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

What user nation's armies consider effective and what you or I might consider effective for sporting or defense purposes is radically different.

Why doesn't anyone seem to remember that??
Click to expand...
Hmmm....

What one person considers ineffective another person might consider to be perfectly effective--and both of them could have good evidence and experience to support their positions even though their positions are radically different.

Why does that seem to be such a difficult concept?? :D
Was the Tokarov round really any more effective than the 9mm Parabellum?
Click to expand...
Hard to find a lot of information on the Tok's real-world performance.

There has been some written on the 30 Mauser/7.63 Mauser's effectiveness. Supposedly when it hit a rib or other bone, the results were impressive. The bone was turned into secondary fragments which wreaked havoc in the chest cavity. When no bone was hit, it made small holes like pistol bullets tend to do and results were variable depending on exactly where the small hole was.
TT33 are able to take higher pressures than the CZ52. The roller design is strong, but the barrel has a thin portion that will fail before the Tokarev will. Clark did a ton of testing of both guns and blew up many. In his tests the Tokarev held together better than the CZ. Both are nice guns but for strength the TT33 is tops.
Click to expand...
If you're trying to blow up a gun, you will succeed in blowing up the CZ-52 before you blow up the TT33.

If you're trying to shoot hot loads in both guns (staying under the yield pressure of the chambers) to see which one will shoot loose the fastest, the TT33 will probably give up first.
 
In the USA bottle-neck handgun cartridges just seem to come with a lot of Hoopla and then fade away into the sunset . Remember the 22 Jet... no it faded away quickly too .
People just seem to keep going back to big bores and straight sided cases ...notice how the 45 Colt , 44 Special and even the 38 special are still kicking around ... all of those are older than dirt !
Gary
 
If you're trying to shoot hot loads in both guns (staying under the yield pressure of the chambers) to see which one will shoot loose the fastest, the TT33 will probably give up first.
Click to expand...
While I don't have a CZ, I have shot a ton of ammo through my Toks. I have hand loaded hot rounds and shot a tins of the deadly "pink wrapper" ammo from Bulgaria. Zero issues and no apparent wear on the guns. 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.

And I admit I'm a CZ fan, have 50s, 75s, 82s but feel they missed the mark on the 52
 
Last edited:
The 22 Jet failed in the S&W M-53 because high pressure bottleneck cartridges are unsuitable for revolvers, too much problem with case setback. The 32-20, 38-40 and 44-40 operate at much lower pressures and have made a comeback thanks to CAS/SASS.
The 5.56 is totally unsuited for deer hunting because a hunting round should make a clean one shot humane kill. However military doctrine is simply to inflict a casualty, take an enemy out of the fight.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Except those sneaky Finns! :)
 
My first Tokarev was a Chinese made Vietnam bring back.
It looked like it was found at the bottom of a rice paddy...very pitted and with a crusty bore...
It shot great!
Currently, I have a Romanian Tok, and it is a great pistol. I used to have a CZ52, a pistol I had wanted since I saw it in a book when I was a kid...I found the CZ very disappointing.
The Tok is my car pistol, right now.
 
Have several and actually like the round. Hdy does/did make 2 good bullets for it. 90 xtp and 86 grain rnsp. Impressive ballistics, but throws the brass all over and got too old trying to find it. While the Toks/Cz's are nice pistols, would prefer a more modern design with better sights.
 
The Finns adopted Russian stuff, because they were part of the Russian Empire.
They broke off to become independent during WW1.
 
I like the sights on the Tokarev just fine. Last time out at my rifle club, I was ringing the 10” round steel plate at 80yds with the flat shooting 7.62x25. For such a compact, slim pistol, it can really reach out.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I think you’re glossing over them adopting Russian equipment as a function of them fighting the Soviets in the Winter War.
Click to expand...

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.
 
44 AMP said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
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/showthread.php?t=452048
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
I quick looked, found this old post.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top