Opinions on 7.62x25mm pistol and gelatin testing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It remains that the only known test of VZ-52 found it wanting in strength in comparison to the Tokarev TT-33 and the Mauser C96.
I don't doubt Clark's results a bit, but it's important not to read more into them than what's there. They tell you about when a gun will FAIL due to overpressure rounds. They don't necessarily tell you about the durability of a gun when used with ammunition that's within its design specifications. He has explicitly stated that he used overpressure handloads to get these pistols to fail and that he fires very few rounds through his test guns for obvious reasons. The result is that the application of his testing results don't really relate to anything a normal user is likely to encounter as he acknowledges in some quotes below.

Here are some comments from Clark's posts about the CZ52 and how his testing relates to normal use of the pistol:
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.​

Ok, here's what I'm talking about. If you take a typical lever rifle in .45-70 and shoot a bunch of really hot loads (not overloads) it will eventually shoot loose. It won't blow up, but things will start to loosen up. Parts will start to rattle and eventually you'll probably get some breakage.

Now, let's do the same test with a hypothetical bolt rifle in the same caliber and ammunition with very thin chamber walls that are, nonetheless constructed to tolerate normal operating pressures. The bolt won't shoot loose if the metallurgy is good--regardless of the amount of use. However, the thin chamber walls mean that if you start intentionally overloading the two guns, the bolt gun will certainly blow up first.

What would such an experiment teach us? Well, first of all, it would tell you that if you like all your appendages in their current configurations and wish your senses to keep operating normally, it's not wise to overload a gun with thin chamber walls. It would also teach us that the point at which a gun fails catastrophically from overloads is not necessarily a good measure of its durability when it is being used with ammunition that is within its design specifications.

For more understanding of the difference between catastrophic failure vs normal use durability, look at Clark's comparison of the .40S&W to the 10mm. He has found that he can overload the .40S&W to dramatically higher pressures and performance than he can the 10mm due to differences in the case design. Guess what sort of a practical application that has to real life? None. If you shoot loads in your .40S&W that far exceed 10mm performance, Clark's testing showing it's not likely to blow up will be a small consolation when the gun beats itself to death in relatively short order due to excessive slide velocity and tremendously exaggerated recoil. Clark admits that he has to "compose himself" after every shot with his test pistol in .40S&W.

As far as the roller locking action causing problems, to date the only problems I have heard of regarding the roller locking action had to do with aftermarket rollers that were not hardened properly.
How do you feel about the dimensionally, functionally, and metallurgically similar C-96 Mauser pistols withstanding the ballistics of 9x25mm Mauser Export?
I don't have any information to suggest that the comparison is relevant. As a counterexample to the implication of your comment, it's interesting to note that Beretta sells a .40S&W version of their 92 series pistol but does not sell (and recommends against converting to) a .357SIG model. While the two rounds are very similar in dimension and the guns would also be dimensionally and metallurgically identical, Beretta will not endorse the .357SIG's use in a converted Beretta .40S&W pistol citing unacceptably decreased service life as the reason.

As far as the ammunition difference between the .30 Mauser and the 7.62x25 goes, even assuming that the hot Czech ammo is a weblegend, there's clearly a 200fps or so difference between the typical loadings in this caliber. The 7.62x25 is typically around and above 1500fps while the .30 Mauser is typically closer to 1300fps. That SBP loading of the 30 Mauser in the link you provided is by far the hottest I've ever seen.

Here's what Clark has to say about the difference.
"The 30 Mauser and the 7.62x25mm Tokarev are the same [or so close to the same dimentionally, that the difference is lost in the tolerances] except for the pressures.

Tokarev ammo from Russia is at 30 Mauser pressures, but Tokarev ammo from Poland, Bulgaria, Rumainia, China, Austria, and the Czecks is 42kcup."​
Elsewhere he quotes Accurate Arms pressure measurements:
"...Russian ammo was
significantly below this pressure averaging 31,000 C.U.P
"​
Anyway you cut it, 11KCUP is a significant difference, and one that should not be ignored.

To throw another monkey wrench into the works, here's a quote from Mike Irwin posted some time ago on this forum:
Witnessed.
With my own two eyes.
Ammo coming out of sealed boxes with Czech markings.
Velocity out of the CZ was roughly 1660 fps. across the chronograph. The owner and several other shooters, myself included, put about 150 rounds of the Czech ammo through several 52s.
Another shooter brought out his TT-30 and loaded up with the same ammo.
2 magazines later, the gun was ruined with the barrel split and bulged the slide.
Since then I've also heard of at least two other cases of the same thing happening with TTs using Czech ammo.​
 
Last edited:
I have a great deal of respect for Mike Irwin and his word.
I probably learned more about guns from his posts over on TFL in just a few months than I learned in my life up to that point.
 
Personally, I woiuld rather have a TT-33 than a CZ52. Guess which one is cheaper though? Guess which one I have. Hmmmm. I'm sure if its russian couterparts are stronger, it doesn't mean that the CZ isn't strong snough. It is extremely accurate and has been very reliable. Also to be realistic, neither gun is a good replacement for a more modern firearm. I think its more viable to see what can be done with the ammo. I wouldn't be against converting a 9mm 1911 to 7.62x25 if the conversion was possible.
 
Why not use .303 caliber rifle to test.

I would be very interested in tests of the Tok round. You could simulate with light loads under the prospective bullets fired from 7.62x54R or .303 brit rifles if those were handy. I would think that a 90-110 grain HP or wide SP could be a very handy pill out of a T-33.

Sucessful tests might encourage me to get a Tok. and break out the Corbin tools to make up some FPs.

mike
 
I would be very interested in tests of the Tok round. You could simulate with light loads under the prospective bullets fired from 7.62x54R or .303 brit rifles if those were handy. I would think that a 90-110 grain HP or wide SP could be a very handy pill out of a T-33.
Quality Cartirdge has a loading of 110 grain SP in a 7.62x25 that is designed to be fired out of a CZ52.
 
I have some 1952 head stamped Czech ball for the 7.62x25 and it chronographed at an average of 1650 over 3 different machines that were at the range that day, one of which was an oehler being used by a rep for a custom commercial reloader.

I have talked to several former Czech armourer's and they said the greatest failing of the CZ52 was the magazines as they dropped floor plates and would eventually get battered out of shape due to the rounds moving under recoil inside the magazine. The firing pins were prone to breakage due to dry firing, which wasn't a concern in service, since they practiced with real ammunition.

The concern with pins and crappy trigger pull has been addressed by quality aftermarket parts.

Want to blow up any TT-33 russian or variant or the M96 mauser pistol, fire Czech service ball in them and shortly, you will have scrap metal.

The forte of the 7.62 TT round and variants is penetration, it was intended to function in a cold climate, where multiple layers and compositions of clothing would be worn in the winter and any bullet fired in anger would need to negotiate those multiple layers as well as any equipment that might be carried on the outside of body in the attempt to get to where one lived (so to speak)

The size makes it hard to conceal? it's the same size and weight more or less of the 1911 I carry on a regular basis. The sights are small, but then original sights on 1911's weren't all that great either. The heel type magazine release leaves alot to be desired, but practice can overcome it to a degree. trigger pull on mine is down to 4 lbs (courtesy of one of the Czech armourers).

It would not be my first choice for CCW, but I have carried it a time or two, when my 1911 was having work done and I didn't feel under gunned in the least.

Look forward to ballistic testing.
 
Here is my 'deal' on this thread. Someone in FL or GA who is willing to get together with me, at a public range, and wants to shoot their 7.62x25mm pistol into a block of ballistic gelatin, please reply.

I can tell that many people would like to see the results of this test, and I would like to see it as well. But, I can't justify buying another pistol at this time.

If you would like to help out your fellow THR members on this one, please let us know.

Thank you,

JE223
 
I just gotta pile on. I'll keep my story short and hope it doesn't contribute to thread drift. But I would really like to see some penitration tests on the the Tok round.
A couple of years ago it was qualification day for our dept. at the police range. We carry Baretta 92f's with 9mm ball. We also were wearing IIA body armor. There was some discussion about IIA vs.IIIA so we took a IIA vest that was near expiration date and mounted it on a target hangar and ran it out to 15 yards. This was a post qualification, unoficial "extra ammo burn up and body armor test" I fired first. I had brought my Polish 1949 Tok and some S&B ammo. Everyone was kidding me about using a C&R weapon with that small looking round.
I fired nine rounds. One in the tube and eight in the mag. All nine rounds penetrated the front trauma plate, and both front and back kevlar layers.
When we hauled the vest back to the firing line and dug out the slugs, no one said a word.
The next dept. order for body armor was for IIIA.
I only shoot S&B in that gun. I love my Tok and my Tok loves me.
Thanks for letting me share.:)
 
I have heard that the only way to properly test a vest is against clay or something like it because the way the Kevlar (and similar materials) works, it needs something behind it.
 
You are probably right. I have read that wax dummies are used and when viewing pics of vests that have been tested there is always some kind of support for the vest visible.
Our test was not scientifically proper. We had a vest that was about to go out of service date and got the ok from our Chief to see what would happen to our level IIA protection if it came into contact with projectiles. If we had asked for a proper test we would still be bogged down in red tape, defining standards, and protecting against liability. It was a spur of the moment "what if" test, nothing more.
I am not an expert on body armor. Our force wears what is issued. I could be wrong but I don't believe ballistic, kevlar needs a backstop to work properly. But if it does need support that is great because it means our vests will perform better than in the test. My original point was that the penetration of S&B 7.62x25 surprised folks and helped convince our Chief to spend the extra $$ for IIIA vests.
There is a ton of info on the subject of body armor. See link below.
Not trying to hijack the thread just wanted to pass on what I thought was an interesting anecdote on the Tok round's penetration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest
 
IIRC most manufacturer's of soft body armour list the 7.62x25 as a Class IIIA cartridge and recommend that level.

What makes the 7.62 so lethal is the small cross section of the bullet aided by high velocity and jacket design, internal composition can enhance the ability, but isn't always needed, when talking about soft armour, hard armour requires a slightly different approach.

Kevlar and other weaves of similar ballistic fabric, rely on the interwoven mesh to trap and entangle the bullet, but a bullet with a small cross section, can actually push itself between the strands and when driven at high velocity, penetrate many more layers than a larger bullet.

Tip design can also facilitate armour penetration, since if the weave of the fabric can be pushed aside by a sharp almost ice pick style tip, the bulk of the bullet will follow.

Reason why they make vest's for institutions that are stab resistant, a regular issue vest (II, IIA, IIIA) without hard armour inserts will not stop an ice pick or improvised stabbing weapon, because it has a small enough cross section to slide between the fibres and push them aside without getting tangled.

As far as the improvised test's, I imagine even on a suitable testing backstop (clay is used to determine blunt force trauma depth) that the 7.62X25 round would have penetrated the front of the vest. Casting a ballistic gelatin torso using thin pieces of balsa wood for the skeletal structure and then dressing it up in old clothes and a ballistic vest is a way to do some basic tests, but when facing a 7.62x25, with the potential of some of it (surplus) actually having shaped tungsten penetrators and the hyper velocity loadings (Czech ball for example), even a class IIIA vest is only somewhat comforting.
 
If you do this experiment, please do post the results. I've seen the real world effects of a 7.62x25, it'd be interesting to see the "academic" results.

