D!rty H@rry
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 79
ahh that explains it. those are SJHP, not JHP's.
.380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance?
- Thread starter UpTheIrons
- Start date
- Status
ahh that explains it. those are SJHP, not JHP's.
mljdeckard
Member
My problem with the .380 is not so much anything specific about it, except that in handgun rounds, you are already at a disadvantage. To not use the most powerful cartridge you can handle is to say; "Well, if nothing I carry is good enough, I might as well drop big guns and cartridges and carry something smaller anyway." I just think that you should give yourself every possible advantage, and I think that a lot of people who carry little guns do it out of laziness, they want to adjust the gun to fit their lifestyle and wardrobe, not the other way around.
To say "It's all about shot placement" when you talk about little guns is to say that it doesn't matter as much with BIG guns. It's ALWAYS about shot placement. But in real life, you are unlikely to get that magic CNS shot that stops the fight immediately with ANY gun. In using a compact .380, you are using a gun that is harder to aim well because of the sight radius, has a disadvantage for penetration, (because no matter what you do to a .380 to give it more oomph, it will still be behind a 9 or a .38,) and bullets which will leave a smaller permanent cavity, which will ultimately mean less tissue damage, and less likelihood to stop the fight quickly.
To say "It's all about shot placement" when you talk about little guns is to say that it doesn't matter as much with BIG guns. It's ALWAYS about shot placement. But in real life, you are unlikely to get that magic CNS shot that stops the fight immediately with ANY gun. In using a compact .380, you are using a gun that is harder to aim well because of the sight radius, has a disadvantage for penetration, (because no matter what you do to a .380 to give it more oomph, it will still be behind a 9 or a .38,) and bullets which will leave a smaller permanent cavity, which will ultimately mean less tissue damage, and less likelihood to stop the fight quickly.
I don't understand the point being compared to a knitting needle and it's diameter. All three bullets is question are .38 caliber so dia doesn't come into play here. I am all for bigger is better in self defence. I have done some ammo testing of my own and I am confident in myself and my shooting skills and that a .380 will penetrate deep enough to get the job done. Maybe because I have never seen a drug crazed person hell bent on killing me. I have seen some 100# tweakers that could be stopped with a well placed crayon thrown be a 4 year old.
mljdeckard
Member
Not quite. A bullet with more mass will have more material to mushroom, making a larger permanent cavity, thereby giving it more likelihood to do critical damage. It may be a tiny distinction, but they add up.
In their non +P loadings .38sp is quite similar to .380. The 9mm hornady defense load is a light load (in powder and bullet weight), so I can see the results being similar to .38+P. A mid to hot 9mm load is significantly more powerful than even .38+P, handgun cartridge speaking.
WardenWolf
member
The .380 was designed to be a semi-automatic equivalent to the original black powder .38, using smokeless powder in much the same way that .45 ACP was equivalent to the black powder .45 LC. Of course, by this time, the .38 had also been converted over to smokeless powder, but the .380 still matched the original specification for the round.
The 9mm and .38 Special are fairly close in performance, although .38's can be loaded hotter, both due to the round's characteristics and the general strength of revolvers; semi-automatic rounds are limited by the average recoil-absorbing capacity of firearms chambered for them, while an uncompensated action such as a revolver is much more forgiving.
The 9mm and .38 Special are fairly close in performance, although .38's can be loaded hotter, both due to the round's characteristics and the general strength of revolvers; semi-automatic rounds are limited by the average recoil-absorbing capacity of firearms chambered for them, while an uncompensated action such as a revolver is much more forgiving.
Manco:
Once the round nose or semi wadcutter has flipped base forward it tends to remain that way acting more like a true wad cutter. However it loses velocity in the "flip" so relative to its starting velocity it is less effective than a wad cutter that didn't flip.
Once the round nose or semi wadcutter has flipped base forward it tends to remain that way acting more like a true wad cutter. However it loses velocity in the "flip" so relative to its starting velocity it is less effective than a wad cutter that didn't flip.
Whatever the intention, they're not exactly equivalent, as the heaviest bullet that .380 ACP can use is probably around 115 grains, while the .38 Special used (and still uses) 158 grain bullets. When both are loaded with similar bullets and smokeless powder, they do tend to have similar performance, that is true. However, black powder .38 Special loads are approximately equivalent to modern .38 Special+P smokeless loads, and hold the same edge over .380 ACP.
Fairly close but not quite, either.
The black powder .38 Special was (and still is) hotter than both.
They're even farther apart than BP .38 Special and .380 ACP--a standard 9mm factory load can have nearly twice the energy!
Hotter than 9mm?
Sure, there is plenty of space left in the cartridge for additional powder, and you could then shoot such a super-hot load out of a .357 Magnum revolver, but it won't really be .38 Special anymore. Try shooting it in a .38 Special revolver and see what happens. Yet there are even 9mm +P+ rounds that have well over double the energy of either .38 Special or .380 ACP.
Well, that does seem to make sense physically. Interesting.
MCgunner
Member
I don't wanna be around the novice handloader that's trying to beat 9mm standard pressure ballistics, let alone +P 9, with any .38 concoction. When he shows up at the range, I'll pack up and go home before he frags me. +P .38 won't break 300 ft lbs from a snubby and won't do a lot more than 350 or so out of a 4" barrel. 9mm runs 350 or a little more in a standard load and up near 450 ft lbs in a +P loading. My little 3" Kel Tec pushes a 115 grain bullet to 1263 fps for 410 ft lbs. 9x19 SAAMI working pressures are 35,000 CUP standard and 38,500 +P and there are even some fools that think there's a +P+ standard (there isn't) and will push over 40,000. .38 Special works at 17,000 CUP, +P at 18,500. Standard 9mm is right there with .357 magnum at 35,000 CUP and in short barrels with light bullets can equal the .357 magnum. The .357 in a longer barrel and using slower, bulkier powder does have the advantage, but not so much in a snubby other than it can push a bigger bullet better.
So, you see, 9x19 compares better (not equal, mind you) to the .357 than it does the .38, at least in carry length handguns. It simply blows the .38 out of the water in any size handguns.
And, there's no way a .45ACP can push a 255 grain bullet at 900 fps, so that's a poor comparison, too, even to the old BP loads.
The .38 standard pressure loadings are close to .380, but can push a much heavier bullet to insure better penetration.
+P .38 won't break 300 ft lbs from a snubby and won't do a lot more than 350 or so out of a 4" barrel. 9mm runs 350 or a little more in a standard load and up near 450 ft lbs in a +P loading. My little 3" Kel Tec pushes a 115 grain bullet to 1263 fps for 410 ft lbs. 9x19 SAAMI working pressures are 35,000 CUP standard and 38,500 +P and there are even some fools that think there's a +P+ standard (there isn't) and will push over 40,000. .38 Special works at 17,000 CUP, +P at 18,500. Standard 9mm is right there with .357 magnum at 35,000 CUP and in short barrels with light bullets can equal the .357 magnum. The .357 in a longer barrel and using slower, bulkier powder does have the advantage, but not so much in a snubby other than it can push a bigger bullet better.So, you see, 9x19 compares better (not equal, mind you) to the .357 than it does the .38, at least in carry length handguns. It simply blows the .38 out of the water in any size handguns.
And, there's no way a .45ACP can push a 255 grain bullet at 900 fps, so that's a poor comparison, too, even to the old BP loads.
The .38 standard pressure loadings are close to .380, but can push a much heavier bullet to insure better penetration.
outerlimit
Member
outerlimit said:
huntsman said:
But my statement was not made to the constraints of this strange comparison.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I went and listened carefully to the discussion on Guntalk with Ed Head from Gunsite.
First Hornady is on a campaign to promote it's Critical Defense line of ammo particularly for the .380 and .38 Spl. and the discussion here seems to be a part of that promotional campaign as no other line of ammo is mentioned.
The discussion is rather exact and limited. The host says that the Critical Defense line of ammo for the 380,38 and 9mm produce "almost identical penetration and expansion" in ballistic gelatin from small carry guns. Ed Head says the "terminal effectiveness" of the rounds should be very close from small back up guns.
They do not say that the 380, 9mm and 38 spl. are identical in their effectiveness.
They do not say that Hornady's Critical Defense rounds are identical in effectiveness or equivalent in performance from all guns.
For well over a decade now manufacturers of premium self defense ammo have worked hard to produce self defense rounds that penetrate to between 12-14" depth in ballistic gelatin and expand as they should. This depth is for all service calibers. They aim to enhance the weaker and limit the more powerful to this range and depth of penetration. (The 9mm, even in standard velocities, is well known in it's FMJ form for penetrating external and internal walls of houses and still having the power to kill. The 380 cannot match it in any way in this regard. With an expanding bullet though the 9mm's penetration can be limited.)
I am not sure what depth of penetration the Hornady .380 can make it is not as deep as the 38 or the 9mm but it can come close enough for the host of Guntalk to say it's "almost identical".
Hornady 90 gr. .380: 1000 fps and 200 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.
Hornady 110 gr. 38Spl. 1090 fps and 290 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.
Hornady 115gr. 9mm 1140 fps and 332 ft. lbs of energy at the muzzle.
