East German Makarov Review: Go Commie, it’s Your Birthday

Sixty years ago, a beautifully blued little pistol was born at a state-owned factory in Suhl, East Germany. He grew up fast. Took a job in law enforcement—you know, suppressing counter-revolutionary activities, stifling free enterprise, terrifying dissidents. Respectable work for a handgun in the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) at the time.

*Party time! The, uhh… communist party…*

But then, in 1989, everything changed.

The wall came down and, soon enough, our courageous little commie (we’ll call him Kleine Mak) emigrated to the good ‘ole US of A. For years, Mak earned his keep as a collector’s item. He bounced from gun safe to gun safe. Shot a few rounds here and there. But he was little more than a proletarian curiosity, in a world of bourgeoisie tactical decadence.

Until…

A chance Armslist deal introduced him to an enterprising gun hipster, living near Cincinnati. And, for perhaps the first time since he left the concrete-lavished splendor of the DDR, someone looked past his pretenses as a “relic of communism” and came to appreciate what a truly excellent pistol he was.

And that’s what we’re here to celebrate today, my fellow gun hipsters—on the eve of Kleine Mak’s 60th birthday.

What makes the Makarov hipster worthy?

With a brilliantly pragmatic design that maximizes accuracy and reliability, the venerable Makarov still delivers on the most critical dimensions of performance for a self-defense handgun.

There’s a toughness about the Makarov.

Not a “back da _uck up” 4506-1 kinda toughness. A stoic toughness. Understated. But authentic. Born of adversity and necessity. Tempered by grit, fortitude and fear. Fear of Nazis. Fear of Stalin. Fear of NATO and nukes. And it all comes through in the way the gun handles.

Gripping the Mak engenders a tenaciously stout feel in the hand. The fixed barrel sits low as you wield it—pointing so naturally, it’s like a second index finger. And when you pull the trigger… the rambunctious little snap of the blowback action preludes an uncannily precise point of impact on your target.

You soon realize this thing is VERY accurate.

And unless something is really off with your plucky piece of proletarian posterity, it ain’t ever gonna jam on you. Yup. It’s reliable. It’s accurate. It’s small. It handles surprisingly well. And if you’re being completely honest with yourself, you kinda like the thing—and not in ironic way.

Subscribe to HipTac on YouTube

So then… like any red-blooded, all-American gun hipster, you begin to wonder:

“Could a pistol designed by Stalinists in the late ‘40s really be the carry gun I’m looking for in 2022?”

Well, hopefully the birthday boy and I can answer that for you. Isn’t that right, Mak?

Kleine Mak: Ja.

Like I said… stoic…

Cold War Heater

The Makarov is a microcosm for the cold war.

Its creation coincides with the intensifying ideological struggle between east and west. Its no-BS design typifies the USSR’s pragmatic approach to solving tactical (and practical) challenges. In fact, it’s just the kinda handgun you’d expect from the Soviets. If you’d expect Soviet handguns to be, umm… good.

Which the Makarov very much is.

*Tokarev TT-33—basically an “economy” 1911 knockoff (photo courtesy of Wikipedia).*

During the Great Patriotic War (“WWII” to everyone else but Russians), the Tokarev TT-33 had served the Red Army well. But it was large, heavy, unsafe to carry hot, and way overpowered for what anyone actually needed to do with handgun. Plus, the Soviets now had to arm the largest military machine in history, spanning two continents and multiple war-torn countries. They needed an easy-to-use, low-maintenance pistol that was cost-effective to manufacture by the millions.

Beyond that, it had to have…

Unquestioned reliability—even in the worst gulags and shittiest armpits of Central Asia
Good accuracy
Decent ballistic potential at intermediate ranges

And it didn’t need to do any more than that.

The Soviets saw the handgun purely as a defensive weapon. It didn’t need to make gigantic holes or take anyone’s head off at 50 meters—they had AK-47s for that. And, to that end, it made sense to keep it compact and handy.

Given those design parameters, it’s not surprising the Soviets drew inspiration from the Walther PP series—all too common in the hands of their German invaders during WWII.

However, it’s important to note that the Makarov design is NOT simply a clone of the Walther design. Far from it. More on that later.

