7.62mmTokarev over 9mm?

[lamarbrog]

I just read the threads on .40S&W vs. 9mm Parabellum, and it reminded me of a thought I had a couple of years ago.

In the Pro-9mm thread, there was a lot of mention of penetration being the #1 factory. That is, the bullet penetrating deeply enough to hit vital structures.

#2 was listed as as being expansion of a JHP.

#3 was actual caliber of the bullet.

So, by this logic (which I certainly don't disagree with) let's examine the 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge.
First, a disclaimer. I don't own a pistol chambered in 7.62x25mm, I don't plan on purchasing one, and I have only shot a pistol in this chambering once. I don't have a dog in this fight. In addition, I realize the cartridge is pretty much obsolete, with no modern pistols being made in the chambering, so this is pretty much purely hypothetical.

That said- For the same reasons that so many of us prefer the 9x19mm cartridge, wouldn't we be even happier with a modern pistol in a 7.62x25mm chambering? Let's examine some facts.

With a fairly light bullet for each cartridge (115 and 85 grains) the 7.62Tok is traveling about 350fps faster with a "standard" load, so a JHP should open up very reliably.
Bullet mass is less, so recoil is theoretically going to be less also.
The case base is slightly (hardly even a significant amount, but whatever) smaller.
Feeding is supposed to be very reliable due to the bottle-neck design.
Penetration of barriers and armor has been shown to be exceptional with FMJ 7.62x25mm.

So, with this in mind- Did "we" have it right in the days of the 7.63Mauser, 7.62Tokarev, and 7.62Parabellum?

[nobody knows]

I'm not to sure of It's performance as I have never seen any scientific testing done. But I will say I really like the round for plinking It's vary cheap and fun to shoot. If there where a modern pistol (say a glock) and modern ammo, I would probably carry one.

[Nephrology]

Nobody makes a gun worth a damn in 7.62tok. I can't believe this is a thread.

Can we please close all these caliber war threads? They aren't helpful to anyone for any reason.

[halo2304]

I wonder if a :eek: 1911 could be chambered for 7.62Tok. That would be kind of ironic since the TT-33 is based on the 1911.

[KhanRad]

It might be a good performing cartridge if some decent loads were produced for it. However, the cartridge does have a overall length that is actually longer than the .45acp or 10mm. This could make for some challenges in making an optimal grip size in a full double column magazine. Then of course it does produce quite a bit of muzzle flash which can inhibit your ability to fight well at night. Not to mention it is louder than the .357sig which can cause a good amount of flinch.

[lamarbrog]

Nobody makes a gun worth a damn in 7.62tok. I can't believe this is a thread.

Can we please close all these caliber war threads? They aren't helpful to anyone for any reason.

You didn't read the OP, did you? That was addressed.

[lamarbrog]

I wonder if a :eek: 1911 could be chambered for 7.62Tok. That would be kind of ironic since the TT-33 is based on the 1911.

I recall seeing some photos of a Vietnam-era hack-job 1911 converted to 7.62x25mm. No idea where I'd find them again, but such a creature does exist.

[Nephrology]

You didn't read the OP, did you? That was addressed.

My bad.

[Thomas M-4]

I just read the threads on .40S&W vs. 9mm Parabellum, and it reminded me of a thought I had a couple of years ago.

In the Pro-9mm thread, there was a lot of mention of penetration being the #1 factory. That is, the bullet penetrating deeply enough to hit vital structures.

#2 was listed as as being expansion of a JHP.

#3 was actual caliber of the bullet.

So, by this logic (which I certainly don't disagree with) let's examine the 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge.
First, a disclaimer. I don't own a pistol chambered in 7.62x25mm, I don't plan on purchasing one, and I have only shot a pistol in this chambering once. I don't have a dog in this fight. In addition, I realize the cartridge is pretty much obsolete, with no modern pistols being made in the chambering, so this is pretty much purely hypothetical.

That said- For the same reasons that so many of us prefer the 9x19mm cartridge, wouldn't we be even happier with a modern pistol in a 7.62x25mm chambering? Let's examine some facts.

With a fairly light bullet for each cartridge (115 and 85 grains) the 7.62Tok is traveling about 350fps faster with a "standard" load, so a JHP should open up very reliably.
Bullet mass is less, so recoil is theoretically going to be less also.
The case base is slightly (hardly even a significant amount, but whatever) smaller.
Feeding is supposed to be very reliable due to the bottle-neck design.
Penetration of barriers and armor has been shown to be exceptional with FMJ 7.62x25mm.

So, with this in mind- Did "we" have it right in the days of the 7.63Mauser, 7.62Tokarev, and 7.62Parabellum?

Forgive me but I am having a hard time trying to understand what you are trying to get at.
One thing in the western world you have a huge selections pistol caliber chamberings . I can name a few off the top of my head that would meet and surpass 7.62x25mm performance.
357sig,38 super, 9x23mm & 9x25mm Dillon.

[Armati]

The 7.62x25mm is the biggest bang for the buck in shooting. Nothing comes close in the power to cost ratio. You can easily find hot SMG rated ammo launching 85gr bullets at 1500fps - all for less than $0.20 a round. This is the cheapest full power practice round you can find.

For practical defense Reed's Ammo has some serious stuff at great prices:

http://shop.reedsammo.com/category.sc?categoryId=14

Unfortunately, there are very few good weapons or conversion kits available for the great round. The TT-33 has a great form factor for CCW but the firing system would need to be completely reworked.

I find recoil on the TT-33 firing surplus Yugo SMG ammo to be lighter than my customized Beretta 92FS firing factory 115gr.

The 7.62x25mm really offers a lot to the shooter for plinking, competition, or practical defense. If only there were a modern gun made for it.