08 April 2024

M7/M9 Universality Check (Continued Some More)

Czech TT-33 Tokarev fits!

The Czechs call their Tokarevs Cz-52.

Ruger P95 fits!

I continue to be impressed with this holster!

Other entries in this series here and here.

Posted by Angus McThag at 22:20
Labels:

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous09 April, 2024 13:44

    FYI, the Tokarev is basically a copy of the 1911. The CZ-52 isn't.
    It fires the Tokarev round, but that is the only similarity between the 2 guns. The CZ-52 is more like a Beretta tha a Tokarev.
    Jonathan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Angus McThag09 April, 2024 20:08

      Welcome to the blog.

      I have a running joke about a VERY put upon Soviet arms standardization officer dealing with the Czechoslovakian military where I do, "See is same!" Then compare the AKM to the Vz-58 or PKM to the Vz.59; and so on.

      I haven't had to explain it for a while.

      Delete
  2. slow joe crow10 April, 2024 13:09

    I would expect the P-95 to fit since it was briefly Army issue. It was also in your orbit since IIRC it was issued as a tank crew sidearm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Angus McThag10 April, 2024 14:23

      I'd love to see some documentation of the P95 being issue. I never heard of Ruger getting any sort of pistol sales to the army.

      I wonder if it was ad hoc like when our CO had us hit the rod and gun clubs for 9mm pistols for our trip to the Czech-German border when the spiffy new M9's we were supposed to be getting got withheld. We had turned in our 1911's and all the ammo and had drawn 9mm ammo... But no pistols.

      I was toting a Glock 17 in my M9 holster for that. Later we used the M9 holster for our M9 pistols because the shoulder version of the M12 holster was teh suxxor.

      Pics of Glock and Beretta in the M9 holster in this post: https://mcthag.blogspot.com/2020/12/m7-tanker-holster-is-universal-holster.html

      Delete
    2. slow joe crow12 April, 2024 17:22

      The contract, or contracts were early oughts, Ruger press release from 2004 https://ruger.com/news/2004-12-23.html
      Contemporary articles seem to show a lot ended up as military aid to Iraq, and not actually issued to Army personnel.

      Delete
    3. Angus McThag12 April, 2024 20:33

      I knew the Iraqis had ended up with some. Thanks for the link.

      Delete

You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)