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

[simonrichter]

While in the West, the idea of bottleneck high-vel cartridges still gains some attention (.357 SIG, 5.7 x 28, .22 TCM...), Russia had a fast bottleneck round for around 100 years, but it is considered somewhat outdated, while e.g. the 5.7 is still regarded as something futuristic by most, although the Tokarev has even more punch...

[ballisticxlr]

Really, nobody ever made a decent bullet for it and other than machine guns the only guns ever to chamber it were typically Russian guns and were horrible in the extreme to anyone that wasn't a Russian or named Brandon Herrera.

The thing that makes the Tok potentially awesome is the stunning performance envelope. The thing that makes its stunning performance envelope useful is bullets that will function as desired inside that performance envelope. It took decades after the Tok showed it's stuff in subguns and terrible pistols that anyone thought of stuff like bonded core, jacketed hollow point bullets with controlled expansion. Prior to that pretty much there were full metal jacket good-commie makers and basically nothing else. If it were re-introduced today in a modern well designed gun with modern bullets, I think it would be a hit. I'd sure have one if Glock made one and Speer made a gold-dot bullet for it.

[CockNBama]

Begs the question.

In fact, given the purview here, it never was much in favor.

[Jim Watson]

One reason the 7.62 Tokarev (7.63 Mauser) has not caught on in the West is that there are very few guns other than the Broomhandle, the Tokarev, and the CZ52 that will accommodate its length. Glock would have to tool up for an all new gun for ballisticxlr and they apparently don't think there is enough of a market for it.
(Norinco in PRC makes a copy of the Sig Sauer P226 lengthened to handle 7.62, cheap in Canada, not available in the USA, I don't know about other markets.)

[Forte S+W]

I think it's simply a regional thing. 7.62x25 Tokarev is a Russian cartridge which was mainly used strictly within the Soviet Union up until the fall of the Berlin Wall, so it never really had much of an opportunity to take off elsewhere.

That being said, I have no idea why it wasn't adopted in the 90s when NATO forces were looking into high-velocity, armor-piercing, PDWs because 7.62x25 Tokarev does everything that the 5.7x28 FN does, only with more muzzle energy and a larger bullet.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Ruger were to make a variant of the Ruger57 chambered in 7.62x25 Tokarev, then I would be all over that.

[wild cat mccane]

I think the unimaginative answer is the right answer.

9mm. Less pressure. FMJ give all the results that matter: extreme velocity isn't gaining you anything here. Russia has an armor piercing 9mm bullet. So...

Any ammo standardized for offense/defense by NATO against Russia will be the most available round.

[44 AMP]

I think it's simply a regional thing. 7.62x25 Tokarev is a Russian cartridge which was mainly used strictly within the Soviet Union up until the fall of the Berlin Wall, so it never really had much of an opportunity to take off elsewhere.

That being said, I have no idea why it wasn't adopted in the 90s when NATO forces were looking into high-velocity, armor-piercing, PDWs

You answered your own question.

To be certain, you'd have to ask the people who actually made the decision, but I think its most likely that the reason it wasn't adopted by NATO is simply because it WAS a SOVIET cartridge.

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.

You put out the cash and someone on your side will "invent" something that meets the specs. Even if its something that appears to be a direct copy of the other side's stuff, its not THEIR round, its YOUR round, so you can use it without being a "traitor"...

[smee78]

I would like a new gun designed to use this round. The Sig copy mentioned up in the thread would be cool. I also would like a revolver.

[Forte S+W]

@44 AMP
That doesn't add up, the 7.62x25 Tokarev predates the Soviet Union, was largely replaced by 9x18 Makarov as of the 1960s, and the Soviet Union had already collapsed by the point that NATO started looking to adopt a new cartridge. Furthermore, they were already using 9mm Luger which was a German Cartridge, so if they were just against using a cartridge used by a former enemy force, then why did they ever adopt 9mm?
Also, I'd like to think that they're not so petty that they would sooner waste time looking for a whole new cartridge just because an existing cartridge which seemingly already suits their needs just so happens to have originated in a nation whom they were once in conflict with.

