[Skunkabilly]

Any noticeable differences in reliability, terminal ballistics, etc.?

[Al Thompson]

The .25 is more reliable. Rimless cartridge. uses a real primer. IMHO, given equal barrel lengths, terminal ballistics are the same. I suspect the Stinger class of .22rf may up the ante, but still not a good trade off between reliability and slightly increased power.

[Old Fuff]

Back during the early 1980’s I knew a Major in the British SAS. He had forgotten more then I’ll ever know about covert weapons, and he told me the same thing. In a small handgun with barrels running around 2 to 2 ½ inches the relative power between the two cartridges is negligible, but the .25 ACP is much more reliable. Also in this class of weapon the full-jacketed .25 bullet is more likely to penetrate and hit a vital organ then a .22 lead H.P. which can leave a larger, but shallow temporary cavity.

[10-Ring]

I'm assuming you're asking in re: to BUBUG :) I had a 22lr Beretta & it was absolutely the most unreliable gun I have shot. COuldn't go a mag w/o a problem. Go w/the centerfire 25 acp...much more reliable ;)

[Mike Irwin]

I know people SAY the .25 is more reliable, but I've got over 2,000 rounds through my Taurus PT-22 without a single cartridge-related malfunction of any kind.

I did have some problems with light strikes on CCI Blazers, but that was gun related, not cartridge related. It has been 100% reliable with Winchester Wildcat ammo. ZERO malfunctions of any kind.

Over the past 20 years, I've had far more dead primers and misfeeds with supposedly reliable centerfire ammo -- dead primers, mainly -- than I have had with .22s.

Given the price differential, the quality of the ammo, and the reliability of guns today, I really think the .22 is the way to go, and that the supposedly reliability issues is a holdover from earlier days.

[9mmepiphany]

by it's very nature, the rimless .25 should be more reliable as there is no chance of the rims hanging up on the rim of the round below it. velocity advantage, normally cited, is usually of the .22 out of a longer barrel.

the .25 is surprisingly accurate. i have a beretta 21a, but i'm still looking for a 950 (jetfire) in .25 to keep my colt company

[cratz2]

Don't have much experience shooting 25ACPs but for purely terminal effects, I'd prefer to take my chances with a 22lr over a 25ACP. I'd think that the hot 22s would penetrate better, esp through clothing. As was mentioned by another member, I sort of wish someone would make a reliable 22 Magnum pistol along the lines of a P32 or a Guardian. And, while I can't verify it, I've heard and read on many occasions that more civilians are killed by other civilians using 25ACPs than any other round.

I wouldn't want to get shot with either but then, I really wouldn't want to bet my life on either one either. ;)

[Al Thompson]

Mike, your Taurus is an anomaly. :) FWIW, I've RO'd a bunch of CWP classes here and the .22s (especially BUGs) choke way more than anything else. Last PT-22 we had on the line was essentially manually operated.

[Stevie-Ray]

Well then, I guess mine is too. My PT-22 has gone about 1500-2000 rounds now without a single malfunction. Plus, I've used the Remington Yellow Jackets without trouble, even though Taurus says not to use them due to their truncated cone design.

.22 over the .25 for me anyday.

[Mike Irwin]

9mm Epiphany & Al Thompson...

Sorry guys, but the .25 ACP is NOT rimless. The rim is larger in diameter than the base or neck of the case, the same as the .32 ACP, same as the .38 ACP/Super.

Theoretically, the .25 ACP can suffer rimlocking, the same as the .22 LR.

Yet, in thousands of rounds of shooting with all of those calibers, I've never ONCE suffered a failure to feed due to rims overlapping.

My father has an Iver Johnson TP-22, their tiny .22 LR. DA gun. It has also been flawless throughout the years, although it has one hell of a heavy trigger pull.

Anyone who has spent any time on the range has seen semi-autos of ALL persuasions fail to feed, fail to eject, fail to function, for any variety of reasons.

In my better than 20 years on the lanes, the small semi-autos have been no more and no less reliable than any of the other types.

[Al Thompson]

Well, Mike's right. The .25 is not "rimless", it's semi rimmed. Just pulled one out and checked it. Was going to post dimensions, but the caliphers are hiding again. :D

I have to admit to not having 20 plus years on the "lanes", just 3 years of ROing 30 (+) shooters once a quarter (except election years) who run 50 rounds down range for a CWP qual here in SC. Other than that, I have had a lot of shooting over the last 30 years or so. Just not in the lanes.

In that period and my own shooting, I've watched several Beretta .22 M21s choke every magazine, a couple of PT-22s choke (mine and one other) and several .25s run like clocks.

In addition, several unusual failures to fire with various .22s leads me to believe that any cartridge with a priming compound that can't be examined during manufacture is less reliable than a cartridge loaded with a primer that can be examined during manufactor, AKA any centerfire.

While YMMV, key here is to extensivly test your carry gun with your chosen load. What works for Mike and what works for me may vary from what your using.

[Mike Irwin]

And I've seen high-end 1911s, Berettas, etc. turn into so much expensive metallic horse turds at the range, too, Al. Yet they're supposed to be more reliable because they're feeding rimless, centerfire ammo...

What we've got here, folks, is less a case of "your mileage may vary" than a serious case of "I've heard it before, so I'll repeat it again."

The old theory was that a rimmed cartridge just couldn't be reliable feeding through a semi-auto's magazine.

Tell that to the people who have bought S&W 41s, Colt Woodsmans, Ruger Mk I & IIs, etc. etc. etc. and used them in SERIOUS handgun competition over the last nearly 100 years.

Same goes with the old "well, it's got to be less reliable because it's a rimfire."

There are over one billion rounds of .22 rimfire made every year in this country.

How many people here in the last 20 years have had a .22 Long Rifle fail to detonate because of a VERIFIED priming problem?

In my case, the answer is ZERO. And in the last 20 years I estimate that I've got close to 35,000 .22s downrange.

How many of those uber reliable centerfire rounds have I had that have failed to fire in the same time? About a dozen, almost all of them Remington.

From where I stand, that's a pretty big indictment of centerfire ammo, actually.

Show of hands time, folks.

How many of you have had a .22 semi-auto that has been unreliable solely because of the fact that it feeds a rimmed cartridge?

I'd seriously bet that no one can HONESTLY raise his/her hand.

Firearms are rarely, if ever, reliable simply because of the rim configuration. That's generally the least critical part of the entire package.

If that were the case, the Soviets and the British would have been slaughtered while holding non-functioning guns.

Overall length and bullet shape are most often the leading cause of failures to function.

Another big reason why a LOT of semi-autos fail to operate?

Because many need to be broken in before they are 100% reliable. Some don't, but others do.

It seems like we have this disagreement every year about the .22 vs. the .25 ACP, with all the same, old, tired logic being trotted out as verifiable, God's honest truth, being toted down from heaven on the backs of angles who have iron on their holy hips...

The .25's more reliable because it's rimless.

False. It's rimmed. Not semi-rimmed. That's like being semi pregnant. Yes, the accepted definition of semi-rimmed is having an extractor groove like a rimless case, but with a rim of larger diameter than the case body. But, in this discussion, the fact that it has an extractor groove is pretty much a non sequitor.

The .22s less reliable because it's got a rim.

Perhaps a little harder to determine, but given that the .25's supposed to be uberreliable, but has a rim, sort of shoots holes in that theory, doesn't it?

The centerfire round is more reliable because you can examine the primer during manufacture.

Ever see an automated ammo assembly line? Things move WAY too fast for ANYTHING to be examined, and the quantities are FAR too large for each item to be examined. Batch testing may be done, depending on the manufacturer, but what it really comes down to with EITHER priming system is that you're betting on the company's prowess in operating the equipment it has in its factory.

Rimfire cases are less reliable because you can't examine the primer during manufacture.

See the above answer. Production lines move WAY too quickly. Had the issue been one of evenly distributing the priming compound around the rim of the case, I'd give that to you -- 50 years ago. But new priming methods and equipment have virtually eliminated the primer gaps in .22 rimfire ammo.

Well, you get my drift. 50 to 70 years ago all of this MIGHT have been more of an issue.

But I sincerely doubt it.

The claimed differences and perceived advantages of the .25 over the .22 are the stuff of urban legend.

At one time there may have been some truth to them, especially the priming issues. But that was then, and we've come a LOT of miles since then.

In fact, we've come far too many miles to simply repeat the same old tired cliches.

[SquirrelNuts]

I have two handguns in question. One is a Raven P-25, and the other is a Browning Buckmark (.22 LR). I bought the Raven, had a few failure-to-feeds, so I replaced the recoil spring and have never had one problem with that .25 since then! The Browning Buckmark is a great gun, and the only problem I have had with it is dud ammo. Out of 3,000 rounds, I have had 20 failure-to-fires. I even tried rotating the round, still would not fire. It was with the Remington Golden Bullets from Wally World.

I carry the .25, and not .22-so I would say .25 for carry.

-SquirrelNuts

[sm]

Mike, well stated.

The ammo has to work in a particular platform. Or perhaps better put what many of us harp; "One has to check ammo in THEIR gun" .

I had a Beretta 21A, I never had the problems I hear spoken of. Its no secret that a lot people buy a gun, even a pricey custom gun then for some unknown reason buy the cheapest made, price point ammo ,and get all ready to bash the gun, mfg, platform...etc. I do know I went through 2 bricks of X22lr in one weekend without cleaning and never, never had a misfire, FTF, FTE. A LEO bought mine for a reason, I guess I have run over the years at minimum 10, 12 CASES thru it. ???

I have always had good results with Winchester X22lr. Period !
Nothing wrong with other brands, In fact the 'boys in green' have a plant about an hour from me...they don't do .22lr there ( and their 22 ammo is another story). I will be the first to say the Win,Expert -sucks. I don't use price as criteria for ammo-so to speak.

The little 21A would run all day, blowback design and all dirty... Some ammo more expensive ammo may be more accurate, but sheesh, we are talking about a short tube for close use.

I Also had the .25 in the Jetfire and in 21A, I never had a problem with either. probably should have kept, some wanted more than I did.

Gunsmith has both a Model 18 and model 10 (Iknow this is the autoloader forum), And MIke Irwin can (and others) better than I. Both of these guns wouldn't fire. these are both fine guns, differrent primers...it aint the ammo...the uncle "gonna do a trigger job"...well he fixed them...boy did he.

I had a Colt Combat Commander I bought in '73...out of the box it would run the 'flying ashtrays".

Check the ammo in your quality gun, use quality ammo, and maintain the gun. If an autoloader--keeps the mags maintained as well.

Worst 22 ammo will not work in the finest 22 gun. Guess What nor will the 25, especially with the 'vest guns" and trigger lightening "tricks" everyone seems to want.

One thing is ,22 lr is less expensive than 25, people will shoot it more often, practice is good. I used mine for fun, teaching, plinking, we used to have 'mouse gun" shoots at long ranges, "rat hunts' down on the farm. Yeah I carried it some, I knew it would bang, and I got pretty darn with it at one time.

Whether 2x4, rats, paint buckets...both did a #, I liked the 22 in the 21A. I liked the Jetfire for what it is. I wish they still made the 'Minx"...I'd get one, for sure. Pure fun.

LEO uses it for teaching and his mom can shoot it with her bad hands, tip-up bbl means no slide to operate.

My .02

[Kahr carrier]

I like the 25acp my Baby Browning has yet to jam very reliable and small.:)

[Al Thompson]

:D

"The claimed differences and perceived advantages of the .25 over the .22 are the stuff of urban legend. "


False. Let me do some math for you Mike. I help RO a CWP class here in Columbia. Not sure of the exact number, but we've qualified 30 plus folks per quarter for the last 3 years. Conservative number of shooters is (30 x 4 x 3) is 250 plus.

During that time and with those numbers, trends can and have been noted.

The firearms chambered for .22RF simply jam more than ones chambered for ceterfire cartridges. Is it the cartridge or the handgun? Does not matter. My population sample (outside of personal firearms) is pretty high.

Not sure of the ratio, but when you figure we probably have more than a one to five ratio of .22s to centerfires, it's important to note that we see more .22s refuse to function than anything else.
If your premise was true, then that would not be happpening.

You have a very good point on the bullet being the most important part of the feeding equation. I'd note that .25 ACP is jacketed while most .22 rf is lead. That may have more to do with the .25s demonstrated reliability than anything else.

[Mike Irwin]

False in your experience, Al, but not in mine.

As I've noted, in my experience over the last 20 years or so, including range officer duties while working at the gunshop, .22s, at least DECENT quality, not the "pot metal specials" that so many people think are actually guns, are pretty much as reliable as their centerfire counterparts.

I've seen high price .22s fail to feed anything at all, including AMTs and believe it or not, Walthers.

I've seen low end .22s that are highly reliable.

I've seen, as I noted, high end center fires that should never be used for any thing other than an expensive drag anchor for fishing.

And I've seen low end centerfires that run rings around their expensive counterparts.

I've also seen the exact opposite of what I've posted above. Low end guns that are horribly unreliable with anything, high end guns that eat anything, etc.

The true trend is that firearms are individuals, and can't be lumped together in a single class that can be difinitively assessed with the statement "If it shoots a cartridge with a rim on it, it's going to be unreliable."

As we've already seen, the .25 seems to get high marks for its reliability, but it's a rimmed cartridge. I've also seen more than my fair share of .25s -- Walthers, FIE Titans, and the odd Beretta, that wouldn't reliably feed or fire .25s of any kind without work first to correct anomolies in the gun itself.

Generally, though, it's more the quality of the firearm in question that is going to be the determining factor.

Given 100 Taurui and 100 Ravens, I'd expect the Taurui to be more reliable as a class no matter what their caliber.

With higher price you generally get a greater attention to the kind of detail that helps make a functional firearm function.

One of the great exceptions to this rule over the years was AMT. Relatively high price for guns that generally weren't worth the metal from which they were made.

Once again, though, we're right back to where we were before -- just why is the gun more or less reliable?

Is it truly because of the status of the rim of the cartridge and the primer, which you claimed in your first message?

Again, I have to say no.

SquirrelNuts gives us the one great example of American ammo that is truly unreliable -- the low-end Remington. Why anyone shoots this is totally beyond me. It's not that much cheaper than other types by Remington or Winchester, yet it's probably the worst .22 ammo ever made.

It's also very interesting that no where in this discussion yet has the issue of magazines been raised -- just the issue of rims and primers.

Magazines are the single most problematic point of any semi-automatic. They're relatively easy to damage to the point that while you can't see the damage, it will still screw with the functioning of the gun.

Often swapping the magazine of a malfunctioning gun can bring a lot of relief to functional problems.

Once again, in my experience, and I'm not blowing my own horn when I say it's a significant amount of experience, the old stories about why and how .22s are unreliabile -- the rim, the primer -- just don't hold water any more.

Quite frankly, it's no more difficult to make a reliable .22 than it is to make a reliable .25. It probably is a bit more difficult to make a reliable .22 given the rather large number of bullet configurations -- shapes and weights -- that are avilable.

Then we also have the problem that it can be rather difficult to make a .22 truly reliable given the wide velocity range of the types of ammo that are out there.

When you think about it, it's more likely that many of the reliability issues that do occur with .22s that aren't design or magazine related are likely caused by picking an ammunition with a velocity range that's simply not right for the gun.

The .22 probably has the greatest functional velocity and pressure range of any commercially loaded cartridge.

As it's not reasonable to expect a Colt 1911 that's set up to fire light wadcutters for target competition to flawlessly digest 185-gr. +P hollowpoints, it's not reasonable to expect a .22 like the Taurus, which specifically states that it's intended for use with standard-velocity .22s, to function flawlessly with high velocity ammo.

In that sense, then, the .25 is easy to deal with. There's virtually no variation in overall cartridge length or bullet weight or configuration. And, as far as I know, there's almost no variation in the velocity to which the .25 ACP is loaded.

If anything, it would seem to me that the largest issues with the .22 can actually be traced to the cartridge's wide versatility.

[makdaddy03]

Give the 22lr CCI Gold Dots a try. Or the CCI Stingers and you will forget about the 25acp.

[PlayTheAces]

Add a third PT-22 to the anomaly curve. Mine is the only auto I own that thus far has never jammed, after close to a thousand rounds. Granted three isn't much of a sample base, but I'd wager there are others out there that shoot with equal reliability.

[Jim K]

A commonly overlooked problem with the small .22 pistols is that it requires more force to set off a .22 than it does a center fire round. Small guns have small hammers with less mass, and with an autoloader it isn't possible to install a stronger spring (think S&W Model 60). So less mass and a spring that will allow the gun to function equal misfires with a .22 where an identical .25 will fire every time.

As to the .25ACP, it is usually described as semi-rimmed, a John Browning idea. JMB started out trying to work with the standard revolver cartridges of the 1890's and found that the rims caused problems in pistol magazines. So he reduced the rims as much as possible to produce the .25ACP, .32ACP, .38ACP and 9mm Browning long. All support the case on the rim. Meantime, in Germany, Georg Luger had his own problems trying to get case support for a 7.65mm case necked up to 9mm; he finally gave up on the idea of a tiny shoulder and went to supporting the case on the case mouth. JMB took one look and his next cartridges, the .45 ACP and .380ACP, had no rim.

Jim

[Tropical Z]

The .25acp is a CHUMP round! PERIOD!!!:barf:

[tex_n_cal]

Interesting thread. Interesting because I don't have a teeny little gun, and it's purely academic:p

If I felt compelled to carry a small pistol for serious purposes, I'd likely vote for one of the small .32's.

I am kinda sorta thinking of buying a jen-u-eyen Velo Dog in 6.35 (.25 ACP):evil:

One point I'll make - I would bet that most folks who make primers set up machine vision systems, or some other high-speed, automated 100% inspection method, to check primers for anvils and compounds correctly in place . That would obviously be harder to do with a rimfire case.

[WonderNine]

I carry the .25, and not .22-so I would say .25 for carry.

-SquirrelNuts

Hmm.....anyone who carries a .25 is not going to hold my attention :p

[Shawn Dodson]

I concur with the observations of the SAS Major in Old Fuff's post.

In a 2 1/2" barrel, differences in terminal performance between .25 ACP and .22 LR are negligible. In such a short barrel even .22 LR CCI Stingers demonstrate unreliable expansion performance, and .22 LR MPB Quik-Shok often fails to fragment.

Jim Keenen is on the money too, in my opinion. Them little guns have little hammers. Between My .22 LR Beretta 21A and my .25 ACP Beretta 20, I've never experienced a failure to fire with my .25 ACP but I've experienced many failures to fire with my .22 LR.

.25 ACP was designed to be fired from a 2 1/2 inch barrel right from the start, and the guns generally feed well. Whereas .22 LR, being a longer, skinnier cartridge generally feeds less reliably.

[Blackhawk]

A commonly overlooked problem with the small .22 pistols is that it requires more force to set off a .22 than it does a center fire round. Is it the force or the deformation?

