Mike Irwin
Staff
"But why no 9X19 Makarov?"
Because those Rooskies are an inscrutable bunch.
Because those Rooskies are an inscrutable bunch.
Why no makarov in 9mm?
- Thread starter militant
- Start date
JohnKSa said:
True, but the forces should be the same.
I used a weight of 2 pounds for the combined slide/barrel assembly of the locked breech example.
That mass moved about .080 during the time the bullet was in the barrel.
The mass of the blow-back breech will merely have to be increased to keep it from moving too far while the pressure is high (bullet is in the barrel).
I'm not familiar with how much breech opening at pressure that you can get away with on a blow-back weapon. But for example, if your requirement was less than .040" (half the locked breech movement), then your slide weight would have to be double the barrel/slide weight of the example.
Cheapshooter said:
Condensed version:
SAAMI pressure spec page:
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/VelocityPressureData.pdf
9x19 (9mm Luger) operates at 50% more pressure than 9x18.
You would have a bomb in front of your face. Loads and stresses that the mechanism is not designed for would blow it apart.
You could obviously re-design it to take the pressure, but then it wouldn't be a 9x18 Makarov anymore!
Formulas are wonderful things, for some thing, but not always for real world applications.
Or perhaps its just the conclusions some people draw from their results.
In particular, one "physics problem" stands out in my memory. A co-worker on a graveyard shift was taking a course, and being the curious friendly sort, I was interested in her "homework". Until it ran up against my sense of reality, anyway.
I forget the exact details, but the problem went like this, a guy jumps into the swimming pool, swims from one end to the other, then back. Because he ended up exactly where he started, they "right" answer, according to the formulas they said to use was, that he didn't go anywhere.
They "proved" it with the math.
At that point, I realized that there is math, and then there is reality, and the two are not always 100% congruent.
Back to the OP, why is there no 9mm (Luger) Makarov?
Because the Makarov, as designed and built, will not handle the 9mm Luger round. Yes, it really is that simple.
why they have not designed a Makarov that will handle the 9mm Luger is a different question, with a different answer, and its also simple, essentially because the profit motivation isn't clearly there.
The world market for 9mm Luger pistols is rather well saturated, after all.
Or perhaps its just the conclusions some people draw from their results.
In particular, one "physics problem" stands out in my memory. A co-worker on a graveyard shift was taking a course, and being the curious friendly sort, I was interested in her "homework". Until it ran up against my sense of reality, anyway.
I forget the exact details, but the problem went like this, a guy jumps into the swimming pool, swims from one end to the other, then back. Because he ended up exactly where he started, they "right" answer, according to the formulas they said to use was, that he didn't go anywhere.
They "proved" it with the math.
At that point, I realized that there is math, and then there is reality, and the two are not always 100% congruent.
Back to the OP, why is there no 9mm (Luger) Makarov?
Because the Makarov, as designed and built, will not handle the 9mm Luger round. Yes, it really is that simple.
why they have not designed a Makarov that will handle the 9mm Luger is a different question, with a different answer, and its also simple, essentially because the profit motivation isn't clearly there.
The world market for 9mm Luger pistols is rather well saturated, after all.
Cheapshooter
New member
I know, that was made clear in an even more condensed version in post number.....ah.....THREE!
I just like to read 112 line off topic threads!
But I also have a more currently approiate reason. Because they make better, smarter, lighter guns in 9MM Luger!
A few things make me thing something more is going on with the spring in a blowback design.
The recoiling mass isn't double, in fact it's actually less--maybe half as much in a .380 blowback vs. a 9mm locked breech. Of course the momentum is less as well but it's not reduced by half. When you compare 9mm with .380ACP, for example--the momentum reduction is only about 30%, if that.
Also, it's easy to tell that the the spring is much heavier in a blowback designs. If it's not doing anything significant, why make the spring that much stiffer? It's certainly not required to insure feeding, nor is it a positive selling point.
Finally, I wonder about the force required to begin the extraction process while the pressure is still relatively high. In a locked breech design, the cartridge extraction doesn't really start until the pressure has dropped. In a blowback, the extraction starts immediately upon firing.
I think the calculation would provide some useful insight.
JohnKSa said:
I'm sure that's true. I've never been interested enough in the mechanics of a blowback action to look into it.
44 amp said:
Kind of like watching someone multiplying four times four and getting an answer of sixteen, then concluding that addition doesn't work because the correct answer should be eight.
Either the wrong formulas were used, or the question was not what you thought it was.
For example, if the question on your swimming example was how much did his kinetic energy and potential energy change, the correct answer is zero. Doesn't mean that he didn't go anywhere.
Last edited:
lee n. field
New member
"Why no Makarov in 10mm? It's just a millimeter."
(yes, I'm being facetious.)