Is 380 Just A Marginal Round?

The basic question "is 380 a marginal caliber?" is actually easily answered, and the answer is "No."

For around 6 decades .380 and .32 were the leading police round in Europe, and also saw extensive use in many other regions. Important to note is that FMJ was exclusively used. Some European countries still field the .380 for police work.

Terminal ballistics and defensive effectiveness were well tracked. It is not realistic to presume that all these modern countries adopted and continually renewed these cartridges without finding them effective.

The switch to 9mm was equal parts a desire for more power, and a desire to stay abreast of the military trends, and many departments use watered down 9mm loads that are within the range of the hotter .380 available.

Keep in mind that during the post WW2 era Russia and it's friends actually downgraded from the powerful 7.62x25 to 9x18. During this same period many other countries dropped their assorted long 9mm cases (9x20-23ish) some preferring the .380.

The trend towards tiny pocket pistols with ever shorter barrels starts to make the .380, 9x18, 9x19 comparison moot as most of the subcompact carry guns can't burn all the powder in any of these cases.

A better question might be "Is JHP or FMJ a better choice in .32 and .380?"

I know it was Hollywood, but you have to think about the 80+ years before the Death Wish series.
The .32 and the .380 both seemed to work fine. I don't think that has changed one bit over the last 40 years since the 1970s.

The only thing that is marginal is the logic in this thread. Having a gun on you is #1 when in a gunfight.

99.9% of the people replying in this thread have not and will not ever fire their CCW gun of choice at another human, most probably have in a foreign country, but it was GOVT issued. God forbid that any of us have to or have to use our CCW again.

100% of the people replying in this thread would not back up their words by taking one for the team to prove a .380 is marginal.

Also, you have compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges. A Beretta 84, 1911-.380 and a Bersa Thunder with their longer barrels and/or stiffer frames makes for a much better shooting and more "powerful" .380 ACP than a LCP, Kel-Tec, Bodyguard, or Diamond Back. IMO

I'd even carry a Beretta Tomcat 3032, or even a .22 LR version if I wanted. Until needed my service pistols will stay as home defense weapons.

Eb1 said:

100% of the people replying in this thread would not back up their words by taking one for the team to prove a .380 is marginal.

Click to expand...

Flawed logic, Eb.

I also wouldn't want to get hit by a BB, a paintball, a piece of gravel, a cup of urine, or a piece of dried up poo, but that doesn't prove them to be an adequate choice for self-defense either.

The argument in favor of caliber x that no one would volunteer to be shot by one followed by the rebuttal that "I wouldn't want to shot by a BB, etc., etc." has appeared on countless forums so many times that it loses its potency. First of all, no sane person would volunteer to be shot with any caliber. Secondly, to compare a .380 acp to a BB, a rock, or flung poo is absurd.

Clearly, the .380, of which I am a fan, performs at the lower margin of most commonly accepted defense performance parameters. By that definition it has to be considered marginal. Many consider those parameters too stringent for civilian defense situations. If that is so, the .380 is above marginal. It is not and never will be a powerhouse and the 9mm will always be more powerful. What a surprise. The question is, is it enough? Each person answers that for himself and no one will know unless and until the day arrives when it must be employed in defense of life and limb.

It's fascinating how much interest and passion the topic has generated.

Gary A said:

The argument in favor of caliber x that no one would volunteer to be shot by one followed by the rebuttal that "I wouldn't want to shot by a BB, etc., etc." has appeared on countless forums so many times that it loses its potency. First of all, no sane person would volunteer to be shot with any caliber. Secondly, to compare a .380 acp to a BB, a rock, or flung poo is absurd.

Click to expand...

Then you missed my point. I never compared the .380 to any of those things.

I simply pointed out that the over-simplified criteria of someone's unwillingness to be subjected to an unpleasant, painful, or injurious object makes it an adequate choice for self-defense is flawed logic.

From a .22 short to a .500 magnum, caliber simply does not matter for the purposes of self defense against human attackers.

If the bullet can penetrate deep enough to reach vitals, than it will be effective IF you can place it where it needs to go. No amount of tissue damage will increase this effect, any increased hemorrhaging will hardly matter in the short few seconds of a life saving shooting scenario. The only sure incapacitation, time NOW, is to hit the CNS or cardiovascular engine, i.e. the heart.

So yes, .380 is fine for self defense. In fact, realistically speaking, it is of the same "stopping power" (a fictitious term) as any other commonly used self defense cartridge.

If the bullet can penetrate deep enough to reach vitals, than it will be effective IF you can place it where it needs to go. No amount of tissue damage will increase this effect, any increased hemorrhaging will hardly matter in the short few seconds of a life saving shooting scenario. The only sure incapacitation, time NOW, is to hit the CNS or cardiovascular engine, i.e. the heart.

Click to expand...

This is simply not true.

Cooldill said:

From a .22 short to a .500 magnum, caliber simply does not matter for the purposes of self defense against human attackers.

If the bullet can penetrate deep enough to reach vitals, than it will be effective IF you can place it where it needs to go. No amount of tissue damage will increase this effect, any increased hemorrhaging will hardly matter in the short few seconds of a life saving shooting scenario. The only sure incapacitation, time NOW, is to hit the CNS or cardiovascular engine, i.e. the heart.

So yes, .380 is fine for self defense. In fact, realistically speaking, it is of the same "stopping power" (a fictitious term) as any other commonly used self defense cartridge.

Click to expand...

So you are saying a .380 is the same as a 12 gauge shotgun with buckshot at close range? I mean same penetration, right?

Now about this 'placing it where it's needed', lots of luck on that with someone trying to kill you in low light in a surprise engagement.

Please understand in a fight things don't always go according to plan.

And that is why one carries the largest caliber gun they can shoot and carry(concealed if need be.)

If all you can carry and shoot well is a .380 then ok, but if you can handle something bigger and carry it, do so.

Deaf

There is nothing inherently wrong with comparing the .380 to every other round since those rounds are viable options for those of us who wish to consider them. The question, "Can 380 Get The Job Done?", just asks the question in a more direct way but gets the same answer: Sure the .380 can get the job done but there are more powerful cartridges that give us greater latitude and versatility in accomplishing that task.

Cooldill said:

From a .22 short to a .500 magnum, caliber simply does not matter for the purposes of self defense against human attackers.

If the bullet can penetrate deep enough to reach vitals, than it will be effective IF you can place it where it needs to go. No amount of tissue damage will increase this effect, any increased hemorrhaging will hardly matter in the short few seconds of a life saving shooting scenario. The only sure incapacitation, time NOW, is to hit the CNS or cardiovascular engine, i.e. the heart.

So yes, .380 is fine for self defense. In fact, realistically speaking, it is of the same "stopping power" (a fictitious term) as any other commonly used self defense cartridge.

Click to expand...

.22 Short through .500 Magnum sure covers a lot of terminal performance territory -so that blanket statement about caliber not mattering for the purposes of self defense against human attackers is questionable.

Increasing tissue damage (assuming that we are talking about the correct tissue) is how bullets work, so increasing it is likely to bring about that effect more quickly than not.

Get exactly what job done?

Self defense encompasses so much. One assailant? Two? Three?

Night? Day?

Close quarters? Moving?

Shooting back at ya?

Deaf

These discussions so often evolve into increasingly exaggerated examples of possible situations that the envelope becomes stretched to the point that it is difficult to distinguish between hyperbole and serious statements.

For many years, pocket pistols have been .22, .25. .32, and, in larger examples, .380 and .38 special. The exceptional person who always carried a 1911 or an N-frame revolver was probably as rare as today. Most people, by most accounts, have carried or do carry small or smallish pocket pistols, with J-frame size revolvers (and smaller) being the long-time Kings. Clearly the pocket .380s are a power and bullet weight advancement over .22s, .25s, and .32s. They suffer the same disadvantage over the smaller calibers as small 9s over the larger .380s - more recoil. Most people carrying small .380s are arguably as well-armed, or nearly so, as people carrying small .38s, or at least are not giving up a great deal of protection and are gaining capacity. They are almost certainly better-armed than people in the past carrying even smaller calibers.

The rise of the pocket 9 has certainly expanded the envelope of what is possible but the average gun carrier is demonstrably better-armed today with his small .380 than the average gun carrier at nearly any time over the past hundred years. We should applaud the progress.

Where are the moderators? Kill this

Speer 90gr JHP,
Shot 1-.625" expansion, 13.8" penetration
Shot 2-NO expansion, 16+" penetration
Shot 3 -.375 expansion, 16+" penetration
Shot 4-NO expansion-clogged,16+"penetration

Click to expand...

I have no problem with 380 in FMJ. Isn't 16 inches the qualifier in the FBI test?

http://rugerpistolforums.com/forums/ammo-cache/11886-380-ammo-ballistic-gel-test.html

gun_with_a_view said:

I have no problem with 380 in FMJ. Isn't 16 inches the qualifier in the FBI test?

http://rugerpistolforums.com/forums/ammo-cache/11886-380-ammo-ballistic-gel-test.html

Click to expand...

You are putting your faith in a 'test' by the same people who picked the 10mm, .40 S&W, 9mm, .38 spl., back and forth.

Their 'test' is simply to justify their 9mm. When it fails on the street they will just do some more 'test' to justify their next pick.

in reality they are picking the 9mm due to lower cost of weapons, ammo, easier to train recruits and qualify them. This 16 inch of penetration does not take into account many things.

Just wait a few years and they will have more of these 'test' for their next justification.

Deaf

I have no problem with 380 in FMJ. Isn't 16 inches the qualifier in the FBI test?

Click to expand...

If 380 ball ammo gives you warm fuzzys thats fine I shot way too many small game animals with lead round nose and FMJ 38s to get very much comfort level from the tiny holes left behind.
I mean really even if you haven't hunted surely the visual difference between a 380 FMJ and a 45 SWC can be readily seen in a paper target.

The FBI seems to be satisfied with 16" of penetration

Click to expand...

They also require it to be in conjunction with reliable expansion through their battery of tests.
The FBI doesn't issue 380s

kokapelli said:

The FBI seems to be satisfied with 16" of penetration, is that just to justify the're position?

Click to expand...

The FBI has been 'satisfied' with alot over the years to justify their positions.

Like I said, wait till a spectacular 9mm fail and they will do another study.


Do note the old .38 special 'widow maker' 158 gr rnl as that golden 16 inches of penetration.

So does the 9x25 turk, .30 Luger, etc...

Deaf

Their 'test' is simply to justify their 9mm. When it fails on the street they will just do some more 'test' to justify their next pick.

Click to expand...

This statement is not true.

One of the findings of the 3-day Wound Ballistic Workshop, held at the FBI Academy on September 15-17, 1987 was that "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity"

In HANDGUN WOUNDING FACTORS AND EFFECTIVENESS the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit stated:

"The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity."

"While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet must reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft tissue at a minimum, regardless if it expands or not. If the bullet does not penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use."

The FBI has has never retracted or modified that statement, nor have they ever changed the objective criteria used in testing, not have they altered the test media or test media formulation.

Nor have they ever issued .380 ACP to their agents, "It is critical because of that which is at stake when an officer is required to use his handgun to protect his own life or that of another".

I, at one time, shot a Walther PPS in .40 S&W. A great caliber and a reliable brand. But the recoil on this weapon is fierce.

I also owned a Styre in .40 but it was unreliable. Any semi that only functions correctly 95% of the time is not acceptable.

I have used several Berettas in 9mm, another trustworthy name, but the ergonomics of the pistols I used did not suit my smallish hands.

I have shot the Bersa and Bodyguard in .380 without missing a beat. They have their own interesting set of characteristics. Many do not like them.

I think in considering selection of caliber that the meld between gun fit and cartridge size must always be considered. If the gun is comfortable and you can hit the target with it a .380 semi is better than a 9mm that you can not grip correctly or a .40 that bucks in your hand.

Obviously, bigger is better in terms of what actually happens when the projectile does its job but that is not the question here.

So, I leave the answer to the experts. It should be clear to all of us that the .380 is recognized as THE MINIMUM effective defensive handgun caliber for self defense. These people have studied the .380 from every conceivable angle and have come to this conclusion.

My thinking is that if I can find one that fits, is reliable, has a high capacity, and is in my price range it is an acceptable choice for me.

It should be clear to all of us that the .380 is recognized as THE MINIMUM effective defensive handgun caliber for self defense. These people have studied the .380 from every conceivable angle and have come to this conclusion.

Click to expand...

Who are 'these people' kemosabe?

Deaf

'these people' = them duh

I find it amusing that "the .380 is recognized as THE MINIMUM effective defensive handgun caliber for self defense." and yet people have still used 22s, 25s and 32s for self defense over and over.