home defence caliber questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
The .32 is generally held to be the smallest caliber useful for defense.

Not by anyone who has experience fighting with guns. Only theorists, and keyboard commandos.

Here are some comments about the 380 for real gun fighting, by the leading researcher in terminal ballistics in the United States today, Dr Gary Roberts:

If you are an LE officer, carry a BUG!!!

Many small, easily concealed semi-automatic pistols which are recommended for law enforcement backup or concealed carry use fire .380 ACP or smaller bullets. While these small caliber handgun bullets can produce fatal wounds,they are less likely to produce the rapid incapacitation necessary in law enforcement or self-defense situations.

Handguns chambered in .380 ACP are small, compact, and generally easy to carry. Unfortunately, testing has shown that they offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry. The terminal performance of .380 ACP JHP's is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP FMJ's offer adequate penetration, but no expansion. All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion. Stick with FMJ for .380 ACP or better yet, don't use it at all. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is really not acceptable for law enforcement use and most savvy agencies prohibit them.

While both the .380 ACP and .38 sp can obviously be lethal; the .38 sp is more likely to incapacitate an attacker when used in a BUG role.

BUG--Infrequently used, but when needed, it must be 100% reliable because of the extreme emergency situation the user is dealing with. Generally secreted in pockets, ankle holsters, body armor holsters, etc... Often covered in lint, grime, and gunk. By their very nature, usually applied to the opponent in an up close and personal encounter, many times involving contact shots. A small .38 sp revolver is more reliable in these situations than a small .380 ACP pistol, especially with contact shots or if fired from a pocket.

There have been many reports in the scientific literature, by Dr. Fackler and others, recommending the 158 gr +P LSWCHP as offering adequate performance. Please put this in context for the time that these papers were written in the late 1980's and early 1990's--no denim testing was being performed at that time, no robust expanding JHP's, like the Barnes XPB, Federal Tactical & HST, Speer Gold Dot, or Win Ranger Talon existed. In the proper historical perspective, the 158 gr +P LSWCHP fired out 3-4" barrel revolvers was one of the best rounds available--and it is still a viable choice, as long as you understand its characteristics.

While oversimplified, bare gelatin gives information about best case performance, while 4 layer denim provides data on worst case performance--in reality, the actual performance may be somewhere in between. The four layer denim test is NOT designed to simulate any type of clothing--it is simply an engineering test to assess the ability of a projectile to resist plugging and robustly expand. FWIW, one of the senior engineers at a very respected handgun ammunition manufacturer recently commented that bullets that do well in 4 layer denim testing have invariably worked well in actual officer involved shooting incidents.

With few exceptions, such as the Speer 135 gr +P JHP and Barnes XPB, the vast majority of .38 Sp JHP's fail to expand when fired from 2" barrels in the 4 layer denim test. Many of the lighter JHP's demonstrate overexpansion and insufficient penetration in bare gel testing. Also, the harsher recoil of the +P loads in lightweight J-frames tends to minimize practice efforts and decrease accuracy for many officers. The 158 gr +P LSWCHP offers adequate penetration, however in a 2" revolver the 158gr +P LSWCHP does not reliably expand. If it fails to expand, it will produce less wound trauma than a WC. Target wadcutters offer good penetration, cut tissue efficiently, and have relatively mild recoil. With wadcutters harder alloys and sharper leading edges are the way to go. Wadcutters perform exactly the same in both bare and 4 layer denim covered gel when fired from a 2" J-frame. For example, the Win 148 gr LWC: VEL = 657 f/s, PEN = 20"+, RD = 0.36", RL = 0.64", RW = 147.4 gr

When faced with too little penetration, as is common with lightweight .38 Sp JHP loads or too much penetration like with the wadcutters, then go with penetration. Agencies around here have used the Winchester 148 gr standard pressure lead target wadcutter (X38SMRP), as well as the Federal (GM38A) version--both work. A sharper edged wadcutter would even be better... Dr. Fackler has written in Fackler ML: "The Full Wadcutter--An Extremely Effective Bullet Design", Wound Ballistics Review. 4(2):6-7, Fall 1999)
Quote:
"As a surgeon by profession, I am impressed by bullets with a cutting action (eg. Winchester Talon and Remington Golden Saber). Cutting is many times more efficient at disrupting tissue than the crushing mechanism by which ordinary bullets produce the hole through which they penetrate. The secret to the increased efficiency of the full wadcutter bullet is the cutting action of its sharp circumferential leading edge. Actually, cutting is simply very localized crush; by decreasing the area over which a given force is spread, we can greatly increase the magnitude to the amount of force delivered per unit are--which is a fancy way of saying that sharp knives cut a lot better than dull ones. As a result, the calculation of forces on tissue during penetration underestimate the true effectiveness of the wadcutter bullet relative to other shapes."

