Walt Sherrill
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by glockorama:
I bought my CZ-52 for $99, one of the best buys I ever got. Very accurate and the round has a good punch. They are EXTREMELY well made and hardy. I once read an article in a gun rag that said, if the CZ-52 were manufactured today, it would cost over $1000 due to machining and work put into it. Don't know if that is true, but it is one of my favorite handguns.
[/quote]
There are a number of people very familiar with the CZ ex-military handguns on the Curio & Relics list (where I spend a lot of time.)
Those guys, several experts among them, say these are "FUN" guns, reasonably accurate, loud, and the ammo's impressive penetrating power, while impressive in sound and flash, owes more to the pointed round that inherent power.
In response to how the 7.62 x 25 round compared to the more powerful modern rounds, one expert replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I'm afraid the 7.62X25 is not even in the same class as the .357 Magnum, much less the .454 Cassul.
In terms of muzzle energy the 7.62x25 is roughly equivalent to the 9 m/m Luger and the .45 ACP. The smaller bullet diameter of the 7.62x25 gives it more penetration than either the 9x19 or the .45 ACP, but its lighter bullet weight means it retains less energy than either of the other cartridges at longer ranges. The large muzzle flash that accompanies firing milsurp 7.62x25 leaves the impression it's a more powerful cartridge than it really is. Unfortunately, that large muzzle flash is due to propellant burning outside the barrel after the bullet has left the bore and is just wasted powder :-(
[/quote]
They also say the guns really AREN'T as hardy as they look. Here's more comments of from the C&R list -- this guy is a gunsmith -- in response to another's claim that the CZ-52 was a robust (i.e., strong) pistol...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I think "fairly robust" is a good description. Not bad or excellent, just fair
In terms of the lock-up, it depends on relatively little metal to keep slide and barrel locked together. Compare the mass of the rollers in the Vz.52 to the mass of the locking block in a P.38, the mass of the toggle assembly in a Luger, or the mass of the locking lugs on a 1911A1 barrel and I think you will see the Vz.52 doesn't have (relatively) very much keeping the action shut.
The overall durability of the pistol is a different question. That the Vz.52 required rebuilding (in some cases more than once) during peacetime use makes it something of an oddity, and does not speak well of the durability of the pistol. We also need to keep in mind the unpleasant fact that the early imports of this pistol (all in 100% condition after rebuild) were recalled due to a hammer drop safety that produced unintentional discharges if used.
This is not a pistol I'd use to push the limits.
[/quote]
I guess most of us think that anything THAT ugly has to be durable, doesn't it?
Finally, I think the article you read was just flat wrong: there's not that much intricate machining required in the construction of a CZ-52. Indeed, one of the common traits of all Communist Bloc weapons during this era -- and even their jet aircraft and spacecraft, for that matter -- was that they were designed it to be easily made on an assembly line.
I almost picked one up at the last gun show. And passed over one in a pawn shop last year, in 9mm, for $90. I've kicked myself a time or two about that one.
[This message has been edited by Walt Sherrill (edited June 30, 2000).]
I bought my CZ-52 for $99, one of the best buys I ever got. Very accurate and the round has a good punch. They are EXTREMELY well made and hardy. I once read an article in a gun rag that said, if the CZ-52 were manufactured today, it would cost over $1000 due to machining and work put into it. Don't know if that is true, but it is one of my favorite handguns.
[/quote]
There are a number of people very familiar with the CZ ex-military handguns on the Curio & Relics list (where I spend a lot of time.)
Those guys, several experts among them, say these are "FUN" guns, reasonably accurate, loud, and the ammo's impressive penetrating power, while impressive in sound and flash, owes more to the pointed round that inherent power.
In response to how the 7.62 x 25 round compared to the more powerful modern rounds, one expert replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I'm afraid the 7.62X25 is not even in the same class as the .357 Magnum, much less the .454 Cassul.
In terms of muzzle energy the 7.62x25 is roughly equivalent to the 9 m/m Luger and the .45 ACP. The smaller bullet diameter of the 7.62x25 gives it more penetration than either the 9x19 or the .45 ACP, but its lighter bullet weight means it retains less energy than either of the other cartridges at longer ranges. The large muzzle flash that accompanies firing milsurp 7.62x25 leaves the impression it's a more powerful cartridge than it really is. Unfortunately, that large muzzle flash is due to propellant burning outside the barrel after the bullet has left the bore and is just wasted powder :-(
[/quote]
They also say the guns really AREN'T as hardy as they look. Here's more comments of from the C&R list -- this guy is a gunsmith -- in response to another's claim that the CZ-52 was a robust (i.e., strong) pistol...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I think "fairly robust" is a good description. Not bad or excellent, just fair
In terms of the lock-up, it depends on relatively little metal to keep slide and barrel locked together. Compare the mass of the rollers in the Vz.52 to the mass of the locking block in a P.38, the mass of the toggle assembly in a Luger, or the mass of the locking lugs on a 1911A1 barrel and I think you will see the Vz.52 doesn't have (relatively) very much keeping the action shut.
The overall durability of the pistol is a different question. That the Vz.52 required rebuilding (in some cases more than once) during peacetime use makes it something of an oddity, and does not speak well of the durability of the pistol. We also need to keep in mind the unpleasant fact that the early imports of this pistol (all in 100% condition after rebuild) were recalled due to a hammer drop safety that produced unintentional discharges if used.
This is not a pistol I'd use to push the limits.
[/quote]
I guess most of us think that anything THAT ugly has to be durable, doesn't it?
Finally, I think the article you read was just flat wrong: there's not that much intricate machining required in the construction of a CZ-52. Indeed, one of the common traits of all Communist Bloc weapons during this era -- and even their jet aircraft and spacecraft, for that matter -- was that they were designed it to be easily made on an assembly line.
I almost picked one up at the last gun show. And passed over one in a pawn shop last year, in 9mm, for $90. I've kicked myself a time or two about that one.
[This message has been edited by Walt Sherrill (edited June 30, 2000).]