Thinking about a .25?

[45_auto]

I would be better armed with a good rock..than with anything in 25 caliber.

I was a deputy sheriff back in the days before the small Kel-Tec .32's and .380's came out. I carried a Bauer .25 in my shirt pocket, as did anyone else who could get one. Lots of cheaper .22's and .25's as deep backup. Good luck with your rock, I never knew anyone who even considered carrying a rock instead of a small caliber pistol.

Switched to a Kel-Tec P32 when they came out in the late 1990's, still have a couple of Bauers in the safe.

A Kel-Tec p32 in .32 ACP is smaller than most .25s. I have one and it works very well.

I found that the Bauer (Browning copy) and Colt .25's are substantially smaller than even the Kel-Tec P32 and fit easier in a shirt pocket. I've never had any trouble with any of my little guns.

 

[kozak6]

General question to anyone who may know: What's the longest barrel length you've seen in a .25 auto? I'm asking because it would be interesting to know the ballistics of the .25 out of a long barreled gun. Even the mighty .22 magnum has it's muzzle energy halved (or worse) when going from a 4" to a 2" barrel.

18" .

Ask, and ye shall receive:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/25auto.html

 

[.308 Norma]

So, a round developed for a long barrel can be compromised when the barrel is shortened, and a round developed for a short barrel can be compromised by one that is lengthened.

Thanks MedWheeler! That's a great explanation.

 

[Kendal Black]

Here's another angle: If you were to repurpose the .25 ACP as a hunting cartridge, for what game would it be best?

Repurposing would involve arms to shoot it that are more precise in use than the vest pocket micropistol.

It appears that it would be usable for game taken with .22LR. Bunnies. Tree rats. Grouse, where that is a legal method.

That is not to ask what is the biggest animal you could possibly kill with a .25. Capstick claimed it was possible to kill an elephant with a .22 rifle, but there are several things in his books that raise my eyebrows.

Now then: Compare the size of a rabbit to the size of a felon and you will see the source of some people's hesitancy over the .25 ACP as a defensive cartridge.

 

[heyjoe]

I've retyped my response about 50 times trying to phrase this in a manner that's not insulting, but I don't think it's possible. The best I can do is this:

You don't know what you're talking about.

Your perceptions of what the good guys are capable of, and what the bad guys aren't capable of, couldn't be any more flawed. And if you base your self-defense preparations on these flawed perceptions - as I know you do - then you're setting yourself up for a very unwelcomed surprise when & if you're ever faced with criminals that don't act the way you expect them to.

and what exactly is your base of experience that you are using to come to the conclusion that Medwheeler doesnt know what he is talking about but that you do?

 

[azrocks]

and what exactly is your base of experience that you are using to come to the conclusion that Medwheeler doesnt know what he is talking about but that you do?

MedWheeler stated that police and security guards (yes, security guards), by nature of their profession and their commitment to duty, have 'what it takes' to keep on fighting after being shot, where criminals, apparently by nature of their profession, do not. If you don't see the problem with this logic, then I really don't know what to tell ya.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ Nope. Never said it, and don't agree with it.

Again, what I was getting at is that more duty-bound officers attempt to stay in the fight after being shot/shot at, if they're able to, then bad guys do. Bad guys, when shot/shot at, typically attempt to self-extract, if they're able to. The most notable exceptions are bad guys fighting officers; these guys know that self-extraction will only result in their being pursued (something that they know is far less likely when fleeing an armed civilian.) A simple Youtube search turns up countless videos of bad guys fleeing gunfire, but far fewer of officers doing so. The concept of carrying a pistol for self-defense here, though, isn't about defense against duty-bound officers.

I'm trying to stay civil, but lying about what I said is downright low.

 

[Jim K]

"I never could see any reason or purpose for the 25 ACP".

The .25 ACP (and the .32's) is something of a relic of another time when handguns in general were less powerful and it was considered adequate to shoot someone, with no need to disassemble him. Also when many more people carried guns on a daily basis than do today. IIRC, when the little Colt Vest Pocket model first came out (1908), no states regulated concealed carry in any way, and the very existence of a "vest pocket" gun shows that such carry was common. Today, unless the goal is maximum possible concealment, there would be little point in a .25 caliber pistol (and they cannot be imported today). But there are millions of the little guns around, and they are fun to shoot. If .25 ACP is too expensive, there are a number of similar small guns in .22 Short or .22 Long (.22 LR usually requires a larger pistol.).

Jim

 

[azrocks]

I'm trying to stay civil, but lying about what I said is downright low.

OK Medwheeler, let's follow the quotes, shall we...

First, you say this:

Speedo66, I'm sure there are scads of similar cases in which LEOs have been shot with guns even more powerful than the .25 (a .45 in some cases!) and subsequently went on to effect the arrests of their attackers, and even testify against them later. LEOs, like many security officers, take upon a duty to continue the fight even after being shot or shot at (the security officer in your case, whether motivated by official duty or personal outrage, clearly was one of them.) The would-be rapists, robbers, and burglars I was referring to do not. These are actually the scenarios I meant, the ones in which a person shot was the one committing a crime against the shooter.

Then, I say this:

MedWheeler stated that police and security guards (yes, security guards), by nature of their profession and their commitment to duty, have 'what it takes' to keep on fighting after being shot, where criminals, apparently by nature of their profession, do not. If you don't see the problem with this logic, then I really don't know what to tell ya.

To which you respond:

^^ Nope. Never said it, and don't agree with it.

To be immediately followed by:

Again, what I was getting at is that more duty-bound officers attempt to stay in the fight after being shot/shot at, if they're able to, then bad guys do. Bad guys, when shot/shot at, typically attempt to self-extract, if they're able to.

So my question to you is this: Is it you or me that's having the stroke? 'Cuz if it's me, I need to get help coming ASAP.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ I can't help you determine if you're having or have had a stroke because you're well outside my response area.

But you still haven't quoted the post where I said police and security guards "have what it takes" to "stay in the fight." I simply said that those who feel duty-bound to, and are still able to, usually try to.

I was discussing typical actions, not capabilities.

It's not even limited to officers. I'll take it a step further. Let's assume someone you care about, perhaps even love, has fallen under vile criminal attack. You attempt to intervene and are shot, but not immediately incapacitated. The attacker then continues their vicious assault against the initial victim. I personally believe you, despite the fact you've never even worked as an officer (public or private), would still feel a duty to "stay in the fight" to defend him or her, and to survive doing so. Whether or not you "have what it takes" wouldn't even be known until it was all over. I've done time in those fields, and I don't even know if I have "what it takes." I know more about how I would react than I do about what I'm capable of.

 

[azrocks]

All you're doing is playing games with semantics, and talking in circles.

This was your original post, which spawned this whole line of nonsense:

I like the round, and the guns I've come across chambered for it. I've yet to hear of any self-defense case in which a defender was subsequently inured or killed after shooting at an attacker with any firearm (by these cases, I'm referring to those in which the victim was targeted for rape, robbery, or encountered in a burglary, and not those in which the victim was targeted specifically for assassination.) Anyone here who has a story of a friend of a friend who shot a guy (or who was the guy shot) with a .25 will still have to admit that the person shot stopped doing whatever it was that got him shot in the first place.

The telling parts are in bold. Those are the parts where - as it your style - you A) make statements that are demonstrably untrue, based on nothing more than your imagination, and B) make poor defensive choices based on those fallacies.

As stated previously, you don't have to venture very deep into the interwebz to find numerous examples where people who have been shot - with a variety of calibers - go right on trucking. Heck - in this thread alone you've been presented with examples in direct response to your post, which instead of listening to and learning from, you chose to deflect with semantic acrobatics to avoid a hit to your ego. Indeed, it's not exactly unheard of for people in the stress of life-or-death situations to not even know they've been shot until someone points out they're leaking fluids or their adrenaline dies down. Just ask any combat soldier about what people can do after being shot.

So then you try to worm out of that argument by shifting gears and insinuating that "Duty-Bound" officers (including security officers... aka security guards... like the ones at the mall) often absorb rounds ("even a .45!", your words, not mine) and continue to fight, where their criminal counterparts do not. Never minding the fact that this logic is in direct contradiction to your previous stance on the 'action-stopping' ability of even the lowly .25, this is once again a fallacious statement. Police (much less Paul Blart, Mall Cop) aren't trained or expected to fight forward after getting shot, and even if they were... 9 times out of 10 they wouldn't. If they do - it's either because they're so target focused they don't think of doing the right thing and seeking cover, they don't yet know they've been hit, or because they feel that's their only option to make it out alive or save the life of a colleague. They're not Judge Dredd, they don't wear capes. Likewise, all criminals aren't skulking around like Dick Dastardly, looking to make a hasty exit the moment any sign of trouble rears its ugly head.

If you're fine hoping the bad guy(s) will stop in their tracks after getting shot by a round with terminal ballistics similar to a pellet rifle, be my guest. I prefer to not rely solely on psychological impact or waiting 30 minutes for them to bleed out while they're bashing my skull in.

Your whole basis of reasoning is assuming that the mindset, motivations, determination, and conviction of your attacker is one you can predict. IT IS NOT.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ Uh, okay. I'm wrong in everything I said. I was talking likelihoods, and you were talking absolutes. Clearly, absolutes is how life works now. I concede the following points:

Bad guys do not flee after being shot or shot at; only good guys do.

An overwhelming majority, no, in fact, all people who have attempted a defense of self or other with a handgun chambered in a two-digit caliber beginning with "2" has failed due to the round's "terminal ballistics similar to a pellet rifle" and to the fact itemized above.

All private security officers, "aka security guards" are "like the ones at the mall", such as "Paul Blart" (who did fight, by the way), including those in such outfits as the former Blackwater USA, and are therefore inept, untrained, festering buffoons.

In only one out of ten incidents involving duty-bound officers having been shot, but not incapacitated, has the shot officer fought on; the other "9 times out of 10" involve officers who flee instead, since police aren't trained to fight to survive after being shot anymore (they must have changed that since I was on the job; I was not aware of that.)

People will always train and act to the limits of their capabilities in every situation, making those capabilities clear, obvious, and understood beforehand.

You have, and always will have, a clear and all-knowing understanding of my "self defense choices" and that they are based on my "imagination" only.

 

[Confederate]

I never could see any reason or purpose for the 25 ACP.

As someone who has read countless "citizen" shootings in my day, I'm amazed at the number of people who have been shot and killed by the diminutive .25 and .22LR pistols wielded by both young and old. Even the little Ravens and Jennings automatics have enviable records of successful defensive shootings.



These guns were (or could be made to) reliably shoot multiple rounds into vital areas of bad guys, and they also have been known to frequently kill with one-shot stops. To me that's one hell of a purpose! Old Jeff Cooper was right about a lot of things, but one thing he was dead wrong on was that the .25ACP was all but worthless for self defense. If one has a 9-shot Beretta, that's even better than the above, but the little .25 autos I believe had quite a bit going for them. Of course opinions differ. If one doesn't have confidence in a weapon, that's a major strike to begin with, and it's difficult to overcome. If ones opponent is better armed, that's tough to overcome, but in many cases the situation is such that a little .25 in the pocket is the right weapon at the right place and time. I think everyone should have at least one!

They're also cute.

 

[bannockburn]

Confederate

I think everyone should have at least one!

They're also cute.

I agree!

 

[444]

I worked professionally as a paramedic for over 30 years (most of it in a fairly large city). I have seen at least two examples of something very similar to the original post. One was someone shot in the forehead with a .25 ACP and the other was someone shot right on the point of their chin with a .25. Both bullets were right under the skin: they hit the bone directly and then skidded around under the skin until they stopped. Back when I first started working as a medic in the mid-1980s, it was very common to see people shot with .25 ACP and .22 LR. Then it sort of went out of style and I haven't seen one for decades (at least I didn't know it was a .25 or a .22 which is often the case).

I have posted this online probably a hundred times over the years but most avid gun owners would be shocked at how ineffective handgun rounds really are and how little difference it makes which one you are using. If you make a shot that is center mass, the recipient is in mortal danger and it doesn't matter very much what you shot them with. You don't put the shot in a vital area and again, you would be very disappointed with the result and it doesn't matter very much what you shot them with. After seeing a fair number of shooting victims up close and personal, I decided that all this endless discussion about calibers and bullets is all largely a waste of time. 90% of what matters is the ability to make a center mass hit. You can have a .500 S&W, a .50 BMG, a .25 ACP, or a .22 LR and if you don't hit them, it doesn't make a bit of difference.

 

[22-rimfire]

Come on...you know the drill..... .380 minimum for auto.... 38 special for revolvers.

Or maybe a 327 Ruger in a revolver.

My take on the 25ACP is that I would just use a 22LR instead. And I do from time to time.

 

[jimbo555]

If placement is most important,why would you rely on a 25 caliber pistol. Most examples have to be some of the hardest pistols to be accurate with. I owned a baby Browning, it was cute, but not what I would want if I had a choice in a gunfight. Today's 380's are leaps more effective and accurate than any 25 and not much harder to carry.

 

[SonofGilnockie89]

The original post seems to indicate that this is more for home defense rather than carry. If that's the case then there's no reason whatsoever for something so small. You'd be far better served by a full frame auto or wheelgun in a service caliber.
My personal setup for the home is an 18.5 inch barreled Remington 870 full of 00 buckshot. I live in a dense area of New Orleans and I have to be more concerned with over penetration than rural dwellers.

 

[zaitcev]

General question to anyone who may know: What's the longest barrel length you've seen in a .25 auto?

I am not sure if it's the longest among all guns, but Mauser 1910/14 has a 86 mm or 3"3/8 inch barrel. It's about the same length as Glock 42. The longest I've read about is Walther PP with 99 mm or 3"7/8 inch barrel. I've only ever seen one in 7.65 though.

 

[Confederate]

I have posted this online probably a hundred times over the years but most avid gun owners would be shocked at how ineffective handgun rounds really are and how little difference it makes which one you are using. If you make a shot that is center mass, the recipient is in mortal danger and it doesn't matter very much what you shot them with. You don't put the shot in a vital area and again, you would be very disappointed with the result and it doesn't matter very much what you shot them with.

Are you saying that if I'm off a little and hit someone in the arm with a .357 Magnun 125-gr JHP, that they won't react much differently than if hit with a .25ACP? Or if I shoot them in the shoulder with a .45 Auto, that they really won't realize the difference?

I knew a guy who shot a Moro in the Philippines during WWII dead center in the chest, and it didn't even slow him down. He had to block the guy's machete with his left hand and arm and bring the guy down by hitting him in the head with the pistol. (It was where General MacArthur came ashore just a few days earlier.) From then on my friend never would never have anything to do with a .45ACP pistol, despite my explaining bullet configurations, stopping power and so forth. To him, the caliber had failed him and he never forgave it, and he developed a love affair with the .357, which he had a great deal of confidence in.

There are many stories where big fat bullets failed and little teeny bullets succeeded, but to say it doesn't matter what you get hit with is a bit naive. Many have been hit in the arms and legs with .357s and have gone down like rocks! And because there are large caliber failures doesn't mean it's irrelevant what people are hit with. It just shows that bullet placement is vital. If someone's hit in the arm with a .45 slug and it hits bone, I believe it's more likely to make a big difference.

 

[Fiv3r]

Are you saying that if I'm off a little and hit someone in the arm with a .357 Magnun 125-gr JHP, that they won't react much differently than if hit with a .25ACP? Or if I shoot them in the shoulder with a .45 Auto, that they really won't realize the difference?

I knew a guy who shot a Moro in the Philippines during WWII dead center in the chest, and it didn't even slow him down. He had to block the guy's machete with his left hand and arm and bring the guy down by hitting him in the head with the pistol. (It was where General MacArthur came ashore just a few days earlier.) From then on my friend never would never have anything to do with a .45ACP pistol, despite my explaining bullet configurations, stopping power and so forth. To him, the caliber had failed him and he never forgave it, and he developed a love affair with the .357, which he had a great deal of confidence in.

