7.62x25 what's the point?
- Thread starter Walking Dead
- Start date
- Status
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
You gotta understand, we had to beat the Russians
. Why, just using their ammo could have brought down our whole society . 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.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 ). 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
. The CZ looks fast.TCB
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,415
Not "pretty," but Muy Fuerte (or Rusky equivalent
That'd be очень сильный
pronouned Oh-chen Seel-nuy
if my Russian is still up to par.
Brockak47
Member
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
Member
Another cartridge as well
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.
Maybe it is the same thing with the .221 Remington Fireball relative to the new 5.7.
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.
Maybe it is the same thing with the .221 Remington Fireball relative to the new 5.7.
Robbins290
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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
Secondly VZ 52 is the RIFLE
CZ is the pistol
R.W.Dale
Member
Clark is an ELECTRICAL engineer.
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
"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.
"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
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
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
Last edited:
coalbed
Member
coalbed
Member
vz is the rifle?
vz stands for "vzor" which means "model". Do you always run down posters that are more knowledgeable than you?
vz stands for "vzor" which means "model". Do you always run down posters that are more knowledgeable than you?
Shadow 7D
Member
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.
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
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
That's why I'd bet on it
Thanks
. I really should have specified "Czesky" though...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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
Bob Bonillas
Member
OK,you all have convinced me and I will have to buy one and try it out!
Scimmia
Member
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
- Status
