TT33 vs. CZ52: accuracy

I have heard the cz52 due to the fixed barrel, but it is all about consistent lock up. The slide on the cz moves, so the sights move. I can tell you I much prefer the sights on the TT33, but they are nothing to write home about (the cz sights are dismal). My Tokarev shoots really high, POI matches point of aim from about 75-100yds. I think the Russians were really optimistic about engagement distances, my Mosins all shoot high as well.

Few guns come close to realizing their potential accuracy. Care in fitting and manufacture, and good quality components probably matter more than the basic design.

Anecdotal stories on the internet claim that either of these guns can be a tack drivers -- but it's important to remember that both are service pistols, not target pistols, and most of the ammo used is military grade, not target grade.

The CZ-52 does NOT have a fixed barrel. It has a short-recoil system with a barrel that moves during recoil, but doesn't TILT. The fact that the barrel stays in a single plane doesn't guarantee better accuracy: a well-put-together CZ-52 or Tokarev could be equally accurate. And, as noted above, both guns have their sights mounted on the slides, and the slides and barrels separate during the firing cyclel; given that, accurate aimed fire from either is dependent on consistency of lockup when the slide closes.

None of the one's I've fired had great triggers -- and while a good trigger doesn't make a gun more accurate, it does make it easier to shoot accurately. Ransom rest tests, anyone?

Performance tests would be interesting, but unless you can find some NIB guns for those tests, thereby comparing apples to apples, the tests probably wouldn't tell you much.

unless you can find some NIB guns for those tests, thereby comparing apples to apples, the tests probably wouldn't tell you much.
Today 09:07 PM

Click to expand...

Agreed; being milsurps (and old ones, at that) the condition of the gun is far more impactful on accuracy than a theoretical advantage due to lockup method. If one of the Tok nations has particularly fantastic armories that do preventative servicing, I'd bet those particular pistols would outshoot the CZ's with worn out recoil springs.

TCB

I have heard the cz52 due to the fixed barrel,

Click to expand...

mine must be broke,
Somebody stuck some kind of roller thingy in there after the barrel became un-fixed.

Is my CZ vz.52 broken?

===

They're service pistols, the limiting factor on "accuracy" is the user and the quality of the sights.
If one were to rig up a ransom rest test of both with a variety of ammunition, you would have some interesting (and real-world useless) data. In the end, your hand is not a ransom rest, and both pistols will shoot just fine at any reasonable distance if in good working order.

TT

I have both. The TT is more consistent and the 52 has more flyers. Same ammo,and both are 1954 made milsurps. Plus you get more,or I do, felt recoil with the 52 which slows target acquisition.

By mechanical design the CZ has the potential to be the more accurate pistol, all other variables being equal...IMO

Sorry bout that, have not shot my 52 in so long I forgot the barrel moves too.

By mechanical design the CZ has the potential to be the more accurate pistol, all other variables being equal...IMO

Click to expand...

I've heard this claim before, but not the reasons for it. Are you saying that the fact that the CZ barrel doesn't tilt improves accuracy?

If so, I would argue that the fact that CZ-52 barrel mechanism doesn't TILT does not mean that there is more consistent lockup between barrel and slide than with other designs. When the sights are on the slide and the barrel and slide separate with each shot fired, an aimed shot's accuracy is dependent upon consistent slide/barrel lockup when the slide closes.

Perhaps you are talking about something OTHER than the non-tilting CZ-52 barrel design?

Guns on the market with separate slides and rotating barrels, roughly similar to the CZ-52 design (in that they don't tilt) -- the Beretta Cougar was one of them -- don't seem to be any more accurate than other guns. And, as noted above, consistent lockup is the key. To achieve that, care must be taken in design and manufacture to assure that consistency. I saw an article recently about the new Remington 1911, and it noted that special attention was paid, in final assembly, to getting a good fit in the critical parts.

I've seen nothing to suggest that the designers or builders of CZ-52s or TT-33s paid special attention to slide/barrel lockup in their design or in the production of their weapons.


.

I have Norinco 213 and CZ52. My norinco was much more accurate in my hand than my cz52. YMMV.

