CZ-52 VS Tokarev TT-33?
Melissa
big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less steel
around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
just fine, right?
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Kroesen
you're getting; IMO go for strength! Clark Magnusen has kb'd CZ's with
the same loads the Tok digested; you'll probably hear from him...
In any case you *seem* to want the CZ; make yourself happy. Unless you
run into some now rarely available MG ammo you should be safe...
However I've heard no data on the 7.62x25 topped with the fancy HP
bullets you asked about earlier...
The only thing I don't like about the Tok is the grip; I'm looking for
some fix myself; anyone offer a better one, or found a fit with another
pistol model?
TK
"Melissa" <Mel...@pagan.net> wrote in message
news:beotgh$6a8$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
be a
> ...
should
> ...
steel
> ...
be
> ...
Seafin 41
The CZ-52 used Czech cartridges loaded MUCH hotter than the Russian ammo for
the TT-33. It is not safe to use Czech 7.62x25 ammo designed for the CZ in
the TT. The CZ is, therefore, a considerably stronger gun than the TT, and is
a more sophisticated design as well, with safety features (such as a passive
firing pin lock) that the TT lacks. The TT is, however, more compact.
This is not to say that the TT is a poor gun. It is not. It is rugged and
reliable in the extreme. But I would prefer the CZ for a shooting gun, unless
you are buying for concealed carry. And there are better guns for that than
the CZ or TT.
Regards,
Phil
HoolyGun
# big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
# there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less steel
# around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
# just fine, right?
CZ 52 was actually designed for hotter loads, it is roller-locked, visit the
link below to get some info:
http://www.hkpro.com/Internal.htm
I have an issue of Gun Tests covering both pistols very well, I'll scan it
on Monday and email you a copy, OK?
WJ
What that "someone" (Clark Magnuson) reported was that
the design of the CZ52 chamber didn't seem to be as supporting
of the cartridge, and that this could lead to failure more quickly.
That said, I've owned both and now exclusively have Tokarevs.
They're slim, light and single-action, simple, and capable.
They reason I'll likely never own a CZ52 again is several:
Heavy, bulky, grip too large, grip too awkward, mechanism more
difficult that necessary for routine cleaning (which you have to do
with corrosive 7.62) and worst of all - it has parts that are "staked"
in place. This is where they pin parts into the gun (ie extractor,
ejector, sights, etc...) and then they stake the pin by smashing the
edge of the pin into the surrounding gun (slide, receiver, etc...)
Firstly, these stakes, I found, notoriously failed and the pins walked
out during firing - what a major pain. Secondly, while you can
"restake" the pins, you add to the already "smashed" area with
more unsightly damage and the gun already looks poor enough
with initial stake marks in the metal.
The CZ52's only saving grace is it's price - almost half the going
price of a 7.62 Tokarev pistol. For it's price, it's a great 7.62 pistol,
and many seem to appreciate it regardless. I certainly wouldn't
overlook getting one to have a 7.62 pistol in hopes of importers getting
more Tokarevs in the country some day.
"Melissa" <Mel...@pagan.net> wrote in message
news:beotgh$6a8$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Clark Magnuson
Here is a picture of what an overload that is too small to wreck the
brass can do to the barrel:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=249178
Shoot both guns.
Take them apart and clean them.
Which to you want to have?
The Tokarev is only $20 more right now.
It is worth the extra money to me.
Melissa wrote:
#If I'm not intending to use hotter than normal loads, there shouldn't be a
#big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
#there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ52s had less steel
#around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
#just fine, right?
#
#
#
Samuel W. Heywood
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Melissa <Mel...@pagan.net> wrote:
>If I'm not intending to use hotter than normal loads, there shouldn't be
>a
>big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
>
>there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less
>steel
>around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
>just fine, right?
I have used very hot loads in my CZ-52. They went bang just fine
and they cycled the action just fine, same as with standard loads.
The only problem I found with the hot loads is that they were not
nearly as accurate as the standard loads. From now on I am sticking
to the standard loads.
