Opinions on the CZ-52 pistol?
- Thread starter ADB
- Start date
Keep in mind, some of that milsurp is CORROSIVE so clean up is messy and time consuming. Some of that ammo is pretty hot also. I can think of other alternatives for a first pistol and some that are not too expensive. CZ82, FEG HiPower Clone, FM HiPower, Arcus 94, and others I'm sure will add to the list. A good .22 would be inexpensive to shoot also.
The one my father used to have was just gawdawful. Don't get me wrong, I love CZ's (he had a VZ50 that was a great little pistol, and I LOVE my CZ75) but that pistol was one of the biggest hunks of junk I'd ever handled. It was FUN to shoot, but don't expect to hit much with it. It MAY have just been that gun...
Cheapshooter
New member
The CZ 52 is a really fun gun to shoot. The 7.62X25 round features a light bullet at high velocity. It makes for a great range gun, but not so good as home defense, or carry. Theat ALL surplus ammo as corrosive, regardless of the sellers claims.
For a reasonably priced milsurp, the CZ 82 is and excellent choice. In looking through all the distributer's flyers and websites, they are still being sold. The supply of 52s are pretty much exhausted, so the prices are probably higher than the were and climbing.
The CZ 82 is not only a fun gun at the range, but also good to double as a HD or even CCW firearm. The 9X18 ammo is a little more costly than the surplus 7.62X52, but is available.
Another choice in a milsurp pistol for the 7.62 round would be the Polish or Romanian versions of the Russian TT33 Tokarev. Another interesting and fun pistol.
I have all three, and enjoy shooting each of them.
For a reasonably priced milsurp, the CZ 82 is and excellent choice. In looking through all the distributer's flyers and websites, they are still being sold. The supply of 52s are pretty much exhausted, so the prices are probably higher than the were and climbing.
The CZ 82 is not only a fun gun at the range, but also good to double as a HD or even CCW firearm. The 9X18 ammo is a little more costly than the surplus 7.62X52, but is available.
Another choice in a milsurp pistol for the 7.62 round would be the Polish or Romanian versions of the Russian TT33 Tokarev. Another interesting and fun pistol.
I have all three, and enjoy shooting each of them.
Ok 52 was my sidearm in military and as much as I love my (back then and the current one) 52 I would't recommend it as your first pistol. the 82 that others brought up is indeed much better choice in about the same price range.
7.62x25 round is just a bad choice for first gun ... too much noise, blast, recoil, penetration, good to get attention on the range but if you are new to handguns you might develop flinch and other bad habits shooting that thing.
7.62x25 round is just a bad choice for first gun ... too much noise, blast, recoil, penetration, good to get attention on the range but if you are new to handguns you might develop flinch and other bad habits shooting that thing.
ohen cepel
New member
It's a great pistol with cheap ammo and a nice history.
However, not a good first pistol in my mind either.
I would suggest a .38 or .357 revolver (shooting .38's mostly). Lots of used ones out there that can be had cheap these days. Will be easier to learn on and have much better sights typically.
However, not a good first pistol in my mind either.
I would suggest a .38 or .357 revolver (shooting .38's mostly). Lots of used ones out there that can be had cheap these days. Will be easier to learn on and have much better sights typically.
It looks great, in a rugged soviet kind of way.
It feels solid in your hand.
It's a piece of cake to strip, and has a really neat mechanism.
The cleaning isn't even a big deal--I remove the barrel and spray Windex down it, wait 5 min, run a patch of Hoppes #9 down it, wait 5 min, then patch it clean and oil it.
But somehow I just don't enjoy shooting it that much. I got it before my TT-33 figuring I'd favor the CZ-52, but the reverse turned out to be true. Not sure why--I'm a bit less accurate with the CZ (trigger is a little heavier but not terrible), and it just isn't as fun.
I still think it's a great gun, it just doesn't do it for me like the Tokarev does.
It feels solid in your hand.
It's a piece of cake to strip, and has a really neat mechanism.
The cleaning isn't even a big deal--I remove the barrel and spray Windex down it, wait 5 min, run a patch of Hoppes #9 down it, wait 5 min, then patch it clean and oil it.
But somehow I just don't enjoy shooting it that much. I got it before my TT-33 figuring I'd favor the CZ-52, but the reverse turned out to be true. Not sure why--I'm a bit less accurate with the CZ (trigger is a little heavier but not terrible), and it just isn't as fun.
I still think it's a great gun, it just doesn't do it for me like the Tokarev does.
What is so horrible about the decocker? It either works or it is broken/worn just like any other. This is surplus military weapon we talking about, they tend to have some rounds down the pipe. And even when decocker feature don't work, safety does. TT33 doesn't even have safety unless you buy the one that was equipped with one to comply with BATFE import requirements and THOSE are truly "horrible" - looks ugly, don't belong there and they only work on the good day.
Firing pin breaks by dry fire and can be replaced for less than 20 bucks with new, heat treated steel one. But I still have original pin in my gun and never had to replace mine in more than 15 years I own mine. just don't dry fire it or buy set of snap caps
It's a fun pistol. It's super loud, almost as loud as a .357 mag, and the muzzle flash, especially once it starts to get dark, is very impressive.
However, it has absolutely bizarre ergonomics, and the firing pins do tend to break when dry fired. Also, the decocker is iffy.
Just make sure you can handle one before you buy it.
However, it has absolutely bizarre ergonomics, and the firing pins do tend to break when dry fired. Also, the decocker is iffy.
Just make sure you can handle one before you buy it.
Some designs for decockers lend themselves to failure (such as discharging the weapon) to a far greater extent than others. For instance Makarovs (also generally military surplus weapons) do NOT have a reputation for that kind of failure with their decockers. So I guess it becomes a question of whether it's better not to have a feature at all, or to have a faulty, potentially dangerous feature.
i love mine, but as a first pistol. i am not so sure about that. the ammo is cheap and the pistol is really fun to shoot. i sometimes go shoot at the gravel pit by my house. there is a canyon behind this gravel pit, and it sounds really cool echoing up the canyon. but it took me quite a while to hit a milk jug from 25 feet with one bullet per mag. i found the accuracy almost nil, until i practiced and practiced.