[Shadow9mm]

I would argue that it never fell into favor. They imported gun and ammo, but I am not aware of any guns that were produced for it in the US. Also its limited bullet selection was a big limiting factor. It just never took of other than a novelty due to cheap cost IMO.

[dogtown tom]

ballisticxlr Really, nobody ever made a decent bullet for it and other than machine guns the only guns ever to chamber it were typically Russian guns and were horrible in the extreme to anyone that wasn't a Russian or named Brandon Herrera.

Nobody ever made a bullet for it because it wasn't a viable commercial round in the US. This was true for 9mm and .45acp until the '70's when companies like SuperVel started marketing higher velocity hollow point rounds. Until the it was full metal jacket only.

I wouldn't call Russian handguns horrible, just crude and functional.

ballisticxlr.....The thing that makes the Tok potentially awesome is the stunning performance envelope. The thing that makes its stunning performance envelope useful is bullets that will function as desired inside that performance envelope. It took decades after the Tok showed it's stuff in subguns and terrible pistols that anyone thought of stuff like bonded core, jacketed hollow point bullets with controlled expansion. Prior to that pretty much there were full metal jacket good-commie makers and basically nothing else.

With very few exceptions, militaries prefer FMJ and have little use for hollow points. Bonded core? Meh. Militaries want reliability and penetration. You don't really need expansion from a subgun round.

[dogtown tom]

Forte S+W @44 AMP
That doesn't add up, the 7.62x25 Tokarev predates the Soviet Union,

No, the 7.63 Mauser predates the Soviet Union.
The Soviets didn't began producing ammunition for the Tokarev pistol until 1930. Yes, it's a nearly identical case and bullet, but the Russians loaded it much hotter.

[stagpanther]

Friend of mine let me fire his Russian tokarev machine pistol (semi-auto-tized)--I think it was a tanker's defensive weapon. I thought it was awesome--my 9x 25 dillon reminds me a lot of the tokarev cartridge.

[44 AMP]

That doesn't add up, the 7.62x25 Tokarev predates the Soviet Union, ...

No, it doesn't predate the Soviet Union. The "October Revolution" that created the Soviet Union happened in 1917.

was largely replaced by 9x18 Makarov as of the 1960s, and the Soviet Union had already collapsed by the point that NATO started looking to adopt a new cartridge.

The official dissolution of the Soviet Union was at the end of 1991. This changed nothing concerning people opinions about the Soviet created 7.62x25 Tokarev.

Furthermore, they were already using 9mm Luger which was a German Cartridge, so if they were just against using a cartridge used by a former enemy force, then why did they ever adopt 9mm?

What you're missing here is that Germany was part of NATO, since the founding of the organization, and despite the fact that, in the past, they had been enemies, with NATO, Germany was one of the members, no longer a former enemy. All one big happy (or not so happy) family, now...
SO, adopting the 9mm was adopting one of the member nation's rounds as the standard.

Also, I'd like to think that they're not so petty that they would sooner waste time looking for a whole new cartridge just because an existing cartridge which seemingly already suits their needs just so happens to have originated in a nation whom they were once in conflict with.

You'd like to think so, but history has shown that they were that petty, and I'd bet on many issues, they probably still are.

A lot of people had to work very hard inside NATO to overcome each member nations's version of "not invented here" syndrome. Originally, NATO countries didn't want the US 7.62x51mm round. Eventually the deal was struck that they would adopt it if the US adopted their 9x19mm pistol round. A few short years later NATO was VERY upset when the US changed to the 5.56mm, and expected them to follow suit. The eventually did, but weren't happy about it.

The 7.62 Tokarev round was never popular or even really available in the US until after the fall of the Soviet Union. And, after that, it was really only available in former COMBLOC firearms. And, also only FMJ ammo was common.

Essentially it was a milsurp round of interest only to some collectors and to people with very limited budgets because for a while the guns and ammo were dirt cheap.

That is no longer the case, there is no evidence of consumer interest sufficient to justify new firearm designs in that caliber, and so the circle closes. its not popular because there are no new guns and ammo, and because there are no new guns and ammo its not popular....

[JohnKSa]

I think Jim Watson nailed it. It's just too long. It won't even fit in a 10mm magazine.

If there had been even one gun "foundation" that was common in the U.S. that would handle the round with a simple conversion kit, it would have become popular back when it was coming in from China in huge amounts and was the cheapest centerfire round on the market.

But even back then you had to buy a gun for it if you wanted to take advantage of the low ammo cost, and the options weren't really great. Either a Tokarev or CZ52--that was pretty much it.

[44caliberkid]

How about in the Ruger 5 7. Call it the 7 6. I bet they'd sell more than in 5.7. The CZ52 is a nice 7.62x25 pistol. Buy the American made firing pin, makes a world of difference in the trigger. I also put on nice checkered walnut grip panels, it makes a handsome piece.

[Jim Watson]

As we went around on the other day, the Ruger 5.7 is a (slightly) delayed blowback action. I don't think it would hold 7.62 without a lot of beefing up and maybe a locked breech.

[JohnKSa]

The CZ52 is a nice 7.62x25 pistol. Buy the American made firing pin, makes a world of difference in the trigger. I also put on nice checkered walnut grip panels, it makes a handsome piece.

I've owned 2, still own one. I like mine--they are well-made pistols--and I even carried one for awhile, but it leaves a lot to be desired when compared to other service pistols.

1. The factory firing pin will break if you dryfire.
2. The decocker lever sometimes acts as a second trigger.
3. The sights are tiny and very hard to upgrade.
4. Performing a field strip without tools requires using the magazine floorplate which isn't really strong enough and frequently bends as a result.
5. It's heavy and large for capacity.
6. The safety/decocker is small and hard to operate.
7. Heel magazine release.
8 There aren't many accessories for it.

[TruthTellers]

Why did it fall out of favor? It kind of didn't if you have a more worldwide view. The Chinese, North Koreans, and Vietnam used the Tok pistol for decades and I believe China still uses it to some extent. Russia dropped the pistol in favor of the easier and cheaper to produce Makarov in the 50s because they wanted a smaller, lighter pistol and I guess one that had the DA/SA action as then it didn't really need to have the safety on while carried.

While the Tok pistols may have lost their popularity, submachine guns in 7.62x25 stuck around for a long time and Russia still has some sub guns in use in 7.62x25.

I think the biggest reason you haven't seen it in the US is it requires a pistol built around the cartridge to function and the demand is not there to make tooling up costs worth it. It's possible that the Coonan could have been chambered for it, it's possible that the Ruger 57 could be modified to run it, but if the demand isn't there, it's not going to happen and the demand isn't there because the ammo isn't cheap enough.

People have a hard to accepting paying more than 9mm for any handgun ammunition other than .45 because their brains have been wired to believe that those two handgun calibers do everything and do it for the best price. The 7.62x25 certainly has potential, the bottleneck design makes feeding super reliable, it would be great in a semi auto PCC, it's known to defeat soft body armor, it's got the velocity to get any hollow point to expand... but potential doesn't sell people on a caliber, price does.

The necessary grip length for the long cartridge turns a lot of people off. About the only thing it has going for 7.62x25 is rugged surplus pistols are still cheap... well they were, IDK what the price is now.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I think the unimaginative answer is the right answer.

9mm. Less pressure. FMJ give all the results that matter: extreme velocity isn't gaining you anything here. Russia has an armor piercing 9mm bullet. So...

Any ammo standardized for offense/defense by NATO against Russia will be the most available round.

Where are you getting the pressure specs for 7.62x25? The only thing I can find that details pressure is a CIP measurement equally a bit over 36k PSI, hardly that much higher in pressure vs 9mm.

[amd6547]

Personally, I'm a fan of both the Tokarev pistol, and it's cartridge.
In fact, I'm using a romanian Tok for my pandemic, anti-antifa car pistol right now.

[Mike Irwin]

"Originally, NATO countries didn't want the US 7.62x51mm round."

That wasn't because the 7.62 round wasn't invented in a European country, it was because our European partners, particularly Britain, saw the writing on the wall for the full-powered battle rifle cartridge while the US was still stuck in the myth that every American with a rifle was a 1,000 yard sniping machine.

The US even ignored its own battle studies of actions in WW II that showed that intermediate power cartridges were far more suited to modern combat scenarios.

[Mike Irwin]

"Yes, it's a nearly identical case and bullet, but the Russians loaded it much hotter."

As originally developed, the 7.62 Tok round was only marginally hotter than the 7.63 Mauser round.

As use continued, the Soviets developed a number of different loadings, including an incendiary tracer round using a lighter bullet that pushed past 1,600 fps in Soviet submachine guns.

However, this round was not common issue.

[44 AMP]

That wasn't because the 7.62 round wasn't invented in a European country,

I think that not being invented in their European country had a bit to do with it, but of course such snobbish bullheadedness doesn't look good in the history books, and yes, we had our own version of that, as well.

The British were working on their .280, their bullpup rifle designs and yes, the idea of an intermediate round was appealing, as even their most stubborn folks realized they had taken the .303 as far at it could go.

the Germans were working on their own designs, one being (surprise) in 8mm Mauser, with other factions working for the 7,9mm Kurz and some for something else entirely...

The French were working on..well, ...being French...

I don't think the US was stuck in the myth that every soldier was a 1,000yd sniping machine, so much as that if they had a round that would do it, they could be. I think, as much as anything the 7.62x51 was developed so they could make a change, without making a change.

The .30-06 WORKED. It worked in WWI. It worked in WWII, it worked in Korea. And the new round WAS the GI .30-06, down range, anyway.

It always boils down to the actual people making the decisions, their personal beliefs, what they think is the best thing, what they can justify, and what they can get away with....

I can easily envision some Army brass looking at those studies, seeing them showing the intermediate cartridge better suited to modern combat, and setting them aside in favor of what they KNEW WORKED.

Machts nichts, today, other than as history, but don't think NATO or anyone else really operated, or operates differently, today.

Here's something to consider, and a bit more in line with the OP, if you wanted a high speed .30 caliber pistol round why go with the Tokarev, why not use the .30 Luger which fits in everything a 9mm does, and could be "magnumized" to a degree??

I'd be willing to bet, using some level of +p loads and not using the FMJ bullet from 100 years ago, you could do some fairly impressive things and do them from a handgun that the Tokarev round won't fit into.

[Mike Irwin]

"The British were working on their .280, their bullpup rifle designs and yes, the idea of an intermediate round was appealing, as even their most stubborn folks realized they had taken the .303 as far at it could go."

Quite literally, virtually every nation that had its own military small arms design and development infrastructure -- both West and East -- were working on the intermediate cartridge concept.

Soviets, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians in the East, with eventual adoption of the 7.62x39 by the Warsaw Pact.

In the West, Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, German, and others were working on various intermediate concepts.

Your "French were being French" is really a baseless slight. The French had been looking at the intermediate cartridge concept since before World War I, recognizing that the nature of combat was changing as both technology and the landscape changed.

It's easy to snicker at the "Froggy Surrenderboys" and dismiss them out of hand, because that's a lot easier than taking an actual hard look at the totality of their contributions.

The entire concept that "well, the .30-06 worked, so it should have been kept" its just as equally silly. The .58 rifled musket workd. The .50-70 Trapdoor worked. Why didn't we keep those?

Hey, if a single shot rifle and black powder .50 cal. round worked on the Great Plains, it should be perfect for urban combat in a bombed to hell European city, right?

Because it worked?

The real truth is yeah, the .30-06 worked, because it had to because it was the only thing available, but the US military's own studies showed VERY clearly it had SIGNIFICANT limitations and drawbacks in modern warfare.

Those limitations turned into abject failures with the adoption of the 7.62 and the M14 battle rifle platform. Yet, you can claim that the 7.62 worked in Vietnam simply the basis of it being the only thing available, so it had to work.

That just... doesn't work.