Tokarev failure to feed 50% of time. weak spring?

TDC said:
You do realize that the ejector is stationary, and the force applied to the case rim by the ejector is a function of the recoil energy/slide velocity during the firing process.
Click to expand...

If you'd like me to explain simple machines, I will. The ejector on most pistols is basically an inclined plane (ramp). If you were launching something up a ramp, the force used would have a lot to say about the distance it travels. But in this case, the object hits a stop which sends it tumbling out in another direction from the ramp. Thus, given a minimum sufficient energy, it is more the pitch of the ramp (and the design of the stop) that determines said distance.

My 9mm Toks consistently eject spent casings much farther than any of my other 9mm pistols with the same ammunition. This distance is really in-distinguishable from that using the demonstrably hotter 7,62mm ammunition. My .22 conversion, as I said, flings them out pretty much the same. Even side-by-side with a Sig P229, loading dummy rounds and pulling the slide by hand with approximately the same force, the Tokarev is pitching much more impressively (did it without the recoil springs as well).

Thus I say that the ejector in the Tokarev is designed to spit farther.
 
red_bailey said:
If you'd like me to explain simple machines, I will. The ejector on most pistols is basically an inclined plane (ramp). If you were launching something up a ramp, the force used would have a lot to say about the distance it travels. But in this case, the object hits a stop which sends it tumbling out in another direction from the ramp. Thus, given a minimum sufficient energy, it is more the pitch of the ramp (and the design of the stop) that determines said distance.

My 9mm Toks consistently eject spent casings much farther than any of my other 9mm pistols with the same ammunition. This distance is really in-distinguishable from that using the demonstrably hotter 7,62mm ammunition. My .22 conversion, as I said, flings them out pretty much the same. Even side-by-side with a Sig P229, loading dummy rounds and pulling the slide by hand with approximately the same force, the Tokarev is pitching much more impressively (did it without the recoil springs as well).

Thus I say that the ejector in the Tokarev is designed to spit farther.
Click to expand...

Which factor plays a greater role, the ejector or the force applied during ejection? I'm sure if you manually cycle the slide slow enough, you can get the round to barely fall out of the gun. That would indicate that the force/velocity of the slide during retraction is the greater factor. Regardless, there is no benefit to tossing brass a great distance. As long as it clears the ejection port the rest is trivial. As for rimfire, my conversion kit tosses rimfire brass much further than my 9mm top. Both run just fine so its a non issue.

TDC
 
Coming back to the spring subject, out of my 4 Tokarev (2 Russian and 2 Polish), I've noticed that the spring of my most flawless Tok (Russian 1945) is with a smaller gauge than the Polish one, and is also shorter than the Polish (by almost 1cm).
 
Someone is missing the point, I don't care if there are better options than a tokarev. It's a piece of my collection, I am not looking for "the best pistol". I already have other good pistols.
 
Kryogen said:
Someone is missing the point, I don't care if there are better options than a tokarev. It's a piece of my collection, I am not looking for "the best pistol". I already have other good pistols.
Click to expand...

You've got it all, you don't buy a Tokarev for the best pistol, but Man they are so fun to shoot ! I would like to see a pistol with the same "thrill" out here ... , hmmm no choice but a Tok...,
 
TDC said:
Which factor plays a greater role, the ejector or the force applied during ejection? I'm sure if you manually cycle the slide slow enough, you can get the round to barely fall out of the gun. That would indicate that the force/velocity of the slide during retraction is the greater factor. Regardless, there is no benefit to tossing brass a great distance. As long as it clears the ejection port the rest is trivial. As for rimfire, my conversion kit tosses rimfire brass much further than my 9mm top. Both run just fine so its a non issue.
Click to expand...

As I said, given a threshold of energy to get the whole cycle operating, I believe the ejector contributes the most.

The extracting cases hit a stop at the end of travel, which jolts them out of the extractor. The great majority of their momentum is along an axis in line with the barrel, but they eject on a very different vector. You can't just hit a concrete wall head-on and bounce off at 90°. This is why the ejector ramp exists: to change some of the energy in a different direction. The design of the ramp and stop, i.e., the ejector, dictates the new vector.

This is observed, as I said in the previous post.

You might not understand also that the .22 conversion isn't spitting bare .22LR casings; it uses individual chamber adapters to replicate the full-sized round. As such, they are heavier than the casings alone, and it utilizes the same extract/eject mechanism, rather than a purpose-built one you're surely thinking of.

Someone said that strong ejection ruled out a soft grip, but I told him that long distance lobbing was a characteristic of the pistol, which might still mean it's the source of his problem. My grip is fine; I haven't intentionally limp-wristed a Tok, but I may do that now.
 
tazik said:
Coming back to the spring subject, out of my 4 Tokarev (2 Russian and 2 Polish), I've noticed that the spring of my most flawless Tok (Russian 1945) is with a smaller gauge than the Polish one, and is also shorter than the Polish (by almost 1cm).
Click to expand...

