Carry Condition of A Zastava M70

[Mr. Mosin]

For those who do not know, it’s a SAO, external hammer w/ manual safety. Everything functions as it should mechanically, just wondering what condition you would carry this pistol in (OWB) given the general lack of firearm specific holsters for it.

Hammer cocked/uncocked, safety off/on, round chambered or not ?

 

[Monac]

I am sorry you have not gotten an answer about this. I think that is because the Zastava M70 is not a gun many people would carry for self defense, which is where carry condition would really matter. It is a rather bulky, heavy (all steel) single action automatic that was aruguably about 40 years behind the state of the art when it was introduced in 1970. And it's in 7.65mm Browning, in a size category where many people prefer 9mm Short, if not 9mm Parabellum.

I had one for a while, and then just lost interest in it and sold it.

The manual safety on mine did not inspire confidence, because it was small and its movement was kind of floppy. And the M70 is derived from the Tokarev, which had a full-reach firing pin, so I would want to know if the Yugoslavians changed that before suggesting hammer-down carry on a loaded chamber. So that just leaves carrying it with a loaded magazine but an empty chamber. If your gun has a better made safety, or the Yugoslavs fixed the firing pin issue, then you could carry it however you liked. But it's a gun the Walther PP made kind of passe in 1929. The Czech CZ-50 and CZ-70 are better guns, and so are the basic Russian-type Makarov, and the Polish P-83 in 9mm Makarov.

PS - My Zastava M-70 came with a factory holster, but it was a basic European police leather flap holster, with a pocket for a spare magazine.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

I am sorry you have not gotten an answer about this. I think that is because the Zastava M70 is not a gun many people would carry for self defense, which is where carry condition would really matter. It is a rather bulky, heavy (all steel) single action automatic that was aruguably about 40 years behind the state of the art when it was introduced in 1970. And it's in 7.65mm Browning, in a size category where many people prefer 9mm Short, if not 9mm Parabellum.

I had one for a while, and then just lost interest in it and sold it.

The manual safety on mine did not inspire confidence, because it was small and its movement was kind of floppy. And the M70 is derived from the Tokarev, which had a full-reach firing pin, so I would want to know if the Yugoslavians changed that before suggesting hammer-down carry on a loaded chamber. So that just leaves carrying it with a loaded magazine but an empty chamber. If your gun has a better made safety, or the Yugoslavs fixed the firing pin issue, then you could carry it however you liked. But it's a gun the Walther PP made kind of passe in 1929. The Czech CZ-50 and CZ-70 are better guns, and so are the basic Russian-type Makarov, and the Polish P-83 in 9mm Makarov.

PS - My Zastava M-70 came with a factory holster, but it was a basic European police leather flap holster, with a pocket for a spare magazine.

Thenk you for your help. The safety is crisp and functional, and will be even better after a sonic bath- just in an odd place and angle that will take practice to familiarize myself with. I absolutely adore the Slavic abomination- for what it is intended for. It makes a fine field gun, but it’s unsuited for what I wanted it for (pocket usage).

The .32 Automatic chambering does not overly concern me- I’ve carried a .22LR revolver for several years; so this is a step up in every way. The firearm itself is not drastically different dimensionally from a PPK or G42. I trust the gun, it’s just the lack of a specific holster for it that is my concern- jiggling about in a “gun bucket” might somehow release the safety through it’s mile-long throw. If I could find a dedicated holster for *it*, molded to the firearm with detail paid to molding around the safety in the “safe” position; I’d readily carry it C&L… it’s just the holster/gun bucket that concerns me.

 

[toivo]

I've been thinking about picking up one of those, but for historical interest, not for carry. (I have a Yugo Tokarev for the same reason.) I was a Cold War kid, and I'm fascinated by guns from countries that no longer exist, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. If you want a .32 for carry, I would suggest something else, like maybe a Kel-Tec or even one of these, if you can find one:

CZ 83 Pistol .32ACP | Shop Firearms Online | Max Arms

Discover and shop our surplus CZ82 32 ACP in very good condition made in Uhersky Brod— Czech Republic CZ-83 .32ACP Max Arms -

max-arms.com

 

[Old Dog]

So, long story short, I spent eleven months in Kosovo. Zastava pistols were not uncommon, but widely regarded as... let's just say, sub-optimal given what other handguns were available in theater.