Sam Heywood
--
NTReader v0.32w(O)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Ben Magista
# big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
# there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less steel
# around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
# just fine, right?
#
# --
# Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
I just got back from the WAC gun show where I .handled a Chinese Tokarev and
I've got to tell you that as ugly as that gun looks, it fit's your hand like
a glove! It really supprised me. It was in excellent condition and he was
asking $175. I recently bought a CZ-52 and love it, I may go back tomorrow
and get the Tokarev and more ammo :)
Ben Magista
"Melissa" <Mel...@pagan.net> wrote in message
news:beotgh$6a8$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# If I'm not intending to use hotter than normal loads, there shouldn't be a
# big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
# there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less steel
# around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
# just fine, right?
#
# --
Just found this great read you may want to look at
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67826&perpage=30&pagenumber=1
Derek V.
performance with factory ammo, except that the CZ is probably the more
accurate of the two and might have a velocity edge due to the slightly
longer barrel. My preference is for the Tokarev, which feels much
better in my hand. If you want a really unusual handgun to add to the
mix, try the 7.62 Nagant revolver bored out to 7.62X25. I've one of
those, too, and it's a blast!
Derek V.
Doug T
#
# Dear Melissa:
#
# The CZ-52 used Czech cartridges loaded MUCH hotter than the Russian ammo for
# the TT-33. It is not safe to use Czech 7.62x25 ammo designed for the CZ in
# the TT. The CZ is, therefore, a considerably stronger gun than the TT,
snip
# Regards,
# Phil
And you have this information from what source other than the rumor mill?
Have you looked and measured the wall thickness of the barrels and chambers of
the two pistols?
I hope you check out the picture from Clark that was posted a little later than
yours.
All testing I've seen does not give Czech MG cartridges as hotter than any other
7.62x25 ammo. That the barrel of a CZ52 will fail before the brass, vs the brass
failing not the chamber in the TT.
Doug T
yes at one time I believed the stories about the strength of the CZ-52 too
KYRIEELLIS
#The CZ-52 used Czech cartridges loaded MUCH hotter than the Russian ammo for
#the TT-33.
I, too, used to believe this was true. But after a decade of experience with
the CZ 52 (or, more correctly, the CZ 513 or Vz.52. The 'CZ 52' pistol exists
only in the minds of the importers and distributors.) and not a little
research, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion the Czech 7.62x25 cartridge
is essentially identical with the Soviet Russian 7.62x25. There is no 'hotter'
Czech 7.62x25.
# It is not safe to use Czech 7.62x25 ammo designed for the CZ in
#the TT.
On the contrary. Czech 7.62x25 ammunition is unremarkable and was not
designed for the CZ 513. Rather the CZ 513 was designed for the Soviet Russian
7.62x25 Tokarev cartridge.
# The CZ is, therefore, a considerably stronger gun than the TT,
No sir, it is not. Of the three pistols one most commonly finds chambered
for the 7.62x25 (the C96 'Broomhandle', the TT-33, and the CZ 513) the CZ 513
is the least strong of the three.
# and is a more sophisticated design as well, with safety features (such as a
passive
#firing pin lock) that the TT lacks.
More complicated certainly, but hardly more sophisticated. The passive
firing pin block is an especially bad design, when coupled with the hammer drop
safety. The hammer drop safety *disables* the passive firing pin block before
dropping the hammer - a design flaw that frequently results in unintentional
discharges when the hammer drop safety is used to lower the hammer on a round
in the chamber.
Despite how all this may sound, I do rather like the CZ 513 (I think I have
four at the moment). But my fondness for the pistols doesn't blind me to its
faults, of which it has many. The CZ 513 is a bad design, executed poorly, and
accepted into Czech service for the wrong reasons. This pistol was a curse on
the Czech armed forces from the day it was adopted to the day it was surplused
out.
Best regards,
Kyrie
Moderator - Cruffler_Forum on Yahoo Groups
"The flame free C&R Forum."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cruffler_Forum
Samuel W. Heywood
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:26:46 +0000 (UTC) Doug T <dtr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>yes at one time I believed the stories about the strength of the CZ-52
>too
Some people say that although the barrel and chamber walls of the
CZ-52 are thinner than on the Tokarev, the barrels for the CZ-52
are stronger because they are made of better quality steel. I don't
know if the barrels of the CZ-52 are made of better quality steel,
but I do know now that the barrels for the Tokarev are stronger than
the barrels for the CZ-52. Clark Magnuson has proven his point quite
well.
Sam Heywood
--
NTReader v0.32w(O)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Tim Kroesen
parts for the Tokarev; like better grips or a new barrel; cheap
preferably...
Anyone tried one of the $10 Hogue sleeves? The small looks *small* and
the large looks like it would need a lot of non returnable carving on
that tenspot...
TK
"KYRIEELLIS" <kyrie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:beu0mh$g0j$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# #
# #The CZ-52 used Czech cartridges loaded MUCH hotter than the Russian
ammo for
# #the TT-33.
# I, too, used to believe this was true. But after a decade of
experience with
# the CZ 52 ...
Wilbur
# CZ-52 are thinner than on the Tokarev, the barrels for the CZ-52
# are stronger because they are made of better quality steel. I don't
# know if the barrels of the CZ-52 are made of better quality steel,
# but I do know now that the barrels for the Tokarev are stronger than
# the barrels for the CZ-52. Clark Magnuson has proven his point quite
# well.
The only thing Clark Magnuson proved was that if you load enough powder into
a case to push the bullet into the grooves that you'll blow the gun up when
you shoot it. Big shocker there. Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept that
the CZ-52 is not the Tiger Tank of handguns, but continuing to pass off junk
science as evidence is nonsense. And I don't care how much fancy math you
want to pile on top of an assumption it's still nothing but an assumption.
Save yourself the trouble and just guess. When somebody shows some actual
evidence of the CZ-52's weakness I'll believe it, but there have probably
been 10's of thousands of these things sold in the last 10 years or so and
if they were half as fragil as Clark would have us believe we would be
seeing posts all over this board and every other message board about it.
I've seen more posts of Glocks blowing up than CZ-52's and I'm not selling
my Glock. That said, I won't be shooting any "extra hot" ammo in my CZ,
mainly because it's 50 years old and because there appears to be no more
evidence to back up the original claims that the CZ was built to fire a more
potent round than the Tokarev than there is evidence that it is weaker.
Neil Maxwell
#the large looks like it would need a lot of non returnable carving on
#that tenspot...
I've got the large Handall on my CZ-52, and it's a tight fit. It
improves the grip considerably, but getting it on and off for those
occasional deep cleans is a bit of a chore. It's starting to split at
the bottom of the back seam, but the split hasn't grown recently.
Still, at $10, it's a good investment in shootability for me, and I
won't mind replacing it now and again.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Super-User
# If I'm not intending to use hotter than normal loads, there shouldn't be a
# big deal difference between getting a CZ-52 instead of a Tokarev, should
# there? Someone here awhile back was saying that the CZ-52's had less steel
# around the barrels and chambers, but with standard loads they should be
# just fine, right?
I've shot thousands of rounds through mine including some of the hot mil-surp
ammo and some hot handloads with no problems whatsoever. It's an inexpensive,
fun gun. The report you read was by a fellow named Clarke Magnuson. While I
have a great deal of respect for the man, his comments are based on abuse
that nobody in their right mind would ever put their pistol through. I have
two CZ-52's and a TT-33, and I love all three.
Have fun, and don't sweat the doomsayers.
Sam
Clark Magnuson
#
#The only thing Clark Magnuson proved was that if you load enough powder into
#a case to push the bullet into the grooves that you'll blow the gun up when
#you shoot it. Big shocker there. Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept that
#the CZ-52 is not the Tiger Tank of handguns, but continuing to pass off junk
#science as evidence is nonsense. And I don't care how much fancy math you
#want to pile on top of an assumption it's still nothing but an assumption.
#Save yourself the trouble and just guess. When somebody shows some actual
#evidence of the CZ-52's weakness I'll believe it, but there have probably
#been 10's of thousands of these things sold in the last 10 years or so and
#if they were half as fragil as Clark would have us believe we would be
#seeing posts all over this board and every other message board about it.
#I've seen more posts of Glocks blowing up than CZ-52's and I'm not selling
#my Glock. That said, I won't be shooting any "extra hot" ammo in my CZ,
#mainly because it's 50 years old and because there appears to be no more
#evidence to back up the original claims that the CZ was built to fire a more
#potent round than the Tokarev than there is evidence that it is weaker.
#
#
#
Wilbur
I have been overloading gun designs for some time, and I think I am
aware of the limits of what can be inferred from tests.
I don't think that me overloading guns and posting the controls and
results of the tests deserves the label "junk science".
I personally cringe when I hear about "second hand smoke", "global
warming", "magnetic therapy", or "The Bermuda Triangle".
I find load book claims that CZ52s are stronger to be "Load Book
Legends" and I am doing what I can to de bunk.
The irregularities with the CZ52s I blew up were:
1) Unlike other modern guns I have tested, it is not stronger than the
brass.
2) The relative % extra powder overload required for gun failure is so
far below and other modern guns I have tested.
3) The loads my Tokarevs have survived suggest the Tokarev design is
stronger than the CZ52, which conflicts with the literature.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=249178
I have a long laundry list of tests I would like to do with the CZ52/
Tokarev question, and I have a long list of other Load Book Legends I
would like to de-bunk. Those lists coupled with a long list of other
experiential guns I would like to build should keep me busy for some time.
Perhaps you could outline an easier test to compare the strengths of the
CZ52 vs the Tokarev?
Clark
Neil Maxwell
#a case to push the bullet into the grooves that you'll blow the gun up when
#you shoot it. Big shocker there.
I'm sure Clark is going to chime in at some point, but what his data
showed is that the CZ-52 chamber/barrel failed before the brass did on
overloads, and that the Tokarev digested larger overloads without
mechanical failure; the brass failed before the chamber/barrel, which
is typical of most guns. Those are pretty valid data points, IMO.
#Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept that
#the CZ-52 is not the Tiger Tank of handguns, but continuing to pass off junk
#science as evidence is nonsense. And I don't care how much fancy math you
#want to pile on top of an assumption it's still nothing but an assumption.
#Save yourself the trouble and just guess. When somebody shows some actual
#evidence of the CZ-52's weakness I'll believe it,
You mean actual evidence like taking actual guns and overloading them
until they actually break? It's been done. The fancy math is based
on some assumptions, but the test to failure is based on real data. I
don't know any other way to do it.
#but there have probably
#been 10's of thousands of these things sold in the last 10 years or so and
#if they were half as fragil as Clark would have us believe we would be
#seeing posts all over this board and every other message board about it.
#I've seen more posts of Glocks blowing up than CZ-52's and I'm not selling
#my Glock.
I don't think Clark's said that they're unsafe with factory loads,
though there are documented cases of CZ-52s blowing up with certain
batches of Bulgarian surplus. I haven't heard of any Tokarevs doing
this, but it would take testing them with this ammo to prove anything.
#That said, I won't be shooting any "extra hot" ammo in my CZ,
#mainly because it's 50 years old and because there appears to be no more
#evidence to back up the original claims that the CZ was built to fire a more
#potent round than the Tokarev than there is evidence that it is weaker.
That's the truth! I'm a bit wary now of the Yugo surplus ammo, which
has pretty variable recoil/muzzle flash, but I think it's because of
primer variability (based on my own tests).
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Wilbur
#
# I find load book claims that CZ52s are stronger to be "Load Book
# Legends" and I am doing what I can to de bunk.
I have no problem trying to do that. I've heard too many stories of how
remarkably strong the CZ is and I'm sure there are too many people who
believe it. I believed it for a while until nobody could track down the
source of the original claim. Now I think the CZ was simply adopted because
they hated the Russians.
# The irregularities with the CZ52s I blew up were:
# 1) Unlike other modern guns I have tested, it is not stronger than the
# brass.
# 2) The relative % extra powder overload required for gun failure is so
# far below and other modern guns I have tested.
# 3) The loads my Tokarevs have survived suggest the Tokarev design is
# stronger than the CZ52, which conflicts with the literature.
The problem is you simply cannot make these assumptions based on two guns,
and at least one test was corrupted by overloading the cartridge until it
pressed against the rifling. Unless you're going to tell me you've done that
hundreds of times and know exactly what should happen in that case then that
test is worthless. Just because the barrel went before the brass did this
time means nothing. And if I'm not mistaken the other gun blew up with only
a 1% overload? That's highly suspicious - if CZ's were so fragile that a gun
in good working order would blow up with only a 1% overload then these
things would be blowing up right and left, and that just ain't happening. I
would strongly suspect something was wrong with that gun before you got
ahold of it.