TOO MANY VARIABLES
the ONLY way to test this is to lock the gun into a ransom rest
fire ten round, check the grouping, there you will find your 'mechanical accuracy POTENTIAL'

it depends on the GUN, it's condition, how is the crown, the barrel...
it depends on the shooter, eyes, consistent site picture etc.
It depends on the CONDITIONS, changing gusty, calm, constant one direction...

That said, I find the TT to be easier to shoot, once compensated for the grip angle, doesn't say anything out accuracy (good BTW)

I have a pair of cz52's. 2 years apart. One shoots very, very accurate. The other not soo much. So I would say it depends on the gun. The only tt33 I shot was pretty good accuracy.

Walt Sherrill said:

I've heard this claim before, but not the reasons for it. Are you saying that the fact that the CZ barrel doesn't tilt improves accuracy?

Click to expand...

I'm saying by mechanical design, in my opinion, the CZ has the potential to be a more accurate design all things being equal.

With in spec rollers and fresh recoil spring (no loose breech) I believe the CZ with less barrel to slide action, should by consequence of that, lockup more consistently so by rights (with a slightly longer barrel also) be the more accurate design.

I'm not saying the CZ is the more robust or reliable design, simply the potential to be more accurate. Apparently the Czechs didn't help matters with their QC issues of heat treating and what not but I believe some of these so called refurbished 52's (black ones) are nothing more than refinished.

Some of the 52's out there people claim are so inaccurate most likely have loose breech with trashed rollers and worn recoil springs slamming the hell out of everything which not only ruins the barrels but makes the pistol flat out dangerous. If your brass is being thrown into the next county, and you can't hit what you're aiming at, here's your sign. :banghead:

The rollers and recoil spring were intended to be replaced as common maintenance yet how many are out there completely worn?....My 52 looked practically unissued when I purchased it and I still went ahead and replaced the firing pin with a machined one, an extra power Wolff recoil spring and hardened rollers and would highly suggest this to anyone who owns a 52.

The CZ is definitely a tinkers pistol so if you're not into that, than get the TOk.

With quality commercial ammo (S&B & PrVi) and in spec action and trigger job, my 52 is dead eye accurate....YMMV

I'm saying by mechanical design, in my opinion, the CZ has the potential to be a more accurate design all things being equal.

Click to expand...

That's what you stated originally, but you haven't told us why that mechanical design is better.

Is there an innately tighter lockup of barrel to slide with the CZ-52 design than other guns?

Is the lockup MORE CONSISTENT than other designs. Is there less play possible?

Is there a more-snug barrel bushing in the CZ than other guns?

Is the design such that the rear of the barrel always locks back into exactly the same place each time -- if the parts are new and fresh?

What does it do BETTER than the TOK or other designs?

The fact that the barrel stays in one plane isn't by itself something "golden" that guarantees better accuracy or accuracy potential.

Walt Sherrill said:

That's what you stated originally, but you haven't told us why that mechanical design is better.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've stated my reasoning, whether you agree with my opinion or not. I haven't heard you state any reasoning to convince me otherwise.

Walt Sherrill said:

The fact that the barrel stays in one plane isn't by itself something "golden" that guarantees better accuracy or accuracy potential.

Click to expand...

I believe for the reasons I already stated, it lends itself to exactly that....Who knows definitively, do you?

I believe for the reasons I already stated, it lends itself to exactly that....Who knows definitively, do you?

Click to expand...

Unless I missed a message/response somewhere, you didn't state reasons. You cited the mechanism itself without describing what that meant or how the mechanism made the CZ-52 a potentially more accurate weapon.

What is it about that design that makes it potentialy more accurate?

Your main argument seems to be a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" -- you're using your assumption as your proof (i.e., the CZ-52 design is what makes CZ-52 accurate). It's an easy claim to make, but it doesn't tell us anything. You clearly believe it's a more-accurate design, but you've given me NO REASON to believe as you do.

YOU MAY BE RIGHT about the potential for accuracy of the CZ-52 design, but you've offered no evidence to support your claim. Maybe the evidence is out there waiting to be found. If so, let's find it -- as it would be nice to have a definitive answer to this question.

..