jdgabbard
01-13-2024, 03:51 PM
So as I sometimes do, while drinking my morning coffee I pulled a book from the bookshelf to read. Today's book is one that I haven't flipped through in nearly 20 years: Small Arms: From the Civil War to the Present Day (c) 2005, ISBN 0-7607-6329-1, by Martin J. Dougherty.
Flipping through the pages, I decided to gander at the section of the book dedicated to handguns. While flipping from page to page, occassionally stopping to read an excerpt about a particular pistol, I land on a page with commentary on the Tokarev TT30 and the Makarov. Reading through the text of this section I was somewhat amazed by what I read:
...chambered for the standard 7.62x25mm round, it was based on the 1911 mechanism. The Russian military has never considered the pistol to be particularly useful, and as a rule they are not as effictive as their Western equivalents...The Tokarev was underpowered by handgun standards, but it could be relied upon to fire in snow, mud, or dusty and dry conditions.
Then where it concerns the Makarov:
...Built around a 9x18mm round, which is slightly less powerful than the standard 9x19mm Parabellum or 'Luger' round used elsewhere, the Makarov is more powerful than its predecessor and just as reliable...
Then under the pictures of the pistols themselves he does give some accurate but incomplete information on ballistics, i.e. just the velocity of the handgun rounds.
I'll be honest, this sort of rubbed me wrong. Be it fanboy syndrome, or just my typical distaste for "gun writers" who don't know what they're actually talking about. Thank goodness for the internet, which for all of it's downsides has at least allowed us to fact check writers. But I take issue with both points made by this author, granted this was his opinion as of 2005.
First, in my opinion, I doubt anyone truly considers the Tokarev round to be underpowered. An 85gr bullet traveling at 1380fps (author's suggested velocity) generates 359ft/lb of energy. If we compare this to the 9mm and 45acp loadings of the day, the 9mm would have been in the area of 355ft/lb of energy and the 45acp in the neighborhood of 470ft/lb of energy (230gr at 950fps). In reality, I have seen many chrono results of surplus ammo over 1450fps, bringing the energy up to nearly 400ft/lb of energy. Ok, if we're talking mass and diameter, maybe we're on the light side. But penetration and energy isn't an issue. From all accounts I have seen the Tokarev round was generally considered to be more than adequate, or even over powered for a handgun. And the real reason why the Soviets wanted a change in handgun was for modernization to a newer design, the realization that the handgun wasn't an accurate weapon in conscript hands, to reduce felt recoil, and lastly due to some safety concerns with the TT33 and negligent discharges.
Where it concerns the Makarov, I am a fan. But the idea that the 9x18mm at 230ft/lb of energy (95gr @ 1050fps) would have been more powerful than the Tokarev, or slightly less powerful than the 9x19 Luger, is bonkers to me. We're talking a third less energy than the 9x19, and up to nearly half the energy of the Tokarev. The reality is that most of the 9x18 ammo wasn't loaded to this velocity. A lot of testing I have seen shows that much of the surplus Russian ammo was loaded down to around 950-1000 fps. Resulting in between 190-210ft/lb of energy depending on the exact loading. Certainly most commercial loadings are in the 1050fps range. But this wasn't always the case. In fact, the data I have seen suggests many of the satellite countries only loaded to the 850-950fps range. See info here: https://www.makarov.com/AmmoData.html
Is it just me, or was this guy smoking the devil's lettuce when he was writing this book? I know this isn't exactly a new issue with gun authors. I am just amazed by some of the nonsense I read when I pick up these older books.
Flipping through the pages, I decided to gander at the section of the book dedicated to handguns. While flipping from page to page, occassionally stopping to read an excerpt about a particular pistol, I land on a page with commentary on the Tokarev TT30 and the Makarov. Reading through the text of this section I was somewhat amazed by what I read:
...chambered for the standard 7.62x25mm round, it was based on the 1911 mechanism. The Russian military has never considered the pistol to be particularly useful, and as a rule they are not as effictive as their Western equivalents...The Tokarev was underpowered by handgun standards, but it could be relied upon to fire in snow, mud, or dusty and dry conditions.
Then where it concerns the Makarov:
...Built around a 9x18mm round, which is slightly less powerful than the standard 9x19mm Parabellum or 'Luger' round used elsewhere, the Makarov is more powerful than its predecessor and just as reliable...
Then under the pictures of the pistols themselves he does give some accurate but incomplete information on ballistics, i.e. just the velocity of the handgun rounds.
I'll be honest, this sort of rubbed me wrong. Be it fanboy syndrome, or just my typical distaste for "gun writers" who don't know what they're actually talking about. Thank goodness for the internet, which for all of it's downsides has at least allowed us to fact check writers. But I take issue with both points made by this author, granted this was his opinion as of 2005.
First, in my opinion, I doubt anyone truly considers the Tokarev round to be underpowered. An 85gr bullet traveling at 1380fps (author's suggested velocity) generates 359ft/lb of energy. If we compare this to the 9mm and 45acp loadings of the day, the 9mm would have been in the area of 355ft/lb of energy and the 45acp in the neighborhood of 470ft/lb of energy (230gr at 950fps). In reality, I have seen many chrono results of surplus ammo over 1450fps, bringing the energy up to nearly 400ft/lb of energy. Ok, if we're talking mass and diameter, maybe we're on the light side. But penetration and energy isn't an issue. From all accounts I have seen the Tokarev round was generally considered to be more than adequate, or even over powered for a handgun. And the real reason why the Soviets wanted a change in handgun was for modernization to a newer design, the realization that the handgun wasn't an accurate weapon in conscript hands, to reduce felt recoil, and lastly due to some safety concerns with the TT33 and negligent discharges.
Where it concerns the Makarov, I am a fan. But the idea that the 9x18mm at 230ft/lb of energy (95gr @ 1050fps) would have been more powerful than the Tokarev, or slightly less powerful than the 9x19 Luger, is bonkers to me. We're talking a third less energy than the 9x19, and up to nearly half the energy of the Tokarev. The reality is that most of the 9x18 ammo wasn't loaded to this velocity. A lot of testing I have seen shows that much of the surplus Russian ammo was loaded down to around 950-1000 fps. Resulting in between 190-210ft/lb of energy depending on the exact loading. Certainly most commercial loadings are in the 1050fps range. But this wasn't always the case. In fact, the data I have seen suggests many of the satellite countries only loaded to the 850-950fps range. See info here: https://www.makarov.com/AmmoData.html
Is it just me, or was this guy smoking the devil's lettuce when he was writing this book? I know this isn't exactly a new issue with gun authors. I am just amazed by some of the nonsense I read when I pick up these older books.