I wonder the difference between them，then I want to know whether they can be universal under certain circumstances. I once heard a wording that “7.62mm pistol can’t shot 7.63mm ammo and 7.63mm pistol can shot 7.62mm ammo”，I want to know whether wording is reliable or not.
Some previous forum discussions on the subject:
Germany, China, and a number of other countries produced 7.63 Mauser ammunition. The Russians bought 7.63 Mauser pistols, and ammunition for them, and eventually began to produce the round. The Russians later changed the designation of their production to 7.62 to better fit their system. Fedor Tokarev used the cartridge in his TT pistols and the round was later used in various Soviet SMGs. China similarly changed its designation for the round in the 1950s when it began receiving and standardizing Soviet weapons. At various times throughout the 1930s to 1950s, the British and Americans used .30 Mauser and 7.63 Mauser interchangeably.
Through all the changes detailed above, I have never seen any scrap of evidence to indicate that any country or commercial manufacturer loaded 7.63 Mauser or 7.62 Tokarev differently, either in physical dimensions or power levels…or loadings made for SMGs only. The only anomaly I can think of off-hand is that American companies tended to down-load everything.
Forgive me if I’ve forgotten something, or post something to refute my statements. I’m always happy to learn.
Jonnyc, I basically agree with you, because the differences are minor and often are submerged in manufacturing tolerances.
But, as I wrote in one of the messages in the third thread quoted by bdgreen, the CIP datasheets for 7.63 Mauser and 7.62 Tokarev clearly show different dimensions, in particular bore and groove diameters of the barrels (Russian versus Western “7.62”).
As you correctly note, there is no real difference of power levels between the Mauser cartridge and its Tokarev descendant.
Still not clear to me.
Why a well known U.S. manufacture sells dies for 7.62 Tokarev AND 7,63 Mauser.Never understood it to this day…
Cartridges should not be defined by barrel diameter and barrel grooves. Bullet diameter is critical.
Cartridges Mauser 7.63 × 25 = 7.62 × 25 Tokarev
I can only think that because these are almost the same thing & that is not a widely know fact for shooters.
if the firearm said 7,62 on it why would I buy dies for a 7.63, when I can buy a 7.62 & be sure I have the correct thing. Right?
Besides for a long time the story was that you can’t fire a 7,62 is a 7,63 because it was dangerous.
From a practical point of view, I understand your position, but I do not share it.
What happens if you separate the cartridge from the barrel dimensions is clearly demonstrated by the chaos surrounding the German 7.9 mm military cartridge aka 8 mm Mauser. There we have a hunting caliber (today called 8x57J) using new, tighter bore dimensions (7.8 mm) adapted with hindsight to the smaller diameter of the original military cartridge 88. And in parallel there is a cartridge (8x57JS) designed for the existing 7.9 mm bore of the military rifle.
In my view it is most important to consider the barrel dimensions for which a cartridge was designed.
Take a look at the Russian sample of cartridges. These cartridges are designed for one rifle.
Each bullet caliber has its own tolerance limits.
These cartridges are also equal. Mauser 7.63 × 25 = 7.62 × 25 Tokarev.
Your example describes exactly what I am talking about. You could also compare a French balle M of 1886 (8.1 mm diameter) with a balle D of 1898 (8.3 mm diameter).
Russia and France were in a position that their military cartridges were illegal for ordinary citizens. So the fumbling in the dark by the military authorities went unnoticed. Germany had the “bad luck” that everyone who had the money could buy a military rifle and its ammunition. The commercial gunmakers, not really understanding what was going on, introduced dangerously tighter bore dimensions to cater for the older bullet.
To know this background of early smokeless cartridge development is in my view most important to understand what happened in the years around 1900 and to be aware that developments in the UK and the US took a very different road (no playing around with changing bullet diameters).
Therefore I stay by my opinion that bullet diameters and bore dimensions cannot be viewed independent of each other.
From my own experience shooting an 1896 Broomhandle in .30 Mauser, and a CZ-52 in .30 Tokarev [yes, I did that on purpose, do not holler at me for my use of cartridge nomenclature], here is what I have encountered…
Tokarev marked ammunition is hotter than Mauser marked ammunition, not only commercial, but military from several timeframes and countries.
I have loaded both military production and civillian production Mauser marked ammo and Tokarev marked ammo in the same magazine fired in the CZ-52, and there is a noticeaable recoil difference between them, and the Tokarev marked ammo emits a more noticeable ball of flame at the muzzle.
