Makarov Love (holster recommendation?)

Sometimes I miss my Mak. Mine was (is still I guess) a little persnickety about ammo. The cheapo Wolf FMJ ammo didn't always feed right, but it ate pricy hollowpoints like candy. Surprisingly accurate pistol though. I used it to qualify for my CCW- the 1st round on the range went absolutely dead-nuts "X". Like I walked up to the target & punched the hole w/ a pencil. The rangemaster who was conducting the test was standing behind me as I shot. One of my proudest moments ever.
The pistol now belongs to the father of a good friend.
 
The .380 is a perfectly adequate self-defense round. I wouldn't go any smaller in a regular carry gun, but the 9 x 18 is similar and thus also adequate.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The .380 is a perfectly adequate self-defense round. I wouldn't go any smaller in a regular carry gun, but the 9 x 18 is similar and thus also adequate.
Click to expand...

And you base this on what, exactly?

Could it be the Chicago Police Dept issues .380's for duty guns? Or that the NYPD has replaced their 9mm Glocks with the Model 25 in .380?

Or that the NATO forces have jointly chucked the 9mm in favor of the lighter .380, as epitomized by the Beretta Model 84-M? ("M" for "military.")

If any of those were true, then you might have a case !

Meanwhile, you simply "feel" the .380 is adequate for defense, which is fine. I do not share that feeling.

Neither do the military and law enforcement agencies across the nation, if not the world. In unison, they dismiss the .380 in favor of at least a 9mm for serious (defense) use.

.
 
David E said:
And you base this on what, exactly?


Neither do the military and law enforcement agencies across the nation, if not the world. In unison, they dismiss the .380 in favor of at least a 9mm for serious (defense) use.

.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement and military carry are not limited to concealed carry, as are 99% of civilians. I'd prefer to carry my full sized, steel framed 1911 on a drop leg rig, but that's not realistic. Nor is carrying a rifle or a shotgun, as in the military.

The Mak is a great carry gun, and we all have to weigh the risk vs. convenience. If convenience weren't a factor, we'd all ride bikes to work, carry fire extiguishers, wear helmets, and wear foam rubber suits. At some point, all of us have to say, "good enough." I've been saying it for years with a beretta 21 in my pocket, or a Mak on my belt, carried in a Hume JIT Slide holster.

(The OP did have a question about HOLSTERS, right?)
 
But the biggest hit against the Mak is that for the same size and weight (or less on both counts) you could carry a 9mm or 40 or even .45

I understand all about convenience. I also understand that my life is worth more than a bargain gun shooting a sub-marginal caliber.

But that's just me. :D

.
 
David E said:
And you base this on what, exactly?

Could it be the Chicago Police Dept issues .380's for duty guns? Or that the NYPD has replaced their 9mm Glocks with the Model 25 in .380?

Or that the NATO forces have jointly chucked the 9mm in favor of the lighter .380, as epitomized by the Beretta Model 84-M? ("M" for "military.")

If any of those were true, then you might have a case !

Meanwhile, you simply "feel" the .380 is adequate for defense, which is fine. I do not share that feeling.

Neither do the military and law enforcement agencies across the nation, if not the world. In unison, they dismiss the .380 in favor of at least a 9mm for serious (defense) use.

.
Click to expand...

Please don't waste my time with these repeated appeals to authority in order to state your case. The needs of law enforcement/military personnel, and the contexts in which they carry and use firearms, differ from those of civilians. Also, please do not project onto me your suppositions about how I reach my conclusions. If you honestly wanted an answer, you could have asked, rather than supplying it yourself through psychic conjecture.

"Farmboy" made good points. You, on the other hand, seem to spend all your time being hostile and overly aggressive, from what I've seen of your posts lately. Welcome to "ignore."
 
Sharp Phil said:
If you honestly wanted an answer, you could have asked, rather than supplying it yourself through psychic conjecture.
Click to expand...

I did ask. I asked what you base your opinion on. I merely speculated about what that might be. If that is wrong, please provide your own reasoning. (if any) But NOW, instead of citing your reasons, you got your panties all in a twist. Odd.

You, on the other hand, seem to spend all your time being hostile and overly aggressive, from what I've seen of your posts lately. Welcome to "ignore."
Click to expand...

WOW ! Phil Elmore is calling ME "overly aggresive" ! That's funny ! :D
 
It's interesting to note that whenever brought to task, he creates a diversion and refuses to address the issue.

But I'll keep reading his posts as, quite frankly, they amuse the hell outta me ! :D

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top