Believe you? Youi a REMF reject that shot himself in the foot and got caught TWICE by the cops? Believe someone who don't know how to use a map and compass? Believe an uneducated stupe with no woods knowledge and dumps johny-on-the-spots for a living? Stupe, you never shot a Mak and can't shoot worth a <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>. WE all know that.223 fan said:shot a lot of animals with 380's, .38 snubs, using ball, lrn, jhp's, swc's, and belive me, anybody you stop with a Mak, you could have stopped with a .22, too. So why pay 5x as much for the practice ammo, hmm?
The only time you shot an animal was when you were [email protected] off and hit the dog.223 fan said:shot a lot of animals with 380's, .38 snubs, using ball, lrn, jhp's, swc's, and belive me, anybody you stop with a Mak, you could have stopped with a .22, too. So why pay 5x as much for the practice ammo, hmm?
The following people believe the 9x19 is a real manstopper:223 fan said:9mm, which NOBODY thinks is a real manstopper.
Actually, his choices in equipment and firearms and ammo smacks of someone who looks through the Guns & Ammo Annual, skimming the catalog section and the ballistics tables and chooses soley on the basis of numbers provided. Which, in the real world, almost never work out as expected.mrostov said:There is a LOT more at work than just muzzle energy. To base everything on muzzle energy is lazy and shows a lack of hands-on.
I thought the Mak was one of those guns in which the quality of which is rather flaky, and it's not always apparent if the one you possess is one of the better produced. I know that the well made ones are reliable, but, from what I hear, the quality varies wildly, and there are many more poor quality Maks than high-quality Maks. Am I wrong?mrostov said:The Makarov is utterly reliable. Few, if any centerfires are as reliable as the Mak. Regardless of the conditions, the Mak will ALWAYS fire and ALWAYS cycle.
A little off topic, but did you notice that the inexpensive, reliable weapons get pooh-poohed on in the gun rags, yet the expensive (more heavily advertised) weapons are always good, and at least "combat accurate"? 20 failures in 500 test rounds is "good enough" reliability if it's a hot new $2000+ 1911, but 2 or 3 failures in something like a Mak "calls the weapon's reliability into question"?Unregistered said:Stupekid, you must get all you knowledge from gun rags. Since you can't own guns and you have a bad back plus loss of hearing (as you can't here that .22 bolt work but for just a few feet you MUST have a hearing problem) it seems you just read stuff and get some very wrong ideas.