7.62x25 what's the point?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Clark said:

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

Click to expand...

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 ....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
In a thread from some years ago, you indicated that you believed CZ52 pistols were safe to shoot with standard pressure loadings.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Do not recall reading any accounts, WW2 or after, that complain of "poor stopping power" either.

Click to expand...

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?)
-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

Um, they do, go to midway or brownells and buy a X25 upper.

Too bad no one's willing to exploit this round in a modern design....

Click to expand...

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:

Um, they do, go to midway or brownells and buy a X25 upper.

Click to expand...

Putting aside the "AR being the solution to everything" thing (since I don't yet have an AR ), 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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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".

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

barnbwt,

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