Yugo M57

[Eaglelord17]

I have crudely translated the the Russian one for the SKS rifle and found I had been holding it incorrectly for years. The supporting hand is not supposed to go in the finger grooves in the forestock for shooting, it is supposed to cup/cradle the magazine from beneath. The fore stock finger grooves are for improving grip while bayonet fighting.

Yeah, I personally wouldn't trust that. I had a AG-42b do a out of battery detonation once, and like it was designed, it vented the gas down the magazine. Fortunately I did have my hands in the grasping grooves so my hands and body weren't hurt. Most early semi autos are also designed the same way (at this point I just consider it a bad idea to hold any rifle by the magazine, I suspect a fair bit of this habit stems from the wide spread adoption of the AR-15s and there supported magazine well).

I also have heard the TT-33 was carried magazine in, chamber empty, and that would make the most sense. You avoid accidental discharges trying to put the handgun on 'half cock' and realistically it takes just as long to rack the whole action as it does to cock that hammer anyways since your going to have to use your supporting hand in either event.

[Flying10uk]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the TT30/33 was with the hammer on "half cock" supposed to be able to be dropped on the floor with-out going off. I am NOT suggesting that anyone puts this theory to the test and please do NOT try doing it. I am not sure if this was a design feature or something that some-one discovered by accident???

[Eaglelord17]

Half cock means the hammer is locked away from the firing pin, preventing the firing pin from being struck by the hammer. If you dropped it on the hammer and it broke it could still go off (pretty unlikely), however there is significantly less odds of a round going off when it is in half cock as opposed to having the hammer resting on the firing pin in a loaded chamber (a very bad idea). Biggest issue with hammer at half cock is the fact you can accidentally fire the gun when trying to put the hammer at half cock if it slips out of your fingers.

[Sentryduty]

As a related item, the Winchester 1894 uses the "half-cock" or half-bent for the English folks as the only means of a safety on that firearm. The same does apply for the TT33.

During the times when I had a Browning Hi-power issued I would carry it at condition 3, even though it had a proper safety, but later when I had a Sig P225 on issue it was holstered with a round in the chamber and decocked.

Even though I have never personally seen of a pistol safety malfunction, I am always concerned about discharging one from the holster into my knee or foot because a mechanical failure.

Glocks and and S&W striker fired guns (civilian range use) are another mind game for me to overcome, I run them as designed, but still have that little worry in the back of my mind.

Rifles on the other hand give me no cause for concern, very easy to control the muzzle at all times, loaded, readied and safety set.

[browningautorifle]

a Sig P225 was holstered with a round in the chamber and decocked.

Which is different again as the hammer sits well back from the firing pin, it strikes and then rebounds well away.

[Sentryduty]

Which is different again as the hammer sits well back from the firing pin, it strikes and then rebounds well away.

Indeed, a nice design overall, pleasant to shoot, easy to operate and with that old world confidence of an all metal gun.

Only downside with the P225 is the single stack magazine and subsequent small capacity magazine. I understand this was adopted because of small handed female users in the MP trades, a P226 is a nice double stack but a little more bulky in overall dimensions.

For those reading not familiar with the Sig Sauer design and function, it has the same functions as a Walther P38 with a dedicated decocker rather than a safety, internal design is unrelated however.

[browningautorifle]

the P225 is the single stack magazine

Yes...and I liked handling them. Still as you say it was for the girls. I have a 226 and the ergo grip and like it was better than the 229 compact I had. A little 225 would be fine for me for a transition weapon though...

[cipherk98]

I handled a Yugo in a shop yesterday... they had a Norinco T-54 I had been eyeing for a bit and went to buy today and they had an M57 as well. Checked them out and was very impressed with the fit and finish of the Yugo, probably the nicest I've seen in terms of Tok variants. The Cugirs have really nice finishes too but most of them I think got refinished before the safety was installed and they were shipped, and I liked the feel of the M57 a little more. If it had been 9mm I would have bought it, but went with the Norinco with the somewhat unusual wrap around grips instead. One interesting thing about the Yugo is it was an M57 but had a slide mounted safety more commonly seen on the 9mm M70s. Newer commercial gun maybe?

[WarPig1976]

Probably was new manufacture. Usually the shops stock the M70 because the 9mm is more popular. Zastava is making both, though don't know who installs the safety. Either way it's a hack job, but I can say the rear sight was installed backwards on my M70 out of the box. Another thing, not a big deal, but had to smooth the edges of the mag well and the feed lips on the mag.

[MJ1]

I find the Yugoslavian arms to be well made reliable arms. Someone cared about what they were doing. I still don't grasp the division of the country. It was complicated. Importantly the had a high level of pride in their work and product. The Polish arms even built from soviet drawings are works of art with steel and wood. The 02 sniper riles are accurate and well done but the Polish M91/30 sniper is a works of art for production arm. I know only one collector who has one and some day I will talk him into letting me hold it one day.