In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
7.62x25 Effectiveness
machine gun moran
Member Posts: 5,198
This subject recently came up again in the forums.
It was stated that the x25 did a good job for the Soviets during WW2, and that is apparently true. I mentioned in an earlier post, that I have kept track of all accounts that I have come across (all but one on the Iremember.ru website, a Russian-language WW2 history website) of the performance of single-round hits in general combat, with the cartridge. I now have eight examples. All eight shots resulted in the target being decked, with seven apparently being immediately fatal, and with one man surviving (that one said he was knocked unconscious by the hit, which was in the left lung). (This amounts to an eight-for-eight record, with ball ammo).
It is not true that the x25 was discarded by the Soviets for being too powerful, in any way. That is what gave it its effectiveness, which was their primary consideration. Over-penetration in combat wasn't part of the equation, or the 7.62x54 would have been replaced by airsoft guns, well before handguns were. The 9x18 Makarov was adopted in the belief that it would also be effective enough, but it was found to be deficient in combat compared to the x25, and the x25 was the first cartridge the Soviets considered returning to when they decided to abandon the Makarov for combat use. They eventually adopted a hot-loaded 9x19 instead, although they have experimented with various 9x20's and 9x21's (some of which are in special service). The Soviets also developed loads for the 9x18 which are capable of better penetration than the original, and they make this ammunition available to client states whose military's still use the 9x18. These are described on the Russian Rosoboron Military Export website.
It was stated that the x25 did a good job for the Soviets during WW2, and that is apparently true. I mentioned in an earlier post, that I have kept track of all accounts that I have come across (all but one on the Iremember.ru website, a Russian-language WW2 history website) of the performance of single-round hits in general combat, with the cartridge. I now have eight examples. All eight shots resulted in the target being decked, with seven apparently being immediately fatal, and with one man surviving (that one said he was knocked unconscious by the hit, which was in the left lung). (This amounts to an eight-for-eight record, with ball ammo).
It is not true that the x25 was discarded by the Soviets for being too powerful, in any way. That is what gave it its effectiveness, which was their primary consideration. Over-penetration in combat wasn't part of the equation, or the 7.62x54 would have been replaced by airsoft guns, well before handguns were. The 9x18 Makarov was adopted in the belief that it would also be effective enough, but it was found to be deficient in combat compared to the x25, and the x25 was the first cartridge the Soviets considered returning to when they decided to abandon the Makarov for combat use. They eventually adopted a hot-loaded 9x19 instead, although they have experimented with various 9x20's and 9x21's (some of which are in special service). The Soviets also developed loads for the 9x18 which are capable of better penetration than the original, and they make this ammunition available to client states whose military's still use the 9x18. These are described on the Russian Rosoboron Military Export website.
Comments
I think the contrary is true, and in fact, for decades this was the most powerful handgun round available in much of the world, sort of the 357 SIG of its day.
Its pretty easy to compare this to modern cartridges to come up with some idea of how effective it might be.
The Tokarev pistol will put out a 90 grain .31 caliber 7.62x25 bullet at about 1370 fps. You can also get much better velocities with hot ammo from a longer barreled submachine gun, but for purposes of this post, we won't go there.
As a nice modern-day comparison, the Cor-Bon 90 grain 9mm+P round will get 1500fps with a .356 caliber bullet from a service pistol. The Corbon 90 grain .380ACP will yield 1050 fps from a service pistol with a similar .356 caliber bullet.
So at a first approximation, the 7.62x25 is somewhere in between a .380 and a 9mm luger +P with similar bullet weights, and actually much closer to the 9mm luger.
As another comparison, CorBon's 115 grain 9mm luger +P yields 1350 fps from a service pistol, and for at least several years, many authorities thought that this particular round was THE best available 9mm luger round. Comparing, the 115 grain 9mm yields nearly identical velocity to the 7.62x25, though with a 27% heavier and somewhat larger caliber bullet. The hot 9mm+P is clearly better. . .though not by as much as you might think.
I think without over-analyzing this, its fair to say that 7.62x25 ballistically beats the tar out of ANY .380ACP or 9mm Makarov load, each one of which has been (and still are) carried as standard for concealed carry and even service use in many parts of the world.
Edit: For what its worth, Tokarev pistols in 7.62x25 are STILL in service use in many parts of Asia, including China and Afghanistan.
On velocities, the references I have show 420 M/sec or 1370 fps muzzle velocity as standard spec with 90 grain ammo, from a Tokarev pistol. I deliberately picked the heavier 90 grain bullet simply because there are 90 grain bullets available in 9mm luger and .380 ACP for an exact "apples to apples" comparison.
Of course you'll get about 70fps more velocity using common 85 grain bullets. As mentioned, you can go faster yet with hotter submachine gun type ammo, though it may not be be safe or advisable to use much of that in variable-quality Tokarev pistols.
Even stipulating that you can consistently get 1500fps with a 90 grain bullet, as above, that means identical ballistics as the 90 grain 9mm+P luger. Meanwhile, the 9mm uses a larger caliber bullet (which can't hurt), and can operate with a wider range of bullet weights from 90 - 147 grains.
Now, are these "good" ballistics? Well, if you listen to the opinionated internet wags, 9mm luger is a weak girly Euroround, not worthy for use by our armed forces, or anyone else! Suffice it to say, I disagree with that, and I think the collective experience of the majority of military and police on the planet tends to suggest that 9mm luger works.
Also, many of the same internet wags who diss the 9mm+P salivate over a 5.7x28 round that shoots a teensy 40 grain .22 caliber bullet at 1650 fps from a pistol. Seems to me like the 7.62x25 (which shoots a bullet more than double the weight, more than double the cross sectional-area, at 90% the velocity) eats the overhyped Belgian .22 for lunch!
Again, bottom line for me is that while the 7.62x25 probably isn't as good for general defensive use as the more popular modern rounds like 9mm+P or 40SW, its still as good as, if not a lot better than many of the rounds Americans carry every day for concealed carry, like .38 special, .380, 9mm Makarov, or overhyped non-pistol rounds like .22 magnum or 5.7x28.
For the specialized application of penetrating light armor (which most civilians don't have), its still quite good.
I've chronographed four different lots of Eastern Bloc x25 at 1472, 1481, 1504 and 1427 avg of 10 shots ea. The hottest was steel cased military.
Using a 9mm barrel in the TT33 and firing hot WW2 9mm,115 gr Canadian military, velocity yielded 1244fps.
Using German 9mm +P+ 124 gr L7A1 ammo out of the same gun gave a 1308 fps avg.
The Mauser 96 pistol gave a good account of itself in the Boer War, WW1 and in China using a slightly lighter load.
I believe it was the basis for adopting the identical cartridge and boosting it about 100fps for their Tokarev pistol in 1933.
On the 'Box O' Truth' website, the x25 was the only pistol round that would penetrate the current U.S. military-issue helmet.
With the availability of reloading dies and expanding hunting bullets (Sierra and Hornady), and with huge amounts of surplus ammo being available at almost-dirt prices for plinking, one would think that Ruger would invest in a few x25 chambering reamers for the .30 Blackhawk. But it's a light bulb that may never come on.
gun. It would be good to have a better finish and sights.
Myself personally I did not get into the 7.62X25 ring until just recently. From my own little testing sessions and from what I have seen I have to say I am impressed with this caliber so far. The penetration mentioned above is true, but I see that as an advantage because the bad guy will be bleeding out of two holes instead of one.
In my opinion, it isn't entirely clear that a through-and-through wound is any better than a similar wound that stops just short of exiting, and there is some reason to think that this is not the case.
Ideally what you want is a bullet that expends all its kinetic energy causing tissue damage (hopefully in a channel wider that the bullet diameter), not one that punches a narrow ice-pick like hole and exits retaining much of its velocity.
If you want to get technical, apart from specific anatomic targets, what probably matters most in bullet effectiveness is internal wound surface area (which would be in major part dependent on bullet diameter), since that's what is going to determine bleeding rate. Whether the same amount of blood is flowing out of one opening or two. . .don't think that matters.
So along these lines, there are two real world limitations with a high-penetration round like the 7.62x25 for defense.
First, no matter how much it penetrates, the 7.62 is only going to open up a .30 caliber hole. That can be mitigated with soft-point type rounds which will open up a little, but none of the military surplus type ammo is of this configuration. If you go to soft-point rounds that expand, of course you're also going to be giving up much of the penetration, though that's not necessarily a bad thing (see below).
Next, and this is a much more serious drawback, high penetration isn't necessarily good. Yes, its an asset if you need to shoot someone behind cover or with armor. In a military setting, high penetration is good.
But in a civilian setting? Not so much. Here high penetration is potentially a major LIABILITY, since if you miss your target, the bullet has to go somewhere! A missed target, with a high penetration round means far increased likelihood that your missed shots will zing through walls, cars, etc. Now the likelihood of collateral damage becomes high, particularly in populated areas, and if you figure that every bullet you discharge likely represents its own lawsuit, you might want to be careful about this issue!
Note that missed shots are NOT just a theoretical concern. In multiple published reviews of actual police shootings, it turns out the police (who in theory are highly trained marksmen) actually miss their targets the overwhelming majority of the time!
Actual hit rates vary, but in at least two major series involving over a thousand police shootings, actual hit rate against assailants by police was only about 15% (EG, http://www.pointshooting.com/nosights.htm ).
Yes, we've all heard "know your target and what's beyond it", but when someone is trying to KILL you, and the adrenaline is pumping, and you have maybe a few seconds at most to shoot to save your life, maybe you're not going to be worried so much about what you can't see lying behind that wall 50 feet way, or even take the time to aim all that carefully.
Bottom line here is that 7.62x25 probably really isn't the best choice for real world defense. I wouldn't want to use it in my home. . .I wouldn't want to use it in public. While use of soft-point ammo could mitigate some of this risk, at that point, why not just pick a 9mm luger or something better?