[unspellable]

Kyrie,


I'll have to check out the C&R Forum, it's a new one to me.


As for the Mauser vs. Tokarev thing you quote a number of "authorities" but I was quoting the actual Soviet design committee that came up with the thing. If they state they made thus and such a change in the original Mauser cartridge then I assume they changed it. I would consider the design committee report as closer to gospel than Datig, et al.


One cannot take everything in print as set down by "authorities" as gospel. I have a rifle chambered for the 400-360 2-3/4 Nitro Express. For years, everything I could find in print about this cartridge was absolutely dead wrong! Including almost all the dimensions. And I mean wildly wrong!


Your own quotes are inconsistent as they mention the change from 7.63 to 7.62 as merely nomenclature and then go one to mention that for "manufacturing convenience it was changed to 7.62." The latter is consistent with the design committee's report. The change in nominal diameter is admittedly quite small and normal manufacturing tolerances are probably bigger than the nominal difference so the diameter question will be primarily of interest to those who have there Mauser sights cranked up to 700 meters and are shooting at prairie dogs.


There is also the mention of some lots of "old" Tok ammo cranking up 1600 fps, possibly indication deterioration and high pressures while at the same time the Soviet load is listed at 505 m/s which is over 1600 fps. This sounds high to me, I have always heard the Soviet round cranked out 1200 or 1300 fps.


The critical question is the headspace and neck length question.


I have on hand Winchester, S&B, Chincom, and various kinds of surplus Tok ammo. I have on hand Fiocchi, Remington, and surplus Mauser ammo. In every case the headspace is greater on the Tok stuff and the neck is shorter on the Tok stuff. Now this would be guilty of quoting authorities, and sure enough I have a box of Hanson ammo marked 7.63 Mauser/7.62 Tokarev. But all the problems I've heard of with shooting or loading these cartridges have been consistent with the Tok having a longer headspace.


It would be fun to really dig into this, but I've already committed myself to doing so with the 7.65 mm Parabellum. It has turned into a really big project. Another one like it and I'll end up kicked out of the house. In the case of the 7.65 mm Parabellum I am rapidly finding out that "authorities" ain't necessarily so. Keep your micrometer and your chronograph handy.


This project has expanded to the point where I am now designing some sort of fixture to measure the strength of Luger recoil springs. I'm trying to research Luger recoil springs. I'm ordering up a second thousand pieces of brass. I'm doing a research project on the methods used to measure velocity a hundred years ago. I'm running another research project on pressure factors. There is an effort in the area of pistol design and load matching. I am looking at ordering bullets in 1000 piece lots and also thinking of having some custom made. I've been begging parts off Ruger for this project. I'm digging into the old US army trials. Every answer raises six new questions. If I try firing some of my prewar Winchester corrosive hollow points, will the velocity mean anything or has the powder changed too much while it was aging?


All this will definitely keep me from roaming the streets at night.


If you guys are really serious about finding out the real scoop on this cartridge come around and mow my lawn for me. This project isn't leaving time for me to do it.


unspellable