I agree with you completely. IMHO at the time Mr. Datig had limited access to good examples of TT pistols and, IMHO again, it explains why transitional variations are tied to a certain year. And you are right: he failed to describe small changes in transitional variations, such as the shape of sear, disconnector etc, probably due to lack of availability of reference material. Yesterday I swapped a hammer group from 1934 TT and 1941 TT(both non-refurbished)and while 1934 hammer group fit into 1941 frame it failed to engage half-#### safety. However, 1941 hammer group didn't fit into 1934 frame at all...Once again, there is plenty of reference material available on Russian resource since lots of TT pistols surfaced there in past few years, including year 1932 and 1933 specimens. I shall try to use all this priceless data(with permission of contributors) and post it all here. Ideally, whoever is involved into this kind of research needs an access to archives and hundreds of specimens, since dozen or so available non refurbished specimens merely not enough for any kind of research, IMHO.
P.S. I still admire Mr. Datig's work. He sure did an outstanding job systematizing all available data from limited sources back then.
P.S. I still admire Mr. Datig's work. He sure did an outstanding job systematizing all available data from limited sources back then.
Last edited:
