MAKAROV: edify me please

p83...

I was under the impression the Polish P 64 (I have2) was replaced by the P 83, which is well reviewed, but I don't like the looks as much. The CZ 82 is an excellent Czech design, also great reputation, well deserved. Have that one, too. None are Markarovs, just shoot the same round. The 82 is possibly the most comfortable, ergonomic pistol I own, but it is large for caliber, so I don't carry it. I have an Eg Mak from the year I was born, and a Russian commercial originally .380, I switched the barrel to Mak. i find the P 64 in my range bag most often, and carry it at times- eerily accurate in spite of the tiny sights.
 
In case you were curious about the accuracy...


Makarov%20Target_zpsruq0aanu.jpg
 
Doyle posted:

Here is a pretty good writeup about the P-83 Wanad.
http://www.surplusfirearm.com/wp-con...nad-Manual.pdf

Seems the CZ-82/83 is much more servicable.
Click to expand...


I have four Maks, two P-83, and a P-64. The P-64 is a bear to shoot. The Maks, and P-83 are superior, and the P-83 has the best trigger.

From the article you posted. Maybe you misread the article?

“Serviceable” may be the by-word for this gun – serviceable, but not sexy. In every way that matters to a shooter when actually in the process of pulling the trigger, the P83 is equal or superior to its predecessor, the P64, equal or superior to the Makarov PM and it’s variants, and equal in almost every way except magazine capacity to a stock CZ-82. But, when bone stock, the P83 Wanad simply does not have the PPK sexiness of the P64 Radom.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
With respect to the OP, my gunshop has a Russian Baikal? not sure if it is .380 ro 9x18. Been there a long time and can probably be had for less than $250.

Is this one of the "good ones" since I am not familiar with these guns at all.

Thanks.
 
The Russian Baikal is the commercial version. It differers from the military version in two (and sometimes three) obvious places (besides the caliber).

The first is the rear sight. The milspec version is a fixed groove while the commercial version is an adjustable leaf sight. If you want to target shoot, then the adjustable sights are a distinct advantage. If you are wanting a carry piece then they can tend to snag on a holster.

The second difference is with the grip material. Milspec was a bakelite plastic. The commercial grips are a rubber material.

The third occasional difference is the capacity. Some of the commercial versions were produced with a thicker grip to allow for a double stack magazine.

Pretty much all the parts will interchange between the commercial and military versions. $250 isn't a terrible price. I've seem them go for both more and less than that - a lot depends on what part of the country you are in.
 
Couple of footnotes to Doyle's post, largely for reference of future readers...
The Russian Baikal is the commercial version. It differers from the military version in two (and sometimes three) obvious places (besides the caliber).
Click to expand...
FWIW Russian commercial Maks were also sold under the IMEZ, Izhmash, Big Bear Arms, and KBI brand names, along with some names I may not have mentioned. Most of the pistols, however, were the same - the only change was the distributor.

There is one rule, however, that is basically universal for Maks and milsurp Soviet-era Russian firearms in general. The use of the Roman alphabet anywhere but in an importer stamp or an importer-added serial number is the hallmark of a new-production gun made for Western commercial sale. All original Russian military markings use Cyrillic characters, although there is some overlap between both alphabets (e.g. C, P, T).

FWIW importers had to add their own serial numbers to many Russian milsurp firearms to comply with an ATF ruling disallowing the use of characters from other alphabets in the importers' records.
The second difference is with the grip material. Milspec was a bakelite plastic. The commercial grips are a rubber material.
Click to expand...
I have, however, seen many Maks of both the military and commercial stripes sold with the "wrong" grips or with BOTH kinds of grips.

As with brown leather clamshell-style military Mak holsters, sets of dark red Bakelite grips seem to substantially outnumber the actual Russian military pistols that came with them. :rolleyes: [EDIT: Speaking of which, DON'T pay significantly more for a pistol that comes these items from a seller claiming that they're some sort of expensive rarity; they're not.]
 
Last edited:
I have, however, seen many Maks of both the military and commercial stripes sold with the "wrong" grips or with BOTH kinds of grips.
Click to expand...

That is correct. My Bulgarian came with rubber grips. I'm guessing the originals were buggered up and the importer stuck rubber grips on it before selling. Since my gun has absolutely no collector value (lots of holster wear) I don't mind having the rubber grips. It actually feels better in my hand.
 
The one at my FFL has the star on the grips and they are brown, not black. Will take a closer look when I get back there next week. (if still there) The picture Tallball put out looks pretty much like it. Around same condition.
 
With respect to the OP, my gunshop has a Russian Baikal? not sure if it is .380 ro 9x18. Been there a long time and can probably be had for less than $250.

Is this one of the "good ones" since I am not familiar with these guns at all.
Click to expand...

it'd be fine.

The Baikal commercial Makarovs use a funky adjustable sight. I've never had a problem with it, but an aftermarket replacement fixed sight exists that replaces it. You absolutely cannot use a standard rear sight.

Slides that support the normal fixed sights are basically unobtainable.
 
Viper99 said:
The one at my FFL has the star on the grips and they are brown, not black.
Click to expand...
The grips vary somewhat in color, likely depending on who was operating the machinery at State Plastics Plant No. 71 that particular month. ;)
 
kcub:
Today I bought both a Bulgarian Mak (black grips) and the Czech CZ-82, being unable to decide which had more appeal. They were collected buy the seller's late brother, and there is no evidence that he did any sort of work or mods on them, and they saw very limited use. Expected worse ergonomics on the Mak, which are decent.

As smooth as the CZ's DA trigger pull is, the Mak feels just as smooth. This really surprised me:), and with very even pressure, though it's a fairy long trigger pull (good bit better than Ruger LCP...). Both the CZ and Mak feel equally rugged.

The Maks's DA trigger pull is a good bit lighter than on my West German PPK/S and is my first exposure to this very dependable Russian design.
Both gun types are brand new to me.
 
I don't know if it's still manufactured today, but when I bought my new Russian model years ago, I bought two cases of Blazer aluminum cased 9x18 ammo. Great shooting ammo and I've never had a jam or misfire. The Makarov is a great shooting, accurate pistol.
 
Any handguns built during the more widespread Communist era which are not only reported to be very reliable, but have DA and SA triggers as smooth as a (my) modern West German Sig 232 seem to be really underpriced, at today's list prices.

It must be the weight as a carry gun, or concern about future foreign ammo supplies (would increase prices) which limit demand?

Using Russian/East Euro ammo seems to be part of their success. I've only put approx. 150 rds. through my East German.

Do Maks as a group function as well using modern US-made ammo, or is it not weaker than Russian brands?
 
Anyone with P64 experience? I can't think of a good reason to buy one. They look cool and they're cheap.
 
I have no experience with the P-64, but it's on my list of possible pocket pistols. Probably too long for all but the deepest pockets, but it would be an affordable option. The biggest downside for me is the backward safety, which is not much of an issue because I don't think it can be carried condition 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top