Get Your Fix(ed barrel)

Walther PPs and PPKs use fixed barrels instead of a more complex tilting action (or Walther’s own “falling-block” action, found in the P38). There’s no breech locking or unlocking. No barrel tilting or camming. The slide literally just “blows back” as the charge explodes—which means the system is limited in terms of how much pressure it can handle.

So, you can’t put 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP in a blowback action. Those cartridges are just too powerful.

*The Makarov uses a fixed-barrel design, with the recoil spring around the barrel—like the Walther PP and PPK*

However, the simplicity of a fixed-barrel / blowback mechanism greatly reduces complexity and cost. And, the Soviets didn’t see the need for anything more powerful than what a blowback system could manage. Especially when you consider that fixed-barrel guns are inherently very accurate. Often, more accurate than all but the most precisely assembled locked-breech guns.

But, if you’re gonna go blowback, why not go for the gold?

The “Ultra” Blowback

To achieve optimal power in a straight-blowback system, the Soviets—again—took inspiration from a German concept:

The 9x18 “Ultra” cartridge.

Developed in the 1930s, the 9mm “Ultra” sought to improve upon the ballistics of 9x17mm / .380 ACP without needing a locked-breech mechanism… while still being less powerful than 9x19mm / 9mm Parabellum (which does require a locked breech).

*Three 9mms, left to right: 9x17 (aka, .380); 9x18 Makarov; 9x19 Parabellum (aka, THE “9mm”)*

But when the Soviets got ahold of the 9x18 Ultra, they redesigned the bullet profile to be a bit wider than capitalist 9mm. Apparently the Soviets measured bullet diameter using a different reference point (grooves vs. lands, I believe) vs. Western standards. This also helped ensure that Soviet ammo could not be used in NATO weapons, pending an invasion of Western Europe—which, I guess, most people expected to happen.

So…

With their new(ish) 9x18 cartridge in hand, the Red Army began to vet new handguns designed to chamber it. Beginning in 1945, a long list of engineers (which, interestingly, did NOT include Mikhail Kalashnikov) competed in these trials. And by 1951, Soviet brass made their selection.

The Pistolet Makarova, designed by Nikolay Fyodovorich Makarov, was chosen to be the official handgun of the Iron Curtain. Makarov’s design proved to be more reliable, more durable and simpler to manufacture than any of the competing designs. The pistol—often simply known as the “PM”—soon entered mass production in Izhevsk.

In addition to the pistol that bears his name, the 9x18 cartridge it fires also came to be known as the “9mm Makarov.” And while other handguns were designed to chamber this cartridge—including the Polish P64 / P83, the Hungarian PA-63 and the CZ-82—none of these pistols are true “Pistolet Makarovas.” Legit PMs were made in Izhevsk, Bulgaria, China and…

Suhl, East Germany. Just like our birthday boy, here.

The Pistole M

As the Soviets transformed the eastern third of Germany into a communist police state after WWII, they set up (or repurposed) arms-manufacturing facilities in the occupied territory. One such facility was the old Simson factory in Suhl—renamed the “Ernst Thälmann” plant, in honor of a pre-war German communist leader.

*The Simson factory, Suhl*
*(Photo: Wikipedia)*

Early on, ET produced unlicensed copies of former Wehrmacht weapons—P38s, PPs, etc. But the Soviets didn’t want to produce the implements of fascist oppression in their gloriously rebranded factory. They wanted to produce the implements of communist oppression.

Implements like… their brand-new, state-of-the-art Makarov pistol. Dubbed the “Pistole M” by the East Germans.

So, after some ill-fated experiments with aluminum alloy frames (and requisite prison sentences, allegedly, for all involved with this ignominious undertaking) ET began churning out extremely well-finished, extremely high-quality Makarov pistols. Mechanically identical to those being produced in Izhevsk, just… a bit nicer.

And in 1962, our hero was born. Happy birthday, Mak.

Kleine Mak: Danke.

Russian Ingenuity, German Quality

As I mentioned, the Soviets also set up Makarov tooling in Bulgaria and China (again, 9x18mm pistols produced in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are different designs). And while I haven’t personally handled any Bulgarian, Russian or Chinese Makarovs, I can say that the German Mak’s reputation for having a superior fit and finish seems warranted.

It’s simply a beautiful piece. And not just “for a communist gun.” Even with a smattering of nicks and scuffs accrued over 60 years of… being a gun… the deep, dark blueing still ripples with a subtle shimmer as you turn it toward the light.

