7.62x25 what's the point?


PDA






Walking Dead
August 19, 2012, 06:42 PM
With ammo or firearm cost removed from the equation does this Russian round do something the 5.7, 9mm or 357 Sig don't? I'm trying to figure out the attraction to this round.

If you enjoyed reading about "7.62x25 what's the point?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mgmorden
August 19, 2012, 07:21 PM
One could ask the same about 5.7 or .357 SIG. In reality a lot of people own guns because they're fun or interesting. Not everyone is playing mall ninja or planning or marching off to war. I own a CZ-52 and a Yugo M57 - both in 7.62x25. I got them because they were interesting. Not because I was looking to fill some tactical gap, and not because of cheap ammo (neither has ever seen a round of surplus ammo once they came into my possession - the extra headache of corrosive ammo outweighs the cost for me).

All in all, I find it odd that people are looking for a "point" when 95% of the rounds most people on this board will ever fire will be recreational target shooting. For the times when I do actually have a purpose (ie my carry piece), I'm simply carrying something different.

floorit76
August 19, 2012, 07:26 PM
I'd look up when those rounds were developed. If I'm not mistaken the russian round pre dates the 357 sig and 5.7. So then the question becomes what do the newer rounds do?

PabloJ
August 19, 2012, 07:31 PM
With ammo or firearm cost removed from the equation does this Russian round do something the 5.7, 9mm or 357 Sig don't? I'm trying to figure out the attraction to this round.
Folks that like the round never knew 10x25 is available in 125gr loads?

AethelstanAegen
August 19, 2012, 07:40 PM
Really it does nothing those other rounds don't also do but it was doing it first and cheaper. I'm a fan. My M57 works great and I have no doubt the 7.62x25 would do the job if required.

SharpsDressedMan
August 19, 2012, 08:05 PM
Rips groundhogs with soft or HP bullets, like Hornady XTP's. A varmint autoloader, if you will.

rule303
August 19, 2012, 08:07 PM
The 7.62x25 pre-dates even the .357 Magnum, so it was a serious powerhouse in its day. It is chambered in some interesting, historically significant arms. Functionally, it doesn't do much that other calibers can't.

xxxleafybugxxx
August 19, 2012, 08:14 PM
Its an incredible round. Historical and even though milsurp is more expensive than it used to be, still find wolf s&b and pp ammo cheaper than. 357 and 5.7. The guns that use the round are cheap too. Im not sure how it compares to 5.7 or. 357 but all I know is for a handgun, it is very effective in the penetration category

DylNger
August 19, 2012, 08:29 PM
I bought the one I owned for a whopping $75. That's what it did that those other rounds have never done. It gave me a serious SD handgun for not much money at all. The rounds are very powerful and even though they lack the hollow point design they will certainly do a fine job of damaging a bad guy intent on damaging you.

I'm not saying it would be my first choice. But at one time I couldn't afford anything else so it was pretty much my only choice for a powerful SD weapon. I sold it because ammo became almost impossible to find but now the ammo has made a comeback and I wish I had that pistol back again.

IMO it was those other rounds that copied what had already been done. If someone had put out a HP for that 7.62 x 25 we might have seen a whole lot more of them being sold. But being milsurp no gun companies could introduce new lines and make big profits. Well those profits come out of my pockets and I'd rather buy the cheap gun that works over the new and improved which is really the old and repackaged.

coalbed
August 19, 2012, 08:34 PM
Its a very interesting round with a long history. From a plinkers point of view, I guess it wouldnt matter what round they like, from a tactical or battlefield point of view, that little round goes straight through flak jackets, helmets(even the modern kevlar ones), bulletproof glass, ect. things that would stop the normal .45 auto or 9mm. It was like the 5.7 today but designed long ago and is still effective in that role.

HisSoldier
August 19, 2012, 09:09 PM
In reality a lot of people own guns because they're fun or interesting.

That's a point I have to make very time people talk about the .25 ACP, it's a fun gun, and literally 96% of my handguns and rifles are just for the fun of owning and shooting in a non stress pleasure mode on occasion, stopping power or ammo cost has little or nothing to do with it. I suspect that 90% of the guns in America are owned for pleasure, not defense.
My pastor has loaded that little Tok round up to 2600 FPS, fun fun fun unless it blows up.

Kiln
August 19, 2012, 11:07 PM
I'd look up when those rounds were developed. If I'm not mistaken the russian round pre dates the 357 sig and 5.7. So then the question becomes what do the newer rounds do?
Exactly. The 7.62x25 was made decades before the 5.7 round was even thought of.

R.W.Dale
August 19, 2012, 11:22 PM
Folks that like the round never knew 10x25 is available in 125gr loads?

I always love how obvious it is that 10mm fanbois cannot fathom that everyone else .... well isn't. To them every possible answer to any question even remotely handgun related is always "get a 10mm"


Its an interesting round that packs carbine like performance into a handgun sized package for those occasions where putting a hole THROUGH things deeply is more important than expansion and energy transfer.

I have dabbled with the round extensively but no longer own any pistols so chambered due to the lack of modern firearms.

PabloJ
August 19, 2012, 11:48 PM
I always love how obvious it is that 10mm fanbois cannot fathom that everyone else .... well isn't. To them every possible answer to any question even remotely handgun related is always "get a 10mm"


Its an interesting round that packs carbine like performance into a handgun sized package for those occasions where putting a hole THROUGH things deeply is more important than expansion and energy transfer.

I have dabbled with the round extensively but no longer own any pistols so chambered due to the lack of modern firearms.
Nonsense. Unless one buys higher pressure high velocity 10x25 loads the .45ACP or .45GAP rounds are just as good. Wrap your phalanges around G20SF or G21SF you might even like it. Those two are heavenly choices.;)

barnbwt
August 19, 2012, 11:57 PM
One could ask the same about 5.7 or .357 SIG.

As a happy owner of a Five-seveN I'm in that camp. NATO should have just swallowed it's pride and brought out the 7.62x25 for its PDWs instead of designing something new (and at the extreme limit of engineering) to perform the same penetratory (?) function. I think a modern PDW in tok would be absolutely devastating, unlike the P90, which, while sufficient, is closer to borderline in effectiveness.

I did some quick wiki-foo, and I found the 7.62x25 is very similar to 327 Magnum, and probably identical if same-weight bullets are used. I think that would put it just below the 357sig(which approximates a 125gr .357mag load). The 327 is another highly-underrated cartridge here in the States. It seems there is a notion that nothing smaller than a .357 diameter bullet will stop a man reliably :rolleyes: at any speed from a pistol. We really don't know the true capabilities of the tok since there's been little to no modern development on the round. Heck, Wikipedia only shows loads with the same crummy FMJ bullet! With optimized bullets, powders, and loads, I think it would hang just fine with the rest of the popular kids (which themselves are highly optimized).

With ammo or firearm cost removed from the equation does this Russian round do something the 5.7, 9mm or 357 Sig don't?

Technically, no round can do what no other rounds can do. If you get the speed, mass, and diameter close enough, it's all the same (I guess tumbling/expansion would differ a hair) at the end of the day. It'd be better to ask why people keep developing cartridges for this niche. There's like a dozen "service caliber" cartridges out there.

Its an interesting round that packs carbine like performance into a handgun sized package for those occasions where putting a hole THROUGH things deeply is more important than expansion and energy transfer.


The surplus FMJ, yes. This cartridge is known to reliably expand extremely well with hollows due to the high speed. IIRC, the cheap Wolf HPs expand over to .50" or so, while penetrating far less. But yeah, the FMJs are like friggin' laser beams :D; trajectory and terminal performance-wise.

TCB

jojo200517
August 20, 2012, 12:16 AM
Well for starters the soviets developed it in the 1930's, far before the other 2 rounds mentioned. Back then it was a great sub gun and pistol round and still is in many peoples opinion.

One of the points of development of it was to provide more power than the old 7.63 mauser pistol cartridge. It also happened to pack enough punch at the time to defeat most light personal armour.

I'm assuming you wonder what's with the bottlenecked cartridge design since you compared it to 2 others. Well the soviets and their great strives for efficiency realised that they already had a lot of equipment set up for making 7.62 cal rifle barrels, and making them on a mass scale was already pretty easy for them. It was also pretty simple to cut a shorter chamber and shorter barrels of the same diameter than to tool up for other another calibre bore.

R.W.Dale
August 20, 2012, 12:23 AM
The surplus FMJ, yes. This cartridge is known to reliably expand extremely well with hollows due to the high speed. IIRC, the cheap Wolf HPs expand over to .50" or so, while penetrating far less. But yeah, the FMJs are like friggin' laser beams :D; trajectory and terminal performance-wise.

TCB

I really don't think many of us who are fans of the round are fans of it because of its performance with the abysmal selection of expanding bullets avalible.

With expanding ammo its really nothing special compared to the usual suspects. IMO its magic is with fmj against cover or lightly armored targets or with slow expanding bullets on smallish to medium game animals.

nathan
August 20, 2012, 12:56 AM
The zippy round is making raves when shot thru kevlar helmet. When i heard this i had reservations but after testing an empty propane tank im a believer now. It went through like swiss cheese.

Shadow 7D
August 20, 2012, 05:55 AM
Um, the better question would be why such haters when they imatiation is the greatest form of Flattery, and there's lots and lots of that in all you mentioned, course if you want to got back, it's (tok) is based of the 7.63 Mauser

And next time I'd take a basic read of HISTORY (pay attention to dates, those seem to be important) of a historic round before you come in and ask why a 100 ish year old round is copying something maybe 10 years old. Makes you look less ignorant.

Walking Dead
August 20, 2012, 02:13 PM
Um, the better question would be why such haters when they imatiation is the greatest form of Flattery, and there's lots and lots of that in all you mentioned, course if you want to got back, it's (tok) is based of the 7.63 Mauser

And next time I'd take a basic read of HISTORY (pay attention to dates, those seem to be important) of a historic round before you come in and ask why a 100 ish year old round is copying something maybe 10 years old. Makes you look less ignorant.
First off with that kind of grammar I wouldn't be calling anybody ignorant. Secondly my question wasn't to compare who did what first it was to figure out if this is still a relevant round compared to new technology. There seems to be a lot of interest in this round yet there are no easily atainable modern firearms chambered for it. So if it doesn't do anything the other calibers can do why wouldn't you just buy a new gun in 9mm, 5.7 or 357 Sig?

Fastcast
August 20, 2012, 02:32 PM
So if it doesn't do anything the other calibers can do why wouldn't you just buy a new gun in 9mm, 5.7 or 357 Sig?

Well, it certainly can do things 9mm can't and I believe AP is also better than 357 Sig....However, I do agree with you on Shadow's grammar and insinuations! :scrutiny: lmao

DylNger
August 20, 2012, 05:07 PM
Oh boy, a grammar flame! Where's my popcorn?

jdh
August 20, 2012, 05:25 PM
Well for starters the soviets developed it in the 1930's, far before the other 2 rounds mentioned. Back then it was a great sub gun and pistol round and still is in many peoples opinion.



It is based on the 7.63X25 mauser, which was based on the 7.65×25mm Borchardt case which was developed about 1893. So it is just a little bit older.

Threeband
August 20, 2012, 10:01 PM
... So if it doesn't do anything the other calibers can do why wouldn't you just buy a new gun in 9mm, 5.7 or 357 Sig?

Why buy any C&R gun when modern guns are available?

snakeman
August 20, 2012, 10:05 PM
It's FUN! nuff said. I personally don't have one and don't really plan on getting one. But I still think it's fun. It's a cool gun and an interesting round and it would be a blast to shoot one. This is why people buy it. Why make it difficult!

481
August 20, 2012, 10:14 PM
With ammo or firearm cost removed from the equation does this Russian round do something the 5.7, 9mm or 357 Sig don't? I'm trying to figure out the attraction to this round.

It's cheap and a lot of fun to shoot. It can (often, but not always) defeat soft body armor and hard barriers and does so better than a lot of the newest whizbang rounds.

Did I sat that it's cheap and a lot of fun to shoot?

Lakeshore
August 20, 2012, 11:43 PM
In addition to the attributes of the 7.62X25 previously mentioned I'd add that it's good for meeting people at the range. The muzzle blast is so howitzer-like that someone will invariably walk over and ask "what the heck IS that thing?"

coalbed
August 20, 2012, 11:55 PM
I noticed j&g sales is making a 7.62x25 barrel kit for the 1911 colt type pistols, and ive read that there is an AR 15 upper for it, but I havent seen one for sale. Im definitely going to get one of the polish ppsh43 semi pistols soon :smiley:.

MAKster
August 21, 2012, 12:16 AM
The only mass produced handguns that chambered 7.62x25 (TT-33 and VZ 52) were made 60 plus years ago, so I think most shooters have also concluded that the round is not a big deal.

barnbwt
August 21, 2012, 12:33 AM
Im definitely going to get one of the polish ppsh43 semi pistols soon

Be sure to keep us posted... I think a modern carbine in tok would be killer :evil:. I'd be eager to try modding a ppsh if they are of good quality.

The only mass produced handguns that chambered 7.62x25 (TT-33 and VZ 52) were made 60 plus years ago, so I think most shooters have also concluded that the round is not a big deal.

That may be more due to the fact a bottle-neck pistol round is kinda a pain in the butt to make; expensive and complicated. Maybe even more to do with the fact the Soviets bankrupted themselves making/giving away so much ammo and guns in this cartridge that it's remained plentiful 50+ years after the last guns and bullets were made ;). When was the last military rifle chambered in 7.62x39 implemented (and not by some broke republik)? Most folks wouldn't say that was an unsuccessful chambering.

"Who'd have thought the fatal flaw with Communism is that there's no money in it?"
-Stephen Colbert

1858remington
August 21, 2012, 02:41 AM
7.62x25 was originally designed as an SMG round for the Russian PPsH. Power wise its similar to the 30cal Carbine.
It is a fast bullet and has tremendus penetraition power.

I took a Bullet proof vest and shot it with a CZ-52, the 7.62x25 penetraited the front of the vest end embedded itsself in the back of the vest.

The same vest was shot with 357 sig and it failed to penetrait the front pannel.

Warning: 7.62x25 ammo designed for SMG's is not safe to shoot in Tokarov pistols. The Tokarov fired a downloaded version of the round. The CZ-52 with its rollerbearing delay action is designed for the hotter SMG load.

JShirley
August 21, 2012, 03:24 AM
that little round goes straight through flak jackets, helmets(even the modern kevlar ones), bulletproof glass

Armor, whether personal or vehicle, is described in levels. There is no such thing as "bulletproof xxx". There are vests in Level 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, etc. Each describes a level of protection.

barnbwt summed up many of my ideas about the round. Instead of inventing a new round with marginal performance on tissue in a complicated, expensive "space gun", FN would have done better to make an AR variant in 7.62x25mm, and just spend a fraction of what was spent creating an entirely new round on optimizing the 7.62x25mm for Level 2 armor penetration at 200 meters. I estimate that per-unit cost would have been about 1/3 of the FN 90, and it would have been more effective. :rolleyes:

I plan on getting an SBR or AOW in 7.62x25mm at some point. The major current limitation, as said elsewhere in thread, are the lack of good modern firearms for them.

John

Shadow 7D
August 21, 2012, 03:28 AM
Warning: 7.62x25 ammo designed for SMG's is not safe to shoot in Tokarov pistols. The Tokarov fired a downloaded version of the round. The CZ-52 with its rollerbearing delay action is designed for the hotter SMG load.

Um, wrong, other than shoddy QC, all tok ammo is loaded to much the same standard, and the 'SMG' internet rumor has been around a VERY long time, so please show me some, cause they ain't found it yet.

Finally, the CZ actually has the weaker action as the roller divots undermine the chamber, were the TT is mostly supported, and this has been proven, I think Clark (member here) did the blowing up. So....

EDIT
J.
FN wouldn't have owned the patents and completely controlled production.

JShirley
August 21, 2012, 04:58 AM
Shadow,

Agreed, but I think that would have been more than compensated by many more purchases. I would not be surprised if that combination- shorty handgun-specific-lower M4 with 10" barrel- would have been widely accepted in even the US military, instead of the very few agencies that have adopted it. And there would have been an identical manual of arms to the current service rifle, meaning a troop could be (re)trained on one in a day.

John

evan price
August 21, 2012, 06:23 AM
Had a Wiselite Sterling sub pistol in Tok caliber and it was loads of fun. That little round has a lot to offer. However I got in need of cash and away it went, and all my boxer primed brass, too. It shot like a straight line at pistol distances. Nothing wrong with different, but bottleneck cartridges are nowhere near as much fun to reload as straight-wall.

ojh
August 21, 2012, 09:50 AM
7.62x25 was originally designed as an SMG round for the Russian PPsH.

No. The first version of the Tokarev pistol was put into production in 1930. PPD, the first Russian subgun using the 7.62x25, was introduced in 1934. PPSh entered the scene only in 1941.

ZEN.45
August 21, 2012, 10:43 AM
The 7,62x25 makes you grin …

http://s15.postimage.org/xigyq4zsb/P7140012.jpg
http://s7.postimage.org/9e29ex0uj/P8040007.jpg

Fastcast
August 21, 2012, 10:53 AM
The 7,62x25 makes you grin …

:what: lol

Nice pics...Especially the PPSH!

brnmuenchow
August 21, 2012, 10:58 AM
I'd look up when those rounds were developed. If I'm not mistaken the russian round pre dates the 357 sig and 5.7. So then the question becomes what do the newer rounds do?

I am jumping on this band wagon as well, even though I like the .357Sig. I also like the 7.62X25mm round as well. it's fun to shoot, my M57's are very reliable and I have no doubt that if I had to use the 7.62X25mm to defend myself that it would get the job done. Plus I get more excited when I shoot something of historic value than whatever is the newest, latest and greatest thing out on the market.

peacebutready
August 21, 2012, 11:34 AM
barnbwt summed up many of my ideas about the round. Instead of inventing a new round with marginal performance on tissue in a complicated, expensive "space gun", FN would have done better to make an AR variant in 7.62x25mm, and just spend a fraction of what was spent creating an entirely new round on optimizing the 7.62x25mm for Level 2 armor penetration at 200 meters. I estimate that per-unit cost would have been about 1/3 of the FN 90, and it would have been more effective. :rolleyes:

John


FN, like other companies want their products to be new and glitzy.


BTW, I think armor piercing ammo in 7.62x25mm is legal to posses if imported or manufactured before a certain date. I also think some people are hoarding it. I'm not sure about this, though. It seems more punks have body armor than I originally thought.

Carl N. Brown
August 21, 2012, 11:59 AM
The point is, the 7.62x25 is a historic development by the Russians from the 7.63mm Mauser of 1895 developed from the 7.65mm Borchardt of 1893. In the early days of auto handguns, American sportsmen were intrigued by the ".30 Luger" and the ".30 Mauser" and they had a certain following among US hunters as a sidearm (or at least that's what early 20th century advertising says :) ).

On the "special" loads, From WHB Smith "Small Arms of the World" 1966 on Russian 7.62x25mm:
o 1378 fps from Tokarev TT33 pistol
o 1640 fps from PPSh41 submachine gun;
WHB Smith listed the "hot" cold war issue Czech M48 7.62x25mm:
o 1800 fps from CZ Model 24 SMG
o 1600 fps from CZ vz 52 pistol
The Russians used the same ammo in SMG and in pistol; the Czechs used the same M48 ammo in both SMG and in pistol. The longer SMG barrels give higher velocity with the same ammo as the pistol.
Smith listed the WWII 7.63x25mm Mauser at 1575 fps from the Model 1932 select-fire version of the Mauser military pistol (C96) 5.5" barrel.

The Russian and Czech 7.62x25mm loads all used 85gr bullets.

After WWII as part of the Warsaw Pact, the Czechs chambered their submachinegun in 7.62x25 then their CZ52 pistol; the M48 ammo was packed in 8 round stripper clips for loading submachinegun magazines using a magazine loader built into the forearm of the SMG. Thus the story of special SMG ammunition. Same issue ammo for both SMG and pistol.

I believe the Czech M48 ammo got higher velocity by using a slower burning powder, so peak pressure should be equivalent between Czech and Russian ammo.

While Mauser barrels will take the Russia and Czech ammo, the bolt stop is the weak point of the Mauser design when used with ammo that generates greater recoil impulse than 7.63 Mauser ammo.

flyskater
August 21, 2012, 02:38 PM
A 60gr 7.62x25 zips at almost 2000fps out of my m57 pistol
9x25 Dillon 90gr at 2100fps.
These are pretty much rifle rounds/velocities from concealable handgun. The problem is 9mm hollowpoints are not designed to withstand that speed.
They are also very loud where earplugs and a muff is required. Tell that to the person next to you at the gun range.

Scimmia
August 21, 2012, 09:49 PM
Finally, the CZ actually has the weaker action as the roller divots undermine the chamber, were the TT is mostly supported, and this has been proven, I think Clark (member here) did the blowing up. So....

