Talk:9×18mm Makarov

Article Renaming

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "9x18 Makarov". I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before changing the title or moving the article, though. --Commander Zulu 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I agree, but with the addition of the metric "mm" unit, no space naturally ;), so 9x18mm Makarov?. Koalorka (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming 2011

• What is the deal with changing the article from 9x18 to 9×18? What is the benefit of "×" vs. "x"? I feel like that is just confusing and not necessary, albeit a moot point considering 9x18 redirects here anyway. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Less Powerful?

According to this and this 9 mm Luger Parabellum is more powerful, contrary to what article says. 217.26.163.26 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy

Does anyone have energy info on this cartridge? C0N6R355 20:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did the math based on the given mass and velocity; it comes to 313 J. 140.183.63.33 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi-Impulse Variant?

Perhaps there should be some mention of the hi-impulse variant. [1] 207.195.244.215 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Connection with 9 mm Ultra

It does not seem to be any connection between theese two cartridges other than the conception of a cartridge wich is more powerfull than 9x17 or .25 ACP (used in Soviet pre-war Korovin pistol which was used before the PM was introduced) but still can be used in blowback-operated pistols. 9x18 mm Mak actually is very much a shortened 7,62 mm TT case with a 9 mm bullet, how it can be directly connected (not to mention been "based on") with 9mm Ultra ? Not only the bullet diameter, but also case dimensions do not match. Also, AFAIK the 9mm Ultra cartridge was NOT developed "toward the end of WWII", it was developed in 1936.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9390/9mmpistolcases.jpg

95.79.198.117 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-06-01 01:40:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 5.45x39mm on 2011-06-19 14:22:29, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 6.5x68mm on 2011-06-19 20:34:20, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 8x57mm IS on 2011-06-19 21:41:24, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Date Incongruity

The article currently reads that "The 9×18mm round was designed by B.V. Semin in 1951," and then says that "Nikolai Makarov went on to design the Makarov PM pistol around the 9×18mm round in 1948."

How could Makarov design a pistol around a round that was not designed until three years later?

Jd physicist (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

a dead link to a wikipedia article

There is a link to an article for 9mm Ultra, but no such page exists. 50.50.117.204 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Most powerful blowback?

"...was intended to be the most powerful round that could function safely in a direct blowback pistol." This can't be right. There are several other blowback pistols which are both more powerful and predate the Makarov caliber. The Astra 400 was adopted in 1921 and fires the 9mm Largo, which develops significantly greater muzzle energy, 100-200 fp more, than a 9x18 Makarov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lklawson (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues with this page

It claims that the makarov pistol was developed before the ammo, by several years. I do not know the actual dates, but it seems odd that someone would design a pistol in 1948 to shoot ammo that had yet to be invented (1951?).

It says that you can shoot 380 (9x17) in a makarov. You can but it produces gas blowby that cuts/eats up the chamber and ruins the gun. This is very bad for the guns, and should NOT be done unless in a life or death situation. There are replacement barrels for the pistols that allow shooting 380s in them, and some of the guns came this way (produced with the 380 barrel and/or modified by importers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.49.84 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, unless someone has a reference stating explicitly that it's safe and appropriate to fire a round for which the gun is not chambered, suggesting that it's ok to do something potentially damaging/dangerous is totally inappropriate. I'm going to remove it, and when nobody can find said reference they can feel free to not put it back in. 2602:306:BC35:5CD0:EC8B:40F5:E861:9B81 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9×18mm Makarov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216040458/http://www.military-today.com/russian_land_forces.pdf to http://www.military-today.com/russian_land_forces.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Replacing the illustration in section 'Cartridge Dimensions'

So, recently I made my account with intent to replace the illustration seen in the section mentioned above, since as a hobbyist 3d modeler, using it as a reference confused me hours on end, before realizing the illustration and the actual cartridge (within the same article) didn't match at all, difference being that the illustration's cartridge drawing looks longer, resembling a straight-walled rifle cartridge and less like the pistol cartridge it is representing on this article.

I first did a simple search, and the first results show the latest(?) PDF listing the C.I.P's Maximum tolerence document file (and also, minimum tolerence which i could include), but there's a few things, especially one glaring line that caught my eye after i've scrolled through the one page document that states, "Reproduction forbidden as well as in the form of extracts without approval of C.I.P."

Does that mean i am in no right to use the dimensions mentioned inside the document along with their own illustrated image? or using their measurements and illustration for Reproduction of 9x18 Makarov ammunition?

Other details that also confuses me are:

1. The β angle claims it's slanted at 45 degrees, but inserting the values for E1, R1 and F into my software and measuring its angle, gave me 23 degrees? but maybe it's the software rounding up 22.5, which is half the rotation as what that variable claims to be.
2. There's a... -0.25 at the end of L3 measurement? Which is only present on the maximum tolerence list, which I am unsure what it is for.

Overall I need answers to these questions, and thank you for reading this topic, I'll be even more grateful if you have an answer for any of these questions. Quilleo (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)