Two more .380s, two more fails

[Muss Muggins]

Yes, all these malfunctions happen on every other kind of semi-auto.

200 plus posts and you finally admit your original post is specious, at best? If the same malfunctions also happen on every other pistol, clearly you’re a revolver guy.

Duly noted. . . .

There has been much discussion on the M&P forum of the new M&P 380 EZ. There has also been a few threads on the Concealed Carry & Self Defense forum about .380Auto in general. While I'm not alone, I'm sure I've been the most prevalent dissenter of using this cartridge for self-defense. I just don't believe it to be reliable.

As proof of my skepticism, I've mentioned how many I've seen fail in person. In fact, I've stated that I've never seen one go 35 rounds without a failure. Many have responded that their's has been perfect through hundreds of rounds. I believe them, but my personal experience has, sadly, been different.

This weekend saw no change for me. I had another class. Two students brought .380Auto guns and both had at least one malfunction. The really sad part is the course of fire has changed and they only had to shoot 12 rounds. Even so, both had failures and one had multiple failures.

Until something drastic happens, I will continue to recommend not carrying a .380Auto for self-defense. I just don't think they can be counted on. The first round is usually fine. It's getting that second round to feed that's the problem.

 

[Wise_A]

No, it was fully in battery. I was standing right next to them when this happened. Since I had seen it once, I was watching closely to be sure it was in battery.

It doesn't take much at all. You wouldn't notice it unless you physically tried to tap the slide forward.

If it were bad ammo, why was there no mark on it?

Because it didn't fully chamber. Either the hammer striking the frame caused it to fully chamber and prevent a firing pin mark, or the firing pin struck the primer and caused it to finish chambering, and prevented the pin from making a mark.

I actually had just this problem on my match 1911-22, and it was solved by reverting to a full-power recoil spring.

I've said this a bunch of times and will continue, I'm really happy to see that many out there have flawless service from their .380 guns. I've only seen it once that I can recall and that was only 12 rounds.

One day I will buy my own and hopefully I will get the same service many of you claim.

I hate the .40S&W. It's unreliable, the recoil is abusive, and I've never seen a single decent group shot with one.

One day, I'll buy one, and prove my irrational prejudices correct.

 

[TX-Dennis]

Last weekend I went to the range to try out a 1965 Walther PPK in .380 acp.

I was using S&B and Aguila Ammo.

The S&B will continue fail to ignite......try it in my Sig Sauer P250, same issue. I think the primers used on this ammo are too hard.

One round in the PPK took 3 strikes to fire, one on the Sig took 4!

I change to Aguila ammunition, both guns fuction perfectly. Other shooters at the range fired both guns using Aguila, no failures.

Bottom line I stick with Aguila for this two guns, I have to try my G-42 with S&B and see if it likes it.

S&B is one of the brands I've have issues with in .380. There's just something not quite right about it. The other is Winchester white box. Literally everything else I've tried has worked well for me. I've probably fired 3000-4000 rounds of Aguila in .380 without an issue.

 

[Rastoff]

It doesn't take much at all. You wouldn't notice it unless you physically tried to tap the slide forward.

I know what it takes. The slide was fully closed, the gun was in battery.

I hate the .40S&W. It's unreliable, the recoil is abusive, and I've never seen a single decent group shot with one.

One day, I'll buy one, and prove my irrational prejudices correct.

I would agree that it was irrational if I were just making this up; I'm not. I'm posting what I've personally observed. I believe the people here that say their guns are working fine. I've just observed a large number of these guns fail when they should not. Every time I see one, I hope that it will work and prove me wrong. So far, only one has and that was only 12 rounds.

If I were on the other side of this fence I would probably say the same thing. Alas, this is just what I've seen.

People keep telling me that 1911s are "jamomatics" and can't be reliable. Yet, I've seen hundreds of those work without malfunction. People keep saying that Glocks are perfect and never malfunction. Yet, I see those malfunction too. In the case of the Glock, I've seen more work fine than malfunction.