So the rounds are not identical at all. They may penetrate gelatin to about the same depth because the bullets are designed to penetrate and expand that far and no further. With a well placed shot in a vital area "terminal effectiveness" may be similar.
But the host never said the rounds were the same or that they were interchangeable one with the other. Or that they all hit as hard.
tipoc
First Hornady is on a campaign to promote it's Critical Defense line of ammo particularly for the .380 and .38 Spl. and the discussion here seems to be a part of that promotional campaign as no other line of ammo is mentioned.
The discussion is rather exact and limited. The host says that the Critical Defense line of ammo for the 380,38 and 9mm produce "almost identical penetration and expansion" in ballistic gelatin from small carry guns. Ed Head says the "terminal effectiveness" of the rounds should be very close from small back up guns.
They do not say that the 380, 9mm and 38 spl. are identical in their effectiveness.
They do not say that Hornady's Critical Defense rounds are identical in effectiveness or equivalent in performance from all guns.
For well over a decade now manufacturers of premium self defense ammo have worked hard to produce self defense rounds that penetrate to between 12-14" depth in ballistic gelatin and expand as they should. This depth is for all service calibers. They aim to enhance the weaker and limit the more powerful to this range and depth of penetration. (The 9mm, even in standard velocities, is well known in it's FMJ form for penetrating external and internal walls of houses and still having the power to kill. The 380 cannot match it in any way in this regard. With an expanding bullet though the 9mm's penetration can be limited.)
I am not sure what depth of penetration the Hornady .380 can make it is not as deep as the 38 or the 9mm but it can come close enough for the host of Guntalk to say it's "almost identical".
Hornady 90 gr. .380: 1000 fps and 200 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.
Hornady 110 gr. 38Spl. 1090 fps and 290 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.
Hornady 115gr. 9mm 1140 fps and 332 ft. lbs of energy at the muzzle.
So the rounds are not identical at all. They may penetrate gelatin to about the same depth because the bullets are designed to penetrate and expand that far and no further. With a well placed shot in a vital area "terminal effectiveness" may be similar.
But the host never said the rounds were the same or that they were interchangeable one with the other. Or that they all hit as hard.
tipoc
Last edited:
winchester '97
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 306
Honestly i dont get why people seem to think their gun is useless as a defensive weapon without +p loads. A .38 special lead wadcutter round has great stopping power compared to a 9mm, and you dont have to worry about the hollow point expanding it it became clogged with clothing/whatever. In .380 i can see why you might want +p but I feel fine with the more powerful 9x18 with fmj ammo.
MCgunner
Member
Okay, that's it, I'm out....
380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance?
I have all of the above. P3AT, Glock 19, S&W 360. My autos are very reliable but I still trust revolvers since I have never had a revolver jam. I have been very impressed with the 380 performance compared to what I expected. While my Kel-Tec is no target gun my old PPKs was quite accurate for a small gun. I once took out a 80lb stray dog that was eating my wife's poodle with one shot at 20 feet. Penetration is very good with hollow points and FMJ given the velocity of the round. I feel every bit as confident with it as a standard 38 round out of my snub nose. You still cant beat the light weight and compact size of the P3AT when even compared to the S&W360. The only thing more concelable is the NAA22mag and there is no comparison in power.
I have all of the above. P3AT, Glock 19, S&W 360. My autos are very reliable but I still trust revolvers since I have never had a revolver jam. I have been very impressed with the 380 performance compared to what I expected. While my Kel-Tec is no target gun my old PPKs was quite accurate for a small gun. I once took out a 80lb stray dog that was eating my wife's poodle with one shot at 20 feet. Penetration is very good with hollow points and FMJ given the velocity of the round. I feel every bit as confident with it as a standard 38 round out of my snub nose. You still cant beat the light weight and compact size of the P3AT when even compared to the S&W360. The only thing more concelable is the NAA22mag and there is no comparison in power.
Marlin 45 carbine
Member
with the crude tests I've done I can't tell any diff between a 102gr Golden Saber .380acp handload out of my BDA vs a 125gr jhp XTP out of my SP handload.
a +P 124gr GS from my 5906 now that's something, hardly anything less than 125gr factory loads out of my GP .357 4".
a +P 124gr GS from my 5906 now that's something, hardly anything less than 125gr factory loads out of my GP .357 4".
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
The best and most powerful 380 ....
can not come close to the energy of the best and most powerful 38 special or 9mm period. The 380 case is too small and the bullet cross-sectional density will not allow it to happen. My 2 cents
can not come close to the energy of the best and most powerful 38 special or 9mm period. The 380 case is too small and the bullet cross-sectional density will not allow it to happen. My 2 cents
oldfool
Member
oh bother, said Pooh...
(one shoe does not fit all)
.380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance ?
No, they are not equal.
