.380 load (Calling Erich)

F

Florida J Frame

US Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
816
Erich,
You just answered a .380 question on another thread and mentioned that you recommend ball ammo in the .380acp. Why not the Rem Golden Sabre which is heavier or the new 90 gr. Critical Defense? I sometimes carry an LCP and would like to hear your thoughts and any others from members with some experience with mouse guns. Thanks
 
Register to hide this ad
Third the motion.

380 hollowpoints are not reliable expanders anyway.
You need all the penetration that you can get with mouse
guns. Thats why people in the know avoid the 110 gr JHP in the
38 spl even. The 380 is less than a hot 110gr 38, and they are notorious
for insufficient penetration. Ball is more reliable in pocket guns also and
is much cheaper. If I was carrying a 25,32,380, it would have nothing
but the heaviest full metal jacket I could get in it. Shot placement
is key, not wonder bullets. My humble opinion, if you need a mouse
gun, get a 38 snub.
 
Last edited:
Yep, penetration, as stated above.

Far be it from me to speak for Erich, but if you read the second part of his mantra, "penetration is queen", IIRC, you'll get a handle on his thoughts.

Typically, short barreled pocket semi-autos don't generate the velocity necessary to reliably expand hollow point bullets. Ergo, even with a hollow point, the bullet may well NOT expand. So, in essence, you're shooting a FNJ with a sometimes non-functioning hollow point profile.

Additionally, MOST pocket autos are PROBABLY a WEE BIT less likely to malfunction with FMJ rounds. MAYBE....... (I tried to work that last sentence so that 100 guys with pocket autos that have never malfunctioned with hollow point rounds will not feel compelled to inform us of such.)

YMMV.

dan :)
 
I'll be the decenting voice. Several hollowpoint loads will penetrate sufficiently. If a hollow point doesn't expand, it will work every bit as well as ball, perhaps better. If it does expand and penetrates well, it should have more wounding ability.

As far as 110 gr. .38+P goes, DPX penetrates fine.
 
As much as I hate to disagree with my friend flopshank, I just have a different opinion on this one.

So, I've worked in some capacity on a couple dozen killings with .380s, and a few more .380 shootings in which no one was killed. I've seen three instances of .380 JHPs (Hydra-shoks and Golden Sabers, IIRC) failing to adequately penetrate - and this actually represents the majority of the .380 JHP cases I've seen (I think there were a couple others, but I've seen many more shootings with ball in this caliber). Now, in those failures, one guy lived after being shot three times (once in the head, once in the chest and once in the ass), though another guy was killed by the same .380 Hydra-Shok used in that shooting. In the other case, the JHPs (I'm pretty sure they were GSs) failed to penetrate various barriers, but both guys were later killed with execution-style headshots with the same rounds.

Based on what I've seen, it is very common for a bullet to need to penetrate an arm or some similar barrier before it can get to the vitals at which it was aimed. Slow, light bullets (and, yes, 95-grains at under 1k fps is slow and light in my opinion) like those put out by the .380 don't seem to do well when hollowpoint "brakes" are utilized.

Over the course of the 200 handgun killing cases I've worked on (and taking into account my sometimes unique ability to get the detailed afterstory from the shooter himself), I've come to the belief that, to be assured of stopping, one must put hits on vital structures (brain/spinal cord or heart/aorta) of an aggresssor. I don't see how .380 JHPs add to a shooting's effectiveness, but I've seen a high percentage of instances in which they detracted from it. I wouldn't use .380 JHPs - not that they can't work, just that I've seen too many cases (for my comfort level) in which they failed to work. They'd be great for putting down a wounded horse, however (there was just a thread on this, so the thought is fresh in my mind) - or other execution-style or perfectly unimpeded-to-the-vitals shots. The realities of force-on-force combat render the availability of such shots something on which we would be foolish to depend.

That said, I've never seen a case in which .380 ball failed to adequately penetrate. I know an experienced pathologist we used as an expert who carries .380 ball . . . and he completely agrees with me on the essentiality of targeting vital structures and not just "center of mass" with handguns. (Gray's Anatomy is online: Gray, Henry. 1918. Anatomy of the Human Body . Study it.)

In fact, I've worked on one shooting in which a .380 ball round (out of a relatively long barrel) overpenetrated and injured an unintended victim (Rule 4, people). Now I've seen a whole lot of .380 ball rounds not overpenetrate, but this shows how Mas is right when he warns us to consider the dangers of overpenetration, even with mousegun rounds. (I have to say that I've wondered a bit whether the .380 might not just be the perfect storm of perhaps-too-penetrative in a ball round and not-sufficiently-penetrative in a JHP. Given the similarity of the ballistics, I wonder the same thing about the 9x19Mak. Those blowback calibers are sure not 9x19 ball, though, which is pretty much guaranteed to overpenetrate.)

Alas, I'm not with friend flopshank on the 110-gr .38s, either. I'd simply never use such unless I were in dire straits and that was all that was available. But I'm glad that we can all be friends nevertheless. :)
 
Oh, and those Hornady Critical Defense things? Obviously, I've never seen any shootings with them. I was really troubled, though, to read in the new American Rifleman that Hornady had designed them to not penetrate more than 12". FWIW, intervening barriers crop up in these shootings with such frequency (think about it, people will defensively throw up a hand or arm to ward off a blow) that I really think I'd rather go with something that the FBI has approved. I am no wound ballistician, but it sure looks as if their standards gibe very well with what I have seen turn out to be necessary.

A question for our Feebie brothers: what (if anything) has the Bureau approved for use in .380? (Or, do the FBI penetration standards not apply to rounds carried in back-up guns? Because, if the FBI penetrations standards don't apply to these guns, I'm not sure that the answer will be relevant to a person carrying a .380 as primary.)

For all the ribbing that the FBI gets, they took this wound ballistics stuff very seriously and probably have the best conclusions out there when it comes to handgun wound science.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the velocities developed from these teensy LCP/P3AT/MicroEagle/NAA/Seecamp .380 barrels are going to be way under those published by most ammo makers. Chrono your rounds to see what you develop in your gun. Believe me, your 80-grain JHP going 765 fps from your baby Kahr is not going to perform as well as that same round from the 4" pressure barrel in the published manufacturer's stats. :cool:
 
Erich,
Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and expertise in this area. It's refreshing to get some clear info instead of the usual smoke and mirrors from the gun writers. I usually carry a J Frame but I just reloaded the LCP with FMJ for those times I do pick it up. Looks like it's time to insist that the ammo makers give us real-world numbers out of real guns like Buffalo Bore does ( or chrono our own). While we are on the subject, what loads should a non-handloader be looking at for an Airweight? I tend to like the Speer GD Short Barrel, but I was wrong about the .380 Rem GS . . .
 
As good as any, and better than most.
Too light in weight for my comfort zone, but they do seem to have an excellent reputation. A .38 Special's strongest suit is it's flexibility. And in those cases personally I prefer to go with a bit more inertia from a "heavy" than speed from a "light". YMMV?
 
Erich said:
In fact, I've worked on one shooting in which a .380 ball round (out of a relatively long barrel) overpenetrated and injured an unintended victim (Rule 4, people). Now I've seen a whole lot of .380 ball rounds not overpenetrate, but this shows how Mas is right when he warns us to consider the dangers of overpenetration, even with mousegun rounds. (I have to say that I've wondered a bit whether the .380 might not just be the perfect storm of perhaps-too-penetrative in a ball round and not-sufficiently-penetrative in a JHP. Given the similarity of the ballistics, I wonder the same thing about the 9x19Mak. Those blowback calibers are sure not 9x19 ball, though, which is pretty much guaranteed to overpenetrate.)

Alas, I'm not with friend flopshank on the 110-gr .38s, either. I'd simply never use such unless I were in dire straits and that was all that was available. But I'm glad that we can all be friends nevertheless. :)
Click to expand...
It truly is more pleasant when we can disagree on friendly terms.

I think the first paragraph really gets to the heart of what .380 is, mediocre in every way. While I'm not a pathologist and have only shot paper and Perma-Gel with .380, I think I have a good handle on what it takes to make hollowpoints perform well (better said would be as well as can be expected) in that caliber. I have only tested bullets made be Speer (Gold Dot) and Hornady (XTP and FTX bullets). Both makers bullets only expand to about .420", or so, in caliber and no more. They put on the brakes, but minimally. Think of them as wadcutters with little petals folded over and lying relatively flat along their sides. In the cases that they don't expand, they will almost always (everytime I've seen actually) tumble and travel backwards like a wadcutter.

I've read Golden sabre tests in which penetration was shallow, so I'm not really hot on that load. I hope to test it in the future, so my mind is still open. I don't remember where I got the idea in my head, but I'm not hot on the Hydra-shok in that caliber at all. Like .32 ACP, I think the .380 is one of those calibers in which FMJ vs. hollow points may be a six of one/half dozen of the other decision. I know I don't like the idea of overpenetration (in the trade I work in, mistakes may cause another person their life, and that truly is one of my worst fears. I'd rather have it be me), or the narrow type wounds round nose bullets are likely to leave.

As far as 110 gr. .38+P goes, at that lower weight, bullet design must really work in conjunction with the light weight or shallow penetration is a real likelyhood. DPX, once expanded, essentially acts like a wadcutter with sharp spider-like fingers sticking out. There is no full mushroom to stop the bullet too soon, but every bit as much expanded diameter as other loads. I fired a single round in Perma-Gel and it penetrated to 12 3/4" IIRC. I'm after 12"-14" penetration, YMMV. Corbon's very hot loaded (think .357 magnumish muzzle blast and recoil) .38+P 110 gr. JHP acts somewhat like a well designed .380 bullet (IIRC and it penetrated ~ 15" in P-G IIRC), so I really don't think that 110 grs. is too light for caliber, but think it's the lower limit. I have tested no other 110 gr. .38+P loads.
 
Last edited:
My thought is that the barriers that would be problematic would probably affect the bullets more than that permagel stuff. Certainly that was the case in the two shootings in which the .380 JHPs slowed too much in barriers; in the Hydra-shok shooting, it slowed too much in flesh and rib cage or on the skull. (I don't think the shot in the hip/butt was a real "stopper," all things considered.)

As far as the .38 Special from a snub goes, I think it's really better to open another thread (and there've been many in the past on that subject) instead of moving this one to a completely different subject. We don't want to mess with the head of a hypothetical reader who reads the subject line, skips to the last page, and starts shopping for 135-gr .380s! :D
 
While your at it...

What about a 90gr XTP at over 1100fps. Still light, but movin a little better. Would something like this do the job?
 
I haven't shot anything with a .380 except paper and reactive targets but I carry ball precisely because of concern about sufficient penetration in this caliber. I have chronographed a few ball rounds from the Keltec P3at. Surprisingly velocities are higher than one might expect from the stubby little barrel. I haven't laid hands on any Buffalo Bore-Arguably their hardcast flat point may be best in the .380 if it feeds well......I carry plain old Remington UMC. It chronos 900-1000+ fps out of my P3at...most rounds cross the chrony in the upper 900s. Independence(Federal) averages about 100fps slower.
 
While I'm not Erich and have neither the criminal experience nor deadly force use experience I wouldn't use the 38spl with 110gr bullets either as a self defense bullet.

I have read a bit and I get my information from some FBI information when they tried that weight bullet in the 357Mag. It seemed to be the answer to their problem of more firepower until the auto glass started being reinforced with plastic, commonly known as safety glass.

It seemed that these "super bullets" would to one of two things when encountering either barrier. They either glanced off and went careening off to point unknown, something none of us can afford in a shooting, or splattered uselessly in the glass without penetrating it.

It would seem to me that that wasn't a very good tool to use to defend oneself. No, give me a heavy bullet going at moderate speeds, over 800fps at least.

IMO, the 40S&W with a 180gr bullet going just over 1000fps is the ticket. That's just me though! ;)

YMMV
 
Some guys like the .380 hp's, some prefer FMJ. No one ever talks about using both. When I carry my Colt Mustang, I load the magazines fmj-hp-fmj-hp-fmj-hp, and load a hp in the chamber (carried C&L). I have a friend who carries her Walther PP loaded the same way.

So what do you guys think?
 
shovelwrench said:
While your at it...
What about a 90gr XTP at over 1100fps. Still light, but movin a little better. Would something like this do the job?
Click to expand...

Penetration requires bullet integrity, sectional density and velocity. Sectional density is the relationship between bullet diameter and weight. Assuming bullet integrity, the higher sectional density (heavier bullet for diameter), the deeper the penetration. The higher the velocity, the deeper the penetration.

You're showing about a 10% velocity increase and a 10% loss of sectional density. Penetration would be wash. I've got no experience with the XTP in .380, impressive expansion doesn't seem to be part of the design.

FWIW, I was looking at SD in the Sierra manual a couple of days ago. A 115 gr 9mm and 185 gr .45 have virtually identical sectional densities.
 
Last edited:
Okay,

flopshank, I've seen several shootings in which .380 ball penetrated all kinds of things. I've never seen it fail to adequately penetrate, as noted. As noted, I've seen cases in which the JHPs did so fail. I certainly don't think that I have enough shootings to support such a blanket statement as you propose, but that would be what I would suspect.

shovelwrench, beats the hell out of me. I've never seen a shooting with such a .380 load. I know that I feel good about the performance of 115-gr 9x19 JHPs travelling somewhat faster than that.

Sven, it's not infrequent that someone asks something like that. Personally, I would never do such a thing. I don't want any of my thoughts on the subject to be taken the wrong way, so I'll leave it at that.

Treeman, wow - that's surprising. I've chrono'd a few rounds from two different P3ATs and never seen that sort of velocity in that model with anything other than the Double Tap 95-gr ball (923.4 fps) . . . which wasn't reliable in the gun. (The Remington 95-gr FMJs were next fastest and did 818.9 fps.) I've never heard of anyone getting velocities like you're reporting out of a P3AT with 95-grain ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top