All other factors excluded, is .380 ACP the best pocket semi auto caliber?

[Ernie Bass]

I have about about two dozen handguns. Carry and shoot often the 9mm Micro's which I own about 6. I own about the same of 380 and own one P32. I am in no way a newbie to firearms. Plenty of training and years of experience. This thread has gone so far off topic.

Here is the deal. Learn to shoot what ever gun you carry with total competence. Quite trying to be the Judge on what another person carries. Worry about yourself. Spend more time on your training and shot placement with the gun you do carry. I hate to be blunt, but I carry a P32 many times in the summer. With some of my summer clothes,the small pistol works. If you do not like it then that is just the way it goes.
I doubt any caliber pistol or revolver is ideal, but I carry what I do and train with my guns and if that is not enough then so be it. I carry a P32, sometimes a 5 shot Snubbie and tough luck for anyone that does not like it or agree with it. Tired of ballistic wars that are so frequent on this forum by some of the so called experts.

It is way past time to close down this thread.

 

[Ed Ames]

A gentle warning (Moderator hat on): Watch it. See the rules to which you agreed when you registered.

As that was in 2006, I don’t know that the rules I agreed to are still published. But I can quote you the primer on courtesy as it stands now:

“Don't insult people, but challenge arguments. Correcting factual information or discussing how your experience varies from another member's is very different from slinging personal insults.”

I don’t believe that saying that I have not accused you of logical consistency is an insult, and I do believe I’ve been following that guidance.

How might on "quantize" a range of relative values into something that is not relative or comparative?

The usual way is to affix values to each and then map ranges of those values to new values that are relevant to you. E.g. you can assign each instance a value relative to some reference standard, and then say “anything Assigned a value less than the reference standard = 0, and anything assigned a value greater or equal to the reference = 1.” Then everything below the standard is a zero, and everything equal to or above it is a one. It makes a relative into an absolute. Then say zero is “no go” and you are left with only the 1s. This can be useful, but it results in things that are .9 of the reference being lumped in with things that are .02 of the reference, because it is absolutely lacking nuance.

I do not. I am discussing likelihood, which cannot be absolute.

Again, you can easily make a likelihood into an absolute. Just say your reference likelihood is 30%, and say “everything below 30% is unacceptable, everything equal to or above 30% is acceptable”. You’ve turned a likelihood into an absolute. People do it all the time.

 

[WheelGunMan]

This HAS been an interesting thread with regard to the .380 until all the bickering started. I've enjoyed the many different point of views. I agree with Ernie Bass.. shoot and train with what you have and learn to use it well..

 

[9mmepiphany]

As that was in 2006, I don’t know that the rules I agreed to are still published. But I can quote you the primer on courtesy as it stands now:

“Don't insult people, but challenge arguments. Correcting factual information or discussing how your experience varies from another member's is very different from slinging personal insults.”

I'm the moderator assigned to this sub-forum and I can address these issues.

If you're unsure of the current rules for this sub-forum, please feel free to re-read them as they are easily avaialbale...they have substantially changed in the time you've been a member

I don’t believe that saying that I have not accused you of logical consistency is an insult, and I do believe I’ve been following that guidance.

You would be incorrect in your belief.

I'm not issuing an infraction and I'm not directing this rebuke at you personally...if I were, it would be in a Private Conversation as we treat that as a confidential matter between Staff and Members...I'm directing this to the members who may have missed reading the Rules or who feel that they can slither around them by being clever.

I won't continue this discussion in a public forum, but would be willing to address it with you via PM (conversations) if you have additional questions

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I do believe I’ve been following that guidance......

But you have been bickering without any data or evidence.

There is, however, data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. What all that shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):
    

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
      
      • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
        
        
      • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
        
        
      • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
        
        
      • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
        
        
      • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
      
      
    • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
      
      • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
        
        
      • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
      
      
    • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
      
      
    • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:
    

    ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
    
    The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

  • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
    
    • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):
      

      In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

      
      
    • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):
      

      The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

      
      
    • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):
      

      Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
  

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

With all that said, the .380 ACP gives a good account of itself in Ellifritz' study. It's failure to incapacitate rate is comparable to the .38 Special, 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum, and much better than the .32. On the other hand Ellifritz was working with, in general, fairly small samples.

 

[Ed Ames]

Frank, thank you for stepping in and providing evidence for my point! You are awesome!

 

[TTv2]

Almost all authorities agree that a .38 Special is a viable defensive round. I know of none who recommend the .32.

Which authorities are these?

There are none.

So you can't legally respond with lethal force until an attack has begun, but you can illegally. Is that what you were trying to say and if not, please explain.

 

[CDW4ME]

In regard to printing and pocket carry, my untucked shirt helps break any printing (from PM9); also helps conceal the Glock thats IWB.
^ Not limited by work attire ^ (And ... untucked shirt looks sloppy is opinion. )

 

[Kleanbore]

Which authorities are these?

Most well known trainers, and the FBI Training Academy at Quantico.

Frank Ettin has participated wiht some of the best known authorities in delivering training, and he has offered this in a post above:

For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.

Note that the .380 is not on that list. However, I would carry one it that's what I had.

So you can't legally respond with lethal force until an attack has begun, but you can illegally. Is that what you were trying to say and if not, please explain.

No, it is not.

Let me try.

A lawful defender need not wait until an attack is under way before threatening or using deadly force.

Deadly force would be lawfully justified under circumstances in which a defender reasonably believed that it would be necessary to employ it to defend against an imminent attack likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

That means that the defender reasonably believed that attacker had the ability and the opportunity to carry out such an attack, and that he or she were in jeopardy of being so attacked.

Such a reasonable belief would depend upon several things: the other person's words, actions, and demeanor RE: apparent jeopardy; indications that the person has a weapon, openly displayed or perhaps held behind him, or other indications of ability; distance, as it would apply in the case of a contact weapon; and the existence or absence of cover, locked doors, etc..

A defender who chose to wait until a attack actually started would very likely be overcome.

The defender may use only as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent or stop the attack.

There are, of course, a few other considerations: the defender must not have provoked the incident, or been the initial aggressor (unless he made it clear that he wanted to withdraw); and mutual combat would negate a legal defense of self defense.

I hope that helps.

Frank Ettin has posted extensively on this subject. Search for his posts containing links to Defending the Self Defense Case, by attorney Lisa Steele

 

[FFGColorado]

[QUOTE="Ernie Bass, post: 11523231, member: 258052
"Tired of ballistic wars that are so frequent on all the gun forums by some of the so called experts.
.[/QUOTE]
FIFY....

Quarantine fatigue...

 

[Ernie Bass]

Lol, Quarantine Fatigue. Must have read some of the expert stuff so many times I feel like I have it memorized.

, Have to say this about all the post recently. Need to get out to the range and shoot some thing. Indoor today and outdoor tomorrow. Reminds me of this.

When you have to shoot, shoot, Don't talk.

 

[WheelGunMan]

Lol, Quarantine Fatigue. Must have read some of the expert stuff so many times I feel like I have it memorized.

, Have to say this about all the post recently. Need to get out to the range and shoot some thing. Indoor today and outdoor tomorrow. Reminds me of this so.

When you have to shoot, shoot, Don't talk.

I remember that!! Very funny clip!

 

[9mmepiphany]

Lol, Quarantine Fatigue. Must have read some of the expert stuff so many times I feel like I have it memorized.

, Have to say this about all the post recently. Need to get out to the range and shoot some thing.

Likely a good solution to Quarantine Fatigue.

This might be a good time to put this thread to bed. It has gone on longer than I had intended to let it go and seems to have reach a logical conclusion