TT vs. PM: Why the Soviet Army Replaced a More Powerful Pistol

The Soviet Union’s transition from the TT-33 Tokarev pistol to the Makarov PM in the early 1950s has often raised questions among historians and firearm enthusiasts. Why would a military choose to replace a more powerful sidearm with a less potent one? To understand this, we must examine both the technical differences and the broader military doctrine behind the change.

The TT-33: A Wartime Workhorse

The TT-33 was introduced in the 1930s to replace the old Nagant M1895 revolver. It fired the 7.62×25mm Tokarev round — a high-velocity cartridge derived from the Mauser 7.63×25mm, known for its excellent penetration and flat trajectory. The TT’s bullet could defeat early helmets and some forms of body armor, which made it highly effective in wartime conditions.

Its design was relatively simple and heavily inspired by Browning’s short-recoil action. The TT-33 was robust and easy to produce in large numbers — key advantages for a country preparing for total war. However, it had several shortcomings. It lacked a manual safety, had a somewhat awkward grip shape, and produced strong recoil and muzzle flash, making it harder to control, especially for less experienced users.

TT-33

The Makarov PM: Simpler, Safer, Smarter

In the postwar period, the Soviet military reevaluated its needs. Sidearms were no longer seen as combat weapons but as secondary tools for officers, tank crews, and support personnel. What mattered more was safety, ease of use, and reliability under various conditions.

The PM Makarov, adopted in 1951, met these requirements. It was chambered in 9×18mm Makarov — a round less powerful than the Tokarev’s, but sufficient for self-defense at close range. This new cartridge generated less recoil and allowed for faster, more accurate follow-up shots.

The PM featured a double-action/single-action trigger, a manual safety that also decocked the hammer, and a simple blowback operation. It was more compact and lighter than the TT-33, making it easier to carry. Its fixed barrel improved accuracy at short distances, and its overall design reduced the chance of accidental discharge — a key factor in non-combat use.

PM - Makarov Pistol

Why the Switch?

The decision to move from the TT to the PM was not a rejection of power, but a realignment with doctrine. The Soviet military never viewed pistols as frontline weapons. Instead, they were tools for officers and rear-echelon troops who needed something reliable and easy to carry — not something to fight pitched battles with.

The Tokarev’s penetrating power was impressive but often unnecessary. It also risked overpenetration in urban or civilian-heavy environments. The Makarov’s round was better suited for controlled use and offered better handling for less trained shooters.

In terms of ergonomics and functionality, the PM was also an upgrade. It was safer to carry with a round chambered, easier to shoot accurately under stress, and simpler to maintain. Its milder recoil meant it could be handled more effectively by a broader range of personnel.

7.62x25 and 9x18 comparison

Legacy of Both Pistols

The TT-33 remained in limited use long after being replaced. Its durability and powerful cartridge made it attractive for export and use by paramilitary forces around the world. It found its way into numerous conflicts during the Cold War and beyond.

The PM, meanwhile, became a mainstay of Soviet and later Russian service. It was also adopted by many Warsaw Pact and allied nations, becoming one of the most widely used pistols of the 20th century. Despite the development of more modern pistols, the PM is still used in some roles today due to its reliability and simplicity.

Legendary duo

Conclusion

The Soviet military’s choice to replace the TT-33 with the Makarov PM was driven by a pragmatic reassessment of needs. While the Tokarev offered greater power, the PM provided greater control, safety, and practicality. In the end, the decision reflects a broader Soviet doctrine that prioritized function, simplicity, and reliability — values that defined much of their military equipment.