View Full Version : Why did JMB / Colt develop .380 acp?
Did an army request it? Did JMB or Colt just think it would sell better than .32 acp? Was it to compete with another cartridge? Was it just because "bigger is better 'Merica and we can make a blowback work with fatter bullets than .32 acp?
The .380 ACP cartridge was derived from Browning's earlier .38 ACP design, which was only marginally more powerful. The .380 ACP was designed to be truly rimless, with headspace on the case mouth instead of the rim for better accuracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.380_ACP
Was that pushed in advertising? Did it pan out?
I think I read that .32 can head space on the rim or case mouth depending on the gun.
It would be neat to find some original advertising for it and the Colt. 1908 I think.
because little girls and small boys deserve guns too
It would be neat to find some original advertising for it and the Colt. 1908 I think.
Just looked it up and there are several online, but nothing about the rationale on .380 ACP.
The ads were about the pistols, either specs or virtues....safety, easy to carry, and one that I don't exactly get in pointing out solid breech? Only thing coming to mind is a dig against Luger's toggle lock.
because little girls and small boys deserve guns too
The internet says JMB's favorite pistol was his .32 pocket hammerless.
Your calling JMB a "small boy". I'm gonna report you to the guys at 1911.com....;)
Just looked it up and there are several online, but nothing about the rationale on .380 ACP.
The ads were about the pistols, either specs or virtues....safety, easy to carry, and one that I don't exactly get in pointing out solid breech? Only thing coming to mind is a dig against Luger's toggle lock.
Yes, "rationale" is the word I should have used.
Who thought it would perform, or at least sell, better than .32 acp and why?
It seems clear the .38 acp and 9mm Browning (9x20 I think) were too powerful for a small blowback. .32 / 7.65 mm was really liked and popular. So why is there a .380?
Was it Colt, JMB, or Union-Metallic who first thought up the idea?
Maybe it was like the Russians? They apparently wanted to make the hottest cartridge they could for a smallish blowback pistol and so they developed 9x18 Mak. At least that's my understanding.
Yes, "rationale" is the word I should have used.
Who thought it would perform, or at least sell, better than .32 acp and why?
It seems clear the .38 acp and 9mm Browning (9x20 I think) were too powerful for a small blowback. .32 / 7.65 mm was really liked and popular. So why is there a .380?
Was it Colt, JMB, or Union-Metallic who first thought up the idea?
Maybe it was like the Russians? They apparently wanted to make the hottest cartridge they could for a smallish blowback pistol and so they developed 9x18 Mak. At least that's my understanding.
There is a Forgotten Weapons episode on early automatic pistol/cartridge development and I am fairly sure .380 was mentioned, but not sure how much detail beyond stats.
My 2 guesses are
- no specific need/reason...some combo of early R&D in the first decade or so of auto pistols for technical reasons or casting out to see what would best separate consumers from their money.
Or
- as you mentioned, getting more oomph in a blowback and/or a 9mm simpler/lower cost competitor to Luger.
Look to the objective, which was to adapt a 1903 (in .32) to a rimless, larger caliber weapon.
The .32 was already a decade old, and cartridge development was moving fast. Colt had a little success with larger autos, but the pocket hammerless was a hot seller. They wanted to extend the product line, using the popular product to attract a different market segment. The .380 was designed to be the largest blowback rimless cartridge that could reliably function on the pocket hammerless platform. That's why it exists.
It was not, however, always more popular than .32. That shift took a lot of time. There's probably a variety of reasons for it. existing stock of weapons, Supply chain, manufacturing capacity, comfort, size of targets relative to today...
I was under the impression the Germans developed it to get around the Post WW1 sanctions on 9mm cartridges.
Bigger caliber than the .32 yet not so powerful it would work in a straight blowback pistol.
Good answers.
It would be neat to read it from the creators/ sellers.
Didnt they promote the "new" caliber at all?
Yes they did, but for Colt it was not as successful compared to the .32, or the 1911 later. the .32 cartridge was already established, and continued selling well for decades Alongside the .380.
Down the rabbit hole, I really like following up on posts like this.
Ultimately, .380 was just about the largest caliber that a small blowback pistol could operate.
I learned that the first use of the .380 was in the he Colt Model 1908 Pocket Hammerless which descended from the Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless.
I came upon this fairly informative and easy to read piece while searching for info:
http://averagejoeshandgunreviews.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post.html
The Colt Model M pistols were produced by Colt from 1903 and 1908 respectively until 1947. The Pocket Hammerless is another design by firearms genius John M. Browning.
The story goes that he presented the design to Colt Management in 1899 and they weren’t interested as they were busy trying to produce a new larger caliber pistol which would win them another military contract.
Short sighted American firearms manufacturers made the mistake of passing on Browning designed on several occasions and when they did, Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre of Belguim was always ready to welcome one of John Browning’s new designs. While Colt toiled away on the military sidearm FN produced Browning’s self loading pocket pistol and the FN Model 100. In a relatively short period of time Colt found that their civilian sales in Europe were drying up as the market was in love with the FN-Browning pocket gun.
Colt also realized that American retailers were beginning to import this pistol in fairly large quantities. Colt quickly brokered a deal with Browning and FN to be able to produce the handgun for U.S. sales. On June 19, 1903 Colt began shipping out their new Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless in .32 ACP.
Five years later they also released the Model 1908 in .380 ACP and a smaller vest pocket version in .25 ACP. The Pocket Hammerless was vastly popular and by the time Colt ceased production after WWII they had manufactured over one million of these well-made pistols—that’s with the .32, .380, and .25 ACP.
By the end of WWII Colt’s the machinery that Colt used to make the Pocket Hammerless pistols was worn out and the staff that made them was retiring. These pistols required a fair amount of hand fitting and Colt felt the reinvestment in the equipment and personnel to make the model 1903 and 1908 would raise the cost of making the handgun beyond the reach of their customer base so they let it slip from their catalogue.
This article touches on the Browning/FN partnership:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/12/23/fn-the-first-125-years/
John Moses Browning was instrumental in FN's success, which is good because FN owns Browning now. It all started with what smells a little like industrial espionage. Hart O. Berg, FN's sales manager of external affairs, was in the United States in 1897 finding out what he could about American bicycle technology when he was introduced to John Moses Browning. Browning had invented a blowback-operated semi-automatic pistol in what would come to be called .32 ACP. Berg had a modern plant looking for something to produce; Browning was squabbling with Winchester over royalties. Browning gave the little pistol to Berg, who took it back to Belgium. It fired 5,000 rounds without a stoppage. Browning was offered a contract, and his response is still in the FN Herstal archives.
Here is a nice video on the Colt 1908: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqeVaxpWTFY (he field strips it at about 4:30 - surprise, it's not hammerless)
Very interesting thanks for that.
I'm of the opinion now that .380 acp Is the .40 S&W of blow-back operated pistols.
It seemed like a okay idea at the time but the original chambering is better in regards to weight, capacity, recoil control, and wear on the shooter and pistol.
The 32? Ok! When I think of guns I don't think of wear on the shooter. My concern is wear on the one being shot
Recoil on a 380? Especially back when they were all steel!
The 32? Ok! When I think of guns I don't think of wear on the shooter. My concern is wear on the one being shot
Recoil on a 380? Especially back when they were all steel!
Firing 100-300 rds from a 25 oz blowback .380 / 9x18 will beat your hands similar to firing that much from say, a Glock 27 .40.
It makes you want to train / shoot less that day because you hands hurt / are fatigued.
Firing 100-300 rds from a 25 oz blowback .380 / 9x18 will beat your hands similar to firing that much from say, a Glock 27 .40.
It makes you want to train / shoot less that day because you hands hurt / are fatigued.No it won't. No it doesn't
No it won't. No it doesn't
I've been shooting for at least 29 years.
I've put thousands of rounds through (each) Makarov's, my Beretta m81, Bersa's, and Glock 27's.
I've only advised of my experience's with these calibers. (.32, .380, 9x18, .40)
I've only advised of my experience's
Same.
As has been stated, .380 seems to be the upper limit for small, blowback designs. I have not messed with polymer handguns in .380 so I can't say if they fatigue your hands over time. Shooting older steel frame handguns in .380 is more a pleasurable experience than a chore. The only thing I dislike about them is they usually have very basic iron sights and a short sight radius so I'm not as consistent or accurate as I am with most other handguns.
I really love some of the .32 acp handguns I own, like my older Walther PP and a bunch of other vintage designs, but I'd never carry them because I think there is a pretty dramatic difference between .32 acp and .380 when it comes to terminal ballistics.
As has been stated, .380 seems to be the upper limit for small, blowback designs. I have not messed with polymer handguns in .380 so I can't say if they fatigue your hands over time. Shooting older steel frame handguns in .380 is more a pleasurable experience than a chore. The only thing I dislike about them is they usually have very basic iron sights and a short sight radius so I'm not as consistent or accurate as I am with most other handguns.
I really love some of the .32 acp handguns I own, like my older Walther PP and a bunch of other vintage designs, but I'd never carry them because I think there is a pretty dramatic difference between .32 acp and .380 when it comes to terminal ballistics.
A Glock 42 .380 is a soft-shooter.
I disagree about the ballistics. Although some of the hottest .380 ammo performs decently in tests I've seen.
A Glock 42 .380 is a soft-shooter.
I disagree about the ballistics. Although some of the hottest .380 ammo performs decently in tests I've seen.
Like I said I can't comment on thinks like G42s as I have no real experience.
As far as ballistics, so long as you are using decent defensive ammo, .380 gets results that .32 will never provide.
Like I said I can't comment on thinks like G42s as I have no real experience.
As far as ballistics, so long as you are using decent defensive ammo, .380 gets results that .32 will never provide.
Your talking about JHP's I presume? Which do you like?
Your talking about JHP's I presume? Which do you like?
It's been my experience that most JHPs are acceptable. Federal Hydra Shocks, Remington Golden Sabers or Winchester Rangers...and I think Hornady makes a good one but can't recall the name. I usually use Federal HS but IMO all of them are suitable.
My research found all of the .380 JHP's most common behavior is to either underpenetrate or act like ball in test media.
They (.380 non-expanded jhp or fmj) tend not to over penetrate wastefully / stupidly like 9x19 ball which is good. But I'm concerned about jhp's expanding well and not penetrating enough.
So I see the jhp's as being a riskier proposition while at the same time being more likely to cause a stoppage (feeding in the gun) and costing more.
In addition, .380 (jhp and fmj) has more tendency to tumble in media (more so than the more powerful calibers) and when this happens it produces a jhp-like wound anyway.
I really wish the XTP (the Hornady load) and Ranger T tested better in .380 because I like them both generally.
My research found all of the .380 JHP's most common behavior is to either underpenetrate or act like ball in test media.
They (.380 non-expanded jhp or fmj) tend not to over penetrate wastefully / stupidly like 9x19 ball which is good. But I'm concerned about jhp's expanding well and not penetrating enough.
So I see the jhp's as being a riskier proposition while at the same time being more likely to cause a stoppage (feeding in the gun) and costing more.
In addition, .380 (jhp and fmj) has more tendency to tumble in media (more so than the more powerful calibers) and when this happens it produces a jhp-like wound anyway.
I really wish the XTP (the Hornady load) and Ranger T tested better in .380 because I like them both generally.
So I guess all I was trying to say is .380 is better than .32 and JHPs are better than ball. Lots of "off duty" guys in FL used to carry .380s before very compact 9mms came along and there are more than a few people residing the cemetery as a result.
Shot placement is probably the most important consideration, but again just from my POV .380 is the minimum threshold for a personal defense weapon. Ideal? No. Better than .32? Yes. All things considered I prefer 9mm.
So I guess all I was trying to say is .380 is better than .32 and JHPs are better than ball. Lots of "off duty" guys in FL used to carry .380s before very compact 9mms came along and there are more than a few people residing the cemetery as a result.
Shot placement is probably the most important consideration, but again just from my POV .380 is the minimum threshold for a personal defense weapon. Ideal? No. Better than .32? Yes. All things considered I prefer 9mm.
Fair enough. Though I disagree that JHP's are always better than ball.
Anyway, here is a link to some .380 chrono testing I did a few weeks ago:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?215853-Chronograph-ed-a-couple-380-factory-loads
And some .32 acp loads:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?212491-Chronograph-ed-some-32-acp
I carry 380 with ball but it a gun I carry when nothing else will work. Formal occasions when suit and tie is required and anything bigger than a small 380 won't conceal. I use a Ruger lcp. Aside from that I don't touch it. For every day carry I use a G19
Fair enough. Though I disagree that JHP's are always better than ball.
Ok, "usually" better than ball? I mean if they fail they pretty much function like ball ammo right?
A Glock 42 .380 is a soft-shooter.
.
It is locked breech instead of blowback also.
Kind of interesting to me the 43 is usually quite a bit more expensive taking the similarities in to account.
Ok, "usually" better than ball? I mean if they fail they pretty much function like ball ammo right?
Yea, and that's fine. The problem is if they work and open wide causing under penetration.
Some .380 jhp tests show them penetrating only 7-10inches of test media. That's my concern with them.
Hornady XTP.
One of the better ones. Usually only 10-12 incheswhen they expand but sometimes they hit 13 or 14 in test media. Half the time they act like fmj even in bare media tests and with anything more than a t-shirt over the media they plug up and dont expand. I've watched alot of ammo tests.
They aren't a bad choice in a locked breach pistol with low capacity and a long, slow trigger.
For a blowback with a fast single action trigger I prefer .32 acp.
Yea, and that's fine. The problem is if they work and open wide causing under penetration.
Some .380 jhp tests show them penetrating only 7-10inches of test media. That's my concern with them.
So that's sounds pretty decent considering. Again, I think shot placement is "key", I do my job, ammo does it's job.
Years ago I had regular access to pretty much every LE involved shooting that wasn't a current ongoing case. Was able to read who did what and did they live or not.
From that sampling archive I decided it was better to have more 9mm than less .45 because you had more opportunity to keep getting hits. I also discovered that people regularly survived being shot by .22, .25 and .32 rounds and often kept fighting even after being shot by those rounds but the demarcation line seemed to begin with .380 on up.
Sure there were guys who got hit with .380 and stayed in the fight, but there were guys who got hit with .45 and stayed in the fight. There were also one shot stops from .32s and even some .25s but these were generally the exception to the trends I was looking at.
And when the test media is people who have been shot, that is the data most interesting to me.
That would have been interesting reading through those "here's what happened" shooting / gunfight incidents.
I agree with you about shot placement of course. A bigger pistol aids that. I also expect slightly better performance from a longer barrel / faster bullet.
I'll bet most .32 shootings are short barrels with weaker us-made ammo at 750 fps. (That's what I get from my kel-tec P32) I get 950-1000 fps from my 3.8 in. Barrel Beretta with European 7.65 mm. Tests show 15-18 inches of penetration, often with a tumble then base-forward travel.
M.T.S.G.
The only issue I have with those studies, they’re only focused on caliber, combined with survival. to skip technical bits, I believe caliber may be standing in for other factors.
Specific calibers may be strongly correlated with other factors influencing the terminal effect of a shooting, which are otherwise unaccounted for but show up in the caliber performance.
Ie, for arguments sake, say training was perfectly correlated with caliber use. Or time of year and location played a factor, and shootings with smaller caliber weapons occurred exclusively in cold weather areas against multiple layers of heavy clothing...
I’m not saying it’ll change the ultimate conclusion. I’m just not comfortable the picture from the data is so clear cut.
Regardless of caliber, placement is king in determining the likelihood of rapidly stopping a determined assailant. A second component, almost as important as placement IMO, is the mindset of the person being shot. You can control placement, you have little, if any, opportunity to control the mindset of your opponent.
I've read a lot of Dr. Martin Fackler's research in the Journal of the International Association of Wound Ballisticians. According to Dr. Fackler there are four reasons that subjects stop their actions upon being shot. They follow, in order:
1. Psychological Response to Being Shot – Most people survive gunshot wounds. Their wounds are not immediately incapacitating. In simplest terms, most people stop their aggressive actions when shot simply because they are shot, therefore, they are injured, and therefore, it is okay for them to stop. Many young men have had a variation of this reaction during schoolyard fights – a lucky blow splits a lip or bloodies a nose and the recipient quits the fight - the fight stops even though no one is actually incapacitated or killed.
Officers must recognize that although the psychological response to being shot is the primary reason that people stop their actions upon being shot, the psychological response is the least reliable to depend upon. Subjects under the influence of drugs, psychosis, anger, or fear, or subjects with a high degree of goal orientation can, and have, continued to fight despite receiving grievous wounds.
2. Disruption of Motor Nerve Impulse – More commonly referred to as hits to the central nervous system (CNS hits). Projectiles that impact, or sever the spinal column, or strike the central regions of the brain usually cause immediate incapacitation. Disruption of the cervical (neck area) spine generally results in either total paralysis, or loss of function in the arms and hands; disruption of the thoracic spine (chest area) generally causes loss of lower limb function with some, or complete function in the upper extremities . Shots that penetrate the facial area and disrupt the brain stem cause immediate cessation of conscious activity. Wounds to the central nervous system are the only means of causing immediate, reliable incapacitation.
3. Disruption of Major Organ Functions – This primarily refers to damage to the heart or lungs which impairs the ability of the body to move oxygenated blood to the brain and to the muscles. Some firearms trainers refer the chest area as the ‘blood pressure decompression zone’ for this reason. Incapacitation in this area depends on the severity of the injury and may be almost immediate, or take several minutes. The term ‘dead man’s ten seconds’ was a term coined during the civil war era which referenced the fact that even a man shot in the heart still had ‘ten seconds’ in which he could hurt the other person.
4. Shock to Blood Loss – The medical term for this is ‘hypovolemic shock’ and describes the condition in which severe blood and fluid loss make the heart unable to pump enough blood to the body. Losing about 1/5 or more of the normal amount of blood in your body causes hypovolemic shock; depending on severity of the injury, this may take place in seconds, or even hours. A person in a combative situation may go into shock from blood loss in as little as seven seconds. (Grosz and Janich in Contemporary Knife Targeting)
Additionally Dr. Fackler found that temporary wound cavitation has little, if any, impact on stopping ability and that for reliable stopping power a projectile needs to penetrate 12 inchs in ballistic gelatin.
ramairthree
06-10-19, 16:39
When I look at the velocity and energy of most pistol cartridges from the cowboy era to the first half of the 20th century,
There seems to have been much more tolerance of weaker rounds.
I am not saying everybody used them, and there were not solid, hard hitting options.
But the average expectations and threshold to tolerate seemed much lower.
Sort of like how a little over 200 net horsepower was considered acceptable in a performance car from about 1975 to 1995.
When I look at the velocity and energy of most pistol cartridges from the cowboy era to the first half of the 20th century,
There seems to have been much more tolerance of weaker rounds.
I am not saying everybody used them, and there were not solid, hard hitting options.
But the average expectations and threshold to tolerate seemed much lower.
Sort of like how a little over 200 net horsepower was considered acceptable in a performance car from about 1975 to 1995.
The 1851 and 1860 Colts were pretty weak. The 1851 Colt Navy .36 was about the same horsepower as a .380. Now the 44-40 and 45 Colt were substantial rounds even though they were loaded with black powder.
When I look at the velocity and energy of most pistol cartridges from the cowboy era to the first half of the 20th century,
There seems to have been much more tolerance of weaker rounds.
I am not saying everybody used them, and there were not solid, hard hitting options.
But the average expectations and threshold to tolerate seemed much lower.
Sort of like how a little over 200 net horsepower was considered acceptable in a performance car from about 1975 to 1995.
True.
Alot of it is advertising. :)
Truth is for the vast majority of non-Police defense use outside the home one to three rounds of anything into the vitals of each aggressor gets the job done when all else has failed and shooting is neccessary. (Or surprise attack)
Now the 44-40 and 45 Colt were substantial rounds even though they were loaded with black powder.
Hmm, black powder 45 Colt loadings 230-250g bullet at 750-850 fps. Pretty wimpy... we all know that won't stop anything based on the never ending "45 ACP is obsolete" debates. :-)
Just hit me are still shooting (and depending on) cartridges with ballistics that were very common 145 years ago. (granted projectiles have come a long way).
sundance435
06-11-19, 14:18
When I look at the velocity and energy of most pistol cartridges from the cowboy era to the first half of the 20th century,
There seems to have been much more tolerance of weaker rounds.
I am not saying everybody used them, and there were not solid, hard hitting options.
But the average expectations and threshold to tolerate seemed much lower.
Sort of like how a little over 200 net horsepower was considered acceptable in a performance car from about 1975 to 1995.
That was more to do with the limitations of black powder than the bullet itself. Anything smaller than .44 propelled by BP wasn't a good choice. 30ish grains of BP behind a 230-255gr LFP, moving it between 800-1000fps, no one was complaining. I don't think I've read any complaints about the .455 Webley, either, which was usually even slower.
That was more to do with the limitations of black powder than the bullet itself. Anything smaller than .44 propelled by BP wasn't a good choice. 30ish grains of BP behind a 230-255gr LFP, moving it between 800-1000fps, no one was complaining. I don't think I've read any complaints about the .455 Webley, either, which was usually even slower.
Could be. Could be the "Caliber excuse" as well. It goes like this:
Person shot goes down fast:
- 9mm = "see? Works fine".
- Weaker than 9mm = "well, sometimes anything works".
- .40 / .45 / .357 = "well of course he went down fast!"
Now, person shot does NOT go down fast:
- 9mm = "Pff...9mm sucks"
- Less powerfull than 9mm = "well of course that puny cartridge didnt put him down"
- .40 / .45 / .357 = "Well, he was just a tough nut and didnt want to quit! Needed rifle or shotgun to drop that guy".
These calibers (.40, .357, .45) get a pass when they dont work. Or at least people then blame the bullet. I guess these days we can add 9mm to this list, too.
I think the Ellifritz study is closest to the mark. Ergo weaker pistol calibers might average 15 % less effective and hot pistol calibers (.45 +p with late-model jhp's, .357 magnum, etc) might give a small bump in average effectiveness.
Barrier penetration and long range use is another discussion.
I dont think .380 in a blowback improved performance near enough to justify the extra recoil, wear on guns, or loss in capacity versus .32. I don't think it does in a pocket locked breach pistol .380 either.
It the end its mindset, tactics, skill then gear that will save us.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.