- Review Centre
- Sport
- Shooting
- CO2 Pistols
- Baikal MP 651K
- Jungle Jim Jam's review
Have a picture of Baikal MP 651K?, please send it to us.
Picture courtesy of Lennart Johnsen.
| Value for Money | 7.8/10  |
|---|---|
| Reviewer Rating | 7.4/10 |
| Overall Rating | 7.8/10  |
By Jungle Jim Jam
on 11th Apr 2007
| Value for money | 7/10 |
|---|---|
| Overall value | 8/10 |
 Jungle Jim Jam's recommendation | |
Accurate, light, very fast, modular design, lots of customisation potential.
Not fantastic build quality, sights not ideal in carbine mode, nowhere to attach an accessory sight.
This is my first review and it is of my first Russian gun. The Baikal MP651K.
My first surprise came when I took receipt of the package from UK importer, Brocock ltd. It seemed a good 30 % smaller than I had expected.
Then I discovered it to be about 50 % lighter than I had expected.
After eventually unravelling miles of packaging, I discovered a slim brown carton sealed inside a heavy duty plastic bag. The carton was a far-cry from the usual fare of graphics and logo emblazoned packaging I am used to. There was just one simple self-adhesive label identifying the contents, affixed to one end.
Inside. None of the typical polystyrene form-fitting packaging. Just three shapes wrapped in oiled brown paper. Very practical. Very Russian. I've had a few Russian photographic products, so I know this is their style. Albeit, the box and the paper have improved in quality and neatness since Communist times! The packages resembled the mysterious parcels dolled out by the butcher in "The League of Gentleman".
The three parcels contained the fore-end, the stock and of course, the pistol itself. The one accessory was a metal cleaning rod. A stout instruction book was also present.
Needless to say, I was put aback by the guns svelt demeanour. I had been expecting something about, well, 100 % heavier. But I was also struck by its fascinating crackle-black finish and overall tidiness. The frame is entirely metal, but of some very light composition. The linear BB magazine above the barrel, although finished exactly the same as the frame seems to be moulded from polypropylene, discernable around the raised lettering of "Made in Russia". Presumably then, the finish is sprayed on, not anodised.
I gave up with the instruction book pretty quick: the English passages are buried between Russian and German in a way that makes reading it in haste a challenge. Although I noted the detailed and precise cross-sectional figures, a far cry from the kind of comic-book sign-language kiddie-graphics we see all too much of these days. Returning to he book later, I found it to be clear, readable and, well, instructive.
It took a minute to understand the ingenious attachment system for the grip and the stock. A bit slower than the usual clip on grip such as on my Daisy 44, when it comes to loading fresh CO2, or my Crosman back-packer, when it comes to fitting the stock, but much more stable and secure than either of these in each case. A single large knob at the butt screws into place, either grip cover or stock, sliding it along moulded guide rails to produce a very solid result indeed. However, I soon learned to be careful not to over-tighten the knob. It can be a pain to undo and being made of soft plastic, one would not want to have to resort to applying pliers to it.
Next I noticed the ingenious dual magazine feed, whereby 8 pellets are fed by a rotary disk or 23 BB's from a column above the barrel, via the rotation of a similar but alternate cylinder. BB's first are pushed by the sprung column into the disc and then rotate around to the breech, underneath. The only problem is the need to switch cylinders before changing projectile type: the BB's would roll out of the normal pellet mag' so the special one provided has choked cavities. Into which pellets will not, I imagine, fit. It's a pity, otherwise one could go straight from pellets to BB's without a pause.
The stock can be adjusted for length. A periscopic device makes it possible to read the sights from the pistol, which would otherwise be too close and too low. At first, this was very baffling, yielding all manner of weird reflections. Then I noticed the small knob whereby the angle of the mirrors are adjusted to bring the sight into view. Alas, even with the stock fully extended and the folded light-path of the periscope, the open rear sight is still too close to focus upon clearly. What one gets is a sharp image of the foresight, so close as to be way too wide, and a blurred out of focus impression of a rear sight with lots of spare space within its notch.
It is also still an odd experience to use even after being adjusted. As a right-eye shooter, I have the view through the periscope of the sight picture and, simultaneously, a view directly of the target via my left eye, appearing by some weird cognitive fluke to float above and to the right of the sight view! There is also a disconcerting way in which the image jumps immediately after the shock of each shot. However, all of these peculiarities seem to disappear with a little use.
I cannot help thinking a better solution would have been Crosman's of switching from pistol to carbine in their 1322/1377 using a flip up pinhole sight. But that would not have had the gimmick-gadget factor. And the periscope is a really great gimmick-gadget.
It also makes it problematic as to where one might attach a sight rail. Either way up on top of the periscope or out on one of its sides. Not only would this result in gigantic parallax but the relationship of stock to frame is not permanent.
