The Rohrbaugh Forum

Miscellaneous => Other Guns => Topic started by: BillinPittsburgh on October 15, 2006, 11:53:02 PM

Title: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 15, 2006, 11:53:02 PM: Since this forum is populated with some of the most knowledgeable pocket gun people around, many of whom were into pocket guns when .22 and .25 were the only options (which really wasn't long ago - the Seecamp was the only game in town above .25 until the late 1990's), I thought it a good place to ask this question.

My wife is starting to get serious about carrying a gun at least some of the time. She recently asked me to get her a gun purse for her 4" Springfield XD. I ordered one that she picked out from Coronado Leather, but would also like her to have smaller guns that she could potentially carry on her person. As I see it, she will need 2 more guns: one that is as small and light as possible while staying within the usual minimum caliber guidelines (hopefully a subcompact 9mm), and a true pocket pistol.

She does not have particularly high recoil tolerance, and did not like my Kel-Tec P-32 the 2 times she tried it. This is the lowest recoiling .32 pocket pistol on the market, so that means a .22 or a .25. She isn't happy with having to lower the hammer between chambers on a NAA mini-revolver, so that means a small semi-auto the only option.

I figure the likely best choice is here:

http://www.taurususa.com/products/gunselector-results.cfm?series=SF1

The DAO trigger - which I understand to be relatively light - and tip-up barrel should make it very easy for her to use. Most people I know who own these guns like them.

My question is: should I go with the .22 or the .25?

In the .22's favor:

1) I have a bit more confidence in the ability of the .22 to penetrate to the vitals.

2) Inexpensive practice ammo.

3) Can use CCI Stinger or Quick Shock ammo.

In the .25's favor:

1) One more round of magazine capacity, which could provide one more critical chance to neutralize an attacker with these less than optimally effective calibers.

2) Some users seem to believe that the .25 is more reliable in these small autos. If true, that, by itself, is the deciding factor.

3) The ability to use Magsafe ammo.

So, what are all of your thoughts?

Is the .25 more reliable than the .22 in these small pistols?

Would going with something like Magsafe or Quickshock improve the chances of hitting something vital, or give up too much needed penetration?

Is one more effective than the other? If the .22 is more effective, is the difference worth giving up one round of magazine capacity?

Other gun suggestions are also welcome.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Salute on October 16, 2006, 12:56:42 AM: Not a 22 or 25.

The Seecamp 32 she may really like.

Feel is much different then a Keltec. Keltec is lighter but larger. I've seen reliability problems with the Keltec numerous times. There really isn't many reliability probs with the Seecamp. Its heavier and smaller. [but not heavy] High quality. Size and recoil [not much] about the same as a small 22 or 25. Magsafe, no problem that i've seen.
Looks and feels like what will become an heirloom....and its very attractive.

I also like it in an RJ Hedley holster. Thats my taste.

Good Luck.....................Salute'
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Aglifter on October 16, 2006, 01:01:29 AM: A Colt Pocket auto might be a bit big, but there's almost no recoil -- my father picked up a berretta tomcat in 32, even comes w. night sights -- light, very little recoil, and pretty small. The first pull is pretty stiff, but it then switches to a single action pull that's quite nice.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 16, 2006, 07:47:53 AM: Thanks for the replies so far.

My P-32 has been VERY reliable, with about 1,500 rounds through it, aalthough I do use heavier (11 lb.) recoil springs and magazine springs. I have shot a rental North American Arms .32, which is very similar in size, weight, and function to a Seecamp, and recoil is SIGNIFICANTLY less comfortable than the P-32. The tilt barrel design results in much less recoil than a straight blowback, even if the straight blowback has more weight. If a Seecamp would work, I'd get her one in a second, but unless there is some significant difference between the Seecamp and NAA that makes the Seecamp significantly more comfortable to shoot, I don't see it working for her.

The Tomcat may be worth trying if I can find a rental one for her to shoot.

Still interested in answers to the original .22 v. .25 question.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Ubik380 on October 16, 2006, 09:09:43 AM: The Seecamp has a retarded-blowback action that uses rings cut into the chamber to hold the expanded case until the pressure drops and releases the case from the chamber. I don't know if the Guardian has this. I find the Seecamp "snappy" but not uncomfortable.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Michigunner on October 16, 2006, 10:38:59 AM: Bill,

One of the most popular guns around is the S&W 642 .38 Special +P. It is very small and light.

The hammer is concealed inside the frame.

I expect it would be more reliable than a pistol. I use Gold Dot Short Barrel ammo with a muzzle energy of 222 ft/lbs. That should be adequate for a closeup emergency.

Bill
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: riffraff on October 16, 2006, 10:54:41 AM: BillinPittsburgh,

To answer your question definately go with the 22 over the 25. A gun you might want to consider is the Walther TPH. It has been a while since I have checked so I don't know if it is still in production.

Mike
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: PursuitSS on October 16, 2006, 11:22:27 AM: Quote
BillinPittsburgh,

To answer your question definately go with the 22 over the 25. A gun you might want to consider is the Walther TPH. It has been a while since I have checked so I don't know if it is still in production.

Mike

Sorry, it's no longer in production. It is an outstanding pistol, IF you can find one of the German made models I'd grab it in a heartbeat!

PursuitSS
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: capt.koolaid on October 16, 2006, 07:13:20 PM: What a great question! The .22 being rim fire with a large rim has been known to problematic in reliable feeding and ignition. To assist in feeding in semiautos the .25 was born or so the story goes. The first "pocket auto" had a pretty good rep, as John Browning evidently used a rather fast burning powder in the .25 a.c.p. since it was DESIGNED as a pocket auto/round, in comparison to the .22 long RIFLE, designed originaly for a long gun. Today many enjoy the .22 magnum in pocket guns like the N.A.A. mini revolvers but...Even North American Arms concedes alot of the magnums slow burning powder is still left burning after the bullets already exited the barrel in PISTOL size barrels, thus adding only in muzzle flash and report. ( A good intimidation factor I guess if not a tactical hinderance) In further praise of the .25 auto, It actually operates at a higher level of pressure than then the .32 auto!, ( I know, I know, bigger is better) Yet the small grain wieght realy keeps recoil down even in diminutive pistols. If it were me, Id go with a .25 auto. If you think a hollwpoint bullet or other MANSTOPPER WHOPPER is in order and would even work from such a small gun, Hornady makes an excellent hollow point, and glasers are also available!
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 17, 2006, 12:17:55 AM: Thanks for all the replies.

The "retarded blowback" nature of the Seecamp could be just the thing that reduces the recoil to the point where it is manageable. Can anyone comment on the recoil of the Seecamp v. NAA v. Beretta v. Kel-Tec in .32?

Another factor is the grip: a 2-finger grip helps tremendously as compared to a 1-finger grip.

The Walther TPH is a good suggestion if I can find one. I really liked the design when it was made but have never actually had the chance to fire one.

Letting her try a lightweight .38 was one of the worst mistakes I made with her. I didn't realize that, even with standard pressure ammo, the recoil would actually be worse than a .45! It probably contributed to a flinch that it took a long time and much work to get rid of.

I am not surprised one bit to see different opinions on .22 v. .25. Please keep them coming.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: PursuitSS on October 17, 2006, 12:34:11 AM: One thought.........see if you can find a woman firearms instructor in your area. I know that my wife didn't respond well to MY training, she did MUCH better when she went through the Law Enforcement Academy. I've carried "mouse guns" myself, I'm just not a fan of them.

You might be shocked how much recoil she can learn to tolerate.

My .02
PursuitSS
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 17, 2006, 12:51:30 AM: Quote
One thought.........see if you can find a woman firearms instructor in your area. I know that my wife didn't respond well to MY training, she did MUCH better when she went through the Law Enforcement Academy. I've carried "mouse guns" myself, I'm just not a fan of them.

You might be shocked how much recoil she can learn to tolerate.

My .02
PursuitSS

Hi PursuitSS,

My wife continues to tell me that she prefers my instruction, but then continually resists when I ask her to do something while doing the same thing without objection when another instructor asks her to do it. She has taken a 5 hour basic concealed carry class, and has a few more hours of training with other instructors besides me. Other instructors who have taught me have had similar experiences with their wives. I wonder if self-defense is something that a husband simply has to rely on someone else to teach his wife?

Totally agree with you about mouseguns. They are only to back up bigger guns or for when the bigger gun would be left home.

My impressions of her recoil tolerance are the result of having her try out almost every 9mm pistol in existence, along with a few .45's, a few .38 revolvers, and some .380 and .32 autos. She is normal and healthy and will get there, but it is best done slowly. She shoots well with her full-size 9mm, and prefers full-size 9mm's to all other pistols. She is the gentlest, most caring person I know, but anyone who attacks her while she is armed is in for a NASTY surprise. Going smaller creates difficulty.

In many respects I am very lucky. Our second date was my teaching her how to shoot a pistol. When she found out that I am a martial artist, she asked me to train her in empty hand techniques, and trained with me for about 3 years. She fully understands the need for guns to ensure safety, and can clearly explain it to the worst skeptic. While some husbands have to hide new gun purchases, the Rohrbaugh that I will get later this week is a combined anniversary/birthday/Christmas gift from her.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Salute on October 17, 2006, 04:13:24 AM: As I said earlier, I like the Seecamp.

I have tried the Keltec numerous times. Friends had probs with them so they would sell them and get another till they got a good one.
I have tried the NAA, but not the Beretta.

Being that the Seecamp is heavier than those 2 I have used and the fact that its a retarted blowback I found it to be smoother to shoot than the other 32s. Not much recoil punch at all. Bigger than a 22 or 25. Now the Seecamp 380, thats a different story. These models are so not for continuous shooting.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Aglifter on October 17, 2006, 07:52:29 PM: Another benefit of the Tomcat is they come in 22 also -- might not be a bad idea to use the 22 for training, and the 32 for carry -- my Dad and I both enjoy shooting his Tomcat, we tend to go and plink with it from time to time -- really not bad at all to run a box through. The pup usually gets about half a box through it, before I decided it still works just fine, and leave it alone, and the Kel-Tec gets shot on very rare occasions -- the recoil's not that bad, it's just not an interesting gun to shoot.

Now that I have to be in an urban area most of the time, and in SC about 1.5 hrs from a range, I'm amazed at how quickly my shooting deteriorates, and have become a big believer in 22s, at least for some warm-up shooting before switching to 45/9mm/etc.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 17, 2006, 11:34:58 PM: It looks like the consensus is that, if at all possible, I should skip the .22 and .25 and look to a .32. If I can find a .32 that my wife will like, I totally agree. It is still a mousegun caliber but it hits about twice as hard as either the .22 or .25. After my wife's experience with my Kel-Tec, I am skeptical about whether this will happen.

Both the Seecamp and Beretta look like interesting possibilities. The Seecamp would definitely be easier to hide, but I am concerned about the 1-finger grip. The 2-finger grip of the Beretta may be easier for her to use. The Beretta will definitely be the easier gun to get her an opportunity to shoot without actually buying one first.

If neither of these works out, then I am back to looking at .22 or .25 pistols, with the Taurus being the top pick so far, but the Walther TPH being a good contender if I can find one.

Whatever mousegun we end up selecting for her is ultimately going to be part of a group of guns, including her full size XD9 and hopefully a subcompact 9mm representing the smallest, lightest thing we can get and still have reasonable stopping power. Hopefully we can thereby minimize the amount of time she needs the mousegun as a primary, but we all know that there are times when it is the only thing that will hide. I'd rather she have what she can hit consistently with first, with maximizing the caliber coming in second on the priority list.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: PursuitSS on October 18, 2006, 12:28:27 AM: If you have to go with a low recoil .32, how about a Walther PP or PPK.

PursuitSS
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 19, 2006, 12:01:41 AM: Quote
If you have to go with a low recoil .32, how about a Walther PP or PPK.

PursuitSS

Unfortunately that is more like the mid-size gun in the ultimate battery I am trying to achieve.

Recall what I am trying to achieve: 1) full-size gun, already filled by the 4" XD9; 2) something as small as possible but still meeting minimum power level requirements, hopefully a subcompact 9mm like a Glock 26 or 3" XD9; and 3) a pocket pistol. #1 is for training, home defense, and carry when possible, #2 is the most likely to be carried, and #3 is for when nothing bigger can be carried.

Quite some time ago, on another forum, a friend who goes by "SouthNarc" posted what he considered to be "the essential battery." His essential battery consisted of his 4" Kimber with full-size grip, his S&W J-frame, and his Seecamp .32. Same theory, different selections to fill each role.

The point of the .22 v. .25 v. .32 discussion is to look for possible contenders for the pocket pistol. A Walther PPK, or a S&W J-frame, is as big as a subcompact 9mm without the advantages of the 9mm. I don't see too much difficulty in getting her a subcompact 9mm she can use. Getting the PPK still leaves unfilled the need for a pocket gun.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Paveway on October 20, 2006, 03:48:04 PM: Bill, go for the .32 Beretta Tomcat. It's got the tip up barrel feature and is only slightly larger than a .25 Beretta or Taurus. My daughter was 12 when I took her to the range for the first time and she was able to load and shoot it quite confidently, if that helps. She now refers to all small pocket guns as "cricket guns" in reference to what Will Smith carried and called his tiny space gun in the movie "Men in Black".

What I did to get her warmed up to the blast and recoil was to put a pair of shooting gloves on her and let her shoot a full size .22 target pistol. We moved on to the .32 then .380 then .45 then a :o 10mm 1911 with handloads! I wanted to see how far she wanted to go up the power ladder, she kept going until she got the involuntary muscle twitch in her hands. But she did empty the magazine in the 10mm.

Keep the target real close, around 10 feet to get her confidence up and you should be OK.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 21, 2006, 09:14:19 PM: Paveway,

Great job with your daughter!!!

My wife already has confidence with general shooting ability. One of the more recent times we went shooting together, she surprised me by putting the target out to 15, 20, and 25 yards, and hitting it with her XD9.

It is just the recoil/noise/muzzle blast issue. I now have her (and me) doubling up with earplugs and then electronic earmuffs over the plugs, which really cuts down on noise while still permitting normal conversation. Gloves may help, but she won't have gloves in the real world.

Also, with really small autos, I think having her hand that close to the moving slide makes her nervous. She knows to put both thumbs on the same side of the gun, and knows that rubbing against the side of the slide is no big deal (my thumbs are both on my slide every time I shoot), but it still makes her nervous, which I think was a big problem with the Kel-Tec P-32.

I can see the Tomcat having potential here.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: twostar on October 26, 2006, 12:43:22 PM: Most everyone seems to agree that a .22 or .25 is a last ditch option but, actual results I have seen show the .22 to "do more damage" than the .25. Trauma surgeons hate them. They take bizarre turns and end up destroying a great deal of tissue as they wander around. To their detriment, the .22 is a dirty cartridge. There is no reason a defensive weapon should not be squeaky clean at all times, so that would not present a problem but, .22's do leave residues that cause more malfunctions than most calibers. They are even famous for getting under the ejector in revolvers and making the cylinders difficult to open or even rotate.

If this was my only option I'd probably go for a .22, but I would clean the bejesus out of the gun on a regualr basis. S&W is now making some nice little .22 Magnum revolvers. Hmmmm.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Richard S on October 26, 2006, 03:03:36 PM: Bill:

I'm just catching up on my reading and have seen your initial post on this thread.

I used to own one of the Beretta .25 ACPs and liked it pretty well. The tip-up barrel is an interesting design with its own advantages, but it has one little drawback. Since it ejects spent cartridges more or less straight up into the air, it can occasionally result in dropping a hot piece of brass down the front of an open blouse. (I won't go into detail as to how I learned that years ago other than to say that the lady involved never went to the range with me again and is no longer a part of my life. ;))

As noted by Twostar,the .22 LR and the .22 Magnum cartridges pack more "punch" than the .25 ACP, but they are also "dirtier" and do not feed as reliably in a semi-automatic weapon. I learned that back in 1965 when I purchased a Walther PPK chambered for .22 LR. (Great little plinker, if you didn't mind the occasional jams and "bites" on the shooting hand.)

You may recall from previous threads that my own little wife carried one of the NAA MiniMag revolvers until she "requisitioned" my Seecamp .32 with its old-ivory grips . . . this one:

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/RichardS/Seecamp.jpg)

Regarding the Taurus pistols, one of my Agency friends swears by them and has carried one for years in unpleasant places.

But all of that leads to this -- The "Baby Browning" ("Le Bébé") has been resurrected and is now being offered in this country by Precision Small Arms under license from Fabrique Nationale of Herstal, Belgium ("FN"). May I suggest either the Renaissance or Impériale model as worthy of your consideration. 8)

http://precisionsmallarms.com/imperiale.htm
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 27, 2006, 12:02:29 AM: Thanks for the info, Richard.

How do you - and your wife - find the recoil of the Seecamp .32 compares to the NAA .32?
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Paveway on October 27, 2006, 12:31:43 AM: Quote
Bill:

But all of that leads to this -- The "Baby Browning" ("Le Bébé") has been resurrected and is now being offered in this country by Precision Small Arms under license from Fabrique Nationale of Herstal, Belgium ("FN"). May I suggest either the Renaissance or Impériale model as worthy of your consideration. 8)

http://precisionsmallarms.com/imperiale.htm

Bless you, Richard ! I need one of these and a Hi-Power for my John M. Browning "tribute" collection.
:D Daddy's goin' shoppin !!!!!!
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Richard S on October 27, 2006, 07:55:36 AM: Quote
Thanks for the info, Richard.

How do you - and your wife - find the recoil of the Seecamp .32 compares to the NAA .32?

With the understanding that felt recoil is highly subjective, we both seem to feel that the Gurardian has slightly less recoil than the Seecamp. That's probably due to the Guardian's slightly heavier weight, which I have also increased a tad with a pair of silver grips. "Her Honor" seems able to tolerate the Seecamp well enough, though, and I suspect that she "requisitioned" it largely due to esthetic reasons. She has also issued a "decree" that: "The previous owner shall remove the ivory grips and install the original panels whenever the current owner takes the Seecamp to the range, following which the previous owner shall clean the pistol, reinstall the aforesaid ivories, and return the package forthwith to its present owner." (The things we do for love. ;) )

Let us know what you and your wife select.
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: Richard S on October 27, 2006, 07:57:47 AM: Quote

Bless you, Richard ! I need one of these and a Hi-Power for my John M. Browning "tribute" collection.
:D Daddy's goin' shoppin !!!!!!

Paveway:

You're quite welcome! I've got a case of that particular "itch" myself. :-/
Title: Re: .22 v. .25 for a pocket pistol
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on October 27, 2006, 10:34:12 PM: Thanks again for the info, Richard. It looks like the Seecamp .32 is out of the running.

At this point, it looks like I am looking for a chance for her to try a Beretta Tomcat, and if that doesn't work, then it will be a .22 or .25. Richard's suggestion of the PSA gun looks very interesting, and has a serious size advantage over the Taurus I originally thought about. This gun appears to only be available in .25.

The fact that it can be had in multiple attractive configurations could also be very helpful. I really like that Imperiale model.

I totally understand about the things we do for love. My wife was initially unhappy when I got her the Springfield XD, even though it was the 9mm she was most comfortable with and shot the best (she has tried just about everything in existence). One of the first things she said was that I should expect to be the one who cleans it. She now likes the gun and may occasionally carry it, but I still get to clean it.