I agree, fair statement, but it is really just parsing
hits count more than misses, and bullet placement counts most
(but nobody is saying that 22 rimfire is a bear killer)
see again, post #38
a bullet which is larger and heavier and faster is more vs. less
but any of the subject calibers will do and would include 327mag and 40S&W as well
differences exist, but when all the parsing is said and done, still just nuances
reality check -
extreme few people would choose ANY of those calibers in a handgun to hunt a large goat (whitetail deer) in same weight class as homo sapiens
we do choose those calibers because they work in handguns which can be carried in practical fashion
and those choices are a whole lot more about matching up handgun and shooter, not caliber dominant
if we ALL would ALWAYS choose based only on terminal performance...
nobody would ever carry anything less than a max load 357 JHP in a FULL size revolver in one hand, and a max load 45 acp in a FULL size pistol in the other hand
but we obviously don't
I own and use all three subject calibers, most often the 380
but if I really was of a mindset to believe I were about to be in the middle of a serious exchange of gunfire at any/every given moment of every day, I would FIND a way to carry aforementioned pair, plus some
but I don't
yet not inclined to give up "shootability" for the sake of EITHER a few extra ounces of smaller/lighter comfort... nor for a little extra terminal boost
CCW really ought be relabled CCC (concealed carry compromise), because it is all compromise
any of the popular choices are good compromises if they carry well for you and if you can hit well with them
PS
If I were in a parsing mood today, my question would be -
Why load up with +P or mag load powder.... and then waste most of it with too little barrel length ?
(not to mention the possible 'shootable' factor sacrifice)
(one shoe does not fit all)
.380 ACP = .38 Spl = 9mm in performance ?
No, they are not equal.
I agree, fair statement, but it is really just parsing
hits count more than misses, and bullet placement counts most
(but nobody is saying that 22 rimfire is a bear killer)
see again, post #38
a bullet which is larger and heavier and faster is more vs. less
but any of the subject calibers will do and would include 327mag and 40S&W as well
differences exist, but when all the parsing is said and done, still just nuances
reality check -
extreme few people would choose ANY of those calibers in a handgun to hunt a large goat (whitetail deer) in same weight class as homo sapiens
we do choose those calibers because they work in handguns which can be carried in practical fashion
and those choices are a whole lot more about matching up handgun and shooter, not caliber dominant
if we ALL would ALWAYS choose based only on terminal performance...
nobody would ever carry anything less than a max load 357 JHP in a FULL size revolver in one hand, and a max load 45 acp in a FULL size pistol in the other hand
but we obviously don't
I own and use all three subject calibers, most often the 380
but if I really was of a mindset to believe I were about to be in the middle of a serious exchange of gunfire at any/every given moment of every day, I would FIND a way to carry aforementioned pair, plus some
but I don't
yet not inclined to give up "shootability" for the sake of EITHER a few extra ounces of smaller/lighter comfort... nor for a little extra terminal boost
CCW really ought be relabled CCC (concealed carry compromise), because it is all compromise
any of the popular choices are good compromises if they carry well for you and if you can hit well with them
PS
If I were in a parsing mood today, my question would be -
Why load up with +P or mag load powder.... and then waste most of it with too little barrel length ?
(not to mention the possible 'shootable' factor sacrifice)
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
Bullet construction has a lot to do with defensive combat performance.
.32 ACP and .30 Carbine FMJ are one thing, .32 ACP hollowpoint and .30 Carbine softnose hollowpoint are another. A .380 FMJ and a good .380 hollowpoint are different cartridges, even though the cartridges fit a standard .380 chamber.
The "problem" with .380 is most people end up using the FMJ (designed to be humane under the Hague Convention) because many .380 pistols don't reliably feed hollowpoints. If you have to shoot a robber or rapist coming at you with a knife, you want to stop them, which means you don't want to be humane.
.32 ACP and .30 Carbine FMJ are one thing, .32 ACP hollowpoint and .30 Carbine softnose hollowpoint are another. A .380 FMJ and a good .380 hollowpoint are different cartridges, even though the cartridges fit a standard .380 chamber.
The "problem" with .380 is most people end up using the FMJ (designed to be humane under the Hague Convention) because many .380 pistols don't reliably feed hollowpoints. If you have to shoot a robber or rapist coming at you with a knife, you want to stop them, which means you don't want to be humane.
huntsman
Member
Is there proof that the FMJ can't always do what you claim the HP can, out of a short barreled gun?
The penetration of .32 ACP hollow-points sucks. I'd rather use FMJ bullets in this caliber, and given a choice between the two I'd rather be shot with a .32 ACP hollow-point (if I had to be shot at all
) because at least then I'd stand a chance against otherwise good shot placement.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
