View Full Version : 380 carry ammo... Critical Defense vs Golden Saber vs Barnes
Hey Doc, or anyone that's tested this, what is currently the best carry round for a 380? I have had a huge influx of officers purchase the Keltec/Ruger/Taurus BUGs lately and I even picked up a Sig P238 as a fun gun. I agree with the sticky article above and would prefer my guys pack j frames instead, and some do, but for those that are packing the 380s what currently is the best round? From my limited research it would appear the Hornady Critical Defense and the Remington Golden Saber rounds have the biggest following. I found a company that was loading some with a Barnes bullet too but now can't find it.
winchester ranger
How did you come to that decision?
Probably FMJ to ensure adequate penetration; when most of the .380 JHP's expand correctly, penetration is insufficient.
How did you come to that decision?
I carry the winchester ranger in my 45 +P and the 380 and 45 are the 5th generation of the Talon .It does not penetration as well as FMJ but when it does get in to the target it does expand well and causes a nasty wound I just wish they made the 380 in +P that would get it deeper into the target I like it over all the other JHP in 380
I'd take Doc's advice. If you must use a JHP though, keep in mind that direct blowback pistols in .380 have a partitioned feed ramp. Meaning, there is a seam between the feed ramp on the frame, and the feed ramp portion of the barrel. Wide mouthed JHP with a prominent outter edge can catch on this partition and give you feeding problems. In my Sig P232 I found that Ranger Talons and Gold Dots would catch on this partition. The slide had enough return force to push the cartridge into the chamber, but if I were to limp wrist and/or the return force was not as strong it would have problems. The Remington 102gr Gold Saber has a more rounded nose and feeds like a round nosed FMJ in my P232. The bullet is also long enough that it is seated deeply in the casing providing a stronger crimping to reduce the chance of setbacks.
Shawn Dodson
03-19-11, 10:15
From my limited research it would appear the Hornady Critical Defense and the Remington Golden Saber rounds have the biggest following.
Hornady Critical Defense is inadequate for LE use. See - "A Word of Caution about Hornady’s Critical Defense Handgun Ammunition" at
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/main.htm
Many speculate that the heavier weight of 102gr Remington Golden Saber, in relation to 90gr JHPs, allows it to penetrate deeper after expansion. It does not.
Given how the penetration performance of Barnes solid copper bullets defy conventional wisdom for light-weight HP bullets, I'm curious how CorBon 80gr solid copper DPX performs?
is there a favorable opinion on 95gr Gold Dots?
Cagemonkey
03-19-11, 11:04
Probably FMJ to ensure adequate penetration; when most of the .380 JHP's expand correctly, penetration is insufficient.
Would a soft point projectile be a good alternative? Does any one make a soft point loading for the .380? If someone made a good .380 loading, would the .380 become a viable caliber for a conceal carry or backup gun?
I'd take Doc's advice. If you must use a JHP though, keep in mind that direct blowback pistols in .380 have a partitioned feed ramp. Meaning, there is a seam between the feed ramp on the frame, and the feed ramp portion of the barrel. Wide mouthed JHP with a prominent outter edge can catch on this partition and give you feeding problems. In my Sig P232 I found that Ranger Talons and Gold Dots would catch on this partition. The slide had enough return force to push the cartridge into the chamber, but if I were to limp wrist and/or the return force was not as strong it would have problems. The Remington 102gr Gold Saber has a more rounded nose and feeds like a round nosed FMJ in my P232. The bullet is also long enough that it is seated deeply in the casing providing a stronger crimping to reduce the chance of setbacks.
I shoot the rangers from a P230 and never had a issue with feeding .It is discouraging to here That the p238 Is having feeding problems with HP ,i thought about picking one up that is a sweet Looking 380 is the trigger better than the P230 and P232 series ??
Probably FMJ to ensure adequate penetration; when most of the .380 JHP's expand correctly, penetration is insufficient.
Would a +p 380 JHP be better In penetration Doc?? and thank you for all the great Knowledge You share on Ammo !!
Beat Trash
03-19-11, 12:12
With out trying to sound like a smart ass, they do make a 380 round that gives adequate penetration and expansion.
It's called a 9mm...
You can only affect the laws of physics so much with bullet design. When limited to a weight range and muzzle velocity range of the bullet, only so much can be done.
If you are going to carry a 380, I feel you need to understand it's limitations and plan your tactics accordingly.
As a close range backup gun, I could see it being an effective option if one is limited to the size of the smaller guns.
As a primary cary gun, we're all grown adults, so carry what you will.
For me, my carry gun limit minimum is a 3" 9mm or a J-frame. 38spc.
With out sounding like a smart ass, they do make a 380 round that gives adequate penetration and expansion.
It's called a 9mm...
You can only affect the laws of physics so much with bullet design. When limited to a weight range and muzzle velocity range of the bullet, only so much can be done.
If you are going to carry a 380, I feel you need to understand it's limitations and plan your tactics accordingly.
As a close range backup gun, I could see it being an effective option if one is limited to the size of the smaller guns.
As a primary cary gun, we're all grown adults, so carry what you will.
For me, my carry gun limit minimum is a 3" 9mm or a J-frame. 38spc.
I agree with That!! and It does not come across as a Smart ass
My Main Carry is a HK 45 compact ,but I let the Wife Carry My 380 just looking for the best Round ,I want her to upgrade But the recoil Of a 380 for her Is good .I want to get her a 9mm
I shoot the rangers from a P230 and never had a issue with feeding .It is discouraging to here That the p238 Is having feeding problems with HP ,i thought about picking one up that is a sweet Looking 380 is the trigger better than the P230 and P232 series ??
I don't have much experience with the P238. It's basically just a mini 1911, so single action with a manual safety. The only Sigs I care for now days are older guns(1980s-2000) which I like to pick up at gun shows. The P238 doesn't have a very good track history.
I agree the P230 i have is from 95 sort of scared of the Newer Sigs because all the Negative Talk On the board .Sig use to be all i carried .Now i moved up to HK
Probably FMJ to ensure adequate penetration; when most of the .380 JHP's expand correctly, penetration is insufficient.
I'm with doc on this one. In .380 and other sub calibers, you're fighting for every inch of penetration just to get to the minimum depth required to hit vital tissue structures to do enough damage to be effective. In this case, an FMJ round (perhaps a flat nose FMJ?) is the only way to go.
Bruce in WV
03-19-11, 17:43
This Buffalo Bore load looks promising. Some of the best attributes of all the options in a 380 +P flat nose hard cast bullet. Unpleasant to shoot, but aren't they all in the tiny 380s?
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127
This Buffalo Bore load looks promising. Some of the best attributes of all the options in a 380 +P flat nose hard cast bullet. Unpleasant to shoot, but aren't they all in the tiny 380s?
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127
In a Ruger LCP, yeah it isn't that comfortable to shoot. In a Sig P230/P232 felt recoil is much less than a 9mm. The pistol weight, and grip size make a difference in absorbing felt recoil.
I agree with Beat Trash in that you should just make the 9mm work. However, in some carry positions such as ankle carry, 9mm guns are usually too heavy with the beefier slide and ammo mass to be comfortable while running around.
Hornady Critical Defense is inadequate for LE use. See - "A Word of Caution about Hornady’s Critical Defense Handgun Ammunition" at
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/main.htm
Many speculate that the heavier weight of 102gr Remington Golden Saber, in relation to 90gr JHPs, allows it to penetrate deeper after expansion. It does not.
Given how the penetration performance of Barnes solid copper bullets defy conventional wisdom for light-weight HP bullets, I'm curious how CorBon 80gr solid copper DPX performs?
Thanks for the info.
I agree with all the posts about carrying a larger csliber and what not but a 380 is better then no gun at all and I want to make sure my officers have the best ammo.
This Buffalo Bore load looks promising. Some of the best attributes of all the options in a 380 +P flat nose hard cast bullet. Unpleasant to shoot, but aren't they all in the tiny 380s?
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127
Hadn't seen those before either. They sure would solve the penetration issue and they make a good case for the flat nose doing more damage then the round FMJ nose. I just wonder how the pistols, esp the Keltecs, would handle the +p. The standard load is listed as being 175 fps slower so I wonder if that may be a good choice as well.
While the BB ammo is good stuff, you need to be aware that it is significantly hotter than standard. This can cause reliability issues in the short term, and durability issues in the long term.
I know a guy who shoots it from his LCP, but he went to a heavier Wolff recoil spring and spent the money to test 200 rounds of the BB stuff.
While none of the available .380 JHPs will pass the FBI testing, through heavy clothing the Hornady XTP/Critical Defense and the Gold Dot come the closest as they expand fairly well while still getting into the 11" range of penetration.
The FMJFP that Winchester now sells as standard for their .380 ball load seems like it might be a good idea for folks wanting to go the ball ammo route.
Testing that I have seen of the Golden Saber and DPX rounds indicate the same low penetration as other .380 JHP loads such as the Silvertip; about 8", give or take.
While I think the information in the article that Shawn Dodson posted is good gouge, I wouldn't worry about it too much when considering the .380
Why? Because even with ball ammo penetration from the .380 sucks through barriers.
Seriously, the only thing good about a .380 is that it ain't a .25 or .32, I consider all of these pocket guns a close range BUG/hide-out gun that will likely only work with a magazine capacity NSR to the bad guy's K5 zone or face.
I shoot the rangers from a P230 and never had a issue with feeding .It is discouraging to here That the p238 Is having feeding problems with HP ,i thought about picking one up that is a sweet Looking 380 is the trigger better than the P230 and P232 series ??
I think he was talking about his P232 having feeding problems, not a P238...
I have a P238 that I carry as a BUG, and I have shot Federal Hydra shock, Speer Gold Dot, Hornaday Critical Defense, and Remington Golden Sabre jacketed hollow points through my P238 and have never once had any sort of malfunction or failure to feed etc. Personally, I love my P238 and I love how it shoots. I know there have been some people who say the P238 has issues, but personally I have put close to 1,000 rounds through mine now, with many different types of ammunition, and I've never had a single issue.
