When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm? Good article

[Lucky Derby]

Some of us never owned any handgun until approx. one year ago.
The first CCW was acquired about two months ago (age 59).

Nobody is required to click their mouse on any topic, but it can benefit those of us who are decades late to the potentially life-changing activity of CCW. Other topics are just two/three clicks away.

Well said.

 

[ku4hx]

A .380 ACP beats a 9mm like a skateboard beats walking.

 

[Saleen322]

Guns are mostly selected by personal preference so if you want a 380, there are a lot out there to select from. I only have one compact pistol, a Ruger LC9. The load I am using is a 120 grain bullet that clocks 1091 from the LC9. That is not screaming performance but I believe it compares favorably to most 380 loads. As far as size difference, I don't see a lot in an apples to apples comparison. I compared a Ruger LC380 to the LC9 and they appear to be about the same size. Below is a link to the Ruger site if you want to look for yourself. I don't doubt that you can find smaller pistols in both 380 and 9mm but I was curious as I had a LC9 to see if the LC380 was smaller. Ruger does make the LCP but since the LC380 came along later, it makes me wonder why if the LCP filled the entire compact 380 niche.

I do believe, by and large, 9mm ammo is more available and generally cheaper than 380 if that is a concern. I don't consider any compact pistol a target gun but here is a magazine full that I drew and shot at 10 yards. That is short range but not an unreasonable distance given the application of this pistol. I don't believe I could shoot a 380 markedly better at that distance.

Does a .380 beat a 9mm? I prefer the 9 for the reasons mentioned but as I started out, guns are personal preferences and if you want a 380, there are good ones out there.



http://www.ruger.com/products/lc380/models.html

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by C0untZer0:

Great, but I can get a 9mm in a pistol the same size so why would anyone buy a .380?

Cunningham offers several reasons in the article.

Posted by TestPilot:

If I actually can get a 9mm the same size, then I would.

The same size and weight as a really small .380? Not I.

 

[TarDevil]

where are you when the almost daily "which pistol caliber carbine should I get" threads arise?

Some of us read more than we talk.

As to the frequency of topics discussed... it matters not to me how often a subject is fielded. That's why scroll buttons were made.

Sorry if my remarks offended anyone.

 

[Nom de Forum]

When does a .380 beat a 9mm? When the .380 pistol is just a smaller version of your full size 9mm/.40/10mm/.45 pistol. I find the G42 I pocket carry to much easier to shoot well than the PF-9 I used to carry because the trigger reset is not radically different from my other Glocks. Since I will not be using the G42 to engage targets at distances greater than conversational range or attempting to shoot through walls or automobiles; I think any loss of terminal ballistic performance compared to a 9mm is acceptable if I am able to fire faster and more accurately because of the platform.

 

[huntsman]

I find .380acp bashing interesting because it seems to be based more on emotion than fact(as indicated in the article).

I'm more accurate with my BDA than a P-11 and prefer to shoot the .380 even though it's a straight blowback, a pocket .380 (LCP) is pushing the envelope as far as recoil but it's acceptable for me because of the freedom I gain over belt carry.

Thanks OP for the link it was worth the look, I've long ago accepted the .380acp as a viable SD cartridge so the bashers don't faze me but yeah it could be a determent to newbies making wise gun choices.

 

[Rule3]

I am not even going to read the article.

My little Ruger 380 is my American Express. Don't leave home with out it!. If you guys do not behave I will post a pic of how it fits in my Speedo by the pool!!

I have yet to find someone who will hold my target at 10 ft at the range, besides I tell them it is a 9mmm Kurz and they then nod their heads in approval and say, Oh that's OK them.

 

[Sunray]

Neither one of 'em is worth beans if using an fmj Ball round. Using the right bullet matters a whole lot. However, you use a .380 instead of a 9mm when you don't own or have one on your person. Otherwise, there is no 'instead'.

 

[huntershooter]

Only when that's all you have in your pocket.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by huntsman:

I find .380acp bashing interesting because it seems to be based more on emotion than fact(as indicated in the article).

Not the article I read.

In terms of .380 "bashing", Cunningham refers to factual analysis showing the shortfall in terminal ballistics:

In Ellifritz’s studies, the “major” calibers are pretty darned close to each other in terms of actual performance. Close enough, in fact, that they are in a statistical dead heat. The .380, on the other hand, is definitely not the performer that the bigger cartridges are.

Cunningham concludes that the .380 is inferior in terms of terminal ballistics:

Of course, the difference in this choice is that the .380 is definitely not at the same performance level of the 9mm.

But he then goes on to outline the advantages of a small .380 pistol over an equally small 9MM pistol:

We’re giving up some effectiveness, though as I pointed out, it might not be as much as we’ve been led to believe. But when we factor in the controllability of the gun, the smart choice for some people may very well be the smaller round.

As mentioned earlier, I’ve fired some micro 9mm guns that were very difficult to control. In fact I tested one such gun that squirmed in my tightest grasp so much that the first round was on target, the second was on the right side of the target, and the third was off target!

Cunningham then weighs the cons of the .380 in terms of terminal ballistics against the pros (as compared to a 9MM in a small gun) and concludes the following:

If I had to choose between a micro 9mm and a .380 in the same size and weight class, I might choose the smaller round if the difference in controllability were significant. In the case of the test gun I mentioned earlier, I’d frankly rather have a .380! Yes, it was that bad.

I agree with him.

But I am not faced with that choice. I can carry a 9MM that I can control, and I prefer it.

 

[MrDig]

My response to folks who say the .380 acp is an under powered round is this, " Then you won't mind if I shoot with one to test your theory"
All of them have declined my offer and I'm not surprised as fact is fact. The .380 acp is much more powerful that people credit it to be, and I can put more rounds on target in a shorter period of time.
I am corpulent enough that I can conceal a BHP in a shoulder rig. A Beretta '84, Walther PPK or a Makarov type gun is easier for me to conceal and lighter than the BHP.
If I had a Walther PPK I would carry it. It or a Beretta '84 might be my next firearm purchase.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I've cited the Ellifritz database before. It's not the DEFINITIVE source of round effectivness, but its the best I've found, thus far. Here's a link: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866 Hopefully Ellifritz will be able to continue collecting data over time.

We know that the data collected for this study is skimpier for some rounds than others, and that aspect of data analysis can cause us to make invalid conclusions, but these results do suggest there's more "there" there than some might want to acknowledge. You'll see that .357 Magnum remains one of the more effective rounds -- but there's about the same amount of data for .357 as for .380... The 9mm round was the most used, and was pretty effective, too.

This study doesn't show barrel length, which must be a considered with any handgun: if the barrel is very short, too much of the round's powder with most loads (unless the round is speciifically cooked up for short barrels) will follow the slug out of the barre (unignited) before it has contributed to force of the shot.

That said, the .380 round does well in the data shown, when compared to the .45... I was surprised:

.380 vs. .45
# people shot: 85 vs. 209
# of hits: 150 vs. 436
% of fatal shots: 29% vs. 29%
Avg # rounds until incapacitation: 1.76 vs. 2.08
% shot but not incapactitated: 16% vs 14%
one shot stop: 44% vs. 39%
Accuracy: 76% vs. 85%
% incapacitated with one shot: 62% vs. 51%

It got me thinking that a longer-barredl .380 (perhaps like the Beretta 84) might be a better gun for some folks than some of the other guns, as a larger .380 is likely to be far easier to shoot well. That would NOT be the case with the true "mouse" guns, which can be a challenge for even experienced shooters. (I'm not saying they can't do the job, only that it would be harder to use them to do the job...)

You can't accept what's shown here as gospel, but you can't say it's meaningless, either.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MrDig:

My response to folks who say the .380 acp is an under powered round is this, " Then you won't mind if I shoot with one to test your theory"

Mister, I do not mean for this to sound personal, but that response is nonsensical.

Would you conclude anything about the .22 Short if someone declined to agree to be shot by one? A .32 S&W? A .38 Long Colt?

Very few informed people would choose to carry any of those rounds for self defense today, given a choice.

 

[huntsman]

Have you ever heard the phrase “Friends don’t let friends carry mouseguns”?

I’ve even heard people say that if you were to shoot an attacker with a .380, all you’d succeed in doing is making him mad!

These are examples the from the article, but I've seen this type of sentiment expressed online and what I consider emotional, overall the article was a fair assessment of the .380acp.

Not the article I read.

In terms of .380 "bashing", Cunningham refers to factual analysis showing the shortfall in terminal ballistics:

 

[jimbo555]

The Rorhbaugh r-9 is the closest to the size of a ruger lcp in a 9mm. Much more expensive though!

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I put my LCP on the shelf years ago. No reason to shoot it when the softer recoiling and easier to control, while only marginally bigger Shield is available in 9mm.

That's not a failing of the .380 round though, that's a failing of the firearms design.

I see it all the time as an instructor. People who buy little .380s because they think smaller round = softer recoil & easier to shoot. I can't even begin to count the number of people I've had stop shooting their Kel-tecs, LCPs and such and had them shoot a more practical gun.

Sure, a full sized M&P chambered in .380 will shoot softer than the same gun in 9mm, but the industry just doesn't seem to think that way. The .380 seems to have become mostly relegated to micro compact deep carry guns with zero purpose other than point blank "nose jamming" applications. Heck, the latest iteration doesn't even have sights (not that the LCP was very good in that department).

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Sure, a full sized M&P chambered in .380 will shoot softer than the same gun in 9mm, but the industry just doesn't seem to think that way. The .380 seems to have become mostly relegated to micro compact deep carry guns with zero purpose other than point blank "nose jamming" applications. Heck, the latest iteration doesn't even have sights (not that the LCP was very good in that department).

Yup. But the CZ-82, with a .380 barrel, the CZ-83, or the Makarov (with a .380 barrel) are viable alternatives, and the Beretta 84 (and a couple of Stoeger options) also recommend themselves. And 9x18 is an option, and just a little hotter...

I've tried the small .380s and I'm not an enthusiast. The new Remington 1911/380 may be an option, too -- as it's about 3/4 the size of a larger-caliber 1911.

The Ruger P380, which uses the larger LC9 frame, seems like a more comfortable gun to shoot, and I almost got one of those recently. If Ruger does the P380 a striker form (ala LC9s), I probably will get one.

 

[strambo]

My response to folks who say the .380 acp is an under powered round is this, " Then you won't mind if I shoot with one to test your theory"

Umm...OK, but what if a person takes you up on that offer, but will be closing so fast you'll only get one off (make it count) then they'll beat you to death and burn your house down with your family still inside if not stopped. Still wanna pick a .380 in that scenario, I mean, you won't mind if the other side of the theory is tested at the same time right?

(As an aside, I wouldn't pick 9mm in the above scenario either, I'd go with my 870 or SBR AR 15 which is what and why I would recommend either for HD over any handgun)

I would neither let you shoot me with a pellet gun or choose it for self defense. Nor would I let you shoot me with a bazooka, or choose that for self defense. I'm struggling to find how that analogy could possibly be applicable in any meaningful way.

A .380 is great if the alternative truly means no gun, but that is pretty rare, most people just don't wanna conceal a larger more capable gun. I carry a P226 most often.

Or, as the author pointed out, in some very small narrow individual circumstance a person may be able to shoot a larger .380 better than a similar size 9mm and a mid or full size 9mm is out of the question for whatever reason.

 

[amd6547]

Ive been shooting for a lot of years. I've been a fan of the 9mm, and have largely settled on the Glocks.
My G26 is one of my all time favorite pistols, and I shoot it very well...as well as, or better than, the Browning HiPowers I have owned and loved.
But, about a year ago, I got a deal on a Beretta 84F for less than $300. I mainly bought it as a shooting investment.
Lo and behold, I found I really like the 84F. So much so that it sometimes gets carried, even when it would be just as easy to slip the G26 in my belt. The 84F is accurate, reliable, holds 14rds, and has 500yrs of Beretta know how behind it.
I have been carrying the Hydrashok load, which tested marginally better than the other loads in the extensive YouTube tests. I also have some of the Underwood +P XTP load which I'm still evaluating.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The problem with these CALIBER DEBATES is that the things that can and do go wrong with small caliber shots also go wrong with LARGE caliber shots. It's only slightly harder to miss a CNS shot with a .32 or .380 than with a .45 -- but if all you get is one shot, it may not make much difference that you were carrying a Colt 1911 or a Kel-Tec P32.

One-shot stops are rare and the other guy may be shooting, too -- if he hasn't already stuck you with a knife or hit you with pepper spray. All of the participants here seem to assume they will be situationally aware when carrying. I'd argue that it's just as important to be situationally aware when driving, but it would seem that we don't do that too well, either. I suspect there are far fewer great shots than great drivers, yet we all seem to assume we're good enough to protect ourselves whether we're on the road on just strolling in the neighborhood.

Shoot the largest caliber you shoot well, and practice to make "well" become "very well." If it's .22, shoot it a lot and get proficient. If it's .45 shoot it a lot and get proficient -- and don't let a couple of good range sessions let you think you're good enough.

 

[george burns]

Having found myself on both sides of this debate for years, I still can't definitely say that the 380 is a terrible choice.
In the right hands, it is lethal enough, the honest thing to contemplate is, that with superior ammunition being created daily. The 380 has made a resurgence in recent years, "especially this past one", with Glock, Beretta, Sig and several more , developing new pistols, just when I thought they had faded from the showcases of local gun stores everyware, and only held onto by a few nostalgic gun hands.
But No, not yet declared dead.
It seems the thinking on this has indeed changed again. Several reasons we have pointed out ourselves, such as, better accuracy in a 9mm sized weapon with more rounds available, and less recoil. Smaller overall size. Deadly at close range, "even if 3 or more shots are needed.
And the needed concept of rationalizing the over dramatization of a Seacamp sized gun with a large enough round to deliver a deadly shot to the aggressor.
"I remember paying a thousand dollars for the 32 Seacamp" and guys lined up waiting a year and a half "paid in full", for one.
With Corbon Powerball 90 grain in my 380, "when I still carried one" , and 100 grain in my 9mm, it kind of makes one curious, as to how those follow up shots would have worked out?
Back to that point again, what good is it to stuff a round in a tiny gun when you are defeating your purpose for carrying it.
Thus I only after almost 45 yrs of carrying, use a 45, or a 9mm. That's it for me, since we pretty much established that for self defense, they are pretty much equal, "the 9,40,45,".
But I don't see why there isn't room for the 380 in a backup role. Maybe that new Taurus with the lights and lasers. That should be fun for a month or two, for a secondary weapon.
My last job before retiring with a bad back, involved carrying a lot of cash, "like a Courier", 'doesn't matter anymore, it's been 8-10 years. And I carried 3 guns, 2 Glocks and a LCP. The Glocks were 45's, So I never would have gotten to that LCP anyhow if someone was waiting for me. Old, slow, and loaded down with lead, lol, but it's mostly mental when you get to that point. Doesn't really matter what you have if someone has surprise on their side. Good debate though.

 

[wally]

I've cited the Ellifritz database before. It's not the DEFINITIVE source of round effectivness, but its the best I've found, thus far. Here's a link: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866 Hopefully Ellifritz will be able to continue collecting data over time.

Seems to me to prove the old truth that bullet placement, placement, and penetration are the three most important factors in handgun effectiveness.

Where the bullet impacts the target is far more important that which particular bullet it happens to be.

While FMJ may be "less effective" it almost always has adequate penetration so if well placed it does the job.

 

[MrDig]

Gentlemen My discussions are usually with people who consider themselves experts when they are just blowhards.
We all know that an Ex is a has been and a spurt is just a drip under pressure. not one of them has ever fired a .380 let alone done any research. I use the question as a conversation stopper.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by huntsman:

Quote:
Have you ever heard the phrase “Friends don’t let friends carry mouseguns”?
Quote:
I’ve even heard people say that if you were to shoot an attacker with a .380, all you’d succeed in doing is making him mad!
These are examples the from the article, but I've seen this type of sentiment expressed online and what I consider emotional,....

The first is a silly phrase borrowed, and the second is hyperbole. Both, and particularly the latter, usually refer to much smaller bores. But neither constitutes in any way an "emotional" basis for criticizing the .380.

Rather, the widespread criticisms of the .380 have been put forth on the basis of objective measurements of terminal ballistics.

Some years ago, when the Ruger LCP came first came out, there ws considerable interest in it as back-up gun. Police supervisors I knew were very skeptical. There was at least one commercial load they thought might at least be marginal. Since that time, more have been introduced.

There's more to it than terminal ballistics. I've played with an LCP and a similar design, and while either might serve a a backup, I would not choose one for primary carry.

Grip length, sights, trigger pull, magazine capacity, and other things make it fall below my threshold.

No, for me is it not emotional, but objective.