You cannot deny the comparison with traditional hollow points and fmj ammo. Of course, the proof is in actual use, of which there is no data that has been considered reliable. Showing the penetration even after first negotiating various barriers is also relevant.

Mas Ayoob gives great advice, regarding testing with ballistic gelatin:

"Whether the formula for ballistic gelatin was 20% or 10%, there was always the issue that ballistic gel is a homogeneous substance and the human body is a heterogeneous substance in which the human-like swine muscle tissue Dr. Martin Fackler's gelatin protocol was developed to duplicate did not give the same resistance as skin, bone, cartitlege, solid abdominal viscera, etc.

The early 147 grain subsonic Winchester OSM worked great in gelatin, but had "good news and bad news" performance in actual shootings around the country, which led to the development of both the .40 S&W cartridge and today's much more effective high-tech 147 grain 9mm bullets.

The reason the "stopping power debate" seems to be eternal is that it's simply a multi-dimensional issue with so many variables that I for one don't think it can ever be truly quantified in a "test setting." What was the toxicology screen on the man who took the bullets? How much of an adrenaline high was he on? (I have yet to meet a forensic pathologist or toxicologist who can show me a way to measure internally-generated epinephrine, post-mortem.) And, like alcohol, epinephrine affects different people in different ways, which cannot be conclusively analyzed from autopsy. Much of "stopping power speed" is determined by what is going on in the mind and the body of the attacker, neither of which can be conclusively quantified after the shooting is over. There is no study that quantifies exactly which organs were hit by which bullets at what point in the gunfight, let alone differentiating whether the "heart shot" clipped the edge of the pericardium or entered at the right atrium as opposed to the left ventricle (yes, there seems to be a difference).

For decades now, I've recommended selecting loads that work well both in gelatin AND in street performance quantified after numerous actual, investigated shootings. THEN, work on what REALLY seems to win gunfights: tactics, ability to swiftly (and if necessary, continuously) hit the parts of the body you need to shut down while firing under adverse circumstances, and an understanding of deadly force law that will allow you to deliver those hits without hesitation and not fire until you are sure of that."

For me, I pay particular attention to the penetration. The 12-18" FBI requirements obviously exceed some human body dimensions.

Permanent wound channels are interesting but may not be a true representation of what we should expect.

Now, I plan to do some more testing (thanks for the question!) of .38 spl and .380 rounds

I'm not sure why you quoted me: that post of mine that you quoted was answering the post immediately above it by jag312, about the possibility of "psychological stops," and has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of your post. I'm also not sure where your quote of Mas ends, as you have no end quote there.

I like and respect Mas plenty and I like Fackler enough that we had him do some work for us. If you'll look through my posts on .380s here and elsewhere, I'm consistently a proponent of penetration. So, was your quotation of me intentional? Were you trying to refute or agree with me? I'm sorry, but I'm confused.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Couldn't open - need to be "logged in".......

Don't over-think it. Either round will do a very good job at close range if the bullet is placed in a vital zone.

Cartridges with much more power than either round will do a poor job when placed in a NON-vital zone.

There is NO MAGIC BULLET.
There are only bullets that do expand and bullets that don't expand.
Either kind can be lethal when well-placed.

With EXPANDING ammo, both .380 Auto, and .38 Special give about 12" penetration.
The .38 special expands a bit more in some tests.

The .380 with modern ammo gets about 12" penetration with .42 caliber expansion in the denim/gelatin test.
See Pocket Guns and Gear: Hornady Critical Defense 380 Auto 90 Grain FTX Denim and Clear Gel Test

Speer Gold Dot 125-grain expands to .55 caliber.
See Pocket Guns and Gear: Speer Gold Dot 38 Special +P 125 Grain GDHP Terminal Test

The old "FBI load" still does what it always did.
Expands to .64 caliber.
See Pocket Guns and Gear: Remington 38 Special +P 158 Grain LHP Denim and Gel Test

Shots inside the 8-ring "between the shirt pockets" should be effective.
Outside the 8-ring, and expect to be disappointed.

__________________
WWSSD?
What would Skeeter do?

Sorry, I read your post out of context. Welcome to my world (of confusion).

Whew! THAT I understand! Thanks for clearing it up, anigo!

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Did these rounds stop the aggressive act?

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It acts like a flat point ball round with some extra temporary cavity.

"failed to penetrate adequately" = no

Erich did not specify whether the shootees chose to quit or not.

The question I am shocked nobody has asked, is which one is best for bears?

While I have certainly represented shooters in self-defense claims, "aggressive act"s by the shootees were not at issue in any of those shootings.

The .380 JHP rounds that failed to adequately penetrate also failed to stop the activities of the shootee.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

So the results weren't from autopsy?

__________________
Halfway and one more step

ER doc (after subsequent shots and playing dead to escape yet more) and (the Hydra-Shoks) crime scene techs (after subsequent shots finished things)

__________________
Now go make God proud...

If you watched the video all the way through, you'd see that after shooting through a barrier, the hollow points didn't fair well and the fmj's over penetrated. Shooting through blue jean material was interesting. I'm with Eric as far as penetration being a big factor, but this is based upon my shooting deer with a 4" .357 mag. revolver. High velocity soft points of medium weight penetrated well, while hollow points sometimes failed to drive through to the vitals.

The heart of this continuous debate is that people do not want to be inconvenienced by carrying a gun. They especially do not want to carry a gun that is 'to big'. So, they drag up all sorts of arguments about super bullets and tests shooting anything from bags of marshmallows to premixed concrete. All this to have some sort of argument supporting carrying a little bitty gun that they hope will work and certainly will not wrinkle their nice shirt. Lot's of luck. My personal choice was to get used to carrying a gun I know will work rather than trying to get by with something less.

Rick_A wins the thread!

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Rick_A wins the thread!

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I try to carry the best possible handgun that I can effectively conceal at any given time when I'm outside my home. There are some (rare) occasions that a pocket .380 is that handgun. I don't haphazardly throw it in a pocket and go. It's something I practice with, and can make decent shots quickly with at 7 yds and in. It may not be what I prefer, but sometimes it's all I have, and it seems better than having nothing at all.

At home I cheat, and it's a .380 or .38 snub all the time. I have no excuse there, other than comfort.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

When faced with a criminal threat, we do not need magic to resolve the matter. We need to be effective. It really doesn't matter what the round is that one uses. I've been shot at one time in my life when I surprised some twits doing a dope deal. They were not effective in shooting me because they couldn't get any hits, not because their choice of caliber was lacking. I've shot a lot of small to medium game with all sorts of rifles up to .30-06 at distances out to 180 yds. I've not ever had a single small game animal ever get up and walk away or even flop around a bit after being shot with a simply little .22 LR or a 12 ga. loaded with bird shot. I've shot a similar goodly number of deer. Angles of presentation have varied from the idea broadside shot to the less than ideal head on, quartering, raking and Texas heart shot. Not one of these animals ever got up and kept going. All were shot using plain Jane 150 gr. bullets except one on which I used 165 gr. handloads. I've tracked deer shot by other hunters who used rounds such as the .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, 7mm Rem. Mag. Not one of those animals required tracking because of a inadequate round. Tracking was uniformly required because of poor shot placement. This year I've seen deer shot w/ .223/5.56mm AR-15's and bolt-action .22-250's. They all dropped dead. The extra horsepower of the .22-250 did not produce a deader deer. The deer died because the bullet was placed where it belonged to produce a good kill.

Is the .380 better than the .38 Special? Guess it all depends on if one can shoot. If one can shoot, then a .22 LR will work very well. If one cannot shoot, then the largest and most powerful caliber a keyboard can devise will not be effective. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

__________________
<><

By far the largest group of experts I have seen in one thread. May we moveour collective knowledge on to 9mm vs 357 from short barrels?

Being snide doesn't really make you feel better - you might reconsider it. I understand and am no saint: I often see threads I think are silly, and sometimes I can't resist a remark myself.

What I try to remember is that if this many people felt the topic was worth discussing, it really was worth the discussion to them. If it's something in which I don't want to participate, I need not. And if it's something where I feel people are just being grievously wrong or silly, I have the choice to either add my position to the conversation or (again) to simply ignore it.

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from (and, again, I've been there myself), but I think you made a mistake in deciding to voice it thusly.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I'm sorry; the contradictions got to me.

Like I said, I've been there, amigo.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I've seen both prove to be fatal. The latest was a suicide with a 38 snub nose from the side. The round failed to penetrate the skull on the far side and left a judge. Fairly odd for a point blank self inflicted few.

I've seen most rounds both kill and not kill, like mentioned before shot placement is king. A single 25 to the heart is better than a 44 to the shoulder.

I'm in the current debate which to get right now. I want another small carry anywhere gun and the ones on my radar at a 380 or a 38 both are calibers I don't currently own. My ultra small gun that I carry even in gym shorts is a TCP 32 and its been perfect for that role and flawless functioning for me so I've considered the tcp 380 or a ruger lcp to fill that same role with a little more punch. Ive also seen 32s be effective for self defense so I don't feel helpless with it, hell ice even carried a small 22 on occasion. A gun is better than a knife.

I'm aware of that. I have only a little of the good older Remington stuff left, so I now carry the Buffalo Bore standard pressure 158gr. LSWCHP-GC, which is ballistically virtually identical to the old FBI load.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

It's funny to me that when I clicked on this thread, I had two handguns handy...one, a Beretta 84F 14shot 380 loaded with Underwood +P XTP's...and a Model 15-3 loaded with PDX1 +P's.

I was always rather indifferent to the 380acp, neither disdaining it nor praising it.
But, I am a Beretta fan, and when the Israeli surplus 84's showed up cheap, I bought one. I figured I'd shoot it a bit, and eventually use it for trade bait. However, when I shot it, I found I really like it. I shoot it well, it's reliable, and I've even reached out and hit the 10" steel plate at 80yds at my club.
Thus, while I have a high cap 9mm available, or a 357mag, I often find myself just sticking the 84F in my belt, where it carries very well. Besides, the riot gun has a tube full of #1 buck, and push come to shove, I'd rather have that in my hands than any handgun.

I don't feel under gunned with my M 638 or my PPK 380 clone at close range.
Did someone say placement of rounds counts more then size of the bullet?

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

THIS is great info!!! Thanks so much!!! Placement and Penetration equals success.

My pleasure to pass along the grim info - may you never need to use it.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

A couple of qualifiers probably need to be mentioned.

First, .38 +P loads with modern hollow points like the 135 gr Gold Dot seem to do well in ballistic gel test as does the older moderately expanding 125 gr XTP when it's also loaded in a +P load. In essence, the +P load makes up the velocity loss that occurs when going from a 4" to a 2" barrel.

Second, .380 ACP hollow points have improved in general, but the 90 gr XTP is still a good choice and will both expand and acheive 12" penetration in ballistic gel when it's launched at 100-1050 fps.

But...that normally requires a barrel that is 3.5" long, and 3.9" is better. The current crop of micro and sub micro .380 ACPs are not going to be able to generate that kind of velocity, in particular as the .380 ACP takes a much more significant hit in a short barrel than does the 9mm Para.

I've been carrying a Kimber Micro this summer and the best I can do is about 980 fps with a 90 gr XTP in it's short 2.75" barrel. I still need to do some gel testing to see how well it performs at that velocity.

Here is what my wife carries in her Taurus TCP 738. It'll do until something better comes down the pike. 380 ACP +P 90 Grain Xtreme Penetrator - Underwood Ammo

FWIW, I routine carry a SW457 but wanted a 'drop in the gym shorts, honey run to the market' firearm. Didn't want to strap on a holster, wanted something light, accurate and pocket carry. Looked at the SW-frame and Sig P238. Chose the Sig because it disappeared in my pocket and the SA was too easy to use. I knew I would carry it when the 457 was impractical. Never felt under gunned, never worried about penetration/expansion. Practice, good quality ammo and confidence is what make the difference to me.

@Bill ch,

Looks like you haven't been around here in a few years but if you are still out there reading this board even a .32 and some .25's are good today.

The key is to buy it from the 'boutique manufactures'. And it's not cheap.
But no gimmick either. Every caliber has come a long way with the powder tweaks over the years, but none of the major players have delved to deeply into the 'bullet' aspect of it like the 'boutique manufactures' have.

And it's the major ammo manufactures at the heart of the gimmicks cause it's cheap.
Bullet design is costly because it requires machining and retooling, putting a little red plug into a hollow point cost nothing and looks clever, until you see the real test.

The major players spend more money on fancy packaging than they do on bullet technology and when even they might be onto something they cave into certain pressures if you know what I mean.

__________________
Mulebuk Sam and the Governor

Long-lived thread.

When it comes right down to it ... (just my own thoughts) ...

The .380 ACP is never going to be a .38 S&W Special.

The .38 Spl does offer some newer bullet designs, and some of the current +P loads have been tweaked by the makers to offer some potential for "performance" when fired from the 2" snubs.

The .380 is never going equal the .38 Spl when it comes to bullet weight, though. That may well matter to some folks. It does to me, but I'll still pocket one of my LCP's over the thicker J's, depending on my desires and clothing at the moment.

If you feel the absolute "need" to try and bootstrap the .380 into something "more potent", by using some hot-rodded load made by one of the custom ammo makers? Not my problem. Does the maker of your .380 recommend and approve of using it? Since there isn't a SAAMI rating for a "+P" load in .380, you may be on your own if you damage your little .380 by running hot loads in it that aren't approved by the maker of the actual gun.

Some folks look for their diminutive .380's to reach the current "performance criteria" used for LE duty handgun ammunition in various ballistic testing. Well, if the little .380 could run that gauntlet and produce the same "ballistic performance", don't you suppose the major LE/Gov agencies would've accepted the .380 ACP as a viable alternative to the common duty/service handgun calibers?

I tend to look at the .380 as being no more than it is, meaning - for me - a really diminutive pocketable retirement CCW option for those situations when I decide I (hopefully) won't require the potential penetration offered by my assorted 9's, .40's, .45's, .357's or even my .38's.

Other .380 owners seem to prefer the non-expanding ball loads for their carry .380's. I prefer to carry one or another of the more modern JHP's that may offer some potential for a little expansion (or which might become "ball" loads if they don't expand).

I'd carry ball loads if that was all I had available for my LCP's, but I carry JHP's because I can.

I've seen a couple instances where .380 ball loads really perforated some building materials. In one of them a ball bullet passed through something hanging on an inside wall, then passed through the wall (adjacent to an exterior door frame), and then hit someone outside in a parking lot, in the spine, which resulted in making that person a paraplegic.

I think I'll pocket a LCP in a little while when I have to go into town ... because the very deep pockets of the cargo shorts I'm going to wear typically positions one of my J-frame snubs exactly over a spot on my thigh which creates a hot spot very quickly, and which starts to throb down to my knee. Using the cargo pocket lets the snub & its holster tip over, which can let the gun slip from the holster, and it also constantly bangs against the side of my knee, creating annoying pain of another sort. (No, I prefer not to carry IWB/AIWB, as that still rubs, when seated, against a spot in the inguinal area which can become tender.)

I get the context and meaning of the "comforting versus comfortable" discussion, but there's no reason for me to intentionally expose myself to avoidable discomfort if I'm running around in less risk environments. If I actually expected I'd find myself in a higher risk environment, I'd either not go there (first choice), or I'd belt on one of my larger pistols.

