CZ-52 VS Tokarev TT-33?

If I'm not intending to use hotter than normal loads, there shouldn't be a big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less steel around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be just fine, right?

You'll likely be shooting mil surplus ammo; and never 100% sure what you're getting; IMO go for strength! Clark Magnusen has kb'd CZ's with the same loads the Tok digested; you'll probably hear from him...

In any case you *seem* to want the CZ; make yourself happy. Unless you run into some now rarely available MG ammo you should be safe... However I've heard no data on the 7.62x25 topped with the fancy HP bullets you asked about earlier...

The only thing I don't like about the Tok is the grip; I'm looking for some fix myself; anyone offer a better one, or found a fit with another pistol model?

TK

> ... be a > ... should > ... steel > ... be > ...

Dear Melissa:

The CZ-52 used Czech cartridges loaded MUCH hotter than the Russian ammo for the TT-33. It is not safe to use Czech 7.62x25 ammo designed for the CZ in the TT. The CZ is, therefore, a considerably stronger gun than the TT, and is a more sophisticated design as well, with safety features (such as a passive firing pin lock) that the TT lacks. The TT is, however, more compact.

This is not to say that the TT is a poor gun. It is not. It is rugged and reliable in the extreme. But I would prefer the CZ for a shooting gun, unless you are buying for concealed carry. And there are better guns for that than the CZ or TT.

Regards,

Both will handle 'standard' loads just fine. What that 'someone' (Clark Magnuson) reported was that the design of the CZ52 chamber didn't seem to be as supporting of the cartridge, and that this could lead to failure more quickly.

That said, I've owned both and now exclusively have Tokarevs. They're slim, light and single-action, simple, and capable.

They reason I'll likely never own a CZ52 again is several: Heavy, bulky, grip too large, grip too awkward, mechanism more difficult that necessary for routine cleaning (which you have to do with corrosive 7.62) and worst of all - it has parts that are 'staked' in place. This is where they pin parts into the gun (ie extractor, ejector, sights, etc...) and then they stake the pin by smashing the edge of the pin into the surrounding gun (slide, receiver, etc...) Firstly, these stakes, I found, notoriously failed and the pins walked out during firing - what a major pain. Secondly, while you can 'restake' the pins, you add to the already 'smashed' area with more unsightly damage and the gun already looks poor enough with initial stake marks in the metal.

The CZ52's only saving grace is it's price - almost half the going price of a 7.62 Tokarev pistol. For it's price, it's a great 7.62 pistol, and many seem to appreciate it regardless. I certainly wouldn't overlook getting one to have a 7.62 pistol in hopes of importers getting more Tokarevs in the country some day.

> ...

It is ok, but by a margin lower than other modern semi auto pistols. Here is a picture of what an overload that is too small to wreck the brass can do to the barrel: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=& postid=249178

Shoot both guns. Take them apart and clean them. Which to you want to have? The Tokarev is only $20 more right now. It is worth the extra money to me.

#If I'm not intending to use hotter than normal loads, there shouldn't be a #big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should #there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ52s had less steel #around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be #just fine, right? # #

>a >big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should > >there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less >steel >around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be >just fine, right?

I have used very hot loads in my CZ-52. They went bang just fine and they cycled the action just fine, same as with standard loads. The only problem I found with the hot loads is that they were not nearly as accurate as the standard loads. From now on I am sticking to the standard loads.

Sam Heywood

Melissa, I agree that there shouldn't be much down-range difference in performance with factory ammo, except that the CZ is probably the more accurate of the two and might have a velocity edge due to the slightly longer barrel. My preference is for the Tokarev, which feels much better in my hand. If you want a really unusual handgun to add to the mix, try the 7.62 Nagant revolver bored out to 7.62X25. I've one of those, too, and it's a blast!

Derek V.

# # Dear Melissa: # # The CZ-52 used Czech cartridges loaded MUCH hotter than the Russian ammo for # the TT-33. It is not safe to use Czech 7.62x25 ammo designed for the CZ in # the TT. The CZ is, therefore, a considerably stronger gun than the TT, snip # Regards, # Phil

And you have this information from what source other than the rumor mill? Have you looked and measured the wall thickness of the barrels and chambers of the two pistols? I hope you check out the picture from Clark that was posted a little later than yours. All testing I've seen does not give Czech MG cartridges as hotter than any other 7.62x25 ammo. That the barrel of a CZ52 will fail before the brass, vs the brass failing not the chamber in the TT.

Doug T

yes at one time I believed the stories about the strength of the CZ-52 too