I don't understand the rash of .380 pistols today.

[evan price]

This thread isn't intended to be an insult.


I have a problem understanding why so many gun manufacturers are coming out with .380 pistols for CCW market today.

The .380 package is not much smaller than a 9x19. The power factor of 9x19 isn't so much more than a 9x17 that it is impossible to design for.

KelTec PF9 and P11 are quite obvious examples that a small pistol can exist in 9mm Luger.

Sig P238 for example: Why not use that good Colt design and make it 9mm luger? Why is it that so many gun companies think .380 is what we want for a CCW pistol? I just can't wrap my head around buying a caliber I know is inferior to 9mm but the same size. Help me understand!

 

[Old Fuff]

Why? Because market studies show that there is a large demand from the general public that are looking for a not-too-powerful, lightweight, compact handgun that is in a lower price range then similar pistols in 9mm Luger.

The larger, 9mm cartridge usually requires a locked breech system, rather then the less-expensive straight-blowback which is O.K. for .380's.

Because folks that aren't really into guns often think much differently then those that are, we still have a strong market for ammunition sales in .25 and .32 ACP. Both I suspect would be something you wouldn't want to depend on.

 

[huntsman]

.380 is what we want for a CCW pistol?

yep and time will tell if it's just a fad

I just can't wrap my head around buying a caliber I know is inferior to 9mm but the same size. Help me understand!

Either folks don't feel the .380 is inferior or they're willing to accept that in lieu of something else.

Me? The 9mm is inferior to the .45 and not superior enough to the .380 for any real benefit.

 

[Six]

There's a substantial size difference between even the Kel-Tec PF9 and the P3AT.

Yes, you can dress around the gun, but it's nice to not have to. And a .380 in your pocket is better than a 9mm in your safe.

I'm sure that there's someone who pocket carries a full size 1911 and thinks it's just fine. For my body and wardrobe, it's not really an option.

Personally, I've decided on the PF9 for my next carry gun. Partially it's because 9mm is more effective than .380, but also because I already own 9mm guns and ammo.

 

[CraigC]

There may be some 9mm's that are similar in size to some .380's but as a whole, .380's are significantly smaller and lighter. If what you "need" is a lightweight pocket pistol, you can do no better. There were times when I certainly "wanted" to be carrying something bigger but circumstances dictated that the only thing appropriate was a lightweight pocket pistol.

 

[X-Rap]

I can always have a 380 if a gun is permissible. I can even carry it around my neck if need be, I can't say that about any of my other larger guns.

 

[mgmorden]

There's a substantial size difference between even the Kel-Tec PF9 and the P3AT.

Which is what it boils down to essentially. I've got a Ruger LCP. Tiny little thing that you can literally pocket carry no sweat. I've handled the Kel-tec PF9 in a few shops several times. It's small . . . for a 9mm. That's the important part. It all depends on what I'm comparing to. My SIG? The Kel-tec feels tiny in comparison? My LCP? The Kel-tec is a virtual behemoth.

I still may get a PF9. If carrying in an inner jacket pocket or something during the winter, I'm sure it'll work fine.

As a rule though, I do not center my life around carrying. Whatever others want to do is certainly their prerogative and I bear no one any ill will, but for me, the day I start dressing differently explicitly to carry is the day I stop doing it. My LCP drops easily into my front pocket, regardless of what I'm wearing. It adapts to my schedule, not the other way around.

 

[larryh1108]

Why? It's as simple as the all mighty supply and demand. The new gun buyers are enjoying their right to carry so they want those cute, little guns the manufactorers are producing and they are producing them because the public is buying them.

No one is saying that these newest entries into the gun world are gun savvy but it is a step in the right direction. Even learned members of boards like this choose .380 or smaller to carry for reasons valid to themselves. That works for me. These newest .380s may help propel our nation to a national right to carry because so many more "anti-gun" people now wish to buy those cute, little handguns. Win/win if you ask me.

 

[ChuteTheMall]

LCP is much easier to carry, conceal, and shoot compared to Pf9.

I like them both, but the Pf9 has very unpleasant recoil therefore it doesn't have a very high round count, in spite of cheaper available ammo.

I prefer carrying and practicing with the P32 over both, but for self defense, caliber matters, so the Pf9 is my top choice among these ultralight pocket pistols.

 

[youngda9]

Question: I have a problem understanding why so many gun manufacturers are coming out with .380 pistols for CCW market today.

Answer: $, they sell a lot of em

 

[1KPerDay]

IMO there's not an easier gun to pocket carry than the LCP or P3AT. And the .380 round is as powerful and large as is practical in a pistol that size.

For true, easy, go-anywhere carry, the tiny polymer .380s can't be beat, IMO.

I have no illusions about their power or capabilities. But they're better than a sharp stick, and better than .22/.25/.32s, some of which are larger and heavier than the LCP.

Plus mine is accurate and fun to shoot. I'm probably more impressed overall with the LCP than any gun I've bought in recent memory. Amazing little piece of hardware.

 

[OregonJohnny]

When someone comes out with a 9mm pocket pistol that is no larger, wider, or heavier than a Ruger LCP, and costs less than $1,000 (I'm talking to you, Rohrbaugh), then things might be different. But until then, an LCP/P3AT/238/P380 just can't be beat for shear tiny size to power ratio.

The point of these ultra-micro pocket autos is their ease of carry, not the effectiveness of the .380ACP cartridge. For me, anything even slightly larger than an LCP feels like a grapefruit in my pocket. So when you start upping the power and size of a cartridge (9mm), the size, weight, and price of the firearm goes up as well. If it's larger than an LCP, I will either carry it in a coat pocket, or on my belt. Once you start carrying on your belt, you might as well go as large, powerful, and hi-capacity as possible. So when the gun leaves the pocket and moves to the belt, you enter a whole new world of possibilities on how large and heavy the firearm can be.

The LCP is the Goldilocks of pocket carry guns for my needs. It's "just right".

 

[skoro]

The .380 package is not much smaller than a 9x19.

I have a KelTec PF-9 and a P3AT. The size/weight difference is considerable. I prefer carrying the 9mm, but there are times when I either carry the 380 or nothing. The 380 is better than unarmed, I think.

 

[rcmodel]

+1

I have about 25 handguns to chose from.

But the P3AT is the only one I have that will fit in my shirt pocket when carrying bigger guns is just out of the question.

Quite honestly, I don't feel out-gunned, as it will do exactly what it is supposed to do if you dump a full mag of JHP in the BG's chest.

Nobody says you only get to take one shot!

rc

 

[sansone]

380 is lighter, smaller, thinner, easier to conceal

 

[Buck Snort]

Quite a few years back there was this guy known as Wild Bill Hickock. In just a few short years he killed several men using an 1851 Colt Navy bp revolver that launched a 90 gr. roundball at about 900 fps. According to my Speer reloading manual those ballistics just about match the modern .380 cartridge. I used to be really down on the .380 until I read this information. Of course Wild Bill was an absolute deadeye shot so spray & pray ain't gonna hack it, but don't disparage the .380.

 

[19&41]

The Colt 1908 and Remington 51 were chambered in .380. The .380 is a fad that has survived from the era of wax cylinder records to digital downloads.

 

[rondog]

They make 'em because there's a market for 'em. Simple as that.

 

[Carne Frio]

A lot of people are beginning to get into concealed
carry. Many of them do not want a large powerful
handgun. The new small and light 380 pistols are
perfect for them. The gun manufacturers have
realized this and are fulfilling the need. It's called
capitalism.

 

[Zoogster]

One more reason in addition to what people have already mentioned that may be greatly overlooked:


It is generally illegal for foreign manufacturers to export such firearms to the US market.
They do not have enough points.
This means domestic US gun manufacturers have no foreign competition for such guns.
It is a market they own completely, and as a result it would be foolish not to provide a product for and encourage all possible growth in.


Here is the point system for semi-autos while revolvers have a completely different requirement system (provided by Glock through quick google search):

Characteristic Points

Length: for each 1/4" over 6" 1
Forged steel frame 15
Forged HTS alloy frame 20
Unloaded weight w/mag (per oz.) 1
.22 short and .25 auto 0
.22 LR and 7.65mm to .380 auto 3
9mm parabellum and over 10
Locked breech mechanism 5
Loaded chamber indicator 5
Grip safety 3
Magazine safety 5
Firing pin block or lock 10
External hammer 2
Double action 10
Drift adjustable target sight 5
Click adjustable target sight 10
Target grips 5
Target trigger 2

To be legally imported a gun must score 75 points or higher.
Several Glocks do not even qualify, and barely meet 75 points because they add special components removed after import:

- all models are imported with a cheap click-adjustable rear sight that is replaced at the factory with the stock sight
- target (grooved) trigger added to compacts & subcompacts
- target grips added to all models (required for the subcompacts)

Even with those additions the .380 Glocks simply cannot score enough points, as you see being 9mm and over gives 10 of the points.


Something like a Kel-tec P3AT or Ruger LCP could never possibly qualify for legal import.


For example let us see what a Ruger LCP would score:

Length: for each 1/4" over 6" 0
Forged steel frame 0
Forged HTS alloy frame 0
Unloaded weight w/mag (per oz.) about 10
.22 short and .25 auto 0
.22 LR and 7.65mm to .380 auto 0
9mm parabellum and over 0
Locked breech mechanism 5
Loaded chamber indicator 5
Grip safety 0
Magazine safety 0
Firing pin block or lock 10
External hammer 2 (?)
Double action 10
Drift adjustable target sight 0
Click adjustable target sight 0
Target grips 0
Target trigger 0

Total no more than 42.

The LCP would be illegal to import, and gaining another 33 points a nearly impossible feat.
The P3AT would score even worse.

Many blowback operated guns score even worse than them.

CCW intended firearms under 9mm in caliber are almost entirely restricted to domestic manufacture. Even those 9mm and over that are ultra compact are really hard to get to qualify.
Domestic producers do not have to compete with the rest of the world, their less expensive products, their cheaper foreign labor, or any of the other things that can typically give foreign companies an advantage.
This means this is a gold mine product for domestic gun manufacturers because it is something only they can easily provide.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Cause people buy them
and they fit in pockets, handbags etc.

the work, that is why people buy them, why carry a cannon when a pea shooter disappears in the pocket and you don't have to worry about.....

 

[wrs840]

I've got a LCP and four larger CCW guns in my routine rotation for the same reason I own about the same number of street-wear shoes. It all depends on what I'm wearing and where I'm going that day (and you'll find me bare-footed more often than you'll find me unarmed...) It's situation-dependent. That said, the upsurge in manufacture of .380 options is driven by supply and demand and a lot of new CCWers apparently think it's a great first choice. This logic is flawed, IMO, but the .380 has it's time and place for me.

Les

 

[mashaffer]

Blowback design in 9mm parabellum is significantly larger than the 380acp 9mm Makarov catagory. The blowback is simpler, cheaper and easier to make accurate me thinks.

As to the Colt 1851 the paper statistics look similar but the soft lead ball has significantly better terminal ballistics than the typical bullets used in the .380 ACP and needs to be factored into the equation.

mike

 

[larryh1108]

soft lead ball has significantly better terminal ballistics than the typical bullets used in the .380 ACP and needs to be factored into the equation.

Out of curiosity can you elaborate a bit? If it's true as you say then does the hollow point designs of today help or hurt the .380 round?

 

[mashaffer]

Saint Elmer wrote about the subject in at least one of his books. The soft balls flatten out quite a bit and mess things up pretty well on the way through. Some of the pictures of recovered balls that I have seen seem pretty jagged on the edges too so it would seem that a lot of cutting and crushing goes on compared to the harder conical projectiles used in the more modern arms. Some premium hollow points open up nicely most of the time but for some reason it seems that the penetration of the balls is greater than it should be and more consistent.

mike