Is 380 Just A Marginal Round?

[kokapelli]

IMO the statistics we always read about 380 effectiveness are missing a very important equation.

Most people that shoot 9, 40 and 45 practice a lot more than the average 380 shooter does which means on average the 9, 40 and 45 shooters are probably going to have better shot placement and that equation is never considered in caliber effectiveness.

Another fact to consider is that most 9, 40 45 shooters are using longer barreled pistols than the average 380 shooter.

IMO if a 380 round follows the same path as a 9mm round and the 380 round is one that will reach vitals it will probably be at least 95% as effective as a 9mm round.

 

[Thermactor]

I don't like 380 but I only recently regained faith in 9mm after going migrating to 40 S&W and 45ACP.

The newest Barnes 90gr-class copper projectiles show excellent promise in hot loaded rounds.
Check this test out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2EywZbYps
that's awesome performance right there.

But they're expensive. And practicing with the 380 is expensive.
I'd rather had a microcompact in 9mm instead of 380.
That way I could load Federal 9BPLE in there and forget about it.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Comparing FMJ's, the 380acp can consistently penetrate 18-24inches of calibrated ballistics gel from various pistol barrel lengths.

It has more than enough sectional density and energy to surpass the threshold of "effectiveness" against a typical human thorax. It is hardly marginal......

 

[Zerodefect]

Yeah, pretty much. It's the bare minimum of pistol power. I don't recommend anyonee goes under .380 or .38 special for CCW. If you can shoot it well, it's doable. So the pistol platform is the last key.

It's not as marginal as the mini carry autos that fire it mostly. An old compact Sig or CZ is good to go, but the Kahr P380 and Keltec P380 minus well be classified as knifes.

This may be a decent fighting pistol:


But my Kahr isn't:

 

[BLB68]

IMO, the only thing against a .380 is that it's generally much cheaper to feed a 9mm. If that's not an issue, and the gun itself has an advantage for you (i.e., you simply shoot a given .380 very accurately, you need a really small gun, you need a tip up barrel or other feature, sensitivity to recoil, etc.), then use it.

At the end of the day, handguns wound by poking roughly caliber-sized holes. The .380 seems to have enough penetration to make those holes count.

 

[kokapelli]

I don't like 380 but I only recently regained faith in 9mm after going migrating to 40 S&W and 45ACP.

The newest Barnes 90gr-class copper projectiles show excellent promise in hot loaded rounds.
Check this test out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2EywZbYps
that's awesome performance right there.

But they're expensive. And practicing with the 380 is expensive.
I'd rather had a microcompact in 9mm instead of 380.
That way I could load Federal 9BPLE in there and forget about it.

The Barnes Buffalo Bore doesn't even meet the FBI recommended minimum penetration.

Here is a much better look at 380 ammo performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts

 

[Glockwheeler]

Personally, I have never had and still do not have any interest in anything under 9mm. With the size of subcompact 9mm pistols these days, I cannot think of any reason, personally, to step down to any of the smaller calibers for defensive purposes. The 380 offers nothing to me that 9mm and above does.

 

[mavracer]

Most people that shoot 9, 40 and 45 practice a lot more than the average 380 shooter does which means on average the 9, 40 and 45 shooters are probably going to have better shot placement and that equation is never considered in caliber effectiveness.

Do you have any proof of this assertion or are you stating an opinion as fact.
Yes it's a marginal caliber as the best SD loadings hover right at the 12" minimum penetration mark.

 

[kokapelli]

Do you have any proof of this assertion or are you stating an opinion as fact.
Yes it's a marginal caliber as the best SD loadings hover right at the 12" minimum penetration mark.

Yes I sure do. I shoot at three different ranges and I see what people are shooting.

Some of the shooters I know have 380 pistols in addition to their more powerful pistols, but rarely shoot more than a magazine or two with their 380's while they usually shoot 100 plus rounds from their 9's, 40's and 45's.

 

[Plan2Live]

Personally, I have never had and still do not have any interest in anything under 9mm. With the size of subcompact 9mm pistols these days, I cannot think of any reason, personally, to step down to any of the smaller calibers for defensive purposes. The 380 offers nothing to me that 9mm and above does.

This

 

[kokapelli]

I understand that some do not want to shoot 380, but that is not the point of this thread.

 

[Drail]

Unless you can hit a small vital area on demand, yeah, it's kind of "marginal" compared to some other choices. I mean, it's better than nothing but so is a crescent wrench. I know, I know, a crescent wrench won't fit in the pocket of your sweatpants.......

 

[JR47]

Then again, "unless you can hit a small vital area" pretty much applies to ANY pistol caliber, doesn't it?

As for the FBI protocols, anyone who remembers them will also remember that many of the participants in the conferences they were developed in thought that 8"-10" of penetration was sufficient. It was mostly a political decision for the 12" level to be adopted.

Yeah, pretty much. It's the bare minimum of pistol power. I don't recommend anyonee goes under .380 or .38 special for CCW.

Do you have any proof of this assertion or are you stating an opinion as fact.

So, let's see some actual determination as to what constitutes that bare minimum on a scientific basis. The FBI protocols were developed for LEOs, using Duty sized handguns. They include things like barrier penetration, minimum weight retention, minimum expansion, and so on. Civilians have a different set of circumstances. Not only that, but most of the ammunition that LEOs use today will NOT meet all of the FBI protocols.

I would also point out that many, many, non-dedicated shooters cannot handle the recoil of mini-guns in 9mm or even lightweight revolvers with 2", or less, barrels. That means that they don't practice as often as necessary to become proficient. Not a good thing.

Then, we have the elderly, or those with disabling injuries or medical conditions. I have a small framed female as a neighbor, who suffers from Fibromyalgia. A S&W Shield in 9x19 is painful for her to shoot. So is a Taurus Model 85 UL. At 5' 5", and 140 pounds, she has a hard time concealing many guns in work clothes (she's a nurse). For her physical condition, she settled on a S&W Bodyguard, in .380. She is a good shot with the gun at 7-15 yards, and can shoot between 75-100 rounds before it hurts her wrists. She can also conceal the gun quite well.

To me, this caliber mumbo-jumbo is useless. The first rule of gun-fighting is still "have a gun", the second rule is have the heaviest caliber that you can manage. Somebody show me where caliber is actually defined as "above a certain limit".

For me, I don't regard anything below a .357 Magnum, or a .40 S&W, as capable of actual self-defense. So what? It's still nothing more than opinion. Of course, larger diameter bullets, meeting some mythical minimum penetration "must" be more effective than their smaller brethren, right?

 

[IdahoSkies]

When discussing .380's effectiveness, this study really opened my eyes:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

With the major calibers it really is way more about placement than anything else.

 

[psyopspec]

The newest Barnes 90gr-class copper projectiles show excellent promise in hot loaded rounds.
Check this test out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2EywZbYps
that's awesome performance right there.

"Awesome" is a relative thing. 10" in bare gel and less through a cotton tee isn't that impressive. I can't imagine anything more horrifying then being in a gunfight, getting shot placement correct, and having a failure to stop because the ammunition lacked sufficient penetration. Take that 10" of gel and imagine how much less it would be if we cover the medium to an assailant: add in a couple layers of denim to simulate getting through an arm wielding a weapon, some bone in that simulated arm, then more when it reaches a chest cavity, maybe add a few inches of fatty tissue to account for the modern American diet, and it could easily stop short of the vitals.

I rarely carry .380 if there's any way to avoid it, but when I do I go FMJ for this reason.

 

[wow6599]

I might think so if I lived in a place like Islamabad, but here in Missouri I feel fine with a .380 or .32.

If someone made a 9 or 45 in the same size as a P-32 or LCP, I would carry that instead.

 

[crazysccrmd]

A 90gr XTP at 800-900 fps from a 2.8" barrel will consistently penetrate 12+ inches in both bare gel and through four layers of denim into gel. It does that and still expands. If you are going to carry a 380 that is the just about the best choice in bullet to go with. Many other brands failed, including many popular loads for carry. It certainly isn't a 45 ACP but it still has more than enough performance to kill someone.

http://shootingthebull.net/blog/final-results-of-the-380-acp-ammo-quest/

 

[kokapelli]

A very interesting article and I completely agree with his conclusions.

 

[burk]

My feelings are as follows. The .380 is the minimum caliber I would ever consider, but I would not carry in Winter, at least not here where the average temp was 13 this February. The problem is penetration against heavier clothed bad guys in winter. With a solid bullit you get enough penetration, but a very limited amount of expansion. Almost no one recommends FMJ for .380 SD. BUT in winter, a HP can be filled with material (some people might have 4-6" of clothing layers) and won't expand, plus it would penetrate less.

 

[cougar1717]

Every time the question, "Is the 380 adequate?" is asked, common themes come through in the answers:
1) What a governmental authority defines as meeting a specification
2) Comparision with 9mm Luger
3) The firearms which are available/ most popular with 380.
4) Is the shooter proficient enough to hit the target?

I see both sides of it - whether you prefer a small caliber handgun like a 380 or even a 32 auto or you are on the other side where 9mm Luger is your floor and anything less just isn't enough. While I do think that it is somewhat silly for civilians to hang their hat on a standard intended to produce a minimum caliber for a governmental setting, it was done with a purpose.

380 is always going to be 9 Luger's kid brother. It doesn't matter what +P+ boutique rounds are available, those same boutique loaders will make them for 9 Luger as well. It will always be 90gr vs 115gr or 950-1000fps vs 1150-1200fps.

In the days when every pistol frame was metal, the 380 was able to be the smaller, thinner, more concealable handgun compared to full size handguns. What has made things more complicated is the number of sub-subcompact autos available, their promotion by manufacturers, and their popularity among the growing number of CCW holders.

With enough practice (and money), just about anyone can become proficient with a 380. Small handguns are advantageous for those with smaller hands. That said, these are the shooters who are usually the most recoil sensitive - shooting one of the most difficult handguns to master: tiny, short barreled, lightweight pocket autos. For me, I think this is the biggest sticking point - can the shooter consistently draw and put shots on target? That is the disconnect for me - a shooter won't attain proficiency without practice, yet it is difficult to practice at length with tiny 380's because of the recoil, with the biggest segment of 380 buying shooters being recoil sensitive. Just my thoughts.

Oh, and before I get flamed, if you can draw and hit a sheet of paper at 21', carry whatever you want!

 

[kokapelli]

380 recoil is no longer a problem now that we have the P238 and the Glock G42.

I'm one of those that due to age and bad joints can no longer handle the recoil from small 9mm etc pistols, but I can shoot my G42 all day without a problem.

 

[jimbo555]

I have a s&w bodyguard 380 and I also have a walther pps 9mm. I shoot the walther much better so that's what I try to carry every day. If a glock 42 was the one I shot best I would carry that. Only hits count.

 

[Old Dog]

Over the years, I've seen several folks shot with .380s, and the handful that survived their wounds didn't seem to consider it a "marginal" cartridge (the same can be said of the pathetic .22 LR, too). There's quite a few ammo offerings of late in this caliber that seem to test well, too. Although I personally wouldn't carry a .380 (my SIG P-938 is the smallest pistol I own), I'd rather my wife carry her .380 than not carry at all.

 

[C0untZer0]

I'm surprised no one said "Marginal at best"

 

[gun_with_a_view]

The study seemingly supports the school of thought that small caliber handguns are effective for self defense. My personal opinion is they should be loaded with hardball to insure some decent penetration.

I am reminded of the gent who went into a neighborhood bar several years ago in Bryan, TX, took a .32 ACP round to the chest, went outside, sat down and fell over dead in short order.

Another good example involved an alcoholic attorney several years ago who was attending an AAA meeting when some passing fool decided he would rob the whole bunch at gunpoint. The lawyer's huckleberry was his third shot, which penetrated the perp's neck. Down the dude went, dead as a piece of roadkill on nearby I-95.

Some of these accounts of older events are getting hard to locate on the web. My apologies for not posting links.