One of the best responses ever.
For those who will go no lower than 9mm...
- Thread starter improperlyaged
- Start date
- Status
CZF
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,034
I've owmed both a Shield and a LCP.
Hated the long triggers and snappy single-stack 9mm recoil.
Much prefer my 9.5 oz LCP that is much smaller and lighter.
Some people might be able to pocket or ankle carry a Shield/Glock/ect
but not me.
With all the .380 threads in the forums these days.
People need to see the .380 for what it is and offers, not what it's not.
It will always be weaker than the service calibers, but offers reasonable stopping power in a smaller envelope.
My LCP conceals/carries better than my LCR .357 that is more powerful, yet
it also offers 2 more shots.
Hated the long triggers and snappy single-stack 9mm recoil.
Much prefer my 9.5 oz LCP that is much smaller and lighter.
Some people might be able to pocket or ankle carry a Shield/Glock/ect
but not me.
With all the .380 threads in the forums these days.
People need to see the .380 for what it is and offers, not what it's not.
It will always be weaker than the service calibers, but offers reasonable stopping power in a smaller envelope.
My LCP conceals/carries better than my LCR .357 that is more powerful, yet
it also offers 2 more shots.
That 12 inch penetration referrs to JHP in gelatin, not human body.
12 inch penetration in gelatin does not mean it will penetrate 12 inch when it hits a human body. 12 inch was quoted partly because, for example, a human skin layer is tranlated to few inches of gelatin because it is more tougher to go through.
I do have a 380ACP pistol that I carry, but I have no false illusion that 380ACP works as good was a 9mm.
All bullets can over penetrate. If both can over penetrate, I'd rather have one that is more effective on my opponent.
If that's the question, the answer is very simple: Because there is a significant difference and the evidence is undeniable.
Significantly more power.
Significantly more expansion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0fr2By2qus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4c9-V2AH8
From Shooting Illustrated
12 inch penetration in gelatin does not mean it will penetrate 12 inch when it hits a human body. 12 inch was quoted partly because, for example, a human skin layer is tranlated to few inches of gelatin because it is more tougher to go through.
I do have a 380ACP pistol that I carry, but I have no false illusion that 380ACP works as good was a 9mm.
All bullets can over penetrate. If both can over penetrate, I'd rather have one that is more effective on my opponent.
If that's the question, the answer is very simple: Because there is a significant difference and the evidence is undeniable.
Significantly more power.
Significantly more expansion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0fr2By2qus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4c9-V2AH8
From Shooting Illustrated
Last edited:
Resist Evil
Member
I prefer a 9mm luger round as a minimum because it
--has more ft/lbs of energy
--has heavier bullets
--has better penetration
than a .380 one does.
I would rely on a .380 only if it
--was the only caliber I had or could get or
--was the largest caliber I had or could get or
--was the largest caliber I could shoot competently or
--was legally offered in cartridges with explosive bullets
--has more ft/lbs of energy
--has heavier bullets
--has better penetration
than a .380 one does.
I would rely on a .380 only if it
--was the only caliber I had or could get or
--was the largest caliber I had or could get or
--was the largest caliber I could shoot competently or
--was legally offered in cartridges with explosive bullets
Potatohead
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 5,375
Nobody has said "it's all about shot placement" yet? Shocking
allaroundhunter
Member
They actually have. Post numbers 12 and 13 each said just that (but not verbatim).
But that was not the original question asked.
Esoxchaser
Member
For us .380 pretty much fallen by the wayside because:
1) Ammunition costs too much compared to 9MM.
2) It is easier to keep on hand one less caliber.
3) They came out with the P938, which made the P238 and Colt Mustang essentially obsolete.
We haven't gotten rid of the 238's and Mustangs, but they have become barn horses.
1) Ammunition costs too much compared to 9MM.
2) It is easier to keep on hand one less caliber.
3) They came out with the P938, which made the P238 and Colt Mustang essentially obsolete.
We haven't gotten rid of the 238's and Mustangs, but they have become barn horses.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,415
Only at the bullet's point of exit does human skin translate to such a loss of penetration.
