What is everyone carrying in their pocket 380?

[cold-beer]

I just purchased a new Ruger LCP-2 today. I looked at several pocket pistols. Price was not a factor I wanted something that wasn't SA, which quickly ruled out pistols like the Colt Mustang, Micro Kimber, or the Sig p238. After checking out several pocket pistols from the S&W Bodyguard to the Kahr CW-380 to the Seecamp 380, I went with the LCP-2.

Anyways, what are people actually carrying out there? I have watched a bunch of YouTube videos showing how impressive the non-expanding solid copper stuff from Underwood is, but I don't know if I buy all that. It seems to me like they are just exploiting the testing material. I highly doubt that stuff acts like that in actual flesh. I'm a big fan of critical defense in 9mm, but It seems to really interpenetrate in 380. The flat nosed hard cast stuff seems legit, but is shooting through someone actually an issue?

What are real folks actually carrying in their pocket guns?

[Boxy]

I think you will find penetration vs. expansion to be an issue in that theres not enough juice to adequately penetrate and expand hollow point type bullets. Convention is to use ball ammo for penetration that is a priority to meet accepted metrics in self defense ammo.

[ragnar_d]

It's been discussed quite frequently. Here are a few threads that discussed .380 ammunition selection:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4336-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13824-DocGKR-Your-380-vs-38-SPL-article
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?22674-The-very-best-380-acp-ammo-for-self-defense
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?16269-380-ACP-FMJ-vs-XTP
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2208-Good-380-ACP-JHP-for-the-wife
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20613-follow-up-request-on-DockGKR-s-quot-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp-quot-thread

Personally, I've got Hornady Critcal Defense in my RM380 because I shot a lot of that through it and it works, but I'm looking at the Lehigh or Underwood penetrator rounds when I burn through my current stash of Hornady. That said, I hardly carry my 380 anymore since I finally lost enough weight to make AIWB viable.

[LtDave]

I rarely carry a .380, but I've found Federal Hydra-Shok to be extremely accurate in a G42, SIG P230 and S&W BG380. Hornady Critical Defense is my second choice and does very well accuracy wise in the G42 & P230.

[1942bull]

I carry Underwood Extreme Penetrator in my Remington 380. The barrel is too short to allow HP to open. I carry U derwood Extreme Defender in my two 9mm semis. The monolithic rounds are barrier insensitive unlike HPs. Regarding the effectiveness of a monlithic hydrostatic bullet you should pay. Lose attention to the comparisons of HP to the new bullet. We know what an expanded HP can do to human tissue. Therefore a gel test comparison between HP and The new bullet is valid. Gel is not meant to simulate human tissue. It is simply a test medium for evaluating penetration and wound channel.

If we compare the HP to the monolithic in gel we see that the monolithic creates larger wound channels and penetrates deeper, but without overpenetrating if the right load is used. The comparison in gel is valid. The difference in gel indicates what the difference in human tissue would be because the difference is consistent.

One other advantage of the monolithic bullet is that it penetrates most common barriers with no difference in gel tests. HP will not do that. For me, I I have to shoot someone and I hit bone I want to know that the bullet is going to be as effective as it can be. With HP hitting bone will cause it to expand prematurely and that will reduce penetration significantly. It’s all physics.

[Duelist]

G42, Hornady XTP or Winchester flat nose FMJ.

[Clusterfrack]

Underwood / Lehigh XP in my LCP 1 (gen 2).

I'd love to see the results of a high-round-count test in an LCP 2.

[cold-beer]

I carry Underwood Extreme Penetrator in my Remington 380. The barrel is too short to allow HP to open. I carry U derwood Extreme Defender in my two 9mm semis. The monolithic rounds are barrier insensitive unlike HPs. Regarding the effectiveness of a monlithic hydrostatic bullet you should pay. Lose attention to the comparisons of HP to the new bullet. We know what an expanded HP can do to human tissue. Therefore a gel test comparison between HP and The new bullet is valid. Gel is not meant to simulate human tissue. It is simply a test medium for evaluating penetration and wound channel.

If we compare the HP to the monolithic in gel we see that the monolithic creates larger wound channels and penetrates deeper, but without overpenetrating if the right load is used. The comparison in gel is valid. The difference in gel indicates what the difference in human tissue would be because the difference is consistent.

One other advantage of the monolithic bullet is that it penetrates most common barriers with no difference in gel tests. HP will not do that. For me, I I have to shoot someone and I hit bone I want to know that the bullet is going to be as effective as it can be. With HP hitting bone will cause it to expand prematurely and that will reduce penetration significantly. It’s all physics.

There is no part of you the thinks the way bullets perform in gel is not the way they perform in flesh and bone? I get that ballistic gel is simply to create a consistent testing medium for comparison, but if it doesn't do a good job of actually replicating the real thing for different bullet technologies, it's not a legitimate testing material. From what I understand about the stuff, it was developed to predict penetration and expansion of HP ammo. Even with HP ammo, there are huge flaws with this testing medium, as HP ammo will only make a hole as big as a bullet expands with most handgun rounds in actual soft tissue. These permanent wound cavities you see that are larger than the actual expanded bullet are major BS in rounds like 380acp or even 9MM. There is a video out there where a guy demonstrates this on beef hearts. It wasn't until he was blasting them with a 6.5" 357 mag and 125 grain bullets moving about 1700fps that the wound channels started to show damage that was any larger than the expanded bullets he was shooting. This leads me to believe that while monolithic bullets probably do a better job of cutting a permanent wound channel in actual flesh than standard ball, the large wound channels they produce in ballistic gel are probably not representative of what they accomplish in actual flesh in these smaller rounds. I simply see these bullets as a gimmick with exploits the a testing medium that was designed for a different type of technology (HP ammo) to be tested. I could see this technology working in a much faster moving bullet on actual flesh, but I just don't buy that a bullet moving at 380acp velocities is going to be able to accomplish what it does in gel on actual flesh.

[cold-beer]

Underwood / Lehigh XP in my LCP 1 (gen 2).

I'd love to see the results of a high-round-count test in an LCP 2.

I just about got the 2nd gen LCP 1. From all that I read online, it generally has the best reputation for reliability out of the pocket 380's. The biggest reason that I went with the gen 2 was that the trigger is far more predictable, and the longer pre-travel combined with the mechanical trigger safety seemed like worthwhile improvements over the original. The LCP 2 has been out long enough that I wasn't too concerned with getting a lemon. I have not shot it yet, so let's hop I'm right.

As for the high-round count test, is there something you see in the LCP 2 that lends you to believe the round count would be less than the original LCP?

[Clusterfrack]

As for the high-round count test, is there something you see in the LCP 2 that lends you to believe the round count would be less than the original LCP?

Not specifically. I’ve just learned not to trust new designs until they are proven reliable. Especially from certain manufacturers.

[cold-beer]

Not specifically. I’ve just learned not to trust new designs until they are proven reliable. Especially from certain manufacturers.

I'll second that.

[1942bull]

For those who carry a 380 you might want to watch this video at Truth About Gun’s. It compares XTP, FMJ, and the Extreme Penetrator bullets. It is 13minutes long, but worth watching in formulating an opinion about carry ammo.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/shootingthebull410-380-ammo-quest-sequel-lehigh-defense-xtreme-penetrator/

[Daauto]

In my right side pocket is a Kahr CW380 loaded with Underwood Defense as a back up gun and in summer clothing as a main gun

[Drew78]

Hornady xtp and just got some extreme penetrators to begin testing.

[cold-beer]

For those who carry a 380 you might want to watch this video at Truth About Gun’s. It compares XTP, FMJ, and the Extreme Penetrator bullets. It is 13minutes long, but worth watching in formulating an opinion about carry ammo.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/shootingthebull410-380-ammo-quest-sequel-lehigh-defense-xtreme-penetrator/

This was a good watch. Thanks for the video!
This video was far more professional than others I've seen on the monolithic bullets.