Cz-82 or Makarov?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Hello /k/,
My lgs has both a cz-82 and some Bulgarian makarovs in stock. The makarov is $260 and the cz is $270. They both come with one mag and appear to be in similarly good condition.
I am only looking to buy one right now. Which one should I buy?
>>29383033
Mak master race
>>29383033
I'd go with the 82. Both are great guns, reliable, rugged and capable. The 82, though, has a double stack mag, giving you 12+1 instead of Mak's 8+1, and the 82 has a thumb mag release instead of a heel mag release. But let it be your pick, both great guns.
>>29383033
Czech these digits and get 11111
>>29383355
This guy's right.
>>29383033
CZ-82
Better in every way, while still retaining that form factor.
>>29383033
Both.
CZ has benefits that have already been mentioned, but it does have one giant drawback- its very complicated. The field stripping is easy enough, but if you ever need to go deeper you better have a good manual, lots of time and a magnet bowl to hold all the pieces.
My own personal experience with these guns is as follows: Cz is generally good. I feel safe carrying it and it feels good to shoot. However, disassembly is shit and I don't really like the sights. I also carry the Makarov and own quite a few. I like it better because: its smaller and more concealable, easier for my small hands to hold, I prefer the sights over any other style on a pistol (p-64 being a close 2nd) , its a very simple design, and after 9 years of shooting them I've never had a jam or malfunction. Ive had 2 from the cz.
Just pick which one you like better because at the end of the day they really are both great guns. Cz will probably be more valuable in the future, though.
I love my cz82 but if the mak feels better in your hands you might be better of with it. If you're gonna cc one you should definitely hold them and make sure you can comfortably carry them as well.
>>29383033
>Cz-82 or Makarov?
Yes
I say buy both, if you don't like the CZ you can sell it for more then 270.
>>29383639
Yeah the complexity of the cz was one if my main concerns with it. I'm leaning towards the mak right now, especially since it seems to make a better ccw
>>29383662
How much do cz's usually sell for?
cz 82 vastly superior
OP here, whichever gun I buy, it's going to serve mostly as a range toy and possibly a ccw. Not sure if that makes much a difference or not
>>29383803
The CZ is way nicer.
Trust me.
>>29383748
>>29383760
>>29383803
Cz's are worth around 350-75$ usually. I've seen them go for ~425 though lately.
Also, since its going to be a range toy, then get whatever one feels best to you. They make nice cc guns, but you might find that you wouldn't want either for that purpose (though you may find the opposite to be true, too).
The cz's complexity is a major hit against it for me because not only is it more stuff that can shit the bed, but it's also more parts you'll need to be able to track down in the future which could also be difficult. Odds are you won't have too, but it's still something to consider. Makarov parts are few, easy to find, and cheap. Also easy to replace.
>>29383910
only thing youll have to replace on cz evenually is firing pin
>>29383803
Get the Mak, single stack is better for CCW, and Maks are just cooler. You wouldn't get a CZ2008 over a real AK would you? Why settle for Czechistani knock offs?
>>29383933
you cant comepare czech made 58 with an ak
one negative to the cz is the price of magazines. they usually run about $40 each.
im talking about real CZ crossed swords mags, not the $20 ones that cdnn sells by "cz". the latter ones seem to be hit or miss in terms of function.
id say flip a coin, both are neat and fun guns. id probably get both.
>>29383961
yeah cz has notoriously expensive mags on the older guns, they work well though
>>29383033
cz-82, but for a few hundred extra you could get a cz p-01 in 9mm luger, instead.
>>29383998
or just get both, they are cheap and one of the finest weapons noaways
A modern gun.
I have both, and while they're neat firearms and cool collector's pieces, they're flat out inferior.
I say get whichever one you like best.
>>29383933
Tfw I got a vz2008 and it hasn't given me a single problem in 5k rounds of wolf and tula. $35 mags is a bit of a pain but it came with five.
>>29384127
Agreed.
>>29383961
Thanks, I hadn't even thought of mag prices. Definetly something I need to consider though because I'll want an extra mag or two
How much do Makarov mags sell for?
>>29383033
where the fuck do you live that you can get both of these for 260? I'd buy those up right now
a few Mak's Ive tried had really shitty heel releases, you had to practically karate chop the front of the mag while pinching the heel to get it to fall out. An east german one popped out very cleanly, but I dont know about the Bulgys
>>29383910
Thanks for the reply. Now I'm wondering why the cz is so cheap. Their prices usually aren't that good
>>29384286
~$20+
>>29384330
I live in PA.
The mag release on the one I looked at wasn't amazing either, workable though
>>29383355
I agree with this nigga
But for real, the CZ-82's magazine release is utter fucking bullshit piece of shit worse than anything I've ever held
Mak's heel release is better than this shit
Seriously
>>29384409
the makarov for 260 is really cheap too. lowest i've seen is 300 from online sellers, and LGS is rarely cheaper. are you sure its a bulgarian or better? if its a polish radom then It's basically a completely different, shittier gun.
newfriend to /k/ here
I am interested in buying a pistol online but am a bit confused. Do you need a FFL to order guns online? Even if it is just for personal use?
>>29384522
>>29384330
>bought two Cz.82's for 160$ each
Stop giving money to fudds.
>>29383033
I have a CZ82. It's shit. It has a malfunction at least one or twice every 100 rounds, regardless of brass or steelcase. The ambi mag release is broken on the right side, and that is a common issue. The grip screws come loose after one magazine (i finally loctited them, but the screws are so tore up I doubt i'll be able to take them off again). It's not super big but for a carry gun I'd take the makarov anyday. Wish I could justify spending more money to buy one online right now but I've spent several hundred on ammo and more hundreds on gun parts this month already.
>>29384522
Yeah they're real Bulgarian makarovs. Really good condition as well
>>29384330
The heel is pretty good once you get used to it. There's a couple ways to do it that are pretty smooth and fairly quick. Some people will still hate it, but after some practice I think most people would see it as not such a deal breaker.
>>29383033
DickGrips™
>>29384536
yes.
>>29383033
Are there any online vendors selling CZ-82s at a fair price? There is a local LGS trying to sell one for 400 bucks and I feel thats over reaching.
>>29384951
So shit, you have to basically be licensed to sell guns to buy them online? Can gun shops order them if you find them online if you pay them?
>>29384978
No, you give a copy of the FFL license to the online vendor and they send it to them where you do a background check, usually for a fee. The FFL does not need to be in your name.
>>29383033
They are both incredible pistols.
I would pick the CZ82 any day over the Bulgarian, however, There are several major downfalls to the cz82.
>has over 50 parts, while the mak as less than 20
>magazine catch lever is fragile, they often break and you cant get an original
some guy in florida makes them though.
>quite a few of these come into the country with a worn out or completely missing sear spring
full auto/ND incoming
>ambi magazine release almost always only works on one side, and even then its gummy
You can replace them all with cz83 parts, entire assembly costs around $50 and CZUSA are shekelmasters that want 15$ to ship .003oz packages.
Despite all that, I still love the pistol and I'd protect my life with it.
>>29383033
the cz is actually 2 mags because of double stack.
>>29385016
So go to gun store buddy, start BG check, get a copy of his FFL, then realize my gun buddy is probably pissed at me for not buying his own stock.
>>29384874
speaking of mag release, i dont have small or large hands, id say average, but i would always have to move my hand slightly to reach and depress the mag release on the cz.
>>29385041
No,
Tell LGS you want to get a gun shipped to his store (common occurrence, if anything tell him it's an oddball gun that he'll never stock)
He gives you FFL
Give FFL copy to online vendor, who ships it to them
A few days later, FFL will call you saying your gun has arrived
Conduct background check after ensuing it is the gun you ordered
Receive gun after paying transfer fee
>>29383033
Mexicana in Commercial: "why not both?"
CZ has higher capacity and Mak is better looking.
P83 (Later Polish Mak) and FEG PA (Hungarian Mak) are good too, but avoid the P64 (first iteration Polish Mak).
>>29385041
even if you werent his buddy, its the same at a lot of LGS.
some even get kind of pissy or charge a high fee for transfers
>>29385087
Ah, so they won't get pissy if it is something they don't commonly have? That is nice to know.
Mak, and this is coming from someone who owns both.
>>29384507
>
But for real, the CZ-82's magazine release is utter fucking bullshit piece of shit worse than anything I've ever held
I've said this a dozen times, but whoever came up with that fucktarded mechanism deserved to be taken out back and shot for conspiring against the Soviet Union. It is that terrible.
>>29385144
>But for real, the CZ-82's magazine release is utter fucking bullshit piece of shit worse than anything I've ever held
I think you're retarded for liking the heel mag release.
>>29385191
I think you're retarded for liking that gummy hunk of shit that is the CZ-82's awful attempt at an ambi safety.
And I don't like the Mak's heel release. I tolerate it.
Double and, those were the words of the poster I quoted. Not that I disagree with his assessment.
>>29383033
For practical use get the CZ-82, for a range toy take your pick. The CZ-82 is better for practical purposes due to the double stack mag that holds 50% more ammo, the ability to carry it cocked an locked if you want to use the safety instead of having to decock it, the wider sights (this will make a very significant difference in how quickly you can get on target, especially in low light), the ability to get night sights for it if you want them, and the thumb magazine release that allows you to eject the magazine with one hand.
>>29385191
He's one of the board's certified retards, pay him no heed.
>>29383033
Makarov. This guy put it in dry sand, wet sand, ran it over with a jeep in mud, and submerged it in water. It still fired, mind you it would cycle sometimes, but I doubt the cz-82 could live through that.
>>29385224
I'll agree with you that the ambi safety for the right side is lacking. But overlooking that, the rest of the gun is superior to the Makarov.
>>29385230
Yeah, I've only owned, carried, and shot both for years, just ignore me. :^
>>29385256
Debatable, it is rather bulky and snag-happy for CC duty, and is in general an overengineered nightmare that has a shitload more that can go wrong.
>>29385248
They're both straight blowback you mongoloid. Straight blowback guns are in general more resilient and more reliable than recoil operated guns. There's no reason to believe the CZ-82 or any other similar quality straight blowback gun wouldn't function just as well.
>>29385256
>right side
Fuck it's BOTH sides for me, doesn't matter which direction its pressed the release is as mushy as oatmeal at breakfast.
>>29384541
find me these sweet unicorns of saintly prices and I will shower them with money
last LGS I went to didnt even know what a Cz. 82 was.
>>29385229
>the wider sights (this will make a very significant difference in how quickly you can get on target, especially in low light)
This, you're making a big mistake if you choose a gun for CC that has the older style tiny sights.
I'd like to point out CZ is doing a run of CZ83's right now, so you can pick up a brand new CZ83 in .380 for $425 bucks.
>>29385826
Agreed. I own 5 Mak's or Mak clones (a Bulgy, a CZ-82, a FEG and a pair of P64's, one modded with a better mainspring and the other stock.) As a CC piece, I prefer my modded P64. Slightly smaller form factor than any of the others, and sights that are so small they're practically non-existent. Even without the sights I can keep it in the 8 ring at 25 yards due to straight muscle memory. Seriously, CC needs to have smaller sights to prevent snags.
>>29388478
>muh snags
When has this ever been a problem? I've practiced my draw countless times with a few different guns and have never managed to snag any small part of the gun on anything. Only way I can see it being a problem is with a pocket holster or if you completely aren't using a holster.
>>29388790
Yeah, it's not like streamlining CC pieces hasn't been an industry standard for a century or anything.
FN 5.7
>>29388805
When you go to the extent of removing vital features from guns that are necessary for best performance in every situation to fix a problem that I have never experienced despite practicing drawing different guns thousands of times, I really have to question logic. Just like I question the logic of companies still pushing larger service pistol calibers for more "stopping power" when research shows that that it doesn't make much if any difference and companies that sell hollow points that their own testing shows expand so large that they fail to penetrate to the 12" minimum in ballistics gel.
>>29385229
The thumb release that I can't reach with my thumb because of the way the grip swells? Great design.
>>29388913
>hammer spur
>beavertail
>fuckhuge sights
>vital features and necessary for best performance in every situation for a fucking CC piece
But you're right, you're smarter than everyone else and know more than the entire global gun industry.
>>29385248
Spotted the retard.
>>29388956
>strawman about features I wasn't talking about
Only thing I was talking about was sights, and yes larger sights like what are used on modern service pistols as opposed to the tiny sights used in the early to mid 1900s are important. I've done my own testing by shooting against a shot timer in various lighting and have found that modern larger pistol sights are .2 to .3 seconds faster to pick up in poor lighting when compared to older style sights that were painted blaze orange for more visibility, and in thousands of times drawing various pistols have never encountered a problem with my sights snagging on anything. Using old style tiny sights that take significantly longer to pick up or going to the extent of completely removing them like on the Taurus Curve or guns with trench sights is fucking retarded.
>>29385096
>avoid the P64 (first iteration Polish Mak).
Why? It's tiny and the single action trigger is faaaantastic.
... the double action trigger is literally the worst I've ever felt.
