PDA

View Full Version : .380 ammo...Magtech 77 grain copper SCHP



kursk
10-03-09, 22:05
I recently picked up some MAGTECH .380 ammo for my SIG P230. It is an all copper Hollowpoint, and labeled as 77 grain SCHP, first defense. It looks similar to COR-BON's DPX copper ammo.

Does anyone have the ballistic gel terminal ballistics data on penetration and expansion for this .380 ammo?

I also have some Winchester Ranger 95 grain Hollowpoint and am wondering which is the better .380 ammo of the 2 for self defense.

I realize these rounds will not meet FBI protocols but want the best of the 2...not intersted in loading FMJ at this point either.;)

PA PATRIOT
10-04-09, 13:01
If your selected self defense loadings do not penetrate to desired levels which basically follow the FBI protocol then you force yourself into a tactical disadvantage with sub-standard bullet performance. There should be "NO" possible reasoning to support a poor selection, whats your life worth?

kursk
10-04-09, 18:16
The .380 is a compromise, either as a second gun or for carry in a non permissive environment. I work in one of the most anti-gun businesses in the US, and cannot easily carry a gun, yet feel the need for one as a veteran. Many police officers may not understand concealed carry in a non permissive environment, hence the post from Philiy PD.

My primary carry ammo meets FBI ammo protocols. None of the .380 meets that definition-see compromise above.

Please spare me the drama of complaining about .380 (well aware of its limitations) and back to the business of selecting the best available ammo for that caliber. It may be FMJ, or may not be. But, I would like to know what the Ranger and Copper HP are capable of.

tpd223
10-04-09, 22:30
The Winchester load is unimpressive. You can look at their own info for details;

http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/flash/win_flash.html

http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/testing/testing.aspx#



I don't think anyone has tested the Magtech, in any caliber. The similar Cor Bon DPX .380 loading does not penetrate well.


You can find loads for the .380 that penetrate well, it's just that most of them are FMJ loads. The Gold Dot and Hornady XTP would be my choice choice if I still owned a .380

Shawn Dodson
10-05-09, 11:15
The problem with .380 ACP expanding bullets is they possess inadequate post-expansion sectional density to reliably penetrate deeply enough to reach and damage vitals.

I suggest Winchester USA 95gr FMJ-FP, Q4206:
http://media.midwayusa.com/HighRes/360402.jpg

PA PATRIOT
10-05-09, 21:37
The .380 is a compromise, either as a second gun or for carry in a non permissive environment. I work in one of the most anti-gun businesses in the US, and cannot easily carry a gun, yet feel the need for one as a veteran. Many police officers may not understand concealed carry in a non permissive environment, hence the post from Philiy PD.

My primary carry ammo meets FBI ammo protocols. None of the .380 meets that definition-see compromise above.

Please spare me the drama of complaining about .380 (well aware of its limitations) and back to the business of selecting the best available ammo for that caliber. It may be FMJ, or may not be. But, I would like to know what the Ranger and Copper HP are capable of.

Lets touch on a few points here,

kursk wrote,
Many police officers may not understand concealed carry in a non permissive environment, hence the post from Philiy PD.

Not speaking as a Police Officer but a person who follows the law and the directives of my employment. So what your basically asking here is you wish to ask us the members of this forum to help you select a ammunition to load a firearm and carry this firearm were you are prohibited to do so. This is were firearm owners shoot them selfs in the foot and give the rest of the law abiding armed citizens a bad name. You then go on the base your violation of work rule or illegal act do to the basis of "yet feel the need for one as a veteran." Whats that mean???????? From your posted words "Many police officers may not understand concealed carry in a non permissive environment" Why is that? Maybe because your employer forbids firearms inside their work place which under certain states and federal law makes it illegal. Police enforce the laws of the city, county, state and federal laws of the land so please explain to me what I don't understand. I'M 1000% Pro-2nd Amendment, A NRA L/E Trained Firearms Instructor of several disciplines and Factory trained and certified Armorer for numerous firearm manufacturers so please don't come off that I'M in any way a Brady Bunch type of guy or just another Cop who does not want anyone to be armed. Just a little advice from the Police side of my personality, stay employed and out of legal trouble by just following the rules and more importantly the law.

kursk
10-05-09, 22:19
Philia PD, no one said that they were carrying a gun illegally. I have multiple carry permits from more than one state-You assumed it was illegal, when it is not. Frankly, It may not be wise to let sheeple realize you are carrying, or tip your hand.

Back to the question at hand, I asked about .380 ammo terminal effectiveness-several members have replied with good information, and thank you to those that have.

PD, If you dont have any info to offer on terminal ballistics, please stop cluttering up this thread with your free advice, which is worth what it cost me.

PA PATRIOT
10-05-09, 22:41
The .380 is a compromise, either as a second gun or for carry in a non permissive environment. I work in one of the most anti-gun businesses in the US, and cannot easily carry a gun, yet feel the need for one as a veteran. Many police officers may not understand concealed carry in a non permissive environment, hence the post from Philiy PD.

My primary carry ammo meets FBI ammo protocols. None of the .380 meets that definition-see compromise above.

Please spare me the drama of complaining about .380 (well aware of its limitations) and back to the business of selecting the best available ammo for that caliber. It may be FMJ, or may not be. But, I would like to know what the Ranger and Copper HP are capable of.

kursk Wrote,
The .380 is a compromise, either as a second gun or for "carry in a non permissive environment".

kursk Wrote,
"I work in one of the most anti-gun businesses in the US, and cannot easily carry a gun."

kursk Wrote,
"Many police officers may not understand concealed carry in a non permissive environment, hence the post from Philiy PD."

