DA trigger pull/recoil of Cz 82 or Rus./Bulg. Makarov?

[Walt Sherrill]

It locks the slide, hammer, and I think trigger.

If it locks the trigger, that's my error. But...

according to the Mak user's manual I've got (courtesy of the National People's Army of the German Democratic Republic, and Makarov.com), while the slide is locked, the hammer is decocked, and held away from the firing pin (resting on the sear in a way that will not let it get NEAR the firing pin), the trigger is NOT locked and can be pulled -- thereby going into normal DA mode.

That's why I said it's really a decocker. But it is a clever design and does keep things from happening inadvertently. And the firing pin design is such that the very light, free-floating pin is less likely than some FP designs to allow an inertial ignition.

(It's probably been 12 years since I last held or owned a Makarov, so my memory is dim on this point. Perhaps there's a safety lever position that also locks the trigger?)

 

[Limnophile]

It might be awkward for a Lefty to own the Cz-82 as a carry gun which requires the safety with a chambered round, or one could try to remember to leave the chamber empty and rack the slide. Not adviseable....

As Walt pointed out, the CZ 82 has an ambi safety and ambi mag release. The slide lock is on only the left side.

With its rebounding hammer safety the CZ 82 decocks easily with one hand. Just release the trigger after the hammer is released, holding it back with your thumb. Once the trigger is released the hammer, even if it were to slip while lowering it, cannot strike the firing pin. The rebounding hammer safety is deactivated only when the trigger is fully depressed.

If you desire to carry a CZ 82 in condition 2, you never have to touch the safety, and the safety won't engage when the hammer is down.

The seller also has a pair of Maks (not E. German), plus a Russian Mak in .380 Auto. Spare parts for that .380 might be very scarce.

Being essentially the same gun as the CZ 83, CZ-USA stocks virtually all (if not all) parts.

By the way, the CZ 83 Instruction Manual says the DA trigger pull is no more than 13.2 lb. This upper limit applies to new guns, as use smooths the action considerably. The SA trigger pull is listed as being between 3.4 and 5.5 lb, with the bounds more representative of well used and new guns, respectively.

 

[Ibmikey]

I have an EG Makarov and several CZ 82's, both are very safe pistols to carry and both quite controllable in recoil with the 82 being most manageable but nnnnnñhardest of the two to conceal. The triggers on both are butter smooth with the 82 again being the easiest.

 

[Pilot]

The Makarov safety IS a true safety. When you engage the safety it rotates a mechanism internally, and blocks the firing pin from being exposed to the hammer. With the hammer fully decocked, and down, (there is no half cock) the hammer can NOT touch the firing pin if the safety is engaged.

The above is true for ALL PM's (Pistolet Makarov) pistols.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The Makarov safety IS a true safety. When you engage the safety it rotates a mechanism internally, and blocks the firing pin from being exposed to the hammer. With the hammer fully decocked, and down, (there is no half cock) the hammer can NOT touch the firing pin if the safety is engaged.

The above is true for ALL PM's (Pistolet Makarov) pistols.

It is a safety in the sense that it keeps the hammer from hitting the firing pin -- a hammer block, so to speak. I mentioned that earlier (See post #21, above) in that it uses the sear to block hammer movement in a way that keeps the hammer from engaging the firing pint. But is is NOT a safety in the more common use of the term. Using the safety does NOT keep the trigger from moving -- it can fire with the safety engaged! That's in your manual, too. (Or at least, it's in mine.) It also does not prevent an inertial movement of the firing pin, due to a drop or slam. (The CZ-82 doesn't, either.)

 

[Pilot]

Walt, I didn't realize the definition of a "safety" was one that didn't allow the trigger to move. For me, the fact that the Mak's safety disables the hammer from contacting the firing pin is good enough as it does prevent the pistol from firing. So to ME it is a "safety".

 

[lee n. field]

But is is NOT a safety in the more common use of the term. Using the safety does NOT keep the trigger from moving -- it can fire with the safety engaged!

I do not think that is the case. I will check this on my own when I get home.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Walt, I didn't realize the definition of a "safety" was one that didn't allow the trigger to move. For me, the fact that the Mak's safety disables the hammer from contacting the firing pin is good enough as it does prevent the pistol from firing. So to ME it is a "safety".

I guess we'll have to either disagree, or expand our shared appreciation of the term to accept a broader definition.

Wikipedia says the following (but I added the undelining for emphasis) -- and I split the defintion into two parts -- but they are single long paragraph on the Wiki site. Here's a link to the cited article; you'll see that other safety-related mechanisms are described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29.

The most common form of safety mechanism is a switch, button or lever that, when set to the "safe" position, prevents the firing of a firearm...

When the safety has been activated on the Makarov, it does NOT keep the weapon from firing, but it DOES keep the hammer from accidentally hitting the firing pin (as might happen with a hard hit or a slip while decocking). Using the Makarov safety does not make the weapon inoperable; it just takes it out of SA mode and switches to DA mode; the gun can immediately be fired by pulling the trigger.

Manual safeties are as varied as the designs of firearms themselves, but the two most common mechanisms are a block or latch that prevents the trigger and/or firing mechanism from moving, and a device that disconnects the trigger from the firing mechanism of the firearm.

What I was calling a safety, Wikipedia calls a MANUAL SAFETY. What you were calling a safety Wiki calls a HAMMER BLOCK. I can see why we disagree.

The fact that the sear blocks the hammer when the Makarov "safety" is engaged -- but the trigger and firing mechanism are NOT made inoperable -- makes the safety function a bit like the one we see in the Glock design: the safety resides in the user's trigger finger. If you don't pull the trigger the gun won't fire. If you do use the trigger, the gun fires in DA mode. The CZ-82 safety, on the other hand, keeps the trigger from making the gun fire at all.

When the Makarov safety has been used, the gun is still absolutely ready to fire and functions exactly like the CZ-82 with hammer down and the safety NOT engaged -- the trigger pull is just heavier and longer than it would be otherwise -- and. to your point, more safe since the weapon is no longer cocked and a blow to the hammer won't let the hammer hit the firing pin.

(As noted earlier, I haven't had a Makarov for 10+ years, so there may be another mode to the safety lever that I don't remember. If so, that would explain some of the differences we're addressing. The user manual, however, doesn't deal with that possible other mode -- or if it does, I missed it.)

.

 

[lee n. field]

But is is NOT a safety in the more common use of the term. Using the safety does NOT keep the trigger from moving -- it can fire with the safety engaged!

OK, I checked my Baikal .380 Makarov to be certain my recollection is correct.

Engaging the safety decocks the hammer. A metal protrusion on the safety lever physically blocks the hammer from striking the firing pin. With the safety in the on position, the slide, hammer and trigger are locked in position. There's enough play that you can pull the trigger only maybe .25 inches before it stops.

Bulgarian milsurps behave in exactly the same way (to my recollection).

The East German Maks, so it was said, had a hammer modification that allowed the slide to be racked with the safety engaged. I've never myself handled an EG Mak, to determine for myself if this is true and whatever other consequences there might be for their design.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The East German Maks, so it was said, had a hammer modification that allowed the slide to be racked with the safety engaged. I've never myself handled an EG Mak, to determine for myself if this is true and whatever other consequences there might be for their design.

That may explain our different explanations -- and addresses a difference I've not seen discussed before. We may be talking about two slightly different guns.

My Makarov was an East German one, made in Suhl. The manual I have was made for the East German Army (But translated into English); you can find the same one using a Google Search and it address that different (maybe EG specific) functionality

While I've handled and shot a Bulgarian Mak, I never really examined one closely enough to sense or notice such a sublte difference. I did notice, howevere, that the Bulgarian ones I saw were almost as nicely made as the E German/Sihl Maks and much nicer than the Soviet and Chinese versions..

 

[Limnophile]

It also does not prevent an inertial movement of the firing pin, due to a drop or slam. (The CZ-82 doesn't, either.)

Last I looked, maybe about a month ago, the CZ 83 is on CA's list of approved handguns; thus, it is certified as drop-safe.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I don't think there's an 83B (B indicating a firing pin Block) so it, like the Makarov, must be drop safe.

The California test says it's drop safe, but that doesn't mean that it can't be intentionally or accidentally fired by a hard blow to the frame or hammer. It just means it doesn't go off when dropped from human-use heights.

Still, thety both seem pretty safe.

 

[Limnophile]

^As I recall, the CA standard is a primer is not ignited by a fall from 3 ft muzzle-first onto a concrete surface.

No, the CZ 82/83 does not have a firing-pin block, but the rebounding hammer safety ensures a strike of the hammer cannot result in the hammer striking the firing pin -- like the CZ 75 B the trigger must be fully depressed (to disengage the firing-pin block in the 75 B, to disengage the rebounding hammer in the 82/83).

My 83 chambered in .380 was my first carry pistol. I have car carried a Browning Challenger III .22 LR in Condition 3 for a very long time comfortably, but it took me a while to become comfortable carrying the 83 with a round in the chamber. After thoroughly aquainting myself with the various safety features I became comfortable carrying it either in Condition 1 or 2, but settled on Condition 1.

 

[Ignition Override]

tallball: This discussion of a decocking functions is interesting.

You said that your Mak. has a very good trigger. My only trigger question (remaining) about them is whether true Makarovs have a very heavy DA trigger. This will be what is used in a self-defense setting in my guns.
Another concern: a Mak's trigger/hammer spring can be replaced, but how much does it reduce the reliability of hitting the primer with enough force?

The DA trigger in the W. German .380 PPK/S is often described as very heavy. But my W. German is a fair bit lighter than the Polish P-64s I've tried.

No matter what the other comparisons are between the longer Czech CZ-82 and shorter/thinner Makarovs, if the first Mak DA pull (I can try) is much heavier than in my PPK, this will be the only critical factor in the decision.

 

[Webleymkv]

I currently own a West German Walther PP in .32 Auto (test target is dated 1967) and have previously owned a Russian Commerical IJ-70 Makarov in 9x18 Makarov. I also purchased a CZ-83 in .380 this past Saturday but I haven't yet had the opportunity to shoot it. As far as the DA triggers go, the CZ is unquestionably the best of the lot. The Walther's trigger is smooth, but extremely heavy while the Makarov's trigger was lighter but somewhat gritty. The CZ feels slightly lighter than the Makarov but as smooth as the Walther. I would compare to the trigger of the CZ to that of a 3rd Generation S&W like the 5906. In order from best to worst DA trigger, I would say CZ, Makarov, Walther.

When it comes to SA tiggers, however, the Walther is the best as it is quite light and crisp. The CZ comes in second because, while not heavy, it is somewhat spongy. The Makarov is last in this respect because it is spongy like the CZ, but also heavier than either the CZ or Walther.

With regards to the safety, I have never owned or handled an East German Makarov so I cannot speak to them. On the Russian IJ-70, however, the manual safety is indeed a true safety in that the gun cannot fire when the safety is applied. While it works in the opposite direction (up for safe and down to fire) the safety of the Russian Mak is much like that of the Walther PP. With the hammer cocked, applying the safety both decocks the hammer and blocks the action of the trigger. If you try to pull the trigger with the safety applied, the hammer and slide will cam back a few millimeters but nowhere near enough to come close to firing the gun. One key difference between the Makarov and the Walther is that when the safety is applied on the Makarov, it also locks the slide while the Walther's slide can still be manually retracted for loading/unloading the chamber when the safety is applied. Also, if the safety is applied on the Walther while the hammer is cocked, the trigger will stay in its rearward SA position until the safety lever is rotated to fire. On the Makarov, however, applying the safety while the hammer is cocked causes the trigger to spring forward to its DA position.

I've not disassembled either the CZ or Makarov far enough to inspect their firing pins, but I have with the Walther and it does have a firing pin block though it is built into the manual safety and not connected to the trigger. On the Walther, the firing pin has a small shelf about 1/3 of the way from the rear. When the safety is applied, forward movement of the firing pin is blocked because the channel that the firing pin passes through is too narrow for the shelf to go through. It would be nearly impossible for a Walther PP to fire accidentally with the safety applied because the manual safety blocks both forward movement of the firing pin and contact between the hammer and firing pin. When the safety is off, however, the only thing restricting forward movement of the firing pin is the tension of the firing pin return spring.

Of the three guns, the Walther is the smallest and slimmest and thus the most comfortable and convenient to carry. The Makarov, while larger and bulkier, is also incredibly reliable (the Walther sometimes has issues with U.S. made ammunition like WWB, but it's very reliable with imported ammo like S&B, Fiocchi, and Prvi Partizan) and, despite its more powerful chambering (9x18 vs .32 Auto) seems to have noticeably less felt recoil. As I said, I've not yet had a chance to shoot the CZ-83 but I do find its ergonomics to be the best of the three so if it proves to be as comfortable to shoot and reliable as the Makarov, I think I'll probably rate it as superior to the Mak and fully the equal of the Walther.