You know, I wish people would stop saying that. The action in the CZ is, in fact, stronger. True, the chamber is weaker, but the chamber is not the same as the action.

R.W.Dale
August 21, 2012, 09:54 PM
You know, I wish people would stop saying that. The action in the CZ is, in fact, stronger. True, the chamber is weaker, but the chamber is not the same as the action.

On what do you base this assumption?

If the gun blows to pieces from the bottom of the chamber rupturing its a moot point as to how strong the locking mechanism is.

I will say this when I had both the CZ52 would cycle even with sub 32acp level loads. It took a white stiff load to fully cycle the tokarev on the other hand.


Just because the cz used a unique mechanism does not automatically make it the stronger of the two

Scimmia
August 21, 2012, 09:57 PM
If the gun blows to pieces from the bottom of the chamber rupturing its a moot point as to how strong the locking mechanism is.

It may be a moot point, but that doesn't make it untrue, does it? If you put a 400 HP engine in front of a small transmission and a 150 HP engine in front of an overbuilt transmission, the first trans is gonna blow. That doesn't make the second engine stronger.

I will say this when I had both the CZ52 would cycle even with sub 32acp level loads. It took a white stiff load to fully cycle the tokarev on the other hand.

Which has much more to do with the springs than it does the lockup.

GBExpat
August 21, 2012, 10:50 PM
7.62x25 what's the point?

Well, today I was able to use 6 spam cans of 7.62x25 in lieu of proper clamps while laminating 2 pieces of ľ" plywood (for a benchtop) with Gorilla Glue.

Worked great! :D

[/silly]

barnbwt
August 22, 2012, 01:14 AM
Which has much more to do with the springs than it does the lockup.

The CZ factory recoil springs are notoriously weak. The Czech's had numerous metallurgical issues in the manufacture of this pistol. Springs too soft, castings way too brittle, etc. When I first got mine, the slide would return after my wrist did, giving a jarring forward jerk as it chambered. The gun can take it (at least for a good while) but it's terrible for accuracy, and potentially more dangerous since the pressurized casing gets pulled out much faster. Upgraded to a 16lb spring, and it's much tighter (and also nearly too strong to cycle :p).

If the gun blows to pieces from the bottom of the chamber rupturing its a moot point as to how strong the locking mechanism is.


Both guns are plenty strong for sane loadings, so it's really irrelevant. Given how hard the CZ's slide is (I had to drill a front sight mortise :banghead:) I'd be more worried about cracking over time. What's important is that the CZ looks way sleeker than a TT-33 :D (we're not seriously debating which is a superior platform in light of the modern designs available, are we?;))

TCB

GBExpat
August 22, 2012, 07:04 AM
What's important is that the CZ looks way sleeker than a TT-33 :D

Funny thing ... I remember when SOG(?) featured a pic of a case of Polish TT-33s on the home page in ~2001. I thought that they were quite unattractive. I bought a CZ-52 instead. I thought it looked more "exotic" and, yes, "sleeker" ... but found it to be heavy & relatively uncomfortable ... cumbersome.

JIC you are wondering, I have big hands, so small-hands-on-the-big-CZ-52-thing grip is not an issue.

The following year I had an occasion to purchase one of those Polish TT-33s at a good price and ... WOW! It feels good in my hand, points naturally, despite its length it is surprisingly "small" and it is quite accurate.

NOW ... (for a long time) when I look at the 2 pistols the CZ-52 appears rather ugly & clunky to me and the TT-33 looks beeeeoooootiful. Strange.

Something that I had not thought about until I read the "looks way sleeker" comment ... :)

BTW, I now have multiple of the Russian, Polish, Romy and Yugo flavors of the TT-33 ... and those original 3 CZ-52s, 2 of which I bought purely for investment (and I noticed recently that the market prices appear to have about tripled:)) and have not even fired in about a decade.

Because of the TT-33s & Variants I have become a big fan of the 7.62x25 cartridge. I not only have thousands of rounds of the milsurp on which I stocked up years ago when it was inexpensive, but over a thousand rounds of commercial ammo ... and I have added the appropriate gear to my reloading kit in order to reload for this cartridge.

stanmo
August 22, 2012, 08:05 AM
I have a CZ-52 and a Yugo M-57. The '52 looks cooler in a "Flash Gordon" kind of way, but if I had to carry one around I'd take the Yugo. Then again I like the decocking feature and factory safety on the 52.

Fastcast
August 22, 2012, 09:14 AM
NOW ... (for a long time) when I look at the 2 pistols the CZ-52 appears rather ugly & clunky to me and the TT-33 looks beeeeoooootiful. Strange.



That is rather strange!....Has your eyes been checked lately? :scrutiny: ;)

flyskater
August 22, 2012, 02:34 PM
The TT-33 and the Yugo are much stronger than cZ-52 in regards to firing hot loads. It has been discussed in THR and countless other forums about the CZ blowing up.

barnbwt
August 23, 2012, 12:05 AM
FN would have done better to make an AR variant in 7.62x25mm, and just spend a fraction of what was spent creating an entirely new round on optimizing the 7.62x25mm for Level 2 armor penetration at 200 meters.

You gotta understand, we had to beat the Russians ;). Why, just using their ammo could have brought down our whole society :D. The action design (not the chamber) is overkill for a handgun, but I think an upscaled (slightly) CZ action would be very good in a PDW. Like a true miniature MG42. In my gun, at least, the rollers/delicate parts of the lockup action are fairly well protected from corrosive blowback. Other than some soot in the magwell and that annoying narrow ejector groove in the slide, my CZ is a very clean shooter.

That is rather strange!....Has your eyes been checked lately?

Agreed. The CZ is a great example of Art Deco industrial design; it reminds me of those bad-ass Soviet train engines on all their propaganda :). Not "pretty," but Muy Fuerte (or Rusky equivalent :P). The CZ does suffer from bad ergonomics, most of which I believe can be remedied quite easily with grip scales and a file. The ergos, I believe, were sacrificed simply to make the gun cooler looking. I rather like the extreme grip angle, especially since I've upgraded my CZ with supersize sights; I hold it way out there, rocked forward, and get next to no muzzle rise.

The Toks, by comparison, look almost injection molded to me; smooth metal, with round corners and fillets. The machined corners on an unissued CZ look like they could cut bread, and the rough matte-grey parkerizing looks like hewn stone :D. The CZ looks fast.

TCB

JohnKSa
August 23, 2012, 12:17 AM
If the gun blows to pieces from the bottom of the chamber rupturing its a moot point as to how strong the locking mechanism is.The reason it makes a difference is because very few people are trying to blow guns up--they're operating their guns below the level at which one or the other will self-destruct.

Clark's testing shows that the CZ will blow before the Tok if you run the pressure up too high, but if you're shooting hot loads (within the pressure tolerance of BOTH pistols) then everything I've seen suggests the CZ will tend to hold up better because of the difference in the actions.

That's because it's not pressure that wears pistols out, nor is it common for a gun to let you know it's worn out by exploding. Pressure blows pistols up if a load that's too hot is fired through one, but what wears pistols out in the general case is recoil--parts banging together--and the CZ action does a better job of managing recoil.

481
August 23, 2012, 12:47 AM
Not "pretty," but Muy Fuerte (or Rusky equivalent :P).

That'd be очень сильный

pronouned Oh-chen Seel-nuy

if my Russian is still up to par.

:)

Brockak47
August 23, 2012, 02:00 AM
With ammo or firearm cost removed from the equation does this Russian round do something the 5.7, 9mm or 357 Sig don't? I'm trying to figure out the attraction to this round.
I would like to see what 7.62x25 could do loaded up with today's technology.
The results, I think, would leave you questioning the point of the newer calibers you listed.

peacebutready
August 23, 2012, 05:27 AM
Originally Posted by Walking Dead
With ammo or firearm cost removed from the equation does this Russian round do something the 5.7, 9mm or 357 Sig don't? I'm trying to figure out the attraction to this round.

I would like to see what 7.62x25 could do loaded up with today's technology.
The results, I think, would leave you questioning the point of the newer calibers you listed.


Maybe it is the same thing with the .221 Remington Fireball relative to the new 5.7.

Robbins290
August 23, 2012, 06:50 AM
as many already said. most firearms in 7.62x25 ain't tacticool or mall ninja guns. they at collectors. I'm a collecter of many ww2 firearms and before.

op. you might see a point for the cartridge, but it's my favorite round. not going to use it for self defense, hunting or target shooting. I just love how the tt33 and cz52 shoot.

coalbed
August 23, 2012, 08:25 PM
A quick note on the cz52, my boys and I have 4 of them and have fired thousands of rounds in them with no problems. The czech manual said to grease the rollers, and so we do. May not seem necessary but I think they run alot smoother with a dab of grease on the rollers. I also suggest buying the 18.5lb recoil spring. ($7.50).

coalbed
August 23, 2012, 08:53 PM
I have a question about Clarks testing, did he slug those barrels? My tok has a. 311 bore and my vz52 has a. 308 bore not a big deal for normal ammo, but may be a huge deal when trying to blow up a pistol with high pressure.

Shadow 7D
August 23, 2012, 09:19 PM
One of the ways Clark blew guns was by obstructing the barrels, secondly, it doesn't matter what the BORE is, it's the PRESSURE that matters.

Secondly VZ 52 is the RIFLE
CZ is the pistol

Brin
August 23, 2012, 09:32 PM
Clark is a Engineer. They don’t take a crap with out running the numbers.

R.W.Dale
August 23, 2012, 09:42 PM
Clark is a Engineer. They don’t take a crap with out running the numbers.

Clark is an ELECTRICAL engineer.

jdh
August 24, 2012, 12:30 AM
"The pistol is commonly called the CZ-52 but that isn't really its name. Its real name is the Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52"

"The vz. 52 rifle (often incorrectly called the "CZ 52") is a self-loading rifle developed shortly after the Second World War in Czechoslovakia. Its full name is 7,62mm Samonabíjecí puška vzor 52."

They are both Model 52.

barnbwt
August 24, 2012, 12:48 AM
Clark is a Engineer. They don’t take a crap with out running the numbers.

I really doubt he "ran the numbers" with a thorough stress analysis. He was empirically determining a rough estimate of an ultimate load comparison between the two pistols, and that's it. Scientific experiment is not the same as engineering. BTW, does he mention if anything besides the chamber was damaged on either gun after testing?

As an aerospace engineer, I can say that, practically, the max operating load a platform is capable of is more important than the ultimate/rupture load. Who cares if the Tok doesn't blow out, if lesser hot loads progressively damage its slide stops more easily. Although fun, blowing up a few guns isn't a very scientific way of determining design strength, since both designs are being tested ridiculously far outside their intended regimes. I'd be willing to bet that actual operating failure -- fatigue failure-- occurs through a totally different mechanism than chamber rupture. The Tok round is a hot rod already, I don't see the wisdom in pushing any component to the edge of its design allowables; it's a pointless play at Macho-ness that can only result in catastrophic failure. If you need a more powerful round, buy or engineer/build a gun that shoots one, don't force a design to do something it wasn't designed to do!

TCB

JohnKSa
August 24, 2012, 02:51 AM
I'd be willing to bet that actual operating failure -- fatigue failure-- occurs through a totally different mechanism than chamber rupture.It would be a good bet; you'd win it. Of course guns don't wear out by blowing up. What makes a gun blow up is very different from what make it wear out.

coalbed
August 24, 2012, 02:56 AM
[QUOTE][/One of the ways Clark blew guns was by obstructing the barrels, secondly, it doesn't matter what the BORE is, it's the PRESSURE that matters.QUOTE] It matters if you are firing identical loads in a barrel thats smaller or larger. if you don think it matters why dont you fire a 30'06 round in a 270. why? because it increases PRESSURE. I didnt know he plugged the barrels. Its why I asked because a overloaded high PRESSURE round would make even more PRESSURE in a tighter barrel.

coalbed
August 24, 2012, 03:03 AM
vz stands for "vzor" which means "model". Do you always run down posters that are more knowledgeable than you?

Shadow 7D
August 24, 2012, 03:24 AM
Right, but here's the FUN part,
since they are both 'model 52'
many refer to the rifle as Vz., in the same line as Czech Mausers are referred to by their model number... Vz. 24, Vz 33 etc.

Where the pistols generally are referred to was CZ, to say keep the Vzor 24's from being confused or say the Vzor 52's etc. helps keeps the stuff straight and fewer people confused by the changing names used to label the gun being addressed. That and many to most primary English speakers can't even pronounce their proper name.

coalbed
August 24, 2012, 07:00 PM
Didnt think it was a big issue being that every one of the pistols are marked vz52 and the cz moniker was only added by American salesmen to make a connection to the CZ corp and the famous cz75 to increase sales. The rest of the world looks at us like goofs for calling it that. Also since the thread was about the pistol round, I dont think anyone was confused. As for that thread I think we should get back on topic. I own both pistols and dont see either blowing up in my lifetime.

barnbwt
August 24, 2012, 09:46 PM
It would be a good bet; you'd win it.
That's why I'd bet on it ;)

That'd be очень сильный; pronouned Oh-chen Seel-nuy


Thanks :cool:. I really should have specified "Czesky" though...:o

Back on Topic (well, sort of):
Okay, I tried for a few minutes to search for Clark's actual article/blog/whatever about his tests, and they are completely obscured by people's references to them. Not to be a doubting-Thomas, but that's eerily similar to all net-lore, so if anyone has a link to the real deal, I'd be interested (and appreciative:)).

I can see, with my own eyes (visually;)), that the chamber is thinner on the CZ. So, if the chamber/barrel is the point of failure is both pistols (I'll assume it is, until I can read Clark's notes), the CZ will fail first. I don't see what destructive testing has to do with it. It's an obvious outcome. What is probably more interesting, is how each gun handles the failure, and how other over-stressed parts of the gun held up. With that data, you could actually seek to improve upon both designs :)

Still, it seems kinda moot. These are one-time overload events we're talking about. The fatigue damage wrought by the (I'm guessing here) progressively higher overloads probably also artificially lowered the "true" ultimate strength of a factory new pistol. And the guns he used had who knows how many rounds through them beforehand. Aside from obvious or qualitative information, there's really not much to be learned from his testing.

Unless you expect to fire your brand new gun only once at overload, I don't see what value the ultimate burst allowable is to a shooter. And I think it gives false confidence to handloaders who think they can shoot loads slightly below ultimate without any risk.

As far as I'm concerned, any gun shot at pressures above its cartridge's rating should be expected to fail at any moment. Unless I do the math to back-out the safety factors (and add my own), it's a fool's folly to expect anything different to happen.

TCB

armarsh
August 24, 2012, 10:02 PM
I'm sure Clark will drop by, but in the meantime, here is the take-away.

In the CZ52, the chamber is the weakest point and the gun will fail. In the Tokarov, the brass is the weakest point. Further, a firearm that fails before the cartridge brass fails is quite rare.

coalbed
August 24, 2012, 11:41 PM
If his take away is that the chamber of a vz-cz52 is weaker than case brass, then I dont need to see the test. I will say harder stronger steel is also less flexible than soft steel. One could make steel with good wear characteristics that wouldnt stretch as well as steel that would wear quickly.

JohnKSa
August 25, 2012, 12:03 AM
In the CZ52, the chamber is the weakest point and the gun will fail. In the Tokarov, the brass is the weakest point.Correct. However neither gun will fail with standard pressure loadings. His testing used increasing overloaded rounds to determine which gun would have a catastrophic failure first.

Bob Bonillas
August 25, 2012, 01:44 AM
OK,you all have convinced me and I will have to buy one and try it out!

Scimmia
August 25, 2012, 07:00 AM
Okay, I tried for a few minutes to search for Clark's actual article/blog/whatever about his tests, and they are completely obscured by people's references to them. Not to be a doubting-Thomas, but that's eerily similar to all net-lore, so if anyone has a link to the real deal, I'd be interested (and appreciative:)).



The best summary I've seen from Clark can be found at the bottom of this page.

http://www.milesfortis.us/church/akc11.htm

armarsh
August 25, 2012, 11:05 AM
Here are more links. Bear in mind that most of this discussion is ten years old:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=22071&highlight=cz52
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=79139&highlight=cz52

marano35
August 25, 2012, 11:45 AM
I don't know about the others you mention, but the 7.62 X 25 will penetrate both panels of a ballistic vest, as tested by me.

barnbwt
August 25, 2012, 06:35 PM
Thanks for the links guys, it was somewhat enlightening. It seems the main takeaway is that the weaker CZ barrel fails at "only" 42,000psi :rolleyes:. The pressures I found in a quick search for reccomended maximum were around 35,000 psi.

He also mentions that at the heavy loadings, the bullets were pressed up against the rifling in the CZ since it's chamber throat is shorter than the tok (apparently). I can't help but wonder if that causes the pressures to spike higher, faster in the CZ than in the Tok, exacerbating the weakness in the barrel. Does anyone know how thick the CZ chamber is at it's narrowest area? If it's more than 1/10" or so, the failure is probably more due to the sharp corners in the roller pockets creating stress concentrations than anything. It's truly moot, though, since Clark had to use loadings that couldn't satisfy OAL requirements in the CZ to cause it to fail. Who in their right mind would cram so much powder into a case you can't seat the bullet properly?

I don't know about ya'll, but I would never push a cartridge past its reccomended maximum (especially if that max is already north of 35K!), let alone 20%. Both pistols are strong well past insane loadings. If you're counting on your pistol to save you if you screw up your reloads, you're a damn fool.

TCB

Shadow 7D
August 25, 2012, 06:52 PM
Yeah, it will penetrate most soft armor, but the trade off is less wounding dymanics

R.W.Dale
August 25, 2012, 07:12 PM
Thanks for the links guys, it was somewhat enlightening. It seems the main takeaway is that the weaker CZ barrel fails at "only" 42,000psi :rolleyes:. The pressures I found in a quick search for reccomended maximum were around 35,000 psi.

OK but bear in mind that's only 10k psi from CIP maximum to "blows up in your face" . Now chamber a round three or four times and get yourself about .050" of bullet setback.

http://i27.tinypic.com/aw8h8k.jpg


Still seem like plenty?


I don't know about ya'll, but I would never push a cartridge past its reccomended maximum (especially if that max is already north of 35K!), let alone 20%. Both pistols are strong well past insane loadings. If you're counting on your pistol to save you if you screw up your reloads, you're a damn fool.

Remember you bought this gun to shoot super cheap 45yo + ex communist bloc surplus made by disasatisfied dissidents and cared for in ? ?? manner. Does a mere razors edge 7000psi saftey margin still seem plenty?

TCB

My point is that 7000 psi is NOTHING with lots of outside factors that could bring about this much overpressure. A point at wich a CZ52 doesnt beat the slide stop up or wear faster as it would were it a safe pistol design it BLOWS UP

Look at it this way no 9mm handgun made since wwII will BLOW UP at only 42k psi nor will so converted tokarevs. Now would you shoot +p a cz52 converted to 9x19?

coalbed
August 25, 2012, 09:03 PM
Im sorry but I just cant take the 42,000psi failure as gospel unless it comes from an accredited testing lab. There is too much false information on the internet. This guy may be an honest man or not it doesnt matter, there are too many factors we dont know. I mentioned bore size earlier. My TT-33 has a .311 bore my vz-cz has a .308. this will have different pressure. was he using .308 bullets? sized down 3.12 bullets? (alot of folks load them). Also there were several aftermarket barrels offered after these pistols were imported. some from less than reputable sources (unknown makers). Tell you what find one person that has had the chamber blown out of their cz-vz52 and I might worry. Remember there are hundreds of goofs out there loading this load with .32 acp bullets and using finish data as a starting point. I would think 42,000 has been breached daily, yet other than "Clark" I havent heard of a single exploded pistol.

coalbed
August 25, 2012, 09:10 PM
I think now is a good time to re post some surplus ammo with known pressure problems This is the dreaded Bulgarian surplus . If you have any of this in your stock it would be wise to dispose of it properly its not safe in any pistol from what Ive seen posted (several sources). As far as I know this is the only bad year (1952), and other Bulgarian is ok.

Scimmia
August 25, 2012, 11:24 PM
Tell you what find one person that has had the chamber blown out of their cz-vz52 and I might worry. Remember there are hundreds of goofs out there loading this load with .32 acp bullets and using finish data as a starting point. I would think 42,000 has been breached daily, yet other than "Clark" I havent heard of a single exploded pistol.

You haven't looked around hard enough. Numerous CZ-52s have been blown up with milsurp ammo.

dcarch
August 25, 2012, 11:30 PM
It's cheap, high velocity, and flat shooting. Plus, the guns it's chambered for (in my opinion) are a nice piece of history.

coalbed
August 25, 2012, 11:30 PM
Ill look again. If you know of a case where the owner is posting it and not just something they read, I really would love to read it. As I said I have 4 of them, and while Im not the prettiest man in the world, Id like to keep my face.

R.W.Dale
August 25, 2012, 11:33 PM
You haven't looked around hard enough. Numerous CZ-52s have been blown up with milsurp ammo.

Took me about 2 seconds to find these

http://beta.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=5&f=37&t=76278

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4703814

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?188597-Tokarev-TT33-or-CZ-52-whichis-better&p=1531305#post1531305

coalbed
August 25, 2012, 11:34 PM
I also load this round, I keep them well within pressure limits. One reason I like the vz-cz52 over my tok is its very smooth shooting and accurate, and thats my goal in loading, accuracy. I even considered having dovetails milled in my favorite to use some of the fine 1911 sights.

coalbed
August 25, 2012, 11:51 PM
Looks like I was wrong there are some that blew up with surplus, however Im still going to say this, you run a risk in every firearm using old surplus ammo from any country, and I could post pics of almost every firearm known failing. even Remington is in court right now over injuries sustained when 700 series rifles fired on their own. They have sold over 5 million of these rifles and have a good name. thats just one example. Are we to throw out our 700's ? the 1st post you show, the guy using surplus (looked for it not shure what it was) had a jam, cleared it, the blew his slide. If you have a jam using old ammo, you better look down the bore and see if you have a bullet in the barrel. vz-cz52's dont jam, at least none of mine do, so that would be a good clue something is terribly wrong.

coalbed
August 26, 2012, 12:09 AM
Here is Clark again http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=printthread&Board=13&main=101595&type=thread and here, http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?69456-CZ-52-vs-TT-33 these are just his postings probable 100 references to his data. Tell you what, Ill give $100 for your vz-cz52 if you dont think its strong enough to fire.

barnbwt
August 26, 2012, 09:52 PM
I also load this round, I keep them well within pressure limits. One reason I like the vz-cz52 over my tok is its very smooth shooting and accurate, and thats my goal in loading, accuracy. I even considered having dovetails milled in my favorite to use some of the fine 1911 sights.


I've done "machine work" (if you're being charitable :rolleyes:) on my slide to add a tenon front sight. You either have to really want that alteration, or be willing to pay extra to have someone else do it (I recommend the latter). The slide is about as hard as glass. I burned the tips out on two chrome-moly bits before trying a carbide bit. It took around 20lbs on the bit to get it to bite at all, and two carbide bits to get through, ultimately. The "shavings" were tiny sharp splinters, and in breaking sounded exactly like I was drilling glass. I think the biggest factor going against the CZ is metallurgy, moreso than mechanical design. If I had extra CZ's laying around that I didn't want, I'd want to test dropping some slides on a hard surface; that would be interesting.

you run a risk in every firearm using old surplus ammo from any country...cz52's dont jam, at least none of mine do, so that would be a good clue something is terribly wrong

Agreed. The only times I've had a FTF were from hammer follow (me hitting the decocker under recoil), and a dud. Each time, I carefully scrutinized the situation, since it was so uncommon for the gun to jam. I've probably put around 300 rounds through mine (S&B and Bulgarian(?) surplus), and only 2 failures. The last 2/3s are with the heavy 18(?)lb Wolff spring, which makes the slide cycle much less wonky. I'd wager that all documented milsurp kabooms were caused by squibs or the Bad Bulgy, and neither the CZ nor TT do well in those instances.

*crypt keeper* "Beware the 3-10-52 headstamp...":D

Im sorry but I just cant take the 42,000psi failure as gospel unless it comes from an accredited testing lab.

I agree with this as well. We have no idea of the history the *only* two pistols used in the test, and how they differ from the ones we own. Being only two "data" points, no statistical proof can be taken from this misadventure. The only thing I think it's useful for, is to show that overloading an already hot-rodded round is stupid. We all know not to put .357 mag in .38sp, and not to put .357max in a .357; why is it so unreasonable to expect the same from a CZ?

One of those "kabooms" posted is failure at the front of the slide, where, as I said, it is very brittle (probably fatigued from bad recoil spring). Another blew out the chamber, frame, and slide (am I really to expect a TT would be unphased?) The third was a guy reposting others' kabooms. All appear to be from "CZ vs TT" threads ;). None reportedly injured the shooter (despite blowing out at the bottom of the chamber).

Although there was this gem:

For some reason, each gun has something of a militant, cult-like following that irrationally bashes the other gun

Sounds like another small-caliber hot-rod round debate we all know about...I don't think it's wise to overload a 5.7x28 beyond spec, either, FWIW ;)

TCB

R.W.Dale
August 26, 2012, 10:04 PM
Ime there are three types of 7.62x25 owners

People whose only owned the cz

Tt33 only owners

And those like me whose owned both.

Its my observation that owners of both eventually become TT33 only shooters. And that cz52 owners will tend to become shooters of both given time progressing to the tokarev.

The cz52 is the x25 gateway drug. The tokarev is the "hard stuff"

;)

barnbwt
August 26, 2012, 10:21 PM
From one of the sites referenced:

TT-33 chamber at thinnest is .125"

CZ-52 chamber at thinnest is .058

Since .075" is the thickness of a S&W K-frame in .357mag (a more powerful, and larger diameter cartridge handgun with threads cut in the barrel. Measurement courtesy of RCmodel on another forum here), I'll go out on a limb and say the CZ-52 chamber is adequate for the cartridge. IIRC, .030" or so is all that's needed to contain just the pressure of a SAAMI .357.

Without knowing the strength allowables of the steels in either gun, or the affects of stress concentrators, the relative strength of both platforms cannot be known (just that the CZ-52 chamber fails first, based on limited experiments). Besides, any permanent plastic deformation in a gun is considered a failure; I believe Clark noted that the TT was stretching in some places at the hot load levels, just not rupturing. I'm still more interested in which gun fails fastest with proper-to-slightly hot ammo, and how.

Ime there are three types of 7.62x25 owners


You may be right, but where do you get a TT33 for 200$ (what I paid about 4 mos ago)? They're both fun guns, but hardly practical compared to more modern offerings, and as the prices rise, there is less and less incentive to muss with them (until some enterprising company puts out a Poly or Hi-Power chambered for 7.62x25). The CZ is probably the only toe I'll dip in the water, until my ammo dries up, and I can sell it for ~double what I paid (not too long now...)

PS-there's a fourth type: the PPSH owner, but I don't know much about them (very ellusive ;))

TCB

amd6547
August 26, 2012, 11:33 PM
I have owned both. The CZ I owned was a huge disappointment. The tokarev? A pistol I will never sell.

Scimmia
August 27, 2012, 12:05 AM
CZ-52 chamber at thinnest is .058

Since .075" is the thickness of a S&W K-frame in .357mag (a more powerful, and larger diameter cartridge handgun with threads cut in the barrel. Measurement courtesy of RCmodel on another forum here), I'll go out on a limb and say the CZ-52 chamber is adequate for the cartridge.

The 357 Mag might be more powerful and a larger caliber, but the only thing that matters is pressure. The pressure limit for 357 Mag is the same as for 7.62 Tok, and as you point out the chamber wall is nearly 30% thinner.

R.W.Dale
August 27, 2012, 12:08 AM
CZ-52 chamber at thinnest is .058

Since .075" is the thickness of a S&W K-frame in .357mag (a more powerful, and larger diameter cartridge handgun with threads cut in the barrel. Measurement courtesy of RCmodel on another forum here), I'll go out on a limb and say the CZ-52 chamber is adequate for the cartridge.

The 357 Mag might be more powerful and a larger caliber, but the only thing that matters is pressure. The pressure limit for 357 Mag is the same as for 7.62 Tok, and as you point out the chamber wall is nearly 30% thinner.


30% thinner and made from an unknown alloy too.

357,9x19 and 7.62x25 all operate at 35k psi


9mm +p actually has the highest pressure of the three at 38k psi

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 27, 2012, 01:35 AM
I think that the only reason why .357 SIG is included in the list is because it's a bottleneck cartridge. .357 SIG has ballistics that are near .357 magnum and is used as a general purpose round.

5.7x28 is more of a specialized round meant for mostly subguns for armor piercing.

7.62x25 I believe was made to standardize production with the Russians during war considering how most if not all arms that were standard issue were .30 caliber. Easy to make barrels for different guns if they all are the same bore size.

Never fired one or seen one fired in person but I hear that 7.62x25 has a heckuva muzzle blast and flash. :)

barnbwt
August 27, 2012, 11:49 PM
It's a heckuva fun round, FIVETWOSEVEN, it's just getting more expensive, with painfully little interest in modern development from industry. You should try to find an opportunity to shoot it sometime; It's got the flash, bang, and flat trajectory of a magnum loading, but fairly mild recoil; pretty much like a 327mag for autos.

It is weird how the Russians insisted everything be chambered in the same caliber, and that probably had more to do with stupid military stubborness than anything ("there never was, is, or will be any'ting better than the 7.62 caliber"). Considering the rifling and rest of the guns are all unique, a shared barrel inner diameter couldn't save that much labor, right? :scrutiny:

30% thinner and made from an unknown alloy too.


Like I said, given the numerous known issues of metallurgy in the CZ, I think the alloy strength/brittleness is probably more of a limiting factor than the design itself. Bear in mind that a revolver barrel (S&W especially) has to be considerably beefed up to have threads cut in it, take the added stress of torquing crush-threads, and impacts of bullets on the forcing cones. One of the niceties of semi-autos is they are exempt from all three of those issues. Not saying the CZ is weaker than the TT, just that it isn't underdesigned (and dangerous).

The 357 Mag might be more powerful and a larger caliber, but the only thing that matters is pressure.

The larger bore absolutely matters. The formula for hoop stress in a thin ring (a bad approximation for a relatively thick, complicated shape like the chamber, but the general relation of the factors to stress is the same) is:

F=PR/T

R/T for the CZ is: 5.31 (.308/.058)
R/T for the K-frame is: 4.76 (.357/.075)

The hoop force developed in the K-frame is effectively 10% lower than the CZ. The stress (more important factor) relation can't really be guessed since we don't know the alloy (or consistency) of the CZ. For all we know, the CZ alloy may be stronger than the S&W, but more brittle, and prone to "spectacular" failure. And like I said, the above formula is innaccurate for this case. You'd need to do FEM (and strain-guage testing) to know for sure. But the question is more complicated than a simple direct relationship between chamber thickness and rupture strength, and the difference between a known "safe design" and the "unknown" CZ is probably a lot less than we think. That the TT is obviously very overbuilt has nothing to do with whether the CZ is safe (since we've established the TT is capable of handling hotter loads in a single firing).

Sorry for the stress-analysis diatribe, but I'm in the middle of napkin-calculations on my own mad scientist project :evil:

TCB

TennJed
August 28, 2012, 12:06 AM
do why wouldn't you just buy a new gun in 9mm, 5.7 or 357 Sig?

You gave me a great idea. Leasing guns. Instead of dropping $500 on that new glock you can take one home for low monthly payments and just bring it back when the new gen models come out. Never be stuck with an outdated gun again.*****

******Offer excludes tax, title, and background check. Not available in Cali, D.C., NYC, or Chicago. Void where prohibited. Annual round fire rate of 100 rounds, $0.10 a round due when lease ends.

blindhari
August 28, 2012, 12:17 AM
The original post was the attraction of the 7.62 x 25 Tokarev round. I was a guest in Hungary in 1968 and watched a Red Army team demo the Russian Tokarev and ammo. If you would have been there, you would know why I own a Tokarev and not a 1911 pistol.

You just had to be there I guess is the reason,

blindhari

dcarch
August 28, 2012, 01:16 AM
I have always personally wondered what the firearms world would be like if a similar cottage industry had sprung up for the Tokarev as for the 1911. It's an interesting mental exercise, for sure. Anyone want to imagine a "enhanced" TT-33?

DrDeFab
August 28, 2012, 01:37 AM
You may be right, but where do you get a TT33 for 200$...?
Here -> http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfmitem_id=100000100&dir=700|1012|1027

OK, it's an M57, not a TT33, but after having worked on 3 CZ52's (...for a friend. Cleaned the cosmo out, replaced firing pins in all three, rollers on one, and the auxilliary trigger, a.k.a. decocker, on one.) I bought an M57.

I'm happy with the choice. The CZ52 isn't a bad pistol, but for roughly the same price, in similar condition, the M57 is a lot better.

coalbed
August 28, 2012, 02:04 AM
Id love to see someone make a modern version of either, high cap widebody with good sights and a rail, this round seems to have more of a following than most would think. Im really kind of suprised a small shop at least hasnt built one, even a custom just for curiosity sake.

coalbed
August 28, 2012, 02:08 AM
A quick note on loading over length rounds, it definately does increase pressure to load a bullet right up to the lands. This is another big reloading no-no.

7.62 Nato
August 28, 2012, 10:05 PM
@DrDeFab,

Here -> http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.c...=700|1012|1027

Link not working.

DrDeFab
August 28, 2012, 10:41 PM
Link not working.

Sorry, looks like the forum software didn't like that. This one works for me:
http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=100000100

coalbed
August 29, 2012, 11:27 PM
You guys that own the m57, what are the differences between it and the standard tt-33?

Scimmia
August 30, 2012, 12:11 AM
You guys that own the m57, what are the differences between it and the standard tt-33?

The obvious one is the longer grip/magazine. The M57 also has a different style safety than most of the other imported TT-33 clones, plus it has a mag safety. They also use a captured recoil spring with a full length guide rod.

voicomp
September 2, 2012, 12:32 AM
delete

voicomp
September 2, 2012, 01:18 AM
YMMV but, as far as Cz-52 goes, here is a nutshell of my experinces trying to reload Tok cartridges for it, etc.:

500-ish rounds of 50-60 year old milsurp from various countries seemed to work OK with about one dud every three or four mags and about 1/3 to 1/2 of casings showing vertial split at neck/shoulder (but never a FTE).

Winchester white box (reputed to be in the neighborhood of 1550 fps w/ 85 gr FMJ) is attention getting recoil and muzzle blast. Resized .32 ACP 71 gr FMJ over about 10.5 of #7 will give you 250 fps or more better. 8.5 gr of #7 under 71 gr plated (.32 ACP slugs) had some feed problems and some stovepiping.

Supposedly, the .223 Timbs (a Tok round loaded w/ a .30 sabot and a short/light .223 slug can get to 2200 or 2300) but when I tried to make some, I had trouble getting workable OAL, trouble getting reliable feeding (sabot seemed to expand case neck diameter) etc. Eventually, I decided I really didn't want to have file sabots to be skinny enough to feed well so I made a few that were too long for the magazine (beacuse of the ballistic tip, which won't be prematurely engaging rifling if loaded as your one up the pipe).

Next time I get somewhere I can use my Chrony, I have a few resized .32 ACP --> .308 60 gr JHP's sitting on 10.7 of #7 to clock :)

Case life, for me, is three category: new, once fired and other. New is new and I will load at/near the top of the charts. Once fired, I hold to a max of about 5% under maxload. Other I keep even lower than once fired. Go too low and you won't cycle the action; sometimes even what I have seen as low end on published data cycles unreliably.

With modern casings I have more problems finding them than with them breaking, splitting, etc.

FWIW, since I am reloading for more than one firearm of the same caliber, I also resize the the "fat" part of the case with a 9mm sizing die (much like I and others use a .40 die for the fat part of a .357 sig case)....

... and, at least with a CZ-52, people in the next county will be dodging your spent brass. Seriously, I was cranking mine up at the range the other day and a senior club memeber came up and said "what the hell is that?" based on the casings bouncing off the carpeted wall separating shooting stations at about 7 or 8 ' altitude (from a weapon fired at about 5' off the ground) continuing upwards but moving L instead of R and then ending up hitting a wall behind and to my left by about 20' (while still at torso height).

My understanding is that in many places in the Far East, a question often asked about body armor is not "will it stop a .44 mag?" but rather "is it Tokarev tested?"

I am looking for an affordable M-57 and TT-33but havent tumbled over either since I decided I wanted them.

Clark
September 2, 2012, 05:10 AM
I have a Tokarev reamer

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15111&d=1089827190

I put a Parker Hale 308 sniper trainer barrel on a Tokarev. I cut off the rear of the barrel and then reamed it out to 7.62x25mm.


I put a Rem 721 30-06 barrel on a 1903 Turkish Mauser. Again, I cut off the rear of the barrel and then reamed it out to 7.62x25mm.

And I have Tokarevs, CZ52s, and one C96 broomhandle Mauser.
I have Remling's book on Tokarevs. That is harder to find than a Russian bring back Tokarev.

coalbed
September 3, 2012, 03:27 AM
How did you attach that scope mount to the top Clark? And are you "the" Clark, the one that blew up the cz52?

Clark
September 3, 2012, 01:42 PM
I drilled and tapped the barrel.
The scope mount is two piece. The bottom part I made. The top part is an AR15 riser.
I can mill out Weaver rails, but it is more work than filling each little square on a waffle with syrup.

Here is a brief CZ52 synopsis:
I got a letter from Ted Curtis at AA in 2000 with the loads.
He was a really old ballistician that helped get Hodgdon started.
I blew up a couple CZ52s in 2000.
Then in 2000 AA published their load book number two, containing the loads in the letter.
Lots of other CZ52s blew up over the years.
I pointed out at the chambers of the CZ52 were too thin, and the quality control on the steel was horrible.
I stated that the load books were wrong, and that Tokarevs are stronger than CZ52s, from both an engineering point of view, and verified empirically.
I was almost flamed off the internet, but I stuck to my story and gained some allies.
Johan Loubser, Ballistic Lab manager, at AA revised their loads
a) The hot load from 2000: 11.7 gr AA#9 41,800 c.u.p 1688 fps
b) The wimpy load from 2005 8.5 gr AA#9, 34270 psi, 1248 fps

I pointed out that Quickload sees the revision differently, from 63,866 psi
down to 22,953 psi.

AA took down all CZ52 loads and AA was sold to Hodgdon.
The end

coalbed
September 3, 2012, 07:32 PM
I guess you have read some of the questions about the methods used in the testing of the pistols and loads used on this thread. Would you mind going through some of them, so this forum has more of the facts? I mean everywhere you go on the internet your test is quoted out of hand. I have no desire to flame you, but I would like to better understand. Do you consider the cz-vz52 unsafe to fire with the normal ammo it was designed for, or are you just stating the tokarev design is stronger?

coalbed
September 3, 2012, 07:41 PM
Voicomp, I had alot better luck using the short. 22hornet bullets with the sabots. I ran into the same problems with the. 223. It seemed to function fairly well with a heavy crimp and trimming the excess sabot plastic off from around the neck with a exacto knife. The extra plastic kinda flairs out and hangs on things.

Shadow 7D
September 3, 2012, 08:10 PM
No, the issue is pressure, it was designed to withstand the pressure of the round it was designed for. The issue come from twofold, poor QC on combloc ammo, and bad poop like the hot load Clark described. Toks withstood the hotload better, but if you got back 2? pages there was a discussion of which would have a longer overall life (fed properly) and not suffer a WEAR (fatigue failure) instead of a catastrophic overload.

coalbed
September 3, 2012, 09:34 PM
Gee here I thought I was asking Clark, seeing how hes now on the thread.

OilyPablo
September 3, 2012, 09:45 PM
I have a Polish Tokarev. Frankly, the ammo is better than the gun. That said, I love shooting the thing, the sights pretty much suck for such a flat shooting cartridge that is all about 50 yards with ease.

Clark
September 4, 2012, 02:20 AM
There are two separate problems:
1) What is wrong with the CZ52 design and manufacture?
2) How did the gun culture publish over and over the notion that the CZ52 is stronger than the Tokarev.

1) The first one is easier; sometimes bad steel [we tested RC25 to RC47 at JPL on their machine with a dozen CZ52 barrels], always thin steel [ ~ .060" thick where they made the relief cut on the bottom for the rollers].
It is not the thinnest semi auto chamber wall. That honor has been taken away from the CZ52 by the Kel-Tec P3AT. But the P3AT has something like RC47 and is consistent, and the case support in a P3AT is so poor than nothing like 7.62x25mm pressure is going to happen in there. The P3AT chamber is also a little smaller, and hoop stress is proportional to inside diameter.

2) The gun culture is more complicated. I will write a little, but I have details that go on and on and waste your time.

It seems to have started in the early 1970s when a consultant to the army wrote a paper for them about the CZ52, without having one to test.
(FSTC-CW-07-03-70), page 211, Table XI, Cartridge Data and Color Codes, in reference to 7.62 x 25 mm pistol ball type P;
"Do not use Czechoslovak-made ammunition in TT-33 pistols."

What seemed to confuse AA was that the Russian Tokarev ammo was low pressure, but all the other com block countries that built Tokarevs and made Tokarev ammo used the same pressure 42 kcup. As did the Czechs, 42kcup with their CZ52s.
They saw the CZ52 roller blocks, thought it is strong action. They saw the Russian low pressure ammo, and somehow think that the CZ52 must be stronger than the Tokarev.
AA could measure pressure and make joke, but they did not completely analyze the situation:
"This in spite of the "tribal lore" regarding this particular handgun and the ammo loaded for it claiming that shooting Czech ammo in any other firearm so chambered will causes spontaneous disassembly. The pressure data produced by the ammo tested certainly doesn't support this theory."
They contributed a little more to tribal lore.

When I wrote to both Sierra and when I wrote to Dr Jan Libourel of Guns magazine and ask them where they got the notion that the CZ52 was stronger than the Tokarev, both gave the same answer, "We just repeated what we read."

I was an engineer on a team in 1984 where a component was blowing up on jet fighters. There were three of us, including a physicist and a chemist. We had huge labs, schedules and budgets to get to the bottom of the question. We could not touch parts under test, because of the mass of our finger prints. Nowhere in the gun culture are there resources like that. So we do the best we can with gun culture folk lore.

coalbed
September 4, 2012, 08:43 PM
I've still got a bit of the czech subgun ammo, and while it seems fairly warm, it doesnt seem near as hot as the polish surplus. I havent chronographed it however, just going by recoil and muzzle flash. I agree that the army posting is probably where the rumors started. That being said, I still like shooting the vz better than the tokarev. It seems smoother running and faster back on target. The thinness of the chamber is known issue, as is the thinness of the slide around the rollers. The chamber is also not as deep as the tokarev and overlength rounds would really add pressure. Do you have a link to read the testing you carried out, I for one am interested in the details and it doesnt bore me one bit

Carl N. Brown
September 4, 2012, 09:06 PM
If it is Czech M48 it is not Czech SMG ammo: it is Czech 7.62x25mm SMG and pistol ammo.

The only thing SMG about Czech M48 is if it is preloaded in 8 shot stripper clips for the Czech 7.62 SMG. (Czech SMG were chambered for 7.62x25 first, then they developed the pistol to use the same M48 load.) Otherwise Czech SMGs and pistols in 7.62x25 are made for the same M48 round.

What makes the CZ vz52 pistol suitable for the M48 load is the fact that the slide and the recoil spring are heavy.

I would like to add: The idea of different loads for pistol v SMG was planted by the Italians inWWII. The Italians had three different types of 9mm ammo all on the 9x19mm Luger case: light 9mm Glisenti, standard 9mm Parabellum and heavy 9mm M38 for the Beretta 38A submachine gun. It did not work out well for their supply system in WWII. It is also clear from WHB Smith "Small Arms of the World" 1966 neither the Russians nor the Czechs had different loads for pistol or submachine gun. The Russian 7.62 submachine guns were adapted to use their standard pistol round. The Czech 7.62 pistols were adapted to use their standard submachinegun round.

Robbins290
September 4, 2012, 09:17 PM
i put 2 cases of the "smg" ammo thru one vz52. never had a issue.

anybody can make any handgun blow up by making hand loads. i dont listen do what people say about guns blowing up. saying a gun is weaker then the other buy over charging loads is like saying this snow mobile is better then that one couse it goes further down pavement in summer before it overheats.

Clark
September 4, 2012, 10:09 PM
I got some surplus Czech ammo on strippers in ~ 1999.
It chronographs at 1550, in the 80% that are not duds.

Polish Tokarev ammo chronographs between 1450 and 1550, but the all go off.

barnbwt
September 4, 2012, 10:52 PM
What makes the CZ vz52 pistol suitable for the M48 load is the fact that the slide and the recoil spring are heavy.


I'll second that; mine's not apart anymore, but I recall the slide sans barrel was heavier than just about the entire rest of the gun. I also had to put the 18lb spring from Wolf in to tame the slide battering (it was also taking near 1/8second to cycle :barf:).

Clark, correct me if I misinterpret, but it seems the most important issue you had with the CZ52 was that the incorrect assertion of it's superior strength led to unsafe load reccomendations, no? That seems to be more a problem with the load manual guys than with the gun itself, which (as you demonstrated) can safely handle properly loaded (and even significantly overloaded) ammunition; just not to as extreme a degree as the Tokarev. It would be equally wrong and equally dangerous to publish overloads for the Tokarev "because it's so strong"

I just disagree with guys who seem to bash the CZ as an unsafe design based on out-of-hand summaries of your careful research. It seems that your experiment shows, if anything, that both guns, in proper shape, are well prepared to deal with any likely overpressure situations due to typical varience of milsurp. That one eventually fails sooner does not make it necessarily an unsafe build. Now, if the hardness differences you observed make or break the safety margin, that's something to check on, since hardness is easily tested. But the impact of quality control wasn't really measured (only two guns were tested), so we don't really know if those factors reduce the pressure capacity to dangerous levels.

At any rate, this argument is now moot for me, since I just scored a 9mm CZ barrel assembly (the rarest of all game ;)). I'll be sure to let ya'll know which is funner to shoot :rolleyes:. I'd still sell my shirt for a CX4 in 7.62tok, though :evil:.

TCB

I got some surplus Czech ammo on strippers in ~ 1999.
It chronographs at 1550, in the 80% that are not duds.


Yargh, that's good to know, since that stuff commands a premium due to its rarity. I had been contemplating searching some out--until now :(

coalbed
September 4, 2012, 11:30 PM
Carl I understand they used it in both, it is usually referenced as subgun ammo because of the way its packaged.

coalbed
September 4, 2012, 11:38 PM
This is my last post on this thread, Clark I hope you post a link on your test, I really would like to read it. Other than that, there is little new information here and Im not going to hang around for the ones sitting around waiting on a small misphrase or technicality to pounce on so they can stoke their egos. ps. all my m48 ammo fired just fine.

Clark
September 5, 2012, 02:02 AM
barnbwt
Clark, correct me if I misinterpret, but it seems the most important issue you had with the CZ52 was that the incorrect assertion of it's superior strength led to unsafe load reccomendations, no?

I think you are conflating the two issues I named:
1) CZ52 has thin chamber walls and widely varying steel strength.
2) The gun culture published many times, erroneously, that the CZ52 is stronger that the Tokarev.

I will try to speculate and list some of the possible mistakes made surrounding the CZ52:
1) The Russians were building Tokarevs in 1930 and by 1951 were setting up factories to build the tried and true Tokarevs in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and China. Why should the Czechs develop a new pistol with no real advantages?
2) The very thin chamber was probably a late change to the design without re testing. The proof testing was done, but later the rollers were unreliable. So the rollers were made taller and more material had to be removed from the barrel to make room.
3) The barrel alloy and/or heat treat was an out of control process.
4) The CZ52 pistols were imported into the US with no real history of proof testing each pistol, and sold as the cheapest pistol for sale in the US.
5) The report for the US army in 1971 formed erroneous conclusions about CZ52 ammo and Tokarevs.
6) AA, Sierra, and Gunworld magazine repeated the error sold to the army, while Hornady and American Rifleman hinted at it.
7) AA tested surplus Tokarev ammo from China, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic as well as current commercial ammo produced by Sellier & Bellot and found it all to be 42kcup. Yet they somehow then concluded that 42kcup was too much for Tokarevs, and only the CZ52 was up to it, and published 42kcup data developed in a test barrel. Meanwhile CZ52s have extremely tight chambers.
8) When CZ52s blew up frequently [someone was injured at the range nearest my home when a CZ52 blew up while firing surplus ammo]. AA then came out with damage control and reduced the loads to C96 broom handle loads that had been published in the US for a long time. They were not truthful about the changes.

What mistakes did I make?
1) In 2000 I had just started handloading and was trying to blow up guns or see how much power I could squeeze out of them. I guessed that all semi auto handguns were designed much stronger than the brass, and I could just work up loads, while checking for pressure sign on the brass at ~~50% extra powder. I was surprised with CZ52 "unscheduled disassembles" as my gun designing father used to call them, at ~3% extra powder.
2) I took pictures and sent them to other engineers. I did not realize until it was pointed out to me that the failure was along the very thin bottom of the chambers over the roller relief cut.
3) I just started posting everything on forums with an air sensationalism. Look what I did and look what happened. Much of people's reaction has to do with the presentation. Oy vey, did I get flamed by CZ52 owners for being crazy and dangerous.

Fastcast
September 5, 2012, 10:05 AM
Yes, the 52 has a tight chamber, like most Czech pistols....I'd also goes as far as to say the cheap surplus ammo is dangerously out of spec, OAL is all over the place. Some so far over OAL, my 52 isn't even close to going into battery. Of the 1-1000 round span can I bought, I gave close to 1/2 of it away, after measuring OAL, to my buddy who shoots it in his sloppy, inaccurate Tok. The rest, that was in spec, I shot through my 52 with no problems, no malfunctions and no shrapnel.

These days I've been running lots of S&B, never a malfunction of any kind, the difference in accuracy and consistency with the S&B is like night and day compared to the junk surplus. My 52 shoots like a laser beam @ 50yd with the S&B! :evil:

If you're not running out of spec surplus or overloading charges with the intentions to purposely blow things up and simply running quality ammo that's within the proper specs of 7.62x25....I'll venture to say, your CZ52 will not blow up.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/fastcast/CZ52-1.jpg

Clark
September 5, 2012, 10:59 AM
Fastcast

Yes, the 52 has a tight chamber, like most Czech pistols....I'd also goes as far as to say the cheap surplus ammo is dangerously out of spec, OAL is all over the place. Some so far over OAL, my 52 isn't even close to going into battery. Of the 1-1000 round span can I bought, I gave close to 1/2 of it away, after measuring OAL, to my buddy who shoots it in his sloppy, inaccurate Tok. The rest, that was in spec, I shot through my 52 with no problems, no malfunctions and no shrapnel.

These days I've been running lots of S&B, never a malfunction of any kind, the difference in accuracy and consistency with the S&B is like night and day compared to the junk surplus. My 52 shoots like a laser beam @ 50yd with the S&B!

If you're not running out of spec surplus or overloading charges with the intentions to purposely blow things up and simply running quality ammo that's within the proper specs of 7.62x25....I'll venture to say, your CZ52 will not blow up.


I disagree.

Surplus Tokarev ammo from four countries tested +/- 1% pressure consistency.
Twelve CZ52 barrels tested +/- 37% strength consistency.

If you own a CZ52 that has not blown up with much shooting, it probably will not. But that anecdotal evidence is not predictive of other CZ52 barrels.

wlewisiii
September 5, 2012, 01:19 PM
Interesting thread.

I've always been fascinated by the CZ-52 and it's been on my "wish list" for a long time. After reading this, however, I think that I'll simply stick to my Mauser pistols; especially my C96 that's in for an overhaul right now. I've several hundred rounds of Prvi Partisan 7.63 Mauser and when it's gone I'll reload that brass to appropriate pressures instead of worrying about the CZ & Tokarev.

Thanks!

Fastcast
September 5, 2012, 02:11 PM
Surplus Tokarev ammo from four countries tested +/- 1% pressure consistency.
Twelve CZ52 barrels tested +/- 37% strength consistency.



Of course I didn't test pressure, just measured OAL and it was all over the place, with many in excess of 1.38.. what I recall to be 1982 Romanian. Which at the time I purchased, many were touting it to be some of the best surplus available. Sorry, it's crap, let me repeat that again, crap :rolleyes:....Compared to past "surplus" purchases of 30/06 & 30 Carbine and certainly crap compared to the commercial S&B 7.62x25

Wouldn't a cartridge that exceeds recommended OAL slammed into a tight/short chambered CZ52 create more pressure than normal?

JohnKSa
September 5, 2012, 11:23 PM
If you own a CZ52 that has not blown up with much shooting, it probably will not. But that anecdotal evidence is not predictive of other CZ52 barrels.Clark,

In a thread from some years ago, you indicated that you believed CZ52 pistols were safe to shoot with standard pressure loadings. Yes the CZ52 is fine as far as I know with factory ammo.
All this talk is over some academic strength hierarchy that only matters to a few people.
...
This has nothing to do with your CZ52.
You are ok.
You can shoot factory ammo and book loads.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=398296&highlight=academic+strength+hierarchy#post398296

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=402310&postcount=44

Are you now stating that you believe that shooting any "untried" CZ52 with any ammunition is creating a significant potential for a catastrophic incident?

Clark
September 6, 2012, 07:41 PM
JohnKSa
In a thread from some years ago, you indicated that you believed CZ52 pistols were safe to shoot with standard pressure loadings.

Those quotes were from 2003, when all I had to go on were the thresholds of the two CZ52s I blew up in 2000.
We did not test the dozen CZ52 barrels on the JPL RC hardness tester until 2005.

Like a politicain, my policy has evolved:)

Call up Sierra and read their book to them and ask them if they still think that CZ52s are stronger than Tokarevs.

The more we all learn about CZ52s, the worse it gets.
We now know that some CZ52s can take a lot, and like 1903 Springfields, some are not safe to shoot.
And for the same reason... bad steel.

JohnKSa
September 7, 2012, 01:00 AM
I realize, in retrospect, that the post looks like I'm trying to trip you up.

I meant it at face value. I had dismissed the issue based on your earlier posts. If you have re-evaluated the situation based on new information, I would be interested to know.

It's one thing to discuss the relative strength of two pistols when subjected to overloads, it's another thing entirely to state that a particular type of pistol is potentially dangerous even with factory ammunition and generally acceptable surplus.

Is it now your position that the CZ52 falls into that category?

What precautions would you take if you had a CZ52 and wished to shoot it?

LAK
September 7, 2012, 05:19 PM
Very good penetration performance on hard materials and low recoil. That's about it. Do not recall reading any accounts, WW2 or after, that complain of "poor stopping power" either.

barnbwt
September 7, 2012, 10:27 PM
Do not recall reading any accounts, WW2 or after, that complain of "poor stopping power" either.

Funny, seeing as it sits just under the "mediocre" .30 carbine...;)

Most complaints you'll hear about the round are based in
-overpenetration
-small bullet diameter (really? .050" makes that much of a difference?:scrutiny:)
-weight

The first two are basically cured by modern bullet designs (i.e. not FMJ specifically designed for penetration) like the Wolf HP rounds, which I've heard expand (very reliably at Tokarev speeds) to around .5". Not too shabby considering tales of Hornady Critical Defense HPs failing to expand from .357's and 38 +P+. That leaves the weight deficit, which, like most bullets, is only properly made up for by going to a larger caliber. But considering that 110gr .357 is considered a defense load, 85gr at like speeds doesn't seem too far-fetched as an effective round. 7.62x25 can probably go heavier, but there is a piss-poor selection of factory bullets (especially complete cartridges) to choose from.

Supposedly,the Tok round performs well out of longer barrels, reaching +2000ft/sec (just like the .357). Too bad no one's willing to exploit this round in a modern design (well, unless you count the PPS-43 "pistol" as modern)

TCB

Shadow 7D
September 8, 2012, 03:41 AM
Um, they do, go to midway or brownells and buy a X25 upper.

Carl N. Brown
September 8, 2012, 11:08 AM
Too bad no one's willing to exploit this round in a modern design....

One of the local gun shops had a pair of Sterling semi-auto carbines in 7.62x25 with 16" barrels. Built on Sterling SMG kits but show about about 8" bare barrel in front of the receiver; the SMG:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Sterling_SMG.JPG/800px-Sterling_SMG.JPG

barnbwt
September 8, 2012, 06:59 PM
Um, they do, go to midway or brownells and buy a X25 upper.

Putting aside the "AR being the solution to everything" thing (since I don't yet have an AR :o), this is a kind of a poor option since the upper alone is north of 700$ (only found one on Gunbroker, too), making it more expensive than an entire .223 rifle. Humorously marketed to shoot "cheap surplus ammo" (must be an old add).

Does anyone make "blank" uppers, that don't yet have the chamber or bolt-face machined for a particular cartridge, that you could have a smith finish out for any one chambering of a particular caliber?

Again, we come back to the "what's the point" thead topic :(

If it's not possible to make a locking-breech firearm for less than an AR in .223, I suppose there isn't one. But considering how overbuilt the AR system is for something Tok-sized/pressurized, it seems like there should be a lighter carbine design possible that could even cost less. I think it's a good idea because (like all magnum loadings) the Tokarev round performs much better from full-length barrels. It and the 10mm are two rounds that seem to be almost better suited for carbine/sub-gun use than handguns.

One of the local gun shops had a pair of Sterling semi-auto carbines in 7.62x25 with 16" barrels
I've heard of very mixed results with Sterling pistols, except for the Tok, which is really hard to misfeed (issues are probably due to mags, anyway, though). The only Sterling I've held (9mm, I think) was a tank, and that mag was really wacky to handle. Aren't they simple blow-backs, too? They're fun, but hardly modern, or handy. I'm thinking more along the lines of a Beretta Storm (locking breech, though).

TCB

Shadow 7D
September 8, 2012, 07:03 PM
you buy the upper (stripped), you buy the barrel and you use a .233 (5.56) bolt face set up for blowback, or a 9mm bolt. I'm taking a rough guess you have no idea about the AR platform.

NG VI
September 8, 2012, 08:27 PM
The first two are basically cured by modern bullet designs (i.e. not FMJ specifically designed for penetration) like the Wolf HP rounds, which I've heard expand (very reliably at Tokarev speeds) to around .5". Not too shabby considering tales of Hornady Critical Defense HPs failing to expand from .357's and 38 +P+. That leaves the weight deficit, which, like most bullets, is only properly made up for by going to a larger caliber. But considering that 110gr .357 is considered a defense load, 85gr at like speeds doesn't seem too far-fetched as an effective round. 7.62x25 can probably go heavier, but there is a piss-poor selection of factory bullets (especially complete cartridges) to choose from.

You're referencing absolutely abysmal loads to use as performance benchmarks. The Critical Defense doesn't just fail to expand (your words, I'm not sure about it) it shows very poor expansion (by design) poor penetration (also by design) and that's partly because of the way the bullet was designed, and partly because of Hornady's decision to go light and slow for each caliber they released it in.

110 grain .357 Magnum is nobody's favorite, the 125 loads don't exactly have a velocity deficit and are already about as light as I'd want to go in a .355-.357 bore. 110 gets you reduced penetration, and reduced maximum expansion and less material to fragment if that is what you want out of the bullet.

Personally I'd want more than .5" of expansion from a fully loaded service pistol caliber, even one that started at .312".

barnbwt
September 8, 2012, 10:37 PM
You're referencing absolutely abysmal loads to use as performance benchmarks. The Critical Defense doesn't just fail to expand (your words, I'm not sure about it) it shows very poor expansion (by design) poor penetration (also by design) and that's partly because of the way the bullet was designed, and partly because of Hornady's decision to go light and slow for each caliber they released it in.


I was simply comparing the Tok round to a commercially available low-range .357 loading that is supposedly capable for SD use. I never said the round competed with mid-to-normal range magnum, let alone full strength. For Pete's sake, the bullet's nearly half the size of a 168gr "standard" loading! As far as Hornady's supposed failings, just what I've heard a couple times (hence the word "tales" in my relation of that info. I'm pretty sure H's loudouts still work adequately, but maybe not as well as their other offerings).

But at the low end of the spectrum, they are closer than one might think. At the 327Mag portion of the ballistics spectrum, they are very close. But most folks aren't familiar with the Federal mag, so I referenced a load at the extreme bottom of the .357's capabilities. I also don't care for the 110gr loads, since my Al-Sc frame revolver doesn't appreciate all their gas-cutting, but apparently some people choose them.

All I know is how suprised I was to hear how well the Tok performs with even a modicum of modern bullet design helping it out. Especially in light of its "only being good for poking tiny holes" reputation. Just curious, how much more do duty-weight .357's expand to? If it's only .050" or so, it seems like the Tok is a bit more efficient given its lower recoil (if you're only paying attention to the first ~12" or so of penetration, of course). Of course, that's the same line the .327 fans have been saying for years ;)

I'd still love to hear from a reloader with experience how the Tok performs at various bullet weights as well (I've only seen stuff very near the 85gr military weight).

NG VI
September 8, 2012, 11:37 PM
the medium bores, loaded with any current graduating class bullet, will open up to .65-.75", for .40 they can pass .80" sometimes, and .45 can get about .90-.95" before penetration becomes an issue.

For the .355-.357 bullets, pretty much any decently designed and built JHP in it's intended velocity window will get to about .65 without any trouble at all, the HST and Ranger-T can break three quarters though.

What I really like about the .327 is that it's a new defense/trail cartridge, maybe the first new one in a long time, where the designers took pretty much all of what's desirable in this type of cartridge and figured out how to get it all. It's a little narrower than we're used to for a service-level cartridge, but that lets it deliver a good amount of velocity and sectional density at the same time, without a huge amount of recoil.

Tok's not bad, and it'll certainly work, especially with even poorly designed JHPs, but if I were choosing a caliber before choosing platform and load the 7.62 wouldn't even be on the list to consider.

LAK
September 10, 2012, 01:38 AM
barnbwt,

Agreed all, and I especially like the idea of a 7.62x25 carbine.

If you enjoyed reading about "7.62x25 what's the point?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!