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
38 Special vs 380 acp (wound balistics)
- Thread starter Bill ch
- Start date
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.
Mulebuk Sam
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 174
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
Expired/Withdrawn
2 nice ones left Springfield Armory 1911 Long Slide Colt Army Special
