Clark Question

[Fistula]

Clark-

Personally I think you are doing great basement research- keep it up.

Questions: Have you tried to load a 7.62x39 bullet into 7.62x25 brass? Perhaps removing some lead from the base is in order to get the round in the 100gr range. What is the heaviest bullet you have loaded for a Tokarev? Any spacing problems with longer bullets?

Thanks

[Clark]

Thanks for the encouragment.
85 Fmj, 110 gr FMJ, 110 gr JSP, is all I have good notes on.

I hand loaded and shot a 30 carbine tracer bullet from a 7.62x25mm pistol a few years back, and it worked. I don't have any notes on it and can't find any 30 cal tracers less than 147 gr in my loading room.

I have not shot a gun is a week [the oportunity of work has knocked]. Soon as I get a chance I will shoot some heavy bullets in a Tokarev.

[Fistula]

I have two thoughts on this:

1. Loading .30cal 110gr JHP (Speer?) for home defense. I am not too sure if the .308 vs. .311 thing would have much effect on accuracy at those ranges. I wonder how this round would compare to a .357 110gr JHP?

2. Remove some lead from a 122gr 7.62x39 bullet to get the weight down to about 100gr. Sort of a Kelvar piercing round.

[teadiex]

Do you know Clark? I do know he claims to do something that no serious or responsible shooter would do.

Why encourage him?

Seems to me he's a jackass that overloads ammo.

[Fistula]

Originally posted by teadie

Why encourage him?



Hmm, good question. Let's try the Socratic method.....

Please explain the Scientific Method....

BTW, that goes for the rest of you too! Until you can show a demonstrated knowledge of the scientific process you can just STFU! You look like a bunch illiterate idiots.

Have you ever heard of 'destuctive testing'? Of course not, but almost every thing you have used has undergone some form of destructive testing before being put on the market. You know, like those crash tests they do with cars? I mean, what kind of a dumb jackass would drive a $50,000 car into a wall at 40 miles per hour? Who would do such a thing? Everyone knows it is a bad idea! What could you posibly learn from such a test!? And it is CLEARLY a VERY dangerous test to do! What fool do they find to drive into a wall at 40mph?

[weevil]

Fistula,

You can't expect these guys to be "objective", and accept "scientific" methods. They just got a "new" pistol, and are proud as a peacock. The strongest pistol ever built by commies, and they got it for under $150.
Now here's this Clark asshole, telling them the legend is wrong. Another commie pistol, which most of them don't own, is actually stronger. He's raining on their parade, and telling them something they just don't want to hear.

Do you honestly think they're going to listen?

[teadiex]

In what way has Clark or any of you ignorant jackasses demonstrated any scientific method? Do ANY of you idiots who are encouraging this twit even know him? So how about you demonstrate enough brains or brawn to make me STFU. You all are fools and I hope someday your pistols blow up in your face or even better, blow up and mame someone you love so that for the rest of your lives you have to deal with your stupidity.

[weevil]

I don't need a weather man, to tell if its raining outside.

Look at the barrel of a CZ-52, and compare the width of the barrel walls, with some of your other pistols.
Now "if" you can get your hands on Tokarev, compare the barrel, and chamber on the two pistols. You will notice the "tin-foil cigarette wrapper" CZ used, for a barrel, is positively skinny, compared to the Tokarevs "thick, and beefy", barrel. The same thing with the camber, the Tok's is thick, and has the lugs for the link. The CZ's chamber has been machined out for the rollers.

On the subject of rollers, some have contended this is what makes the CZ-52, so strong, its "unique" roller, that no one else has ever used since, including CZ. Modern CZs use barrel-lugs, just like a Tokarev, in fact the modern CZ action, is a 1911-type design, just like the Tokarev. [CZs are actually closer to Browning hi-power but lets not get to technical] If the roller action is such an "awesome" design, why hasn't anyone, at all used it in another pistol.
The 1911, swinging link style action, used in the Tokarev, is still used, and recognized, as one of the greatest designs, ever invented. [Thank you Mr. Browning]
The CZ-52's roller action, was a copy of one, someone had seen used in a machine-gun.


Of course I agree that Clark's, adurn fool fer a loadin' two much, powder, any idiot noes that'll rune a good gun.

[teadiex]

I have a feeling that the roller method isn't used because it's not as cost effective and yes it probably isn't as strong. Who knows where cz would've gone with it had they been allowed to.

Clark has lurked around several other boards and he's generally considered a looney.

So I say go ahead Clark and all who encourage him, overload away! Have fun and please, don't do your "scientific" tests at a public range and if you feel confident, let your wives take the first shot, that is if any of you have even ever kissed a girl.

[weevil]

Originally posted by teadie
I have a feeling that the roller method isn't used because it's not as cost effective and yes it probably isn't as strong. Who knows where cz would've gone with it had they been allowed to..

The reason rollers aren't used is because making cuts in the chamber weakens the overall structure. This makes it more prone to catastrophic failure, than a thick solid chamber.
The advantage to rollers would be,they are cheaper to make, than it is to cut the barrel locking lugs, and corresponding grooves in the slide, that Tokarevs, and other 1911 style pistols use.

I knew something wasn't right, the first time ever compared a Tokarev, and CZ-52. How could the thin frail looking CZ barrel, and chamber be stronger?
The next challenge to the legend, was when I saw pics of CZ-52s, that had blown-up using the infamous, "pink wrapper" Bulgarian ammo. Someone on one of the gun boards made the remark, "Its a good thing they weren't using a Tokarev!". My thought was that maybe they should have been using a Tokarev. This idea was "pooh, poohed", because "everyone knows" a CZ is stronger than a Tokarev.
Now Clark comes along with proof of what I've always believed.
You say I should ignore him, because he's a "looney".

What proof can you offer that the CZ is actually stronger, or is it just something you heard?

Why does it seem to bother you so badly,that Clark might be right?

Does your pride mean more to you, than the truth?

[teadiex]

Well you're full of crap to say the rollers would be cheaper. No intelligent person could look at the two methods and determine the rollers are cheaper to manufacture.

I've never maintained that the cz52 is stronger. I couldn't care less.

I am simply saying that to intentionally overload cartridges untill the weapon fails is stupid. And to encourage an idiot to do it is mindless.

[weevil]

Originally posted by teadie
Well you're full of crap to say the rollers would be cheaper. No intelligent person could look at the two methods and determine the rollers are cheaper to manufacture.

Why would it be so expensive to make a pair of rollers? Just think of all the time saved, if you don't have to make the cuts in the barrel, and slide. Notice how much simpler, and easier, it is to make a CZ-52 slide, very little machining out, for the action, is needed, compared to the large grooves that have to cut in a Tokarev slide. The barrel, and chamber, on the CZ only need to be cut out for the rollers, there's no need to make the large grooves, on the top of the barrel, or the bottom lugs, for the swinging link.

The CZ-52 is a marvel in the simplicity, and ease, of its manufacture. The roller-action requires far less machine work, and labor, than the Tokarev.

Of course I can't expect an intelligent person, such as yourself, to understand that. "Everyone knows" the roller-action was used, because its "stronger", not because its cheaper, and easier, to make.

It would be a great design, if the chamber wasn't weakened, by the cuts made, for the rollers.

[teadiex]

You sir are a moron. You keep alluding to the "stronger" crap even though I've never mentioned it. Look side by side at the two slides. Next look at the barrels. There is no way the cz52 was cheaper to make. Again for those that are too stupid to understand what they are reading, I have never contended that the roller lock system was stronger, only that Clark is a dangerous twit.

[weevil]

Why do you think Clark, is doing these "dangerous" experiments? Or perhaps the question should be, do you think?

Its generally accepted, in the gun community, that the CZ-52 is stronger than the Tokarev. I assumed you knew this, and had something intelligent to bring to the debate, sorry my mistake. A few "thinking" people have questioned this belief. Clark is one of them, I'm another.
The physical evidence supports the Tokarev, and Clark has taken it one step farther by doing "destructive testing", a commonly used practice for determining a guns failing point.

How are you going to know what pressure a gun will fail at, If you don't take it to the point where it fails?

Not everyone is an ignorant jackass who believes everything they hear, whether it makes sense or not.

Its pretty obvious, you know about as much about manufacturing, and testing, as you do about guns.

You better get some brains, before you call other people, "morons", and "dangerous twits", because from where I'm standing, you look like a braindead idiot, who's talking out of his ass, about things he doesn't understand.

[teadiex]

Now you bore me,

Goodbye.

[weevil]

Originally posted by weevil


Do you honestly think they're going to listen?


Well Fistula,

Now do you, understand?


"There are none so blind, as those who will not see!"

[Fistula]

Originally posted by teadie
In what way has Clark or any of you ignorant jackasses demonstrated any scientific method?

You see, this statement alone speaks volumes.

I think it is worth noting that Clark has a background in engineering while teadie has a background in......?

Never the less, teadie and the other 'Clarks a kook' people have yet to address the validity of his distructive testing methods. Anyone in the materials testing buisness will tell you that you must conduct load testing. Again, I will point to vehicle crash testing as just about every assclown on this board has at least seen a $20K car driven into a wall "for no good reason."

[Noah Zark]

Originally posted by weevil
. . . Its generally accepted, in the gun community, that the CZ-52 is stronger than the Tokarev . . . The physical evidence supports the Tokarev . . .


Weevil hits to the heart of the matter with his statements above.

I can see both sides of the issue here. I was a Small Arms Repairman in the Marines in the early 70s, after which I got a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I have been a reader and collector of firearms-related literature for just about 40 years. Several tall lawyer-style bookcases are full of hardbound references from the late 1800s to present. I once subscribed to several firearm rags until the late 80s-early 90s when they lost useful content and became largely advertising.

Prior to importation of the CZ 52 in the mid 90s, there were only a couple of blurbs about the "Czech Mystery Pistol" in the popular literature of the 60s through the 80s. They were short articles, sometimes a paragraph or two buried in a larger related article, but not a lot of meat and that is understandable since Czechoslovakia was behind the Iron Curtain and nobody had any real authoritative 411 on the piece. Lots of speculation, though. Heck, only a few dozen to a couple hundred even existed in the US prior to the 90s.

Then comes the 90s, and with it the open floodgates through which came CZ52s and hot 7.62x25 ammo from several Combloc countries. Naturally, articles started reappearing about the 52 and its novel roller locking system and how wicked strong the roller locking system is, and Wow, but that Czech milsurp ammo is hot, too, so that pistol must be one strong mother!

Just because the ammo exists does not mean that it was intended for all arms in which it can be chambered. (Think of the circus surrounding the +P and +P+ in 9mm, 38 Spl, and 357 Mag flavors and which handguns are they safe in, and which not.) But to a gunwriter anxious for some 411 with which he can produce some article copy, it is a simple if unreasonable assumption to make that the "roller-locked" 52 can handle the hot Czech 9x19 stuff that they made for their subguns.

My point is, where is the proof in that statement which is based largely on speculation at the time? To the best of my knowledge, the "index case" was an article in the mid-70s (Guns & Ammo, IIRC, but it is not in front of me at the moment) where the claim was originally made that the 52 could handle the hot subgun ammo. My question is how did the writer know this, and how could he validate the info at a time when communications with Combloc countries was as strained as ever?

The problem that I have, and I suspect Clark too, is that nearly every article on the 52 since the mid 70s repeats that the "CZ52 is stronger because it was designed to handle hot Czech subgun ammo" mantra or words to that effect. This info carried over to the loading manuals because it was the only info available and thus became gunlore legend.

There are some well-known errors in classic firearms texts like W H B Smiths Book of Rifles and the first edition of Hatcher's Notebook. Gun writers have parroted these errors for decades.

That all said, when I look at my Tokarev, CZ52, and BHP, CZ75, and HS2000 too, the "gut check" says the one with the thin tube is the weakest, and no "whoop-de-do" exotic alloy (if even used) is going to make up the difference. In that, I agree with Clark to an extent.

Where I have to draw the line with Clark is with the depth and breadth of his continued patently unsafe overloading of all manner of firearms. Clark, that's where you lose some credibility, IMO. Retesting the 52 and extending the overload testing to other firearms and chamberings can be taken a couple different ways -- thorough and scientific, or obsessive and loony.

I am not labeling Clark with this statement, but the passion with which he pursues the issue borders on Quixotic. What scares me for Clark's sake is that some of the overload data that Clark has published in several forums might give somebody that handloads the idea that he can "hop up" a particular cartridge. The overloads based on Clark's data then get used in a less-than strong firearm with potentially disastrous results. Given today's litiginous society, Clark might just find himself under direct examination by an ambulance-chaser.

My two cents.

Noah

[Clark]

Noah,
I have overloaded allot of guns* to see what happens** and what happened with the CZ52 was different from the other guns.

So if I post that the CZ52 blew to pieces with a 17% extra powder charge, most reader's reaction is, "Duh!"

So I list the 39 gun - caliber combinations I have overloaded and some of the very high overloads that the guns survived.

How else can I make a case that the CZ52 is not stronger than the Tokarev?

I have offered to pay for the tests and pay for the guns if the load book authors will check their facts, but no go.


I can't help it if people think I'm nuts, but I am not afraid of being sued. I've climbed mountains too, and that would be high risk for many to try.


* Guns I have overloaded to see what happens
25 acp: 1920's Ruby, 1908 Colt
32 acp: Kel-Tec P32 [& with modified feed ramp]
32 S&W: Iver Johnson break top revolvers
32 Colt Long: Colt Pocket Positive, Colt Police Positive
32-20: Colt New Army
7.62x25mm: CZ52, Tokarev
380: Berretta 1934, Husq 1907
9x19mm: Kel-Tec P11, Star M43, Glock 19, Tokarev
9x23mm: Star Super B, Tokarev
38 Sp: S&W model 60, Colt Agent, Colt Police Positive, RG
357 mag: modified [S&W model 60, Colt Agent, Colt Police Positive, RG]
38 S&W: Iver Johnson break top revolvers pre and post 1898
357 Sig: Kel-Tec P357, Glock 22
40 S&W: Kel-Tec P40, GLock 22 [& with modified feed ramp]
10 mm: Glock 20 [& with aftermarket barrel]
10.4mm: 1880's Revolver
45 acp: Republic Patriot, Colt Commander, Para Ord P10
45 Colt: Stevens OEM .410 break action
.223: Ruger #1
.243: 1938 Turkish Mauser
257 Roberts Ackley Improved: VZ24 Mauser
7.62x54R: M91/30
7.92x57mm: 1903 Turkish Mauser
45/70: NEF Handi Rifle
.410: Stevens OEM .410 break action
452/70 Wildcat: 91/30 Action pre WW2

**I can stand next to the most successful living gun designer and ask, "What will happen if I pull this trigger?" and he doesn't know. All he can tell me is stress calculations like a page from the De Hass book on building a single shot rifle. I have been through that, and making a section modulus calculation for every possible section of a complicated shape takes allot of time with only a calculator. It is faster for me to earn money blowing up power supplies and buy guns and try to blow them up. Then I can focus on the weak points, once they are known.

[Fistula]

Well, good points Noah but I have to believe that Clark is not holding these pistols when he touches them off. The same goes for any destructive testing (as I am sure you well know). You test it using test equipment. Just as you don't crash test cars with real drivers, you will not be overloading a gun that you are holding (I hope!).

[Noah Zark]

Fistula:

I'm sure that Clark is taking all precautions regarding his personal safety, and I base that belief on the detailed, methodical info and procedures that he posts. He's technically trained and experienced, and we technical types tend to wear our safety glasses and fasten our test specimens in some manner of shielded rest, as it were.

As a matter of opinion, I reiterate that it bothers me for Clark's sake that someone may take his load data and use it, thinking that it is OK to "magnumize" their particular weapon, with potentially disastrous results. Why does it bother me? Because they likely don't have the experience with handloading, and don't have the technical background that he does. And heaven forbid if someone does become injured. In this day and age Clark will be the designated responsible party, no ifs, ands, or buts, because the overload 411 used by the plaintiff was posted by Clark or referenced to him on some site like this one. No matter that Clark's data says it is "safe" (not my term) to overload a particular cartridge or firearm, the overwhelming historical experience and shooting/reloading industry convention, standards, and practice (years of reloading manuals, for instance), not to mention experts employed by the industry, will be standing against Clark. That will be all the "ammunition" that the prosecution will need to prove their case. I'm sorry, Clark, but that's the way it is in 21st century America. If I spill some restaurant's hot coffee on my lap, it is THEIR fault and responsibility, not mine (Sad to say, but there it is. I personally think that "no personal responsibility" mindset is BS). Risky pursuits are one thing, but somebody gets hurt doin' overload experiments after readin' you posts, they comin' after YOU, Clark, whether you afraid or not.


To Clark:

You state above:

"So I list the 39 gun - caliber combinations I have overloaded and some of the very high overloads that the guns survived.

How else can I make a case that the CZ52 is not stronger than the Tokarev?"

To my thinking (IMO), all you have to do to accomplish your objective is to test the Tok and the CZ 52. The other 39 gun-cartridge combinations are irrelevant to the Tok - CZ issue, with the possible exception of 9x19 Toks and 9x19 CZ52s.

All that said, it's your objective and pastime. I done spoke my piece and my conscience is clear for doing it. No more static from me.

Noah

[Clark]

Fistula,
I have made a 24" Tokarev barrel.
I need to cut the extractor relief, the feed ramp, rent a reamer, and chamber the barrel.
I am making a scope mount that I need to drill and tap the barrel for, and mount an AR15 riser on top for the Weaver rail.

If I get off the stick, I should do some heavy bullet long range shooting in 7.62x25mm [ with a 30 Mauser reamer, but they are so close it doesn't matter].

[sgt rock]

fistula, " assclown " , give me a break, dont include me in that description , who do you think you are chief thunder.

[Clark]

That is some good writing Noah.

I found this from November 1970:

From the U. S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center's publication 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."


When I look at the list of guns I overloaded from 10 months ago, all I can add is
1) VZ24 rebarreled to .308
2) Albainian SKS
3) Yugo SKS

I have been talking to some people about thier patents in gun design.
I don't seem to be making any big break throughs like them.

[ruskiegunlover]

in wichita at Bullseye (local gun dealer), and they had hollow point 7.62 25 "defense rounds" that hit 2,050 fps......Not making this up. It was commercial.....Maybe I can go pick some up, I just didn't because that seemed dangerous to me.....I thought that these pistols were meant for the 1,500 to maybe 1,800 fps range.....Anybody shot this 2, 050 stuff? In a tok or cz52?

[Noah Zark]

ruskie:

Since they are hollowpoints, the bullets are lighter than the FMJ, and will probably reach higher velocities safely. I don't know about 2000 FPS though. Seems a stretch for a bullet weighing 10% to 15% less than an FMJ.

Noah

[ruskiegunlover]

go and try and pick some up. Its deffinatly commercial, packaged 8 rounds in cardboard and plastic......can't post any pics but can tell you the name.....

[weevil]

What you probably saw, Ruskie, was Mag-Safe, as far as I know they're the only one making 7.62x25mm "defensive" loads.
They sell their stuff in 8 rounds, which also makes me suspect, that it's Mag-Safe.
Sportsman's Guide has it for sale, 8 rounds for $12.97.

I wouldn't use it, it's basically a shot-shell.
Small shot, in some sort of hard resin media, with a jacket.
I have my doubts this stuff could effectively penetrate clothing,
let alone stop a determined attacker.

FMJ has the danger of serious overpenetration, but at least you know it will break the skin, and do some damage!