11 or 13 rounds .380 = is that a game changer ?

If you already carry a small 6+1 pocket .380, 10+1 or more in nearly the same size package certainly could be a game changer.

As far as a 6+1 9mm versus a 10+1 .380, the potential for an easier to shoot pocket gun is hard to ignore. As much as I thought about getting an LCP Max for myself, it could be an excellent choice for my wife or daughters. Especially considering my dream of a regular LCP in .32 ACP for my wife (or myself) is never going to happen.

I would like a full - sized, locked breech DA/SA or striker - fired pistol the size of a Glock 19...

EDIT: Full - Sized, Glock 19 - oops... Mmheh heh heh!

I’m with Chicharrones, I like the idea of the 10 round capacity for the thicker frame and better grip for me shooting. I have 6/7 round 380s and have to use a Hogue or Pachmayr grip sleeve on them since they hit a nerve in my hand. I normally carry a G42, and it’s larger size really makes it one of Glock’s great shooter and softest shooters. Really hope the Max 380 is still able to be pocketed. Will be my next purchase.

I agree with all your statements, but then I’m ok with a 5 shot j frame, 7 shot 22mag, or 6 round 380 too. I don’t see a correlation of more rounds equaling a better product.

Lefty

Your thinking makes sense. My first gun was a Kahr CW380 for EDC, but I eventually replaced it with a 9mm because I didn't like paying a higher price for a less powerful caliber. My EDC, a P30SK, serves double duty as my third gun behind my home defense guns, an AR pistol and .45 handgun.

Mind, the nice people at SIG decided to bur the lines even more, what with their micro 9x19 365 series.
10 rounds in the smallest; 12 in the larger--both with flush-fit mags. And overall dimensions approximating a Colt Mustang.

I already sold my LC9s and bought a Hellkitty and I love the idea of 4 more rounds in the same footprint. When I opt for something lighter I carry my LCR way more than my LCP, I will be getting a LCP Max and I believe it'll get more carry than my current LCP.

I have a Kahr PM9 that is carried in weak hand front pocket as a 2nd option (AKA backup) to a Glock 32 on belt.
Would I rather have 11 rounds of 380 instead of 7 rounds 9mm as my 2nd option (AKA backup)?
For a pistol I envision being used in hope of stopping a very close range threat ASAP - I think I'll stick with 9mm.

I do not see it as a game-changer because it does not change 380 self defense in a significant way. What it does is provide the 380 carrier with more rounds in a single magazine. I a SD situation one is likely to not need more than 3 or 4. But if you want to be prepared for a greater capacity need that a 6 or 7 round magazine then it is an option. But so is a spare magazine. I have an LCP 2. With two 7 round mags. So I have 14 + 1 available. 12 + 1 in a single mag does not change the game for me. I just have to be able to change mags quickly, which I can do. If i did not have and we’re going to buy a 380 pocket pistol I would consider the Max, but does not offer enough for me to sell the II. I in the same game i have been.

I am of the “no substitute for cubic inches” school and a 38 Spl snub is as small as I will ever go, which isn’t really that far off a healthy .380

Having said that, there was a recent thread on the Judge/Governor/Public Defender revolvers in which it’s fans asserted the mighty punch of the 410 shot shell. Since we are talking about a few 79 grs round balls at about 650 fps (#0000 buck), 95 grs at 980 fps, sounds at least as effective and 10 + rounds in a substantially smaller handgun sounds much more appealing. There were plenty of folks put down by 36 cal round ball at 750-800 fps in the 1860s-1870s. So, it is very difficult to make a rational argument that the 380 is not a successful handgun round, and more of them are better than fewer of them. And if it’s a cartridge/pistol combination that you are comfortable with, then you are good to go.

DocRock said:

I am of the “no substitute for cubic inches” school and a 38 Spl snub is as small as I will ever go, which isn’t really that far off a healthy .380

Having said that, there was a recent thread on the Judge/Governor/Public Defender revolvers in which it’s fans asserted the mighty punch of the 410 shot shell. Since we are talking about a few 79 grs round balls at about 650 fps (#0000 buck), 95 grs at 980 fps, sounds at least as effective and 10 + rounds in a substantially smaller handgun sounds much more appealing. There were plenty of folks put down by 36 cal round ball at 750-800 fps in the 1860s-1870s. So, it is very difficult to make a rational argument that the 380 is not a successful handgun round, and more of them are better than fewer of them. And if it’s a cartridge/pistol combination that you are comfortable with, then you are good to go.

Click to expand...

Actually most of them were put down by conical balls loaded to about what a .38 smith and wesson round does today with factory loads.
Actual data obtain from old paper cartridges for the .36 navy
https://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-1237.html
Of great interest in this article is the apparent dissection of original paper cartridges and the weighing of their powder charge and conical ball weight.
The results follow: .................
COLT NAVY .36
Hazard Powder Co. - 141 gr. conical / 21 grs. powder
Bartholow's - 139 gr. conical / 14 grs. powder
Johnston & Dow - 150 gr. conical / 17 grs. powder
Unknown - 155 gr. conical / 12 grs. powder
Unknown - 149 gr. conical / 13 grs. powder

barnetmill said:

Actually most of them were put down by conical balls loaded to about what a .38 smith and wesson round does today with factory loads.
Actual data obtain from old paper cartridges for the .36 navy
https://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-1237.html
Of great interest in this article is the apparent dissection of original paper cartridges and the weighing of their powder charge and conical ball weight.
The results follow: .................
COLT NAVY .36
Hazard Powder Co. - 141 gr. conical / 21 grs. powder
Bartholow's - 139 gr. conical / 14 grs. powder
Johnston & Dow - 150 gr. conical / 17 grs. powder
Unknown - 155 gr. conical / 12 grs. powder
Unknown - 149 gr. conical / 13 grs. powder

Click to expand...

more
The late gun writer Elmer Keith (1898 - 1984) wrote a book, "Sixguns" in the mid 1950s. In it, he included a chapter on cap and ball revolvers.
Keith learned how to load and shoot these revolvers from Civil War veterans when he grew up in Helena, Montana. In 1912, at the age of 14, he began carrying a Colt 1851 Navy in .36 caliber.
Keith recommended FFFG black powder for the .28 and .31 caliber revolvers, and FFG black powder for theh .36 and .44 guns.
He didn't list loads by weight, but he instructed to pour in the powder until it almost filled the chamber, leaving room for a greased felt wad.
Keith punched felt wads from an old hat, and soaked them in a lubricant made of melted beeswax and tallow.
Gatofeo notes: I use mutton tallow myself, available from Dixie Gun Works.
This wad was placed over the powder, then the ball rammed down with it until the ball was slightly below flush of the chamber. Gatofeo notes: I seat the wad as a separate operation, then seat the ball.
Keith noted, "A percussion sixgun thus loaded will shoot clean all day if you blow your breath through the bore a few times after each six rounds are fired. It will also shoot very accurately if it is a good gun."
"I had one .36 Navy Colt that had a pitted barrel, but with the above load it would cut clover leaves for its six shots, at 20 yards, all day with seated back and head rest and two hands used between the knees to further holding," Keith wrote.
"For its size and weight nothing is so deadly as the round ball of pure lead when driven at fairly good velocity," Keith wrote. "Maximum loads give these slugs fairly high velocity from a 7-1/2 inch barrel gun.
Keith knew two Civil War cavalrymen who had seen an enormous amount of battle in the Civil War. Major R. E. Stratton fought in the Confederacy's 1st Texas Regiment. Samuel H. Fletcher fought in the Union's 2nd Illinois Cavalry.
"Both Maj. Stratton and Sam Fletcher told me the .36 Navy with full loads was a far better man killer than any .38 Special they had ever seen used in gun fights," Keith wrote.
"Maj. Stratton said that for a man stopper he preferred the round ball with chamber full of FFG to the pointed conical bullet," Keith wrote. "Sam Fletcher also told me he preferred a pure lead round ball in his Navy Colts with chamber full of black powder, to the issued conical ball load.
"Fletcher claimed the round ball dropped enemy cavalrymen much better and took all the fight out of them, whereas the pointed bullet at times would only wound and leave them fighting.
"Fletcher stated, however, that when foraging and shooting cattle for meat, the pointed bullet was the best for body shots that had to be taken where penetration was needed. But that on all frontal shots on beef, the old round ball was plenty good and would reach the brain --- even on bulls.
"Major Stratton claimed that while the big Dragoon was slower for quick-draw work, once you had it in your hand it was the best cavalry pistol of all," Keith wrote. "It would drop a horse as easily as a man with its .45-caliber round or conical ball and 50 grains of FFG black powder."
Interesting stuff, no?
Reply With Quote

A .9mm is indeed quite small.

The .380 Max is as wide, if not wider, than the P365/Hellcat sized guns and will offer no benefit for concealability purposes.

It will recoil less than the 9mms and be a few ounces lighter. But .380 from a short barrel reallt struggles to both expand well and penetrate to the proper depth. Load selection is vital with a .380, as so few JHPs in that cal are worth anything. The 9mm doesn’t have that problem. The cartridge is energetic enough that most hollow points perform nicely even from compact barrel lengths.

I hear people saying the 9mm subcompacts are snappy and brutal to shoot. To me, this has not been the case at all. They are easily controllable and I am not a strong or large man.

The only place this new LCP Max has is for women, children, and those with health of grip strength issues. Any reasonably able male can easily handle the 9mm guns that are of identical size and barely any more weight. The 9mm has proven the world over as a very capable defensive cartridge. The .380 only has about half the power, and is marginal at best.

Just my opinion.

JCooperfan1911 writes:

A .9mm is indeed quite small.

Click to expand...

Indeed, like an angry grain of sand hitting you.

I didn't consider it a "game changer" (gawd, I'm so tired of that term!) when it was announced, nor did I when I laid eyes on one the next day. But, I do subscribe that "more can be better" at times and, with the minimal increase in overall profile allowing for four more rounds, it kind of seemed like a no-brainer to explore the new option.

barnetmill said:

Actually most of them were put down by conical balls loaded to about what a .38 smith and wesson round does today with factory loads.
Actual data obtain from old paper cartridges for the .36 navy
https://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-1237.html
Of great interest in this article is the apparent dissection of original paper cartridges and the weighing of their powder charge and conical ball weight.
The results follow: .................
COLT NAVY .36
Hazard Powder Co. - 141 gr. conical / 21 grs. powder
Bartholow's - 139 gr. conical / 14 grs. powder
Johnston & Dow - 150 gr. conical / 17 grs. powder
Unknown - 155 gr. conical / 12 grs. powder
Unknown - 149 gr. conical / 13 grs. powder

Click to expand...

You can have a 79 grs .375 ball at speed, or a heavy conical going very slow indeed. As noted above, Elmer Keith writes of his discussions with two Civil War combat vets who much preferred the 79 grs round ball, which based on a full cyl of powder was like in the 800 - 850 FPS range. If that was good enough, then 95 grs at 980 should be better, though a .375 pure lead round ball will likely expand to a greater diameter than even a jacketed hollow point .358 bullet.

The point however is that there are those who insist on the devastating efficacy of a few .375 #0000 buck pellets at about 650 fps (as from the much touted Judge/Governor/Public Defender). And while I am dubious indeed about their efficacy, 95 grs at @980 fps is definitely better.

DocRock said:

You can have a 79 grs .375 ball at speed, or a heavy conical going very slow indeed. As noted above, Elmer Keith writes of his discussions with two Civil War combat vets who much preferred the 79 grs round ball, which based on a full cyl of powder was like in the 800 - 850 FPS range. If that was good enough, then 95 grs at 980 should be better, though a .375 pure lead round ball will likely expand to a greater diameter than even a jacketed hollow point .358 bullet.

The point however is that there are those who insist on the devastating efficacy of a few .375 #0000 buck pellets at about 650 fps (as from the much touted Judge/Governor/Public Defender). And while I am dubious indeed about their efficacy, 95 grs at @980 fps is definitely better.

Click to expand...

Union soldiers were provide with paper cartridges loaded with conical bullets and after the war such were sold to civilians for many years. During the civil war, most Union loaded guns that were pointed and fired at people were so loaded and that is what most people got shot with. If someone had a thick uniform with a heavy leather strap or brass buttons over it, it could be that the lead round ball would not penetrate enough to kill. Most of the men were skinnier than they are today and less penetration was likely needed to kill them is another consideration. By the way in those days the .44 and .45 caliber handguns were considered much better man stoppers just as many considered them to be to this very day.
.44 army cartridges

Is this about automatics or black powder pistols? I don’t know anymore.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Is this about automatics or black powder pistols? I don’t know anymore.

Click to expand...

Thread drift is real []

JCooperfan1911 said:

The only place this new LCP Max has is for women, children, and those with health of grip strength issues. Any reasonably able male can easily handle the 9mm guns that are of identical size and barely any more weight. The 9mm has proven the world over as a very capable defensive cartridge. The .380 only has about half the power, and is marginal at best.

Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Says the guy that has a KelTec P32, and called out by me who has a TCP732.

As I've brought up in another thread, the LCP Max is virtually the same size (thickness, too) as my Remington RM380. That slightly fatter and slightly heavier RM380 is easy to shoot well through a couple boxes of ammo* compared to a regular LCP in .380, in my experience. I can only imagine that the LCP Max should be similar in shootability of the RM with the bonus of an extra 4 to 6 cartridges on board.

*Frequent practice is usually a good thing.

Ease of carry is huge, so if I can fit 13-15 rounds in an easily concealed and carried package that originally fit 8 to 10, then that's a big plus.

I've said it before: the one line I have never, ever heard investigating after an officer-involved or a citizen-involved shooting is, "I sure wish my gun held less ammo."

Stay safe.

Riomouse911 said:

I've said it before: the one line I have never, ever heard investigating after an officer-involved or a citizen-involved shooting is, "I sure wish my gun held less ammo."

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

Cool, how many citizen involved shootings did you investigate? And how many rounds where fired by either side?

Now I am trying to remember the loads I used in my old Remington 1858 cap and ball. As I recall Hickock shot a pair of Navy .36's. He only found them lacking when he shot a grizzly between the eyes and failed to stop it. Back on topic. I have a DB380 that I can shoot faster and more accurate than my 9's. I have won some matches with my 9's. Too bad the .380 isn't allowed.