| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Tokarev TT-33: Difference between revisions
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:It looks more like a Colt 1903. And there IS a hammer. And I don't think Communists ever really cared about our bourgeois copyrights to begin with. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | :It looks more like a Colt 1903. And there IS a hammer. And I don't think Communists ever really cared about our bourgeois copyrights to begin with. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
Actually the TT pistol only looks alike 1903 Colt - there are some major differences. Striking mechanism are Tokarev patent and the locking is from C.1911. Another thing is that in the time it was constructed CCCP actually cared about international patents. (PS can someone tell me if im doing editing right? ) | Actually the TT pistol only looks alike 1903 Colt - there are some major differences. Striking mechanism are Tokarev patent and the locking is from C.1911. Another thing is that in the time it was constructed CCCP actually cared about international patents. (PS can someone tell me if im doing editing right? )--[[User:Ripp|Ripp]] 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 10 March 2010
- Is a Tokarev worth buying? I saw one at a gun store in my town a while back and the price was really low-S&Wshooter 05:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It is well worth buying. They are very reliable and accurate. I like the fact that it breaks down similar to a 1911 but the hammer assembly is one piece that makes it easier to clean. I would suggest trying to find one in 9mm or one that includes both the 7.62x25mm and 9mm barrels. The Norinco 213 is the same as a Tokarev but somewhat easier to find one but includes a safety that is actually a good one.96.32.133.162 04:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Too bad I have the rule of NO CHINESE GUNS EVER. I know where to get a 9mm Tokagypt though-S&Wshooter 04:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yugo Tokarev
The Zastava M57, the Yugoslavian copy of the Tokarev was used in Savior and Rambo II, should we include it here as well?
- Yes, it is a type of Tokarev pistol so definitely MoviePropMaster2008 02:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Reason for obsolescence?
I'm confused as to why this pistol and its proprietary 7.62x25mm round was deemed obsolete by the Soviets and replaced by the 9x18mm Makarov round, a cartridge that was arguably obsolete right from the moment it was designed due to the popularity and widespread use of the already-in-use 9x19mm Parabellum round. I've heard that the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round is supposed to possess more velocity and better kinetic energy than most 9x19mm Parabellum loadings, coupled with better kevlar penetration against low-level ballistic armour, so it seems a bit of a mystery to me as to why they would "downgrade" their pistols and SMGs from something that wasn't broken in the first place.
Also, if indeed the hype about the 7.62x25mm round is true, then does that mean the PPSh-41 was the FN P90 of its day, or that the TT-Tokarev was the Five-SeveN pistol of its day?
For the 1st section of this post: I looked up some information about the Makarov round and the Tokarev round. The Makarov round was designed because the Red Army wanted a simple pistol using the Direct Blowback system (the Makarov PM, PMM, etc), and to prevent the chance of ammunition falling into Western Hands and being used against the Red Army in the event of war. (information paraphrased from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm_Makarov). Come to think of it, a similar situation occurred with the American-180 Sub machine gun, chambered in the .22LR round, which was designed as a weapon to arm police in the hope that should the weapon ever fall into the wrong hands and be used against police officers with ballistic vests, the officers would not be killed by a police issue weapon, due to the .22 round being a low penetration round. For the 2nd part of this post: I'd think the TT-33 being the Five-seveN of the day would be more appropriate, given the PPSh-41 not being very compact or that accurate after about 75 meters because of the high rate of fire and the not exactly great sights.
I see, the rationale behind the Soviets' adoption of the 9x18mm Makarov cartridge wasn't on wikipedia the last time I checked that particular entry. I'm surprised then that the Russian military (cash-strapped as it is) hasn't gone back to the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round in order to update its pistols and SMGs to armour piercing ammunition again. Rather, they've gone to overpressure variants of the 9x19mm parabellum cartridge to turn their SMGs into PDWs. Maybe the reason why they chose overloaded 9x19mm rounds was that they felt they had to match or exceed the FN P90 in their box or helical magazines? I take it the reason why the Bizon SMG can't use Tokarev rounds in a helical formation is because they're too long to fit in a helical magazine of manageable length, and repeating the PPSh-41's drum magazine format is bound to result in feeding problems.
- No, why? It's possible to make helical mag for TT cartridges, but its capacity will be almost a half less. What's the point then? TT rounds are not as good at piercing armor. Russia developed special cartridges - SP10(armor-piercing) and SP-13(armor-piercing incendiary) and weapons chambering them - SR-1(pistol) and SR-2(SMG). You can find info about it on the nets.
I think another reason why the Soviets decided to switch to the Makarov was that they chose the Tokarev initially so they could make use of the German 7.63mm Mauser round for pistol and SMG ammo. So then the Makarov was their attempt at ensuring the same trick could not be pulled on them. A shame that this round went into obsolescence for reasons other than its performance, like the fate the 10x25mm Auto round suffered. Makes me wonder what a modernized version of the PPSh-41 using the Tokarev round might look like today, and if it could actually serve in the "armour-piercing SMG role" well . . .
- From what I have heard the performance of the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round is more similar in performance to the .357 SIG than the 5.7x28mm.
- The 7.62x25 round actually isn't as good as described here. In deed it has good penetration but overall the whole kevlar-buster myth is caused by AP ammo, and more by steel plated bullet's with lead core. With standart copper plated bullet it has no more penetration than 9x19 and probably even less, due to a lightweight bullet. It causes more problems than has to offer. Its loud and very bright. It has much recoil in my opinion much more than .45 acp (fired from TT pistol). It ricochet's (?) much. It losses energy very fast due to a instability in flight - bullet shot at 100m from ppsh-41 can be catch by gloved hand. With only minor bruises. Stopping power is low - bullet go trough flesh without spinning and leaves very narrow and clean canal.
- All this from my own experiences with few guns in this caliber witch can still be found in my country as a service weapon in some security agency's due to a low cost and quite easy maintenance needed.
- And one more thing - the Russians adopted this cartridge with c/96 - it was just the round they already have in production. They only added a little power to it. And thats all--Ripp 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ripoff of the Colt Hammerless?
The Tokarev has always looked to me like a cheap copy of the Colt Model 1908 Hammerless. Has Colt ever tried to sue them (I know it's long past time now for it) in the past? Harleyguy 07:35 16 February 2010
- It looks more like a Colt 1903. And there IS a hammer. And I don't think Communists ever really cared about our bourgeois copyrights to begin with. --Funkychinaman 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually the TT pistol only looks alike 1903 Colt - there are some major differences. Striking mechanism are Tokarev patent and the locking is from C.1911. Another thing is that in the time it was constructed CCCP actually cared about international patents. (PS can someone tell me if im doing editing right? )--Ripp 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)