*There’s a “certain functional” elegance to the Makarov.*

Every nook, cranny, curve, angle and edge is perfectly machined, down to the tasteful bevels on the bottom-edges of the slide, to the flawlessly uniform slide serrations. Every part fits together firmly and precisely, without undue friction. Racking the slide—which feels like it’s cut from the armor plating of a T-34 tank—rewards you with a satisfying “clack” as the sturdily sprung mass comes to bear against the fixed breech.

It may sound strange, but the whole thing just feels “forged.” If “forged” can have a definitive tactile quality. And, I think it literally is all forged. So… yeah…

*Three good-lookin’ German police pistols.*

My ontological abstractions of metallurgy aside…

By any standard, under any economic philosophy, it’s a finely made weapon that feels like real quality.

Quality that’s built to last. For six decades. And then keep on shooting. Which, I will say, this Makarov continues to do exceptionally well.

Pop Goes the Proletariat

As I said in the beginning of this review, aiming a Makarov is kinda like pointing a sixth finger.

The short-ish, round-ish slide sits low in the crotch of your hand, extending toward your target as if it’s a surrogate phalange. You feel very connected to the Mak as you hold it. The thin, Bakelite-ish grip invites a firm and intentional hold—which only serves to enrich that sense of connection.

The trigger reach is short. The SA wall is firm. And, as you line up the primitive—yet precise—blade-style front sight, it just seems like there’s less between your hand and where the bullet actually leaves the gun. Less bulk. Less weight. Less bore-axis height. Less to get in the way of pointing and…

POP!

…shooting.

It’s a terse explosion. Abrupt, you might say. And it leaves you almost surprised.

To see a hole exactingly aligned to your point of aim.

POP!

After a hint of creep, the SA trigger breaks nicely. Owed to its “intimate” handling characteristics, the Mak makes hitting what you’re aiming at incredibly easy. Tack driver. Laser beam. Pick your metaphor. Regardless, the little _ucker is accurate.

*50 rounds @ 10 yards. Not my best work—it had been a looong day. But not bad overall. I was losing the sight and dipping low.*

And even though the muzzle hardly rises under recoil…

POP! POP!

…the thing does kinda kick.

And I think “kick” is the best way to describe the recoil of a straight-blowback pistol. It’s a short, percussive impulse. There’s not much muzzle rise. Just a punchy little thump in your hand.

On the Mak, it’s not unpleasant. The pistol is substantial enough, I think, to keep the recoil from feeling abrasive or abusive—as it tends to, in lighter, smaller blowback pistols. Compared to a Walther PPK in .380 (or even a Sig P230, in my opinion) the Mak is vastly more comfortable to shoot.

And, speaking of Walther PPKs…

There’s a lingering misconception I wanna clear up.

The Makarov is NOT Walther PP/PPK clone

I think it’s fair to say that the idea of the Makarov was probably inspired by the idea of the Walther PP: a handy, straight-blowback pistol suitable for professional use. But beyond that conceptual commonality, the Mak doesn’t share much of anything with the PP series. It handles differently. It shoots differently. And, mechanically, it is a completely different animal.

The DA/SA lockwork / fire-control components are completely different. The decocker / safety blocks the hammer in a completely different way. The mainspring is completely different (it’s a leaf spring). The dimensions and construction of the frame are completely different. The slide is a bit wider, with a different layout in terms of the rails / grooves that interface with the frame. The extractor design—and its orientation in the slide—is also completely different.

*Despite being a compact blowback pistol, the Mak is definitely a major departure from the Walther PP design.*

Plus, the Makarov’s elegantly simplistic design uses only 27 parts. It’s also worth noting that the Mak uses an unusual free-floating firing pin (in other words, there’s no spring to keep the firing pin back). That sounds… questionable. But the Mak has consistently passed California’s stringent drop-test requirements. And I guess it has for years.

But perhaps the most interesting—and most unique—thing about the Makarov’s design is…

The Mak feeds differently than just about any other handgun. The PP Included.

Push it Real Good

Most semi-automatic pistols use what’s called a “controlled feed” sequence. As the round hits the feed ramp and exits the magazine, the back end of the casing begins to slide up the breech face (which is pushing the round forward from behind). The extractor claw slips into the groove on the back of the casing as it continues up the breech face… so it’s fully “controlled” by the extractor as it gets fed into the chamber. It’s all a very delicate dance of angles, clearances and tolerances.

The Makarov—on the other hand—has no time for your corrupt and futile dance of capitalist weakness.

If you look at the breech face of the Mak, you’ll see two prongs. These are there to prevent the rear-end of the shell casing from sliding up the breech face (as previously described). Instead, the round is introduced at a very high, very direct path into the chamber. The extractor then simply just plows straight ahead, “jumping” over the case rim as the round chambers.

This is what’s called a “push feed.”

And, given the Mak’s timeless reputation for feeding reliability, I think we can all agree that the Makarov does, indeed, “push it real good.” (I apologize for this shameless ‘90s hip-hop reference. But it brought me joy.)

Check out this video showing the very straight-forward nature of the Mak’s feed cycle.

Imagine locking the slide back on a “normal” gun, placing a round in the chamber, then dropping the slide. This is basically how the Mak is designed to feed. Like, always. The extractors on most guns aren’t designed to handle that kinda impact on a regular basis. Eventually, you’ll chip the claw or break it off completely. The Mak’s extractor is wider, beefier and the claw itself has more of an inward bevel. I guess that’s what allows it to function this way.

The question I have is…

Why don’t more guns feed like the Mak?

It just seems like there’s a lot less margin for error when the rim of the casing doesn’t have to cantilever itself under an extractor claw to feed. Plus, with the Mak, feeding rounds present extremely high relative to the chamber—it’s even more of a “direct feed” than a Beretta 92.

Apparently, this allows the feed-ramp angle to be super shallow (as in, not steep). To put this in perspective… the Mak’s feed ramp is about as steep as the wheelchair-accessible switchbacks at a high-dollar nursing home. In Palm Beach County.

*Is it any surprise these things are reliable?*

I don’t see how the thing could jam.

I have to wonder if using a locked-breech mechanism (e.g., a tilting barrel) somehow precludes the use of a Makarov-like feeding setup. Like, maybe, you can’t have the rounds feed that high relative to the chamber, since the barrel moves up and down. But… that’s unqualified speculation. I really have no idea.

The Polish P64 is the only other pistol that I know for sure uses the Mak’s feeding setup (I know because I’ve owned one). It too has the “prongs” on the breech face, and it appears to have a similar extractor design.

In my review of the Walther P5, I hypothesized that Walther P38 derivatives (which the P5 is) may actually use a Makarov-like feeding cycle. This is because P38s and their descendants have a prominent “lip” on the bottom of the breech face; I thought this might serve the same purpose as the prongs on the Mak’s breech face.

However, take a look at this video showing a Walther P4’s feed cycle in slow motion (a P4 is simply a shorter-barreled P38). Skip to 2:40.

To me, this doesn’t look like a Mak feed cycle. As in most guns, the feeding round looks like it’s “cantilevering” up the breech face and slipping under the extractor. The lip? Well, maybe it just helps kick out the bottom of the round a bit, so it angles up under the extractor a bit better. Just a theory.

Or, maybe it’s more of a middle-ground between a full-on controlled feed (as in a 1911) and a full-on push feed (as in a Makarov)? Who knows. If you happen to be an engineer and you’re reading this… would love to have your informed perspective on quandaries such as these.

Best of the Blowbacks

In addition to this Kleine Mak, here, I’ve owned: a West German Walther PP in 7.65mm; a West German Walther PPK/S in .380; several Sig P230s; and a Polish P64. All of them were very accurate—as I’ve found fixed-barrel pistols to be.

And, I’m not gonna go into the details, here…but suffice to say… none of them were as reliable (with the exception of the P64) and shootable as the Mak. Now, I have NOT shot a Beretta 84/85. From what I hear, those are fantastic shooters and getting one is definitely on my list. But, they do—I think—edge up into a slightly different size category vs. Maks and PPs. Same with the CZ-82/83.

It's worth noting that I traded my 1973 West German PPK/S for this East German Makarov. And, while I think the German PPK/S was probably worth more, I couldn’t be happier with the trade. Because the Mak fills a legitimate, practical role in my approach to concealed carry. Yes, it’s a touch bigger than a PPK. But it’s still, overall, small and slim. Plus, it’s highly shootable and it’s unflinchingly reliable. And it’s DA/SA. For shorts and T-Shirt weather, it makes a wonderfully comfortable, convenient carry option.

So, yes—I currently carry a 60-year-old communist pistol on a semi-regular basis.

But should you?

*The holster is actually for a Kahr K9. Which I sold. Because… I like the Mak better.*

Is that… a commie your pants?

The Sig P365.

Compared to the Mak, it’s smaller, lighter, holds more ammunition and it shoots a more powerful round. On paper, it’s a no brainer: the Mak is an antiquated piece of technology that just doesn’t make any sense. But, as I have sought to express in these reviews, shooting a handgun doesn’t happen “on paper.”

Anecdote…

A few years ago, I met a buddy at the range to try his brand-new Smith & Wesson Shield. I had my Polish P64 with me at the time, so, I just figured I’d put a few rounds through that while we drooled over the brand-new Shield.

If you haven’t tried one, the P64 is a straight-blowback pistol in 9x18, like the Mak. But it’s much smaller. So, it kicks like Clydesdale on steroids. Plus, its DA trigger is basically unusable, and it only holds 6+1 rounds.

But, those shortcomings aside, the P64 shot circles around that S&W Shield. It was almost funny—the janky old P64 was soooo _ucking accurate. Tight, cloverleafed groups. It could literally hit the numbers on the targets, whereas neither my buddy nor I could produce anything resembling a “group” with the Shield.

To me, that was telling. I want precise shot placement in a carry gun. And, for me, most modern striker-fired pistols just don’t make that kind of accuracy easily accessible. Your mileage may vary, of course—it’s not like Glocks and M&Ps can’t be shot accurately.

But, regardless, I think you’ll find that an old-school blowback pistol like the Mak will really surprise you in terms how accurate it is. And, in my experience, the Pistolet Makarova supplements that accuracy with stellar reliability and greater comfort.

To be fair, I have not tried a Sig P365. I hear they shoot pretty well—better than previous generations of striker-fired “mini-guns.” But, then again, I prefer DA/SA. And the Mak honestly has a pretty decent DA pull, with a very nice SA pull.

So, at the end of the day… the Mak just works for me.

But do you need at least a 9mm (9x19) for self-defense?

As of a month or two ago, I’d be inclined to say, “hell no.” 9x18 was good enough for an entire geopolitical movement to terrorize the world for 40+ years—it’s gonna be fine for your next trip to Applebee’s. But then Eli Dicken took out an active shooter with 10 shots from a 9mm Glock, at 40 yards.

And, as shitty and sad as it is, active shooters are thing these days.

So, could you do that with a Mak?

*5 shots @ 25 yards. 4 of them are close are close enough to be headshots.*

For starters, you couldn’t shoot 10 shots with a Mak because it only holds 9 (unless you reloaded). And, I think it’s pretty obvious that the 9x19 is better suited to making effective hits at those kind of distances. It’s just gonna hit harder. So, I’ll go ahead and say that the Mak probably wouldn’t be the best choice for long-distance shots, in the vein of Eli Dicken’s impressive feat of active-shooter kill-age. Nice work, Eli.

That said…

At 25 yards, I shoot the Mak as accurately as anything. And while I’ve never shot it at 40 yards, I suspect it could make those hits just as well as most 9x19 guns—I mean, Hickok45 was ringing his 80-yard gong with a Makarov, quite easily. But would 9x18 have enough “pop” at that distance to bring someone down?

Well… I think 9 of them sure AF would.

Retirement Schmreetirement

At 60 years young, Kleine Mak has no intentions of retiring any time soon. He’s svelte, trim and shoots just as accurately as ever. He was born to do a job and do it well—and he still does.

The considerations that dictated the Mak’s design, in my opinion, are just as relevant today as they were 75 years ago. And I would argue that for vast majority self-defense needs, the Mak’s excellent accuracy and stellar reliability still make it a superb choice. And just maybe, depending on what you’re looking for in a carry gun, it could be a better choice than many contemporary options—especially if you’re looking for DA/SA.

So, happy 60th birthday, mein kleine freund. Keep on keeping on.

Kleine Mak: Will do, bro.

Holy shit… you speak English!?

What are your thoughts on the Makarov? Experiences? Opinions? Scathing condemnations on my review? Feel free to share below…

#hiptac