Everybody's gotta suit themselves, right? (And for the carefully considered reasons which make sense to them, presumably. )

Best regards, everyone.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Absolute nonsense. 32 S&W Long, 32 ACP, and 25 ACP are still the same under powered, under performing rounds they have always been. They simply lack the power, bullet weight, sectional density, and sheer force to both expand and punch deep enough to be relied upon. No amount of bullet design and small increases in power will ever overcome the sheer physics of terminal performance, its simply impossible. They don't make 747's fly through the air with magic, or with wing design alone, they have to put a powerplant on the wing a little bit more gusty than a 12 horsepower Briggs and Stratton to get it off the ground, no matter how much you try to engineer it.

The boutiques make great ammunition, and advancements have been made, but the small calibers are still poor performers, sub par at best. They still punch small holes with solid bullets and can't punch deep with expanding bullets, they only impress people by relative performance; the new loads a slightly better than the old ones, so now they must be good enough! Objectively, they are still failures. Surprise: a "magic" 25 ACP bullet that expands up to, lets hypothetically say, .340 caliber, may be relatively impressive for the weak caliber, but keep in mind that it still causes less damage than a non expanding .357 wadcutter. A 380 hollow point that expands up to let's say, .400, and fails utterly by under penetrating, still under performs many solid 40 caliber and .429 bullets that don't expand at all.

Keep in mind, that in life, you may double your ability and still be a failure at something. The mouse guns have made progress, but still come up way short.

NO. A 25 or 32 is NOT GOOD today. They are marginally better than what they used to be, and still dismal on the overall. This comment is wrong.

To be honest, 32, 25, and yes even 380 and low power .38 Special are in the region where non expanding bullets are the better choice. Bullet designers aren't magicians, and it would take magic for these rounds to become 'good".

In the 1990s I was one of several assigned "CDS" (crime deterrent squad). Street clothes, concealed un-police weapons", and unmarked vehicles. I was on time at the armory, however the "Hot Shots" came earlier than assigned to "Cherry Pick". What was left was a Browning BDA .380 and a Beretta.25acp, which I was issued. A Gunsmith friend and former Green Beret/Ranger advised me to use PMC JHP .380 for the Browning and FMJ for the Beretta. I did some informal testing of the PMC .380 JHP which I found to be "Impressive". The .25acp FMJ was better than a thrown rock or sharp stick.

Winner winner, chicken dinner. Too many people have the insane idea that if ever in a gunfight for their life that they will be able to calmly lob bullets into a bad guy just like shooting at some IDPA match while using a perfect isosceles stance in the open. Wrong. Dead wrong. These matters are fluid, dynamic and more often than not the bad guy who initiates it wins.

I know a fellow who shoots competition and is a decent shot. However, he is overweight and chooses to pocket carry a Ruger LCP. As the Lord is my witness he one day stated that he did so as he was sure he could shoot his way out of any situation with a .380. Riggghhhhttt.

If a service grade caliber weapon is an impediment to one's being a "fashion plate" then at least they can find solace knowing that they may be the best dressed corpse in the morgue.

When you say, "more often than not the bad guy who initiates it wins." are you referring to statistics of civilian encounters or law enforcement encounters or both combined? Where do you get those statistics?

Ok, I'll bite at this necrothread.

I look at it this way... With the .38 Special, you get increased sectional density and a bullet that's more likely to penetrate a minimum of 12" while still expanding.

I'll also go out on a limb and say that anything the .380 ACP can do, the 9mm can do better, especially since platforms for the latter are sized very similarly (e.g. I would choose a Sig 938 over the 238 any day).

That's not to say the .380 isn't lethal; it most certainly is. But with fairly light bullet weights and a tendency to underpenetrate in JHP loadings, it wouldn't be my first choice.

Fired into bare standard gel, .38 special snub with some +P (within SAAMI) JHPs is terminally quite similar to quite a few 9mm JHPs out of a 3" pistol. Either, of course, is terminally superior to virtually anything (within SAAMI) out of a 3.5" pistol in .380.