7.62 x 25

O.K. here it is from the data that I requested from them and the letter that they sent.

"This handgun is increasing in popularity in the U.S. In determining the appropriate pressure limit for our load data we tested various military ammo from China, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic. Commercial ammo produced by Sellier and Berloit was also tested. Based on these test results we arrived at a maximum pressure for our load data of 42,000 C,U.P.
The pressure data shown here was developed in a 9" pressure barrel. We then fired the same loads through an issue CZ-52 to record velocities. We felt that this would give a much better picture of the field performance of this data. The CZ-52 was kindly provided by Mr. Lane Pearce."

"We feel that the maximum loads shown here are suitable for the CZ-52 so long as the firearm is in good condition. Other models of foreign handguns of lesser quality should probably be loaded in a more cautious manner"

OF COURSE THEY MAY NOT FEEL THE SAME WAY NOW.

I am not going to print the whole thing only the one that I made mention of.
Also I warn everyone NOT TO USE IT until you contact Accurate Powders to confirm. Call (800-416-3006), write (Accurate Arms Company Inc.,5891 Highway 230 West McEwen, Tennessee 37101 U.S.A. or e-mail Ted Curtis at (TCurtis@accuratecompanies.com). Ted is the one who sent me the data but this was a while ago.

SRA 85 RN No.9 13.1gr 1972fps 41,000C.U.P.

I repeat DO NOT USE THIS WITH OUT CONTACTING ACCURATE.
 
Thanks. Good source and some surprising (to me) results. I may well try working up to that load in my Tokarev, using a slightly slower powder like 2400.
 
Awww Jeez, not this $hit again!

So, does your post mean that I should or shouldn’t worry about the order I placed today?

The Wikipedia link that was posted early also highlights a concern with some military surplus ammo, so I think my previous post had a fair question.

"Beware of firing military surplus ammo headstamped "* 10 52 3" (reading clockwise). There have been reports that these rounds were manufactured improperly, and could result in damage to the gun and injury to the shooter." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x25_Tokarev
 
If I remembered correctly, the problematic 7.62x25 Czech ammo was actually PROOF LOAD stuff that somehow made to the market. Some CZ-52 were destroyed using this ammo. As for the strength, Tokarev is in my opinion one of the strongest on the market. 9x19 Tok converted to 9x23 was grossly overloaded; twice amount of maximum powder load for 357, in a smaller case!!! Pressure must be about 100 000 PSI and gun didn’t blow up. Well, not this time. See http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26582
 
If I remembered correctly, the problematic 7.62x25 Czech ammo was actually PROOF LOAD stuff that somehow made to the market. Some CZ-52 were destroyed using this ammo. As for the strength, Tokarev is in my opinion one of the strongest on the market. 9x19 Tok converted to 9x23 was grossly overloaded; twice amount of maximum powder load for 357, in a smaller case!!! Pressure must be about 100 000 PSI and gun didn’t blow up. Well, not this time. See http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26582

Pressure is a wierd thing, without proper guages, there is no way to know. Some powders react differently when compressed and pressure actually starts to drop. That guy doesn't even have a chono......I wouldn't take anything he does as gospel. He will win the Darwin award eventually.
 
Clark's a smart and cool guy who has done a lot to dispell myths. I doubt we'll ever hear of him being hurt by an experiment, but if we do, he did it eyes wide open, and that's the risk he knew was there when we dare to step outside the supposed safety of published loads.

The point he proved was that the Tokarev pistol is very strong, and the CV-52 is not. I have a Tok chambered in 38 Super and I shoot 125's at 1400 fps (published load) and it is decently accurate. The sights are lame, but I found that by fitting the barrel to the bushing when I swapped barrels made a huge difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom