is a tokarev really at risk to blow up?


PDA






c919
May 7, 2009, 12:12 AM
i hear a lot of people saying "dont buy a tokarev! those will blow up if you use the hot czech loads. get a cz52 instead."

so here are my questions:

1. is it that hard to find ammo that is not the "hot czech rounds"?
2. with a 7.62x25mm do you really want a hot round? i mean isnt overpenetration the main concern with this round?
3. and surely tokarevs cant be too bad of a gun if there are still so many circulating in decent condition, right?

If you enjoyed reading about "is a tokarev really at risk to blow up?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
torpedoman
May 7, 2009, 12:22 AM
no risk if you shoot the ammo it was designed for. The cz52 has a roller locker recoil system thar will stand a lot more pressure and hotter ammo the tokarov shoots a 30 cal mauser round.

Hammerhead6814
May 7, 2009, 12:24 AM
I've never seen a kaboom!'ed tokarev.

I have however, read some nasty things about CZ-52's. Sometimes it's said they have lack-luster reliability, others have told me the barrels are no good (age not design).

Not to say the TT-33 isn't a problem-free pistol. Other than the horrid quality some samples safety's have, it's a guessing game as to whether or not the rounds you use will battery or not. Some samples are almost problem-free. Others will leave you wondering.

But between the two, the TT-33 is almost to common and to loved these days. Old_Painless on the Box O' Truth loves his. When he likes it, and it was made by the commie's, that means something.

-v-
May 7, 2009, 12:56 AM
Man, what is it with the glut of Tokarev threads as of late? :D

In all fairness, a TT is a stronger firearm then a CZ-52. One of the contributing factors is a much beefier chamber on the TT. The chambers on CZs tend to be rather thin, leading to a greater possibility of a kB!

TT-33's are notorious for how hard they are to kB! even if you intentionally try

grimjaw
May 7, 2009, 02:02 AM
Clark will no doubt be along shortly to tell you ALL about it.

jm

c919
May 7, 2009, 02:03 AM
yeah there have been alot of tokarev threads lately, and conveniently im in the market for one so the info is nice. iv been putting off this purchase for almost a year and now im ready to get my tokarev but iv heard some interesting speculation that i wanted to clear up.

so the romanian surplus rounds are safe? they seem to be plentiful and cheap.... and how about the polish rounds?

i hear its the czech rounds that are the hot ones, but in my ammo research i have not seen any czech 7.62x25 rounds. are they the only dangerous ones for the tokarevs?

c919
May 7, 2009, 02:07 AM
i have read some other stuff he wrote on this round and he seems to be an expert so his knowledge be welcomed with anticipation.

amd6547
May 7, 2009, 08:07 AM
The myth that the CZ is stronger than the TT33 began long before the CZ was ever imported to this country. It has been disproved, but continues to live on in internet-land.
The Tok has routinely been converted to rounds like the 38 super and 9x23 Winchester. It will handle any Tok ammo you find.
The Romanian ammo is great.
The Tokarev has decades of real world combat experience.

harmon rabb
May 7, 2009, 09:29 AM
c919, the 'dangerous' tok rounds are supposed to the bulgarian rounds.

c919
May 7, 2009, 11:31 AM
QUOTES:


"It's not that there was "SOME Czech ammo", loaded hot, all the Czech "7.62x25 was loaded hot. It was NOT an anomaly, it was the status quo. Your own source confirms that, so I don't see how you can pretend otherwise. Furthermore, the Czechs were/are not the only ones who loaded/load 7.62x25 to very different levels than the .30 Mauser.

your sources indicate that the nominal muzzle velocity of 7.62x25 is 1650+fps, much hotter than typical .30 Mauser loadings."

From the American Rifleman magazine, August 1995, page 44;
"The Czech version of the 7.62 x 25 mm cartridge is based on the Soviet
7.62 mm Type P pistol cartridge used in the TT-30 and TT-33 Tokarev, but
Czech ammunition is loaded considerably heavier that its Soviet
counterpart. While dimensionally similar to the 7.63 Mauser cartridge,
inter changeability is not recommended as the commercially loaded Mauser
ammunition is considered too light to reliably cycle the Model 52."

the czech rounds are definitely the supposed hot rounds..... so i guess there are two out there i need to avoid. bulgarian too,huh?

-v-
May 7, 2009, 12:29 PM
c919: Here's the link to the original Clark thread, especially with his antics of "lets put a 9x23 in a 7.62x25, hide behind a berm and pull the trigger, hehe!": http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=22071&highlight=kb%21+9x23+Tokarev I found it a very informative read, especially with the pictures of common CZ barrel fail points. More worrying the fact that a CZ-52's barrel has the thinnest chamber walls of ANY firearm in existence!

mgregg85
May 7, 2009, 12:37 PM
A TT-33 is a lot less likely to kb than a CZ-52, both are fun handguns.

Squeaky Duck
May 7, 2009, 12:55 PM
I own a Cz52. All I can say iis mine works reliably and carries well since it was designed to be carried concealed in the first place - thank the KGB for that. Look at how steamlined it is with nothing to snag on, save the front sight (nothing a touch of emery cloth can't fix).

The only mods I made to it was a new Harrington firing pin and rollers. As for hot ammo, the roller locking mechanism handles hot loads extremely well, but it will not let you see if the load is too hot until you end up wearing the slide embedded in your noggin. So why would you NEED to use a really hot round when the tokarev round is loaded to magnum velocity in the first place?

It all boils down to using common sense. I use standard rounds in all my guns. They work fine and I have nothing to prove.

If you have to prove something go buy a Blackhawk ...

wnycollector
May 7, 2009, 01:53 PM
the 'dangerous' tok rounds are supposed to the bulgarian rounds.

I have put 2 full 800 round tins and part of a 3rd tin of bulgarian ammo through my Polish Wz-48 w/o a problem.

BBstacker
May 7, 2009, 03:03 PM
I have one of each but I don't shoot militery surplus ammo. I use S&B, Winchster,& wolf gold only. But now a have dies to reload. One load I have using AA9 is subpost to give 1900 FPS. No I am not going there. I will keep it between 1500&1600 FPS. I am not enterested in trying to blow eather gun.

jonnyc
May 7, 2009, 04:51 PM
"...Cz52. All I can say iis mine works reliably and carries well since it was designed to be carried concealed in the first place - thank the KGB for that. Look at how steamlined it is..."

Huh??? It's a big, honkin' belt gun. Where did you get this info that it was designed to be a KGB concealed weapon??? The KGB isn't even Czech!

woad_yurt
May 7, 2009, 04:58 PM
Both the CZ 52 and the Tokarev are solid, strong designs. I own both and rate them as equals, mostly. Equals, that is, if one replaces the CZ's cast firing pin with something forged. The Tok is the more refined of the two; it feels nicer.

Although I don't think the KGB carried CZ 52s, concealed or otherwise, the CZ is easy to conceal for such a large gun. It's really, really flat for its size, as is the Tok.

harmon rabb
May 7, 2009, 05:04 PM
The Tok would seem easy to carry in a holster behind the back because it's so flat. The cz-82 seems it would work better in a pocket or ankle holster.

Squeaky Duck
May 7, 2009, 05:08 PM
JohnnyC - maybe you should look up the history of the Cz52. Czechoslovakia was under Russian rule since the end of WWII. The Communists snatched up the Brno arms factory there and the other eastern bloc nations under their rule. That pistol was a military design, yes, but there was a lot of influence into what purpose the weapons would be used for by the Komityet Gosudarstvyennoi Biezopasnosti, aka the KGB. The original Tokarev was intended to penetrate heavy clothing. The Cz52 was intended as a complement to the Soviet PPD-40, PPSh-41,PPS-43 machine guns since they all use the same ammunition and their soldiers did not have to carry different kinds of ammo. Their intent was to have a gun that would penetrate body armor (as in a US or Allied soldier) and put you out of commission. The KGB's influence on the gun was something their secret police could carry and shoot you with that would NOT initially kill you. Their intent was to INJURE you badly enough to require going to the hospital where they would wait for you, otherwise they knew you would bleed to death within 2 or 3 days of being shot since the round has a nasty habit on going off in any direction it feels like once it penetrates the body and meets resistance like bone or hard tissue.. Read up on your history. There is a lot of info out there, if you look.

harmon rabb
May 7, 2009, 05:14 PM
So they wanted a gun that could shoot through body armor... but NOT kill who they were shooting at?

Why would they want you to go to the hospital? Why wouldn't they just want you dead when you were shot?

This all sounds quite goofy to me.

:neener:

amd6547
May 7, 2009, 05:15 PM
I'm glad you believe all that...
Of course, there was no KGB when the 7.62x25 was adopted, there was the NKVD.

Squeaky Duck
May 7, 2009, 05:16 PM
When the KGB wanted you for questioning, they did shoot if you tried to run from them. Then they probably shot you anyway. History. Read up.

woad_yurt
May 7, 2009, 05:23 PM
Squeaky Duck:

The Makarov was in Russian service from 1951-1991. I'm fairly sure that that was what most of the KGB carried.

Do you have a reference for what you said above, that the Russian KGB used a Czech pistol?

I'm a history major and am a big fan of referenced information. Please, tell us, what's the source of your info?

PS: Wasn't the KGB formed in 1954 while the CZ 52's first year of manufacture was 1952? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what the "52" part of the pistol's name is for. Those sly KGB guys must have been really, really good to have the power to influence the design of a gun that was manufactured 2 years before the KGB even existed.

PPS: It's always a good practice for one to consider that some people may have already "read up" before one tells them to go "read up."

jonnyc
May 7, 2009, 10:15 PM
"Duck", please post some kind of a reference for your info. If there's one area where I've done alot of reading, it's the 7.62 Tokarev cartridge and the pistols chambered for it. Your assertions are news to me, and I'd REALLY like to see something to back them up.


Hey, just noticed that this is my thousandth post!!!!!! Do I get some kind of a prize (he said, hoping for a YES).

Mastiff
May 7, 2009, 11:25 PM
I followed Clark's information and converted a spare 9mm Tok barrel to fire 9x23 Winchester, which is loaded @50,000+ CUP. It works fine! I wouldn't dream of firing 9x23 Winchester in a CZ-52.

doubs43
May 8, 2009, 02:45 AM
I followed Clark's information and converted a spare 9mm Tok barrel to fire 9x23 Winchester, which is loaded @50,000+ CUP. It works fine! I wouldn't dream of firing 9x23 Winchester in a CZ-52.

Maybe not.... but 9mm Largo works just fine. :)

LoneCoon
May 8, 2009, 02:50 AM
I though the Sub gun ammo was the dangerous stuff for the 7.62x25 rounds?

JohnKSa
May 8, 2009, 05:05 AM
The Tok may shoot loose very rapidly with really hot ammo, but it's unlikely to blow up. The CZ52 may blow up with really hot ammo, but it's unlikely to shoot loose with ammo that doesn't blow it up.

The CZ52 has a stronger ACTION, the Tok has a stronger CHAMBER.

WardenWolf
May 8, 2009, 06:58 AM
Blow up a Tokarev? Hell no. AIM currently has Romanian spam cans of 7.62x25 available. And since Romanian Tokarevs are some of the best, second only to the Norincos, it's the best ammo you can get for your gun. You can also quickly convert a Tokarev to 9mm with a 2 minute barrel swap. A good Romanian or Norinco Tokarev will shoot like a good 1911. On par for accuracy.

amd6547
May 8, 2009, 09:15 AM
I was looking at the Reeds Ammo site, and I found it pretty thin on info. Yes, some of their ammo is labled "safe for TT33", but the rest of the loads are not labled "unsafe for TT33", or "CZ52 only". They have hardly any velocity info in the discriptions of the various loads, and certainly no discussion of how they determine one load is "safe for TT33", and the other is not (is it? they don't say...). It all seemed sketchy.
I have never dealt with them, I am used to dealing with DoubleTap for some of my other high performance ammo needs---There, they list velocity figures derived from real handguns for every load they sell.
As far as the CZ52 having the stronger action, and the Tokarev having the stronger chamber, I'll take the chamber.
The CZ52 I owned was one of my most disappointing handguns. I wanted one long before they were ever imported. Mine was like new, in every respect. It was never accurate at all at 25yds, I would be lucky to hit a paper plate 3 times out of eight rounds. It only functioned with S&B commercial ammo, having many different problems with any surplus ammo I used. My previous pistol in 7.62x25 had been a Chinese Tokarev Vietnam bringback with a dark bore, and mismatch slide/frame/barrel, a pistol that was 100% reliable, and accurate, with the same surplus ammo my CZ52 choked on.
For me, the Tok is a much better pistol, Browning derived, combat tested. The grip so many complain about bothers me not one whit...the Tok comes up for me spot on. There is no question in my mind...If I were in a combat situation, and there was a choice between having a Tokarev on my belt or a CZ52, I would choose the Tok.

doubs43
May 8, 2009, 01:54 PM
The Tok may shoot loose very rapidly with really hot ammo, but it's unlikely to blow up. The CZ52 may blow up with really hot ammo, but it's unlikely to shoot loose with ammo that doesn't blow it up.

The CZ-52 was DESIGNED to fire the hot Czech M48 cartridge. No other country loaded the 7.62x25 cartridge to equal it. Most - if not all - of the CZ-52 pistols that were imported into the US had been rebuilt and the pins staked because the pistols had shot loose over the years of using the M48 cartridge. To suggest that a CZ-52 will blow up using the hotter cartridges is not logical when that's what they were designed to shoot.

Tokarev chamber diameter: .640" Chamber Length: 1.434"
CZ-52 Chamber at it's thinnest: .590" Chamber Length: 1.198"

The raw numbers suggest that the Tokarev has the strongest chamber and all else being equal, it would. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the steel used in the CZ-52 is as good as it gets. Czech gun steel is famous for strength and I have no doubt that the CZ-52 barrel has a safety margin built in even with the M48 cartridge being it's normal diet. Looks and measurements may be deceiving. Until a qualified metallurgist tests the steel in both, I'm not going to proclaim one superior to the other.

If each pistol is fired with the ammo they were designed to shoot, neither is likely to blow up, fall apart or crumble into little BB's.

amd6547
May 8, 2009, 03:45 PM
Yes, Czech steel was well known for it's quality, prior to WWII. Was it the same in 1954 behind the Iron Curtain? I doubt it. The Russians took whole factories from the countries they occupied, killed, jailed and replaced management and workers, and did their best to keep the workers under their boot. Were those workers inspired to produce the excellent steel and quality firearms they were known for prior the NAZI occupation and subsquent Soviet domination?

atblis
May 8, 2009, 04:09 PM
you can bet your bottom dollar that the steel used in the CZ-52 is as good as it gets.
That's a very interesting assumption to make, and actually quite wrong. The metallurgy on the 52s is actually disturbingly variable and often quite crappy.

doubs43
May 8, 2009, 04:40 PM
That's a very interesting assumption to make, and actually quite wrong. The metallurgy on the 52s is actually disturbingly variable and often quite crappy.

Can you back that up with facts? Can you point to CZ/VZ-52 pistol barrels failing when using the M48 cartridge or the lower velocity Soviet/Polish/Hungarian etc cartridges?

Why would post war steel used in Czech gun making be of lesser quality than pre-war? If the Soviets emphasized quality in any industry, it was arms making. The CZ/VZ-52 was used until the early 1980's at least. The ones I own were made in the early 1950's so the steel couldn't have been all that bad or they'd have long since been scrapped. The design may be faulted for various reasons but I don't believe for a minute that the steel used was in any way substandard. It may suit the conclusion that the Tokarev barrel is stronger but neither gun has a history of blowing up which makes the whole discussion about which is better somewhat moot.

If you examine a CZ/VZ-52 closely, you'll find small dimples on almost all - if not all - major parts including the slide and frame. Those are hardness testing marks as the Czechs were, and are, almost fanatical about proper hardening of their gun steel.

Insofar as Soviet plunder of Czech industry and factories, can anyone show that to be a fact and not supposition based on what happened to German industry? Guns were being turned out by the Czechs shortly after the war, indicating that their gun industry wasn't raped at all.



A ''corporate history'' of Ceska Zbrojovka-- the Czech armory.
by Kyrie Ellis
Kyrie posted this excellent history of the armory that manufactured the CZ weapons on the c-r-ffl board in September of 1998.

A bit of the history of Ceska Zbrojovka and CeskoslovenskaZbrojovka (and Ceska Zavody Motocyklove) for anyone interested :-)

Ceska Zbrojovka: Ceska Zbrojovka was the sole supplier of handguns to the Czech military from 1926 to 1954 (and possibly beyond). Among the military pistols produced b Ceska Zbrojovka are the Vz-24, V-27, Vz-36/45, Vz-38, Vz-50 &Vz-70, and the Vz-52. (Note: "Vz" is the abbreviation for "Vzor", or "Model").

Ceskoslovenska Zbrojovka: Speaking of which, with the Communist take-over in the late 1940's both Ceska Zbrojovka and Ceskoslovenska Zbrojovka ceased to exist, at least as we thinkof them as separate companies. Rather they became State owned manufacturing facilities ("Narodni Podnik", or "National Enterprise"). At this point it becomes unclear the degree to which commercial firearm markings indicate what factory was involved in the production of the firearm.

Does the above sound as if the Czech arms factories were plundered by the Soviets?

An in depth history of Czech arms companies can be found where I lifted the above quotes: http://www.gunsworld.com/cz/cz_history.htm

The actual post-war history of Czechoslovakia will prove interesting to those who think the country fell under Soviet domination immediately at war's end. It came over a period of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Czechoslovakia_(1945%E2%80%931948)

amd6547
May 8, 2009, 04:55 PM
Czechoslovakia was fully occupied by the NAZI's in 1939. Entire steel and chemical factories were moved to Austria.

atblis
May 8, 2009, 06:56 PM
Can you back that up with facts?
Sure. Look around for I think Clark's testing on barrels. Hardness varied over a range that is not indicative of quality.

rojocorsa
May 8, 2009, 08:05 PM
Other than the horrid quality some samples safety's have,
Heh, I never even thought that Tokarevs had safeties.

doubs43
May 8, 2009, 09:51 PM
Czechoslovakia was fully occupied by the NAZI's in 1939. Entire steel and chemical factories were moved to Austria.

Really? Funny how Czech gun factories turned out massive quantities of firearms and parts for firearms right through the war. They are considered to be some of the best the Nazi military had.

Sure. Look around for I think Clark's testing on barrels. Hardness varied over a range that is not indicative of quality.

That's dodging the question of providing facts. I've defended my position and now it's up to you to prove yours..... or not. It's not up to me to go looking for anything beyond proving MY points. Obviously you can't show that CZ/VZ-52 barrels have failed and that's pretty good proof that they used quality steel.

rust collector
May 8, 2009, 10:17 PM
but here's a two year-old thread that sounds vaguely familiar.
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-22071.html

What other pistols use the Tok round? Any 1911 conversions?

woad_yurt
May 8, 2009, 10:35 PM
I have a 1944 Czech made K98k (dou) and it's much more nicely made compared to my father's 1944 byf (Oberndorf.) There's a major difference. Czech made weapons seem to be quality no matter what's going on.

About the CZ 52: When they hit this country, they had been around for 50+ years already. I suspect that they were reassembled after "rearsenaling" with little quality control. The ones I've seen were all out of spec. Although they may have looked great, they still needed to be tightened up.

If you take the time to make sure the pins are staked correctly, form the mag lips back to the proper shape, and change out the firing pin and the recoil spring, you end up with a true monster pistol.

atblis
May 9, 2009, 12:16 AM
That's dodging the question of providing facts. I've defended my position and now it's up to you to prove yours..... or not. It's not up to me to go looking for anything beyond proving MY points. Obviously you can't show that CZ/VZ-52 barrels have failed and that's pretty good proof that they used quality steel.
You've provided exactly no proof either. SO where does that leave us?

Also, if the rest of the pistol is crap, what makes you think they'd suddenly use good steel for the barrel.

