Author Archives: tinker1066

How Obsolete Are They? The .25 ACP

At the turn of the 20th Century people really liked small defensive pistols, and people always like the ‘latest thing.’ The latest thing in pistols was the semi-automatic or self-loading pistol, and John Moses Browning knew an opportunity when he saw it; there would definitely be a market for a tiny pistol.

A small gun needs a small cartridge, and the smallest available was the .22 Rimfire, but this was problematic for a variety of reasons; the rim made stacking them in a magazine a challenge, they weren’t completely reliable and the soft lead bullets did not lend themselves well to semi-automatic pistols. Eventually most of these issues were resolved, but there at the beginning Browning went a different way; he designed a new cartridge.

.25 ACP next to .22 Long Rifle.

.25 Caliber was as small as he could make it and still use a standard small pistol primer. He made the bullet 50gr. to match the sectional density of the 40gr. .22, and gave it a copper jacket to better survive cycling in a semi-auto pistol. Reducing the size of the rim made them easier to stack in a magazine but still allowed the cartridge to headspace properly, and the groove in front of it allowed the extractor to grab the case. It was loaded to mimic the performance of the .22 Long Rifle from a short barrel, which it does quite well. The new cartridge was called 6.35mm Browning, or in America the .25 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP.)

Browning designed a tiny pistol around this new cartridge, and it was introduced by Fabrique National of Belgium as the Model 1905, and by Colt in America as the Model 1908 Pocket.

Colt Model 1908 Pocket, the first .25 ACP sold in America.

While the cartridge is certainly marginal as a self-defense round the small size and ease of concealment made these guns very popular, and other manufacturers quickly followed suit. Interestingly their efforts were not restricted to micro-pocket pistols. While the Mauser Model 1910 is certainly a petite gun, it is nowhere near as small as the Colt, and at one time the Walther PPK was offered in this chambering. Before WW1 Belgian manufacturers even offered small Velo-Dog style revolvers in this cartridge.

The Mauser Model 1910- small, but not a micro-gun.
A tiny Velo-Dog revolver in .25 ACP, made by A.Francotte between 1912-1914

Some Rapid Fire competition pistols were produced in .25 Auto, and after WW2 the Lerker company in Italy even produced a machine-pistol. The tiny cartridge allowed twenty rounds to be carried in a standard-size pistol grip, and the diminutive cartridge produced so little recoil that the gun was reasonably controllable in full-auto fire. These guns attracted little interest, and only 150 or so were made.

The Lerker .25 ACP machine pistol- an idea whose time has never come…

The European gun-making community produced a plethora of micro-pistols chambered for this cartridge, often of wildly varying quality. Such guns remained popular for many decades, and many police officers carried one as a back-up to their service revolver. The .25 ACP reigned as king of the vest-pocket guns until the 1960’s. It’s heyday ended with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which, under the mistaken belief that criminals preferred small, concealable guns to large intimidating ones, banned the import of these tiny pistols. As the US was far and away the biggest market for these guns this had major ramifications for manufacturers, some of whom folded.

Some manufacturer’s like Colt continued to import these guns as ‘kits,’ which when assembled in the US were still quite legal. Others began producing guns in the US, most of which were inexpensive and not of high quality. The Raven P25 for example, retailed for around $40 in the 1980s, and was made largely from cast zinc alloy. Similarly constructed guns were made by Davis, Jennings and a host of others, and these simple, cheaply-made guns account for nearly all domestic production in this caliber today.

In the end the cartridge was relegated to irrelevance not by it’s lack of power, but by misguided legislation. That being said, by the 1970s it was not well-regarded by the ‘gun community.’ Colonel Jeff Cooper, one of the founders of modern ‘combat pistol’ competition and theory, is often quoted as saying, “Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it you may shoot it. If you shoot it you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody, and he finds out about it, he may be very angry with you.”

I suppose even Colonel Cooper could say stupid stuff. A lot of people have been killed by a .25 ACP, but there are many anecdotes about .25 ACP failing to stop people. Recent study of actual shootings show that it works surprisingly often- far more often, in fact, than it fails. A lot of this can be attributed to the FIBS effect; ‘F*ck, I’ve Been Shot!’ In point of fact nobody likes to take a bullet, any bullet, and often it triggers a flight response. As a civilian having an attacker run away amounts to ‘stopping’ them. They have ceased to be an immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm, and that’s the goal.

Still, there are few that would argue that a cartridge designed to replicate the performance of .22 LR (from a short barrel) is a potent man-stopper. With good shot placement it can work, but it is far from a good choice if there is any reasonable option. These days .25 Auto pistols are generally purchased as a curiosity, or in the case of the cheap cast-alloy guns, by people that simply cannot afford something better.

Today the role formerly filled by micro-pistols chambered in .25 ACP is most often filled by tiny single-action revolvers offered by North American Arms, mostly in .22 LR or .22 Magnum; they’re the gun you carry when you can’t carry a gun, or as a backup or even as a backup to a backup. Testing has not shown these to be notably more effective, and while they are more available than quality .25 Automatic pistols they are more difficult to shoot well or rapidly.

OK, So How Bad Is It?

It depends on your perspective. As a defensive round? Pretty bad. Compared to .22 LR out of similar guns? There’s not much to choose between them. For an objective standard we’ll turn to gel tests, which were conducted firing through four layers of denim into Clear Ballistics gel. Most loads were not chronographed as the batteries were run down and it needed recharging (oops.)

Fiocchi 50 gr. FMC-RN– 10-1/2″ of penetration. Bullet tumbled and wound up base-first.

Sellior & Bellot 50gr. FMC-RN– 11″ of penetration, Bullet tumbled and wound up base-first.

Fair to say that if more shots were tested these two rounds would likely come out about even in penetration.

There are a number of 35gr hollow-point loads also on the market, and I have seen this test performed with them. They tend not to expand and penetrate slightly less. There was a load I tested in the mouse-gun test that did better-   a 58gr. hard-cast flat point over 1.1gr. of Red Dot with a CCI 300 small pistol primer. The gave a velocity of 646 fps., 54 ft./lbs of energy and 12-1/2″ of penetration. This load also tumbled and ended base-first. Yes, I actually re-load .25 ACP. I would also like to note that the power of this round could be increased and remain within safe limits.

These results pretty much mimic .22 LR from the tiny NAA revolvers, and aren’t significantly worse than .22 Magnum from these guns.

Gel does not tell the whole story, of course; there are accounts for all of these tiny calibers being deflected by a skull or ribs, or even deflected around the rib-cage while remaining under the skin. There have been cases of spectacular failures of these rounds, and cases where someone took a single hit and dropped like a pole-axed steer. At this power level odd things happen, and bullet performance can be whimsical. Shot placement, of course, is always crucial, and with small, low-powered rounds it is even more so.

In the end it’s the same as any of these genuinely tiny guns; it’s better than harsh words, certainly, but it’s not a good choice if a better option is practical and available.

Is it Obsolete?

Again, it depends. Sometimes, for some people, circumstances dictate that a tiny gun may be their only option. They are also very easy and convenient to carry, so it’s more likely to be available if you need it. That there is still a market for tiny guns- NAA makes both their small revolvers and super-compact semi-autos, and people are buying them. I view these as the gun of last resort, to be used when conditions are such that a larger gun is simply not available. I tend to have my Seecamp LWS32 on my person at all times, simply because it’s so easy; it’s the gun I carry when I am not carrying a gun.

The NAA Pug .22 Magnum- a modern replacement for the .25 Auto, somewhat smaller, but more difficult to shoot well and impossible to rapid-fire.

There is still a thriving business done in micro-guns, so it seems they do still have a mission. If you accept the mission, you accept the caliber. While high-quality modern .25s are a bit thin on the ground they are out there, as well as a plethora of older guns from the like of Colt, Beretta and FN, and inexpensive but functional guns are still abundant as well. Ammunition is still in production and widely available, and ammunition companies are still engaged in trying to develop more effective loads for them.

Another facet is in custom guns. During the last shortage of .22 LR some people had revolvers converted to fire .25 ACP as a re-loadable alternative to rimfire cartridges, and unsurprisingly it works quite well in that role.

So, while it is accurate to say that .25 ACP is in it’s twilight years, I don’t think we can really say that it’s obsolete. Whatever our opinion of the effectiveness of these guns, people keep buying them. Fair to say it won’t be vanishing into obscurity any time soon.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 25 August 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

Battle of the Mouse Guns!

OK, this may not be the most rigorous and thorough test I’ve done, but since I didn’t intend to do it at all you’ll just have to live with that. I was going through the safe and happened across the Mini Mouse and a box of ammo and thought, “Hey, I wonder what this would do in gel?” After I tried that I thought I’d try Linda’s little Colt, and once I’d done that it seemed churlish not to give the other guns a chance. I did limit myself to one gun per cartridge, but I didn’t even try for a representative sampling of ammunition in each caliber. I just shot what was handy, which in the case of the Seecamp and S&W meant what was already in the magazine.

Mouse Guns, as we have discussed before, are sub-subcompact self-defense guns. They are usually chambered in ,22 Short, .22 Long rifle or .25 ACP. There are also a couple in .32 ACP and even one in .380 ACP for the true masochists among us. Yeah, there are a few in other calibers, like the micro-revolvers chambered in .22 Magnum or the tiny Guardian in .25 NAA, but I don’t have those so they won’t be included.

The Mouse Guns used in the test- a Colt Junior in .25 ACP, a Seecamp LWS32 in .32 ACP, a S&W Model 61-2 Escort in .22 Long rifle and Mini Mouse, a home-made single shot micro derringer in .22 Short.

It’s also not a battle; it’s a series of tests. But ya gotta admit, ‘Battle of the Mouseguns‘ is much more attention grabbing than ‘Testing a Random Assortment of Tiny Guns.’ So, without further ado, let the battle… uh, testing begin!

Mini Mouse, .22 Short

Mini Mouse- even among tiny guns this is a tiny gun.

This gun came into existence because Linda challenged me to make the smallest arguably useful gun I could. You can read all about that here: https://tinkertalksguns.com/2020/06/13/i-do-like-a-challenge/. The ammunition used was CCI sub-sonic/low noise, which claims to propel its 29gr. bullet at 710 fps., presumably from a rifle-length barrel. I did not attempt to measure the velocity of this shot; with a 1-3/8″ barrel and no sights I wasn’t confident I could hit the 4″x 4″ end of the block from far enough away to use the chronograph. Designed to be used at an arms-length, this is not an easy weapon to shoot accurately!

So, I fired the shot through four layers of denim and into the gel from a distance of about 1 foot, and this was the result-

As you can see the bullet tumbled in the gel, once at about the midpoint and again just before it came to rest. Not a bad-looking wound-track for such a genuinely anemic round.

Since bullets sometimes bounce back in this media the total length of the wound-track is measured, not the resting place of the bullet.

The bullet penetrated a total of 6-3/4″. Dangerous certainly, even potentially deadly, but not something you’d want to bet your life on. That’s OK; this gun was made as a curiosity and for fun. It was never intended to be a serious weapon.

Colt Junior, .25 ACP

Made for Colt by Astra, who sold it in .25 ACP or .22 Short as the Cub. A very well made, easy shooting gun.

Linda adores this little gun, and she’s right to; it’s adorable. It’s also a lot of fun to shoot. I tested two loads from this gun, the first being a 58gr. hard-cast flat point loaded over 1.1gr. of Red Dot with a CCI 300 small pistol primer. The gave a velocity of 646 fps. and 54 ft./lbs of energy. The shot was fired over the chronograph, through four layers of denim and into the gel from a distance of about ten feet.

The bullet’s path through the gel curved slightly, but at 12-1/2″ penetration is impressive. The bullet did tumble, which probably accounts for the curved path, and came to rest facing backwards. With this bullet’s flat-nose profile, hardness and sectional density I think it’s not likely to easily bounce off bone. Put of few of these in someone’s face, or even center-mass and they’ll probably be reconsidering their life-choices.

The second load was a 35gr Speer Gold Dot hollow-point. I loaded this pretty conservatively over 1.5gr of Universal with a Federal magnum small-pistol primer. This yielded 831 fps. and a coincidental 54 ft./lbs of energy.

Sorry about this pic; it’s sometimes hard to get a decent shot.

The bullet penetrated about 10 inches, though it’s hard to tell from my crappy picture. The bullet did not expand, but I didn’t expect it to. Pushed to about 1000 fps. in other tests I’ve seen they will expand a bit, and have comparable penetration to this.

Our standard load for this gun is the 58gr. load, and based on this test I’m happy with that choice.

Seecamp LWS32, .32 ACP

Introduced in 1981, the LWS25 was a top-of-the-line mouse gun, with stainless construction and a smooth DAO trigger. When they introduced the LWS32 a few years later it was an instant hit, with it’s popularity limited only by slow production and, let’s admit it, the cost. Despite it’s already hefty MSRP these guns often demanded a premium.

This near-legendary little gun was designed to fire Winchester Silver-tip hollow-points. Not because they were expected to expand, mind you; the don’t from this very short barrel. They were specified because, at the time, they were the only commercial ammo that was short enough to fit in a magazine-well designed for .25 ACP.

I hand-load either a 60gr XTP or a 75gr hard-cast flat point, and in neither case is it a ‘hot’ load. The exact load used today is the 60gr. XTP over 2.6gr. of Universal with a Federal #100 Primer. From this gun that’s good for an average of 727 fps. and delivers 70 ft./lbs.

Like all the shots in this test, I fired into the block through four layers of denim. As expected the bullet did not expand, and stopped barely inside the bottom of the block at 11″. Decent penetration, and a significantly larger wound channel than the .22s or .25, but that’s not to say it’s in any way impressive.

S&W Model 61-2 Escort, .22 LR

With period ammo!

The biggest gun in this test is the S&W. It’s a weird little gun; large for a mouse gun, the magazine holds only five rounds and the design is based on a Belgian .380 ACP pocket pistol from 1908. On the other hand it’s dead reliable and hilariously accurate. I regularly shoot groups at 25 yards with this gun, and at closer range rapid-fire dumps are Big Fun.

The ammo used in this test is 1970s-vintage Sears house-brand stuff. You know, the cheap stuff. In contrast to modern cheap .22LR it’s extremely accurate and very, very reliable. I inherited bricks of this stuff when my Uncle Jim passed away, and by this point I’ve shot a couple thousand rounds of it and cannot recall a failure to ignite that wasn’t gun-related. I’ve had as many as 1-2 FTFs in a single 50-round box of Winchester White Label. Anyway…

The chronograph decided not to measure this shot, which happens occasionally with small bullets. Even though this is a solid-point bullet I fired it though the layered denim anyway.

By this point there were so many wound-tracks criss-crossing through the gel that I literally had to tear the block apart to find this bullet. That’s fine, actually, since I was planning to re-cast the block after this anyway. So, 8-3/4″ of penetration. not awesome, but hey, it’s a mouse-gun. Whaddya expect?

And in the End…

…a mouse-gun is the back-up to a back-up. Purse jewelry for a film noir femme fattale. The gun you carry when you aren’t carrying a gun, to be used in only the most extreme extremis. As such it’s good to have an objective standard to evaluate their potential effectiveness and limitations.

I was quite surprised that the most effective of the lot was a hand-load I cooked up for the .25 ACP; I expected better of the LWS32, and it’s entirely possibly that a different load will yield better results. Next time around I’ll try the 75gr. LFP bullet and see how that does, and maybe try some factory jacketed bullets in the .25, some high velocity fodder in the .22s… plenty more fun where this came from!

Michael Tinker Pearce, 18 August, 2020

Homespun Hollow-Points for ‘What If?’ Situations.

I’ve been experimenting with making my own hollow-point bullets, or to be more precise, modifying existing bullets to make them effective defensive ammo. It’s kind of a thought experiment, like ‘What if there were a pandemic, people panicked and bought up all of the defensive ammo and defensive bullets for reloading, at the same time that the people that make those things weren’t working, so they wouldn’t, like, get sick?’ I know, I know, crazy, right? Anyway…

Xtreme Bullets 115gr copper-plated hollow-points.

One type of bullet was still in stock at Pinto’s, and relatively affordable- Xtreme Bullets 9mm 115gr. CPHPs. I bought a thousand of them. They are great bullets; the copper plating is more like a thin metal jacket than most plated bullets, they are precisely made and re-sized after plating. Fantastic consistency and accuracy, but there is a thing they don’t do; they don’t expand at standard 9mm velocities. To be fair they aren’t meant to; these are target bullets, and Xtreme is very up-front about this. My goal was to see if I could change that in a way that was effective and yielded consistent results.

My test gun for this series was a Sig-Sauer P-6 9mm. with a 3-3/4″ barrel.

I got some 5/32″ music wire and turned the end down into what seemed a good shape, then used a 9mm de-capping/resizing die to mount it. I had a flat plate that I had turned for reshaping brass that fits into my reloading press’s ram, so I set the bullet on that and ran it up into the die. After some experimentation to get the correct dept I was in business, swaging defensive hollow-points from the 115gr Xtreme bullets.

I loaded these over 4.9gr. of Universal with a Federal magnum small pistol primer (standard small pistol primers being sold out) and tested them at the range. They flew straight and produced nice, tight groups, so that was something. Then I fired them over a chronograph, through four layers of denim and into an FBI-spec block of Clear Ballistics gel. The load produced an average velocity of 1170 fps. for 350 ft./lbs of energy. So far so good. Time to have a look at the block.

The upper wound track was produced by my first attempt at a home-made hollow-point.

The result was far from ideal, but promising. As you can see in the photo expansion commenced between 1-1/4 to 1-1/2″ pf penetration, but then the bullet over-expanded and fragmented. The base, weighing 85 gr., streamlined at 10-11″ and penetrated 19″ into the 20″ block and stopped. OK, that’s better performance than ball, but not by any means good. The base had expanded to an average diameter of .4″.

The 85gr. base of the test bullet. The hollow-point nose of the bullet fragmented in the gel.

Subsequent test shots duplicated this performance. I had achieved a defensive round that was arguably better than FMJ ball ammunition in that it created more damage and had less penetration, but I was not satisfied. Time to up my game.

My set-up for swaging hollow-point bullets. A 5.56x45mm de-capping/resizing die, with the de-capping pin reshaped and shortened, and a pusher plate that fits the ram on my reloading press.

Someone online recommended that I use a 5.56mm/.223 de-capping/resizing die, and I found a set cheap on eBay. When it arrived I shortened and modified the de-capping pin and experimented. I got what I felt was a good shape and length, but it was splitting to plating so I narrowed it down slightly. Pretty soon I was producing bullets.

On the right is the stock Xtreme 115gr Hollow-point. On the left is the re-shaped bullet. The hollow-point is wider, deeper and tapered into a concave cone-shape.

I should mention that I was not much concerned with producing a bunch of bullets that didn’t work; they were still good for target practice, so they didn’t go to waste. I had to wait to test them in gel because the block was getting pretty shot-up. I recast the block to a 16″ length, which isn’t ideal, but sometimes you just have to make do.

As per my .32 S&W Long tests the backstop was layered cardboard, followed by pine 4x4s and two layers of 3/4″ marine plywood. Shots were fired at ten feet, through four layers of denim and into the block. Wound tracks were based on the full length of the damage rather than the resting place of the bullet; bullets sometimes bounce back in this medium. As it turned out this was irrelevant for the second test… I didn’t bother with the chronograph since I had already clocked the load. The results were better than the previous load, but as you can see below not quite right…

The first bullet, on the right, expanded to an average diameter of .504″ and weighed 115.4gr. Bullet number two on the left expanded to an average of .441″ and weighed 111.7gr. so weight-retention was good.
Both bullets expanded asymmetrically, but cut basically straight paths through the gel. Not sure why they didn’t expand more uniformly.

The first shot passed through the 16″ block, dented the cardboard and spun out from between the block and cardboard. The second shot also passed through the block and lodged in the third, fourth and fifth layers of cardboard. I think we can safely say this equates to an average of 16-17″ of penetration the two bullets. Expansion was reasonable, but asymmetric in both bullets, and I don’t know why. The bullets do not keyhole as far out as 25 yards, but it’s possible they are right on the razor’s-edge of instability and are yawing as they hit the denim.

The photos of the wound-channels did not turn out, so I’ll have to describe them. The bullets expanded immediately on penetration, producing a wound-track approximately 3/4″ to 1″, which extended 6-7″ deep in the gel before gradually reducing to about .4″ at 12″ of depth, and they never fully streamlined before exiting the block. Despite the asymmetric expansion that is not too shabby. While not a perfect result there is no doubt in my mind that these would be effective. No, they aren’t a +P Speer Gold Dot, but they beat the hell out of ball ammo and rival many commercial products. Not bad for a bloke in his home work-shop.

I expect I’ll continue to fuss with these and see if I can refine them, but honestly they already work better than I expected. OK, before someone addresses the pro’s and con’s of using hand-loaded ammunition for self defense, let alone the horror of using bullets modified to be more effective, this is just an experiment. I’m not going into production here, just exploring what it is possible to accomplish. The conventional wisdom is that one should only use commercial ammo for self-defense to avoid potential legal repercussions, and I am not going to argue against that opinion.

So, qualified success. Stay safe out there.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 17 August 2020