Not sure I understand your point. Why would I want a self defense round to perform differently than a "service" round?
best 380 defense load?
- Thread starter Balrog
- Start date
fastbolt
Member
When the FBI first got into the ballistic testing of JHP ammunition at the end of the 80's, they did so stating they were looking to develop minimum performance protocols for Duty Ammunition for their agency. When they sent out copies of their testing to state and local agencies who requested copies (and eventually required supervisory or greater authority on a letterhead request), they included a disclaimer that they weren't recommending any particular ammunition be chosen for Duty use by anyone else, and that each agency needed to determine their own needs for the circumstances they anticipated.
A little later ('95), a Lt from CA's CHP and the IWBA devised the 4 Layer Denim gel test protocol, which is different than the Heavy Clothing test protocol, and was really designed as an 'acid test' to assess whether a JHP might resist plugging and still offer robust expansion.
The modern selection of calibers chosen for Duty use has left the venerable, earlier 20th century .38SPL and .380ACP police calibers in the dust of history, in some ways. However, the popularity of them for police use as Secondary ('backup') weapons and off-duty weapons has breathed new life into them, and American ammunition makers have responded by offering some improved options. However, not everyone considers that lesser calibers chosen to fulfill a Secondary or Off-duty role might need to meet the same 'performance' levels commonly used to evaluate Duty ammunition.
The best performing of the more modern .38SPL +P JHP's, for example don't necessarily demonstrate the ability to meet the 12" "minimum" penetration requirement, but they've still managed to earn an enviable reputation among LE users over the years. The Speer 135gr +P GDHP, Short Barrel load, for example, was designed for use in the 1 7/8" S&W M640. In the factory testing it averaged 11" in the Bare Gel and Heavy Clothing/Gel FBI tests, but that doesn't seem to bother any of the agencies who use/issue it for their folks using snubs for Secondary and/or Off-duty weapons.
There's been some occasional advertising by the big name American ammo makers who explain that Private Person users of self defense ammunition may not wish (or need) JHP ammo choices that meet the testing protocols commonly used by LE in Duty ammo selection. I'd not think to gainsay them, nor the people who choose self defense ammo which might not meet Duty ammo performance specs.
FWIW, while I still keep an eye on some of the better done scientific testing (organic gel or Fackler water box testing), I've never been overly concerned with what my off-duty ammo does in the auto windshield or sheet metal testing. Comes to that, although much of my career was spent in and around motor vehicles, I never lost any sleep worrying about any nuances between standard cup & core JHP's and the various Bonded JHP's. I give more attention to bullet weight (mass) when it comes to thinking about veh's ... and the decreased likelihood of me needing to think about engaging someone attacking me who may be using veh's as cover, now that I'm retired. I'm no longer making traffic stops of motor veh's now that I'm retired, or getting in pursuits.
Last edited:
That manufacture spec sheet contains the Ranger-T Series, not the PDX1 round.
Have shot these into all kinds of medium from a 3.5" barrel, and they penetrate in excess of 10 inches, expand well, and tear things up.
For the choice of .380 ACP from that barrel length, it is outstanding.
For a frontal torso presentation in a Self Defense shooting, a 9mm would just carry its extra energy out the back, and probably not expand as much.
Shoot what you have confidence in.
This is mine.
Clear gel allows for greater penetration than other gel.
But, that doesn't/won't matter because a unobstructed frontal shot in a self defense situation is apparently expected, as posts that propose otherwise are getting dismissed.
And if a not perfect frontal shot was acknowledged as a potential that would likely be subsequently dismissed with the notion of shooting more bullets that don't need to penetrate 12''.
A test of the PDX Defender that is not clear gel, penetration is deficient:
If I am ever in a self defense situation, I expect my assailant to face me, strip from the waist up, put his hands behind his back, and hold still while I shoot him.
chaim
Member
I'm not a fan of .380 for defense and can't bring myself to carry my LCP for that reason, however, circumstances vary and some people can't conceal anything bigger or for health reasons can have anything with more recoil.
If I ever change my mind, I'm not comfortable with any of the JHP loads. They all seem to either underpenetrate quite dramatically (7-10" in ideal circumstances, i.e. ballistics or clear gel testing), or fail to expand in which case they usually overpenetrate (I live in a relatively urban area so there is a real chance that some potential self defense scenarios would put me in a crowded area). I would consider the XTP since it usually doesn't expand, but it seems less likely than other unexpanded JHP or a FMJ to overpenetrate. I would also consider the Critical Defense loading since it seems more likely to give minimally acceptable expansion and penetration than the others, though as the OP pointed out a few times, it seems that testing of even the "good" .380 JHP rounds is quite inconsistent. I'm also willing to give the Underwood Defenders a chance. Even if they didn't overpenetrate, I'm not willing to go with FMJ, nor am I comfortable with severe underpenetration in a JHP, in a round that is already only barely meeting the minimum standards for self defense (if that).
I'm old enough to remember when I started getting into guns, many/most people didn't fully trust 9mm and would recommend going .40 or .45 for self defense. A good JHP would make a big difference and many of the naysayers would recognize that, the problem at the time was there weren't really any that would reliably and consistently expand in heavy clothing. Now, after about 20 years of serious development, most ammo makers have rounds that can quite consistently perform well in any clothing. Now, most people seem to be comfortable with 9mm, and .40 and .45 seem to be on the way out. I'd like to see the same progress in .380 performance before I'm comfortable with them.
That said, most tests use small pocket guns like the LCP. It makes sense, that is what people are carrying. However, in such a marginal round, small differences might make all the difference. I'm curious how some of the modern .380 JHP loads might do in a more traditional .380 (even the PPK or PPK/S is larger than an LCP) and would love to see tests out of a PPK, CZ 83, SIG P230/232, Beretta 84, etc. Not that I'd carry one since there are smaller 9mms, but it would be fun. It could also be useful info for older folks and others with health issues that may make those the most powerful guns they could shoot (and with diabetes and the future likelihoood of neuropathy, it could easily be in my future as well).
If I ever change my mind, I'm not comfortable with any of the JHP loads. They all seem to either underpenetrate quite dramatically (7-10" in ideal circumstances, i.e. ballistics or clear gel testing), or fail to expand in which case they usually overpenetrate (I live in a relatively urban area so there is a real chance that some potential self defense scenarios would put me in a crowded area). I would consider the XTP since it usually doesn't expand, but it seems less likely than other unexpanded JHP or a FMJ to overpenetrate. I would also consider the Critical Defense loading since it seems more likely to give minimally acceptable expansion and penetration than the others, though as the OP pointed out a few times, it seems that testing of even the "good" .380 JHP rounds is quite inconsistent. I'm also willing to give the Underwood Defenders a chance. Even if they didn't overpenetrate, I'm not willing to go with FMJ, nor am I comfortable with severe underpenetration in a JHP, in a round that is already only barely meeting the minimum standards for self defense (if that).
I'm old enough to remember when I started getting into guns, many/most people didn't fully trust 9mm and would recommend going .40 or .45 for self defense. A good JHP would make a big difference and many of the naysayers would recognize that, the problem at the time was there weren't really any that would reliably and consistently expand in heavy clothing. Now, after about 20 years of serious development, most ammo makers have rounds that can quite consistently perform well in any clothing. Now, most people seem to be comfortable with 9mm, and .40 and .45 seem to be on the way out. I'd like to see the same progress in .380 performance before I'm comfortable with them.
That said, most tests use small pocket guns like the LCP. It makes sense, that is what people are carrying. However, in such a marginal round, small differences might make all the difference. I'm curious how some of the modern .380 JHP loads might do in a more traditional .380 (even the PPK or PPK/S is larger than an LCP) and would love to see tests out of a PPK, CZ 83, SIG P230/232, Beretta 84, etc. Not that I'd carry one since there are smaller 9mms, but it would be fun. It could also be useful info for older folks and others with health issues that may make those the most powerful guns they could shoot (and with diabetes and the future likelihoood of neuropathy, it could easily be in my future as well).
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
That is a slippery slope fallacy.
Why not a rifle or shotgun?
The fact is: 10" of penetration, and outstanding expansion, is adequate Self Defense performance.
If your pistol is a 3.5" .380 ACP? The Winchester PDX1 load will provide that performance.
If, however, you require service pistol performance, including a lateral thoracic shot? By all means, pick a different pistol and cartridge.
But that is not the topic of this thread.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
Am familiar with both Dr. Roberts and his article.
The vector pics, which represent misses - have little to do with a frontal torso Self Defense presentation, by far the most common.
If one aims for the internal target, like bow-hunting, the depth to target might actually be less, with less obstruction.
