any new weapons in this caliber or is .25 acp on its way out?

I've never shot one but I wouldn't mine having one if I could find a good quantity of brass to re-load. Would be a good little gun to cast for and fun to plink with I'm sure

peggysue - that's a nice collection! Thanks for sharing! :)
 
You simply can't make a .32, .380, or 9mm as small as you can make a .25.
Click to expand...

True enough. The only .25 I have is a Libia that I inherited. It is a Spanish pistol modeled on the Browning 1906, which was itself marketed as a "vest pocket" pistol. Really tiny, even compared to the modern pocket .380s like the LCP and P238. Vests have very small pockets, which begs the question of whether people would see a need for such a small pistol in today's market when the above-mentioned .380s and their cousins are so easy to conceal. If anyone brought a new .25ACP out, it would be for a niche market like the NAA minis, I would think.
 
You simply can't make a .32, .380, or 9mm as small as you can make a .25.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. Seecamp made his .25acp into a .32 and .380. A true feat of gunmaking genius IMHO. 9mm may be another story however.;)
 
Bill DeShivs said:
You simply can't make a .32, .380, or 9mm as small as you can make a .25.
Click to expand...

Generally true, but that truth doesn't explain the lack of NEW guns in .25 ACP.

It appears that the .25 ACP round was created around the turn of the 20th century to offer a small semi-auto that was more reliable than .22. Gunmakers have come a long way since then, and there are options now that simply weren't available back then -- like polymer frames and economical aluminum frames with polymer covers. The performance of ammunition has improved, too, and there are now rounds designed for shorter barreled small-caliber guns in .22, .22wmr, .25, .32, and .380. That means there are now a LOT of small semi-autos that shoot more-powerful centerfire rounds.

Not mentioned in any of these discussions is the fact that people are just PHYSICALLY LARGER now, and it's not all just extra fat; in most modern areas, people are bigger, broader, taller and stronger, and a very small gun is arguably less necessary than might have been the case 100+ years ago.

The .25 ACP may, in fact, be a bit like .45 GAP, a round that was deliver .45 power from smaller-gripped gun. The fact that is now being done with the .45 ACP round makes .45 GAP and .45 GAP semi-autos, while still around, less attractive as an alternative to full-size .45 ACP semi-autos.

I suspect that .25 ACP will stay around for a long time, if for no other reason that there remains a lot of .25 semi-autos out there. But I wouldn't expect to see many NEW guns for the reasons stated above.

For a while I had an Astra Cub, and it was a fun little gun, and reasonably accurate. (I think it is basically the same gun as the Colt Junior.) If I needed a very small centerfire gun, I think I'd go with a Kel-Tec P32. The P-32 is probably as light (or lighter) than most .25 pistols, only a bit larger than the smallest, and fires a more-powerful round that is just as reliable as any centerfire round.

Here's an interesting video from YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnJ0vjXQmo

The guy doing the video -- Paul Harrell -- is clearly a good shot, and seems to have no ax to grind. Paul argues that the .22 and .25 stack up pretty evenly, but the advantage of the .25 is that it tends to be a bit more reliable. I'd like to see the same type of performance comparison that he did with the .22 vs. .25 done with the .25, .32 and .380... There ARE very small .32s and .380s.
 
PSP- that's because the original gun was large enough to use .380.
If the Seecamp was built around the .25, it would be even tinier!

Walt- The Keltec P32 is lighter than all but the lightest .25s.
Think how small and thin a Keltec .25 would be!
 
Bill DeShivs said:
PSP- that's because the original gun was large enough to use .380.
If the Seecamp was built around the .25, it would be even tinier!

Walt- The Keltec P32 is lighter than all but the lightest .25s.
Think how small and thin a Keltec .25 would be!
Click to expand...

Yes, but given the P32's already very petite size, what is really gained by making a .25 gun smaller? Thin and light makes sense -- but smaller? I'd argue that there comes a point where a gun so small will be harder to handle because of it's small size -- what do you hold on to? And unless you change the action design, recoil may become an issue, too.

Size-wise, the P32 easily slips in a shirt pocket with room to spare, and pants pockets are bigger. Going smaller just to be smaller seems more like a technical challenge than an effort to address a practical need.
 
I agree that despite the already small dimensions of todays .32s and .380ies, a .25 utilizing modern materials and technologies would still be a class of its own when it comes to size and weight... Think of a polymer framed super tiny .25 with maybe only 4 inches o.a.l...

I guess the reason why obviously no manufacturer is willing to update the .25 micro gun is that they find it more likely selling a bigger (at least one inch in terms of o.a.l.) and heavier pistol from .32 upwards than something even far more concealable but in a caliber considered weak (even "ridiculous") by many real or self-appointed gun experts.

Still, it would definitely fit into the niche now only occupied by the NAA minis and the Bauer Baby Browning clones, but seemingly that market is too small to invest in a new product design...
 
I'm familiar with the P32s advantages. I have carried one every day for 16 years. I would still prefer a smaller gun, at times. I have no problem with the .25's power, personally.
The problem?? is, the P32 weighs less than even the baby Browning.
 
One pretty nifty little 25 is made by CZ, called the CZ-92. It is basically an updated version of the original CZ-45 DAO .25, which itself was an updated version of the CZ-36.

Unfortunately, thanks to our incredibly inane GCA of 68, it is unimportable.

I did read in a Wikipedia article that there is a possibility of a limited run made in the U.S.
 
I think the .25 ACP has a couple of things going against it, mostly I believe, it's just hard to justify the cost. What's interesting is when we look at the numbers, so let's do just that. From Wikipedia (not an academic source, but good enough for hard and fast numbers on an internet gun forum):

.25 ACP
50 gr (3 g) FMJ 760 ft/s (230 m/s) 65 ft·lbf (88 J)
35 gr (2 g) JHP 900 ft/s (270 m/s) 63 ft·lbf (85 J)

.22 Long Rifle
38 gr (2 g) Copper-plated HP[2] 1,260 ft/s (380 m/s) 134 ft·lbf (182 J)
31 gr (2 g) Copper-plated HP[2] 1,430 ft/s (440 m/s) 141 ft·lbf (191 J)

So why use a .25 ACP? Reliability, of course! It's the smallest centerfire cartridge John Browning was able to design that could mimic .22 LR (but not even keep up with, if we are to believe the mighty Wiki) to keep the gun small and still operate a blowback with no breech lock. It sounds great on paper until we start talking about dollars. It's a poor performance round commanding high powered dollars but giving you the reliability to carry it for self defense. The simple facts of performance, coupled with cost, mean it's a losing situation for any business looking to sell products to a disinterested customer base. Some guys and gals on here would love to see new .25 ACP guns and revive the round, but I can assure you that they are most certainly in the minority.

Since some posters mentioned .32 ACP, I would say that now you're cooking with gas. While I'm not convinced that .32 is that great for self defense, it will get the job done at muzzle distances. They are also very small, lightweight, and an incredible joy to shoot. .32 chambered guns have been used for a long time by militaries and police all over the world to great effect.
 
Got the PSP .25. Added walnut Bauer grips.
Then got rid of the plastic trigger and made a new metal one. Gold plated the trigger. Now it looks right.

 
shaunpain, since you're new to guns I won't hold it against you for using .22lr ballistics from a 16" rifle compared to a .25acp ballistics out of a 2.2" barrel. its a common mistake for the neophyte.

I think the .25 ACP has a couple of things going against it, mostly I believe, it's just hard to justify the cost. What's interesting is when we look at the numbers, so let's do just that. From Wikipedia (not an academic source, but good enough for hard and fast numbers on an internet gun forum):

.25 ACP
50 gr (3 g) FMJ 760 ft/s (230 m/s) 65 ft·lbf (88 J)
35 gr (2 g) JHP 900 ft/s (270 m/s) 63 ft·lbf (85 J)

.22 Long Rifle
38 gr (2 g) Copper-plated HP[2] 1,260 ft/s (380 m/s) 134 ft·lbf (182 J)
31 gr (2 g) Copper-plated HP[2] 1,430 ft/s (440 m/s) 141 ft·lbf (191 J)
Click to expand...

when you compare apples to apples you will find they are ballistic equals. the nod to the .22lr for cheap ammo cost and the nod to the .25acp for feeding and ignition reliability.
 
Last edited:
Using the design of the BOBERG, you probably could make a .380 smaller than some of the older .25s -- but that brings us back to the question that hasn't been answered: is there a practical reason for a gun that small, or is it just something done because it CAN BE done?

Me? I'd rather have a slightly larger gun with a more potent round... I wouldn't consider a .22, unless it was a .22 WMR and at least a 4" barrel (unlikely in a pocket gun.)
 
In terms if new gun production, probably on its way out. In terms of the caliber itself, it will take a long time before the caliber dies. Anyone wanting to carry something as small (in gun dimensions) as a .25 for defense should handload and carry 'em in something made of solid steel like a Colt 1908 or Bauer.
 
Bayard made very small .32/.380 guns.
Had they decided to make a minimal .25, it would have been even smaller!
 
Last edited:
When u can get a 9mm in a Rohrbaugh, whats the point of a .25? The rounds on its way out IMHO, not seeing any new guns offered for it that arent the junk zinc Saturday night specials, and those dont sell well when the local gang bangers can get a Block 40 for the same $ these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top