Okay, before you all haul me off to the asylum, just think about this.

We all know that the .22LR is superior to both the .25 and .32 ACP in penetration, making it, ballistically speaking, a superior defensive round for use in micro carry guns, such as those from NAA.

The only problem is that rimfire primers are not reliable enough for self defense purposes, making the .22LR unsuitable for use as a backup pocket gun.

Thus, why doesn't someone make a centerfire .22LR specifically for use in micro carry guns?

If you are wondering why I would want a micro like an NAA, I would like to have one for those situations when it is absolutely impossible to conceal anything else, as well as for use as a backup to my main carry gun. Let's face it, sometimes in the summer we find ourselves wearing clothing that makes concealment next to impossible. Please keep in mind that where I live it's blazing hot most of the year. A situational example of what I'm talking about would be running in a pair of running trunks, which can't conceal even an LCP. They could, however, conceal one of the NAA pistols with the pocket clip grip. I realize that this is not ideal, but any gun is better than no gun. The reality is that most people would just leave their gun in the car in that situation, but I believe in always being armed. Plus, with decent shot placement, the .22LR is pretty effective, especially the newer hollow points.

So, that's my story. Can anyone think of any reasons why a centerfire .22 would not be possible? Perhaps the case is too small to accept a centerfire primer?

We would like to see proof of the part in red.
All the 10% gel tests I've seen on 22LR fired from a small handgun seem to point to 6+/- inches of penetration, the 32 seems to run in the 8-12 range with some hot 71 ad 73 gr European loads going as high as 13-14.

CF .22 LR is called .22 Hornet.

not quite, but close. about double (2 times) the velocity 22 hornet 2500-3000 fps, 22LR 1100-1500fps

I know- I was being a smart-ass.

.22 Hornet, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .22-250

He must have a different info source, of which I'm unaware, I've never saw gel testing that placed the 22 long rifle ahead of either 25 or 32 in a handgun.
Rifle gel tests for the 22 might get more penetration, but then your not using a handgun. lol

I've not tested this, I'm just going from various gel tests I've seen and read about. I could be wrong.

One thing you might want to look at is whether the .25 and .32 tests you're talking about were with hollow point or full metal jacket. Everything I've seen suggests that hollow points in those calibers don't really work, at least in standard pressure loads (I wouldn't want to shoot +P .25 in a micro gun anyways, sounds hazardous). Therefore, most gel tests with .25 and .32 I've seen were using FMJ.

The .22 LR hollow points, however, (that I've seen tested) penetrated and expanded very reliably.

Plus, .25 and .32s aren't nearly as concealable as the .22s I'm talking about.

The bottom line, I guess, is that I wish there was an NAA .22 micro revolver but with centerfire primers. I was just wondering if such a thing was possible?

BTW, I already know about .22 hornet etc., but those are not even close to a .22 LR. They're more like a .223. I'm wanting something that can be shot out of a pistol that can fit in the palm of my hand.

I own several P32 KelTecs, a Browning "baby" in .25, and a NAA in 22mag/22LR. The NAA is in my right pocket as we speak. The KelTec usually resides at 230ish on my belt but today I'm carrying a PF9. The P32 is a much better choice than the NAA but it is about 30% larger and weighs more, but you get more shots.

How do you like the NAA? Quality? Like I said, I normally carry a G19. If that's not possible, then I put a subcompact like bodyguard or lcp in my pocket or IWB rig. I want the NAA to be a backup for when I can't conceal anything else due to summer clothing. I would never make it my main carry, but it's better than not carrying at all.

I have one in my pocket 99% of the time, the  P32 sees a lot of summer time carry, if you put it in a remora you can carry wearing swimwear. I have a remora with a spare mag slot. two eight round mags (7rd with +1 extentions) and one in the pipe beat 5 and a difficult reload any day. I don't care for the 10 rd mags but that's an option also. The p32 is the same size as your LCP but slightly thinner. The p32 also locks back on an empty mag, I've never fired a LCP so I don't know if it does, a P3AT doesn't though.

The LCP is amazing. It's what the P3AT should have been all along. The bodyguard I'm not so fond of...

We do?

Are you comparing those rounds when fired from the same length barrel?
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/25auto.html





John Moses Browning did this a century ago............it's called the .25acp

Sim test media gel .CCI .22LR 40 grain solid a big 13" of penetration with a Ruger SR22 pistol.






















 

This was pretty typical of the .22LR defensive loads I've been seeing. I've seen tests done with .22LR hollow points that got 10 plus inches of penetration in gel. But, with that said, I have no data on what gel was used or at what temp, which is a huge variable.

BTW, I did search for .25ACP gel tests, and all I could find were using FMJ. I don't have anything scientific, but my general impression is that the .22LR is looking pretty good compared to the .25 ACP. But, I can speak from personal experience that rimfire primers aren't reliable enough, IMO, for self defense, hence my desire for a centerfire .22LR.

Tap, rack, bang.

Its better then a rock, even as a rimfire.

I don't believe you could safely make a small enough casing for a .22 centerfire that would accept a small pistol primer. Or one big enough to have an extractor groove, for that matter, but I'm not an engineer...

Like I pointed out above.......that "test" is meaningless.
Shooting a .22 through a 4" bbl and a .25 through one less than 2" isn't a valid comparison of the cartridges.
Shoot both through identical bbl lengths for starters.
Then take into consideration the soft lead bullet of a .22 at 40 grains vs the fmj of a .25 at 50 grains.

The .25 is suffering from a hundred years of pistols that cannot safely take advantage of modern faster burning powders and the subsequent higher pressures. No manufacturer wants to make a .25 +p+ and face lawsuits because it blew up a 1930's Spanish craptastic.

Gel testing has lots of variables the temp of the gel, the mix, synthetic vs natural (clear vs natural), at what temp was the gel heated to before setting, and any of these will effect the outcome. Major companies tend to have someone who does testing for a living and I put more faith in them. I had not see testing on the CCIs before and was surprised by the amount of penetration they are getting.

It's been done.  Back when Elmer Keith was competing in Bulls-eye matches he developed a 22 centerfire based on 5.5mm Velo Dog cases.  That allowed him to shoot a 22 in the any centerfire stage.  They changed the rule because of it.

Indeed, but that Youtuber is well respected and knows his shit imho. He talks about the gel mixture and all that in other videos.

 

I am to lazy to find though, but I do know he calibrates it with .177 caliber BBs after hes done making them if that means anything to you.

That's what I was afraid of. Perhaps a .25 ACP could be necked down to accept a 40 grain .22 hollow point?

I'm sure you're wondering why I would want such a thing, so I'll try to explain my theory as best I can. I noticed that there is a relationship between the velocity/caliber ratio and penetration. The higher the ratio, the better the penetration. In other words, looking at energy alone will not be an indicator of how well a bullet penetrates.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, think about this. Take a .45 (180gr) and a 9mm (115gr) and load them such that both produce 500 foot pounds of energy (both are FMJ, adjust barrel lengths to achieve desired velocity). Now fire them both into gel, and I would be willing to bet that the 9mm will penetrate further, despite the fact that both rounds are producing the same exact energy.

I see that there is the general opinion that a bullet's momentum is the most important thing in its ability to penetrate, but that's not very sound thinking, IMO. From a physics standpoint, a bullet's momentum (basically its mass) is a small function in its overall performance. In essence, all bullets are tiny pieces of metal traveling at extremely high velocities. Even a .45 caliber bullet has a very small amount of momentum when viewed next to its velocity. It's not until you get to cannon ball size projectiles that the momentum starts to become significant.

Therefore, my theory as to why the .25 ACP does not penetrate as reliably as the .22LR is that it does not have sufficient velocity for its mass.

Do you guys think my theory is sound, or should I seek professional help

P.S. I'm also taking the overall size of the pistol into account in my considerations, as the ultimate concealability is my goal. While I still believe that .22 LR generally penetrates better than .25 ACP, I could be wrong, I'll admit it's a close race and full of pretty subjective data. With that said, I'm also looking for bang for my buck so to speak. In other words, I think that the .22 LR offers more for its size than the .25 ACP, considering that .25 ACPs aren't really much, if any, smaller than .380s. I also understand that the .25 ACP could theoretically be loaded hotter, but that would require a more robust, and therefore larger, pistol. The .25 NAA is an example of that. Essentially, my quest is to find the absolute smallest, most concealable pistol that can still inflict reasonable damage in a self defense scenario, and is of course reliable.

Perhaps I should modify my original statement to something like this: the .22 LR and .25 ACP generally offer similar terminal performance, but .22 LR can be chambered in much small handguns, making it the better choice. Its only limitation as a viable self defense round (in limited situations) is that rimfire primers are not as reliable as centerfire.

You need to compare a Baby Browning to any .380 to see how wrong you are.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B22wLsyYEkTOMDU4MjJlNTktOTRlZi00NTJkLWE0MGMtZmEwNGFlMWE3ZDlm/view?pli=1
The Baby Browning is smaller than any of these.








Not necessarily.
Nearly all .22, .25 and most .32 semi autos are blowback operated.
Utilizing a locked breech action means the gun doesn't need giant springs to wok (ala Hi Point's)






The .25NAA is just a necked down .32






The tradeoff is expense & comfort. LW Seecamp makes some tiny .32's and .380's...........but they are a beast on the hands and they ain't cheap..

No data on barrel length or powder/velocity. Highly subjective but interesting.

Edit: what would happen if I put a 30 grain .223 HP into a necked down .25 ACP case? I will call it .22 ACP.

My Seecamp .32 hurts worse than a S&W Scandium .357 I owned!

The biggest issue with tiny handguns is they cost more to build and they suck to shoot. They could make a semiauto 25 locked breech gun slightly larger than a NAA revolver. The cost would make a new colt 1911 look like a deal, the controls would be tiny, and it would be about as comfortable to shoot as the scandium 357 mentioned earlier. The most important thing is they would sell a couple then they would die out. Nobody I know is in business to lose money.

Those are naturally valid points. I hate shooting micros. They hurt my girly hands, I'll admit it

But I still think there's a place for them, and I think that the .22 LR is the best cartridge, minus the rimfire primers of course. Like I said, they give the most bang for buck (size being buck in this case).

So, how about it, is there any technical reason why a 30gr .223 HP could not be seated in a necked down .25 ACP case and loaded to replicate the ballistics of the .22 LR?

Heck, with modern metallurgy, we could proly load it super hot and get some downright respectable velocity out of it without increasing the size of the firearm that much. A 30gr HP zipping along at say 1500 fps would do some damage up close.

FIFY

Thanks for the reminder.  It got me to go reread the chapter titled "A Shooting Iron Too Hot to Handle" from Askin's The Pistol Shooter's Book about this project.