What about the .380?

Status
Not open for further replies.
snooperman said:
Also, when used as a CCW, the 380 has stopped more attacks with ONE SHOT, than 9mm, 40, and 45 cal pistols individually. Why, because studies show these people are more often armed "all the time", than those carrying larger guns and/ or larger calibers. I wish I could find the article as it must be in the U.S. conceal carry archives.
Click to expand...






I would like to see proof of that. I am not bashing the 380, that is my primary carry, but I have never seen any documentation of what you are saying.



By your own theory I would guess the 9mm and 38sp would rank higher than the 380, just because I suspect it to be carried more. The explosion of the 380 carry is fairly new. Can't imagine what you posted has any truth to it
 
Size counts

I hope someone has time to research my idea here on BBL length and accuracy.

In the past century the .32 and .380 has been a duty weapon in many nations. The .32 ACP in WWI killed an awful lot of folks.
These guns were a bit large than todays pocket guns. LCP and such has a shorter barrel less grip than a PPK or Mauser HSC or Bersa.
Accuracy and velocity both suffer is the smaller guns.
If I were to pack a .380 or .32 as primary CCW it would the larger one.
If I lack power then I want it at least accurate. I would also load HP and Ball every other round. IDEA is I want penetration plus expansion and don't see it with any one round. So double tap the target. Buffalo Bore has so good stuff.

I carry a J frame with 158 Gr LSWC in it.
The LCP may be in a pocket at a wedding or something but not likely too often.
I like to hit beyond 7 yards.
So my 2 cents worth.
 
Last edited:
Stop talking about the past 50 years. I was carrying a gun the past 45 of them, and I carried a 380 because other than a snubby there wasn't anything else. If there was a small 9 or 40 or 45, do you think we would have carried the 380's?
Hell no, you now have guns that are smaller and carry a wallop that is much more likely to drop someone with a 25 foot shot to the chest than a 380.
This just comes up too many times, we have the equipment to do better now, so use it, stop going backwards. Large marketing firms are marketing these tiny guns like jewelry.
Sure they are nice and small and cool looking , but I would much rather have my XDS in my pocket.
More people were killed with this and that nonsense because they didn't have what we have now.
 
My oft-stated personal belief (with absolutely no evidence or proof) is that the early popularity of the .380, especially in Europe and other places, was due to the unavailability of modern hollow point ammunition. In the days of fmj ammo, 9mm was simply too much for a civilian, non-battlefield situation because it simply penetrated too much. .380 ball provided that "sweet spot" of power which did not over-penetrate or, if it did, was largely spent after doing so. The arrival of modern hollowpoints turned all that upside down and now .380 hollowpoints tend to not penetrate enough and 9mm hollowpoints provide that "sweet spot" from shorter barrels. Fmj .380 still penetrates enough and is used by many people who carry .380s and are willing to sacrifice expansion for penetration. Sub-compact 9s can both expand and penetrate enough at the expense of more recoil and (usually) somewhat larger pistols. Few would recommend ball ammo in a pocket 9 but many do so for pocket .380s. In earlier days, hollowpoints were simply not an option, hence lower powered ball ammo had to do.
 
Tennjed, and Orionengnr, if you want evidence of what I stated , it is on the website of US concealed Carry and written by LEO Greg Ellifritz in the July or June issue. It is under the Title " Choosing the best caliber for conceal carry." One correction...the 380 had 62% one shot stops, 9mm 47%, 40 and 45 40%. Soo there you can get it froom the "HORSE'S mouth since you doubt what I wrote. You can believe what you want but I stand by what I said about the 380.
 
With small 9 Luger pistols out there today there isn't much point in buying 9xshort. In ammo loaded with same weight bullet you're giving up about 300fps. To add insult to injury the cost of ammo is about the same.:uhoh:
 
Type in "Choosing the best caliber for conceal carry" by Greg Ellifritz, and then click on it. His data was compiled by actual shootings. I know it is hard to believe but the evidence is there for the 380.
 
I've read Greg Ellifritz and there are a few places where what he is saying doesn't make sense.

Maybe it's just me...


- What percentage of shooting incidents resulted in fatalities. For this, I included only hits to the head or torso.
Click to expand...

Lots of incidents of people getting shot in the leg and dying, some even received almost immediate medical attention from paramedics and were transported to trauma centers rather quickly but still died. So maybe he is saying that you can't judge calibers by non-torso hits, something like a .32 is going to be ineffective if you shoot someone in the leg - but so is any round so lets only judge rounds by torso hits and head shots.

OK...

You can make the same argument for excluding head shots that can be made for excluding non-head and non-torso hits. A head shot with a .22 LR is going to be as effective as a head shot with a .500 S&W and most everything in between so the results are meaningless.

One shot stop percentage - number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took. Like Marshall's number, I only included hits to the torso or head in this number.
Click to expand...

A one shot stop is not the result of an equation it is a discreet data point to be counted. You don't calculate one-shot-stops, you count them.
 
