A post on a past thread prompted me to contemplate the shootability of two popular .25 ACP pocket pistols. the 1908 Colt Vest Pocket and the Raven. Well I was able to get the two pistols out to the range the other day and thought I would post my findings. The weather was sunny and a little breezy. Breezy enough that sometimes it was difficult to hold the tiny pistols on target. Sunny enough that it was necessary to block the sun refletion on the 1908 so that I could see the tiny sights. Targets were shot at a measured distance of 5 yards, or as close to five long steps as five yards is. Groups were fired standing, offhand. Ammunition was American Eagle 50 gr FMJ.
I experienced no stoppages with either pistol. The grip safety on the 1908 caused some issues however because of the difficulty of getting a proper target grip on the little guy.
Shooting over an Oehler 35 chronograph showed average velocity of 715 FPS for the Raven and 769 FPS for the 1908. I did have one shot from the Raven not register. This would translate into 51 ft lbs. of bullet energy for the Raven and 65 ft lbs for the 1908. A distinct advantage for the 1908.
Pistol cost was $285 for the 1908 and $34.95 for the Raven. Advantage Raven, but with 14 fewer Ft lbs of energy is it money well saved?
The nickel finish of the Raven is a little more pimpy but I like blued firearms. Both pistols exhibited reasonable trigger pulls. The sights on the 1908 are well, invisible. The Raven's are reminicent of a patridge setup. Clear and bold. The test targets are shown below along with photos of the pistols. The left target is from the Raven, the right from the 1908.
I hope this sheds some light on, and possibly brings an end to the great 1908/Raven, nice pistol/cheap pistol debate.
I experienced no stoppages with either pistol. The grip safety on the 1908 caused some issues however because of the difficulty of getting a proper target grip on the little guy.
Shooting over an Oehler 35 chronograph showed average velocity of 715 FPS for the Raven and 769 FPS for the 1908. I did have one shot from the Raven not register. This would translate into 51 ft lbs. of bullet energy for the Raven and 65 ft lbs for the 1908. A distinct advantage for the 1908.
Pistol cost was $285 for the 1908 and $34.95 for the Raven. Advantage Raven, but with 14 fewer Ft lbs of energy is it money well saved?
The nickel finish of the Raven is a little more pimpy but I like blued firearms. Both pistols exhibited reasonable trigger pulls. The sights on the 1908 are well, invisible. The Raven's are reminicent of a patridge setup. Clear and bold. The test targets are shown below along with photos of the pistols. The left target is from the Raven, the right from the 1908.
I hope this sheds some light on, and possibly brings an end to the great 1908/Raven, nice pistol/cheap pistol debate.