Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: DocGKR - Your .380 vs 38 SPL article

  1. #1

    DocGKR - Your .380 vs 38 SPL article

    Doctor Roberts,

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

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

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    SWF
    I would just compare gel testing.

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

  3. #3
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I would just compare gel testing.

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


    If you look through gel testing you can find dozens of 9mm loads that would pass the FBI battery of tests while giving good expansion. You will find zero .380 loads that can get enough penetration to consistently pass while expanding at all, even if you leave out various barrier tests and go with just bare gel..
    Last edited by Chuck Haggard; 11-02-2014 at 03:13 PM.

  4. #4
    Guys,

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

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

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    I really don't have much use for .380. However, when I say this in some places, I get a lot of pushback. So I'm looking for more ammo (figuratively) to counter that.
    Just let others be. If they want to think .380 Auto is the round of doom, let them. Caliber arguments are mostly pointless because everyone has their mind made up already.

  6. #6
    Member L-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    You mean this aritcle? 12th from the top in the "Stickies": http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...0-ACP-vs-38-Sp

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    I look at today's .380 as not so much a substitute for .38 spec, but more as a viable sub for, say, .22lr or 25 acp. Today's .380 offers either near-baby blowback .22lr-esque recoil (eg. G42) or near-baby browning vest pocket carry (eg. Kahr P380). I think the .380 vs 9mm ship sailed back when the Beretta 34 was still the hot light duty carry gun. JMO.

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

  8. #8
    Member Symmetry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Simply put, there is currently not a caliber in the .380 sized platform that is capable of meeting minimal penetration standards while expanding to at least 50% of its caliber size. The .380 cartridge is not capable of being loading with adequate bullet weights and designs, it has limited case capacity, and it has low pressure limits. The 9mm remains the most mechanically efficient caliber to date in these regards.

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

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Back at Bragg

    Talking

    http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...0-ACP-vs-38-Sp

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

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

    oops, second.

  10. #10
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Symmetry View Post
    Simply put, there is currently not a caliber in the .380 sized platform that is capable of meeting minimal penetration standards while expanding to at least 50% of its caliber size. The .380 cartridge is not capable of being loading with adequate bullet weights and designs, it has limited case capacity, and it has low pressure limits. The 9mm remains the most mechanically efficient caliber to date in these regards.

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

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •