why the 380 is PLENTY for SD

Status
Not open for further replies.
You believe what they show you in the movies ? How old are you? 12?
Click to expand...

Actually the guy who you insulted (not me) is correct. You can live with the lower half of your body blown off. There are many true war stories of officers getting everything below the waist blown off, and not even noticing, urging their men to charge and crawling towards the enemy.

People have been hit with RPGs, Bushmaster cannons, .50 BMGs and lived...

People have jumped on grenades and been blown up and lived...

Nothing guarantees a stop, especially not a puny pistol caliber like .45 or 9mm.


And P95Carry you did apparently miss the logic. From his post:
and I have to use my 380 to stop that threat, the 3 rounds I can put center mass in about 1 second, should at the very least make him take notice.....
Click to expand...

As for the tests of the bullet not penetrating animal skulls, again, if your hit in the face with a 380 4 or 5 times, something tells me your gonna want to stop playing now and call times out---lol.
Click to expand...

That is his rationale that the .380 is plenty for self defense, and a pellet gun would do all of the above by his logic. Not to mention what someone said before, the odds of him hitting someone in the face 4-5 times out of a 7 shot mag, and this after shooting the guy 3 times in the chest, seem very low.
 
Kurt_M said:
OK, let's consider the top one-shot-stop percentages in real world shootings for four of the most popular handgun calibers; .380, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

.380 - 71% (Cor-bon 90 gr.)
9mm - 83% (Winchester 115 gr.)
.40 S&W - 94% (Remington 165 gr.)
.45 ACP - 96% (Federal 230 gr.)

Taken from http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp

Now I will grant you that shot placement trumps caliber almost every time. A .45 to the arm is basically a miss in terms of stopping power, while a .380 to the face is nearly a guaranteed fight-stopper. However, I think you're far too confident in your ability to deliver precisely aimed shots under extreme duress. Unless you've been in a firefight previously you have no real way of knowing what your reaction will be. Or as the Marines say, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy." You may be Cool Hand Luke or you may be Snivelling Sally; until you've been there you can never be sure. To count on a head shot drastically limits your options and may get you killed. The best thing you can do is train and stack the deck in your favor with every advantage you can find. If a .380 is all you can handle by all means carry a .380, it's far, far better than your bare hands. But if you can handle and comfortably carry something bigger there's no point in putting yourself at a disadvantage with a smaller, lighter, slower cartridge.

To take that idea a bit farther, I would say that 99% of us would be doing well to get a center-mass hit when in fear for our lives, let alone multiple head shots. If center-mass is all I can reasonably expect to hit, I want to punch the biggest most ragged hole in that mass that I can. Bigger holes bleed more and bigger bullets have a better chance of hitting vital organs or the spinal column, which along with a head shot is the only way to physically instantly incapacitate a living being with a bullet wound. I've personally seen deer run 50, 60 or 100 yards after taking a .30-06 directly through the heart. I've also seen one that took a direct head shot from that same .30-06. It didn't run. Humans aren't so different physically, the only difference is that a man who has been shot through the chest usually knows that it's likely to be fatal and will probably quit fighting due to fear. If he is unaware that he has been hit or just doesn't care, he is still capable of attacking for at least ten seconds even if his heart is in shreds. That's more than enough time to empty a magazine in my general direction or to walk ten feet and put a knife into my chest. I'm rambling a bit here, but the point is that none of us should think of our handguns or even long guns as magical instant death-dealers. They help to even the odds and go a very long way towards stacking the deck in our favor, but they don't make us invincible no matter what caliber is written on the side of the barrel. It is still undeniable that some calibers stack the deck higher than others and we should strive to mitigate chance to the best of our ability. I'd hate to die for want of a bigger bullet.
Click to expand...

Marshal And Sanlow's conclusions do not fit the available data which they use. Their statistical analysis are extremely flawed, their sample pools are too small to draw definite conclusions from. Even a stat tool as simple as a 4D test can be used to debunk most of their conclusions. This is JUNK SCIENCE. Their methodology is too flawed to support many of the conclusions they draw from it.

I'll see if I can dig up a refuting study by Quantico's ballistic experts.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
Sorry, I don't mean to flame you, I'm just sick and tired of seeing this garbage bounced around the net even though it was thoroughly debunked years ago.

Your own opinions however, appear to be reasonable and sound.

I strongly urge you to abandon these book-hawkers and stick with your better judgement.
 
to clarify 3 shots in 1 second.....

I didnt think I would be taken literally, but let me clarify.......

First, I understand and have studied, and have been shown in self defense classes, the fact that 21 feet, 7 yards, is the distance someone can reach you with a knife in about 1.5 seconds.

I can with my gun drawn, on sight, first shot being double action, following 2 shots being single action, fire 3 times and hit within about 4 inches a target at 21 feet in about 1 second.

I can draw my gun from an IWB holster, and tripple tap a target from about 10 feet while stepping back, really really quick. I have practiced this, and other drills, alot in the past.

I AM IN NO WAY AS FAST AS SOMEONE WHO COMPETES PROFESSIONALLY!

I never tried to say I was. That being said, I still am confident that I have as good a chance to defend myself with my 380, 9mm, or 45. All of which I feel EQUALLY safe with.

If I havnt said it yet, I will say it now. In now way shape or form am I under the impression that in a SD situation, I will react like I would during stress induced practice. I might act better...I might freeze and stand there while the bad guy stabbs, or shoots, or pummels me into oblivion. NO ONE KNOWS HOW THEY WILL REACT---EVER---PERIOD.

I can, and will say, that I am confident that I have the tools necessary to do the best as humanly possible given the training I have, the weapons I choose as a SD tool (my brain being the best tool I got) (even my 380) and the mindset I have.

AND....lol......I new I would here this in some responses......"WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE A 380 BERSA WHEN A KAHR IS MORE POWERFUL>>>> blah blah blah"

I choose my Bersa, as well as my XD9, as well as my 1911, because I LIKE THEM AND BELIEVE IN THEIR ABILITY TO DO THE JOB. I dont like the Kahr by the way...just dont.

So again, I didnt mean to say I could draw my gun and hit 3 times in 1 second, under stress when a BG was trying to hurt me. I would be rich if that was the case :)

Did I mention this FORUM is the best ever?????? :):):)
 
The reason I stopped carrying pocket / small pistols as a primary weapon is precisely because no amount of practice enabled me to present, accurately, and rapidly fire the smaller weapon with near the speed and precision that I could produce with a full size or commander size 1911. So, I made the decision to do everything I could to carry the full size 1911 at all times.
Click to expand...

Go Makarov. You'll never go back.
 
ghost squire said:
Actually the guy who you insulted (not me) is correct. You can live with the lower half of your body blown off. There are many true war stories of officers getting everything below the waist blown off, and not even noticing, urging their men to charge and crawling towards the enemy.

People have been hit with RPGs, Bushmaster cannons, .50 BMGs and lived...

People have jumped on grenades and been blown up and lived...

Nothing guarantees a stop, especially not a puny pistol caliber like .45 or 9mm.


And P95Carry you did apparently miss the logic. From his post:



That is his rationale that the .380 is plenty for self defense, and a pellet gun would do all of the above by his logic. Not to mention what someone said before, the odds of him hitting someone in the face 4-5 times out of a 7 shot mag, and this after shooting the guy 3 times in the chest, seem very low.
Click to expand...

That's not logic it's a non-sequiter fallacy. Attempting to create a link where none exists.
Example: I say my '71 Chevy could be a useful SD tool in a carjacking situation because I can smash through parked vehicles, brain somebody w/ the drivers door, etc.
The chevy is an automobile.

The goofy little cars that the Shriners drive are automobiles.

Therefore, I must believe that the Shriners' cars are great tools in a car-jacking scenario.

FALLACY not LOGIC, do you understand the difference?
 
First rule of a gunfight :


Bring a gun.

If the .380 is what's in your pocket, it's already ahead of the .45 in your glovebox.