Polish examples were built over what, five years, from an already-tested design, in one factory, presumably with one set of machinery, not under the pressures of war, and generally put away lightly used or better without over-haul.

Soviet pistols: about 20 years, one model change and many incremental improvements, two factories plus maybe more if you count war evacuation, surely machinery was replaced, demonstrated war expediency measures, found in every state from beat-up captures to mostly original to re-furb.

Also the current influx of Radom production is one import, whereas Tula and Izhevsk have been bouncing around the market for decades, so who knows what various people have done to some of them in that time.

Maybe your different spring is made from a different grade of steel and thus keeps the same force specification (do you have a spring gauge?). There's a maintenance reference on the TT-33 which gives a min-max range for spring lengths before replacement, but that assumes they're all made the same. Do you find it performs differently?

I'll examine the springs on all of mine, but I can tell you I know some of them are different (Hungarian Tokagypt, e.g.).
 
red_bailey said:
Polish examples were built over what, five years, from an already-tested design, in one factory, presumably with one set of machinery, not under the pressures of war, and generally put away lightly used or better without over-haul.
Click to expand...
My two unissiued Polish Tok are the less reliables that I have, so much for less stress....


red_bailey said:
Soviet pistols: about 20 years, one model change and many incremental improvements, two factories plus maybe more if you count war evacuation, surely machinery was replaced, demonstrated war expediency measures, found in every state from beat-up captures to mostly original to re-furb.

Also the current influx of Radom production is one import, whereas Tula and Izhevsk have been bouncing around the market for decades, so who knows what various people have done to some of them in that time.

Maybe your different spring is made from a different grade of steel and thus keeps the same force specification (do you have a spring gauge?). There's a maintenance reference on the TT-33 which gives a min-max range for spring lengths before replacement, but that assumes they're all made the same. Do you find it performs differently?
Click to expand...

My two Polish Tok do not cycle each time, I think I should try the recoil spring of my Russian in it to see if it works properly.

Where can I find the maintenance reference for the TT33 ?
 
tazik said:
My two unissiued Polish Tok are the less reliables that I have, so much for less stress....

My two Polish Tok do not cycle each time, I think I should try the recoil spring of my Russian in it to see if it works properly.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that Poles should have uniform parts, while Russkies could be a mix of many.

Being un-fired, it might just need to break-in. Like I said, the slide rail isn't one continuous piece; part is on the hammer assembly, part on the frame. I can certainly see where at least that needs to wear a bit to mate surfaces.

My Factory 11 pistols function well (the ones that I haven't stowed away un-fired), but I shoot them less than some others.

Where can I find the maintenance reference for the TT33 ?
Click to expand...

It's from the Do Everything Manual series. Just a cheapie photo-copied booklet format, but they cost like seven bucks. They're on eBay, and I've seen 'em in some gun stores.
 
"...failure to feed. Slide does not close..." Nearly all feeding issues in any pistol are magazine or ammo related. Sounds like you have both. Change ammo first, then change mags.
 
Something else to check is the feed ramp and chamber. If either is rough it could cause some binding as well. Following that I'll echo the check the mags as a loose fitting mag or a tight mag could cause similar issues(the tabs on the top of the mag may be tight causing the feed path to be too low and bind up). Really if you've been through everything else I'd say the tabs on the mag are the most likely culprit and need to be tweaked outwards slightly with a pair of pliers.
 
lol, I got a case of that ammo better be good, 2280 I think.
I'll try to see whats binding. Maybe it will get better with wear?
 
The magazines on my Polish Tokarev did not feed reliably so I took them apart and cleaned the off the rust on one spring and sanded the interior of both magazines with fine emery cloth.
The magazines now feed reliably.
 
red_bailey said:
If you'd like me to explain simple machines, I will. The ejector on most pistols is basically an inclined plane (ramp). If you were launching something up a ramp, the force used would have a lot to say about the distance it travels. But in this case, the object hits a stop which sends it tumbling out in another direction from the ramp. Thus, given a minimum sufficient energy, it is more the pitch of the ramp (and the design of the stop) that determines said distance.

My 9mm Toks consistently eject spent casings much farther than any of my other 9mm pistols with the same ammunition. This distance is really in-distinguishable from that using the demonstrably hotter 7,62mm ammunition. My .22 conversion, as I said, flings them out pretty much the same. Even side-by-side with a Sig P229, loading dummy rounds and pulling the slide by hand with approximately the same force, the Tokarev is pitching much more impressively (did it without the recoil springs as well).

Thus I say that the ejector in the Tokarev is designed to spit farther.
Click to expand...

That's strange, because my 9 mm conversion barrel installed in any of my 4 russkie Tokarevs, the shell casings barely clear the exit port, and sometime jam the slide because they don't eject. True for 115, 124 and 147 gr. 9 mm.

Needless to say, I got rid of my conversion kit. My Norc 213 9 mm Tokarev copy shoots and ejects just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom