380 Bodyguard problems solved yet?

[W.E.G.]

Four decades ago, I swore I'd never own another .380.

I guess I've mellowed in my old age.

...and then there's this business of the new crop of reliable pistols that are so small that you really can hide them in the palm of your hand, and still get a foot of penetration and expansion to forty-three caliber with $1/shot fancy ammo.

Glock came out with their slightly-too-large .380, and I was tempted because I do like me some Glock.

Dealers started lowering prices on the Glock .380 when the slightly-too-large single-stack 9mm Glock arrived (at opportunistic prices).

Then those daily email hucksters at Palmetto State Armory started DUMPING everything in their inventory in the Smith and Wesson line.

You can still get yours for $260.
See http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/smith-wesson-bodyguard-380-without-laser-109381.html

No laser.
No billboard on the side of the gun.

Serial number: KBU5576

Comes with two mags.
One has the rooster-tail on it. The other is flat
Also comes with a Cordura carry case.
I would have preferred that it come with a cheap pocket holster instead.

I read a little bit about it on the interwebs before buying.
Two main complaints: light strikes (misfire) and difficult disassembly/reassembly

I had no problems with light strikes on the 100-round range trip.
Shot a 50-box of Federal and 50-box of TULA.

No malfunctions until the 99th shot.
On the 99th shot, a round of TULA did not want to climb the (by then very dirty) feed ramp.
Inspection of the primer indentations did show some variation in the depth of the firing pin strike. Some looked fairly light. But, they all fired.
Hard to say from the pic whether the light indentations are from the primer swelling back after a solid indentation, or whether the light indentation remaining on the primer is all there ever was.

This gun DOES have "double-strike" capability. So, if you do get a misfire, your can hit it again instantly with just another stroke of the trigger, and without any gymnastics or drama. A Glock won't allow you to do that.

I did experience a brief *** moment trying to field-strip the gun. Once I figured it out, I made a vid to show how I do it.

The little gun does have sharp recoil.
Palm of my hand is slightly bruised today from the outing.
It wasn't really an issue during firing, but I can definitely feel it in my hand today.

Sights are excellent for such a small gun. I was able to get a good sight picture on the 15-yard falling plates, and I could actually drop the plates when could manage to execute a good trigger-pull. The gun shoots to point of aim without any need to dick with the sights.

I don't know which magazine baseplate I like best. Its a tiny little gun in my hand with either magazine. The rooster tail on one of the mags is not big enough to help a whole lot, or to get in the way.

Saw some complaints on the interwebz about the long trigger pull on this gun. I say whatever to that. Its a little pocket bellygun. I don't expect (or want) a National Match trigger on it. For people who just can't leave well-enough alone, there is a kit you can buy to make the trigger break after a shorter stroke. I won't be getting the trigger kit.

If you want to take a "technical" shot with this pistol, you can "stage" the trigger much in the same way that one would "stage" a double-action trigger. That is, you take up most of the "take-up" - I wouldn't call it "slack," and then at the point where the trigger should break, you really concentrate on not pulling the sights off-target while you finish the rest of the trigger stroke.

A proprietary laser can be added. I hate lasers on pistols. So, I won't be adding the laser either.

This version has the safety lever. Very stiff as expected. It works, but I'll never use it in practice.
As noted, the trigger-pull is plenty long, and its also plenty heavy.
If you feel safe carrying a Model 442, or similar, I see no reason why you need a "safety" on this gun, other than to satisfy some arbitrary policy of a law enforcement agency as to permitted weapon-configuration for employee officers.

The gun having passed the 100-round test, I ordered a couple boxes of the pricey Hornady Critical Defense ammo, and another box of ball (Prvi). Will report on that test when I get a chance.

If the gun passes the next test, it will get some carry time in those little trips to the store where I don't feel like suiting up like Gabe Suarez on a mission to kill a carload of active shooters.

Still very undecided about holster/no-holster/pocket-clip.
Like the idea of KISS carry - which in the case of this gun is probably just going to be loose in my right front pocket. Interestingly, it fits VERY WELL into the "watch pocket" of my Levi's, but with the butt protruding. With shirt untucked, nobody can see it.
With my slightly roomier "All American Clothing Company" jeans the whole gun disappears into the much-larger watch pocket, even with the rooster-tail mag.

Just when I'd started taking the Keltec P-32 on the occasional outing.

.
.
.

Field-strip and re-assembly vid:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5_pWyClFLDs

.
.
.
..

 

[turbo38gn]

Great review WEG, thanks... I concur!!

 

[KSDeputy]

I like the feel of the Bodyguard .380, and if it were not DA only I would buy one.

 

[W.E.G.]

The DA-only function includes "second-strike" capability.

Can't get that on a lot autos with "single action" capability.

You really want to shoot this little gun single action?
I wouldn't trust anybody to shoot an apple off my head with this little thing, even if it were single-action, and the man behind the triggers was named Miculek.

Anyhow... more ammo for testing inbound.

 

[W.E.G.]

Tested the ammo-assortment yesterday.

Vendor was unable to deliver the TULA ammo.
But, I got TULA and Wolf confused, so I did not test the Wolf ammo, on account of I thought I'd already tested Wolf the first time out. Reading back over this thread, I see I tested TULA previously. I'll test the Wolf another time.

All the ammo was sure-fire.

No light strikes or anything at all weird about the ammo.

I'll just say a couple things about the primer-indentations.
The dents in the Hornady primers are all textbook. Nothing to suggest any deficient or excessive contact.
The Prvi primers are funny, in that they seem to show the weakest indentations. I don't know whether that's because the Prvi primers are harder than the others, or whether it might be that the Prvi primers are actually swelling back in such a way as to "erase" some of the indentation. All of it went bang, as desired, so its all just trivia anyway.

I didn't feel like shooting 300 rounds of .380 in this hand-firecracker.
So, I just shot two magazines of each brand of ammo.
I did shoot a full box of 25 of the Hornady Critical Defense, as this is the ammo I will carry for personal defense.
I wouldn't describe the actual firing as unpleasant at all, but as before, the thumb/forefinger web area of my right hand is a little sore this morning after firing 60-70 rounds. Still, you know you're not juggling Ping-Pong balls when you shoot this little gun.

The only "issue" I experienced was the occasional failure to lock back after the last shot.
Armscor - both mags
Privi - one mag
Fiocchi - one mag

I did not make note of WHICH mag was involved with the no-lockback.
I don't really care, as I don't plan to carry a spare mag when I'm carrying this gun.
If 7 rounds of Hornady Critical Defense .380 can't solve the problem, that's going to be just too bad. Or, if I DID want to carry a second mag, what difference would it make if I reloaded from a closed slide or a locked slide?

I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the magazine that does NOT have the "rooster tail" best. With the plain magazine, my pinkie finger naturally moves to a position below the baseplate, and in such a way that it provides consistent support for the gun. Whereas, the rooster tail is just too small, and too ill-positioned to be of any usefulness to me. The rooster tail just gets in the way of my pinkie finger, and causes that finger to have an uncertain relationship to the grip of the gun. Ultimately, my pinkie ends up UNDER the rooster tail anyway, and in the same manner as the plain baseplate. So, for me the rooster tail serves no purpose other than to interfere with my hold. The rooster tail might be helpful if you have hands the size of a six-year-old. I will be in the market for another plain baseplate. Oh wait, I said I wasn't going to carry a spare magazine anyway. Well,... whatever.

I don't intend to ever use the safety either. Its really hard to move the safety lever into the safe position, and I'd just as soon it stayed that way.

I didn't bother to take any pics of the wear patterns or that sort of thing.
I don't see any appreciable wear on any of the surfaces, except the take-down pin, which is now missing most of its factory-finish on the shaft area that holds the whole gun together during firing. I don't anticipate firing this pistol more than maybe another 500 rounds over my lifetime. I don't enjoy getting bookended by unappreciative "apprentices" who "need to shoot quickly so they can leave" at fam-fire events. So, I won't be proselytizing this gun to all my shooting buddies or to various indifferent colleagues. If they beg me to shoot it, I might make room in my "busy schedule" to accommodate. I'll bookend THEM this time. I'll make them buy me breakfast, burn their gas to get to the range, make them pay for ammo, and then make them clean the darn guns when its all over. How 'bout THEM apples!

My point being: I don't expect to ever wear this gun out.
Maybe somebody will do a 100,000 round torture test on one. I'd be interested in that. But only to read about or watch the last 20 rounds before failure on youtube.
I won't ever wear it out.

In my opinion, this pistol is excellent.
Totally "good to go" for carry in the watch-pocket of my jeans when I'm going to some scary place like the sushi bar at Whole Foods or to the corner drug store for (ahem) "personal hygiene items."



Otherwise, I already have at least one of every "tough guy toy" if conditions deteriorate.
(Which reminds me,... I haven't trained firing my MBR yet while wearing gas mask. Must put that on my "to-do" list.)

Anyhow, see below a pic of the target (firing distance about 10-12 feet) and the spent brass.
The aiming point for the target started out as a one-inch orange dot, of which you can still see a tiny bit at 11 o'clock alongside the gaping hole in the target.
Each shot was fired by rapidly presenting the pistol from the "low-ready" position, and firing one shot as soon as I could pick up the front sight.
The trigger was pulled "energetically" if not outright violently.
There always has to be THAT ONE SHOT outside the group - even at close range. Not a flier. I just spazzed, and shot it there.

If you are in the market for a 7-shot .380 that will completely conceal in the watch pocket of your jeans, I recommend this one 100%.

 

[W.E.G.]

Carried the .380 Bodyguard in my watch pocket most of the day today.

Completely forgot that it was even there, except occasionally I noticed a little extra weight on that side.

No binding, or "hot spots."
Watch pocket of aforementioned jeans is absolutely the perfect size for the Bodyguard without the rooster-tail magazine.

I just gotta remember to take it out of my pocket before putting the pants in the wash!

 

[1917-1911M]

Apparently not all BGs are light strike free, even very recent ones. We are working our way through one now and everything is up to spec so we are looking at the timing of the trigger bar movement as it relates to being forced downward at the appropriate time to break with the hammer hook but not so early as to not adequately compress the mainspring and allow the trigger bar to act against the drop safety connector. All of this has to be timed just right....something is off just a bit on two pistols. If we figure it out we will let you guys know what it was.

BTW, what did four, four, two stand for? Beginning of the muscle car era. A new Honda accord will outrun one and a stock Subaru STI is faster than any muscle car produced in the 60's. This would include Yenko Camaros, rare Z16 Chevelle, Shelby Cobra, Acid dipped body Plymouths and Dodges with 426 hemis, GTO, Corvettes.....you name it. Very few of the above could even break five seconds 0-60 back in the day. Some of those muscle cars were in the 6 to 7 second zone. Bad tires, bad transmissions, bad carbs and no computers or turbos. I was there unfortunately or as I like to think, fortunately.....but , that means I'm now getting.....old. M1911

 

[plinker 22]

Four, Four, Two?
4 bbl
4 spd
2 pipes

Define outrun and faster.
Any chance they relate to quicker?
The '78 Dodge D150 was quicker (1/4 mile ET) than the '78 Vette but not faster (MPH).
I don't think a WRX STI, much less an Accord, in stock form is quicker than the '68 Hemi Darts and Cudas, even with the small bias ply tires they had back then.

Back to subject,
I hope the new BG380 I bought is one without headaches. I plan to find out tomorrow (fingers crossed).

 

[Johnmuratore]

Who's Gabe Suarez?

 

[Rickgus]

BTW, what did four, four, two stand for? Beginning of the muscle car era. A new Honda accord will outrun one and a stock Subaru STI is faster than any muscle car produced in the 60's. This would include Yenko Camaros, rare Z16 Chevelle, Shelby Cobra, Acid dipped body Plymouths and Dodges with 426 hemis, GTO, Corvettes.....you name it. Very few of the above could even break five seconds 0-60 back in the day. Some of those muscle cars were in the 6 to 7 second zone. Bad tires, bad transmissions, bad carbs and no computers or turbos. I was there unfortunately or as I like to think, fortunately.....but , that means I'm now getting.....old. M1911

We are all getting old, but, I'd like to know what Honda Accords and Subarus are hot enough to blow away the muscle cars you have mentioned! Maybe you ARE getting old and maybe it's been awhile since you have been in one of these muscle cars? Or, maybe 1917-1911M, you are just testing us to see if we are paying attention to the task at hand, getting those BG 380's to fire properly? The older we get, the more we are allowed to get away with! Keep on smiling, we are!

 

[1917-1911M]

That is the correct answer for what the 442 stood for as far as I remember. I tuned a Z16 for a friend weekly, it would eat up the plugs. The hp was grossly under rated for insurance purposes, a common practice. I have several books on stock and modified muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's. They are slow by todays standards, every one but a competition, aluminum bodied Shelby Cobra. It was fast then and fast by todays standards. I never saw one, never read about one back in the day. O-60 3.5 seconds. There are a dozen cars that will match that today and a few that are faster. All high dollar cars. Now I'm not talking about stripped down 60 muscle cars fitted with wide slicks, changes in transmissions, rear diff ratios, bump up in compression requiring high octane mix fuel. I'm talking stock or some of the factory options. The cars are heavy, have poor suspension, transmissions and tires. None of the ones I have the specs on are as fast as any number of new cars....so, all you hot rodders of yesterday, choices have never been better. Yeah, Americans like big torque engines of big displacement. Some of these cars today are fast.

BTW, we changed the cam and put the dual manifold on the Z16 for two double barrel carbs. That kicked it up to the factory rate of 425 hp. Stock with the 4 bbl they were rated in 375 hp. The car would peg the 160 mph speedometer....but launching the car was always a problem with those red line Tiger Paws or whatever the car came with. I find memory just the opposite.....things were bigger, better, faster back in the 60's

1970 Plymouth hemi cuda 0-60 5.8 sec 1/4 mile 13.95 sec at 105 mph
1969 Chevrolet Camaro ZL-1 427 COPO 0-60 5.2 sec 1/4 mile 13.6 @ 119.06 mph
1969 Chevelle Yenko 427 0-60 5.5 sec 1/4 mi 11.94 at 117.95 mph
1970 Olds 442, 455 cu. in. 0-60 6.8 sec 1/4mi 14.2 at 102.14 mph
1964 426 hemi Dodge ramcharger, acid dipped body ( rare ) no 0-60 listed 12.5 sec 1/4 at 110 mph.....none of the above really slow....but not by todays standards for some of the faster cars. These cars were expensive in the day also. American Muscle, Randy Leffingwell author

AWD just puts you at a huge advantage with todays stock car...lighter, better transmission, better tires and suspensions, maximized engine performance due to a computer and numerous sensors. Those old cars were and are still beautiful.

We have run through about every aspect of the BG in search of what is causing these light strikes. I have made a lot of measurements and a lot of very close up pictures of parts. Surprised no one is interested in this analysis for the other light strike thread. M1911