If you could arm the Indian Army...

[timmy]

The Makarov is a perfectly functional sidearm. It has been proven by many years of service.
If I had a Makarov, I would not hesitate to use it to defend myself

I'm with you there, XL.

Logistics is a big consideration when choosing arms for your forces.
However for the Indian Army to adopt the Makarov today would mean moving away from the 9X19 and risking a logistics mess.

Agreed!

I suppose that would summarize the feelings towards any weapon that one would be required to carry.

Yes, quite true! Back years ago, many folks of he WW2 era had no use for a 1911. They criticized them as heavy and inaccurate. It wasn't until some gunwriters began to extol their virtues that they became really popular.

[Skyman]

Yes, quite true! Back years ago, many folks of he WW2 era had no use for a 1911. They criticized them as heavy and inaccurate. It wasn't until some gunwriters began to extol their virtues that they became really popular.

Do you agree with the heavy and inaccurate part?

XL and Timmy, what would you issue ?

[timmy]

Do you agree with the heavy and inaccurate part?

Another complaint was excessive recoil. The slide stop to the rear added to the recoil of firing a round, causing some to complain about excessive recoil.

1. Heavy: Yes, they are heavy, but compared to the Beretta, I don't think they are excessively so.
2. Inaccurate: Yes, often they were. Some were worn from years of use, others weren't particularly tight from the factory. My Dad's service pistol is an old one, very nicely made. However, as he was in a year before Pearl Harbor and shot on the regimental target team, he said they would go to the armorer and strip a bunch of 1911s, and put together a few that were tight by select fitting the parts. Squeezing the slide in a vise also was a technique used. Dad had no use for any other handgun than a 1911. So, part of this was true, depending on the individual specimen that one was issued or "procured." I think a larger part was due to 3, below:
3. Recoil: a lot of people did not care for the recoil of the 1911. Part of this was due to being drafted into the services and perhaps shooting a pistol for the first time. Part was due to the 1911 having a rather large grip, making control difficult for some folks with small hands -- which made the recoil worse. These personal issues were, I believe, a great part of the inaccuracy complaint, above.

Still, if a lot of people couldn't shoot them well, that would be part of the problem.

Frankly, given the impact of handguns on the battlefield, I don't think I would spend much money here. Special operations teams would be a different matter, but for standard troop use, I don't see issuing a big contract for handguns to be very cost effective. If the current inventory was old and worn, and something needed to be issued, a smaller, reliable 9mm with good magazine capacity would work for most. I would hate them, because my hands don't fit a lot of what is out there nowadays. But most people could probably do fairly well with one, compared to the larger Beretta in use here. I simply don't see these things as being a big deal. I'd be looking to pour money into modern combat e-systems, nite vision capabilities, and such.

[Skyman]

What about the battle rifles and Mg's then?

[xl_target]

Yes, quite true! Back years ago, many folks of he WW2 era had no use for a 1911. They criticized them as heavy and inaccurate. It wasn't until some gunwriters began to extol their virtues that they became really popular.

Do you agree with the heavy and inaccurate part?

XL and Timmy, what would you issue ?

Tim covered it well.
My personal experiences with the 1911 have not been with old clapped out army issue 1911's but rather with well tuned custom guns (no I personally don't own one in .45 ACP) like Kimbers and SIG 1911's. For me they have been a thing of joy, beautiful smooth light triggers and exceptional accuracy. Shooting Mark's stock Colt 1911 was fun too but that would have been a quite a cut above a used issue gun.
I'm sure if I was forced to shoot and carry an old beater that had been used by who knows how many soldiers before me, I would have complained too.

My 1911 in .22 long rifle is a lot of fun too but it is not a true 1911 as it has a fixed barrel (but the frame is basically a copy of a full sized 1911 and will take 1911 parts). It is still one of my favorite pistols to shoot.


any excuse for a gratuitous gun porn photo.

Even though I have small hands, I have no problem with the 1911 grip and when I bring the gun up, the sights line right up to the target for me.
Still, everyone has different hands and some might not like it.

[Skyman]

Nice jacket there! How would you rate colt 1911's made today vs others like kimber and sig? Have others improved on colt's original, or has colt's quality suffered? In .45 ACP.

[xl_target]

Nice jacket there! How would you rate colt 1911's made today vs others like kimber and sig? Have others improved on colt's original, or has colt's quality suffered? In .45 ACP.

Its a replica WW2 B3 Bomber jacket. Unfortunately, almost too warm to wear, even in the midst of winter.
Colt's modern pistols are nothing to sneer at. They make and have always made a fine pistol. A pistol with the pony on it always command a premium price.
Check it out yourself: http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtPistols.aspx

[xl_target]

What about the battle rifles and Mg's then?

I guess, I'm old fashioned. I'm a big fan of the FN FAL/SLR/L1A1. It was rugged, had range and fired a cartridge with decent knock down power. In a battle rifle, it was my idea of Nirvana. However, while reliable and reasonably accurate, it was heavy and the weight of the ammo limited the number of rounds that a soldier could carry. Most armies are looking for smaller caliber Assault Rifles now instead of Battle Rifles. This allows the soldier to carry more ammo and its lighter weight helps make up for the increased amounts of kit that the modern soldier carries.

I've fired both the AK74 and the M4 in full auto and the M4 is smooth and like a sports car compared to the pickup truck feel of the AK so personally, I would prefer the M4 but either would be adequate.
As far as heavy MG's go, it's hard to beat the proven track record and power of the US M2 but it would make more sense to go with one of the newer Russian 12.7 mm MG's like the Kord. I'm sure they would be willing to sell and licence production.

[Grumpy]

I should point out that the Makarovs you see in the US are finished to a far better standard than the military issue pistols. Regarding the Germans ...... Weren`t they the one`s who rejected the Makarov on the grounds that it was inaccurate ?
The Mararov was selected for the Russian military because it was cheap and simple - not because it was any good. The replacement - the Yarygin PPa is a far superior pistol ..... also more powerful ( in 9x19 ) and more accurate ...... and a lot more expensive.
The Russian military model was - for many years - based on the principle of cheap and reliable - NOT whether a calibre was powerful enough or accurate. Fine in close combat WWII Russian front scenarios but useless in modern warfare.
To even imply that military weapons are selected because they`re good - or even fit for purpose - is naive optimism at very best. Too often weapons have been selected for economic, political or patriotic reasons .... often with disastrous results. The Garand was a superior military rifle but it would have been even better if chambered for the .280........ a calibre that has been proven optimum several times over the last century but continually rejected by the US military. The US eventually rejected the M1A in favour of the M16 ..........which has proven to be a major mistake. Because what the US selects determines what the rest of NATO has to use so the UK not only has the piece of crap 5.56x45 calibre but developed the piece of crap SA80 to shoot it from.......it took years to make that thing work reliably and in the end Heckler & Koch had to sort it out. The selection of the Beretta 92 was absolutely political .... and the choice of the 9x19 calibre completely opposed to long-term US military thinking and policy.
It`s very rare for those resonsible for military procurement to acknowledge a mistake ..... The 30/40 Krag must have had the shortest life of any major calibre - 9 years from the standardisation of the cartridge. It wasn`t a bad calibre and the M1892 Springfield wasn`t a bad rifle but in trying to reproduce 7x57 ballistics from 1899 onwards the M1892 cracked-up under the strain - literally..... hence the adoption of the 30-03 and the M1903 Springfield. Four years to acknowledge a problem,try to do something about it, realise that the combination was a lost cause, design a replacement calibre and rifle and issue them was a phenomenal achievement.
There have been excellent choices of military armaments/calibres - e.g. The AK47, SMLE, M98, Garrand/M1A, 1911A1 .......and a whole catalogue of disasters, also runs, the generally hopeless, the practically useless and just plain junk.

[Grumpy]

By the way, I agree re the FAL and it`s variants - a beautiful rifle..... It would be a shockingly expensive to produce nowadays however.
No one who has had to rely on a 1911 in .45ACP has complained about it being heavy ..... and even a beat-up old GI issue was more accurate than most military issue 9mms.
I`ve owned and used plenty of beaten up old 1911A1s - they just go on-and-on. Built to ( loose ) US military tolerances and standards they are/were extraordinarily reliable.
The problem with small caliber assault rifles is that they are a huge compromise - lightweight and low recoil at the expense of a lack of knock-down power. It`s a compromise that has now been recognised by the US military but there isn`t the political will to provide a sensible replacement for the 5.56x45.

[Skyman]

Its a replica WW2 B3 Bomber jacket.

Quite expensive, these replicas.I saw some that go upto 800$.Any the material was ordinary.I checked the prices of colt's pistols.Over a thousand bucks for most of them...

I concur, as far as 7.62mm battle rifles go, the FAL is the choice of most.As for knockdown power, what cart is the ideal trade off between power and quantity? The 6.8?

I should point out that the Makarovs you see in the US are finished to a far better standard than the military issue pistols. Regarding the Germans ...... Weren`t they the one`s who rejected the Makarov on the grounds that it was inaccurate ?
The Mararov was selected for the Russian military because it was cheap and simple - not because it was any good.

If this is so, then would you trust your life with one?

The Garand was a superior military rifle but it would have been even better if chambered for the .280

I believe there was a lot of .30 ball ammo lying around, and hence the choice.

UK not only has the piece of crap 5.56x45 calibre but developed the piece of crap SA80 to shoot it from

I believe they wanted an 8mm first? And the SA80 has given them much grief.

and the choice of the 9x19 calibre completely opposed to long-term US military thinking and policy.

Why is this?Do the Americans favor .45 ACP?

Grumpy, what do say regarding the accuracy of the 1911's? Are the beat up ones inaccurate?

[Grumpy]

Until recently accuracy wasn`t considered a priority for a military pistol ..... I don`t think it is now really, it`s just that modern semi-auto pistols generally are more accurate than they used to be. Until the advent of the SIG 210 the 9x19 was regarded as an inaccurate calibre altogether......it`ll never be as inherently accurate as the .45 ACP however. I`ve handled and shot with 210s but never owned one - it`s the only semi-auto apart from 1911A1/variants that I`ve ever REALLY coveted - an absolute work of art. My H&K P9S Target was nearly as accurate ...... and my P7M8 was pretty accurate as well ..... I wanted a P7M13 .... and would have had one but for the pistol ban.
Ex-military 1911A1s are usually not that tired mechanically because pistols don`t get a lot of use in the military as a general rule......and even if they are very used a replacement barrel doesn`t require much fitting. Usually a replacement barrel link, a match barrel bushing and a full-length guide rod will get them shooting more accurately than new. Getting them to shoot really accurately requires a lot more work. Generally the WWII Ithaca 1911A1s were the least well built and, in my experience, the ones most likely to need the rails welding. Arsenal mixmasters are the least valuable but usually shoot as well as original pistols...... which says something about the tolerances I suppose.
I suppose the answer to your question is that `beat up` pistols generally shoot as well as those in good condition. The `beaten-upedness` is usually cosmetic. How accurate you want or expect the pistol to be is another matter.

[Grumpy]

I don`t know who `wanted an 8mm first`- certainly not the British army ... or the Americans.
The 6.8 SPC is certainly a better compromise than the 5.56x45 but still inadequate in my opinion. When you consider that in 1895 the US military considered the 30-40 Krag under-powered - a calibre that developed around 400 ft lbs ME more than the 6.8 SPC and with considerably more KO powder - you can see just how much of a fart the 5.56x45 must be.
The actual bullet calibre is pretty well ideal - the 6.8 SPC is actually 7mm - .277" - but the bullet needs to be a little heavier - 130 gr @ 2650 fps would be adaquate.
The Americans were the first nation on the planet - and, so far, the only ones - to recognise that a handgun had to have adequate known down energy if it was to be any use which is why they specified .45 cal over 100 years ago. The FBI realised the hard way that the 9x19 was inadequate which is why agents now carry pistol in .40 S&W ... except for specialist units like the hostage response teams who use .45 ACPs. US special forces use the .45 ACP and thousands of 1911A1s in .45 ACP have been released from storage for general issue.

[Skyman]

There was a thread regarding the SA80 and i remembered they wanted a different caliber.I see it was the 4.85 now.An error on my part.

The Americans were the first nation on the planet - and, so far, the only ones - to recognise that a handgun had to have adequate known down energy if it was to be any use which is why they specified .45 cal.

What other calibers do you think do the job?

[Grumpy]

The choice in semi-autos is pretty limited and amounts to the .40 S&W - especially if loaded to the original spec - and the 10mm.