Has anyone loaded up 115gr JHP in .380

[125JHP]

Has anyone loaded up heavy-for-caliber 380

As everyone here knows, normal bullet weight in the 38/357 is 158gr, for 9mm it's 115gr, 45acp is 230gr and 44 is 240 but there are several heavier bullets available that are commonly used in each of these calibers. Most heavy bullets are designed for specialized purposes such as heavy game hunting but are also useful for self defense.

One day I loaded up some .380 95gr FMJ to try out in a Colt Mustang I had acquired. The velocity registers about 930fps but oh what a kick! Although the powder charge was toward the maximum for the bullet, I thought they felt like heavy magnum loads. When I go home I discovered why. When loading had I reached down for the box of 95gr bullets but somehow brought up a box of 122gr instead! Since I don't have any comparable load data for that bullet/caliber I have no idea how far over max I was. I feel very lucky that the gun held together for 15 or 20 test rounds. A couple of them chrono'd over 1000fps. Now I weigh a couple bullets before loading no matter what the box says.

Thinking about how marginal the 380 is for SD and how other calibers have heavier than normal bullets available (147gr 9mm and 300 gr .44) I wondered how much heavier a bullet might be in the 380 for SD. I know there is a 100gr & 102gr JHP available but just how heavy can one go?

I did a quick comparison of the typical bullet weights available (over standard weight) for 4 popular calibers (38-44-45acp & 9mm). I then determined what percentage that was over the standard weight. Although there is a wide variety and several increments, I found three common percentage points showing up in all.

A slightly med-heavy bullet was about 7~8% overweight and what might be thought of as a heavy bullet fell in the range of 13% to 15% above normal. The extreme overweight was 25 to 30% over. examples of this are

Cal_____ Normal_____ Med-%_____ Heavy-%_____ Extreme-%
9mm____115gr_____124gr-8%_____130gr-13%_____ 147gr-28%
357_____158gr_____170gr-7%_____180gr-14%_____ 200gr-27%
44______240gr_____260gr-8%_____270gr-13%_____ 300gr-25%
45______230gr_____250gr+9%_____260gr-13%_____ 300gr-30%

Applying these percentages to the .380 standard 95gr and rounding to nearest available round yields 102gr and 115gr.

380 95gr 102gr-7% 115gr-21% 122gr-28%

Remington makes the 102gr JHP and the heaviest bullet I can find published load data for is 100gr, but I'm more interested in trying the normal 9mm 115 JHP

In my notes I do see where someone posted 380 115 JHP data supposedly from the #11 Speer manual and also a Guns&Ammo article but #8 & #12 which I have access to don't show any such loads.

Has anyone worked up a decent load using 115 gr in a 380 at velocities suitable for SD penetration & expansion?
Do you think this would be any improvement over the 90 JHP or 95 FMJ ?

Add Note- I did find a 115 jhp & 122gr cast load in Lyman #48 for the 380.

 

[125JHP]

Well, digging a little deeper in my own resources i have found 115gr data for the 380. Lyman #46, Nosler #3 and that G&A article show loads for powder I have on hand. Seems the limiting factors are going to be OAL and magazine length. The 115 XTP with its truncated cone angle might be the one to try.

So nobody have played with this combo back in the day?

 

[KSCowboy]

I have done some similar experimentation. As I have a full size Gov't Model 380 we are talking about the same gun only longer barrel.

I built a box to hold one gallon water jugs, it holds a total of 16 jugs. I shot from 10 feet away, the same distance that I chronograph from. Temperature was 70 degrees.

.380 handload of 4.6 grains Alliant Power Pistol with a Lee 120 grain Truncated Cone at 951 fps. Penetrated 10 jugs and stuck into #11. The bullet was holding #10 & #11 together.

380 handload of 4.6 grains Alliant Power Pistol with a Ranier Plated 124 grain HP at 870 fps. Penetrated 9 jugs and was laying inside #9. Very slight expansion.

.380 factory load, PMC 90 grain FMJ at 855 fps. The bullet passed through 4 jugs and penetrated the 5th, was lying inside the 5th jug.

9mm factory load, Winchester 115 FMJ at 1149 fps. I didn’t have any factory FMJ 9mm on hand and found this load at Bass Pro Shops. I selected it as the bullet was almost identical to my cast Lee 120 grain TC. Bullet penetrated 9 jugs and exited the bottom rear corner of the 9th jug and was found laying in the box next to the rear corner of the 10th jug. Fired from a S&W M&P Compact 3.5 inch barrel.

The pictures left to right show the cast 9mm fired Winchester 115 grain TC, PMC 90 grain FMJ, and the Lee 120 grain TC.

So I'm with you in spirit just haven't done exactly what you have with 115 grain bullets as I was trying to stay in a heavier for caliber mode.

 

[handgunner356]

I think the .380 is more limited because of the straight blowback action in most of them. That with case capacity and OAL limits will narrow things down quite a bit. Revolvers will no doubt offer the widest range by not requiring the load to cycle the action properly, they can get by with more. Even if you spring the gun for the heavier load you're increasing pressures higher than originally designed for.

 

[Rule3]

There is probably a reason that the "max" for .380 is what it is, as is the 9mm. Generally a lighter bullet will have a higher velocity. Heavier than the 100-102 gr will not perform well. The XTP would probably not expand. XTP's seem to do well (expansion wise) only at high velocity.

The heaviest bullet I find in Speer, Hornady and Lyman Cast is the Lyman 120 gr LRN cast.

 

[Treeman]

I have loaded 125 grain cast bullets in the .380. I'd have to check my notes for charge weights but I kept the charges low and the loads functioned fine for plinking. That being said I think that 100 grain bullets are "right" for the little .380 and that is what I prefer to load.

 

[Rule3]

I shoot a lot of 380's and I guess I just do not see any advantage to a heavier bullet for the cartridge.
But I do not see any for the 147 gr in 9mm either (for SD reasons) Some like it for PF in gun games.

 

[125JHP]

Thanks all, for your insights. I agree with most of what was said. I'm doing this for fun and to satisfy my own curiosity, not necessarily for any real world purpose (although I have been accused of living in the real world once in a while).
KSCowboy - it's too bad we don't live closer - we do think along the same lines.

Unfortunately, I sometimes do stupid things. I read somewhere that with a lot of use, the little colts tend to wear out the barrel locking grooves in the slide and that you then have to replace the slide. I then went and sold it

I find it interesting the Rainier didn't expand. aren't those soft copper plated lead?

Yes I too am convinced that XTP have to be driven to higher velocity than the OEM states in order to expand. 900fps is marginal I think. Gold Dot Short barrel are hard to find and $$$. Rem. makes a 102 Golden Sabre which is on my list to try and Magtech makes a 100gr soft point (looks like a lead tip hollow point)

 

[KSCowboy]

Hey there 125JHP,

Yeah I'm easily bored so I tend to experiment with stuff like this.

You are right about the Rainiers, I had thought they would be soft enough to produce some expansion. But obviously that is not the case. So now I just use a little lighter load with the 120 TC Lead bullet as the 4.6 grain Power Pistol is just too much penetration.

Although........I have some 115 grain Win Silvertips I could load up and test out.........? How far off is spring?

 

[MMA10mm]

I've loaded 122gr Lyman 356242 cast bullets in the 380 "back in the day." We found the OAL limits of many guns in this caliber really restrict one to what I call a "fat RN" where the out-of-case portion of the bullet is pretty wide, as opposed to a more pointed bullet nose. Even then, there's still a practical limit to how much of that fat nose can stick out of the case. Perhaps if you're loading for one particular gun that's more accepting of long OAL, you'll be OK, but not in many. That's why we used that particular mould design -it fit all the criteria and worked in all the 380s we tried it in (7 different brands/models, IIRC). This characteristic of moving bullet weight out into the nose also creates more free space in the powder chamber in the case, which is critically important in a case this small.

The other big factor is we have to find a powder compact enough to fit in that small space, slow enough to raise pressures slowly with this very heavy bullet load, but reasonably fast enough to give us a decent velocity given the other two limitations. If I was doing this again today, I'd look hard at AA#5 as a starting point. I'd have to look at my powder list for other good candidates. Even with an "ideal" powder, you're looking at being over pressure with anything over about 850fps - or for sure 900. There's no free lunch, and it gets more expensive with tiny cases with heavy bullets. Pressure will rise, possibly sharply, so be very, very careful.

 

[MMA10mm]

Oh, and as far as expansion goes - unless your using an exotic bullet, like a Glaser or Magsafe, or a really light bullet at high velocity, don't count on any expansion from a 380, ever...

 

[125JHP]

I shoot a lot of 380's and I guess I just do not see any advantage to a heavier bullet for the cartridge.
But I do not see any for the 147 gr in 9mm either (for SD reasons) Some like it for PF in gun games.

This leads back to the old debate of light+speed vs heavy+penetration (which is what started me down this road in the first place)

Current thinking places more value on penetration and heavier bullets tend to produce that. With only 800-900fps +/- to play with, I am going with the idea of loading heavier in the 380 to get more performance and just to see if the theory used in other calibers applies to this one as well and... is it worth the effort. Effectiveness will probably never be put to the test.

OTOH...
Unlike the 9mm, the 380 doesn't have the excess power to use propelling heavy bullets and 115 might be unsuited for it. There must be a reason it's been dropped from most load manuals. Everywhere I did find data was dated in the 70's and 80's so, there were probably others who thought the same thing and it probably panned out to be not that effective for some reason.... Maybe it did work to some degree but the lawyers felt there was too much liability that close to the edge,etc.

 

[125JHP]

I've loaded 122gr Lyman ..." We found the OAL limits of many guns in this caliber really restrict one to what I call a "fat RN" where the out-of-case portion of the bullet is pretty wide, as opposed to a more pointed bullet nose. Even then, there's still a practical limit to how much of that fat nose can stick out of the case. Perhaps if you're loading for one particular gun that's more accepting of long OAL, you'll be OK, but not in many. That's why we used that particular mould design -it fit all the criteria and worked in all the 380s we tried it in (7 different brands/models, IIRC). This characteristic of moving bullet weight out into the nose also creates more free space in the powder chamber in the case, which is critically important in a case this small.

The other big factor is we have to find a powder compact enough to fit in that small space, slow enough to raise pressures slowly with this very heavy bullet load, but reasonably fast enough to give us a decent velocity given the other two limitations. If I was doing this again today, I'd look hard at AA#5 as a starting point. I'd have to look at my powder list for other good candidates. Even with an "ideal" powder, you're looking at being over pressure with anything over about 850fps - or for sure 900. There's no free lunch, and it gets more expensive with tiny cases with heavy bullets. Pressure will rise, possibly sharply, so be very, very careful.

Thanks for all those great details...

hmmm, I see now that a RN design such as the Remington JHP might be better than the XTP's truncated cone for keeping more weight out of the case thus allowing more powder space.

When I loaded the 122gr Berry's FMJ test loads mentioned in the first post, I was using N-320 (925fps), AA-7 (900fps)& W-231(990fps) . I usually use AA-5 but didn't that day. All three chron'd over 900fps. Looking at old load data, I figure I was somewhere around .5 to .8 grains over max load with each powder. The W231 surpassed 1000fps on a couple shots, so I was real lucky there. Definitely a 'don't try this at home' moment.

 

[Rule3]

I just carry the Rem GS 102gr. or Speer GD. If they do not expand then they are just FMJ. I here the Win PDX is also a good round

I tried the Hornady critical DF in several calibers and had failures to fire, They do expand though.

Played with a lot of Mouse guns in 32 ACP and 380. I reload everything but still carry factory (whole other discussion)

Speed does kill and velocity does play a part in physics. Out of a short little barrel I want as fast as can be.

 

[revolvergeek]

Lyman 47th Edition also has data for most of the popular powders for a 115 JHP and a 121 LRN. Pages 379 and 380. I don't reload .380 though, so I don't know how they actually shoot.

 

[Treeman]

One other factor that is actually advantageous in the .380....It is generally underloaded. The SAAMI max is 21,500psi (old standard was 18.9kCUP)..........look at the loads that include pressure data in the manuals and you will notice that hardly any go over 16k CUP......which means that the most "MAX" loads are18- 25% under the pressure ceiling. I suspect that their are a couple reasons for that-First that the performance lkevel established a century ago can be achieved at lower pressures. Second-deeper seating in small capacity cases can increase pressures dramatically. Since many reloaders fail to use the precise same components and/or load for the same amount of case intrusion their is a safety margin. Likewise if bullets are seated deeper by multiple chamberings and extractions . In any case their, IS a little room for increased charges or heavier bullet substitutions if a loader is observant and cautious. I Note in Lymans data they pushed 115 grain bullets at virtually the same speeds as 90 grainers... at similar pressures.

 

[tjpopkin]

I've loaded the .380 since 1978, successfully. For years, I carried a PPK and used "SuperVel" ammo. I spent months trying to duplicate the velocity of the early 90gr. SuperVel and finally did. 5.2gr. of AA5 with the Sierra 90 gr bullet recorded 1025 fps.....pretty screaming for the .380. Then CorBon came out with some loads that were almost identical, and that is what I use for "carry" now.
Here's my take on the 115gr.....in the .380 it can be loaded for sub-sonic use with a suppressor, but most blowback guns will not tolerate the larger bullet, especially with a suppressor. First shot is fine, but junk and gas blow back and foul everything. Back to the 90gr. As mentioned above, most of the the problems lie in magazine dimensions and blow-back design. In the larger Colts and revolvers, anything is fine.
Terry
PS> the 4.8-5.2gr AA5 is HOT. Load carefully and methodically.

 

[Rule3]

Also as tjpopkink states above, 380 brass is not the most "robust" brass out there. It is pretty thin stuff and is easily deformed, crushed or otherwise weakened. Supercharging the round can lead to problems.

 

[ballistic]

From Speer #11
.380 ACP - 115 grain loads / TMJ or JHP
Powder - Min - fps - Max - fps
HS6 - 5.1 - 937 - 5.3 - 997
Unique - 3.8 - 916 - 4.0 - 968
SR4756 - 3.7 - 911 - 3.9 - 966
231 - 3.6 - 931 - 3.8 - 978

The test pistol is said to be a Browning with a 4.5 inch barrel.
My book was published in 1991 and many of the loads are higher than what is currently recommended by books today.
I have not personally tried any of these heavy for caliber loads.
I don't like the idea that all of them are .2 grains from min. to max.
Not much range to work with.
Probably, better off just getting some 100 grain or lighter bullets to load.

 

[tenntucker]

Oh, and as far as expansion goes - unless your using an exotic bullet, like a Glaser or Magsafe, or a really light bullet at high velocity, don't count on any expansion from a 380, ever...

The Barnes 95 grain total copper shows a lot of promise.