38 Special vs 380 acp (wound balistics)

[caleb4387]

I have read with interest the above 35 posts. The people who believe a 380ACP has not enough penetration need to YouTube some videos. With fmj ammo it often out penetrates the 357Mag with hollow point ammunition. A common theme "I have carried_______________ caliber with ___________ ammo for __________ number of years with no complaints" does not tell us much because it was never used. I have hunted big game for decades and was an elk guide for a number of years. I have over 100 projectiles recovered from downed game. I have documented every bullet at to distance shot, caliber, bullet weight and manufacture, and wound track. My great mistake was I never documented my handgun trials. Often when taking an animal, I would immediately prop him up and shoot his carcass with whatever handgun I was carrying to test bullet expansion. I probably did this 30 to 40 times. I recovered many bullets but did not document results as it was not the handgun that took the game. Dumb dumb. A few times I did and in archives you will find recovered bullets taken from an antelope I shot with a 380 ACP. I do remember the 2 mule deer I tested a snub nosed 38 Special using 110 grain hp ammo failed to exit on a broadside lung shot. I used a Ruger LCP with Buffalo Bore 95 grn fmj ammo to shoot through both sides and exit a mid sized mule deer's lung cavity. It was late winter and he had a heavy winter coat. An interesting note about the above story, that deer had stopped a Winchester 180 grain bullet from a 30-06 just minutes before.

What kinda qualifier is that? A full metal jacket 380 will penetrate mote than a 357? So will a 9 mm or a 50 blog. But I bet a Fmj 357 will out penetrate a 380 funk. Apple's to bananas

 

[BE Mike]

Agree. that's why I point-shoot my carry revolvers.

I certainly hope you don't limit your training to point shooting only. Having read about some recent shootouts, it was obvious that the person involved was most successful when he started looking at the sights. Point shooting has its place, but isn't where someone should stop.

 

[zzclancy]

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwPtP-KDNk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Warning: gruesome content.

My take:
Handguns are sharp sticks.
The vitals are small targets so stabbing has to be done accurately.
The stick must be reliable.

I had watched the video before now. Very interesting.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I have read in a couple places that a 380 from a 3.5 inch barrel is wound balisticly more effective then a 38 spcl from a 2 inch barrel.

I have a couple 380s that I enjoy shooting but I find it difficult to believe that a round (any standard pressure round) from the 380 is going to be more effective then a round (any standard pressure round) from my model 60 38.

I would be distrustful of anything you read in most any gun rag these days. Those people are pandering to the advertisers, who sell guns and ammo. It wasn't, by any chance, an article about a .380 pistol or .380 ammo, was it?

Notice how inferior calibers are touted as "just as good as" the next thing up? For example, you often read that with premium loads, a 9mm is "just as good as" a .40 or .45. In fact, now that I think of it, the tag line these days is that all of the usual defense calibers (9mm, .357 SIG, .40) are "just as good as a .45."

No one EVER says that their pet load is "just as good as a .380." The very idea is ludicrous.

Everything is a compromise, and some people do not like to be inconvenienced. Often, such calibers/guns as .380s are touted because the person doing so carries one. And that is often because he likes the idea of being "armed," but does not like the perceived inconvenience of carrying the proper tool for the job.

The year that SIG Sauer introduced as new its little Colt Mustang copy, called the SIG Sauer 238, in .380 caliber, I happened to be looking at one right next to the famous firearms trainer Ken Hackathorn. I could not resist asking him his thoughts. His response was, "it looks like a pistol for someone who really doesn't need a pistol."

 

[Stan O]

.380 acp

Some might find this interesting concerning a comparison of .380 acp. load ballistics in some of the most popular factory loads.
According to the reviewer and his testing, Precision One ammo using Hornady's XTP 90 gr.HP bullet penetrated 12.75 inches in ballistic ordinace gel and 4 layers of Denim and expanded reliably to between 10 and 11mm 100% of the time retaining almost all of it's weight. The video is impressive. Pretty good in my opinion.
Final Results of the .380 ACP Ammo Quest | Shooting The Bull

 

[30-30remchester]

What kinda qualifier is that? A full metal jacket 380 will penetrate mote than a 357? So will a 9 mm or a 50 blog. But I bet a Fmj 357 will out penetrate a 380 funk. Apple's to bananas

The point I failed to make is for those who believe the 380 will not penetrate enough to make it a good defensive round. I know of nobody who does not consider the 357 Magnum an excellent defensive round, with far more penetration than necessary. Yet these same people who believe the 380, that has greater penetration, and yet it does not have enough penetration? This was the point I was unsuccessfully attempting to make. I am not comparing effectiveness of either caliber, just inches of penetration.

 

[jag312]

"Shot placement is king, adequate penetration is queen; everything else is just angels dancing on the heads of pins."

Although it varies with individuals, there is also the psychological effect of being shot. When one of my friends was shot, I believe it was his third time, he didn't realize it until he discovered he was leaking. He was shot in the side. And he was a former Marine.

I know from one of my cases that a guy took a shot in the arm with a .22. He was screaming and flopping on the ground like a fish out of water.

 

[Erich]

Yeah, but if you can't count on it...which you can't...

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PDQcE-1T40

It's an old idea. The Devel bullet was patented in 1992.

When bullets penetrate tissue or gelatin they create both a permanent crush cavity and a temporary cavity. Ballistic gelatin is damaged by the formation and collapse of the temporary cavity, but at pistol velocities temporary cavity is not a significant wounding factor. MAC is misinterpreting the results by measuring the temporary cavity effects rather than the permanent cavity.

 

[tops]

I own one but I like the response. Larry

 

[BE Mike]

It's an old idea. The Devel bullet was patented in 1992.

When bullets penetrate tissue or gelatin they create both a permanent crush cavity and a temporary cavity. Ballistic gelatin is damaged by the formation and collapse of the temporary cavity, but at pistol velocities temporary cavity is not a significant wounding factor. MAC is misinterpreting the results by measuring the temporary cavity effects rather than the permanent cavity.

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.

 

[686-380]

That's why I do my own testing

Yeah, but if you can't count on it...which you can't...

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

 

[Erich]

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.

 

[M E Morrison]

Here is a good writeup by Dr.Gary K. Roberts who studies gunshot wounds for military and LE and is considered an expert in the field of modern wound ballistics.

BUG's: .380 ACP vs. .38 Sp - M4Carbine.net Forums

His qualifications can be found here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

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

 

[W.E.G.]

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.

 

[686-380]

No, I wasn't attemptig to refute you...

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.

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

 

[Erich]

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

 

[Protected One]

Good posts.


[*]In three shootings, .380 JHP rounds that were properly aimed to hit the aformentioned vitals failed to penetrate adequately to do so.

Did these rounds stop the aggressive act?

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

You cannot deny the comparison with traditional hollow points and fmj ammo.

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

Did these rounds stop the aggressive act?

"failed to penetrate adequately" = no

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

 

[Rick_A]

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