As for the best defense rounds to carry in a .380, I think carrying FMJ rounds is probably the best idea for maximum penetration. Personally, my first 3 rounds are Hornady Critical Defense, and the last 4 rounds in the mag are FMJ rounds. This gives me the expansion of the JHPs with the increased penetration of the FMJ if needed.
When all is said and done, a .380 round just isn't the most effective self defense round. I carry .40 every day as my primary gun, and I only carry a .380 as a back up.
Given how the penetration performance of Barnes solid copper bullets defy conventional wisdom for light-weight HP bullets, I'm curious how CorBon 80gr solid copper DPX performs?
I thought that, too and bugged Doc about it a few months ago. He said they are trying to test it in the near future.
Would a +p 380 JHP be better In penetration Doc?? and thank you for all the great Knowledge You share on Ammo !!
Doc told me to be careful with those, because it is possible to push the bullet too fast so it expands too much and too quickly, and actually penetrates less in the process.
Does anyone have any data on the Winchester PDX1 .380 JHP? Seems to open WAY up, even through cloth and bone on some youtube vids I have seen. While only getting between 8"-10" of penetration, it is opening up consistently in the .60's and above. Not too shabby for a backup, hotter than hell outside, and/or deep cover .380.
That is what I have in my LCP-its crazy accurate and easy to shoot and I have run a bunch of it without any stoppages or malfs.
Anyone looked into this round yet?
-Drew
Does anyone have any data on the Winchester PDX1 .380 JHP? Seems to open WAY up, even through cloth and bone on some youtube vids I have seen. While only getting between 8"-10" of penetration, it is opening up consistently in the .60's and above. Not too shabby for a backup, hotter than hell outside, and/or deep cover .380.
That is what I have in my LCP-its crazy accurate and easy to shoot and I have run a bunch of it without any stoppages or malfs.
Anyone looked into this round yet?
-Drew
As said before, in the .380, you do NOT want an expanding round. It will not penetrate nearly enough to reach vital tissue structures.
While the BB ammo is good stuff, you need to be aware that it is significantly hotter than standard. This can cause reliability issues in the short term, and durability issues in the long term.
I know a guy who shoots it from his LCP, but he went to a heavier Wolff recoil spring and spent the money to test 200 rounds of the BB stuff.
While none of the available .380 JHPs will pass the FBI testing, through heavy clothing the Hornady XTP/Critical Defense and the Gold Dot come the closest as they expand fairly well while still getting into the 11" range of penetration.
The FMJFP that Winchester now sells as standard for their .380 ball load seems like it might be a good idea for folks wanting to go the ball ammo route.
Testing that I have seen of the Golden Saber and DPX rounds indicate the same low penetration as other .380 JHP loads such as the Silvertip; about 8", give or take.
While I think the information in the article that Shawn Dodson posted is good gouge, I wouldn't worry about it too much when considering the .380
Why? Because even with ball ammo penetration from the .380 sucks through barriers.
Seriously, the only thing good about a .380 is that it ain't a .25 or .32, I consider all of these pocket guns a close range BUG/hide-out gun that will likely only work with a magazine capacity NSR to the bad guy's K5 zone or face.
Thanks. I just read the thread on LF too. I think I will get some of the standard load BB ammo to try out instead of the +p.
Glock17JHP
03-22-11, 13:31
Hornady 90 grain XTP was the only 'marginal' .380 ACP load I tested, but I wouldn't recommend the caliber at all for self-defense. If you need that small of a pistol, get a Glock 26 in 9mm.
Check out golden loki.com. He did some gel test a while back. Also try BrassFetcher.com
ElyasWolff
03-23-11, 00:15
The FMJFP that Winchester now sells as standard for their .380 ball load seems like it might be a good idea for folks wanting to go the ball ammo route..
That is what I was thinking would be good for my Dad's LCP.
Does Doc have any specific FMJ loads he likes?
Ones that are reliable and accurate in YOUR pistol...
I was watching several vids on YouTube tonight and saw an interesting one. Dude was testing some 380 hollowpoint rounds and when shot through four layers of denim the plugged and basically acted like fmj but when he only used two layers of denim they expanded. I couldnt believe two layers of denim would make such a difference.
Ones that are reliable and accurate in YOUR pistol...
The most basic fundamental truth of all ammunition.
VelveteenMole
03-25-11, 02:20
Based on Brassfetcher's and someone else's (don't recall) calibrated gel tests (including light cloth), the HydraShoks actually seem to reach 12" consistently with decent expansion. I wonder if the post weakens the tissue ahead of the mushroom giving less tear resistance.
I know HydraShoks are old hat and questionable as far as heavy cloth goes, but many other bullets in .380 seem to fail to expand reliably even in bare gel due to low velocities from 2.75" guns. Since the HydraShoks at least seem to touch the goal-line under ideal conditions, I figure I have nothing to lose since a failure to expand will only penetrate deeper and at least have a sharp meplat. I therefore carry HydraShoks alternating with Aguila 90gr JHPs which never expand and feel and shoot indistinguishably from the HydraShoks. The Aguilas have been reliable for 150 rounds and seem to have a good rep for consistent manufacture at a good price.
If I couldn't get HydraShoks, I'd mix the Aguilas with Gold Dots without a doubt as they are good and reliable expanders yet still reach toward 11" in the same tests.
Based on Brassfetcher's and someone else's (don't recall) calibrated gel tests (including light cloth), the HydraShoks actually seem to reach 12" consistently with decent expansion. I wonder if the post weakens the tissue ahead of the mushroom giving less tear resistance.
I know HydraShoks are old hat and questionable as far as heavy cloth goes, but many other bullets in .380 seem to fail to expand reliably even in bare gel due to low velocities from 2.75" guns. Since the HydraShoks at least seem to touch the goal-line under ideal conditions, I figure I have nothing to lose since a failure to expand will only penetrate deeper and at least have a sharp meplat. I therefore carry HydraShoks alternating with Aguila 90gr JHPs which never expand and feel and shoot indistinguishably from the HydraShoks. The Aguilas have been reliable for 150 rounds and seem to have a good rep for consistent manufacture at a good price.
If I couldn't get HydraShoks, I'd mix the Aguilas with Gold Dots without a doubt as they are good and reliable expanders yet still reach toward 11" in the same tests.
Well, remember, 12" is the minimum, not the ideal.
VelveteenMole
04-22-11, 03:19
Well, remember, 12" is the minimum, not the ideal.
Right, but it's 12" not 13", presumably because it represents typical angles and physiology. We're acknowledging .380 as a realm of trade-offs among FBI standards, so I'm happy to get 12" with full expansion. Notice I said I mix them with Aguila, which functions like a sharp shouldered FPFMJ and handily shoots the same, so clearly I remember 12" is not ideal or I'd load all HS.
BuckskinJoe
04-22-11, 19:32
I'm confused and don't understand all the infatuation with the underperforming .380 when there are many good choices in small 9mm or .38 special guns.
Sure, a .380 beats spit wads, a pea shooter, or "Please don't hurt me!," but, given the choice, why choose it?
All the hand wringing over .380 ammunition vanishes by simply going with a 9mm or .38 special.
Is it just me? :confused:
I'm confused and don't understand all the infatuation with the underperforming .380 when there are many good choices in small 9mm or .38 special guns.
Sure, a .380 beats spit wads, a pea shooter, or "Please don't hurt me!," but, given the choice, why choose it?
All the hand wringing over .380 ammunition vanishes by simply going with a 9mm or .38 special.
Is it just me? :confused:
Not at all. Until pretty recently, there weren't a lot of small pocket guns in 9m, and in some cases, revolvers were still a bit bulky compared to the .380.
Now there are far more choices in 9mm for small pocket guns, making the choice much easier.
I am an LCP owner so take this for what its worth, but the size issue is still there, atleast for me. I have not seen a 9mm that can match the compact-ness of the micro .380s. For me, I carry in a Talon Training Group wallet holster. The whole package is smaller and thinner than the wallet I carry. No 9mm that I have seen can do that. For alot of people it is a convienience thing. I mean, with a J-frame or a small single stack 9mm, I would still have to be concious of printing somewhat. My LCP drops in my back right pants pocket and I know for sure it is 100% hidden. The 9mm options seem like they would be a bit bulky to shove in a pocket. Keep in mind that it is my back up gun and I appendix carry a service-sized 9mm, so I don't advocate .380 as a primary, but for a back-up role it is perfect for me.
Given how the penetration performance of Barnes solid copper bullets defy conventional wisdom for light-weight HP bullets, I'm curious how CorBon 80gr solid copper DPX performs?
Just got the data from Barnes, and it's not good:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_.380ACP_80gr_TAC-XP.pdf
I am an LCP owner so take this for what its worth, but the size issue is still there, atleast for me. I have not seen a 9mm that can match the compact-ness of the micro .380s. For me, I carry in a Talon Training Group wallet holster. The whole package is smaller and thinner than the wallet I carry. No 9mm that I have seen can do that. For alot of people it is a convienience thing. I mean, with a J-frame or a small single stack 9mm, I would still have to be concious of printing somewhat. My LCP drops in my back right pants pocket and I know for sure it is 100% hidden.
Size matters a lot, but weight matters even more. Searching for the ultimate pocket pistol round is somewhat futile, as none of them will work against meth unless the CNS is impacted sufficiently. Shock seldom works well on meth and bleeding takes too long. The smallest, lightest, most ergonomic, and most convenient weapon with adequate penetration is always best for constant concealed carry. If you don't have it you can't use it!
Glock17JHP
04-25-11, 13:12
I'm confused and don't understand all the infatuation with the underperforming .380 when there are many good choices in small 9mm or .38 special guns.
