Is 380 Just A Marginal Round?
- Thread starter kokapelli
- Start date
- Status
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
In comparison to MOST center fire rifle cartridges.
Not so much if you compare with butter knives.
The relevance is of course an apples to apples comparison which would be common personal defense handguns.
This from a guy who carried a 380 all day in his front pocket, it's not that they are useless it is that they are marginal.
You posted the thread in the semi automatic HANDGUN sub-forum not the rifle sub-forum
Since in HWFE it states 18" is preferred and 12" is minimum many semi auto handgun rounds will expand reliably and penetrate well over the 12" minimum threshold that would define marginal
There are many, many documented incidents where even the most powerful handgun rounds failed to incapacitate quickly regardless of ballistic superiority.You posted the thread in the semi automatic HANDGUN sub-forum not the rifle sub-forum
Since in HWFE it states 18" is preferred and 12" is minimum many semi auto handgun rounds will expand reliably and penetrate well over the 12" minimum threshold that would define marginal
SwaneeSR
Member
9mm is less expensive and more available. It is available in many small easy to carry semi-autos like my single-stack Kahr.
If I was going to carry a revolver, I could use a .38.
So yes, the 380 is marginal, and there are better options.
And yes handguns are not rifles and do not have the same knockdown power.
If I was going to carry a revolver, I could use a .38.
So yes, the 380 is marginal, and there are better options.
And yes handguns are not rifles and do not have the same knockdown power.
Deaf Smith
Member
I doubt people are a slave to their wardrobe M&P. Not THAT much of a slave at least.
Uh.. just how did I compromise on my philosophy? You know, the largest one can carry, conceal, and control.
I don't have any tiny .45. M&P, read where I posted about my sitting down alot AND need to control the weapon ONE HANDED. Few consider they may have only one hand free.
Got LOTS of revolvers M&P, just can't sit down with a 4 inch tube sticking into the seat plus.. again, one does have to control the weapon ONE HANDED at times.
Deaf
Last edited:
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Deaf,
Today I spent around 6 hours in a non permissive environment, 2 hours in a brewpub eating lunch and watching the ballgame. I'm 6'1" but I couldn't have hid my G26 with enough confidence so I keep the 380 for times like these.
I can't agree with your assertion that one can ALWAYS dress around the gun.
Today I spent around 6 hours in a non permissive environment, 2 hours in a brewpub eating lunch and watching the ballgame. I'm 6'1" but I couldn't have hid my G26 with enough confidence so I keep the 380 for times like these.
I can't agree with your assertion that one can ALWAYS dress around the gun.
Actually, many people's wardrobe is dictated by where they work and the job they perform. As most people spend 40 hours a week at their jobs, I would hardly consider that a trivial amount of time.
Deaf Smith
Member
X,
Where did I say ALWAYS one can dress around the gun?
But you could use an ankle holster, right? And such as a Kahr polymer single stack 9mm, right? There are other options than a LCP or TCP type handgun.
Now for those straitjacketed into using a small gun due to circumstances, well that is one thing, but I see lots of gents wearing coats and sleeves vest and they still pack very small .380s (and even NAA .22 revolvers.) They could do much better.
Now sure, I could pack my Glock 31, and I'd prefer it over my 26, but I do alot of driving and desk work. That is just the limit I've found for me in daily carry. I still pack as powerful a gun as I can control and conceal (and not look out of place.)
One of the reasons the expected Glock 43 (9mm) interest me is so I can retire my S&W 640 .38 spl and go to a flat 9mm in the hot summer. There with shorts and t-shirt I'd like to have a more capable handgun.
Sounds like they are illegally carrying. But what about when they are not working?
Deaf
That is a leap.
Phaedrus/69
Member
Artofgolf said:
That is an intriguing round. The Extreme Penetrator is an interesting design and is available in most calibers. On paper is looks pretty good. I wonder if there's ever been a documented police or defensive shooting with it yet? It's relatively new.
Hi. I umm, umm carry a gun.....,and it's a .380 Bersa Thunder. I know. I know. Can you help me? I seem to have a small caliber complex. hahahahahaha lol
I am not a fan of the mini-.380s much. You know the LCP, etc. I do like the 3.5" barrel and above .380s. In fact, To get over my small caliber complex I think I'll have a .380 chamber cut a little longer say 2 mm, and call it a .380 Super. Heck! I might as well extend the case to 25 mm, and call it a Super Duper .380. That should make me more lethal. Like Steven Se.. Se... What was that guys name. Doesn't matter. You all know what I mean. I'll be able to pass a test that warrants nothing to me. A standard that doesn't take into account the human factor at all. It is cotton and Jello.
Seriously though. You know I'd call a shooter marginal before I'd call any caliber marginal.
I am not a fan of the mini-.380s much. You know the LCP, etc. I do like the 3.5" barrel and above .380s. In fact, To get over my small caliber complex I think I'll have a .380 chamber cut a little longer say 2 mm, and call it a .380 Super. Heck! I might as well extend the case to 25 mm, and call it a Super Duper .380. That should make me more lethal. Like Steven Se.. Se... What was that guys name. Doesn't matter. You all know what I mean. I'll be able to pass a test that warrants nothing to me. A standard that doesn't take into account the human factor at all. It is cotton and Jello.
Seriously though. You know I'd call a shooter marginal before I'd call any caliber marginal.
Last edited:
As far as I know the FBI set up 12" to 18" of penetration as parameters for performance. I don't recall seeing verbiage from the agency that 18" was preferred.
If anyone can show me documentation where the FBI stipulates a preference for 18" of penetration in their terminal ballistics I would like to see it.
If anyone can show me documentation where the FBI stipulates a preference for 18" of penetration in their terminal ballistics I would like to see it.
45_auto
Member
kokapelli said:
There are also many, many documented incidents where a full powered battle rifle round (.30-06, .308, 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.7mm Arisaka, 7.62x54R, etc) or even multiple full powered battle rifle rounds failed to quickly incapacitate a determined individual regardless of ballistic superiority.
There are also many, many documented incidents where an assault rifle round (7.62x39, 5.56x45, 5.45x39, etc) or even multiple full powered assault rifle rounds failed to quickly incapacitate a determined individual regardless of ballistic superiority.
You can read about many of them here:
http://www.history.army.mil/moh/
Do you believe that this means that the infantry should give up their rifles?
Deaf Smith
Member
Well yes a LCP is better than no gun at all (much better than a .25), and if that is all you've got then it's all you've got.
But, Tom Givens of Rangemasters has had over 60 students in gunfight now.
He has studied them and others and the trend in robberies is multiple robbers.
Yes instead of one attacker they are seeing two and three armed attackers often.
That makes it much harder to use mouse guns or J .38s (and I use a J .38 in the summer.)
So relying on a weapon with poor sights, small grip, low power, low firepower, etc.. is not a wise decision.
Yes if it's all you've got, but most people can do better, they just value convenience more.
Already made. Called a 9x19, aka 9mm..
Deaf
The battlefield and a self defense siduation are totally different.
A gun, any kind of gun raises your chances of surviving a personal attack by a large margin.
The possibility that you will become the victim of a personal attack are really very small, unless you live in or visit the Hood on a regular basis. Add to that a gun, any kind of gun and the odds get even less.
I decided long ago that I'm just not going to carry two and a half pounds of iron around everyday for the very small probability I might actually have to defend with a large gun and so far at 82 years old It has worked pretty well for me.
I have three times found it necessary to display a pistol to prevent a possible robbery and that was all that was necessary. One of those times, just pulling an NAA revolver was all I needed to do.
Yes I'm confident that if I do ever have to actually use a pistol, a 380 like the P238 or the G42 I carry will do just as well as my 75B would do at changing a person's mind.
It's possible I might be wrong, but at least I will have not had to have the discomfort of hauling a 2-1/2 pound big hunk of iron around for the last 30 years.
Yes I'm confident that if I do ever have to actually use a pistol, a 380 like the P238 or the G42 I carry will do just as well as my 75B would do at changing a person's mind.
It's possible I might be wrong, but at least I will have not had to have the discomfort of hauling a 2-1/2 pound big hunk of iron around for the last 30 years.
Then just continue to carry the NAA.
There are a lot of hurt feelings it seems in this thread trying to defend why folks carry a .380. Nobody cares whether you carry a .380 or not and why. I'd like to have a G42 myself, but can't afford it right now. I also don't carry at work, I choose the extremely low margin, catastrophic self defense risk over the much higher margin get caught and fired risk.
The thread isn't "validate my .380 carry choice", it is titled "is the .380 just a marginal round?" Maybe that is another way of saying validate my .380 choice?
If you are on the internet trying to justify to others your carry choices, that time would be better spent getting more training or something productive.
Have you ever tried shooting an NAA at 20 feet? Accuracy is terrible and reloading is impossible in a tense situation.
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
Frankly, I do not care what the FBI thinks. Now they say the 40 is not effective and they are going back to the 9mm. This after leading us by the nose since the 1986 shootout. They got S&W in 1990 to produce the 40 and now they admit they were wrong. Read this in the latest issue of the "shotgun news". I carry what I can shoot best. Most often it is a 380.
TimSr
Member
True, if you happen to be an FBI field agent, but I am not.
- Status
