.380 ACP isn’t so bad after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron3

Even though I've only had a Beretta Cheetah choke about 3 times. Once firing .32 acp and I may have contacted the slide with my thumb. The other 2 times was while firing Underwoods very hot .380 XTP. Failures to feed that may have been related to the hot ammo in the blow-back pistol.

How hot? I'll have to check my notes for the actual numbers but I ran a few across the chrono at about 1150 fps! Recoil from the blow-back, alloy-framed pistol felt like 9mm +p.

---

1150 is way hot. Maybe too hot. Certainly +p territory, and of course .380 doesn’t carry a +p rating. Also, your Cheetah has a very light slide for a blowback gun. As if it were designed for .32 (which Cheetah came first, .32 or .380?). I had my slide dovetailed and Triji HDs installed, and it launched the orange paint or insert ring or whatever in like a case of regular ball ammo. Gone. Knowing that slide velocity is that high, I’d stick to standard pressure ammo and leave the Underwood and such for G42s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

1150 is way hot. Maybe too hot. Certainly +p territory, and of course .380 doesn’t carry a +p rating. Also, your Cheetah has a very light slide for a blowback gun. As if it were designed for .32 (which Cheetah came first, .32 or .380?). I had my slide dovetailed and Triji HDs installed, and it launched the orange paint or insert ring or whatever in like a case of regular ball ammo. Gone. Knowing that slide velocity is that high, I’d stick to standard pressure ammo and leave the Underwood and such for G42s.

---

I think the Cheetah came out in 7.65 mm (.32) and 9mm Corto (.380) at the same time.

They use the same slide, recoil spring, frame, extractor, ejector, etc. Only the mag, barrel, and markings are different, basically. .380 seems to do more pounding and enough can cause trouble with disassembly. Its important to keep fresh springs in a blowback gun especially.

I haven't fired any more of the hot Underwood. In fact I haven't been firing the Cheetahs since I tested and started carrying the HK P30SK. Loaded with Underwood 68gr Ext. Defense it's under 28 oz loaded with 14 rds of it.

The P30SK has apparently dethroned my Cheetahs after about 9 years carrying them.

I'll see what happens when summer really hits, though.

My P30SK needs a rackable rear sight or optic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Agreed, but most don't make an educated decision on .380, and ignore the advice of people who literally do the terminal ballistics testing for major fed orgs, PDs, and advising against .380, the long line of LEOs who see its poor performance in the real world, the various med pros who say same, etc, in favor of bad intel on the topic via some YT vid or bad articles etc. No one disagrees the .380 is better than throwing rocks and using harsh language, but that's about it. Personally, found .380 very snappy to shoot with tiny sub compact pistols, and if pistol large enough to lesson recoil, the size of various quality 9mm pistols that offer minimal/similar recoil.



That's terrible! Unless we have another member with similar experience, you have mentioned that in other threads I recall. Was the caliber identified? It's amazing how there's accounts of various duty loads in 9, .40, and .45, deflecting off human skulls depending on the angle. Obviously you put a .22, even a pellet gun has done it, through someones eye socket, and they're likely done for.

---

The calibre was .380 (hollow point) unsure of brand or other specifics. I'd have to get a copy of the State Police report to give details

Just noticed this thread. The study is based on bad methodology and suspect data. Bad methodology or design leads to an inaccurate and invalid study and conclusion.

The person who wrote it, Gregg Ellifritz is an amazing resource on defensive issues. He is a great teacher with a strong background in Law enforcement and training, and has written some of the best things that I have read on a wide variety of topics. His background, skill, and teaching ability cannot be questioned. I can appreciate the amount of time and effort he put into this. However, in the end I am afraid that I don't agree with his conclusion.

By his own description, the author of the study tried to record every shooting he could find. By definition this includes situations where an armed person shot an unarmed person, or shot someone who was not interested in fighting him in the first place, or not very serious about posing a threat. All of those fall into the heading of "every shooting he could find."

The author of the report "scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot."

This is a huge problem because you often don't get accurate information about the gun or caliber used, number of shots fired or hit, where they hit, circumstances of the shooting, etc. In most cases you don't have accurate information to conclude when the person being shot stops. So you absolutely cannot include these accounts in any statistical study.

Even if the information was accurate, in most cases all you know is how many rounds were fired--not if the person shot was stopped.

Further, even if the data were accurate, the premise of this study is flawed in the way it compares dissimilar shootings.

Shooting someone who isn't a serious attacker, who may not be armed, and is afraid of you isn't the same as shooting an of objective driven violent criminal attacker.

If you look at this author's logic, if two drunks at a bar get into a pushing match and one pulls out a .25 auto and shoots the other once and the man who was shot backs off, it counts as a one shot stop.

But if a police officer draws his 9mm loaded with Federal HST JHPs and as fires multiple quick shots at an attacker in the manner in which he was likely trained--it counts as a one-shot failure, or a situation where multiple shots were required to stop someone.

I submit, would you rather rely on a .25 auto for self defense or the 9mm loaded with Federal HSTs?

I think it is admirable what the person who wrote this study tried to do, but I am afraid the methodology wasn't quite there. I would not try to extrapolate any of his results on what would work for me if confronted by a violent criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed L.

Just noticed this thread. The study is based on bad methodology and suspect data. Bad methodology or design leads to an inaccurate and invalid study and conclusion.

The person who wrote it, Gregg Ellifritz is an amazing resource on defensive issues. He is a great teacher with a strong background in Law enforcement and training, and has written some of the best things that I have read on a wide variety of topics. His background, skill, and teaching ability cannot be questioned. I can appreciate the amount of time and effort he put into this. However, in the end I am afraid that I don't agree with his conclusion.

By his own description, the author of the study tried to record every shooting he could find. By definition this includes situations where an armed person shot an unarmed person, or shot someone who was not interested in fighting him in the first place, or not very serious about posing a threat. All of those fall into the heading of "every shooting he could find."

The author of the report "scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot."

This is a huge problem because you often don't get accurate information about the gun or caliber used, number of shots fired or hit, where they hit, circumstances of the shooting, etc. In most cases you don't have accurate information to conclude when the person being shot stops. So you absolutely cannot include these accounts in any statistical study.

Even if the information was accurate, in most cases all you know is how many rounds were fired--not if the person shot was stopped.

Further, even if the data were accurate, the premise of this study is flawed in the way it compares dissimilar shootings.

Shooting someone who isn't a serious attacker, who may not be armed, and is afraid of you isn't the same as shooting an of objective driven violent criminal attacker.

If you look at this author's logic, if two drunks at a bar get into a pushing match and one pulls out a .25 auto and shoots the other once and the man who was shot backs off, it counts as a one shot stop.

But if a police officer draws his 9mm loaded with Federal HST JHPs and as fires multiple quick shots at an attacker in the manner in which he was likely trained--it counts as a one-shot failure, or a situation where multiple shots were required to stop someone.

I submit, would you rather rely on a .25 auto for self defense or the 9mm loaded with Federal HSTs?

I think it is admirable what the person who wrote this study tried to do, but I am afraid the methodology wasn't quite there. I would not try to extrapolate any of his results on what would work for me if confronted by a violent criminal.

---

Like car crashes, they often arent the same, but there tend to be patterns.

I think the patterns shown are useful regarding this study.

I agree with his statements that with the less-motivated attacker any gun will probably work.

With a determined one something that penetrates well and breaks bones and causes bleeding that with time will end the attack is desirable. In this circumstance mag capacity becomes more of a factor, too.

It would be interesting to see a similar study but regarding stopping dog attacks.

http://shootingthebull.net/blog/an-a...topping-power/