.380 JHP vs. Ball

[CTone03]

One thing I don't like about round-nosed ball in .25/.32/.380 is that it seems like it would exacerbate the tendency of these underpowered rounds to glance off ribs and such. I don't have any empirical evidence to back this up, but it's the reason I carried XTPs in my Jetfire lo these many years ago. If they made .25ACP semi-wadcutters or even flat-point FMJ, I'd have gladly carried those.

That was why I liked the BB hardcast with its flat nose.


The QC issues with fmj range fodder is also a good point. Both the 90 grain Gold Dots and RA380T that I have are nickel cased and weather proofed, and I would think they're made to a higher standard. For those who are interested, the RA380T clocked 870 fps from my P3AT on average, and the 90 grain Gold Dots gave me 989 fps. Both were way less blasty than the BB hardcast or 80 grain DPX.

[bcauz3y]

Thanks for the feedback folks!

I'm still on the fence, but this is some really good food for thought.

[Chuck Haggard]

The QC thing is a very real issue. I was just talking to a friend, while looking at an older box of firs quality 9mm FMJ that I found in my stash, about how I used to be able to buy high quality duty grade ball that had all the little extras like waterproofed primers and such right off the shelf anywhere.

This is one reason why in the .380s I often steer people towards the XTP (which often fails to expand through heavy clothing, which is a plus in the case) or the Gold Dot in the 50 round LE boxes.


Tam,

I think you are right on the money, and in good company in your opinion if you have read any of Jim Cirillo's stuff over the years. In the smaller calibers I think the RN bullets are VERY prone to glancing off of ribs and faces and such.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

What about Black Hills ball ammo?

[Chuck Haggard]

This would likely be my choice for RN ball;


http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...utm_medium=cse

[JodyH]

Only problem with Euro .380 is it tends to have hard primers.
The Euros don't have a lot of little pocket pistols, their .380's tend to be full sized hammer fired Beretta Cheetah sized guns.

[Frank R]

Buffalo Bore 100gr. +P HCFN

[Chuck Haggard]

I like the BB .38 special ammo, but in .308 I would worry about excessive slide velocity causing either fails to feed issues or peening of the parts, or both.

[LOBO]

My Sig P-238 is loaded with BB 80 gr +P DPX-HP.

[Schmetallurgy]

The QC thing is a very real issue. I was just talking to a friend, while looking at an older box of firs quality 9mm FMJ that I found in my stash, about how I used to be able to buy high quality duty grade ball that had all the little extras like waterproofed primers and such right off the shelf anywhere.

This is one reason why in the .380s I often steer people towards the XTP (which often fails to expand through heavy clothing, which is a plus in the case) or the Gold Dot in the 50 round LE boxes.


Tam,

I think you are right on the money, and in good company in your opinion if you have read any of Jim Cirillo's stuff over the years. In the smaller calibers I think the RN bullets are VERY prone to glancing off of ribs and faces and such.

I agree with TCinVA regarding the issue of poor QC with ball ammo, I also would think a sharp edged meplat would be beneficial for increasing the crushing/cutting effect on vascular tissue it intersects rather than slipping through it.

I agree regarding the XTP being the best choice for the reasons you mentioned.

However I'm curious what your data basis is for saying it "often" fails to expand through heavy clothing(?)

I've been surprised to see full expansion of every internet test I've found of the XTP, including in .380, in hydraulic media, including several with 2 and 4 layers of denim. It's not a large sample but it's been consistent. Based on this, I often wondered if Dr. Roberts' non-recommendation in service calibers was more an issue of the poor expanded diameter inherent to the projectile not meeting 1.5x of caliber and/or just occasionally not expanding through heavy clothing.

I also note that the seemingly better calibrated tests such as brassfetcher's and tnoutdoors9's seem to suggest that the Hydra-Shoks and XTPs are pretty unique in their penetration depth, typically reaching 11-12," while the others you mentioned hang back with the rest of the modern, broad-expanding designs at between 8-10," unless the Critical Defense polymer plug stays in the cavity acting more like a piercing post, similar to the Hydra-Shok, which will usually get it more in the 10" range.

The XTP seems to certainly be more reliable through heavier clothing than the Hydra-Shok in any caliber, in .380 seems to consistently reach 11" in the better controlled tests I've found, has a sharp shouldered expanded profile of a barely over-caliber cylinder that would tend to crush tissue in its path rather than slipping through, tends to be accurate, and available in quality loadings.

If you're willing to trade a tiny bit of penetration below FBI minimum for a greater likelihood of tearing open a vascular structure in the bullet's path, I theorize that the XTP strikes the best balance.