The 25 ACP handgun and self defense – picture

[Gene Pool]

Gentlemen,

Many people think that the 25 ACP handgun is insufficient for personal protection. And in some scenarios it very well may be. However, I personally believe there is a place for very small “mouse guns” such as a Beretta 950, which I carry in very special situations, like places where larger, more powerful handguns can't be carried. But as with any personal defense handgun, the key is to practice and practice and practice.

This picture shows a metal target (from ShootingTargets7) and my Beretta 950. It was fired from 20 feet rapid fire—all shots in about 3 seconds. A 25 ACP cartridge might not be powerful, but that many, that fast, and in that location would qualify as sufficient self defense...in my opinion.

Gene Pool

 

[SIGSHR]

Indeed there is a place for it, but not really as a primary CCW handgun IMHO, rather as an absolute last ditch back up, or very deep concealment-swim trunks at the beach, e.g.

 

[Cheapshooter]

I don't know of any situation where the 25 Beretta could be carried that my 380 LCP couldn't also work.
As it has been said before. 'The Ruger LCP, the gun you can carry when you can't carry a gun!"
I will gladly take the extra 1/2 inch in length, 2/10'' in height, and 8/100'' in width that is 1/2oz lighter, and fires a round developing 200 ft lbs of energy.
But if you are happy with a whopping 65 ft lbs, 12 ft lbs less than a 22 short HV out of my truly tiny NAA Mini Revilver, that's your choice.

 

[Onward Allusion]

If something chambered in 25 ACP were my only choice, I would certainly use it. In fact, I carried one for many years because options were limited those days.

However, these days, where LCP's, P32's, P3AT's, NAA Guardians in 380 or 32 are available, why not use those guns/calibers instead? They're also true DAO or partial reset DAO. Better than having to either rack the slide to chamber a round or pull the hammer back for ignition.

 

[tallball]

Nice shooting!

 

[Model12Win]

OP, quite frankly, it isn't 1952 anymore.

That's when the Beretta 950 came out, but today, the options for the same size gun with less weight and far greater power are legion. Not to mention the very overpriced cost of .25 ACP ammo... the list goes on and on. I was interested in getting a PSA Baby Browning clone not too long ago, but I would never carry the gun even for backup to a backup.

Options like the Ruger LCP, Kel-Tec P32, and even the Rohrbaugh 9mm are all barely larger but much more power. The Kel-Tec P32 is an absolute featherweight and is super tiny and thin, yet it's .32 ACP cartridge is still considerably more powerful than .25 ACP delivering somewhere around 150 ft-lbs of muzzle energy with a larger caliber, notably heavier bullet. Still a mouse gun load but can be much more effective in terms of penetration to the vitals of a target at less than optimum angles. .25 ACP has such low energy and momentum that it has trouble when fired from oblique angles and through limbs/heavy clothing etc.

I respect your choice OP but if you intend to use the gun for serious social purposes, I urge you to reconsider. Yourself and other lives might count on it some day.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This picture shows a metal target (from ShootingTargets7) and my Beretta 950. It was fired from 20 feet rapid fire—all shots in about 3 seconds. A 25 ACP cartridge might not be powerful, but that many, that fast, and in that location would qualify as sufficient self defense...in my opinion.

There are a variety of factors that go into whether or not a particular gun/cartridge can be a good choice for self defense. The ability to shoot it accurately and quickly is one. But another is terminal ballistics, the expected effectiveness of the bullet. And as far as terminal ballistics go, the .25 ACP is a poor choice.

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology, and none of it supports the .25 ACP as a good self defense cartridge.

What the data shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

I've posted the following before and might as well post it again here:

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
       
       
       • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
         
         
       • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
         
         
       • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
         
         
       • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
         
         
       • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
    2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
       • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
         
         
       • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
       
       
    3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
       
       
    4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
• Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

  ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
  
  The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

• And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
  
  
  • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

    In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

    The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

    Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  
• And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

  
  
• But take special note of the quote in the third bullet point in item V., above:
  
  
  • In In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, with my emphasis):

    ... the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

    
    
  • So a sub-caliber, .22 lr, .25 ACP, or similar, can kill and can, under some circumstances, stop an attacker. But the odds are that something larger will be more likely to be effective. A sub-caliber might fill a special need, such as a need for deep concealment or if one can't handle something larger; but if someone has a choice, a sub-caliber will not be the best choice.

