I own examples of both pistols. I have noticed that sellers want really crazy prices for the cz52's. I bought all of mine before this happened, ammo too. My question is, is there anything about a cz52 that would make it hit harder than a Tok? I am aware for the differences between the two and have done repair work on both,and shot them, but I cannot see any reason why some think the cz hits harder. Barrel length, or two of about the most different actions possible? Any reason?
Tokavev and the cz52 impact.
- Thread starter vellocet
- Start date
- Status
If you get a good CZ-52 it will be more accurate than the others that shoot the same round. (IMHO) With a good barrel, tight lock up and a clean trigger the 52 can shoot like a laser out to 100 yards.
I to have seen the prices of all them go up. But the 52 seems to have doubled in price here over the last 6 months. Ammo has also doubled in price be it retail or surplus. Reloading seems to be the way to go.
I to have seen the prices of all them go up. But the 52 seems to have doubled in price here over the last 6 months. Ammo has also doubled in price be it retail or surplus. Reloading seems to be the way to go.
I wouldn't think there would be any difference in bullet speed out of either gun if the barrel lengths are the same...I only have Toks, no 52s to compare.
I do know there are less 52s than Toks (and their varients) so that might explain the higher asking prices.
Neither are supermodels but compared to the CZ I find the Toks much better more esthetically pleasing.
I do know there are less 52s than Toks (and their varients) so that might explain the higher asking prices.
Neither are supermodels but compared to the CZ I find the Toks much better more esthetically pleasing.
Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,608
No, there's nothing about the CZ-52 that makes it hit harder. Unless I'm mistaken, the bullet has cleared the barrel of both long before the action unlocks. Barrel lengths are similar as I'm sure the velocities will be.
I've had both and much prefer the tokarev, but primarily due to ergonomics than anything else.
I never really got good with my CZ-52 but feel I shoot my M57s well.
I've had both and much prefer the tokarev, but primarily due to ergonomics than anything else.
I never really got good with my CZ-52 but feel I shoot my M57s well.
Shadow 7D
Member
um
only 200,000 were made, in milsup, that makes they actually pretty rare, and all of them have gone from distributors and only show up on the secondary market.
only 200,000 were made, in milsup, that makes they actually pretty rare, and all of them have gone from distributors and only show up on the secondary market.
Shadow 7D
Member
Yeah, but the 52 was an engineers wet dream, with a lot of fixes for non existant problems.
Thanks for the replies. I sort of figured they were similar, but folklore had the cz as harder. I could'nt see any reason for it, either. Have you seen the Box o Truth section where they shoot an old-issue kevlar g.i. helmet with one and it pops right through? I guess I better buy a spare barrel for my two czs before they dry up,too.
Deaf Smith
Member
The 52 MAY hit harder if you can find any of that supposed 52 ammo that fired a 86gr slug at 1600 fps,
Here is some good info on it.
http://www.bobtuley.com/cz-52/
And some people have chronoed some of the ammo and came up with such as:
Surplus Czech(Stuff I got from Aim in the 40rd box on strippers)
1. 1533
2. 1635
3. 1577
4. 1601
5. 1595
AV: 1588
ES: 102
SD: 37.32
Romainian Surplus(headstamp 22,77)
1. 1585
2. 1554
3. 1535
4. 1586
5. 1540
AV: 1560
ES: 50.72
SD: 24.28
and http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-390633.html
Clark:
When I destroyed two CZ52 pistols in 2000 with experimental handloaded
overloads, and then could not harm Tokarevs with much higher overloads,
I found the weak spot, the bottom of the CZ52 chamber was very thin,
[.058" CZ52, .125" Tokarev], because the underside had been milled out
to make room for the roller blocks. I began to question the premise that
the CZ52 is stronger commonly printed in books, magazines, ammo
manufacturers etc., though out the gun culture.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=249178
This is what I now believe probably happened to get this error into the
gun culture:
1) In 1970 the US army published an account of the CZ52 pistol.
Knowing that:
a) The Russians had a TT-33 pistol designed in 1933 that Russian Tokarev
ammo loaded to 31 k c.u.p.
b) The Checks had a CZ52 was designed in 1952 and that Czech 7.62x25mm
Tokarev ammo was 42 k c.u.p.
c) The CZ52 has a roller block locking system.
From the U. S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center's publication
titled"Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian
Communist Countries", (FSTC-CW-07-03-70), page 211, Table XI, Cartridge
Data and Color Codes, in reference to 7.62 x 25 mm pistol ball type P;
"Do not use Czechoslovak-made ammunition in TT-33 pistols."
2) In March 2000, I got a Letter [as did many others, and the letter was
handed out at the shot show] from Ted Curtis ballistician at Accurate
Arms. Ted Curtis, a very old ballistician already was bald and had jowls
in his 1966 photo in "Speer 7". All the typos are Ted's:
"7.62 X 25 Tokarev ..
Due to the large number of handguns imported into the U.S. chambered
for the 7-62 x 25 Tokarev Accurate Arms has developed the following load
data for those shooters who wish to reload the little powerhouse.
In determining the appropriate pressure limit for our load data we tested
various military ammo from China, Russia, Austria Bulgaria and the
Czech Republic. Commercial ammo produced by Sellier & Bellot was also
tested. Based on these tests we arrived at a maximum pressure for our
lad data of 42,000 C.U.P. Only the single lot of Russian ammo was
significantly below this pressure averaging 31,000 C.U.P. The consistent
pressures between all other type sand manufactures was a welcome
surprise .
Indeed, the fact that CZech ammo, made for the CZ-52 pistol,
produced the same pressure as that of the other countries was perhaps
the biggest surprise of the whole project. This in spite of the "tribal
lore" regarding this particular handgun and the ammo loaded for it
claiming that shooting Czech ammo in any other firearm so chambered will
causes spontaneous disassembly. The pressure data produced by the ammo
tested certainly doesn't support this theory.
[Ted presented some loads with AA#2, AA#5, and AA#9 that were at 42 k
c.u.p. and very high velocity]
...We feel that the maximum loads shown here are suitable for the CZ-52 so
long as the firearm is in good condition. Other models of foreign
handguns of a lessor quality should probably be loaded in a more
cautious manner. "
3) What I believe happened was that:
a) 1970 the army was not aware or did not realise the implication if
China, Poland, and Bulgaria were also producing 42 k c.u.p. Tokarev ammo
and it was for their domestically produced Tokarevs. The army's
technical writer working on the paper either did not have a CZ52 sample
in 1970 or was unwilling to do destructive tests, unwilling or unable to
do a mechanical strength analysis, or was distracted by the roller
locking mechanism.
b) If Czech ammo for CZ52s is 42 k.c.u.p. and is the same as 42 k
c.u.p. ammo China, Austria, Bulgaria, and Poland make for their
Tokarevs, the ammo being used does not imply the CZ52 is stronger.
c) When Ted measured the communist block Tokarev ammo, he realised
there was an error in the 'tribal lore', but he did not realise that his
data implied that the rational [ used infer the CZ52 was stronger than
the Tokarev] was gone. He then published his loads for "the CZ52 only".
2000
1) I blew up 2 CZ52 pistols that split the barrels
2) Ken Marsh pointed out that the crack propagation seemed to start from a thin spot in the chamber chamber where there was undercutting for space for the roller blocks.
3)I notified AA in 2000 that I was blowing CZ52 up with small percentage
overloads of their 2000 data.
4) When I notified Sierra [a very good company with a very good rifle
handload book] that their "CZ52 is stronger" line in their handgun load
book was wrong, I got a typical reaction, ~ "We are impressed with your
load data, but we were just printing what WE read."
5) When I notified GUNWORLD magazine that their line, "The CZ52 is
stronger" was in error, Jan Libourel wrote me that he was just ~"
printing what HE read".
6) When I posted on the Internet that "The CZ52 is not stronger" I
got many negative reactions from CZ52 owners that missed the nuance
between [that CZ52 are not as strong as the Tokarev] and [that CZ52s
will blow up with factory ammo].
2003
1) Jaque Clarke "Uncle Jaque", a CZ52 owner, makes a drawing of this thin spot.
2) I am unable to blow up any of my Tokarev pistols, with what blows up CZ52s and much more.
3) I bought a broom handle 1896 Mauser 30 Mauser to compare to CZ52 strength. It blows primers, but does not blow up at the loads that blow up CZ52s. I cannot go higher with these primers.
In 2004 AA took the CZ52 load data off their web site.
2005:
1) John Becrovitz and I buy 10 CZ52 barrels and tests them for hardness. Measurements between RC25 and RC35 were taken on intact 7.62x25mm barrels. A more modern 9mm CZ52 barrel tests at RC47. What does it all mean?
My 9mm CZ52 barrel steel might yield at 220ksi, while my 7.62x25mm Tokarev CZ52 barrel steel might yield at 120 ksi
2) Accurate Arms "revised" their hot loads for the CZ52 only. This example is for 110 gr SPR RN 1.3":
a) The hot load from 2000: 11.7 gr AA#9 41,800 c.u.p 1688 fps
b) The wimpy load from 2005 8.5 gr AA#9, 34270 psi, 1248 fps
Deaf
Here is some good info on it.
http://www.bobtuley.com/cz-52/
And some people have chronoed some of the ammo and came up with such as:
Surplus Czech(Stuff I got from Aim in the 40rd box on strippers)
1. 1533
2. 1635
3. 1577
4. 1601
5. 1595
AV: 1588
ES: 102
SD: 37.32
Romainian Surplus(headstamp 22,77)
1. 1585
2. 1554
3. 1535
4. 1586
5. 1540
AV: 1560
ES: 50.72
SD: 24.28
and http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-390633.html
Clark:
When I destroyed two CZ52 pistols in 2000 with experimental handloaded
overloads, and then could not harm Tokarevs with much higher overloads,
I found the weak spot, the bottom of the CZ52 chamber was very thin,
[.058" CZ52, .125" Tokarev], because the underside had been milled out
to make room for the roller blocks. I began to question the premise that
the CZ52 is stronger commonly printed in books, magazines, ammo
manufacturers etc., though out the gun culture.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=249178
This is what I now believe probably happened to get this error into the
gun culture:
1) In 1970 the US army published an account of the CZ52 pistol.
Knowing that:
a) The Russians had a TT-33 pistol designed in 1933 that Russian Tokarev
ammo loaded to 31 k c.u.p.
b) The Checks had a CZ52 was designed in 1952 and that Czech 7.62x25mm
Tokarev ammo was 42 k c.u.p.
c) The CZ52 has a roller block locking system.
From the U. S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center's publication
titled"Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian
Communist Countries", (FSTC-CW-07-03-70), page 211, Table XI, Cartridge
Data and Color Codes, in reference to 7.62 x 25 mm pistol ball type P;
"Do not use Czechoslovak-made ammunition in TT-33 pistols."
2) In March 2000, I got a Letter [as did many others, and the letter was
handed out at the shot show] from Ted Curtis ballistician at Accurate
Arms. Ted Curtis, a very old ballistician already was bald and had jowls
in his 1966 photo in "Speer 7". All the typos are Ted's:
"7.62 X 25 Tokarev ..
Due to the large number of handguns imported into the U.S. chambered
for the 7-62 x 25 Tokarev Accurate Arms has developed the following load
data for those shooters who wish to reload the little powerhouse.
In determining the appropriate pressure limit for our load data we tested
various military ammo from China, Russia, Austria Bulgaria and the
Czech Republic. Commercial ammo produced by Sellier & Bellot was also
tested. Based on these tests we arrived at a maximum pressure for our
lad data of 42,000 C.U.P. Only the single lot of Russian ammo was
significantly below this pressure averaging 31,000 C.U.P. The consistent
pressures between all other type sand manufactures was a welcome
surprise .
Indeed, the fact that CZech ammo, made for the CZ-52 pistol,
produced the same pressure as that of the other countries was perhaps
the biggest surprise of the whole project. This in spite of the "tribal
lore" regarding this particular handgun and the ammo loaded for it
claiming that shooting Czech ammo in any other firearm so chambered will
causes spontaneous disassembly. The pressure data produced by the ammo
tested certainly doesn't support this theory.
