DocGKR - Your .380 vs 38 SPL article

[BBMW]

Doctor Roberts,

I've been pretty much convinced that .380 is not a particularly effective defensive round, and that the "normal" duty rounds are significantly better for defensive use. I often wander into debates with people who push .380 chambered guns for defensive use, and link your article. I was wondering if there are other studies out there on the subject, specifically how .380 compares to 9mm.

BTW, I tried searching here, but I get nothing. I think ".380" is too short or too common a search term, and it ignores it.

[Rich]

I would just compare gel testing.

BTW
I think the S&W J frame / LCR and 380acp are best left for back up use only.

[Chuck Haggard]

I would just compare gel testing.

BTW
I think the S&W J frame / LCR and 380acp are best left for back up use only.

^This^


If you look through gel testing you can find dozens of 9mm loads that would pass the FBI battery of tests while giving good expansion. You will find zero .380 loads that can get enough penetration to consistently pass while expanding at all, even if you leave out various barrier tests and go with just bare gel..

[BBMW]

Guys,

I agree. I really don't have much use for .380. However, when I say this in some places, I get a lot of pushback. So I'm looking for more ammo (figuratively) to counter that.

Doc's article is what I usually use. However I figure he has some backup for that, and I'm trying to find it. That is all.

[Alpha Sierra]

I really don't have much use for .380. However, when I say this in some places, I get a lot of pushback. So I'm looking for more ammo (figuratively) to counter that.
Just let others be. If they want to think .380 Auto is the round of doom, let them. Caliber arguments are mostly pointless because everyone has their mind made up already.

[L-2]

You mean this aritcle? 12th from the top in the "Stickies": http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4336-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp

[Totem Polar]

I look at today's .380 as not so much a substitute for .38 spec, but more as a viable sub for, say, .22lr or 25 acp. Today's .380 offers either near-baby blowback .22lr-esque recoil (eg. G42) or near-baby browning vest pocket carry (eg. Kahr P380). I think the .380 vs 9mm ship sailed back when the Beretta 34 was still the hot light duty carry gun. JMO.

PS. I am obviously not a dentist. But, hey, its the internet, and I like .380 pistols.

[Symmetry]

Simply put, there is currently not a caliber in the .380 sized platform that is capable of meeting minimal penetration standards while expanding to at least 50% of its caliber size. The .380 cartridge is not capable of being loading with adequate bullet weights and designs, it has limited case capacity, and it has low pressure limits. The 9mm remains the most mechanically efficient caliber to date in these regards.

What would be more effective in the .380 sized platform would be a smaller caliber cartridge capable of using longer bullets, and operates at higher pressures. I've always that that a .30-.32 caliber bullet with a sectional density of .170, a pressure limit of 35k-40k psi, and a velocity around 1000fps would be the ideal cartridge to fit in the .380 platform. It would also allow for a double column magazine, so a small subcompact with at least 10rds in the mag.

[imp1295]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4336-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp

There you go. type in 'site:pistol-forum.com "xxxx"' (minus quotes what you would like to search for.)

easier than the forum software and you are never locked out.

oops, second.

[Chuck Haggard]

Simply put, there is currently not a caliber in the .380 sized platform that is capable of meeting minimal penetration standards while expanding to at least 50% of its caliber size. The .380 cartridge is not capable of being loading with adequate bullet weights and designs, it has limited case capacity, and it has low pressure limits. The 9mm remains the most mechanically efficient caliber to date in these regards.

What would be more effective in the .380 sized platform would be a smaller caliber cartridge capable of using longer bullets, and operates at higher pressures. I've always that that a .30-.32 caliber bullet with a sectional density of .170, a pressure limit of 35k-40k psi, and a velocity around 1000fps would be the ideal cartridge to fit in the .380 platform. It would also allow for a double column magazine, so a small subcompact with at least 10rds in the mag.

Get out of my head dude.

[Symmetry]

Get out of my head dude.

The .380 platform market is a large one, so the likelihood of such a cartridge being a profitable success would be high. Especially with good test data to back it up. Heck, with all the .380 popularity in the civilian market, such a cartridge could surpass the .380 and 9mm popularity since it would offer high capacity in a small subcompact.

[ST911]

Given the investments made in existing calibers, what's the likelihood that we will see a new defensive pistol cartridge be even remotely viable?

[Totem Polar]

The .380 platform market is a large one, so the likelihood of such a cartridge being a profitable success would be high. Especially with good test data to back it up. Heck, with all the .380 popularity in the civilian market, such a cartridge could surpass the .380 and 9mm popularity since it would offer high capacity in a small subcompact.

The .32NAA hasn't exactly become the CCW world's darling, despite continued efforts at improving performance with heavier bullets from the likes of Hornady.

[Chuck Haggard]

I was thinking .32acp long rimless magnum, try to get a .32H&R out of a small pistol, you could get like 12-14 rounds out of a gun the size of a G42

[Symmetry]

The .32NAA hasn't exactly become the CCW world's darling, despite continued efforts at improving performance with heavier bullets from the likes of Hornady.

Bottle necked pistol cartridges inherently suck. Limited bullet selection and weak neck crimps resulting in easy setbacks. The .32NAA cannot be loaded with long enough bullets to make it viable. For a .32 caliber, you would need a bullet weight of 110gr-120gr in order to match the penetration and expansion requirements of a standard service caliber. Basically that would be the standard 12-18" of penetration in FBI protocols, AND expanding to near 60% larger than its original caliber size. Plus, the .32NAA offers no capacity advantage over the .380. A straight walled .30 or .32 high pressure cartridge with slight case taper would allow for a double column magazine in a .380 sized grip.

At this point, no manufacturer has produced a .30-.32 caliber that will fit into the .380 sized platform, fire bullets with sectional densities over .140, and be of sufficient pressure levels to come close to FBI standards.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Wasn't there a North American Arms bottlenecked 32 based on the 380 for their guns? Didn't take, IIRC.

Oops - answered as I typed the same thing. Never mind.

[oldtexan]

I was thinking .32acp long rimless magnum, try to get a .32H&R out of a small pistol, you could get like 12-14 rounds out of a gun the size of a G42

Something like this, Chuck? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.65%C3%9720mm_Longue

[Chuck Haggard]

Yup, pretty much.

[BBMW]

What I'm looking for is the background research for that article.


You mean this aritcle? 12th from the top in the "Stickies": http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4336-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp

[revolvergeek]

I look at today's .380 as not so much a substitute for .38 spec, but more as a viable sub for, say, .22lr or 25 acp. Today's .380 offers either near-baby blowback .22lr-esque recoil (eg. G42) or near-baby browning vest pocket carry (eg. Kahr P380).

This was always my take on the situation. An LCP takes up less slightly room than a Beretta 20/21A, but hits harder and for most people is easier to shoot.

[DocGKR]

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.

[Symmetry]

The new HST .380 Auto load is probably the best of the worst, so to speak.

When is that going to be available?

[ack495]

Hello all. LEO for the last 10 years. New to the site. Long time lurker. I just picked a glock 42 yesterday for BUG/off duty use. Have been checking out lots of data trying to pick a round for it. Didn't know federal was coming out with a HST loading in .380. Look forward to seeing that.

Settled on the Lehigh XP round which looks real good in this test I saw:
Ammo Quest .380 ACP: Lehigh XP Xtreme Penetrator …: http://youtu.be/LczfeWK9lHw. Testing seems legit.

No .380 other than some that use the XTP bullet seem to expand in denim and still meet the 12" of penetration. These Lehigh's seem to offer a good comprise of ideal penetration with good cutting ability without expanding. Can't fail because they're not a hollowpoint that may get clogged. Kind of like a new age wadcutter. Hopefully they feed well in my glock.

[BBMW]

A little late getting back to my own thread, but.

Doc,

Thanks. That will be helpful.


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.

[BBMW]

It's three years later. I had a reason to look this thread back up. I'm going to bump it for any updates.

Has Doc Roberts, or anyone else, seen any reason to change the thinking i the original article Doc posted that started this, or is the situation still the same. Has ammo development done anything to boost .380 into anything resembling a effective defensive round?

[Tokarev]

It's three years later. I had a reason to look this thread back up. I'm going to bump it for any updates.

Has Doc Roberts, or anyone else, seen any reason to change the thinking i the original article Doc posted that started this, or is the situation still the same. Has ammo development done anything to boost .380 into anything resembling a effective defensive round?Probably not. It looks like you still get either adequate penetrayion and no expansion or decent exoansion and shallow penetration.

https://generalcartridge.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/380-102gr-bjhp-remington-vs-underwood-in-clear-ballistics-gel/

https://generalcartridge.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/sig-speer-and-winchester-380-in-clear-ballistics-gel/


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Det1397]

Probably not. It looks like you still get either adequate penetrayion and no expansion or decent exoansion and shallow penetration.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

See: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?26401-I-have-always-despised-the-380-but , in particular post #22 from Doc....

[Tokarev]

There are some good reasons to carry a 380. Tiny size being the main one.

Personally I'd probably chose a small 9mm like the SIG 938 or Kimber.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

.380 vs .38spcl snubbie don't compete against each other "round for round" because the .38+P is the better bullet, no debate on that at all. Rounds like the Gold Dot penetrate and usually expand better than any .380.

.380 and .38spcl snubbie are competitors when you compare them as a complete package.
What the .380 brings to the table is 7 rounds versus 5 in the same or smaller size envelope (my CW380 is significantly smaller than a S&W442).
The current generation of micro .380's have better sights, better triggers, good reliability, are easier to shoot faster and more accurately and way faster to reload for most people who's primary gun is a semi-auto.
With rounds like the Lehigh Penetrator the .380 has plenty of penetration (which is all the majority of .38's give you since most fail to expand anyway).

A 7 round pocket .380 and a .38 snub are both "mano a mano" guns, but the extra two initial rounds and the reload speed of the .380 gives you a better chance if it goes "mano y dos manos".

That said, my CW380 is my Sunday morning drinking coffee at the house pocket pistol and my PM9 is my outside the house pocket pistol.
Because 7x 9mm > 7x .380 or 5x .38spcl.

[LSP552]

.380 vs .38spcl snubbie don't compete against each other "round for round" because the .38+P is the better bullet, no debate on that at all. Rounds like the Gold Dot penetrate and usually expand better than any .380.

.380 and .38spcl snubbie are competitors when you compare them as a complete package.
What the .380 brings to the table is 7 rounds versus 5 in the same or smaller size envelope (my CW380 is significantly smaller than a S&W442).
The current generation of micro .380's have better sights, better triggers, good reliability, are easier to shoot faster and more accurately and way faster to reload for most people who's primary gun is a semi-auto.
With rounds like the Lehigh Penetrator the .380 has plenty of penetration (which is all the majority of .38's give you since most fail to expand anyway).

A 7 round pocket .380 and a .38 snub are both "mano a mano" guns, but the extra two initial rounds and the reload speed of the .380 gives you a better chance if it goes "mano y dos manos".

That said, my CW380 is my Sunday morning drinking coffee at the house pocket pistol and my PM9 is my outside the house pocket pistol.
Because 7x 9mm > 7x .380 or 5x .38spcl.

^ This. I’m completely happy carrying a G42 in just about any circumstance I’d carry a 642. It really is a total package thing. The 2 extra rounds and much greater shootability, in my hands, outweighs the slight power increase of the .38 spl., IMO.

[Leroy Suggs]

I third that G42 vs J motion.
What Jody and LSP said.

[BehindBlueI's]

How many people are dead with an empty j-frame in their hand?

-vs-

How many times have you seen a .380 glance off a bone, ride a rib, etc.

On paper the capacity and reload may seem to matter. I've not found that to be the case off paper. What I do agree with is which one you shoot better matters more than the bullet. For me, I'll stick with the LCR over any .380 of similar size.

[Totem Polar]

How many people are dead with an empty j-frame in their hand?

-vs-

How many times have you seen a .380 glance off a bone, ride a rib, etc.


That’s a great way of rephrasing an old question.

- - -

Totally as an aside, one growing area of concern in my neighborhood is an ever-increasing amount of “TOUS” (terriers of unusual sizes) roaming free. There are all sorts of pit-bull-esque dogs wandering in from, literally, the wrong side of the tracks—as the temporary housing market begins in earnest about 5 blocks north of me, across an old railway trestle that’s now a popular jogging/bike path. As is the trend, many of these dogs are mixes resulting in American or Stafforshire physicality with 75-100lbs size.

As much as I enjoy the G42, I’ve reverted to the centennial J-frame for taking-out-the-trash/sweatpant-walks/whatevereuphemismfor too-lazy-to-upgun-in-the-evening duty, and penetration on bone is a big part of the equation.

Putting a G42 with it’s payload of 95gr ball (or 90gr FA XTP) on the desktop on one side, and a 642 with any of the big three heavy +P loads (135GDHP, 130RA or 158 LSWCHP) or even Buffalo Bore 150 WC, and then pulling up an x-ray image of an AmStaff’s skull is an interesting thought experiment.

Maybe Cooper was right about the projectile v the launcher, at least in an overarching philosophical sense.

Tool optimization depends on threat assessment, I suppose. Just musing aloud; carry on...

[LSP552]

Like most things in shooting, there is no right answer. Only a right for me answer.

[41magfan]

How many people are dead with an empty j-frame in their hand?

-vs-

How many times have you seen a .380 glance off a bone, ride a rib, etc.

On paper the capacity and reload may seem to matter. I've not found that to be the case off paper. What I do agree with is which one you shoot better matters more than the bullet. For me, I'll stick with the LCR over any .380 of similar size.

A much more relevant question might be;

How many people are dead solely because 5 rounds wasn't enough?

- vs -

How many people are dead solely because a .380 bullet bounced off of a _________ (body part of your choice)?

I suspect I could readily find anecdotal evidence to prove either point if I was so inclined.

[GAP]

I had a Kahr CW380 and it choked on Speer Gold dots, Federal HS, and several different kinds of FMJ. The only thing it never had a problem with were the Hornady XTP rounds. It gave me the unsettling sort of feeling that made me sell it and trade it for a 642 immediately.

Like everything else, the more you do something the more normal it becomes. I practice often with my 642 and find the Ranger +P ammo to be exceptionally accurate.. even during slow fire at 25 yards I can stay on a B8 without trouble. I mainly use my 642 when taking my dog for a walk, so I like the heavier round and the ability for contact shots.

I don't carry reloads (gasp), so the reload speed is a non-factor and I base my strategies around those limitations.

[BehindBlueI's]

That’s a great way of rephrasing an old question.

- - -

Totally as an aside, one growing area of concern in my neighborhood is an ever-increasing amount of “TOUS” (terriers of unusual sizes) roaming free.
Tool optimization depends on threat assessment, I suppose. Just musing aloud; carry on...

Sample size of one, but PDX-1 worked pretty well vs a pitbull that took a liking to my forearm. Avoid the head shot, even 180gr .40 find a way to ride around the skull quite often.

[BehindBlueI's]

A much more relevant question might be;

How many people are dead solely because 5 rounds wasn't enough?

- vs -

How many people are dead solely because a .380 bullet bounced off of a _________ (body part of your choice)?

I suspect I could readily find anecdotal evidence to prove either point if I was so inclined.

