Talk:7.62×25mm Tokarev

message: Could the poster please provide a source for the following information, preferrably as a link on the page (or as a simple reference if no URL is available)?
It is a rumor that this ammunition is not recommended to be used in other weapons besides the Cz 52 pistol. However, independent testing by numerous sources has indicated that the CZ 52 pistol is in fact dangerously prone to failure when firing Czech Tokarev ammunition due to its extremely thin barrel thickness at the point of highest gas expansion pressures. In most tests involving excessively loaded cases of 7.62x25mm ammunition, Tokarev T-33 pistols have fared much better than the CZ-52 pistol.
I have seen statements from various unverifiable sources that the Vz-52 was designed specifically to handle the 7.62x25mm "Czech load", referred to often as "M48". I have also seen statements that this load was designed for submachine guns only and shouldn't be fired from any pistol. At this point, I think it would be appropriate that at least one verifiable source be provided on this Wikipedia page before any solid statements are made either way regarding the use of Czech loads fired from any firearm, let alone the Vz-52.
There are two things I can reasonably cite as fact:
#This, and 
#My own CZ52 handles the Czech-manufactured Sellier & Bellot 85 grain FMJ quite  well, which is rated at 1,647 fps by S&B from the CZ52 (though independent testing (links below) has shown that this figure is exaggerated by about 100 ft/s). It has thus far digested 500 rounds of it without any sign of problems.
*http://members.nuvox.net/~on.melchar/tokarev/tokssnb.html
*http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_159_26/ai_90099729/print
Thanks, Raygun 05:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Czech 7.62x25mm Ammunition and Vz-52 Failures

message: --Commander Zulu 12:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article moved. --Commander Zulu 09:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, most of the print stuff I've seen tends to omit the "mm" if there's a name with the calibre as well- so, you'd have 7.62x25 Tokarev, 6.5x55 Swedish, 5.56 NATO, etc. If you didn't have the name, then you'd have the "mm". Most (if not all) boxes of ammunition that I've seen use this convention. The other thing is that if you start including the "mm", we end up with the Weights & Measures bots buggerising all the article titles to make them look like algebra equations written by someone typing v e r y slowly (7.62 x 25 mm Tokarev, for example). Simple answer: AxB (name), no "mm". I've had a look through some of my reference texts and you're right, many of them do have the "mm"- but not all of them, and even then, not always for every metric calibre (none of them mention the "mm" in relation to any of the Russian calibres except 7.62x39, and even that's called 7.62x39 Soviet in some cases). It's a tough one, but the system we have now seems to be working OK, and I'm inclined to leave well enough alone at this stage. --Commander Zulu 12:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Russian book by Alexender Zhuck (Александр Б. Жук), there is no need to list "mm" if you write the length of the round. Proof: , pages 757-761 are full of images of gun rounds, where "mm" is ommited, if round legth is added. So, I vote for removing the "mm". 178.215.105.1 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article renaming

message: A small piece of info about if there are 10-20 images of different pistol rounds on same page. As for subject ammo, it listed there as "42. ТТ 7,62 мм (СССР), Маузер 7,63 мм (Германия", which means "(number of illustration). TT 7,62 mm round (USSR), 7,63 mm Mauser (Germany)", the cyclopedia by Zhuck lists these two rounds under same image. 178.215.105.1 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between Mauser 7,63 and TT 7,62 ammo are inconsistent 

message: This really didn't belong in the article as it was. If someone wants to briefly summarize and include in another section at the end, that might be better. Twalls 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this yet again. Twalls (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Main Article

message: Is there anyway to confirm that the right hand cartridge in the photo is armor piercing. Sellier & Bellot sells surplus lead core FMJ in lacquered steel cases that looks identical to the pictured cartridge. Being a high velocity round 7.62x25 will pierce some levels of armor but lead cored bullets are not specifically designed to pierce armor. If no confirmation can be made I suggest the caption be changed to reflect brass vs. steel case instead of non-AP vs. AP. Nailedtooth (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo. Armor piercing?

message: Why does it not mantion the case capacity? This must be the 5th article today i've brought this up on, yet nobody seems to notice. Also, why only one resource mentioned? It doesn't provide half of the information in this article! Somebody please fix this article as soon as possible. Avianmosquito (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia.  If you don't like it, change it.  Case Capacity is irrelevant, if you ask me, and beyond the scope of this article. Do you really need to know the angle of the shoulder for the purposes of Wikipedia? How about the radius of the rim chamfur? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Case capacity is not irrelevant. In all actuality it is more relevant than half the information on this page. It may not seem important to you, but it might be to some people. If anybody can find this information they should add it to the page immediately. I would do it myself, but I have no clue what the case capacity is. 71.112.219.8 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Case capacity is an arbitrary number that changes from manufacturer to manufacturer, lot to lot, and even a great deal amongst lots.  Further, the area a bullet takes up within the case varies by load, bullet type, etc.  There is no useful data that can be gleaned from case capacity and used to any encyclopedic purpose.  Feel free to remove anything in the article you feel is irrelevant. This is not a "how-to" guide and such minutia that is of highly limited use to reloaders borders on the absurd, in my opinion.  Please establish both verifiability and notability on the talk page prior to adding this to ammunition articles.  In fact, try making your case on WP:GUNS talk page as that's where I will go to with the discussion after I revert it.  Thanks for your time. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no case capacity?

message: The article states that the OTs-27 Berdysh is chambered in this cartridge, but I can find no reference to this elsewhere.  Anyone have a source or shall this be deleted?--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs)  16:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found several sites in Russian stating the pistol is available in 9mm Mak, 9mm Para, and 7.62x25mm. Twalls (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  The ones I found in English only stated the two 9mm chamberings.  If you could add sourcing for the 7.62x25mm variant, that would be great.  Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs)  15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to find the best source. Regards, Twalls (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OTs-27 Berdysh?

message: The original purpose of the round is a significant question.  Some 7.62x25mm rounds will pierce some armor.  On YouTube there are videos of Tokarev ammo going thru a bullet resistant vest, also of a vest stopping it.  Obviously steel core bullets would have a tendency to pierce armor.  I don't know about other states, but Texas has a law against the possession of bullet piercing ammo made for handguns.  Yet the definition is such that it is not the fact that a bullet pierces which defines the round, but what its ORIGINAL PURPOSE was.  Thus if a round in fact pierces armor, but was not originally designed as a handgun round with the primary purpose of piercing armor (or metal), the round is legal to possess, IMHO.  Therefore, it is important to determine what was the original intent of the round.  If a type 7.62x25mm was originally designed for sub machine guns, those rounds would be legal to possess.  If those rounds were designed for handgun use and steel was the material of the bullet just because a government was saving money over lead, those rounds would be legal to possess.  Therefore, if someone has the information as to the original intent of Tokarev rounds, the added information would be significant.  As it is, in the introduction, the writer hints that they were made for Russian submachine guns.  But no citation is given. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Design Purpose of the Round

message: Which was a better SMG round: It or the 9mm Parabellum?
And how about an all-rounder?.. And how about a pistol for that matter?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback