Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay guys, what am I missing here; why aren’t there any conversion for the 1911 to 7.62x25 Tokarev? With ammo being so cheap, this just seems like a logical thing to me, yet other than some custom jobs, I haven’t heard of anyone doing a commercial conversion. I’ve always loved the round, but never much cared for the handguns that chamber it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,991 Posts
The Tokarev pistols ar somewhat a clone of the 1911. Actually more than somewhat. More like a direct ripoff. I find they fit my hand quite well, not a bad gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,498 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
[quote="Patrick Sweeney":3ne6br74]Too long.
Are you sure, I've seen custom 1911's in 7.62 Tok before and they appeared to be using .38 Super magazines?[/quote:3ne6br74]

Many moons agone George W. Nonte, my boyhood hero, did a LOT of conversions on the basic .45 frame, mostly with relined barrels. Does anyone have the reference?

Geoff
Who is too tired and I have to go the HOA annual meeting with my wife, to keep her from volunteering..sigh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
Okay guys, what am I missing here; why aren't there any conversion for the 1911 to 7.62x25 Tokarev? With ammo being so cheap, this just seems like a logical thing to me, yet other than some custom jobs, I haven't heard of anyone doing a commercial conversion. I've always loved the round, but never much cared for the handguns that chamber it.
Kevin Gibson said:
[quote="Patrick Sweeney":3dclh294]Too long.
Are you sure, I've seen custom 1911's in 7.62 Tok before and they appeared to be using .38 Super magazines?[/quote:3dclh294]
Patrick Sweeney said:
As best I recall, they modified the mag well to take new, longer (front to back) magazines.
Mr. Gibson:

As I assume this thread may have been started as a result of the one dealing with "Guns that made it that shouldn't have", I figured that I'd stick my nose in here too.

I don't have the time right to verify any of this stuff right now but if memory serves me, I think (again this is NOT something I had the time to look up) that the 7.62x25 is just shy of 1/16" longer than a .38Super. I'm not sure how much room there is to play with inside a 1911-type .38Super magazine but I'd be surprised that there would be that much. Maybe, but I dunno.

And if you have to stretch things out, then you are looking for inconsistencies in multiple mags and possibly (as Mr. Sweeney indicates in his albeit different example) a mag well modification as well. Not quite what I would call a "drop-in" conversion, which in the case of handguns (not rifles, for those enthusiasts tend to be more tolerant) seems to all but be required for such a change to become popular with the masses.

The other issue in such a conversion could be the chamber pressures found in some of the original (non-commercial) ammunition that is still floating around out there. Some of the really oddball subgun stuff is way high; perhaps (again this is past history and the numbers were somebody else's even then) running 50-75% higher than the 36,500psi that (again I think) SAAMI spells out as max for the Super. Now I think that things like the .357 SIG can run around 40,000 max but that's not even close to where I thought I remembered the hot military 7.62x25 running and in all of these situations, you not only have to look at things coming unglued but there is a real problem of the guns just breaking (down) or shooting themselves loose in a real hurry.

That is one of the nice things about one of the guns that I assume is on your list of ones that you don't like: the CZ52, which I have always thought was a real marvel for while even it won't stand up to everything, it will stand up to a lot. But that's a story for another thread.

Still, liking the 7.62x25 as much as I do and having shot a factory Colt Commander that was chambered in .30 Luger (an obviously shorter and lower pressure cartridge) sometime in the 80's, the idea of a 1911 in this caliber always made wonder about such a conversion too.

Sorry I can't tell you that you can completely believe my at-the-moment unverified numbers but I hope that you at least find these comments interesting and perhaps helpful as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
This does kinda flow into the other thread....

If the magazine/mag well is of sufficient length to take the round, probably the best way to do the conversion would be involved. Perhaps something similar to a Day .22 conversion for the 1911: the barrel to be fixed and using the HK roller lock to accomodate the pressures for the reciprocating bits.

Both the roller lock and the gas retardation systems HK adapted for the P9 and P7 series respectively should make possible handguns/ammo using much higher pressures than in common use at this time.

More practically, just because it can be done and you think it should be done doesn't mean there's enough other folks interested to make it worth the costs. In this case, costs include a profit margin.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Questions like this are the stock in trade for gunzine q&a columns and go something like this: I have a silk purse but want a sow's ear. How can I convert it?

"why doesn't S&W make one?"

Of course one must be polite to the subscriber so I usually would try to explain the costs of making a new, barrel, slide or whatever when I want to say... because you're the only idiot on the planet who wants one.

Or those seeking "the real maximum load for the .44 Special...

Why didn't you just buy a .44 Magnum??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Well these days the 7.62 Tok is the silk purse; it's a really fun cartridge to shoot and it's dirt cheap.

If you're a realoader, it can be a lot of fun too. You can use Hornady 90 grain XTP's, or a sabot with a 45 grain varmint bullet and end up with a really fun predator cartridge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,290 Posts
There was an article in one of the Gunzines a while back that showed a North Vietnamese/VC conversion of a 1911A1 to shoot 7.62x25 ammo. It was crude, but it functioned, kinda, sorta.

Most available, cheap, 7.62x25 is FMJ, corrosive, and not all of it has the same OAL, even in the same spam can. Storage in various places has also left it in less than stellar shape, too.

The military surplus ammo is Berdan primed, mostly brass cased, and non-reloadable in the majority of cases. Wolf Gold, S&B, and Privi Partizan all load brass cased, boxer primed, ammo, but it's far from the dirt cheap prices of the military surplus.

