CZ52 or Zastava M57?

i am a huge fan of the cz's.

I really like the CZ52. Someday I'll find a way to justify one.

I have both (both are older surplus models, not the new M57) and IMHO the M57 is the better gun. It's not a major difference (I wouldn't feel particularly worse off with either over the other), but the M57 to me has a better mag release, better grip attachment method, and just feels better in my hand.

I own multiples of both types and prefer the M57s (and all TT Variants) over the CZ52s by a considerable margin.

FWIW

I really wanted to like my CZ-52 but I just couldn't find the proper grip on it, so I sold it. You might want to try to handle one first.

Tom

A brand new 57 is far and away better than the CZ52 ever was.

It is hard not to like (other than the cost of new production ammo) that 7.62x25mm cartridge.

I have and like shooting them both. The CZ52 has a mid 20th Century futuristic spaceman pistol look that I find particularly appealing, and the roller lockup should be able to handle hotter loads, while the Zastava Tokarev design actually seems more simple and rugged. I have small hands and the M57 fits me great, while the larger front to back width of the CZ52 grip makes it a tad more awkward for me to reach the trigger. A NIB Zastava M57 may have a rougher internal finish and generally sells for just a bit less than a nicely finished CZ52, but an FFL transfer on the modern pistol negates that advantage for me when I can get the C&R CZ delivered to my front door.

I say go ahead and get one of each, but if I could only have one I guess I would pick the brand new M57. Parts availability for one thing would have to be better for a pistol manufactured this year.

Gun Test Magazine, which takes no ads, just rated a CZ gun vs a Zastava. While the CZ was rough outside, used, the Zastava, new, looked good outside, but was a POS inside, mag failed to drop, lots of burrs, machine flaws. Old CZ got "B"-brand new Zastava got a "D"!

Hurryin' Hoosier said:

For all of you who are really familiar with both guns, which would you rather have: a "gently used" CZ vz.52 or one of the new Zastava Model 57s? I have a Model 57 and can't make up my mind if I'm all that impressed with it or not.

Click to expand...

I would pick up CZ52 for couple of reasons. It is interesting expensive gun to produce and relatively few were made (probably <250k). These have potential to double in price in the future. The TT is basically typical Bolshevik designed easy to produce in large numbers POS. It was designed to replaces even bigger POS called the Nagant revolver. The jump from Nagant to TT was like jumping from Trabant into Yugo while the jump from TT to PPK inspired PM was like jumping from Yugo into a Ford Sierra sedan.

The Tok is hardly a "POS". It is a Browning design simplified for mass production, and works very well indeed.
I have owned three. A Vietnam nam bring back Chinese made which looked like it was fished out of a rice paddy...A Romanian 1950's surplus, and the brand new Zastava.
All three had something in common:
They worked perfectly and were accurate.
The CZ52 I owned was my greatest firearms disappointment. It was a pistol I had wanted since long before they were ever imported.
The one I owned looked like new and lacked any evidence of having been rebuilt.
It was inaccurate. It did not feed reliably.
Finally, it has been proven that the roller lock, while interesting, is not stronger than the browning system of the Tok, due to its execution. The design results in an unusual thin section of chamber on the CZ.
I've seen plenty of pics of blown up, cracked frame CZ's.

For a shooter Serbian TT in 9x19 for collection CZ52. I don't see any way around that.
Ok, TT is not POS, but when Kolya got PM he must have thought it was best thing since sliced bread. Oops Soviety did not provide sliced bread. I will say European brad might need slicing but it's head and shoulders above what is found in bakery section of my supermarkeTy.

amd6547 said:

The Tok is hardly a "POS". It is a Browning design simplified for mass production, and works very well indeed.
I have owned three. A Vietnam nam bring back Chinese made which looked like it was fished out of a rice paddy...A Romanian 1950's surplus, and the brand new Zastava.
All three had something in common:
They worked perfectly and were accurate.
The CZ52 I owned was my greatest firearms disappointment. It was a pistol I had wanted since long before they were ever imported.
The one I owned looked like new and lacked any evidence of having been rebuilt.
It was inaccurate. It did not feed reliably.
Finally, it has been proven that the roller lock, while interesting, is not stronger than the browning system of the Tok, due to its execution. The design results in an unusual thin section of chamber on the CZ.
I've seen plenty of pics of blown up, cracked frame CZ's.

