The .38 wadcutter will cut a larger diameter wound track than a .380 FMJ; the revolver can be fired from a pocket, but the G42 is typically easier to shoot and more rapidly reloads--call it a wash. Other less reliable and harder to shoot .380's don't match a J-frame--as always, YMMV...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
I did not notice this, until this morning. Sorry for the delay.Originally Posted by searcher
Yes. The most spectacular handgun-bullet-induced hole I ever personally observed was caused by a 125-grain Federal Hi-Shok JHC .357 Magnum, fired from a 4” Ruger GP100. My bullet, my GP100. I doubt that extra .001” of bullet diameter was the reason. The box of ammo was purchased in the 1990-to-early-1993 time period, and pre-dated today’s bonded-core technology.
Had I not known, personally, what had made the hole, I would have thought a rifle bullet had caused the damage.
Yesterday, almost four months after retirement, I was carrying a GP100, though three-inch, loaded with Magnum Short-Barrel Gold Dots. (I only use the full-pressure Magnums in my 6” and full-lug 4” guns.) The G42, however, still has my attention. When outside Texas, carrying under the provisions of LEOSA, things are much less permissive, from my standpoint; I have much less desire to be a test-case/crash-test dummy. (The Texas Penal Code seems to allow honorably-retired peace officers, with up-to-date quals, to carry about as freely as active peace officers.)
An Airlite J-Snub, loaded with target wadcutters, is inside my left front pants pocket, as I type this, at home. I have an 8-shot N-Frame Airlite snub, too, loaded with wadcutters. Not every day is a GP100 day, though I rarely leave home with just a J-Snub.
Last edited by Rex G; 05-19-2018 at 11:20 AM.
Hmm. This looks interesting enough.
Well color me shocked. I'd a thought a .380 would have struggled to get through auto glass let alone have anything meaningful left in the way of velocity to hit someone inside. I'm impressed!
A good BB gun will punch through a windshield. The fact that a .380 will put a hole in a piece of fruit after punching through one doesn't impress me at all. I say that as someone who is having a rare a day of carrying a G42 instead of an M&P.
Well with the mountains of crap on the internet regarding the effectiveness of the .380 it caught me off guard. Most of the internet would have you believe that it wouldn't punch a hole through wet toilet paper. It's a caliber of compromise to be certain....
Most of the Internet is full of shit and has zero understanding of terminal ballistics and wounding.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Most folks could make much better use of their critical thinking skills if they wouldn't get caught up in the cartridge designations (.380 ACP, 9mm Para, .357 Sig, etc) and just evaluate performance (or potential performance) based on bullet diameter, bullet weight, bullet construction and actual bullet velocity. Some aren't as inferior as some would have you believe.
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
Hmmm.....let's see; the video shows a .380 Auto 95 gr FMJ fired at about 850 fps give or take. Projectiles like this tend to penetrate in excess of 20" in 10% gel. Why would it not penetrate through a windshield?
Obviously, to make this type of "test" useful, the projectile needs to be captured in 10% ordnance gel AFTER going through the intermediate barrier; since that did not occur, this video is fairly useless.
Now a more interesting test would be to shoot both .380 Auto JHP and 9 mm JHP through a windshield and into ordnance gel to compare how the two loads perform...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Are you aware of any testing like this? Perhaps when LAPD was testing the .380?
Reply With Quote