why did 7.62 x 25 Tokarev round fall out of favor?

[JohnKSa]

CZ have issues with the rollers getting flat spots and after that they cease to slide and wear on the slide. I know companies have made rollers from better materials, along with firing pins, but these are non issues with the Tokarevs. I have seen more than one kaboom and stress crack pics of the CZ52s , but have not seen one of a TT33.

I had never heard of the rollers flat-spotting. There was a company selling replacement barrels with rollers that were not properly hardened--could those have been the source of the reports?

The firing pin issue is an issue. They hold up to very little dryfiring, but seem to be durable enough in normal use.

[44 AMP]

I think you’re glossing over them adopting Russian equipment as a function of them fighting the Soviets in the Winter War.

I think you're giving too much credit to the Winter war. Yes, absolutely during the winter war of 1939-40 the Finns used every bit of serviceable Soviet equipment that they got their hands on.

They could do so easily because they already had a large part of their arms in the same models and patterns used by the Soviets, since both came from the same original source the Russian Empire.

From the Napoleonic era until the last Russian Czar in 1917, Finland was the "grand duchy of Finland" a part of the Russian Empire. As such they had stocks of Russian arms, and some equipment for making them. When the Soviets decided to "reacquire" Finland for the Soviet Union in the winter of 39 the Finns still had those arms and had even been making more of them.

Finnish use of Russian rifles and some other materiel predates the Winter War by a long time. Over 40 years in the case of the Moisin Nagant rifles.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I think you're giving too much credit to the Winter war. Yes, absolutely during the winter war of 1939-40 the Finns used every bit of serviceable Soviet equipment that they got their hands on.

They could do so easily because they already had a large part of their arms in the same models and patterns used by the Soviets, since both came from the same original source the Russian Empire.

From the Napoleonic era until the last Russian Czar in 1917, Finland was the "grand duchy of Finland" a part of the Russian Empire. As such they had stocks of Russian arms, and some equipment for making them. When the Soviets decided to "reacquire" Finland for the Soviet Union in the winter of 39 the Finns still had those arms and had even been making more of them.

Finnish use of Russian rifles and some other materiel predates the Winter War by a long time. Over 40 years in the case of the Moisin Nagant rifles.

The 7.62x25mm cartridges was in service from ~1930 onward. Finland was already independent by then. Finnish soldiers did use the pistol in both the Winter War and the Continuation War. The comment I was responding to traces back to a comment about how a nation doesn’t use the firearms and cartridges of its enemies (with regards to the 7.25x25), and the Finns were mentioned as a counter example. My response is in the context of both the cartridge being discussed and when Finland and Russia/USSR were enemies.

You are right that in terms of arms in general Finland had been using Russian equipment since before they were independent, certainly the Mosin-Nagant rifle. I’m trying to keep my response somewhat in the context of the original question, as this thread seems to have drifted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nodak1858]

I had never heard of the rollers flat-spotting. There was a company selling replacement barrels with rollers that were not properly hardened--could those have been the source of the reports?

I quick looked, found this old post. When I first got my C&R a 7.62x25 pistol was one of the first things I wanted to buy. Did a lot of looking to see what pistol, at first was going to get a CZ, but after posts like that and others I thought I didn't want to mess with roller/cam issues or the firing pin. I've read other posts and forms about issues with the system, granted it's after thousands of rounds. It sounds like if a guy doesn't dry fire them the pin would be fine, but between that and the rollers I went with my first Tok. After getting it and shooting it, I went into them and have more than I probably should have now. Honestly I kick myself though for not getting a CZ anyway, I like the looks of them and now they have crept up in price I'm not sure if I want to dump the money on one.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=452048

[amd6547]

Yes, the firing pin issue of the CZ52 is real.
I had already heard about it before I bought a CZ, so I was careful not to dry fire. However, I had gone shooting using Romanian corrosive ammo from a spam can I had, so I gave it a good cleaning.
I reassembled it, and had put a drop on the hammer pivot, working the hammer back and forth with my thumb to get the lube penetrating...
The hammer slipped, and I heard the firing pin tip hit the wall. One single “dry fire”, if you can call it that, lol.
I can see why people like the CZ52. It is cool looking and an interesting design. I have to admit that I admire John Browning, and just feel the Browning derived Tokarev does everything better.

[Reloadron]

Here is an interesting note regarding the Vz52 Pistol. Looking at the Sierra 50th Edition which I used for loading 7.62 X 25 for the gun I tried and played around with.