 

[Jaymo]

My personal experience with .380s has been limited to my Bersa 383 (all steel, very reliable), a Davis .380 (garbage.), and a Kel-Tec P3AT (good so far, but I haven't shot it much in the 15 years that I've had it.

I do know that good, .380 ball ammo has plenty of penetration.
I once shot one through the back seat, floorboard, and full gas tank of a Chevy Citation. Don't ask.

But, that is a very limited sample size of .380s.

Given my 'druthers, I prefer a J frame or bigger revolver.
For a small auto, I prefer a Makarov or a CZ82.
While I like my Kel-Tec, that tiny grip doesn't provide much to hold onto.

 

[hardknocks]

380

I have owned two FEG 380 that were completely reliable. Accurate also.
I have a Kahr 380 that I bought off a member here and it was perfect with American ammo but not with European ammo as the brass is thicker at the base, well I followed some advice from the Kahr forum and now it shoots all ammo.
Seems like it should come from the factory like it is now.
I like the Kahr trigger.

 

[Guevera]

I have a .380 ACP Beretta 84 and a model 85. Both pistols are supremely safe, accurate, and dependable, and combined with the confidence a lot of practice generates, I feel very good about carrying them.

 

[gman51]

In my opinion if you are going to a mouse/smallest gun then go with a revolver. LCR +P is about as feather light as can be had.
I have had a few 380's but mine were bigger than the LCP. I figure comparing the 380 to the 9 I would end up with the 9 every time. Other than needing the tiny size of an LCP I see no reason to have a 380. I can pocket carry my LC9s for concealment with ease. Personally I don't care for the semi auto and would rather carry a small revolver.
I believe limp wristing the mouse guns is the cause of most failures. Limp wrist a revolver and it still goes bang over and over.

 

[Rick_A]

At the range recently, a woman with her adult son in tow was voicing her displeasure in her former LCP and current LCPII...which had just been returned to the factory for supposedly not feeding hollowpoint ammunition. One employee showed her how to properly charge the pistol and I explained how best to hold it when firing. She was soon elated in her now fully functional pistol. It is my sincere belief that most problems with pocket sized autos are due to similar circumstances, especially concerning new or inexperienced shooters.

 

[wetdog1911]

Ditto with my Interarms PPK. And .380 ammunition is better than ever.

More power is almost always better. I could get along with .380 - if I had to. Reliability would not be my main concern.

After the initial break-in, my 1972 Interarms PPKs has been pretty much flawless.

Sure seems to be a huge difference in that 47YO W. German pistol and what is being offered these days AFA PPK's go.

My wife stole it for her bedside.

Wet

 

[Mister X]

I've talked to a lot of instructors, quite a few well known, and their experience and observation is that small .380 pistols just aren't all that reliable as a group. Their recommendation is usually to stick with a small 9mm or a snub.

Then I see quite a few anonymous forums posters claim their so and so micro .380 pistol has hundreds of flawless rounds through it. That may or may not be true and good for you if you have a reliable one, but like I stated in my previous post, I did catch one forum member on here in a blatant lie about the reliabilty of his Remington .380, who reaally knows who is telling the truth.

I'd honestly still love to have a little .380 to provide some additional carry options when I'm in the tropics, but I have yet to see consistant reports of any particular model being suitably dependable for self-defense purposes. Just my perspective, YMMV.

 

[oldiegoldie]

would love to see Sig introduce the P365 in hammer fired, even if it were DAO. it is exactly the right size.

 

[Mister X]

would love to see Sig introduce the P365 in hammer fired, even if it were DAO. it is exactly the right size.

I'd keep it striker-fired myself if I had my choice, but make it a true DAO.

 

[Rastoff]

I've talked to a lot of instructors, quite a few well known, and their experience and observation is that small .380 pistols just aren't all that reliable as a group.