For years, J-frames were considered "arm's reach" weapons, that is until CTC Lasergrips were added. With the mild recoil of target wadcutters, officers are actually practicing with their BUG's; when combined with Lasergrips, qualification scores with J-frames have dramatically increased. Now 5 shots rapid-fire in a 6" circle at 25 yds is not uncommon--kind of mind blowing watching officers who could not hit the target at 25 yds with a J-frame suddenly qualify with all shots in the black…

Before the advent of the 110 gr standard pressure Corbon DPX load, I used to carry standard pressure wadcutters in my J-frames with Gold Dot 135 gr +P JHP's in speed strips for re-loads, as the flat front wadcutters were hard to reload with under stress. My current J-frames are 342's; previously have used the 38 and 649. I like the 342 w/Lasergrips very much. Shooting is not too bad with standard pressure wadcutters and 110 gr DPX; not so comfortable with the Speer 135 gr JHP +P Gold Dots. Any of the Airweight J-frames are fine for BUG use. The steel 649's were a bit too heavy for comfortable all day wear on the ankle, body armor, or in a pocket. There is no reason to go with .357 mag in a J-frame, as the significantly larger muzzle blast and flash, and harsher recoil of the .357 Magnum does not result in substantially improved terminal performance compared to the more controllable .38 Special bullets when fired from 2” barrels.

At this point in time, the two best loads for 2" J-frames are the Corbon 110 gr JHP DPX standard pressure load and the Speer 135 gr +P JHP Gold Dot.

2" J-frames are a great BUG's and marginally acceptable low threat carry guns, because they are lightweight, reliable, and offer acceptable terminal performance at close range--downsides are difficulty in shooting well at longer ranges because of sight and sight radius limitations, along with reduced capacity coupled with slower reloading. Nonetheless, with the addition of CTC Laser Grips and an enclosed or shrouded hammer, the 2" J-frame models without key locks (I personally will NEVER own firearm with an integral lock) may be the best BUG's and most reliable pocket handguns available.

Another great BUG option if it can be comfortably carried, is a compact 3-3.5" barrel 9 mm pistol like the G26, Kahr PM9, Sig P239, or S&W 3913, as these offer superior terminal performance compared to either .380 ACP or .38 Sp handguns. A G26 is particularly nice when using a G19 or 17 as a primary weapon due to the ability to use the same magazines.

As always, don't get too wrapped in the nuances of ammunition terminal performance. Spend your time and money on developing a warrior mindset, training, practice, and more training.

As to size of a gun for small statured folks, particularly women.

My Youngest daughter, is 4'11" a hundred and nothing pounds. Her shooter is a Colt Combat Elite government sized 45acp. One of the reasons the 1911 endures so strongly to this day, is that the "grip" and dimensions are so adaptable. More so that any handgun I know of. The only one I am aware of that is close is the new HK P30 with three back straps and three different side panel widths. (mine is set up with thick width, and medium back strap. fits even better than my Springer or Colt custom guns).

Short, medium, and long trigger, Full sized thick, or narrow, thin grips even thinner. Curved or flat back straps, etc. I set up my daughters with very thin Navadrix grips and fitted a very short Colt trigger I had laying around my Colt parts box, and a 'low' Gunsite single side safety. She shoots the dickens out of it.

To stay in system type (1911 single action), she has a Springfield EMP 9mm for CCW. I put the thin aluminum grips on it. I offered to modify the existing trigger or get an 10-8 'flat' trigger and make a 'short' trigger for her, but she is happy with the stock trigger.

Another gun that may fit small handed folks is the HK 2000sk. About the size of a Glock 26/27 with changable back grips.

She prefers the 45 for grins and giggles and Home defense. She carries the Springer EMP.

IN her HD/fun gun she loads 230gr Golddots, and for the EMP 124gr +P Golddots.

Go figure.

Fred
 
This Walther PK380?
Big gun for a less than 9mm round. That should be a piece of cake to shoot. Deosn't Walther have a 9mm version of this gun?
It's the P99 that's the 9mm. Amazing gun. Although the .40 S&W is snappier than most .40 S&W guns from what I've been told. There's a P99 compact as well.
 
My .02: 9x19mm is minimum caliber for a primary defensive pistol, whether carrying concealed or at home due to ballistics/performance both in testing and in real-life situations, and there is a good selection of factory rounds out there. Plenty of documented instances of 9x19 making the grade in real-life encounters.
As others have mentioned, .380 ammo is scarce a lot of places, including gun shops in my area. 9mm is easier to find, at least where I live.
I'm not suggesting the OP run out and trade in the .380 on another gun; I just wouldn't have bought a .380. There are a lot of compact and subcompact 9x19 pistols available which give the user better stopping power than any .380.
Assuming she likes the gun, the OP's wife should take a defensive handgun course, and practice until she is competent/confident in her skill. Since he says he doesn't know a lot about handguns I would suggest he do the same. Any gun is better than no gun and if she likes the .380 she is much more likely to put in the necessary time to get good with it and maintain her skill level. Shot placement counts, and I wouldn't want to get shot with ANY firearm. .
If she doesn't like the gun or feels something with a bit more power is called for she and the OP could go check out some of the 9x19, .357 sig or .40 caliber pistols available. I mention those calibers because I can usually find good target and SD ammo for them at the local stores. Go target shooting with a friend or two who have pistols in one or more of those calibers and check them out, and a lot of ranges have a few models for rent. That would be a lot cheaper than buying one without firing it first. Either way, practice, practice, practice...
 
I personally think .380 is the bare minimum.... though I would far rather have a 9mm....

That being said, I suggest a larger framed gun. More weight means easier manipulation, and less felt recoil. A full sized .38 revolver, or a Glock 19, Ruger P95, or CZ-75 compact might have been a better deal.

But, most important thing is to have her shoot it. She's the one who's going to use it, and her being able to use it well is what would save her life.
 
I have a Smith & Wesson Model 637 Airweight. My wife fired a number of rounds of +P through it. The result was that her hand was in pain for weeks. Guess what? My wife now doesn't want to shoot the Airweight at all. She does, however, enjoy shooting the PK380 and her Browning BDA to the point she plans trips to the range without any prodding from me. She will use the .380 and she is becoming proficient with it, therefore it is a good round for her to use because she will use it. Your wife may vary.
 
Last edited:
I have a Smith & Wesson Model 637 Airweight. My wife fired a number of rounds of +P through it. The result her hand was in pain for weeks.
WEEKS?!?!

I have to ask....just how old is your wife.
I'm not trying to be funny, I'm serious.
.38+P ammo in an Airweight does have a little kick to it, but I've never heard of anyone needing weeks to recover from shooting one.
 
texasbill
that is what I was talking about. she got hurt :cuss:and she wont shoot it. but she will shoot the one that she likes. I would bet a sawbuck that she is good at it also. thats what most men do not understand.
:neener:
 
home defense

when it comes to the nut-cuttin in my home my wife will run past all other guns to get to the 12 guage shotty.if it works for her it works for me.
 
I have to ask....just how old is your wife? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm serious. .38+P ammo in an Airweight does have a little kick to it, but I've never heard of anyone needing weeks to recover from shooting one.

You're asking me to tell you how old my wife is? :what:

Let me put it this way, we have grandchildren in grade school. My wife is about 5'4" and has a petite build and small hands. The M637 was as it came from the factory with the Uncle Mike's boot grips and was loaded with Federal Hydra-Shok +P. She fired about 25 rounds before she said she just couldn't shoot it any more and the muscles in the web of her hand between the thumb and forefinger were painful for about three weeks. Not disabling pain, mind you, just sore.

She will routinely put 100-150 rounds through her Browning on a trip to the range.

To be honest, I don't enjoy firing +P through the Airweight but, as it is a gun I carry fairly often, I do practice with both regular .38 Special and +P. I did junk the boot grips, replacing them with the slightly larger grips from a Model 60 Pro (they add about .56 inches to the height of the gun). This made the gun much more pleasant and controllable.
 
I really don't like when people overstate the fact that any round will do the job... of course any caliber bullet will kill someone... but how fast? Yes more people have been killed by the .22, but in what time span? If I were ever in a SD situation I'd want a gun of a larger caliber to incapacitate the BG quicker. What good is a .22, or in this case a .380, if it doesn't stop the threat before he/she gets within touching distance? ... ever think of that?
 
The recoil of a .38 j-frame is really not very substantial at all....especially when shooting standard pressure ammo from one of the all steel models.
In fact, it's quite tame.
And while the recoil from a 9mm full-sized pistol is less, it's not so much less that it would make a real difference.

I agree. My wife's 3 inch S&W Model 60 is quiet tame with 38 +P's. Right now she has Corbon DPX 110gr +P's in it. She shoots it really well and has no problem whatsoever with it. She is a small lady also.
 
Last edited:
.380acp is the absolute minimum that I'd consider for a self-defense gun.

I'd be more inclined to go with a .38 Special.

What she's comfortable shooting is high up on the priority list.

A 3-4" k frame Smith is almost always going to be easier to shoot than a PP or PPK/S.

A full sized 9x19mm gun is also easy to shoot. 9x19mm M1911s are pleasant to shoot, have grips that most women can hold, and are not excessively heavy.
 
I really don't like this kind of sentiment.....it ignores the reality of the situation.

"The rest" does matter.
And it matters alot.

There's just no getting around the fact that the .380 has a dismal record for quickly stopping human aggressors.
It's just not that great of a self defense round.
And I think that it's almost criminal to tell someone "don't worry, the .380 is just fine for self defense".
The 9mm has a better track record for self defense and it's really not much more difficult to shoot in a medium to full-sized pistol.
So for a home-defense non-carry gun, I just don't see how anyone can recommend a .380 in good conscience.

But your point is as arbitrary as mine. We all decide on our own what is the minimum we find acceptable. My point was to set in your own mind what you feel is the minimum acceptable and don't lost sleep over it. The fact you feel the 9mm has crossed some line you personally drew in the sand and now feel that you should preach your opinion as the only truth is no less arbitrary.

As I said before I know a few women who were looking for HD pistols, tried both average sized 9mms and the little .380s and hated both of them, had no desire to practice with either, and gave me a lot of doubt that if things went bad they would A) reach for what ever is in the night stand and B) be anywhere near proficient with it. While your recommendation may be valid, for these women it was no winner of a solution. And back to my original point. If it works for you it is certainly better than having a pistol you can't shoot and refuse (for whatever reason) to become competent with. If 9mm fits that I certainly wouldn't recommend going to a .380, but if .380 in a larger than mouse size pistol is all you can take, well load up with some of the better ammo and sleep tight. Not much else to do.
 
But your point is as arbitrary as mine. We all decide on our own what is the minimum we find acceptable. My point was to set in your own mind what you feel is the minimum acceptable and don't lost sleep over it. The fact you feel the 9mm has crossed some line you personally drew in the sand and now feel that you should preach your opinion as the only truth is no less arbitrary.
"Arbitrary", per my dictionary, means: (decision) taken at random.
But my suggestion of a caliber more powerful than the .380 is not a "decision taken at random" at all.
Do the research for yourself and you will discover that the .380 is just not that effective for self-defense.
You'll also find that the 9mm performs much better in that role.
This isn't something that I pulled out of thin air, this is simply the way things really are....it's certainly not arbitrary in the least.

As I said before I know a few women who were looking for HD pistols, tried both average sized 9mms and the little .380s and hated both of them, had no desire to practice with either, and gave me a lot of doubt that if things went bad they would A) reach for what ever is in the night stand and B) be anywhere near proficient with it. While your recommendation may be valid, for these women it was no winner of a solution.
Well if they hated both the 9mm pistols AND the tiny .380 pistols, then I see no reason to recommend the .380 over the 9mm.
Think about it....
They hated both caliber pistols, but one is still more effective than the other.
Why then recommend the least effective one?

Perhaps they just need more time to get used to shooting.
Or perhaps it was the 9mm pistol, and not the caliber itself, that was to blame for their hatred of the shooting it.

And back to my original point. If it works for you it is certainly better than having a pistol you can't shoot and refuse (for whatever reason) to become competent with. If 9mm fits that I certainly wouldn't recommend going to a .380, but if .380 in a larger than mouse size pistol is all you can take, well load up with some of the better ammo and sleep tight. Not much else to do.
Sounds like you're throwing in the towel before the fight has even begun.
Barring some form of physical or mental disability, there is NO REASON that an adult female can't become just as competent with a 9mm pistol as any adult man.
Thousands of female soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and police become proficient with the 9mm every day.

My final thoughts on this topic:

There's just no reason to settle for a .380 pistol.

If one wants to carry a small pocket-pistol, then yeah, I can see the reason for the .380.
But for a home defense pistol that is never going to be carried, I just can't see any justification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top