To the OP rlight
Basically, when anyone dogmatically asserts something like . . . Well, for instance, that the the .380 ACP is a "worthless" defense round, politely ask for the evidence on which he bases his assertion. His reply will often be telling. My reply would be, "bunk!"
I've watched this ammuntion/caliber debate with both academic and personal interest since the early 1970s, and being a professional university physiologist who has taught his fair share of A&P courses to nursing students and other students entering the health professions, I know my way around a real human body, as in "cadaver". As a handgun hunter, I know what handgun calibers can (and cannot) do well. (Also, from working private security and having been a licensed private detective, I know how to take all of this quite personally!)
After reading a whole load of journal articles, and talking to emts, er docs, etc., who have seen a whole lot of gunshot wounds, I've tried to pull a few conclusions together.
The basic truth is, bullet placement outranks all other considerations. As long as we are talking mid- to larger-calibers (.357/9 mm and up), shots placed where damage is done to lungs, liver, heart, kidneys, major blood vessels, large bones, etc. will all tend to have an incapacitating effect. Any damage done to major nerves will simple amplify and speed up the incapacitation. (I will get to the CNS in a moment.)
The human body has built-in reactions to fight off shock which can help keep an assailant going (or coming, as the case may be), which is why one reason a number of old-time gun fighters liked to put a round in the pelvis, to break that girdle and put the opponent doen quickly. (Curiously, Bill Jordan used the belt buckle as an aiming point.). Bigger bullets may have an edge here.
[The myth -and that is all it is- of the "one-stop shot" is not only poor science, it is no science at all. It is totally dependent on obtaining a direct hit to the central nervous system, or sometimes (only rarely, in truth) the upper heart where the major vessels leave resulting in catastrophic blood loss. Any caliber bullet, if it hits the brain or spinal column solidly, will terminate the fight.]
Any cartridge/ firearm combination that allows a shooter to reach deep enough to do major tissue damage is sufficient, I submit, to be deemed "adequate" for self-defense carry. What those combinations might be for a particular shooter will be hightly idiosyncratic. Oddly enough, one can argue, the .380 ACP is a choice for both highly expert hands (which can make many gun/cartridges combinations work) and for those who have difficulting handling even 9 mm. If you shoot that .380 well, and will practice, go abroad in confidence.
Any discussion must also include the need to be up-to-date on ammunition advances. Even compared to six or eight years ago, we have a wider range of effective rounds available in catridges from .380 up - more than ever before. No longer do we have to automatically trade off adequate penetration to gain significant bullet expansion. We are in or are enteing a golden age of defensive rounds, such as were only dreamed of by Lee Jurras in the late 1960s.
One note, surely one that I will be dinged on by many, is that we should beware of the beatification of the FBI stadards for civilian ammunition choices. The FBI has specific goals in mind, obviously reflecting the understandable institutional trauma that it still suffers from the tragic Miami debacle. But civilians are unlikely to to need ammuntion which meets standards of penetration of barriers of glass, auto bodies, etc. Clothing is a valid and separate consideration. But limiting acceptable choices of suitable self-defense ammunition to "FBI approved" reeks of unthinking reflexive, dogmatic assertion, rather than a reasoned approached to ammo selection. This standard does not belong on any altar. It is not a relic. It needs to be examined, refined, criticisized, and refined more. I tire of smelling the aroma of incense in the air everytime it it trotted out -and please, let us hear no more of one-shot stop per entages. Junk science then and now!!! Poorly defined parameters, statistics that are meaningless, a waste of time, albeit well-intentioned. (Would receive an F as an undergrad science project for faulty standards.)
This is all a lot like wasting time on teaching the AVERAGE -not us- concealed weapon carrier to reload when (1) she or he will not have a reload, (2) she or he doesn't need a reload, while (3) she or he really needs to learn to shoot well by practicing regularly.
In the end, the 380 IS a lot like the venerable .30-30 used on whitetails. But the late Jack O'Conner, who surely can be defended as one of the great experts on deer hunting, thought the .30-30 was a dandy and white deadly deer rifle for Eastern hunting, when well-sighted in, used at appropriate ranges, and stocked with 150-grain fodder rather than the old-fashioned 170-grain loads. It would be a fine defense round as well.
As for the .30-30, so for the 380 ACP: use it well, with appropriate ammunition. Expanding ammuntion is available which will both feed and give good penetration in civilian circumstances, without resorting to the fmj which has given tbe .380 ACP a bad rep. When the day comes when you can move up and shoot a 9 mm as well as your .380, do so, but not a day earlier. Meanwhile, carry with pride.
Just IMHO. Stay safe.
Brian
