DocGKR - Your .380 vs 38 SPL article

[JodyH]

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

In my CCW classes I see probably 2 dozen J-frame shooters a year and every one of them struggles to certify with it on a ridiculously large target (12" x 18" target @ 7Y) usually using puffball Winchester white box FMJ.
The only way most can qualify with a J is via cocking and shooting single action between every shot.

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

[JodyH]

What did they change?

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

[Totem Polar]

What did they change?

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

http://looserounds.com/2014/05/10/gl...es-to-the-g42/

[LtDave]

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

http://looserounds.com/2014/05/10/gl...es-to-the-g42/

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

[Totem Polar]

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

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

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

[BBMW]

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

https://www.lehighdefense.com/produc...ant=1066236304

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

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

PRODUCT DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

GLOCK 42 – SECOND GENERATION

SIG 232

SMITH AND WESSON BODY GUARD

KELTEC

RUGER LCP

AMT 380

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

[JodyH]

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

Flash suppressed powder.
Sharper leading edges on the bullet nose helps it "dig in" instead of glance off of hard surfaces (like bones).
Solid copper construction also resists deformation better than copper jacketed lead, which agains helps it penetrate versus glance or deflect.

[PNWTO]

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

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

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

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

[Clusterfrack]

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

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

However, my reason for occasionally carrying a .380 instead of a 5 shot snubby is quite different. If I was going to carry a gun the size of a J-frame, I'd rather have a G43 and a spare mag. When I can only carry a mousegun (LCP w/XP), I'm satisfied that I can shoot it at least as well as a snubby--and it's a much smaller package.

[Pit]

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