It is not the size of the gun you carry, it is how you use it. We seem to worry too much about the performance of the bullet or caliber and not about how well we can shoot. Spent more time learning to shoot and less time worrying if your gun is big enough.
Does the .380 really have enough stopping power?
- Thread starter SniperStraz
- Start date
- Status
Tbu61
Member
I have to say, not every .380 is a cheap Handgun. Walther made TONS the PP (series) and they sell for top dollar.
I worked with a fella that was accidentally belly hit by a .380 and he spent 2 months in the hospital. He said he didn't enjoy any part of that experience, I saw the emergency surgery scars and tend to believe him.
Proper projectile and placement have always been the name of the game.
If you can manage to get a larger gun, do it. .380ACP is Certainly better than a knitting needle.
I worked with a fella that was accidentally belly hit by a .380 and he spent 2 months in the hospital. He said he didn't enjoy any part of that experience, I saw the emergency surgery scars and tend to believe him.
Proper projectile and placement have always been the name of the game.
If you can manage to get a larger gun, do it. .380ACP is Certainly better than a knitting needle.
lighthunter
Member
Yes the .380 has plenty of power. I was overseas for a number of years.
And carried a Walther pp always worked for me. Never felt underguned.
If I needed more fire power it was fired from the shoulder not my hand.
And carried a Walther pp always worked for me. Never felt underguned.
If I needed more fire power it was fired from the shoulder not my hand.
The Amigo
Member
380
No Handgun beats the light weight and counsealability of a Keltec P3 in .380. My .45 remains in my house and now has become the house gun. while my P3 is my always gun. If you go to the Kel tec range you will be able to see all .380 ballistic pictures of all rounds tested by good fellas that have spent time comparing penetration and expansion of several makers. Just review old GP ballistic forum and make your choice. My chice of defense round is Remington golden sabers in 102g, they tend to expand to .57 most of the time and penetrate 8+ inches of wet pack that = 10.5 inches of Gel. If penetration is your chioce then Santa Barbara ammo is the one, but good luck trying to find some. Yes .45 is a great powerfull round but untill the make a 45 that fit in my pocket and weights 8 oz my keltec will remain as my reliable choice of carry with 8 ready rounds and a spare mag. My 2 c.
No Handgun beats the light weight and counsealability of a Keltec P3 in .380. My .45 remains in my house and now has become the house gun. while my P3 is my always gun. If you go to the Kel tec range you will be able to see all .380 ballistic pictures of all rounds tested by good fellas that have spent time comparing penetration and expansion of several makers. Just review old GP ballistic forum and make your choice. My chice of defense round is Remington golden sabers in 102g, they tend to expand to .57 most of the time and penetrate 8+ inches of wet pack that = 10.5 inches of Gel. If penetration is your chioce then Santa Barbara ammo is the one, but good luck trying to find some. Yes .45 is a great powerfull round but untill the make a 45 that fit in my pocket and weights 8 oz my keltec will remain as my reliable choice of carry with 8 ready rounds and a spare mag. My 2 c.
brentwal
Member
While my main carry gun is .40 S&W, I have 2 .380 pistols and have carried them at different times and never felt under gunned.
KONY
Member
Pesci, De Niro & Liotta do know alot about terminal ballistics!
hmp32
Member
Please also remember where the fear of fireams comes from:
Before the age of antibiotics, a firearm of any caliber carried the risk of infection. And dying of infection is not pleasant. But hand guns were hardly one-stop wonders even in 1911. So, the fear of a handgun was as much that of infection as it was physiolgical disruption. In the era that the 1911 was developed, the .45 cal certainly had stopping power in mind given the lack of stopping power of the .38. But the civilian firearms were an effective deterant of any caliber because of death by infection not instant death. Today, however, we are concerned with stopping power of a physiological, not physcological nature.
Before the age of antibiotics, a firearm of any caliber carried the risk of infection. And dying of infection is not pleasant. But hand guns were hardly one-stop wonders even in 1911. So, the fear of a handgun was as much that of infection as it was physiolgical disruption. In the era that the 1911 was developed, the .45 cal certainly had stopping power in mind given the lack of stopping power of the .38. But the civilian firearms were an effective deterant of any caliber because of death by infection not instant death. Today, however, we are concerned with stopping power of a physiological, not physcological nature.
Remington's 102 Grain Golden Saber
The Amigo (post #82) said:
"My chice of defense round is Remington golden sabers in 102g, they tend to expand to .57 most of the time and penetrate 8+ inches of wet pack that = 10.5 inches of Gel."
And I notice that tinygnat219 (post#21) uses this load as well.
I was hoping that someone would bring up this load. I have not been able to find anything on it's stats. It's not included in the Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow analysis. (or I've overlooked it?).
How's this load feed? I've been shooting Rem 95gr FMJ and 88gr JHP's out of my Beretta 84FS with excellent results. I have 2 boxes of CorBon 90gr JHP's but haven't shot them yet. I personally like the Federal 129gr Hydra-Shoks in my 38spc and have been thinking about using a Fed Hyd-Shok load in my 380.
Answers & comments appreciated.
The Amigo (post #82) said:
"My chice of defense round is Remington golden sabers in 102g, they tend to expand to .57 most of the time and penetrate 8+ inches of wet pack that = 10.5 inches of Gel."
And I notice that tinygnat219 (post#21) uses this load as well.
I was hoping that someone would bring up this load. I have not been able to find anything on it's stats. It's not included in the Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow analysis. (or I've overlooked it?).
How's this load feed? I've been shooting Rem 95gr FMJ and 88gr JHP's out of my Beretta 84FS with excellent results. I have 2 boxes of CorBon 90gr JHP's but haven't shot them yet. I personally like the Federal 129gr Hydra-Shoks in my 38spc and have been thinking about using a Fed Hyd-Shok load in my 380.
Answers & comments appreciated.
yongxingfreesty
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,396
just purchased a amt back up in .380 with the grip safety. it looks nice, I need to test it out this week. any reviews on the back up .380?
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
A locked breech gun will kick less than a blowback. Therefore, a small locked breech 9mm such as a Kahr or S&W M3914 has more power than a blowback operated SIG P232 with the same or less recoil. Now the KelTec 3AT is a locked breech firearm so the recoil would be even less than that. Be that as it may, accuracy always beats "punch" in the stopping power debate. The 9mm is much cheaper to shoot thereby affording one the oppurtunity to become proficient with it more so than the .380.
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
..and the 38 spl is a much harder hitter due to the heavier bullet than the
.380, even out of a snubby. Between 9mm, 38 spl, and .380, the .380 would be my last choice. I would even opt for .38 S&W before a .380.
.380, even out of a snubby. Between 9mm, 38 spl, and .380, the .380 would be my last choice. I would even opt for .38 S&W before a .380.
The Amigo
Member
Here's why i'm impressed with Remington golden sabers in 102g. Make your own conclusions. http://www.ktrange.com/articles/a10/a10-14.html
I have a Beretta Cheetah in .380, and it's not a cheap gun, on the contrary, those puppies are expensive.
I can put 14 golden sabers into the head of a silhouette target at 15 feet in about 8 seconds...I know it's not a moving target, but this kind of proficiency makes me feel more secure than when I'm packing my Glock 27.
Oh, and the Cheetah doesn't kick much at all, especially when compared to the G27.
I can put 14 golden sabers into the head of a silhouette target at 15 feet in about 8 seconds...I know it's not a moving target, but this kind of proficiency makes me feel more secure than when I'm packing my Glock 27.
Oh, and the Cheetah doesn't kick much at all, especially when compared to the G27.
102gr Golden Saber
Thanks for replying Amigo,
Your site really is informative. The 102gr Golden Saber
does look promising in the 380acp.
I would have no qualms about carrying the 380 as a
defense caliber. I think with the CCW laws, we'll find
this caliber and the 38special make a well disserved
comeback. Both will serve well.
Thanks for replying Amigo,
Your site really is informative. The 102gr Golden Saber
does look promising in the 380acp.
I would have no qualms about carrying the 380 as a
defense caliber. I think with the CCW laws, we'll find
this caliber and the 38special make a well disserved
comeback. Both will serve well.
Prince Yamato
Member
Is it powerful enough?
Would you like to be shot with it? No? Why? Because you fear death... then it's powerful enough.
Would you like to be shot with it? No? Why? Because you fear death... then it's powerful enough.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Bad logic. It isn't about what you fear. It is about the caliber's ability to do harm and stop the opposition.
Shot placement only gets you to the perp's body/person. The trick isn't placement, but damage to vital structures. The problem is, placement is an external location marker for what you hope will result in a good impact on vital structures internally. If the bullet doesn't make it to and damage the vital organs appropriately, then the result is the same as a badly placed shot. Shot placement is a good start, but the shot has to be place in a manner that will have the bullet on trajectory with the necessary vital structures and have the ability to penetrate to those structures. For example, you can shoot a person in the center of the chest, but if it impacts the sternum at an acute angle, then the result is likely a glancing flesh wound, not a shot to the C-P system.
Shot placement is important as generally speaking, you have to be in the ball park to play ball, but being in the ball park doesn't mean you are playing ball very well.
Ammunition's wounding capability does not substitute shot placement,and shot placement does not substitute ammunition's wounding capability. I'd prefer to have a 4 inch diameter group of 40S&W holes in the opponent's chest rather than 2 inch diameter 380ACP group.
Not so many criminals wants to be shot with a 380ACP,and most of them do fear death. But,that did not stop some of them to shoot it out with the police or other citizens who carried a caliber larger than 380ACP.
Is it powerful enough?
Would you like to be shot with it? No? Why? Because you fear death... then it's powerful enough.
Not so many criminals wants to be shot with a 380ACP,and most of them do fear death. But,that did not stop some of them to shoot it out with the police or other citizens who carried a caliber larger than 380ACP.
1911austin
Member
If you really fear death, carry something a bit more powerful than a .380.
The Amigo
Member
.380
Round speed, expansion and penetration all takes us to the point we want = stop the opponent. The more the better but psychological condition of who your trying to stop plays a big role too. I had a guy in my area that was shot 7 times with a .45 and is still walking around and braking in to houses like nothing happened and I've seen people get shot with only one .25 shot and act like they got shot with a cannon and go to shock and die. Yet the old motto stands a .380 in my pocket is more effective than a AR-15 in the trunk or a 45 left at home cause its 2 heavy or hot to carry.
Round speed, expansion and penetration all takes us to the point we want = stop the opponent. The more the better but psychological condition of who your trying to stop plays a big role too. I had a guy in my area that was shot 7 times with a .45 and is still walking around and braking in to houses like nothing happened and I've seen people get shot with only one .25 shot and act like they got shot with a cannon and go to shock and die. Yet the old motto stands a .380 in my pocket is more effective than a AR-15 in the trunk or a 45 left at home cause its 2 heavy or hot to carry.
The reason I carry a P-3AT most of the time is, I believe that in most self defense shootings, psychological incapacitation is usually the main factor in ending a confrontation.
If I did not believe this, I would never carry anything less than 9mm.
Sure, if the bg is high on drugs, the psychological factor does not exist, but that would hold true for any handgun caliber.
If you are trying to stop a bg with a handgun and the psychological factor does not work, regardless of caliber, you better be lucky where the bullet path goes.
If I did not believe this, I would never carry anything less than 9mm.
Sure, if the bg is high on drugs, the psychological factor does not exist, but that would hold true for any handgun caliber.
If you are trying to stop a bg with a handgun and the psychological factor does not work, regardless of caliber, you better be lucky where the bullet path goes.
Prince Yamato
Member
A .22 is effective at killing someone, if the bullet is placed right (here come the flames!). Most deadly firearms accidents happen with .22s. "Oh, but it's not good at 25 yards like my .45," They'll say. But seriously, when are you going to DEFEND yourself at 25 yards? I suspect that in the real world, most confrontations will occur at 10 feet or less, and maybe involve a physical struggle. In this scenario, you'd be close enough that even a .22LR would be sufficient to ruin a bad guy's day (let's assume CCI stingers for a 'defense' load). A .22LR will penetrate an animal pelt, so it should have NO trouble with clothing. It might take more than one shot, but, then again, so might a 9mm or .45 depending on where the bullet hits. So with all this said about .22, you can assume that .380 would be sufficient to kill. I love bigger calibers, but honestly, these discussions always turn into a "let's see who can piss farther contest". I know that "bigger is better" is pretty much standard in the gun world, but sometimes bigger isn't always practical (such as when you have to carry in the South during summer time). I'd love a "pocket .45, but guess what? I can't wear it with dress pants. So that rules it out 99% of the time for me. I'm pretty much limited to .22, .25, .32 and .380. I'd easily trust my life to 380.
Shawnee
member
Hi Sniper...
"Stopping Power" is one of those topics that has had enough ink spilled about it to fill the Pacific - and some of what has been written was even true.
Fact is - people have been inventing modern cartridges since the late 1800s and everytime a new one comes out part of the obligation of its' promoters is to tell why it is ever so much better than anything that came before it - which includes pointing out the ALLEGED shortcomings of the older cartridges. I have been reading such pap since the 50s.
The .380 - just like the 30/30 and many other cartridges - has been badmouthed by umpteen writers, marketing types, and "experts" - all of whom were promoting something "new" - and all of it is Hooey.
Perhaps the classic example is the .270 Winchester which hit the light of day in 1925. A boatload of rifle cartridges have been developed since then but NONE of them will do anything that needs doing any better than the .270 for hunting in this hemisphere. An Thass a Fac, Jac !
But back to the .380. The cartridge is more than adequete as a self-defense cartridge. The real "effectiveness" crux of any self-defense weapon is, as others have said, how well YOU USE IT.
I once watched someone put five shots from a .22 caliber Browning Buckmark into half a playing card in approx. 3 seconds at 25 feet.
That is what effective self-defense capability is all about.
"Stopping Power" is one of those topics that has had enough ink spilled about it to fill the Pacific - and some of what has been written was even true.
Fact is - people have been inventing modern cartridges since the late 1800s and everytime a new one comes out part of the obligation of its' promoters is to tell why it is ever so much better than anything that came before it - which includes pointing out the ALLEGED shortcomings of the older cartridges. I have been reading such pap since the 50s.
The .380 - just like the 30/30 and many other cartridges - has been badmouthed by umpteen writers, marketing types, and "experts" - all of whom were promoting something "new" - and all of it is Hooey.
Perhaps the classic example is the .270 Winchester which hit the light of day in 1925. A boatload of rifle cartridges have been developed since then but NONE of them will do anything that needs doing any better than the .270 for hunting in this hemisphere. An Thass a Fac, Jac !
But back to the .380. The cartridge is more than adequete as a self-defense cartridge. The real "effectiveness" crux of any self-defense weapon is, as others have said, how well YOU USE IT.
I once watched someone put five shots from a .22 caliber Browning Buckmark into half a playing card in approx. 3 seconds at 25 feet.
That is what effective self-defense capability is all about.
- Status
