Went shopping for a "pocketable" pistol trying to do not break the bank..suggestions?

[saturno_v]

I am extremely satisfied with my Bersa Thunder 40, but sometimes it bothers me on my belt, especially going toward the summer when you want to dress lighter.
It is surprisingly compact and light to be a full size pistol, for example ,today I compared it with the SIG P226 (that incidentally costs more than double, $800 + tax versus $320 + tax....) which has the same barrel length (4.4 inches). Well, the SIG is wider, heavier and overall bigger and with less magazine capacity....made me very happy thinking about the money I saved.
Even compared with the P229 and the Stoeger Cougar, which are "sub-4 inch barrel" hanguns, my Thunder 40 "feels" more compact.
So I started looking for a VERY small handgun that I can literally put in my pocket (I'm not that tall, only 5,7)..I figured, if i have to put it in my belt with an holster, I rather keep using my Thunder 40 and save the $$$.

Well today a gun shop proposed me a couple of Kel-Tec in 9 mm, one single stack and one double stack magazine.
They are polymer made and the salesman literally told me, "do not put lots of rounds throught it at the range...use it just for emergency"...Well that didn't give me a lot of confidence in it....they were not exactly cheap (they were asking $299 + tax) but definitely they looked cheaply made...
No external hammer and no safety....hmm I'll pass..

An other store showed me an interesting supercompact 2 tone finishing 9 mm which I do not even remember the brand because the price was way way out of what I intended to spend (they were asking $650) and no external hammer but it had safety and it seemed of way better quality compared to the Kel-Tec.

So seems that the widest choice for a super compact is in 380 caliber (CZ, Bersa, SIG, Walther, etc..).
I did look at the Bersa Tunder 380 and it is a very cute little gun very well made....I "tested" the concealed carry version (even smaller) in my pocket, it fits ok and I can sit relatively comfortably.
So I may go with the Thunder 380 but I have some reserves about the 380 ACP round...I nevert tried it but people tell me that is not exactly a powerhouse and you have very little margin for error...what is the general cost of ammo compared to the 9 mm??? Is the ammo as easy to find as the 9 mm??? "Wal-martized"??? ;-)
I would definitely feel more comfortable with a 9 mm....

Any other ideas or suggestions about a supercompact pockeatable decent quality 9 mm (preferably with external hammer) without breaking the bank???

Can someone with experience about the 380 round give me more advice?? It is reasonable for defense or barely acceptable??

Thank You!!

Regards

 

[saturno_v]

I forgot an other question about this topic

What about a cheap Makarov??? Would fit in my pant pocket?? Ammo hard to find and/or expensive???

 

[FranklyTodd]

My everyday pocket carry is a S&W M&P340 j-frame .357 with CT grips (VERY easy to pocket carry, negligible printing). You are might want to at least consider a j-frame.

I think the 340 will stay number one, but just yesterday on a whim I ordered the new Ruger LCP .380 without ever seeing or holding one - I've held the P3AT - I'm told it's about the same size, a little more comfortable. I'm not thrilled with no hammer / no safety autos either - I even put a thumb safety on my Glock 26 - blasphemy to some. I'm told the LCP has a long, heavy but smooth, pull (closer to a revolver) that might make me ok with this one - we'll see.

Yes, .380acp is quite a bit more expensive (WM price was like $29/100 vs $22/100 for 9mm), but to be honest, I don't see shooting that little thing for pleasure too much.

Buffalo Bore and Corbon are supposedly getting around 1100fps with a 90grain bullet. That's not too bad - I'd obviously prefer my 9mm or .357, but as tiny as it is, it will fill a carry niche, I think. Many will tell you a 9mm is underpowered, so you are certainly going to find folks who say the .380 is underpowered! For civilian CCW, it's fine in my book. I don't think I'd be comfortable carrying anything smaller every day.

 

[birdbustr]

You'll hear people say "placement, placement" especially when they are trying to justify why they prefer a smaller round to a larger one. For instance the whole 9mm vs .40cal.
So in favor of a Bersa .380, which I own and have every confidence in, it is RELIABLE and ACCURATE and most suprising CHEAP. I don't think you'll find a better sub-compact carry pistol, for under $500.

 

[FranklyTodd]

I've also heard terrific things about Bersa (and I think they have a Thunder Carry 9mm or something like that if you prefer)! I only went with the Ruger because it's so tiny.

Good luck, and I hope you'll post when you decide!

 

[Mad Magyar]

What about a cheap Makarov??? Would fit in my pant pocket?? Ammo hard to find and/or expensive???

There are many that swear by the Mak. In the pant pocket, I prefer no holster. Plenty of ammo sources in Shotgun News & the Internet...Not that costly depending on the brand....
I wouldn't worry too much about the .380 effectiveness. Practice in "controlled pairs" and you will be more confident in the round. Like FranklyT mentioned, I do bare-bone testing on my PPK since one box hurts my shooting hand more than any in my arsenal.

 

[go_bang]

The .380 round is just fine for SD. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke. Mad's comment about controlled pairs applies to any handgun round. Never plan on one round resolving the problem, no matter what the caliber.

Your gun dealer's comment about the Kel Tec is just fear-mongering so he can try to sell you a more expensive gun. Kel Tecs are good well made guns backed by good customer service.

As for ammo cost 9mm is often cheaper than .380, but then .380 is also cheaper than the .40 you're shooting now. If you're happy with your Bersa 40 than I would say give more consideration to the Bersa 380 over the Kel Tec. The Bersa will be that same DA/SA action as your Bersa 40. The Kel Tec is DAO.

 

[Soybomb]

Can someone with experience about the 380 round give me more advice?? It is reasonable for defense or barely acceptable??

You can find some really great information on terminal ballistics at www.tacticalforums.com and I mean quality stuff like articles from peer reviewed journals, not just gun store gossip.

If I can quote Dr Roberts from http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000037#000001

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-defence 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 jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets 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. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is not acceptable for law enforcement use and most knowledgable agencies prohibit their use--based on past experience, to my knowledge none of the agencies you mention currently use .380's.

A .38 special would be a much better defensive load and should make a very affordable pocket gun. If I were going to carry a .380 though I'd carry the keltec once it was thoroughly tested. If I were going to carry a gun as big and heavy as a mak, it'd be 9mm.

 

[go_bang]

If I can quote Dr Roberts from http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...=000037#000001

I would like to see Dr Robert's report on this sometime, because these results from tests of .380 ACP look pretty consistent to me:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/380acp/hor380-90xtp-b85.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/380acp/win380-95ssxt-b85.htm

http://www.brassfetcher.com/90 grain Federal Personal Defense Hydra-Shok.html

http://www.brassfetcher.com/380acp 90gr Federal Hydra-Shok (light clothing).html

Further on that thread Dr Roberts has this to say:

That is an "old" paper where the research was done prior to routine denim/heavy clothing testing. So far, none of the .380 ACP JHP's we have tested expand when fired through heavy clothing. Stick with FMJ for .380 ACP or better yet, don't use it at all.

What exactly is meant by heavy clothing?

Further down again Roberts has another post which I think brings his comments into better context:

"I keep hearing how a .38 Special snub nosed revolver is an adequate choice for a BUG but the .380 is not."

Both the .380 ACP and .38 sp are lethal; the crux of your question is which weapon system 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. A full wadcutter crushes more tissue than any other bullet of the same diameter which does not expand--unlike .38 sp revolvers, the .380 pistols I have used do not reliably function with full wadcutters. When .38 sp JHP bullets do expand, they are generally heavier than .380 JHP bullets and are much more likely to offer adequate penetration.

Hopefully the above has addressed your question.

Which brings my next question: Was his study primarily one the performance or .380 ACP as a backup or off-duty weapon when used by police officers or the performance of the round in general? His earlier agreement with a post by Det. Wayne Dobbs leads me to believe the former, and in Det. Wayne Dobbs we see mention of testing and treatment of these BUG's by the officers:

Additionally, the pistols used to launch this round seem to be fairly unreliable in real world usage, ESPECIALLY the Walthers I've seen. I've seen several reports over the years of these guns being deployed in shootings, usually off-duty ones and firing one shot and then malfunctioning. I believe it's due to the officer always shooting ball ammo in the gun to qualify (don't say practice because they haven't!) and never testing functioning reliability with hollowpoint ammo. Also, the guns get carried in plainclothes: stuffed in pockets, waistbands and ankle holsters where they get very dirty and very dry. When the big moment comes, they find out they have a "one shot wonder" to use a Jeff Gonzalez term.

Seems to me that those carrying these weapons screwed up on a couple different levels. I also have to wonder, judging from the actual tests linked to above, if much of the supposed inadequacy of the .380 ACP round that gets parroted around the net and in gun shops doesn't stem directly from results compiled by Gary Roberts DDS (in other words, a doctor of dentistry). If so, then it would also seem to be that these conclusions may be flawed as his sample population failed to take into account simple tasks and precautions. Things like making sure you gun performs reliably with your carry ammo, using a proper holster, making sure you can reliably fire it using your weak hand, and cleaning your gun.

 

[buzz_knox]

I'd be careful before focusing on Dr. Roberts' particular specialty. He sees quite a few gunshot traumas in his practice, his work with wound ballistics in general, and his involvement with SWAT.

 

[FranklyTodd]

Live your life so no "hit squad" is after you and you should be fine!

A highly motivated attacker(s) with a personal agenda, or one resisting arrest to avoid imprisonment, might bring a higher level of, shall we say, enthusiasm to his/her assault.

I think, with no data to back it up because it seems self-evident, that a financially (or for the ladies, sexually) motivated robber (rapist), or a group of thugs just wanting to assault you for "fun" will be sufficiently persuaded to go away when shot with a .380. These are the threats I fear more than someone targeting me personally.

I give the same justification when someone criticizes my more-often choice of a snub .357 with only 5 shots. If I have more than 5 after me, and they keep coming after shooting a couple of them with the thunder and flash of a snub, then I'm dead, period. A perfectly acceptable risk (to me) for the tradeoff of carrying a 13oz gun all the time, instead of dressing around a .40cal with 2 mags worth of reloads, or even worse, carrying a more effective SD gun some of the time. I personally like the .357 revolver better, so I guess I'm not a great .380 advocate, but when my Ruger LCP comes in, and assuming it proves itself 100% reliable, I will consider carrying it in place of the j-frame if the clothing/weather/situation calls for it, and the fact that it's a .380 won't bother me a bit.

There's a lot of machismo about putting the BG down forever, or whatever. But if I put a .380 in a BG and he runs away and lives, that's still a successful encounter in my book! I'm not a cop, and don't need to "arrest" the guy, just make him leave me alone!

As for the cited expert, I just glanced and those posts are from 6 years ago! An actual Ruger LCP test with Buffalo Bore and Corbon got something like 1200fps with a .90gr bullet. I'd love to see the stats on the .380 tested 6 years ago. I'm willing to wager it's apples to oranges.

Safe shooting to all!!

FranklyTodd

 

[tacmedicp94]

I recently purchased a Ruger LCP. I have about 175rnds. through it with only one FTFeed. This was probably cuased by me as it was the first round shot one hand weak side(Limp wristing?). I have no issues with this gun or round, it IS NOT a gun designed for extended situations. I look at it as a "Get out of my face gun" to be used at close ranges . This gun will never replace my 1911 as primary CCW. But for short trips to the store or when it hits 105 outside it will do just fine.

Price was 289.00+ tax. Accuracy was O.K. for the size of the pistol. Keeping all rounds on a paper plate from 25yds. not difficult. 4inch groups at 7 yds were the norm. The accuracy will probably get better as I get used to the trigger. It is a LONG pull but breaks pretty cleanly. Overall I like this pistol, I as curious as to how long it will hold up as the Kel Tecs that this pistol is designed after arre known for being shot out pretty quick.

adam

 

[go_bang]

I'd be careful before focusing on Dr. Roberts' particular specialty. He sees quite a few gunshot traumas in his practice, his work with wound ballistics in general, and his involvement with SWAT.

That's why I mentioned that I would like to see his report sometime. I also wanted to point out the DDS because too often people drop quotes from folks who have "Dr." in front of their names and correlate that with the assumption that this gives the quoted some greater level of authority. Maybe he is qualified to speak with some authority on the matters he does, but I don't think the DDS after his name makes it more so.

 

[Boarhunter]

I second the suggestion you look at Ruger's new LCP .380. MSR at $330 and likely less on the open market, I see it as an excellent value in a concealed carry weapon.

Boarhunter

 

[Soybomb]

I would like to see Dr Robert's report on this sometime, because these results from tests of .380 ACP look pretty consistent to me:

I'd invite you to browse the forums I liked to, there is a great deal of reading there. This includes roberts pointing out that the block of gel at brass fetcher was out of spec if you hadn't noticed it.

Which brings my next question: Was his study primarily one the performance or .380 ACP as a backup or off-duty weapon when used by police officers or the performance of the round in general? His earlier agreement with a post by Det. Wayne Dobbs leads me to believe the former, and in Det. Wayne Dobbs we see mention of testing and treatment of these BUG's by the officers:

Aren't the needs the same? Isn't the real purpose of the handgun to stop your attacker as quickly as possible? Sufficient penetration of an attacker shouldn't be a variable in the sense of backup gun or not.

I'd be careful before focusing on Dr. Roberts' particular specialty. He sees quite a few gunshot traumas in his practice, his work with wound ballistics in general, and his involvement with SWAT.

Wise words. In his own words

I have a keen interest in the incapacitation and wounding effects of projectiles from both a law enforcement and military perspective, serving as both a sworn civilian police officer, as well as a U.S. Naval officer in both active duty and reserve status since 1986. Upon completion of my residency in 1989, I had the honor to study with the progenitor of modern wound ballistic research, COL. Martin Fackler, at the U.S. Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory. Since then, I have remained active in performing research, writing papers, and lecturing on wound ballistics for health care, law enforcement, and military personnel. Currently I am on the staff of a large teaching medical center in California where I attend to patients with a variety of dental health problems requiring complex hospital care.

 

[xjchief]

My buddy got a little KelTec .32 that he carries everywhere. It's actually a pretty neat little gun and to date no misfires or problems. He got the extended mag, the clip (to attach to clothing), at the little laser. It's light as a feather and pretty darn accurate. I've considered buying one myself.

 

[go_bang]

I'd invite you to browse the forums I liked to, there is a great deal of reading there. This includes roberts pointing out that the block of gel at brass fetcher was out of spec if you hadn't noticed it.

No, I had not noticed that. I will also try to browse that forum more when I can.

Aren't the needs the same? Isn't the real purpose of the handgun to stop your attacker as quickly as possible? Sufficient penetration of an attacker shouldn't be a variable in the sense of backup gun or not.

Yes, the needs are the same but there are two parts to that need. The first need is that the gun must function properly. The second is that the round must be reasonably capable of stopping the threat within a reasonable number of firings. From what I gathered from the thread you linked to was that there appeared to be a much bigger problem with the former not happening.

While Roberts does make statements that he concludes the .380 to "offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry" there is much agreement between him and Dobbs that the guns themselves were a problem for the police officers in question because of the following conditions:

A. The were not testing their carry ammo in their chosen firearm.

B. They were not accounting for the harsher conditions that a BUG must endure and maintaining the firearm adequately.

C. The were not properly practicing with the firearm in their weak hand.

I think we can all agree that the caliber of your semi-auto BUG will matter very little if you're not going to account for these factors. I also doubt it's too much of a stretch to think that these factors would also have an effect on terminal performance.

Now, for the OP's purposes he is looking for a compact pistol that he can use as his PRIMARY summer carry weapon. With that, I would assume that he is going to take proper care of it and take the time to learn how to use it. That changes things.

