Is ball still best for .380 ACP Ammo for mouse guns? [Archive]

fatdog

02-04-2022, 12:58 PM

I use Underwood/Lehigh XP +p in my .380s with the goal of adequate penetration (even through heavy clothing) without deflection, while sacrificing expansion. The 90gr XP chonos at 1000fps from my Kahr p380.

I came the the same conclusion for the LCP and G42 and that is the ammo I deploy. The Underwoods are very accurate and reliable in both my .380's. Too expensive for being practice ammo of course.

I invested in the Hydrashock deep when they first came out and bought about 140 rounds hoping it was the new answer. I shot 100 rounds in testing them and had one feed ramp hang up on both my G42 and one in my LCP. For me that eliminated the round from consideration. 2 FTF out of 100 rounds is outside my tolerance for a defensive pistol.

I both cases it was that thin corregated jacket mouth that caught on the very edge of the barrel ramp. Could have been magazine related, could have been something polishing the edge of the barrel ramp solved. But not some place I am willing to go when I have >100 trouble free rounds in each with the Underwood Leheighs.

If somebody is in AL or passing through and wants to buy my remaining stock of the hydrashock deep, PM me, but I am not jumping through the hoops of shipping ammo, especially since I live 50+ miles from the nearest UPS depot.

flux

02-04-2022, 01:05 PM

Not in the states, so my ammo situation differs. But after my S&B ball supply dried up, I resorted to loading 75gr Monolithic solids for my G42. It only gets carried when running, and as much as I'd love to have factory ammo, 380 ammo choice here is extremely limited.

the Schwartz

02-04-2022, 04:00 PM

Currently I must carry my LCP II 8-5 on a daily basis due to the NPE I am in until the end of the year. Unfortunately my P365 is just a bit too bulky.

Is high quality ball ammo still the best choice for .380 mouse pistols? I am running Speer Lawman right now.

I know this has been discussed before but I just want to check to see if anything has changed significantly.

Nothing new under the sun.

As you are likely aware, penetration depth is strongly governed by the expansion ratio of JHPs. Where momentum (mass and velocity) is an extremely limited quantity with the .380 ACP, greater expansion ratios severely limit the penetration depth of .380 ACP JHPs where expansion ratios exceed 1.35x caliber.

In cases where JHP expansion ratio exceeds 1.35x caliber, maximum penetration depth with .380 ACP JHPs will fall short of the 12-inch mark often barely making it to a maximum depth of 10 inches. The only JHP design that I am aware of that successfully mitigates expansion ratio to the extent that a maximum penetration depth of 12 inches is reached is the Hornady XTP JHP so long as velocities do not exceed the 900 fps mark. Since velocity produces the dynamic pressure that drives JHP expansion, driving a JHP faster may result in a greater ratio that actually limits penetration depth instead of increasing it.

Barring the XTP JHP as an option in the .380 ACP, if your desire is to employ self-defense ammunition that will reliably penetrate to a depth of 12+ inches and reach vital organs and structures on less than perfect frontal target presentations, an FMJ is the only way to ensure that with the .380 ACP.

ETA: While there are those who fear using an FMJ in the .380 ACP due to concerns regarding over-penetration, those concerns are unfounded. .380 ACP FMJs in the usual weight range of 90 - 95 grains are incapable of more than about 18.5 inches of penetration which is at the high end of the recommended maximum penetration depth recommended by the F.B.I. test protocols. In the event that a .380 ACP FMJ were to exit a human torso, it would be aerodynamically destabilized with a velocity under 300 fps and unlikely to break human skin.

4given

02-04-2022, 05:06 PM

Nothing new under the sun.

As you are likely aware, penetration depth is strongly governed by the expansion ratio of JHPs. Where momentum (mass and velocity) is an extremely limited quantity with the .380 ACP, greater expansion ratios severely limit the penetration depth of .380 ACP JHPs where expansion ratios exceed 1.35x caliber.

In cases where JHP expansion ratio exceeds 1.35x caliber, maximum penetration depth with .380 ACP JHPs will fall short of the 12-inch mark often barely making it to a maximum depth of 10 inches. The only JHP design that I am aware of that successfully mitigates expansion ratio to the extent that a maximum penetration depth of 12 inches is reached is the Hornady XTP JHP so long as velocities do not exceed the 900 fps mark. Since velocity produces the dynamic pressure that drives JHP expansion, driving a JHP faster may result in a greater ratio that actually limits penetration depth instead of increasing it.

Barring the XTP JHP as an option in the .380 ACP, if your desire is to employ self-defense ammunition that will reliably penetrate to a depth of 12+ inches and reach vital organs and structures on less than perfect frontal target presentations, an FMJ is the only way to ensure that with the .380 ACP.

ETA: While there are those who fear using an FMJ in the .380 ACP due to concerns regarding over-penetration, those concerns are unfounded. .380 ACP FMJs in the usual weight range of 90 - 95 grains are incapable of more than about 18.5 inches of penetration which is at the high end of the recommended maximum penetration depth recommended by the F.B.I. test protocols. In the event that a .380 ACP FMJ were to exit a human torso, it would be aerodynamically destabilized with a velocity under 300 fps and unlikely to break human skin.

Thanks Chuck! The laws of physics prevail! I discounted the .380 XTP long ago. A high quality (not high priced) Flat Nose FMJ by a major manufacturer that is not Winchester White Box would be nice. I feel pretty good with my choice of Speer Lawman but I am always holding out hope for something a little better.

Clusterfrack

02-04-2022, 05:23 PM

Nothing new under the sun.

...an FMJ is the only way to ensure that with the .380 ACP.

Might the Lehigh XP be the new thing that makes .380 more or less as viable as .38 wadcutters? And 9mm viable for grizzly defense (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27394-Lehigh-has-changed-my-idea-of-a-field-pistol)?

4given

02-04-2022, 06:10 PM

Might the Lehigh XP be the new thing that makes .380 more or less as viable as .38 wadcutters? And 9mm viable for grizzly defense (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27394-Lehigh-has-changed-my-idea-of-a-field-pistol)?

I would like to give these a try but at $36.99 per box of 20. It would cost $370 to run 200 rounds through this pistol for vetting. I just can't bring myself to do it.

Clusterfrack

02-04-2022, 06:37 PM

I would like to give these a try but at $36.99 per box of 20. It would cost $370 to run 200 rounds through this pistol for vetting. I just can't bring myself to do it.
Understandable. If you reload, XP 90gr bullets are $35/50 (https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1018301519). I tested with 3.0gr of Titegroup for 850fps from a P380. Max load is 3.2gr for a 90gr bullet, but because the XP is copper, and longer, I didn't want to push it.

the Schwartz

02-04-2022, 07:22 PM

Thanks Chuck! The laws of physics prevail! I discounted the .380 XTP long ago. A high quality (not high priced) Flat Nose FMJ by a major manufacturer that is not Winchester White Box would be nice. I feel pretty good with my choice of Speer Lawman but I am always holding out hope for something a little better.

You betcha.

TANSTAAFL.

As for flat nose FMJs—I'm assuming that you are looking for something that will give you straight line penetration—if you have access to the Fiocchi 85-grain FMJTC (709333), they might be worth exploring as an option.

83800

Factory specs state that Fiocchi's 85-grain FMJTC has a (arguably optimistic) muzzle velocity of 355 mps (1,165 fps). Assuming that it can achieve that velocity from a 2.75-inch barrel, that puts maximum penetration depth in the 20-inch range...with the meplat making straight line penetration probable. From your LCPII, I'd expect about 950 fps at the muzzle....maximum (predicted) penetration depth should be right at 18 inches.

Picking up the G42 last year after our discussion about NPEs, I ended up choosing the Fiocchi 95-grain FMJRN which runs a solid 930 fps (15-shot average) from my G42's 3.25-inch barrel which should go just a shade over 19 inches.

the Schwartz

02-04-2022, 08:16 PM

Might the Lehigh XP be the new thing that makes .380 more or less as viable as .38 wadcutters? And 9mm viable for grizzly defense (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27394-Lehigh-has-changed-my-idea-of-a-field-pistol)?

That's hard to say.

The marketing ''hype'' that equates the radial fracturing produced by the XD and XP in 10% ordnance gelatin with what can be expected to occur in human soft tissues is misleading at best. I remain unconvinced that the XD and XP designs offer any improvement over ball when it comes to terminal performance in humans.

These days, unless I am restricted to carrying a Glock 42 (that's loaded with ball) in an NPE, I'm happy to go about my day with a Glock 19 loaded with Speer 124-grain +P Gold Dot JHPs.

Navin Johnson

02-04-2022, 08:31 PM

I also believe that quality FMJ is the best choice for reliability. Little guns are finicky in general and littler guns are finickier. YMMV

Clusterfrack

02-04-2022, 11:18 PM

MickAK

02-04-2022, 11:39 PM

That's hard to say.

The marketing ''hype'' that equates the radial fracturing produced by the XD and XP in 10% ordnance gelatin with what can be expected to occur in human soft tissues is misleading at best. I remain unconvinced that the XD and XP designs offer any improvement over ball when it comes to terminal performance in humans.

They transfer the psychic frustration of billions of stripped out Phillips screws to your opponent.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that bullet shape and material changes can penetrate better for the same push, with better reliability than hardcast. I think the XP rounds have a pretty solid claim to that at this point for niche applications, like .380 and dangerous game.

As far as radial fracturing I don't see a lot of claims for that with the XP rounds. The claims are physically possible for the XD or we wouldn't see those wounds in animals when used for hunting. People aren't deer or pigs, and until the XD rounds are adopted by a major city PD or Fed LE organization we won't know. I don't see that happening for any number of reasons, so it's fuzzy pictures of a torn apart pig or thousands of OIS data going back years. Guess which wins.

Navin Johnson

02-05-2022, 12:40 AM

So at this point do we think that the XD and XP rounds have NOT been tested by credible entities?

MickAK

02-05-2022, 12:58 AM

So at this point do we think that the XD and XP rounds have NOT been tested by credible entities?

I think XP has. I think XD is claiming something that isn't proved, and isn't likely to be tested by credible entities, and has to overcome a credibility problem that is justified by a lot of history in terminal ballistics development. I think the choice of XTREME was poor on Lehigh's part and they continue to build up that hill with their marketing.

5pins

02-05-2022, 09:47 AM

After testing the Federal Hydra-Shok Deep, I bought a bunch, and it’s my carry load in my LCP. Decent expansion, ending up like a wadcutter, and great penetration.

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/07/30/federal-380-acp-99gr-hydra-shok-deep-in-vyse-ballistics-gel/

My second pick would be the Fiocchi 90gr XTP. However, the penetration is a little short when shot in the bare gel at 11 inches.

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/09/03/fiocchi-380-acp-90gr-xtp-in-vyes-ballistics-gel-retest/

Joe Mac

02-05-2022, 01:23 PM

After testing the Federal Hydra-Shok Deep, I bought a bunch, and it’s my carry load in my LCP. Decent expansion, ending up like a wadcutter, and great penetration.

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/07/30/federal-380-acp-99gr-hydra-shok-deep-in-vyse-ballistics-gel/

I bought a bunch after testing by you and a few others confirmed Federal's claims. It is a clever design; I was struck by the same thing: it ends up looking like a wadcutter with petals folded back at the front. I divided 200 test rounds between G42 and LCP-II, with no malfunctions and good accuracy. Didn't feel the need to expend more on testing because both of those guns have fed any bullet shape reliably.

4given

02-05-2022, 01:26 PM

You betcha.

TANSTAAFL.

As for flat nose FMJs—I'm assuming that you are looking for something that will give you straight line penetration—if you have access to the Fiocchi 85-grain FMJTC (709333), they might be worth exploring as an option.

83800

Interesting but from what I can see it is currently only marketed overseas.

the Schwartz

02-05-2022, 01:53 PM

The main potential advantage of XP is the claimed ability to resist deflection. I wouldn't expect it to have different internal ballistics from an FMJ.

Reliability wise, they have been no worse than FMJ.

I s'pose that LeHigh's claims (which are yet to be supported) are where I run into difficulty in believing that either the XD or the XP offers something that ball doesn't. Given the fact that Lehigh incorrectly equates the radial damage seen in gelatin with what can be expected to occur in mammalian soft tissues, I am understandably reluctant to take their opinions as valid.

Any FMJ (or hard cast bullet) with a meplat that is at least 35% of the bullet's nominal diameter can be reasonably expected to offer straight line penetration that is resistant to deflection induced by steering forces (primarily due to a medium's inhomogeneity).

Typical flat nose designs, be they FMJ or hard cast, maintain stability by minimizing the radius of gyration by keeping the center of gravity and center of pressure very close to one another. Radius of gyration, which behaves as a 'lever' that acts to overturn a bullet is proportional to the ratio of axial to transverse moments of inertia. Smaller radii of gyration are more conducive to maintaining nose-forward flight through test mediums like water, gelatin and soft tissue. Most bullets, due to their geometry, are instable because their center of pressure is in front of their center of gravity. By increasing their axial inertia (rotation), that instability can be overcome. Since the XD and XP designs have large meplats, they behave as just any other flat nose bullet might albeit with a slightly greater CD than bullets having unfluted meplats.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that we'll have any reference from the field in the foreseeable future since it is unlikely than an LE agency will adopt them for issue to their field operations personnel.

Put me down as ''cynical''. ;)

the Schwartz

02-05-2022, 02:17 PM

They transfer the psychic frustration of billions of stripped out Phillips screws to your opponent.

That's a great line and one of the funniest things that I've read for a long time! You should be writing ad-copy for LeHigh. :cool:

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that bullet shape and material changes can penetrate better for the same push, with better reliability than hardcast. I think the XP rounds have a pretty solid claim to that at this point for niche applications, like .380 and dangerous game.

As far as radial fracturing I don't see a lot of claims for that with the XP rounds. The claims are physically possible for the XD or we wouldn't see those wounds in animals when used for hunting. People aren't deer or pigs, and until the XD rounds are adopted by a major city PD or Fed LE organization we won't know. I don't see that happening for any number of reasons, so it's fuzzy pictures of a torn apart pig or thousands of OIS data going back years. Guess which wins.

Of course, nose profile determines CD in laminar (and some non-laminar) flow fields. That is why ''pointy'' configurations like 3CRH ogives and similar elongated ovoids penetrate deeply unless they overturn. Of course, once that happens, modeling variable attitude lateral flow past tumbling laterally-oriented bullets (requires the use of CFD software) becomes extremely complex. For example, at Re = 1,000, the attached boundary layer on a laterally-oriented bullet is laminar. The boundary layer separates at approximately 82° and the wake is turbulent. Using a turbulence model makes the boundary layer separation point move to the down-flow (rear) side (>90°) of the laterally-oriented bullet. So, this means that it is not correct to employ a turbulence model like K-epsilon to compute flow. Doing so results in a modeled wake that is much narrower than it is in actuality, which means that the drag is also less than it is in actuality. In testing, the separation point does not move to the rear side of laterally-oriented bullets until much higher Reynolds numbers (about Re = 250,000) prevail. At Re > 250,000, "drag crisis" sets in; boundary layer transitions occur and the boundary layer becomes turbulent.

The fluted noses in the LeHigh designs are used to alter CD and in the case of the XP they induce greater cavitation and effectively reduce the velocity at which cavitation occurs and typically do not overturn. This reduces frictional drag (contact with the sides of the bullet) and results in increased penetration depth. As such, the XD is not a design that I'd want to use for self-defense. The fluting on the XD increases drag considerably by redirecting flow (acts as a brake) and is kind of interesting to me, but not enough so that I'd ever leave Gold Dot or HST JHPs for XDs.

Clusterfrack

02-05-2022, 02:23 PM

Good points the Schwartz. I’m skeptical about terminal ballistics claims as well, and have zero interest in the XD bullets.

XP, especially the Underwood +p loading, delivers high velocities and outstanding penetration. No idea if it’s better than a wide meplat hard cast bullet, but they seem to deliver that type of penetration with FMJ reliability.

Velo Dog

02-05-2022, 04:26 PM

I know this has been discussed before but I just want to check to see if anything has changed significantly.

There are still no 380 Auto loads that consistently "pass" either the FBI or IWBA tests.

https://brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20150413204627/http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs6.htm

The .380 ACP is limited by its small case capacity, short overall length, and low SAAMI approved operating pressure. Its projectiles will always be either too short and light or traveling too slow for it to be recommended for general law enforcement use.

High quality ammo that is reliable and accurate in your pistol is still the best choice.

https://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/380%20ACP/380%20ACP%20Ammo%20Selection.html

Clusterfrack

02-05-2022, 06:22 PM

the Schwartz

02-05-2022, 07:45 PM

AirbusPilot

02-05-2022, 08:17 PM

I'm going to summarize what I think the consensus is. Folks, please weigh in if you disagree.

.380 is suboptimal for self-defense or duty use (9mm is vastly superior)
JHPs in .380 are either unproven or known to have poor or inconsistent penetration. JHPs that do penetrate typically do not expand much
FMJs penetrate adequately (>12"), but are known to deflect off bone
Solid flat point bullets penetrate adequately (>12"), and may be better at punching through bone
.380 autos can be finicky and unreliable with some ammo. Testing your carry load is a must.

DocGKR has posted a good summary (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4336-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp) of limitations and recommendations regarding .380 and .38 special.

I use Underwood Xtreme Defender 68gr +P ($28.50 box of 20) on my LCP2 which I carry when I have no other choice. It does about 1250 FPS on the LCP2 short barrel (Underwood advertises 1400).
I have put 100 rounds as test and they were as reliable as ball ammo(100% so far). Practice ammo is also Underwood 100gr Range ammo ($17.50 box of 50)

The problem I have with FMJ is over penetration, same for the JHP that does not expand. I do not trust any JHP to expand consistently at .380 velocities.

Another positive factor of the XD is they do not depend on expansion to work properly and they are completely barrier blind.

If for some reason you want more penetration but less than FMJ, go with the Xtreme Penetrator which is produced in 90gr and 90gr +P.

Here are some reviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PDQcE-1T40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LczfeWK9lHw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZQKmG4UeE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErofxN3F52s

Navin Johnson

02-05-2022, 08:22 PM

Seems like at least once or twice a year the same .380 is it enough thread comes up.

Seems like the same conclusion is always reached.

Velo Dog

02-05-2022, 08:26 PM

Winchester RA380T penetrated 9.3 inches after steel and 4.5 inches after auto glass
http://winchesterle.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/Handgun%20Bullet%20Barrier%20Testing%20Protocol.pd f

Barnes TAC-XP @ 870 fps penetrated 6.55 inches after car door sheet metal
https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BARNES/Barnes_.380ACP_80gr_TAC-XP.pdf

Hornady 90gr XTP @ 950 fps penetrated 10.6 inches after car door
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Ballistic%20Gelatin%20Tests/380%20ACP%20Car%20Door.html
Hornady 90gr XTP @ 1042 fps went 11.8"
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Ballistic%20Gelatin%20Tests/9mm%20Police%20Car%20Door.html

Hornady 90gr XTP @1044 fps penetrated 5.4 inches of 10% ballistic gelatin after car windshield
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Ballistic%20Gelatin%20Tests/9mm%20Police%20Car%20Windshield.html

Black Hills 60 Gr. HoneyBadger/Xtreme Defense from 3.82" barrel Beretta Pistol penetrated approximately 10 inches of synthetic ballistic gelatin after automotive glass
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/04/ballistic-testing-hornady-xtp-vs-black-hills-xtreme-defense-ammunition-380-auto/
Hornady XTP went approximately 8.5 inches

Federal Premium 99-Grain HST = 10.550" after steel
https://gundigest.com/handguns/concealed-carry/concealed-carry-380-acp-self-defense

An 85 grain version of Lehigh Defense Xtreme Penetrator @ 800 fps penetrated over 7 inches of 10% ballistic gel after automotive windshield.
The video also implies that the Hornady Critical Defense only penetrated 7 inches after an automotive side window
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tujq9nMCR0

Winchester Silvertip from 3" Walther PPK had an overall 20% "Success Rate" achieving 12" penetration in the complete 40-round, 8 event FBI test
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/

From DocGKR:
".380 Auto is a marginal defensive caliber that has difficulty meeting minimum terminal performance criteria easily obtained by typical service calibers such as 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 Auto...."

AirbusPilot

02-05-2022, 09:00 PM

From DocGKR:
".380 Auto is a marginal defensive caliber that has difficulty meeting minimum terminal performance criteria easily obtained by typical service calibers such as 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 Auto...."

Underwood .380 ACP +P 68gr. Xtreme Defender does 1250 FPS (1400 advertised) out of my LCP2 compared to the LD 800 FPS that the XP does.

I agree with DocGRK 100% but with the proper ammo is much better than nothing when you can't carry your normal EDC, in my case a Glock 29 10mm.

the Schwartz

02-05-2022, 10:27 PM

Underwood .380 ACP +P 68gr. Xtreme Defender does 1250 FPS (1400 advertised) out of my LCP2 compared to the LD 800 FPS that the XP does.

I agree with DocGRK 100% but with the proper ammo is much better than nothing when you can't carry your normal EDC, in my case a Glock 29 10mm.

Since there is currently no SAAMI pressure specification for +P .380 ACPs, I'd question the wisdom of pushing the .380 ACP past its envelope. If obtaining acceptable terminal performance from the .380 ACP requires pushing it to excessive (and unregulated) pressure levels, then it is probably time to pursue other (safer) options. In a platform that closely matches the size and mass of the LCPII, the Glock 43 can be had in 9mm without the need to go to such extremes.

Clusterfrack

02-06-2022, 12:01 AM

Since there is currently no SAAMI pressure specification for +P .380 ACPs, I'd question the wisdom of pushing the .380 ACP past its envelope. If obtaining acceptable terminal performance from the .380 ACP requires pushing it to excessive (and unregulated) pressure levels, then it is probably time to pursue other (safer) options. In a platform that closely matches the size and mass of the LCPII, the Glock 43 can be had in 9mm without the need to go to such extremes.

The 43 is quite a bit larger than my mouseguns of choice, the P380 and LCP1. Otherwise I’d agree with you and carry a subcompact single stack 9mm.

Underwood/Lehigh 90gr XP .380 “+P” at 1000fps doesn’t feel much different from standard loads. No pressure signs, and similar ejection distance.

Velo Dog

02-06-2022, 12:47 AM

Underwood .380 ACP +P 68gr. Xtreme Defender does 1250 FPS (1400 advertised) out of my LCP2

The FBI protocol test originally included 10 shots at 20 yards.
The 68 grain Lehigh Defense bullet has a ballistic coefficient (G1) of 0.090 and would be traveling 1158 fps from your Ruger LCP II for just 202 ft-lbs of energy at that distance.
Even at the muzzle, the energy is only 236 ft-lbs and the bullet's momentum is less than a typical 38 Special mid-range wadcutter.
The sectional density is 0.080, which is comparable to a 35 grain .25 ACP jacketed hollow point.
Despite its solid copper construction, don't expect tremendous penetration.

Here is a test of an older 65 grain version of the Xtreme Defender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5rPTHcrmg

AirbusPilot

02-06-2022, 10:32 AM

The FBI protocol test originally included 10 shots at 20 yards.
The 68 grain Lehigh Defense bullet has a ballistic coefficient (G1) of 0.090 and would be traveling 1158 fps from your Ruger LCP II for just 202 ft-lbs of energy at that distance.
Even at the muzzle, the energy is only 236 ft-lbs and the bullet's momentum is less than a typical 38 Special mid-range wadcutter.
The sectional density is 0.080, which is comparable to a 35 grain .25 ACP jacketed hollow point.
Despite its solid copper construction, don't expect tremendous penetration.

Here is a test of an older 65 grain version of the Xtreme Defender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5rPTHcrmg

First, no one on their right mind would consider an LCP2 effective at 20. I consider it good inside 7 yards, maybe 10 stretching it.

The video you posted verifies my own findings for the Underwood 68gr +P XD out of my LCP2, 1249 FPS and 13 inches of penetration; that translates to 236 ft.lbs at the muzzle as you stated.

My LCP2 is as I said before, ultimate option when I can't carry anything else; not my EDC. 236 ft.lbs puts it at the same energy level of a 9mm 115gr going 950 FPS.

I won't carry a .22/.25/.32 when the LCP2 is available. I do have a Seecamp .32 which is smaller but harder to shoot, terrible trigger and very weak ballistics compared to the LCP2.

As I said before, it's much better than not carrying anything.

Thanks for the info and video.

TGS

02-06-2022, 10:49 AM

In a platform that closely matches the size and mass of the LCPII, the Glock 43 can be had in 9mm without the need to go to such extremes.

The 43 is quite a bit larger than my mouseguns of choice, the P380 and LCP1.

Right. The G43 is nowhere near the size and mass of the LCP. The Glock 43 is more than twice the mass unloaded (even moreso loaded), more than an inch longer, about an inch taller, and almost 1/4" thicker.

Even the Glock 42 is noticeably larger than the LCP.

Those measurements can sound miniscule on paper, but when you're looking at using a mousegun for doing mousegun things, the difference is pretty substantial in practice.

Clusterfrack

02-06-2022, 11:00 AM

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 11:28 AM

Right. The G43 is nowhere near the size and mass of the LCP. The Glock 43 is more than twice the mass unloaded (even moreso loaded), more than an inch longer, about an inch taller, and almost 1/4" thicker.

Even the Glock 42 is noticeably larger than the LCP.

Those measurements can sound miniscule on paper, but when you're looking at using a mousegun for doing mousegun things, the difference is pretty substantial in practice.

You're missing the point.

The problem with going to an unregulated over-pressure variant cartridge (in this case, the Underwood 68gr +P XD) that was designed to operate in a low-pressure blowback action is that such a variant can—and will—over-stress a blowback action which is sprung for a certain recoil impulse/pressure level. Not only does relying upon an unregulated (e.g.: SAAMI, CIP) over-pressure variant increase the likelihood of a case head rupture, but it also creates the very real possibility of forcing an out-of-battery condition that would result in the release high-pressure propellant gases potentially injuring the person holding the pistol. Demanding increased performance (namely the interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics that would exceed typical .380 ACP levels) will naturally require a slightly larger firearm to house the locked-breech design that comes with that demand. As such, the Glock 43 is a reasonably close match for the LCPII in terms of size given its increased performance and can be carried just as comfortably as any other mouse gun. Greater terminal ballistic performance demands greater size. TANSTAAFL.

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 11:35 AM

Exactly. Around 5 years ago, my carry strategy changed significantly. After a very tense encounter involving my family and 3 carloads of tweakers in a remote location, I switched from the easy to carry/conceal Glock 43 to the most capable handgun I can conceal (P-07 or G19). Due to recent events in my area, including a massive increase in the homeless population, violent crime, carjacking, home invasion, and civil unrest, I decided to be armed 100% of the time I'm wearing pants (unless prevented by law or workplace regulations). That led me to pocket carry of a mousegun (p380) when I’m not carrying a holstered ‘real gun’.

I've gone much the same route as you recently exchanging my long-carried Glock 17 in favor of the Glock 19 which reduces the size of the delivery vehicle while still providing everything that the 9mm has to offer. As I have stated in the prior post, greater terminal performance requires greater pressure which requires greater mass/volume of the delivery vehicle. If we want to decrease the mass/volume of our self-defense pistol, the inescapable compromise must come in the form of reduced (terminal) capability.

While I am not at ''my happiest'' when I'm forced to relegate my safety to the Glock 42 while in an NPE, that's just how life is and sometimes we don't get to ''pick''.

TGS

02-06-2022, 11:45 AM

You're missing the point.

I wasn't missing the point, I was agreeing with Clusterfrack that you are incorrect in your statement that a Glock 43 is comparable in size to a mousegun. It's not. You're wrong; no ifs, ands or buts. Using Clusterfrack as an example, if he can't carry a Glock 43 in his pocket then he can't carry a Glock 43 in his pocket, and no amount of opinion is going to change the fact that his only option for pocket carry is a 380 mouse gun, or a woman's best option for a bra holster might be a mousegun and not a Glock 43, so on and so on.

The problem with going to an unregulated over-pressure variant cartridge (in this case, the Underwood 68gr +P XD) that was designed to operate in low-pressure blowback action is that such a variant can and will over-stress a blowback action which is sprung for a certain recoil impulse/pressure level. Not only does relying upon an unregulated (e.g.: SAAMI, CIP) over-pressure variant increase the likelihood of a case head rupture, but it also creates the very real possibility of forcing an out-of-battery condition that would result in the release high pressure propellant gases potentially injuring the person holding the pistol.

I wasn't going to touch this, but if you insist...

Do you have overwhelming examples of this actually happening in reality, or is this just theoretical babble? Quality overpressure variants for 380 have been around for decades and I'm unaware of them destroying guns or injuring shooters....especially given the low volume at which they're consumed. We all understand the potential liability of something that is "off the reservation" and not abiding by SAAMI spec, but we have decades of overpressure 380 consumption at this point without much in the way of consistent horror stories resulting from their use.

Clusterfrack

02-06-2022, 11:52 AM

I can carry a 43 in my pocket, but it’s not really concealed. With the p380, no one knows I’m carrying. Even my wife hasn’t figured it out.

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 12:03 PM

I wasn't missing the point, I was agreeing with Clusterfrack that you are incorrect in your statement that a Glock 43 is comparable in size to a mousegun. It's not. You're wrong; no ifs, ands or buts. Using Clusterfrack as an example, if he can't carry a Glock 43 in his pocket then he can't carry a Glock 43 in his pocket, and no amount of opinion is going to change the fact that his only option for pocket carry is a 380 mouse gun, or a woman's best option for a bra holster might be a mousegun and not a Glock 43, so on and so on.

I wasn't going to touch this, but if you insist...

Do you have overwhelming examples of this actually happening in reality, or is this just theoretical babble? Quality overpressure variants for 380 have been around for decades and I'm unaware of them destroying guns or injuring shooters....especially given the low volume at which they're consumed. We all understand the potential liability of something that is "off the reservation" and not abiding by SAAMI spec, but we have decades of overpressure 380 consumption at this point without much in the way of consistent horror stories resulting from their use.

Simply because you are ''unaware'' of reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's head-in-the-sand thinking.

Injuries (and yes, even deaths) have resulted from the use of over-pressure loadings that exceed the mechanical limits of the firearm.

The use of vague/undefined adjectives like ''overwhelming'' is nothing more than a distraction.

Exactly how many examples are there in an ''overwhelming''?

If you feel that anyone can escape the immutable laws of physics by willing it, that's fine with me. I prefer reality. ;)

TGS

02-06-2022, 12:09 PM

Simply because you are ''unaware'' of reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's head-in-the-sand thinking.

Injuries (and yes, even deaths) have resulted from the use of over-pressure loadings that exceed the mechanical limits of the firearm.

The use of vague/undefined adjectives like ''overwhelming'' is nothing more than a distraction.

Exactly how many examples are there in an ''overwhelming''?

If you feel that anyone can escape the immutable laws of physics by willing it, that's fine with me. I prefer reality. ;)

Do you have examples of quality overpressure 380 variants destroying firearms and injuring shooters?

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 12:09 PM

I can carry a 43 in my pocket, but it’s not really concealed. With the p380, no one knows I’m carrying. Even my wife hasn’t figured it out.

Understood. That's why we ''dress around'' our pistol.

My preferred concealment dress in an NPE would be a yellow vinyl fisherman's foul-weather coat—

83885

—but it would probably draw stares. :cool:

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 12:12 PM

Do you have examples of quality overpressure 380 variants destroying firearms and injuring shooters?

Can you specify exactly how many examples are there in an ''overwhelming''?

TGS

02-06-2022, 12:18 PM

Can you specify exactly how many examples are there in an ''overwhelming''?

If you use your FLETC honor grad powers to re-read the post you just quoted, you'll notice I didn't use the word "overwhelming". You contested my use of the word, so I dropped it.

So, I'll repeat it:

Do you have examples of quality 380 overpressure variants destroying guns and injuring shooters?

HeavyDuty

02-06-2022, 12:26 PM

Is an e-penis ball or HP?

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 12:51 PM

If you use your FLETC honor grad powers to re-read the post you just quoted, you'll notice I didn't use the word "overwhelming". You contested my use of the word, so I dropped it.

So, I'll repeat it:

Do you have examples of quality 380 overpressure variants destroying guns and injuring shooters?

If you are going to ask leading questions like, ''Do you have examples of quality 380 overpressure variants destroying guns and injuring shooters?'', you'll have to provide definitions of the terms that you are using before anyone should feel compelled to answer such a question. Of course, being called on employing the loose terminology of ''overwhelming'' caused you to withdraw it because you knew that it was an attempt at misdirection.

Specifically, you will need to define the adjective ''quality''. By its very definition, a ''quality'' load would, and should, fall within industry specified standards (SAAMI, CIP) for pressure. Therefore, any .380 ACP load that exceeds those industry specified limits, whether it is produced by a single individual or by a commercial ammunition reloading company, would not be properly defined as being one of ''quality''.

Your employment of ad hominem in the first sentence of your post that I have quoted (above) suggests that you might be a little too emotionally invested in this. Just a word to the wise. There really is no need to make this about personal insult or to attack anyone's professional credentials here.

I am not convinced that the ''juice'' of this continued thread drift is ''worth the squeeze'' given your behavior here, so I would suggest allowing this technical thread to continue on without further interruption.

TGS

02-06-2022, 01:02 PM

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 01:15 PM

It's not misdirection, it's a simple question and a fair request which you are unable to provide supporting examples to make your case and you know that. "Quality" is pretty easy to parse; outfits like Buffalo Bore and Underwood make quality ammunition, as opposed to handloaders who tend to make mistakes and double-charge cartridges leading to one-off catastrophic failures.

I don't know how else I can pair down the question to be as fair as possible for you. If 380 overpressure variants consistently caused damage and injury to shooters, you'd have no problem answering this question regardless of how I word it.

So, third time...

...do you have examples of 380 overpressure variants causing damage and injury to shooters?

Your persistent demand that I respond to your leading question after you've engaged in obvious ad hominem suggests that you must've missed this part of my last post. Here you go....

Your employment of ad hominem in the first sentence of your post that I have quoted (above) suggests that you might be a little too emotionally invested in this. Just a word to the wise. There really is no need to make this about personal insult or to attack anyone's professional credentials here.

I am not convinced that the ''juice'' of this continued thread drift is ''worth the squeeze'' given your behavior here, so I would suggest allowing this technical thread to continue on without further interruption.

Simply put, I'm not terribly interested in entertaining another one of your frequent temper tantrums.

If you cannot debate without employing insult (''triggered'' again?) then there is not much merit to your argument.

TGS

02-06-2022, 01:16 PM

So, the answer is "no".

Got it.

Hambo

02-06-2022, 02:06 PM

With the p380, no one knows I’m carrying. Even my wife hasn’t figured it out.

Perhaps couples counseling can help.

BigT

02-06-2022, 02:29 PM

Your persistent demand that I respond to your leading question after you've engaged in obvious ad hominem suggests that you must've missed this part of my last post. Here you go....

Simply put, I'm not terribly interested in entertaining another one of your frequent temper tantrums.

If you cannot debate without employing insult (''triggered'' again?) then there is not much merit to your argument.

So would you please provide examples of high pressure factory loaded 380 causing malfunctions and or death.

5pins

02-06-2022, 02:32 PM

I can carry a 43 in my pocket, but it’s not really concealed. With the p380, no one knows I’m carrying. Even my wife hasn’t figured it out.

(wife) Is that a p380 in your pocket our are you happy to see me?

Velo Dog

02-06-2022, 02:44 PM

IIRC, it was mentioned in the book Shooting To Live (1942, Fairbairn & Sykes) that 150 foot pounds of energy or more was preferred for man-stopping. That seems to be another way of saying that the .380 ACP and .38 S&W loadings of the time were adequate for self defense or police work.

Apparently some European countries require roughly 150 ft-lbs to euthanize wounded game animals.
https://geco-ammunition.com/en/services/faq

"Section 19 Federal Hunting Act (BJagdG) stipulates a minimum energy at the muzzle of at least 200 joules (Austria 250 J) for a coup de grace with a pistol or revolver. This value is achieved by almost every cartridge in the GECO range, although the cartridges in the ACTION EXTREME series are particularly suitable for the coup de grace. These bullets in particular exhibit excellent stopping power and steady performance for a variety of barrel lengths."

I won't fault anyone for carrying a mouse gun as long as they understand its limitations.

Navin Johnson

02-06-2022, 03:30 PM

The above "spirited discussion" reminds me of the upcoming joy the .30 SC will bring with not only boutique ammo company's loading to higher velocity to emulate 9mm PF (because if 50k PSI is good 55k has to be better) but also the capacity juggernaut reimagined.

The vast majority of people who are not LEO or drug dealers would be far better off discussing crash test ratings and diet and exercise than the efficacy of the smallest gun they can possibly carry of which no one seems to want to run through a 2000 round challenge..... Of their own.....

the Schwartz

02-06-2022, 04:20 PM

So would you please provide examples of high pressure factory loaded 380 causing malfunctions and or death.

https://www.bing.com/th/id/OGC.df3af40fd7bcb7ae14ea4031cc7be0af?pid=1.7&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fdjbrainz.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2020%2f09%2fthat-is-bait.gif&ehk=CyOS1s3OJ%2fOgRVb1ZCrOrDxaIPxIhInSwmHMB%2baYNM s%3d

MandoWookie

02-06-2022, 07:54 PM

https://www.bing.com/th/id/OGC.df3af40fd7bcb7ae14ea4031cc7be0af?pid=1.7&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fdjbrainz.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2020%2f09%2fthat-is-bait.gif&ehk=CyOS1s3OJ%2fOgRVb1ZCrOrDxaIPxIhInSwmHMB%2baYNM s%3d

I'm interested in the question. I have seen examples of hand loads that have destroyed guns, both double charges and squibs, in a variety of calibers, and even incidents of factory remanufactured ammo in service calibers that failed catastrophically, but those have all been in either service calibers or magnums.
I have never seen such damage from mouse gun calibers, but that is probably just because these are guns that are carried a lot but shot little.

Though the cartridge is over a century old at this point, has SAAMI specs changed over time, or is it possible for someone to submit an official +p rating for current firearms?
Most on the market small .380s these days are locked breech tilting barrel guns, that should have a larger margin of safety over blowback guns of yore.

03RN

02-06-2022, 07:59 PM

Understood. That's why we ''dress around'' our pistol.

My preferred concealment dress in an NPE would be a yellow vinyl fisherman's foul-weather coat—

83885

—but it would probably draw stares. :cool:

Sun's out guns out
83913
Carried like that for 10 years

4given

02-07-2022, 12:54 PM

Anybody try the standard pressure Underwood .380 ACP 100gr. Flat Nose Hi-Tek Coated Hard Cast rounds?

Is the meplat flat enough to make any difference?

https://www.underwoodammo.com/380-acp-100-grain-flat-nose.html

the Schwartz

02-07-2022, 03:06 PM

Is the meplat flat enough to make any difference?

''Difference'' in what way exactly?

Stability? Tissue damage?

4given

02-07-2022, 03:36 PM

''Difference'' in what way exactly?

Stability? Tissue damage?

That along with straight line penetration and perhaps the ability to avoid deflection when bone is encountered.

4given

02-07-2022, 05:45 PM

That along with straight line penetration and perhaps the ability to avoid deflection when bone is encountered.

Also, is the meplat large enough to make a difference? Looks kind of small.

TC215

02-07-2022, 05:55 PM

If you are going to ask leading questions like, ''Do you have examples of quality 380 overpressure variants destroying guns and injuring shooters?'', you'll have to provide definitions of the terms that you are using before anyone should feel compelled to answer such a question. Of course, being called on employing the loose terminology of ''overwhelming'' caused you to withdraw it because you knew that it was an attempt at misdirection.

Specifically, you will need to define the adjective ''quality''. By its very definition, a ''quality'' load would, and should, fall within industry specified standards (SAAMI, CIP) for pressure. Therefore, any .380 ACP load that exceeds those industry specified limits, whether it is produced by a single individual or by a commercial ammunition reloading company, would not be properly defined as being one of ''quality''.

Your employment of ad hominem in the first sentence of your post that I have quoted (above) suggests that you might be a little too emotionally invested in this. Just a word to the wise. There really is no need to make this about personal insult or to attack anyone's professional credentials here.

I am not convinced that the ''juice'' of this continued thread drift is ''worth the squeeze'' given your behavior here, so I would suggest allowing this technical thread to continue on without further interruption.

Your persistent demand that I respond to your leading question after you've engaged in obvious ad hominem suggests that you must've missed this part of my last post. Here you go....

Simply put, I'm not terribly interested in entertaining another one of your frequent temper tantrums.

If you cannot debate without employing insult (''triggered'' again?) then there is not much merit to your argument.

That’s a really long winded way to say you’ve got nothin’.

the Schwartz

02-07-2022, 08:25 PM

That’s a really long winded way to say you’ve got nothin’.

https://www.bing.com/th/id/OGC.df3af40fd7bcb7ae14ea4031cc7be0af?pid=1.7&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fdjbrainz.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2020%2f09%2fthat-is-bait.gif&ehk=CyOS1s3OJ%2fOgRVb1ZCrOrDxaIPxIhInSwmHMB%2baYNM s%3d

Not interested. Nice try.

the Schwartz

02-07-2022, 08:36 PM

Also, is the meplat large enough to make a difference? Looks kind of small.

From what I can see, its meplat is probably sufficient to facilitate straight line penetration. As for increasing wound mass, at subsonic velocities there is very little difference between flat and round nose FMJs except when round nose FMJs upset.

MandoWookie

02-07-2022, 09:35 PM

https://www.bing.com/th/id/OGC.df3af40fd7bcb7ae14ea4031cc7be0af?pid=1.7&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fdjbrainz.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2020%2f09%2fthat-is-bait.gif&ehk=CyOS1s3OJ%2fOgRVb1ZCrOrDxaIPxIhInSwmHMB%2baYNM s%3d

Not interested. Nice try.

But what about others that are interested in the question?

Are the guns you've seen have trouble with Underwood .380 loadings exclusively the blowback guns or were there examples of locked breech guns like the LCP and the like?
I can definitely see reliability issues with the LCP and the like as they already seem to be riding the line on function as it is, and I can see case blowouts from blowbacks opening too quickly, but am curious if that is the observed result.

the Schwartz

02-07-2022, 10:14 PM

TGS

02-07-2022, 10:23 PM

But what about others that are interested in the question?

Are the guns you've seen have trouble with Underwood .380 loadings exclusively the blowback guns or were there examples of locked breech guns like the LCP and the like?
I can definitely see reliability issues with the LCP and the like as they already seem to be riding the line on function as it is, and I can see case blowouts from blowbacks opening too quickly, but am curious if that is the observed result.

That's an interesting question about it, with regards to the blowback vs locked breech.

If I recall correctly, Underwood's test platform is the blowback Walther PPK. Buffalo Bore also uses the Walther PPK, in addition to the Browning BDA, Keltec P3AT, and Colt Mustang Pocket Lite. I'm not sure what Magtech uses as the test platform for their overpressure variant.

FWIW, the Underwood and BB "+p" variant (their marketing term, not mine, I understand there is no SAAMI spec +p) are both 1200fps out of the PPK. The Magtech offering is just a hair under 1100fps. That tells me that there's sort of rough consensus on what is actually safe in modern firearms versus 1908, given Underwood and BB are both quality shops that have been in business a few decades and Magtech is a fairly large mainstream ammo manufacturer with three factories and has been around for 30 years.

I think there's some other smaller boutique shops like Underwood and BB that do the overpressure 380 variants, I just can't remember.

MandoWookie

02-07-2022, 10:39 PM

OK.

Several years ago, I experienced a catastrophic failure with a KelTec P3AT (which is rated for intermittent +P use according to the owner's manual) using the BB 95-grain +P FMJFN. Cracked the frame, blew out the magazine, and I was fortunate enough to keep all of my fingers on my right hand. The shock felt like I slammed a door on my hand. The only reminder I have of that is some nerve damage in my thumb and index finger.

Was this first round or had you ran this stuff prior? Sounds like the result that occurs with a double charge or similar QC failure.
Especially if what TGS says about them testing their ammo in a P3AT, then it shouldn't detonate like that as a matter of course.
And if it was a double charged round(or similar) then that is a risk of any cartridge, not just the +p ones. Similar has happened with service rounds with much higher SAAMI pressures.

I dont doubt the BB and Underwood +p .380 loadings will drastically reduce the guns service life though.

the Schwartz

02-07-2022, 10:58 PM

Was this first round or had you ran this stuff prior? Sounds like the result that occurs with a double charge or similar QC failure.
Especially if what TGS says about them testing their ammo in a P3AT, then it shouldn't detonate like that as a matter of course.
And if it was a double charged round(or similar) then that is a risk of any cartridge, not just the +p ones. Similar has happened with service rounds with much higher SAAMI pressures.

I dont doubt the BB and Underwood +p .380 loadings will drastically reduce the guns service life though.

About 30 -35 rounds of the BB +P load down the pipe (in addition to 250 - 300 standard pressure ball in prior outings) in a prior range session before that happened.

BB may test that load in their P3AT, but that doesn't mean that every P3AT will fare as well as the manufacturer's test piece.

There's also a big difference between what can happen and what ''shouldn't'' happen.

HeavyDuty

02-08-2022, 07:41 AM

My personal comfort level is standard pressure in blowback, and possibly +P in locked breech. But I generally just carry flat nose ball in my .380s.

4given

02-08-2022, 12:33 PM

From what I can see, its meplat is probably sufficient to facilitate straight line penetration. As for increasing wound mass, at subsonic velocities there is very little difference between flat and round nose FMJs except when round nose FMJs upset.

Thanks Chuck! So far I'm not seeing much that would make me spend the money change from the Speer Lawman Ammo since I have already vetted it in my pistol.

4given

02-08-2022, 12:34 PM

My personal comfort level is standard pressure in blowback, and possibly +P in locked breech. But I generally just carry flat nose ball in my .380s.

What specifically are you using? Winchester White Box?

the Schwartz

02-08-2022, 01:39 PM

My personal comfort level is standard pressure in blowback, and possibly +P in locked breech. But I generally just carry flat nose ball in my .380s.

That's the nice thing about flat-nose ball...no need to push it with over-pressure loads to get it to perform. Even with locked breech pistols like the G42, I suspect that pushing the .380 to +P levels is probably riding the ragged edge of safe operation.

the Schwartz

02-08-2022, 01:44 PM

Thanks Chuck! So far I'm not seeing much that would make me spend the money change from the Speer Lawman Ammo since I have already vetted it in my pistol.

I don't see the point of changing either. With ball ammo, flat nose or round nose, it's not as if there is a tremendous difference in the effect that either has on the target (human body).

Anything Speer (ATK) makes is good quality and I'd trust it once proven reliable.

HeavyDuty

02-08-2022, 04:18 PM

What specifically are you using? Winchester White Box?

That’s what I have been using, mostly because it’s the only .380 I was able to find at the time. Things haven’t gotten much better.

MandoWookie

02-08-2022, 05:23 PM

About 30 -35 rounds of the BB +P load down the pipe (in addition to 250 - 300 standard pressure ball in prior outings) in a prior range session before that happened.

BB may test that load in their P3AT, but that doesn't mean that every P3AT will fare as well as the manufacturer's test piece.

There's also a big difference between what can happen and what ''shouldn't'' happen.

So it ran most of a box without issue?
Seems either there was a catastrophic defect in the gun, or a catastrophic defect with that round, unless you were experiencing massive amounts of recoil and blast in those prior rounds as well?
Anything to indicate that round was an outlier or the norm for that loading?
Did you contact either BB or Kel Tec about what happened?

4given

02-08-2022, 06:04 PM

That’s what I have been using, mostly because it’s the only .380 I was able to find at the time. Things haven’t gotten much better.

I like their bullet profile. There is a fair selection other rounds at of .380 at targetsportsusa.com

Velo Dog

02-08-2022, 07:15 PM

So far I'm not seeing much that would make me spend the money change from the Speer Lawman Ammo since I have already vetted it in my pistol.

I think your Speer Lawman TMJ is a sensible choice.

If you choose something different, make sure it actually helps meet a valid need. Don't fall for marketing gimmicks or assume that more is always better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgOa25NhFio

The standard pressure load penetrated 41 inches of Clear Ballistics gelatin while the +P version went 45 inches.

As Paul Harrell might say,
"Is it enough of a difference to make a difference? You be the judge."

Navin Johnson

02-08-2022, 07:30 PM

Pertaining to earlier

I thought round nose did more damage (slightly) than flat nose (not wadcutter) do to stretching tissue further do to the longer distance measured from skirt edge to skirt edge "over the top".

Tracking straight is good when shooting straight.
A deflecting projectile may hit a vital structure if shot placement wasn't ideal. FFT.

the Schwartz

02-08-2022, 09:09 PM

Pertaining to earlier

I thought round nose did more damage (slightly) than flat nose (not wadcutter) do to stretching tissue further do to the longer distance measured from skirt edge to skirt edge "over the top".

Correct.

In a fluid (or soft solid) flow field, the meplat moves the separation point (where tissue is forced radially away from and nearly perpendicular to the z-axis) of the boundary layer further upstream of the projectile's length causing cavitation. This is especially so in flow fields—especially soft tissue—with high Reynolds numbers (where inertial components greatly outweigh viscous components) which causes boundary layer separation to occur more readily. The resulting cavitation reduces soft tissue contact with the surface of the bullet and less tissue is crushed. As meplat diameter approaches the diameter of the projectile it becomes a right cylinder (wadcutter) maximizing the amount of soft tissue coming into contact with projectile which crushes the most tissue.

More streamlined shapes like round nose FMJs have separation points that occur further downstream of the projectile's length which increases (marginally) the bullet's contact surface with the material in the flow field resulting slightly more crushed tissue.

the Schwartz

02-08-2022, 09:45 PM

So it ran most of a box without issue?
Seems either there was a catastrophic defect in the gun, or a catastrophic defect with that round, unless you were experiencing massive amounts of recoil and blast in those prior rounds as well?
Anything to indicate that round was an outlier or the norm for that loading?
Did you contact either BB or Kel Tec about what happened?

I wish that I had been able to predict signs/indications of that impending failure, but I lack that ability.

Lesson learned—Don't fire over-pressure loads (even commercially-produced ones) that exceed established industry pressure standards.

Shit happens.

willie

02-09-2022, 12:23 AM

FrankB

02-10-2022, 11:03 AM

HeavyDuty

02-10-2022, 11:17 AM

willie

02-10-2022, 11:24 AM

OTOH… Curtis Reeves, a former Tampa police officer, fatally shot Chad Oulson in 2014 after an argument about texting during a movie. Reeves fired a single shot from a .380 pistol, and Oulson was immediately incapacitated. The trial is happening now, but it’s still in the jury selection phase. I would imagine the type of round fired will be brought up during testimony, and that should settle the issue. 🤣

I killed a feral hog with one shot from my LCP. The hog was in a trap, and I shot him in the top of the head from 5 feet as he ate watermelon. Therefore,.... .

I prefer the Buffalo Bore extra power hard cast bullet. The pistol has a heavier recoil spring. This combination has worked well in two LCP's. I base my preference on the reliability and accuracy that I saw in limited testing. Examining fired primers showed no excessive pressure sign or premature unlocking of breech. Though I like this Buffalo Bore bullet, I tell everybody that it's still marginal.

I polished the two LCP's most thoroughly with Flitz applied with Q-Tip and soft cloth. I lube with Slip 2000 and keep lint and debris from the mechanism. So far so good.

the Schwartz

02-10-2022, 04:24 PM

Evidently, the .380 ACP is inadequate for moose. ;)

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2022/02/09/moose-attacks-iditarod-rookies-sled-team-injures-4-dogs/

Now we know.

octagon

02-10-2022, 07:50 PM

Let me jump up and whip mine out. My opinion, that is. I have appointed myself an expert so don't argue. A 380 will always be a marginal self defense caliber regardless of bullet brand. Seeing otherwise intelligent people take sides on a nebulous issue pertaining to an ineffective cartridge distresses me.

It depends on the definition. If a round does not meet FBI criteria is it marginal or ineffective? If it cycles,fires and functions reliably in the firearm it is used in, it is accurate and penetrates 12" minimum is it marginal or ineffective? If it is barrier blind and still penetrates 12" but doesn't expand is it marginal or ineffective?

Does a round become ineffective or marginal if the shooter does their part and place rounds in the high thoracic cavity and it penetrates deep enough to strike vital organs and/or arteries?

So much weight is placed on expansion. Is that because a .355 dia hole in the heart doesn't work or the shooter is counting on the expansion to hit the organ? Does a person lose blood pressure significantly faster with a expanded bullet than one that didn't expand?

Obviously more expansion with barrier blind adequate penetration is better but there is a balance in the ability to hit what's important and repeatedly in a package that is actually carried day in day out mousegun or not.

TiroFijo

02-11-2022, 11:26 AM

Here and in many places around the world people are being killed or seriously wounded everyday with 380, standard 38 spl and 9 mm loaded with non expanding bullets; and with less than stellar marksmanship... if the desired outcome is not inmediate, the shooter usually just shoots some more. Works fine more often than not.

Are expanding bullets that meet the FBI standards better? No doubt.

But don't discount humble non expanding bullets that poke a 9 mm hole.

Velo Dog

02-11-2022, 12:59 PM

Obviously more expansion with barrier blind adequate penetration is better but there is a balance in the ability to hit what's important and repeatedly in a package that is actually carried day in day out mousegun or not.
I suspect willie typed with tongue in cheek.

Regardless, the question is whether the .380 ACP cartridge has benefited from newer bullet designs that have improved 9×19mm terminal ballistics.

I see no improvement over traditional FMJ and older JHP that is comparable to the 9mm's jump in performance with modern loadings.

The IWBA and FBI have set the standards for today's law enforcement ammunition.
If the 380 Auto is to be held to a different standard, then that standard needs to be measurable and clearly defined.

Joe Mac

02-11-2022, 01:37 PM

I see no improvement over traditional FMJ and older JHP that is comparable to the 9mm's jump in performance with modern loadings.

The IWBA and FBI have set the standards for today's law enforcement ammunition.
If the 380 Auto is to be held to a different standard, then that standard needs to be measurable and clearly defined.

Here's one significant improvement, as tested by 5pins. I wouldn't stress overmuch if I had to carry ball, but 15" with .50 expansion makes me happier:

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/07/30/federal-380-acp-99gr-hydra-shok-deep-in-vyse-ballistics-gel/

Not sure what more you can ask from a 'mousegun' cartridge than to do well in bare gel and heavy clothing; that's the standard Federal intended to meet, and they succeeded. It would be a reasonable standard for new .380 loads going forward. It's never going to meet full FBI standards, but I'm never going to carry it as a primary weapon, in general (rare and specific circumstances notwithstanding). It's a pocket gun for around the house, taking out the trash, etc., or a backup.

Leroy Suggs

02-11-2022, 02:21 PM

Here's one significant improvement, as tested by 5pins. I wouldn't stress overmuch if I had to carry ball, but 15" with .50 expansion makes me happier:

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/07/30/federal-380-acp-99gr-hydra-shok-deep-in-vyse-ballistics-gel/

Not sure what more you can ask from a 'mousegun' cartridge than to do well in bare gel and heavy clothing; that's the standard Federal intended to meet, and they succeeded. It would be a reasonable standard for new .380 loads going forward. It's never going to meet full FBI standards, but I'm never going to carry it as a primary weapon, in general (rare and specific circumstances notwithstanding). It's a pocket gun for around the house, taking out the trash, etc., or a backup.

I will allow that.:D

octagon

02-11-2022, 02:25 PM

I suspect willie typed with tongue in cheek.

Regardless, the question is whether the .380 ACP cartridge has benefited from newer bullet designs that have improved 9×19mm terminal ballistics.

I see no improvement over traditional FMJ and older JHP that is comparable to the 9mm's jump in performance with modern loadings.

The IWBA and FBI have set the standards for today's law enforcement ammunition.
If the 380 Auto is to be held to a different standard, then that standard needs to be measurable and clearly defined.

It was obvious that Willie meant his comment in jest or at least I took it that way too. However he still brings up good points for consideration in his terms marginal and ineffective. They are not the same as I doubt anyone would say a lethal round is ineffective but plenty would have no issue calling some smaller/lower power cartridges and loadings marginal.

The difference in use between mouseguns and full size duty guns or compact typical concealed carry choices must be considered. The application of use in the different types also has to be considered. Meeting full FBI ammunition standards for duty ammo is ideal but is it necessary for the mousegun role? Does a mousegun user have the same encounters of laminated windshield glass or car door sheet metal barriers? They may but it is exceedingly rare. Balancing size/weight capacity and recoil with ease and even likelihood of carrying are real factors that can't just be ignored. It has already been clearly established that if given a choice and reasonable opportunity most knowledgeable self defenders would choose a long gun or a full size duty level handgun. That doesn't work for plenty of people. IF the choice is a smaller easier to conceal handgun the 380 seems to fit the pinnacle of the rest of the field. In the laws of equals and diminishing returns it is the better choice than any other smaller calibers and it gets close to 9mm in some loadings especially in bare gel and heavy clothing as mentioned by Joemac. I have yet to hear a single person ever suggest going with a 380 over a 9mm or larger caliber for military, police or concealed carry defense for anyone that could carry the larger guns. That's the horses for courses mentality.

The other part is an inordinate focus on minutia when it comes to expansion to equal or exceed the ability to get solid hits and deep enough penetration to reach vital organs/elements. Taken to it's limits expansion means zero if the hits aren't there, the hits are peripheral or the round penetration is so shallow as to not reach anything important.

In the grand scheme of things a person that carries a gun, the gun goes off when needed, the bullet hits the right area and penetrates deep enough to reach vital organs that person is 99% where they need to be. The person with the very best ammo,caliber and gun that doesn't accomplish those goals is 1% there and 99% lacking.

Shawn Dodson

02-13-2022, 03:11 PM

I can carry a 43 in my pocket, but it’s not really concealed. With the p380, no one knows I’m carrying. Even my wife hasn’t figured it out.

When I started pocket carrying I started with a Seecamp .32. I normally don't like things in my front pants/shorts pockets. As I started pocket carrying more frequently I decided to "step up" to a G42. After trying several different pocket holsters I found the Vedder Pocket Locker worked the best for me when I wear Carhartt B365 rip stop shorts (which I do most of the year). Once I got used to the bigger/heavier G42 I moved up to pocket carrying a G43 in a Vedder Pocket Locker. Both the 42 and 43 just disappear in my pocket. Many times my wife can't tell I have a gun in my pocket, and nobody else seems to notice when I'm out in public, even in NPEs.

HeavyDuty

02-13-2022, 05:49 PM

When I started pocket carrying I started with a Seecamp .32. I normally don't like things in my front pants/shorts pockets. As I started pocket carrying more frequently I decided to "step up" to a G42. After trying several different pocket holsters I found the Vedder Pocket Locker worked the best for me when I wear Carhartt B365 rip stop shorts (which I do most of the year). Once I got used to the bigger/heavier G42 I moved up to pocket carrying a G43 in a Vedder Pocket Locker. Both the 42 and 43 just disappear in my pocket. Many times my wife can't tell I have a gun in my pocket, and nobody else seems to notice when I'm out in public, even in NPEs.

I just recently picked up one of these for a P365, and I like it enough so far that I may grab one for the 42, too.

the Schwartz

02-14-2022, 02:00 PM

I just recently picked up one of these for a P365, and I like it enough so far that I may grab one for the 42, too.

Hmmm :rolleyes:

This has me thinking. :confused: I may pick one up as well for the 42.

If that holster works as well for me as it does for you (yeah, I know the jury is still out on that) and Dodson, I may end up buying a 43 and carrying it that way. I've grown fond of the little 42, and the 43 being as close in size as it is to 42, beckons now. The Vedder reminds me of the DeSantis Nemesis which is also a design that I have looked at recently.

Damn it, though...I gotta stop coming here 'cause you all are making me buy stuff....AGAIN.

Velo Dog

02-19-2022, 03:49 PM

From another thread

Do you think things have changed much as regards the effectiveness of .38 WC ammo vs. .380ACP in the last 10 years?

Despite many attempts at improving .380 performance, the same basic problems remain.

