thinking about getting a Tokarev: CZ52 or M57?

[Handshaker]

OK a few months ago i bought a Polish PPS-43C and love the hot 7.62x25. I dont really want a beat up WW2 relic unless its in very good condition. I also wish zastava would release some more M57a's in Chrome but.
What are everyone thoughts on which one to buy? I know the CZ has been mentioned as having a cast iron fire pin that can break.
thanks

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I've had a Romanian Tok for five years or so. Neat gun, forward thinking design for its era. Very slim. Same worries about the firing pin but really becomes an issue only if you dry snap it, which I don't. The CZs are more desirable but scarcer these days; the Tok TTs from Romania are still plentiful and cheap.

 

[Handshaker]

Thanks for the reply, correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't the CZ potentially have more value down the road as a collector piece? Where i live the CZ's are about as findable as the toks and m57's.

 

[.455_Hunter]

My father bought me and my brother matching CZ-52's on the occasion of my 18th B-day in 1994. They are fun guns, and mine was on my side during one of my life events that appeared to be ramping towards a two-way firing range. I have also added a Chinese commercial Tokarev. I like the 7.62x25mm and it's properties that tend to marginalize common body armor.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Thanks for the reply, correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't the CZ potentially have more value down the road as a collector piece? Where i live the CZ's are about as findable as the toks and m57's.

I think so. It's a very strong design and is known to take heavy loads without issue. I should have snatched one up a few years ago. CZ almost always makes a great firearm..not to many "clunkers" in their history.

 

[GBExpat]

I can recall looking at the images displayed on the vendor websites 20 years ago. Fitted wooden cases chock full of Tokarevs or CZ-52s. To my eye the design of the former appeared dated & "steampunk" but the latter, rather futuristic. As I recall, the prices were in the $100-$150 range. Nice.

After acquiring at least one of each I realized that I had fooled myself. I found the CZ-52s to be heavy, blocky and not terribly comfortable. The Tokarevs, on the other hand, were quite svelte; light, flat and concealable, my 3 fingers just fit on the grip (I wear Size Large gloves, long-thin-fingers).

Reflecting that discovery, I currently (and for a long time) have 3 CZ-52s and 11 Tokarevs (2 Polish, 2 Romanian, 3 Russian[sans add-on trigger-block], and 4 M57s).

Yes, I have always enjoyed shooting the Tokarevs & Variants much more that the CZ-52s.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I have both, Cz52 and M57. The M57 looks better, but the CZ shoots better.
If I had to choose one it would be the CZ. I'll replace the fire pin if the time ever comes but it has been fine for the last 20yrs+ I've owned it. One of the most, if not THE most, accurate pistols I've ever shot.

 

[Rule3]

I like my CZ better than the Zastava m57

The CZ is a "tank" and I am fascinated by the roller lock system, Mine has a new stainless barrel and is very accurate
Just by a new replacement firing pin if you are worried about it breaking

I detail stripped mine and polished some internals. made the trigger a little better.

 

[GBExpat]

I bought my M57s as 2 pairs from two vendors (SOG & the real Widener's).

I remember that one of the four sported THE WORST trigger that I have ever come across ... and the trigger-action on the remaining 3 needed some serious attention.

As is my wont, I detail-stripped them and stoned/smoothed the necessary surfaces.

As I recall, one of the little leaf-style sear springs had a large hole worn in it and the sear spring in another appeared to have gotten "tired" so someone actually flipped the silly thing around for further use.

I guess your field-expedient repair decisions can be a bit ... sad ... when you have too few replacement parts.

I would rate all 4 of my M57s as now having "OK" triggers. Adequate for plinking. Best I could do without sourcing beaucoup new parts.

 

[Handshaker]

I'm not all that worried about the firing pin, i dont think it breaks unless you dry fire it, which i never do. Now I'm even more confused which to buy, lol. If i could get my hands on a new chrome m57a, i would get that but i called zastava last week and they said they have been asking for them but have no eta if or when they will get some.

 

[Col. Harrumph]

I found the CZ-52 to be really uncomfortable to hold on to. Not so much from recoil, which was mild, but the shape of the handle just didn't agree with my hand. I do wish my 1911 holster would fit the Tok, but if wishes were dollars I would be rich. (And I'd own another holster.)

 

[Handshaker]

If i am looking at Toks, I have found several with online retailers for tt-33, chinese m54, romanian type 54 but have it in my mind to go for a yugo tokarev. I see the yugo has do have dove tail front sights and serrations on the slide. Should i wait for the zastava or are all these GTG too? They all come in shipped under 400. The chinese t54 has the glock style safety. Its 370 shipped.

 

[SeanSw]

My CZ52 has a very heavy trigger, uncomfortable safety, and lots of trigger slap. It's about 90% with 60's surplus ammunition noted for hard primers. I think it would be quite accurate if I could get control of the trigger but it's just too stiff. I replaced the original firing pin before I ever shot it, but I did make a point of breaking the original pin before replacement. It only took a few dry fires before the tip broke off.

Interesting gun. I purchased the only one I've ever seen locally and it even came with a 9mm barrel. Basically a useless waste of storage space but I won't be selling it either. I enjoy owning it but probably wouldn't bother today. Too expensive to shoot (what isn't?)

 

[denster]

The CZ is far and way the best pistol. They do not have a cast iron firing pin it is tempered steel but the design is not conducive to dry firing. Anyway firing pins are cheap.

 

[tark]

.not to many "clunkers" in their history.

Except for the CZ-52. Why do you think the Czechs dumped their entire inventory on the surplus market thirty years ago? The guns had all kinds of problems, with the roller locking mechanism being one of the worst offenders. The rollers would batter themselves into an oval shape, which tied up the gun. The gun didn't handle dirt and grit very well, often jamming. If the gun wasn't lubed well and often, the rollers could gall the locking recesses, eventually causing a stoppage. This would damage both the barrel and the slide. The de-cocker mechanism would sometimes fire the gun with a round in the chamber.

Some 52s run forever and some give lots of problems. This is a clear symptom of inconsistent quality control / Substandard materials used in the manufacture of some parts. If you have a good one, enjoy it and be thankful. I had a bad one. Broke the firing pin on day one. Everything described above happened to mine sans the de-cocker mishap. A friend had the same experience while a third friend has run thousands of rounds through his with no issues at all.

Go figure...

 

[Handshaker]

Well i ended up finding a Polish Circle 11 tt33 10 min from my house at a gun store. All numbers match. Its in very good condition but the holster is useless to me since I'm a lefty. I still may buy a CZ as well, we will see...

 

[Hugger-4641]

Sweet. Let us know how it shoots.

 

[Tallball]

Looks great!

 

[AustinTX]

The CZ is far and way the best pistol.

Why, exactly? I know the Tokarev vs. CZ 52 fan rivalry is a particularly fierce one, for whatever reason, but it’s never been clear to me why that’s the case.

I’ve had both and found them both fun. The CZ has a much more interesting design, but my Radom-manufactured Tokarevs were orders of magnitude more refined, no less reliable, and easier to shoot accurately, owing to a much better trigger and more human hand-friendly grip. I’ve also never heard of the Tokarev being full of weak/fragile small parts.

What makes the CZ so much better?

 

[denster]

Why, exactly? I know the Tokarev vs. CZ 52 fan rivalry is a particularly fierce one, for whatever reason, but it’s never been clear to me why that’s the case.

I’ve had both and found them both fun. The CZ has a much more interesting design, but my Radom-manufactured Tokarevs were orders of magnitude more refined, no less reliable, and easier to shoot accurately, owing to a much better trigger and more human hand-friendly grip. I’ve also never heard of the Tokarev being full of weak/fragile small parts.

What makes the CZ so much better?

It would be hard to explain to someone who considers a Tok as refined.

 

[AustinTX]

It would be hard to explain to someone who considers a Tok as refined.

Given how readily you draw unwarranted conclusions, I don't doubt that you'd have difficulty explaining it. I made a relative statement, not an absolute one. Polish Tokarevs are pretty rough. CZ 52s are among the crudest modern handguns I've seen.

 

[Handshaker]

Great Taste!, Less Filling, AK vs AR, Ford vs Chevy bla bla bla. Whatever someone likes, they will say is better. I don't get offended if you like something different than what I like, its called FREEDOM!
Can't we all just get along? LOL

 

[tark]

It would be hard to explain to someone who considers a Tok as refined.

Tok's refined? Let's consider a few things.

The Hammer/spring/ sear module is pure genius. Simple, rugged, compact and can be replaced by a troglodyte in the field, with no tools. The half cock notch locks up the gun. Put the hammer at half cock and nothing moves, the slide and trigger are rendered immobile. I'm talking about the military surplus Toks, not the commercial guns that have add on safeties. In my opinion this feature completely negates the need for a safety.

One of the measures of "refined" in a military weapon is this: Is it cheap, quick and easy to manufacture? The Tok is , the CZ 52 most certainly is NOT. It is none of those things. It is a complicated, difficult to manufacture trouble prone design. One of the hardest things in the world to do is to make something, like a pistol in large numbers, cheaply and easily, that is rugged and reliable. The Tok is legendary for its reliability, the CZ, errr...kind of the opposite

Great Taste!, Less Filling, AK vs AR, Ford vs Chevy bla bla bla. Whatever someone likes, they will say is better. I don't get offended if you like something different than what I like, its called FREEDOM!
Can't we all just get along? LOL

Agreed, Handshaker, but in the comparisons you list, each side can claim victory because either choice is a good choice.

In comparing a Tokarev to a CZ-52, there really isn't a comparison. From a military standpoint, the tok is a complete success, and the CZ was not

 

[Handshaker]

There's also a flip side to this, its called human greed. If a combloc countries paid 50 bucks to build a pistol and can sell them to Americans for 500, I'm sure whatever it is will end up on our shore. I have been in many debates on AK vs AR, I have both and see each has their own merit. SO I may get a CZ if i find the right deal.

 

[mgmorden]

I've got both a CZ-52 and a Yugo M57. I think the CZ is a far more interesting design with more "character", but from a more practical perspective, the M57 feels better in the hand and shoots better.

I have an aftermarket CZ-52 firing pin stuck aside already in case my firing pin ever breaks.