Sure, a .380 beats spit wads, a pea shooter, or "Please don't hurt me!," but, given the choice, why choose it?
All the hand wringing over .380 ammunition vanishes by simply going with a 9mm or .38 special.
Is it just me? :confused:
No, it's not just you... you are thinking very clearly, and I happen to agree 110% with you on this!!!
I'm confused and don't understand all the infatuation with the underperforming .380 when there are many good choices in small 9mm or .38 special guns.
Sure, a .380 beats spit wads, a pea shooter, or "Please don't hurt me!," but, given the choice, why choose it?
All the hand wringing over .380 ammunition vanishes by simply going with a 9mm or .38 special.
Is it just me? :confused:
If you have the liberty to carry what you want, I absolutely agree with you. If you are restricted to assinine and outdated backup carry policies and are forced to use .380acp.......then it's important to keep up with the hand wringing.
Doc's advice on FMJ for mouse guns is exactly the same as every IWBA guy I've known. At least with adequate penetration, there's a chance it's going to work.
Some of us that worked back in the 70's and 80's, when .25's, .32's, and .380's were very popular with crooks, remember some pretty spectacular "one shot stops" with tiny FMJ's, along with the guys that showed little distress when we arrived, despite having been shot center mass with one.
When I worked a particularly tough beat back in the day, I frequently carried a tiny gun as a third, to backup my duty gun and J frame on my ankle. One local cop had used a tiny hideout gun very effectively, when he was taken hostage by two guys who were going to kill him. I definitely subscribe to the "any gun is better than no gun theory".
Cagemonkey
01-24-14, 21:34
This Buffalo Bore load looks promising. Some of the best attributes of all the options in a 380 +P flat nose hard cast bullet. Unpleasant to shoot, but aren't they all in the tiny 380s?
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127RESURRECTING an old thread due to the influence of the new Glock 42. Looks to be a potentially promising load. I think the debate will continue.
I'm a big fan of the BB .380+P cast round and have fired 200 rounds through my two LCPs. First, I installed Wolf 13 lb recoil springs, which tamed the recoil. In my guns this round has been trouble free and very accurate. Another good ball round is the S&B .380.
I have no illusions about .380 power. For me its something I'd use to get an attacker off of me or to press against an attacker's head or solar plexus and then empty the pistol. I'm now in the disabled category. I'll retreat, walk away, and do what necessary to avoid using deadly force, but I'm not willing to die to avoid such a confrontation. For me the LCP .380 fills a niche.
Cagemonkey
01-25-14, 19:08
I'm a big fan of the BB .380+P cast round and have fired 200 rounds through my two LCPs. First, I installed Wolf 13 lb recoil springs, which tamed the recoil. In my guns this round has been trouble free and very accurate. Another good ball round is the S&B .380.
I have no illusions about .380 power. For me its something I'd use to get an attacker off of me or to press against an attacker's head or solar plexus and then empty the pistol. I'm now in the disabled category. I'll retreat, walk away, and do what necessary to avoid using deadly force, but I'm not willing to die to avoid such a confrontation. For me the LCP .380 fills a niche.Makes sense. .380/9mm Kurtz and 9mm Makarov have killed many in Europe. They may not be ideal, but are better than nothing. Many used to say the same about 9mm Luger/Parabellum. Imho, what Glock should have done was work with a respectable ammunition company to develop an effective .380 load for their new G42 that was going to be bought to market.
There are reports of premature slide lock when high pressure loads are used in the Glock 42.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/glock-g42-380acp-pocket-pistol
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/hickock45-glock-42-meh/
From the revised instruction manual for the Ruger LCP:
The RUGER® LCP® pistols are compatible with standard factory ammunition
loaded to U.S. Industry Standards, including hollow-point loads loaded in brass
or aluminum cases. No 380 Auto ammunition manufactured in accordance with
NATO, U.S., SAAMI, or CIP standards is known to be beyond the design limits or
known not to function in these pistols. Do not use “+P” ammunition.
https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/lcp.pdf
There are reports of premature slide lock when high pressure loads are used in the Glock 42.
I experienced this with Underwood’s +P Gold Dot load. Two out of five locked the slide open.
I would suspect the extra recoil generated by these hotter loads is effecting the slide lock & overcoming the resting tension of the slide lock spring. I would guess this is an easy fix by Glock. I had a Interarms PPK that did this--Smith & Walther tried to fix it, then--unrelated--the sear started misbehaving. Smith told me the gun was unsafe & refunded my money & destroyed it.
Gel tests I've seen re: 380 ACP pocket pistols ( ie, barrel under 3") show HPs rarely expand & penetration depth is under 12". So FMJ is likely the best bet. With a Kahr PM9 being able to fit in a pocket--I think I'd look real hard at a 9mm.
I used to delude myself carrying a .32 & .380-- then I thought--if I really needed a handgun--wouldn't I want something that can be shot accurately & with a stronger round? That being said--when I was almost mugged, the mere presentation of my Seecamp made the rascals scurry off.
Just my experience & thinking.
