Ammunition: 7.63x25 Mauser Vs. 7.62x25 Tokarev

[Kyrie]

There was recently a thread in “Early Lugers (1900-1906)“ labeled “Identifying A Luger” that touched on the differences between the 7.65x21 Luger cartridge and the 7.63x25 Mauser cartridge. The thread segued into a warning to avoid firing 7.62x25 Tokarev in a Model 1895 Mauser (I suspect the poster meant a C96 Mauser pistol) because the 7.62 Tokarev cartridge is
“loaded way hotter” and will eventually “blow up the Mauser”.

I have some mixed feelings about this warning.

I am in complete agreement that any firearm chambered for the 7.63x25 Mauser cartridge should only be fired with good quality 7.63x25 Mauser ammunition that is known to be in good condition. That is, to my mind, just common sense and within the sensible rules of safe firearm handling and use.

That said strongly and up front, what follows are the other side of the mixed feelings mentioned above…

It is my opinion and my experience that 7.63x25 Mauser and 7.62x25 Tokarev ammunition are different names for the same cartridge. There can be (and I have noticed) some slight dimensional differences between 7.63x25 Mauser and 7.62x25 Tokarev as produced in different countries and at different times, but such differences are, I believe, the result of minor manufacturing differences and not a reflection of intentional design differences.

Let’s look at some reference sources.

Fred Datig, in his “Soviet Russian Tokarev ‘TT’ Pistols and Cartridges 1929 - 1953” covered this subject in some detail. Here is a quotation from page 131 that may be of some interest, “As has been mentioned in Chapter Four, to quote, ‘in 1929, the designers Korovin and Prilutskiy converted (redesigned) their (prototype) pistols to the 7.62mm caliber cartridge (after) the Artillery Committee proposed developing them for the 7.63mm caliber Mauser (pistol cartridge …”
“Except for that which one may consider manufacturing tolerances, the 7.62 mm Tokarev and the 7.63 Mauser pistol cartridges are relatively identical and interchangeable.”

More currently, the interchangeability of .30 Mauser and .30 Tokarev has been covered in Jane’s “Ammunition Handbook” thusly:

“7.62 x 25 mm

Synonym. 7.62 mm Tokarev; 7.62 Soviet pistol; Russian; 0.30 Mauser; 7.63 x 25mm

Armament
Tokarev TT33 automatic pistol; various obsolete Soviet sub-machine guns (PPD, PPSH, PPS); Chinese Type 85 sub-machine gun and Type 80 pistol. Most pistols and steel sub-machine guns chambered for the 7.63 mm Mauser cartridge will probably operate satisfactorily with this round and vice versa.

Development
This cartridge actually began life as the 7.63 mm Mauser automatic pistol cartridge. It was taken into use by the Russian forces in the early 1900s and the pistol remained popular with the Bolshevik armies, one model being produced specifically for the Soviet As a result manufacture of the Mauser cartridge began in Russia, and when in due course the Tokarev automatic pistol was developed, it was designed around the Mauser cartridge. For manufacturing convenience the barrel of the Tokarev was 7.62 mm calibre, thus the Soviet cartridge lost its Mauser designation and became known as the 7.62 mm Tokarev. The dimensional differences between the Soviet round and the original Mauser specifications are minute and largely due to the manufacturing processes. It can therefore be expected that any weapon originally using the Mauser cartridge will work with the Soviet pattern and vice versa. (Emphasis mine – Kyrie) This cartridge has been manufactured in China and various countries of the former Warsaw Pact, but always to the Soviet specification. The Chinese pattern (below) is stated to be for the automatic pistols Type 54 sub-machine guns and Type 80 and for the Type 85 light sub-machinegun. Like the 7.63 x 25 mm cartridge from which derived, the 7.62 x 25 mm performs very well against 7.62 soft body armour and light metal, such as automobile bodies.

Description
The case is rimless and bottlenecked. The standard ball bullet is round-nosed and lead cored with a steel jacket.