I carry a Thunder 380 as well, occasionally. There are times it just works.
 
 
Carry what you want , just remember if you need it you want to stop them without figuring on shooting 4-5-6 times. chances are unless you just unload that you are not going to get that many shots. (depending on the circumstances of coarse)
 
why the 380 is plenty for SD ??

I tend to agree with the theory that "no pistol is small enough for carry--- or LARGE enough, for self defense" Have you every been in a situation where you WISHED that you had carried the 45 ? [food for thought]:)
 
I have always believed that the law of diminishing returns applies to the whole caliber debate. There is a threshold at which you don't gain much REAL stopping power. Just because a cartridge is 2X faster does not mean that it has 2X the stopping power. (Whatever this elusive “stopping power” happens to be.)

To use an example, if you go deer hunting here in East Texas with a .300 Winchester Magnum, you are no better off than you would be with a .308 Winchester at normal East Texas deer hunting ranges. There is no doubt that the .300 Win. Mag. is more powerful, faster, etc. However, it offers no practical advantage for almost all hunters.

The .380 vs. 9mm is a similar situation. You can ALWAYS build a .380 smaller than a 9mm. I'm not saying that the .380 is a better CARTRIDGE. However, the .380 may often be a better choice for a PISTOL, if concealment is the first priority (and it often is.)

Full size pistols are not as concealable as most people that carry them think they are. (They just have not gotten "called" on it.) I prefer to carry a full size pistol in 9mm, .45, or .357. However, I can't do so a great portion of the time that I carry.

I believe that the .380 is the threshold at which the diminishing return starts for self-defense vs. people. It is not that the 9mm isn't a better cartridge. The 9mm is not a great deal more power. For a great deal more power, you can compare a 9mm or .380 to a .357. The .357 mag. is much more powerful that a 9mm.

To illustrate take the following example:
You are given a P95 and a P3AT. You can only carry these two guns and only one at a time. (Assume both are reliable, working, etc.) You can carry the P3AT in far more situations than you can the P95. The P95 is obviously a better choice but will be left at home or in the vehicle far more often. As such, you are far more likely to have the P3AT on you when you really need it.
 
Some folks feel .380 ACP is marginal, and looking at a single cartridge's terminal peformance, they have a point. However, that's why magazines hold more than one, and if packing .380 helps me send more lead in less time onto the target, then hey...

Everyone's built different, and some folks here can easily conceal, instantly present and accurately transition a 9 or a 45 with ease vs. multiple, moving hostiles. I can't.



...and yes, do join us at BersaTalk! :)
 
No, Borachon. Go CZ-83 and you'll never go back. After driving a Cadillac, you won't be happy with a Pinto station wagon with mud flaps.:D
 
Medusa said:
You believe what they show you in the movies :eek: ? How old are you? 12? :cuss:
Click to expand...

There is a case in WW2 where a UBoat commander had his leg nearly removed by large-caliber fire from strafing aircraft (.50 iirc), yet remained sentient and in command.

But I agree, there is room for skepticism when damage to the spinal column is involved.
 
That's not logic it's a non-sequiter fallacy. Attempting to create a link where none exists.
Example: I say my '71 Chevy could be a useful SD tool in a carjacking situation because I can smash through parked vehicles, brain somebody w/ the drivers door, etc.
The chevy is an automobile.

The goofy little cars that the Shriners drive are automobiles.

Therefore, I must believe that the Shriners' cars are great tools in a car-jacking scenario.

FALLACY not LOGIC, do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...

No, please explain how I am wrong in my conclusion that his logic is flawed.
 
Ky Larry said:
No, Borachon. Go CZ-83 and you'll never go back. After driving a Cadillac, you won't be happy with a Pinto station wagon with mud flaps.:D
Click to expand...

If you want a nice .380 try a Beretta M85 Cheetah. Its now my favorite carry .380. I have two CZ-75 variants and do want a CZ-83 also. They are nice, but I want one in 9MM Mak to compliment my Makarovs.
 
although i have never shot them - i would rather carry a Kel-Tec 9mm vs a .380 only because the bigger is better thing in ammo.

as stated a gun is better than none.

what did James Bond carry in his PPK - he scored lots of kills and got some tail to boot.my guess Sean Connery is a better shot than Roger Moore but i have no idea.

small guns are more concealable - big ones are not. my beer gut is getting big enough i can carry a Desert Eagle but i carry a XD Tactical in 40 :)

my 2 cents.
 
Go CZ-83 and you'll never go back.
Click to expand...

You own a CZ-83?
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
This is NOT jealousy....it's...eh...well...it's...yes, it's DISGUST...that's right...DISGUST...that you'd pick such a....fine...and well constructed firearm---you :cuss: :cuss:



Oh...for those who didn't ask....I left plenty of links up above that show the .380 killing or incapacitating after one shot.
 
AndrewM said:
The conversation will always come back to shot placement. A perfect hit with a 22 short will be much more effective than a lousy hit with a .50AE.
Click to expand...

While I agree that shot placement is critical, your example is egregious. A .22 short COM may not even get to the vitals, let alone damage them enough to incapacitate. A 325 grain pill at 1500 FPS is going to have a very traumatic effect, no matter what part of the body is hit. I have shot several animals with my Desert Eagle (yes, it's a .50). Believe me, IT DOES DAMAGE.

Now, back to the thread topic. Others have mentioned it, and I will reiterate; All handgun cartridges (excluding the big magnums) are somewhat unspectacular in the wound ballistics category. So why would you want to further handicap yourself by carrying a more impotent round? IMO, with all the compact .40's and .45's out there that are as small as (if not smaller than) most .380's, there is no reason to carry a larger gun. Now I can see carrying a Gaurdian or P3AT when clothing does not permit anything larger, But at 5'11" & 180 lbs, I have no trouble concealing my Witness Compact 10mm or Taurus PT145 wearing just jeans and a tee shirt. I typically will wear a light vest and carry one of the two aformentioned IWB at 4 o'clock. The only time I carry my P3 is when I need to have that tee shirt tucked in and it is too hot for the vest, because it can hide behind my belt buckle IWB. But if you can conceal a .45 or 10mm (or .40, FWIW), then IMO you should.

I have seen plenty of guys that were big enough to absorb round after round of .380 into their torso and likely escape with only fleshwounds. A .45 or 10mm would not be so fortuitios for such an imposing BG.
 
Heck, who knows if three pages of this will be read, bnut I gotta say ..

My PPK/S, in my robe pocket, is the perfect friend to have while having a smoke on the front porch late at night.

The way these punks are these days, a guy can't feel safe after dark on his own street, for cripes sake.

I'm looking for the right holster.

My MK9 in a Sparks front pocket holster is a perfect draw, and imprints just a little.

Just enough to say "Suck You!" to the old witch who notices and raises eyebrows.
 
Just for the heck of it...I looked up some cases were people were shot with .45 caliber and lived.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a385bd7ce2bb7.htm Two policemen shot with .45..lived.

http://www.wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s=1333023&ClientType=Printable
Guy either shot in hand and side, or else was other guy..shot in the back with a .45. This was one of those "which is best 9mm or .45". Each were used by separate suspects.

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=News&storyid=116385
Store robbery. Guy with a .38 is shot by a robber with .45. He lives. His robber?...not so much.

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15731
HOLY CR**! Shot 4 times in the chest with a .45, returned fire, and then died a month later of the wounds.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/27/082702_officer_shot.htm
So much for my belief that shooting someone in the leg with a .45 is fatal

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/August/06/local/stories/02local.htm
Police officer shot once in the chest with .45...lives. The shooter?...not so much.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=23436
Guy shot several times with .45 in the chest. Lives to go to trial. (He was doing bad things when he was shot.)

There are more, but I'm tired of looking. Hmm...shoot placement?
 
magyvor said:
Ive been reading alot of "If you can handle 380, get a 9--380 isnt enough ....blah blah blah"

Now let me explain why, before the thousands of responses come flooding in....lol

IF, in a worst case scenario, a BG (lets say 6'5", 320lbs) is an imminent threat to my life, and I have to use my 380 to stop that threat, the 3 rounds I can put center mass in about 1 second, should at the very least make him take notice.....now I have 5 rounds left, and when they hit him in the face, Im sure the threat will stop. I really believe this. oh yeah, the other 7 rounds in my spare mag should help too if need be :)

Also, I carry this 90% of the time because I like the gun. Im accurate with it, its comfortable to carry, and I have faith in its reliability. I have an XD9 I carry on occasion, and a 1911 as well. For years I caried a P239 in .357 sig.

Now however, the price of the bersa, and my faith in my ability in it and myself make it more than enough power to stop the BG.

That being said, I will be the first to admit 9mm, 357 sig, 357 mag, 40 S&W, 45 acp, and a few others are more powerful.....but again, my bersa is PLENTY of gun.

As for the tests of the bullet not penetrating animal skulls, again, if your hit in the face with a 380 4 or 5 times, something tells me your gonna want to stop playing now and call times out---lol.

GREATEST FORUM ON THE WEB BTW :)

thats my 2 cents worth, thanks all :)
Click to expand...

Interesting logic. Naive, but interesting. I am not sure who you are trying to convince, us or you.

Your justifications assume many things that may not hold in reality.

First, you are assuming that your gun will function 100% in a fight. Don't count on it. It may be a flawlessly reliable gun in its current condition, but the gun may be damaged by incoming rounds, blunt force objects (clubbed), or bad ammo (KB). The gun may cease to function due to part breakage, interference of the cycle via something like clothing or the opposition grabbing the gun, bad ammo.

So, it may turn out that you don't get off any more than just one shot. If that is the case, wouldn't you want that shot to be something significantly more substantial than a .380?

I really liked the justification that even for a big guy, you can put 3 shots center mass in less than a second and that should get his attention. Then you could hit him with the last 5 rounds in the face? If you are so darned good that you can hit the face with your last five rounds, then why aren't you shooting there first? If the caliber is plenty for the job, then why are you going to need to hit the bad guy 5 rounds in the face?

So, three shots COM may make the guy take notice. Great. Mark Wilson of Tyler, Texas managed several shots COM to a guy wearing a vest and apparently one or two that hit below the vest. That did get the gunman's attention. He shot and killed Mark Wilson. The notion of shooting somebody and getting their attention as opposed to getting them incapacitated is bad reasoning. As long as your opposition lives, he is a threat to you even if your shooting produced fatal wounds.

Even if your gun functions 100%, what makes you think you are going to be able to land all i shots as claimed? Here, you are assuming that since you are discharging your gun into the bad guy that the bad guy is comletely unable to fight back. That sort of assumption can get you killed in real life. He may be shooting you as you shoot him and he may incapacitate you before you incapacitate him.

So you think that if your 4-5 shots to the face don't manage to penetrate to the brain that the the shots to the face will make the bad guy not want to play. First of all, since the majority of the face is lower than the brain, there is a strong likelihood that your face shots won't get a chance at the brain. Will the guy not want to play? Maybe, but the shots to his face may get him to stop playing and finally get serious about returning fire at you. After all, you now have a wounded animal who most definitely does not want to suffer any additional injury and the only way to assure that is by killing you. Plus, you are now with an empty gun which gives him an opportunity to act. Your reload will likely take 3-6 seconds and that is a huge window of opportunity for the bad guy.

Your justification is also based solely on you and your .380's abilities to handle a single bad guy. More often than not, there will be more than one bad guy. So while you are pumping 3 COM and 5 in the face of the first bad guy, potentially needing all 8 rounds to accomplish the task, the second bad guy may be engaging you. Even if you split your shots between bad guys, where you had counted on having 8 shots for one bad guy turns out to be 4 shots each for 2 bad guys. That halves your 8 shot comfort zone.

I think you would be better served carrying ammo that is more substantial. Three to eight rounds of .380 may be plenty for one attacker, but would you not rather have "plenty" and a whole lot more? After all, "plenty" is only enough if you get to fully use the 8 rounds in an effective manner.
 
Interesting logic. Naive, but interesting. I am not sure who you are trying to convince, us or you.

Your justifications assume many things that may not hold in reality.

First, you are assuming that your gun will function 100% in a fight. Don't count on it. It may be a flawlessly reliable gun in its current condition, but the gun may be damaged by incoming rounds, blunt force objects (clubbed), or bad ammo (KB). The gun may cease to function due to part breakage, interference of the cycle via something like clothing or the opposition grabbing the gun, bad ammo.

So, it may turn out that you don't get off any more than just one shot. If that is the case, wouldn't you want that shot to be something significantly more substantial than a .380?

I really liked the justification that even for a big guy, you can put 3 shots center mass in less than a second and that should get his attention. Then you could hit him with the last 5 rounds in the face? If you are so darned good that you can hit the face with your last five rounds, then why aren't you shooting there first? If the caliber is plenty for the job, then why are you going to need to hit the bad guy 5 rounds in the face?

So, three shots COM may make the guy take notice. Great. Mark Wilson of Tyler, Texas managed several shots COM to a guy wearing a vest and apparently one or two that hit below the vest. That did get the gunman's attention. He shot and killed Mark Wilson. The notion of shooting somebody and getting their attention as opposed to getting them incapacitated is bad reasoning. As long as your opposition lives, he is a threat to you even if your shooting produced fatal wounds.

Even if your gun functions 100%, what makes you think you are going to be able to land all i shots as claimed? Here, you are assuming that since you are discharging your gun into the bad guy that the bad guy is comletely unable to fight back. That sort of assumption can get you killed in real life. He may be shooting you as you shoot him and he may incapacitate you before you incapacitate him.

So you think that if your 4-5 shots to the face don't manage to penetrate to the brain that the the shots to the face will make the bad guy not want to play. First of all, since the majority of the face is lower than the brain, there is a strong likelihood that your face shots won't get a chance at the brain. Will the guy not want to play? Maybe, but the shots to his face may get him to stop playing and finally get serious about returning fire at you. After all, you now have a wounded animal who most definitely does not want to suffer any additional injury and the only way to assure that is by killing you. Plus, you are now with an empty gun which gives him an opportunity to act. Your reload will likely take 3-6 seconds and that is a huge window of opportunity for the bad guy.

Your justification is also based solely on you and your .380's abilities to handle a single bad guy. More often than not, there will be more than one bad guy. So while you are pumping 3 COM and 5 in the face of the first bad guy, potentially needing all 8 rounds to accomplish the task, the second bad guy may be engaging you. Even if you split your shots between bad guys, where you had counted on having 8 shots for one bad guy turns out to be 4 shots each for 2 bad guys. That halves your 8 shot comfort zone.

I think you would be better served carrying ammo that is more substantial. Three to eight rounds of .380 may be plenty for one attacker, but would you not rather have "plenty" and a whole lot more? After all, "plenty" is only enough if you get to fully use the 8 rounds in an effective manner.
__________________
WWJMBD? What WOULD John Moses Browning Do?

If you feel defenseless if disarmed, having no other methods to protect yourself, then you show a one trick pony defeatist attitude and a terrible lack of preparation on your part.
Click to expand...


I knew someone would disect that......Awesome Dood.

I have only one problem with your opinion....because opinion it is ;)

you wrote "More often than not, there will be more than one bad guy. "......ummm, actually, almost all SD situations are 1 BG at very close range, and less that a few shots fired.

Doctors precision on the disection though :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Is the .380 enough?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
7K
JR47
J
The_Shootist
  • Locked
Small 9's vs .380
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
kokapelli
K
G
  • Locked
Im going to buy one more gun this year....
Replies
24
Views
659
DammitBoy
D
G
  • Locked
.380 sd ammo
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
kokapelli
K
D
  • Locked
  • Poll
Bersa .380 vs. Sig P232
Replies
24
Views
7K
group17
G
Back
Top