Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 122 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm the new owner of a nice Norinco Model 213. I'd like to remove the safety on my Norinco Model 213, but the only grips I can find that might cover up the safety hole are the wood grips from the guy in the UK - and I can't see putting $100 grips on a less than $200 gun - any other suggestions?

As an alternative, I'd go with the Tokagrypt grips, IF I could find any - can anyone point me to a source for those?

THANKS!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the feedback guys!

No grips yet, but I'm making progress - I picked up a bare frame today (Tokarev Frame Only T54 Norinco) that may take some fine-tuning but should work fine with the slide and other components of the 213 I already have - and the new frame has no safety hole! I'm also going to pick up a 7.62x25 barrel and magazine - I should be able to go either way with the gun, right?

Still looking for some type of "full size" wrap-around grips that'll cover up where the safety hole used to be, and maybe give me a bit of a beavertail effect - I may end up going with those wooden grips if I can't find something else. I'd really like something like the Hogue grips with front finger grooves that I have on all of my 1911s, but I can't seem to find anything like that for the 213.

The adventure continues . . .
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
I wish you luck with the grips. Unfortunately, the unique attachment system of the Tok would make aftermarket grips very expensive and likely beyond profitablity with thier limited demand. If you get a 7.62 barrel, consider getting a new recoil spring from Wolf as the Chinese one that came with the 9mm may be too week for the higher pressure 7.62.
 

·
Copper Bullet Member
Joined
·
12,756 Posts
Those useless safeties sure ruin the pistols even if you cover the holes, the stupid plunger/ball divots usually show. I would think plugging the hole with a steel rod. Milling it to clear mechanism and tigging the divots and plug seams would be best solution. What do you think? FWIW back in the day I personally saw pallets of defect 213s going somewhere. mine was tossed on and i got my $ back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I appreciate the suggestion on the new recoil spring for the 7.62 barrel - good idea!

The idea about plugging the hole with the steel rod might be a good idea, but not for me to do it - LOL, that kind of work is far above my skill level - I do, however have a dremel!

Why do ya think the 213s you saw had so many defects? I have a Norinco 1911 that I REALLY like - it's a great shooter with a smooth as silk trigger - why would the Norinco 213s have such a different level of quality from the Norinco 1911s?

Another question for you guys that have more experience with these guns - who is the best source for parts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
You may have a bit of a Job ahead! If the T-54 frame is for 9mm then you will need special T 54 9mm mags that have a spacer in mags, since the 213 mags will fall out of a T 54 frame also your 213 slide is made to eject 9mm not X25 ammo and will not reliably work but maybe as a single shot!
Might need to enlarge the Eject port!

A 213 slide will not fit a T 54 frame as is unless you remove a hard protrusion roughly 1/4 in wide and 1/8 in thick from the underside where the firing pin hole is, also the extractor on any 9mm may not work proper with X25 ammo.

And last but not least many T 54s were made of Soft Steel!

Best of Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
For what it's worth, I fabricated a thin triangular sheet steel plate to cover the safety hole in the frame of my Norinco Tokarev 213 9x19mm. Aplied a thin coat of locktite around the plate edges then attached the plate to the frame utilizing the two factory safety stop screws. Voila! You have returned your Tokarev 213 to very close to its original appearance and you don't have to weld up a damn thing nor are you out the cost of a reblue. I am continually amazed no one else seems to have stumbled on to this idiotic but 100% functional bubba solution. And it works like a charm!.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
Yep, the T-54 is a 9mm frame. Are you talking about the spacer that fits in the frame behind the magazine, or some kind of spacer in the magazine itself? Sounds like it'll be an adventure for sure !
T 54 has a Spacer in Mag itself! 213 has a narrow Mag with no spacer in mag but it is in the frame and can be removed, and these mags will not interchange between these 2 guns!

You can remove the Spacer in the 213 frame to use 54 type 9mm mags! it may be cheaper to just buy a X25 Tok!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
although most americans do not like rear/fire-forward/safe arrangement there is nothing wrong with model 213 safety and short 9x19 magazines can be bought pretty cheaply at cdnn?. the 213 is great shooter with fmj ammo but with most jhps you can expect two to 3 stoppages per magazine. i would not alter the gun and just enjoy shooting it with affordable 9x19 ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
Zastava M 88-A magazines will work perfectly in a 213 same size! On both the 213 and the T 54 the safeties do seem to cause problems on many down the road and the lever has been known to go from fire to safe while shooting!

But the 213 is the better of the two!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
T 54 has a Spacer in Mag itself! 213 has a narrow Mag with no spacer in mag but it is in the frame and can be removed, and these mags will not interchange between these 2 guns!

You can remove the Spacer in the 213 frame to use 54 type 9mm mags! it may be cheaper to just buy a X25 Tok!
LOL, looks lke there's lots to learn about these different variants, huh?? That's weird - so if I go with the T-54 frame to get rid of the safety hole, the mag I have now for the 213 won't work I'd have to use T-54 magazines - right?

And when you say "213 has a narrow Mag", are ya talking that it's narrower side-to-side, or narrower front-to-back??? Both mags are still single stack mags, right?? If the T-54 mag can handle 9mm and 7.62, and if it has a spacer in it to accommodate the shorter 9mm rounds versus the longer 7.62 rounds, I can see it being a bit longer, front to back, than the 213 9mm mags - is that what ya meant??

So, if I understand correctly, with the T-54 frame, I need to get a t-54 mag, and that mag will accommodate either 9mm with the spacer or 7.62 without the spacer - and the specer, unlike the spacer that's in the frame of the 213, is in the magazine for the T-54 - it that how it works?

Thanks very much for your patience schooling me on this !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
As i said earlier a 213 mag will fall out of a 54 frame! It is shorter front to back! A t 54 takes a reg Tok X 25 mag but these do have a spacer in back of mag since 9mm is shorter than X 25!

213 has a spacer in the gun which can be removed held in place by a pin on top!

Remember a 213 slide wont fit on a 54 frame without internally removing a piece of metal! Try to put your 213 slide on the 54 and try to rack it and it wont do so but a little!

The ejector port on both the 213 and 54 is to short to properly handle the x25 ammo! So you may need to enlargen port, also on both the extractor may need to be taken out and worked on to properly function with a x25!

Unless you hace a Metal workshop and skills you will regret this adventure and the gun will be a Franken-Bubba Tok!
I have seen many atttempts to cover up safety Holes but all looked bad!

If you want a Brand new Tok then buy a Zastava M-88 these go for about $300. these are also knows as "Baby-Toks' and are a newer design with a nice safety build into the slide. These have a original 100% factory functional safety! They come in 9mm or .40 cal and are nice and 213 mags will interchange perfectly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
LOL, maybe I need to scale back on my grand plan - and just clean up the 213 and enjoy it as it is . . . . looks like a lotta work that I'm not at all experienced with at this point - that'd also save me from getting into another caliber (7.62x25) - I already have plenty of 9mm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I've been cleaning and re-assembling the gun, and I'm wondering if something I'm seeing \ feeling is normal - I've got the gun put back together and it seems to operate correctly, but I'm noticing that there's A LOT of resistance when I move the slide back manually just as it engages the hammer to cock the gun - that's with the barrel and recoil spring out of the gun - lots more resistance with this gun than I feel when I operate one of my 1911s. The engagement surfaces appear very smooth and well worn - almost like a trigger job - it's NOT a new gun.

I haven't oiled the gun yet, nor have I shot it yet. When I take the slide off and hold the trigger back and operate the hammer, it doesn't appear to bind on anything, but it is stiff. The trigger assembly is completely seated into the frame. The gun has obviously been shot a bunch before I bought it - maybe the previous user just replaced the hammer spring?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
I think you made a wise choice as far as what you describe most likely will work better after a good lube!
All of the safeties on these guns are basically useless and many will interfere with the gun and many tear up, the Yugo M-57 is a great and desired Tok but the aftermarket safeties on these seem to function and look better than any, but seem to be the biggest prob with these messing up!

The 213 is a better gun than a T 54!
 
1 - 20 of 122 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top