Seriously, search a ltitle for Clark posting stuff about the 52. A lot of people on here like to bad mouth him for some reason, but his info is very very interesting and truthfully more meaningful than all the "read it some where on the net" info people spew about the Cz52.

Czechs in general make very very good firearms. The CZ52 is not one of them. It was not made by the same CZ of CZ75 fame.

doubs43
May 9, 2009, 01:48 AM
You've provided exactly no proof either. SO where does that leave us?

It means you haven't read the links I provided. YOU claim "The metallurgy on the 52s is actually disturbingly variable and often quite crappy." You provide not one bit of evidence to support that opinion..... and that's all it is: an opinion. IF you have proof, link it. Otherwise, you have no case or credibility. The length of service the pistol enjoyed says that it wasn't made of crappy material.

BTW, Clark points out that he doesn't believe that factory ammo would ever cause a CZ-52 to fail; only that those he caused to fail did so at a point below pressures required to blow the primer from a case. IOW, it takes a load in excess of what the pistol was designed to handle. He does claim that the CZ-52 is the weakest auto pistol he's tested and that's due to the cutout required for the locking rollers that reduces chamber wall thickness at that point. BUT, unless pressures are elevated above factory ammo, there's no chance of it blowing apart.

JohnKSa
May 9, 2009, 02:09 AM
doubs43,

I think if you read what I posted and what you posted you'll see we're pretty much in agreement.

The CZ52 action is a strong design. That is, it's designed to function well with very hot ammunition. HOWEVER, as your measurements bear out, the chamber is not as strong as the Tok's chamber.

On the other hand, the Tok's beefier chamber doesn't mean that the action will tolerate a lot of pounding from shooting very hot ammunition.

In other words, if you start hot-loading ammo, the CZ chamber will give out before the Tok's chamber will. You'll get a blow-up at lower pressures in a CZ52 than in a Tok.

On the other hand, if you do a lot of shooting with very hot ammo that doesn't exceed the strength of the CZ52 chamber you'll probably find that the CZ stands up to it better.

So one might summarize by saying:

The Tok may shoot loose more rapidly with really hot ammo, but it's less likely to blow up from an overload. The CZ52 may blow up with really hot ammo that the Tok could handle without a blowup, but it's less likely than the Tok to shoot loose with ammo that isn't hot enough to blow it up. ;)

Here's some interesting reading.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=22071

Here's a blurb from something posted on page 4

"1) John Becrovitz, long time rec.guns contributor, buys 10 CZ52 barrels and tests them for hardness. Measurements between RC25 and RC35 were taken on intact 7.62x25mm barrels. A more modern 9mm CZ52 barrel tests at RC47."

doubs43
May 9, 2009, 02:37 AM
John, stated that way, I agree that we're pretty close in our assessment.

I own three CZ/VZ-52 pistols including one that has had a 9mm barrel chambered for the 9mm Largo cartridge.

I also own a 9mm Norinco Tokarev and a .38 Super conversion kit for it.

Both are fun to shoot and I reload all four cartridges. I don't push the pressure envelope so I don't really worry about blowing any of them to pieces. One of these days I'll buy a 7.62x25 barrel for the Tokarev just to have three calibers for it.

c919
May 9, 2009, 01:45 PM
ok so any advice on the polish vs. the romanian fmj's? im gonna order a spam can with the pistol and im thinking romanian...... any other thoughts?

woad_yurt
May 9, 2009, 04:00 PM
Romanian! It's good, quality stuff. Great, even.

If you get some that dont fire on the first pull, put a tiny washer under the hammer spring. The Romanian stuff had some no-goes because the primers are a little "hard." Once I put in the washer-spacer, 4,000+ rounds w/o misfire.

amd6547
May 9, 2009, 05:52 PM
In my Romanian TTC33, the Romanian has been 100%. I was shooting at the berm behind our clubs pistol range, which is about 75-85yds out. Just shooting at rocks and debris, I was hitting pretty close, and even making them fly and tumble. You could hear that little 86gn bullet smack the dirt.

If you enjoyed reading about "is a tokarev really at risk to blow up?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!