Talk:CZ 52

Possible contradiction

This article claims, the round will not penetrate 'newer' vests.

Article on the 7.62x25 round: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x25 states that the round easily penetrates lighter ballistic vests (up to IIA). Just today I was told at the range by the instructor that no vest available to civilians in Czech Republic will stop even a copper jacketed lead round fired from the vz.52.

There is a thread: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?83361-Proven-the-7-62x25-Tokarev-Kevlar-Penetration-Issue&s=f1b8da621dbb54f7411d2f5985fbfa38&p=1195913 Which claims the lead jacketed round defeats IIA vests. Perhaps the link should be included in this article. It seems that the pistol really has good penetration against lighter than military armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.113.150 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and Point-of-View Issues

This article seems biased in favor of the Vz 52; includes too much personal opinion. Needs some cleanup. Satori Son 05:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Made a concerted effort to clean up the POV info (hopefully those of you interested will agree) and add more facts, though some of the POV remains. Particularly, I'm concerned with one comment that I decided to leave until others chime in:

These unusual ergonomics cause the barrel and slide to sit rather high above the grip. This causes recoil force to be turned into upward flip of the muzzle and torque on the wrist, doing nothing to improve the comfort of the shooter or the controllability of the gun.

Having put somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 rounds through my own Vz-52 at this point, I would not characterize it this way. The bore axis doesn't seem any higher above the hand than most other semi-autos. The problem I've noticed is that the frontstrap is somewhat short and the "hump" at the top of the backstrap (which makes room for the hammer and strut) is very low on the grip. These features, in concert with the relatively sharp angle of the grip to the bore axis, cause the pistol to point low. And while there's certainly a good bit of muzzle flip and torque, due to the fact that the entire upper recoils straight backward (unlike most pistols using the Browning-type op), jamming the "hump" into the web of the hand, there seems to be noticeably less muzzle flip than I have experienced with other handguns.

Don't get me wrong, the ergonomics of this gun are, IMO, terrible. It is definitely far from the most comfortable gun to shoot. But I don't necessarily agree with the above statement. Does anyone else feel the same? Should the statement be edited? Thanks. Raygun 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Most importantly, there is no source provided for the statement in question. You've made some good edits, but there are still a couple of opinions in this article that should be removed unless we can provide proper source citations per WP:Verifiability. --Satori Son 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ammunition

The section on ammo needs some cleanup. First, it is impossible to compare cup and PSI. To speak of "reducing" a pressure from one to the other is erroneous. They are measured in entirely different ways using different equipment and there is no comparison between the scales. Second, the section is overly technical to the point of not relaying much information.Mzmadmike (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I suggest changing the name of the page to Vz 52 (pistol) to reflect the correct name of the pistol and to avoid a clash with the Vz 52 rifle article. References to the pistol throughout the article should be changed to Vz 52 with a note in the introduction that the pistol is often incorrectly known as a CZ 52. Comments? BroadArrow 22:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct abbreviation of vzor 52 in Czech is vz. 52, not vz-52. I changed it already in article, but may be it may be useful to move article to Vz. 52 (pistol) page. I also changed CZ 52 (which is medley of military (vz. 52) and manufacturer's (CZ 482) designation to CZ 482, but i must admitt, that designation CZ 52 is quite popular in Czech republic too.--ja_62 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While it may not be technically correct, I added the CZ-52 designation back to the article as the pistol is widely known and marketed under this name in the U.S. Raygun 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"CZ52" is utterly incorrect.

CZ *NEVER* used this designation. Only a few ignorant gun importers in the US who spread misinformation to their customers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.203.36 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K., in Czech rep. it's also sometimes used designation, while CZ 482 is not very widespread.

May I move the page to vz. 52 (pistol) to match the page title with designation in article itslef? --ja_62 10:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me, but just as a matter of form, should there be a space between the . and 52 (for example, Vz. 52 or Vz.52)? The reason I ask is because someone recently renamed the CZ-82 page as Vz.82. I think it would be a good idea to have all of the firearms with the Vz. designation follow the same form here on Wikipedia. A minor quibble, I know. But so long as we're renaming things, we might as well get them all correct. Raygun 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it. The corect designation of all Czech (and previously Czechoslovak) weapons is with space between vz. and model number - i.e. "vz. 52", "vz. 82" and so. --ja_62 08:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In the US it is common to refer to the 1952 pistol as "CZ 52" and to the 1952 rifle as "vz 52". Naaman Brown (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) The model name and number officially used by CZ should be noted in addition to the misnomer. CZ rifles were imported and popular as "vz 24" etc. long before the pistols were imported, so when CZ pistols were imported they were designated by maker and model number as "CZ 52" etc. to avoid confusion with the rifle models. The two CZ vz 52 pistols currently before me are engraved (per federal ATF regulations) one "CZ-52" and one "CZ52" with caliber, national origin, importer name and address. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have subsequently found CZ vz YR pistols (where YR is model year) listed in Boothroyd The Handgun as VZ 27 (CZ vz 27), CZ 38 (CZ vz 38), CZ 45 (CZ vz 45), CZ 50 (CZ vz 50) and Model 52 (CZ vz 52). --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Specifications