Seems to me that typical .22 RF FPs have a significant amount of overkill, energy wise.

Obviously, the cross-sectional shape of a .22 casing where the FP strikes is much better able to resist deformation than the center of a CF primer. Typically, RF FP tips are relatively big and rectangular compared to a CF FP that only needs to deform the primer disc into the anvil.

I don't really know what causes a RF primer to ignite. Is it an anvil principle (like a CF primer) except that the entire inside of the rim is the anvil, or what?

Real question is whether a thinner, smaller, more precision RF FP would work with the lower energy typical of CF FPs?

[foghornl]

Been shooting .22LR for about 35 years, and have had 2 failures to fire.
1. Federal lead solid bullet. No powder in the case, no evidence of primer, either.
2. Rem 36 Gr hollow point "Golden Bullet". Appeared to have priming that didn't stay in the rim.

Both of these were at least 15 years back.

I have had some of the Rem plain lead "Thunderbolts" that sounded underpowered, but operated the action on my old Marlin 99 OK. The Thunderbolts in question here are also old; bought them when Rem marketed them in the grey plastic tubs of 475(?) or so rounds as the "Bucket of Bullets".

I still use the "Buckets" to store my new-bought .22LR ammo, rather than the cardboard box/brick.

[Mike Irwin]

Backhawk,

Yes, the side of the .22 rim opposite the side hit by the firing pin acts as the anvil.

Something interesting about .22 priming compounds I found out some years ago is that they can contain up to 15% (weight or volumn, I don't know) ground glass.

Apparently this is used to enhance detonation characteristics by providing lots of little internal anvils and increasing friction.

[Blackhawk]

Thanks, Mike. :D

Therefore, a smaller, more precision .22 RF FP should be able to ignite the primer with less force than is typically used for rectangular "large" .22 FPs.

I've often wondered what caused the typical .22 FP to have so much area and square corners. I figured it must have had something to do with compensating for lack of precision in making early .22 firearms or ammunition.

[ruger357]

I have owned several Jetfires over the years in .25 and all were 100% reliable. My friend bought a Mod. 21 in .22 and had nothing but problems, and he tried different brands of ammo. He sold it within two weeks of buying it.

[Mike Irwin]

"I've often wondered what caused the typical .22 FP to have so much area and square corners. I figured it must have had something to do with compensating for lack of precision in making early .22 firearms or ammunition."

Blackhawk,

Quite frankly, I think the shape of .22 firing pins over the years has less to do with precision in manufacture than simply not wanting to risk puncturing the rim of the cartridge and causing a blowout. .22 RF cases were largely made of copper up until around WW I, and copper will blow out fairly easily, especially with higher-pressure smokeless powders. It wasn't until smokeless really caught on that .22s started to be made primarily from brass.

Broader firing pins may also have been adopted for the reason that some rimfire rifles, such as the Henry, used 2 prong firing pins -- to help ensure detonation of the priming compound even if there are gaps in it.

[Blackhawk]

Interesting! You have a wealth of firearms trivia in your head, Mike! I appreciate being able to tap into it. :D

[Mike Irwin]

It's what someone once called my VFUK, Blackhawk. (Sounds rude, but is only partly so...)

My Vast Fund of Useless Knowledge... ;)

[gumshoe4]

Ah-the neverending mousegun debate....

Another PT-22 shooter who has experienced excellent results with that pistol. Pistol was bought used and was fulla crud and would misfire regularly, because it was not properly maintained by the previous owner. Cleaned it, lubed it (a little) and fed quality ammo of various types through it and it simply does not misfire any more. The last misfire I had with it was before I cleaned it up.

I don't know what this means, really, because the PT-22 is actually a rather large gun for the chambering and you can now buy .32s which are pretty close to the same size (NAA). So I'm not sure where the gun fits "tactically" any more. Nonetheless, it's a good pistol, easy to shoot and reliable and I'll keep it.

Bob
TFL# 8032