And the StB commentary states that the "Miami Shooting" Lateral Thoracic Shot - was the reason that the FBI upped the Service Pistol spec from 10" to 12".
Last edited:
Pistolay
Contributing Member
Check out the Brass Fetcher .380 tests using 10% FBI-spec organic gel. He does full set of sets of tests with a 2.8" barrel and a smaller set with a 3.5" barrel. His results for the longer barrel were atrocious, apparently because the longer barrel pushes the bullets fast enough to fully expand, limiting penetration.
Last edited:
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
The tests were conducted with IWBA heavy clothing.
Have tested the PDX1 round with 4-layers of heavy denim, and it performs very well.
If you are not comfortable with the Self Defense frontal torso scenario? Then, by all means, choose a different pistol and cartridge.
Pistolay
Contributing Member
I've never seen any trustworthy source make this claim. Where did you see this?
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
The FBI spec was 10" of penetration with good expansion, until the Miami/Dade shootout lateral thoracic shot, which was through an open car window, was added.
This is the PDX1 round from a 3.25" barrel, with heavy clothing:
The Winchester PDX1 round - was not part of the test.
Last edited:
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
On the contrary.
Expansion is outstanding, and out of a 3.5" barrel, penetration will be in excess of 10".
Fine for a Self Defense round.
Pistolay
Contributing Member
That may be so, but these days, I'm unaware of a single ballistics expert who says that 10" of penetration is adequate. The closest I've seen was Duncan McPherson, who said in his book: "11.5" of penetration shouldn't completely disqualify a bullet from being acceptable either." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, even for a minimal half-inch shortfall.
Re: the FBI shootout, per The Free Library: "Jerry Dove's 115-grain 9mm Winchester Silvertip bullet hit Platt in the lower part of his right bicep. It traveled up into his arm, severing the brachial artery and nerve, then exited the arm and hit the right side of Platt's chest where it penetrated his right lung. The bullet punched into Platt's right lung and stopped an inch or two short of his heart." It's not at all unreasonable to assume that an over-penetrating .380 FMJ traveling the same path would have reached his heart.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
Again, the FBI Miami/Dade shootout Lateral Thoracic Shot - through an open car window.
It has skewed the paradigm and is now dogma.
A large torso is 10" thick.
By far, the most common presentation for a Self Defense confrontation is frontal.
The FBI spec, pre-Miami/Dade Shooting, was 10" of penetration with good expansion.
To say that it is now inadequate for Self Defense? But 12" is outstanding?
The intended target has not changed, nor has its presentation.
Only the Service spec has, to incorporate the Lateral Thoracic Shot.
Last edited:
It wasn't just a lateral thoracic shot. It had to go through the upper arm on an angle, exit the arm and then re-enter the chest, already expanded. Even then, it was a lethal shot--just not as fast as everyone would have liked.
I don't know about that. People are pretty mobile in a fight--lateral thoracic shots are certainly possible, even in self-defense shots. That's not to say that I would immediately rate the self-defense value of a loading as zero because it won't make 12" of penetration while expanded. Just saying that I don't think it's quite accurate to say that self-defenders can eliminate the possibility of having to take a shot from a less than ideal angle for best penetration.
Pistolay
Contributing Member
Bullets don't slow down after going through an open window, and I've never seen any forensic analysis claiming that the bullet actually hit bone, not to say it doesn't exist somewhere. In any event, part of the 12-18" spec is supposedly to compensate for hitting bone, like ribs, which would be probable from a frontal shot.
As far as the most common presentation being frontal, yeah sure, but the guy isn't going to be standing there like a paper target. Just as one example
(there are several I can think of) if he's trying to shoot at you, there's a really good chance you're going to hit his arm if you're aiming for center mass. Getting a clean shot at the center of his chest is not the most likely thing that's going to happen.
And again, I've been reading a lot of stuff lately (way too much, according to my wife) from people heavily involved in ballistics testing and theory, and all of them say you need a minimum of 12" of penetration in 10% calibrated organic gel. None of them say that 12" is "outstanding."
As an aside, I notice that the PDX1 test you referenced was from Lucky Gunner. Those tests were conducted using Clear Ballistics gel. There seems to be a consensus these days that Clear Ballistics gel doesn't accurately reproduce the results from 10% organic gel. I've seen four different studies over the past six years to this effect. If that bullet got 10" in Clear Ballistics, I would expect it to get 8-9" in FBI-spec gel.
You keep using Lucky Gunner as a reference; from your favorite source:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Why 12 inches?
"We typically imagine a potential attacker will be directly in front of us, facing our direction with squared shoulders, much like the paper and cardboard targets we usually use. But it should come as no surprise that this is not how gunfights usually go down. We have to account for a human target that may be turned slightly toward or away form us at an angle, or possibly even above or below us, or with arms partially obscuring the torso.""If you’re having a hard time picturing why this would affect the penetration depth necessary to reliably stop an attack, imagine you’ve just been ambushed by a 275 pound dude wielding a baseball bat. As he is rushing toward you, winding up the bat for a knockout blow, you manage to draw your pistol and fire a perfectly aimed shot at his upper chest. But since he’s in mid-swing, the bullet doesn’t go straight into his chest — it enters his arm just above the elbow and now has to pass through half an arm, a shoulder, a rib cage, and a lung in order to reach the heart or spine. A bullet that can penetrate only 9 inches might lodge in the guy’s rib; unpleasant for him, but not the definitive fight-stopping shot we want."
Armored farmer
Member
I was disappointed in my HSTs when they failed to penetrate a whitetail skull.
I carry CorBon in my .380 now.
I carry CorBon in my .380 now.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
That is what is now quantified as The FBI "Lateral Thoracic Cavity Shot" that drives the FBI spec..
Upper arm, and then over half the thoracic cavity to the heart, with three separate clothing layers.
Through an open car window.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
10" of penetration, with good expansion, will get to any organ directly targeted in even a large torso, regardless of the above fantasy.
It was the FBI spec, pre-Miami/Dade.
If the upper arm is an issue? It won't be covering the face/thorax/pelvic girdle all at the same time.
Any one of which will deliver a "knockout blow" that will stop the threat.
If you are uncomfortable with shot placement? By all means, choose a pistol/caliber that negates that.
But, as it does not actually exist, and merely mitigates the above scenario, it is still a choice.
Literally the only place I can find where "Lateral Thoracic Cavity Shot" appears on the internet is in your posts on this thread. What reference are you using that defines (quantifies in your words) the FBI "Lateral Thoracic Cavity Shot"?
Do you have a reference for this? I'm curious about how the FBI established/tested ammunition performance specifications prior to Miami.
You keep saying this. I thought maybe it was a mistake but this is now the third or fourth time. Since it's apparently worth repeating, perhaps you can explain how much penetration is required to shoot through an open car window.
Lucky Gunner clear gel testing cited for bullet performance, repeatedly*; look what the 380 did in clear gel.
As I said before, clear gel tends to yield greater penetration than synthetic gel, now with examples:
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
Manufacturer test, Federal makes the ammo, their tests:
How did those same bullets penetrate in Lucky Gunner clear gel?
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
9mm 147 gr. HST - 19'' / .60
9mm 124 +P HST - 18.3'' / .66
40 S&W 180 HST - 18.5'' / .72
In all three examples clear gel has yielded penetration about 50% greater (approximately 6 inches) than manufacturer testing.
Apply that to your favorite 380 bullet that penetrates 10'' in clear gel - now subtract.
*And despite it coming from repeatedly referenced Lucky Gunner, anything other that a unobstructed shot into the vitals is deemed fantasy.
If the best one can do is 380 - best 380 load is thread topic - a load that penetrates greater than 12'' and expands in ballistic gel (not clear gel) from a LCP 380:
Screenshot from before the website was taken down (Hydra Shok Deep):
Pistolay
Contributing Member
In the middle of a gunfight, with adrenaline pumping through the roof and who knows what else going on, the real fantasy for anyone who isn't highly trained and experienced in combat tactics is thinking they're going to have the time and presence of mind to figure out, in a split-second, which part of the face/thorax/pelvic girdle is unobstructed and deliver a precision shot to that location. I'll freely admit that I'm not bad-ass enough to do that, and I'd never bet my life on my ability to do so.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 560
Since it's apparently worth repeating, perhaps you can explain how much penetration is required to shoot through an open car window.
The FBI Lateral Thoracic Cavity shot, from the 1986 Miami/Dade shootout, oft repeated.
Have you bothered to look at that?
It initiated both the 12" penetration spec., and the abandonment of the 9mm and development of the FBI 10mm/.40 S&W.
Last edited:
