Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: .380=9mm?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)

    .380=9mm?

    I was thinking, as so often is a precourser to getting myself in trouble, about what I have learned thus far to be truths accepted with regards to terminal performance of handgun projectiles.

    At handgun velocities, TC is said to be meaningless. What matters is "tissue crushed".

    A round-nose projectile will create a permanent cavity roughly 66% the diameter of the bullet.

    A JHP, once expanded, 80-85% or so, depending on the JHP and how "sharp" the edges are.

    Penetration past 12" is minimal, with 14-18" being ideal.

    Wound tracks in GSW victims from JHP's and FMJ's look identical to ME's.

    Ergo, a .380 with a trunjacted nose, should be more viable than the 9mm FMJ loading. As long as no windshields or car-doors are involved. (Further, one would not be able to tell if a GSW had been caused by an FMJ .380, or a 9mm 124gr GDHP +P, by examining the wound). Therefor, as long as no barriers are to be encountered, the NYPD of yesteryear would have gotten identical results from a .380 as from their 9mm FMJ loadings.

    Obviously this information is not a reflection of what happens in the real-world, but I cannot LOGICALLY disprove it, either, as the .380 penetrats over 16" in gel http://www.brassfetcher.com/95gr%20F...ed%20cone.html
    and is the same diameter as the 9mm FMJ, and indeed has the advantage of the truncated nose/larger meplat.

    How then can we say that energy and TC do not matter, at least a little?

    Or is the .380 truly the equal of the 9mm when both are loaded with FMJ's and neither car-doors or windshields are to be encountered?
    Last edited by WS6; 02-16-10 at 03:12.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •