As an aside I have a helpful suggestion. When your doctor says you need three different vaccines don’t say ‘OK. let’s do it.’ Yesterday in the course of a normal check-up I was told I needed Flu, Pneumonia & Shingles. As a man of a certain age I find it prudent to listen to my doc’s recommendations, so I said ‘Bring ’em on!’ By late afternoon when I was doing the shooting test of the Tisas it hurt to hold the gun at eye-level, so don’t expect my best shooting. Today I feel like hammered crap. I never desired to know what ‘hammered crap’ feels like, but life is full of new experiences. Vaccines 3, Tinker 0.

I’ve had a 1911 project in mind for some time, and the Mistress of Finance agreed to a modest budget. After pricing out what I wanted I wasn’t quite over budget, but the MoF was looking at me sideways. I determined that rather than buying a frame and all the parts it would be cheaper to start with a complete ‘economy’ gun. Enter the Tisas Duty B .45. It has all the right bits, it was recommended by one of my 1911 gurus and for $439 looked to be a bargain. Yesterday we took possession of the gun and I examined it and did a test-fire.

This Gun is Full of Surprises

The gun is based on a Series 70 Colt 1911, embellished with forward slide-serrations, skeletonized combat hammer and trigger, undercut trigger-guard, beavertail grip-safety with a speed bump, combat sights etc. It’s finished in black CeraCote.

Another surprise is that I am told the grip safety is an actual Wilson Combat piece, and the Novak sight is actually Novak. I don’t know this for sure, but if they aren’t someone needs to sue someone.

At first glance only the black plastic grip-panels betray this guns ‘budget’ nature. Lines are sharp, components are really well-fitted. Slide-to-frame fit is snug. Overall the impression is of quality. Except for those grips, which in fairness are serviceable enough, just cheap. The provided magazine holds eight rounds and is well-made and finished.

Perusing the literature I was surprised to discover that both the lower receiver and slide are forged. This is widely held to be a good thing. It is also ‘Machined After Hardening.’ This is not merely a good thing, it’s a surprising thing. I could geek on this, but in a nutshell it removes the possibility of distortion in heat-treat, It’s seriously unexpected in an inexpensive gun but it drastically reduces tool-life, which makes the process more expensive.

The trigger is pretty damn good. It’s not ‘tuned race-gun’ good, but as production triggers go? A bit loose on take-up, but the break is crisp, overtravel minimal and rebound is short and positive. It’s also pretty light compared to most box-stock 1911s.

Disassembly yielded more surprises; the interior machining is clean, sharp and free of tool-marks. This is a really nicely made gun. There was also no ‘protective’ gunk inside, just a slightly excessive coating of gun-oil. With no need to clean the gun I went straight onto the range.

Test-Fire

I was taken by surprise that my background-check was returned so quickly so I didn’t do all of the reloading I intended to for this test. I had fifty rounds of 230gr. ball on hand and some odds and ends. These included 200gr. LRNFPs, Speer 200gr. JHPs, some 200gr. HG68 LSWCs and some 185gr. XTP JHPs.

I had the most of them, so the first few mags were the Ball ammo and the gun functioned flawlessly. Spoilers- get used to hearing that phrase. After that it was all randomly mixed mags, which the gun digested without so much as a bobble.

Accuracy seems fine, but it was hard to tell. After the vaccinations shooting was ‘Good Training,’ a military term for doing just about anything that is utterly miserable.

After around 100 rds. of mostly mixed ammo the gun has yet to have any issues. I’m impressed. It’s possible that issues would crop up with a more extensive test, but all things considered I inclined to think it would be fine. I’d shoot more, but I got the gun for a project and I’ll be getting on with that promptly, which means that it will be a while before this gun will fire again.

Conclusion

If you like 1911s you’ll like this gun. Good quality, thoughtful upgrades and an affordable price. What’s not to like?

Michael Tinker Pearce, 17 November 2021

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

We’ve all met them. The ‘back in my day…’ guys. Sadly, shockingly and to my surprise I have joined the ranks of that hallowed and totally annoying brotherhood. Here’s how it happened.

I’m 59 years old. My military experience started in 1980. My competition shooting experience started in 1984 and my law enforcement experience started in 1985. I worked on the street for months as a small-town cop before I went to the Police Academy. It’s a cliché, but things were different back then.

