Talk:ČZ vz. 52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Czech Republic. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

??? "Ammo: is slightly more powerful the than standard tokarev cartridge labeled MXP on bottom." ???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.113.240 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 July 2005

Contents 1 Sourcing and Point-of-View Issues 2 Nomenclature 2.1 Nomenclature 3 Specifications 4 Vz-52 operation 5 Vz-52 Description

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Nomenclature

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)

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.