Specifications Ball Type P
Round length: 34.56 mm
Round weight (nominal)- 10.65 g
Case length: 25.14 mm
Rim diameter: 9.91 mm
Bullet diameter, 7.82 mm
Bullet weight: 5.57 g
Muzzle velocity: 505 m/s
Muzzle energy: 709 J


Turning to commercial (i.e. C.I.P.) ammunition manufacture, we find an absence of differences in manufacturing chamber pressure standards between 7.63x25 Mauser and 7.62x25 Tokarev cartridges; both cartridges have the same chamber pressure standards (e.g. Pmax 2600, Pk 2990, and PE 3380).

With all of that said, let me repeat: I discourage shooting any cartridge other than 7.63x25 Mauser in any firearm chambered for the 7.63 Mauser cartridge. But I have done so, for necessity’s sake, when commercial 7.63 Mauser ammunition was essentially unavailable here in the USA, circa 1960 – 1986. During that period, I fired tens of thousands of rounds of Soviet Russian 7.62 Tokarev through a great many different Mauser C96 pistols, without incident. When good, high quality, Soviet Russian M30 ball ammunition became unavailable here in the USA I briefly switched to 7.62x25 ammunition manufactured in the Peoples’ Republic of China but discontinued that practice shortly thereafter as I began to experience problems with the PRC origin ammunition. It was at roughly this time that European made commercial 7.63 Mauser ammunition became available which mooted the need to fire 7.62 Tokarev in any firearm chambered for the 7.63 Mauser.

All of this is either my opinion based on long experience, or quoted from publicly available reference works, all offered entirely FWIW.

[Vlim]

Your choice, but unadvisable.

[sheepherder]

Here is an example of why you don't want to shoot Tokarev ammunition in a C96...

That bent piece of steel is the only thing separating the bolt from the back of your head...

[Kyrie]

You’re welcome to your opinion concerning what causes that kind of damage, and I don’t have to share your opinion to respect it.

That said, in my opinion the example of a deformed barrel extension is more likely caused by a worn out or improper main spring than it is related to ammunition.

I also believe that the present easy availability of recent production, C.I.P. compliant, 7.63 Mauser (and/or hand loading components and tools) remove any need to use 7.62 Tokarev in a Mauser C96.

But then we are all adults here, and free to make our own choices.

[reiver]

Is there even a source for 7.63 bullets for reloading or does everyone use the readily available 7.62?

I know the dif is minimal but am asking anyway.

I would also 'guess' that the deformed C 96 upper was due to a less than positive round seating in the chamber...and slightly worn and out of spec 'innards' allowing ignition... out of battery and not a positive lock.

[Kyrie]

Don’t let the cartridge names throw you; “7.63 Mauser”, “7.62 Tokarev”, “.32 ACP” (AKA 7.65 Browning) are just cartridge names rather than technical descriptions.

While the weight of the bullets used in commercial loadings of these three cartridges vary, all three cartridges use bullets of the same diameter. Ammunition manufactured in Europe uses bullets of .309 inch diameter; ammunition manufactured here in the USA uses bullets of .308 inch diameter.

Back when I was hand loading I used a great many .309, 85/86 grain bullets salvaged from .30 Tokarev cartridges. At present Hornady offers a .309 diameter, 90 grain, XTP bullet and Sierra offers a .308 diameter, 85 grain round nose bullet. Starline used to offer 7.62 Tokarev/7.63 Mauser virgin brass.

[Kyrie]

Here is another deformed C96 barrel extension:



This is a Chinese Hanyang (in Hupeh province southeast of Shanghai) produced C96, I believe produced in 1926.

[reiver]

Thank...I use the Hornady .309 XTP for my Swiss Luger and have a lot on hand...makes life simpler.

[reiver]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

Here is another deformed C96 barrel extension:



This is a Chinese Hanyang (in Hupeh province southeast of Shanghai) produced C96, I believe produced in 1926.

In one of the C 96 books I have I remember a comment about inferior / softer steel in the Chinese made models. They did mention a factory if I remember correctly.

