why did 7.62 x 25 Tokarev round fall out of favor?
- Thread starter simonrichter
- Start date
dogtown tom
New member
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-shot-how-the-sten-gun-saved-britain.htm
Mike Irwin
Staff
"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.
"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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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
Staff
"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.
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
Staff
" 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.
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
New member
I know that and didn't write that either.
9mmP was already in popular use by several countries militaries...in subguns.
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
New member
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
New member
One really good reason not to use the enemy's ammunition:
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/11/18/project-eldest-son-the-secret-u-s-scheme-to-sabotage-charlies-ammo/
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/11/18/project-eldest-son-the-secret-u-s-scheme-to-sabotage-charlies-ammo/
Sgt Pepper
New member
It was never really in favor. It just was absurdly cheap and fun to shoot. When cheap died, so did favor for the round.
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
New member
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.
Emerson Biggies
New member
It fell out of favor with me for a great while when the 5 cent surplus ammo became unobtanium.
Since then I have bought new brass and succeeded in using the plated 32acp 71 grain bullets in my TTC.
Tastes great lasts a long time.
Since then I have bought new brass and succeeded in using the plated 32acp 71 grain bullets in my TTC.
Tastes great lasts a long time.