Bullet penetration...."Eight inches, which isn't good."

That would work if your body was made of ballistic gel. The gelatin blocks are a standard medium so you can make an apples to apples comparison of one round to another. It's not an approximation for human or animal tissue. Animals have bones, muscle, fat, and variations within those categories, so you can't make a one-to-one projection of performance on an animal based on ballistic get tests.

You can, however, get a comparison between two different rounds that can help you make an educated prediction of which round will penetrate farther. I don't trust ballistic gel too much when it comes to expansion though.

I think we take the need for velocity a little too seriously. I think a .380 would be pretty effective. I'm not sure why you think the round will expand though. I wish I knew, definitely, what the velocity for expansion really was . . .

Because the FBI says it has to be 12 inches to be "good." That's why.

But seriously, that is the standard set so that is what ammo manufacturers and buyers try to achieve. It is my understanding that 12" is to account for shots through the body at odd angles or through the arm and torso of large folks etc.

I would probably be happy with 8" & full expansion in my own defensive carry, at least for backups and dress clothes carry.

The concern has more to do with versatility, I believe. 8" in ballistic gel would be quite effective if shot at an attacker in most cases. However, compared to others with penetration of greater than 8" in ballistics gel, you run the risk of ineffective shots in some cases. If the initial impact is an arm, for example, or if heavy clothes are being warn, etc. It's more about probability. If something penetrates 12 inches, then it is more likely to be effective in a greater % of instances. Arbitrary lines in the sand are drawn by all of us as to what is an acceptable probability of effectiveness and whoever you saw puts .380 behind that line.

Then, of course, you get into overpenetration which results in those arbitrary lines of preference coming from the other direction as well. Some are ruled out for not being effective in a high enough number of cases, and some are ruled out for being "overkill" or "too effective."

I think we take the need for velocity a little too seriously.

Click to expand...

To me, SD is a serious topic. If I need my gun to protect myself or a loved one, I need it now, and I need it to work. Part of it's effectiveness will be comprised of reliability, another part shot placement, and still another part penetration. There are plenty of areas in my life where I'll shrug my shoulders and go "Eh, it's good enough." Protecting me and mine isn't one.

It's already been said, but 8" in ballistic gel isn't the same as 8" in human tissue. It's a testing medium geared for consistency, not a simulated human target.

We're not just dealing with Human Tissue. We have clothing and bone, among other things, to take into consideration.
Do you realize that if you were presented with a perfectly straight-on shot where the bullet were to strike dead-center of the sternum, you would be better off with a solid than a hollow point because the HP will most likely get clogged with bone (from the sternum.) But with enough velocity (penetration) the solid has a better than average chance of hitting the spine.
The problem with this whole scenario is that in real life the BG is not usually standing square in front of you like a paper target at the range.

I wish I knew how to reply with a quote on this board.
But to "Orion8472" I will simply ask you this:
Have you ever heard the expression "If you're gonna' be a bear...be a GRIZZLY!" ?

I just happen to be one of those that does NOT subscribe to the "It's better than nothing" reasoning.

You can always do your own testing. I used the wet pack method with 3/4" off a dog rawhide bone on the outside of the 1st jug. The average sternum is about 1/2-3/4" thick so its a closer representation in my mind.

"If shot from the front."

Add in heavy clothing and a shot from an odd angle that had to go through your arm first (i.e. if you're holding up a weapon) and you're going to need a little bit more to get through to the vitals. FBI recommends 12-18" of penetration.

Why doesn't someone make a more human analoge to use?

Click to expand...

That presents a few problems. Replicating a human body for a target would be difficult, and difficult to repeat. But would we want to? Every human is different, and you don't know what sort might attack you. How much fatty tissue? How dense and large will the bones be? How many layers of clothing, and of those, how many are denim or leather? Without a consistent medium, Company X could say that their .380 penetrated 14" in a human target, without mentioning that the bullet rode soft tissue down the leg as in the case of an ND while reholstering. Company X could also say that Company Y's .45 ACP ammo is crap because in testing it only penetrated .2" before being deflected off the skull. With a medium that varied, we'd get raw data that couldn't be interpreted into anything useful. Add to that, luck in a gunfight is a factor and bullets can do odd things at speed sometimes.

By contrast, I can cook up batches of ballistic gel with relative consistency to use as a control for comparisons with different bullets. I just need to realize the limitations and caveats when interpreting that data, mainly that it's not human tissue.

Somewhere, and I hope someone will post it shortly, there is a basic conversion for the approximation from gel to human tissue that errs on the side of being conservative. I believe its something like half of what you get in gel is what you can reasonably and consistently hope for in an SD situation.

Pocket guns are made to be easy to carry rather than easy to fight with, at the expense of ergonomics, capacity, and/or caliber. They have their place. That place for me is when there is no other choice. It's interesting to read threads started by posters in hot climates asking which pocket gun to carry, and acting like they don't have any other choice. They do; they've just chosen to go with something easier to carry but harder to use for defense. I might decide differently, but I can respect that it's theirs to make. It's just odd to see them act as if there's no other option.

For general EDC, I made the decision that I'd start with a gun made for fighting that I could shoot well in a caliber and capacity that I felt comfortable with. If one makes the choice, it is relatively easy with the right belt, holster, and dressing around the gun to conceal a duty-sized pistol. A G19 in a super tuck on a gun belt is comfortable, comforting, and conceals under a T-shirt without much effort.

Ya know this common thread throughout; journalism, analysis, investigation... whatever, that we will concentrate more on what something isn't than what it is is getting very, very boring.

