Why no modern 7.62x25 Tok?
- Thread starter Tucker 1371
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
and in China and N. Korea and most of the Iron Curtain countries until the AK supplanted the bolt action + submachine gun doctrine.
tahunua001
New member
well one of the reasons is that it's an obsolete caliber. hasn't been used by any major military force since the 70s, if not earlier. the TOK saw a resurgence in about 2010 but when everyone started pushing 30tok AR15 conversion kits and $150 pistols the surplus ammo didn't last. the reason there's no defense ammo is because the guns were never made with hollowpoints in mind and would likely be hit or miss whether they could reliably feed them.
lastly there is the presence of the current bottleneck pistol cartridges currently available. between 5.7fn, 22tcm, and 357 sig what real use is there for a 9mm necked down to 311? I think that if the 22tcm ever takes off(which seems like it grows in spurts) armscor may eventually make a cartridge similar to the tokarev like a 30tcm but I doubt it'd be widely hailed.
lastly there is the presence of the current bottleneck pistol cartridges currently available. between 5.7fn, 22tcm, and 357 sig what real use is there for a 9mm necked down to 311? I think that if the 22tcm ever takes off(which seems like it grows in spurts) armscor may eventually make a cartridge similar to the tokarev like a 30tcm but I doubt it'd be widely hailed.
The cartridge was in fact loaded in this country for decades under its other name, .30 Mauser, but in recent years there was so little demand that domestic production ceased several years ago. iIRC, the last U.S. loading was by Winchester-Western. There have been many scare stories about this or that ammo blowing up guns and spreading radiation over millions of square miles, but in fact all the loads are about the same. Bullet weights range from 74 grains to 88 grains, with the lighter bullets giving higher velocities.
Unless one is specifically interested in velocity number figures of the "my bullet is faster than your bullet" type, it has no real advantage over the 9mm Parabellum.
One cautionary note: The case dimensions of the .30 Mauser/7.62 Tokarev are the same as those of the 7.65mm Borchardt. If you are fortunate enough to own a Borchardt, and feel you must fire it, do NOT fire any ammunition in it except that made (or loaded) specifically for the Borchardt. Permanent damage (cracked toggles) may result from firing .30 Mauser or 7.62x25 Tokarev in that gun.
Jim
Unless one is specifically interested in velocity number figures of the "my bullet is faster than your bullet" type, it has no real advantage over the 9mm Parabellum.
One cautionary note: The case dimensions of the .30 Mauser/7.62 Tokarev are the same as those of the 7.65mm Borchardt. If you are fortunate enough to own a Borchardt, and feel you must fire it, do NOT fire any ammunition in it except that made (or loaded) specifically for the Borchardt. Permanent damage (cracked toggles) may result from firing .30 Mauser or 7.62x25 Tokarev in that gun.
Jim
Jim Watson
New member
Likewise other early and even less common autos with the same chamber but built for lighter loads. But who shoots a Schwartzlose or Mannlicher?
A Bordchardt runs 25 grand --I think we can assume their owners know better 
"The real problem is the ammo. Much like most other Soviet calibers, it never caught on nor entered production here."
The real problem is guns; modern SIG clones and others exist, but we have import band with the only two countries --Russia and China-- that like the cartridge (and it certainly has a following in both, with numerous handguns and SMGs being designed to this day)
There's no shortage of surplus, either, but it's all Chinese or AP-classified at this point and again --we can't import it.
TCN
"The real problem is the ammo. Much like most other Soviet calibers, it never caught on nor entered production here."
The real problem is guns; modern SIG clones and others exist, but we have import band with the only two countries --Russia and China-- that like the cartridge (and it certainly has a following in both, with numerous handguns and SMGs being designed to this day)
There's no shortage of surplus, either, but it's all Chinese or AP-classified at this point and again --we can't import it.
TCN
If you have tried hand loading the round, you will understand why it stopped being popular long ago. It is a pain. That pain is not only felt when hand loading, it is also indicative how inflexible the design is.
I hand load for my broomhandle and tokarev. Yes pain could be fun sometimes. But it is for fun, not for serious business. There are much better choices when a lot counts on it.
-TL
I hand load for my broomhandle and tokarev. Yes pain could be fun sometimes. But it is for fun, not for serious business. There are much better choices when a lot counts on it.
-TL
"...
Unless one is specifically interested in velocity number figures of the "my bullet is faster than your bullet" type, it has no real advantage over the 9mm Parabellum..."
Unless you want a bullet that penetrates things other bullets bounce off. The Tok even penetrated a Kevlar helmet that 9mm and 357mag couldnt.
Unless one is specifically interested in velocity number figures of the "my bullet is faster than your bullet" type, it has no real advantage over the 9mm Parabellum..."
Unless you want a bullet that penetrates things other bullets bounce off. The Tok even penetrated a Kevlar helmet that 9mm and 357mag couldnt.
Let me see...
Fiocchi, Sellior &Bellot, PPU, Wolf, Red Army Standard.. probably missed a few. My point is ,this cartridge is currently being manufactured by MANY companies. If it were going the way of the DODO bird, why would they continue to make it? There must be a substantial demand for it. They aren't in business to suit nostalgia.
Hyperbole aside, there were some decayed Bulgarian rounds that were available several years ago that would detonate rather than burn when firing. messed up some nice old pistols, giving rise to the uber machine gun round fallacy. Most likely along term storage issue.They were in a slightly off colored pinkish paper if I recall correctly. Stay away from them and go have some fun with an excellent cartridge!
(On a side note, look up some of the work Clark did with this excellent cartridge. It's very good and eye-opening!)
Fiocchi, Sellior &Bellot, PPU, Wolf, Red Army Standard.. probably missed a few. My point is ,this cartridge is currently being manufactured by MANY companies. If it were going the way of the DODO bird, why would they continue to make it? There must be a substantial demand for it. They aren't in business to suit nostalgia.
Hyperbole aside, there were some decayed Bulgarian rounds that were available several years ago that would detonate rather than burn when firing. messed up some nice old pistols, giving rise to the uber machine gun round fallacy. Most likely along term storage issue.They were in a slightly off colored pinkish paper if I recall correctly. Stay away from them and go have some fun with an excellent cartridge!
(On a side note, look up some of the work Clark did with this excellent cartridge. It's very good and eye-opening!)
Rightside,
Thanks.
I started handloading in 1999. I made my money by designing power supplies by blowing them up with overloads and beefing up the part that failed. When I started handloading I tried to blow up guns. My father, a gun designer, said I was not learning anything. My brother, a gun collector, said I was ruining guns. When CZ52s blew up too easily and Tokarevs would not blow up, I could see there was an error in the gun books. By 2005 I had it figured out.
By 2013 I wrote this, and got the attention of Hartmut Brömel, Quickload author in Germany:
....Ted Curtis, the ballistician wrote that all Eastern block Tokarev ammo was 42kcup except Russian, which tested at 31 kcup.
Then the load book "Accurate Smokeless Powder Loading Guide" 2000 came out with the same data.
Those loads were later recanted by AA.
Johan Loubser Ballistic Lab manager at Accurate Arms wrote some weasel words and revised their loads for the CZ52 only. This example is for 110 gr SPR RN 1.3":
a) The hot load from 2000: 11.7 gr AA#9 41,800 c.u.p 1688 fps
b) The wimpy load from 2005 8.5 gr AA#9, 34,270 psi, 1248 fps
But when I run the changes through Quickload, what I get is
I pointed out that Quickload sees the revision differently as AA#9 is also sold as Enforcer:
a) Quickload 11.7 gr, 4.72" barrel, 110 gr Speer Round nose .308 bullet, 1.3" OAL gives 1622 fps 63,866 psi
b) Quickload 08.5 gr, 4.72" barrel, 110 gr Speer Round nose .308 bullet, 1.3" OAL gives 1114 fps 22,953 psi
Notice the discrepancy between AA pressure measurement and Quickload calculations.