Friends don't let friends CCW .380. Unless something has recently changed, and .380 ammo from X manufacturer is now testing well in established standardized testing protocols, it's a no go for CCW/SD.
Glock 42 G42 ammo test: Precision One .380 ACP review in ClearBallistics gelatin
ShootingTheBull410 >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WMMr5ANHlw
Cagemonkey
02-12-14, 20:46
Glock 42 G42 ammo test: Precision One .380 ACP review in ClearBallistics gelatin
ShootingTheBull410 >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WMMr5ANHlwInteresting. Don't know much about the credentials of the tester. Interested in hearing what some of our forum experts have to say.
vicious_cb
02-12-14, 22:59
His testing, procedure, materials and measurements all good. Looking at his other videos he is using 10% ordinance gel properly calibrated with 4 layer denim to test his loads. I believe his conclusions to be reliable and if I were to choose to carry a .380 pocket pistol I would change over to the precision xtp load.
The .380 Auto Hornady 90 grain XTP jacketed hollow point works fairly consistently regardless of the actual loading.
In most pistols, Hornady Custom, Fiocchi Extrema, HPR HyperClean, and Precision One all penetrate roughly 11-14 inches in bare or denim covered 10% gel; expanding to .40-.45 caliber.
.380 XTPs tend to yaw early if they fail to expand; penetrating at least 12 inches into ordnance gelatin.
However, Hornady has temporarily suspended their Custom line XTP offering to increase Critical Defense production.
The .380 Auto Hornady 90 grain XTP jacketed hollow point works fairly consistently regardless of the actual loading.
In most pistols, Hornady Custom, Fiocchi Extrema, HPR HyperClean, and Precision One all penetrate roughly 11-14 inches in bare or denim covered 10% gel; expanding to .40-.45 caliber.
.380 XTPs tend to yaw early if they fail to expand; penetrating at least 12 inches into ordnance gelatin.
However, Hornady has temporarily suspended their Custom line XTP offering to increase Critical Defense production.
The 90gr XTP is also loaded by BHA in .380. Advertised velocity is 1000fps.
http://www.black-hills.com/handgun_calibers.php
M4C always has the right info at the right time for me. LGS had a big sale where I picked up a S&W Bodyguard .380 for when I can't carry my M&P9C. Glad to know there are some JHPs that do penetrate adequately and consistently...
It's too bad to read the G42 is a little ammo fickle but not too much a surprise since all pocket guns are fickle.
IMO the best small/pocket weapons are still revolvers and knives and even those aren't preferred. (Best to step up to a compact auto ex. Glock 19, etc)
FloridaWoodsman
02-20-14, 08:48
The 90gr XTP is also loaded by BHA in .380. Advertised velocity is 1000fps.
http://www.black-hills.com/handgun_calibers.php
Out of what length barrel?
The XTP has always performed at that level in bare gel. The old IWBA testing from the late 1990s showed almost the exact same results. When it came to the rest of the FBI protocol tests though......it did poorly, just like all .380 loads. Usually the best penetration in gel after first passing through laminated glass is less than 4". It is very doubtful that the .380 will ever be able to pass the FBI tests.......it is not capable of being loaded with anything other than low sectional density bullets at low velocities.
vicious_cb
02-20-14, 13:15
The XTP has always performed at that level in bare gel. The old IWBA testing from the late 1990s showed almost the exact same results. When it came to the rest of the FBI protocol tests though......it did poorly, just like all .380 loads. Usually the best penetration in gel after first passing through laminated glass is less than 4". It is very doubtful that the .380 will ever be able to pass the FBI tests.......it is not capable of being loaded with anything other than low sectional density bullets at low velocities.
Are you really expecting a pocket pistol caliber to pass the auto glass test that a lot of 9mm and .40 cal JHPs cant even pass out of full size guns? Even a lot of .223 loads wont pass the test. I think you expect too much out of a BUG/pocket pistol.
Are you really expecting a pocket pistol caliber to pass the auto glass test that a lot of 9mm and .40 cal JHPs cant even pass out of full size guns? Even a lot of .223 loads wont pass the test. I think you expect too much out of a BUG/pocket pistol.
Actually, a lot of modern bullet designs in the standard service calibers DO pass the windshield test quite easily as demonstrated numerous times by Dr. Roberts. Particularly, in the often bashed 9mm.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1624-New-9-mm-ammo-testing
The .40S&W does even better. .223 Remington?......again, when modern barrier blind ammo is used windshields aren't much of a obstacle:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4344-5-56-mm-Duty-Loads
Personally, I prefer to do what I can to meet a defensive standard. If it means that I have to dress to carry a slightly larger/heavier single stack 9mm versus a .380acp, I will do so. A slightly reduction in carry comfort is worth the performance improvement......pretty much three times the barrier penetration ability.
vicious_cb
02-20-14, 14:21
Actually, a lot of modern bullet designs in the standard service calibers DO pass the windshield test quite easily as demonstrated numerous times by Dr. Roberts. Particularly, in the often bashed 9mm.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1624-New-9-mm-ammo-testing
The .40S&W does even better. .223 Remington?......again, when modern barrier blind ammo is used windshields aren't much of a obstacle:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4344-5-56-mm-Duty-Loads
Personally, I prefer to do what I can to meet a defensive standard. If it means that I have to dress to carry a slightly larger/heavier single stack 9mm versus a .380acp, I will do so. A slightly reduction in carry comfort is worth the performance improvement......pretty much three times the barrier penetration ability.