Dunno, but enough anecdotes have me owning zero .380s and more than zero .38s. Honestly, if there weren't so many decent tiny-9 options out there I'd be more concerned with the .380. But there are, so I'm not.

[Totem Polar]

Sample size of one, but PDX-1 worked pretty well vs a pitbull that took a liking to my forearm. Avoid the head shot, even 180gr .40 find a way to ride around the skull quite often.

I'm assuming the 130gr .38 +P and not the 95 gr .380 was your tool of choice against TOUS... probably a safe assumption.

As to 180gr .40 and skulls, I've previously mentioned one high-profile case local to me where a guy got shot in the head with dept issue 180 GDHP out of a G27 and not only wasn't seriously injured, but went on to file a lawsuit against the dept/shooter, resulting in a fairly colorful trial. Incidentally, a P-F member that I hold in very high esteem was instrumental in getting the cop off the hook for criminal charges. Also fairly colorful.

But I digress.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm assuming the 130gr .38 +P and not the 95 gr .380 was your tool of choice against TOUS... probably a safe assumption.


Correct. We're required to carry expanding ammunition or I'd probably just go with wadcutters.

[nalesq]

Another non-ballistic factor to consider is that you probably get with the .38 snubby v a small .380 better reliability shooting from awkward positions and imperfect limpwristy grips like the kind you might find yourself using in an super close range or even entangled fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[willie]

A con for the 380 is lower reliability of the lcp size pistols. Mine works, but the first one I bought did not. Seldom do I carry only it. I think that Shield size pistols are displacing many lcp type 380s. I shoot mine frequently and like it. However, as a student of the hobby for decades, I am most aware of the 380's limitations. Maybe carrying an lcp 380 because I like it is not a good reason.

[PNWTO]

The biggest reliability change I saw with the petite .380s was when I gave up on expanding projectiles for them. Even then, in my limited scope, I would really only suggest taking a look at the Kahr (yes, Kahr) and the G42. I know the LCPs have a good following but I give any Ruger products without cylinders a wide pass.

As for earlier comments, I would like to think that the Lehigh projectiles in .380 gain some penetration-path equivalency (?) when compared with .38 wadcutters and whatnot. Just my wild-ass guess.

[Cool Breeze]

Just throwing another factor in... When researching this topic long ago... You may also need to factor how you are carrying it. When researching pocket carry on this forum, a vast majority of people found the rounded form factor of the snubby much easier to extract from a pocket than a small semi.

Which then goes into the other perennial question... More bullets but slower access or faster access to less bullets.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[JAD]

Incidentally, jogging is one of my highest risk activities, and I try to always carry a service pistol; certainly I always carry a 9.

[Velo Dog]

https://www.lehighdefense.com/products/380-auto-90gr-xtreme-penetrator-ammunition?variant=1066236304

Note: Due to the design of the feed-ramp of the Kahr p380 and cw380 we would not recommend the use of our XP ammunition with these handguns. Some users have reported intermittent feed problems with the p238 as well.

For Kahr owners we would like to suggest our 380 Controlled Fracturing Ammunition. The 380 CF's were tested in a p380 and they are reliable.

PRODUCT DISCLAIMER

Due to the unique design of our XP bullets we advise all customers to purchase one box of ammunition to confirm the ammo will cycle in your handgun.

We have tested the ammo in several of the top selling 380’s and our findings have been recorded on several videos located on our YouTube Channel and documented on our website. However, all handguns produced do have minor differences and these differences may or may not affect the performance of your handgun with our 380 XP Ammo.

The 380 Auto handguns listed below cycled our ammunition without failure:

GLOCK 42 – SECOND GENERATION

SIG 232

SMITH AND WESSON BODY GUARD

KELTEC

RUGER LCP

AMT 380

We did experience problems chambering the first round in the KAHR P380 and CW380. Once the first round was chambered the handguns performed without failure.

[JodyH]

I'm currently at around 300 rounds of Lehigh Penetrators in my Kahr CW380 with zero issues.
But I always use the slide release lever to feed the first round from an otherwise empty magazine and then insert my full mag.
I don't carry a spare mag for it and I don't think i've ever shot it from anything but 6+1.
Kahr's are notorious for poor hand feeding no matter the bullet profile.

[Totem Polar]

GLOCK 42 – SECOND GENERATION



Waaaaaay OT, but, I love this. Everyone and their dog knows that G did a subtle redesign of the 42 except for, based on all evidence, Glock. Still cracks me up.

Apologies for the drift; carry on.

[peterb]

Like most things in shooting, there is no right answer. Only a right for me answer.

I've seen a couple of smaller/weaker novices struggle with a J-frame but do reasonably well with a G42. Since they'll probably be "a box a couple of times a year" shooters and aren't willing to carry anything bigger, a gun that makes it easier for them to hit what they're aiming at seems like a reasonable choice even if the ballistics are marginal.

[Duelist]

I've seen a couple of smaller/weaker novices struggle with a J-frame but do reasonably well with a G42. Since they'll probably be "a box a couple of times a year" shooters and aren't willing to carry anything bigger, a gun that makes it easier for them to hit what they're aiming at seems like a reasonable choice even if the ballistics are marginal.

I agree. And here's a further thought on that: if all I'm willing to actually shoot through my 642 are powderpuff loads that aren't any more powerful in any real measurable way than a .380, what am I giving up using a G42 instead?

[JodyH]

I've seen a couple of smaller/weaker novices struggle with a J-frame but do reasonably well with a G42. Since they'll probably be "a box a couple of times a year" shooters and aren't willing to carry anything bigger, a gun that makes it easier for them to hit what they're aiming at seems like a reasonable choice even if the ballistics are marginal.
In my CCW classes I see probably 2 dozen J-frame shooters a year and every one of them struggles to certify with it on a ridiculously large target (12" x 18" target @ 7Y) usually using puffball Winchester white box FMJ.
The only way most can qualify with a J is via cocking and shooting single action between every shot.

When I hand them the G42 they drill the center out.

[JodyH]

What did they change?
AFAIK
Mag followers and trigger bar.
My early G42 had some feed/eject issues and went back to Glock.
The followers and the trigger bar came back with a (-1) at the end of the part numbers where before they didn't.

[Totem Polar]

What did they change?

Also the slide lock, trigger mechanism housing; maybe something else I’m forgetting. This guy is the first to notice, so far as I know, and list the details:

http://looserounds.com/2014/05/10/glock-appears-to-have-made-changes-to-the-g42/

[LtDave]

Also the slide lock, trigger mechanism housing; maybe something else I’m forgetting. This guy is the first to notice, so far as I know, and list the details:

http://looserounds.com/2014/05/10/glock-appears-to-have-made-changes-to-the-g42/

Pretty sure they replaced the mags, not just the followers, when I sent mine in.

[Totem Polar]

Pretty sure they replaced the mags, not just the followers, when I sent mine in.

Oh yeah, the mag bodies were re-shaped/contoured around the feed lips. No doubt about it; that’s in the article I linked, and I had a bunch of the first mags that I got when I got one of the very first G42s from their MLK day post-SHOT drop ship.

I had to ream those guys a new one (I mean, I was polite about it, but I definitely took their CS to task) to get them to replace the old mags with the new ones. "We don’t guarantee mags." Are you kidding me? Chicken Fuckers... rawk!
;)

[BBMW]

This is going a bit OT, but I don't see any advantage to this ammo over straight FMJs.


https://www.lehighdefense.com/products/380-auto-90gr-xtreme-penetrator-ammunition?variant=1066236304

Note: Due to the design of the feed-ramp of the Kahr p380 and cw380 we would not recommend the use of our XP ammunition with these handguns. Some users have reported intermittent feed problems with the p238 as well.

For Kahr owners we would like to suggest our 380 Controlled Fracturing Ammunition. The 380 CF's were tested in a p380 and they are reliable.

PRODUCT DISCLAIMER

Due to the unique design of our XP bullets we advise all customers to purchase one box of ammunition to confirm the ammo will cycle in your handgun.

We have tested the ammo in several of the top selling 380’s and our findings have been recorded on several videos located on our YouTube Channel and documented on our website. However, all handguns produced do have minor differences and these differences may or may not affect the performance of your handgun with our 380 XP Ammo.

The 380 Auto handguns listed below cycled our ammunition without failure:

GLOCK 42 – SECOND GENERATION

SIG 232

SMITH AND WESSON BODY GUARD

KELTEC

RUGER LCP

AMT 380

We did experience problems chambering the first round in the KAHR P380 and CW380. Once the first round was chambered the handguns performed without failure.

[JodyH]

This is going a bit OT, but I don't see any advantage to this ammo over straight FMJs.
Flash suppressed powder.
Sharper leading edges on the bullet nose helps it "dig in" instead of glance off of hard surfaces (like bones).
Solid copper construction also resists deformation better than copper jacketed lead, which agains helps it penetrate versus glance or deflect.

[PNWTO]

This is going a bit OT, but I don't see any advantage to this ammo over straight FMJs.

I would hazard to say the 99% of FMJ projectiles aren't designed with anything resembling terminal performance in mind. The buck stops at reasonable accuracy and reliable feeding.


I've seen a couple of smaller/weaker novices struggle with a J-frame but do reasonably well with a G42. Since they'll probably be "a box a couple of times a year" shooters and aren't willing to carry anything bigger, a gun that makes it easier for them to hit what they're aiming at seems like a reasonable choice even if the ballistics are marginal.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I wouldn't call myself a novice but due to some nerve damage in my right arm my J-frame practice is severely limited. I can maintain a relatively high accuracy/time standard, e.g. Press Six at 10yds but it is the recoil that ends my practice after about three cylinders. With the 42 or 43 I notice no such "recoil fatigue". Needless to say, I am slowly selling off my J-frames.

[Clusterfrack]

I've seen a couple of smaller/weaker novices struggle with a J-frame but do reasonably well with a G42. Since they'll probably be "a box a couple of times a year" shooters and aren't willing to carry anything bigger, a gun that makes it easier for them to hit what they're aiming at seems like a reasonable choice even if the ballistics are marginal.

I agree that .380 in a G42 or other "ratgun" is a good option for some shooters without the strength or skill to manage recoil. I've considered this for my tiny daughter, but she's worked on her technique and can shoot a G43 quite well.

However, my reason for occasionally carrying a .380 instead of a 5 shot snubby is quite different. If I was going to carry a gun the size of a J-frame, I'd rather have a G43 and a spare mag. When I can only carry a mousegun (LCP w/XP), I'm satisfied that I can shoot it (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?22600-Gabe-White-Standards&p=637977&viewfull=1#post637977) at least as well as a snubby--and it's a much smaller package.

[Pit]

I don't own, use or recommend .380's however they do fulfill rule 1, "Have a gun". If that works for you, I'm good with it.

[Eagle1*]

Guys, whether you like/dislike the 380 or 38, keep in mind that incoming bullets have the right away. Meaning, getting good hits on the target keeps your "bad guy" from putting good hits on you. If you are a good shooter with your J frame and can reload fairly quick and stay in the fight, then so be it. If it is easier to accomplish this same task with the 42 with faster reload capability, then so be it. I see the advantages to both guns and we all know that picking one weapons platform, there is always a trade off in anything you do. Nothing is perfect....

I have had multiple J frames in the past and though I really like the nostalgia of the guns and ease of operation, it seems that the current production 42,s are working for me, the wife and son the best... each weapons platform does serve a purpose, the J frame is a great coat pocket gun and we all know why...