The Sierra test pistol was an imported Czechoslovakian Vz52 standard issue military gun. I only found the guns interesting because of the roller locking system and the claims that the same locking system design was still used on HK semi-automatic and full automatic rifles and it should be considered this reloading data was early to maybe mid 90s.

Something they stress in their reloading data is:

The Vz52 is an extremely strong pistol. Reloads developed using less robust locking systems must be reduced drastically for safety reasons. In recoil operated pistols, such as the Tokarev , starting loads shown should be considered maximum.

The bold face type is per the manual.

While I sold quite a few of both the Chinese version of the Tokarev and the Vz52 I never shot any of the Tokarev guns or loaded for them. As to the above quote the Hornady 9th makes no mention of which pistol is stronger and my Lyman 49th simply lumps the 7.62 X 25 Tokarev and 7.63 X 25 Mauser together claiming the two are close they are interchangeable. I really don't get that unless their loads are really light as I would not want to shoot the same 7.62 Tokarev or Vz52 rounds in a Mauser broomhandle pistol.

Now other than what I see in the Sierra 50th which claims the Vz52 is the stronger what is out there and credible to support the opposite? I never gave it much thought before this thread and would like to come away with something credible supporting one or the other?

Thanks
Ron

[44 AMP]

The comment I was responding to traces back to a comment about how a nation doesn’t use the firearms and cartridges of its enemies (with regards to the 7.25x25), and the Finns were mentioned as a counter example.

ok, I get that. But I think the comment wasn't that a nation's armed forces doesn't USE its enemies round/weapons, but that the a nation (particularly in peacetime) doesn't ADOPT their enemies arms as their own standard.

A several examples are easily found in WWII, and also an rather noteable exception where a nation did adopt the enemies cartridge, in limited service.

Germany captured so many soviet guns they produced their own ammunition for some of them. Germany made their own ammo in 7.62x54R to feed the large numbers of SVT-40 rifles they captured. Entire units were armed with them, and some of them defended the Normandy coast.

The Soviet PPSH SMG was very well liked and used by German troops, primarily due to the 71rnd drum magazine used.

Germany produced their own 76.2mm ammo for the large number of Soviet field guns captured. (as they were working on rechambering them to take the German 75mm round).

the exception to officially adopting the enemy's cartridge that I can think of is actually Great Britian, creating the STEN gun to use German 9mm ammo, and also producing British 9mm Luger ammo for it, as well.

There was a conversion kit for the US M3 SMG, to convert it from .45acp to 9mm Luger. They were made. Few were issued, and I don't think any were actually ever used in combat.

The point here is, that everyone uses the other guys stuff when they can, as a field expedient. in a few cases, there has been some official support (making their own ammo for the captured guns, etc) but nations simply don't adopt "enemy" designes as their own standards. Designs from allies, yes, sometimes gladly, sometimes over serious resistance. But adopting the enemy's arms? Not so much, if any.

[TunnelRat]

In fairness the comment, yours originally, is about cartridges specifically and not so much arms. That’s a misprint on my end.

Adopting one of their ALLIES cartridges was hard for NATO to swallow, but they did. One thing you absolutely do not do is adopt the cartridge of your (former) enemy. No matter how well it works, you just don't do that, if you want to keep your job.

Its a matter of pride, for one thing. And prestige. Even if there's nothing made on your side that meets the requirements and the (former) enemy has something that does, you still don't adopt it. EVER.

And there are examples of countries adopting the calibers of their former enemies. Finland with the 7.62x39mm is one such example. You provided your own example with the British and 9mm (which the British used long after WWII).

Again, as much as I like and appreciate a discussion about arms usage in general, this conversation started with regards to a specific cartridge that was primarily used in pistols and sub machine guns. Before we start discussing the rifles, artillery pieces, etc of foreign nations maybe we should move this topic to a more general forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

I quick looked, found this old post.

Thanks for the link. Yes, if they are too soft, the gun won't work long. Still kind of weird that we don't hear more about it. I never noted any deformation on the rollers of either of the ones I owned, but poking around does seem to turn up an occasional report of soft rollers.

Now other than what I see in the Sierra 50th which claims the Vz52 is the stronger what is out there and credible to support the opposite? I never gave it much thought before this thread and would like to come away with something credible supporting one or the other?

The "locking action" as the manual states, is very strong. But the chamber walls are thin. Loads that stress the locking action with high slide velocity should be tolerated well by the CZ52 assuming there are no other issues with the gun (like soft rollers). But if you're pushing the pressure limits, it will blow up at a lower pressure than other generally similar pistols.

[44caliberkid]

I really like my CZ 52. I put in the improved American made firing pin and it improves the trigger immensely, so much that it needs no other work. I also have the same manufacturers "better" extractor, and I had FTF's with it, so put the stock one back in for now, because I never had a FTF with the factory part. I can stone the bottom edges of the replacement and it will work for a spare.
I also found some real nice checkered walnut stocks, probably on eBay, that look great on the pistol. Very similar to a Herrett's product. We have two spam cans of ammo that we got years ago, so it's great fun burning through it at the range.

[Reloadron]

John, thanks for the informative post which makes perfect sense.

Ron

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP .....the exception to officially adopting the enemy's cartridge that I can think of is actually Great Britian, creating the STEN gun to use German 9mm ammo, and also producing British 9mm Luger ammo for it, as well.

I don't think GB adopted 9mm because that's what the Germans had, but because it was already a popular and effective round.
Not to mention when the STEN was designed GB didn't have any captured German 9mm ammo. Fact is, the Brits didn't have a lot of anything having left most behind at Dunkirk.

They also didn't have subguns except a few lend lease Thompsons.

As far as an actual copy of a German gun........the Lanchester subgun was a nearly exact copy of the MP28.

I think the major reasoning for adopting 9mmP had more to do with how many firearms were developed during WWI and post WWI that utilized 9mmP vs others. Belgium, Italy, Spain all had numerous subguns and handguns.

Edited to add:
Heres a great article on the Sten https://www.historynet.com/cheap-sho...ed-britain.htm

[TRX]

> If it were re-introduced today in a modern well designed gun with modern bullets,
---
Sellier & Bellot will fix you right up with modern expanding hollowpoint 7.62x25.

Muzzle energy is up there with hot .45 ACP "defensive" loads.

[Mike Irwin]

"44 AMP .....the exception to officially adopting the enemy's cartridge that I can think of is actually Great Britian, creating the STEN gun to use German 9mm ammo, and also producing British 9mm Luger ammo for it, as well."


"I don't think GB adopted 9mm because that's what the Germans had, but because it was already a popular and effective round.
Not to mention when the STEN was designed GB didn't have any captured German 9mm ammo. Fact is, the Brits didn't have a lot of anything having left most behind at Dunkirk."


Odd, I posted something about the British and the 9mm on another site today, only there the claim was that the STEN was in 9mm because the British captured a couple metric buttloads of 9mm ammo from the Italians in the deserts of North Africa...

Simple fact is... the British military had made the decision to adopt the 9mm as a light carbine/submachine gun round BEFORE the war even started...

In early 1939 the British approached Smith & Wesson and asked them to design what would come to be known as the Light Rifle.

The initial patent for the Light Rifle's was filed in June 1939, or several months before the war started, and British acceptance of the concept and design happened right around the time the war kicked off.

The first Mk I light rifles were sent to Britian for testing in 1940, and problems quickly developed because the gun had been developed with American-made 9mm ammo, but the British tested it with 9mm ammo loaded at, I believe, ROF Radway Green and loaded to European pressures, which were significantly higher than American ammo.

[Jim Watson]

I have heard the "captured Italian 9mm" story and while the timeline makes it unlikely that was the reason for adopting the calibre, it seems a great convenience. Roy Dunlap in 'Ordnance Went Up Front' said that everybody in North Africa liked the Beretta 1938 series of SMGs, Italians, Germans, British, Americans, and Arabs alike.

A number of unsent Smith and Wesson Light Rifles turned up in a warehouse somewhere and the collectors got them listed C&R. A S&W specialist here got one of each model. Well made in S&W tradition, but a weird design.

There was a lot of North American ammo sent to England to supplement home production.
When I got my Luger in high school, it was accompanied by Canadian surplus ammo, 64 to the box (two STEN magazines) that shot like a champ in the S/42. Noncorrosive, too.
I have seen but not shot wartime Winchester 9mm.

[44 AMP]

developed with American-made 9mm ammo,

And this is also a big part of why the 7.62 Tokarev "fell out of favor".

WHERE is the "affordable" US made ammo??? And, I mean in the pre-ammo panic days. There was about none.

We got surplus East Bloc pistols, sold cheap, and surplus ammo sold even cheaper and Americans being who we are, they sold and were popular because they didn't cost much. But they never made it as popular cartridge, beyond that. And when the supplies of guns and ammo ran low and prices started going up, there simply was very little demand for the pistol(s) or its round on the US market at higher prices.

American ammo makers have a long history or loading European cartridges to lower levels than the Europeans do. This might have its origin in 19th century nationalism, but if one suggests that, its "tinfoil hat time"....

Regardless, its a fact that most "metric" rounds were loaded lighter than European specs until fairly recently, and some still are.

SO, Take a former Soviet pistol round, remove the low cost, don't have significant US made ammo in support, no new designs or guns made in that caliber, and you get what we have, essentially a milsurp niche round without many options or the commercial popularity creating a demand for them.

"I don't think GB adopted 9mm because that's what the Germans had, but because it was already a popular and effective round.

Great Britian in WWII is a unique case. First off, "popular" in terms of civilian use (and sales) simply doesn't apply. "Popular" with the military is the only real consideration. Britian went into WWII still firmly attached to the revolver and rimmed rounds. There was no "native" semi auto pistol or cartidge of any significance or in any meaningful numbers. (their .455 Webley self loading was not a big success)

SO, They turned to what they could get and one big one of those was the Canadian made Hi Power, in 9mm Luger. As Mike mentioned, they had been looking at the 9mm before the war, but the war turned interest into need. And when you can't make as much as you need on your own, you buy what you can get as you can get it. Canadian Hi Powers, needed 9mm ammo, and you CAN make enough of that...

The Sten was intentionally made in 9mm Luger BECAUSE it was what the Germans used. Intended for use by commandos, and others who could be outside regular resupply and could use captured ammunition. Numbers of them were (airdropped usually) sent to the French resistance, who could use them with Nazi ammo.

Later on the use of the Sten expanded to more regular troops and using captured ammo was no longer a high priority. After the war, they still had their 9mms, and ability to make ammo, so they just kept them replacing the revolver as main service arm along the way. When NATO chose the 9mm Luger as its standard, they were already there...and again, remember that all this was on the military side, there was no civilian side (or market) in Britain for semis or the 9mm. What little there was, was revolver oriented to the exclusion of just about everything else.

Which is, in some ways similar to the US and the 7.62 Tokarev, in that there was no civilian market or demand. US shooters got interested, for a while, because it was different, and it was cheap. When the cheap went away, the different was too different to sustain interest at the viable commercial level.

I expect the same thing to happen to the Makarov round, eventually, though it will take longer, because the Makarov can be fitted into existing popular guns, unlike the longer Tokarev round.

[Mike Irwin]

"and while the timeline makes it unlikely that was the reason for adopting the calibre"

Exactly. The timeline simply doesn't work because by the time the British were beating the Italians in the desert the Sten was already well into development.

An adjunct to the theory I've seen is that all of that 9mm ammo was then shipped back to Britain, which is equally ludicrous. Given wartime needs and the pressures on shipping, any available cargo space would have been put to use shipping necessary military stores, not post freighting a bunch of captured ammunition given that 9mm was already in production in Britain.


"A number of unsent Smith and Wesson Light Rifles turned up in a warehouse somewhere and the collectors got them listed C&R. A S&W specialist here got one of each model. Well made in S&W tradition, but a weird design."

I was with American Rifleman back when that happened. We got one on staff for technical evaluation (it was on its way to the NRA National Firearms Museum). Didn't get to fire it, but got to get a very good look at it.

It's a perfect example of traditional old-school design that was completely out of touch with both reality and necessity.

[Mike Irwin]

" Britian went into WWII still firmly attached to the revolver and rimmed rounds. There was no "native" semi auto pistol or cartidge of any significance or in any meaningful numbers."

Tidbit of interest...

One of the original versions/requirements of the STEN was that it be developed for use with the .380 Mk II revolver round. That didn't turn out very well and was dropped very early.


"SO, They turned to what they could get and one big one of those was the Canadian made Hi Power, in 9mm Luger. As Mike mentioned, they had been looking at the 9mm before the war, but the war turned interest into need. And when you can't make as much as you need on your own, you buy what you can get as you can get it. Canadian Hi Powers, needed 9mm ammo, and you CAN make enough of that..."

Inglis High Powers didn't enter British service until late 1944. At one point it was feared that they would never be ready in time for war service. In any event, by the time the High Power contract was awarded to Inglis, 9mm was flooding out of British ordnance factories.



"The Sten was intentionally made in 9mm Luger BECAUSE it was what the Germans used."

Actually, it's far more likely that the 9mm Para was adopted not because Germany used it, but because it would require significantly less investment in retooling and developing new production machinery. The raw materials and tooling for the .380 revolver round is quite similar to the 9mm both in quantity, quality, and dimension. In other words, there was materials overlap in a way that simply wasn't there with the .45 ACP had Britain decided to go that route instead.

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP

Great Britian in WWII is a unique case. First off, "popular" in terms of civilian use (and sales) simply doesn't apply....

I know that and didn't write that either.

9mmP was already in popular use by several countries militaries...in subguns.

The Sten was intentionally made in 9mm Luger BECAUSE it was what the Germans used.

Highly doubtful. No military with a lick of sense designs guns because they might be compatible with what ammunition the enemy uses. Thats just silly.

[Jim Watson]

No military with a lick of sense designs guns because they might be compatible with what ammunition the enemy uses. Thats just silly.

What? Why "everybody knows" that the Soviet 82mm mortar is made to use captured US 81mm bombs but we can't use theirs. And the Makarov was designed to use captured .380 ammo. And a moderator of this board was firm in the belief that the 7.7mm Arisaka was made to accept .30-06 cartridges, even though with a boot heel on the bolt.

[dogtown tom]

One really good reason not to use the enemy's ammunition:
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/...charlies-ammo/

[zeke]

Depending on what you define as affordable, Winchester made 7.62x25 at slightly higher cost than S&B, but certainly considerably more than surplus rounds at the onset. Starline makes brass for it, and they are more than a couple suitable bullets to hand load.

[Sgt Pepper]

It was never really in favor. It just was absurdly cheap and fun to shoot. When cheap died, so did favor for the round.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by doffus47
That said, I think that the round fell into favor in the USSR b/c it was used in both the pistol and the ppsh-41 which was a widely distributed weapon. Logistics was easy.

When WW2 ended and the Soviets were moving to intermediate cartridges, they settled on the 7.62x.39 SKS which was immediately replaced by the AK47. When they had the AK, they didn't need the inferior PPsh41 and the round that went with it. I think that the pistol was retired at almost the same time in favor of the Makarov.

I think this is probably the most logical answer. We tend to think of pistol cartridges in terms of their utility in, well, pistols. However, I think that 20th century militaries probably expended far more pistol ammo in submachine guns than they ever did in pistols (revolver cartridges like .38 Special or .455 Webley notwithstanding). The Mauser C96 was already quite popular in Russia prior to the 1917 revolution I suspect in no small part due to its utility as a quasi-carbine with the holster/stock attached. When the Soviets decided to produce their own semi-auto pistols to replace their Nagant Revolvers, basing it on 7.63 Mauser was a logical choice as they were already familiar with it, they had stockpiles of usable ammunition, and it had the nominal 30-caliber bore diameter they seemed to prefer for their small arms. Also, they were developing submachine guns in the early 30's at roughly the same time they were developing the TT-30 and TT-33 pistols.

When you think about it, 7.62x25 is an excellent military submachinegun round as the small-diameter, high veolcity bullet has excellent penetration and flat trajectory (particular from the longer barrel of a submachine gun), The bottleneck design should be (at least in theory) more feed reliable, and the relatively light bullet gives less recoil that should result in better control in full-auto. It only makes logistical sense to have your pistol and submachine gun shoot the same ammo.

However, once the SKS, and even more so the AK-47 were widely issued, the submachine gun fell out of favor in the USSR as the AK in particular was intended to replace both the rifle and submachine gun with one weapon. Under this doctrine, most of the advantages of the 7.62x25 melt away as it's only being used in pistols. I suspect that they held off on adopting the Makarov until the 60's for the same reason that the US didn't replace the 1911 until the 80's: they had large stocks of perfectly serviceable Tokarevs left over from WWII. However, once enough of the Toks wore out, it made more sense to switch to the Makarov which is simpler and cheaper to produce due to it's blowback operation as opposed to the short-recoil operation of the Tokarev. 7.62x25 is too high pressure for a blowback gun so it was replaced with 9x18 Mak, which is really about the most powerful cartridge that's practical for a blowback.

[Jim Watson]

When you think about it, 7.62x25 is an excellent military submachinegun round as the small-diameter, high veolcity bullet has excellent penetration and flat trajectory (particular from the longer barrel of a submachine gun),

In Stuart Slade's SAC porn alternate history, starting with 'The Big One', The US has, instead of the M1 Carbine, a product improved Soviet SMG with even hotter loads.