At entry, a layer of human skin, being supported by the underlying tissue, does not diminish penetration as much as it does at exit.
improperlyaged
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 422
Then carry a rifle. Handguns are notorious for failing to stop attackers even with multiple hits. As to that rifles are also poor choices because there are times when they even fail to stop an attack.
allaroundhunter
Member
I do carry one when and wherever it is practical. Rarely will a rifle fail to stop an attacker.
1SOW
Member
A minimum caliber is chosen by all. Yes, a .22lr with perfect placement is sufficient. A 380 with less perfect placement is sufficient. A 9mm with even less perfect placement is sufficient. Etc Etc 40 cal, 45 ACP.
The 9mm is most chosen as a minimum because of test results showing bullet and speed performance. Size, magazine capacity, recoil and the wide range of ammo and gun options available on the market.
The 9mm is most chosen as a minimum because of test results showing bullet and speed performance. Size, magazine capacity, recoil and the wide range of ammo and gun options available on the market.
"It's all about shot placement" probably is THE bogus argument accepted as wisdom regarding pistol ammo choices.
Fist of all, unless you hit a central nerve system, most body shots, even head shots can be just as good as the other if it falls in 8~10 ring.
So, unless you are saying you aim specifically for the central nerve system 100% of the time, you're just relying on volume of body being destroyed. That's not really using "shot placement" to make your weaker round count, if you are just making linear cavity in a general center of a body mass, is it?
Second, you can't even target the central nerve system all the time. You shoot at whatever body part that is available to you. It can be an arm. It can be a foot seen from underneath a car.
Third, "shot placement" is a moot point of a 380ACP may not even reliably penetrate a skull. Yes, they can penetrate a skull, but just not reliably as a 9mm. A 9mm JHP likely would penetrate better at some less than desirable angle than 380ACP.
So, using "shot placement is everything" to justify 380ACP is just like saying "I am confident in making first shot hit on a central nerve system target under all conditions, and I somehow know that those targets will alawys be exposed to me." Put it that perspective, how realistic does that sound to you?
It does not sound so realistic to me, unless you're James Bond, and not the Bond from the recent film where he had lower hit ratio than Money Penny.
Fist of all, unless you hit a central nerve system, most body shots, even head shots can be just as good as the other if it falls in 8~10 ring.
So, unless you are saying you aim specifically for the central nerve system 100% of the time, you're just relying on volume of body being destroyed. That's not really using "shot placement" to make your weaker round count, if you are just making linear cavity in a general center of a body mass, is it?
Second, you can't even target the central nerve system all the time. You shoot at whatever body part that is available to you. It can be an arm. It can be a foot seen from underneath a car.
Third, "shot placement" is a moot point of a 380ACP may not even reliably penetrate a skull. Yes, they can penetrate a skull, but just not reliably as a 9mm. A 9mm JHP likely would penetrate better at some less than desirable angle than 380ACP.
So, using "shot placement is everything" to justify 380ACP is just like saying "I am confident in making first shot hit on a central nerve system target under all conditions, and I somehow know that those targets will alawys be exposed to me." Put it that perspective, how realistic does that sound to you?
It does not sound so realistic to me, unless you're James Bond, and not the Bond from the recent film where he had lower hit ratio than Money Penny.
Last edited:
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
slippery slope...
Start out by saying that a .380 is enough, and someone will say a .32 is enough... then a .25, a .22...and before you know it, someone will pop in and say that your likelihood of ever "needing" a gun at all approaches zero. So why even carry?
We all draw our line somewhere, and we all have our reasons. Figure out where your line is, but don't stop learning, and don't be afraid to change your mind if subsequent evidence/arguments are persuasive.
For many of us, it's a moving target...advances in ammo technology may allow you to adjust downward in caliber without giving up anything performance-wise.
Or...it may allow you to move up in caliber and performance while still carrying a similarly-sized handgun.
Start out by saying that a .380 is enough, and someone will say a .32 is enough... then a .25, a .22...and before you know it, someone will pop in and say that your likelihood of ever "needing" a gun at all approaches zero. So why even carry?
We all draw our line somewhere, and we all have our reasons. Figure out where your line is, but don't stop learning, and don't be afraid to change your mind if subsequent evidence/arguments are persuasive.
For many of us, it's a moving target...advances in ammo technology may allow you to adjust downward in caliber without giving up anything performance-wise.
Or...it may allow you to move up in caliber and performance while still carrying a similarly-sized handgun.
justice06rr
Member
My thought process is, why would I carry a .380 pistol when a 9mm pistol is about the same size?
