Printable View
All the Hornady .380 XTPs I tested had the expanded petals shear off, in both bare gelatin and denim covered gelatin, which is what allows the bullet to penetrate deeper than most other .380 JHPs. The recovered bullet looks similar to a wadcutter. Hornady factory loaded XTP is what I carry in my G42.
This was another eval which seemed reasonable: http://shootingthebull.net/blog/fina...#comment-34323
AmmoToGo.com has conducted testing similar to that of Lucky Gunner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightvisionary
https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge...-defense-ammo/
380 Auto performance is so marginal and inconsistent that a small change in velocity or the testing protocol can significantly affect results.
Color me curious, guys. With the current amount of what seem to be pretty decent subcompact 9mm autos, such as the G43, G43X, G48, M&P Shield etc. and what seems to be pretty marginal and/or variable .380 performance, why the continued interest (in this forum in particular) in .380 platforms?
I get that the Glock G42 (and perhaps others in the genre) is handy, reliable, and enjoyable to shoot. I get that perhaps .380 is the highest power cartridge some of us can convince significant others to use/carry. But with a generally low expectation of terminal performance, why bother? And ammunition price-and availability-wise, it's not like I'm seeing huge bargains in .380 as a financial incentive either.
Best, Jon
@JonInWA, good question. You explained why the G42 isn’t of interest to me. It’s too big to justify the shortcomings of a .380. But the LCP is small. Really small. Sometimes I need a really small gun.
My only answer is that marginal might be good enough if the other option is not having that gun, and you end up needing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInWA
For this forum in particular, I typically see people writing about making responsible decisions; i.e. carrying a 380 in an NPE, or using it as a BUG. Their other option would likely be unarmed, or not having a BUG.
The G43, G43X, G48, and M&P Shield are nowhere near the same size category as a micro/pocket 380.
Almost no one on here carries one as a primary. They are only interesting because you can fit them in a pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInWA
I’ve learned that there are two camps: those who always dress around the gun and those who pick the gun based on how they’re dressed.
The problem arises, when one camp tries to tell the other camp, what they should do.
And they actually will run reliably and let you hit something with a little work. That is the only .380 I currently own, and Clusterfrack articulated the only reason I own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clusterfrack
I went back and forth on the G42 for a while and ended up sticking it in the back of the safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clusterfrack
My Kahr PM9 is almost identical in size (actually a fraction smaller), is 6+1 9mm and has a better trigger for pocket carry IMO.
My Kahr CW380 is much smaller and lighter than the G42 if I need to go real deep, is 6+1 and again IMO has a better deep carry trigger.
The extra safety margin of a longer DAO revolver like trigger is worth it to me when it comes to unconventional carry methods.
Both my Kahrs have been outstanding.
On .380 ammo, I really like what i've seen from the Federal 99gr. HST and it's been reliable in both my G42 and my CW380. Fairly soft shooting as well, even in the Kahr.
My plan "B" ammo when I can't find the HST is Hornady American Gunner 90gr. XTP which can be found damn near everywhere stacked deep and cheap.
Yep. I have a pair of LCPs and that's it for .380 as a serious gun. I do own a Beretta Cheetah and Bersa Thunder because I think they're neat, but they don't get carried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clusterfrack
.380 = LCP to me.