Ive very aware of Doc's list. If you compare it to the total amount of the JHPs on the market only a small % pass the auto glass test. I dont call the dozen or so loads that pass Doc's test a lot.
Ive very aware of Doc's list. If you compare it to the total amount of the JHPs on the market only a small % pass the auto glass test. I dont call the dozen or so loads that pass Doc's test a lot.
Okay so we have a dozen or so bullet designs for each service caliber that DO pass these tests...........but not a single one in .380acp that can pass.......okay :rolleyes:
Actually, a lot of modern bullet designs in the standard service calibers DO pass the windshield test quite easily as demonstrated numerous times by Dr. Roberts. Particularly, in the often bashed 9mm.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1624-New-9-mm-ammo-testing
The .40S&W does even better. .223 Remington?......again, when modern barrier blind ammo is used windshields aren't much of a obstacle:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4344-5-56-mm-Duty-Loads
Personally, I prefer to do what I can to meet a defensive standard. If it means that I have to dress to carry a slightly larger/heavier single stack 9mm versus a .380acp, I will do so. A slightly reduction in carry comfort is worth the performance improvement......pretty much three times the barrier penetration ability.
OK, I can understand why given barrier penetration requirements, .380 is deemed inadequate. It's fairly obvious that it fails that requirement.
My only question is, why levy barrier penetration as a requirement for a LEO BUG much less a civilian CCW? Maybe my line of thinking is faulty, but either as LEO down to a BUG or as a civilian in a bad situation, if the bad guy takes some sort of cover, the best course of action is probably retreat. I can't speak for the LEO situation, but I just have this idea that if I shoot someone through a barrier as a civilian, I stand a higher probability of going to jail...
OK, I can understand why given barrier penetration requirements, .380 is deemed inadequate. It's fairly obvious that it fails that requirement.
My only question is, why levy barrier penetration as a requirement for a LEO BUG much less a civilian CCW? Maybe my line of thinking is faulty, but either as LEO down to a BUG or as a civilian in a bad situation, if the bad guy takes some sort of cover, the best course of action is probably retreat. I can't speak for the LEO situation, but I just have this idea that if I shoot someone through a barrier as a civilian, I stand a higher probability of going to jail...
"What's good for law enforcement, is also good for the American people." -Massad Ayoob
In most states, use of force does not include a duty to retreat. Not sure if you have seen many robbery surveillance videos, but a bad guy rarely retreats if they are arm without firing off some rounds first. Usually they dive behind cover/concealment while sticking their firearm over/around the cover and popping rounds at you. The ability to breech their cover to end the deadly threat is indeed "reasonable". The FBI barrier tests not only test the actual substance to be shot through, but it tests the ability of a bullet to penetrate diverse materials. A rounded cranium for example is a tough nut to crack with low velocity handguns. The internal ribcage is also a tough barrier with low velocity projectiles, particularly one that has already expanded thus losing its nose ogive. Dr. Vincent DiMaio documented many shootings in his 40 years as a pathologist. Dr. Fackler?......another 40 years or so.... Throw Ayoob into the mix and you are looking at about 120 years of field experience with homicide investigations. Two have been retired for less than ten years, and Ayoob is still in action. All three have passionately discouraged the use of the .380acp for law enforcement and civilian use based on their own independent experiences. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed for find any experienced industry professional who would recommend using .380 versus taking the extra effort to carry a micro 9mm or .38spl.
"What's good for law enforcement, is also good for the American people." -Massad Ayoob
In most states, use of force does not include a duty to retreat. Not sure if you have seen many robbery surveillance videos, but a bad guy rarely retreats if they are arm without firing off some rounds first. Usually they dive behind cover/concealment while sticking their firearm over/around the cover and popping rounds at you. The ability to breech their cover to end the deadly threat is indeed "reasonable".
I'm not really concerned with the legal duty to retreat, I'm concerned with what makes the most sense. Quite simply, I don't get paid to stand my ground and shoot it out with bad guys so I'm not going to unless I have to. Ultimately my goal in CCW is to survive the encounter and "run the F&^^ away" is a perfectly legit way to survive. Personally the only way I'm not leaving ASAP is if I'm preventing the assailant from reaching my family.
