Does the .380 really have enough stopping power?

SniperStraz,

I'm glad you used the words "stopping power" rather than knock down power. In my opinion/view no defensive pistol has knock down power. If it did it would also knock down the shooter.

The 380 acp is weaker than the 9mm, the 40S&W , 45acp, and 10mm.

Jeff Cooper was going to be an expert witness in a case where the DA was prosecuting the shooter in a case where the shooter shot the deceased 8 times with a 380. The DA's view of the case was that the shooter wanted to kill the victim. That the shooter put 8 bullets into the victim proved to the DA that the shooter wanted to kill him; that putting 8 bullets in the guy was excessive force.

Cooper reviewed the autopsy and heard the shooter's story and concluded that it was necessary to hit the guy 8 times to stop him. All 8 bullets entered the bad guy while he was standing up and entered the front of the target. The weapon was a Beretta that held 14 rounds. The shooter ended up having to endure the stress and expense of two trials before being found not guilty.

While a 380 is better than nothing it is not much smaller than a 9mm (which I would not personally chose to bet my life on either).

I was on patrol as a sheriff's deputy once when I came upon the aftermath of a shooting. The victim was face down with a bunch of little holes in his sides and back. He was about 6'9", 280 pounds, 23 year old male. He had tried to run from the shooter. The shooter put eight or nine 25 acp bullets into the victim as they ran all around a parking lot. As they lifted the victim onto the stretcher one of the bullets fell out of his t-shirt. Good penetration.
(Somehow the jury found the shooter not guilty by reason of self-defense!!)

The 25acp was enough to kill the guy. Would you choose to carry a 25acp?

SniperStraz
Does it have sufficient power to quickly drop a man?

Click to expand...

No. Not reliably.

Even mouse guns have the potential to penetrate clean through you. With this FACT out in the open, it is apparent that SHOT PLACEMENT is all that matters.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that it is all that matters, though I would say that it is what matters most. A larger, heavier bullet, especially if it expands, will produce both a larger permanent wound channel, as well as a temporary wound cavity. What that means is that while you still have to place your shots accurately, you have a slightly greater margin of error with a larger caliber, firing heavier and/or higher velocity projectiles. If this were not so, we'd all carry .22s.

If this were not so, we'd all carry .22s.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to spend your life in jail any SD shooting is going to be up close. The reason people don't carry .22's is because compacts jam on rimfire. I'd gladly carry a 10 oz hi-cap reliable hi-cap pistol if they made one.

If you don't want to spend your life in jail any SD shooting is going to be up close. The reason people don't carry .22's is because compacts jam on rimfire. I'd gladly carry a 10 oz hi-cap reliable hi-cap pistol if they made one.

Click to expand...

Then explain why we don't carry .25s in that case. Stopping power out of a pistol is pretty close to the same between a .22LR and a .25ACP, as close as makes no practical difference anyway, and the .25 isn't a rimfire. No, I'm afraid lack of stopping power does have something to do with it as well.

There are also multiple stories of people being shot dozens of times with a 9mm P handgun. Yet, we don't hear about it's lack of power. How many times one is shot is often dependent more on the capacity of the gun, than on the lethality of the bullet. It's a proven fact that a minimally trained shooter can empty a high-capacity semi-auto in a couple of seconds. It's empty often before the perp hits the ground.

We had to physically restrain a man who had been shot five times, COM, with 9mm +P+ JHP, from Beretta Model 92s. He lived to stand trial. That's 124 gr. +P+, at a range of less than 15 yards, from a full-size pistol. That doesn't make the 9mm, even a +P+, sound like a good self-defense caliber, now does it?

We don't all carry .25 ACP pistols because we've been told that they don't work. Even though they were commonly thought of as sufficient by entire generations of people 75 years ago. The same goes for the .32 ACP and .380 ACP for personal protection.

It's not like a reasonable person is going to face an entire Chapter of Hell's Angels, or MS13. Yet, we hear about bullet performance on sheet-metal and auto-glass, and how carrying spare guns and magazines might be necessary. If I believed half-of the reasoning espoused here, I'd be a civilian American walking the streets of Somalia, not in America.

I don't see why we're all not lugging MP5Ks under trench-coats 24/7, if the "scenarios" envisioned here were in the least bit realistic.

Sure, just make sure you have good shot placement.

What is stopping power in a handgun mean???? I am confused.......

I don't carry a .25 because it really is a pipsqueak cartridge with no stopping power. I have personal knowledge of a case where a husband shot his wife's lover with one, in the face, and the guy lived. The .25 bullet broke his front tooth and lodged in the upper palate, but penetrated no deeper. Needless to say, the guy lived.

Sure you can kill someone with a .25. Even that tiny bullet, if it hits a major artery, or some other vital part of the body, will kill. A .32 or .380 can do the same thing. And it's also true that ALL handguns are underpowered. One of the training videos they show in my department is of a state trooper (I beleive from SC, but I can't remember the state for certain) who got in a shootout at the scene of a traffic stop. He emptied his .357 at the bad guy, and put five out six shots into the torso. The bad guy lived. The bad guy, armed with one of those tiny North American Arms single action .22 revolvers, shot the trooper twice, and killed the trooper. One of the bullets missed the trooper's ballistic vest (it went through the arm opening after it passed through the trooper's arm) and hit the aorta. The trooper bled out internally within two minutes and died at the scene. Two hits with a .22 LR vs. five with a .357 magnum, and the .22 proved more deadly in this case, because even those five torso hits from the .357 failed to hit anything truly vital. That sort of thing happens.

But having said that, a .22, or any really small, underpowered cartridge is still less than optimal. Because while you can find incidents like this, it's still only one incident. When you look at a large number of shootings, you can see a pattern of larger, more powerful calibers tending to be more effective. Put simply, across a large sample of cases, more people will fall to a .45 ACP or .357 magnum than to a .32 or a .25.

This is because a bullet must to two things to incapacitate a human target: it must 1) penetrate deeply enough into the body to hit something vital to the body's ability to continue functioning, and 2) it must do enough damage to that vital something to impair the body's ability to continue functioning, and do it quickly (it doesn't help you if your assailant is mortally wounded but isn't incapacitated before he is able to complete his attack and kill you).

Now bearing all this in mind, and acknowledging that even small, non-expanding bullets can accomplish both these tasks (at least some of the time), and further acknowledging that even larger, heavier, expanding bullets can and do fail to accomplish these two essential tasks some of the time, the fact is that larger, heavier, expanding bullets do the job more consistently, and there are mountains of evidence out there to indicate that this is so.

Now another practical consideration arises: controllability. If bigger is better, why aren't we carrying handguns loaded for the .50BMG? Well obviously, with handguns, there comes a point when the power of the cartridge becomes so great that it impairs the shooter's ability to control the gun, especially for rapid follow up shots if the first misses or fails to incapacitate, and this is why, Dirty Harry notwithstanding, the .44 magnum is not optimal for self defense use.

A couple of centuries' accumulated experience has given us enough evidence that the best balance of power and controllability is achieved with calibers, bullet weights, and velocities within a certain range. Tiny calibers like the .22 LR and .25 ACP fall below that range. Large, powerful cartridges like the .44 magnum and .454 casull exceed it. So while you possibly can (and some people have) successfully defend your life with a tiny little cartridge like the .25 or .22, you'll increase your odds with something a little bigger and more powerful. And when you consider that your one and only life is on the line should you find yourself involved in a gunfight, it really only makes sense to use something more powerful, and stack the odds in your favor as much as you possibly can. The .380 ACP is at the lower end of this optimal range, which is why many call it the minimum acceptable caliber. Perhaps drawing the line here is somewhat arbitrary, and it's certainly true that determining stopping power is at best a very inexact science, which is why debate about it rages to this day. But I think there is enough evidence to support the conclusion that you are best advised to stay within the optimal power/controllability range, in order to increase your odds of prevailing as much as possible.

And when you consider that your one and only life is on the line should you find yourself involved in a gunfight, it really only makes sense to use something more powerful, and stack the odds in your favor as much as you possibly can.

Click to expand...

This, and the line about more expensive guns and what's your life worth are both red herrings.

The simple fact is that a pistol must be concealable for the majority of the carriers. Caliber takes a back seat to availability, period.

Consider, some of the micro guns that were nominally sized years ago in .380 or .32 are now available in 9mm, .40S&W, or .45 ACP. Small revolvers, once the home of the .32 S&W are now available in .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, or small .44 Magnums. Many of these little guns are capable of recoil approaching the Magnums in full-size guns, only using less powerful cartridges. That would bring up the issue that was mentioned of follow-up shots.

The first rule of gun-fighting is to have a gun. The second is to have the largest gun that you can conceal, and control. Denigrating choices requires that we ignore the dress, physical stature, and health of the individual. That just doesn't make good sense.

This, and the line about more expensive guns and what's your life worth are both red herrings.

Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong. A red herring is an attempt to divert the argument with an irrelevant argument. How is a discussion of what is at stake in a gunfight (your life) irrelevant to the question of whether or not the caliber selected is sufficient to the task at hand? It's directly relevant.

The simple fact is that a pistol must be concealable for the majority of the carriers. Caliber takes a back seat to availability, period.

Click to expand...

And pistols concealable for the majority of users ARE available in decent calibers and at suitable prices for almost ANY user. A Kel Tec P3AT or a Ruger LCP in .380ACP is so small, that no .25 will really conceal any better, whatever the method of carry used, and the Kel Tec is furthermore so inexpensive that there is nothing else that will accomodate a limited budget any better, so what reason is there left to carry a .25 or .22? And if something a bit larger can be carried, Glock, Kahr, Smith & Wesson (J frame .38), and other companies produce very concealable, very lightweight handguns, which are as convenient to carry (and thus are as likely to be carried) as anything available is, and which chamber calibers within the "ideal" stopping power/controllability range. Finally, none of these guns I have mentioned is at all uncontrollable for the vast majority of shooters. In short, the argument that you should carry a peashooter because you can't get anything better really doesn't hold up. Better guns are out there, and they are both concealable and affordable, nor are they hard-kicking blasters that cannot be controlled.

"Does the .380 have enough stopping power?"

That's sort of a general question. Enough stopping power to stop what? A charging bear? A person hiped up on uppers or adrenaline with much physical strength and size? Against the average jerk trying to rob you or otherwise make you a victim?

According to results the .380 is enough to stop most potential attackers who are average willed, skilled and built. I consider it the lowest baseline of handgun power for serious defensive use.

However if against a really determined, strong attacker, or if a charging animal of considerable size was after me in the back of my mind I feel it might not be enough to stop them before I got hurt. I might consider running away shooting, if given the opportunity.

Aged thread that had to get a new answer?

CoRoMo said:

Aged thread that had to get a new answer?

Click to expand...

No kidding, but it is nice to know that I haven't gotten any more stupid over the past two years.

I do not understand why someone would chose a weaker round in the same size package. There are guns available in 9mm and 40S&W that are the same size as a 380acp.

Kahr makes some.

Kahr .380 ACP (Polymer Frame Model)
Model P380
Caliber .380 ACP
Capacity 6+1
Operation Trigger cocking DAO; lock breech; "Browning - type" recoil lug; passive striker block; no magazine disconnect
Barrel 2.5", Premium Lothar Walther Match Grade Barrel
Length O/A 4.9"
Height 3.9"
Slide Width .75"
Weight Pistol 9.97 ounces (w/o magazine)

Kahr (9mm Polymer Frame Model)
Model PM9
Caliber: 9mm
Capacity: 7+1 (magazine with grip extension)
Operation: Trigger cocking DAO; lock breech; "Browning - type" recoil lug; passive striker block; no magazine disconnect
Barrel: polygonal rifling; 3.0", polygonal rifling; 1 - 10 right-hand twist
Length O/A: 5.3"
Height: 4.0"
Slide Width: .90"
Weight: Pistol 14 ounces


Kahr (.40 S&W Polymer Frame Models)
Model PM40
Caliber: .40 S&W
Capacity: 5+1, 6+1 (magazine with grip extension)
Operation: Trigger cocking DAO; lock breech; "Browning - type" recoil lug; passive striker block; no magazine disconnect
Barrel: 3.0", polygonal rifling; 1 - 16 right-hand twist
Length O/A: 5.35"
Height: 4.0"
Slide Width: .94"
Weight: Pistol 15.8 ounces

You have a 10oz, a 14,oz and a 16 oz gun.
You have a 380acp, 9mm para, 40S&W.
All of them are about the same length, height and width.
Is weight more of a concern than bringing enough gun to a gunfight?

"Does it have sufficient power to quickly drop a man?"

This 380 had enough power to punch through the deer's lower rib cage bone and pass through the heart and off side rib cage bone to be recovered under the skin

Looks like a lucky shot that hit no bone. Am I correct?

A bullet with more mass will not be affected as much by hitting a rib bone or breast cage and will crunch through more easily. A less massive bullet is more likely to bounce off or divert its path and cause less damage than a larger, heavier bullet traveling at the same speed. The weaker .380 perhaps allowing the perp time to give you a fatal stab to the heart or a fatal shot to a vital organ.

Handguns are weak by the laws of physics and when given the choice I will carry the largest, most powerful caliber possible to do my best at countering this, futile as it may be. A 230gr. .45acp at its typical speed will do a lot better job at stopping a man than a typical 95gr. .380acp. But both are less than ideal.

It may not look as damaged as some but it did hit a rib going in and knicked a rib on the exit side. Range was about 2 yards. total travel in the deer was about 7 to 8 inches.

The handgun was a Walther ppks and the deer had to be put down due to a less than ideal spine shot

There was an article in the XD forum yesterday by an ex-cop who now works in the Atlanta morgue and takes part in hundreds of autopsies every year. This is a long, major entry on the effectiveness of various calibers and bullet designs by someone who digs out bullets, records the wounds, gathers evidence, etc. from real dead humans. This is where the rubber really hits the road and far exceeds the theories, opinions and wild guesses so often seen in net forums.
Very, very strongly recommended!! Look for 40 S&W versus 45 ACP. It was in the 45 forum but may have been moved to another forum. You will find this is the real stuff. Many sacred cows slaughtered.

Absolutely wrong. A red herring is an attempt to divert the argument with an irrelevant argument. How is a discussion of what is at stake in a gunfight (your life) irrelevant to the question of whether or not the caliber selected is sufficient to the task at hand? It's directly relevant.

Click to expand...

Because it all proposes that you are the arbiter of "what's enough".

And pistols concealable for the majority of users ARE available in decent calibers and at suitable prices for almost ANY user.

Click to expand...

That, on the other hand is simply the result of not reading what is posted.

Consider, some of the micro guns that were nominally sized years ago in .380 or .32 are now available in 9mm, .40S&W, or .45 ACP. Small revolvers, once the home of the .32 S&W are now available in .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, or small .44 Magnums. Many of these little guns are capable of recoil approaching the Magnums in full-size guns, only using less powerful cartridges. That would bring up the issue that was mentioned of follow-up shots.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that this was ignored because it posed a more difficult question. The sad fact is that these little blasters recoil as much as larger guns in Magnum calibers do, or worse. This causes problems in practicing with the gun, and in follow-up shots. They, in semi-auto form, are also less reliable than larger versions of these guns.

The world is not always occupied by he-men, capable of handling J-frame .357 Mags, of mini 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP guns. Instead, it's mostly occupied by people who just want protection in that once in a life-time occasion. The super-guns aren't for them, but they are looking for something that will work, and will always be with them. Yes, to answer the question, weight CAN be a consideration. Especially when the weights can nearly DOUBLE when loaded (always a good idea if you would use it).

Again, these rounds under discussion also lose quite a bit of velocity, and power, when shot out of sub-3" barrels. However, we never seem to get around to that. Some will not expand at velocities much under 800-900 fps, and even then expand less than designed.

The real answers here are that you pick your caliber, weapon, and ammunition. You need to practice with it, and have the weapon WITH you. If some of us feel that we're going to ask a gang of MS-13 to "take it outside", then they'll NEED all of the power, ammo, and spare guns that they carry. The average citizen, on the other hand, isn't going to find themselves in that situation. They will, instead, find themselves involved in a couple of shots, at less than 7 yards, front on to the unarmored perp, normally in low-light conditions. They'll NEED to HIT, because you can't miss fast enough with your snub .500 S&W to win.

I do not understand why someone would chose a weaker round in the same size package. There are guns available in 9mm and 40S&W that are the same size as a 380acp.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone but myself, so I'll just give my reason for carrying a .380 in a fairly large (Sig P232) package.

I own three concealed carry guns: a HK P2000SK (9mm), Sig P232 (.380), and a Beretta Tomcat (.32). Each of these guns has it's place and I bought each for a specific purpose.

The P2000SK obviously has the greatest firepower of the three. I originally had a USP compact in .40 S&W but found the grip frame too be too large for my liking. I always felt as if it would print when I would move a certain way, and in Florida a firearm carried on your person MUST be concealed. So i opted for the P2000SK and stepped down to 9mm so practice ammo would be cheaper. While I like the gun, and it conceals acceptably, I can barely get a full grip even with the magazine finger extension, so it is a bit less controllable for me than my former USPc.

Because of the fixed barrel / blowback design of the Sig P232, I have a pistol that measures only 4.7" high and I can still get a full grip on it. However, the reason I carry this the most is because f all the pistols I have ever shot, I find the Sig P232 to be the most naturally pointing and controllable of all (for me). I can get better groups at 20 yards with this gun than I can at 10 with any compact pistol (or full size for that matter). THAT is the answer to your question. Yeah, it's "only a .380," but it's all about shot placement, right? How many times have we heard that one? I can get 3" offhand with this one at 15 yards. I'm lucky if I manage 5" groups with anything else.

As a side note, the Tomcat is what I carry when, for whatever reason I cannot carry one of the other two. For example, I carry the Tomcat at work in a pocket holster because concealment is an absolute must. I will lose my job if I am ever "made" at work, so I will not carry IWB where the potential for printing is there.

The fact of the matter is that the .22 caliber round kills more Americans than any other caliber... Look it up kids.

That just makes this entire thread akin to mental masturbation. The point you make here might make you feel good, but it does no one else any good.

The fact of the matter is that the .22 caliber round kills more Americans than any other caliber... Look it up kids.

Click to expand...

Nice try.

The space shuttles have traveled more miles safely than any car. That must make them the safest mode of transportation, huh? Uh, no. We've had what, 120 missions? Two of which ended catastrophically. That's almost a 2% chance that any given trip will be disastrous.

The bottom line is that we're looking at percentages here. What is the likelihood of a one shot stop for a .22? a .380? The total numbers don't mean ****. The very best load for a .22LR has a one shot stop percentage of 27%, whereas the best defensive load for a .380 has a 71% one shot stop percentage.

Because it all proposes that you are the arbiter of "what's enough".

Click to expand...

In what way does stating a self evident fact (i.e. that your very life is at stake in a gunfight) propose that I am the "arbiter of 'what's enough'?"

Reminding people that the stakes in a gunfight are as high as they get is simply food for thought, and since this is the case, serious thought ought to be given to selecting the best available tool for the job. And when you look at it in that light, certain considerations stand out as more clearly important than others. This is just common sense.

That, on the other hand is simply the result of not reading what is posted.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I read every word.

I'm guessing that this was ignored because it posed a more difficult question. The sad fact is that these little blasters recoil as much as larger guns in Magnum calibers do, or worse.

Click to expand...

It was ignored because I have not anywhere advocated carrying guns of that level of power. On the contrary, I paid due consideration to the issue of controllability. It looks like you are the one not reading carefully. None of the guns I mentioned (Kel Tec P3At, Ruger LCP, S&W J frame 38, Kahr 9mm, etc.) falls into that uncontrollable category.

This causes problems in practicing with the gun, and in follow-up shots. They, in semi-auto form, are also less reliable than larger versions of these guns.

The world is not always occupied by he-men, capable of handling J-frame .357 Mags, of mini 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP guns.

Click to expand...

When I specifically mention the J frame .38 as a wholly viable self defense choice, why are you talking about the J frame .357? Where have I advocated carrying the most powerful caliber available in a given size? I wish you could tell me, because I seem to remember acknowledging that there were some guns that had too much recoil to be optimum for self defense, and I seem to recall that none of the ones I specifically mentioned fall into this category.

Instead, it's mostly occupied by people who just want protection in that once in a life-time occasion. The super-guns aren't for them, but they are looking for something that will work, and will always be with them. Yes, to answer the question, weight CAN be a consideration. Especially when the weights can nearly DOUBLE when loaded (always a good idea if you would use it).

Again, these rounds under discussion also lose quite a bit of velocity, and power, when shot out of sub-3" barrels. However, we never seem to get around to that. Some will not expand at velocities much under 800-900 fps, and even then expand less than designed.

The real answers here are that you pick your caliber, weapon, and ammunition. You need to practice with it, and have the weapon WITH you. If some of us feel that we're going to ask a gang of MS-13 to "take it outside", then they'll NEED all of the power, ammo, and spare guns that they carry. The average citizen, on the other hand, isn't going to find themselves in that situation. They will, instead, find themselves involved in a couple of shots, at less than 7 yards, front on to the unarmored perp, normally in low-light conditions. They'll NEED to HIT, because you can't miss fast enough with your snub .500 S&W to win.

Click to expand...

Now here are red herrings. I never mentioned taking on large number of criminal street gang members or other such fantasy scenarios, so this sort of thing is indeed irrelevant (not to mention the fact that you are certainly being unnecessarily contentious). I'm talking strictly about real world scenarios likely to be faced by an ordinary armed citizen. And in such situations, the so called "typical" armed confrontation, if there is such a thing (e.g. occurring in low light, at a distance of less than seven yards, facing one opponent, etc.), I stand by my assertion that there ARE calibers that are simply poor choices. Yes I will concede that even a .25 is better than no gun at all. What I will not concede is that the .25 is something you ought to settle for since there are guns out there that are just as concealable, just as controllable, and just as affordable, yet offer greater power, and thus the greater likelihood of achieving quick incapacitation of the threat. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, when you can pick up a Kel Tec P3AT, for example, for a price as low as or lower than that of ANY decent quality handgun, when this gun is, for all practical intents and purposes, every bit as small and concealable as any .25 or .22 handgun is, and when the recoil from this gun is entirely within reasonable limits, and the gun can indeed be effectively controlled during rapid fire by a competent user, then it is manifestly true that you are unnecessarily taking on extra risks by using a less effective gun. And given that your very life is at stake in a gunfight, why would you ever want to do this? And if the occasion or your attire permits stepping up to something a bit bigger (but still entirely controllable and affordable) such as, say, a Kahr Mk9, a Glock 26, or a Smith & Wesson Model 40 in .38 special, why would you not want to avail yourself of the opportunity to carry something with an even greater likelihood of quickly neutralizing the threat?

Help me to understand this, because I really am having a hard time grasping this thought process.

5 pages and still no agreement on an old thread. how boring. Solution, volunteers need to go down range and take a hit from a 380, now that would be the difinative answer( Yes Sarcasm is intended)