 

[FranklyTodd]

Well said, gobang, +1

But, I wouldn't even concede that the needs are the same. An LEO going for a backup gun is in a GUNFIGHT where he's already either used up or lost his primary, or for some other horrible reason needs his backup weapon. I frankly would carry a Glock 26 or 27, or some other model still-relatively-high-capacity-high-power sub-compact if I were constantly in harms way like our brave LEOs.

As a primary carry gun for a non-drug, non-gang involved civilian, I feel (and am willing to bet my life, I guess, if I'm willing to carry a .380 or 5-shot j) my needs will never be as severe. When I'm away from home, I don't need to arrest or kill any attacker, I need to slow him down so I can get away, or make him run away or otherwise stop. Obviously that easier done with a .45cal with two extra mags, but a .380 is adequate.

Also, compared to an LEO, I also have less ability to predict when I'll need a gun, hence the greater importance of being armed 24/7, which is more likely to happen with an 8oz (LCP) -13oz (M&P340) pocket gun than anything else.

If one will carry something bigger/better 24/7, that's great. For the rest of us, there's always a trade-off.

 

[RyanM]

That gun store is both overpriced, and has un-knowledgable employees. Kel-Tecs are fine for durability, as long as you don't get a lemon. Every company makes lemons. Your hands will wear out before a Kel-Tec does, most likely. Kel-Tecs also do have an external hammer, though I don't know why that matters. They're pre-cocked DAO. The hammer is flush with the back of the slide, and protrudes out when you pull the trigger.

Also, pretty sure the going rate for a P11 is $250 parked, $275 or so chromed.

Also, FWIW, I wouldn't just take the advice of any single person, no matter how qualified, including Dr. Roberts, without first checking the facts for myself, from other good sources. Roberts is highly opinionated on a number of topics, including small CCW pieces. He's basically said that if you cannot conceal an airweight J-frame on your person, you have some kind of problem with you, in almost those exact words. He also seems to be a bit of a Winchester fanboy, saying that Ranger T is the best on the market, although recent testing (http://www.brassfetcher.com/180gr Winchester Ranger JHP.html) doesn't look too good.

He also used to Remington-bash quite a bit, calling Remington ammo dirty, flashy, and inconsistent. Once again, if you look at recent test data (http://www.brassfetcher.com/40SandW 180gr Remington Golden Saber.html and http://www.brassfetcher.com/9x19mm147grGoldenSaber.html), Rem Golden Saber is amazingly consistent stuff. My own personal experience is also that Remington produces no more flash or fouling than any other brand, on average. In fact, I was amazed by how little flash Rem .357 magnum 125 gr SJHP made. Out of a 2-1/4" Ruger SP-101, the muzzle flash was about a 4" diameter fireball, at dusk. Not much flash at all, despite a vicious kick. Winchester .38 SPL actually made a bigger flash than that, from the same gun, in the same light.

So anyway, do your own fact-checking and form your own opinion on whether .380 auto is a viable choice for self defense.

 

[go_bang]

Just to add another perspective to this, I found this article to be rather interesting:

http://www.mouseguns.com/deadmeat.htm

It's a text-only copy of a discussion on the S&W Forum. Essentially, it's about an ME's observations of the terminal effects of various calibers. He repeats himself a lot, but I think it's worth slogging through. Of particular interest are his points about how different a bullet's performance in human tissue is from ballistic geletin.

Enjoy.

 

[jgo296]

the two-tone gun sounds like a kahr
since price is an issue try looking at taurus 38 revolvers

 

[clem629]

Kel Tec P3AT .380 G2 Small & light enough for any pocket.
My "Always" gun.

 

[Creature]

Polish P64....a PPK clone chambered in 9x18mm Mak. Great little gun after you change out the gawd-aweful hammer spring (simple fix). Can be had for about $165.

 

[Rushifell]

If youre willing to look at .32 take a look at the Beretta Tomcat (3032). neat little gun, comfortable to fire and easily pocketable.