Walking Dead
Member
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.
7.62x25 what's the point?
- Thread starter Walking Dead
- Start date
- Status
mgmorden
Member
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.
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.
Folks that like the round never knew 10x25 is available in 125gr loads?
AethelstanAegen
Member
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
member
Rips groundhogs with soft or HP bullets, like Hornady XTP's. A varmint autoloader, if you will.
xxxleafybugxxx
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 333
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
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,330
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.
Exactly. The 7.62x25 was made decades before the 5.7 round was even thought of.
R.W.Dale
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
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
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).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.
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
; trajectory and terminal performance-wise.TCB
jojo200517
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 580
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.
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
Member
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
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.
Shadow 7D
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 874
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!
lmao
Why buy any C&R gun when modern guns are available?
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!
- Status
