Makarov vs Shield in reliability
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Makarov vs Shield in reliability

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default Makarov vs Shield in reliability

    Has there been any comparison?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central AL
    Posts
    608

    Default

    I don't know how you could definitively do this when they don't shoot the same caliber. Too many variables

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    12,217

    Default

    Not even in the same food group.

    Makorov is marginal and quality is minimal to adequate.

    Shield: high quality, state of the art, better round, better sights, just better.

    Comparison: Shield just better.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default

    I wonder which one would have a stoppage first?

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    588

    Default

    I own 13 or 14 Makarovs and two Shields. So far the Shields have been reliable. Other than one squib load and Blazer aluminum, ( one round) all of my Makarovs have never failed to feed and fire. I can certainly agree with the superiority of the 9x19 round over the 9x18 but do not see the quality of build and durability of the Makarov as being inferior. The Shield does have a very slim grip and numerous sight options that make it a very practical and inexpensive option for carry.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Jumonville Glen
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Both have proven to be reliable with quality ammo. The M&P is in 9mm Luger and about 6 oz. lighter. Apples and oranges.
    "You'd know what it is if you needed one!"

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    N. Louisiana
    Posts
    264

    Default

    The OP was asking about reliability only. Neither the size of the round nor the quality of the craftsmanship has any thing to do with this. I cannot say since I don't have a Shield but I do have a Kahr P9 which is a very good quality 9x19 which is usually considered to be superior to the Mak. However, I can say that considering reliability only, the Mak is more reliable since the P9 has jammed several times and has a nasty habit of leaving it's magazine released about 1/4" which makes it a very expensive single shot. The Mak has never jammed and has never released the magazine accidently.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    12,217

    Default

    Kahr P9 is your definition of of a very good quality 9mm pistol ?

    Choice is everything in life...making wise choices , give that some more work !!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Just by looking at the parts on both, it appears the Mak parts seem less prone to be breakage, only thing would be the tiny spring on the sear.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio, about five miles from Lake Erie
    Posts
    8,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by septembermars View Post
    Just by looking at the parts on both, it appears the Mak parts seem less prone to be breakage, only thing would be the tiny spring on the sear.
    It is not necessarily BREAKAGE, but the sheet metal slide stop on the Makarov is certainly a part that can (and does) wear out.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    4,450

    Default

    The reader should understand that in milprileb's hands, the Makarov is marginal.
    I'm always looking for rare varieties of 9x18 ammunition.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    N. Louisiana
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
    Kahr P9 is your definition of of a very good quality 9mm pistol ?
    Read the post before you criticize it. My post was about a pistol that is considered to be superior to the Mak (and it is) can actually be a lot less reliable (and it is).

  14. #13

    Default

    Speaking strictly in terms of reliability, they're both been very good to me. If I must make a choice, I'd lean toward the Mak if only because we have more data about the excellent reliability in the field.

    Keep in mind that, as others have pointed out, it's a comparison between cheese and chalk. They're both handguns, but that's where the overall similarities end.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default

    And even with a worn slide stop the pistols will still run.

  16. #15

    Default

    I have both, and between my son and I, have fired several thousands of rounds through each. As for cycle of operation, both are extremely reliable, and near impossible to determine which is most reliable. One glitch about the Shield that is a problem for me: the mag release operates a bit too easily, and its location makes it prone to bumping, which kicks the mag out. At that point, it is a single shot auto (if carried with a round in chamber). If that problem did not exist, it would be a near perfect, single stack EDC. As is, I do not trust it, because I have bumped the release and dropped the mag a couple of times. It can and does happen.

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    924

    Default

    Hello, I'll chime in if I may. I tend to go with the "apples vs. oranges" opinions. You are comparing 2 very different pistols conceived about 50 years apart. I suppose it does say something about the Makarov's virtues to even be compared with the S&W Shield. There is one item about the Makarov's design I would like to point out vs. the Shield, Glock, (and I do carry a Glock G 42 most of the time,) or what have you. Modern commercial firearms are designed to run on good quality ammunition built to recognized standards. The Makarov was designed to work with good ammunition or dodgy ammunition. The breech area pretty much covers the head of the case and the extractor will not blow out into the stratosphere if the case does fail. (The PM's extractor is bigger than a lot of rifle extractors.) This sort of fail safe feature in a pistol is not common and, I suspect, has helped garner the reputation for reliability the Makarov enjoys in so many parts of the world. Cheers, ABTOMAT

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,230

    Default

    We are talking a modern polymer pistol compared to what has proven to be one of the most durable, simple to fix and maintain designs extant proven to last for long periods with minimal maintenance by basically a conscript army. The Shield is a nice pistol, but not sure there is simply enough history with it to compare strictly on a durability over time scale. Just an opinion.
    Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is. ---- Josey Wales

  19. #18
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Eastern Washington State
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Comparing my six Makarov's against my one Shield only in terms of function and reliability there is no difference...zero malfunctions in the entire sampling. The Mak's have been popping empties with steel cases for years the Shield has had approximately 3-400 rounds of assorted brass cases in the past year. I carry the Shield often the Mak's never, i have lighter, more compact and more powerful pistols to carry ( main CC =Sig P 938).

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    788

    Default

    I prefer the SHIELD , for actual defense / carry / modern design / weight / parts support / ergonomics

    the MAK is more of a collectable / historical piece

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOLO View Post
    I prefer the SHIELD , for actual defense / carry / modern design / weight / parts support / ergonomics

    the MAK is more of a collectable / historical piece
    I can agree with all of the above, except for "parts support" and "historical piece." Every part of the Mak (minus the frame and slide) is readily available as NOS from multiple reliable sources. Buy an East German armorer's kit, or even a simple emergency parts kit from the DW, and you'll have better parts support than that which is provided by S&W, Springfield, etc.

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    172

    Default

    I have four Makarovs from various countries, but no Shield. I have shot thousands of cheap steel cased ammo through my Maks since the early 1990's, and have NEVER had a malfunction, even a near malfunction.

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Jumonville Glen
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Both are very reliable pistols, not much debate there. But the Makarov is reliably more FUN!!!
    "You'd know what it is if you needed one!"

  24. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Eastern Washington State
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    So now we have 23 responses and I fail to see what has been accomplished. The Makarov is a reliable pistol that has few, if any, stoppages or parts breakage, and the S&W Shield is easily concealed, quite reliable and easy to shoot while being thoroughly modern in design. Hell, I knew all that as did many others before the question waa asked. Two pistols that are totally reliable and designed for quite different reasons and missions.

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    1,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ibmikey View Post
    So now we have 23 responses and I fail to see what has been accomplished. The Makarov is a reliable pistol that has few, if any, stoppages or parts breakage, and the S&W Shield is easily concealed, quite reliable and easy to shoot while being thoroughly modern in design. Hell, I knew all that as did many others before the question waa asked. Two pistols that are totally reliable and designed for quite different reasons and missions.
    Welcome to subjective opinion-based answers to a question that shouldn't have been asked.

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Just another possibly insightful discussion. Thank goodness for the class act moderators in this forum!
    Last edited by septembermars; 05-20-2017 at 08:39 AM.

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    788

    Default

    plus the 9mm luger ammunition is more common, better supply, better defense round, and type of ammo available

    the better caliber makes it a better choice


    Ive had to stop firing my MAK for several years because nobody carried 9x18 mm MAK ammo locally, only way to get it was mail order and sometimes gun shows

    9x18 MAK never really caught on in the USA since only a limited number of pistols use it

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default

    I agree, this is the other only self defense arm I have been interested in for CC. Now it can be had for around 250.00 including FFL transfer and shipping, with that 75.00 rebate.

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    635

    Default

    The military Makarov PM as new (first issued), is more reliable than a NIB M & P shield. The shield does not have anywhere near the production numbers as the Makarov and probably more failures/10,000 produced, just from complaints to S&W customer service to replace recoil springs...I'd say that is a reliability factor.
    Most reliability threads comparing Makarov service weapons to modern new production firearms turns into a comparison of ergonomics, caliber, plastic vs. steel, availability of ammo and price. The topic is reliability from box (or military issue) to first FTF, as I read it. I vote Makarov PM.

    ...don't hate me, the shield is a really good CC pistol.

  30. #29

    Default

    Shield 2.0 is coming soon. Hence the blowout prices. Hope to grab one before they're all gone.

  31. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default

    I bite the bullet and purchased a second one. It reminds me of the days when the Makarov was had for 99.00 to 160.00 dollars.

  32. #31

    Default

    Both great pistols. Both very reliable. Personally, I feel you'd be hard pressed to find a ccw pistol more reliable, rugged, and accurate than the Makarov PM. That said, the Shield is also great option for someone wanting a cheap, reliable, and lightweight ccw pistol.

  33. #32
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    North of Tampa
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I don't own a Shield, but my EDC Pistol is a Glock 26 which is also a modern Plastic Frame Pistol. I don't understand why the Makarov is being compared to such Guns.
    The MAK is an Old School Service Pistol which has been used successfully by a Major World Power for over 60 Years. Would you compare the Shield to a 1911, it has very little in common other than both being a Handgun. The Makarov's reliability is legendary, and I would have no problem Carrying a MAK with my Handloads using a Hornady XTP Bullet at 1000+ FPS
    Last edited by Nipperdog; 05-21-2017 at 05:31 PM.

  34. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    890

    Default


  35. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    924

    Default

    Additional. I just traded my Glock 42 off to an FFL dealer for a 1975 dated Soviet PM. Plastic just does not hit the buttons that a Makarov does for me. ABTOMAT

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •