What to say to a friend considering a .380?

[500grains]

I know the light weight, thinness and low price are attractive, but I don't think I can keep my mouth shut about the anemic nature of the round.

[19852]

Better than a poke in the eye?

[vaglocker]

Better than a poke in the eye?

Actually a good poke in the eye might reset an attackers OODA loop to a greater degree initially than a shot in the gut with a .380. Of course I can't prove that but getting poked in the eye hurts like a Mother F'er

[ToddG]

How about, if it meets his needs in a way other options would not, or if he can carry a .380 at times or in places where he couldn't carry anything else, you try: "Cool, can I shoot it?"

No one is denying that the .380 is a compromise, but the constant hammering around here is just getting silly. Plenty of LE agencies, particularly in Europe, have successfully fielded .380 pistols for decades at a time. There are many LE agencies here in the U.S. that issue or authorize them for off-duty, backup, and UC work.

My LCP is:

• easier to conceal than my j-frame.
• easier to shoot accurately at speed.
• dramatically faster to reload (especially compared to a speed strip).
• higher capacity.
• Closer in form & function to the semiauto pistol I carry as a primary every day.

The fact that it gives up an inch of penetration or doesn't do as well through automobile glass is an acceptable compromise to many, including myself, in return for those benefits.

[vaglocker]

How about, if it meets his needs in a way other options would not, or if he can carry a .380 at times or in places where he couldn't carry anything else, you try: "Cool, can I shoot it?"

No one is denying that the .380 is a compromise, but the constant hammering around here is just getting silly. Plenty of LE agencies, particularly in Europe, have successfully fielded .380 pistols for decades at a time. There are many LE agencies here in the U.S. that issue or authorize them for off-duty, backup, and UC work.

My LCP is:

• easier to conceal than my j-frame.
• easier to shoot accurately at speed.
• dramatically faster to reload (especially compared to a speed strip).
• higher capacity.
• Closer in form & function to the semiauto pistol I carry as a primary every day.

The fact that it gives up an inch of penetration or doesn't do as well through automobile glass is an acceptable compromise to many, including myself, in return for those benefits.

I agree and have recently come to the conclusion that the only true "pocket carry" gun that doesn't print on me is a .380. Speaking to the European police comments, is it true that European .380 ammo is also loaded hotter than it's American counter part?

[sgalbra76]

Average penetration of a .380acp JHP that expandes to 9mm levels is only 7-8" in bare gel. Against a windshield you're looking at about half that level of penetration.

It's all about the sectional density of the bullet and the .380 is piss poor:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...umber1/toc.htm

The European agencies that used the .380 used FMJ. So, this penetration problem was not an issue since the rounded non-deforming loads would penetrate up to 18" in gel. You just sacrifice a better wound channel that you would get with a JHP which gives you a larger hole and a waddcutter frontal area.

I use a .380 when I believe the likelyhood of running into trouble is very low, or I need a BUG that is under 20oz to stick in an ankle holster. It would NOT be my first choice for any other situation. If you can avoid using the .380, I suggest that you do so.

[ToddG]

Average penetration of a .380acp JHP that expandes to 9mm levels is only 7-8" in bare gel.

I guess I shouldn't choose an average .380 JHP that expands to 9mm levels, then.

Come to think of it, I try not to choose an average 9mm JHP that expands to 9mm levels, either.

[sgalbra76]

I guess I shouldn't choose an average .380 JHP that expands to 9mm levels, then.

Come to think of it, I try not to choose an average 9mm JHP that expands to 9mm levels, either.

Hard to do when many of the major manufacturers design their .380s to do so:

Winchester Ranger Talon 90gr:
Bare Gel: 7.6" / .65"

Speer Gold Dot 90gr:
Bare Gel: 8.2" / .61"

Federal Hi-Shok 90gr:
Bare Gel: 7.4" / .64"

Throw in some ribs, and other internal bone structure and you're looking at even worse resutls. Low sectional density and momentum were major problems for the Dr. Lane FBI testing in 1993, and the follow up research done by the Canadians in 1994 in regard to internal bone penetration.

The IWBA testing of the Hornady XTP 90gr is still the only confirmed .380acp loading that I've seen that comes closer to the 12" penetration minimum by reducing its level of expansion:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/test...-90xtp-b85.htm

Good luck finding a .380 JHP that is designed to achieve good penetration other than the Hornady load. Dr. Roberts tested some of the .380 Hornady Critical Defense stuff and it once again failed to reach a 10" penetration level. I wouldn't trust Brass Fetcher's testing as it seems that just about all of their results contradict FBI, the IWBA, and Dr. Robert's testing which I KNOW for sure is done properly. The .380 is a dead end cartridge when it comes to using JHP in my opinion.

Duncan MacPherson's book "Bullet Penetration" is very insightful regarding sectional density and proper gel testing which I believe the vast majority of online testing guys do not follow. This is why we see major discrepancies between the FBI protocol testers(FBI, IWBA, and Dr. Roberts) versus the online testers.

All that being said, I often carry a Sig P232 as a BUG with Win RTs simply because I am required to use agency ammo and a S&W J-Frame is not allowed. Given the choice, I would not carry .380. If I had to and could pick my own ammo, I would opt for the Hornady XTP or FMJ.

[seebee]

Better than a poke in the eye?

It's kinda like the burger king add with the guy with small hands...
.380's are better than a .22 back up.. but then do you want a tiny pistol lost in your boot? man up carry a sig .45... great gun!

[Dave Berryhill]