Tokarev TT-33 vs. Colt M1911 A1

Tokarev Czar · March 20, 2012, 04:08 PM

If you were a soldier during WWII and you had no rifle, sub-machine gun etc. You only had a sidearm available, which hand gun would you have wanted : The Tokarev TT-33, or the M1911A1? Also, please explain your choice, I look forward to your answers.

Respectfully,

Tokarev Czar

RickB · March 20, 2012, 04:18 PM

I'm a big fan of bullet mass in handguns, so it would be M1911A1 all the way. I'm also extremely familiar with the 1911 design, and don't know a whole lot about the Tokarev, beyond its working on Browning principles, and shooting a teeny, tiny bullet.

pelo801 · March 20, 2012, 06:16 PM

it shoots a tiny bullet, really fast. i'm a big fan of the 7.62 x 25, and i don't find the ergos of the tok to be too odd. but with that said, i am also a bigger fan of more bullet mass. so i would go with the .45

jhenry · March 20, 2012, 06:22 PM

Let's look at it this way. One of those two designs is in current uninterrupted production. One of those designs is in current use by top tier law enforcement and special operations folks. One of those two designs is consistently in the winners circle in various shooting disciplines etc. and so forth.

Hint. It is not the Tokarev.

Success talks and wishful dreaming walks.

I have a nice Tok by the way, and it has some admirable attributes. A very reliable and fun gun. I would in no way take it over a 1911.

Auto426 · March 20, 2012, 07:18 PM

I'd take the 1911 hands down. It's a more ergonomic platform and it actually has a safety that can be trusted.

triumph666 · March 20, 2012, 07:33 PM

1911 makes a bigger hole with more periphial damage than the quicker smaller bullet that punches the hole thru......

and to last poster i've never had a safety issues with my 1911 at all

Tokarev Czar · March 20, 2012, 07:49 PM

Now that we have decided on the 1911 platform, would you prefer it in .45 or 10mm?

Winchester_73 · March 20, 2012, 08:31 PM

why are these the only choices? What about a Colt Dragoon or a Grant Hammond? What if I wanted to carry a Webley Fosberry or a Gabbet-Fairfax Mars semi auto? You couldn't even provide the best possible choice, a borchardt with a shoulder stock which would double as a rifle. Geez man, you picked the two worst designs of the whole damn war!

Ok in all seriousness, I would pick the 1911. Proven man stopper cal + proven reliability, 2 safeties, tons of parts since so many were made, and ammo compatibility with the grease gun, reising SMG and tommy gun. While the tokarev was a good design its own right, IMO, its a far cry. IMO, the P38, and the FN hi power were better than the tokarev as was the Radom. I may even choose a S&W victory in 38 special over a Tokarev. The choice of small and fast vs big and slow is an easy one in this situation. While the Tokarev would win in penetration tests and perhaps offer a flatter trajectory, we are discussing guns that need to drop a man with certain reliability. For all of these reasons and probably a few more, it gotta be the 1911.

Winchester_73 · March 20, 2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Now that we have decided on the 1911 platform, would you prefer it in .45 or 10mm?

Well the 10mm has nothing to do with WWII so it really doesn't fit in with the original question. The 10mm in this situation to me would be like carrying a 44 magnum during WWII (had it been around). Its simply too much power for the given task. A 357 mag revolver, that makes some sense. A 40 S&W, once again, makes some sense. A 10mm? You might as well have a 41 magnum or something else outlandish. In close quarters, you don't need a round that can reach out and touch em from a pistol. When down to a pistol, the idea is to fight to get your rifle, then switch to the rifle. A sidearm is a secondary arm.

**Mike Irwin** · March 21, 2012, 06:27 AM

Definitely the .45 ACP.

The Tokarev was a neat variation on the Browning design, and had some really well thought out features, but the cartridge...

The Germans didn't call it the Russian Ice Pick for nothing.

Hardcase · March 21, 2012, 02:40 PM

I'd take the Tokarev if the enemy was wearing some kind of armor, but that's the only reason. Otherwise, like everyone else, the 1911.

The 7.62x25 round makes a long hole and the .45 makes a big hole. Oh, and I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable carrying the 1911 in condition 1.