I call them as I read them,

I understand what you posted and what the intent is and as a law abiding armed citizen I can continue to cluttering up this thread with my free advice. You sir are lacking in judgment and character and its a shame if you truly have multiple carry permits from more than one state.

Dave James
10-06-09, 16:44
Memory may be fuzzy, but I think when Doc was testing 380 , his showed that the remington 105 grain jhp was the one to work with..

Nothing wrong with 380 if thats your choice based on AO, just remember its best as a nose gun!

DBR
10-06-09, 17:06
IIRC that was the 102gr Remington Golden Saber.

DocGKR
10-06-09, 17:30
I personally choose to not use .380 ACP's or smaller. The lightweight J-frames work well for pocket or ankle carry, as can the small Kahr 9 mm's. Although to be be honest, I have not found too many situations where a G26 or even G19 can't be run with appropriate clothing and accessory choices. If for some reason I had no choice but to use a .380 ACP, I'd carry FMJ's.

Ed L.
10-07-09, 16:14
Non-permissive environment often means a business or job that says you cannot carry while the state and/or licensing says that you can. So you are not breaking the law by carrying, but could get fired if caught.

tpd223
10-08-09, 03:49
The Remington Golden Saber .380 doesn't penetrate any better than the Ranger-T loadings, as in poorly.

The XTP and Gold Dot at least expand and still get 11-11 1/2" in the tests I have seen.

The flat point Winchester load is also a very safe choice.

dirksterg30
10-08-09, 04:52
The XTP and Gold Dot at least expand and still get 11-11 1/2" in the tests I have seen.

Do you have a link or any additional info on these tests?

tpd223
10-08-09, 07:32
No, these were in house tests at my job.

What I saw here with the XTP mirrors the data here, except we obviously got less velocity from the KT P3AT;

http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/380acp/hor380-90xtp-b85.htm

Shawn Dodson
10-08-09, 11:18
Take a look at 9mm loads. Although there are a couple of exceptions, in general it takes a 124gr .355 diameter bullet to reliably penetrate deeply enough after it expands.

The best load I ever tested in .380 ACP (and it is still deficient in adequate penetration) is Hornady's 90gr XTP: http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/380acp/hor380-90xtp-b85.htm

If you're serious then I suggest you retire your P230 and obtain a similarly sized 9mm handgun, such as the Kahr PM9. You'll have a much greater selection of ammunition with adequate terminal performance.

kursk
10-09-09, 23:29
Shawn, thanks for the info. I considered the smaller 9mm Kahrs, but I am concerned about their reliablity. With the Sig P230, I know I am getting a mature, known design that works reliably, and focus on shot placement. I'll look at the Smaller Kahr's as an improvement.:)

I did find some some .380 speer lawman FMJ loads, and did carry them in my P230 recently.

Shawn Dodson
10-10-09, 22:24
FWIW, I retired my Glock 19 after moving from Washington to Florida because I found it was too much handgun (bulk and weight) to reliably keep concealed when wearing hot weather clothing. I replaced it with a Kahr PM9, which has performed flawlessly for me. I load it with Speer gold Dot 124gr +P. After some experimentation with different holsters I decided to order a Milt Sparks Summer Special II and modify it (cut off excess leather and cut off one belt loop) to comfortably wear appendix style. I'm very pleased with my holster selection and I like how quickly I can obtain my pistol.

I chose the PM9 because it is, in essence, a mini Glock 19. Manual of arms as wells as manipulations are identical, so there was no need to learn anything new, operating wise.

Good luck with your situation.

THE FROG
10-11-09, 00:21
I have good results with Double Tap 95gr. FMJ.

Old_Painless
10-12-09, 17:25
I did some tests on "Little Guns" and the ammo available for them. In my tests, the Magtec .32ACP actually had a squib load, that bounced off the blue jean material in front of the water jugs. I will not depend on Magtec ammo for self defense.

Here's Part One: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot26.htm

If I were to carry the .380, I would probably carry FMJ rounds to assure reaching the maximum penetration.

PA PATRIOT
10-13-09, 07:15
DocGKR,

I have read from a few difference sources that one can substitute water over ballistic Gel for penetration tests and that 2"inch's of travel in water would equal 1"inch of penetration Thur Ballistic Gel. True, False and if so what is the flaw in this method?

Old_Painless
10-13-09, 08:54
DocGKR,

I have read from a few difference sources that one can substitute water over ballistic Gel for penetration tests and that 2"inch's of travel in water would equal 1"inch of penetration Thur Ballistic Gel. True, False and if so what is the flaw in this method?

Not to answwer for DocGKR, but I believe I can help you. :)

DocGKR once told me that water could indeed be used as a cheap substitute for ballistic gelatin at a 1.8 to 1 ratio. I rounded it off to 2 to 1 for the tests that I did. Therefore, 12 inches of penetration into water is approximately 6 inches of penetration into BG.

However, the effects on the projectiles is not exactly the same, as almost any JHP will open up in water.

Water can be used as a "fun test", but it is not as accurate as properly calibrated and refrigerated BG.

PA PATRIOT
10-13-09, 15:06
Thanks for the reply, do you make any allowance for the resistance that the plastic material which the gallon milk jugs are made of may place on the bullets?

Old_Painless
10-13-09, 15:24
Thanks for the reply, do you make any allowance for the resistance that the plastic material which the gallon milk jugs are made of may place on the bullets?

That's a good question, and one that I get asked a lot.

The answer is "No", I do not think it makes enough difference to matter.

And, as I compare my penetration results to those done by the true experts like DocGKR, I find that I get about the same results as he does, confirming that it doesn't make much difference.

If I ever get different results than he does, I will re-check my test, as I will suspect that there is something wrong. ;)