Right now I'm carrying both a 9mm and a .380. I see the .380 as my backup, but no way would I carry it even as a backup if I didn't feel it could defend.

I have a .32 acp and some .32 S&WL revolvers, but I probably wouldn't use them as a backup when I have better choices. And of course, the few .25 acp's I own, even more so. But I wouldn't hesitate to carry them if they were all I had. Even the .25's.

My point is, most of us who carry handguns for protection are arming ourselves against largely unknown threats, and therefore, we have to deal with likelihoods and probabilities. In the Montana wilderness, it's simpler because you have a clearer idea of what your likely threat is...so you carry a .41 Blackhawk or larger. In a place like Kansas City, though, a .41 BH just isn't going to make sense, just like a .380 won't make sense in rural Montana. Of course, if you have Vegas shooter scenario, neither of those guns will work, so what can I say?

I think the commonly stated issue with .380's is that some HP bullets won't go deep enough or won't expand if they encounter relatively tough material, while fmj's won't expand and might even over-penetrate if an attacker is wearing light clothing. I have lehigh Xtreme rounds in my LCP because they don't have to expand to do damage.