Everything is a trade-off, so starting off with small bullets and low velocity is a major challenge.

Don't be deceived by marketing hype, impressive energy numbers, or the results of a single ballistics test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8L0J0aE1do

Even with properly conducted testing, results can be misleading.

An example is the new Hydra-Shok Deep

"The erect post propelled tissue out of the path of the expanded bullet, reducing the amount of tissue that was contacted and crushed as the bullet penetrated. As a result, the bullet produced a narrower, but deeper, permanent cavity compared to conventional JHP bullets of the same caliber, weight, velocity and expanded diameter."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708141329/http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs26.htm

Velo Dog

02-19-2022, 04:41 PM

Not sure what more you can ask from a 'mousegun' cartridge than to do well in bare gel and heavy clothing; that's the standard Federal intended to meet, and they succeeded. It would be a reasonable standard for new .380 loads going forward. It's never going to meet full FBI standards

I completely agree and would love to see more testing of the new Hydra-Shok Deep when it becomes available...again.

Until then, let's take a look at some other .380 results from properly conducted testing in 10% ordnance gelatin.

https://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/380%20ACP/380%20ACP%20Ammo%20Selection.html

Forget auto glass and car doors.

Forget 4 layers of heavy denim.

I think a bullet that penetrates 10 inches and expands to 0.40" in both bare gel and heavy clothing might be fine from a "vest pocket pistol".

Did you find all the loads from that testing that meets that more realistic goal?

Velo Dog

02-20-2022, 02:25 AM

I think a bullet that penetrates 10 inches and expands to 0.40" in both bare gel and heavy clothing might be fine from a "vest pocket pistol".

Did you find all the loads from that testing that meets that more realistic goal?

Here's another set of tests in case anyone thinks I'm cherry-picking to make my point.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130330145657/http://firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

How much shall we lower the bar to accommodate 380 Auto?
If expansion is unnecessary, is the deepest penetrator "best"?
Is 9 inches of penetration crucially important while 10 is superfluous? Why?

I don't think the FBI or IWBA tests are too extraneous. I think the 380 Auto is too low-powered to overly worry about its terminal ballistics. Find an available and affordable round that is reliable in your gun and practice accurate shot placement.

octagon

02-20-2022, 09:48 AM

Here's another set of tests in case anyone thinks I'm cherry-picking to make my point.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130330145657/http://firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

How much shall we lower the bar to accommodate 380 Auto?
If expansion is unnecessary, is the deepest penetrator "best"?
Is 9 inches of penetration crucially important while 10 is superfluous? Why?

I don't think the FBI or IWBA tests are too extraneous. I think the 380 Auto is too low-powered to overly worry about its terminal ballistics. Find an available and affordable round that is reliable in your gun and practice accurate shot placement.

Or you could look at it another way. If people are comfortable enough with a 5 shot 38 with wadcutters why wouldn't they be comfortable with a 7 shot 380 with FMJ or XP rounds that are the same size, don't expand and penetrate just as deep?

OR is the FBI full test protocols intended for law enforcement relevant to citizen concealed carriers when measuring performance after all the various barriers ?

There are good questions to ask but how many are asking questions to find out the information to make an informed decision vs how many are asking the questions they know the answer to but are trying to convince themselves or others that X is better than Y or X is fine but Y is unacceptable?

Pick your poison.

The first rule of a gunfight is have a gun.

Carry your damn gun.

It's the Indian not the arrow.

The mind is the ultimate weapon; All else is supplemental.

It's the stakes not the odds.

Better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

Or any other overused expression that regularly come up when mousegun, NPE or sub 9mm calibers are discussed.

Clusterfrack

02-20-2022, 10:10 AM

TGS

02-20-2022, 12:06 PM

Thanks octagon, you said it better than I could have. My recent foray into .380 carry came from the increase in crime and anti-police activism here in the Portland area. I decided to carry a gun 100% of the time I'm wearing pants. When I and my pants are out and about, I'm usually carrying a duty size 9mm. But, inside and around the house, and when there's no time to "gun up", I'm still well armed with a gun that's so small, it's like just another EDC tool like my pocket knife or a flashlight.

Good thing for you, you can carry a gun even without pants. The P380 is pretty comparable in size to the Chekhov .25, the preferred underwear gun of one of the best covert operatives around.

https://youtu.be/-9fQ4-eqaoE

Clusterfrack

02-20-2022, 12:57 PM

Good thing for you, you can carry a gun even without pants. The P380 is pretty comparable in size to the Chekhov .25, the preferred underwear gun of one of the best covert operatives around.

https://youtu.be/-9fQ4-eqaoE

… keister…

the Schwartz

02-20-2022, 03:53 PM

Here's another set of tests in case anyone thinks I'm cherry-picking to make my point.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130330145657/http://firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

How much shall we lower the bar to accommodate 380 Auto?
If expansion is unnecessary, is the deepest penetrator "best"?
Is 9 inches of penetration crucially important while 10 is superfluous? Why?

I'm not sure that looking at penetration depth in terms of an arbitrarily-defined ''hard'' limit is the answer either.

Regardless of its penetration depth, a bullet still damages the tissues that it passes through.

I think the 380 Auto is too low-powered to overly worry about its terminal ballistics. Find an available and affordable round that is reliable in your gun and practice accurate shot placement.

I agree.

The 'mouse gun' calibers (taken here to be the .22LR, .25ACP, .32ACP, .380ACP, etc.) generally lack the velocity needed to reliably drive JHP expansion much past 1.25x initial caliber. In those cases where expansion does exceed that de minimis, 'mouse-gun' projectiles lack sufficient mass to ensure the (post-expansion) sectional density that would result in sufficient penetration. This is why those knowledgeable in the field of study recommend the use of ball ammo in 'mouse guns'. With 90 - 95 grain .380 ball, unless the FMJ tumbles, penetration is limited to ≈18 inches which is the upper limit of the range proposed by the FBI test protocols. The case capacity of the 'mouse gun' calibers can only produce so much momentum to drive penetration.

Velo Dog

02-20-2022, 04:00 PM

The first rule of a gunfight is have a gun.

I completely agree.

There appears to be two different discussions taking place at the same time in this thread, however.

I have mostly tried to address the original question of possible recent advancements in 380 Auto ammunition.

The merits of small and/or low-recoiling pistols chambered for the 380 Auto cartridge is another discussion.

Before we can discern a "best" round for 380 Auto, we need to ascertain what "good" performance for the pocket pistol cartridge should look like in standardized testing.

I suggested this as a bare minimum for choosing JHP over FMJ

I think a bullet that penetrates 10 inches and expands to 0.40" in both bare gel and heavy clothing might be fine from a "vest pocket pistol".

What would you consider adequate?

the Schwartz

02-20-2022, 04:33 PM

I completely agree.

There appears to be two different discussions taking place at the same time in this thread, however.

I have mostly tried to address the original question of possible recent advancements in 380 Auto ammunition.

The merits of small and/or low-recoiling pistols chambered for the 380 Auto cartridge is another discussion.

Before we can discern a "best" round for 380 Auto, we need to ascertain what "good" performance for the pocket pistol cartridge should look like in standardized testing.

I suggested this as a bare minimum for choosing JHP over FMJ

I think a bullet that penetrates 10 inches and expands to 0.40" in both bare gel and heavy clothing might be fine from a "vest pocket pistol".

What would you consider adequate?

Unsure as to whom you are directing your last question, but I am interested in your thinking and what leads you to the proposed goal 0.40'' of expansion with 10 inches of penetration?

Velo Dog

02-20-2022, 06:04 PM

Unsure as to whom you are directing your last question, but I am interested in your thinking and what leads you to the proposed goal 0.40'' of expansion with 10 inches of penetration?

One reason is that it is a seemingly low bar. There are loads in every cartridge, including .22 LR and .25 ACP, that can reach 10" from a short barrel handgun. 1.1 x caliber is about as little expansion as a hollow point that actually expands can provide and, once again, even .22 rimfire and .25 ACP can expand to 0.40" under ideal circumstances.

A second reason is human anatomy. An average of 10 inches in 10% gel should be sufficient for an unobstructed shot to the thorax.
https://brassfetcher.com/Handguns/images/32%20ACP2.jpg

Remember that military and law enforcement really want 14 inches of penetration, but the 380 Auto struggles to reach 12-13 inches with expanding bullets.

I think 10 inches is quite a concession, but my proposal still puts a priority on penetration.

What would everyone else propose as a practical alternative to the current FBI BRF/IWBA/JSWB-IPT standard test protocols?

octagon

02-20-2022, 08:35 PM

One reason is that it is a seemingly low bar. There are loads in every cartridge, including .22 LR and .25 ACP, that can reach 10" from a short barrel handgun. 1.1 x caliber is about as little expansion as a hollow point that actually expands can provide and, once again, even .22 rimfire and .25 ACP can expand to 0.40" under ideal circumstances.

A second reason is human anatomy. An average of 10 inches in 10% gel should be sufficient for an unobstructed shot to the thorax.
https://brassfetcher.com/Handguns/images/32%20ACP2.jpg

Remember that military and law enforcement really want 14 inches of penetration, but the 380 Auto struggles to reach 12-13 inches with expanding bullets.

I think 10 inches is quite a concession, but my proposal still puts a priority on penetration.

What would everyone else propose as a practical alternative to the current FBI BRF/IWBA/JSWB-IPT standard test protocols?

Each person will set the standards they feel are sufficient. Hopefully those are informed and fit their needs.

FOR ME I have no issue with the FBI et al standards and test procedure when it comes to police and military uniformed or duty ammunition other than they have not considered cutting as a means of wounding or temporary stretch cavity in wounding at high velocities. They also penalize fragmentation outside the main wound channel. Otherwise I believe it is the best test procedure and most relevant protocols available. When it comes to citizen defensive encounters the focus should be escape and disengaging as soon as possible and take into consideration the lower incident of needing to shoot through barriers. With that said I still believe ammunition should be able to penetrate 12" of 10% ballistic gel in bare and heavy clothing. IF it can also expand it is even better but if it cannot it is still acceptable TO ME. A .40 or a .45 dia hole in the heart or major blood vessels or arteries is not going to appreciably make any difference in stopping an attacker sooner than a .35 hole. A .60 or slightly larger hole in the same tissue may have a small improvement but it is likely over shadowed by the difference between one human and another psychology and physiology. A determined attacker or one with a higher or lower starting blood pressure, a higher or lower chemical dump or outside chemical introduction pre assault through drugs and alcohol or sheer will and determination are greater factors than increase in bullet dia of .1 or .2. YMMV but that is what I am comfortable with.

Velo Dog

02-20-2022, 09:47 PM

I still believe ammunition should be able to penetrate 12" of 10% ballistic gel in bare and heavy clothing. IF it can also expand it is even better but if it cannot it is still acceptable TO ME.

That is a pragmatic answer that many will agree with.

Do you consider 380 Auto the smallest cartridge that is really recommendable for concealed carry or would 32 Auto FMJ also be worthy of consideration?

In other words, are there any other considerations for you besides the ability to penetrate 12 inches?

From post #59

IIRC, it was mentioned in the book Shooting To Live (1942, Fairbairn & Sykes) that 150 foot pounds of energy or more was preferred for man-stopping. That seems to be another way of saying that the .380 ACP and .38 S&W loadings of the time were adequate for self defense or police work.

Apparently some European countries require roughly 150 ft-lbs to euthanize wounded game animals.
https://geco-ammunition.com/en/services/faq

octagon

02-21-2022, 09:29 AM

To be honest I have never really looked into anything smaller than 380. One because my department didn't allow any calibers for off duty smaller than 380 and the two with the LCP and Kahrs the 380 was plenty small enough for my needs while offering acceptable performance and shootability. I don't even know of quality 32 guns that are much smaller or lighter than LCP/Kahr.

Most police agencies carried 38 special for many years and there wasn't a sea change or hard push for something bigger or more powerful so there must be an acceptable floor of performance/shootability balance. As you stated the 32 and 380 has been used in police service in some EU countries so they too must have found it reasonable enough. I think the vast majority have now switched to 9mm just like law enforcement agencies here but how long did they or US agencies use 38 and smaller than 9mm? Quite a few decades. It is more apples to oranges comparison when looking at such eras however as some calibers were not even in existence yet and both ammunition and weapon performance and reliability have changed and improved significantly in the intervening years.

the Schwartz

02-21-2022, 05:58 PM

One reason is that it is a seemingly low bar. There are loads in every cartridge, including .22 LR and .25 ACP, that can reach 10" from a short barrel handgun. 1.1 x caliber is about as little expansion as a hollow point that actually expands can provide and, once again, even .22 rimfire and .25 ACP can expand to 0.40" under ideal circumstances.

A second reason is human anatomy. An average of 10 inches in 10% gel should be sufficient for an unobstructed shot to the thorax.
https://brassfetcher.com/Handguns/images/32%20ACP2.jpg

Remember that military and law enforcement really want 14 inches of penetration, but the 380 Auto struggles to reach 12-13 inches with expanding bullets.

I think 10 inches is quite a concession, but my proposal still puts a priority on penetration.

What would everyone else propose as a practical alternative to the current FBI BRF/IWBA/JSWB-IPT standard test protocols?

I agree that 10 inches is quite a compromise in terms of maximum penetration depth. Modeling terminal performance mathematically can provide an interesting perspective.

Taking your value of 0.40'' for expansion for a typical 90-grain .380ACP JHP at an impact velocity of 800 fps, the predicted penetration depth according to these models is—

Q-model: 16.35 inches
MacPherson WTI: 14.25 inches

—which is well in excess of the 10 inches of penetration that you'd prefer to see.

However...

I'd respectfully offer though that we don't need to sacrifice expansion (which produces greater damage per unit of distance traveled) in the name of satisfying your requirement for 10 inches of penetration depth.

For example (putting aside performance against 4 layers of denim for the time being), if we use the two mathematical models (above) to evaluate a 90-grain .380ACP JHP that expands to a diameter of 0.50'' at 800 fps, the predicted penetration depth is —

Q-model: 9.93 inches
MacPherson WTI: 10.14 inches

—which suggests that it would come very close to meeting your desired penetration depth requirement of 10 inches while producing ≈55% more soft tissue damage per inch traveled than the same .380ACP 90-grain JHP with an expanded diameter of 0.40''.

The validity of these models' mathematical predictions is confirmed here in 5pins' testing of the Fiocchi .380ACP 90-grain XTP JHP conducted in VYSE 10%-concentration ordnance gelatin— https://general-cartridge.com/2020/09/03/fiocchi-380-acp-90gr-xtp-in-vyes-ballistics-gel-retest/

At 796 - 817 fps the .380ACP 90-grain XTP JHPs that 5pins fired into bare VYSE 10% ordnance gelatin expanded to 0.50'' and 0.51'' and penetrated to a depth of 11 inches.

Velo Dog

02-21-2022, 08:54 PM

I'd respectfully offer though that we don't need to sacrifice expansion (which produces greater damage per unit of distance traveled) in the name of satisfying your requirement for 10 inches of penetration depth.

For example (putting aside performance against 4 layers of denim for the time being), if we use the two mathematical models (above) to evaluate a 90-grain .380ACP JHP that expands to a diameter of 0.50'' at 800 fps, the predicted penetration depth is —

Q-model: 9.93 inches
MacPherson WTI: 10.14 inches

—which suggests that it would come very close to meeting your desired penetration depth requirement of 10 inches while producing ≈55% more soft tissue damage per inch traveled than the same .380ACP 90-grain JHP with an expanded diameter of 0.40''.

Okay, I now understand the reason for your earlier question.

You are correct that 380 Auto hollow points have potential for better performance.

I selected those minimums due to the inconsistent performance that is characteristic of 380 JHP.

In this particular test, the Hornady 90 gr. XTP penetrated 10.1" and expanded to 0.47" in bare gel,
but after heavy clothing penetrated to an excellent 15.1 inches and only opened up to 0.38"
https://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/380%20ACP/380%20ACP%20Ammo%20Selection.html

In another test, the Federal Hydra-Shok averaged 12 inches and 0.49" after heavy clothing,
but in bare 10% organic gelatin the penetration was 6.7" due to a recovered diameter of 0.66"
https://web.archive.org/web/20130330145657/http://firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

Judged solely by the tests I have linked to here, no 380 Auto loading met my minimum expectations.

A couple loads came very close, but since we're looking at five-shot averages, I'm not going to give them an automatic pass.

Other testers have gotten better results, but FMJ is probably the only 380 Auto load that will consistently penetrate the 12-14 inch minimums regardless of barrel length and even the best JHP bullets sometimes fall far short of those requisites.

Clusterfrack

02-21-2022, 09:09 PM

...FMJ is probably the only 380 Auto load that will consistently penetrate 12-14 inches regardless of barrel length and even the best JHP bullets sometimes fall far short of that requisite.

That's why I've settled on the Underwood/Lehigh XP in .380. It penetrates consistently, and seems like the best compromise. For me.

peterb

02-22-2022, 07:18 AM

I noticed that Atlanta Arms loads a 115gr HP, which is heavy for .380. I’ve never seen it tested. Anyone tried it?
https://atlantaarms.com/products/elite-defense-380-acp-115gr-hp.html

Velo Dog

02-23-2022, 01:40 PM

I noticed that Atlanta Arms loads a 115gr HP, which is heavy for .380. I’ve never seen it tested. Anyone tried it?
https://atlantaarms.com/products/elite-defense-380-acp-115gr-hp.html

That bullet appears to be a Hornady XTP intended for 9x19mm. Hornady lists that bullet having a "useful velocity range" of 800-1400 fps. The Atlanta Arms load is rated at 845 fps and 182 foot pounds of energy.

I wouldn't expect large, consistent, uniform expansion.
However, penetration should be fine enough in bare gel.

the Schwartz

02-24-2022, 05:59 AM

That bullet appears to be a Hornady XTP intended for 9x19mm. Hornady lists that bullet having a "useful velocity range" of 800-1400 fps. The Atlanta Arms load is rated at 845 fps and 182 foot pounds of energy.

I wouldn't expect large, consistent, uniform expansion.
However, penetration should be fine enough in bare gel.

I'd wondered if that was a Hornady XTP.

If it is, the minimum dynamic pressure required to exceed the yield strength of the XTP's lead alloy and initiate expansion (given the lower bound of Hornady's stated velocity limit) is going to be ≈3.09MPa (≈450psi). At 845 fps, the dynamic pressure exerted on the expansion cavity would be 3.45 MPa (≈500psi). Depending upon how much work hardening of the copper alloy jacket material occurred during the manufacturing process, the jacket's annular tension may be great enough to prevent expansion especially if the bullet were to strike tissues having a somewhat lower than average density than 10% ordnance gelatin (1.04 g/cm³).

I suspect that this particular load is well beyond the capability of the .380 ACP's case capacity to drive it fast enough to expand. I suppose that it could be evaluated in water, but I wouldn't be surprised if the XTP failed to expand even under those favorable testing conditions. At 845 fps, if it doesn't expand—depending upon which model is used—expect 22 - 23.5 inches of penetration.

In contrast, plain ol' generic non-expanding 95-grain ball at 950 fps would reduce the expected maximum penetration depth by about 2½ inches (19.2 - 20.8 inches).

I don't see much of an ''upside'' to using the Atlanta Arms offering.

Shawn Dodson

02-24-2022, 05:36 PM

The first rule of a gunfight is have a gun.

The first rule of a gunfight is don't get shot.

The second rule of a gunfight is if you do get shot then don't give up. Drive on and stay in the fight.

octagon

02-24-2022, 08:09 PM

The first rule of a gunfight is don't get shot.

The second rule of a gunfight is if you do get shot then don't give up. Drive on and stay in the fight.

Those aren't my rules just the often quoted ones. Mine are

First rule don't get into a gunfight

Second rule don't get shot

Third rule Have a gun

The problem with rules or trite expressions is that they have some truth to them but often get overused or misapplied.

Velo Dog

02-27-2022, 10:40 PM

Evidently, the .380 ACP is inadequate for moose. ;)

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2022/02/09/moose-attacks-iditarod-rookies-sled-team-injures-4-dogs/

Now we know.

Everybody knows that 9mm is the minimum against moose.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2015/10/26/montana-man-kills-charging-moose-one-well-placed-9mm-round/

41magfan

03-01-2022, 12:55 PM

https://gunsmagazine.com/insider-online/musher-learns-to-carry-a-bigger-gun/

Doc_Glock

03-01-2022, 03:25 PM

https://gunsmagazine.com/insider-online/musher-learns-to-carry-a-bigger-gun/

"Bridgett called for help and one friend showed up with a rifle capable of putting the bull down for the count. After the animal was dressed out to salvage the meat, Scotty told me via email, “We found out that five of six shots hit the moose, (including) two in the lungs, one in the heart, and one in the mouth.”

Dayum!!
GJM

Totem Polar

03-01-2022, 06:41 PM

"Bridgett called for help and one friend showed up with a rifle capable of putting the bull down for the count. After the animal was dressed out to salvage the meat, Scotty told me via email, “We found out that five of six shots hit the moose, (including) two in the lungs, one in the heart, and one in the mouth.”

Dayum!!
GJM

Yeah, that’s some damn good shooting with an LCP.

#wouldbuyallherbeers

Velo Dog

03-01-2022, 07:10 PM

After the animal was dressed out to salvage the meat, Scotty told me via email, “We found out that five of six shots hit the moose, (including) two in the lungs, one in the heart, and one in the mouth."

Sometimes you just need more gun, even with good shot placement and penetration.

Something to consider if the 380 Auto requires giving up reliable bullet expansion to get guaranteed penetration.

Velo Dog

03-06-2022, 12:48 AM

Unsure as to whom you are directing your last question, but I am interested in your thinking and what leads you to the proposed goal 0.40'' of expansion with 10 inches of penetration?

How much gel could the .41-caliber black powder derringers shoot through?

From a Remington Model 95 Double Derringer the 130 grain .41 short traveled somewhere between roughly 400-600 fps.

The answer might provide an interesting historical perspective on pocket pistol performance.

https://gunsmagazine.com/our-experts/surplus-classic/henry-deringers-pocket-pistol/
https://truewestmagazine.com/a-41-derringer-barks-again/
https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=35068.0
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2021/01/bore-size-versus-performance/

the Schwartz

03-06-2022, 11:30 AM

How much gel could the .41-caliber black powder derringers shoot through?

From a Remington Model 95 Double Derringer the 130 grain .41 short traveled somewhere between roughly 400-600 fps.

The answer might provide an interesting historical perspective on pocket pistol performance.

https://gunsmagazine.com/our-experts/surplus-classic/henry-deringers-pocket-pistol/
https://truewestmagazine.com/a-41-derringer-barks-again/
https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=35068.0
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2021/01/bore-size-versus-performance/

I hadn't considered the .41 Short (or .41-100). It is certainly a perspective worth examining.

Looking at the cartridge, the consensus among the sources that I have looked at indicate that it fired a 0.405'' diameter, 130-grain conical lead bullet at ≈425 fps.

Recent production .41 Short 130-grain ammunition was tested by Holt Bodinson (in the link to the GUNS magazine article that you provided) from a 3-inch barreled Remington Double Derringer with Western Lubaloy ammunition averaging 532 fps and Navy Arms ammunition averaging 621 fps. Bodinson reports in his article that, ''I was curious about the penetration of the .41 Short, so I soaked some old phone directories in water and backed them up with a ¾-inch pine board. I was expecting to recover the .41-caliber bullets somewhere inside the directories, but at 10 feet, the Lubaloy and the Navy Arms rounds simply sailed through all 5 inches of the water soaked directories, punched through that ¾-inch piece of pine and kept on going'' so it seems that the following estimates are reasonable prognostications of the .41 Short's performance in 10% ordnance gelatin.

Given Bodinson's reported velocities, I think that modeling the .41 Short 130-grain conical lead bullet at all three velocities (425 fps, 532 fps, and 621 fps) is in order.

In doing so, I am assuming that no significant deformation of the conical lead bullet occurs.

Evaluation using all three bullet penetration models with maximum penetration depth (inches) and total wound mass (ounces) follows—

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 425 fps
Q-model: 11.86 in.; 0.551 oz.
mTHOR: 9.97 in.; 0.463 oz.
WTI model: 8.31 in.; 0.405 oz.

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 532 fps
Q-model: 14.69 in.; 0.683 oz.
mTHOR: 11.67 in.; 0.542 oz.
WTI model: 10.45 in.; 0.510 oz.

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 621 fps
Q-model: 16.76 in.; 0.779 oz.
mTHOR: 13.00 in.; 0.604 oz.
WTI model: 12.23 in.; 0.597 oz.

In comparison, a .380 ACP 95-grain JHP (0.40'' @ 900 fps) produces the following predicted maximum penetration depth (inches) and total wound mass (ounces)—

.380 ACP 95-grain JHP @ 900 fps; Dx: 0.40''
Q-model: 18.70 in.; 0.936 oz.
mTHOR: 14.47 in.; 0.724 oz.
WTI model: 15.95 in.; 0.864 oz.

peterb

03-06-2022, 12:41 PM

And here I thought the definitive word on .380 was “7.65mm with a delivery like a brick through a plate-glass window.” ;-)

Velo Dog

03-06-2022, 03:51 PM

I hadn't considered the .41 Short (or .41-100). It is certainly a perspective worth examining.

Looking at the cartridge, the consensus among the sources that I have looked at indicate that it fired a 0.405'' diameter, 130-grain conical lead bullet at ≈425 fps.

Recent production .41 Short 130-grain ammunition was tested by Holt Bodinson (in the link to the GUNS magazine article that you provided) from a 3-inch barreled Remington Double Derringer with Western Lubaloy ammunition averaging 532 fps and Navy Arms ammunition averaging 621 fps. Bodinson reports in his article that, ''I was curious about the penetration of the .41 Short, so I soaked some old phone directories in water and backed them up with a ¾-inch pine board. I was expecting to recover the .41-caliber bullets somewhere inside the directories, but at 10 feet, the Lubaloy and the Navy Arms rounds simply sailed through all 5 inches of the water soaked directories, punched through that ¾-inch piece of pine and kept on going'' so it seems that the following estimates are reasonable prognostications of the .41 Short's performance in 10% ordnance gelatin.

Given Bodinson's reported velocities, I think that modeling the .41 Short 130-grain conical lead bullet at all three velocities (425 fps, 532 fps, and 621 fps) is in order.

In doing so, I am assuming that no significant deformation of the conical lead bullet occurs.

Evaluation using all three bullet penetration models with maximum penetration depth (inches) and total wound mass (ounces) follows—

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 425 fps
Q-model: 11.86 in.; 0.551 oz.
mTHOR: 9.97 in.; 0.463 oz.
WTI model: 8.31 in.; 0.405 oz.

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 532 fps
Q-model: 14.69 in.; 0.683 oz.
mTHOR: 11.67 in.; 0.542 oz.
WTI model: 10.45 in.; 0.510 oz.

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 621 fps
Q-model: 16.76 in.; 0.779 oz.
mTHOR: 13.00 in.; 0.604 oz.
WTI model: 12.23 in.; 0.597 oz.

In comparison, a .380 ACP 95-grain JHP (0.40'' @ 900 fps) produces the following predicted maximum penetration depth (inches) and total wound mass (ounces)—

.380 ACP 95-grain JHP @ 900 fps; Dx: 0.40''
Q-model: 18.70 in.; 0.936 oz.
mTHOR: 14.47 in.; 0.724 oz.
WTI model: 15.95 in.; 0.864 oz.

Thanks! I found that very informative.

The .41 Short Rimfire bullet has a low sectional density of .113 just like 50 grain 25 Auto.
That it could penetrate 10-12 inches even at velocities below 500 fps is enlightening.
Phil Spangenberger claimed the .41 Short penetrated 13 inches of clay with the hotter 1980s produced ammo.

Great job. Thanks Again.

Bucky

03-07-2022, 04:06 AM

And here I thought the definitive word on .380 was “7.65mm with a delivery like a brick through a plate-glass window.” ;-)

Nah, that’s the .32 ACP.

the Schwartz

03-07-2022, 07:30 AM

Thanks! I found that very informative.

The .41 Short Rimfire bullet has a low sectional density of .113 just like 50 grain 25 Auto.
That it could penetrate 10-12 inches even at velocities below 500 fps is enlightening.
Phil Spangenberger claimed the .41 Short penetrated 13 inches of clay with the hotter 1980s produced ammo.

Great job. Thanks Again.

Push any bullet fast enough and surprising things can happen. :cool:

SCCY Marshal

03-07-2022, 03:50 PM

Edit: Wrong thread.

idahojess

08-08-2022, 03:02 PM

I found this somewhat older article by Larry Mudgett last night. I don't think I've seen it posted here before.

https://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/380-acp-ammunition-comparison/

RevolverRob

08-08-2022, 03:30 PM

Sometimes you just need more gun, even with good shot placement and penetration.

It's one of those things - two lung shots and heart shot - that moose eventually succumbs to those wounds. But eventually can be a mighty long time when a thousand pounds of anger is stomping a mud hole into you and your dogs.

___

But mouse gun discussions have turned me back to my mind - I see it looks like 50-grain .311" Lehigh Cavitators are back in production. I need to work up a .32NAA load for those and figure out all this fancy ballistics gel stuff so we can see how they do.

For .380 - Lehigh/Wilson/Black Hills monolithic round would be my choice.

No.6

08-15-2022, 10:49 PM

It's one of those things - two lung shots and heart shot - that moose eventually succumbs to those wounds. But eventually can be a mighty long time when a thousand pounds of anger is stomping a mud hole into you and your dogs.

Mousegun != Moosegun. Maybe Squirrel.

I find it ironic that while the .380 is inarguably less powerful than 9x19, manufacturers keep creating firearms that generate even less power from the cartridge than 'classic' designs like a PPK or Cheetah.

Velo Dog

07-01-2023, 07:16 PM

The Hydra-Shok Deep appears to be one of the better performing .380 Auto hollow points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU4tHk72EdQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU4tHk72EdQ

I would still generally recommend FMJ based on cost and availability.

Even with properly conducted testing, results can be misleading.

An example is the new Hydra-Shok Deep

"The erect post propelled tissue out of the path of the expanded bullet, reducing the amount of tissue that was contacted and crushed as the bullet penetrated. As a result, the bullet produced a narrower, but deeper, permanent cavity compared to conventional JHP bullets of the same caliber, weight, velocity and expanded diameter."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708141329/http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs26.htm

Spartan1980

07-01-2023, 08:31 PM

I simply won't use a hollow point or expanding bullet in a .380 as there just isn't enough power behind the bullet to RELIABLY get BOTH expansion and penetration. Underwood +P Lehigh rounds for me in my G42 please. Tip: they are on sale right now on Underwood's site. I just bought a few boxes this morning.

Clusterfrack

07-01-2023, 09:06 PM

TGS

07-01-2023, 11:06 PM

The Hydra-Shok Deep appears to be one of the better performing .380 Auto hollow points

It's also vaporware.

octagon

07-02-2023, 04:48 PM

Fitting for the discussion and recent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwpXEH646sY&t=353s

Joe Mac

07-03-2023, 05:34 PM

It's also vaporware.

It's been available intermittently since it was rolled out; I have it on my Ammoseek alerts and grab several boxes whenever it pops up -- which has amounted to a fair stash at this point. It'll probably turn up again in a few months.

DDTSGM

07-05-2023, 09:32 PM

These guys have it occssionally, I got four boxes of 20 from them July 2nd. Right now according to FeEx it is in Olathe,KS. Only problem is they ship adult signature required.

https://www.aeammo.com/catalog/ammo/handgun?caliber_id=47&page=1

106764

80 rounds @ 124.00 isn't cheap, it's $1.55 around. All the mags for my LCPMax and LCP work with what I currently carrying, so I'll shoot one for each pistol loaded with HydraShoks, then shoot the rest of the LCP's mags loaded with two on top to make sure those feed first round after the chambered one; for the Max's mags I'll put two on top and one on the bottom to check lock back.

parishioner

09-28-2023, 11:56 PM

109983

109984

Dov

09-29-2023, 06:01 PM

109983

109984

When was that from? Coyote Creek gunshop is only about 45 minutes from me, and I'm friends with couple of the guys that work there, unless there is another one elsewhere with same name, knew Chuck was in the area several months ago doing classes with DB etc but didn't know he got over there to Coyote Creek.

parishioner

09-29-2023, 06:08 PM

When was that from? Coyote Creek gunshop is only about 45 minutes from me, and I'm friends with couple of the guys that work there, unless there is another one elsewhere with same name, knew Chuck was in the area several months ago doing classes with DB etc but didn't know he got over there to Coyote Creek.

Looks like it was posted July 18

Velo Dog

12-02-2023, 07:22 PM

Interesting info from Chris Baker at Lucky Gunner regarding failures to eject

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/sig-p365-380-revisited/

"The biggest takeaway for me is that all of the hollow points cycled better than all of the FMJ loads. In the past, I know I’ve said that I generally prefer carrying full metal jacket for this caliber because .380 hollow point ballistics are pretty underwhelming. For whatever reason, this gun seems to run better with hollow points regardless of bullet weight or muzzle velocity.

The loads with more felt recoil typically performed better. They were all relatively soft-shooting loads, but there is a noticeable difference. The ejection pattern of the brass was also a pretty good indicator. Regardless of the grip, the gun kicked out the cases from the hollow points much farther and in a more predictable path than the FMJ cases."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAErkHV9gWc

Also, nickel-plated cases and 90 grain or heavier bullets seemed to improve ejection.

Chuck Whitlock

12-05-2023, 01:25 PM

I've generally felt that the more premium lines had better QC than the FMJ lines, which are regarded as target/plinking ammo.

Totem Polar

12-06-2023, 12:03 AM

I've generally felt that the more premium lines had better QC than the FMJ lines, which are regarded as target/plinking ammo.

I suspect that to be correct. The exception might be lawman/speer. Any thoughts on that?

RealSelf

12-06-2023, 07:22 AM

I've generally felt that the more premium lines had better QC than the FMJ lines, which are regarded as target/plinking ammo.

I believe this tends to be true but in the case of the weak ejection I'd say it probably has more to do with the FMJ having a lesser powder charge than the carry ammo does.

ST911

12-06-2023, 08:17 AM

I suspect that to be correct. The exception might be lawman/speer. Any thoughts on that?

Pallet quantities used. Speer Lawman has very good consistency and reliability.

rawkguitarist

12-06-2023, 08:18 AM

Based on some testing "Shooting The Bull" did a few years ago I run loads with the 90 gn Hornady XTP. It at least passed the main gelatin tests at roughly 13inches. That bullet over penetrates in more powerful cartridges like 9mm. But it appears to meet penetration well and has decent expansion.

It was fun shooting my G42 at the NPE Counter Robbery class from Darryl Bolke, Chuck Haggard and Cecil Burch. That was the most Ive ever shot it I think. Ran great.

Chuck Whitlock

12-06-2023, 11:16 AM

I'm also currently running the Hornady XTP. I'm interested in the Hydra-Shok Deep.

Jamie

12-06-2023, 11:33 AM

Pallet quantities used. Speer Lawman has very good consistency and reliability.

My experience is limited to around 500 rds of the Lawman in my dearly departed 's S&W Shield. She loved that particular round. I had purchased a few K of it after recommendations here about 4 years ago.
iirc it's reliability in feeding and adequate penetration for caliber was the reason it was recommended. Can't recall the thread. Very reliable in my limited experience.

I haven't seen the Hyda-shok deep in the wild yet, but would plan to try some when I do.

RealSelf

06-22-2024, 08:09 AM

The fluted noses in the LeHigh designs are used to alter CD and in the case of the XP they induce greater cavitation and effectively reduce the velocity at which cavitation occurs and typically do not overturn. This reduces frictional drag (contact with the sides of the bullet) and results in increased penetration depth. As such, the XD is not a design that I'd want to use for self-defense. The fluting on the XD increases drag considerably by redirecting flow (acts as a brake) and is kind of interesting to me, but not enough so that I'd ever leave Gold Dot or HST JHPs for XDs.

Interesting observation but I am a bit flabbergasted by the fact that you carry Gold Dot or HST when they should also have increased drag once they deform. I mean for them to penetrate less than FMJ in either case it would be requirement that something has to drag the bullet to stop it sooner than FMJ.

Clusterfrack

06-22-2024, 08:58 AM

I carry Underwood .380 +p XP because of the high velocity and flat tip. In .380 I’m more concerned about sufficient penetration and not deflecting. Expansion? Don’t care.

CCT125US

06-22-2024, 11:57 AM

On the very rare occasion I carry the LCP I use the AE380LF1 by Federal. It is not billed as frangible, but rather lead free. Based on what I've shot with it, I would agree.

70gr moving at 1000 fps from an LCP

SHO, 5 shots each at 7, 15, and 25 yards with irons.

120176

the Schwartz

06-22-2024, 01:02 PM

Interesting observation but I am a bit flabbergasted by the fact that you carry Gold Dot or HST when they should also have increased drag once they deform. I mean for them to penetrate less than FMJ in either case it would be requirement that something has to drag the bullet to stop it sooner than FMJ.

There's a lot more having to do with the maximum terminal penetration depth of a projectile than its drag coefficient, CD.

The force (F) that acts upon the projectile and causes the deceleration that brings it to a stop (at a certain depth) is a function of many variables; FD = CD½ρV2ACS

CD isn't a function of size. CD is a dimensionless ratio of force:force that is associated with the particular cross-sectional surface area (or ACS) of a projectile shape.

FMJs have a CD of ≈0.57 whereas JHPs (oblate spherical form) have a CD of ≈0.44.

The non-expanding monolithic fluted nose LeHigh designs (e.g.: XD, XP, etc.), depending upon their specific design, have CDs that vary from 0.50 - 0.75.

Since the non-expanding fluted nose LeHigh designs have a smaller ACS than JHPs, higher CDs are required to produce a greater decelerating force (F) to bring them to a stop in (roughly) the same distance as a JHP. JHPs have a lower CD but higher ACS than the non-expanding FMJ and monolithic fluted nose designs so the value of decelerative force, F, is equal for both if the product of CD and ACS are the same within the equation above.

JHPs produce larger permanent cavities than non-expanding designs. For that reason, I prefer a quality JHP over a non-expanding design every time unless adequate penetration depth becomes an issue as it often does with lower powered cartridges like the .380Auto, .32ACP, and .25ACP.

Ghost Dog

06-22-2024, 03:32 PM

Friend's don't let friends go under .38
My keyboard is Fkd
But #1 Organic Gel Results make me think .380 w the Hydrashok Dee. becomes viable

But...if I did
1. Hydrashok Dee.
2. XT.
3. Something with a Flat Nose like Winchester FMJ
4. It seems Remington 88gr HT... tends to tumble somewhat regularly maybe 20% of time

spj

06-30-2024, 05:04 PM

I have seen a ww silver tip come apart in an orbital bone and cause a non fatal wound. There’s that.

SCCY Marshal

06-30-2024, 05:16 PM

I have seen a ww silver tip come apart in an orbital bone and cause a non fatal wound. There’s that.

Can you comment further about use of the eye (impaired, blinded, luckiest bastard alive?), any indication of rattled/impaired mental status (permanent or temporary), whether the recipient stopped doing what got them shot, and if more bullets headed their way after the first?

spj

06-30-2024, 06:57 PM

The second one worked, one of quite a few suicides I’ve worked where the person shot themselves multiple times.

SCCY Marshal

06-30-2024, 07:27 PM

Almost makes me glad I merely worked on survivors of attempts. At least they could usually talk, helping me let it slip out of thought more neatly when it was over.

OlongJohnson

06-30-2024, 09:39 PM

3. Something with a Flat Nose like Winchester FMJ

I've seen two distinctly different meplats on Winchester FMJ .380, and the same thing is reflected in Browning-labeled product. Sitting side by side on the shelf under the same SKU. You need to pick it out in person, B&M, if you think the difference might matter.

Ghost Dog

06-30-2024, 10:00 PM

I've seen two distinctly different meplats on Winchester FMJ .380, and the same thing is reflected in Browning-labeled product. Sitting side by side on the shelf under the same SKU. You need to pick it out in person, B&M, if you think the difference might matter.

Both flat points but different.... I doubt it matters much

But it's kind of wild there are only two JHPs to this day that would maybe be preferable to Winchester FP and even that's questioned and the Federal is New. Organic numbers make me think .380 in something like an 84 or Ruger Security that can hurl em fast and are double stack make them kind of legit

But then all the guys here say any 380 jhp that has ever expanded didn't penetrate enough....there just isn't enough ass in either velocity or bullet weight it seems to get though body stuff without it being ball, and the FP likely will not deflect and ride bones as well, and cut in go straight better IMO

OlongJohnson

06-30-2024, 10:20 PM

One of the FPs is narrow with a notable radius around the perimeter. The other one has a larger diameter flat with a crisper, smaller radius around the perimeter transitioning to the ogive. I have assumed that the larger FP would be slightly superior in terminal ballistics, assuming it functions as reliably in a given gun.

My only .380 is a P250. When my tiny girlfriend wants to start shooting, it will get a small grip module installed and be her first step up from .22LR.

Navin Johnson

06-30-2024, 11:25 PM

As noted in the information on this forum, if one does a search a flat point semi automatic round (Not a semi wadcutter) May track a bit straighter but does no more damage than a round nose.

In a non-expanding projectile without a sharp shoulder, the permanent damage is done by stretch and tear, and the material is actually stretched further with a round nose than with a flat point. If there is a difference, it’s splitting hairs

And as a side benefit a flat point can be more fussy about feeding

Tannhauser

07-04-2024, 09:34 AM

I carry Underwood .380 +p XP because of the high velocity and flat tip. In .380 I’m more concerned about sufficient penetration and not deflecting. Expansion? Don’t care.

I’ve come to the same conclusion about .380 ACP and penetration. I’ve been carrying Speer FMJ in my LCP and G42, but I’m considering switching the G42 to Underwood 100 gr hardcast.

feudist

07-30-2024, 01:22 PM

There seems to be two distinct camps when discussing the .380. Well, three, because another group believes you are semi suicidal for carrying it.
One group believes that, with the right load selection, a JHP will achieve the FBI minimum penetration in clothed Ordnance gel, and that regular ball tends to over penetrate.
The other believes that even ball ammo will predictably under penetrate dangerously and tend towards hardcast plus P to achieve minimum penetration.

I only attended one autopsy where a .380 was used.
The victim was a quite large young male, about 250 pounds and fat. He had been shot twice using Magtech Gold JHP from a Davis P380.
The first struck him right of midline just below the ribs. It traveled through the clothing, skin, fat, liver, lung, assorted fascia and tendons before hitting the lower thoracic spine. There it broke a spinal process and lodge in the spinal cord between vertebrae, cracking one of them. The bullet had upset only slightly overall, with a jacket petal standing proud. Penetration distance was about 12-13 inches, slightly curved. The body cavity was filled with several pints of blood. The wound track through the liver was close to bullet diameter, distinct and surrounded by approximately 1/4 to 3/8 inch of "bruised" meat.
He pitched forward and the second shot struck the top of his skull at the rear part of the occipital bone, one of the strongest parts of the skull. The entire back of the skull was pebbled and the bullet drove down into the top of the cervical spine, shattering one vertebrae and lodging in the next. It penetrated about 6 or 7 inches of mostly bone and the bullet was mangled.
Bang bang. He collapsed in a heap, DRT.

Sherman A. House DDS

07-30-2024, 04:05 PM

I’ve seen a few .380 shootings in my public safety capacity, and several more in my Hospital Dentistry career.

I carry a .380 (G42) that is vetted for reliability and shoots POA with Hornady Critical Defense. That ammo is very consistent, and very accurate in my gun. It’s also relatively ubiquitous coast to coast in my travels, and Lucky Gunner sells it by the case, with lightning fast shipping. YMMV.

I’ve also seen enough real GSW’s to know that what is seen in Clear Gel and Ballistic Gelatin isn’t reflective (18” in gel means 18” in people from any angle) and I’ve seen enough GSW’s in the region of the skull from the orbits to the Adam’s Apple that nothing is guaranteed, and that shot placement is everything.

I aim for expert precision and worry about other things. I’m also weird.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Joe Mac

07-30-2024, 05:01 PM

Yeah, I saw a bunch of guys who'd gotten dead via .380; penetration never seemed to be a problem.

In one case -- an old 90 gr Hydra-Shok -- I could feel the bullet beneath his back skin from a chest hit. I couldn't tell if it had expanded, but it certainly penetrated enough on that skinny 140-150 pound fellow..

Clay

07-31-2024, 05:33 PM

I always remember listening to Clint Smith give a lecture about this subject, and while not a fan of .380 mouse guns, he said "I bet you five bucks if you shoot someone in the face with it, they'll leave you alone." Yup.

sharps54

07-31-2024, 05:41 PM

The issue with ball is quality control. I have seen the argument made to carry a quality hollow point that doesn’t expand but penetrates just because the quality control will normally be better than ball ammo.

HeavyDuty

07-31-2024, 05:44 PM

Maybe Lost River can be persuaded into doing .380?

DocGKR

07-31-2024, 11:12 PM

"I’m also weird."

Dude, you are a dentist, so be definition, you are weird!

Sherman A. House DDS

08-01-2024, 06:51 AM

Dude, you are a dentist, so be definition, you are weird!

Doc…you already know!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totem Polar

08-01-2024, 11:07 AM

Maybe Lost River can be persuaded into doing .380?

We all know that T has his hands full, but when he surfaces: this idea has legs. 95 grain hardcast or polycoat FP, anyone?

Lost River

08-01-2024, 11:07 AM

Maybe Lost River can be persuaded into doing .380?

So you are saying there's a chance..

SCCY Marshal

08-01-2024, 11:32 AM

So you are saying there's a chance..

If it's a flat nose around 900fps from an LCP or P238, I'll love you long time.

Paul D

08-01-2024, 02:30 PM

So you are saying there's a chance..

Oh hell yeah! There are a lot of .380 guns out there and not a whole lot of good ammo choices.

I'll admit it, I'm more likely to carry my G42 than my comped G45 or my Ruger 44 Mag when hiking outdoors in AZ.

WDR

08-01-2024, 05:00 PM

So you are saying there's a chance..

I don't own a .380... But you never know when that might change. And If I did, I'd consider it if you offered a good .380 load.

Is it too soon to ask about a .32 ACP load? :P

I know that the P-32 is suddenly popular again (thanks SouthNarc )... so it just seems natural that when I get rid of my P-32's, I suddenly want one again. :cool:

SouthNarc

08-01-2024, 05:08 PM

Navin Johnson

08-01-2024, 05:26 PM

If it's a flat nose around 900fps from an LCP or P238, I'll love you long time.

Might be OK for a blowback.

I Find My 42 barely cycles lighter Factory 380 loads. Guessing a lot of them are aimed at the tiny pocket 380s.

But as an example, the HST deep or critical defense cycles vigorously

Also, flat points don’t seem to cycle nearly as smoothly, although it doesn’t seem to be a culprit of malfunctions.

The only advantage a flat point has in a semi Auto is the potential for straighter tracking Which is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt reliability.

HeavyDuty

08-01-2024, 05:28 PM

My 42 gets a lot of carry and I still have the Colt LW Government .380 Linda used to carry first in her purse and later under her wheelchair cushion. I would definitely be interested in hotter Lost River .380s.

SCCY Marshal

08-02-2024, 12:39 PM

Might be OK for a blowback.

I Find My 42 barely cycles lighter Factory 380 loads. Guessing a lot of them are aimed at the tiny pocket 380s.

The only advantage a flat point has in a semi Auto is the potential for straighter tracking Which is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt reliability.

I've found 900fps with a 95 grain lead bullet in a LCP to be on the stronger end of factory ball (have chronographed Perfecta at about 850fps) and many JHP (Hornady Custom pushing a 90 grain pill at about 850fps) while reliably running an assortment of blowback and tilting breech guns to include a fussy early G42. This while also keeping recoil at a sensible level. Shoving bullets harder than about 920fps has started to get into the heaviest .380 recoil along the likes of Winchester PDX-1 and other rowdy loads (powder dependent, this level also starts to spit granules in the shooter's face in an assortment of pistols). It's fast enough to get deep enough in the usual intended target but slow enough to not splatter small game. In addition to flat points tracking straight, they absolutely kill things smaller than humans faster/better than round nose.

I can't be the only freak to take opportunistic in-season shots at small game with a pocket gun. Or those needing to remonstrate with a predator in the chicken coop.

While my .380 handloads clock 920fps from an LCP and I'm sticking with the recipe, I'd think 900 with a flat point would give a very good all-round .380 with no muss or fuss.

Edit for a side tanget: I seem to have lost all my notes from experiments with the 105 grain Lee SWC, which fed in a surprising number of pocket pistols once the seating depth was sorted.

paherne

08-02-2024, 04:58 PM

Might be OK for a blowback.

I Find My 42 barely cycles lighter Factory 380 loads. Guessing a lot of them are aimed at the tiny pocket 380s.

But as an example, the HST deep or critical defense cycles vigorously

Also, flat points don’t seem to cycle nearly as smoothly, although it doesn’t seem to be a culprit of malfunctions.

The only advantage a flat point has in a semi Auto is the potential for straighter tracking Which is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt reliability.

My 42 is 100% with Fed HST and Rem Golden Saber. With zippy FMJ over 90 grains, it works mostly well. SIG V-Crown 90 JHP chokes it, almost every round. I will stick with the HST and Golden Saber if I ever carry it for defensive purposes, just for the function issues.

Navin Johnson

08-02-2024, 06:13 PM

I've found 900fps with a 95 grain lead bullet in a LCP to be on the stronger end of factory ball (have chronographed Perfecta at about 850fps) and many JHP (Hornady Custom pushing a 90 grain pill at about 850fps) while reliably running an assortment of blowback and tilting breech guns to include a fussy early G42. This while also keeping recoil at a sensible level. Shoving bullets harder than about 920fps has started to get into the heaviest .380 recoil along the likes of Winchester PDX-1 and other rowdy loads (powder dependent, this level also starts to spit granules in the shooter's face in an assortment of pistols). It's fast enough to get deep enough in the usual intended target but slow enough to not splatter small game. In addition to flat points tracking straight, they absolutely kill things smaller than humans faster/better than round nose.

I can't be the only freak to take opportunistic in-season shots at small game with a pocket gun. Or those needing to remonstrate with a predator in the chicken coop.

While my .380 handloads clock 920fps from an LCP and I'm sticking with the recipe, I'd think 900 with a flat point would give a very good all-round .380 with no muss or fuss.

Edit for a side tanget: I seem to have lost all my notes from experiments with the 105 grain Lee SWC, which fed in a surprising number of pocket pistols once the seating depth was sorted.

HST deep is (and Aguila ball) the hottest by feel I have shot in my 42 and they were still very mild.

Your term. “ Flat point.” Are you referencing a semi wadcutter or flat nose Factory ball in 380? a semi wadcutter is a whole different mechanism than a Flat point or flat nose semi automatic Round. And how many subjects are in your sample using both types of ammo?

Thanks

SCCY Marshal

08-02-2024, 10:01 PM

Your term. “ Flat point.” Are you referencing a semi wadcutter or flat nose Factory ball in 380? a semi wadcutter is a whole different mechanism than a Flat point or flat nose semi automatic Round. And how many subjects are in your sample using both types of ammo?

Thanks

Cast round nose flat point. And for subjects do we mean guns or critters? My direct experience with the latter is impromptu small game, predator control, and animal euthanasia. Some articles, collected personal anecdotes, quiet retellings of roadside shenanigans by the area constabulary, and some edgelord hunters' make up the bulk. If the former, curated to just the guns which have run my flat point loads, something like: LCP gen 1 (2x) and 2 (1x), PPK/S, Berettas 1934 and 84, 2x Hi-Point CF380 pistols, 2x Hi-Point 3895TS carbines, 2x S&W Shield EZ, 2x Sig P238, Grendel P10, whichever Star mini 1911 utilized a tilting breech, a GLOCK 42 made early enough the polymer was delaminating from the metal at the feed lips even more than early G43s I came across, and some more I'm forgetting. If we expand to shooters, I've found the average person to be much less willing to keep shooting a 380 ACP when velocity gets much over 900fps from a pocket gun. 850fps seems to be reported as mild enough, 900 not much different, push past 920 and they start changing their tune.

If we expand to round nose versus flat point jacketed bullets, I'd still opt for something like Winchester White Box over round nose based on the meplat seeming to make a difference on small game and roadside euthanasia from .32 to .40 in my experience and listening to stories.

camsdaddy

08-03-2024, 07:36 AM

I've found 900fps with a 95 grain lead bullet in a LCP to be on the stronger end of factory ball (have chronographed Perfecta at about 850fps) and many JHP (Hornady Custom pushing a 90 grain pill at about 850fps) while reliably running an assortment of blowback and tilting breech guns to include a fussy early G42. This while also keeping recoil at a sensible level. Shoving bullets harder than about 920fps has started to get into the heaviest .380 recoil along the likes of Winchester PDX-1 and other rowdy loads (powder dependent, this level also starts to spit granules in the shooter's face in an assortment of pistols). It's fast enough to get deep enough in the usual intended target but slow enough to not splatter small game. In addition to flat points tracking straight, they absolutely kill things smaller than humans faster/better than round nose.

I can't be the only freak to take opportunistic in-season shots at small game with a pocket gun. Or those needing to remonstrate with a predator in the chicken coop.

While my .380 handloads clock 920fps from an LCP and I'm sticking with the recipe, I'd think 900 with a flat point would give a very good all-round .380 with no muss or fuss.

Edit for a side tanget: I seem to have lost all my notes from experiments with the 105 grain Lee SWC, which fed in a surprising number of pocket pistols once the seating depth was sorted.

Definitely not I have shot several armadillos with a 148 wadcutter and several with 9mm fmj and hp. The flat edge of the wadcutter is very impressive vs the fmj or not expanding hp. I think this would translate to a flat point in a semi. I have considered if I am better suited with a j frame because I can carry it with wadcutters.

BillSWPA

08-03-2024, 11:30 AM

I don't own a .380... But you never know when that might change. And If I did, I'd consider it if you offered a good .380 load.

Is it too soon to ask about a .32 ACP load? :P

I know that the P-32 is suddenly popular again (thanks SouthNarc )... so it just seems natural that when I get rid of my P-32's, I suddenly want one again. :cool:

In .32, a hard cast flat nose similar to Buffalo Bore but with a longer overall length more comparable to the length of FMJ ammo would be a excellent choice. The longer overall length would prevent use in Seecamp pistols but would make rimlock physically impossible in other guns.

Outpost75

08-03-2024, 05:47 PM

In .32 ACP for STEEL FRAME ONLY load Hornady .309" diameter, 90-grain XTP in Winchester case with CCI500 primer, 3 grains Unique at 0.96" OAL for 895 fps at 20,600 psi.

Alternately load Accurate 31-090B sized .311 with either 2 grains of TiteGroup or 3 grains of AutoComp for +/- 930 fps from 3.4" barrel.

121812

In light alloy frames same charges of TiteGroup or Unique and OAL are OK with the 31-077B for 950 fps from 3.4" barrel.

121813

Bucky

08-03-2024, 07:32 PM

revchuck38

08-03-2024, 08:02 PM

Has there been any steel frame .32 ACPs made in the past 50 years?

Walther PPs/PPKs/PPKSs.

Outpost75

08-03-2024, 08:03 PM

Has there been any steel frame .32 ACPs made in the past 50 years?

Yes. New Colt M1903 reproductions currently available. Walther PP and PPk, PK/s, CZ70, Italian police contract Beretta M70.

TGS

08-03-2024, 08:22 PM

Has there been any steel frame .32 ACPs made in the past 50 years?

In addition to the above already mentioned, Seecamp LWS, NAA Guardian, and Beretta 3032 Inox.

Outpost75

08-03-2024, 09:18 PM

In addition to the above already mentioned, Seecamp LWS, NAA Guardian, and Beretta 3032 Inox.

Beretta 3032 INOX does not have a steel frame. Barrel and slide are stainless, but frame is light alloy and prone to cracking above the trigger pivot and also at barrel hinge pin when fired alot with heavy loads. In had two and both failed in same manner after about 1000 rounds of 90-grain loads.

Bucky

08-04-2024, 12:41 PM

Yes. New Colt M1903 reproductions currently available. Walther PP and PPk, PK/s, CZ70, Italian police contract Beretta M70.

Walther PPs/PPKs/PPKSs.

Thanks. I guess I ASSumed modern versions of PPs were alloy.

Outpost75

08-04-2024, 12:59 PM

Thanks. I guess I ASSumed modern versions of PPs were alloy.

Only the ones with cracked frames 8-)

Ghost Dog

08-12-2024, 12:06 AM

TGS

08-12-2024, 07:03 AM

It seems annecdotely fmj-flat point like Winchester does more damage, but even if not, if it's reliable in feeding that would be less likely to deflection or "ride ribs" then ball fmj. That's kind of a big deal in .380
If one wasn't using Hydrashok deep or an xtp which may be better If reliable. I don't have a 380 but from many vids and testing HTP seems like occasionally tumbles and wouldn't even a face forward none expanding JHP disrupt tissue better than ball?

This is pretty much why I use Hydrashok (not Hydrashok Deep) in my 380s. It has limited expansion in the mid-.4 range, which gives it a 10-12" penetration depth in bare gel. With barrier testing it plugs and fails to expand, but it at least still gets the benefit of having less chance of deflection than ball.

With that said we are really splitting hairs, here. The other day I carried my G42 and the mags were still loaded with a quality ball from a range trip, so I just carried it that way....and probably will until I shoot those out at it's next range outing.

Keep in mind that Hydrashok Deep gets its ability by essentially acting like a ball round. Its petals are almost superficial, and the bullet actually has a ball profile once expanded.

Clusterfrack

08-12-2024, 08:40 AM

^^^same for me with the +p Underwood/Lehigh XP solid copper loads.

Outpost75

08-16-2024, 05:55 PM

Ghost Dog

08-16-2024, 10:16 PM

The FMJRN does 180- degree "flip" after about 6 inches of soft target penetration and continues base-first, penetrating 16-18".

The flatnosed does not tumble, but penetrates straight through to 20-24".

Observed how many times, how many brands, and is this Organic Gel

that's not a bad distance for the tumble, that's why curious and if brand matters...

Curious what thoughts on TUI ammo is, at least is the difficult .38 snub and .380s are concerned

titsonritz

08-17-2024, 11:55 PM

In addition to the above already mentioned, Seecamp LWS, NAA Guardian, and Beretta 3032 Inox.

I’ve always wanted a Seecamp .32.

Outpost75

08-23-2024, 10:31 AM

Observed how many times, how many brands, and is this Organic Gel

that's not a bad distance for the tumble, that's why curious and if brand matters...

Curious what thoughts on TUI ammo is, at least is the difficult .38 snub and .380s are concerned

VERY well documented. Numerous studies both US and Europe. Calibrated organic 10% gelatin. Mostly with CIP Euro police service loads in standard sized holster pistols with 8-11cm barrels. A few YouTubers firing Beretta Tomcat or Keltec with anemic SAAMI-spec ammo, FMJRN tumbles. Flatnosed does not..

Range Hot video is typical.

Outpost75

08-23-2024, 08:27 PM

Ghost Dog

08-23-2024, 10:37 PM

I would add that most of the Euro work dates back to.the 1970s and 80s and does not exist in an a accessible digital format. You would need to research police archives in Italy, Germany or France and be able to interpret the results in metric measurements in their original languages from bound copies of the library documents. Some of the flash x-ray shadowgraphs and report summaries exit in hard copy at the Picatinny Arsenal and the Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Bill Bruchey studied their methodology in developing US police ammunition procedures for studies in the 1970s and 80s.

Thank you, while I'd still pick Hydrashok Deep if fed reliably, and still maybe xtp, but that makes me more comfortable
recommending fmj in 380.....so penetration and one good tumble at a good depth is almost guaranteed.....though rib riding and bone deflection I'm guessing are still common issues.

We've heard from Blue that he saw no jhp both expand and manage to penetrate deep enough, and 380 ball riding ribs and other bones.

So it seems you are suggesting fmj over fmj fp .....

Meanwhile for 9mm animal defense winchester m1152 super hot FP or slightly less hot "Military Grade" I would think are still good cheap 9mm animal defense rounds