Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryS
There are any number of posts on this forum about advances in 9mm ammunition lethality, including why some agencies are thinking of going back to it. Is there any reason to think that similar advances haven't and won't be made in .380?
My son is a pretty well built guy, but he doesn't like the recoil of 9mm. I'd rather have him carry a .380 that he can hit his target with than a 9mm that he can't.
|
Sure, good for him. Some folks find the .32 H&R Magnum in a J Frame gives six shots of stopping power they need while still having a grip they can get their hands around. That round's effectiveness surprised me since my only experience with .32s were the ancient S&W Long revolver loads which seem so weak they lead to carelessness.
I personally feel quite uncomfortable with low powered rounds and am surprised you challenged me on that very general comment. My usual carry these days are a 640-1 loaded with .38s, or a Colt Officers Model .45 ACP. In previous years it was an M-29 which my son now has. I am big enough to comfortably handle and carry a larger weapon, so they are my preference. The only reason for carrying a .38 is the environment isn't always conducive to the more powerful weapon.
Because ammunition manufacturers must hold pressure to levels which are safe for older firearms, and because of the straight blowback action most .380s use it seems unlikely the cart's power can be increased very much and still be safe to fire in older guns. The .38 ACP/.38 Super evolution is a good example. The results with that exercise were similar to loading a batch of .38 Spl rounds up to .357 Magnum pressure and firing them through a prewar .38 Spl revolver: Rather messy.
However, as you note, recent years have seen some really amazing improvements in bullet design, greatly improving existing ammunition's effectiveness. There is no argument with anyone carrying and shooting the combination of firearm and ammunition which works the very best for him or her.