The TT-33 In Ukraine

G

grelmar

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Apparently, it's quite the popular choice:


And it got me thinking... Of the WWII era pistols I actually own and have enough experience to form an opinion... Would I chose the TT-33?

Ok, so my personal sample size isn't big. I have a 1911A1 (because of course), a P-38, and a TT-33. If ammo/mag availability was equal between the three, stuck in a Ukraine like "near peer situation", between those three...

Yes. Actually, I would take the TT-33.

Why?

Well, it's dead reliable and simple to clean and maintain. That removable trigger pack is a feature ahead of its time.

The P-38, while a much more fun gun to shoot at the range, and moderately more accurate, I'd be concerned about the slide failing at the worst moment (an issue we know more about now than soldiers in WWII would have known), and it requires more care and attention to cleaning than the TT.

The 1911, and I know this is going to upset a lot of people here (don't care), would be my 3rd choice. Reliability is fine with good mags (which might be hard to source), but is dodgy AF with period correct mags (the follower is too prone to tilting and causing jams - an issue that has since been solved). It's also bigger and heavier, and so is the ammo, for not enough gain to really matter. Also, no more accurate.

7.62x25 is a GOOD round. Zippy with good penetration. Won't punch through modern body armor, but neither will 9x19 or .45ACP. It is more likely to punch through a helmet, a magazine on a chest rig, etc., than the other two. Lighter so I can carry more of it (probably wouldn't though, just take the weight savings from a mag in the gun and two spare).

And in modern combat, if it comes down to using your pistol, that's going to be at the end of a series of unfortunate events. The likelihood of needing it/using it is vanishingly small. The slim frame and lighter weight would matter. I know it would work if needed. And the accuracy, power, and penetration would all be "good enough."

Ideally, I'd take a lightweight modern compact Glock or Sig... But given the above choices? I'd go for the TT.

Argue away, tell me how wrong I am, it won't hurt my feelings.
 
If you’re looking for compact then it’s hard to beat the TT33. It’s slim and it has a really short grip making it pretty easy to pack around as a secondary weapon.

I had one and used it in a Vintage handgun match for a few years, and though I was prone to hammer bite and the trigger sucked it functioned 100%
 
As much as I enjoyed collecting TTs, it is very outdated and not practical. Low mag capacity, poor ergonomic, not very accurate even for pistol standards. Slim, reliable and great penetration of IIIA kevlar are the pros. Use to be a choice of hitmen in USSR and years after. Of all my friends and acquaintances in Ukraine only two or three decided to choose TT33 as side arms, in all cases it was pure "cool" factor because of history and because it was not easy to get one. Each officer can get PM or one of Fort variants (local pistol model, quite unique and not really similar to anything on our market), or Glocks if you're with any "special" units, so it is I assume same "cool" factor with others who picked TT33. Also you gotta remember the purpose of officer side arms, it's personal protection and personal farewell gun, not really combat firearm (OK, very limited combat firearm)
 
People need to consider how much other kit is hauled around these days. Then consider how unlikely it is to be used. Carrying a small gun like the tokarev is a good choice. The flap holster is also good to keep dirt and what not away from the gun. You wont need to transition quick draw in a war. The tokarev is part of my own battle plan. The glock 48 is in alot of ways the modern version a tokarev.

Also keep in mind most armies dont bother with mass issue of handguns because of the limited use
 
I should have bought a Tok when I could have.

These have no safety and aren’t drop safe … I’m not sure I’d keep one in the pipe in a war conflict; it might not matter with the limited uses. The 1911 has a grip safety and a manual safety, so you can go cocked and locked. I haven’t shot the P38. I’ve found the 1911 to be a very accurate gun too when I’ve had the chance to shoot one and while the grip fits my fat mitts well, I find the mag release far away for my stubby fingers. The accuracy opens up the possibility of trying for shots not covered by body armour I suppose. WWII guns … 1911 is a good choice. Given non WWII choices … I would definitely go Glock … got Glock hands and the ones I’ve shot were so much more reliable than a 1911, but not as accurate for sure.
 
Nothing would give you an extra mag for your rifle. If it was the only gun you had, a polymer pistol would be lighter with more rounds and do the same job. It would be as much to protect you from the locals as enemy forces, so really anything in good condition would be OK.
 
TT-33 works fine for dispatching vatniks armed with a shovel................moral of the story, don,t bring a shovel to a gunfight.
 
City Boy said:
I should have bought a Tok when I could have.

These have no safety and aren’t drop safe … I’m not sure I’d keep one in the pipe in a war conflict; it might not matter with the limited uses. The 1911 has a grip safety and a manual safety, so you can go cocked and locked. I haven’t shot the P38. I’ve found the 1911 to be a very accurate gun too when I’ve had the chance to shoot one and while the grip fits my fat mitts well, I find the mag release far away for my stubby fingers. The accuracy opens up the possibility of trying for shots not covered by body armour I suppose. WWII guns … 1911 is a good choice. Given non WWII choices … I would definitely go Glock … got Glock hands and the ones I’ve shot were so much more reliable than a 1911, but not as accurate for sure.
Click to expand...

People always say they are not drop safe but i am not sure where this comes from. When you look closely at the function of the gun its fine. I would fully trust the half #### saftey. With the cytac holster cocked and locked would be fine. You would have a hard time getting it to go off.

If the concern is the floating firing pin, many guns have one, like the AR. Its fine
 
I have found the TT to be a pretty accurate gun. I am not sure what ammo or whatever everyone else is using but a tight, ragged group is typical. I own several so it's hardly just a matter of a decent sample. Too bad about the constant hammer bite though.
 
grelmar said:
Apparently, it's quite the popular choice:


And it got me thinking... Of the WWII era pistols I actually own and have enough experience to form an opinion... Would I chose the TT-33?

Ok, so my personal sample size isn't big. I have a 1911A1 (because of course), a P-38, and a TT-33. If ammo/mag availability was equal between the three, stuck in a Ukraine like "near peer situation", between those three...

Yes. Actually, I would take the TT-33.

Why?

Well, it's dead reliable and simple to clean and maintain. That removable trigger pack is a feature ahead of its time.

The P-38, while a much more fun gun to shoot at the range, and moderately more accurate, I'd be concerned about the slide failing at the worst moment (an issue we know more about now than soldiers in WWII would have known), and it requires more care and attention to cleaning than the TT.

The 1911, and I know this is going to upset a lot of people here (don't care), would be my 3rd choice. Reliability is fine with good mags (which might be hard to source), but is dodgy AF with period correct mags (the follower is too prone to tilting and causing jams - an issue that has since been solved). It's also bigger and heavier, and so is the ammo, for not enough gain to really matter. Also, no more accurate.

7.62x25 is a GOOD round. Zippy with good penetration. Won't punch through modern body armor, but neither will 9x19 or .45ACP. It is more likely to punch through a helmet, a magazine on a chest rig, etc., than the other two. Lighter so I can carry more of it (probably wouldn't though, just take the weight savings from a mag in the gun and two spare).

And in modern combat, if it comes down to using your pistol, that's going to be at the end of a series of unfortunate events. The likelihood of needing it/using it is vanishingly small. The slim frame and lighter weight would matter. I know it would work if needed. And the accuracy, power, and penetration would all be "good enough."

Ideally, I'd take a lightweight modern compact Glock or Sig... But given the above choices? I'd go for the TT.

Argue away, tell me how wrong I am, it won't hurt my feelings.
Click to expand...

I’m signed up to this guy on YouTube, he’s very good. I think you’re bang on…in my very humble opinion.
 
City Boy said:
I should have bought a Tok when I could have.

These have no safety...
Click to expand...
They do. Half #### is safety function without any extra special part.



I actually just watched the vid and guess what, one of those guys with TT is the friend I mentioned above. He is former historical re-enactor, that's how we met. He is armourer now and of course whenever he has the opportunity he likes to keep some nice historical stuff. And sometimes I send some original accessories to him to complete his sets. And sometimes some modern upgrades so old tools would kill more ruZZians.


Use to have some nice TT33 and TT30, kept just a couple, thanks to gungrabbing libtards. All of these were original factory condition, all-matching including magazines (no refurbs or force-matched), tow of them were Nazi capture IIRC.



 
Agreed you could do worse, I’ve always found my Tok to be accurate at pistol ranges and it’s a zippy cartridge. If we’re comparing reliability on a price point scale my $139 tt has never had a malfunction, can’t say the same for my $350 1911 fail to feed-o-matic lol. My tt shoots to poa, my 1911 shoots 4” low. Both have equally shítty sights but I prefer the Tok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom