.380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance?

[UpTheIrons]

I was catching up on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show podcasts today and heard this during hour 2 of the 3/21 show:

Ed Head of Gunsite said that their testing shows that in PREMIUM SD AMMO performance is almost identical bewteen .380, .38 Special and 9mm, especially in Hornady Critical Defense.

You can listen yourself here, if you don't already subscribe to the podcast:
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/
Guntalk 2010-03-21 Part B, about 16:30 into the hour.

Anyone else have the same results? Tom Gresham said he saw penetration with only 1" difference between .380 and .38 Special. Does this mean ammo producers are catering to the .380 carriers the way they are to the .410 devotees with the newer stuff for the Taurus Judge?

Or is this all Bravo Sierra that deserves to be flamed?

 

[Eightball]

I find a hard time believing that .380 is quite near a nice 9mm or .38 special round. Especially since most people I know tend to carry +P in their 9mm or .38.

 

[Manco]

Ed Head of Gunsite said that their testing shows that in PREMIUM SD AMMO performance is almost identical bewteen .380, .38 Special and 9mm, especially in Hornady Critical Defense.

I suppose it depends on one's interpretation or sense of scale of "almost identical" and what aspects of terminal performance are being considered (I'm assuming that it's terminal performance here).

Anyone else have the same results? Tom Gresham said he saw penetration with only 1" difference between .380 and .38 Special.

That's not surprising considering how close these two calibers are in terms of energy. While I'd expect .38 Special to have an advantage in momentum and therefore penetration over .380 ACP due to other aspects of their design (e.g. heavier bullets with higher sectional density), they can be equalized in terms of penetration, if desired, by designing the .38 Special bullets to expand to a larger diameter. If one then only looks at penetration, it could be said that they are equal, for example.

Does this mean ammo producers are catering to the .380 carriers the way they are to the .410 devotees with the newer stuff for the Taurus Judge?

I'm not sure what you mean. While the .410 shotshells designed specifically for the Judge do correct some problems inherent in this handgun's design, namely patterning, the ammunition manufacturers still have to work within the limitations of each caliber. For example, did you ever wonder how they squeezed an additional #000 pellet into a .410 shotshell for the Judge? It's simple--the pellets are actually smaller and lighter than true #000 buck, but they're still called #000 buck on the package. More efficient packing was achieved, I'll give them that, but the higher total mass of the pellets reduces velocity where there is no velocity to spare. So how did they deal with this problem? Just as simply--the listed velocity was measured from a full-size shotgun with an 18"-24" barrel, but since the design was created specifically for the Judge, many owners assume that their revolvers will achieve the same performance and are suitably impressed. Another example of something that could be done for more limited calibers is using softer lead to allow expansion at slower velocities, which has its own tradeoffs I'm sure (such as difficulty penetrating bone or other hard barriers, possibly).

Or is this all Bravo Sierra that deserves to be flamed?

Not necessarily. Looking at Speer's terminal performance chart for their Gold Dot loads, their .38 Special+P load penetrates to within an inch of their 9mm+P load (11.00" versus 11.78", respectively). The former only expands to 0.578" compared to the 0.720" of the latter, but one could argue that their performance is "close," especially if emphasis is placed on penetration. With similar expansion, they would differ in penetration by 4", which seems like a more significant difference, but it's all in how you look at things, in addition to how these loads are designed. When I look at these numbers, for instance, I immediately think "OK...let's look at .40 S&W to find something acceptable" because less than 12" of penetration seems too low. But even then, it depends on the specific load, not just the caliber, and .40 S&W isn't drastically different from 9mm, either, really.

 

[m2steven]

It is easy to see how a hot 9mm kurz would be = to a not as hot Nato 9mm. A hot 38 special round, to me, is perhaps the best of the 3 loads simply due to the mass of the bullet.

If you purchase premium ammunition, it's not difficult to see all three caliburs in the same ballpark. But if you don't, there is a huge difference between 380, 9mm, and 38 special. A 30 percent difference in delivered energy is quite substantial.

If you factor in bullet mass then you can draw the conclusion that if the 3 bullets are delivered at roughly the same FPS, then the most massive bullet will have the best result. It's simple arithmetic. Bullet shape will play a part in how much energy will be delivered to the target.

After shooting thousands of rounds at steel targets, the 38 special+p round appears to hit the hardest. 38 specials are known for not penetrating automobiles. That does not mean it would not be potent against a flesh and blood creature. A brick won't penetrate a car door either, but that same brick against a skull is every bit as potent as any 'normal' bullet you might send the same way.

Again, the 380 is a great round when loaded properly, so is the 9mm and 38special. The thing about the 38 special is there is so much data about it when used in real life situations. Same with the 45acp. Lots of war data to prove it's a good load regardless of it's statistics, or in spite of them. It's a brick.

 

[UpTheIrons]

I find a hard time believing that .380 is quite near a nice 9mm or .38 special round. Especially since most people I know tend to carry +P in their 9mm or .38.

That's not what he was saying, though. +P is a different animal. Yes, test it,but then test the other calibers in +P also to get a 'true' result. But one can't do that, since there is no .380 +P designation by SAAMI.

He was comparing the three calibers within the same product line, specifically Hornady Critical Defense. In that product line, the bullets run 90 gr in .380, 115 gr in 9mm, and 110 gr in .38 Special. Granted, that is a 25% difference in weight from the smallest to largest, but at least he was honest in the sense that the testing was 'fair' in that it was the same ammo type across the test.

 

[UpTheIrons]

I'm not sure what you mean. While the .410 shotshells designed specifically for the Judge do correct some problems inherent in this handgun's design, namely patterning, the ammunition manufacturers still have to work within the limitations of each caliber.

I was thinking more along the lines of the new Winchester PDX .410 shells. The ammo with the 3 disks and several pellets. They tailored that ammo to the gun, and it appears that it really fits the platform.

Since they are doing that, I wondered if other ammo manufacturers are doing the same with other "marginal" calibers. It seems so, since some people are saying that, while they wouldn't have recommended a .380 10 years ago, things have changed and the ammo is much better now.

 

[Deaf Smith]

.380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance?

If you compare the very best .380 to the very worst .38 spl and 9mm, well yea, they might be equal.

But not of the top picks in each cartridge are used. The .380 I can see when used for frontal shots with no intervening material like an arm or heavy cloths, or such. But if a side shot or you strike something before it hits the BG, then you need a better round than the .380.

Deaf

 

[Nicodemus38]

no offence intended but the OP is in regards to a conclusion drawn upon a "monkey" inference, ie if an apple is red then a rubber ball of equal size and color must be an apple.

the .380=9mm=38spcl isbased upon bullet expansion. certain loads in 380 will expand to the samedimensions as the saem bullet from a 9mm or 38, but have at best a 3rd of the penetration.

 

[Manco]

He was comparing the three calibers within the same product line, specifically Hornady Critical Defense. In that product line, the bullets run 90 gr in .380, 115 gr in 9mm, and 110 gr in .38 Special. Granted, that is a 25% difference in weight from the smallest to largest, but at least he was honest in the sense that the testing was 'fair' in that it was the same ammo type across the test.

OK, I finally listened to that part of the broadcast, and found it rather...curious. They were talking about both penetration and expansion, saying that there is really no difference between these calibers, and claiming that this is somehow an impressive result achieved by premium ammunition. All I can say is that there is no magical technology that can give .380 ACP the same wounding potential as 9mm, which has significantly greater energy and momentum to work with. The only way to completely equalize them that I can think of would be to make the 9mm load anemic, bringing it down to .380 ACP's performance level--that would indeed be easy to do.

While I don't have terminal ballistics performance data for Critical Defense, the rounds are loaded practically the same as those of Hornady's XTP line, and the latter's .380 ACP load has 11.4" penetration and .54" expansion. If Hornady's 9mm load gets practically identical results, as said on the Podcast, then it's either a weak or inefficient 9mm load. Perhaps it dumps its additional energy into a temporary stretch cavity and thereby wastes it, but that would not be identical performance (hits harder and potentially causes more pain). Other 9mm loads I've seen that have similar expansion generally penetrate about 4" more deeply, which to me is a significant difference. Maybe Hornady's own 147 grain 9mm load would have similarly superior penetration, which would mean that the comparison is apples-to-oranges. It's also possible that the 9mm round expands immediately and thereby crushes more tissue overall, but the commentators failed to realize this, so captivated were they by the magic of .380 ACP performing exactly like 9mm (or rather 9mm performing down to .380 ACP's level).

I was thinking more along the lines of the new Winchester PDX .410 shells. The ammo with the 3 disks and several pellets. They tailored that ammo to the gun, and it appears that it really fits the platform.

My doubts about the weird .410 PDX1 load aside, it is possible to compensate for certain shortcomings of specific platforms, as I said earlier, but you cannot optimize both a weaker caliber and a more powerful caliber, and end up with the same result. How? One of them must be suboptimal, then, or have higher performance in an area that is not being considered.

Since they are doing that, I wondered if other ammo manufacturers are doing the same with other "marginal" calibers. It seems so, since some people are saying that, while they wouldn't have recommended a .380 10 years ago, things have changed and the ammo is much better now.

.380 ACP has always penetrated more than enough by most standards if you used FMJ rounds--about 21"-22" would be typical. In the past, manufacturers have tried to optimize the use of the caliber's energy by using JHP bullets that expand, just like they did with 9mm and other calibers, but the bullets often did not expand, resulting in the same performance as FMJ. Now that they've managed to solve the problem, the bullets are getting less than 12" of penetration and about 50% expansion. For those who are focused on successful expansion and reduced risk of overpenetration, as many people are, this is superior performance, but in terms of energy it's nothing that .380 ACP wasn't theoretically capable of before, and in the big picture of terminal performance, it's not necessarily superior, either.

9mm still has greater energy and potential for wounding--nobody has made .380 ACP its equal all of a sudden. Nothing has changed in that regard--it's all about how you optimize the loads, and something is definitely off with this comparison (either that or Hornady's product line). I know of 9mm loads with terminal ballistics that .380 ACP physically cannot match, and that's why many people still use 9mm instead of abandoning it altogether.

 

[UpTheIrons]

If you compare the very best .380 to the very worst .38 spl and 9mm, well yea, they might be equal.

But not of the top picks in each cartridge are used.

Deaf

Again, please re-read my OP. This was a comparison of the three calibers in the same product line.

That's why I raised the question. I know that you can massage numbers any way you want by using the best/worst of any of the above to get to a predetermined outcome, but I was asking if anyone had done anything like this themselves and seen similar results. That is, shooting these 3 calibers, in a premium SD ammo from the same manufacturer, to compare their performance.

I find it hard to believe that Hornady's Critical Defense would perform this way, unless, like Manco said, they are 'handicapping' the 9mm.

 

[Colton White]

performance is almost identical

Almost identical? What the heck is almost identical? When people are identical their called twins when people are almost twins their siblings. How dumb would you feel saying " ya thats my brother were almost twins"

They are not the same, if they wer our boys in the sand would carry hi cap .380s lol and nobody is recommending that.

 

[UpTheIrons]

OK. Thanks for finally answering my question.

I thought something sounded a bit 'off' about their sudden praise for the .380 in that case. I never thought that the .380 and .38 Spl would be that close to the 9mm. Of course, they never said how 'close' they were, only that in a separate test, Gresham saw a 1" difference between .380 and .38 Spl.

I've been very intrigued by the Critical Defense line (I carry it in my LCR), so I was curious how the other calibers perform. The .45 ACP doesn't really interest me, though. 185 grains is just too light in my book.

OK, I finally listened to that part of the broadcast, and found it rather...curious. They were talking about both penetration and expansion, saying that there is really no difference between these calibers, and claiming that this is somehow an impressive result achieved by premium ammunition. All I can say is that there is no magical technology that can give .380 ACP the same wounding potential as 9mm, which has significantly greater energy and momentum to work with. The only way to completely equalize them that I can think of would be to make the 9mm load anemic, bringing it down to .380 ACP's performance level--that would indeed be easy to do.

While I don't have terminal ballistics performance data for Critical Defense, the rounds are loaded practically the same as those of Hornady's XTP line, and the latter's .380 ACP load has 11.4" penetration and .54" expansion. If Hornady's 9mm load gets practically identical results, as said on the Podcast, then it's either a weak or inefficient 9mm load. Perhaps it dumps its additional energy into a temporary stretch cavity and thereby wastes it, but that would not be identical performance (hits harder and potentially causes more pain). Other 9mm loads I've seen that have similar expansion generally penetrate about 4" more deeply, which to me is a significant difference. Maybe Hornady's own 147 grain 9mm load would have similarly superior penetration, which would mean that the comparison is apples-to-oranges. It's also possible that the 9mm round expands immediately and thereby crushes more tissue overall, but the commentators failed to realize this, so captivated were they by the magic of .380 ACP performing exactly like 9mm (or rather 9mm performing down to .380 ACP's level).



My doubts about the weird .410 PDX1 load aside, it is possible to compensate for certain shortcomings of specific platforms, as I said earlier, but you cannot optimize both a weaker caliber and a more powerful caliber, and end up with the same result. How? One of them must be suboptimal, then, or have higher performance in an area that is not being considered.



.380 ACP has always penetrated more than enough by most standards if you used FMJ rounds--about 21"-22" would be typical. In the past, manufacturers have tried to optimize the use of the caliber's energy by using JHP bullets that expand, just like they did with 9mm and other calibers, but the bullets often did not expand, resulting in the same performance as FMJ. Now that they've managed to solve the problem, the bullets are getting less than 12" of penetration and about 50% expansion. For those who are focused on successful expansion and reduced risk of overpenetration, as many people are, this is superior performance, but in terms of energy it's nothing that .380 ACP wasn't theoretically capable of before, and in the big picture of terminal performance, it's not necessarily superior, either.

9mm still has greater energy and potential for wounding--nobody has made .380 ACP its equal all of a sudden. Nothing has changed in that regard--it's all about how you optimize the loads, and something is definitely off with this comparison (either that or Hornady's product line). I know of 9mm loads with terminal ballistics that .380 ACP physically cannot match, and that's why many people still use 9mm instead of abandoning it altogether.

 

[makarovnik]

The 9mm is significantly more powerful and has way more penetration capability. Sorry Gunsite but, wrong!

 

[MCgunner]

.380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance?

In a word......NO

 

[shockwave]

Here's a link to an informal test of the question, shooting into phonebooks:

.380acp
Average penetration: 11.75" - Average Expansion: Fair - Recoil: 5

.38spl
Average penetration: 12.00" - Average Expansion: Very Good - Recoil: 4

9mm
Average penetration: 12.50" - Average Expansion: Good - Recoil: 5

These results bear out what other charts indicate.

 

[MCgunner]

.38 special load? I shoot 158 +P vs 90 grain .380. Add to that 275 ft lbs vs less than 200 in the .380.

9mm, 115 grain JHP, 1262 fps, 410 ft lbs from a Kel Tec P11.
.380 ACP 88 grain Remington JHP 918 fps/165 ft lbs from a Grendel P12

It ain't even close. I'll take the 9x19 every time. There's more to wound ballistics than penetration even if a .380 could pass 10" in 10 percent jello while expanding, which Hornady doesn't even claim, on their site they claim 10". I understand this is the latest and greatest loads, but don't delude yourself, you can't turn 165 ft lbs into a .357 magnum even with a magic bullet unless it's packed with explosives or perhaps potassium cyanide. I'll take the 9x19 in this race, thanks. Besides, I've never listened to anything on terminal ballistics coming out of gunsite ranch. They're all full of the late colonel's .45 biased bovine excretion.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

I've seen the damage that .32acp, .380acp, .38spcl and 9mmPara do to oak wood pallets used as target holders and I don't wish to be in the way of any of 'em.

 

[MCgunner]

I've seen the damage that .32acp, .380acp, .38spcl and 9mmPara do to oak wood pallets used as target holders and I don't wish to be in the way of any of 'em.

But, that ain't the question. The question is, would you rather be carrying a .380, a .38, or a 9mm if you were walking into a gunfight? Leave the long gun out, too. It won't fit in your pocket.

 

[jonboynumba1]

My opinion has not changed much...in the real world I expect the point at which HP bullets start meaningfully and reliably expanding in flesh and bone is pretty much where the hotter +P 9mm and .38's start... Around 1150-1250 FPS Things have gotten a LOT better in the last 20 years bullet design-wise. But this is still probably a realistic guideline. Then you start considering that you idealy also want a solid 12" min or penetration WITH expansion....and you start considering temp and permanent wound channels...it's not really a science you can say "this will drop badguy A under XYZ conditions" but you can start to see things show up...like the balance-point of a given cartridge...and depending on caliber...but all of the above diameters and you start seeing around 124-125 grains with a good premium HP loaded as hot as possible is probably the point where you start seeing the penetration you'd want. And you start looking at .40 and .45 (in the right bullet weights) and noticing better more reliable expansion and penetration under similar conditions with more bullets tested than just "the best performing" bullets tested...and you still have to be picky with .40 but it does do what a hopt 9mm does a little better...and then you look at .45 and see rock solid penetration with all but a few bad choices in bullets/weights and at the WORST expanded diameters as big as the best 9/38's with the worst .45's (obvious reasons they start bigger and have a larger frontal area)

So is .45 better than .40?.....40 better than 9mm/.38? It still depends what you stick in the chamber/cylinder! You can make a .45 perform inferior to the best 9mm easily. But what are you comfortable shooting? How highly to you value capacity? Can everyone you NEED to be able to handle that firearm shoot it well? These are questions I can't answer for you...and neither can some gunsite guy making rediculous generalizations about ammo...that might be based somewhat in reality...I mean none of those calibers are something you would expect a guaranteed one shot drop from...though NO handgun guarantees you that! So maybe he has a point...but at the end of the day the common sense answer still reads (in my book) Shoot the most gun you are 100% comfortable with...but ideally that should start with 9mm/.38 with well chosen ammo. And while I LOVE the XTP bullet...and in fact that's what I load for .45 most often...it's accurate...it's tough...it's NOT the most reliable expander on the planet though...by far! It is a supremely consistent and accurate bullet though...no doubt~!

 

[Kingofthehill]

I have shot several types of media for testing on my own and for fun... Im fully confident that if i were to show you the jugs full of wet newspaper of all 3, you couldn't tell the difference.

I kinda have to stand by Ed Head on this one.

 

[huntsman]

He was comparing the three calibers within the same product line, specifically Hornady Critical Defense. In that product line, the bullets run 90 gr in .380, 115 gr in 9mm, and 110 gr in .38 Special. Granted, that is a 25% difference in weight from the smallest to largest, but at least he was honest in the sense that the testing was 'fair' in that it was the same ammo type across the test.

Without getting into whether folks here believe that statement is true I believe this is the way ammo should be compared, apples to apples.

Now would this maybe hurt .38spl and 9mm sales in this particular brand and type of ammo? And if you carry a .38spl or 9mm would you handicap yourself with so light of bullet?

 

[moxie]

Expansion and penetration aren't everything. They are just 2 of the factors in the overall terminal ballistics picture. You can shove an aluminum knitting needle clean through a body. Very little mass and very little velocity, so very little kinetic energy developed. Also very little frontal area, so very little of that little bit of energy gets dumped in the body. A .380 might penetrate as deep as a 9mm or .38, but can't dump as much energy into the target because it just never gets developed. Oh by the way, a .45 ACP in 185 gr. certainly is heavy enough to get the job done.

 

[Manco]

I have shot several types of media for testing on my own and for fun... Im fully confident that if i were to show you the jugs full of wet newspaper of all 3, you couldn't tell the difference.

I kinda have to stand by Ed Head on this one.

I sort of took both sides of this issue in my first two posts, each from a different point of view. On the one hand, the differences between all of these calibers (including .40 S&W and .45 ACP), which have all been service calibers somewhere in the world at some point in time, is hardly huge--we're not talking about distinct classes of performance here. In that sense, I would not expect to see large visible differences between the results they get (especially in loose, pre-chopped media that you have to cut up in order to examine), although there are differences, they are measurable, and may sometimes make a difference in terminal performance.

On the other hand, the guys on the Podcast seemed to be saying or implying that the differences between these calibers, as small as they may be by some standards, have been somehow overcome by premium ammo that performs the same no matter what the differences are between the calibers. That's just plain marketing-style hogwash, and if it's actually true, then the product is flawed because it gives more powerful calibers the same relatively weak performance of less powerful ones. In this case, we're talking about less than 12" of penetration, and contrary to popular belief, 12" is considered a bare basement minimum rather than the ideal amount. The oft-cited FBI paper on handgun wounding factors actually says that up to 18" of penetration would be advantageous against human targets (that's the ideal amount), and that less than 12" is insufficient. If nearly 12" is all you can get from a particular 9mm load, then I'd suggest that you look for a different load that takes better advantage of 9mm's potential rather than marvel at how closely it matches the performance of the .380 ACP load in the same product line.

Going back to the subject of shooting jugs of wet newspaper, you might not see much difference between many loads of the various service-class calibers, but some loads (particularly of .40 S&W but some 9mm loads as well) will give you an extra jug to cut open (still with decent expansion), and I think that's a difference that some people would consider worthwhile.

 

[Phydeaux642]

It's all just "tinkling" in the wind, so to speak. Shot placement is king (it seems I've heard that somewhere before). Or, carry a long gun.

Flame suit on.

 

[MCgunner]

Let's just say I have a lot more confidence in a well placed shot from a 9x19 +P than I do a .380. Add to that the fact that MY .380 does good to stay on a paper plate at 25 yards benched and my 9x19 can knock a 3.5" center out of it, my .38 a 3" center. Guess I'll stick with the 9 and the .38 as a preference.

I do have this very accurate new P64 in 9x18 which is a glorified .380, though. Hmmmm.... I'm sure .380 is "enough" for self defense, I'm just sayin' this "study" and their inferences from said study is bovine excretion, that's all.