[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBMW:
You might want to understand who that poster is.
[QUOTE]

I don't doubt the Dr's credentials. As for stopping power or whatever you want to call it, 3 rounds point blank into Ghandi ended his life no problem. But if my point is missed then we can move on.

What you say is completely true. The flip side is that their are guns with better than .380 performance are not much bigger than .380 guns. This can be done with either j-frame-ish revolvers, or single stack subcompact 9mm autos. 9mms, in particular are much smaller than they used to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I'll offer this observation.

A 9m Kurz on your belt is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% better than any gun you left in the safe.

If you have a need to carry a small, easily concealable handgun, carry one. Eve if its a .22LR.

As SIGfreund noted, its not until you are actually shooting that terminal ballistics become important. The unstated point he makes is that if you get to the point of squeezing the trigger, you've made a series of very poor tactical decisions, the sum of which I doubt will be overcome by anything short of a Ford F-350's brush grill.

That said, I carry a P320 Compact (when its not waiting for the "voluntary upgrade") or a P226. If I need a more powerful handgun, I have a SIG 556XI is 7.62x39 mm I can conceal under a burhka. I am, however, looking for a not-quite SOB left handed leather holster for a P230 in 9mmK simply because there are some times when I need greater concealability tha my P320 but not the degree I can achieve with my Kel-tec PF-9 (which is unpleasant as hell to shoot).

I get your point, but can you count on getting the golden hit that will put down the attacker no matter what you shoot them with, or do you want to improve the odds?

quote:

Originally posted by Augen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBMW:
You might want to understand who that poster is.
[QUOTE]

I don't doubt the Dr's credentials. As for stopping power or whatever you want to call it, 3 rounds point blank into Ghandi ended his life no problem. But if my point is missed then we can move on.

Preventing a bad guy from hurting us isn’t about whether the BG ultimately dies from being shot. Although I suspect it’s no longer true due to the success the gun-grabbers have had in banning cheap, low quality revolvers, at one time it was claimed that the 22 Long Rifle cartridge killed more victims in the US than any other round. That doesn’t make it my round of choice for self-defense purposes.

To reiterate my earlier comment, up through stage 7 of the “stopping” process, the power, construction, or size of the projectile doesn’t make any difference. Starting with stage 8, however, all those things do matter, and when do they matter? Right here and right now. They don’t matter a week from now, a day from now, or even 10 minutes from now. The fact that a BG dies at some point in the future or even becomes aware of his injury to the point of thinking, “Man, I’d better stop killing this guy and get to the hospital myself,” is of little value if we have suffered death or serious injury ourselves.

Most of the time any gun will work fine for self-defense, and we certainly shouldn’t select a gun for defensive purposes that we can’t operate and shoot well. Although getting to stage 8 or 9 is seldom necessary for non-LEO civilians, when it is, it is, and then the first, most important factor is being able to hit the target fast and accurately.

Another thing to consider when evaluating self-defense cartridges is the very common complaint that some bullets don’t expand reliably. Even if we ignore the practical reality that there are no test mediums that absolutely mimic the human body, think about what someone is saying when he states 1. that certain bullets don’t expand reliably, and 2. therefore we should just switch to a nonexpanding full metal jacket load. So, what we should do is rely on a bullet we know won’t expand because the other available bullets might not expand—? Am I the only one who doesn’t understand the logic behind such a position? To me it’s like saying, “My car might break down en route to my destination and I’d have to walk from that point, so I’ll just walk the entire distance,” except that in choosing a bullet that might or might not expand we don’t have to worry about the possibility of dealing with a broken-down car.

I carry a Keltec P3AT at times when nothing bigger fits my clothing choices.

I figure it's not a very powerful gun, but it'll still put holes in a target.

Unless the attacker is fully dedicated to the idea of killing me, some rounds on target from anything should suffice to convince that guy he has something more important to do elsewhere.

Even though it's not very powerful, it's still a gun, which I suspect the average thug will find to be sufficient cause to go seek out an easier target, in many cases, without needing to fire a shot.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Another thing to consider when evaluating self-defense cartridges is the very common complaint that some bullets don’t expand reliably. Even if we ignore the practical reality that there are no test mediums that absolutely mimic the human body, think about what someone is saying when he states 1. that certain bullets don’t expand reliably, and 2. therefore we should just switch to a nonexpanding full metal jacket load. So, what we should do is rely on a bullet we know won’t expand because the other available bullets might not expand—? Am I the only one who doesn’t understand the logic behind such a position? To me it’s like saying, “My car might break down en route to my destination and I’d have to walk from that point, so I’ll just walk the entire distance,” except that in choosing a bullet that might or might not expand we don’t have to worry about the possibility of dealing with a broken-down car.

I'm a nobody really so never said anything about it- but this has bugged me for years if for no other reason than the argument is incomplete. The point I think they forget to make many times is that an fmj might be preferable if it achieves penetration that a jhp that expands wouldn't/shouldn't/may not? For example, the Mouse gun thread seems to include valid arguments for hot fmj in .25/.32 acp . But to carry fmj only because a jhp may not expand is nonsensical to me.

I would agree that it might make more ballistics sense to just choose FMJ for some self-defense purposes if we believe an expanding bullet might not penetrate far enough.

And then there’s the reliability issue. Some guns, especially the extra-small variety, are finicky about hollow point ammunition. It’s more important that the gun be reliable with a particular load than that the bullets expand—and especially if they expand inconsistently.

I am no ballistics expert, but I can tell you after investigating homicides for most of my career, not one of the victims (who died by a .380) ever told me the .380 was ineffective. All matters where you hit with it.

quote:

Originally posted by whododat:
I am no ballistics expert, but I can tell you after investigating homicides for most of my career, not one of the victims (who died by a .380) ever told me the .380 was ineffective. All matters where you hit with it.

And what did any of the survivors say? The ones who weren't killed by the .380? Lol

Just busting chops. I read somewhere a coroner mention that 100% of his patients were killed by something. Narcotics, blunt objects, pokey things. Even .380acp.

Ha, it was meant to be funny/sarcastic!

quote:

Originally posted by whododat:
Ha, it was meant to be funny/sarcastic!

Oh, good. Lol

My biggest issue with .380's is mag capacity. I routinely carry a G42, but also carry two spare mags, which gives me a total 19 rounds. That's one more round than a G17 with a single factory magazine and one round in the chamber.

A few years back I decided I wanted something I could pocket carry and ended buying an LCP shortly after they first came out. I hated the sights and the trigger and was always a little concerned that maybe .380 wasn’t “enough”.

Sure, if everything goes well .380 will do just fine. However I just couldn’t get the idea out of my mind that if everything is going well I wouldn’t be in a position to possibly be shooting someone and if things were going that bad I’d prefer to have better odds in my favor and “more” gun.

Ended up selling it for a .357 J-Frame. I felt better with 5 rounds of .357 vs. 6 or 7 of .380. Still easy pocket carry but kind of a bitch to shoot with magnum loads. Never been a big revolver fan, but it was the best choice at the time for what I wanted.

When the P938 came out I snatched one up pretty quick. Real sights, small and slim, and a semi-auto. Sold the J-Frame and haven’t looked back.

Power considerations aside, much more ammo choices and availability in 9mm and at a lower price than .380 to boot.

I'd rather not depend on .380 as my only gun/cartridge myself.

Where and how do you carry the P238? Belt holster? Subcompacts like the Shield, Ruger LC9/9S or SIG's own P938 aren't much bigger, but fire up to 9 rounds of 9mm Luger. The .380 is best in little pocket/backup/deep concealment guns like the LCP.

I've personally stood over a lot of people who met their end due to the lowly .380 acp.

Know where to put the holes and hit what you aim at and it works just fine. My wife and I both have LCPs that we carry when nothing else will work. It's not my FIRST choice, but I don't feel under armed with it either.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You might want to understand who that poster is.

quote:

ABOUT GARY ROBERTS
Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center where he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he has been a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

quote:

Originally posted by Augen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBMW:
The opinion of someone who's done significant research into the subject:

https://pistol-forum.com/showt...G-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp
[QUOTE]

That section you've quoted seems to be the posters' opinion. Further down it references a study however, that was from the 1980-90's whereas modern designs like the XTP didn't exist. Grain of salt situation.
Handguns chambered in .380 ACP are small, compact, and generally easy to carry. Unfortunately, testing has shown that they offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry. The terminal performance of .380 ACP JHP's is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP FMJ's offer adequate penetration, but no expansion. All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion. Stick with FMJ for .380 ACP or better yet, don't use it at all. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is really not recommended for LE use and many savvy agencies prohibit them.

And the link provided is from a 2012 post. .380 balisstics have improved much since his research.

PSA still has the LCP for $170 with free shipping:

http://palmettostatearmory.com...6rd-pistol-3701.html

I'd grab one but I already have...three.

In 2014, I asked him directly. This is what he replied. I really doubt much has changed since. Certainly the physics hasn't changed.

Link

quote:

BBMW--most of our .380 and .38 sp testing has been done for LE agencies, so you will not find the data on the internet. The FBI has also done extensive testing and has come to the same conclusion--that no .380 loads meet the minimum penetration, expansion, and barrier requirements. This paper is available open source: Roberts GK: “Terminal Performance of .38 Special and .380 ACP Hollow Point Bullets Intended 
for Law Enforcement Back-up and Off Duty Self-Defense Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue 
Simulant”. Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):35-38, Spring 2000. The new HST .380 Auto load is probably the best of the worst, so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by craigcpa:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You might want to understand who that poster is.

quote:

ABOUT GARY ROBERTS
Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center where he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he has been a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

quote:

Originally posted by Augen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBMW:
The opinion of someone who's done significant research into the subject:

https://pistol-forum.com/showt...G-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp
[QUOTE]

That section you've quoted seems to be the posters' opinion. Further down it references a study however, that was from the 1980-90's whereas modern designs like the XTP didn't exist. Grain of salt situation.
Handguns chambered in .380 ACP are small, compact, and generally easy to carry. Unfortunately, testing has shown that they offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry. The terminal performance of .380 ACP JHP's is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP FMJ's offer adequate penetration, but no expansion. All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion. Stick with FMJ for .380 ACP or better yet, don't use it at all. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is really not recommended for LE use and many savvy agencies prohibit them.

And the link provided is from a 2012 post. .380 balisstics have improved much since his research.

I'm aware of the 380 limitations, I still choose to occassionally carry my LCP. Other times it's the G-43, CM9, or G-19, but I'm comfortable carrying the LCP.

I have a Bersa Thunder 380 and would place full confidence in it. The only problem with it is that just like all other 380’s the grip is a little short to suit me.