cz-52 vs tt-33


PDA






xxxleafybugxxx
August 17, 2012, 03:45 PM
Im sure its been asked, but I want to know wha t you guys think. I have a cz already but the tt-33 can be had for about 200. Seeing as I got the cz for dirt cheap, and love it (besides the safety issue it has) I sure would like another pistol chambered in an amazing calibersuch as this

If you enjoyed reading about "cz-52 vs tt-33" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mgmorden
August 17, 2012, 04:43 PM
I don't have a TT-33 but have a Yugo M-57 (mostly same thing with a longer grip) and the CZ-52.

Reportedly the CZ-52's action is stronger, but I like the ergonomics of the Tokarev better. Feels better in the hand and just points better for me. The CZ is a bit more "unique" in its design though.

Overall, I'll never git rid of either, but if I could only keep one it'd be the Tokarev. For $200 they're hard to pass up - I'd get one.

xxxleafybugxxx
August 17, 2012, 04:49 PM
Thanks mg. Knowing me, ill probably end up with one. What are the odds that a shipment of surp ammo comes in soon lowering the price?

kerreckt
August 17, 2012, 05:14 PM
I have a Yugo M57, Chinese Type 54,and a Romanian TTC. There are many things to like about the Tokarev design. Heavily influenced by John Browning's designs, which is a nice way of saying "copied" but with some interesting features such as a trigger assembly which can be removed as a unit. When you are dis-assembling it just lifts out. Much simpler and contrary to popular belief stronger than the CZ52. The CZ52 design is unique in that it is a cam roller lock system very similar to the German MG42. More complex and susceptible to problems than the Tokarev with an honestly earned reputation of breaking firing pins. I have a couple of these and enjoy shooting them but I believe the Tokarev in any of its versions is the better pistol. Go for it get a Tokarev or three.

firesky101
August 17, 2012, 09:26 PM
Check out our member Clark. He makes a hobby out of blowing up cz-52's. I personally like the look of the cz-52, and if you don't overload it it will be fine. I shoot my tokarev more, and it is what I chose to convert to 9x23win.

bigfatdave
August 17, 2012, 09:36 PM
I don't have a TT-33 but have a Yugo M-57 (mostly same thing with a longer grip) and the CZ-52.
Reportedly the CZ-52's action is stronger, but I like the ergonomics of the Tokarev better. Feels better in the hand and just points better for me. The CZ is a bit more "unique" in its design though.
Overall, I'll never git rid of either, but if I could only keep one it'd be the Tokarev. For $200 they're hard to pass up - I'd get one.I'm in the same boat, CZ vz52 and a Yugo M57 ... they're both interesting and fun guns. My source for cheap ammo has dried up, so I shoot them less than I'd like.

Don't ditch the CZ
Do snag a Tokarev for $200

stock up on magazines and ammo, they're going away and nothing is as useless as a gun with no ammo or a magazine-fed gun without a working mag.

barnbwt
August 17, 2012, 09:50 PM
Well, the CZ52 is definitely sexier than the TT-33, in a Soviet locomotive kinda way...

Milsurp ammo is unlikely to be cheap again, but availabilty is the real problem at the moment. Fortunately there are (expensive) 9mm conversion barrels out there for both guns. I've seen them go (for the CZ) for over 300$, usually. Instead, I picked up a spam-can of 800 rounds (Bulgarian, I think) for 175$ (yeah, yeah, I know it used to be 80$; get over it!), and that should last me until the supply re-establishes itself.

I like unusual and unique firearm mechanisms, so the CZ is right up my alley. Dual roller locks (as stated earlier, similar to the MG42 in concept) lock the barrel to the slide until the frame forces the rollers to drop away, freeing the slide to yank out the spent casing.

With a (usually functional :uhoh:) decocker (DON'T TRUST IT), sear safety, rebounding hammer with block, and firing pin block, it was a very feature-packed gun in its day. It's actually pretty simple, despite all those features, too. When I tore mine down to pins for cleaning and polishing in my refurb project, I was suprised to see it consists of only a dozen or so parts (yes, counting springs and pins, too). Removing the barrel from the slide is more difficult than most guns due to the rollers, but I don't think there is an easier gun to do a full tear-down on. Basic field strip is a joke, pull a knurled pin while pushing the barrel back, and presto!

On mine, the decocker mechanism is not worn, so it is perfectly functional and safe. I will not rely on it, though, because the instant it does wear, it could set the gun off. Safe decocking practices go double for this gun. The reputation for broken firing pins is very real; the original pins were cast in very hard, brittle steel. Half a dozen dry-fires will break it. The extractors have a (much rarer) similar issue. Fortunately, replacement pins of the correct steel are widely available (with a spring return, to boot), as are locking rollers, modified slide releases, extractors, mag floorplates, and springs (all). I believe Novak even does rear-sight jobs for the CZ52.

The other common issue with the guns I'm aware of is trigger slap. When fired, the slide moves back and smacks the disconnector down (but also to the back a bit), imparting shock through the trigger. It can also be caused when the slide closes, smacking the firing-pin safety release cam down, again imparting force to the trigger. Both are supposedly easy to cure with simple polishing and shaping, but I have not yet attempted to do so. Aside from the slap, which limits my endurance, the trigger is spongy but smooth, and a bit heavy. At 25yards, my CZ is as accurate as any of my guns that aren't my Five-seveN (not really saying much, though; 4" groups).

All in all, it's a fun, unique, and fascinating gun that really wasn't made in very high numbers. Moreover, the round has great potential, that I believe will be realized in the next couple of years. I keep hearing more and more people asking why modern guns aren't made in 7.62 tokarev. If you're lucky, the CZ52 will appreciate 50% in one year for you, too ;)

TCB

xxxleafybugxxx
August 17, 2012, 10:57 PM
Barn, my safety issue is that after a shot or two, the safety starts to slowly engage itself. Do after every shot, I find myself making sure the safety is off (or else the trigger pull gets harder and harder) I do like the trigger pull, but its annoying making sure the safety is off after every shot. Other than that, Ive had my rear sight slide off... other than those issues I love the gun. I would like a tt 33, but also am probably more interested in a pps 43. IF ANY OF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PPS 43, PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT IT. Thanks for all the responses.

barnbwt
August 18, 2012, 01:50 AM
Link to PPS-43C Product Page (http://centerfiresystems.com/pps43-pis.aspx)

The PPS 43 is a pistol-ed submachine gun. I believe they were modified to fire closed bolt, instead of the original open, which has caused cycling issues in other platforms (like MAC 10's). Like any modified mil-surp, I'm sure the quality depends highly on who does the modification (read: Century) and if the recievers are pieced-together or made from whole cloth.

With a stock, I'd be the 43 would be an absolute pussycat to shoot, but I have a feeling they are a bit rough-shod in execution. I'd be delighted at the opportunity to check one out in person sometime, though. The folding stock looks cool, too bad CFS welded it closed...

My CZ 52 had what I thought was a hammer-follow problem when I first got it. I later learned that the long-ass grip was causing me to grip the gun more with my thumb than usual. This meant my thumb stuck up more, and was bumping against the safety lever under recoil. Wasn't an issue unless I slacked my grip even the slightlest bit; then the safety lever would get spun all the way to decock, and I'd be left pulling the trigger on a lowered hammer going "huh?".

I intentionally place my thumber lower than I like (for now) and haven't had the problem. Eventually, I'll make some grips with a ridge to catch my thumb when it flips up, guarding the decocker from activation. I agree, though, that it'd be nice if the gun went "fire, safe, decock" instead of "safe, fire, decock". At least then you could flip down the lever quickly and keep shooting. Also check the strength of the detent (sp? can't do accents) spring and it's groove in the decocker axle. I made a few quick passes with a triangular file to deepen the groove, and the lever is now much more positive.

TCB

More CZ52 advice: don't try drilling a tang-sight hole into the slide; the metal is so damn hard you'll burn up three carbide bits and curse a lot. Pay someone else to do it. That hardness also makes it impossible to blue the slide and frame the same color.

xxxleafybugxxx
August 18, 2012, 05:33 PM
Thanks barn. Ill go with the tt fro. Jg. Should I wait to order with the possibility of 7.62x25 coming in at a lower price, or not?

firesky101
August 18, 2012, 06:00 PM
I doubt 7.62x25 will come down any unless a huge quantity of importable surplus is found.

xxxleafybugxxx
August 18, 2012, 06:28 PM
Surely there's more out there...

Ash
August 18, 2012, 06:41 PM
I have owned Tokes and still own a CZ-52 - have shot it for 15 years now with nary a problem. It was in new condition, phosphate, 1954 date without a rebuild and it is still just as tight as it was when I got it.

But, a Toke is a good pistol and perhaps folks would be better satisfied with it.

xxxleafybugxxx
August 18, 2012, 06:43 PM
Well I found a n m57 on aim surplus. What is better between me that and a tt33?

firesky101
August 18, 2012, 08:05 PM
M57
Pros:9 rounds in the mag instead of 8
Cons: Mags that cost 3x as much as their tt-33 cousins

xxxleafybugxxx
August 18, 2012, 10:26 PM
What is the deal with a c&r license? Do I need one? Also, im leaning towards the m57

mgmorden
August 19, 2012, 12:21 AM
What is the deal with a c&r license? Do I need one? Also, im leaning towards the m57

You don't need one, but they're a nice thing to have. It's a type of FFL that you can get as a collector that will allow you to have certain types of firearms ("Curios and Relics" - basically anything off of a list of collectible items or anything over 50 years old) shipped directly to your residence.

It's convenient, but with $15-20 FFL fees these days, combined with the fact that things can ship to a regular FFL via USPS (whereas C&R holders have to use UPS or Fedex 2-day), plus the fact that since its a signature required item I have to take off from work to receive the package, I've found myself not using my license as much these days.

Kiln
August 19, 2012, 05:48 AM
Surely there's more out there...
I dunno, people have been shooting up all of the old surplus ammo for a long time. There are tons more gun owners today shooting more and more 7.62x25 ammo than ever before.

The supply of actual military surplus ammo in an obsolete chambering like this is bound to run out some day.

Ash
August 19, 2012, 07:08 AM
I had a license, but let it go. They weren't that great to have, didn't really save that much money, and worse, open you up to more government scrutiny (plus they get to inspect you - at your home or their office, your choice - but being at one more whim of the government to save some bucks on old firearms was too much sugar for a dime for me).

GBExpat
August 19, 2012, 07:47 AM
What is the deal with a c&r license? Do I need one?

I have had an 03FFL for 10+ years.

A 3-year license costs $35 and you can have C&Rs shipped directly to the address listed on your license ... usually the person's home.

My 01FFL buddy charges $20/firearm for the Transfer Fee (and don't forget to factor in the time & expense in having to drive to another location to pickup your purchases), so each of my 03FFLs paid for themselves with my 2nd related C&R purchase ... and, perhaps, my 1st.

I also get "dealer" discounts at a number on online gunparts/reloading merchants by having my 03FFL registered with my account.

Yes, BATFE can contact you for inspection, but that seems to be getting rarer every year (I haven't read of an inspection on a forum in a long time), probably due to the huge number of people getting 03FFLs & the BATFE having limited staffing and MUCH more important things to do.

So the answer to your question is ... only you can answer it.

In my case, I bought a LOT of C&R firearms and also quite a bit of gunparts & reloading items, so my $35 investment in an 03FFL every 3 years has been well worth both the expense & slight possibility of an audit ... to me. The 03FFLs have saved me well over $1000 ... o'course there IS a dark aspect to this ...

... because I had an 03FFL, I spent a massive amount of money on this stuff.

The C&R Curse. ;)

GBExpat
August 19, 2012, 07:55 AM
BTW, I own multiples of several flavors of TT-33s and their Variants. I really like the way that they feel, shoot and conceal. The M57s are fine pistols and may be the best-designed of the group.

I also own 3 CZ-52s that I haven't shot in almost a decade (12Oct02 was the last time) because I find them to be heavy, awkward and relatively uncomfortable.

Bohemus
August 19, 2012, 03:45 PM
Having shot both i vote for Tokarev. I am usually CZ patriot, but this time...
Vz.52 was originaly 9mm pistol but was issued in time of transition to soviet calibers and its definitely not the stronger action of the two.

wojownik
August 19, 2012, 05:29 PM
I vote Tokarev as well. Still have two Polish Toks, and recently sold off my CZ-52.

Shadow 7D
August 20, 2012, 04:59 AM
Toks, as close to a Browning 1911 as I care to get in a round that I like so much better than .45

CZ, well (BTW, VZ generally refers to the rifle of the same year, were CZ is used for the pistol) is a brick and complicated, using an exotic type lockup and its BIG, at least the Tok doesn't suffer from that, it aint a brick.

Fastcast
August 20, 2012, 03:00 PM
The CZ52 is no BIGGER than a 1911 and actually is thinner than a 1911. It's certainly not a brick either. :rolleyes:

The thing that makes the 52 feel somewhat ungainly is the thinness of the grip accompanied by its widthhh. A simple Hogue Handall grip with the palm swells, transforms the feel/ergonomics of the 52 into a long day of shooting. :D

The 52 is by design, more accurate than a Tok could ever imagine. It's more interesting & unusual, made in limited numbers, a little over 200,000 so it's rarer than a Tok and appeals to me more than a hacked over Tok with the afterthought safety for importation. I guess that's what makes the world go around....Make mine a CZ52! :)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/fastcast/CZ52-1.jpg

xxxleafybugxxx
August 20, 2012, 04:53 PM
Thanks cat. As the time has gone on, I've realized I probably don't really need to buy a Tok. I love my CZ (like i've said before, minus the issues i have with it.) The main issue is the safety. i don't know if it engages itself, of my thumb rides up and starts to engage it. either way, after a few shots, the safety goes on a bit, making it difficult to shoot. Id like to get rid of this so whenever I get my ccw, i can make my cz my car/truck gun.

GBExpat
August 20, 2012, 08:43 PM
So ... in the words of Emily Litella, "Nevermind." :)

barnbwt
August 20, 2012, 11:43 PM
The main issue is the safety. i don't know if it engages itself, of my thumb rides up and starts to engage it. either way, after a few shots, the safety goes on a bit, making it difficult to shoot.

Like I said, file the detent groove in the safety switch a bit and see if it's more positive. If not, bend the shallow curve in the slide lock spring that engages the groove a tad sharper to increase the locking force. The CZ really breaks down quite easily for this kind of service; I believe all you'd have to do for this adjustment is release the mainspring (hardest part), remove the hammer and pivot screw (careful not to strip it), and drift out the pin holding the sear in the frame.

Now, if the safety's engaging without rotating the lever, I can't help you there ;)

TCB

coalbed
December 11, 2012, 02:34 PM
Clark also sticks sniper barrels on $200 tt-33's. ;rolleyes;

Walt Sherrill
December 11, 2012, 10:45 PM
The 52 is by design, more accurate than a Tok could ever imagine.

You make a strong assertion. Evidence? Facts? Theory? I have read all sorts of claims favoring each of the basic designs being discussed in this message chain, but would note that these claims are seldom supported with proofs of any sort.

Got any?

coalbed
February 8, 2013, 01:30 AM
The tok uses a tipping barrel lock up, and the cz 52 used a roller lock. The barrel on the 52 is in a straight line in relation to the bore, All other things being equal (bore condition, front bearing surface, ect) by design the cz 52 is more accurate. So I agree.

Kiln
February 8, 2013, 04:07 AM
I've only fired the Chinese model 213 in 9mm and a CZ52. The Tokarev is just smaller, slimmer, and prettier IMO. I found the CZ52 to be less refined.

I know it is kind of a different animal in 9mm but it is a very close clone to the actual Tokarev, some parts will even swap between them.

amd6547
February 8, 2013, 08:25 AM
The CZ52 I owned looked like a new pistol. It was a pistol I had wanted since I was young, and saw one in a book. Lockup was tight, there was no slide/frame /barrel play.
At the range, it was very inaccurate. Ten inch groups at 25yds with either S&B ammo or surplus.
It also would fail to go into battery...I often had to push the slide shut, and a new recoil spring didn't help.
Finally, the well known breaking firing pin...I was cleaning and lubing my CZ and my thumb slipped...yes, exactly one drop on an empty chamber, and the firing pin flew across the room.
I sold it, and replaced it with a Romanian TT33. The Tok works perfectly. It is also accurate enough to shoot out to 100yds. Thinner, and with a compact butt, it is a joy to carry. Feels better in my hand, as well.
The CZ52 is an interesting pistol...The Tokarev is a successful pistol used for decades in major conflicts. For my uses, the Tok is a much better pistol.

Walt Sherrill
February 8, 2013, 09:15 AM
The tok uses a tipping barrel lock up, and the cz 52 used a roller lock. The barrel on the 52 is in a straight line in relation to the bore, All other things being equal (bore condition, front bearing surface, ect) by design the cz 52 is more accurate. So I agree.

In theory, the CZ should be more accurate -- but consistency of lockup is the key. When the sights are on the slide, unless the barrel realigns with the slide in exactly the same way after each shot there's room for variation and error in aimed fire. There may be TIGHT barrel/slide fit on examples of either of these, but I doubt that such "fine fit" is all that common in either gun.

If the Tok locks up consistently, the barrel will have moved a mere fraction of an inch before the bullet leaves the barrel, and vertical barrel movement (TILT), which should be the same with each shot, will adjust the point of impact in a consistent manner. A Tokarev can be just as accurate as the CZ-52, all other factors being equal -- but neither gun is considered a target pistol.

Guns that use a rotating barrel lockup system comparable in some respects to the CZ-52 design -- and there are several (the Beretta Cougar among them) -- do not generally outperformed guns with the Browning-designed tilting systems in terms of accuracy.

Both the Tok and the CZ-52 were designed as military service weapons, for up-close-and-personal work, and fine accuracy was arguably NOT a consideration.

Some observers say that CZ-52 engineers chose the ROLLER system (based on a German machine gun, itself based on an earlier Polish design) to assure stronger lockup, allowing the use of more-powerful ammunition. Could be -- but other observers note that the Tokarev chamber itself is much beefier than the CZ-52 chamber, and that factor also affects the ability of a gun to handle hot ammo. (From Wikipedia: "The bottom of the CZ 52 chamber measures 0.058", whereas the supposedly weaker TT33 Tokarev pistol measures 0.125" at the bottom of the chamber.")

I've shot both the Tok and CZ-52 but own neither, and have no dog in this fight. Both are a hoot to shoot -- especially in low-light conditions. The 7.62x25 round will defeat most body armor, which is frightening.


.

GBExpat
February 8, 2013, 11:03 AM
Excellent write-up, Walt.

Thanks for taking the time to share that.

strange246
February 8, 2013, 04:31 PM
Another vote for the CZ52, I've shot both, the Tok is easier to conceal if thats an issue, but the CZ's I've shot are more accurate than the Toks in my experience in side by side shooting..My current CZ was bought unissued and unfired, with good (ie: not surplus) ammo at 15 yards it'll put 7 rounds in one jagged hole...Either one is great fun though, the looks and comments of "What the **** are you shooting?" after 3-4 rounds at my local indoor range are priceless LOL

Jaymo
February 8, 2013, 11:04 PM
I wish I could find a good Tok for a decent price.
All I've found are 9mms and rough looking Romanians.

jdh
February 9, 2013, 04:35 PM
When ever I grip a TT in the way I have been taught (1911) it is pointing at the ground about 25 yards out. The CZ is a more natural pointer to me.

PabloJ
February 9, 2013, 05:03 PM
Im sure its been asked, but I want to know wha t you guys think. I have a cz already but the tt-33 can be had for about 200. Seeing as I got the cz for dirt cheap, and love it (besides the safety issue it has) I sure would like another pistol chambered in an amazing calibersuch as this
Sell the CZ and use those funds plus $200 to buy one good handgun.

wally
February 9, 2013, 08:08 PM
Reportedly the CZ-52's action is stronger,

Search the forums for articles by Clark, a reloader who likes to blow up guns! He'll put this myth quickly to rest.

Both are interesting designs but my TTC is much easer to clean and more fun to shoot, the grip in the CZ is just too long and narrow.

My vote is for the TOK, but the days of cheap corrosive surplus appear over for both :(

Although Wolf/Privi 7.62x39 reloadable brass non-corrosive ammo is available for about the same cost per round as .45ACP ammo.

Walt Sherrill
February 9, 2013, 08:52 PM
The "Clark" in question is Clark Magnuson, and he's mentioned in the following link. It's an interesting article. It's a reference to Magnuson's test, but not direct info about those tests. These tests are also mentioned on some other sites, but I haven't (yet) found anything directly from Magnuson... Still looking.

http://www.bobtuley.com/cz-52/


.

kBob
February 10, 2013, 10:01 AM
Wasn't there also a conversion barrel and spring for .38 Super for the Tok?

Might be intersting to have a Tok set up for 7.62P, 9x19 and .38 Super.

Was there ever a .22 convrsion for semi auto fire?

-kBob

firesky101
February 10, 2013, 08:26 PM
Never seen a .22 conversion, but I have barrels for my tokarev to shoot 7.62x25, 9x19, .38super, and 9x23. All those are stock except the 9x23. If I find another barrel I will ream it to 9x21. I use the same spring with them all, it is a little heavier than stock.