If you were ‘trained’ on a firearm it meant you knew the manual-of-arms for the weapon inside out, backwards and sideways. We called it muscle memory. Under stress, when injured or befuddled you would just do it, because under stress you do what you are trained to do. You didn’t ‘forget’ because it was all done unconsciously while your brain was busy doing other things. Sometimes working the situation, sometimes running in circles screaming. Whatever. Needless to say this was an ideal, and not everyone was up to that standard, not by a long-shot. But it’s what we strove for.

That being where I came from, when someone on the internet said a well-trained person would forget to activate the safety under stress I disagreed. No matter how much training someone had if they would not automatically use the safety under duress they were not ‘well trained.’ I pulled up my ‘old-guy pants and started ranting.

Then the power went out for several hours and I had time for a nap and a good think. When I came back online someone had pointed out it was 2021. That brought me up short.

People know I’m a ‘gun guy,’ so when considering buying a gun for home defense or carry they often ask for my opinion. What do I invariably recommend? A modern, polymer framed framed pistol, which generally don’t have a manual safety. Why? Because modern pistols are very, very good and the simplified manual-of-arms is easier for a novice.

Uh… yeah. Oops.

I like older guns. I carry older guns. But I frequently say that if I were back on duty I’d carry a Glock 17 with an optic. Why? Because as a specific tool for a specific job, by any objective standard modern guns are better than the old guns I love. They are lighter, more reliable, and hold more rounds. The same is true of their smaller, more civilian-oriented brethren.

Old guns may be more interesting, more attractive and have more ‘character,’ These days I’m a civilian, and my self-defense needs are served perfectly well by my beloved old guns. But as a modern tool for serious use in the modern world why would anyone choose one over a modern pistol? I can’t think of a single reason. Hell, I wouldn’t. Time and technology have moved on, and they’ve done so for good reasons.

I still maintain that a genuinely well-trained person won’t experience issues if their gun has a manual safety. Bone-deep knowledge of your weapon’s manual of arms should be the starting-point for considering someone ‘well-trained.’ But honestly if someone isn’t me or someone like me why would they choose to bother? They probably wouldn’t; it’s the 21st century and they have other, better options.

It’s been a humbling evening. Gotta go… that pie won’t eat itself.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 15 November 2021

This is not so much a review, but more of a ‘getting acquainted’ session. Let’s get on with it.

In the 1890’s the Russians realized they needed a standardized service pistol. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings. A fly that spoke Russian, I mean.

“Our S&W .44s are getting a bit long-in the tooth and knocking them off is expensive. We need a new standard service revolver. Preferably something obsolete.”

“The Germans…”

“Dear Lord, not that obsolete! Badly designed too. Besides, we don’t like the Germans.”

“Let’s get a Nagant revolver. It’s a bit obsolete, but that means it will be cheap. We can make them in a really anemic caliber so we can use our crappy steel. While we’re at it lets make it a gas-seal gun. It’s completely unnecessary and the trigger pull will be horrible!”

“Perfect! This will make the gun worse and more expensive without offering any benefit! What could be a greater glory to the Empire than adopting a terrible, obsolete revolver in a weak cartridge!”

OK, it probably didn’t go exactly like that; I’m sure there were bribes and nepotism involved too. Thus for decades the Imperials, and then the Soviets that followed them, had what was arguably the worst service pistol of the era.

Around 1930 IQs rose sharply and they realized they needed a viable modern pistol. The Mauser C96 ‘Broomhandle’ was popular, but the Soviet New Man saw no need to adopt another obsolete, complicated and expensive service arm. PROGRESS! That cartridge though…

The 1911 was doing rather well, and the Soviets thought they could do it chea… uh, better. They swiped the essentials of the design- tilting barrel with locking lugs, pivot-link, single-action operation, sliding trigger etc. But they did not, uh, slavishly copy the 1911. They made it less expensive to produce and one might argue better. OK, let me ditch this mob with pitchforks and torches and I’ll be right back.

The cartridge they selected for the new pistol was 7.62 x 25mm, a bottlenecked .30-caliber cartridge that isn’t .30 Mauser. No, really! I mean it! OK, you can use them interchangeably, but they are totally not the same. *nods earnestly*

Since the New Soviet Man had evolved beyond the need for safeties the only safety is the half-cock notch on the hammer. Troops were supposed to carry the weapon without a round in the chamber not seen as an issue. Besides, when they inevitably and sensibly ignored this policy in battle it was easy to just thumb-cock the gun.

Machining of the barrel lugs was simplified, the retention of the bushing was simplified, the machining of the frame was simplified, the grips were simplified; the design was really pared down to it’s essentials. Honestly it wasn’t so much that the Soviets were cheapskates; they were trying to drag a huge, largely medieval nation into the 20th C. and they had seen the writing on the wall; they were going to need a modern military fast. Designs needed to be simple, robust, easy to produce and inexpensive.

There was one area where innovation trumped inexpensive in a way- the fire-control group. The hammer, sear etc. are placed in a removable unit. Not like ‘Chassis’ of many modern pistols; simply field-strip the gun and it lifts right out. From a manufacturing and military perspective this makes a great deal of sense. It makes manufacturing the guns easier, simplifies machining on the frame and if it goes wrong in the field you just drop in another unit and repair the old one at your leisure. In theory at least. It also makes it easier to clean and maintain, which is nice.

Use of a high-velocity small-bore cartridge was well-conceived. The ammunition was slightly less resource intensive to manufacture, flat-shooting with excellent penetration through heavy cold-weather clothing and soft body armors of the time. Firing a 90-gr. FMC bullets at around 1350 fps. it had plenty power at around 360 ft./lbs at the muzzle, easily comparable to other service cartridges of its day. With its flat-shooting nature it was felt it would allow soldiers to engage effectively at longer ranges.

The Tokarev served well and I’m told it was much loved by the soldiers. Really though? They were over-thinking this a bit. A pistol is literally the least important weapon on the battlefield, and after WW2 they decided that a less complex, easier to manufacture and less powerful weapon would do. This thinking resulted in the Makarov, but that’s a whole different story.

Variants of the Tokarev remained in production and use by China and many countries in the eastern block long after the soviets had given them up. With their emphasis on function over form trumping attention to detail in the exterior machining and finishing these are often regarded as junk in the west, but in reality they were a well-designed answer to the need and did their job admirably.

The ‘Norincorev’

I expressed a casual interest in trying out a Tokarev online, and my friend Steve surprised me by showing up with a Chinese-made Norinco and a box of surplus Chinese ammunition.

The Chinese Type 51 is a straight-up copy of the Tok, and it and its follow-on guns remained in service there for decades. The import versions, whether from China or eastern European countries, must be fitted with a safety to come into the US. The Norinco’s safety is not the worst of these retrofits, but it’s not particularly good either. It is well-made and positive in use, and while slightly awkward one could get used to it if they had to. this safety is the biggest difference between Soviet T33s and this Chinese version.

The other controls will be familiar to anyone acquainted with the 1911, as will the take-down procedure. It’s a little different, most notably in the use of a spring-clip on the side of the gun to retain the slide-release.

The grip is on the small side for many of us, and between that and the grooved grip-panels it doesn’t feel really secure in the hand. It’s actually plenty secure, it just doesn’t feel like it to me. The single-stack magazine holds eight rounds. The gun is thinner and more svelte than the 1911, and rather lighter at 30.7 oz. unloaded. Overall the gun is well-finished, but some of the cosmetic lines that should be straight aren’t. This has no effect on function, of course, and that was the main emphasis on these pistols.

My only real issue is that the magazine release is too short. I don’t mean to reach it, I mean it’s very difficult to push it in far enough for the magazine to drop free; you have to physically pull it from the gun. With my off-hand I can just manage to get the mag to drop. With my shooting hand? Forget it.

My memory of Norincos from back in the day was an overall impression of cheapness and unimpressive, crunchy triggers. This guns trigger is actually decent; a well-fitted 1911 has nothing to fear, but it’s isn’t bad at all. These are an inexpensive service-type pistol, and as such it’s not reasonable to expect beauty-queen looks and a target trigger.

Shooting the Beast

The first shot, as expected, immediately took a bite out if the web between thumb and fore-finger. I expected this, shrugged and shifted my grip. The recoil impulse is similar to 9mm, but it’s loud. More velocity from a smaller hole means a louder, sharper muzzle report. It’s not obnoxious but it startles at first. The gun rapid-fires nicely, but double-taps… not so much. The second round of each string is 9-12″ low at seven yards. I checked myself, made sure I had a good grip and tried again. Same result. Oh well.

4-5″ groups at twenty-five yards required no particular effort, and once I had satiated it’s lust for blood the pistol was pleasant to shoot. Over the fifty rounds I had there was no hint of an issue; the gun functioned flawlessly.

Summing it up…

…the Tokarev is a fine mid-20th. Century service pistol. A bit no-frills by western standards, but they work and do the job, which is what really matters. Were I to acquire one I’d need to do something about that hammer-bite and would like a better (or no) safety. I think the Model 57 variant from eastern Europe would suite me better with it’s longer handle. They also come with an extra round; not a great difference but in no way a bad thing.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 14 November 2021