# Perhaps you could outline an easier test to compare the strengths of the
# CZ52 vs the Tokarev?
Easier? Certainly not. The only way to seriously test any guns would be to
buy a bunch of them, measure them all to make sure they are within specs (do
you even know what the specs are supposed to be?) and then take 3-4 at a
time and fire several hundred rounds through each with a specific charge,
then get the next 3-4 guns and use a larger charge, etc (to make sure your
heavier loads are not compromised by fatigue from the previous loads). Now
do the same with the Tokarevs. That's a lot of testing, and I know for sure
I'm not going to pay for it. It is no more credible to blow up two guns and
then pronounce them all weak than it is to pronounce them stronger than the
Tokarev simply because it has a roller locking mechanism. As far as I know
there is no easier way to credibly test any gun, which is probably why
nobody has done it.
Wilbur
#
# I'm sure Clark is going to chime in at some point, but what his data
# showed is that the CZ-52 chamber/barrel failed before the brass did on
# overloads, and that the Tokarev digested larger overloads without
# mechanical failure; the brass failed before the chamber/barrel, which
# is typical of most guns. Those are pretty valid data points, IMO.
#
# You mean actual evidence like taking actual guns and overloading them
# until they actually break? It's been done. The fancy math is based
# on some assumptions, but the test to failure is based on real data. I
# don't know any other way to do it.
See my response to Clark.
# I don't think Clark's said that they're unsafe with factory loads,
# though there are documented cases of CZ-52s blowing up with certain
# batches of Bulgarian surplus. I haven't heard of any Tokarevs doing
# this, but it would take testing them with this ammo to prove anything.
I think that's mainly because the Bulgarian ammo was being touted as sub-gun
ammo or for the CZ-52 only, and specifically not the Tokarev. Shoot enough
in the Tok and you'll probably blow it up too. Or not. Testing with
unpredictable surplus ammo really proves nothing. If you want to test you
have to control everything but one variable, in this case the gun. More than
one variable and your test is suspect at best, worse than worthless at
worst.
Clark Magnuson
Wilbur wrote:
## I find load book claims that CZ52s are stronger to be "Load Book
## Legends" and I am doing what I can to de bunk.
#
#I have no problem trying to do that. I've heard too many stories of how
#remarkably strong the CZ is and I'm sure there are too many people who
#believe it. I believed it for a while until nobody could track down the
#source of the original claim. Now I think the CZ was simply adopted because
#they hated the Russians.
#
A proponent of CZ52s just posted:
"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.""
And then sent me:
"... the 1970 book I own was an update of an earlier manual published in
July 1967. "
So the pay off from as you described, "posts all over this board and
every other message board", was I found the possible source of the load
book legend.
The US army may have started it.
And the army sure didn't have many samples of CZ52s in 1967 or 1970.
#
#
## The irregularities with the CZ52s I blew up were:
## 1) Unlike other modern guns I have tested, it is not stronger than the
## brass.
## 2) The relative % extra powder overload required for gun failure is so
## far below and other modern guns I have tested.
## 3) The loads my Tokarevs have survived suggest the Tokarev design is
## stronger than the CZ52, which conflicts with the literature.
#
#The problem is you simply cannot make these assumptions based on two guns,
#and at least one test was corrupted by overloading the cartridge until it
#pressed against the rifling. Unless you're going to tell me you've done that
#hundreds of times and know exactly what should happen in that case then that
#test is worthless. Just because the barrel went before the brass did this
#time means nothing. And if I'm not mistaken the other gun blew up with only
#a 1% overload? That's highly suspicious - if CZ's were so fragile that a gun
#in good working order would blow up with only a 1% overload then these
#things would be blowing up right and left, and that just ain't happening. I
#would strongly suspect something was wrong with that gun before you got
#ahold of it.
#
There are supposedly two types of knowledge; cognitive and salient.
