OK it's not a Makarov......

nicksterdemus · Post by **nicksterdemus** » February 5th, 2007, 3:56 pm

What are the differences? They both use the same shell, are steel framed, field strip w/same mechanism, fixed brl, traditional DA action n from what I see appears 2 use the extractor setup. The 64 is a tad over 1/2" shorter brl n has a 2 rnd shorter mag while weighin' in a little less.

Did the PM Mak use some special stronger steel or have a thicker chamber than the 64? There has 2 be a logical reason why hot loads 4 the Mak aren't recommended 4 the 64 that I'm not seeing besides stiffer recoil springs which are yet not available. Or are recoil springs the big difference?

Post by **normsutton** » February 5th, 2007, 6:29 pm

NICK
This is from the P-64 manual

NORM

nicksterdemus · Post by **nicksterdemus** » February 5th, 2007, 7:35 pm

Thanks Norm as usual you're quick w/reply. I see the 71 gn @ 1017'ps. There could be other reasons 4 using a light load such as being cheaper 2 manufacture? Could be that the 64 was meant 2 compliment other arms. Maybe not. You do have a valid point.
Was the 64 made 4 the cartridge?
Surely some1 has mic'd both chambers n brls.

Post by **normsutton** » February 5th, 2007, 8:04 pm

NICK
This is from a previous post

I USED A PURE LEAD 375 ROUND BALL

P-64
(69) .363s in. 9.24 mm
(71) .364 in. 9.25 mm
(74) .364s in. 9.26 mm
(76) .365 in. 9.27 mm

PA-63 .364 in. 9.25 mm

Br-61 .365 in. 9.27 mm
.365 in. 9.27 mm

what I found strange is the FEG BR-61's are brand new gun's in fact one of them has not been fired , I keep it in the box it came in

NORM

nicksterdemus · Post by **nicksterdemus** » February 6th, 2007, 6:06 am

2 what would ya attribute the increase in bore on the 64's that w/limited data seems 2 suggest a growing bore w/newer year models?

Ya ever mik'd the OD of the brls n chambers n compared that w/Maks?

Post by **normsutton** » February 6th, 2007, 6:39 am

NICK
have not sluged any other 9x18 's but mine so don't know and I don't own a mak.

NORM

Post by **papabear** » February 6th, 2007, 10:22 am

Norm,

Thanks again for the information, we appreciate your knowledge and expertise on the P-64.

Papabear

nbender · Post by **nbender** » February 6th, 2007, 11:39 pm

It's been noted before that the listing of 71-grains for bullet weight is an error.

beasleydano · Post by **beasleydano** » February 6th, 2007, 11:45 pm

nbender

Thanks for clearing that up. 71 gr. - I could not even imagine!

nicksterdemus · Post by **nicksterdemus** » February 7th, 2007, 8:13 am

71 would be a screamer.
A lot of firearms designed were copies in whole or of pieces of other known firearms.
I'd think the 64 would glean heavily from the proven Mak in its design.....

kempin · Post by **kempin** » February 7th, 2007, 10:31 am

Just for the record, the 71 grain bullet is ASSUMED to be an error. Unless I missed something in the previous discussion, there was no data to back up the fact. Getting the bullet weight that far off would certainly be a pretty significant typo on a spec sheet. Personally, I think that a bullet of that weight at that speed would be just about perfect from a p-64.

Not that I disagree with the conclusions of others, necessarily, but I am yet to be convinced. I would still love to try a 71 grain bullet and see what would happen.

God bless, and Straight shooting,

-Kempin

nbender · Post by **nbender** » February 7th, 2007, 1:21 pm

Kempin, it's pretty hard to prove something was not made. I have collected 9x18 ammunition from 4 Russian factories (Yuryuzan, LVE, Barnaul, and the Tula Cartridge Works); and from Czechoslovakia, China, East Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and across the United States. I've been searching out 9x18 ammunition sources for about 7 years. I've never seen reference to a 71-grain 9x18 round in military documentation or otherwise. That doesn't prove it wasn't made, but all I can say is I don't think it was. I think someone did the grams-to-grains conversion incorrectly on the spec sheet in the manual.

b52stan · Post by **b52stan** » February 7th, 2007, 3:10 pm

nbender knows ALL about 9x18 ammo. You newer guys should look at his extensive research on the Makarov Board sticky, which I have posted here several times.

It's really silly to think that this pistol was made to shoot 71 gr bullets when Poland depended on Russian ammo at the time, and they sure never made any 71 gr stuff.

If you read some history on this board, you will find that a Polish Army Lt gave some history of the designers, and what bullet weight it was designed for.

JMHO. Stan

nbender · Post by **nbender** » February 7th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Another thought: 71-grains is a fairly typical .32 caliber, or Tokarev round. I wonder if they mixed that up?

I don't know All about 9x18, Stan - a poster recently made me aware that the Russian military ammo I have is steel-cored, after me telling everyone for years that there was no steel-cored 9x18 imported. Here I owned some. Pretty embarrassing.

saands · Post by **saands** » February 7th, 2007, 5:24 pm

I have not actually detail stripped (as in no two parts touching) either a P64 (although I've come close) or a PM, but I believe that the PM will have fewer parts. It is an engineering marvel in getting so many parts to do so many things. As for the different aptitudes for digesting hot loads, it is not the springs or at least not JUST the springs. The slide, being longer (and wider IIRC) ought to be heavier (no data here) and that extra mass will allow for a significantly hotter round ... those hi-point blowbacks in 40S&W are the extreme example here. As for 71 grainers, I think that I might have to look for some bullets to reload that way!

Saands

The Unofficial P64 Resource Forum