Deaf Smith
Member
Yes. The purpose of the defensive handgun is to stop an attack.
Does not matter if police or citizens.
Deaf
Is 380 Just A Marginal Round?
- Thread starter kokapelli
- Start date
- Status
Does not matter if police or citizens.
Deaf
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
Test Pilot,, Is the 380 marginal if it stops an attack or kills someone that is attacking you? If the 9mm does not stop the attack , is it "marginal"? What is "marginal" is not the gun but the user more than anything else.
peacebutready
Member
The skill of a given person is the same no matter the caliber of the gun, we are discussing the caliber part of the equation and the .380 is a marginal caliber.
Marginal because the energy is on the edge of being able to both have the bullet penetrate deep enough while also expanding to result in more tissue damage.
.380s seem to do pretty well though and hold their own with the "service" calibers in studies. There is a bigger drop in effectiveness when going below .380 to .32, .25 and .22. Those are extra marginal!
You should have the biggest gun in the biggest caliber that you can shoot fast and accurately (and carry if that matters). For me, my 9mm P226 works and carries fine, no reason to get a .380 and give up anything. At home I'll be handling my decidedly non-SWAT home invasion from a barricade position as well. I won't be using a small gun though, since my house is holding it when not in use, might as well be an AR-15 SBR with red dot sight and light. I'd just as soon be on the right side of the effectiveness charts in all those studies when it is my life (and families') on the line...
Marginal because the energy is on the edge of being able to both have the bullet penetrate deep enough while also expanding to result in more tissue damage.
.380s seem to do pretty well though and hold their own with the "service" calibers in studies. There is a bigger drop in effectiveness when going below .380 to .32, .25 and .22. Those are extra marginal!
You should have the biggest gun in the biggest caliber that you can shoot fast and accurately (and carry if that matters). For me, my 9mm P226 works and carries fine, no reason to get a .380 and give up anything. At home I'll be handling my decidedly non-SWAT home invasion from a barricade position as well. I won't be using a small gun though, since my house is holding it when not in use, might as well be an AR-15 SBR with red dot sight and light. I'd just as soon be on the right side of the effectiveness charts in all those studies when it is my life (and families') on the line...
crazysccrmd
Member
Really
View attachment 208735
If I were mini me that's what I would sayThere is a reason the US Military adopted the 45 acp.
I carry a 45. My preference is for a bullet that will make a .45" hole even without expansion over a .355" hole. However, that doesn't mean the 380 isn't perfectly capable based on factual evidence. It's just my personal choice.
Can you explain why it's a joke? I looked over the way the data was collected and analyzed and it seemed pretty good. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong though.
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
Test Pilot, the Article that Crazysccrmd was referring to is NOT a sick joke. It is scientifically sound , as it is from actual shootings. What better test of ammo usage do you think is available? What this article shows is that the proficiency of the shooter trumps the size of the bullet. And, that the 380 is an acceptable handgun for personal defense. It also shows that there are multiple reasons why the bad guy was stopped , not just the shot alone, which is "real world" data. You just can not accept the fact that the 380 is acceptable for a CCW regardless of the evidence.
- JHP, FMJ, all different loads lumped together without being able to tell the composition. Marshall and Sanow were not perfect, but even thair data is lot better in this regard.
- Meaninglesss "one shot stop" composition. 9mm having low percentage in that joke of a data does not mean 9mm has low effectiveness. It can be only because 9mm was shot with pistols easier to get multiple hits with, even if the first round did its job. Reverse applies to 380ACP since most of those rounds are fired from mouse guns that are harder to get multiple hits with.
- No control on where the hits are made when calculating "Average number of rounds until incapacitation." The person doing the calculation just divided total number of hits by number of people shot. That means 9mm has higher "numer for rounds until incapacitation" only because it involves a bunch of police shooting done at further distances with more hits on extremeties.
- He scraped up things from news media, and lot of them does not tell where the hits are made, so there is a doubt of accurace regarding % of head or torso shots.
These are just things I notices from first glance. These are not obvious to you?
Whoever made those tables does not know the meaning of "control sample" when calculating comparison data, then this guy turns around and criticize Marshall and Sanow.
Scientifically sound?
Scientific? Because some guy scraped up some incident data and made up a table, and drew a conclusion based on flawed interpretatio of data? You must have some interesting definition of "scientifically."
Last edited:
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
As a retired Chemist and firearms instructor as well as many years in competitive shooting, I find his research sound. Your definition of "Scientific" leaves much to be desired, to say the least.
CoalTrain49
Member
I hear this "is 380 a marginal round" all the time. I guess it is for some. Chances are good they will never find out for sure because they refuse to be associated with it. Lots of people carry 380's. I did for a number of years because I tested the cartridge and I found the penetration was adequate for my needs. For me it's more about concealment and comfort. I shot my HK a lot and could dump a mag into a pie plate at 12 yards as fast as I could pull the trigger. Usually when any gun comes out and is fired the attacker looks for the nearest exit.
I would like to think that it's more of a personal thing, like your vehicle. For some a compact car does the job, for others they are too small. You can stop an attack with a 380. There are plenty of police reports that support this. That's why people carry them. Cops even carry them when they are off duty.
I would like to think that it's more of a personal thing, like your vehicle. For some a compact car does the job, for others they are too small. You can stop an attack with a 380. There are plenty of police reports that support this. That's why people carry them. Cops even carry them when they are off duty.
Does not explain how it is sound, in spite of all the glaring flaws I pointed out.
Only throws titles. Some Harvard Ph.D thinks Obamacare is a sound policy, so are you going to support Obamacare too?
I have seen some so called "instructors" spew some unbelievably stinky crap on more than one occasions.
I don't see how that is possible, since I never defined what "scientific" means, nor did I call some junk data "scientific" like you.
Last edited:
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
Coal Train, you are correct. People like him can not accept Science no matter how sound it is. We see people who even refuse to accept the fact that man is degrading his own biosphere with pollutants.
Yo Mama
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,230
Problem is "science" is just that! Reading Lipton, it's clear "science" is nothing more than a good old boys club that rejects anything that threatens the norm. Now it's more of a religion backed by a lot of money in an industrial complex that uses "science" to control policy and governance.
ok, back to the 380, it's ok
Not anymore! I've seen it in person, you have a different type of crazy now adays.
I never said people should not be carrying 380ACP. I carry one.
The difference between you and me is that I also accept that 380ACP has limitations in regards to incapacitation capability compared to stronger ammos, and you deny that because of nothing more than unscientific "It is my choice, so it cannot possibly have a negative, and I will grab at any junk data floating on internet(which even the person compling the data admits to its flaw) to defend it. Now bow before my instructor title!" attitude.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
You don't need to follow every crumb of information on the internet. Borrow a 380 and get some decent SD ammo like Fed Premium Tactical and test it yourself. Lots of tests have been made and 11" of penetration through 2 layers of denim into ballistic gel is common. You should get about the same results.
If you truly feel you need more than that then get a bigger hammer. Personally I always try to use the lightest hammer that will do the job. I never did prescribe to the bigger is always better theory. I have lots of hammers.
If you truly feel you need more than that then get a bigger hammer. Personally I always try to use the lightest hammer that will do the job. I never did prescribe to the bigger is always better theory. I have lots of hammers.
Last edited:
At the training facility I work for, ATK brought in a few hundred pounds of gelatin and a lot of ammo for testing.
.223, 9mm, 40, .45, 357 sig, and 10mm. No revolver rounds tested.
Penetration tests showed (other than the 10mm) everything pretty equal with respect to penetration and expansion. When asked why, the presenter stated that it was all specifically designed that way. ATK is making bullets for very specific purposes and very similar penetration depths. All to help protect LE in court when the attorneys start arguing that the officer should have used his handgun as opposed to a .223
The point of the tests were to point out to LE that the newer configurations of 9mm from a handgun were as effective as those shot from a 40. The ATK representative felt the added benefit of better shot placement due to lower recoil, extra rounds in mag, lower cost to departments, will all usher a return to the 9mm as the carry round of choice for a lot of LE agencies.
Testing was ending and someone asked if they could shoot their .380 Bodyguard backup gun loaded with SD rounds into the gel.
They were not even in the ballpark in any measure of our testing criteria. Backup maybe, but you better be very close and have great shot placement.
Not saying .380 won't do the job, but after seeing all the testing in person, my eyes were opened.
.223, 9mm, 40, .45, 357 sig, and 10mm. No revolver rounds tested.
Penetration tests showed (other than the 10mm) everything pretty equal with respect to penetration and expansion. When asked why, the presenter stated that it was all specifically designed that way. ATK is making bullets for very specific purposes and very similar penetration depths. All to help protect LE in court when the attorneys start arguing that the officer should have used his handgun as opposed to a .223
The point of the tests were to point out to LE that the newer configurations of 9mm from a handgun were as effective as those shot from a 40. The ATK representative felt the added benefit of better shot placement due to lower recoil, extra rounds in mag, lower cost to departments, will all usher a return to the 9mm as the carry round of choice for a lot of LE agencies.
Testing was ending and someone asked if they could shoot their .380 Bodyguard backup gun loaded with SD rounds into the gel.
They were not even in the ballpark in any measure of our testing criteria. Backup maybe, but you better be very close and have great shot placement.
Not saying .380 won't do the job, but after seeing all the testing in person, my eyes were opened.
TimSr
Member
Quote
I'm still waiting for anecdotal stories where a non-LEO civilian was attacked, and shot his attacker, but the attack proceeded sucessfully, where a more powerful round would likely have changed the outcome.
"Likely" being the operative word. Now, how many cases of a citizen shooting an attacker in the chest with a small caliber weapon, where the attacker proceeded and killed the citizen? In either case very rare. That is my point.
In my opinion, if shooting somebody in the chest with a .45 will end the attack 99% of the time, I believe shooting them in the chest with a .22 would end the attack 96% of the time. These aren't real numbers, but you get the gist of iit. I'm looking for evidence to suggest otherwise.
It is invalid to compare military and law enforcement or hutning data to civilian carry data because there is a different objective for the weapon.
Deer Hunting objective - kill the target, make it drop as quickly and humanely as possible, and/ or leave a good blood trail.
Military objective - unconditionally neutralize the target immediately.
LEO objective - pursue, stop, and capture the target (with superior force if met with resistance.)
Civilian objective - make the target go away, and if it doesn't go away, neutralize the immediate threat.
What could be very effective for one purpose, could be very ineffective for another.
The .380 is adequate for the civilian defense objective in except for the possibility of a few isolated and unlikely scenarios, and the fact that it would not be suitable or fail to perform well for other objectives is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for anecdotal stories where a non-LEO civilian was attacked, and shot his attacker, but the attack proceeded sucessfully, where a more powerful round would likely have changed the outcome.
"Likely" being the operative word. Now, how many cases of a citizen shooting an attacker in the chest with a small caliber weapon, where the attacker proceeded and killed the citizen? In either case very rare. That is my point.
In my opinion, if shooting somebody in the chest with a .45 will end the attack 99% of the time, I believe shooting them in the chest with a .22 would end the attack 96% of the time. These aren't real numbers, but you get the gist of iit. I'm looking for evidence to suggest otherwise.
It is invalid to compare military and law enforcement or hutning data to civilian carry data because there is a different objective for the weapon.
Deer Hunting objective - kill the target, make it drop as quickly and humanely as possible, and/ or leave a good blood trail.
Military objective - unconditionally neutralize the target immediately.
LEO objective - pursue, stop, and capture the target (with superior force if met with resistance.)
Civilian objective - make the target go away, and if it doesn't go away, neutralize the immediate threat.
What could be very effective for one purpose, could be very ineffective for another.
The .380 is adequate for the civilian defense objective in except for the possibility of a few isolated and unlikely scenarios, and the fact that it would not be suitable or fail to perform well for other objectives is irrelevant.
143 posts and still no definitive answer?
Minimal for requirements. Almost insufficient. Those are two definitions of marginal.
380 is a marginal caliber when compared to larger calibers. That doesn't mean it isn't effective, only that it isn't AS effective as some other calibers. I doubt anyone will argue that the .380 ROUND is more effective than the .357 ROUND. Sure we can discuss shot placement and target acquisition and follow up shots from now til eternity but we are talking about the .380 ROUND and its effectiveness or lack thereof.
I saw a video a year or so ago where a man got into a gunfight with a cop and was shot with a .45. He got back in the car, with his kids, and drove away before he died. Does that mean the .45 is marginal? I don't think so. I think it shows that shot placement is key and shot placement suffers when you are trying your best to avoid being killed.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that a 380 can, and does, do the job for self defense. Forget your bias and your thoughts or what you heard and look at actual studies and you will see that the 380 does okay in ACTUAL shootings. It isn't a military gun or a SWAT gun because those guys aren't after concealment which is where the 380 shines. In military and LEO situations they actively pursue a combatant. Do that is self defense and you will be in prison.
I carry a micro 9mm most of the time but I have a couple of pocket rockets in 380 that I occasionally carry. For IWB I carry a 9mm and I keep a Mak in my truck. All are designed to get me out of immediate danger. In my BR I have a revolver in 357 and a carbine by the bed. I keep a revolver because I assume I will be groggy and don't want to think much if I need it.
Minimal for requirements. Almost insufficient. Those are two definitions of marginal.
380 is a marginal caliber when compared to larger calibers. That doesn't mean it isn't effective, only that it isn't AS effective as some other calibers. I doubt anyone will argue that the .380 ROUND is more effective than the .357 ROUND. Sure we can discuss shot placement and target acquisition and follow up shots from now til eternity but we are talking about the .380 ROUND and its effectiveness or lack thereof.
I saw a video a year or so ago where a man got into a gunfight with a cop and was shot with a .45. He got back in the car, with his kids, and drove away before he died. Does that mean the .45 is marginal? I don't think so. I think it shows that shot placement is key and shot placement suffers when you are trying your best to avoid being killed.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that a 380 can, and does, do the job for self defense. Forget your bias and your thoughts or what you heard and look at actual studies and you will see that the 380 does okay in ACTUAL shootings. It isn't a military gun or a SWAT gun because those guys aren't after concealment which is where the 380 shines. In military and LEO situations they actively pursue a combatant. Do that is self defense and you will be in prison.
I carry a micro 9mm most of the time but I have a couple of pocket rockets in 380 that I occasionally carry. For IWB I carry a 9mm and I keep a Mak in my truck. All are designed to get me out of immediate danger. In my BR I have a revolver in 357 and a carbine by the bed. I keep a revolver because I assume I will be groggy and don't want to think much if I need it.
There is no suffucient data to make such assumptions.
There are plenty of cop shootings where criminals soaked up 9mm and above on torso, and still attacked the officer.
What makes you think a regular people with less than 9mm would fare better?
CoalTrain49
Member
I guess those folks want to get shot some more. If they insist on digesting a few more rounds I think I can oblige. I carry a knife also just in case they want some of that action too.
Last edited:
I can see now I made a mistake in the title of this thread.
It should have been "Is 380 Just A Marginal Round For Self Defense?"
The reason is, it seems that there are some people that think "Self Defense" includes shooting through barriers, car doors, windshields and other objects.
My interpretation of "Self Defense" is stopping an individual from attacking a person with would not require being able to penetrate barriers.
I can agree that pursuing a perp and possibly having to shoot through car doors and barriers might be necessary and therefore require more powerful ballistics, but that is not what the subject is about here.
It should have been "Is 380 Just A Marginal Round For Self Defense?"
The reason is, it seems that there are some people that think "Self Defense" includes shooting through barriers, car doors, windshields and other objects.
My interpretation of "Self Defense" is stopping an individual from attacking a person with would not require being able to penetrate barriers.
I can agree that pursuing a perp and possibly having to shoot through car doors and barriers might be necessary and therefore require more powerful ballistics, but that is not what the subject is about here.
.380 is a marginal penetrator with HP ammo w/o any barriers...
The very best .380 HPs barely make (or are just shy of) the 12" minimum. Unless we do a scientific study of shooting a statistically large enough sample size of death row inmates with different calibers and study the results, they will never be qualified in a concrete manner.
We do know what kind of wounds handguns make and we know how the body reacts to trauma. This is why the FBI chose to focus on the penetration side of the equation. Get at least 12" in gel and that should translate to at least 8" in a human which will help insure getting to the vital organs from different angles, bigger torsos and through an arm.
Hit the heart with a .22 or a .45 and the person will die. We know they will have about 7-30 seconds of conscious voluntary control left (plenty of time to kill you or run away-the reason there are so many failure to stop and multiple shot stops in the data regardless of caliber). We can assume incapacitation will be closer to the 7s than 30s with the .45 HP as it will blow a .7" dia hole in the heart resulting in quicker blood loss.
The main problem with the marginal calibers...is we can't necessarily assume they will even reach the heart from less than perfect frontal angles.
Only this year, with the testing and introduction of premium .380 choices that make the 12" minimum, would I consider a .380. With the best ammo available, they are getting it done pretty well. I may get a G42, but I'll still be carrying the P226 whenever I can and home defense will be a long gun.
The irony of the .380 is yes, the best HPs now are pretty darn good and shot placement is key. Yet, the trend in .380s is tiny little pocket guns that are incredibly difficult to shoot well at speed! So, we finally have good .380 ammo, but (if it is even selected) it is likely in a tiny hard to shoot gun.
The very best .380 HPs barely make (or are just shy of) the 12" minimum. Unless we do a scientific study of shooting a statistically large enough sample size of death row inmates with different calibers and study the results, they will never be qualified in a concrete manner.
We do know what kind of wounds handguns make and we know how the body reacts to trauma. This is why the FBI chose to focus on the penetration side of the equation. Get at least 12" in gel and that should translate to at least 8" in a human which will help insure getting to the vital organs from different angles, bigger torsos and through an arm.
Hit the heart with a .22 or a .45 and the person will die. We know they will have about 7-30 seconds of conscious voluntary control left (plenty of time to kill you or run away-the reason there are so many failure to stop and multiple shot stops in the data regardless of caliber). We can assume incapacitation will be closer to the 7s than 30s with the .45 HP as it will blow a .7" dia hole in the heart resulting in quicker blood loss.
The main problem with the marginal calibers...is we can't necessarily assume they will even reach the heart from less than perfect frontal angles.
Only this year, with the testing and introduction of premium .380 choices that make the 12" minimum, would I consider a .380. With the best ammo available, they are getting it done pretty well. I may get a G42, but I'll still be carrying the P226 whenever I can and home defense will be a long gun.
The irony of the .380 is yes, the best HPs now are pretty darn good and shot placement is key. Yet, the trend in .380s is tiny little pocket guns that are incredibly difficult to shoot well at speed! So, we finally have good .380 ammo, but (if it is even selected) it is likely in a tiny hard to shoot gun.
- Status
