cz-52 vs tt-33

[xxxleafybugxxx]

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]

So ... in the words of Emily Litella, "Nevermind."

 

[barnbwt]

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]

Clark also sticks sniper barrels on $200 tt-33's. ;rolleyes;

 

[Walt Sherrill]

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]

why a cz 52 is accurate

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]

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]

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]

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]

Excellent write-up, Walt.

Thanks for taking the time to share that.

 

[strange246]

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]

I wish I could find a good Tok for a decent price.
All I've found are 9mms and rough looking Romanians.

 

[jdh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If you want to know about Clark's tests, PM him....

 

[barnbwt]

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]

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!

 

[coalbed]

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]

Yeah, CZ...
not go check out Czech history in 52... NOT a high point

 

[coalbed]

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]

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.