I want a Tokarev!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does the one that Zastava imports have a built-in safety?
Click to expand...

I got a Zastava a few days ago, M88, in 9MM. I don't know about Russian Toks but this thing looks pretty good from a distance, up close the finish is horrible. No American gun maker would put out a gun like that. The trigger is terrible, off the scale. What do you want for under $300?
It has a safety, and it's very effective, it both blocks the hammer and the trigger bar. The barrel is a two piece affair, with a small pin holding the back sleeve (with the link and feet similar to a 1911) onto the main barrel. It's really a pretty interesting gun. I haven't shot it yet.
 
I just shot the M88, at 10 feet it was 6" low and left, way too much to be my reaction to it's awful trigger. I just shot 8 rounds in the shop at a target attached to a bullet trap, at about round #6 the magazine dropped out of the gun! Easy to add a stronger spring to the mag release.

The trigger pull will be adjusted by reducing spring pressure on both the trigger return spring, a huge flat spring, and the hammer spring which is a coil spring. I'll look at honing the sear and hammer if I can make an adapter for my sear stoning jig.
I'm probably giving more info than the average guy wants here, but the magazine release, though it looks just like a 1911 type, actually takes a special tool to remove, a very simple tool to make. On the original Tokarov it's the same way but they have two such spring loaded pins, since the firing pin is held in with a similar pin.
 
The safety on the Norinco I had might as well have not been there. It was impossible to easily flip off with the shooting hand. You could do it with the gun in the holster, but no thanks. Both those guns also had a terrible trigger, but a local smith worked one over pretty well, had it a lot better.
 
I have tested my three Norinco Model 54's against my Soviet WW2 Tokarev. One Norc was equal to the Soviet gun at 25 yards, One was grouping 50% tighter and the other was not much behind the Russian. All my Toks are very accurate even at 75 yards. The trick is trigger control.
As Mastiff proves, the Norinco or Soviet models are equally strong; stronger than any cartridge that can be fed to them.
These pistols have a great strength, dependability and accuracy that is greatly overlooked. With reloading or more flavours of ammunition types these pistols would be more popular than they are now. At $179 new a pop in my area it is no wonder they are all sold out. The surplus ammunition is back ordered by many dealers as is the pistols (new Norinco Model 54's).

These pistols are hidden treasures. Good for wilderness defence too with the steel-jacketed surplus smg rounds.
 
I just got done working over the trigger on my M88 Zastava 9MM, the trigger return spring was thinned sideways about .100", (That spring alone applied 4.7 lbs to the trigger!) then spun the hammer spring down on a mandrel against the belt sander, then the sear spring was reduced about .070" in width. The hammers sear ledge was .045" high, so I honed that to .035". The trigger pull is substantially reduce to about 6 lbs, (On a UPS digital scale) but I can't find my Lyman digital gage so I can't say for sure. If I had to do it again I could do it in one hour I expect.
 
Norinco 54?

Are these still made? Do all of the norincos have a chrome lined barrel, and does that really protect from corrosive ammo better?

Where could best find the norinco online?

If I buy one in 9mm, can I get a conversion barrel and mag for the 7.62 cartridge I so crave?
 
Makes me wonder. I stashed my Toks years ago. Haven't fired one in a long time.

Lot of misinformation here. The Toks do not take the hot ammo. That was meant for Czech guns. Most of the hot ammo in the caliber is subgun ammo and will blow your Tok to smithereens.

Czech CZ52 will handle almost all of the hot ammo out there. It is still not up to the subgun ammo.

They are incredibly accurate. They are reliable beyond question. The range is staggering for a pistol (done in more than one coyote at 300 yards with one). And, they are easy and natural shooters. Plus, they will defeat Kevlar body armor.

I have a few and about 1,500 rounds of ammo. I even have new mags still in the wrap.

Kind of irritating seeing so much BS tossed around about them.

And, BTW, they come in 7.62. The 9 mm barrel is the conversion.

I'm gonna have to dig back to that far corner of the safe and see what I have in Toks. Personally, I prefer CZ 52s...
 
Sorry, Loop. You are entirely wrong about
Lot of misinformation here. The Toks do not take the hot ammo. That was meant for Czech guns. Most of the hot ammo in the caliber is subgun ammo and will blow your Tok to smithereens.

Czech CZ52 will handle almost all of the hot ammo out there. It is still not up to the subgun ammo.
Click to expand...
.

The CZ52 has a very thin area under the barrel for one of the rollers. It will not take anywhere near as much abuse as the Tok. I've fired 9x23 Winchester through my Tok, which is hotter than any Tok subgun ammo.


This was posted by "Clark" over at the Gunsnet Tokarev forums.

"The supposed strength of the CZ-52 is a myth. It would be true if the design did not thin the barrel down so as to accommodate one of the rollers. This cut in the barrel makes the design weak. It will work fine all day with regular ammo in the 357 magnum pressure range. When you get up higher is when you get into problems. The Tok is signifigantly stronger than the CZ-52, as the barrel of the Tok doesn't have this cut-out.
I fire 9x23 Winchester in my Romanian Tok with a modified Norinco barrel. This round goes over 50,000 CUP, which is well over the 42,000 of the 7.62x25 round.

Regarding the infamous "Czech sub-gun ammo", check out this post from rec.guns:
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIIC2f.html

" The CZ-52 uses a 8 round single stack mag. It utilizes a roller
locking system to safely use all sorts of Tok ammo, from less powerful
loads for the Tokarev pistol, to very powerful loads meant for this
handgun (Czech M48 round) and also for PPSh submachine guns."

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/attachme...=&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.

> ...
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 realize 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 realized
there was an error in the 'tribal lore', but he did not realize 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".
d) 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."
e) 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".
f) 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]."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top