When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm? Good article

Now that Glock finally has a 380 available in the USA, the 42 they can not keep them in stock. It is the size of many 9mm.guns.

Why are the selling like hotcakes? Just because it's Glock??

I've told this story once before on this forum but it shows that bullet placement is primary. I was an MP stationed at Ft. Hood in the late 70's and one of our jobs was to escort an individual from the post commissary (grocery store for the non-military) to the bank with the daily receipts. Back then there were no debit cards and many of the lower rank personnel didn't have a checking account, so there was a lot of cash taken in on payday. This was usually $100K to $130K in cash, a sizeable amount of money at that time.

Anyway, as the MP was escorting the commissary agent to the MP's vehicle, an individual approached the MP and shot him 9 times with a .22lr and the MP shot the robber 5 times with his 1911. Neither died and both recovered from their wounds. If you don't hit a vital area a 44 magnum won't be any better than a .22 short.

Rule3 said:

Now that Glock finally has a 380 available in the USA, the 42 they can not keep them in stock. It is the size of many 9mm.guns.

Why are the selling like hotcakes? Just because it's Glock??

Click to expand...

Why are you confused? Is it because you are unaware that the Glock is a great pistol design in multiple common SD calibers and the G42 makes it possible to have a pocket pistol that shares the same characteristics that made the other Glock models so popular?

The .380 Browning/9mm Kurz sure doesn’t compare well with 9mm Parabellum in muzzle energy, bullet weight, or jello poking. It is however frequently used as a comparison to describe the terminal ballistic power of a Colt 1851 .36 caliber revolver. As everyone who has been around for a while knows; the Colt 1851 lacks the terminal ballistic power for any knowledgeable and skillful pistol shooter to have ever considered it adequate for self-defense.

Rule3 said:

Now that Glock finally has a 380 available in the USA, the 42 they can not keep them in stock. It is the size of many 9mm.guns.

Why are the selling like hotcakes? Just because it's Glock??

Click to expand...

A question I ask myself and others everyday. In our case (my Wife and I) the G42, with my hand loads or premium .380 SD ammunition, is the largest/most powerful caliber my Wife can consistently manage to get rapid, accurate hits with at combat distances.

She is 5' tall and about 110 lbs and we shot *every* pistol we could get our hands on the last couple years in a variety of calibers. I'd have preferred a 9mm but she simply cannot handle the recoil and get rapid, consistent follow ups with any 9mm unless is is a full size pistol which is then so big and heavy she looks like she's going to war carrying it.

Her skill at move/shoot with the G42 is excellent - she reloads and clears malfunctions like a pro. I consider her well defended and so does she with the resultant peace of mind that comes with this.

She could get a 9mm in roughly the same size and it would beat her senseless with recoil and she'd not be able to practice the 3000+ repetitions needed to gain the muscle memory to perform with a pistol . Apparently there are tens of thousands maybe that are in the same situation as my Wife - who carries the most powerful pistol she can manage and be competent and confident with.

It's a .380 and I feel confident with her having it for SD - a 9mm will not make it better for her no matter what the experts say or how many of them say it. We have done the best we can for her. And it's a .380.

VooDoo

That article supports Glock's decision to make the 42 in .380. Instead of another hard to control pocket 9mm, they released one of the sweetest shooting .380s ever. Smart move on their part.

380 vs 9mm

It's an easy discussion to understand. :banghead:

The first rule of gun club is........to have a gun!

What is more effective:

The 380 you have on you and carry around

OR

The 105 howitzer (9mm, 40, 45, 44, 357, 454,etc) you left at home or in the car/truck because it is too heavy, uncomfortable to wear, not easy to conceal, doesn't match your shoes, are you getting the point

So have a 380, 32, 22, etc is better than having nothing at all. So when or if you are faced with an attacker you have something more to respond with then a foul word.

Before you flame me stop and think, do you really carry ALL THE TIME!!!

If your answer was no, this article may be of some usefulness to you.

If your answer was yes, then disregard and carry on.

Proceed with the beatings

The Rorhbaugh r-9 is the closest to the size of a ruger lcp in a 9mm. Much more expensive though!

Click to expand...

A moment of silence please for the Rohrbaugh R9

MrDig said:

We all know that an Ex is a has been and a spurt is just a drip under pressure. not one of them has ever fired a .380 let alone done any research. I use the question as a conversation stopper.

Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of experts, too. I would argue, however, that darned few of the folks favoring .45 or 9mm or other other "greater-than-.380" rounds have based their caliber choice on real-world data or substantive research. I've spent a good bit of time over the past couple of years trying to find relevant information on this topic, and there's not a lot out there. Or, if it's there, I've not found it.

There ARE a lot of papers and a lot of studies, to be sure, and some are wrapped in fancy titles published by seemingly credible sources. There are also a number of after-action reports (like the analysis of the famous FBI Miami shootout). But, most of what you'll find is just another expert giving us his or her opinion based upon his or her interpretation of a given situation -- their analysis of why things turned out as they did. That's arguably better than analysis by a non-expert, but we can't be sure HOW MUCH BETTER... I'm convinced that most of the positions taken on this topic are not based upon real-world experience or meaningful data.

I'd say we're all flying blind because of our prejudices and a conspicuous shortage of good data. Most of us are convinced we have the best answer and feel no need to reevaluate our beliefs from time to time. We tend to do the same thing with religion and politics: it's hard (or profoundly uncomfortable) to change our positions or beliefs once we think we've found THE TRUTH!!

About all I've learned, thus far, with regard to handgun caliber, is that bigger is always better, except when it isn't.

The only .380 I had was a LCP and I, honestly, didn't like how it shot. I can't exactly define it, but between the trigger, recoil and size it just didn't work for me.

Replaced it with a LCR .38 +P and I shoot that a ton better in static and dynamic situations, eventhough the LCR definitely stings the hands with defensive loads in it. It fills the deep concealment, pocket, niche for carry.

All other situations have me carrying a mid-size or full size gun, 9mm or .45 depending.

When you want to pay more for ammo that uses less brass, lead and powder. The 380 wins hands down.

The 380 ACP is good for plunging the entire world into war.

The only caliber that holds that distinction

It's an easy discussion to understand.
The first rule of gun club is........to have a gun!
What is more effective:
The 380 you have on you and carry around
OR
The 105 howitzer (9mm, 40, 45, 44, 357, 454,etc) you left at home or in the car/truck because it is too heavy, uncomfortable to wear, not easy to conceal, doesn't match your shoes, are you getting the point
So have a 380, 32, 22, etc is better than having nothing at all. So when or if you are faced with an attacker you have something more to respond with then a foul word.

Click to expand...

This sums it up for me. I have pocket carried an LCR .38 for a long time. I even keep it in my pocket when I carry something bigger on my hip. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it just isn't realistic to carry anything larger in my line of work. The LCR ensures I have at least something on hand.

In all honesty, I would rather have my 9mm than my .380 or even .38. I would rather have my .45 than my 9mm. I would rather have my .357 than my .45 and I would rather have my .44 than my .357. The bottom line for me is, I would rather have the one that is currently in my pocket or on my hip if I need it rather than the "More effective" caliber gun sitting at home in my safe.

Vodoun da Vinci said:

A question I ask myself and others everyday. In our case (my Wife and I) the G42, with my hand loads or premium .380 SD ammunition, is the largest/most powerful caliber my Wife can consistently manage to get rapid, accurate hits with at combat distances.

She is 5' tall and about 110 lbs and we shot *every* pistol we could get our hands on the last couple years in a variety of calibers. I'd have preferred a 9mm but she simply cannot handle the recoil and get rapid, consistent follow ups with any 9mm unless is is a full size pistol which is then so big and heavy she looks like she's going to war carrying it.

Her skill at move/shoot with the G42 is excellent - she reloads and clears malfunctions like a pro. I consider her well defended and so does she with the resultant peace of mind that comes with this.

She could get a 9mm in roughly the same size and it would beat her senseless with recoil and she'd not be able to practice the 3000+ repetitions needed to gain the muscle memory to perform with a pistol . Apparently there are tens of thousands maybe that are in the same situation as my Wife - who carries the most powerful pistol she can manage and be competent and confident with.

It's a .380 and I feel confident with her having it for SD - a 9mm will not make it better for her no matter what the experts say or how many of them say it. We have done the best we can for her. And it's a .380.

VooDoo

Click to expand...

Sounds like she is well on her way to being as accurate and deadly with her .380 Glock 42 pistol that fires a bullet similar in size and energy to that of the Colt 1851 .36 caliber revolvers that were relied upon by these famous or infamous gunfighters/soldiers/adventurers/lawmen/criminals: Wild Bill Hickok, John Henry "Doc" Holliday, Richard Francis Burton, Ned Kelly, Bully Hayes, Richard H. Barter, Robert E. Lee, Nathan B. Forrest, John O'Neill, Frank Gardiner, Quantrill's Raiders, John Coffee "Jack" Hays, "Bigfoot" Wallace, Ben McCulloch, Addison Gillespie, John "RIP" Ford, "Sul" Ross and most Texas Rangers prior to the Civil War and (fictionally) Rooster Cogburn (source Wikipedia). What makes the choice of the .380 power level .36 caliber revolver by these men really interesting is that they all could have chosen to carry the more powerful .44/.45 caliber revolvers that were available but did not feel the need to do so. I wonder if their choice was not based on the same criteria as your wife’s: it was the right size for achieving optimum handling characteristics for fast and accurate shooting.

C0untZer0 said:

The 380 ACP is good for plunging the entire world into war.

The only caliber that holds that distinction

Click to expand...

Best answer yet!

Look at all the interweb debates it has produced!

Oh, and I am not confused about the 380. I carry one everyday and own many guns in that caliber. The point I was trying to make was a LOT of folks like and carry a 380. Period. It works and will stop a bad guy. I guess it's time to bring up the case of the 250 lb, 6' 2" guy whacked out on drugs.

As a further debate, the Glock version is not really a pocket pistol unless you have really large pockets. My Kahr PM9 is smaller than the g Glock. Yes it is a great shooter but as I said before it is bigger than some 9mm. I prefer the SIG over the Glock anyday

I had a Rorhbaugh for a few weeks. The best made, most expensive, great looking piece of useless non functioning junk I ever owned. Went back 3 times for service and thankfully the owner is a really nice guy and gave me my money back. But that's another topic

Now that Glock finally has a 380 available in the USA, the 42 they can not keep them in stock. It is the size of many 9mm.guns.

Why are the selling like hotcakes? Just because it's Glock??

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I see plenty in stock at every gun show. Maybe my friend got a bad one, but his was totally unreliable with two women and two men shooters, mostly stovepipes, but I had several failure to return fully to battery and one failure to extract.

Of course since its a Glock everyone will blame the ammo, but the Fiocchi, American Eagle, and PPU (least expensive readily available practice ammo around here) that failed in the 42 worked perfectly in my SIG P238 and my wife's Beretta 85 Cheetah (about the size of a 9mm compact, dwarfs the 42).

I was not impressed, but I'll try it again next time we visit, was thinking about one for my wife but this experience has completely queered the idea. Maybe like my P238 it just needs a few hundred rounds through it to overcome shoddy QA/QC letting one get by that was "too tight"

Walt Sherrill said:

Yup. But the CZ-82, with a .380 barrel, the CZ-83, or the Makarov (with a .380 barrel) are viable alternatives, and the Beretta 84 (and a couple of Stoeger options) also recommend themselves.

Click to expand...

True, but those are mostly designs of a bygone era... Metal framed designs with nearly full or full grips. I kick myself for not snapping up a Beretta 85 I walked away from once. It's definitely worth snapping up those larger than a cell phone battery designs when they can be had. Well, maybe not the Beretta. Last 84 I saw for sale was more than $700. Prices have certainly spiked on those after they got discontinued.

I kick myself for not buying the Beretta Model 86

The 84 was never discontinued by Beretta. They just stopped importing them.
They are being imported again, now.
Coles Distributing has Israeli surplus 84's pretty cheap. That's where I got mine.

95% of the time I carry a 45ACP (XDs or Sig P220 Compact). The other 5% I carry my P238. I bought the P238 for those occasions where I don't want to be bothered strapping on a belt and holster. I drop the 380 in my gym shorts and run to the store. I've never felt under-gunned as the other option is go without. 6 accurate shots with a 380 is better than me being unarmed and unprotected.

wally said:

I was not impressed, but I'll try it again next time we visit, was thinking about one for my wife but this experience has completely queered the idea.

Click to expand...

Better yet, rent one or try a different G42 than your friend has. There are half a dozen of them now in out local CCL Support Group and not one of them is finicky or problematic in any way for over 20 different people with a variety of ammunition.

Just sayin'.....

VooDoo

On second bought, never mind.

Kleanbore said:

One of the most widely quoted ones is the FBI report on handgun wounding effectiveness. It is based on anatomical information and expert scientific analysis of same, on observations, and on ballistic tests.

Click to expand...

Have you accessed any of the sources cited in the FBI study? Most of them require subscriptions to costly services or are available only through academic channels. A number of them point back to the Dr. Fackler's studies. And they're all roughly 30 years old. I ask, because few of the people who cite the FBI study and it's sources seem to have taken the next step. Some of Fackler's work can be found on line and I have copies of those pieces.

Martin Fackler, was an MD and colonel in the Army. His work had to do with small arms, but he only addressed handgun weapons and wounds in passing. Handguns weren't an Army concern. We should note, howver, that Fackler's findings were based on studies of ammunition available in 1987, and things have improved since then. Fackler investigated all sorts of wound-related issues – focusing on rifle rounds and the related wounds – as that was what the Army needed most to know about. Fackler also addressed other types of projectiles. Not a lot of it seems to directly address handgun wounds. He did address things like penetration, permanent cavity, temporary cavity, and fragmentation. The bulk of material cited in the FBI study addresses the nature of the wounds created by different types of small-arm ammunition.

What the FBI study does is give us summaries and opinions, based on one agent's analysis. FBI Special Agent Urey W. Patrick did what he could, and he tried to consolidate the facts. Here are his conclusions from that analysis – his opinion. It is an informed opinion, but it is not scripture:

1) No one round is likely to incapacitat an individual unless the brain is hit.
2) People stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, or the sheer will to live may not be incapacitated (even when mortally wounded) until it is too late for his or her opponent. As Patrick notes, someone who is intent on doing you harm may still be able to act very effectively for 10-15 seconds after his or her heart has been destroyed!
3) Kinetic energy is not a factor. Temporary cavity size is not a factor. The force of being struck by round is not a factor.
4) The only way to force incapacitation, short of a brain hit, is through blood loss. (But, as noted in 2, that may take more time than is available.
5) You can increase bullet effectiness by increasing the size of the bullet, but the bullet must still penetrate far enough and hit blood-carrying organs. Just hitting isn't enough – you've got to hit the right stuff! He doesn't say it directly, but, to me that's all about shot placement.
6) The critical element is penetration.
7) Penetration must be at least 12” if you don't hit the brain

Penetration without placement is of questionable value. Placement without penetration is also of limited value. Patrick seems to feel, all things considered, that penetration is more important than placement (but a torso hit seems to be implicit in that conclusion.)

Special Agent Urey Patrick's analysis, summarized above, seems incontrovertible. But he makes these points based on his interpretations, interpolations, and opinions based using data that doesn't always directly relate to handgun effectiveness or to weapons used in self-defense or home defense situations. There's a lot of battle-field data behind the data, and there's typically NOT a lot of handguns on the battlefield. Are the sources used pertinent? I don't know. Do you?

Neither Fackler nor Patrick are particiularly helpful in helping someone evaluate which gun might work best for any of us. They both try to make chicken salad out of chicken crap and address the things they were told to address. Your point that Cunningham makes a contribution here. He does, but his contribution is a bit like Patrick's -- you can't go by his guidelines alone. You've got to take what he says and try different things out. You've got to evaluate the "data" Cunningham can't give you.

The FBI study may be good, but as I said earlier, you have to accept much of Special Agent's analysis on faith – as there is little else.offered as proof. Citations to data you can't access isn't proof. At one time the Marshall & Sanow studies [One-Shot-Stops, etc.]were held up as the best available, but it didn't take long for analysts to show us how the Marshall & Sanow work's methodology was itself fatally wounded.

Kleanbore said:

Can you evaluate the goodness of data when you see them?

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But I certainly can't evaluate the stuff I can't access. Evaluating data isn't necessarily a specialized skill -- it depends on the data.

In my critique of the FBI study, with which you seemingly took exception, the data generally can't be seen and isn't easily accessed. The data is NOT shown in the FBI study. Sources are cited, but try to get to the data, if you can.

The Ellifritz study cited earlier does have data that most folks can analyze... and if they disagree, they can see enough information to know WHY they disagree. The data base isn't large but its certainly open -- and it can grow, over time, which will certainly help.

Kleanbore (referring to the FBI study) said:

However, these analyses and data are all about terminal ballistics, and that's just part of the equation.

Click to expand...

I'll agree the FBI study is all about terminal ballistics. It's certainly not about how to select a weapon for self- or home-defense. But some knowledge of terminal ballistics may be useful when making weapon and round selections. That's part of the bigger picture, too.

I took exception to the FBI study because the conclusions aren't necessarily evident from looking at source citations or displayed data.

Kleanbore said:

That's the point of Cunningham's article. He speaks of control--the shooter's ability to control the firearm while firing rapidly.

But Cunningham compares firearms of equal size and with different recoil characteristics. It's an excellent analysis, but there is more.

A really small lightweight pistol will usually have a very short grip, poor sights, low capacity. and a difficult trigger, compared to a larger pistol.

That's a major problem with "mouse guns". Great for back-up, but not so great for primary carry, if you have an alternative.

Click to expand...

Cunningham's article is a good warning to the uninformed: there's more things to be considered when buying a firearm than just how easily it's carried or concealed. If you can't place your shots well, and those shots don't penetrate (a function of terminal ballistics) his points aren't going to help much, either. His points are just part of the story, too.

I happen to agree with Cunningham about small weapons, etc. I've owned a number of smaller guns that I no longer carry. But his points are more easily made than understood. If you're looking and don't have a chance to try out different weapons, you'll probably make a number of bad choices.

In your initial reply you seemed to find fault with my critique of Special Agent Patrick's FBI study, saying it was one of the most-often quoted studies. Most-often quoted doesn't really say much, except that there's not a lot of other stuff out there that addresses similar topics. One study that does is an ongoing study by a guy named Rathcombe (who says, elsewhere, that he's a mechanical engineer) in SC. Here's a link: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html He has done some analysis of handgun performance, and the results are not pleasing. Look at the for handgun performance. It's limited to 9x19, .40. 10mm, and 41 Magnum.

Much of the data accumulated and presented by Fackler and used as source material for the FBI study was based on military weapons and the effect of their use. But, unless you dig into the sources, there's no way to know whether that information is of value to someone trying to find the best handgun or the most apprpriate handgun ammunition.

As Cunningham might argue, an effective rounds is less effective unless it's well placed. And being able to shoot a weapon without hurting yourself may be an issue, if you want to practice.

I guess I was right to question the FBIT study, but you feel I simply did it for the wrong reasons?

ClickClickD'oh said:

True, but those are mostly designs of a bygone era... Metal framed designs with nearly full or full grips. I kick myself for not snapping up a Beretta 85 I walked away from once. It's definitely worth snapping up those larger than a cell phone battery designs when they can be had. Well, maybe not the Beretta. Last 84 I saw for sale was more than $700. Prices have certainly spiked on those after they got discontinued.

Click to expand...

The Beretta 84 was introduced sometime around 1976, and is a design that is a year newer than the SIG P-220 (and a bunch of SIGs since developed using that same basic 220 design).

The 84 is still sold in Europe, where smaller calibers are more popular. It's no so much a "bygone design," as it is a victim of frequently changing handgun tastes in the U.S.

I think I'd like to have one, too, but I'll wait until the prices become a bit more reasonable... (if they ever do.)