A few years ago I ran into some Czech Tokarev marked ammo that was perported to me SMG ammo, which gave a much more noticeable recoil- and ball of flame- from my CZ-52, and easily blew through a Class 3 vest at 25 yards.
I have seen three 96 Broomhandles, and heard of several more, that were damaged from firing Tokarev marked ammo in them: cracked hammers, bolts with noticeable stress marks.
No, I cannot point to any specific written documentation, and, while my comments are not very scientific, it is from personal experience firing many hundreds of both rounds since the late 1970s’.
The general rule is that any .30 Mauser ammo can be fired in any Tokarev chamberd pistol, but Tokarev marked ammo should never be fired in any Broomhandle pistol.
And yes, both cartridges can be loaded with either marked loading dies, there are two because the manufacturers are greedy…
Your observations, although very possible, say nothing as to causality. US-made commercial Mauser or Tokarev ammo will almost invariably be loaded significantly lighter than European Mauser or Tokarev ammo. The fireballs are more likely a factor of powder attributes and not an indicator of power differences. Just about any bullet or loading of 7.62/7.63 ammunition will easily defeat Level III and IIIA armor. And lastly, most of the Mauser pistols imported into the US were from China, and in pretty poor condition, after years of abuse and parts replacement with very questionable metallurgy.
The 1891 sample bullet was produced for 17 years.
Why are they working on replacing the caliber of the rifle barrel with a 1908 bullet?
7.62x54 R mod 1891 and 7.62x54 R mod 1908 were equivalent cartridges. There was no replacement of the barrel for Mosin rifles.
After that, Russia faced many difficulties:
- European war 1914-1918
- Revolution of 1917-1922
It was impossible to upgrade the caliber of the rifle barrel.
Shortly before the European war (1914-1918), the tsarist army had 4,171,743 Mosin rifles.
Take a look at the 1917 and 1925 cartridges.
Please read what I wrote. Neither France, nor Germany, nor the US, nor the UK, nor Russia [as far as I know in the case of Russia] changed the military barrel dimensions. France, Germany and Russia played with bullet diameters. In the end, Germany faced a new, dangerously tighter bore (nowadays known as 8x57J) introduced by the commercial gunmakers for civilian use.
The lesson to be learned from this is in my view to not ignore the relation between bullet and bore dimensions.
Bullet diameter tolerances of 0.1 mm are perfectly acceptable and not fatal. If the barrel diameter remains the same.
I believe that if the diameter of the barrel changes, then this is the appearance of a new weapon, and not a new cartridge.
I believe that in some cases, the capabilities of one cartridge may exceed the capabilities of the weapon for that cartridge.
Here’s an example:
7.62 ShKAS and 7.62 MOSIN
9 mm Glisenti and 9 mm Luger
These two are having the same load and ShKAS rounds can be fired from ordinary infantry weapons, or better, it was standard issue in WW2 that infantry was using ShKAS API loads (unified production), just with laquered cases for easier extraction due to the thicker case walls.
Because the cartridge had to serve as a different weapon.
The capabilities of the cartridge had an impact on rifle shooting.
Where is that from?
Cartridge ballistics are identical.
All of the C-96 Broomhandles I refer to were definitely German made, as we were a relatively small collector “group” who specialized in only a few specific pistols, no rifles.
I did not specify U.S. commercial ammunition, as we tested eberything we could get our hands on, and as I stated, military production Mauser and military production Tokarev had noticeably different FELT recoil fired in the CZ-52.
We tried to keep ammo manufacture dates as equal as we could between the “two” calibers, and we did not test commercial against military, and, as I recall, back then there was no U.S production of either round that we had access to i the quantities needed to test the power theory, so none was used. All ammo tested was foreign made.
Some of the guys had the Tokarev [I personally do not like that handgun] and reported the same findings, so the conclusion is that Tokarev marked ammo is loaded hotter than Mauser marked ammo. was a valid conclusion.
By the way, the Mauser marked ammo, either commercial or military, did not go through and through the vests as the Tokarev “SMG” ammo did, and neither did the “regular” Tokarev marked ammo, which pierced the front but not the back.
“The extraction problem definately comes from the ShKAS thick wall cases!
As said that was the reason why infantry issue ShKAS API had an extra coat of clear laquer.”