I removed the reference to 7.63mm Mauser ammunition. While yes, they are practically the same and 7.63 Mauser, being less powerful than 7.62x25mm Tokarev, could quite possibly be fired from this pistol safely, it is not the correct ammunition and users should not be led to believe that they are one in the same, especially for users considering 7.63mm Mauser pistols that won't handle the more powerful 7.62x25 cartridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.27.178 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 13 June 2006

The neck of the 7.63mm Mauser was specified as a few thousandths of an inch longer than the 7.62mm Tokarev; or more accurately, when the Soviets adopted the design, they shortened the neck very slightly. Reloading companies warn that 7.63mm Mauser brass should not be used without trimming for handloads intended for use in pistols for 7.62mm Tokarev.) Naaman Brown (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Vz-52 operation

A common misconception concerning the Vz-52 is that it uses the roller-delayed blowback form of operation popularized by Heckler & Koch. It does not. In roller-delayed blowback, the barrel is stationary throughout the operating cycle and the bolt is not positively locked to the barrel at any point. In the Vz-52, the bolt (slide) and barrel are positively locked by the rollers and recoil together a distance shorter than the length of the cartridge (about 4mm). This is a hallmark of short recoil operation, and is what separates it from roller-delayed blowback.

I've corrected this in the article. Thanks. Raygun 09:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vz-52 Description

Vz.52 did not replaced a Vz. 50 pistol!!! Vz.52 replaced various types of pistols in CSLA (Czechoslovak Peoples Army) arsenal. Mostly german P-38, P-08 (both 9x19mm) left after WWII and czechoslovak pre WWII Vz. 24 and Vz. 38 (both 9mm Br.). Purpose of this replacement was unification with soviet standards. Vz. 50 (7,65 Br.) pistol was used by police.

Independently Boothroyd "The Handgun" and Smith "Small Arms of the World" state the Model 50 was developed by CZ for the police (Ministry of the Interior) with commercial and export sales. Model 52 replaced four pre-WWII Czech models (Models 22, 24, 27, 38) in addition all the non-standard foreign and native sidearms in Czech service post-WWII. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature #2

The problem with naming is, whether the army or manufacturer's designation is used. The manufacturer used designation ČZ 482, the army 7,62 mm pistole vzor 1952 (7, 62mm Pistol, Model 1952), which was in common army usage abbreviated as vz. 52. I am open to admit that unofficial medley of both designations, i.e. CZ 52, prevailed in popular use, especially in English speaking world - but in my opinion this all is worth some kind of explanation in the article, instead of simply rewriting vz. 52 to CZ 52 everywhere, even when the reference clearly refers to the original Army designation.--ja_62 ^(t|c) 09:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) �

Therefore I'd propose, that designation in the article could be fixed in such manner that "ČZ 52" or "CZ 52" would be used wherever the article deals with the pistol in general, and "vz. 52" where the use of the pistol is mentioned in connection with the Czechoslovak (or Czech) military. The "cz. 52" designation recently added is probably based on some sort of misunderstanding?--ja_62 ^(t|c) 12:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The designation for the pistol (and the name of the article) have been discussed for four years now. I would like to propose that we make a decision, use it consistently, and stop rehashing the issue over and over again. Lord Bodak (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct - but in any case, the military designation have to be at least mentioned in article, and/or designation under which civilian version is marketed is also necessary to mention - i.e. "CZ 52 was eventually replaced by vz. 82" would be incorrect, because for the military it was always "vz. 52", while on the other hand mentioning "vz. 52" in connection with civilian use is far from ideal too, because on civilian market vz. 52 designation is almost unknown. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ja_62, you make many good points. I agree with almost all of them. I think the title of the main article should be ČZ 52 or CZ 52, due to the En.wipi and in the US it is the most prevalent name of the pistol. I also agree that when the text refers to the military designation we should use the "Vz" instead of the "Cv". Perhaps you could add a couple of lines of text to address this? I am sorry I did mean to be a jerk by my editing simply trying to make the article with the English speakers as the audience not a Czech or Slovak/cs.wikipedian. I hope we can work together to make this page as good as possible.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. In my opinion, the article should be titled CZ 52 because that is how most people refer to the pistol. The article should explain the different names/designations as well. Look at M1 Garand; the official name of the rifle is not and never was M1 Garand but that's the most common name. Lord Bodak (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the naming conventions guidelines prefer the most common name in the English language, which would be CZ 52. Czechoslovak military designation should be perhaps mentioned in introduction paragraph - e.g.: The CZ 52^[1] (Czechoslovak military designation vz. 52^[2], also known as ČZ 482). (May be it would be better, if more formal designation "7,62 mm pistole vz. 52" would be used there.)
And perhaps, sentences in introduction paragraph "Around 200,000 vz. 52s ("vzor 52" means "model of 1952") were made by Česká Zbrojovka in Strakonice from 1952 to 1954." and "The vz. 52 was, after 30 years of military service, eventually replaced in service by the vz. 82." could be retained too? - These mentions clearly refer to Czechoslovak military version. Elsewhere CZ 52 should be used throughout the article. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

• Support I support this move as "CZ 52" is the most common name in the English language for the popular Czechoslovakian made pistol.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per wp:ENGLISH - most common name in English. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per my reasons in the discussion above. Lord Bodak (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.