Also it is proven that 9mm is more effective than 380. There is a reason why Military and Police do not issue calibers under 9mm.
Overpenetration as stated by someone else is over-hyped. Know what you are shooting at and what is behind your target and this is not an issue.
Agreed. We are not talking about rifle calibers here. I'm not worried so much if my 9mm JHP rounds will overpenetrate and kill an innocent bystander behind my target...
Also it is proven that 9mm is more effective than 380. There is a reason why Military and Police do not issue calibers under 9mm.
Overpenetration as stated by someone else is over-hyped. Know what you are shooting at and what is behind your target and this is not an issue.
Agreed. We are not talking about rifle calibers here. I'm not worried so much if my 9mm JHP rounds will overpenetrate and kill an innocent bystander behind my target...
If you can place the round where it needs to go then caliber really does not matter. Practice is much more important than caliber. That said, I cannot bring myself to carry any caliber less than .41. I just like to see stuff get knocked down with "authority".
Deaf Smith
Member
You may have to shoot through clothing. Denim tends to block up hollowpoints (and in winter people wear lots of cloths).
You may have to shoot oblique shots where the arm gets in the way.
You may have to shoot so quickly accuracy will suffer.
And thus you need a round with enough penetration. Not just barely enough as the .380 delivers.
Deaf
Referencing the quote from improperlyaged and the response from Deaf Smith: I can see a reason for keeping a .380 or two around based upon both your comments about penetration. Since 2010 there has been at least two significant ammo shortages, first of .380 back in 2010 and more recently shortages of many calibers, including 9mm and .380. Also, prices have continued to rise as a result of these shortages, but also as a result of increased worldwide purchases of raw materials such as copper and brass, etc. I see little to indicate that political events and market forces will not result in continued disruptions of supply, scarcity of supplies, and continued price increases. In other words, we may be forced to rely upon what we can get, or afford, and that may well be whatever full metal jacket ammo we can find. In such a scenario, full metal jacket requires generally less testing to insure reliability and .380 fmj tends to be closer to that sweet spot of enough penetration to be effective without the excessive penetration with too much remaining power that is the hallmark of 9mm fmj ammo. In other words, while 9mm jhp ammo is clearly superior to both .380 HPs and fmj, .380 fmj may, in fact, be a better choice than 9mm fmj for a civilian defensive scenario. There is a reason that .380 was so popular for so long in Europe in the days before hollow points even as 9mm dominated the military market. It was enough without being too much. If we are limited to fmj, it still is.
Last edited:
Hunter2011
Member
If a .22 can be enough, then a 380ACP is surely enough. That is if you can hit the right spot.
Not comparing apples to apples, but this will explain my point. I shoot a lot of rock pigeons with a .22LR. While they are also successfully hunted with 12 fpt airguns, it does not mean the airgun is a killing machine. I do wound the odd pigeon with impropper shot placement and have retrieved pigeons shots in the centre of their chests with 100fpe plus of power 20 yards from where it was shot. And a pigeon is not a drugged burglar or murderer. But if I shoot with HV hollowpoints I never wound a bird, no matter where I hit it. My point is that even though a .22 is proven that it can kill an intruder almost instantly, it will not do so reliably when you don't have perfect shot placement. That is rather difficult with a constantly moving target. So I do believe in bigger is better. That does not mean I feel unarmed when I have only my .22LR target pistol on me. I'm sure it will get the job done if I can cope with the extra stress.
But bigger is better, more so if you can't shoot very good.
Still, I will rather choose a 380ACP over anything bigger, if the particular 380 is more accurate than my bigger caliber pistol.
Not comparing apples to apples, but this will explain my point. I shoot a lot of rock pigeons with a .22LR. While they are also successfully hunted with 12 fpt airguns, it does not mean the airgun is a killing machine. I do wound the odd pigeon with impropper shot placement and have retrieved pigeons shots in the centre of their chests with 100fpe plus of power 20 yards from where it was shot. And a pigeon is not a drugged burglar or murderer. But if I shoot with HV hollowpoints I never wound a bird, no matter where I hit it. My point is that even though a .22 is proven that it can kill an intruder almost instantly, it will not do so reliably when you don't have perfect shot placement. That is rather difficult with a constantly moving target. So I do believe in bigger is better. That does not mean I feel unarmed when I have only my .22LR target pistol on me. I'm sure it will get the job done if I can cope with the extra stress.
But bigger is better, more so if you can't shoot very good.
Still, I will rather choose a 380ACP over anything bigger, if the particular 380 is more accurate than my bigger caliber pistol.
What is accuracy? And how much of it do you really need at typical self defense/combat ranges?
Accuracy is a difficult concept at best. In the hands of a master shooter, a gun with poor accuracy will likely perform much better overall than in the hands of a beginner. That holds true for pretty much any piece of equipment.
The flip side is just because a gun will throw a 1" group at 25 yards from a Ransom rest does not ensure any given shooter will be able to "hit the broad side of a barn" with it. It all just depends ... mostly on how you shoot the gun and not on the gun's built-in potential.
Baring mechanical anomalies and deficiencies, the inherent accuracy of a modern semi automatic is not going to be a relevant factor. The simple fact is they're all just way too good now days. If you choose to defend yourself with an ancient piece that is truly an inaccurate weapon then all bets are off. Most people tend to use modern guns, all with sufficient combat accuracy. And that includes the 100+ year old 1911 some of us value so highly.
Last edited:
That's a very good point, though I am not certain that was the case in Europe. Certainly Europe in the mid-20th century was not blessed with the abundance of compact and lightweight 9mm pistols which exist today. I'm merely speculating and do not know the real reason. I believe it is true however that 9mm jhp tends to penetrate enough and .380 jhp tends to not penetrate enough, while .380 fmj tends to penetrate enough while 9mm fmj tends to over-penetrate.
The reason the 380 was popular in Europe was that they didn't have small 9mm guns or ammo for it. If they did they would have used it. Many guys forget that the mini guns of the past 10 years did not exist back then, so they used the smallest ones available at the time because they had no other choice.
Does anyone really think that given the option of 2 guns that are the same size and weight, that a cop or soldier would pick the lessor of the two. Ever hear of a police department here, or military unit carrying 380's? Duh, no because they can carry larger more powerful guns in the same package now, This was the future back then. Just like the revolutionary war soldiers used cap and ball pistols, because that is what they had back then.
Does anyone really think that given the option of 2 guns that are the same size and weight, that a cop or soldier would pick the lessor of the two. Ever hear of a police department here, or military unit carrying 380's? Duh, no because they can carry larger more powerful guns in the same package now, This was the future back then. Just like the revolutionary war soldiers used cap and ball pistols, because that is what they had back then.
USSR
Member
FWIW, pistols firing low powered cartridges such as the .380 ACP and .32 ACP were also issued to Officer's in many European armies. Their intended purpose was the same as issuing a dagger; simply a badge of honor with no serious consideration of it's utility as a weapon.
Don
Don
I don't think there is any one single answer to the question. Depending on the weather conditions and what your schedule of activity is you may find that one or another is the best for any set of conditions.
If just driving in the country with the wife hunting down antiques in the fall or winter a 45 ACP would be on my side. (compact 3.6 inch barrel, it is the caliber I trust the most). If picking up supplies in an questionable part of town the extra capacity of the 9 mm would be my choice of carry. If going to the relatives for a summer BBQ or just running out to grab a gallon of milk, the 380 would make more sense for the short trip to the store.
I don't think you can find a single solution but it will really depend on what you are doing and where.
Jim
Top left to right, CZ 75 P-01 (9 mm 14 +1), Bersa Thunder 45 Ultra Compact Pro (45 ACP 7+1), Bersa Series 95 (380 ACP 7 +1).
If just driving in the country with the wife hunting down antiques in the fall or winter a 45 ACP would be on my side. (compact 3.6 inch barrel, it is the caliber I trust the most). If picking up supplies in an questionable part of town the extra capacity of the 9 mm would be my choice of carry. If going to the relatives for a summer BBQ or just running out to grab a gallon of milk, the 380 would make more sense for the short trip to the store.
I don't think you can find a single solution but it will really depend on what you are doing and where.
Jim
Top left to right, CZ 75 P-01 (9 mm 14 +1), Bersa Thunder 45 Ultra Compact Pro (45 ACP 7+1), Bersa Series 95 (380 ACP 7 +1).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
