Hmmm....What user nation's armies consider effective and what you or I might consider effective for sporting or defense purposes is radically different.
Why doesn't anyone seem to remember that??
What one person considers ineffective another person might consider to be perfectly effective--and both of them could have good evidence and experience to support their positions even though their positions are radically different.
Why does that seem to be such a difficult concept??
Hard to find a lot of information on the Tok's real-world performance.Was the Tokarov round really any more effective than the 9mm Parabellum?
There has been some written on the 30 Mauser/7.63 Mauser's effectiveness. Supposedly when it hit a rib or other bone, the results were impressive. The bone was turned into secondary fragments which wreaked havoc in the chest cavity. When no bone was hit, it made small holes like pistol bullets tend to do and results were variable depending on exactly where the small hole was.
If you're trying to blow up a gun, you will succeed in blowing up the CZ-52 before you blow up the TT33.TT33 are able to take higher pressures than the CZ52. The roller design is strong, but the barrel has a thin portion that will fail before the Tokarev will. Clark did a ton of testing of both guns and blew up many. In his tests the Tokarev held together better than the CZ. Both are nice guns but for strength the TT33 is tops.
If you're trying to shoot hot loads in both guns (staying under the yield pressure of the chambers) to see which one will shoot loose the fastest, the TT33 will probably give up first.