The FBI barrier tests not only test the actual substance to be shot through, but it tests the ability of a bullet to penetrate diverse materials. A rounded cranium for example is a tough nut to crack with low velocity handguns. The internal ribcage is also a tough barrier with low velocity projectiles, particularly one that has already expanded thus losing its nose ogive. Dr. Vincent DiMaio documented many shootings in his 40 years as a pathologist. Dr. Fackler?......another 40 years or so.... Throw Ayoob into the mix and you are looking at about 120 years of field experience with homicide investigations. Two have been retired for less than ten years, and Ayoob is still in action. All three have passionately discouraged the use of the .380acp for law enforcement and civilian use based on their own independent experiences. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed for find any experienced industry professional who would recommend using .380 versus taking the extra effort to carry a micro 9mm or .38spl.
No disputing that 9mm and .38 are the more capable rounds, least not from me. My understanding has always been that the 12" minimum penetration spec in ballistic gel was meant entirely to account for things like sub-optimal off axis shots and the possibility of encountering bone, denser tissue, etc, etc. and the barrier penetration was meant for commonly encountered law enforcement situations. It just seems excessive to require 12" of penetration AFTER an intermediate barrier for a weapon that's not intended to be used as a primary duty weapon. If if consistently meets exceeds the 12" minimum in bare gel and gel with denim then to me it should be adequate in a BUG or CCW role.
And I say that as a guy who's primary CCW is an M&P9C with gold dots. The only reason I picked up the Bodyguard 380 is for those times when the M&P9C is just too bulky for weather appropriate clothing...
vicious_cb
02-20-14, 19:08
I'm not really concerned with the legal duty to retreat, I'm concerned with what makes the most sense. Quite simply, I don't get paid to stand my ground and shoot it out with bad guys so I'm not going to unless I have to. Ultimately my goal in CCW is to survive the encounter and "run the F&^^ away" is a perfectly legit way to survive. Personally the only way I'm not leaving ASAP is if I'm preventing the assailant from reaching my family.
No disputing that 9mm and .38 are the more capable rounds, least not from me. My understanding has always been that the 12" minimum penetration spec in ballistic gel was meant entirely to account for things like sub-optimal off axis shots and the possibility of encountering bone, denser tissue, etc, etc. and the barrier penetration was meant for commonly encountered law enforcement situations. It just seems excessive to require 12" of penetration AFTER an intermediate barrier for a weapon that's not intended to be used as a primary duty weapon. If if consistently meets exceeds the 12" minimum in bare gel and gel with denim then to me it should be adequate in a BUG or CCW role.
And I say that as a guy who's primary CCW is an M&P9C with gold dots. The only reason I picked up the Bodyguard 380 is for those times when the M&P9C is just too bulky for weather appropriate clothing...
Exactly. When you are choosing the .380 BUG/pocket pistol you are already making the conscious decision to compromise between power and concealablity. Expecting your BUG/pocket pistol to perform the same in every aspect as a full size service pistol caliber is an unreasonable demand. If I were to choose a load for a .380 BUG/pocket pistol, all I would care about is whether is meets the 12" requirement in bare gel and heavy denim and does not over penetrate. If I were in a position where there was a high chance of encountering bad guys behind auto glass I would obviously take the full size service pistol every time.
Just got the data from Barnes, and it's not good:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_.380ACP_80gr_TAC-XP.pdf
Just a note for comparison. The velocity of the Barnes 80gr TAC-XP listed in the bare-gel testing was 931 fps. The listed velocity of the Buffalo Bore 80 gr Barnes is 1136 fps out of a 2.75" P380 barrel.
FloridaWoodsman
04-08-14, 22:21
Just a note for comparison. The velocity of the Barnes 80gr TAC-XP listed in the bare-gel testing was 931 fps. The listed velocity of the Buffalo Bore 80 gr Barnes is 1136 fps out of a 2.75" P380 barrel.
I suspect a lot of practice with that Buffalo Bore is going to prematurely wear out a lot of the small pocket pistols.
I agree. I shoot enough to confirm reliability and to know how it handles. It's also expensive to shoot a lot of. I practice with less expensive stuff and use the BB just a little. Oh, my regular carry is a .45 andf the P380 is a backup.
Higher velocity cannot make up for the low sectional density of the 80 grain Barnes bullet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2hNYEUbRjw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2EywZbYpshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP-_GrG9jNc&index=4&list=PLR1aaUn5HrAcSCyh8sjzJlxKpDgvhmYSJ
Thanks to PocketGunsandGear for uploading these videos.
Auto-X Fil
11-01-15, 17:11
Bringing this back up. Two reviews (in clear gel, but through denim) show really promising results (reliable expansion, 13" penetration) from the Hornady FTX.
http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2013/08/hornady-critical-defense-380-auto-90.html?m=1
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
EDIT: Hmm, Hornady's data in what I assume is FBI-spec gel is only 11". More in line with the standard .380 tradeoffs, but still probably one of the better (more consistent) HP 380 loads.
http://m.hornady.com/store/380-Auto-90-gr-Critical-Defense/
.380 Auto is VERY inconsistent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-xOpHWKgPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5TJSUADOwA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAyUW7s4EJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wohghDR7v8
After watching all of the shootingthebull videos I carry his winner in my Glock 42 back up. 13+ inches in bare gel, 13+ in denim. All expanded equally. XTP load by Precision One.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.