best 380 defense load?

[CDW4ME]

But yet, it is what both the FBI, and ammo manufactures, use to quantify and qualify their products and choices, regardless of spec.

Here is the Winchester .380 ACP 95 gr. PDX1 round, through actual FBI spec clothing/gel., from a 2-3/4" barrel.
(which is only about 70% of the effective length of a 3-1/2" in barrel)

​

8.5 inches, with great expansion.
(and 10" from the longer barrel)

From a 2-3/4" micro.

Still in the 8-10" window that the U.S. Border Patrol found adequate.

Before everyone started getting shot laterally, through the upper arm.

8.5'' in that gel is more like 6'' in tissue, which is grossly under penetrative.

Border Patrol apparently wanted more penetration since they are now using a 147 gr. 9mm that penetrates 14'' in manufacturer testing, not clear gel.
Unfazed you refer back to an outdated standard they no longer use.
There is no agency LE, Border Patrol, FBI currently advocating less than 12'' penetration.

 

[C0untZer0]

Gun-Reck is referring to the ShootingtheBull410 PDX1 results with the IWBA four-layer heavy denim engineering evaluation tool where the PDX1 averaged 8.3" of penetration through FBI spec ordnance gel. Two out of 5 rounds went to 8.50" and one round went to 8.63"

I think the point that he is making is that 8.5" of penetration in real ordnance gel through 4 layers of denim is enough to reach vitals and end an attack.

 

[481]

Gun-Reck is referring to the ShootingtheBull410 PDX1 results with the IWBA four-layer heavy denim engineering evaluation tool where the PDX1 averaged 8.3" of penetration through FBI spec ordnance gel. Two out of 5 rounds went to 8.50" and one round went to 8.63"

I think the point that he is making is that 8.5" of penetration in real ordnance gel through 4 layers of denim is enough to reach vitals and end an attack.

I see.

Even with a frontal presentation, that already marginal value (8.00 - 8.50 inches) lessens in sufficiency when upraised/intervening limbs obstruct the target (a very common occurrence) and a less than cooperative assailant refuses to remain still and face forward while being shot at so that he can be neutralized.

The IWBA 4LD test is a great engineering test that, in this case, indicts the use of JHPs in the .380.

 

[Pistolay]

Gun-Reck is referring to the ShootingtheBull410 PDX1 results with the IWBA four-layer heavy denim engineering evaluation tool where the PDX1 averaged 8.3" of penetration through FBI spec ordnance gel. Two out of 5 rounds went to 8.50" and one round went to 8.63"

I think the point that he is making is that 8.5" of penetration in real ordnance gel through 4 layers of denim is enough to reach vitals and end an attack.

That IS the point he's making, although you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with any real credentials who agrees with it. Also, ShootingTheBull410's bare gel tests were done using Clear Ballistics gel, meaning they have no real value. The PDX1 would likely be in the 6.5-7" range in FBI-spec bare gel. If your assailant is wearing a t-shirt, is the penetration going to be closer to the bare gel or the 4 layers of denim? Probably the former, but it doesn't really matter. If you want to trust your life to a round that's going to penetrate 6.5 to 8.5 inches, that's your choice, but it's not one I would make.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Gun-Reck is referring to the ShootingtheBull410 PDX1 results with the IWBA four-layer heavy denim engineering evaluation tool where the PDX1 averaged 8.3" of penetration through FBI spec ordnance gel. Two out of 5 rounds went to 8.50" and one round went to 8.63"

I think the point that he is making is that 8.5" of penetration in real ordnance gel through 4 layers of denim is enough to reach vitals and end an attack.

Thank you.

And that, out of a 30% (effective length) longer 3.5" barrel, 10.0" of penetration is no unreasonable.

Which, baring a lateral shot through the upper arm, will crush a very nice sized hole through any organ targeted.

And nothing collateral down range.

 

[Gun-Reck]

That IS the point he's making, although you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with any real credentials who agrees with it. Also, ShootingTheBull410's bare gel tests were done using Clear Ballistics gel, meaning they have no real value. The PDX1 would likely be in the 6.5-7" range in FBI-spec bare gel. If your assailant is wearing a t-shirt, is the penetration going to be closer to the bare gel or the 4 layers of denim? Probably the former, but it doesn't really matter. If you want to trust your life to a round that's going to penetrate 6.5 to 8.5 inches, that's your choice, but it's not one I would make.

Bigger holes in vital organs stop fights quicker.

As does better shooting.

The .380 ACP compact pistol, like the Bera FireStorm, is a very easy pistol for even the inexperienced to shoot well.

What organ, even in a large 10" torso, can't be reached with the 7" blade of a KA-BAR fighting knife?

8-10" of penetration, with good shot placement and outstanding expansion, would do the same work as a heavier cartridge, sans the over-penetration.

Unless one believes that down-range collateral damage stops fights as well.

 

[Pistolay]

I wanted to provide an understandable explanation but didn't want ''to get to far into the weeds''; apologies for its length. I hope this helps.

It was understandable and interesting to read, thank you. But it begs the question, what is the most effective bullet type if you have to carry FMJ? If I understand correctly (big if), a flat nose will be more likely to punch through bone rather than slide off, but a round nose might do a bit more tissue damage.

I redid my calculations using the truncated cone exponent and came up with:

911FPS - 21.61"
847FPS - 20.48"
800FPS - 19.64"
700FPS - 17.80"

More than I'd prefer, but numbers I can live with. I guess I'm going to have to do those residual velocity calculations after all.

 

[Gun-Reck]

But it begs the question, what is the most effective bullet type if you have to carry FMJ?

The flat nosed Winchester 95 gr. ball.

Shoot lots, and be very sure of your backstop, as they are still guaranteed to exit even a large torso, and still penetrate a considerable amount of collateral.

 

[BushMaster-15]

.380 aka 9mm Kurz extremely controllable . IMO Feeding and expansion are critical factors . Most loads have more than enough penetration , so Diameter of bullets expansion should be a guideline . Can't go wrong with these again IMO . It's MY favorite back up and out of MY Walther they're deadly accurate .
I've had MY PPK since 1981 made in W. Germany and it's flawless in function .

380 Auto - 90 Grain FTX - Hornady Critical Defense​

 

[C0untZer0]

IMO, any gun choice and ammo choice is a matter of how much of the bell curve you want to cover.

On one end of the spectrum is a frontal shot on the skinny guy wearing a T-shirt. The skinny guy is probably going to be somewhere around 11" from front to back - not much muscle. On the other end of the bell curve is having to take a cross shot on a barrel-chested, muscle-bound thug wearing a jean jacket over a shirt, and a T-shirt underneath that.

Can the PDX hollow point go through a jean jacket, a shirt, a T-shirt, a bicep, another layer of T-shirt, another layer of shirt, another layer of jean jacket, another layer of jean jacket, another layer of shirt, another layer of T-shirt and still reach vital organs?

Some people are going to say "Well, hell... if that is the threat level that I'm going to prepare for, I'm going to carry a 10mm or a 44 Magnum." But many people opt to carry 380 pocket pistols and this is a niche discussion about 380 ACP.

Against the barrel-chested, muscle-bound thug wearing a T-shirt, shirt and a jean jacket, the Hornady XTP is going to be more effective than the 95gr Winchester PDX1.

 

[481]

Unfortunately, when faced with a life-threatening assault we will have no choice in the physical capability, size, and number of those we'll be forced to deal with.

If the decision to carry a .380 ACP is made (for whatever reason), then it would be wisest to choose the ammunition that offers the best guarantee of sufficient terminal performance; penetration depth that is adequate to reach vital organs no matter the target's orientation or its physical size.

 

[481]

It was understandable and interesting to read, thank you. But it begs the question, what is the most effective bullet type if you have to carry FMJ? If I understand correctly (big if), a flat nose will be more likely to punch through bone rather than slide off, but a round nose might do a bit more tissue damage.

I redid my calculations using the truncated cone exponent and came up with:

911FPS - 21.61"
847FPS - 20.48"
800FPS - 19.64"
700FPS - 17.80"

More than I'd prefer, but numbers I can live with. I guess I'm going to have to do those residual velocity calculations after all.

You're welcome.

You're already aware that residual velocity will be dependent upon target depth (a variable of frontal, oblique, lateral presentation), so it's going to be a matter of fiddling around with the numbers and determining what conditions will result in residual velocities that exceed skin penetration threshold velocity.

Might it be worth doing a quick chronograph session (if you have that ability) to determine the velocity of the 100-grain FMJFNs from your gun?

Well, of course!

Because shooting is always fun especially if you have a ''pressing reason'' to do so!

It's research!

 

[WYO]

And that, out of a 30% (effective length) longer 3.5" barrel, 10.0" of penetration is no unreasonable.

FWIW, I chronographed the 95 grain PDX1 through a Glock 42 (3.25 inch barrel) and a S&W Shield EZ .380 (3.68 inch barrel) in 2018. The 8 shot average MV through the Glock was 933 with an extreme spread of 75, and through the EZ was 1024 with an extreme spread of 75. That is about a 10% increase in average MV from the EZ over the 42. Even that data doesn't allow one to predict the impact of the difference on expansion and penetration.

 

[481]

FWIW, I chronographed the 95 grain PDX1 through a Glock 42 (3.25 inch barrel) and a S&W Shield EZ .380 (3.68 inch barrel) in 2018. The 8 shot average MV through the Glock was 933 with an extreme spread of 75, and through the EZ was 1024 with an extreme spread of 75. That is about a 10% increase in average MV from the EZ over the 42. Even that data doesn't allow one to predict the impact of the difference on expansion and penetration.

That's pretty substantial increase in velocity for just slightly more than an additional 4/10ths of an inch of barrel length! Excellent!

 

[Balrog]

That's pretty substantial increase in velocity for just slightly more than an additional 4/10ths of an inch of barrel length! Excellent!

I bet it didnt have much to do with barrel length. Some barrels are fast, and some are slow. I have chronographed this phenomenon many times. Same barrel length, same ammo, but one barrel is just faster than the other.

 

[481]

I bet it didnt have much to do with barrel length. Some barrels are fast, and some are slow. I have chronographed this phenomenon many times. Same barrel length, same ammo, but one barrel is just faster than the other.

It's a possibility, but longer runways tend to produce higher velocities as a general rule. It'll do for the purpose of discussion here.