IT'S A 380 FER CRIPES SAKE! They should get off its back for not performing like a 9mm, .357, etc...

8 inches? In the relative real world where I live I'll take it and often do as a viable alternative given pertinent conditions and for this I say... "8 inches was good."

380? well it's better than a .32 but not as good as a 9mm so let's write it off but then let's write off the 9 'cause it's not as good as a .40 - as a 9x23 - as a .357 - as a .45 - as a... (individuals "pet" cartridge here).

I see this continually throughout the firearms, motorcycle, automotive, hardware environments. It seems no one can take a "thing" as and for itself anymore but rather feel compelled to couch their expertise in exposing what an item is not in relation to a stated, alluded to or hinted at other option.

If any given day, one has picked up the .380 for any reason over any other option, needed to use it, operated it well, struck what was aimed at and survived to tell the tale then the .380 was good. I'm sure that in the cold post event analysis one could state that another cartridge might have performed better but if "another cartridge" was not an option, what's the point?

Between my wife and I we have 3 scenarios in which our Sig 230SL is the only viable option and that being the case - what it is not is not a consideration.

Apache, there are .380 loads that can perform better. So I don't think we should cut it slack because "it's a .380".

Orion8472 said:

While watching ballistics gel testing of a .380acp bullet, the projectile went in 8 inches, which to the guy, "wasn't good". I look at my own body and 8 inches [if shot from the front] would nearly go through me.

What's wrong with 8 inches if fully expanded?

Click to expand...

Please read this for your answer:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

I'll take the middle road of the two. With the right load a .380 will get it done, but it will be a compromise between expansion and penetration. .380 ball will get that 12-18" mark, but I have yet to see a .380 JHP that reaches 12".

Another point to consider is with the slower velocity of the .380, JHPs tend to have a hard time expanding anyway. Thus, there's a certain disincentive in my mind to carry JHPs in a .380.

And getting to brass tacks, handguns as a whole are all poor "man-stoppers" with something like 85-90% survival rates with prompt (within 1 hour) medical attention.

Also, on the subject of gel versus human, I have heard the number tossed around that penetrating the human skin takes about as much energy as punching through 4" of ballistics gel. YMMV.

FBI recommends 12-18" of penetration.

Click to expand...

What the FBI recommends is based on the FBI Miami shootout fascia, and has little to do with CCW needs.

The FBI requirement is geared toward law enforcement and the need to shoot through car doors and windshields and still have enough penetration to stop a BG.

I'm with Orion8472 that a fully expanded .380 going 8" is very likely as good as one that shoots through two BG's stacked prison lover style.

Keep in mind rule says you only get to shoot one shot with a .380 pocket gun either.

6 - 7 rounds going 8" deep = 48" - 56" of holes!

rc

The FBI requirement is geared toward law enforcement and the need to shoot through car doors and windshields and still have enough penetration to stop a BG.

Click to expand...

Except that they were looking for 12-18" penetration AFTER barrier penetration.

Orion8472 said:

What's wrong with 8 inches if fully expanded?

Click to expand...

Nuttin' if we are talking an average SD/HD shoot. But you know nobody on these gun forums is gonna experience an "average" SD shoot. It's either gonna be a charging 1900lb grizzly, a pack of unstoppable zombies or an Angel Dust crazed Bubba shooting at them with a howitzer from behind a tree half a block away. There are few humans alive than need more than 8 inches of penetration when shot in COM before the bullet hits vital organs. Regardless of angle. But of course, those zombies and drug crazed Bubbas don't realize when hit there, that they are already dead.

Before anybody feels the need to jump all over me, take this post with a grain of salt, enjoy the humor and realize, that IMHO, a person should feel free to use whatever makes them comfortable and they feel most confident with when it comes to their personal protection. I just ask they let me do the same. Now back to that 9mm vs. .45 debate!

What's wrong with 8 inches if fully expanded?

Click to expand...

The whole goal of the penetration is getting deep enough to reach the vitals. It's why birdshot is a bad idea for self defense. Yeah, #5 shot is going to yield a very gruesome hole, but it's so shallow we're not going to do much with it. The way you stop an attacker is either psychological (either "I dont wanna die" or "ow, that hurt") or physiological, and only the later is something that we can control. If you don't penetrate deep enough to hit the vitals, you aren't going to achieve a physiological stop.

-v- said:

.380 ball will get that 12-18" mark, but I have yet to see a .380 JHP that reaches 12".

Click to expand...

Well then here ya go.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP/380ACP Summary Table.pdf


Federal 90gr Hydra-Shok (PD380HS1 H) 839/12.0/0.147/2.75/(5)
Federal 90gr Hydra-Shok (PD380HS1 H) 843/12.2/0.145/2.75/(5)

Impact Velocity/Penetration/Expansion/Barrel Length/Sample Size

The first is bare gelatin and the second is gelatin and heavy clothing. It's not a powerhouse but it meets the penetration and expansion criteria.

The standard for ballistic gelatin is the typical resistance of pig muscle tissue, which is comparable to human muscle tissue. This is more dense than skin.

Bones, barriers, and clothing are the big x-factors.

Okay, if pig flesh is the standard on which ballistic gelatin is supposed to replicate , why not do the tests on actual pig corpses wearing heavy clothing, pig bodies behind barriers etc?

Because no two pig bodys are exactly the same, or is the likelyhood of one bullet hitting a bone and the next one hitting between bones.

So the tests would not be repeatable over time, or between testers.

Calibrated Ballistics Gel is a standard formula, so everyone who uses it anywhere is using the same yardstick.

rc