Current prices for S&B are $16.95/50
Privi is $13.95/50
Win. is $19.95/50
Wolf JHP $17.95/50
Wolf FMJ $16.95/50

Hardly a cheap way to obtain reloadable cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
OK, you're forced me to actually dig out data, instead of simply give an opinion. (Make me work, why don't you?) :lol:

COL of the .38 Super: 1.280" COL of the 7.62X25; 1.381" No, there isn't .100" extra space in the Super magazine. Were there, the conversions would have been done a long time ago, and barrels would be common.

As for pressure, I doubt there really were sub-gun loads deliberately pumped up by "50-75%" for the simple reason they were being fed into open-bolt guns. A bit hotter, perhaps. Variances in wartime production tolerances, certainly.

Even if 7.62X25 is hotter in some loads, if there is a pistol that could take it, it is the 1911. After all, a 9mm Major or Super at Major is close up to a proof load for the factory loadings of those cartridges, and IPSC shooters aren't breaking slides right and left. Burning out bores, yes, but not busting slides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
If.

If commie-loaded ammo allows the bullets to set back, and not just collapse the neck/shoulder
If the bullet ogive doesn't slip below the case mouth
If the re-seated bullet has enough neck tension to stay in place while feeding
If the set-back bullet doesn't spike pressure too much
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Patrick Sweeney said:
If.

If commie-loaded ammo allows the bullets to set back, and not just collapse the neck/shoulder
If the bullet ogive doesn't slip below the case mouth
If the re-seated bullet has enough neck tension to stay in place while feeding
If the set-back bullet doesn't spike pressure too much
Always with the negative waves man!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Patrick Sweeney said:
OK, you're forced me to actually dig out data, instead of simply give an opinion. (Make me work, why don't you?) :lol:

COL of the .38 Super: 1.280" COL of the 7.62X25; 1.381" No, there isn't .100" extra space in the Super magazine. Were there, the conversions would have been done a long time ago, and barrels would be common.

As for pressure, I doubt there really were sub-gun loads deliberately pumped up by "50-75%" for the simple reason they were being fed into open-bolt guns. A bit hotter, perhaps. Variances in wartime production tolerances, certainly.

Even if 7.62X25 is hotter in some loads, if there is a pistol that could take it, it is the 1911. After all, a 9mm Major or Super at Major is close up to a proof load for the factory loadings of those cartridges, and IPSC shooters aren't breaking slides right and left. Burning out bores, yes, but not busting slides.
Mr. Sweeney:

I agree with the Overall Length on the Super but I thought I remembered the 7.62x.25 as being shorter than quoted here. In any case, the example given here is worse than mine in regard to the 7.62x25 being too big to easily convert .38 Super mags (and possibly the gun frames/mag wells) to accept it.

As to pressures, I am sure that even with all the finger-pointing, internet rumors and errors, people badmouthing Tokarevs and supporting CZ-52's, people badmouthing CZ-52's and supporting Tokarevs (not here but elsewhere for the last 10 years), there still could be some truth to the pressure figures I have seen in past that easily (and routinely) fall in a 50% higher range. I have also seen more than one reference to some in a 75% higher range and while those could be due to "wartime production tolerances" (or just a bad time at the factory any day) I wouldn't want to fire such rounds. Ever.

As to the idea that the likelihood of firing such ammo (in general) in open bolt guns would keep manufacturers (especially WWII, Post WWII and Cold War Eastern-European manufacturers) from making overly high-pressured rounds, I don't want to sound harsh but I don't know if some of the countries involved had the manufacturing capabilities (or the mindset) to always make cartridges they didn't have to worry about. They were saddled with the (then commonplace) open bolt gun designs (some neat guns actually) and they were stuck (in some but not all cases) with (inherently) limited manufacturing ammo-making facilities.

There is also the possibility that they didn't care. I am no historian but looking at the mass charges that were made by seas of people armed with these guns (in the armies of both the Eastern European and, later, the Asiatic users of these weapons), it could be that while overpressure issues (perhaps more linked to damage and wear & tear rather than catastrophic or even explosive failure) were not a major consideration when wave upon wave of the people carrying such long guns were routinely sacrificed in an effort to overwhelm their enemies.

But to give them some credit, as misguided as it might sound, there is also the possibility that knowing the long guns were rough and inconsistent - with sometimes almost "sloppy" tolerances included to "enhance" reliability in the harsh European/Eastern European territories they found themselves fighting in, loading the ammo to the high side (knowing that it too might help them overcome such impediments by driving the guns thru them), it could be that the manufacturers planned things this way. I doubt it (I think that they were merely limited as to what they could make) but who knows what they were thinking!

What I do know is that in the past, enthusiasts not shooting the handguns we are discussing here, talked openly about long gun problems they faced where (granted not measuring pressures) they saw huge (and I don't use that term lightly) differences in bullet velocities, cyclical rates, bolt velocities and accelerated wear and tear (if not outright damage) to their guns.

Reading between those lines in the past, I think that such issues were not always just the fault of the certain countries, certain lots and certain years (which themselves often revolve around more than just typical charging issues but also involve differences in bullet diameters, seating depths and crimps) as cited in both credible and dubious sources regarding the ammo but also in the chamber dimensions and bore dimensions, of the guns themselves. And that leads me back to my earlier remarks about both the various gun and ammo manufacturers maybe wanting to build things the "right way" but not having the means to do so.

And while I'm not saying that a hobbyist/caliber-converting gunsmith out there will be "breaking slides" here if he or she builds and shoots such a thing correctly, I do think that one could still be pushing their luck with some of this stuff; especially with the almost cavalierly-made assumption (here and in some of the related threads) that merely pushing in the bullets (of already-loaded and sometimes perhaps unknown quality ammunition?) might solve the problem of overall length. Talk about the potential for pressure issues!

That said, I still think that if a 7.62x25 1911 of some sort was properly engineered, it could be a fascinating project because I still think it is a fascinating cartridge. But that perhaps relates more to that other thread I mentioned in my earlier posting.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top