TargetTalk

Spotted this in the Buy-Sell section: "I am happily shooting an AW93 that is essentially the same pistol [as the Izh35M]." Would one of our Russian friends please step up and put a final (.22 cal) bullet in this piece of ongoing misinformation.

If you take a good at each of the pistols, its obvious how similar they are.

Mainly that the hammer falls from above on each pistol,(to allow a low barrel line), and the general design of each pistol.

The AW93 has a more conventional firing pin unlike the strange one on the 35, it comes down at a angle so it can be dry fired w/o a plug. Much like how the 35's firing pin is a triangle shape with a half moon shaped piece above it.

There are some other differences to, I'm sure the it has various minor refinements since the Germans make it, obviously there is more attention to detail with fit and finish as apposed to the 35 where fit and finish are only good where it needs to be. Also the AW93 does not have a upper shroud like the 35. But the basic layout of the two pistols are very similar, hammers fall from above, firing pin strikes at an angle to dry fire without a plug, the slide, lower shroud, trigger is a little different and I've heard it has something to help with recoil.

The 35 has been around for a while, since the IJ 35 from somewhat long ago, I'm not sure how Feinwerkbau was able to basically copy the pistol.

If I'm wrong on any point please correct me, I have not looked into the differences between the guns since I got my 35.

Okay, I'll address the bit I'm qualified to: the Izh35 and Ij 35 are THE SAME THING. It's a language thing. Zh and J are how English and French address the Russian letter that looks almost like a W with an extra leg and makes the "zh" sound. The differences are between the 35 and 35M where the M stands for the mile-long Russian word meaning "modernized." As to the AW93, I don't know which (hence the need for one of our Russians), but it was derived from an earlier, perhaps Khaidurov, design.

Greetings:

As regards my comment about the Izzy and AW, I had the qualifying term "essentially" in the sentence. Below I give a quotation from the Miriam Webster dictionary.

Certainly there are differences: fit, finish, aesthetics, park bench wood grips etc. Perhaps some functional differences as well. The seller seemed undecided and I suspect that his Izzy is way above the norm!

Here is the quotation - have fun with it :-)

Main Entry:
es·sen·tial
Pronunciation:
\i-ˈsen(t)-shəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century
1: of, relating to, or constituting essence : inherent
2 a: of the utmost importance : basic indispensable necessary <an essential requirement for admission to college> b: being a substance that is not synthesized by the body in a quantity sufficient for normal health and growth and that must be obtained from the diet <dietary protein provides the body with essential amino acids> — compare nonessential 2
3: idiopathic <essential disease> <essential hypertension>
— es·sen·tial·ly \-ˈsench-lē, -ˈsen-chə-\ adverb
— es·sen·tial·ness \-ˈsen-chəl-nəs\ noun
synonyms essential fundamental vital cardinal mean so important as to be indispensable. essential implies belonging to the very nature of a thing and therefore being incapable of removal without destroying the thing itself or its character <conflict is essential in drama>. fundamental applies to something that is a foundation without which an entire system or complex whole would collapse <fundamental principles of algebra>. vital suggests something that is necessary to a thing's continued existence or operation <cut off from vital supplies>. cardinal suggests something on which an outcome turns or depends <a cardinal rule in buying a home>.

Tillman

Hmmm, this topic keeps coming up. The best thing to do is to use the "search" function to research some of the past discussions.

To reiterate some of the ground covered in those discussions... I have had these points verified by two local shooters who are ex-Soviet-bloc shooters who have some first-hand experience from behind the iron curtain, as well as with owning a brand new AW-93.

1) The izh-35 is not the same or similar to the AW-93, other than the country of origin of their parent design.

2) The AW-93 is a modernized version of a Haidurov design (memory fails me here, but it could be the HR-32...?). That design saw only very limited production in Russia.

3) Feinwerkbau changed the design somewhat when it made the AW-93, but stuck with the core essentials that made the pistol so nice to shoot.

Now let's leave this particular sleeping dog to lie. If you want an IZH-35, then buy one. If you want an AW-93 then buy one of those. But for heavens sake don't buy an IZH-35 with the thinking that you're getting a cheap AW-93. They're not the same pistol, period.

(And before anybody asks, yes, I've oned one of each, and at the same time, so I have done side-by-side comparisons.)

Not the same.
Very different.

viewtopic.php?t=15394&highlight=khr30

alex c. wrote: But the basic layout of the two pistols are very similar, hammers fall from above, firing pin strikes at an angle to dry fire without a plug,

My 93 hammer falls from below the barrel.

They are completely different, there is no similarity.

BTW Izh35 firing pin is straight through, not angled.

AW93 and IZH35M are completely different pistols.
I shoot slow fire better with AW93,but for rapid fire IZH35M gives me a bettter scores.
I can not explain why?

Once you shoot both, the lack of similarity will be obvious.