At first impression, the fore-end seems a bit pointless. There is no barrel extension inside. But it will permit a different way of holding the gun, especially as it is designed with a deeply serrated grip area culminating in a small schnabel flare. Someone has already raised the possibility of installing a silencer into the large muzzle end of the attachment. Nonetheless, the for-end is essentially a gimmick or "kiddie-appeal" factor, which is odd, given you have to be an adult to own one of these!
I had trouble with sliding the gun into it. The moulding is deliberately tight and I was afraid of scarring the gun. The solution was to insert a piece of wood into the slot as a wedge, removing it only after inserting half of the gun, sliding it the rest of the way. This seemed to work fine. But I should have reversed the process for take-down. As it is, the last, very tight part of the moulding did indeed leave faint score marks along the barrel housing.
Speaking of the barrel, I was none too reassured to discover that it peeks out at a decided angle from the line of the frame, to the right ( on mine ). Strangely, I noticed that the rear sight had been adjusted from neutral, to the right, the exact opposite of what one might have expected. Maybe they employ a lot of non-shooters at the Baikal plant!
The rear sight is itself quite a handsome unit, built into a solid metal housing. However, it is plastic and the azimuth ( "windage" ) adjustment is done by loosening, when you eventually can, a very tight screw and then just sliding the notched panel. Neither precise nor predictable.
Another of the gun's interesting peculiarities is the hammer. To cock it, for single action ( "SA" ) you don't pull it out with your thumb, as you might expect, no, you push it in. In other words, it is literally a push-button cocking mechanism! You can also de-cock it by placing your thumb over the button and releasing the trigger.
Trigger pull in SA is fairly heavy. But not as heavy as the typical Umarex CO2 pistol. Although I don't like mechanisms that make hollow ringing noises when you operate them, this gun's particular sequence of clinques and whunques does enable you to get quite a bit of feedback from the action as you head from ready, through indexing the cylinder to releasing the hammer.
The safety catch is yet another unusual feature. A button literally IN the trigger itself, blocking it from being fully pulled when on "safe".
When it came to actually shooting the pistol it became apparent that it was indeed firing way off to right. Way off! About 15cm at
five metres! Correcting for this required wrestling with that tenacious little screw holding the sight panel and sliding the notch back in the opposite direction to that in which it had been set by Person Unknown.
Accuracy immediately became apparent in the grouping of shots, at about five metres, albeit way off centre. No complaint there. The general behaviour of the pistol seemed unexceptional, for better or worse. Other reviewers bemoan the lack of power. But it was easily enough to punch holes in cardboard up to that distance and for targets that's more or less all I need. Issues of power over distance resulting in greater or lesser trajectory are supposed to be addressed by adjusting the sights accordingly for a given distance, not by seeking higher power.
When I switched to BB's I also attached the stock. It was at this point that the gun's fun potential became apparent. Usually, in double action ( "DA" ), cocking the mechanism by pulling the trigger, the result is speed but loss of accuracy. But with the shoulder stock fitted, not only is the aim braced, but the pressure applied to the trigger to achieve DA seems lighter ( as ones finger forces the trigger back against a firm shoulder rather than a floating palm ). These are two distinct contributions to accuracy. The latter also making it seem easier to increase the rate of fire.
And such a rate of fire! Obviously not up there with a Baikal Drozd, but blistering compared to any un-stocked CO2 pistol in DA. Especially those awful Umarex ones that require two fingers to pull.
As far as that accuracy goes, the biggest problem when using the shoulder stock is that sight arrangement. With light behind me ( on the foresight ), the sight picture becomes a blurred smear hovering in an indeterminate manner around and obscuring the target I am trying to aim at. It's almost guesswork! A pity, because with lead shot biting the rifling of the barrel I was able to make a single large hole about 15mm in diameter at a range of about five metres and it should have been possible to keep up reasonable accuracy from further away were it not for the impossibility of aiming properly!
Eventually I found that by attaching a piece of card with blu-tac I could mask the fore-sight from sunshine and make it clearer ( hence the tunnel sight found on some pistols ). Then, at seven metres ( approximately ) I could keep all the shot inside a column about 15mm wide, although dropping over height.
The biggest and most fundamental drawback of that stock is that with it fitted you cannot cock the gun in SA. DA is the only option. Otherwise, accuracy might well be further improved. Nonetheless, this is the easiest, fastest and most accurate DA that I have so far experienced. It is truly possible to rattle off a series of aimed shots at a rate of as much as two a second. Not auto rate of fire but nonetheless quite exciting!
Other reviewers have reported this as a gun that is low in power. I do not have a chronograph. But I do have copies of the telephone directory! My Makarov reaches 300 pages with lead shot. The same shot from this Baikal managed to reach page 170. Although the balls may have been burrowed in by subsequent impacts, so 150 pages seems reasonable for early in the CO2 round, being the first load. Shots from later, the third load, unsurprisingly bounced off. Whilst those in the middle load made nice little pinpoint holes in a cardboard target. The three loads amounted to nearly seventy shots in total with the first fifty being accurate.