I have thousands of times is overload guns in an incremental work up
to see what happens and know that the CZ52 results are an aberration.
That is my own salient knowledge and difficult to share.
I will see if I can affect your cognitive outlook.
With a CZ52 barrel in hand, one can measure the depth of the cut for
the roller blocks: .240".
The distance from the inside of the chamber to the bottom of the barrel
is .298".
The difference is then the thickness of thinnest lengthwise line of the
chamber for ~ it's whole length: .298-.240 = .058"
When I measure the chamber wall thickness of the other pistols I have
overloaded with .380 to .400" inside diameter, I get:
Tokarev .122" tapers to .140"
Kel-Tec P11 .105" tapers to .110"
CZ52 [looking at side walls not over roller block cut out] .095" tapers
to .103"
When one looks at a failed CZ52 barrel:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=249178
one can see the failure passes right through the bottom where the
chamber is only .058" thick.
The failure continues through the barrel section where the barrel is
..468" in diameter with .308 grooves = .080" walls.
The other tortured pistols have
Tokarev .496" dia barrel = .094" thick barrel wall.
While the hoop stress on the barrel steel is proportional to inside
diameter causing the thickness to be of less concern in the barrel, once
the chamber splits, the stress riser caused the CZ52 barrel to fail as well.
Your point about the bullet touching the lands is a good one, and I have
found that impediments to bullets starting motion have a higher pressure
gain than faster powder, more powder, and heavier bullets. That said, I
have inadvertently pinched bullets many times in Tokarevs and the
pressure spike did not harm them:
This is a picture of 9x23 brass that failed with a pinched bullet in a
Tokarev:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=322911
To get an idea of the overload magnitude, the pinched bullet happened in
the work up to double the 357 mag max powder charge for 158 gr. XTP
bullets, but the 9x23 is only 1.36" in the Tokarev and the ballistic lab
testing on the 357 mag was at 1.59" OAL. And I have found pinched
bullets to be much worse than bullets touching the lands.
If the .058" thick steel chamber fails at steel stress = [ pressure]
ID/[2x wall thickness]
and brass fails at about 65 kpsi in rimless cases
S = 65 kpsi .4" / 2x .058 = 224 ksi
There is a steel that the Ruger 454 Casull Super Redhawk cylinder is
made from that will go to 260 ksi to pass proof test, but I don't think
the Chechs had access to it and machining it is a real bear.
Meanwhile the steel the Chinese, Poles, Hungarians, Russians, etc. used
in making Tokarevs would be exposed to less stress when I work up to
brass failure:
S = 65 kpsi .4" / .122" = 107 ksi
While annealed barrel steel may not always be up to this, with heat
treat 4140 goes up to 180 ksi.
I have found that RC30 4140 to be easily machinable and in the range
that would explain why I have not been able to destroy a Tokarev in all
the tortures I have tried that end when the brass fails.
I hope this communicates something.
I think the thin chamber concept is something that can be absorbed
cognitively.
## Perhaps you could outline an easier test to compare the strengths of the
## CZ52 vs the Tokarev?
#
#Easier? Certainly not. The only way to seriously test any guns would be to
#buy a bunch of them, measure them all to make sure they are within specs (do
#you even know what the specs are supposed to be?) and then take 3-4 at a
#time and fire several hundred rounds through each with a specific charge,
#then get the next 3-4 guns and use a larger charge, etc (to make sure your
#heavier loads are not compromised by fatigue from the previous loads). Now
#do the same with the Tokarevs. That's a lot of testing, and I know for sure
#I'm not going to pay for it. It is no more credible to blow up two guns and
#then pronounce them all weak than it is to pronounce them stronger than the
#Tokarev simply because it has a roller locking mechanism. As far as I know
#there is no easier way to credibly test any gun, which is probably why
#nobody has done it.
#
Someone offered me CZ52 barrels at $25 each. I could buy 10 and build a
fixture based on a surplus '98 action with a dummy length extender to
meet the 1934 NFA requirements of 16" rifle barrels, and test to failure.
The problem is, that those who would listen to me already have.
What is needed to really get the load books to change at the next
revision is some nationally recognized lab to test the CZ52.