might be targets of acquisition, rather than leveled in bombing runs. In WW2, both sides used a lot of acquired weaponry. You might not DEPEND on them, but anyone with practical experience would at least acknowledge it and take that into account for potential plans. The Russians still have warehouses full of foreign surplus.
 
There's a difference between planning on capturing weapons and planning on capturing the facilities that make those weapons.

The industrial infrastructure can be useful, IF it can be captured largely undamaged.

But to actually make your war plans contingent on capturing that infrastructure as a means to successfully prosecute the war?

That's when you either need to make new plans, or send a peace delegation.
 
But the Russians were not "capturing" plants. They were liberating them and the human capital held within. The Soviets, in their belief system, expected the workers to welcome them as such.
 
I have seen nothing to indicate that the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium or Poland so they could use the arms factories in those countries. The factories were a bonus, no doubt, and naturally were used to make arms for the Wehrmacht and its allies, but the idea that Hitler set out on his path of conquest in order to seize FN, or Radom, or CZ is a bit of a stretch.

Jim
 
Remember, only the unborn are innocent. Josef Stalin, 1945, as Russian troops prepared to enter Germany.

That should tell you all you need to know about the Soviet 'liberation' of Germany.

It was nothing of the sort.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
Never said the primary purpose to invade somewhere was (or would be) to take over a weapons factory. Also, attributing anything coherent and rational to Hitler would be a stretch.

However, given the continued production of Radom, BRNO, FEG, Zastava and other factories, through multiple occupations, shows that there was some value attached. These factories weren't bombed into oblivion or bulldozed by either the Nazis or Communists, they were put to use; just as I imagine steel mills and refineries were.

You just have to consider the situation: the best way to keep an occupied area under control is to keep the populace busy. You give them something to do so they don't have time to sit around plotting revolts, and if that includes having skilled workers contributing valuable items to your war efforts, so much the better.

The Germans readily issued these arms to their forces as needed, and the Russians had warehouse upon warehouse of foreign arms stashed. They both came to understand (the hard way) that you can never have too many sources of weaponry, so anyone who lived through that would probably make it a consideration somewhere amongst their potential future plans. Not the highest, no... but somewhere on the list.

And no, none of this has anything to do with the reason the Soviets decided to make the 9 Makarov rd different than everything else :)
 
Never said you did. Simply making an observation.

The Germans didn't bomb the production factories in Poland, Belgium, Czechslovakia, etc., because the war didn't reach a stage where strategic bombing campaigns became part of the prosecution effort.

Germany captured those factories in a matter of weeks.

Same with the Russians. Their emphasis on mass mobility and constant pressure against a wide front emphasized tactical air power, not strategic.

The United States and Britain, on the other hand, bombed the ever loving crap out of FN, St. Etienne, etc., as part of their strategic campaign against the German support economy.
 
The factories, particularly arms factories that were taken by the soviets when they liberated/raped Eastern Europe driving out the Nazis, generally suffered a different fate under the Soviets than they did under the Nazis.

Under the Nazis, factories that could still operate, and that produced something the Germans could, and would USE, were kept operating.

Under the Soviets, often what happened was the factory was dismantled, and all the important machinery was shipped back to Mother Russia. Often important workers, as well. "Western" arms factories produced nothing the Soviets would use. (battlefield capture and use is a different matter).

OK, now, the Makarov is a COLD WAR pistol. My old copy of Small Arms of the World describes it as a "scaled up copy of the Walther PP". And it also came to be produced by the Soviet Bloc nations for their own use, as well.

I'm sure there are various technical reasons they choose the caliber specs that that did. But I also think it likely that a certain amount of practical pragmatism played a part, as well,

Troops are troops, and despite differing political systems and cultures, some things remain general constants. One of them being that troops get bored when not actively doing their thing. Bored troops seek recreational solace in drink and other things that take money to obtain. Stealing and selling military equipment is one way they find this money.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the British found they had to keep tight control on ammo, because in the hands of the troops, it would disappear. Sold for beer money.

The Soviets learned the same corrupting capitalist system could affect their troops as well, those on the borders were at greater risk. Choosing a caliber with specs not useable in the West was likely not the TOP of their priority list, but I think it likely the incidental advantages were not ignored.
 
Except with the British, those purchasing purloined ammunition were normally native inhabitants of British colonies, where firearms weren't nearly as tightly regulated as they were in Soviet bloc nations.

I sincerely doubt that the concept of "well, it's not really used in the West" was a consideration. I suspect that the primary consideration was that "well, we're going to be rolling out these nifty new rifles in an intermediate class cartridge that will take the place of both the main battle rifle and the submachine gun. The pistol will become even less necessary than it was before, and will become even less of a primary weapon, so we can really cut back on both the production numbers and the issue requirements. No sense to have an expensive, full power handgun. Go with something adequately powerful and a lot cheaper and easier to manufacture."
 
I suspect that the primary consideration was that "well, we're going to be rolling out these nifty new rifles in an intermediate class cartridge that will take the place of both the main battle rifle and the submachine gun. The pistol will become even less necessary than it was before, and will become even less of a primary weapon, so we can really cut back on both the production numbers and the issue requirements. No sense to have an expensive, full power handgun. Go with something adequately powerful and a lot cheaper and easier to manufacture."
Click to expand...
This is the most likely strategic consideration.

The AK predates the AR and other similar platforms by quite a few years, and had become promiment when the Soviets decided to move away from the Tokarev.
Very few reasons for military to carry a pistol. Now, in the West, you still needed pistol ammo for the submachine guns, but as you noted, the Russians had little need for them, either.

The Eastern Bloc sidearms are all small blowback jobs, way smaller than the Nato firearms. I guess they figured they would suffice for prestige and police work, as you'd still have "a pistol".

I've read several times over that the 9x18 with the 9.2mm bullet is basically maxing out the blowback design, and I will say that I find it does kick more than a .380 from a similar style gun. I imagine that was the pushback, that if they were going to go to a small blowback pistol, at least give them the hottest rd it could handle.

Re the Soviets scooping up all the machinery and taking it back to Mother Russia, I know a lot of that went on, but you still saw native production in the occupied countries. Poland had Radom, Hungary had FEG, Yugoslavia had Zastava, the Czechs had BRNO/CZ, and the Bulgarians had something (didn't Romania too?). There was uniformity of ammo, but a number of different designs produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top