[unspellable]

Kyrie ,


You are correct in stating that I was not quoting but rather paraphrasing from memory. I stand corrected. However, the Soviet committee report did make a point of the fact that they were changing the caliber to match the rifle so as to use one set of gauges for both. This discussion ran to a couple of paragraphs. Now I wish I had acquired the document.


The 7.62 Nagent revolver round is decidedly a different caliber. I havenâ??t actually taken measurements, but my information is that itâ??s closer to a 295.


Pulling bullets doesnâ??t prove much. Iâ??ve been sitting here measuring bullets from late manufactures commercial 7.65 mm Parabellum cartridges and they are all undersized. There are plenty of references that say itâ??s a 0.308 bullet, but show me a Luger barrel that size other than one somebody made from a cut down Springfield barrel. I have a bunch of barrel measurements and Iâ??m asking for more, enough to get some really valid statistics. The smallest to date is 0.3085 on an Interarms Mauser. Two other Interarms Mausers run noticeably bigger as do all the other barrels I have numbers for. The 0.3085 barrel is an outlier. Itâ??s getting pretty clear that the proper size is at least 0.3090 and probably bigger. There isnâ??t the big variation in size all the references warn you about either.


Head space may be the wrong term, but the cartridge does have a measurement that corresponds to headspace and this measurement must be in spec for things to work right. For example, on my 400-360 rifle (rimmed case) the nominal headspace is 0.050 inch. The nominal rim thickness is 0.048 inch. Like wise, on a rimless cartridge the shoulder has to be in the right place. Most rimless bottlenecked cartridges headspace on the shoulder. An exception is the 357 SIG which headspaces on the case mouth like a straight rimless case.


The dimensional differences Iâ??ve noted seem to be consistent across several makes of ammo. They also seem to be consistent enough that I run across mention of it in other places. The trick of mixing Mauser and Luger dies to load it was something I picked up elsewhere. There are tolerances and just plain goof ups. I have a Winchester 32 Special cartridge that will not come even close to chambering in my 1984. Itâ??s the only one Iâ??ve ever found that did not chamber easily. I had the same experience with a 10 mm Glock, forget what brand the ammo was.


Your velocity of 1378 fps for the Tokarev sounds about right, but Iâ??d like somebody to explain why test barrels always produce so much more velocity than the actual gun. It should cost about 30 fps to operate the action, whereâ??d the rest of it go? And the Soviets werenâ??t inflating the numbers for the sales brochure either.


Now there may be something else going here as well, because I have more than one figure for the diameter of the 7.62 X 54R bullet.


As far as shooting either goes, I donâ??t think the bullet diameter is any real problem. Head space may be worth looking at. I have nice modern fresh commercial loads in both and so I have been running Toks in the CZ52 and Mauser in the broomhandle an having no problems. Of course Iâ??ll have trouble when I get to those Hanson loads that are labeled both ways. Iâ??m storing 25 on their bases so theyâ??ll sag from gravity and be short enough for the Mauser while Iâ??m hanging the other 25 from their rims so theyâ??ll stretch and fit the CZ52.


The bottom line is you canâ??t always go by the â??authoritiesâ? or the references. It some times proves to be a case of every body quoting somebody else until it becomes a case of everybody knows something that just isnâ??t so. I started noticing discrepancies with the 30 Luger and got onto this project of digging to the bottom until I find the real story.


One of the things I have learned. Winchester loads the 30 Luger to SAAMI specs so they say go to SAAMI for the official numbers. Winchester is the only US company loading it so the SAAMI specs are what Winchester says they are. They get nice numbers from a test barrel. But as far as I can tell neither of them have ever actually seen a Luger, fired a Luger, or bothered to find out what works in a Luger. The SAAMI specs for pressure are just plain silly. And Winchester downloads from there. Fiocchi at least has an excuse, they rechamber Glisentis in 30 Luger in Italy and the Glisenti is not noted for being a strong gun.


Some of the misinformation out there is really odd. Why is my Dan Wesson 357 Super Mag marked 357 Maximum? These are two different cartridges. A properly loaded 357 Super Mag cartridge is longer than the cylinder window on a 357 Maximum Ruger. In fact the 357 Maximum cartridge was created because Ruger did not want to build a revolver frame long enough for the 357 Super Mag. This led to said results, but thatâ??s a story that belongs on another website.


So any way, the debate has been fun, but I had better be getting back to my 7.65 mm Parabellum project. Iâ??ll be working out proper recoil spring strength as well as loads. Iâ??m not just taking somebodyâ??s word for it, I am going to MEASURE the damn springs. Iâ??m also doing the math to calculate what the springs should be. There is also some math to convert the instrumental velocities of circa 1900 â?? 1930 to todayâ??s instrumental velocities. Of course that involves a study of how they measured the velocity back then. The scope of this project expands exponentially. Wolff Gunsprings has asked for a copy of the book when it comes out. Ha!


unspellable