Jump to content

Talk:Makarov pistol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Shouldn't the history of the firearm indicate adoption date and end of service life?

Please sign your comments on Talk pages according to the Wikipedia standard using 3 or 4 ~ characters. Deon Steyn 11:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of the Name

[edit]

Alright, look. The Russian surname Макаров is pronounced "muh-KAR-uhv". The feminine form of the name is Макарова, which is pronounced "muh-kuh-ROH-vuh". The name of the pistol itself, Пистолет Макарова is pronounced "pee-stul-YET muh-kuh-ROH-vuh".

In Russian, the ПМ pistol is always referred to by the feminine Макарова "muh-kuh-ROH-vuh". If it is to be pronounced correctly in English as the Макаров, it is pronounced "muh-KAR-uhv". PaZuZu 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone may stumble into this, and get the wrong facts about Russian, I feel the urge to correct (I'm Russian, so it's my native language). The form "Макарова" can be a feminine form of the masculine surname "Makarov", yes, but it can also be a possessive case of that same masculine surname. It is in the latter form that it is used in the pistol's name - "pistol of Makarov", or "Makarov's pistol". In this form, it definitely and always is pronounced with stress on the second syllable ("muh-KAR-uh-vuh"), so that is what the pistol is actually called
As for the female surname, the stress can be put either way (a common case with Russian surnames), but the variant in which the stress is the same as proper pistol name is by far the more common one, so wrong on this count as well. 207.216.111.19 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My greatest thanks to you, user:207.216.111.19, for this clarification. These informations were what I was longing for, about more than one person named Makarov, and the female forms of all Russian names as well. Steue (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have removed this section, because it does not belong in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia help pages on "what wikipedia is not", one of which is a list of trivia). Some firearms have sections like this, because it's an important part of the firearms history like James Bond and his Walther PPK. The appearances listed on this page do not qualify as such. Feel free to add this type of information to the List of firearms in video games and List of firearms in films pages. Deon Steyn 11:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision Needed

[edit]

Several posts in this article are in need of citation and are likely not factually accurate. I have notated them, and I am adding in additional information regarding the factual errors in this discussion page. I am not editing the front page, because I believe it to be important that people see that an attempt is being made to police the overwhelmingly great number of factually inaccurate firearms pages on Wikipedia.

In order:

1) Source? It is laughable to describe the TT as "unreliable", as it is laughable to describe any Russian firearm as "unreliable". Russian gun designers have, historically, sacrificaed all other concerns in order to improve that one criteria.

2) Source? Although this is definitely an additional benefit of the cartridge, is there a reliable source which establishes this as such a fundamental point of the decision, that it should be listed exclusively (or primarily) here?

3) The Makarov pistol remained in service until 2003, and is still in service. Adoption of the Yarygin pistol has been extremely slow, due to the cost involved.

4) Source? Those governments that continue to use them, do so because primarily because they cannot justify the cost of upgrading.

5) Source?

6) The adoption of the Yarygin pistol was in 2003, not "the late 1990s".

7) The PM pistol is a mechanical variant of the Walther PP, not PPK.

8) Define the term "elegant"?

9) Source? How many parts does the PM pistol contain?

10) 10 and 12-round magazines were developed for the PMM pistol (note two "M"s), which is a different pistol.

11) - 13) This MUST be cited. Who is/are the gun writer(s) in question? Can a copy of this test be produced? Also, firing 9mm Makarov ammunition in a .380ACP/9mm Kurz pistol is impossible without significant alteration of the pistol via machining, as is discussed in the previous section. This is contradictory.

Also, the following line is not specific to the PM pistol. Although it is prudent advice, does it bear inclusion in this specific article?:

"As with all firearms, proper maintenance, the Rules of Gun safety, and using only the properly chambered round are imperative.

14) Source? This statement is correct for certain countries of manufacture, but should be cited nonetheless.

15) Source for this procedure?

16) Source? Although this is occasionally correct, it contradicts with a previous section which maintains that such ammunition cannot be fired from a PM pistol.

17) Sources for these figures?

18) Source for comparative muzzle velocities?

19) The name is "9mm PMM". This name given is an American colloquialism.

20) Source? Although an armor-penetrating round was developed and produced (and still is produced), there must be a source which justifies using the term "often" (which implies a majority of production or utilization).

21) Source for this figure?

22) - 25) Sources for this claim of stratification? Also, the latter sentence is excessively wordy and adds nothing to the knowledge base of the article.

Also, I have removed the "matrix.dumpshock.com" link- this is a link to a video game website, and is not appropriate or pertinent to the article.

Roundeyesamurai 07:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your intentions, but I think you may have done a little too much citation-needed stuff and not enough else. If you know something is incorrect, you should correct it and cite the new fact, not ask for a citation. Be bold, etc.; throwing twenty-five requests for sources up doesn't improve the article, it just lets the reader know that they are in fact looking at a mess. 128.113.229.143

Thank you for attending to this discussion, "128.113.229.143".

My entire intention in doing this was, exactly as you see, to allow the reader to know that they are looking at a mess, instead of believing that the information given may have some factual accuracy when it does not.

Frankly, the factual accuracy of firearms pages on Wikipedia is inexcuseably poor- so poor, in fact, that I generally recommend people NOT utilize Wikipedia for firearms-related information, because they will invariably recieve wildly incorrect information. I want to very clearly and unabashedly illustrate this point, without any possibility of misunderstanding on the matter. Wikipedia prides itself on the factual accuracy of other areas, and this area should be no different.

As far as editing myself- Frankly, I have work and a family, I don't have the time to sit in front of the computer for several hours to fix other people's mistakes. If the original author of the article (or whomever wrote in the atrociously bad information) is called upon to fix his own mistakes by my method, then it has worked. Likewise, if someone such as yourself finds a duty within themselves to fix the article, then I would be grateful.

A note regarding the article: Using "Modern Firearms And Ammunition" as a source for technical information is a good idea. However, utilizing that website for non-technical information (such as a source for the intentions of the Soviet Army in replacing the TT pistol) is not a good idea. Maxim Popenker runs a good website; however, his information is obviously second-hand, uncited, and Popenker himself (unless I am sorely mistaken) has no credible historical, engineering, or significant military credentials. He runs what is, for lack of a better term, a fan site (and a very good one, one I use myself), but the information is not of the type or style appropriate to use as a source on Wikipedia.

Roundeyesamurai 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you just wanted to tag it as a mess, then fair enough.
As for world.guns.ru, I noticed that much; I was just hoping that the Army's reasons for replacing the Tokarev weren't too subject to individual bias (although given that someone called it unreliable, who knows). Lack of an external safety and bulk seem clear enough things, at least; would it still need an additional citation if the comment on the 7.62x25mm round's stopping power were removed, or do the other two claims also need additional/better citations?
Unfortunately, I know very little about firearms themselves, let alone firearm history and design; I like to clean things up, and I do have plenty of free time, but I don't know that I could really do anything more for the page. Technical articles are best overhauled by someone who knows the subject well enough to know where to start looking for citations. 128.113.195.82

I have moved 12.77.5.75's comment from the middle of my post, to the bottom here, since it is exceptionally rude to cut into the middle of another user's post.

Post by "12.77.5.75" (note that it is unsigned):

No. There a small number of PM's which were chambered for original 9x18mm Makarov cartridge with larger magazine wells for larger capacity magazines. I have personally handled a couple and the chambers were not threaded. The double-stack magazine versions of the Makarov sometimes had feeding problems and were not as reliable as the original.

You may "have personally handled" such pistols- but this is Wikipedia. If you do not have a source of information from a party other than yourself, or anything to establish that this is correct, then it is not admissible.

Roundeyesamurai 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I apologize for my bad English.

TT pistol apparently NOT derived from Browning 1903. The Browning 1903 was blow-back gun, but TT is recoil-operated, close-bolt, single action pistol, which design near IDENTICAL (in part of automatic, I don't mean automatic safety etc.) to Colt M1911, despite all mechanics of TT unified in a single assembly. I think that TT is quite reliable, but has VERY inconvenient grip and VERY bad sights (it is necessary to have very, very good eys to shot from TT successfully). The rounds for TT (7.62 TT) are near identical to 7.63 Mauser, besides some small differences (e. g., different and more hard primer etc). The knockdown power of TT cartridges is really small, but energy sufficient to penetrate ballistic wests class II - III at appr. 50 yards.

Very important addition for differences between "PM" and "Baikal IJ-70": these models having different barrels! The barrel of PM have 4 grooves and IJ-70 have six, and different rate of twist. It leads to impossibility to use harmlessly the military ammo in IJ-70. The military bullets have steel core, and "commercial" 9x18 ammo have lead one, so using military rounds in IJ-70 can severly damage the barrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.210.102 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision needed. Mostly Yes. (1) Agreed, Tokarev pistol is notable for reliablity from personal obeservation. Big difference is Makarov is easier to shoot accurately. (7) Distinction without difference in regard to operating system of PP v PPK, although in size the PM and PP are "holster" pistols while the PPK is a "pocket" version of the PP.

In common with the PPK variant of he PP, the PM uses a one-piece grip panel that wraps around a skeleto butt frame. (ADDED: Naaman Brown (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Totally agree that .380 in PM is a no-no. Know a user who thought he had manually cleared the firing chamber of a Makarov in use with .380 ammunition: the smaller, shorter case did not engage the extractor, and a live round was left in the firing chamber. Using .380 in PM is bad advice. I entered:

While the overall length of the 9x18mm PM and .380 ACP (9mm Kurz) cartridges are similar, the .380 ACP should not be used in a Makarov pistol chambered for 9x18mm PM. The .380 ACP bullet is smaller in diameter and the case is shorter and smaller in diameter. While .380 cartridge may fire and function in the 9x18mm Makarov pistol, accuracy will be mediocre and, more importantly, a potentially dangerous situation may exist: the smaller .380 cartridge may not be ejected by manually operating the slide, leaving a live round in the firing chamber.

to replace:

From the mid-1980s until the early 1990s 9 mm Makarov ammunition was difficult to obtain in the U.S. In that time, one writer[who?] suggested and tested the substitution of .380 ACP/9 mm Short ammunition in PM's.[citation needed] The weapons fired, but were inaccurate beyond short-range, demonstrating keyholing at medium ranges.[citation needed]

because leaving dangerous misinformmation in the article while searching for a citable reliable source would be irresponsible. 

                   Differences between:
                   9mm Makarov      .380 ACP (9mm Kurz)
Bullet diameter:    9.27mm .365"     9.0mm  .355"
Case length:       18.1mm  .713"    17.3mm  .680"
Base diameter:      9.95mm .392"     9.95mm .374"
Cartridge overall: 25mm    .984"    25mm    .984" 
Bullet weight:      6.2g   95 gr     6.2g   95 gr
Muzzle velocity:   1,050 fps          980 fps
Muzzle energy:       230 ft/lb        200 ft/lb

Naaman Brown (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATM Machine Syndrome

[edit]

It seems to me that this article should be titled Makarov pistol, not Makarov PM. Since PM is an acronym of "Pistolet Makarova" (literally "Makarov pistol"), calling it "Makarov PM" is redundant and is analogous to saying "Makarov pistol Makarov". For a further example of this, the SVD is often mistakenly referred to as the "SVD Dragunov". SVD, like PM, is also an acronym, so "SVD Dragunov" is incorrect for the same reason. Fortunately the article here on that weapon avoids that mistake and is simply named "Dragunov sniper rifle". Anyway, if no one has any objections, I'll make the change within the next few days. --MattyDienhoff 02:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyDienhoff (talk • contribs)

I do agree with you. Saying "Makarov PM" is redundant, and therefore discouraged. Although I've heard people in Russian call it "PM Pistol" and other such things. But such ignorance shouldn't extend to Wikipedia. I support moving this article to "Makarov Pistol" or something similar. 75.170.82.115 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Vietnam

[edit]

Isn't the Makarov the main service pistol of Vietnam. Uckersas (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia Is Not

[edit]

Large parts of this article are written as a how-to guide, covering how to clean and strip a Makarov pistol. This is contradictory to Wikipedia policy, as stated on this page: WP:NOTGUIDE. 

I would prefer not to run the risk of mangling the author's intent by making major edits, so I ask an expert on the topic to remove the "how-to" bits.  Otherwise, I'll do it.  Seeing as I am not an expert, the results may be less than perfect.

Dpenn89 (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no other users have stepped up to make this page conform to Wikipedia policy, I have gone ahead and removed all of the material in violation of Wiki's prohibition on how-to guides. If contributors feel the need to author a guide on field-stripping a Makarov PM, cleaning a Makarov PM, or purchasing ammunition, this should be added to wikihow. Please see this page for more information:

WP:NOTGUIDE

Dpenn89 (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...was selected because of its simplicity (few moving parts), economy, easy manufacturing..." ?

[edit]

As I assume this phrase is stereotypically repeated any time a Soviet / Russian weapon is mentioned. However that is not necessarily true and in this case I believe it is especially not so. Actually, "fewer moving parts" and "ease of maintenance" usually mean MORE complicated shape, design and manufacturing. So, "fewer moving parts" and "easy manufacturing" things seem to be CONTRADICTORY. E.g. AK47 bolt / bolt carrier group has a lot more complicated shape than that of M16 / M4, or FN SCAR, for example. The reason is - "fewer moving parts", meaning that each part has to be more complicated in design to function as several parts simultaneously. AK bolt group consists just of several parts (7 AFAIR), of very complicated shape, while there are no less than 17 parts in AR15 bolt / bolt carrier including several spring rings, bolts, spring pins etc., but the parts are much more simple in shape and seem to be easiar to manufacture. And it seems that is the case when we speak of the PM, because I can't say that any of it's parts, like the hammer which har rather complicated shape, or the leaf spring which serves as both hammer spring & magazine catch, are either especially simple or especially easy to manufacture comparec to the foreign analogs. Actually, compared to many European or Amercian cheap blowback handguns, like some STAR pistols, the PM is rather complicated in manufacuring. Let's take some European pistols with stamped sheet-metall frame & slide for example, like the P9S (not a blowback design, however a stamped steel one). PM has this parts machined from solid steel. So, I think this statement should be investigated more closely and corrected if needed. If it was more easy and simple to manufacture, it should be mentioned at least what it is compared with (another Soviet prototype hanguns of the period, handguns from other countries, ...) 95.79.1.217 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pistol IJ-70 Makarov.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Pistol IJ-70 Makarov.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PM pistol was in each laying of property and equipment cosmonaut aboard the "Vostok"

[edit]

, that is, he became the first of weapon were in space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.145.121 (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Makarov pistol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Makarov pistol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Makarov_pistol&oldid=1208724025"