Is ball still best for .380 ACP Ammo for mouse guns?

[peterb]

And here I thought the definitive word on .380 was “7.65mm with a delivery like a brick through a plate-glass window.” ;-)

[Velo Dog]

I hadn't considered the .41 Short (or .41-100). It is certainly a perspective worth examining.

Looking at the cartridge, the consensus among the sources that I have looked at indicate that it fired a 0.405'' diameter, 130-grain conical lead bullet at ≈425 fps.

Recent production .41 Short 130-grain ammunition was tested by Holt Bodinson (in the link to the GUNS magazine article that you provided) from a 3-inch barreled Remington Double Derringer with Western Lubaloy ammunition averaging 532 fps and Navy Arms ammunition averaging 621 fps. Bodinson reports in his article that, ''I was curious about the penetration of the .41 Short, so I soaked some old phone directories in water and backed them up with a ¾-inch pine board. I was expecting to recover the .41-caliber bullets somewhere inside the directories, but at 10 feet, the Lubaloy and the Navy Arms rounds simply sailed through all 5 inches of the water soaked directories, punched through that ¾-inch piece of pine and kept on going'' so it seems that the following estimates are reasonable prognostications of the .41 Short's performance in 10% ordnance gelatin.

Given Bodinson's reported velocities, I think that modeling the .41 Short 130-grain conical lead bullet at all three velocities (425 fps, 532 fps, and 621 fps) is in order.

In doing so, I am assuming that no significant deformation of the conical lead bullet occurs.

Evaluation using all three bullet penetration models with maximum penetration depth (inches) and total wound mass (ounces) follows—

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 425 fps
Q-model: 11.86 in.; 0.551 oz.
mTHOR: 9.97 in.; 0.463 oz.
WTI model: 8.31 in.; 0.405 oz.

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 532 fps
Q-model: 14.69 in.; 0.683 oz.
mTHOR: 11.67 in.; 0.542 oz.
WTI model: 10.45 in.; 0.510 oz.

.41 Short 130-grain conical lead @ 621 fps
Q-model: 16.76 in.; 0.779 oz.
mTHOR: 13.00 in.; 0.604 oz.
WTI model: 12.23 in.; 0.597 oz.

In comparison, a .380 ACP 95-grain JHP (0.40'' @ 900 fps) produces the following predicted maximum penetration depth (inches) and total wound mass (ounces)—

.380 ACP 95-grain JHP @ 900 fps; D_x: 0.40''
Q-model: 18.70 in.; 0.936 oz.
mTHOR: 14.47 in.; 0.724 oz.
WTI model: 15.95 in.; 0.864 oz.

Thanks! I found that very informative.

The .41 Short Rimfire bullet has a low sectional density of .113 just like 50 grain 25 Auto.
That it could penetrate 10-12 inches even at velocities below 500 fps is enlightening.
Phil Spangenberger claimed the .41 Short penetrated 13 inches of clay with the hotter 1980s produced ammo.

Great job. Thanks Again.

[Bucky]

And here I thought the definitive word on .380 was “7.65mm with a delivery like a brick through a plate-glass window.” ;-)

Nah, that’s the .32 ACP.

[the Schwartz]

Thanks! I found that very informative.

The .41 Short Rimfire bullet has a low sectional density of .113 just like 50 grain 25 Auto.
That it could penetrate 10-12 inches even at velocities below 500 fps is enlightening.
Phil Spangenberger claimed the .41 Short penetrated 13 inches of clay with the hotter 1980s produced ammo.

Great job. Thanks Again.

Push any bullet fast enough and surprising things can happen.

[SCCY Marshal]

Edit: Wrong thread.

[idahojess]

I found this somewhat older article by Larry Mudgett last night. I don't think I've seen it posted here before.

https://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/...on-comparison/

[RevolverRob]

Sometimes you just need more gun, even with good shot placement and penetration.

It's one of those things - two lung shots and heart shot - that moose eventually succumbs to those wounds. But eventually can be a mighty long time when a thousand pounds of anger is stomping a mud hole into you and your dogs.

___

But mouse gun discussions have turned me back to my mind - I see it looks like 50-grain .311" Lehigh Cavitators are back in production. I need to work up a .32NAA load for those and figure out all this fancy ballistics gel stuff so we can see how they do.

For .380 - Lehigh/Wilson/Black Hills monolithic round would be my choice.

[No.6]

It's one of those things - two lung shots and heart shot - that moose eventually succumbs to those wounds. But eventually can be a mighty long time when a thousand pounds of anger is stomping a mud hole into you and your dogs.

Mousegun != Moosegun. Maybe Squirrel.

I find it ironic that while the .380 is inarguably less powerful than 9x19, manufacturers keep creating firearms that generate even less power from the cartridge than 'classic' designs like a PPK or Cheetah.

[Velo Dog]

The Hydra-Shok Deep appears to be one of the better performing .380 Auto hollow points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU4tHk72EdQ


I would still generally recommend FMJ based on cost and availability.

Even with properly conducted testing, results can be misleading.

An example is the new Hydra-Shok Deep

"The erect post propelled tissue out of the path of the expanded bullet, reducing the amount of tissue that was contacted and crushed as the bullet penetrated. As a result, the bullet produced a narrower, but deeper, permanent cavity compared to conventional JHP bullets of the same caliber, weight, velocity and expanded diameter."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708...m/briefs26.htm

[Spartan1980]

I simply won't use a hollow point or expanding bullet in a .380 as there just isn't enough power behind the bullet to RELIABLY get BOTH expansion and penetration. Underwood +P Lehigh rounds for me in my G42 please. Tip: they are on sale right now on Underwood's site. I just bought a few boxes this morning.