NRA magazine : 380 equals 38 spl?

[HJHMD]

Gentlemen and ladies,

In the Sept. issue of American Rifleman ( NRA Magazine ), they have an article on "Handgun Stopping Power". I am sure you all have experience with a buzzilion such articles so I hope you can bring some clarity to a concern that the article raised for me.
The issue is the following : this article's data suggests that the performance between the .380 ACP and the .38 SPL is virtually identical. The data is as follows :
Average .380 ACP 941 fps @ 10feet, 12.6 inches penetration, and 1.48 expansion factor.
Average .38 SPL performance 947 fps @ 10 feet, 11.8 inches penetration, and 1.44 expansion factor.
Expansion factor is the recovered diameter of the bullet divided by the unfired bullet diameter.
So , I am interested in your take on this as I always thought empirically that the 38 was considerably superior to the 380.
Of course in this article the 9mm and above was clearly superior to either the 38 or 380.
Thanks in advance for your help, I am a novice and this just adds to the confusion about calibers.

Jim

 

[benEzra]

I haven't seen the article, but they may have been comparing .38 out of a snubbie vs. .380 out of a pistol of similar overall length. .380 is optimized for very short barrels whereas .38 Special may need a little more barrel length to get up to its full potential, so that a .380 vs. a .38 snubbie may be pretty even.

 

[bhesler]

Could also be that it was using regular .38 spl instead of +P.

 

[Certaindeaf]

If they only made a 15 shot j-frame we'd be all set.

 

[del4]

We have to remember the the .38 started out as a black powder cartridge. Like the 45- 70 its power has to be limited in case it is used in older guns. These old rounds give lackluster performance in their natural state, that's why we have +p.

 

[gbeecher]

The devil is in the details...

I could see how this could be true. It depends on the loading of each cartridge (pressure, powder weight) and the gun itself as far as barrel length. The two cartridges are fairly similar, though the .38 Special can deliver more energy with a higher bullet weight. The bullet diameter is the same for both at .355 (38 ACP) and .357 (.38 Special). It all depends...

 

[C0untZer0]

The 380 ACP has a limited range in which it can function, limited to the parameters of what is needed to reliably cycle most 380 pistol actions, and limited by the case.

This comparison was done between a 38 spl round that falls within the 380's (narrow) performance range, but the 38 spl can operate over a much wider range of pressures and velocities.

The 380 is never going to be able to fire a 158gr round effectively. The very best performing 380 ACP rounds will not equal the performance in penetration or expansion of the very best 38 spl +P rounds avalable now.

http://www.ballistics101.com/380_acp.php#

http://www.ballistics101.com/38_special.php

 

[Owen Sparks]

The .38 Special cartridge looks a lot more powerful than it really is. That is because it is mostly empty. As someone already mentioned it was developed as a black powder cartridge which means that it needed a much longer case to hold the bulky charge of black powder. Modern .38 Specials are loaded with smokeless powder that does not even fill the case half way. Anyone who reloads is well aware that you can double or even triple charge a .38 case if you are not paying attention.

If the .38 was originally developed for smokeless powder it would not need to be any longer than a 9MM, which would probably be a more even comparison in a true apples to apples test anyway. It is interesting that my old Speer reloading manual gives the top +P load for both the 9MM and .38 Special as 5.9 grains of Unique under a 125 grain bullet. The advantage that the auto pistols have is that there is no cylinder gap so they give markedly better performance with the same exact powder charge and bullet weight. If both could be fired from a non-vented test barrels of the same length results would be very similar.

 

[gp911]

It was a good article but it needs to be read carefully. Some of the sample sizes were small (one underpowered 10mm?) and the average performance statistic has limited value. Any time you see statistics you have to be careful how they are interpreted, both by the author and by the reader as we all have our biases. I thought it was an interesting read overall.

 

[Tcruse]

The article was an attempt to apply a role of thumb to the topic that was simple and one that made some sense in the current understanding of stopping (as defined by the FBI). The idea of using hot loads, heavy for caliber, and out of guns that are not common usage for the caliber does nothing for the average person reading the article.
For the person just starting out in gun usage, I am not sure that the small revolver person can be convinced that their choice is not the best choice today. Just as I would always recommend Glock, Ruger SR, SW M&P, ...

 

[berettaprofessor]

Physics is physics. Speed and mass result in energy delivered to target.

 

[Al Thompson]

I was irked that the Federal HST line was not included but some other strange offerings were. Wilson Combat 9mm 115 XTP?

