.22 vs .25 which is better for pocket gun?
?
0
-
Both are poor choices but I think I would stick with the .22. I will say that any gun is better then no gun but still.........
That being said there are many .380's out there these days like the Keltec that are actually smaller and lighter then many of the .22 pistols.0 -
.25 has more power and is more reliable in small autos. That said, there are .32 and .380 guns as small and light as most .25s. 0 -
.22Lr or even better the .22mag.
I have never liked the .25ACP. I have seen them bounce off paper oil cans.0 -
Best I've heard on the subject is that if you shoot somebody with a .25 and they find out about it, they're liable to be real upset. 0 -
Of the two, I would chose 22LR only because of the cost of practicing is so much lower which may raise your effectiveness if you need to use it.
Neither is an ideal choices, but then something is better than nothing.
I carry a Walther TPH in 22LR and when backpacking a Walther PP or PPK/s in 22LR because you can throw a couple of hundred rounds and not notice it.0 -
Fired from a "vest pocket" sized weapon, the ballistics of a hot 22 LR and 25 ACP are just about identical. Before you say "But the numbers for the 22..." please consider those numbers are usually generated from a 22 inch test barrel- not a 2.5 inch barrel.
Winchester has marketed a hollow point 25 ACP that is reported to deliver decent enegies from a mouse gun.
Points to consider- the 25 ACP feeds more reliably than a rimmed cartridge. Center fire generally has fewer misfires than rimfire.
Having said that, neither would be my first choice for a defense arm.0 -
Funny you should ask.
Long story, but last evening, my carry was a NAA .22 Mag.
Beats the S&W 629 left at home.0 -
I'd say if you haven't made the purchase yet, I'd take a close look at both the KelTec P3AT and the Ruger LCP to see if they fit in your pocket. They both are pretty small and are nice guns (still not a lot of power) but they do carry nicely. 0 -
Realistically, they're both poor choices for self-defense, as fired from a short barreled pistol, neither round is powerful enough to reliably stop an attacker. Bluntly, even with perfect shot placement, and multiple hits, you still may not hit a vital organ.
Further, with the advent of relatively low cost modern polymer frame .380s that are actually smaller and lighter than many of the old pocket .22s and .25s, the pocket .25 is effectively obsolete.
So personally, I wouldn't carry either a .22 or a .25 unless I had no alternatives to choose from, and even then somewhat reluctantly. It doesn't make sense to incur the legal liability and responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon without the benefit of having one that you can rely on to actually protect you.
Now to actually answer the question, given the choice between .25ACP and .22LR, its a no-brainer; I'd pick the .22.
The .25 has only one real advantage; it *might* be more reliable. In practice, reliable small .22s do exist (ie the mini-revolvers would be one example), and not-so-reliable .25s exist as well. So as long as your particular gun is reliable with the ammo you've chosen, I don't see this as a big issue.
On the other hand, .22LR ammo is much more readily available (you can find it virtually anywhere that sells ammo, including sporting goods stores and Walmarts), far less expensive (leading to much cheaper practice), and available in a much wider variety of loads.
In terms of power, there really isn't much difference from short-barreled guns.
Instead of making bald assertions, lets look at some actual data, with the .22 data representing actual chronographs taken by North American Arms.
http://www.naaminis.com/llrvlnew.html
.25 ACP, $0.34 per round (~$17/box of 50).
.22 LR, $0.03-$0.20 per round ($1.50-$10/box of 50). Note that the more expensive ammo is NOT necessarily any more effective in this particular application, and in fact ordinary "target" ammo works BETTER than most of the expensive specialty .22 ammo from short barrels!
.25 ACP, 50 grain bullet @ 760 FPS, 65 ft-lbs muzzle energy.
.22 LR, 40 grain bullet @750 FPS - 1-5/8" bbl, 50 ft-lbs energy.
.22 LR, 40 grain bullet @850 FPS+ - 2" bbl, 64+ ft-lbs energy.
Note that the Beretta Bobcat 21A in .22LR uses a 2.4 inch barrel, as does the Taurus version. So both of these guns should generate a little bit MORE energy/velocity than the numbers listed above. Also note, that I deliberately did NOT pick the most effective .22LR round. If you cherry pick the best rounds, you can get 895fps, for 71 ft-lbs from the 2" bbl.
Bottom line is that the ballistic differences between these two are minimal from the usual-sized pocket automatic. (You can argue about merits of unjacketed lead .22s vs jacketed .25s, but that's a separate argument).
Further whatever small differences may exist are probably irrelevant anyway at this weak power level. 60 ft-lbs vs 70 ft-lbs? Neither one is anything to get excited about.
As a relevant "pocket pistol" comparison, a .380 can generate 180 ft-lbs and do it with a far more effective, wider and heavier bullet. The better .38+P rounds can get you 200 ft-lbs from a 2" bbl snubnose, and the bullet is even better than that of the .380.0 -
Any pistol you have in your hand is better than nothing. Due to the small size and feed arrangement of a typical pocket pistol the rim-less .25 acp (which was designed specifically for these types of pistols) is a better choice due to it's reliablity. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments