Good .380 ACP JHP for the wife?

[MadMax17]

Hey all,

Now before everybody jumps all over for me for asking about .380 ACP, hear me out. It's for the wife, she carries a Ruger 9mm in her purse, but couldn't really carry it on her body due to dress code limitations. So she wanted to carry something on her, and still carry the 9mm in the purse. 38 Special revolvers were a little big for pocket carry for her, but she found a Kel Tec 3AT, and loves it for pocket carry. She wants to have that on her ALL THE TIME, and the 9mm will still be in the purse when she can have her purse.

Unfortunately couldn't find anything about .380 ACP carry ammo on the DocGKR article. Right now I'm leaning towards Speer Gold Dots or Cor-Bon DPX (the copper ones).

If anybody can suggest anything, or decent studies or whatever, I'd appreciate it!

Thanks,
Max

[JodyH]

They all suck, but the Gold Dot seems to suck less than the others.
I haven't seen any data on the DPX but it should be good based on its performance in other calibers.
I keep my pocket bug LCP loaded with Gold Dots.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[phidelta308]

From the reading I've done on .380 defensive loads, a major issue of debate is whether or not the .380 JHP has enough velocity to reliably expand and/or penetrate if it does expand. Those who are worried about that advocate ball or flat nose jacketed ammo.

I have a couple of mags of 102 gr Golden Sabers. I figure if it doesn't expand, it's got more mass than the usual .380 round and should hopefully penetrate more deeply. Also, if the first round out of my Beretta 84 doesn't do the job, the other 13 in the magazine should. I also have a couple of magazines loaded with WWB 95gr jacketed ammo. They are flat nosed, and honestly, I wouldn't want to be shot by one of them let alone a magazine worth.

Here's a link to brassfetcher.com's .380 page. Their tests were done with a P3AT.

[VolGrad]

I've fired a decent number of rounds of premium JHP through a LCP and P238 to make sure they fed reliably.

I tried Hornady Critical Defense, Speer Gold Dot, Remington Golden Sabers, and a few other randoms. Keep in mind I was only testing reliability and not expansion. I chose the brands I tested based on reputation (online anyway) for good expansion.

While all fed 100% in both pocket guns, frankly, I didn't like the conical shape of the Hornady. I gave my remaining boxes to my dad for his LCP.

I ended choosing the Golden Sabers as my carry ammo for my .380acp pocket gun, with Speer Gold Dots as my second choice. Both the Golden Sabers and Speer fed 100% but I felt I was more accurate with the Golden Sabers. The Speers are probably easier to find in stores or online though.

[DannyZRC]

I know a lot of people recommend FMJ for .380

I may be stepping in it, but if memory serves DocGKR is among them.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

See here for .380 testing: http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP%2...%20gelatin.pdf

[VolGrad]

See here for .380 testing: http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP%2...%20gelatin.pdf

Good info. Thanks for the link.

However, I find I typically go stupid when I attempt to interpret results of ballistic testing.

I mean really, isn't 10" penetraction with a 2" hole more than adequate vs. a 20" hole that is only have as wide and prob pretty "clean" (vs ragged from an expanding JHP)?

I'd love to see one of those tests where someone dresses up an animal carcass with a couple of layers of t-shirt & denim to see what kind of damage some of these rounds will do.

[DannyZRC]

#01, Placement
#02, Penetration
#37, Everything else.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Good info. Thanks for the link.

However, I find I typically go stupid when I attempt to interpret results of ballistic testing.

I mean really, isn't 10" penetraction with a 2" hole more than adequate vs. a 20" hole that is only have as wide and prob pretty "clean" (vs ragged from an expanding JHP)?

I'd love to see one of those tests where someone dresses up an animal carcass with a couple of layers of t-shirt & denim to see what kind of damage some of these rounds will do.

That's the goal of gel tests, to have a reliable, repeatable, objective test substance instead of subjectivel diverse test media.

The FBI wanted the rest replicatable, so Hornady can conduct their own tests, Federal can do theirs, and Bumfuck, MT's sheriff's department with more time and money than they know what to do with (Hint...federal grant...) can test as the please and get results they can compare.

It's not supposed to be a test of terminal effectiveness, it's supposed to be a test in which I can compare Black Hills 124 grain 9mm loaded with XTP to Gold Dot 115 Grain standard velocity and see how they stack up against each other.

Doing animal carcases means you'd have to have a control animal, with such and such weight, health, and angle of inpact and onward...if you didn't, you would have some people testing on sheep, others on swine, or road kill...ranging from a Northeastern USA White-Tail deer to larger variants in different areas of the country.

As to depth, the idea is that you have to reach the major blood bearing structures in the body after passing throught outstretched limbs and other natural armor. To do that, you need 12 inches.

See: http://www.firearmstactical.com/tact...article432.htm at bottom of the page with the pork ribs over the 2nd gel block.

[TGS]

Surprisingly, the Federal Hydra-Shok is one of the best performing JHP's for a .380.

In bare gelatin, it will reliably get 12" penetration with some expansion. Like the rest of its family, it will plug up and fail to expand when fired through heavy clothing and whatnot. That's not really a problem to have with 380 though, when a lot of people carry FMJ to bebin with . That's what I put in my pocket gun during the summer. During the winter, I've got flat-nose FMJ since the Hydra-Shok would plug up anyway in the winter. A plus of the hydra-shok in .380 is that it's pretty soft in the recoil department, so follow up shots should be faster.

Gold Dot, Ranger-T, DPX, ect all expand way to much and have very shallow penetration. If you take the Barnes SCHP and drive it fast, it will perform great. But, it's got to be fast....I think brassfetcher's work found a Barnes SCHP needed to be moving 1200fps to get 12", and he purported a pretty linear loss of penetration with velocity. If you're interested in this route, check out Buffalo Bore.