AA later pulled all CZ52 loads.
AA was later sold.
Since 2013 I have become a fan of 50 year old Richard Feynman videos on scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2SENYI1rE
When he says "vague theory" to attack Carl Sagan or someone of that era for bad science, today men like Paul Steinhardt attack men like Guth by saying "flexible theory".
Recently I worked with an 85 year old PhD from Bell Labs that attacked Sagan at a DOD nuke symposium way back in the day over the same issues.
It seems that bad science, horrible science, has been all around us for a long time, and I have just started noticing it and getting fussy.
Thanks.
I started handloading in 1999. I made my money by designing power supplies by blowing them up with overloads and beefing up the part that failed. When I started handloading I tried to blow up guns. My father, a gun designer, said I was not learning anything. My brother, a gun collector, said I was ruining guns. When CZ52s blew up too easily and Tokarevs would not blow up, I could see there was an error in the gun books. By 2005 I had it figured out.
By 2013 I wrote this, and got the attention of Hartmut Brömel, Quickload author in Germany:
....Ted Curtis, the ballistician wrote that all Eastern block Tokarev ammo was 42kcup except Russian, which tested at 31 kcup.
Then the load book "Accurate Smokeless Powder Loading Guide" 2000 came out with the same data.
Those loads were later recanted by AA.
Johan Loubser Ballistic Lab manager at Accurate Arms wrote some weasel words and revised their loads for the CZ52 only. This example is for 110 gr SPR RN 1.3":
a) The hot load from 2000: 11.7 gr AA#9 41,800 c.u.p 1688 fps
b) The wimpy load from 2005 8.5 gr AA#9, 34,270 psi, 1248 fps
But when I run the changes through Quickload, what I get is
I pointed out that Quickload sees the revision differently as AA#9 is also sold as Enforcer:
a) Quickload 11.7 gr, 4.72" barrel, 110 gr Speer Round nose .308 bullet, 1.3" OAL gives 1622 fps 63,866 psi
b) Quickload 08.5 gr, 4.72" barrel, 110 gr Speer Round nose .308 bullet, 1.3" OAL gives 1114 fps 22,953 psi
Notice the discrepancy between AA pressure measurement and Quickload calculations.
AA later pulled all CZ52 loads.
AA was later sold.
Since 2013 I have become a fan of 50 year old Richard Feynman videos on scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2SENYI1rE
When he says "vague theory" to attack Carl Sagan or someone of that era for bad science, today men like Paul Steinhardt attack men like Guth by saying "flexible theory".
Recently I worked with an 85 year old PhD from Bell Labs that attacked Sagan at a DOD nuke symposium way back in the day over the same issues.
It seems that bad science, horrible science, has been all around us for a long time, and I have just started noticing it and getting fussy.
Tucker 1371
New member
I think it would be an awesome round to have in something like a Glock 20 or EAA Witness platform. The problem is to do it if have to buy reloading equipment, a new pistol, and have a custom barrel made for said pistol.
What's the recoil like on a Tok?
What's the recoil like on a Tok?
Mike Irwin
Staff
Recoil isn't bad at all. Light bullet.
Muzzle blast, on the other hand?
Absolutely ferocious.
Muzzle blast, on the other hand?
Absolutely ferocious.
Clark,
I followed all your work in pretty much from the beginning. I was one of those that thought "This guy is nuts! How can he possibly believe that the roller block CZ52 is weaker than the Tokarev". Hopefully that is now common knowledge. You went to an amazing amount of time and personal expense, merely for knowledge. I'm quite sure you still have many detractors, but I sure as hell saw the light! Thanks again!
I followed all your work in pretty much from the beginning. I was one of those that thought "This guy is nuts! How can he possibly believe that the roller block CZ52 is weaker than the Tokarev". Hopefully that is now common knowledge. You went to an amazing amount of time and personal expense, merely for knowledge. I'm quite sure you still have many detractors, but I sure as hell saw the light! Thanks again!