Of course, a trade-off against power is rate of gas consumption. Seventy shots from one bulb may sound far-fetched. But after leaving the gun for half an hour I was able to put out about twenty more with lateral accuracy and able to penetrate paper, although dropping way down the target. This makes it an extraordinarily economical CO2 pistol to use.
One issue with the gun is that...at least indoors... it is very loud. Shooting indoors I have decided that in future this piece requires ear-plugs to use. My hearing is still impaired thirty minutes afterwards. Of course, using the stock brings the muzzle way closer to ones ears and also, being a shorter barrel, much closer than would be the case with a rifle.
This gun is marketed in Western Europe by Umarex, who seem to be extending into some surprising markets, including airsoft. Umarex is emblazoned on the frame, along with the gun's description, picked out in white, and the Baikal logo, embossed but not painted. A very nice set of markings. But the only resemblance of this gun to Umarex' own CO2 pistol line is in the rotary magazine. The magazine in the Baikal is, however, twice as large ( roughly ) as the Umarex one and obviously not interchangeable. Nor do I believe it possible to buy extra Baikal mags. Although I hope I am wrong about that, as I have yet to enquire.
The biggest difference between this gun and Umarex' own CO2 line is that it does not go out of its way to pretend to be a firearm. This is for me a major attribute of the pistol. The rotary magazine is not concealed in any way but, rather, emphasised by it's bare metal against the near black finish of the gun. Neither does it pretend to be a cartridge revolver like the fake Colts and my Daisy 44. I have always thought that the Umarex pistols that are in reality revolvers pretending to be semi-auto's are somewhat silly. Childish even. The two I have owned, the Colt and the Sig 225 ( although badged RWS, still a Umarex I believe, certainly in essence ) are heavy, inelegant, barely shootable lumps, dead-weight artificially added to simulate the mass of a "real" gun. If they were made of steel ( like the Baikal Makarov, which I also now have ) such weight would be a plus. But not when it's phoney. As it is, they are not even great as replicas. However, that's a discussion for another review ( or three ).
Other reviewers have discussed at length how this gun lends itself to numerous potential back-engineering projects, customisation and up-rating. Increasing power, reliability, durability, accuracy, etc. It has also been mentioned that the bulbous muzzle end of the fore-stock is ideal for housing a silencer. I confess openly that I personally lack the expertise ( and appropriate tools ) to conduct such work with any confidence, but I appreciate knowing that those options are a feature of this intriguing and unusual piece. By contrast, what can you do with a Umarex other than add superficial external alterations, such as a pretend compensator or wood grips? ( That's a rhetorical question, I am not inviting answers from all the Umarex fans out there ).
One Russian owner has converted his Baikal into a bullpup style carbine. I don't know how he did it. But I have considered that one way would be to attach the fore-stock permanently, place the pistol grip into a new shoulder stock ( so that it was at the very rear ) and attach a new trigger at the front linked to the original mechanism via the circular hole in the trigger obtained by removing the safety lug. Build a silencer into the muzzle end and add a sight rail at the front and this would be one project I do fancy attempting...if I had a spare one of these guns!
I am also tempted to think about some way of attaching a scope of some description. The fixed sights are fine at arms length, as a pistol, but with the stock attached they are a major drawback to the potential accuracy of the gun. Quite how to do this without removing the periscope and bearing in mind that the stock has to be removed for re-loading CO2 poses a challenge! One also has to allow continued access to the overhead BB port. One possibility would be to mount a red-dot scope to the fore-end, which is remarkably stable when attached. I have established that it is possible to use such a sight through the periscope as before. But it does mean spoiling the elegance of the simple pistol and shoulder-stock combination. The deciding factor would be if it is indeed possible to make a silencer insert for the muzzle brake that is both effective and does not affect accuracy. Otherwise, I might hack the fore-stock down until it becomes a pure scope mounting device. Maybe with extra picatinny rails on the sides and below!
All in all, I would hesitate to propose this gun as first choice for anyone seeking to decide upon a single CO2 pistol to own. Although it is certainly in the running, and is ideal for beginners. However, I would indeed recommend it to others who, like myself, are building a collection in which variety is important or for those who like doing their own modification projects. For which it is great.
As for value, I would say that at £86 in the UK ( in 2007 ) I have revised my impression of "bargain" status ( when seeing it advertised ), to thinking it a bit over-priced. About 15% over-priced in my opinion. Only buy it if, after consideration, you are certain that this is a gun you definitely want.
| Helpful | Unhelpful | Agree | Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total Respect: +1
Would you like to see a review that's not being listed?
