View Full Version : 380 carry ammo
I'm using Federal 90gr hydrashoks, anything better out there?
I'm using Federal 90gr hydrashoks, anything better out there?
Winchester SXTs are good, but nothing wrong with Federals at all. I would recommend picking up a new carry round, as .380 doesn't meet the FBI's Minimum Effective Standard (12" Penetration). It also lacks the foot-lbs and grain to really consider it as lethal as a 9mm. Also .380 Hollowpoints are notorious for feeding problems.
i ended up with 80gr dpx in my rugerl lcp, because of low recoil and good reports on it. i also tried 102 gs and 90gr corbons, plus usual fmj. it all shot well, kinda surprised how accurate the little "pea-popper" is. i carry this as a back-up to a 9mm or .45.
FMJs only
This will get you adequate penetration, and help to eliminate possible feeding issues that are notorious in small pistols
Master_of_Sparks
09-14-08, 15:52
Im no expert, and not a big fan of the .380, but who doesn't have a Kel-Tec or a Bersa in a drawer somewhere. I kept both loaded with the unimpressive HydraShocks for awhile, but I eventually tried the Corbon DPX. That is what they are both loaded with now.
I have never run the HSTs in .380 but I have most handguns loaded with them in other calibers, and I've read good things from users.
i ended up with 80gr dpx in my rugerl lcp, because of low recoil and good reports on it. i also tried 102 gs and 90gr corbons, plus usual fmj. it all shot well, kinda surprised how accurate the little "pea-popper" is. i carry this as a back-up to a 9mm or .45.
Small autos don't have enough barrel to really build the velocity for a .380 JHP to properly expand most of the time. If I remember right, spread only happens no more than 20% of the time.
I would go with Gold Dots.
380 hp's will reliably expand, it's just a matter of how the bullet is constructed.
Gold Dots are made to expand reliably. It's a fine line that engineers have to make every time with any hp type bullet.
If the velocity is too fast, it expands too fast and acts like a parachute, and you don't get penetration. If they go too slow, they don't open up and you get a bullet that acts like a fmj.
But the bullets I've tested do open up reliably.
did you test dpx??? just wondering.
There isnt a .380acp out there that reliably expands AND penetrates to FBI/IWBA specs. Not a one. So, you are left to compromise, which is more important, expansion or penetration.
Penetration is most important. The round must not just reach the vitals, but penetrate them.
FMJs are the only way to go.
PRGGodfather
09-15-08, 00:46
380 hp's will reliably expand, it's just a matter of how the bullet is constructed.
Gold Dots are made to expand reliably. It's a fine line that engineers have to make every time with any hp type bullet.
If the velocity is too fast, it expands too fast and acts like a parachute, and you don't get penetration. If they go too slow, they don't open up and you get a bullet that acts like a fmj.
But the bullets I've tested do open up reliably.
I've had the same experience with ballistic gel testing. Still, it is fair to say that real life performance is not identical to performance in gelatin.
In almost 50% of shootings, HP's do NOT expand. Even Dr. Fackler noted that in his studies. Further, bullets have a tendency to follow bone paths in people, fill up with bone or other material and often turn into "ball" ammo -- which sometimes, is a good thing.
Simply, penetration and expansion are competing factors. Often, ammunition purchasers fail to wrap their heads around that simple truth. To get one factor, we lose the other -- and virtually all US ammunition manufacturers will concede that fact if asked directly.
While standardized performance guidelines such as the FBI's and the use of 10% ballistic gelatin for consistency is a reasonable indicator of terminal performance, it is not exactly a guarantee of any bullet's performance.
I have seen bullets take strange paths in gelatin and even escape fairly large blocks. While rare, this phenomenon is important to note -- since once a bullet is launched -- we really do NOT know what it is going to do. We hope that it will perform similarly to its tested performance -- but humans are NOT made of jello -- although gelatin remains as the most consistent and scientifically reproduceable medium, and the best testing method available to us.
No offense to Dr. Fackler or DocGKR -- they know their stuff much better than I do -- but performance in ballistic gelatin is not quite a reliable predictor of terminal performance.
An agency I've dealt with extensively authorizes the .380 for off-duty and issues the Speer Gold Dot for it. Their experience has been positive, so that's what I'm testing through my LCP.
There isn't one "magic round" that will give you with a "magic" advantage. If there was we'd all be using it. The reality is none of them work 100% as advertised, but some are better than others.
We have seen so many replies & arguments in threads about this subject, and see a stupid amount of articles in gun rags, that one has to wonder what is fact and what sensationalism.
When were Facklers studies done? Quite a few years ago. It's almost outdated, as there have been newer bullet designs, as well as improvement to the offerings already out there........except Hydra-Shok. Federal/ATK hasn't updated that bullet in 15+ years.
Make your choice based on two reasons;
1) Reliable functioning in your chosen gun;
2) The most reliable performer in ACTUAL shootings, not just gel tests.
Nothing will beat bullet placement. If the shot does not go in the snot locker, then it's a toss of the dice.
But one also must take into consideration bullet performance. If the bullet does not go in the snot locker, then a good quality HP will have it all over a fmj in wounding ability.
As for the other hi-speed low drag bullets out there.............well you just don't see them being used on the street much. Oh sure you'll get the gun rags to talk them up, but the proof in this case is in the flesh, not the gel.
A person can shoot the same bullet into several different people and get a different result every time. There's way too many variables in the human body that makes that happen.
I would recommend picking up a new carry round, as .380 doesn't meet .....
Me too. Or pray that anyone you shoot just collapses from the shock of being shot.... :confused: I've heard that can happen. I'm not willing to take that chance. If I can't carry something that I feel could stop a LARGE, Motivated threat if I do my part, then why bother?
What ever your choice, run 100 rounds thru the gun to insure it functions with your pick. Function is more important than expansion or penetration.
T
The most reliable performer in ACTUAL shootings, not just gel tests.
Where do we go to find such things?
Try to find someone who has published autopsy findings.
The last 8 years, I've been fortunate enough to attend many such procedures of victims of shootings. Have been able to track bullet paths, see what they have come in contact with etc.
From that I have come to know 2 things that are indisputable;
1) A person can shoot the same bullet into several different people and get a different result every time. There's way too many variables in the human body that makes that happen.
2) With the newer bullet designs, such as the HST and updated Gold Dots, studies that are more than 5+ years old are fast getting outdated. The basic premises are still viable, but the rounds that were tested are the outdated part.
Parabellum9x19mm
09-16-08, 16:27
What about Corbon Pow'r Ball? they make a 70 grain .380 load.
I've only used this ammo in .45ACP, but I bought my girlfriend a Bersa .380 and I've been wondering what ammo would be best for it.
I've done some ammo testing with the little pistol and it's eaten about 100 rounds of cheap hollow points (Remington) without issue. Been thinking about buying up a bit of .380 Pow'r Ball, just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Me too. Or pray that anyone you shoot just collapses from the shock of being shot.... :confused: I've heard that can happen. I'm not willing to take that chance. If I can't carry something that I feel could stop a LARGE, Motivated threat if I do my part, then why bother?
Why bother?
Whatever gun you carry now, are you absolutely certain that you can stop any person, or any number of persons, without fail? I'm betting no. You're not nuts, you realize that your choices have limitations. But it's better to have a gun that can solve 85% of your problems rather than 0%, right?
Well, the .380 is the same way. If it means you have something rather than nothing, how is that bad? No one makes a .338 Lapua in LCP-sized pistol. So should I stop carrying a gun, or realize that I had to make a compromise?
Again, personally, I see the LCP as a backup weapon with very few exceptions. However, it will make carrying a backup easier for people who haven't been comfortable doing so with a j-frame. And it will give people an opportunity to have something in extremely non-permissive environments.
My mediocre gun will kick your no-gun's ass. :cool:
PRGGodfather
09-16-08, 18:38
Try to find someone who has published autopsy findings.
The last 8 years, I've been fortunate enough to attend many such procedures of victims of shootings. Have been able to track bullet paths, see what they have come in contact with etc.
From that I have come to know 2 things that are indisputable;
1) A person can shoot the same bullet into several different people and get a different result every time. There's way too many variables in the human body that makes that happen.
2) With the newer bullet designs, such as the HST and updated Gold Dots, studies that are more than 5+ years old are fast getting outdated. The basic premises are still viable, but the rounds that were tested are the outdated part.
Absolutely correct on all counts.
As to the .380 not meeting the FBI's 12" mininum penetration standard, that is also correct. Dr. Fackler's original studies were over 20 years ago, and DocGKR has done an outstanding job continuing such studies and updating the data. The principles they both learned still apply, even as ammunition engineering is light years ahead of what it used to be.
Since the original request was what is better out there, the recommendation for the Gold Dot is a good one.
Also, please let me extend my apologies to brother Wichaka, if it sounded like I was arguing. It was not my intention at all, yet upon reading my first post, I can understand how it may have seemed that way. Brother Wichaka knows of what he speaks and his foundation is solid.
Ballistic gel testing is consistent, and the protocols developed by the FBI have helped ammunition designers engineer much better bullets in the last 5-15 years than previously offered, due to those standards. Still, it is important to note what has been engineered are consistent performers and reliable expanders in gelatin -- as many have noted.
Accordingly, while such data is a reasonable indicator of a bullet's terminal performance (substantiating the great strides in bullet design) -- IMHO, it may be a bit of an overstatement to state ballistic gel data is a predictor of reliable expansion in humans. The translation is just not that clear.
From that I have come to know 2 things that are indisputable;
1) A person can shoot the same bullet into several different people and get a different result every time. There's way too many variables in the human body that makes that happen.
2) With the newer bullet designs, such as the HST and updated Gold Dots, studies that are more than 5+ years old are fast getting outdated. The basic premises are still viable, but the rounds that were tested are the outdated part.
Exactly. As someone who also attended several post-mortems (also having seen the bullets dug out of the people we have shot) and having read the results of even more -- brother Wichaka has hit the nail on the head.
The consistency of gelatin is its greatest virtue for data testing, but the inconsistencies of the human target make such data difficult to translate clearly as to specific reliability.
Yet, it is the BEST model we have at the moment, since autopsy data, by its nature, is anecdotal, and thus, also inadequate for reliable prediction.
Thus, it is not unfair to say the .380 (AKA 9mm "kurz" or "short') may be the bare minimum for a reasonable defense caliber -- so personally, I might choose larger calibers in its stead. Fortunately, my preferences and choices do NOT rule the day.
Accordingly, the .380 has a role to fill and if the preference is for a .380, so be it -- and the Gold Dot's consistent expansion in ballistic gel indicates it to be the best of the bunch, as to premium defense ammunition.
For the most part, a .380 still beats a poke in the eye...
Good luck, and be safe!
Lt. Alan Normandy
I have a few bullets from actual shootings, if anyone is interested in a thread about such things. Of course no names, places etc., just the ballistic facts.
Lemme know whatcha all think, and I'll start a thread about them........
I have a few bullets from actual shootings, if anyone is interested in a thread about such things. Of course no names, places etc., just the ballistic facts.
Lemme know whatcha all think, and I'll start a thread about them........
What performed better for a 380, FMJ or JHP?
All of the fmj pistol rounds I have seen in any caliber, do penetrate, but that's about it. They don't come apart, they don't cause damage to anything else except what they hit. Have seen some tumble around, and some just stay on track.
And have seen some of their paths where they made contact with organs, bruising them, rather than going thru them. Whereas a HP will at least leave some destruction in it's wake..........more times than not. Even that's not a given.
The human body is a strange thing, made up of many membranes, different thicknesses and textures of organs etc. even though we all have the same parts........well ok, most of us do :D
The effects of bullets from one to another is different. Take in account size, fat/muscle content, disease/health problems all factor into performance. Then there's the outside factor, clothing, skin density, and objects the bullet passes thru before getting to it's intended target.
Shooting gel (which I've attended many ballistic seminars over the years), chunks of hanging meat, just will never be the same.........but it's all we got.
Again what I have learned;
1) A person can shoot the same bullet into several different people and get a different result every time. There's way too many variables in the human body that makes that happen.
2) With the newer bullet designs, such as the HST and updated Gold Dots, studies that are more than 5+ years old are fast getting outdated. The basic premises are still viable, but the rounds that were tested are the outdated part.
Oh, and 3) I will take a quality constructed HP over a fmj or some odd super nifty round. But if that's all you've got, it ain't bad either.
What about Corbon Pow'r Ball? they make a 70 grain .380 load.
I've only used this ammo in .45ACP, but I bought my girlfriend a Bersa .380 and I've been wondering what ammo would be best for it.
I've done some ammo testing with the little pistol and it's eaten about 100 rounds of cheap hollow points (Remington) without issue. Been thinking about buying up a bit of .380 Pow'r Ball, just haven't gotten around to it yet.
I haven't seen it in a shooting, or gel tested it. So I can't say yes or no about it.
Here's some good reading on some ballistic seminars put on by ATK, the maker of Speer, Federal, and CCI ammo. http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx
I have attended 3 of their seminars, and have been able to bring any ammo we want to test. I have been impressed with the strides ATK has made over the last 5 years. And their new Gold Dot .223/5.56 ammo is really something.
I'm not normally drawn to the exotic loads but Buffalo Bore has three +P loads that are interesting. They list a 100 grain lead flat nose hard cast lead and a 95 grain FMJ flat nose supposedly around 1125 fps. They also list a load with a 90 grain Gold Dot at 1175 fps. I hope to locate some in the near future to chronograph.
The 95 grain flat nose FMJ sounds like it would help with penetration and still have a cutting edge. The 380 is marginal but it is still a lot better than teeth and fingernails.
I figured the Kahr and other small 9mms would kill off the 380 but the introduction and success of the LCP and other tiny 380s have proved me wrong.
I just bought a box of Winchester Ranger 100 Gr. For my friends P230. A better choice than the Federal Hydra Shok he was caryring before. I think a Colt or S. & W snubby would be a better choice. M.H.O..
Try to find someone who has published autopsy findings.
And who publishes these?
I've looked for years, and all I come up with is Evan Marshall, and Ed Sanow. Both of their schtick has been soundly debunked.
The .380acp is still a compromise cartridge. You must decide what is more important, penetration or expansion, because there isnt a .380acp offering that achieves both. If you chose expansion, you risk not having enough penetration to reach the CNS. If you choose expansion, you will have a smaller wound profile.
"lack of penetration gets good guys killed"
i run the hydrashocks in my keltec too
Does anyone have any experience with Buffolo Bores super .380 bullets?
If you use a HP, and it doesn't open up, you still have the equivalent of a fmj.
and if it does open up, you dont get adequate penetration.
Being that the vital organs are deep in the body, with the possibility bones and various tissues in the way, I would take the penetration. Again, thats assuming the those organs are you primary target, I'd rather disrupt or destroy the CNS, which is even deeper.
Me too. Or pray that anyone you shoot just collapses from the shock of being shot.... :confused: I've heard that can happen. I'm not willing to take that chance. If I can't carry something that I feel could stop a LARGE, Motivated threat if I do my part, then why bother?
Why bother? Because the .380 has been doing its job for years in this country and others. The .380 has stopped thousands of LARGE, Motivated threats. I like it because it satisfies my first rule of gun carry: always have a gun. I can carry my Kel Tec .380 here in Arizona as a back-up mostly, but do not feel unarmed with it when the heat makes us all strip down to shorts only. It's one of those calibers that gets a bad reputation. I like the Hornady XTP 90 gr. but am going to look at the Gold Dot 90 gr. which Todd pointed out to me that the LEA's that issue it are most pleased with the GD's peformance. You put 5 rounds of .380 COM and two in the head and it will bring down your single motivated threat. It has lots of limitations when compared to a full size modern 9mm - .45 ACP, but if faced with a lethal threat I would take .380 any day over pepper gas, a knife, a stun gun, or a blinding SureFire flashlight.
I just took the plunge myself and ordered a Ruger LCP the other day; don't have it yet.
For ammo, I am also interested in Gold Dot. I decided to try a couple hundred rounds of the DoubleTap loading (http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_62&products_id=233) that uses Gold Dots:
Speer Gold Dot 90gr JHP
M.E.: 242 ft/lbs (3.5" Bersa), 200 ft/lbs (3" Kel-tec)
M.V.: 1100 fps (3.5" Bersa), 1000 fps (3" Kel-tec)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.