Musings on Today's .380 Pistols

[W.E.G.]

The Ruger LCP is also hammer fired, but the hammer starts at half cock which is why it does not have second strike capability.

You're arguing semantics.

If you have to use TWO HANDS to get a second strike, its as good as striker-fired, no matter how much the engineering nerds want to "well ackshually" the issue.

If second-strike capability isn't something you want, or is repugnant to you for some reason, that's you.

The important thing is that the buyer know what he wants, and that he doesn't buy something other than what he wants from ignorance.

 

[Ethan Verity]

You're arguing semantics.

If you have to use TWO HANDS to get a second strike, its as good as striker-fired, no matter how much the engineering nerds want to "well ackshually" the issue.

If second-strike capability isn't something you want, or is repugnant to you for some reason, that's you.

The important thing is that the buyer know what he wants, and that he doesn't buy something other than what he wants from ignorance.

I'm not arguing semantics, striker fired and hammer fired are literally two different things.

Yes, the LCP does not have second strike capabilities, but it's still a hammer fired pistol with a long and heavy trigger pull. Calling it striker fired is just not correct.

 

[W.E.G.]

I'm not arguing semantics, striker fired and hammer fired are literally two different things.

Yes, the LCP does not have second strike capabilities, but it's still a hammer fired pistol with a long and heavy trigger pull. Calling it striker fired is just not correct.

Yes, you have made it very clear how the INTERNAL MECHANICS of the Ruger operate.

For the USER, the thing that matters is how the FUNCTIONAL MECHANICS operate.
FUNCTIONALLY - in terms of how the user must use the tool, the Ruger operates just the same as a striker-fired gun.
Pointing out that the Ruger technically has a hammer instead of a striker is meaningless as it pertains to the user's options during operation.

 

[tarosean]

, but the topic here--small pistols--is about size and weight.

And the P365 kind of killed that.

Only 380’s left here are a PPK/s and S&W EZ. Neither are small

 

[Kleanbore]

Pointing out that the Ruger technically has a hammer instead of a striker is meaningless as it pertains to the user's options during operation.

It does affect slide racking effort.

 

[Ethan Verity]

Yes, you have made it very clear how the INTERNAL MECHANICS of the Ruger operate.

For the USER, the thing that matters is how the FUNCTIONAL MECHANICS operate.
FUNCTIONALLY - in terms of how the user must use the tool, the Ruger operates just the same as a striker-fired gun.
Pointing out that the Ruger technically has a hammer instead of a striker is meaningless as it pertains to the user's options during operation.

In addition to slide racking effort as mentioned above, the trigger pull also feels different. That's another big part of the functional experience for the user.
On a side note, I own two Ruger LCP pistols, and have fired a combined 8,000+ rounds through them over the years. I have never needed second strike abilities with that pistol.

 

[WisBorn]

REALLY SMALL and lightweight is the best reason for .380

Heavy .380 makes no sense
Big .380 makes no sense

I much prefer the smaller one.

View attachment 1230637

Even though the Glock 42 is larger. It still feels small in a front pocket IMO.

 

[chicharrones]

You're arguing semantics.

If you have to use TWO HANDS to get a second strike, its as good as striker-fired, no matter how much the engineering nerds want to "well ackshually" the issue.

If second-strike capability isn't something you want, or is repugnant to you for some reason, that's you.

The important thing is that the buyer know what he wants, and that he doesn't buy something other than what he wants from ignorance.

@Ethan Verity is stating mechanical design. You're stating operational functionality.

It's like a mechanic and a driver having an argument, and you clearly aren't the mechanic.

 

[Hunter 08]

I'm kind of peeved that Glock has had the 25 for nearly 30 years but can't import them here to the states for one reason or another, but there are ways to get one. From what it was described as, it's a Glock 19 sized in .380. Would be way more controllable I think than the 42.

 

[halfmoonclip]

The Bodyguard 380 compared to the Bodyguard 2.0 is interesting.

The 2.0 is a little bit thicker (.75" vs. .88")
You can see the 2.0 is a little bit longer

In addition to the 2.0 being bigger, the thing that really turns me off on it is the STRIKER-FIRED 2.0
If its not clear already from my previous remarks, I don't want a striker-fired pistol for this application.


View attachment 1230639

Great comparo. Now I own both. As regards the 1.0, yes, it is a true double action, the hammer is completely at rest, and can be cycled again for a second strike. Between the long trigger, and a firing pin safety, it's an extraordinarily safe pistol. And it is really small, literally LCP sized.
Personally, I'm accurate shooting double action (old revo guy), but shoot strikers faster. Safety wise, I'm comfortable with SIGs and Glocks, so the choice between the two will come down to which carries better, and how I shoot them, back to back.
Moon

 

[halfmoonclip]

I'm kind of peeved that Glock has had the 25 for nearly 30 years but can't import them here to the states for one reason or another, but there are ways to get one. From what it was described as, it's a Glock 19 sized in .380. Would be way more controllable I think than the 42.

Previously unknown to me, Glock has imported (or is making them here?) its larger .380s, which are sorta blowback, but are reputed to be soft shooters. Can't imagine why anyone might want a 26 or 19 sized .380, unless soft recoil, and easy handling.
Frankly, the G42 isn't all that bad on both counts.
Moon

 

[halfmoonclip]

I bought a couple of those at fire sale prices ($200 each). Nice little guns.
Gave them to a son & grandson.
If they came back as a 10 round double stack, I’d buy one and rotate carry it with my LCP Max.
View attachment 1230537

A owner at a local shop tried to sell me one; that guy could sell sand to a Bedouin, and I really should have gotten it. They were cheap.
But I'd read the evaluation of the take down pin falling out the little hole in the slide, and walked away.
At that point, it was clear Remington was going to make a smoking hole in the ground, and that wasn't a selling point as well.
Others here have said they like them.
Moon

 

[Boom Vang]

The Colt 1851 .36 Navy (and later 1861 Navy) was their second-most popular cap and ball revolver produced (the first being the 1849 Pocket in .31 calibre). The .36 Navy was used extensively as a combat and defensive arm by frontiersmen, gunfighters both good and bad, lawmen and Civil War soldiers and cavalrymen. Ballistically, it fired an 80 grain round lead ball at 900-1000 fps. It was a preferred sidearm and had a good reputation for accuracy and power, and so was roughly equivalent to modern .380 ACP ball ammunition in energy and penetration.

Which I think leaves the .380 as relevant today in every handgun from pocket-sized to belt-sized, the former being easily concealed, and latter being easily fired. People today are not really any more resilient to gunfire than in the 19th century. For pocket carry, the smaller the better: Ruger LCP, S&W Bodyguard 1.0. For belt carry, a larger size .380 makes for a better grip, steadiness and less recoil: Glock 42, Browning 1911-380, Colt Model M, S&W Shield EZ 380, Walther PP, Beretta 81, SIG P230.

Something for everyone.

The "micro-nines" are noticeably larger and/or more difficult to operate and shoot well. Yes they are smaller than a normal-sized 9mm pistol, but still heavier than a .380, and not any easier to shoot well. I don't like them in a pocket, and I don't like them appendix carried either. If I really needed a powerful handgun I'd choose something bigger that was easier to shoot accurately and rapidly and had better ballistics than a 3" barrel 9mm. I can easily conceal a larger handgun if I really thought I needed it.

For an EDC small handgun, I'd rather have something that was easier to shoot and/or lighter/less conspicuous to carry and/or less problematic and more versatile than a "micro-nine", such as a .380 pistol, or a .38 small-frame revolver.

The "micro-nine" is both an industry effort to sell new guns, and a LE-driven desire to have a single-calibre solution to both on-and off-duty carry. I'm increasingly finding them somewhat irrelevant to the enthusiast who is gun-savvy.

 

[ksh]

I appreciate this comparison of the LCP Max and Bodyguard 2.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJD8LzgNFUo

Haven't handled the Bodyguard, but own 3 Ruger LCP pistols with no regrets.

 

[Old Dog]

Hadn't posted in this thread, but took the wife to the range for her re-qual (before we left for the football game) and I shot a couple mags through her SIG P-238.

Not a .380 fan, but dang, I like that pistol. More than my old Colt Mustang, for sure. It's really soft-shootin' for a .380, and accurate as the devil. Love the X-Ray sights, too.

 

[halfmoonclip]

The "micro-nine" is both an industry effort to sell new guns, and a LE-driven desire to have a single-calibre solution to both on-and off-duty carry. I'm increasingly finding them somewhat irrelevant to the enthusiast who is gun-savvy.

You had me 'till the last paragraph.
Real P365 fanboi, and the darn thing is pocketable, if just. I have a couple, and have found them stone reliable and pleasant to shoot. The only time I notice the recoil is in our snubby league, which requires one string of fire to be strong/weak hand. The left hand is a challenge.
But I shoot the darn thing so well, and it's a good ergonomic fit, that I can't fault it. It has been a real game changer, and a cop, or a citizen, carrying one is well armed. Balistically, 115s do 1100'sec, so it's not giving away much.
All the above presupposes you're not shooting +ps, which are permitted, but turn the P365 into an ugly handful.
But the .380s just that much smaller, making pocket carry a more viable option. Which is why I keep exploring ..380s for the perfect answer.
Moon

 

[hutch51]

Hadn't posted in this thread, but took the wife to the range for her re-qual (before we left for the football game) and I shot a couple mags through her SIG P-238.

Not a .380 fan, but dang, I like that pistol. More than my old Colt Mustang, for sure. It's really soft-shootin' for a .380, and accurate as the devil. Love the X-Ray sights, too.

Wife has a P238, let's me use it occasionally. Yes, it is a sweet shooter.

 

[Robbins290]

My glock 25 and 28 are the smoothest shooting pistol I have ever ****, and I own and shot alot of pistols. Almost no recoil. The g26 is a perfect back up 380. Can carry a 15 round mag in the pocket.

That said, the same size 26 and 27 were horrible to shoot, specially the G27 with high test loads.

 

[chicharrones]

I'm kind of peeved that Glock has had the 25 for nearly 30 years but can't import them here to the states for one reason or another, but there are ways to get one. From what it was described as, it's a Glock 19 sized in .380. Would be way more controllable I think than the 42.

The 25 is exactly the same size as the 19. Easy to shoot and holds a lot more ammo than the 42. But the 25 is quite a bit larger than a 42.

I consider the 25 a good alternative to the 19 for folks that find themselves having issues handling Glock 19 recoil. Or for folks planning ahead for when those days arrive. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/glock-25.931397/#post-12964598

I'm not sure how long the USA made G25 will be sold new here since 9mm in that size of gun makes a lot more sense to most Americans.

 

[Hunter 08]

The 25 is exactly the same size as the 19. Easy to shoot and holds a lot more ammo than the 42. But the 25 is quite a bit larger than a 42.

I consider the 25 a good alternative to the 19 for folks that find themselves having issues handling Glock 19 recoil. Or for folks planning ahead for when those days arrive. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/glock-25.931397/#post-12964598

I'm not sure how long the USA made G25 will be sold new here since 9mm in that size of gun makes a lot more sense to most Americans.

I mean yeah, .380 lacks what 9x19mm can do, and is more expensive per round. Still doesn't mean some people other than me would buy one. The 42 and similar sized Glocks in say 9mm, need the extended mag so it fits my hands better.

 

[Tinguely]

My very first pistol was a Glock 28, about 20 years ago.
This was not by choice, but due to the legislation of the country I was living in back then.
I once read the Glock 28 was banned in the U.S., I imagine it is still the case as no one else mentioned it in this thread.
With freedom to choose a different caliber, I would not pick a .380 even as a backup.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

OK, finally picked up my Bodyguard 2.0 TS last weekend. Field stripped and cleaned it right away, but didn't get a chance to shoot it until today, though.

The thumb safety was STIFF at first, but rapidly smoothed out to be much more like the ones I've handled at gun shows. I just cycled it 100 times while sitting in the car after I picked it up. After the initial clean and lube, I cycled it again another 100 times.

I don't have a problem cycling it with my thumb now. It's easier stroking the safety off than on. I have callus on the side of my thumb, so maybe someone else might think it's a bit stiffer than I do. I can pick the pistol up one handed and stroke that safety off no problem at the range.

Slide release is no issue with me, either.


I put 250 trouble free rounds through it at the range today using 5 different brands of 95 gr. FMJ.

Lots of slow fire at first for accuracy check. I need to do a sight adjustment, as it consistently shoots a bit to the left.

Groupings were fantastic, as my next post will show.

I can get 10 rounds in the 10 round magazine by hand, but only 11 rounds in the 12 round magazine. I've seen online where a guy gets that 12th round in using an Uplula, but I'm not sure that will work for me. It seems like a "hard full" with that 11th round and I can't even get the 12th to depress the top round by more than a fraction by hand. I'll disassemble the mags later and inspect them.

I didn't have any issue with the trigger. Some don't like it, but I never even gave it a thought while shooting. A complete non-issue for me.

After bench shooting for accuracy, I went through the remaining ammo standing and shooting at a comfortably quick pace and found the pistol easy to quickly regain sight picture and squeeze off the next round with pleasing accuracy.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Here's the first target for my Bodyguard 2.0 TS.

Everything below the head is a slow fire from a bench rest at 7 yards, checking accuracy and grouping. I picked the center "X" or one of the numbers as the target for a grouping. All the shots grouped to the left as shown.

The head shots are at 15 yards, 22 rounds from bench rest, 6 rounds standing. Bench rest shots were almost all to the left of the head, aiming at the center of the head.

Five different brands as shown, all 95 gr. FMJ.

 

[Walkalong]

Good shooting. looks like you'll be drifting the back sight a hair.