Opinions on 7.62x25mm pistol and gelatin testing?

[Michael Zeleny]

-The few kabooms I have heard about were most likely due not to slightly hot loads, but some VERY hot loads such as sub machine gun ammo getting mixed up with some surplus ammo. Also there has been some very suspect combloc ammo that has caused kabooms and failures that may have been loaded hot due to lack of quality control, or maybe the way the chemicals reacted the pressure of the burning powder was many times normal.

Your hypotheses are of no consequence in considering the published results of Clark Magnuson's measurements, calculations, and experiments at overloading the VZ-52. If you want to be taken seriously, try supporting them with findings of fact.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

This weekend I fired two three shot groups with my cz52 that measured 2 1/4 inches at 50 yards.

Three shot groups are statistically inconclusive. It takes between five and six shot groups to get a rough idea of mechanical accuracy. As described here, military tests typically specify ten shot groups.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

OK. I will test out this cartridge in ballistic gelatin.

What I need :

1. A pistol in 7.62x25mm, hopefully the more common, cheaper kind that doesn't explode. It would be best to met me at a public range in my area (N. FL) for the test.

2. The reloading dies or the handloaded bullets. I would prefer to load these myself. I'm currently looking to shoot the Hornady 85gr and 100gr XTP bullets, so I would need those loaded over a sensible maximum charge.

3. Assurance that these tests would benefit someone . IE, I have tried from the beginning to test bullets that were commonly available to the 'average gun owner'. After all, the best ammo in the world is of no use to you, if it is not in your gun and the best way to get this to happen is to evaluate the stuff that can be bought 24/7 from the major retailers. Basically, I would like to know if the 7.62x25mm is your only gun, or that of someone that you know.

Thank you very much for the assistance so far.

JE223

 

[confed sailor]

wow, i guess i found a couple (3) good ones too.

parts replaced:
-machined firing pin
-new hardened aftermarket rollers
-Wolff spring set

tuning performed:
-stoned the sear surfaces (very very lightly)
-lighter sear spring
-liberal coat of NeoLube (graphite in isopropanol)

it shoots well, from a rest with my handloads it shoots "minute of person" @100 yds, and much better closer, naturally

i have another rechambered for 9mm largo, and its a shooter too.

I will admit the decocker scares the heck outa me, i.e. i dont use it. As for being overcomplicated, yes thats alot of machining. However, it strips down easier than a 1911 imho, and for reassembly its not nearly as aggravating as the little darn link thingy on a 1911.

oh and one more thing; Mike Z, calm down, your posts are starting to sound a bit petulant.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Your hypotheses are of no consequence in considering the published results of Clark Magnuson's measurements, calculations, and experiments at overloading the VZ-52. If you want to be taken seriously, try supporting them with findings of fact.

Pardon me? Hey, just because you see a low post count, don't think I'm a newbie by any means.
A hypothesis doesn't have findings of fact for if it did, it would be more than a hypothesis. If you will notice in my post I specifically clalrified it was nothing more than personal experience when I said "I have heard".
If I said it was a fact, then I would have at least been stronger in my declaration! The assumptions were mostly not my own, but from what I read by other people. The sub machine gun ammo was one of the suspicions.
There was a lot of discussion and posting of links about the CZ52 kabooms over on TheFiringLine nearly two years ago.

I have not read this Clark Magnuson's publication and on first hearing of it I am suspect. He no doubt has worked hard on it and is obviously much more learned about firearms and such than I am, but people like him have been wrong about their conclusions before.

 

[jon_in_wv]

First of all Mike Z. Saying the shooting two 2 1/4 inch groups back to back at 50 yards with a handgun is NOT indicitive of the accuracy of the weapon that fired it is silly and shows that you simply have a agenda here that has NOTHING to do with what the topic of this thread is supposed to be. What has ANYTHING you have posted have to do with with the propect of gelatin testing the 7.62 using the Tokarev or the CZ52?? You have successfully hijacked this thread and used it to bash anyone who has an opinion differing from your own. You say you don't have to take anyone seriously unless they can back up what they say but I haven't heard what qualifications you have that allow you to treat others as if thier opinions are so inferior to your own? You only site a few sources for your info. What expertise or experience do you have with the 7.62 and the CZ or Tokarev? Apparantly you can tell me that my CZ is not mechanically accurate without even firing it, you must have some expertise that we should hear about. Personally I think we should respect someones opinions unless I have some reason to discount it. Then it up to ME to provide info and ask them to provide some to back up what they said. Everyone isn't obligated to impress you just to speak thier mind.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

What expertise or experience do you have with the 7.62 and the CZ or Tokarev? Apparantly you can tell me that my CZ is not mechanically accurate without even firing it, you must have some expertise that we should hear about.

I am fully qualified to cite credible findings of fact. So is everyone else. In this thread, I have referenced measurements taken and experiments performed by other shooters. I reserve my personal opinions for personal acquaintances. When I see strangers purvey personal opinions in lieu of findings of fact, I point out their probative shortcomings. I make no claims about equipment owned and operated by anyone else. If your VZ-52 has a SAAMI-spec bore and chamber, you are welcome to publish their measurements. Likewise for statistically representative groups that you shoot out of it. But please bear in mind that your publications will not and cannot negate the published observations to the contrary, which I cited above.

 

[merpho]

Clark's data?

I went to the site you suggested. I do not pretent to know who Clark is but all he says about the CZ 52 is a merasurement of our walls and then realizes that has no bearing on the gun or its users. Am I missing something? Until I see something factual I will continue to use and shoot my CZ 52 happily.

 

[roscoe]

It would be nice of Clark to post so we can get the straight dope. He describes some CZ/VZ52 failures and it would be nice to know where they failed. Like I said, the only one I have seen online failed at the top of the chamber, and there have been a lot of people firing these things, some of them with pretty hot loads, like the .223 Timbs.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Looks like this one is going off-topic. My original question was about gelatin testing... not sure people are looking at the thread to follow an arguement between a few people.

 

[Deer Hunter]

Test it, JE223

I've been waiting for results on this round. I'd love to own a CZ52, and I can't wait to see some gel tests. Go for it.

 

[Justin]

I certainly won't dispute the accuracy of the gun. The examples that I've shot have all been uniformly accurate weapons, and flat-shooting enough to make hitting a target at distances out to 100 yards easy.

My problems lie with the mechanical and interface issues inherent to the weapon: faulty decockers, magazine construction, ergonomics, poor sights, and weak recoil springs that cause the roller-locking mechanism to batter itself apart.

Now, some of these issues can be alleviated through the installation of aftermarket parts or some basic gunsmithing. But it doesn't change the fact that all of these make the CZ52 a poor choice for a defensive or carry weapon.

I find Clark's arguments for why the gun is inherently weak to be dubious at best. Clark has made a name for himself on teh intertubes as the guy who loads stuff hot enough to cause catastrophic failure.

Quite frankly, I find his results to be both blatantly obvious (if you load ammunition past SAAMI spec you can cause a weapon to catastrophically fail) and utterly useless other than as an academic curiosity.

No one in their right mind would carry a gun loaded with ammuniton past SAAMI specifications which makes his argument moot.

But failure with extremely hot rounds that test the mechanical envelope of the weapon are hardly useful for the average person who will be shooting these pistols with either surplus ammunition (including submachinegun stuff) or the commercially available loads from manufacturers such as S&B.

As I've stated before, the CZ52 is a fun blaster to take to the range, but it is a historical relic, and offers no advantages over a modern pistol chambered in a cartridge that is readily available.

 

[roscoe]

Looks like this one is going off-topic. My original question was about gelatin testing... not sure people are looking at the thread to follow an arguement between a few people.

True enough, and I sure hope you do some gelatin testing, and that you include some of the commercially available ammo like the new Wolf hollowpoints, and the softpoint and hollowpoint stuff Reed loads, so we can know what we might have available if we don't handload.

But it sure has been an interesting airing of opinions on the CZ52. I still really want a 7.62x25 pistol, so it has been worth reading for me, even if there was a bit of pedantry.

 

[Cosmoline]

I really don't see the point of a JHP, though. The thing is known as a fast penetrator, with the bullet travelling at near rifle velocities, so I don't know if a JHP would even hold together or be effective...it is worth a shot, though. No pun intended.

It's a fast round, but not that fast. Sometimes folks get into jacket separation problems driving .312" handgun bullets into the 2,000 fps+ range out of actual rifles. But a bullet such as the XTP or Sportmaster should be fine out of a 7.62 Tok pistol.

 

[Justin]

And back to the original topic (thanks, Roscoe!) I would be interested to see the results of testing with ballistic gelatin.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I would love to see what some gold dots would do at that velocity. I would also like to see a comparison of the performance of the 7.62 and other com bloc ammo vs the american counterparts.

 

[silverlance]

no advantages over most modern SD guns? I think not!

The CZ-52 has its own place as a defensive firearm.

It fires an armor-piercing, high-velocity round with incredible accuracy over distances usually associated with rifles.

The CZ-52 is not a gun you would want to carry regularly as for most purposes there is no need to carry such a firearm. My p228 will do most of those jobs better than the CZ-52 can.

HOWEVER.

There may come a day when the bad guys will come wearing body armor, kevlar vests, and accompanied by light armor.

Suddenly, the p228 will be an inadequate weapon - and the CZ-52 will have its day. Buy a CZ-52 and a box or two of x25 today ensures that should that day come you will have a rifle velocity cartridge in a handgun package. And, at less than $250 for both the gun and 1224 rounds of ammunition, how can you go wrong?

Remember, the same logic that argues that the 7.62x25 is unecessary because "bad guys don't wear armor" is the same logic that argues that "you don't need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself".

 

[McCall911]

I'm interested too, JE223. (Great site, BTW. I check there regularly. Keep up the good work.)

It's your baby, so cook up the Jello and blast away!

 

[Manedwolf]

The CZ-52 has its own place as a defensive firearm.

It fires an armor-piercing, high-velocity round with incredible accuracy over distances usually associated with rifles.

So does the TT-33, the Browning-design semiauto. Did you not read the rest of the thread?

There may come a day when the bad guys will come wearing body armor, kevlar vests, and accompanied by light armor.

Suddenly, the p228 will be an inadequate weapon - and the CZ-52 will have its day.

Doubtful. The TT-33, maybe, and its Norinco clone that's still being made NEW. A fifty-year-old never-combat-proven range toy, no. And if it got that bad with criminals, that's what rifles are for. Or .223 pistols.

Expecting that the CZ-52 will "have its day" is a fantasy like people who think NASA might refly 1960's tech space capsules, haul them out of museums and send them up. No. It's not going to happen. So much has been learned in those fifty years. Just take it for what it is...it's a lot of fun at the range. Period. It's never going to be your pocket armored-criminal blaster.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

CZ52 is a pistol that was made in limited numbers
in 1952-1954, and has been dumped on the market
at rock-bottom prices. I have one which I use to
generate empty S&B casings to reload for my C96.

It is not a carry for primary self defense weapon.
It is a fun, historical range piece. Mine came with
holster with cleaning rod, two magazines. One magazine
was almost pristine, the other had been used as a
takedown tool and the floorplate was not only bent
but was too easily detached.

Unit-level repair kits for the CZ52 were rumored to be
several sets of grips, the U springs that attach the
grips, and some firing pins. Hardly anything else breaks.

In firing at a 3/8" swinging steel target I do notice
the 7.62x25 S&B leaves shallow craters, where .38 spl,
9x19mm and 45 ACP leave lead and copper smears.
I still feel S&B and most East European 7.62x25 Military
surplus ammo is too hot for the C96 Mauser pistol.

I notice we have drifted from 7.62x25mm pistol AND
gelatin testing to discussion of the 7.62x25mm cartridge
and value of -- quite frankly antique military -- pistols
for self defense.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

I still feel S&B and most East European 7.62x25 Military
surplus ammo is too hot for the C96 Mauser pistol.

How do you feel about the dimensionally, functionally, and metallurgically similar C-96 Mauser pistols withstanding the ballistics of 9x25mm Mauser Export?

I notice we have drifted from 7.62x25mm pistol AND
gelatin testing to discussion of the 7.62x25mm cartridge
and value of -- quite frankly antique military -- pistols
for self defense.

Tokarev TT-33 pistols are still used in combat. I cannot conceive of a coherent criterion of antiquity that would apply to them, but not to the their ancestral design, the M1911.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Thanks all for the nice replies and for keeping it on-topic. The problem of getting a hold of such a gun and the reloading equipment still stands.... I have plenty of gelatin powder now (thanks to a fellow THR member who donated), but still need the launcher and the 'launchee' for the test.

 

[Novus Collectus]

JE223,

If you do this test, then try shooting some Quality Cartridge 7.62x25 110 grn, round nose soft points in the gelatin to see if they expand properly.
I would send you some for testing, but I only have a few left and I plan on keeping them loaded in the CZ52 I would use for home defense.
Maybe try shooting some .223 Timbs in gelatin as well. (Quality Cartridge makes them too). If I still have some of those left, then I'd gladly send you some for the test. (The .223 Timbs I have are only for the CZ52 and would have feeding problems in the TT they say).

I chronoed them once and I forget exactly what I got and I didn't write it down since it was just done out of curiousity, but I vaguely remember getting about 1300 FPS for the 110 grn and over about 2000 FPS for the Timbs. It was a pain geting a reading on the Timbs because of the muzzle blast from maybe having chronometer too close so I have no idea how accurate that is even if my memory really is correct.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

I can test at least 5 different cartridges per pistol block. Problem is, I cannot throw the bullets fast enough to get them to expand, much less hit the block at the proper attitude to function. I need a gun and have no plans to spend $300+ dollars on a gelatin test that doesn't benefit me and lots of other people in a profound way.

I spent $325 of my money on the .50BMG Hornady test and Spider Firearms lent the equipment and one day of their time to get the test done, the cost of which I could only estimate in the low 1000USD vicinity. But, we came together to do the test because we both saw the value of public-sector knowledge of the terminal ballistic capability of such a weapons platform. This is kind of the case here, but I need THR members help to do it.

Thank you,

JE223

 

[R.W.Dale]

. The problem of getting a hold of such a gun and the reloading equipment still stands....

I'm going to reccomend just using fatory ammo for this test, Handloading for 7.62x25 can be a very specalized process quite diffrent from loading other handgun rounds. Largely due to the very tight throat relitive to the bore each handgun is almost a complete individual in this respect.

Here is a good topic with some great info on this subject.
http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=85884

some others

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=165988
http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=160703
http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=89905

If you were closer I would gladly lend you my 54-1 Norinco