Clark
Member
barnbwt
Clark, correct me if I misinterpret, but it seems the most important issue you had with the CZ52 was that the incorrect assertion of it's superior strength led to unsafe load reccomendations, no?
I think you are conflating the two issues I named:
1) CZ52 has thin chamber walls and widely varying steel strength.
2) The gun culture published many times, erroneously, that the CZ52 is stronger that the Tokarev.
I will try to speculate and list some of the possible mistakes made surrounding the CZ52:
1) The Russians were building Tokarevs in 1930 and by 1951 were setting up factories to build the tried and true Tokarevs in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and China. Why should the Czechs develop a new pistol with no real advantages?
2) The very thin chamber was probably a late change to the design without re testing. The proof testing was done, but later the rollers were unreliable. So the rollers were made taller and more material had to be removed from the barrel to make room.
3) The barrel alloy and/or heat treat was an out of control process.
4) The CZ52 pistols were imported into the US with no real history of proof testing each pistol, and sold as the cheapest pistol for sale in the US.
5) The report for the US army in 1971 formed erroneous conclusions about CZ52 ammo and Tokarevs.
6) AA, Sierra, and Gunworld magazine repeated the error sold to the army, while Hornady and American Rifleman hinted at it.
7) AA tested surplus Tokarev ammo from China, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic as well as current commercial ammo produced by Sellier & Bellot and found it all to be 42kcup. Yet they somehow then concluded that 42kcup was too much for Tokarevs, and only the CZ52 was up to it, and published 42kcup data developed in a test barrel. Meanwhile CZ52s have extremely tight chambers.
8) When CZ52s blew up frequently [someone was injured at the range nearest my home when a CZ52 blew up while firing surplus ammo]. AA then came out with damage control and reduced the loads to C96 broom handle loads that had been published in the US for a long time. They were not truthful about the changes.
What mistakes did I make?
1) In 2000 I had just started handloading and was trying to blow up guns or see how much power I could squeeze out of them. I guessed that all semi auto handguns were designed much stronger than the brass, and I could just work up loads, while checking for pressure sign on the brass at ~~50% extra powder. I was surprised with CZ52 "unscheduled disassembles" as my gun designing father used to call them, at ~3% extra powder.
2) I took pictures and sent them to other engineers. I did not realize until it was pointed out to me that the failure was along the very thin bottom of the chambers over the roller relief cut.
3) I just started posting everything on forums with an air sensationalism. Look what I did and look what happened. Much of people's reaction has to do with the presentation. Oy vey, did I get flamed by CZ52 owners for being crazy and dangerous.