**4V50 Gary** · March 21, 2012, 02:43 PM

1911. Bigger bullet.

shaunpain · March 22, 2012, 09:31 AM

My choice would depend fully on what ammunition was most available to me. I own both platforms and would prefer the 1911, but if I was Marine 1st Recon and sent behind enemy lines, I might prefer the TT because it can also take the Mauser 7.63. The armor of WWII was hardly sufficient against even handgun ammunition so of course the .45 is preferable. Both designs are similar, and the TT is taken down similarly. As in, they would both be a disadvantage to field strip expediently.

BlueTrain · March 22, 2012, 12:24 PM

If you were an Allied soldier except for those from Eastern Europe that made it to Great Britain at the beginning of the war, you probably would never have heard of a Tokarev. In fact there were probably Soviet soldiers who wished they had that choice, since many revolvers were still in use.

Did you ever wonder why the Soviets replaced the Tokarev with the PM?

shaunpain · March 22, 2012, 12:59 PM

Well, admittedly the Tokarev isn't safe to carry with a loaded chamber and safety-less, so it's not the optimum choice. A Makarov would even be a far better choice than the Tok, but I guess we can't go there since they weren't created yet. Either way, I certainly wouldn't feel undergunned with one. They make short work of a standard issue GI helmet in those days.

dsk · March 22, 2012, 03:42 PM

Not only would I choose the M1911A1 during WW2 without question, but even today I'd still gladly use a straight GI 1911 for defense. It still gets the job done, even if it's no longer state of the art.

Smit · March 22, 2012, 04:31 PM

Obviously the 1911. Go America!

Wolf Hunter · April 2, 2012, 09:10 AM

Its an unjust for for a great 1911 to be compared with TT 30 Tokarev.Though TT was made basing on the mechanism of 1911 but TT can never beat 1911 in accuracy and in safety ( Carrying cocked and locked) TT have been proved to be weak in accuracy too so comparing these two handguns is not justified.

RedBowTies88 · April 2, 2012, 09:19 AM

"Well, admittedly the Tokarev isn't safe to carry with a loaded chamber and safety-less, so it's not the optimum choice. A Makarov would even be a far better choice than the Tok, but I guess we can't go there since they weren't created yet. Either way, I certainly wouldn't feel undergunned with one. They make short work of a standard issue GI helmet in those days."

This is not true, the original tokarev half cock saftey is very very reliable. Just not the BS they added on for import.

I would take the Tok. Call me crazy but I love the 7.62x25. That round specially with modern hollow point ammo can do some very nasty stuff inside soft tissue.

Not to mention with FMJ's many types of body armor will meet their demise. Also seeing as this is a handgun only war I'd place a bet that the maximum effective range of the 7.62x25 to be siginificantly greater then .45acp. It's always nice to touch the enemy from where he cannot touch you back.

On another note, something I find funny on the ewebbs (not necessarily in this thread) is that the same people who tote that .45 fat, slow, and heavy is the only way to go for combat pistol round are the same people who think 5.56 is worlds ahead of 7.62x39. Basically applying opposite logic.

SPEMack618 · April 2, 2012, 09:25 AM

Well, there is pretty significant difference in a small, fast bullet in regards to a rifle round versuses a small fast bullet in a pistol round.

Jeff Cooper wrote, and I whole heartedly agree with this, that the rifle is an offensive instrument, that one uses when the likelihood of a shooting will be high and shot placement is important. A pistol however, is a defensive instrument and is carried "just in case." I want a pistol round that is going to reliably stop a fight soonest. The .45 ACP has a pretty good track record of that.

RedBowTies88 · April 2, 2012, 09:32 AM

I agree and don't doubt the fight ending record of the .45acp. However in this instance we are talking about an OFFENSIVE weapon. At least in the scenario brought about by the OP

SPEMack618 · April 2, 2012, 09:33 AM

Well, I suppose that if you are going into a fight with a pistol as your offensive weapon, you've already screwed up, so going with an arachic Russian round probably won't matter all that much.

BlueTrain · April 2, 2012, 11:51 AM

As opposed to something chambered in the modern .45 ACP?

SPEMack618 · April 2, 2012, 01:55 PM

Touche, BlueTrain.

Perhaps enemic would have been a better choice? Or obsolete?

RedBowTies88 · April 2, 2012, 02:08 PM

.45acp dates to 1904

7.62x25 dates to 1930 from everything I can dig up.

the tokarev also produced more muzzle energy on average then the .45

March 20, 2012, 04:08 PM	#1
Tokarev Czar Junior Member Join Date: March 17, 2012 Posts: 11	Tokarev TT-33 vs. Colt M1911 A1 If you were a soldier during WWII and you had no rifle, sub-machine gun etc. You only had a sidearm available, which hand gun would you have wanted : The Tokarev TT-33, or the M1911A1? Also, please explain your choice, I look forward to your answers. Respectfully, Tokarev Czar

March 20, 2012, 06:22 PM	#4
jhenry Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Location: Ozarks Posts: 1,840	Let's look at it this way. One of those two designs is in current uninterrupted production. One of those designs is in current use by top tier law enforcement and special operations folks. One of those two designs is consistently in the winners circle in various shooting disciplines etc. and so forth. Hint. It is not the Tokarev. Success talks and wishful dreaming walks. I have a nice Tok by the way, and it has some admirable attributes. A very reliable and fun gun. I would in no way take it over a 1911. __________________ "A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer

March 20, 2012, 07:18 PM	#5
Auto426 Senior Member Join Date: November 24, 2007 Location: South Louisiana Posts: 1,323	I'd take the 1911 hands down. It's a more ergonomic platform and it actually has a safety that can be trusted. __________________ *"Si vis pacem, para bellum"* - If you want peace, prepare for war.

March 20, 2012, 07:49 PM	#7
Tokarev Czar Junior Member Join Date: March 17, 2012 Posts: 11	1911 in .45 or 10mm Now that we have decided on the 1911 platform, would you prefer it in .45 or 10mm?

March 20, 2012, 08:31 PM	#8
Winchester_73 Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2008 Location: Pittsburgh PA Posts: 2,863	why are these the only choices? What about a Colt Dragoon or a Grant Hammond? What if I wanted to carry a Webley Fosberry or a Gabbet-Fairfax Mars semi auto? You couldn't even provide the best possible choice, a borchardt with a shoulder stock which would double as a rifle. Geez man, you picked the two worst designs of the whole damn war! Ok in all seriousness, I would pick the 1911. Proven man stopper cal + proven reliability, 2 safeties, tons of parts since so many were made, and ammo compatibility with the grease gun, reising SMG and tommy gun. While the tokarev was a good design its own right, IMO, its a far cry. IMO, the P38, and the FN hi power were better than the tokarev as was the Radom. I may even choose a S&W victory in 38 special over a Tokarev. The choice of small and fast vs big and slow is an easy one in this situation. While the Tokarev would win in penetration tests and perhaps offer a flatter trajectory, we are discussing guns that need to drop a man with certain reliability. For all of these reasons and probably a few more, it gotta be the 1911. __________________ Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west

March 20, 2012, 04:18 PM	#2
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	I'm a big fan of bullet mass in handguns, so it would be M1911A1 all the way. I'm also extremely familiar with the 1911 design, and don't know a whole lot about the Tokarev, beyond its working on Browning principles, and shooting a teeny, tiny bullet.

March 20, 2012, 06:16 PM	#3
pelo801 Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2009 Posts: 718	it shoots a tiny bullet, really fast. i'm a big fan of the 7.62 x 25, and i don't find the ergos of the tok to be too odd. but with that said, i am also a bigger fan of more bullet mass. so i would go with the .45

March 20, 2012, 07:33 PM	#6
triumph666 Senior Member Join Date: January 11, 2011 Posts: 374	1911 makes a bigger hole with more periphial damage than the quicker smaller bullet that punches the hole thru...... and to last poster i've never had a safety issues with my 1911 at all

March 21, 2012, 06:27 AM	#10
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Definitely the .45 ACP. The Tokarev was a neat variation on the Browning design, and had some really well thought out features, but the cartridge... The Germans didn't call it the Russian Ice Pick for nothing. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 21, 2012, 02:40 PM	#11
Hardcase Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Sunny Southern Idaho Posts: 1,909	I'd take the Tokarev if the enemy was wearing some kind of armor, but that's the only reason. Otherwise, like everyone else, the 1911. The 7.62x25 round makes a long hole and the .45 makes a big hole. Oh, and I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable carrying the 1911 in condition 1. __________________ Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae

March 21, 2012, 02:43 PM	#12
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,831	1911. Bigger bullet. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

March 22, 2012, 09:31 AM	#13
shaunpain Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 854	My choice would depend fully on what ammunition was most available to me. I own both platforms and would prefer the 1911, but if I was Marine 1st Recon and sent behind enemy lines, I might prefer the TT because it can also take the Mauser 7.63. The armor of WWII was hardly sufficient against even handgun ammunition so of course the .45 is preferable. Both designs are similar, and the TT is taken down similarly. As in, they would both be a disadvantage to field strip expediently. __________________ "Shut up, crime!"

March 22, 2012, 12:24 PM	#14
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	If you were an Allied soldier except for those from Eastern Europe that made it to Great Britain at the beginning of the war, you probably would never have heard of a Tokarev. In fact there were probably Soviet soldiers who wished they had that choice, since many revolvers were still in use. Did you ever wonder why the Soviets replaced the Tokarev with the PM? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

March 22, 2012, 12:59 PM	#15
shaunpain Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 854	Well, admittedly the Tokarev isn't safe to carry with a loaded chamber and safety-less, so it's not the optimum choice. A Makarov would even be a far better choice than the Tok, but I guess we can't go there since they weren't created yet. Either way, I certainly wouldn't feel undergunned with one. They make short work of a standard issue GI helmet in those days. __________________ "Shut up, crime!"

March 22, 2012, 03:42 PM	#16
dsk Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2001 Posts: 1,603	Not only would I choose the M1911A1 during WW2 without question, but even today I'd still gladly use a straight GI 1911 for defense. It still gets the job done, even if it's no longer state of the art.

March 22, 2012, 04:31 PM	#17
Smit Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 2012 Posts: 335	Obviously the 1911. Go America!

April 2, 2012, 09:10 AM	#18
Wolf Hunter Junior Member Join Date: May 2, 2011 Location: Karachi Pakistan Posts: 4	Its an unjust for for a great 1911 to be compared with TT 30 Tokarev.Though TT was made basing on the mechanism of 1911 but TT can never beat 1911 in accuracy and in safety ( Carrying cocked and locked) TT have been proved to be weak in accuracy too so comparing these two handguns is not justified.

April 2, 2012, 09:19 AM	#19
RedBowTies88 Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2011 Location: 609 NJ Posts: 705	"Well, admittedly the Tokarev isn't safe to carry with a loaded chamber and safety-less, so it's not the optimum choice. A Makarov would even be a far better choice than the Tok, but I guess we can't go there since they weren't created yet. Either way, I certainly wouldn't feel undergunned with one. They make short work of a standard issue GI helmet in those days." This is not true, the original tokarev half cock saftey is very very reliable. Just not the BS they added on for import. I would take the Tok. Call me crazy but I love the 7.62x25. That round specially with modern hollow point ammo can do some very nasty stuff inside soft tissue. Not to mention with FMJ's many types of body armor will meet their demise. Also seeing as this is a handgun only war I'd place a bet that the maximum effective range of the 7.62x25 to be siginificantly greater then .45acp. It's always nice to touch the enemy from where he cannot touch you back. On another note, something I find funny on the ewebbs (not necessarily in this thread) is that the same people who tote that .45 fat, slow, and heavy is the only way to go for combat pistol round are the same people who think 5.56 is worlds ahead of 7.62x39. Basically applying opposite logic. __________________ "...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)

April 2, 2012, 09:25 AM	#20
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	Well, there is pretty significant difference in a small, fast bullet in regards to a rifle round versuses a small fast bullet in a pistol round. Jeff Cooper wrote, and I whole heartedly agree with this, that the rifle is an offensive instrument, that one uses when the likelihood of a shooting will be high and shot placement is important. A pistol however, is a defensive instrument and is carried "just in case." I want a pistol round that is going to reliably stop a fight soonest. The .45 ACP has a pretty good track record of that. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

April 2, 2012, 09:32 AM	#21
RedBowTies88 Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2011 Location: 609 NJ Posts: 705	I agree and don't doubt the fight ending record of the .45acp. However in this instance we are talking about an OFFENSIVE weapon. At least in the scenario brought about by the OP __________________ "...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)

April 2, 2012, 09:33 AM	#22
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	Well, I suppose that if you are going into a fight with a pistol as your offensive weapon, you've already screwed up, so going with an arachic Russian round probably won't matter all that much. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

April 2, 2012, 11:51 AM	#23
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	As opposed to something chambered in the modern .45 ACP? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

April 2, 2012, 01:55 PM	#24
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	Touche, BlueTrain. Perhaps enemic would have been a better choice? Or obsolete? __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

April 2, 2012, 02:08 PM	#25
RedBowTies88 Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2011 Location: 609 NJ Posts: 705	.45acp dates to 1904 7.62x25 dates to 1930 from everything I can dig up. the tokarev also produced more muzzle energy on average then the .45 __________________ "...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)