.380 JHP vs. Ball

[DocGKR]

"brassfetcher's and tnoutdoors9's"

While they may be fun, these are NOT better calibrated tests......The FBI BRF offers better calibrated tests, as did the JSWB-IPT.

2 layer denim is not a standardized test.

Sim-test is not a recognized test media used in wound ballistic research.

One or two shots does is not a valid sample--a minimum of 5 shots is needed, preferably 10 shots.

XTP is an older design that has repeatedly demonstrated problems with limited expansion in service calibers when shot through 4 layer denim and heavy clothing tests conducted by multiple test facilities.

[Schmetallurgy]

While they may be fun, these are NOT better calibrated tests......The FBI BRF offers better calibrated tests, as did the JSWB-IPT.

2 layer denim is not a standardized test.

Sim-test is not a recognized test media used in wound ballistic research.

One or two shots does is not a valid sample--a minimum of 5 shots is needed, preferably 10 shots.

XTP is an older design that has repeatedly demonstrated problems with limited expansion in service calibers when shot through 4 layer denim and heavy clothing tests conducted by multiple test facilities.

I never argued any of the above.

I was saying those two are better calibrated than some of the other amateur stuff where there's clearly no correlation with the lab quality tests. Theirs seem to be consistently pretty close with regard to known authoritative data, and when BB calibrated as they are, at least give some clue as to how loads shot by the same guy with the same methods compare to each other even if not reliable in the sense of absolute measurements and perfect repeatability. However, I assume even the uncalibrated various hydraulic media in other amateur tests provide some rough data regarding simple clog resistance with regard to whatever degree of clothing is used. I've never found any lab test data on the web for XTP that I can look at, let alone in .380, which is why I was asking. But it's clear if you follow the tests that the more methodical internet guys do, there are patterns that emerge that correlate generally with expectations based on the authoritative lab results with the service calibers. So in the absence of authoritative test data that I can actually look at numerically and physically, it's all I've got to work with regarding .380 and older bullets.

Anyway, since we've got your attention, when you say the XTP suffers repeatedly from limited expansion through the 4LD/HC tests, do you mean you mostly just don't get a Gold Dot sized mushroom or that the petals often don't even peel back?

How does XTP in .380 compare penetration wise, when it does and doesn't expand, to the modern rounds like Gold dot and PDX-1?

Is XTP as bad as Hydra-Shok as far as clogging?

Would you give a rough guess of the percentage of times XTP .380 would fail to even peel back?

Were these from LCP/Bodyguard length barrels or Bersa/P232 length barrels?


The whole point of my preferring the XTP in .380 is that comparitively it's seemed in the non-lab tests to be less clog prone than Hydra-Shok, including through 4 layer denim, and yet expands very narrowly, ensuring better penetration than the modern bullets. And if it does clog in heavy clothing, the second aspect of my argument is that failure to expand in a .380 is kind of a "no worse off than I would have been (with ball)" outcome, and you at least still have a sharp meplat and a cartridge with high quality control.

Thoughts? Do you have some test data comparing .380s, including the older bullets, that we could look at?

[Chuck Haggard]

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

First hand observation of calibrated gel tests, and Doc's testing.

The whole point of my preferring the XTP in .380 is that comparitively it's seemed in the non-lab tests to be less clog prone than Hydra-Shok, including through 4 layer denim, and yet expands very narrowly, ensuring better penetration than the modern bullets. And if it does clog in heavy clothing, the second aspect of my argument is that failure to expand in a .380 is kind of a "no worse off than I would have been (with ball)" outcome, and you at least still have a sharp meplat and a cartridge with high quality control.

Those reasons are why I recommend the XTP and Gold Dot in .380. When they expand they tend to go about 11"-11 1/2", when they don't expand they go deeper. Either way I think the advantages you listed are valid.

[Schmetallurgy]

First hand observation of calibrated gel tests, and Doc's testing.



Those reasons are why I recommend the XTP and Gold Dot in .380. When they expand they tend to go about 11"-11 1/2", when they don't expand they go deeper. Either way I think the advantages you listed are valid.

I'd really like to see that data. Since you've seen it can you speak to relative frequency of failure to expand, and whether it's complete, uneven, or simply poor final diameter (I'd imagine a mixture) and, as far as the first two types, would you venture a rough percentage through 4LD and HC?

Now that you mention it, I do recall in the various internet tests- I want to say there's third tester that was pretty careful to provide some form of calibration -that Gold Dot did seem to do better than the PDX-1, Ranger-T, Critical Defense, and Golden Saber in penetration, but it seemed the XTP still edged it out by about an inch in that handful of tests, and what tends to lend credence to that is the consistency with which its avg expanded diameter is smaller than any of the others. Among those more methodical amateurs, I do see the expected pattern of relative expanded diameter correlating closely to relative penetration, and since Gold Dot is known to expand more broadly than XTPs, it only stands to reason that the XTP would have a penetration advantage. The only exception is the Hydra-Shok which seems to go just a little farther for a given diameter, and I've seen it posited that the center-post may create a piercing effect that efficiently weakens the tissue ahead of the mushroom allowing it to slip through with less resistance, though that would also allow for less of a crush effect and therefore be a tradeoff.

I'm wondering if in the lab tests you've found that the extra bit of penetration per avg ED is a phenomenon you've also noticed with the Hydra-Shok(?)

[CougarRed]

Dragging up an old post . . .

I recently purchased a Ruger LCP for wallet carry in a Recluse or Bear Creek holster. I find I often have one unused back pocket while my front pockets are filled with keys, a phone, change, a Spyderco or SAK, etc. I wanted something so small and simple to carry that I would never leave the house unarmed again.

After researching the LCP's improved sights and trigger for 2013 and test firing the gun vs. the Kahr P380, I purchased an LCP recently. Through 3 range trips and 4 types of ammo totalling 260 rounds, I have been very pleased with the LCP thus far. No hiccups whatsoever. Before firing the gun, I cleaned it, put on the Hogue Hybid grip sleeve, and upgraded to stainless guide rod and 13 pound recoil spring from Galloway Precision. These modifications were recommended by many to reduce recoil, and I felt comfortable with them having performed similar modifications in the past on other smaller pistols for the same reasons with good success. The recoil on the LCP is totally fine. Twice, I shot 100 rounds at a range setting and could have gone much longer. There is no pain. There is no disincentive to practice with this gun like you sometimes find with a scandium J Frame.

The cost of the gun, shipping, FFL transfer fee and these modifications ran approximately $340, or about $200 less than a Kahr P380. The Kahr's trigger is a little better, but the 2013 LCP trigger is much improved vs the old style. The Kahr also has last round lockback, and the LCP does not. The Kahr's sights are a little better than the LCP's, but the LCP sights are much better than they used to be. More like a Rohrbaugh now. In any event, having shot both, I don't see $200 difference in the guns. If Kahr ever releases CW380, it might be a different story.

So my next question is what kind of ammo should I use for self defense? I live in Houston where it gets cold only about 10 weeks out of the year. I did a ton of research. I discovered:

1. Some 380 JHPs (like the Hornady XTP bullet) generally penetrate more and expand less than other bullet designs.

2. Nonetheless, the XTP bullet is considered a high quality and highly accurate bullet.

3. In 2000, DocGKR wrote an article called "Terminal Performance of .38 Special & .380 ACP Hollow Point Bullets" in Vol. 4, Issue 3 of Wound Ballistic Review. Based on a summary I read, bare gel tests were used. The Hornady 90 gr 380 XTP round was found to penetrate 12.5" and expand to 0.45" in diameter over a multi-shot average. I suspect that a 3.5"+ barrel was used, but I don't know. Nor do I know the bullet velocity as I can't find this article anywhere online.

4. In 2003, DocGKR was asked why he recommended FMJ in .380 despite his XTP test finding in the 2000 article. Essentially, the question was: why not crush more tissue with a bullet that penetrates the 12" FBI minimum and at least expands a little? He responded that it was an "old paper" where the research was done prior to routine denim testing. He elaborated that "none of the 380 JHPs we have tested expand when fired through 4 layers of denim." In the sticky post above on BUGs, DocGKR says: "All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion."

5. However, Shawn Dodson posted his XTP testing using a 3.8" barrel in 1999. Over a 5-shot average at approximately 1000 fps, he found:

10.9" penetration/0.45" expansion in bare gel
14.2" penetration/0.43" expanson in denim covered gel

6. Four of the denim shots expanded to an average of 0.45" and penetrated 12.2" to 13.9". One shot passed through 18" of gel and presumably did not expand.

7. So this would appear to contradict DocGKR's explanation for why he does not endorse the XTP. The round actually penetrates further in denim and still expands to 0.45" most of the time. Perhaps DocGKR was applying a 1.5x expansion test when concluding the XTP round suffered from inadequate expansion. 0.45" is only 1.27x expansion.

8. Shawn Dodson's findings were corroborated by this ScubaOz video using a Sig P238 (2.7" barrel). In it, he shoots a block of bare gel followed by a shot through 4 layers of denim. I am not particularly concerned about the overall penetration length, as I don't know if this gel had been calibrated to spec. I am interested that: 1) both rounds expanded, and 2) the denim shot penetrated 1" farther in the same gel block than the bare gel shot. This confirms Dodson's findings and would again appear to contradict DocGKR's reason for refusing to advocate the XTP over FMJ.



9. Here are a couple more videos showing XTP bullets penetrating 12+ inches and expanding after passing through denim from short barreled mouseguns.




Bottom line, the main concern about 380 JHPs is that if they expand, then they don't penetrate far enough. Here, because the "controlled" XTP expansion is relatively modest, it penetrates well through bare or denim covered gel. And if it happens to fail to expand through denim, then it penetrates even further thus becoming the equivalent to an FMJ round that DocGKR recommends in the first place.

All of that said, I agree with DocGKR that shooting a snubnose .38 special with loads that reliably penetrate while expanding to 0.55" (or single stack 9mms with loads that reliably penetrate while expanding to 0.60") is highly preferable to shooting .380 XTPs that reliably penetrate while expanding to 0.45". Not to mention the potential reliability difference between a revolver and a .380 mousegun. In other words, I understand why he does not care for the .380 round. I too choose to carry a snubnose J-Frame loaded with Gold Dot 135+p over the LCP when I can conceal it easily.

I just think DocGKR is a tad conservative on his .380 recommendation. Especially for someone living in a tropical climate like Houston. Flat nose FMJ are good rounds (and debatably even preferable during the 10 weeks of winter), but at 1.27x expansion, the XTP round appears to be generally better.

Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

P.S. Lots of people offer the XTP bullet in a 380. I have chosen to use Wilson Combat's low flash version of the 380 XTP load for self-defense purposes. I love their quality control. If I ever ran out of Wilson Combat, I would use the Black Hills load. For flat nose, I would use Buffalo Bore's low flash standard pressure rounds (although the meplat is a little larger on WWB Q4206).

[Chuck Haggard]

I'd really like to see that data. Since you've seen it can you speak to relative frequency of failure to expand, and whether it's complete, uneven, or simply poor final diameter (I'd imagine a mixture) and, as far as the first two types, would you venture a rough percentage through 4LD and HC?

Sorry, I just saw this while looking at the updated posting.

My notes are taken from testing we did at our range while looking at duty ammo (we ended up keeping the 124gr +P Gold Dot), but I wanted to get some data for recommendations for guys carrying BUGs and small guns off duty.

The XTP (our tests were before the Critical Defense was released) in .32 and .380 consistently failed to fully expand through four layer denim but fully expanded in bare gel. With the XTP we lost a few bullets to full penetration of the block, I assume zero expansion on those. Those that did expand did so minimally, often just the jacket popped open like a flower with the lead core undeformed, or the cavity expanded asymmetrically.

CR, I think your ideas have merit if you are going to be suing the LCP for carry. I know several people who use the heavier recoil springs and report better reliability. I make the bold assumption that Wilson's ammo is as high a quality as their guns, so that should be a good choice for carry ammo, as good as it likely get for a .380 pocket gun at any rate.

[CougarRed]

CR, I think your ideas have merit if you are going to be suing the LCP for carry. I know several people who use the heavier recoil springs and report better reliability. I make the bold assumption that Wilson's ammo is as high a quality as their guns, so that should be a good choice for carry ammo, as good as it likely get for a .380 pocket gun at any rate.

Thanks. Here's a couple of videos that convinced me about Wilson Combat ammo QC. They visually inspect every round before it goes out. They started their ammo business in 2010.

[Chuck Haggard]

I just looked at my post and noted I wasn't real clear on that, and it's too late to exit.

The bullets we lost from the blocks due to lack of expansion were in the 4LD testing, all of the bare gel test shots fully expanded.

[CougarRed]

Sim-test is not a recognized test media used in wound ballistic research.

Absolutely true.

TNOutdoors9 had to dramatically tweak the consistency of SIM-TEST in order to replicate the results he had seen in 10% Ordinance gel.

He's done a good job of finding the right formula. Here's the result of his RA380T testing vs. 4 layers of denim normalized to 3.3" BB penetration compared to Winchester's own testing vs denim:

TNOutdoors9
Normalized Penetration: 7.75"
Expansion: 0.654"
Velocity: 980

Winchester Testing
Penetration: 7.85"
Expansion: 0.64"
Velocity: 1000