There are many stories where big fat bullets failed and little teeny bullets succeeded, but to say it doesn't matter what you get hit with is a bit naive. Many have been hit in the arms and legs with .357s and have gone down like rocks! And because there are large caliber failures doesn't mean it's irrelevant what people are hit with. It just shows that bullet placement is vital. If someone's hit in the arm with a .45 slug and it hits bone, I believe it's more likely to make a big difference.

I think his point is that something like 80% of reported handgun wounds survive when given quick medical attention. Really, it's the luck of the draw how your target will attack.

There are lots of stories about Moro warriors hopped up on war drugs that we're fatally shot but just didn't know they were dead yet. There are stories of people suffering a grazing .22 wound and passing away due to shock.

Around here, most of our gun violence is thugs shooting other thugs in the extremities with .22s and 9mm. They walk to the hospital, get fixed up, and tell they cops they don't know who shot them (because they know the next time it won't be a grazing shot, and they will be eating that bullet).

The problem with handguns is that there are very few knows when it comes to firing defensively into your target. You KNOW that a CNS hit is the only off-switch. You HOPE that hitting an attacker in the heart will shut him down quick enough for him to give up attack. You THINK that a bone breaking shot to a hip or shoulder should slow him down enough that he can't lift his weapon or traverse toward you.

End the end, it's really up to hitting what you hope to hit and the physical grit/mental tenacity of the attacker. Larger more powerful calibers SHOULD make a difference (deeper and/or bigger hole), but who knows? Maybe you're drawing down on a punk that will wet his paints when a Bobcat is thrust in his face. Maybe he's the reincarnated Moro warrior who is determined to figure out how he's going to gut you from groin to chin in the 30 seconds he has left with his .45-pulped heart.

I prefer a larger caliber when I can carry one, certainly never a .25. However, I don't hang my hat on a .45 leaving nothing but wet stumps in a bad guy's boots and a .380 just tickling him.

Love my big guns, but even a smaller pocket gun is better than nothing. But then again, I'm an optimist. If shots are fired by me and he doesn't go down and we're left to gnashing teeth and frothing spit hand to hand, he's the guy with 7 gushing holes in him. Hopefully I'm not.

Still, carry as much gun as you can.

 

[ShootingIsFun]

Check out Ryan's post here on THR regarding his experience being struck in the lower abdomen by one accidentally discharged round of. 25 from a not drop safe Raven
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-the-25-auto-after-being-shot-by-one.818378/

 

[22-rimfire]

...Around here, most of our gun violence is thugs shooting other thugs in the extremities with .22s and 9mm. They walk to the hospital, get fixed up, and tell they cops they don't know who shot them (because they know the next time it won't be a grazing shot, and they will be eating that bullet).

Same problem where I am. For the most part, the victims do not reveal who shot them even if they know. I pretty much avoid the parts of town where such things are more likely to happen.

 

[Ramone]

Given my druthers, I would not carry a .25, based on my personal experience.

I was shot by one, 4 times, in 1979, in the upper back, from a distance of about 6 feet.

I was wearing a heavy leather motorcycle jacket, over a denim jacket, over 2 sweat shirts ( one insulated ), a tee shirt and a thermal. It was winter, and I was riding a motorcycle in NY.
None of the bullets made it past the second sweat shirt

In the moment, my impression was that someone was whacking me with something like a fishing rod, thin and flexy.

The pistol was a Beretta Jetfire, and the barrel was quite shot out, judging by the way it keyholes at close range. The ammo was Remington Round Nose Lead.

Now, if it was all I had, I'd carry it, but I'd be real careful about shot placement, and hope for contact distance if I had to use it.

 

[kBob]

Ramone,

Having been shot in the back while riding your motor cycle in NYC, how were you able to determine the make of firearm used and the make of ammunition? What years did Remington, or any major ammunition manufacturer produce Round Nose Lead ammunition for the .25ACP?

Just curious.

-kBob