Click to expand...

Are you sure abut CZ52 reliability. I mean if owner does not scrub bottom of slide with dentist approved brush the gun might not work. Anyhow they did not need reliable sidearm for carry because they had the PPsha with spare drum magazine on the belt!

I like the looks of the Cz-52 and the cartridge it's chambered for. I had one for several years and could never warm up to it. As others have alluded to, the Cz-52 doesn't fit the human hand very sell.

I purchased a M57 and wow, what a difference. I cannot describe how much better it fits me. I bought a second M57 and sold the Cz-52.

I'll echo the suggestion by VetPsychWars: you should try to handle the Cz-52 before investing in one.

Many of the CZ-52s had problems [worn rollers in the MG-style recoil system, defective decockers, and easily broken firing pins] which could be inexpensively remedied, but the interest generally seemed to have more to do with the unique roller design and the round it fired. While I'm sure there are very accurate CZ-52s, I've not encountered too many who rave about CZ-52 accuracy. Lots of raves about the BOOMS and FLAMES that accompanies a range session in the original caliber.

I haven't read much about problems with the milsurp Tokarevs of the era, or with the newer versions. You do hear a lot of debates about which of the two is stronger -- and while I've seen pretty definitive analyses of this topic, I won't address it here (as I'm not sure I can find the proper reference material.) Both of the basic designs are robust, but when choosing between the two, I'd go with the newly made model, particularly if the gun acquired is to be used in any role other than "range novelty."

Gun Test Magazine writers tend to be gun snobs who always put down guns that aren't nicely polished and finished inside -- even if the lack of finish or polish is in areas that have no connection to functionality.

Unhappily, when evaluating MILSURP guns, GUN TESTS is a relatively small operation, and they can't really acquire more than one or two copiels of a tested gun to make their "tests" more meaningful, and when dealing with MILSUPR guns, it's always a crap shoot. Gun Tests apparently had problems with their M57(s?) that aren't addressed in other reviews or comments on this and other forums.

I suspect that anything wrong with a "new" M57 can be quickly and easily remedied by someone generally familiar with firearms.

.

Robbins290 said:

i am a huge fan of the cz's.

Click to expand...

That table is the least appropriate backdrop imaginable for those pimp 52's.

Hakron. You are right. I should have covered the flowers with some cash or something. Lol

While in terms of hand fit the CZ52 is far removed from something like: single stack 1911, BHP or Luger 08 it's nothing one can't get used to. While neither pistol would be on my short shopping list I would take the CZ52.

PabloJ said:

While in terms of hand fit the CZ52 is far removed from something like: single stack 1911, BHP or Luger 08 it's nothing one can't get used to

Click to expand...

True, but easier for some than others. I did try, exhaustively at first. I ended up putting a Hogue Handall on mine and though it added girth and still didn't fit me, it felt a bit better.

For me, it was like getting used to pepper-flavored yogurt or something equally as wrong. If I were able to stick with eating pepper-yogurt long enough to honestly get used to it, I would be reminded how nasty it is after the very next spoonful of strawberry yogurt.
It was like that for me with the CZ-52. Just when I thought I was making progress with the CZ-52, I'd pick up a 1911 (or later, my M57) and the CZ-52 felt wrong again.

However, I'm certain there are those out there that actually like the CZ-52's grip just as I'm sure there are those who might enjoy pepper-yogurt. A buddy of mine who purchased his CZ-52 when I purchased mine had no complaints. He's 6'7 and has huge mitts, so that might play a factor.

Just stay away from the CZ 52 , that thing has a poor design . I got one and sold it many years ago. Get the Yugo M57 without a doubt.