I guess I'm not alone in my belief.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I've talked to a lot of instructors, quite a few well known, and their experience and observation is that small .380 pistols just aren't all that reliable as a group. Their recommendation is usually to stick with a small 9mm or a snub.

I would advance the theory that shooters of small .380 pistols aren't all that proficient, but your mileage may vary . . .

 

[ShivasIrons]

I have a ruger LCP and a Glock 42 and they both have been pretty reliable. I have not shot the LCP as much as the Glock, but it has never jammed and I have had one failure to feed with the G42 using Hornady Critical Defense. When I carry the G42, I use the Hornady American Handgunner XTP, as I have fired several boxes with no malfunctions.

I too feel there is merit to the theory that new or inexperienced shooters may not be the best fit for a small auto. My wife went down this path. She tried a number of small autos and vastly prefers her j frame with CT laser grips. Easy to use and a complete understanding of the manual of arms. Her thought is if it takes more than 5 rounds, it just was not her day.

 

[RoyM52]

new shooters, new guns, it's probable, still in the box when they got them out. Never fired a few hundred round to seat and wear all the parts in. No polishing of the feed ramps yet. Limp wrist shooting a small gun. No training for a firm grip and controlled trigger. Many guns, need a little range time to settle in. So do the shooters.

It's more likely that the people that gravitate towards the 380 as a first firearm for CC,are also the ones that have fails and would if they had a 9mm instead of the 380. {or a 45, or any auto loader}

Don't blame the round for all this.

They came to you for instruction....and this is what you came away with. And you still are failing to understand the students and their needs. They bought a small mouse gun because they wanted a conceal carry. They knew little or nothing about grip and instead of teaching until they understood what it takes to shoot a mouse gun. You just blame the round, the gun, or the student. I would say that it would be a good time for you to re evaluate the methods and the class. The outcome should be safe , knowledgeable new gun handlers. Not just a certificate handed out for a sort of completed ,lets just gt this done class. I'm saddened to your reactions to this thread and the implied conclusions you have formed.

 

[Rastoff]

They came to you for instruction....and this is what you came away with. And you still are failing to understand the students and their needs.

I'm assuming this is directed at me even though you quoted yourself.

I fully understand the students and what they need. I give instruction where possible. However, you must understand that in this class, the concealed carry class, they don't come to me for instruction. They come because the law says they must. In just about every class I ask, "If the law didn't require it, how many of you would be here?" Every now and then I get a student that would be there anyway, but >95% say they wouldn't come if not required.

And this may be the central issue, but difficult to quantify. Are all those with malfunctions the ones that are opposed to being there? Maybe.

Of course that doesn't account for all the malfunctions I see at the range in general.

 

[GerSan69]

This has been an interesting thread, to say the least! Whew!
I'm thankful that I'm retired. I don't go to "dangerous" places much any more (no bad hombres down by the mailbox) so I have the luxury of carrying my Kahr CW380 a good part of the time without worrying if it's 110% reliable. Of course, having seen some of the cheapest guns and ammo possible "do the job" when the felons are using them, I can't say I'm too worried about reliability, at least in my current situation.
Hey, everyone's got their favorite guns and bullets, and their favorite objects of dislike. (For instance, I hate Glocks. Hate 'em!) I don't pay much attention to what works for others, I prefer to make sure my own stuff functions. After all, I don't know how they treat their equipment, nor do I really care. The beauty of being retired is you no longer have to please anyone but yourself (and the little woman, of course.) I recommend it to everyone. Thanks for your time.

 

[delcrossv]

.....

I'd honestly still love to have a little .380 to provide some additional carry options when I'm in the tropics, but I have yet to see consistant reports of any particular model being suitably dependable for self-defense purposes. Just my perspective, YMMV.

Well, everyone on this thread who has a P232 has claimed it's completely reliable, myself included.
I'd suggest you find and try one. Of my 3, none have malfunctioned, even when shot by my kids. I have one of the SS ones in my carry rotation.
In a head to head, it was more reliable than my friend's Springfield 1911.