You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
.38 spcl compared to 380
- Thread starter rmocarsky
- Start date
I don't believe there is a significant difference between the two in terms of ultimate wounding potential. The 38 spcl probably has a small advantage w. respect to bullet weight and the ability to use cartridges of different power (e.g., wadcutters vs +P loads, 110 grains vs 158 gr.), but most 380 acps have larger magazine capacities (up to 13). No handgun cartridges approach the terminal ballistic effects of shotguns or rifle rounds, so basically all handgun rounds are somewhat marginal in terms of rapidly disabling a malefactor. Shot placement is the most important factor.
a 135+ grain bullet that expands and penetrates..... that beats 380.
no offense, nothing bad with .380 but there is a number of outdated bullet designs still being made that require longer then normal barrels to reliable open, let alone open and penetrate.
you can see 20 yard snub nose testing with 38 specials, that will open and penetrate just like they do at 3 yards. just beautiful in my opinion.
no offense, nothing bad with .380 but there is a number of outdated bullet designs still being made that require longer then normal barrels to reliable open, let alone open and penetrate.
you can see 20 yard snub nose testing with 38 specials, that will open and penetrate just like they do at 3 yards. just beautiful in my opinion.
warningshot
New member
Both are equally worthless if you're trying to figure-out which one is better using the comm-pooter vs going to the range.
A Comparison of 9x18mm Makarov, .380 ACP, and .38 Special (2" barrel)
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm
shouldazagged
New member
I draw the line below +P .38 Special for SD concealed carry. I've carried the Remington 158-grain LSWCHP for years, and trust it. I do plan, when I can obtain them, to try the Speer Gold Dot +P short-barrel load and the potent standard-pressure Buffalo Bore 158-grain LSWCHP. For now I'm content with what I've used for so long.
8MM Mauser
New member
Both are equally worthless if you're trying to figure-out which one is better using the comm-pooter vs going to the range.
Well not everybody can afford to buy two guns and hundreds of rounds of ammo just to rest which they like better. So they seek information in which direction they should lean in the first place.
There is really no reason to disparage someone for seeking information.
As far as the chambering alone, I'm in the .38 is superior to the .380 camp. More energy, more weight, better penetration. However, which is better depends very much upon the gun you are using it in, and you.
While the .38+P has about 20% greater energy (though only about 40-50 pounds of energy), typically 20-50% greater weight, and both are generally considered the minimum for a defensive load, the differences in the guns make the deciding difference to me.
Revolvers v. autos. There are fierce battles online about which is superior. Both offer advantages over the other. If you have a strong preference of one v. the other, I don't believe the differences in the cartridges are enough to override that. Go with the type of gun you prefer, no need to even look at the other considerations. If you like both, then continue your analysis.
In general, a snub is harder to master than an auto. The 2" small frame snub has a short sight radius and a relatively stout recoil. If you go with a pocketable aluminum or lighter weight alloy, the recoil can be outright punishing with +P ammo. However, the very small pocket .380s (like the LCP) are not easy recoiling either, and some have nearly non-existent sights that are no easier to master than a snub.
If you are looking at IWB or belt carry, I would go with a .38 revolver over a PPK size/weight or larger .380. While an auto is flatter, I find a small steel frame 5-shot snubby to completely disappear IWB and it carries quite comfortably. Move up to a 3" small frame (like the S&W J-frames) or 3" medium frame (like the K-frames) and the longer barrel gives more velocity (and thus energy) and a longer sight radius, yet they still carry pretty well. While today's autos are pretty reliable, revolvers are usually a little more so (especially compared to the smaller autos). If you really like autos, in this size I don't see any advantage to a .380 and I'd go with a small 9mm over the .380 (in fact, I did: I have a SIG P290RS and a Kel Tec Pf-9, I sold my Bersa Thunder .380 long ago).
For pocket carry, I prefer an auto. Some see the flatter and sometimes smaller auto as a concealment advantage, I do not. The small autos' sharp, squared off corners, look very much like the outline of a gun in a pocket, while the multiple lumps of a revolver just look like you have stuff in your pocket. However, the small autos are much easier to shoot accurately, and are more comfortable to shoot (allowing more range practice which can mean more accuracy, and also allowing quicker follow-up shots). The only issue I have with my Ruger LCP are the sights- I should have either bought another small .380 or went with the version that comes with a laser sight (I will probably add an aftermarket laser).
While the .38+P has about 20% greater energy (though only about 40-50 pounds of energy), typically 20-50% greater weight, and both are generally considered the minimum for a defensive load, the differences in the guns make the deciding difference to me.
Revolvers v. autos. There are fierce battles online about which is superior. Both offer advantages over the other. If you have a strong preference of one v. the other, I don't believe the differences in the cartridges are enough to override that. Go with the type of gun you prefer, no need to even look at the other considerations. If you like both, then continue your analysis.
In general, a snub is harder to master than an auto. The 2" small frame snub has a short sight radius and a relatively stout recoil. If you go with a pocketable aluminum or lighter weight alloy, the recoil can be outright punishing with +P ammo. However, the very small pocket .380s (like the LCP) are not easy recoiling either, and some have nearly non-existent sights that are no easier to master than a snub.
If you are looking at IWB or belt carry, I would go with a .38 revolver over a PPK size/weight or larger .380. While an auto is flatter, I find a small steel frame 5-shot snubby to completely disappear IWB and it carries quite comfortably. Move up to a 3" small frame (like the S&W J-frames) or 3" medium frame (like the K-frames) and the longer barrel gives more velocity (and thus energy) and a longer sight radius, yet they still carry pretty well. While today's autos are pretty reliable, revolvers are usually a little more so (especially compared to the smaller autos). If you really like autos, in this size I don't see any advantage to a .380 and I'd go with a small 9mm over the .380 (in fact, I did: I have a SIG P290RS and a Kel Tec Pf-9, I sold my Bersa Thunder .380 long ago).
For pocket carry, I prefer an auto. Some see the flatter and sometimes smaller auto as a concealment advantage, I do not. The small autos' sharp, squared off corners, look very much like the outline of a gun in a pocket, while the multiple lumps of a revolver just look like you have stuff in your pocket. However, the small autos are much easier to shoot accurately, and are more comfortable to shoot (allowing more range practice which can mean more accuracy, and also allowing quicker follow-up shots). The only issue I have with my Ruger LCP are the sights- I should have either bought another small .380 or went with the version that comes with a laser sight (I will probably add an aftermarket laser).