quote:

Originally posted by SIG 229R:
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.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
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.

quote:

Originally posted by JWF:
Here is the wrap-up of .380 commercially available ammo testing by Shooting the Bull 410. The gel tests for individual rounds can be found with a google search. I found this you-tube series very informative when searching for a round for my daughters G42.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts

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.