 

[readyeddy]

It was a good article for what it reported, i.e. ballistic gel results. Given the limits of the experiment, it concluded that there was little difference between the different cartridges. But the tests did not include the effects of clothing and bones, so I'm not so sure about discounting the benefits of heavier bullets.

 

[StrawHat]

I remember, years ago, when they compared the 38 Special to the 9x19 Luger. So, I guess the 380 = the 9mm? Not likely.

 

[481]

I am gonna take this one with a grain of salt.

Gotta be careful of the conclusions that can be drawn from articles of that type (it's not exactly a bonafide research article).

Nowhere in the AR article does R. Mann use the term "calibrated" to describe the 10% ordnance gelatin that he used for these tests- it's not used in the "Notes" below any of the data tables, it's not present in the article's text and that absence speaks volumes.

 

[BigG]

Like a lot of rules of thumb, it has its limitations.

 

[JERRY]

the best .380acp round falls short of the best .38spl. round.

you can play with guns and ammo (not a pun) to get whatever numbers you want though, picking the best .380acp and the worst .38spl.....and so on....

 

[rem44m]

Jerry beat me too it....

After doing some homework between these two cartridges a while back and chronoing and testing for myself I found that the 38 spl DEFINITELY wins for my needs.

The key is focusing on the best ammunition for both calibers.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

Did the article give the weight of the bullet? 100gr .380 vs. 158 gr .38spl would certainly make a difference, all other things being equal.

 

[481]

Did the article give the weight of the bullet? 100gr .380 vs. 158 gr .38spl would certainly make a difference, all other things being equal.

Yes, that information is in the data tables listed with the name of the round tested.

 

[firesky101]

Neither one will do anything if you don't hit the vitals. Average .38sp vs. average .380 I would give a slight nod to the .38, but really splitting hairs. .38's really start to shine out of a carbine.

 

[Apple a Day]

I'd take the article with a big block of salt. The data is skewed.

1)As Al Thompson previously noted, Mann used some odd choices for his test ammo. Buffalo Bore figured prominently in the tests and they're known for really hot loads. Mann used THREE Buffalo Bore loads for the .380 but only ONE for the .38 SPL. 3/12 versus 1/9. In the pink (The Protocol Explained) section of the article he even admits to manipulating the data by limiting the sampling size of 'ultra high velocity' ammo in magnum and 10mm calibers so as to avoid "tilting the average velocity toward the high side." You have to assume that the ammo choices for the other calibers were skewed as well to some extent.

2) You'll also notice that the only heavy weight load that Mann used for the .38 SPL was the 158 grain Buffalo Bore which exited the test block at 24 inches and that's how it was entered, NOT actual penetration. All of the other test rounds were lighter 125 and 110 grain with a single 135 grain. There were no other 148 or 158 grain loads which - again- probably skewed the penetration data towards the shallower end.

3) I found at least one data error in the article, emailed the author about it. He admitted that he'd made a mistake in the publication. For the record it was under the .357 magnum section with Federal ammunition. The article states that that the 130 grain Low Recoil had nearly the same velocity as the 125 grain JHP, expanded less, but had much less penetration (9.5" versus 14"). When I called him on it he said he'd mistakenly listed the expansion factor of the 125 grain round as 1.4 instead of 1.2. Anybody can make a mistake but that makes me suspicious of the other numbers.

 

[razorback2003]

I believe 4 inch 38 special is more similar to a 9mm than to 380. The bullet weights are similar in 9mm and 38. 380 uses lighter bullets.

38 special is a good round with modern bullets. You can kill a deer with a 4 inch 38 just like you can with a 9mm if you are close.

 

[fireflyfather]

Even in a short-barreled revolver (S&W 642, Det. Spl, etc...) there are excellent loads with very good expansion (gold dot--version made short barrel). Depending on the specific gun used for the test results and the specific loads, you end up with one of the following: Lies, damn lies, or statistics...

Seriously, the .380 is arguably adequate for personal defense, but most of the .380 ammo tests I've seen have shown expansion to be unreliable...like 1st and 2nd generation .38spl JHP ammo from short-barreled revolver.

Current loads for snubbies have come a long way.

 

[JohnKSa]

With light bullet loads (typical .380 ACP bullet weights), the .380ACP is very similar to standard pressure .38spl, especially out of short-barrelled guns.

The .38spl has an advantage with heavier bullets since the .380ACP can't handle anything much over 100 grains, and an even bigger advantage if one expands the comparison to include .38spl +P.