I've only had one occasion to personally examine the M70, and caliber aside, it was pretty easy to decide that it was nothing I'd want to carry in the real world (unless it was the apocalypse and it was the only handgun left in the world).

 

[Mizar]

Hammer down on empty chamber... The safety blocks the sear, just like the 1911 style guns, but as already mentioned it's not well executed and the design leaves a lot to be desired. If I remember correctly (don't hold me to it) the firing pin is a direct style, non-inertial, so hammer down on loaded chamber is not recommended at all.

 

[Tallball]

An empty chamber is useless, so that leaves you with two options:

1) cocked with a round in the chamber

2) hammer down with a round in the chamber

The safety might or might not allow both choices. I've not handled that particular model.

If that's what you've got, that's what you've got. I carried an old "sort of Beretta 1934 clone" when I was young because I had to go to violent places and it was all I had. It was a while before I could scrape together the money for something better.

 

[Mizar]

2) hammer down with a round in the chamber

I know I'm gonna open a can of worms here, but with a direct firing pin the only safe position with hammer down is the half cock notch, which is captive on this model.
BTW, it's fairly easy to see what kind of firing pin one has in his pistol - lock the slide back and push the firing pin with a pencil, untill it's flush with the firing pin stop surface. If there's any protrusion from the breechface, then it's a of a direct type, but if it sits slightly bellow (about .02") - it's inertial. Check first and only after that decide on your carry style.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

@Mizar @Monac the firing pin does not protrude from the breech fae when pressed forward from the rear.

 

[Mosin77]

Israeli carry -hammer down, chamber empty. It’s not the absolute fastest but with practice it’s fast enough. And it’s extremely safe.

It’s the only method I’d consider for an old surplus pistol that I didn’t have a good holster for. I don’t like to carry anything that’s not unambiguously drop safe, personally. Fine enough in a military context with a full coverage holster, but not for a pocket gun or something I might draw from concealment.

 

[toivo]

Israeli carry -hammer down, chamber empty. It’s not the absolute fastest but with practice it’s fast enough. And it’s extremely safe.

Is there any reason not to carry hammer cocked, chamber empty? With the hammer back, it's easier to rack the slide, which might help in the "heat of the moment."

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Is there any reason not to carry hammer cocked, chamber empty? With the hammer back, it's easier to rack the slide, which might help in the "heat of the moment."

My question exactly

 

[Mosin77]

Is there any reason not to carry hammer cocked, chamber empty? With the hammer back, it's easier to rack the slide, which might help in the "heat of the moment."

Only disadvantage I can think of is that a cocked hammer is more prone to snagging on things. I agree the hammer being cocked will make the slide a tad easier to rack but if you’re drawing the gun and racking it smartly (“it’s a gun, not your girlfriend,”) I don’t know that the extra racking effort of hammer-down will be noticeable or translate into notably slower presentation times.

 

[toivo]

Only disadvantage I can think of is that a cocked hammer is more prone to snagging on things.

I think that depends on a few things. A 1911 with an old-style spur hammer and no beavertail is pretty snag-prone whether cocked or uncocked. With a Commander-style hammer and a beavertail, it's not a big issue either way.

Looking at this shot of a Zastava in action, it does look like it would present a snag risk when cocked:

 

[Mr. Mosin]

I think that depends on a few things. A 1911 with an old-style spur hammer and no beavertail is pretty snag-prone whether cocked or uncocked. With a Commander-style hammer and a beavertail, it's not a big issue either way.

Looking at this shot of a Zastava in action, it does look like it would present a snag risk when cocked:
View attachment 1173797

It does.