.380 semi. vs .38 special+p

revolver VS semi

  • .38 special+p revolver

    Votes: 112 78.3%

  • .380 semi-auto

    Votes: 31 21.7%
  • Total voters
    143
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like a 380. if I think I need more its a 357 not a 38. 38 isn't bad though its in the eye of the beholder type of thing. 6 to one half dozen to another. That said I got some 38+p for a sp101 but usually its fed 357.
 
This has been rehashed a million times. They're both .35 caliber bullets and can kill someone. One is not significantly better than the other. Why beat a dead horse?
 
Oh, is it a new month and so time for this question again?

Just sticking to one ammo vendor, Buffalo Bore:
380 Auto +P Ammo - 90 gr. Jacketed Hollow Point (1200fps M.E. 288 ft. lbs)
Heavy .38 Special +P Ammo - 158 gr. L.S.W.C.H.P. --G.C. (1,000fps/M.E. 351 ft.lbs.)

Not huge but still a noticeable advantage to .38 Special +P. I prefer any revolver over the vast majority of the autos chambered for .380 so I picked .38 Special +P.

Pick your firearm.

Learn to use it well.

That will do more for you than worrying about .380 vs .38 Special +P.

(For the record, I carry 9mm 127gr +P+ JHP over either of them)
 
I like bigger bullets (diameter) and heavier bullets. The 38 has much heavier (more mass) than the 380. That said, there are some very nice little flat pocketable 380's out there and I would not feel too underprotected with one but I do prefer 5 of 38 to 7 of 380 in most cases.
 
Purely looking at the rounds? .38 Special IMHO.

But the problem is we're really talking about two different platforms. Small pocketable revolvers, or potentially much smaller/thinner and lighter pocket semi-automatics. If I were you I'd focus on the platform more and the caliber less.

I've got both, for general purpose pocket carry I prefer my S&W J-frame, but when I need something really small and skinny I go for my Sig P238.
 
I voted .38. Not because it's better. I just like it more. Both, will get the job done.
The only thing I have against .380 is, I'd rather have a 9mm. Nowadays some 9's are barely bigger than the .380's.
When I started carrying .32's (Seacamp in particular) and .380's (not as small or nice as todays) were the best out there. I tried them, didn't like them. Found snub revolvers worked FOR ME. Eventually figured out .357mag in a snub was alot of flash and bang. More effective yes, but, kind of wasteful. I figured I train and practice with .38, why not use .38? I still like .38special more, it suits me.

However, the Sig P238 has me thinking. A gun for when I can't carry a gun?
 
Let's see...I have owned one .380 in my life and sold it less than 2 weeks after I bought it. I currently own no less than half a dozen snub .38's....The .38 must be better.LOL.
 
Wondering, which is better as a ccw?
Click to expand...

Better in which way, or ways?

Manipulation?

Design?

Bullet weight?

Capacity?

Ergonomics?

Shooter's ability to accurately, consistently & effectively shoot them?

Felt recoil & controllability?

Susceptibility to feeding/functioning issues caused by grip stability, technique or ammunition?

Shooter familiarity?

Ease of cleaning, lubrication, maintenance?

Warranty, service & parts support?

Carry method for individual user?



Dunno. Depends.

I once owned a .380 pistol (Beretta M84). I didn't keep it that long. I've handled and fired a LOT of assorted .380's over the years that I've been a LE firearms instructor. Never really found another one I felt like buying with my own money.

However, I presently own seven 5-shot snub revolvers (all but one of which is DAO). I carry one or another of them quite often, and use them for range training/practice/quals more often than any other firearms instructor/armorer of my current acquaintance.

Probably any number of folks who could express an opinion and experience contrary to mine, though. Hardly surprising.

I remember the last time I helped audit the number of off-duty weapons chambered in both .380 & .38 Spl (for ammunition inventory purpose). The number of folks using both calibers was pretty similar, and I've continued to see new examples of both 5-shot .38's and .380's come through the quals.

I guess there's folks who like each of them.

Sales of both seem to be continuing to grow, too.

So, which do you think is a better choice for a CCW role, for your anticipated needs?

Which best suits your skillset & abilities, as you deem them to exist?

Once you decide which type of equipment is something upon which you're willing to stake your life and the lives of loved ones, etc), then let's talk about knowledge, training, practice, skillset & mindset. ;)

Equipment is just .... well, equipment.

Now, the equipment user ... there's something to give some serious thought to developing, improving & maintaining.

Do I tend to prefer the .38 S&W Spl cartridge over the .380 ACP? Yep. I do.

That's just me, though.

How about you? :D
 
Show me a .380 that opens to .60" and penetrates to 12" in short barrel lengths.

I wouldn't shoot anything but FMJ in the .380. IF they expand -which is woefully hit or miss- they do not penetrate deep enough.

I huff when I hear these two compared, a better comparison is 9mm to .38spl+p.

I'm sure enough .380+p out of the tiny guns would not only hurt, cause more flip but also wear out the slide, frame, spring or all of the above. The .38spl airweight revolver doesn't mind from cowboy loads up to hot BB +p.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, .380 isn't really high on my list.
I would rather the 9mm over it. But what I should've asked was stated above, 9mm vs .38. But I found a nice .38+p today for 300 and will be getting that mainly cause its in my price range and a small 9mm isn't. The lc9 is a maybe but the grips are so thin and uncomfortable for me.
 
I'm sure enough .380+p out of the tiny guns would not only hurt
Click to expand...
as 38+p may do the same out of a plastic revolver. Its all in the shooter. try both see what you like. Having both in the arsenal doesnt hurt. A 380 fits in a pocket pretty darn easy, with an extra mag.
 
tonytuna said:
To be honest, .380 isn't really high on my list.
I would rather the 9mm over it. But what I should've asked was stated above, 9mm vs .38. But I found a nice .38+p today for 300 and will be getting that mainly cause its in my price range and a small 9mm isn't. The lc9 is a maybe but the grips are so thin and uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...
Well if you just can't do the thin grips then the small 380's wouldn't work out either. Another thin 9 is the Keltec PF9 for less than $300.

Maybe try out the compact versions of larger guns like the G26, XDsc and M&Pc. They sure have thicker grips. You'd gain some rounds too.

Personally I'm very happy with the S&W 442, its my "always gun". I think they run something like $360, good value IMO.
 
I guess the question "which is better?" is kinda inadequate to really look at this, because you're really asking a pretty darned big question.

Let's look at specifically what you're getting with each cartridge.

The .380 Auto is a round that fires a what .... 95 grain projectile at 800 to 1000 fps from an LCP.
Now, realistically this will probably make a bad guy's day pretty darned bad. How bad? Well, that depends on where you hit him and what mood he's in that day. Is he in a fightin' mood?
But look at what the LCP style weapon actually gives you. It gives you six rounds in a package that is small enough to fit in the pocket of a bathrobe, some fairly tight jeans, or even a wallet style holster. But let's be clear here. The average five shot snubbie while very, very concealable is not nearly that small. the .380 launched from a true pocket pistol is decent enough to get the job done and pretty much invisible.

Let's look at the .38 Special. From an LCR you can launch a 129 to 158n grain projectile at speed ranging from 850 to 1.1k fps.
This is arguable better ballistic performance, but look at the platform. You get a gun that is larger, wider, heavier and usually has less capacity. Don't get me wrong. A snubbie conceals just fine for most applications, but it is less concealable than for instance an LCP. I know people will chime in how they conceal snubbies just fine and I'm not contesting that. What I am saying a .380 pocket auto is even *easier* to conceal.

So really, you seem to ground your choice of concealment based on a cartridge. Instead of the platform you launch the thing from. A 155mm shell hits harder than a 105 shell. but can you airlift a 155mm Howitzer on a UH-60?

Instead of asking about the cartridge, ask yourself what you wanna do. Do you wanna be invisible in your carrying habits or borderline invisible?
Are you proportioned better to hide a fatter gun or does your bodyshape really not work well with a fatter gun?

Does this make sense?

[edit]

An easy trap to fall into is for instance the idea that because someone has a bunch of whatever it must be great.

For the longest time people had single shot flintlock pistols and were doing just fine. So someone can say "Well, I have tons of them, so they have to be great." But the fact is that if we truly stuck to this line of thinking we'd never even have made it to rifling.
I for instance have a lot of Beretta 92 knockoffs. but that doesn't make a Beretta 92 knockoff the best weapon for everyone.

So whenever someone says "Well, people have been doing this for XYZ, so it must be working" that's kind of a moot point. People in theory have been scavenging nuts off the ground for millenia. That doesn't make it the best way to feed a civilization.

You gotta ask the right question. And judging a CCW weapon on cartridge is asking the wrong question. You need the gun you will have on you the largest amount of the time. Not the latest and greatest .500 S&W Magnum pocket reapater with an ammo belt.

So, ballistically speaking, the .38 special is the wider choice as it allows a lot of different loadings that work well. But you find me a five shot snubbie as skinny as a .380 autopistol.
 
Last edited:
If limited to factory ammo it's a near toss up. My 2" J frames are almost exactly the same dimensions as my compact 380. The 90 grain 380 JHP at 950 FPS is so close to the 125@925 for the 38 +P that I don't see much difference. Big advantage to the 380 is seven rounds vs. five for the revolver.

Even so, I prefer the 38 revolver (with my 125@1100 load).
 
This is about the two rounds out of small & short barreled guns, a class known as Back Up Guns (BUG)

Dr Gary Roberts, the leading Ballistic Researcher in the United States today:

BUG's: .380 ACP vs. .38 Sp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2/28/12

If you are an LE officer, carry a BUG!!!

Many small, easily concealed semi-automatic pistols which are recommended for law enforcement backup or concealed carry use fire .380 ACP or smaller bullets. While these small caliber handgun bullets can produce fatal wounds,they are less likely to produce the rapid incapacitation necessary in law enforcement or self-defense situations.

Handguns chambered in .380 ACP are small, compact, and generally easy to carry. Unfortunately, testing has shown that they offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry. The terminal performance of .380 ACP JHP's is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP FMJ's offer adequate penetration, but no expansion. All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion. Stick with FMJ for .380 ACP or better yet, don't use it at all. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is really not recommended for LE use and many savvy agencies prohibit them.

While both the .380 ACP and .38 sp can obviously be lethal; the .38 sp is more likely to incapacitate an attacker when used in a BUG role.

BUG--Infrequently used, but when needed, it must be 100% reliable because of the extreme emergency situation the user is dealing with. Generally secreted in pockets, ankle holsters, body armor holsters, etc... Often covered in lint, grime, and gunk. By their very nature, usually applied to the opponent in an up close and personal encounter, many times involving contact shots. A small .38 sp revolver is more reliable in these situations than a small .380 ACP pistol, especially with contact shots or if fired from a pocket.

--------------------------------------------------

There have been many reports in the scientific literature, by Dr. Fackler and others, recommending the 158 gr +P LSWCHP as offering adequate performance. Please put this in context for the time that these papers were written in the late 1980's and early 1990's--no denim testing was being performed at that time, no robust expanding JHP's, like the Barnes XPB, Federal Tactical & HST, Speer Gold Dot, or Win Ranger Talon existed. In the proper historical perspective, the 158 gr +P LSWCHP fired out 3-4" barrel revolvers was one of the best rounds available--and it is still a viable choice, as long as you understand its characteristics.

While oversimplified, bare gelatin gives information about best case performance, while 4 layer denim provides data on worst case performance--in reality, the actual performance may be somewhere in between. The four layer denim test is NOT designed to simulate any type of clothing--it is simply an engineering test to assess the ability of a projectile to resist plugging and robustly expand. FWIW, one of the senior engineers at a very respected handgun ammunition manufacturer recently commented that bullets that do well in 4 layer denim testing have invariably worked well in actual officer involved shooting incidents.

With few exceptions, the vast majority of .38 Sp JHP's fail to expand when fired from 2" barrels in the 4 layer denim test. Many of the lighter JHP's demonstrate over expansion and insufficient penetration in bare gel testing. Also, the harsher recoil of the +P loads in lightweight J-frames tends to minimize practice efforts and decrease accuracy for many officers. The 158 gr +P LSWCHP offers adequate penetration, however in a 2" revolver the 158gr +P LSWCHP does not reliably expand. If it fails to expand, it will produce less wound trauma than a WC. Target wadcutters offer good penetration, cut tissue efficiently, and have relatively mild recoil. With wadcutters harder alloys and sharper leading edges are the way to go. Wadcutters perform exactly the same in both bare and 4 layer denim covered gel when fired from a 2" J-frame.

When faced with too little penetration, as is common with lightweight .38 Sp JHP loads or too much penetration like with the wadcutters, then go with penetration. Agencies around here have used the Winchester 148 gr standard pressure lead target wadcutter (X38SMRP), as well as the Federal (GM38A) version--both work. A sharper edged wadcutter would even be better... Dr. Fackler has written in Fackler ML: "The Full Wadcutter--An Extremely Effective Bullet Design", Wound Ballistics Review. 4(2):6-7, Fall 1999)
Quote:
"As a surgeon by profession, I am impressed by bullets with a cutting action (eg. Winchester Talon and Remington Golden Saber). Cutting is many times more efficient at disrupting tissue than the crushing mechanism by which ordinary bullets produce the hole through which they penetrate. The secret to the increased efficiency of the full wadcutter bullet is the cutting action of its sharp circumferential leading edge. Actually, cutting is simply very localized crush; by decreasing the area over which a given force is spread, we can greatly increase the magnitude to the amount of force delivered per unit are--which is a fancy way of saying that sharp knives cut a lot better than dull ones. As a result, the calculation of forces on tissue during penetration underestimate the true effectiveness of the wadcutter bullet relative to other shapes."

Currently, the Speer Gold Dot 135 gr +P JHP, Winchester 130 gr bonded +P JHP (RA38B), and Barnes 110 gr XPB all copper JHP (for ex. in the Corbon DPX loading) offer the most reliable expansion we have seen from a .38 sp 2” BUG; Hornady 110 gr standard pressure and +P Critical Defense loads also offer good performance out of 2" barrel revolvers.

Any of the Airweight J-frames are fine for BUG use. The steel J-frames are a bit too heavy for comfortable all day wear on the ankle, body armor, or in a pocket. My current J-frames are 342's and previously in my career I have used the 37, 38, 649, and 642. I like the 342 w/Lasergrips very much. Shooting is not too bad with standard pressure wadcutters and the 110 gr DPX, but not so comfortable with the Speer 135 gr JHP +P Gold Dots. Before the advent of the 110 gr Corbon DPX load, I used to carry standard pressure wadcutters in my J-frames with Gold Dot 135 gr +P JHP's in speed strips for re-loads, as the flat front wadcutters were hard to reload with under stress. There is no reason to go with .357 mag in a J-frame, as the significantly larger muzzle blast and flash, and harsher recoil of the .357 Magnum does not result in substantially improved terminal performance compared to the more controllable .38 Special bullets when fired from 2” barrels.

For years, J-frames were considered "arm's reach" weapons, that is until CTC Lasergrips were added. With the mild recoil of target wadcutters, officers are actually practicing with their BUG's; when combined with Lasergrips, qualification scores with J-frames have dramatically increased. Now 5 shots rapid-fire in a 6" circle at 25 yds is not uncommon--kind of mind blowing watching officers who could not hit the target at 25 yds with a J-frame suddenly qualify with all shots in the black…

2" J-frames are great BUG's and marginally acceptable low threat carry guns because they are lightweight, reliable, and offer acceptable terminal performance at close range--downsides are difficulty in shooting well at longer ranges because of sight design and sight radius limitations, along with reduced capacity coupled with slower reloading. Nonetheless, with the addition of CTC Laser Grips and an enclosed or shrouded hammer, the 2" J-frame models without key locks (I personally will NEVER own firearm with an integral lock) may be the best BUG's and most reliable pocket handguns available.

Another great BUG option if it can be comfortably carried, is a compact 3-3.5" barrel 9 mm pistol like the G26, Walther PPS, HK P2000SK, Kahr PM9, Sig P239, or S&W 3913, as these offer superior terminal performance compared to either .380 ACP or .38 Sp handguns. A G26 is particularly nice when using a G19 or 17 as a primary weapon due to the ability to use the same magazines.

As always, don't get too wrapped in the nuances of ammunition terminal performance. Spend your time and money on developing a warrior mindset, training, practice, and more training.
Click to expand...

My BUG is a 'J' frame S&W. I have been carrying one shortly after I put on a gun for business in 1966. I have used my handguns in firefights several times, 11 IIRC. 4 times with a 4" Victory model S&W 38spl (WWII model 10 skinny 4" Barrel). The other times with a 1911 45acp. I was never wounded while fighting with my handguns, only my rifles.

Even though I had a BUG in each of the above cases, I never needed to go there.

I choose the 38spl over the 380 every time. Of course your combat experience may be different. Please let us hear your story.

Thank you.

Fred
 
It comes down to platform. If you like a revolver, then it's .38SPL. If you prefer a semi-auto, then it's .380ACP.
 
The smaller the semi auto = more likely to have issues like feeding problems and sensitivity to different ammo. J-frame revolver is more likely to launch its 5 cartridges under adverse conditions!
 
This has been rehashed a million times. They're both .35 caliber bullets and can kill someone. One is not significantly better than the other. Why beat a dead horse?
Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree. I don't care really what anyone say's or what proof they think they have that a .380 vs. .38 Spl. or .9X19mm vs. .9X18mm I am willing to bet no "SANE" person would be willing to bet their life on any of those not killing them if they were shot by one just to test that theory!:banghead:
(I voted .38 Spl. "only" because I happen to carry a .38 "snubbie" for my CHL, the .380 would also do just fine.)
 
Scratch that. Mods feel free to delete. I apparently have a reading problem!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top