Help Identifying Old European Autoloader

[Navy87Guy]

I was at my LGS today and he showed me a few older pistols he had picked up. One is a mod-sized autoloader chambered in 7.65mm Browning/.32 ACP. The styling reminds me of something from FN or from a Spanish maker…but there isn’t a single identifying mark on the gun!!


Here are the profile pictures:








(I didn’t get a shot of it, but it does have a recessed hammer - it just sits inside the tangs.)


The only “unique” feature I saw was the external clip holding the slide stop in place. The grips look very similar to the ones on my FN Model 1922, while the overall profile looks a lot like a Colt 1903.


There are some proof marks but not a single inscription on the gun that I could see. Here are some of the proofs:





There are X’s on both the trigger and trigger guard.





These proof marks on either side of the grip are only partial. They don’t look like they were ground off





This same serial with “1908” is on the slide (I couldn’t get my camera to focus well enough to get a shot.) The cocking serrations are also very “crude”.





Another view of the “partial” proof marks and the retaining clip.


If anyone has any ideas on a possible make/model, I’d love to hear it so I can pass it to my FFL.


Thanks!!

 

[RedlegRick]

Chinese copy? I've seen some of their early 20th century work and it seems similar.

 

[Navy87Guy]

I’ve been told it might be a Tokarev TT33 or copy. The fact that it's chambered in 7.62 Browning came from the owner who sold it - if it’s actually 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev, then it could be original.

 

[Monac]

This is a Tokarev TT-33. It looks to me like an original Russian one from the Second World War. The postwar Russian-made Tokarevs have different, more ordinary slide pull serrations, and the commercial imports from China and the Warsaw Pact countries had manual safeties added on. The "42" at the end of the serial number might mean it was made in 1942.

It is NOT chambered for 7.65mm Browning, aka 32 Automatic, 32 ACP, et cetera. It is chambered for 7.62mm Tokarev, which is a much longer, more powerful, bottlenecked cartridge. It is closely related to 7.63mm Mauser. (I am NOT going to open the can of worms concerning interchangeability between the two. I personally do not know and have no opinion.) The gun store probably mistook it for a Zastava Model 70, which is a Tokarev cut down and turned into a 32 automatic.

The Tokarev is derived from the Colt 1911 design, only simplified for easier manufacture and maintenance. Some of these simplifications were good ideas, like making the locking ribs on the barrel a complete circle around the barrel, so they could be cut on a lathe, or doing as much as possible to make the magazine feed lips part of the gun and not the magazine. Others were more dubious, like leaving off ALL the safeties, including making the firing pin full-reach instead of inertia. Carrying it with the hammer down on a loaded chamber is like doing the same thing with an original Colt Single Action Army. Which is to say, don't do it.

The big change meant to improve maintenance was to make the firing mechanism a discrete removable module. That way a worn or broken one could simply be removed and replaced with a new one. This was a fad in military pistol design at the time. The French also did it with their Model 1935 pistols, for instance. The fad died fast. Perhaps replacing the firing mechanism does not need to be done often enough to make it worthwhile, or maybe it was too difficult to make the modules a drop-in replacement part. At any rate, as far as I know, the only people making pistols that way today are the ones still making Tokarev copies, like the Serbians.

The Germans captured a lot of these during 1941 and 1942, and US GI's got ahold of some when those Germans (the lucky ones) were transferred west, so it could be a GI bring-back. The 100% finish seems odd for that though; it looks like it was refinished sometime. Others turned up in Vietnam, too, and some were brought to the US from there. I think collectors pay a premium now for Tokarevs without the add-on manual safeties.

I have seen that style of wood grips on other Tokarevs; it may have been an emergency replacement when plastic ran short. They are held on with a finicky swiveling clip on the inside of the grip that requires poking around in the magazine well with a screwdriver.

Anyway, nice historical gun! Oh, and the clip thing on the frame is part of the take-down process. I think sliding it toward the rear of the gun releases its grip on the slide-hold open, which is the key to taking the slide off. I have never owned a Tokarev, but I am sure there are videos on YouTube about field-stripping them.

PS - The lack of markings could be a Russian wartime things to get guns out faster during the crisis of 1942, when Russia was a gnat's whisker from losing the war. Postwar, some Tokarevs were made "sterile" (no markings) so they could be supplied without the source being known, but I don't think those would have the wooden grips.

PPS - I forgot to to say thanks for the excellent pictures. They make it so much easier to answer questions like this, plus it's just nice to see interesting guns!

 

[5-SHOTS]

I'm not expert enough to say if it's original or if it's a chinese copy or of some other communist or former communist country. After the serial number it says 1942. I'm sure it's a 7.62 Tokarev and not a 7.65 Browning.

 

[Navy87Guy]

Thanks - I’m pretty convinced at this point that it's a legit 1943 Russian TT33. The markings and the wooden slab grips all match.

Once I was told TT33, the rest was pretty easy to confirm!

 

[JohnKSa]

It's a Tokarev. This thread from another forum has one that's the twin of yours but made a little later--maybe even on the same day.

https://www.lugerforums.com/threads/russian-tokarev-tt-30-tt-33-data-reqest.23710/page-4

 

[5-SHOTS]

1942 is pretty clear. It is written like
1 9 42

 

[Navy87Guy]

It's a Tokarev. This thread from another forum has one that's the twin of yours but made a little later--maybe even on the same day.

https://www.lugerforums.com/threads/russian-tokarev-tt-30-tt-33-data-reqest.23710/page-4

Wow - less than 100 numbers different!!

 

[Mizar]

Russian (Soviet) TT 33, made in 1942 in Izhevsk arsenal. Grips are period correct wooden ones. Although it looks rough and beaten up, it's actually in pretty decent condition - war time Russian guns were rather crudely made. To find an original Tokarev pistol without a safety in the US is not quite easy, so if the price is right it might worth it if you are into such firearms.

 

[Monac]

It's a Tokarev. This thread from another forum has one that's the twin of yours but made a little later--maybe even on the same day.

https://www.lugerforums.com/threads/russian-tokarev-tt-30-tt-33-data-reqest.23710/page-4

I am confused. The Tokarev on the linked page - page 4 of the thread - seems clearly dated 1937, not 1942 or 43. Is there a differently dated one on another page?

Also, it was common for some arsenals to make guns in batches of 10,000. When they finished the first 10,000, they added a letter prefix and started over with A00001 and so on. I think that is the case with the gun in Navy87Guy's pictures.

 

[Mizar]

I am confused. The Tokarev on the linked page - page 4 of the thread - seems clearly dated 1937, not 1942 or 43. Is there a differently dated one on another page?

I believe John is talking about the Tokarev in post #65. The letter prefixes were added in 1938 and some versions are that those indicated the production month, not directly tied to a batch. But don't hold me to this, as I'm not really into Soviet handguns - not my cup of tea, so to speak.

 

[lee n. field]

I was at my LGS today and he showed me a few older pistols he had picked up. One is a mod-sized autoloader chambered in 7.65mm Browning/.32 ACP. The styling reminds me of something from FN or from a Spanish maker…but there isn’t a single identifying mark on the gun!!


Thanks!!

Looks like a crude copy of a Tokarev. The machining looks rough on that.

 

[Mizar]

The machining is quite typical for a war time build Tokarev - it's original.

 

[Monac]

I believe John is talking about the Tokarev in post #65. The letter prefixes were added in 1938 and some versions are that those indicated the production month, not directly tied to a batch. But don't hold me to this, as I'm not really into Soviet handguns - not my cup of tea, so to speak.

Thanks, Mizar. That is VERY close to Navy87Guy's gun. What a strange coincidence, and good job spotting it! And I agree completely about the machining. In 1942, the Russians were not turning out weapons as bad as the German or Japanese last-ditch stuff, but they weren't bothering with anything but basic functionality. Which is what the Tokarev was designed for in the first place.

 

[Tallball]

That u-shaped retaining clip is the instant giveaway.

I have one. It goes bang every time. It shoots like an average service pistol.

 

[Speedo66]

That U shaped clip looks like that used to hold the master link on motorcycle drive chains in place.

 

[gc70]

...
The big change meant to improve maintenance was to make the firing mechanism a discrete removable module. That way a worn or broken one could simply be removed and replaced with a new one. This was a fad in miluitary pistol design at the time. The French also did it with their Model 1935 pistols, for instance. The fad died fast. Perhaps replacing the firing mechanism does not need to be done often enough to make it worthwhile, or maybe it was too difficult to make the modules a drop-in replacement part. At any rate, as far as I know, the only people making pistols that way today are the ones still making Tokarev copies, like the Serbians.
...

The Sig P210 and SP2022 both have hammer box units that can be removed from the guns and other modern guns built on the modular concept (i.e. Beretta APX, Ruger American Pistol, Sig P320/M17) have fire control units (including the trigger) that can be removed as a single assembly from the frame.

 

[Mizar]

Sig P210 is an almost exact copy of the French Mle. (modele) 1935A pistol - they bought the manufacturing license. As for the polymer guns, it's a design that came out mostly of necessity due to the weak plastic frame. "En bloc" mechanisms were nothing new even back then - Mauser C96 had one and the Browning M1903, one of the inspirational designs behind the Tokarev, also has what some may consider a partial "en block". BTW, Dieudonné Saive from FN came first with that idea during the French trials, but Charles Petter stole it from him for his M1935 pistol.

 

[Monac]

The Sig P210 and SP2022 both have hammer box units that can be removed from the guns and other modern guns built on the modular concept (i.e. Beretta APX, Ruger American Pistol, Sig P320/M17) have fire control units (including the trigger) that can be removed as a single assembly from the frame.

Thank you, gc70! I am embarassed by have my ignorance exposed like that, but I am glad to have it rectified. I had no idea it had become a feature of modern pistols. How strange - as Mizar explains it, it is a thing like the Glock-type trigger - pioneered a long time ago (in the Roth-Steyr 1907, in Glock's case), then dropped and mostly forgotten, then revived as people realized it was a concept that had real value in modern conditions, i.e., the use of new materials in pistol frames. Does that sound right?

 

[Monac]

That u-shaped retaining clip is the instant giveaway.

I have one. It goes bang every time. It shoots like an average service pistol.

Tallball, do you know if the Tokarev firing pin is really full-reach and not inertia? gc70 has made me realize that is yet another thing I think I know. First hand reporting would be appreciated.

 

[Monac]

That U shaped clip looks like that used to hold the master link on motorcycle drive chains in place.

You mean like one of these: https://www.amazon.com/SHIMANO-410N...t=&hvlocphy=9018837&hvtargid=pla-819659633425 ?

I used to ride a bicycle a lot, but I never had to use one of those. The only reason I know what they are is because the Lignose Einhand pistol has one to tension the safety catch. (See, you can learn a lot from gun collecting!) That's an idea Zastava should have used on the safety they put on their 32 ACP remix of the Tokarev design. The catch on mine seems to have no spring or detent at all. It does not inspire confidence.

PS - I am sorry for the length of the link. I have no idea how to make it smaller.

 

[Speedo66]

You mean like one of these: https://www.amazon.com/SHIMANO-410N...t=&hvlocphy=9018837&hvtargid=pla-819659633425 ?

I used to ride a bike a lot, but I never had to use one of those. The only reason I know what they are is because the Lignose Einhand 25 automatic uses one to supply spring power to its safety catch, and I am lucky enough to have one. (See, you learn a lot from gun collecting!) That's an idea Zastava should have used on the safety catch they put on their 32 ACP remix of the Tokarev design; the catch on mine seems to have no spring or detent at all. Not something I would like to carry.

Yeah, that looks like a bicycle chain master link, but same concept.

Nowadays, they've almost done away with that type of master link on motorcycles, replaced with riveted ends. Good luck fixing that in the field.

 

[Mizar]

Tallball, do you know if the Tokarev firing pin is really full-reach and not inertia?

I'm not Tallball, but... TT 33 firing pin is of non-inertia type (direct, full reach) so it must never be carried loaded with a hammer resting on it - Tokarev specifically designed the half cock not only to be a safety feature in case of hammer falling from full cock, but as a carry position when there is a round in the chamber (you cannot rack the slide when the hammer is on half cock).

 

[gc70]

Thank you, gc70! I am embarassed by have my ignorance exposed like that, but I am glad to have it rectified. I had no idea it had become a feature of modern pistols. How strange - as Mizar explains it, it is a thing like the Glock-type trigger - pioneered a long time ago (in the Roth-Steyr 1907, in Glock's case), then dropped and mostly forgotten, then revived as people realized it was a concept that had real value in modern conditions, i.e., the use of new materials in pistol frames. Does that sound right?

You have nothing to be embarrassed about. I had been waiting for someone with in-depth knowledge of the TT-33 to respond to the thread and I really appreciate your description of a gun that I have always found fascinating for its simplicity.

I think the removable firing unit was quite an engineering feat for it's day. Tokarev had to create a design that not only provided a reliable firing mechanism, but also accommodated the imprecise production tolerances of the time. @Mizar is correct about the lineage of the separate hammer box in the Sig P210 and subsequently in the SigPro line. More precise modern manufacturing methods and the characteristics of polymer frames provided the potential for the entire firing mechanism to be constructed in a single unit that could achieve true modularity with a variety of frames and slides. I believe it was Sig's P250 line that realized that potential 15 years ago with a single fire control unit that worked with three frame (each in 3 different girth sizes), slide and barrel sizes (full, compact and sub-compact) and six different calibers (.45ACP, .40S&W, .357SIG, 9mm, .380ACP and .22LR).