.380ACP JHPs versus bone and ballistic gelatin

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

I have a few questions regarding this theory: Why were the rounds only tested through a P238? What about testing the same rounds through a pistol with a longer barrel? Are we to believe that barrel length has no effect on the total performance of the .380acp round? Are we to believe that this testing was only limited to .380 pocket pistols?

Therefore, I don't believe their testing to be complete without testing the rounds through a longer barreled pistol.

 

[kokapelli]

I have a few questions regarding this theory: Why were the rounds only tested through a P238? What about testing the same rounds through a pistol with a longer barrel? Are we to believe that barrel length has no effect on the total performance of the .380acp round? Are we to believe that this testing was only limited to .380 pocket pistols?

Therefore, I don't believe their testing to be complete without testing the rounds through a longer barreled pistol.

It would be my guess that by far most 380 pistols carried these days are of the pocket variety with barrels under 3".

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

Maybe so K, but I'd still like to see the same tests using something like a Bersa Thunder380 or something similar.

 

[kokapelli]

Maybe so K, but I'd still like to see the same tests using something like a Bersa Thunder380 or something similar.

I can offer this website that might have some good info for you.
http://bersachapterhouse.110mb.com/cartridges.html

 

[Brass Fetcher]

I have a few questions regarding this theory: Why were the rounds only tested through a P238? What about testing the same rounds through a pistol with a longer barrel? Are we to believe that barrel length has no effect on the total performance of the .380acp round? Are we to believe that this testing was only limited to .380 pocket pistols?

You should limit your expectations to the impact velocities presented in the report. Anything else is extrapolation ... unless of course you would like to fund a repeat of the test with a longer barrel 380ACP. Then the reality of that situation would become more certain.

That would be ashamed...NOT! Another way to look at it from a marketing point of view, it would give a manufacturer a cost advantage and possibly instant market share. I would love to pratice with my carry ammo...but I don't because it's too expensive.

One other thing that would be ideal about using FMJs that were designed to hurt people vs JHPs for self-defense is that tumbling FMJs would not be effected by the bone simulant and likely real bone as well. Heavy clothing would not be an issue and the rounds would present a limited down-range hazard after passing though a solid object like an interior wall.

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

Thanks for the info K. I appreciated it.

No thanks J. I don't have the funds to get my Thunder 380 repaired right now much less pay for new testing.

 

[AJChenMPH]

The penetration depth is in there... Table 1 near the bottom.

Gah...time to ask the Air Force for a refund. (I had the Air Force do PRK on my eyes two years ago.) Thanks, and sorry about that.

Looking at this again...can you explain why it says "RCBD 45gr TF/SP" and yet right underneath it says "Hornady 110gr FTX"? This is where Figure 11-14 is.

Thanks...

 

[distra]

Interesting study however, I did not see any wound cavity measurements presented here. It would be interesting to see FMJ data along side these data as the report narrative indicates the JHP don't "tumble" as much a FMJ. It would be nice to see that data as well. As for lethality, what values are used to correlate lethality with FMJ and JHP bullets? According to the FBI study, penetration and permanent cavity are the most correlated to lethality. Ultimately a CoM shot is designed to cause hydrostatic failure, 20"+ of penetration by the JHP round would clearly indicate a high potential for lethal interaction with vital organs. While bullet expansion can increase wound cavity, just because the round does not expand does not make it less lethal.

 

[lobo9er]

Maybe so K, but I'd still like to see the same tests using something like a Bersa Thunder380 or something similar.

buy some ballistic gel and see how things work out.

 

[tater_42]

This is a great report. In the summary you say "the wounding efficiency of the RBCD is questionable...similar to that of a 380ACP FMJ", I was wondering what the benefits of RBCD are then? Its exspensive right?

 

[BADUNAME37]

Excellent, professional write-up!

 

[barnetmill]

One of things that is needed make a judgement are the actual measured velocities of FMJ versus designed expanding bullets. Expanding loads are usually loaded to the max. This is not always true of FMJ that is often loaded to lower velocity. The ideal would be someway of taking the HP loads and defeating its ability to expand. They would likely tumble and you would have the best performance possible for the .380. I usually opt out for european FMJ loaded .380 ammo since if often is listed as a little hotter than american FMJ. I have not actually measured it and so can not be absolutely sure.