recent developments in the "real micro" pocket gun segment - any?

I know people are saying that they want a 1 finger grip for a .25 ACP and that they'd want a four fingered grip for a .45 ACP, but I want more than a 1-2 finger grip for .25 ACP. It'd be straight blow-back almost certainly and have you fired a Baby Browning? They are expert's guns, really. It's very hard to make hits when firing rapidly, unless you are very, very close.

I'd want a 3-4 finger .25 ACP, just as thin and light as possible.

A Baby Browning is much more difficult gun to master than let's say an XDS in .45 ACP. It's much easier to fire an XDS at speed and to make precise shots. I'd wager most people would have problems hitting a 11" x 8.5" piece of paper at even a close 7 yards, as my father did. Firing slowly, I could hit a piece of typing paper every time, but firing quickly I probably only hit once or twice. For me, the appeal of .25 ACP would be to have about 10 rounds in a larger form factor with a decent trigger like a Kahr's or an actual DAO or a regular striker with a trigger safety like an XDS. You could pop them off quickly, making all your hits.

Heck, even a Bodyguard .380 or P380 or P9 is easier to fire than a Baby Browning.

My dad briefly carried his Baby Browning, but I'd have no confidence that he could make hits except at perhaps two arm's length. I'd have to practice a lot to get to a level with a Baby Browning where I would feel like I could hit something reliably AND quickly.

Oh, and I'd say that when compared with a small .45, a Baby Browning is not only harder to shoot, it is much snappier.

Then why even want something like a Baby Browning at all? Well, if it was in a 3-4 finger form factor, you could still probably get the gun down to 10-12 OZ with a 3" to 4" barrel. And when compared with pocket 9's, the gun would be much thinner and usually lighter. And XDS is still 21.5 oz and 0.9" (I think not including the controls such as a slide stop). My carry Kahr K9 is of a similar thickness and weight. It's a little heavier, and probably slightly thinner at the controls but the same thickness at the slide. You can go as light as a Kahr PM9 at 14 oz, but you still are retaining a thickness of 0.9". To get down to a 0.75" thickness you have to step down to a .380 (Kahr P380) and that is a two-finger 10 oz gun. Or you could opt for a Kel Tec P-32 at 0.75" thickness and 6.6 oz.

To me, the advantage of .25 ACP (or speculatively 5.7x28mm) is that you could drop down to a 0.75" thickness and still be around 10 oz, but you could gain barrel length, grip length, and round count.

I'd want at least Kahr's level of quality control, probably better.
 
Last edited:
Darker Loaf said:
I know people are saying that they want a 1 finger grip for a .25 ACP and that they'd want a four fingered grip for a .45 ACP, but I want more than a 1-2 finger grip for .25 ACP. It'd be straight blow-back almost certainly and have you fired a Baby Browning? They are expert's guns, really. It's very hard to make hits when firing rapidly, unless you are very, very close.
Click to expand...
Since that's all they were ever intended for, isn't that just a matter of form following function?
 
I'd want a 3-4 finger .25 ACP, just as thin and light as possible.
Click to expand...

A smart designer would shape the grip and keep the magazine fit tolerances nice and tight so that different length magazines could be used... make it look good and not pinch, let the owner pick their own overall grip length... and sell an accessory to boot.

Who says it has to be blowback? Why not tame it a bit by making it a locked breach?
 
Certainly any attacker with an eleven inch, bleeding wound through skin, tissue, and possibly an organ or two will pull out a copy of some association's recommendations to tell you that the bullet you just put in him is insufficient!
Click to expand...

You make the mistake of assuming that X inches of penetration through gel equates to X inches of penetration through the human body. Gel is a soft tissue simulant. The human body is interspersed with hard tissues in strategic locations. The IWBA determined that an average of at least 12.5 inches of penetration in calibrated, bare, 10% gel, and 13.0 inches of penetration in calibrated, "heavily clothed" 10% gel with a relatively small standard deviation of penetration (no more than about 1.0 inch) is required to ensure that the vast majority of shots, allowing for variation in body size and shot angle, will penetrate enough in the human body to reach vital internal organs given good shot placement.

In other words, X inches of penetration in gel is likely to translate into << X inches of penetration in a human. While the IWBA and the FBI use calibrated 10% gel as a soft tissue simulant, in military circles calibrated 20% gel is used. Penetration in 20% gel is far less than that observed in 10% gel. In scientific terminal ballistics testing what is important is the use of a standardized method (the FBI specifies a number of protocols all using 10% gel), and the corrolation of standardized results to a large number of well documented real world observations by trauma surgeons and medical examiners (which the expert members of the IWBA did).

Remember, it was the failure of the Winchester 9 Luger 115-gr ST to immediately incapacitate during the 1986 FBI Miami Shootout that brought scientific terminal ballistics testing for the selection of effective handgun ammo. That round had an average penetration of 10.1 inches in bare gel, and a well placed shot early on in the shootout on a perp lodged 1 inch short of the heart, which allowed him to fight on for minutes, during which time he killed two agents.

The whole idea behind scientific terminal ballistics testing is to provide high confidence that a well placed shot, regardless of shot angle or the perp's size, will penetrate deeply enough to destroy highly vascularized vital tissues. Winners don't plan to win under average conditions; after all, on an average day a citizen has no need for a firearm. Winners plan for reasonable worse-case scenarios.
 
Last edited:
.25" holes with 16" penetration ...... why bother when premium defense ammo in all the serious calibers will give you nearly 3 times the expansion, with twice the energy, and adequate penetration.......
Click to expand...

Because there are few true pocket pistols chambered in service calibers, and those that are are unpleasant to shoot.

Every other choice beats it in almost every way, except the maybe the prize for "tiniest, hardest to shoot well" handgun ...... Not a race worth entering, methinks.
Click to expand...

Yet the CC and BUG market has prompted a race to find the optimal small, easily concealed pistol, and that position seems to now be clearly held by the pocket-to-subcompact .380s. .380 Auto ammo can be hard to find and pricey these days because its in demand by all the folks toting tiny and affordable LCPs, P-3ATs, and TCPs.

The recent wave of 9 Luger single-stack subcompacts has alot of folks testing that niche, but for deep concealability I think the .380 pocket guns will win out. However, those little .380s have a reputation for being unpleasant to shoot.

In my mind, the optimal caliber for each size category in a metal-framed pistol for the typical competent shooter is:
  • pocket (1-finger grip) -- .32 Auto
  • subcompact (2-finger grip) -- .380 Auto
  • compact (3-finger grip) -- 9 Luger
  • full (comfortable 3-finger grip and long barrel) -- .45 Auto.
There are tiny guns out there .... decent ones are expensive ...... and they are not exactly dominating the CCW market, are they? What manufacturer in his right mind would spend the coin to tool up and produce something for a market so tiny? With no guarantee that the thing wold even work?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "tiny." The recent wave of shall-issue permitting for concealed carry stimulated the development and sales of pocket .380s, which I consider tiny. At $700 for a base model PSA-25, my arsenal is under no threat of being invaded by a Baby Browning.

If the idiocy and racism of the NFA of '68 could be repealed, I suspect a Chinese or Turkish factory could tool up to clone Baby Brownings that could be sold at a price here that would expand their demand. I'd be interested in knowing what the extant CZ 92 and Sarsilmaz P6 would sell for if they could be imported.
 
NAA Guardian.....

I have one, and it is the closest to what you describe. It fits my niche of "only have on thin slacks with no jacket so I truly can only pocket carry". It is in 32 ACP and is actually kind of nasty on the recoil/hand bite side with the two-finger grip you can use on it. And pretty much only accurate with those sights out to about 7 yards.....but still, it does have a niche and is still in production.....

J
 
I was able to qualify to carry a 32 acp Guardian at work in a 50 round up to 25 yard course of fire. they arent inaccurate if you forget the sites and use the barrel to aim the long shots.
 
I would buy a compact SA with a 20 round double stack magazine in 25acp. At the very least, it would have a great Giggle factor. :p:p
 
the LWS is a true micro sized gun, and in .32acp it is quite shootable. however the same sized gun can be had in .380acp but it is a brute to shoot.
 
For me 14 ounces is getting uncomfortable in my pocket.
Click to expand...

I can pocket carry my CZ 83, although I rarely do. It weighs 32 oz when loaded, but its not the weight that has me looking for a true pocket pistol, but its bulk.

First, the length, at 6.8 in, is too long for the front pocket on some of my jeans. On most it fits, but the grip backstrap is just below the pocket such that I can't tuck my shirt because the gun might be noticed by someone standing next to me.

Second, at 1.4 in, it is too wide. I can't help but feel that everyone within sight is gawking at the huge tumor on my thigh.

At 5.0 in, I have no gripe with the height, especially as it provides me with a secure 3-finger purchase on the grip when the CZ rubber mag plate is used, which adds a bit more to this dimension, but not adversely so. For a pocket gun, I am willing to accept a shorter, 2-fingered grip, but I could see myself adding a finger extension, if needed, to ensure those two fingers are afforded a secure grip.

I doubt I would have a problem pocket-toting a Guardian .32 (4.8-in x 3.5-in x 0.93-in), which weighs 15 oz loaded. My concern would be whether I could shoot the thing effectively given that its height allows just a 1-finger grip.
 
...although this one [the Sarsilmaz P6] is again a more or less 1:1 clone of the BB, and I reckon a polymer frame or a trigger setting other than SAO would be nice features for a gun of that size...
Click to expand...

It's a clone of the Bernardelli Vest Pocket: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/05/03/sarsilmaz-p6-a-new-bernardelli-25-vest-pocket-clone/. It's very similar to the Baby Browning, but has a capacity of 5+1 instead of 6+1, although 7-round extended mags are available. Both guns weigh only 11 oz when loaded, which seems to meet even Bill's strict criterion. I don't think a polymer frame will shave off much weight. I think the PSA-25 Featherweight, with an aluminum frame, shaves off about 2 oz. A polymer frame might shave off another ounce; more importantly, I would hope it would shave off some of the price.
 
The gun would have to be US made, as the Sarsilmaz can't be imported.
I have most of the guns mentioned (and quite a few more) and the only guns that are comfortable for me to pocket carry are the lightweight Browning, the Bernardelli, the Beretta 950, Keltec p32, Keltec P3AT. The Beretta mod. 20 is too thick.
I like the .32 Guardian. It shoots well, but it's a little brick!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top