.380 ACP the Red Haired Stepchild?

[Hokkmike]

There does not seem to be a lot of respect for the .380 acp caliber here on the forum.
Is it really that inferior to the .38 Special or for that matter to the 9mm as a SD caliber?
Lets assume all things equal like all are Hornady
Critical Defense.

Modern .380 ammo has done a lot for the caliber. I used a Glock 42 for many years and felt OK. It was a great pocket or holster gun. Do I prefer the micro nines? - yes, a little. As far as RED HEADED STEP CHILD goes - it is the .32.

 

[WisBorn]

Modern .380 ammo has done a lot for the caliber. I used a Glock 42 for many years and felt OK. It was a great pocket or holster gun. Do I prefer the micro nines? - yes, a little. As far as RED HEADED STEP CHILD goes - it is the .32.

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say.

Ammo improvements has helped all cartridges, but the 9mm and 380 a bit more.
Manufacturers have upped the game with 9 and 380 do to the popularity of the handguns that chamber them. And increasingly popularity of concealed carry.

So yes the 32 is the RED HEADED STEPCHILD.
The 40s&w is the BLACKSHEEP OF THE FAMILY.
And the 45acp is THE UNCLE NOBODY TALKS ABOUT.

 

[Leon tP]

Then there's the golden boy, 9mm.

 

[zaitcev]

Did you guys know that a few companies made revolvers in .380 ACP? I have a Taurus UL380 (pictured). There's also a Charter Arms Pitbull 73802 and a Cimmaron 1862 Pocket Navy conversion. That's right, no top strap and smokeless powder, but supposedly it works just fine. Of course the .380 also works in Medusa M47, although it wasn't specifically chambered for it. Finally, there was a Cobray Pocket Pal, a convertible between .380ACP and .22LR.

 

[Brubz]

View attachment 1149159
Did you guys know that a few companies made revolvers in .380 ACP? I have a Taurus UL380 (pictured). There's also a Charter Arms Pitbull 73802 and a Cimmaron 1862 Pocket Navy conversion. That's right, no top strap and smokeless powder, but supposedly it works just fine. Of course the .380 also works in Medusa M47, although it wasn't specifically chambered for it. Finally, there was a Cobray Pocket Pal, a convertible between .380ACP and .22LR.

I'm lost. How did that Cobray work? You had to change barrels and cyl?

 

[zaitcev]

I'm lost. How did that Cobray work? You had to change barrels and cyl?

The shooter needed to change the cylinder. The gun had two barrels, like certain survival combo guns: upper barrel was for .380 and lower barrel was for .22.

 

[Oninotaki]

There's also a Charter Arms Pitbull 73802 and a Cimmaron 1862 Pocket Navy conversion.

The fact that the CA 78302 has a 6 round capacity and a 3" barrel makes it a very tempting option that I keep thinking about picking up someday.

 

[zaitcev]

The fact that the CA 78302 has a 6 round capacity and a 3" barrel makes it a very tempting option that I keep thinking about picking up someday.

The 6-shot cylinder of the .380 Pitbull is notable because the 9mm Pitbull was a 6-shot revolver originally, but had to be converted to a 5-shot cylinder. The reasons for the move weren't explained officially. Some said the clipless ejection mechanism was not reliable enough. But now we have a reversal to a 6-shot cylinder of the same diameter. Maybe the .380 brass does not stick as much as 9mm. Anyway, in the words of Chancellor Palpatine, "a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one".

 

[defjon]

I think what obviously (to me anyway) seems to be lost here on a lot of people is, all the paper numbers are just that, paper numbers and basically meaningless, if you cant, on demand, place the rounds where they need to go to make things work, if and when its your turn in the barrel. What happend to 10000 people in the past, has no bearing on what you actually get. And YOU have to deal with what you get, and whatever that may be. Theres no calling "not fair" because it wasnt something you werent expecting or prepared for.

What I do find funny too is, I really cant ever remember seeing most people practicing in any kind of realistic fashion, even with full size handguns, let alone, the second and third line back ups. So where is everyone getting the skills needed to make things work?

Ive shot on a LOT of different ranges, and different courses of fire in the past, and still regularly shoot a couple of times a week, albeit, on a basically private range these days, but still, when I do see them shoot, I dont see people shooting anything much beyond static, bullseye type shooting. Yet, you keep hearing how these little guns, carried in a pocket, etc, that are about the worst choice to try and fight for your life with, are more than capable and acceptable for the task. Really makes you go hmmm.

And what people are basing things on is really a puzzle too, since they dont seem to really take things seriously enough to practice with them in any kind of realistic manner, to at least make up for any deficiencies in their choices and skills.

It just seems to me, its more important to read some articles and argue on the internet about "numbers", and base your whole thinking and theory on what some half assed study says is the best caliber for the job, with this or that percentage of "something", than being as knowledgeable as possible about what it is youre actually trying to do and accomplish, and proficient as possible to accomplish that, with what it is you choose to carry.

Or is that just too "deep", and should I shut up?

I feel bad for a lot of folks. Many public ranges seem to not allow realistic training- drawing from concealment, firing quickly, moving while shooting, shooting prone or sitting. Weak hand you may get away with, but again, static bullseye style.

Very thankful for my range that allows this. Obviously private land blm land etc would allow.

But I've seen some range nazis...for safety sake. I get it, so many new shooters etc. Everything becomes catered towards the lowest common denominator and no, that doesn't much prepare you for the fight.

I guess folks could seek out actual training and maybe that is the best bet anyway.

 

[defjon]

The other thing is a lot of shooters shoot for others...shoot to impress. Look at this tiny grouping, watch me drop these rounds into the same hole at 20 yards. I'm guilty of some of this. Probably we all are if we've shot long enough to develope skill and like that to be recognized.

Yeah, very nice. Real training is humbling. And we all saw the video of the cop shooting that stick wielding veteran 12 times nearly point blank. He was probably shooting an excellent group, maybe dropping them in the same hole...and not damaging anything new...

So non static shooting we'll call it, weak hand, retreating, moving, do a few push-ups or jumping Jack's and then shoot, that can show you better how it might go with elevated heart rates and when you don't feel 100%.

 

[Pistolay]

And we all saw the video of the cop shooting that stick wielding veteran 12 times nearly point blank. He was probably shooting an excellent group, maybe dropping them in the same hole...and not damaging anything new...

I never really thought about it that way, but that's an excellent point.

 

[trackskippy]

Target shooting mentality and practical shooting mentality are different things, with different expectations.

Not that on demand, target type accuracy, shouldn't be instantly available and is a bad thing either.

 

[desmobob]

Yes, if you focus solely on ballistics.

But, there are credible studies that suggest that .380 and larger calibers are nearly equal in stopping an attack once the first round is fired. It has to do with the assailant breaking off the attack.

Agreed.

Years ago, evaluating carry gun caliber suitability seemed to be all about referencing "one shot stop" statistics. Now, it seems to be all about ballistic gel performance standards.

I recently saw a chart with real world shooting statistics by caliber including one shot stop percentages and one shot failure to stop percentages, among other things. The .380 did pretty darn well in both those categories, IIRC. I would guess the biggest negative with the caliber is that many folks buy .380 handguns that are so tiny they aren't able to shoot them accurately/effectively.

 

[Brubz]

Agreed.

Years ago, evaluating carry gun caliber suitability seemed to be all about referencing "one shot stop" statistics. Now, it seems to be all about ballistic gel performance standards.

I recently saw a chart with real world shooting statistics by caliber including one shot stop percentages and one shot failure to stop percentages, among other things. The .380 did pretty darn well in both those categories, IIRC. I would guess the biggest negative with the caliber is that many folks buy .380 handguns that are so tiny they aren't able to shoot them accurately/effectively.

Good point. As much as I practice I can not hit targets at the range with my LCP II and my Bodyguard .380 until the target is so close that if it was an attacker he would be two steps away.

 

[Elmer]

Agreed.

Years ago, evaluating carry gun caliber suitability seemed to be all about referencing "one shot stop" statistics. Now, it seems to be all about ballistic gel performance standards.

I recently saw a chart with real world shooting statistics by caliber including one shot stop percentages and one shot failure to stop percentages, among other things. The .380 did pretty darn well in both those categories, IIRC. I would guess the biggest negative with the caliber is that many folks buy .380 handguns that are so tiny they aren't able to shoot them accurately/effectively.

The reason the "real world" "one shot stop" statistics went away, is that it was all fiction. Replaced by scientific, reproducible testing, that gives a reasonable simulation of what a particular projectile will do in human tissue.

Exactly where you place them, in who, and what their particular physiology and mindset is at the time, are all variables that can't be correlated. Even if someone tried to do it honestly, instead of just making it up as has been done.

But because everybody wants a simple chart to tell them what magic cartridge and bullet to carry that somehow avoids those variables, gunwriters and dishonest ammo salesman, (which are often the same person), will continue to make money selling BS.

Any of the handgun service cartridges, with good ammo that can expand while still giving sufficient penetration, will perform similarly. Which is to say, not always that great. Handguns remain poor stoppers compared to rifle cartridges. They're just easier to carry around. So practice making multiple good hits with whatever you carry. That remains far more important, than which round you use.


.

 

[Elmer]

Good point. As much as I practice I can not hit targets at the range with my LCP II and my Bodyguard .380 until the target is so close that if it was an attacker he would be two steps away.

That doesn't put you in a great position to survive. Maybe either think about carrying something you shoot better, or seek some professional instruction? Small guns like yours are definitely harder to master, but there's no reason someone with a modicum of physical capability can't learn to shoot them acceptably, within normal self defense ranges.

Many say you can't shoot an airweight .38 revolver effectively, but we taught lots of folks to shoot them reasonably well, when they were what cops carried off duty.

.

 

[desmobob]

The reason the "real world" "one shot stop" statistics went away, is that it was all fiction. Replaced by scientific, reproducible testing, that gives a reasonable simulation of what a particular projectile will do in human tissue.

So, no agency ever reported honest statistics? They're "all fiction"?

Accurately reported statistics are not fiction; they are records of real, not simulated, events; actual outcomes affected by actual variables. Simulations cannot possibly include all the possible variables. As sample numbers grow in statistical records, more variables are consequently included.

This isn't to say that statistics aren't frequently manipulated. Personally, I'd rather make my decision based on what has actually happened, not what is expected to happen...

 

[Elmer]

So, no agency ever reported honest statistics? They're "all fiction"?

Accurately reported statistics are not fiction; they are records of real, not simulated, events; actual outcomes affected by actual variables. Simulations cannot possibly include all the possible variables. As sample numbers grow in statistical records, more variables are consequently included.

I didn't mean to say "no agency ever reported honest statistics", I meant to say those who claimed to actually have such statistics, and correlated them into "one shot stop" charts, were fiction. Of course reproducible testing doesn't include all the variables, but somehow you believe that anonymous claimed "statistics" do cover all the variables enough to make pronouncements of predicted outcomes?

This isn't to say that statistics aren't frequently manipulated. Personally, I'd rather make my decision based on what has actually happened, not what is expected to happen...

If you believe that many law enforcement agencies have officially cooperated with gunwriters or internet websites, to release complete data on shootings to include autopsy data, I'm afraid you've been mislead. Even getting that data through official channels from one LE agency to another can be quite difficult, without involvement is the case. Much autopsy data doesn't even include the data a wound ballistics expert would need to make any kind of opinions on projectile performance. I've looked at hundreds of them. It certainly wouldn't include mindset, etc.

One famous "one shot stop" study was completely debunked when a LE forensic specialist quoted in it, made a public request for the writer to produce the data he claimed to have received from him. The writer of course couldn't do it, as he was never given it, he only had a brief telecon. Despite claiming to have all autopsy data on all shootings in his "study".

It's reasonably easy to follow the money trails and see why so many have attempted to manipulate the gun and ammo buying public. I get it. Having a chart that says your chosen round provides 87.472985% "one shot stops" is sexier than, choose a cartridge that can expand while offering sufficient penetration, and practice until you shoot it well.

 

[Armybrat]

Colt made some nice ones….

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

I've got no problems with 380 ACP. With consistent practice / accuracy proficiency. Just about all cartridges could fit defense needs. I prefer the Makarov design (CZ 83) / (P-64) and the 9x18 MAK. Whole lot of graves in Russia due to it and "J, N, L, Y, M, and last P" man.
*** drop the gun: take the cannoli! range***
(Stock photo)

 

[desmobob]

I didn't mean to say "no agency ever reported honest statistics", I meant to say those who claimed to actually have such statistics, and correlated them into "one shot stop" charts, were fiction.

You did say it was all fiction, and I simply quoted you.

Of course reproducible testing doesn't include all the variables, but somehow you believe that anonymous claimed "statistics" do cover all the variables enough to make pronouncements of predicted outcomes?

I didn't say that at all. That's just part of the conjecture in your post. I'm sorry if you didn't get the gist of my post, but I don't want to argue about it.

This isn't to say that statistics aren't frequently manipulated. Personally, I'd rather make my decision based on what has actually happened, not what is expected to happen...

To each his own.

 

[Oninotaki]

The 6-shot cylinder of the .380 Pitbull is notable because the 9mm Pitbull was a 6-shot revolver originally, but had to be converted to a 5-shot cylinder. The reasons for the move weren't explained officially. Some said the clipless ejection mechanism was not reliable enough. But now we have a reversal to a 6-shot cylinder of the same diameter. Maybe the .380 brass does not stick as much as 9mm. Anyway, in the words of Chancellor Palpatine, "a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one".

That's frustrating to hear. A 3" barrel, 6 shot, no moon clip needed 9mm revolver for under $500 would be a nice option.

 

[Hikingman]

There's lot of fans of 9mm Kurz.

 

[zaitcev]

That's frustrating to hear. A 3" barrel, 6 shot, no moon clip needed 9mm revolver for under $500 would be a nice option.

I ended not liking the Charter Arms clipless system after using it. Because CA's petals are spring loaded, they always protrude into chambers. That precludes a use of speed loaders. I had to use magazines, which was a cute party trick, but always was a hair's width from dropping rounds on the ground. Of course, that being the case, I just had more ammo in those magazines than was needed. But still. And, even loading from a magazine was slow. If I still had a gun like that, I'd print a speed strip out of a resin.

Clips have issues to be sure. In particular, they are always delicate in annoying ways, so they must rest in holders. But then again, nobody throws spare mags into their pockets anymore either.

The .380 Taurus uses a clip and I prefer that, although it being Taurus it's not ideal. Factory clips are flimsy. TK's substitutes are better, but both varieties are thin. They are thinner than the extractor groove of .380 cartridges. So... a somewhat unexpected problem arises. It's extremely easy to gouge the brass when loading upon the tough metal of the clip. And then, the clip will seat a bit away from where it should be, and be stuck there in the new groove it just made. When that happens, a cartridge sticks out and jams the cylinder. That's right, gentlemen, we have an unreliable revolver!

I wish the next company making a revolver in .380 ACP developed a more sophisticated clip, made by stamping, with thicker edges.

Pictured, a cardboard clipholder for .380 ammunition:

 

[Elmer]

You did say it was all fiction, and I simply quoted you.

What I said exactly was..

"The reason the "real world" "one shot stop" statistics went away, is that it was all fiction."

The "studies" purporting to assign numerical values to "one shot stops"........ were fiction.

To each his own.

I agree. Many people seem to enjoy fiction.