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

[Navin Johnson]

So at this point do we think that the XD and XP rounds have NOT been tested by credible entities?

[MickAK]

So at this point do we think that the XD and XP rounds have NOT been tested by credible entities?

I think XP has. I think XD is claiming something that isn't proved, and isn't likely to be tested by credible entities, and has to overcome a credibility problem that is justified by a lot of history in terminal ballistics development. I think the choice of XTREME was poor on Lehigh's part and they continue to build up that hill with their marketing.

[5pins]

After testing the Federal Hydra-Shok Deep, I bought a bunch, and it’s my carry load in my LCP. Decent expansion, ending up like a wadcutter, and great penetration.

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/0...allistics-gel/

My second pick would be the Fiocchi 90gr XTP. However, the penetration is a little short when shot in the bare gel at 11 inches.

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/0...cs-gel-retest/

[Joe Mac]

After testing the Federal Hydra-Shok Deep, I bought a bunch, and it’s my carry load in my LCP. Decent expansion, ending up like a wadcutter, and great penetration.

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/0...allistics-gel/

I bought a bunch after testing by you and a few others confirmed Federal's claims. It is a clever design; I was struck by the same thing: it ends up looking like a wadcutter with petals folded back at the front. I divided 200 test rounds between G42 and LCP-II, with no malfunctions and good accuracy. Didn't feel the need to expend more on testing because both of those guns have fed any bullet shape reliably.

[4given]

You betcha.

TANSTAAFL.

As for flat nose FMJs—I'm assuming that you are looking for something that will give you straight line penetration—if you have access to the Fiocchi 85-grain FMJTC (709333), they might be worth exploring as an option.

Attachment 83800

Interesting but from what I can see it is currently only marketed overseas.

[the Schwartz]

The main potential advantage of XP is the claimed ability to resist deflection. I wouldn't expect it to have different internal ballistics from an FMJ.

Reliability wise, they have been no worse than FMJ.

I s'pose that LeHigh's claims (which are yet to be supported) are where I run into difficulty in believing that either the XD or the XP offers something that ball doesn't. Given the fact that Lehigh incorrectly equates the radial damage seen in gelatin with what can be expected to occur in mammalian soft tissues, I am understandably reluctant to take their opinions as valid.

Any FMJ (or hard cast bullet) with a meplat that is at least 35% of the bullet's nominal diameter can be reasonably expected to offer straight line penetration that is resistant to deflection induced by steering forces (primarily due to a medium's inhomogeneity).

Typical flat nose designs, be they FMJ or hard cast, maintain stability by minimizing the radius of gyration by keeping the center of gravity and center of pressure very close to one another. Radius of gyration, which behaves as a 'lever' that acts to overturn a bullet is proportional to the ratio of axial to transverse moments of inertia. Smaller radii of gyration are more conducive to maintaining nose-forward flight through test mediums like water, gelatin and soft tissue. Most bullets, due to their geometry, are instable because their center of pressure is in front of their center of gravity. By increasing their axial inertia (rotation), that instability can be overcome. Since the XD and XP designs have large meplats, they behave as just any other flat nose bullet might albeit with a slightly greater C_D than bullets having unfluted meplats.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that we'll have any reference from the field in the foreseeable future since it is unlikely than an LE agency will adopt them for issue to their field operations personnel.

Put me down as ''cynical''.

[the Schwartz]

They transfer the psychic frustration of billions of stripped out Phillips screws to your opponent.

That's a great line and one of the funniest things that I've read for a long time! You should be writing ad-copy for LeHigh.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that bullet shape and material changes can penetrate better for the same push, with better reliability than hardcast. I think the XP rounds have a pretty solid claim to that at this point for niche applications, like .380 and dangerous game.

As far as radial fracturing I don't see a lot of claims for that with the XP rounds. The claims are physically possible for the XD or we wouldn't see those wounds in animals when used for hunting. People aren't deer or pigs, and until the XD rounds are adopted by a major city PD or Fed LE organization we won't know. I don't see that happening for any number of reasons, so it's fuzzy pictures of a torn apart pig or thousands of OIS data going back years. Guess which wins.

Of course, nose profile determines C_D in laminar (and some non-laminar) flow fields. That is why ''pointy'' configurations like 3CRH ogives and similar elongated ovoids penetrate deeply unless they overturn. Of course, once that happens, modeling variable attitude lateral flow past tumbling laterally-oriented bullets (requires the use of CFD software) becomes extremely complex. For example, at Re = 1,000, the attached boundary layer on a laterally-oriented bullet is laminar. The boundary layer separates at approximately 82° and the wake is turbulent. Using a turbulence model makes the boundary layer separation point move to the down-flow (rear) side (>90°) of the laterally-oriented bullet. So, this means that it is not correct to employ a turbulence model like K-epsilon to compute flow. Doing so results in a modeled wake that is much narrower than it is in actuality, which means that the drag is also less than it is in actuality. In testing, the separation point does not move to the rear side of laterally-oriented bullets until much higher Reynolds numbers (about Re = 250,000) prevail. At Re > 250,000, "drag crisis" sets in; boundary layer transitions occur and the boundary layer becomes turbulent.

The fluted noses in the LeHigh designs are used to alter C_D and in the case of the XP they induce greater cavitation and effectively reduce the velocity at which cavitation occurs and typically do not overturn. This reduces frictional drag (contact with the sides of the bullet) and results in increased penetration depth. As such, the XD is not a design that I'd want to use for self-defense. The fluting on the XD increases drag considerably by redirecting flow (acts as a brake) and is kind of interesting to me, but not enough so that I'd ever leave Gold Dot or HST JHPs for XDs.

[Clusterfrack]

Good points @the Schwartz. I’m skeptical about terminal ballistics claims as well, and have zero interest in the XD bullets.

XP, especially the Underwood +p loading, delivers high velocities and outstanding penetration. No idea if it’s better than a wide meplat hard cast bullet, but they seem to deliver that type of penetration with FMJ reliability.

[Velo Dog]

I know this has been discussed before but I just want to check to see if anything has changed significantly.

There are still no 380 Auto loads that consistently "pass" either the FBI or IWBA tests.


https://brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammun...0Protocol.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20150413...om/briefs6.htm

The .380 ACP is limited by its small case capacity, short overall length, and low SAAMI approved operating pressure. Its projectiles will always be either too short and light or traveling too slow for it to be recommended for general law enforcement use.

High quality ammo that is reliable and accurate in your pistol is still the best choice.

https://www.brassfetcher.com/Handgun...Selection.html

[Clusterfrack]

I'm going to summarize what I think the consensus is. Folks, please weigh in if you disagree.

• .380 is suboptimal for self-defense or duty use (9mm is vastly superior)
• JHPs in .380 are either unproven or known to have poor or inconsistent penetration. JHPs that do penetrate typically do not expand much
• FMJs penetrate adequately (>12"), but are known to deflect off bone
• Solid flat point bullets penetrate adequately (>12"), and may be better at punching through bone
• .380 autos can be finicky and unreliable with some ammo. Testing your carry load is a must.

@DocGKR has posted a good summary of limitations and recommendations regarding .380 and .38 special.