Anybody CCW military surplus pistols?

[grimjaw]

I won't recommend carrying a CZ52 for any reason. The Czechs didn't hesitate to move on to their own design around 9x18 Makarov, and neither should you. Heck, I won't recommend it for any reason other than range toy.

The few tests I've seen on 7.62x25 hollowpoints (Wolf Gold line) were OK, still don't know if I'd trust it to expand reliably through clothing.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Wolf 85gr Copper JHP.html

The only gun chambered for that round that I'd feel comfortable trying to conceal and still go boom would be the TT-33, and I wouldn't carry that gun with a live round under the hammer.

If you're enamored with the zippy round, you might try something in a modern package, like the Corbon 110gr JHP or 100gr Pow'RBall .357 Magnum loads.

If you can live with the trigger on the P-64 then maybe, but it seems like there are better choices even among surplus pistols. Here's other THR threads on it.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=109613
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=118781
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127359
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=164915
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=174232
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=237391
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=275908
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289536

I've carried a Makarov PM occasionally, but choose other things now. It would be hard to go back to the standard sights; hard to pick up in anything other than the good light. It's a bit heavy but still weighs the same or less than the Glock 19 when both are fully loaded. Factory hollowpoint choices are very limited compared to .380ACP. Otherwise it's reliable, accurate, and safe (when properly maintained). Who needs a gunsmith for a Makarov PM anyway? A trained monkey can replace anything and everything on the gun with very few tools, and there's very few parts to break anyway. Buy a parts kit now, have a gun that will outlast you easily.

The CZ82 is another choice, but it's more complex and probably not as slim so wouldn't conceal as easily. Sights are better than the Makarov PM.

At today's prices, you can get a subcompact .380 that will carry better than just about any surplus pistol, for the same money. There are also used and police trade-in revolvers that I'd go with before a Makarov, if for no other reason than the sights. CDNN has (or had) used S&W M64s with 3" barrels, and those are great guns.

jm

 

[viking72]

I carry a Pa-63 Hungarian PP on occasion.
No worries.
Later, Doug

 

[DMK]

If you are going to conceal carry a CZ52... The green parkerized ones are typically in better shape than the blued ones, but there are some abused green ones out there too. Remember that some of these saw regular service for thirty years.

Actually you have that backwards. The dark blued ones were refurbished and mine (above) is practically brand new. The gray parkerized ones are in original condition. The gray one I have above shows some wear, as do all I've seen.

Also be aware that the safeties were upgraded on the CZ-52 during refurb. My gray un-refurbed CZ-52 will fire a round if I try to 'decock' it. The blue one has the upgraded safety and will not.

 

[strat81]

CZ-82 seems reasonable if you can find a good holster for it.

 

[nathan]

EG MAK, CZ 82 and Russian commercial makarov. Thats all I ve had.

 

[Joe Demko]

I carried a Russian commercial Makarov for years and still use it as a car gun. The big adjustable sights are easy to see. As a gun for actual use, I've always preferred it over the true military surplus Maks with their tiny fixed sights. It's as reliable as a mechanical device can be and surgically accurate. The guns I replaced it with as a carry piece were chosen to save weight or size, not because there is anything really wrong with the Mak.

 

[telecaster1981]

I think you will be throwing your money down the toilet. Most of the surplus stuff is either old and maybe obsolete or underpowered and poorly made.

I'm not sure I understand the notion of obsolecense??? If obsolete means 'old' or something that's been replaced, then the grand old 1911 could be called obsolete. If obsolete means that there are better choices to be had, then the M16 was obsolete the first day it was fielded (although it's probably not obsolete anymore...how strange!). If a firearm is reliable and works for YOU, then it's not obsolete!

Of course, as with any used firearm (or new for that matter), you'll want to check it out to make sure it's sound and reliable before you ever pack it. To me, that means putting a lot of lead downrange. Basically, just develop a relationship with your gun. And if you have a soft spot in your heart for the P-64 but you can't bear the thought of owning a plastic gun, then you'll probably be more inclined to shoot/practice with the P-64, which is always a good thing. I have an infatuation with every gun that I would use to defend my life. A lot of the folks on THR would call my SHTF guns 'obsolete'...and perhaps there are more modern platforms better suited to the job at hand, but I feel extremely comfortable with an M1 rifle and a P-35 Hi-Power beside my bed or a P-64 on my hip when I'm out an about.

Now back to the nitty-gritty on the guns.

1.) For me, the CZ-52 wouldn't get the nod for hip carry just because it's BIG and HEAVY. If I were going to carry something that heavy, I'd get a Sistema 1927 like the one DMK has, also mil-surp. I do, however, keep a CZ-52 under the seat of my car as a backup to my P-64. Mine has been extremely reliable but your mileage may vary.

2.) I still recommend the P-64. With a few tweaks, it's a go-getter!

3.) As others have mentioned, you might be after a CZ-82. They're way inexpensive and they have a reputation for being reliable and VERY accurate. I've only handled a couple at gunshows, but I can attest that they're super sweet! They handle and 'point' great and the DA trigger pull is the best I've ever seen on any gun, mil-surp or otherwise. 12+1 capacity shouldn't leave you wanting unless you're extremely trigger happy. Oh, and it has MUCH better sights than what you'll usually find on a mil-surp gun. I'd check them out...in fact, a CZ-82 is next on my long list!

Ben

 

[golden]

What Is Obsolete

OBSOLETE is easy to define. Just pick up any World War II made 1911. Look down the sights and you will find a small and difficult to see sight picture. It will lack night sights as well.
I picked up an early issue BERETTA 92 F and every time I shoot it, I am reminded how much better the sights on ALL of my other BERETTA'S are.

Also, pick up a MAKAROV and try to do an emergency reload. Then try it with one of the NEW pistols I mentioned. HEEL MAG RELEASES can be really slow, especially when your life is in the balance.

Load some hollow point ammo into a pre-1980's made gun and enjoy the jams and stovepiping unless you have a ramp job. I went though that. Some the gunsmith could fix, some he could not.

The ergonomics of the 1911 have not changed much since it was introduced almost a century ago. If it fit you, great. If not, well it is big and heavy. Not good for concealment.

My WALTHER, GLOCK and my H&K weigh much less and will not rust if not abused. Much better for concealed carry.

My point is that you get a more reliable (especially with hollow point ammo), easier to shoot accurately and safer pistol for less money. It is your choice, but I tried the surplus route many years ago and found it wanting.

Oh, I only carry hollow point. The military issues ball because it has to, not because anyone thinks it works. Just look at all the complaints coming out of IRAQ about the BERETTA and the 9m.m. ball ammo. Also, in the U.S. military, the people who intend to actually fight with a pistol loaded with ball, mostly special forces, went back to the .45 ACP using the H&K and 1911 for the MARINES.

Interesting discussion.

JIM

 

[TimboKhan]

Last, how much is your life worth? That is the price you put on a gun you use for self defense.

I hate this argument, because it's a load of crap often used to justify hyper-expensive pistols. What if you defend yourself with a handgun given to you by a parent? Does that mean your life is worth nothing? Moreover, if you defend yourself with a gift or cheap gun, does that mean that the guy with the Les Baer pistol has a life more valuable than your own? Trust me, I would rather get into a gunfight with the guy that owns a Nighthawk custom he never shoots than the guy who owns a Mak that he shoots all the time.

Speaking of Mak's, lots and lots and lots of people carry them, and if I ever happen to run across a nice one at a good price, I will become one of them. The Mak is just a darn good pistol.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I think you will be throwing your money down the toilet. Most of the surplus stuff is either old and maybe obsolete or underpowered and poorly made.

Old can mean "proven".

Obsolete??? Ok, so the 1911 and the Makarov are obsolete!

Underpowered? The .45 ACP has over 300 foot pounds for most loadings and much higher for military loadings. The 7.62x25 S&B has well over 400 foot pounds of energy and the 9mm Makarov just under 9mm Luger power.