[reiver]

Picked this up the other day...the barrel/extension does not match the frame by about 3700 pistols but is tight to the frame. The internals don't match either but are 'tight' and it has been converted to 9mm by a nice sleeve that has great rifling. There is a slight dimple at the bolt stop but I suspect because the springs were not changed out.... I do not fear for my life.
It shoots well and cycles well (after I changed all of the springs and the bolt stop for new) but was piercing primers...
Took a while to get a balance between the new springs and that firing pin. I shortened the FP tip and rounded it (numerous times) ...took a few coils off of both the firing pin return spring and the trigger spring (both very stout) and finally got there.
You can't go too soft on the hammer spring as that also helps retard the bolt upon firing/cycling....there is a fine balance there between the bolt return spring/hammer spring/firing pin return spring.
That took a lot of re do's and went thru a box of Blazer Brass 115 9mm (which is a lot less stress than the original 7.63x25) on the 100 year old booger. Regardless, that is half of the fun.... I have Lugerman refurbing a 9mm Broomhandle so this will do for furn.
The internal mechanism is simply amazing in its complexity and design...the Federle brothers were genius.

It does have a nice dimple but I do not fear for my life and will shoot it, have shot it....the dimple (not as pronounced as the pics in this thread) is due, imo, to not balancing the 3 primary springs...hammer, recoil/reset, and firing pin.
If you shoot this system with a weak hammer or recoil/return spring you will send more impact to the bolt stop than was initially planned.... regardless of ammo. I think many focus only on the recoil / reset to battery spring and ignore the hammer spring that also acts in retardation of bolt recoil. If these two are balanced you will have no issue with the bolt stop absorbing more than it was designed to.

[reiver]

Looking for reload data (yours or source) for the 7.63x25 .....I have a bunch of accurate #2 and #7 so hope someone has that. Want to load mild rounds and will replace the bolt stop with new for that.

Got this today and just very pleased...got it from Simpsons, not cheap but you know what you are getting. Chatted with Leroy about this pistol and he went over it with me and answered my query's....
1911/1915 year group (too bad the records were destroyed in WW2) and in amazing condition. The bore is very good plus...excellent in my eval. Everything on this C 96 is tight as a drum and the only spring I changed out was the firing pin. The others were more robust than the Wolf spring new ones.
All numbers match to include the grips. 98% original blue. There are no import markings. The only non original piece is the lanyard ring that was removed at some point...replaced with a key ring lol.
Whoever had this stored it and rarely shot the piece. I will shoot it after making some milder reloads and will use a replacement bolt stop (new) when I do.

I will have to go with .308 as the bore is so unused...I tried the muzzle depth with both 86 gn .308 and the XTP .309 and the .308 is just right.

[reiver]

Well found a good reload for Accurate #2...and also tried #7. #7 was too slow a burn to cycle properly. This C 96 is 'tight' ... as tight as my Swiss Luger tight.
Every base/start load as listed would not cycle the pistol with either 86 or 90 gn rounds. I slugged the bore and got .3085 so can use a .308/.309.
The load that performs perfectly is 4.5 grains of Acc. #2 .309 XTP 90 grain @ COAL of 1.355.
The recommended start load for that is 4.2/max 4.7....with a 4.4 I'd still occasionally get a stove pipe.
I think the ammo problem with a lot of C 96's is they are no longer at factory spec internally (grasping the barrel and pushing there is no movement at all...locked tight)...with my Bolo there is a slight movement. Nor are they at spec bolt to carrier.

If the springs are not just right, the recoil and the hammer (they both retard recoil) and there is some slop in the internal mechanism and frame/carrier then the bolt stop is really taking a beating.

Just an FYI.....this is my new fav. shooter but it will be used sparingly...

First range/target after working up loads...25 meters...primers shown as primer piercing can be an issue with this FP design.

[reiver]

Forgot the pics. The XTP round and a 9mm for comparison.

[reiver]

100 meters, same load as above, no malfunctions, no pierced primers...this 'antique' is an amazing firearm. The vertical spread is on me...the sights being what they are...

[LU1900]

Nice , 100m with or without the stock/butt ?

[reiver]

Originally Posted by LU1900

Nice , 100m with or without the stock/butt ?

Lol, def with the stock.... the sights are not what one would call 'good' due to the lack of sight radius. Plus I have 72 year old eyeballs.

They are basically the same as rifle sights and you'd need that distance for them to be solid.