 

[P71pilot]

I couldn't look at the pictures because I am on a touch screen smart phone, but I guess if the handgun is reliable and you can place every shot in the head under stress you would be OK. I look at all those small calibers the same. If it is under 9x19mm in power, I would only shoot for the head, and use fmj. I shot a Glock 42 .380 and was very impressed. I didn't like the price but the gun had no recoil and I was extremely accurate with it. I don't own a pocket gun myself but if I did I wouldn't go any smaller than .380. And I would shoot for the cranium

 

[Cheapshooter]

A sub-caliber might fill a special need, such as a need for deep concealment or if one can't handle something larger;

With all of the 380acp chambered "mouse guns" available today, the deep concealment reason is non-existant.

OP, quite frankly, it isn't 1952 anymore.

The only viable reason would be the tilt barrel design for someone physically unable to rack the slide on a larger caliber gun of equally concealable size. I don't even agree with the recoil sensitivity argument of the 380 mouse guns. An aversion to recoil is more mental than physical, and with some diligent practice can be overcome. The only exception being some sort of physical impairment.

 

[Dirty_Harry]

Another thought is this, those are "aimed" shots. At 7 yards your probably hip shooting and if you have time to aim you probably shouldn't shoot.

That being said, good shooting and a 25 is better than nothing.

 

[mavracer]

But if you are happy with a whopping 65 ft lbs, 12 ft lbs less than a 22 short HV out of my truly tiny NAA Mini Revilver, that's your choice.

Oh isn't that cute somebody thinks they're getting the advertized velocity of a 22 out of a NAA Mini.
According to BBTI they only got 42 ft lbs with Stingers from a NAA

 

[Cheapshooter]

Yes, my NAA Mini in 22 Short is quite cuite! But 1. I don't carry it,and 2. does the 25acp in the Beretta 950 even come close to advertised energy either?

 

[mavracer]

2. does the 25acp in the Beretta 950 even come close to advertised energy either?

Yes, because it's designed and tested in a 2" barrel, Winchester advertizes 760 fps and BBTI got 765 fps ironicly from a Beretta 950.

Sorry I took it out on you but after 40 years of people using rifle ballistics to represent performance from a pocket rimfire it's tireing.
For the record I own a Beretta Bobcat 22 and specifically got a 22 knowing a 25 is actually more powerful because I wanted to shoot it a lot it's my fishing buddy.

 

[Bongo Boy]

I'm most surprised by his findings that most threats cease after being shot at all. I'll have to read this one--this is totally at odds with 'what I've heard' from law enforcement instructors (2 or 3 at most, granted) and their anecdotal (granted) stories. Those stories generally include quite a bit of 'he didn't know he was shot' and 'it is unlikely you or your assailant will know if he is shot'.

The other very interesting data is the histogram--the .357 was as effective as a rifle, and there is no significant difference between the 9, the 40 and the 45. I've heard folks say that a lot, but the data I've looked at more closely was one-shot stop data (do not know the source), and as I remember it, there was a distinct advantage among popular calibers for the 45.

Back to the caliber 'discussion' though, my choice is more based on 'what can I comfortably shoot and carry', 'what WILL I carry', and 'what do I feel fairly safe with'...all constrained to handgun calibers. This comes down to wardrobe habits being as much a driver as anything, I guess. The 40SW just meets all my criteria, even in the summer, so it's the smallest I can go with or feel the need to. Another way to put it is that nothing smaller than 40SW solves any problem that I have.

Anyway, a very nice gentlemanly discussion of a very controversial and tireless topic, I guess. I'll continue to carry my G29 just the same under all but the most extreme conditions.

Given I feel I'm carrying a weapon on the 1:500,000 odds I'd ever need it and actually have the chance to use it effectively, why wouldn't I just go ahead and plan that the opportunity is also the 1-in-10 assailant--all hopped up on something where he/she doesn't care how many times he's been shot? If I get one in, it'll be a big one.

 

[JERRYS.]

a .25acp is better than nothing, and most people with a ccw permit carry nothing.

 

[James K]

The handgun extremes, the .22 S/LR and .25 ACP on one hand, and the .44 Magnum, .454 Casull and .500 S&W on the other, are experts' guns. The low end requires near perfect shot placement, requiring absolute calm under fire; the high end requires a degree of control most of us simply do not have.

The question is not whether the .25 ACP will kill or stop by killing. It will. The question is whether anyone, including the OP, can put a magazine full into a man's head while under fire and in fear for his life. Most of us have to use greater power to make up for our own failings in that regard.

Jim

 

[davem]

Somewhere in the back of my mind is an account of a grizzly bear being killed by a woman with a 25ACP- I think she shot it in the eye and the bullet somehow reached the brain. I think the woman was a Native American. Maybe someone has the details.
The pistols are small, easy to carry. For self protection if you shot a guy at 5 feet in the head with a 25 ACP you'll kill him. The bullet might bounce off the skull if inaccurately placed. Just keep shooting. You'll kill him. Shoot him in the tummy- different story.
SO....clerk in a store. a 25ACP not a good choice because there's probably several robbers and they might be 20 feet away and probably armed as well. A woman trying to fend off an attacker who has no gun and at eyeball to eyeball range- not the best but will probably work if shot accurately.

 

[deerslayer303]

I can't say I disagree with your reasons to carry a 25ACP nor can I say that I disagree with anyones logic to NOT carry a 25ACP. I think with small caliber pistols I would want more capacity than the 950 or the Baby browning offers. 10 rounds would be good. I have a 25ACP Pistol that has that capacity but its too busy to carry. I like the Caliber simply because I didn't have one. I also think 99.995% of all human beings have an inherent fear of being on the muzzle end of a gun. How many times has a situation been diffused with the would be victim simply presenting a firearm?? The assailant doesn't know if its a 22 Caliber hole or a 40 caliber hole. Surely you will not hear "oh isn't that cute you have a 22". I know there is the age old, "what if he is doped up on PCP and thinks he is invinceable"? Well pump 10 rounds of 22 HV in him center mass and flee. I believe my gun is to get me out of a situation, not necessarily to vaporize the assailant. With all that said, I carry a 380 TCP for deep Concealment (which can't be much bigger than that 950) a Mod 36 S&W, and a Mod 60-15 357 Mag.

 

[campingnights]

If you are going to carry, make sure it is something that you will have with you instead of leaving it at home in a drawer. From the looks of the target the .25 should make any creep go away, if he still can. It will do fine. Use what you're comfortable with. In spite of the howls of anguish that are sure to follow this post.

I use a 38 special derringer and consider it sufficient for my needs.

 

[Bongo Boy]

a .25acp is better than nothing, and most people with a ccw permit carry nothing.

Yes, probably. But I'm thinking a can of pepper spray for bears is probably quite a bit better. No need or accurate aiming, and no suggestion to the bad guy that you have a firearm. Which, if you had a 25 Auto, you really don't.

Plus I think your liklihood of incapaciting the bg is quite a bit higher.

The handgun extremes, the .22 S/LR and .25 ACP on one hand, and the .44 Magnum, .454 Casull and .500 S&W on the other, are experts' guns.

Wow. I wish I had thought of such a succinct way to put it. I was thinking pretty much the same thing immediately after seeing the photo of the little tiny auto pistol--these are HARD guns to shoot, not easy guns to shoot. I relate to my Kahr K40--when I bought it, I'd never fired a 'pocket pistol', and in fact before it arrived I'd never even held one. So I fully expected it was going to be tough. Spot on--tough was an understatement. I'm at about 1,500 rounds at the range with this gun and I'd classify it as a real challenge for me to become one with this little pistol. Not an issue of recoil--an issue of where to put your hands and how to get it on target and discharging now, rather than 'after I think about it for a second'.

Actually I would say the little pocket guns are tougher to learn to shoot well than a reasonable .44 Mag 4", say, assuming it's not a Scandium frame 44 that some smartass has handed you, loaded with over-max elephant stoppers (are you reading, Mike?).