Poorly made? Aww, now come on!! Some are poorly made and many more were made without finess, but the vast majority of milsurp handguns were made to survive the battlefield and operate reliably in much worse conditions than any concealed carry citizen would ever be in.
The majority of Makarov, Makarov clones and Makarov derivatives from the Eastern block are made more than well enough and since the design is so simple it was hard not to.
Who cares about the finish if it still goes bang every time you pull the trigger and it hits what you aim it at?

As far as good JHP or expanding rounds for the CZ 52, I already pointed out a source. http://www.qual-cart.com/

 

[Novus Collectus]

OBSOLETE is easy to define. Just pick up any World War II made 1911. Look down the sights and you will find a small and difficult to see sight picture. It will lack night sights as well.
I picked up an early issue BERETTA 92 F and every time I shoot it, I am reminded how much better the sights on ALL of my other BERETTA'S are.

For an affordable price a gunsmith can put in a dovetail groove and fit better sights.
Also, most people ar not going to be shooting beyond 20 feet in a self defense situation and it is often point and shoot, not aim for the center bullseye and shoot.

Also, pick up a MAKAROV and try to do an emergency reload. Then try it with one of the NEW pistols I mentioned. HEEL MAG RELEASES can be really slow, especially when your life is in the balance.

Not all people even carry backup magazines and some people get by with a five shot revolver for conceal carry. Some people don't worry about that.
But that aside, there are Makarov derivatives which have a mag release behind the trigger guard like the vz 82 does.

Load some hollow point ammo into a pre-1980's made gun and enjoy the jams and stovepiping unless you have a ramp job. I went though that. Some the gunsmith could fix, some he could not.

My unaltered 1911A1 Colt Systema takes hollow points and semi-wadcutters with no problem. I have never, ever had a jam in it with any ammo.
My CZ52 firing hollow points never had a problem either and I shot two different brands of hollow points out of it.
My milsurp revolvers....

 

[strat81]

OBSOLETE is easy to define. Just pick up any World War II made 1911. Look down the sights and you will find a small and difficult to see sight picture. It will lack night sights as well.
I picked up an early issue BERETTA 92 F and every time I shoot it, I am reminded how much better the sights on ALL of my other BERETTA'S are.

So obsolete has to do with sights??? A competent gun smith can dovetail most slides and install several types of sights. Oh, and all those guys carrying 642s and P3ATs are carrying obsolete guns.

HEEL MAG RELEASES can be really slow, especially when your life is in the balance.

Considering that most folks will never need to draw their pistol, fewer will ever fire, and even fewer will have to reload, it seems like a non-issue. But since there is always a chance, there are plenty of mil-surps that have an "american-style" mag release near the trigger guard.

Load some hollow point ammo into a pre-1980's made gun and enjoy the jams and stovepiping unless you have a ramp job.

Don't you think it's a little bold to condemn all pistols made before 1980 re: hollow points??? I've shot a few pre-80 pistols that fed hollowpoints just fine. No ramp jobs on them, either.

The ergonomics of the 1911 have not changed much since it was introduced almost a century ago. If it fit you, great. If not, well it is big and heavy. Not good for concealment.

Not quite sure how this fits into obsolescence. Ergonomics were an issue in JMB's day just as they are for Gaston Glock today. That being said, the 1911 is considered one of the most ergonomic and comfortable pistols of all time (but certainly not 100% for everyone).

My WALTHER, GLOCK and my H&K weigh much less and will not rust if not abused. Much better for concealed carry.

Weight tolerance varies from person to person. A mil-surp will not rust if not abused either. Rust has nothing to do with obsolescence either. Plenty of modern guns that will rust just fine.

Oh, I only carry hollow point.

Hollow-point is usually a good choice, but is not always the best choice. Many folks recommend ball ammo for some of the lighter rounds like 9x18, .380 ACP, and .32 ACP. The penetration ball offers is often necessary for such rounds. And while it may not be my first choice, I would not feel out-gunned if all I had to carry was 230gr ball .45 ACP.

 

[rockinrussky]

Another recommendation for the CZ-82. Despite having a double stacked magazine its pretty easy to conceal and carry. The ergonomics, sights and trigger are very good too, considering the price.
Just as an add: Hornady makes some good hollow point loads for the Makarov round.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Actually you have that backwards. The dark blued ones were refurbished and mine (above) is practically brand new. The gray parkerized ones are in original condition. The gray one I have above shows some wear, as do all I've seen.

Also be aware that the safeties were upgraded on the CZ-52 during refurb. My gray un-refurbed CZ-52 will fire a round if I try to 'decock' it. The blue one has the upgraded safety and will not.

I have the opposite experience. My parkerized is in almost unisued shape when I got it and my blued looks as if it had a lot of use after it was rearsenaled.
The blued CZ has the de-cocker problem (dimples the primer but does not fire) and my parkerized functions perfectly in any way this non-gunsmith can detect.
My perkerized does not have any holster wear and does not have more than one punch mark on either the top of the slide or the barrel.
The blued had a slightly pitted barrel, but the parkerized had a bright bore when I got it.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I won't recommend carrying a CZ52 for any reason. The Czechs didn't hesitate to move on to their own design around 9x18 Makarov, and neither should you. Heck, I won't recommend it for any reason other than range toy.

You have it backwards. The Czechs origionally designed the vz 52 as a 9mm, but the Soviets twisted their arm to issue it in Tokarev. Also, the vz 52 was issued for thirty years in the army.

 

[Nytelyte]

Some older guns are better for CCW than others. As a military firearm, MOST were not designed with concealed in mind, as they were in hip holsters.
Some designs are no longer used for a reason. Some are just an evolutionary step into what we have today. Research the firearm you're looking at, decide its pros and cons for yourself. When it comes to it, its your butt on the line behind it.

I have a CZ-52. I wouldn't CCW it. There are many better tools, both new and old, that are better for that job for many reasyons. IMHO. YMMV. I'm sure its been done sucessfully.
If you're on a budget or looking for some 'older quality' (<-- I don't understand that) ... I picked up a SIG P6/P225 for right around $300 @ gander mountain over the summer. Its not a tiny CC pistol, but no one is going to argue its quality, especially for the price. Shoots 9mm, which you can get anywhere, and cheap enough to practice. If you want an old feel, shoot ball.
Is shooting/driving/using old 'antique' stuff a necessity or a matter of some wierd pride that I dont' understand? I guess you have to decide your motivations and purchase accordingly. It takes all types.

 

[phoglund]

A CZ-82 fits your requirements to a "T". Fairly small, good capacity, decent sights, decent power, accurate, reliable, inexpensive, very high quality. I liked the first CZ-82 so much I bought a second. At $200.00 they are as good a value for the money as a person could ever ask for, particularly if you have a C&R (like me! ) A Makarov would work as well. Less capacity but a bit thinner.

CZ guns in general are great firearms. The current crop of surplus CZ-82s are the perfect opportunity to experience a modern CZ firearm at an amazing price point.

 

[Brian Williams]

I carry my 1953 Sistema occasionally. I have changed the slide and barrel and it is a great colt authorized copy of the 1911a1

 

[leadcounsel]

For people serious about daily concealed carry, a carry gun is a serious decision and people will generally go through several phases, holsters, and even guns to find the right fit for the "mission," outfit, or whatever.

In my opinion, all things considered, even at twice the price I would rather have a modern reliable pistol in a common caliber than a reliable curio and relic pistol which is generally in some obscure and expensive caliber (7.62x25, 9x18, etc.). The reason is that modern pistols are the beneficiary if design and materials improvements (mainly weight and maintenance) and also benefit from improvements in caliber and self defense ammo and variety in proven and comfortable holsters. Yes, the gun may be more expensive. But generally the money saved on a C&R pistol is eaten up by the custom holsters and more expensive and rare ammuntion and any alterations or repairs to the pistol to make it servicable and reliable. For instance, with a C&R you can get a CZ82 for about $250 shipped. A custom holster will cost about $100, and ammo is more pricey than 9mm or .40 caliber. Meanwhile, you can find used good condition Glocks and CZ75 compacts for $300-400 with a large variety of mass produced inexpensive holsters and a variety of self defense ammo. The savings just aren't there to justify the choice of a C&R gun as a carry gun. A carry gun is a gun you feel very comfortable with and are very experienced with, which requires a lot of range time and ammo.

Now, conversely, C&R pistols are fun to shoot. And they are economical enough to keep one in the glove box as a backup or emergency handgun. It's not as big of a financial loss if it gets scratched, moisture, damaged, or even stolen. A 'truck gun' is a gun that you are competant with. As long as it works reliably, you can wrap it in a cloth and toss it in the truck. No fancy holster and not a lot of range time needed. If you CCW it's a backup. However, if you're serious about wanting to CCW (which is a serious subject itself), then a C&R should be reserved for only the most destitute person that can't scrape up another few bucks for a modern pistol.

 

[Ed Ames]

Why would you use a custom holster on a CZ-82? There are a number of standard holsters that fit just fine. If you really just want a custom holster fine but don't pretend you needed it.

9x18 mak ammo is a shade under $10/50 in the local store. The fancy stuff is $15/50.

I went to a local shop to pick up my CZ-82. I think it was $240 out the door with a box of ammo, two mags, and everything else. If I was going to CCW it I'd get the meprolight tritium sights for maybe $80. Bianchi sells a suitable IWB holster for $30 or so. So I'm out the door with an accurate DA/SA pistol dressed in night sights, two magazines, holster... even some ammo... for $350. Get another 500 rounds to take it up to $460 and you are in business for a while. That's with hollow points if you want.

In your model we start with $350 for the used gun, add the same amount for the accessories, $140+ for the ammo, and you are at $600.

Does $140 matter? Probably not. Not in either direction. The extra $140 won't make you one iota safer. Studies have shown that having a gun is 92% of the battle and having 5 rounds covers 97% of defensive situations. Every one of these guns can safely carry more than 5 rounds and deliver lead reliably, accurately, and effectively. That's got you covered 99% of the time and a Glock won't take you a point closer to 100%.

 

[mavracer]

Why would you use a custom holster on a CZ-82? There are a number of standard holsters that fit just fine. If you really just want a custom holster fine but don't pretend you needed it.

you also missed pointing out he used a cz75 as one of his examples that has a large variety of mass produced holsters.LOL

 

[DMK]

1927 / 1911A1 Carry and Nightstand Weapon

Since the "somewhat modernized" clause was brought up, I guess I should add my other 1927, which is one of my CCWs, although it's heavily modified from original. It has a Colt slide (the original cracked), Kart gunsmith fitted barrel, EGW bushing, EGW extractor, EGW Commander hammer, Heinie Straight Eight Tritium sights, Ed Brown "Memory Groove" Beavertail, Ed Brown wide safety, Wolff Springs, Alumagrip grips. There's an aftermarket disconnector too, but I can't remember what brand. Original are the frame, trigger, sear, guide rod, mag catch, slide catch, and mainspring housing (complete with lanyard loop). John Harrison of Atlanta did the gunsmithing, Tripp Research did the hard chrome.

 

[tinygnat219]

I can't think of a worse idea for Concealed Carry than using milsurp handguns when there are so many newer, more reliable weapons out there. Let's take the obvious candidates:
You mention the CZ-52. This is an absolutely horrible choice. Big, blocky, heavy, with an unreliable decocker, and known for having firing pins fail due to a brittle steel. At to that most of the available ammo for it today is FMJ Commie surplus, an excellent plinking round, but horrible SD round. Do you planning on hitting bystanders when you fire this pistol, because the round will go in and out of a person, and another, and another. This round was made for penetration. CZ-52. Good range pistol, that's about it.

Someone else mentioned the 1895 Nagant. For God's sake WHY? This has to be the WORST choice out there for a defensive pistol. This design was obsolete before WWI! It's got a Clunky 20 pound DA pull, a horrible site picture, and the cartridge that it fires is a .30 Caliber FMJ slug going less than 1,000 feet per second. Good luck reloading this thing too. Gyuh! the Nagant is a Curio and Relic best relegated to the safe and to range trips.

Now we start going into what I call the "marginals", good possibilities, but limited in scope:
Makarov, Good solid simple reliable design. Unfortunately, this pistol is HEAVY for carrying such a limited amount of an underpowered round. That and it's girth can make it seem like a bigger pistol. Also, ammo availability is limited to surplus, FMJ, or Silver Bear JHP ammo.

Star Model A.
Nice design, size (similar to 1911), etc. Problem comes down to finding something other than FMJ milsurp ammo for this 9MM Largo pistol.

PA-63 and 64.
Nice size, slim. However, the DA pull of these pistols is akin to the Nagant.

CZ-82, Same points as the Makarov minus ammo capacity. This is actually not a bad choice, as it has good sites, nice capacity, no silly Euro heel mounted mag release, and is inexspensive.

Ones that will "do" but time hath wrought improvements:
Colt Government Model 1911.

For the standard price of a milsurp pistol in the "marginal" category, you can get yourself a new Hi-Point or Ruger pistol (I refuse to Consider Taurus as they have WAY too many problems, just read the different threads on THR). Or get a nice used revolver. Seriously, if you want to bet your life on a milsurp pistol, that's obviously your choice, but when new guns abound at decent prices, I suggest you look into those first.

 

[grimjaw]

You have it backwards. The Czechs origionally designed the vz 52 as a 9mm, but the Soviets twisted their arm to issue it in Tokarev.

I meant they moved on to the CZ82 in 9x18.

The Czechs and the Poles both seemed to go their own way on some firearms, even if the caliber choices were limited. I think the CZ82 was a winner, but the CZ52 was a dog, and you know what that opinion will buy you at the gun store.

jm

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't really see any of those as horribly bad choices.

CZ-52 fires a decent round and frankly if you are counting on a bullet stopping in the body of your opponent to keep you from harming a bystander you aren't following the four rules. Bullets go past and through. Don't shoot if that would harm an innocent.

The Nagant wouldn't be my first choice but the trigger is plenty controllable. It isn't a subsonic .30 unless you want it to be, even with off-the-shelf ammo. It is reloadable. Starline makes brass, lee makes loading dies, if you need luck that's not my problem.

Makarov... the weight may or may not bother you. They sell ankle holsters for it. As for 9x18 ammo choices, the local gun store near me sells Hornaday 9x18 that fires a 95GR XTP bullet with more energy than a .380... how is that bad? Speer and others all make decent bullets for reloading as well.

Others... not worth addressing gun by gun.

Heel mag release is irrelevant. First because reloads aren't important in defensive situations. Second because with proper training they can be damned quick. There's a video somewhere of someone knocking off 20 rounds from a Ruger (with heel mag release) in less than 3 seconds IIRC.


Military firearms were, as a rule, designed and built as national investments. A country bought them by the tens of thousands and they put a lot of thought into what was important and what wasn't. Most were built with a lot of quality and very little "flash". They didn't have so many gimicky features (the Nagant being a bit of an exception) but they were built to serve and to last.

Most have smallish sights. Why? Because in close combat if you need the sights you are dead, and at distant targets you'll appreciate the finer aiming abilities of small sights. Plus you'll have a rifle and so probably won't be lobbing volleys with your pistol from 250 yards.

I think different people just have different senses of fitness. Some look at a well designed weapon in steel and say "this is enough better that the extra weight doesn't matter", others look at the plastic and parkerization and say, "I'd rather have something pretty." Others look at the weight or size and say "I want a kel-tec or a Bersa because it was designed for CCW and is light and small."