Shadow 7D
February 11, 2013, 11:23 AM
If you want to know about Clark's tests, PM him....

barnbwt
February 11, 2013, 11:14 PM
Quick summary, CZ fails first where the metal is thinnest (and at a sharp inside corner) below the chamber where the roller-pocket is. IIRC, both failed well above proof loads, with obstructed barrels, so IMO "ultimate strength" is hardly the issue (and even that was only found in handful of samples, so no definitive answers). The real issue is that the CZ is more prone to wear and breakage, since the design is ultimately more reliant upon good metallurgy (which the Czechs didn't manage to pull off in a few areas on the pistol).

I like the CZ since it looks far more refined (even if it isn't functionally), and it has an interesting and unique mechanism. With proper maintanence, it is plenty reliable. There is suitable parts availability to keep it running for a long time, ammo is available, and I have a 9mm barrel to help with that even more. Being a Curio/Relic, I am more interested in the history and design of the pistol, than it's purported behavior under stress failure or suitability for daily carry. I'd imagine most buyers (or potential buyers) of either pistol would agree with that ;)

TCB

Snowdog
February 13, 2013, 01:57 PM
I used to have a CZ-52 but found the ergonomics horrible for me. It was reliable but simply not accurate (in my hands). Other than being reliable, looking exotic and firing an interesting round, it had no redeeming virtues IMO.

I later used my C&R to purchase a Yugoslavian M57 and wow. There was no comparison. I found it comfortable, still no 1911, but it felt much better in my mitts than the CZ-52.

I liked it so much, and disliked the Cz-52 enough to sell the latter after purchasing a second M57 with a bunch of Yugoslavian 7.62x25 ball.

The Cz-52 may have the potential of being more accurate, but that doesn't equate to jack if the pistol doesn't fit you and has a heavy trigger (as mine did). Personally, I couldn't consistently print decent groups with it, whereas I can with both my M57s. Much, much better groups, in fact.

And this whole "the Cz-57 is stronger" also doesn't mean jack to me. When's the last time you've seen a destroyed Tokarev? Have you seen it first hand? Got photos.
Bottom line, Tokarevs aren't known for exploding or prematurely wearing loose, so I give zero credence to the whole potential strength hooey as it amounts to zilch.

Go with whichever fits your hands and shoots the best for you.

For me, it's the Tok (specifically the M57) for me!

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4130/5063169645_c43f710c0f_z.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4102/4756211125_db97df9fb5_z.jpg

coalbed
February 18, 2013, 03:40 PM
Well just shoot whatever you like, I own both but I prefer the CZ 52, so much in fact that I bought both my sons and my brother one for a Christmas gift. They all love them as well. As far as the "blowing up" nonsense, the biggest yapper about it has hundreds of pages and posts on tons of forums and not one smidgen of proof ( I asked him about the methods of testing used and for some of the numbers, and maby a picture, no reply I'm still waiting). If you tap a bolt in the barrel of a gun and fire it, guess what, it's going to blow up. if you pack mud down the barrel, same thing, one story about the destruction of a CZ 52, the fellow had a failure to fire, then the next shot it blew up, he was using some old com block surplus ammo. I can't stress this enough, if you have a failure to fire, especially while using surplus ammo, you had best look and see if there is a bullet lodged in your bore. And as for barrel/chamber thickness, I have other firearms with less, the worst of which is the Kel Tec 3AT (I have one of those as well, and it hasn't blown up). The same guy spewing all the hate claims to have tested 12 CZ barrels at Aberdeen proving grounds or NASA or Area 51 or somewhere (of course no pictures or data report for this either just his story) and they had a hardness varying somewhere between a cast lead bullet and Kraft macaroni and cheese. Nonsense I don't have a dozen pistols to test nor do I have a $12,000 hardness tester, but between my family guns and 2 of my friends I tested 6 with my bullet hardness tester (heck he had even me worried, and I didn't want my kids hurt) It will ping a steel gilding jacket, and it wouldn't make a dent in any of the barrels, so I know they are at least that hard. (the numbers posted are impossible for any kind of steel). I'm not saying its stronger than the Tokarev, I have no idea which is stronger and really I could care less. What I am tired of is this BS has went from "which one is stronger", to "the CZ 52 is unsafe to shoot". In good condition, with the ammo designed for it, the CZ is perfectly safe. To the point, we are talking about Česká Zbrojovka in Strakonice, not some 3rd world Banana Republic built between a 12 year old's feet. The Czechs have been making firearms in Bohemia and Moravia for 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED) years. They made gun barrels for all of Europe when none could make them but this area. The CZ 52 pistol served hard military duty for 30 (THIRTY) years. In my big ham of a hand, its more accurate than my TT-33. I suspect, like a copy cat killer, the biggest majority of these "tales of destruction" are from guys who have read that before (and God knows one guy has posted it enough) and they think that alot of them will do that, so they created a colorful story for their link mates. My opinion for what its worth.

Shadow 7D
February 18, 2013, 03:52 PM
Yeah, CZ...
not go check out Czech history in 52... NOT a high point

coalbed
February 18, 2013, 03:59 PM
Yeah, CZ...
not go check out Czech history in 52... NOT a high point
Yes I know it wasn't the high point of the country's history, the only thing my rant was about was to show that this pistol is a solid shooter, and its safe, contrary to what some would have us to believe. One more small little point, if you are familiar with the safety mechanism of a CZ 52, you know about polishing the firing pin retainer plunger or retractor/lock a bit to lighten the trigger pull. What some don't know is that the piece interacts with the hammer drop safety mechanism. After that article was posted, I wonder how many Bubbas' tore into those with a file? One thing I don't know, but I have a theory,(maby a real CZ smith could tell me), is whether or not the piece has anything to do with the firing out of battery safety.

Snowdog
February 18, 2013, 04:17 PM
The entire time I owned my CZ-52, I may have muttered and moaned about the ergonomics each time I took it out to the range, but never did I feel I was firing an unsafe design.

I don't believe for a second that there are CZ-52s exploding in the hands of shooters using common milsurp or commercial ammunition.

Shadow 7D
February 18, 2013, 04:42 PM
Coalded, check out the CZ forum, they had a sticky on it a few years ago, gist was, not really safe to do

Walt Sherrill
February 18, 2013, 05:51 PM
The ONLY safety issue I've ever heard about with CZ-52s, is the malfunction of the decocker mechanism on some of them. I've seen that issue on the pistol range; luckily the gun was pointed in a safe direction -- even though the owner wasn't thinking about the potential discharge.

And then there's the problem with firing pin's breaking -- solved by getting after-market replacements. Not a safety issue, just a minor PITA.

I almost picked up CZ-52 factory converted to 9mm -- but passed it by; I later went back to see if it was still there, but it wasn't. there. It wasn't.

Shadow 7D
February 18, 2013, 07:02 PM
there is NO "factory converted"
sorry, NO, all 9mm barrels are aftermarket
It was originally a 9mm gun, but due to the fact they were Combloc they had to go with X25

Walt Sherrill
February 18, 2013, 09:14 PM
there is NO "factory converted"
sorry, NO, all 9mm barrels are aftermarket
It was originally a 9mm gun, but due to the fact they were Combloc they had to go with X25

I wasn't trying to suggest that CZ (Strakonice) had anything to do with the conversion -- I should have put quote marks around "factory" -- I was only trying to say that it wasn't done by Bubba or his cousin.

The manual and the box the 9mm CZ-52 came in were professionally done and consistent with a commercially modified and marketed weapon. It was far more nicely packaged than the CZ-50 I got a few years earlier -- The manual was well-translated and illustrated.

While I do think it WAS "factory" converted, I suspect the factory was something like the one run by the Gnomes at Century Arms. (There's no way it could have been done at the CZ factory that built it as that factory was no longer building handguns. By the time those CZ-52s made it to the U.S., the factory where the CZ-52 had been built was building motorcycles and precision equipment. All firearm production had been shifted to a different factory, and the CZ-52 hadn't been built for a decade or two...

I'm surprised to hear that the CZ-52 was first developed as a 9mm weapon, as how NO OTHER military weapon routinely issued to the Eastern Bloc military used 9mm ammo. That may have been a design goal, but I can understand why it never happened. Apparently, only a few (very elite) Special Forces units/personnel even had access to 9mm weapons or ammo.

coalbed
February 18, 2013, 10:28 PM
The ONLY safety issue I've ever heard about with CZ-52s, is the malfunction of the decocker mechanism on some of them. I've seen that issue on the pistol range; luckily the gun was pointed in a safe direction -- even though the owner wasn't thinking about the potential discharge.....




That issue is caused by excessive wear (or deliberate home "trigger job") of the aforementioned firing pin plunger or retractor/lock. here is a good post about the correct way to touch up this trigger, and explains the decocker problem in good detail. (there used to be a post on doing a trigger job that actually caused alot of these problems, but I cant find it now, they may have removed it, one can hope).http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=4980.0 as he states, you should really never trust ANY firearms decocker 100%.

Shadow 7D
February 19, 2013, 12:36 AM
Walt, don't forget CZ is the home of the WONDER 9(mm) Cz75, first of the first...
so Yeah, it was but remember at the same time there was 'unrest' and the crack downs in Ukraine, Poland and Hungary...
Oh, forgot, they were ALSO tooled for 9mm because of their war time production in WWII

Walt Sherrill
February 19, 2013, 08:50 AM
Walt, don't forget CZ is the home of the WONDER 9(mm) Cz75, first of the first...
so Yeah, it was but remember at the same time there was 'unrest' and the crack downs in Ukraine, Poland and Hungary...
Oh, forgot, they were ALSO tooled for 9mm because of their war time production in WWII

When the CZ-52 was first designed and later built, there was unrest, but it was primarily private citizens who were unhappy and restless, not important segments of the existing power structure/government -- like the arms makers. After Hungary, things quieted down a bit, and it wasn't until the mid '80s that nationalism in all of the member countries of the Communist Bloc started to become (or was allowed to become) a force for independence.

Until then, trying to build a military weapon in a non-approved caliber would have been a sure way to get fired and maybe even imprisoned. (Then, too, the folks pushing for 9mm weapons would have had to set up ammo manufacturing processes to support a 9mm version of the gun; I find the whole idea hard to grasp.)

And YES, the CZ-75 was built in 9mm, but that was 25+ years later, conceived in a totally different manufacturing organization (still called CZ), a different CZ factory and staff, and designed by František Koucký, fresh out of prison. The design was apparently intended for international sales, and not military use. CZ hoped to sell it overseas, and did, but the Western blockade of Communist Bloc goods kept these CZs from hitting it big time. (You could get them in Canada and West Germany and places in Africa and the Eastern Bloc, but almost nowhere else. Quite a few CZ-75s came back to the U.S., first having been sold to G.I.s, in US Post and Base Exchanges in Germany. A lot of those guns were tricked out by a firm named Frankonia. Very nice guns.)

It wasn't until around 1985 -- the start of liberalization under Gorbachev in the Soviet Union -- that 9mm ammo could even be used by military units in the Communist Bloc, and the gun itself was first made available to civilians in Czechoslovakia about then.

During the dark years of Communist rule, the Communists had kept their patents for the weapon "secret," so the unprotected (under international law) design was simply "cloned" in the West, by Tanfoglio. It was the hot gun for a number of years in IPSC starting in the mid 80's.

The Czech National Police LATER used the first alloy-framed CZs (the PCR, for "Police of the Czech Republic"), and that led to some changes in manufacturing processes to address problems with the earliest models. Those problems have long-since been resolved, and the alloy-framed versions now are as robust as the steel versions -- the FORGED alloy P-01 seems especially robust.

If you have any technical references [or historical articles or books about the subject, etc.] that tells us more about the 9mm episodes, please share it with us, as I'd really like to know more about that part of their history. Even info about using 9mm by the Communist Bloc in WWII would be of interest.

I've done some C&R collecting over the years, and read quite a bit, and I have always believed that only the Germans (for the P-38 and P-08 and P-35s) and the United Kingdom (for their High Powers) used 9mm in WWII. The ONLY 9mm weapons I've ever seen from the Soviets were CAPTURED weapons, later re-arsenaled and used by their police and border guards AFTER the war -- I had one of those Lugers, myself. I'd like to know more.

[Later addition: the Germans also used some Stars, from Spain. I had one of their Model Bs, with Waffenampt -- but found later that those marks were likely faked by the importer or distributor. The Germans DID use Star Models Bs, however. I'm sure a few other oddball guns slipped into the German Amry's inventory, but I never heard of the Soviets using anything in 9mm until long after the war, and then only with captured weapons..]

Shadow 7D
February 19, 2013, 01:34 PM
I would have to dig, most of it was from people connected with old timers (and in czech) that were active in the Czech arms industry, second hand accounts, from what it seemed, the Czechs were tooled up for 9mm (remember the German production from WWII) and they had to RE-tool to x25...

If you enjoyed reading about "cz-52 vs tt-33" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!