[Ted presented some loads with AA#2, AA#5, and AA#9 that were at 42 k
c.u.p. and very high velocity]
...We feel that the maximum loads shown here are suitable for the CZ-52 so
long as the firearm is in good condition. Other models of foreign
handguns of a lessor quality should probably be loaded in a more
cautious manner. "
3) What I believe happened was that:
a) 1970 the army was not aware or did not realise the implication if
China, Poland, and Bulgaria were also producing 42 k c.u.p. Tokarev ammo
and it was for their domestically produced Tokarevs. The army's
technical writer working on the paper either did not have a CZ52 sample
in 1970 or was unwilling to do destructive tests, unwilling or unable to
do a mechanical strength analysis, or was distracted by the roller
locking mechanism.
b) If Czech ammo for CZ52s is 42 k.c.u.p. and is the same as 42 k
c.u.p. ammo China, Austria, Bulgaria, and Poland make for their
Tokarevs, the ammo being used does not imply the CZ52 is stronger.
c) When Ted measured the communist block Tokarev ammo, he realised
there was an error in the 'tribal lore', but he did not realise that his
data implied that the rational [ used infer the CZ52 was stronger than
the Tokarev] was gone. He then published his loads for "the CZ52 only".
2000
1) I blew up 2 CZ52 pistols that split the barrels
2) Ken Marsh pointed out that the crack propagation seemed to start from a thin spot in the chamber chamber where there was undercutting for space for the roller blocks.
3)I notified AA in 2000 that I was blowing CZ52 up with small percentage
overloads of their 2000 data.
4) When I notified Sierra [a very good company with a very good rifle
handload book] that their "CZ52 is stronger" line in their handgun load
book was wrong, I got a typical reaction, ~ "We are impressed with your
load data, but we were just printing what WE read."
5) When I notified GUNWORLD magazine that their line, "The CZ52 is
stronger" was in error, Jan Libourel wrote me that he was just ~"
printing what HE read".
6) When I posted on the Internet that "The CZ52 is not stronger" I
got many negative reactions from CZ52 owners that missed the nuance
between [that CZ52 are not as strong as the Tokarev] and [that CZ52s
will blow up with factory ammo].
2003
1) Jaque Clarke "Uncle Jaque", a CZ52 owner, makes a drawing of this thin spot.
2) I am unable to blow up any of my Tokarev pistols, with what blows up CZ52s and much more.
3) I bought a broom handle 1896 Mauser 30 Mauser to compare to CZ52 strength. It blows primers, but does not blow up at the loads that blow up CZ52s. I cannot go higher with these primers.
In 2004 AA took the CZ52 load data off their web site.
2005:
1) John Becrovitz and I buy 10 CZ52 barrels and tests them for hardness. Measurements between RC25 and RC35 were taken on intact 7.62x25mm barrels. A more modern 9mm CZ52 barrel tests at RC47. What does it all mean?
My 9mm CZ52 barrel steel might yield at 220ksi, while my 7.62x25mm Tokarev CZ52 barrel steel might yield at 120 ksi
2) Accurate Arms "revised" their hot loads for the CZ52 only. This example is for 110 gr SPR RN 1.3":
a) The hot load from 2000: 11.7 gr AA#9 41,800 c.u.p 1688 fps
b) The wimpy load from 2005 8.5 gr AA#9, 34270 psi, 1248 fps
Deaf
jonnyc
Member
Great stuff!
What makes the CZ-52 weak concerning major loads. Is what makes them accurate on the other hand. In proper running order they lock up great! That so called bank vault lock up will do more for accuracy than any one thing concerning the over all shootablity. My 52 has a bad bore IMHO. But I can drill clays at 100 yards off hand if I'm doing my part. A good trigger is the second most important part. By nature they break between 5 and 6 lbs. a tad heavy in some circles. Make sure the lock work is CLEAN and the decocker works. Seems to add up to a very clean break with little over travel. With a great, quick reset.
.002 is the max lock up slop.
My current 52 is my fav. pistol. All others would leave the safe long before it.
.002 is the max lock up slop.
My current 52 is my fav. pistol. All others would leave the safe long before it.
Thanks again for the infomation. Deaf Smith, swell input. Some of the first ammo I used in my cz52 pistols was on stripper clips. Old and sort of dirty, had to drop the hammer twice on about one out of ten. Accurate, though. If I could get it at the same price now, with the craziness, I would probably get more. Shooting strange guns is fun and gives you a greater appreciation for your normal ones. Or less appreciation. Sometimes.
- Status
Similar threads