Must be a wonderful cartridge. Glock is going to make fine pistol in this caliber right here just for us wise Americans.:eek:
 
Pablo makes a great point. It depends on how you define effective. If it is foot pounds of energy that's one thing. If it is success at ending hostilities, that could be something else entirely.

If one takes out an opponent with one well-placed 230 grain .45 acp, is that less effective than or equally effective as disintegrating the same opponent with a high explosive charge?
 
Last edited:
JIMBO555, his data is based on many different ways that the bad guy stops. If you want to kill him, then the larger caliber will do the job more effectively. However some of his data was compiled by stops that do not necessarily result in death but did involve stops. Some people were stopped by the mere presentation of the firearm or a shot to the arm,leg, or shoulder. When you look at all the reasons that bad guys are stopped in totality, then the smaller caliber guns , like the 380 , do just as well as a CCW as the larger guns. That is why he states at the end "caliber does not matter in a CCW" carry what you want. agree with his assessment. That said, if I were in LE I would want something bigger than a 380 because my role is different. There is nothing wrong in carrying a large caliber gun for a CCW. That said, Bigger is not really better.
 
The reasons that no law enforcement anywhere carry a 380 as a primary are the same reasons I don't. It's not about wanting to kill someone but having the ability to stop someone who wants to kill you. I want the edge that the larger caliber gives you over the less powerful calibers.
 
The reason .380 looks so good in stats is because there are lots of them out there and lots of shootings using them that result in stops. Not because the caliber is any powerhouse. I carry 9mm and it has an advantage over the .380 in marginal hits...I like the edge of the bigger caliber.

My Wife? She cannot manage a 9mm....a .380 is the best she can do and it is not that much of a down grade from a 9mm to have her just give up and carry nothing.

I get perplexed by the concept that some folks present that seem to impart the idea that it is not a potent one shot man stopper and so anyone who carries it is delusional, lazy, a bad shot, inexperienced, old, stupid, etcetera.

We should all carry and use the biggest and most powerful caliber handgun we can manage to defend ourselves and practice with that caliber until we are comfortable. If that's a 13.5 ounce .45 good for you. I want my Wife to defend herself and that means a .380.

VooDoo
 
kokapelli said:
It might be interesting to note that some of the assassinations carried out by the Massad were supposedly done with Berretta 22cal pistols
Click to expand...
Yea I dont think a true "spy" can probably get away with a hand cannon. Probably would like to be able to...
 
I trust this comment fits in with the topic "what about the .380". The question of the .380 seems to engender a lot of discussion. Most people seem to dismiss it and say they would not rely on anything less than 9mm, though they do admit, reluctantly, that they would, and often do, feel it is sufficient for their wives, daughters, and aging mothers. (!!!) I wonder sometimes how many "shooters", especially male shooters, succumb to some form of the "Peter Principle" in our choice of a personal defense weapon, rising to one level beyond our level of true competence because we want to think of ourselves as tougher, better, stronger, abler, and a tad more macho than we really are. Many self defense shooters are minimally trained, work at sedentary jobs, are not getting younger, and will get older and weaker before they get younger and stronger. The only reason I suggest this is that while Sig took their small .380 and slightly enlarged it into a very small 9mm that is now in high regard, no less than two other major players have tweaked their small polymer 9mm pistols and are now offering the same gun in .380 acp (Ruger LC380 and Sig P290 in .380). A third major manufacturer has confounded expectations and offered not the small single stack 9mm as expected, but a smallish to medium-sized single stack .380 (Glock 42). What do these manufacturers see about the shootability and sales of small, lightweight 9s to make them throttle back, ease off the gas, and offer lesser powered alternatives to their micro 9s?

Could there be a parallel to the number of scandium .357s which were sold and then loaded with .38 Special ammo, often standard pressure Nyclads and Hornady rounds?

Curious.

I have not had the opportunity or pleasure of shooting any of these micro 9s so my speculation is just that - speculation. I suspect they are considerably friskier than the average .380, though.
 
Last edited:
I've owned a lot of guns over the past few years. I can handle a lot of standard pressure .357 in an SP-101, but the compact 9mm's can be a little much for some shooters. I owned a Kahr P9 that was like that. I think if I could have changed the grips on it that would have helped, but aside from those Hogue slip-ons that I don't care for, there's not much to do with them. J-frame .38's do a little better though because I can change the grips on them. Lately, a friend's Shield 9mm turned out to be pretty controllable so one of them may be in the running. Maybe not... I'm not sure yet.

Anyhow, with my moderate level of experience as my guide, I'd honestly rather have a .380 that was relatively pleasant to practice with over a small 9mm that I could only stand to shoot two magazines through at a time. I'd rather be precise with a .380 than not precise with a 9mm or .40. I'm still looking for the right balance of power, size, and shootability for me. It'll probably come in the form of a couple guns for different seasons, but I think a .380 will be among them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top