The only concern I'd had there was that I'd heard that due to the Tok's (floating?) firing pin design, if chambered, if the pistol is dropped, the pin CAN travel forward with enough inertial force against the primer to fire the round. Is that true?

I do not know whether it was a TT or CZ that caused the "results" I dealt with, but it was supposedly a dropped pistol that led to the incident.
 
Here is my 'deal' on this thread. Someone in FL or GA who is willing to get together with me, at a public range, and wants to shoot their 7.62x25mm pistol into a block of ballistic gelatin, please reply.

I can tell that many people would like to see the results of this test, and I would like to see it as well. But, I can't justify buying another pistol at this time.

If you would like to help out your fellow THR members on this one, please let us know.

Thank you,

JE223
 
Size, mythbusted

Second, the plaform is huge, it cannot be easily concealed.

Left to right: Beretta 92FS, Browning Hi-Power, TT-33, CZ-52, Sistema Colt. 4 of the 5 have equally bad combat sights.

The tape measure agrees, the CZ-52 is SHORTER than the "as-JMB-intended" 1911.

Bianchi #19 holster (leather) designed for the 1911 also fits the BHP and TT-33 perfectly; the rear of the CZ-52 doesn't fit the retention strap - needs about 1/4" more. A generic 1911-style nylon holster would probably fit.

Too cold to run outside for the calipers plus I have Hogues...slide and frame width of the singlestacks is basically equivalent.

JE223: I had plans to make it to FL in time for New Year's Eve but it likely won't happen. If it does, I'll shoot you a PM and pack my dies...
 
Great! I'll be looking forward to it.

If I were a betting sort of fella, I'd say that this 7.62 Tokarev pill would do 8 to 12 inches, if it does not pass all the way through the gelatin block.
 
Last edited:
Update

I just got the reloading dies for 7.62x25mm in the mail, and the CZ-52 being used for the test is currently in transit to my location.

The gelatin block is setting up in a refrigerator... look for the first test sometime next week.

Thank you,

JE223
 
I really don't understand the whole "you shouldn't use handloads because the DA will say you were trying to make them more deadly and use it against you" thing.

If deadly force is justified and you used it, what does it matter how dead the BG is? You get penalty points for making him "too dead?" I'd certainly argue that if I didn't want to make him dead I wouldn't have shot him. And that being the case, I could have been "more deadly" by using a bigger gun/more bullets anyway.

It strikes me as paranoia.
 
I really don't understand the whole "you shouldn't use handloads because the DA will say you were trying to make them more deadly and use it against you" thing.

If deadly force is justified and you used it, what does it matter how dead the BG is? You get penalty points for making him "too dead?" I'd certainly argue that if I didn't want to make him dead I wouldn't have shot him. And that being the case, I could have been "more deadly" by using a bigger gun/more bullets anyway.

As they used to tell me at work, "There you go again, trying to inject logic and sense into this situation!"
Well said, Zero, but IMO sometimes the criminal justice and judicial system doesn't behave logically or sensibly.
 
"Take care of your 1st priority first." Great, if not simple, advice IMO.

If I might weigh in on the 'no handloads for self-defense' idea: in some calibers you should use handloads, as there are no factory made rounds that are effective. Case in point, the .32ACP is a big disappointment out of a 'mousegun' length barrel. I have posted a how-to here before about making effective bullets out of a 85gr XTP and the accompanying load data.

If you use those in self-defense, you may be in trouble. If I use those in self-defense, the ratchet of trouble will be moved up a few notches - because I originated the idea and then tested it in gelatin. I can't imagine a worse case for a legal defense in that area, but in the overall big picture, as long as the shooting was justified you will probably be in good shape legally (and morally).

JE223
 
If a test does occur, what about the hollow point ammo available from Wolf? Also, can anyone reccommend a good open carry holster? My work may be taking me to New Orleans soon, I just don't have the funds at the moment to get a CZ 85, and my High Standard is probably the worst choice for defense imaginable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top