.380 pistol or .38 special revolver

A revolver is not completely reliable, but for the most part, if it isn't, it is a fault of the ammo. When I first started reloading, I made the mistake of not seating the primers deep enough. They just barely protruded from the bottom of the case and that was enough to lock up the cylinder and keep it from rotating. That same error would not have caused a semi-auto to be lock up and be useless. There's a chance that it *might* have caused the round to fire when the slide went into battery.
 
"On one occasion, the .380 FMJ, fired from a distance of two feet, (from the back seat of a full-sized car) resulted in the 90-grain slug barely penetrating the victim's skull and simply rolling out of his mouth!"

This came from the Albequerque Coronor's Office. It is a matter of public record.

Scott
 
This came from the Albequerque Coronor's Office. It is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but until I see the report with my own eyes I don't buy it. No offense to you or your friend, but for me to believe that I need more proof than the word of someone on an internet forum I never met.
 
I suspect that when most people start carrying concealed, they think that *everyone* is looking at them and as such, they think that they have to carry the physically smallest weapon possible. The fact is, most people don't notice and those who do notice are people who are into firearms and as such are more likely to start up a conversation about what type of handgun you carry. Now, if you live in NYC or some other leftist mecca, you might want to be a bit more concerned about truly concealing the fact that you are carrying since have rather unconstitutional regulations against exercising your 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights.
 
Sure you can shoot heavier bullets out of the .38, but due to such a short barrel those heavier bullets when using hollow points tend not to expand as reliably as say a 124gr bullet.
Click to expand...
The FBI load has been expands from a snub quite reliably so does the 135gr SBGD.

Energy is a very poor benchmark to use for external ballistics, momentum according to Mr Newton must be conserved so it will more accurately represent the permanent cavity of flesh displaced.
and the better 38 loads carries 50-60% more momentum than the good 380 loads
 
IMHO the bullet needs to have adequate penetration regardless of the bullet type. If a 380acp Hp can't do it and a FMJ can then I will use FMJ.
 
Originally posted by rebs
I would like to ask the guys that discount the 380 for self defense, what are you basing your opinion on ? How many of you have been shot in the chest at close range with one ? How many of you have seen the results of an actual shooting where a 380 was used ?
Click to expand...

I don't completely discount the .380, but I do think that the .38 Special, particularly in a +P loading, is quite a bit better. Even the best performing JHP rounds in .380 like Hornady Critical Defense or Federal Hydra-Shok often have trouble both expanding reliably and penetrating at least 12" in ballistic gel from what most would consider a "full size" .380 such as a Walther PP, Bersa Thunder, Sig P232, or CZ-83. From the newer, smaller, variety of .380's such as the Kel-Tec P3AT, Ruger LCP, S&W Bodyguard, and Taurus TCP, the performance of these rounds gets even more problematic due to the reduced velocity attained from >3" barrels.

The better .38 Special +P loadings like Speer 135 gr SBGD or Remington 158 gr LSWCHP "FBI Load" can both reliably expand and penetrate 12" or better in ballistic gel even from a 1 7/8" barrel. I feel comfortable with hollowpoint ammo in a .38 Special but from the micro .380's at least, I'll stick with FMJ to at least ensure adequate penetration.

Originally posted by Dragline45
Sure you can shoot heavier bullets out of the .38, but due to such a short barrel those heavier bullets when using hollow points tend not to expand as reliably as say a 124gr bullet.
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned, both Speer's 135 gr Gold Dot and Remington's 158 gr "FBI Load" have good reputations for expansion from short barrels. Even in you drop down to a 125 gr bullet, that's still 39% heavier than most .380 JHP's (90 gr seems to be the most popular weight for .380 JHP's).

Originally posted by Dragline45
Here is a look comparing Remington Golden Saber's in both .38 +P and standard pressure .380. As you can see, not much difference at all. I would rather have a couple extra rounds and the ability to reload faster with the .380 over a .38 round that's just a bit heavier and faster. While an extra 2 rounds might not make a difference between say a Glock 17 and 19, when you are limited to 5 rounds in a snub, an extra 2 rounds is a HUGE increase.

Remington Golden Saber 38 Special +P 125gr

Muzzle velocity: 975 fps
Muzzle energy: 264 ft lbs

Remington Golden Saber Ammunition 380 ACP 102 Grain

Muzzle Velocity: 940 fps
Muzzle Energy: 200 ft. lbs.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some interesting ideas about what does and does not represent a significant difference. You say that 2 rounds of ammo, a 40% increase, is "huge" but that 23% more bullet weight and 32% more energy is "not much difference at all". Also, the difference in terminal performance between those two loadings is quite striking. Here are tests of both from tnoutdoors9:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRe6BzIqu6U&list=PLED7C307FC0D5B236&index=15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTBudWGunI&list=PLED7C307FC0D5B236&index=1

In short, the .38 +P Golden Saber gave almost ideal performance expanding to 0.618" and penetrating 13.75" while the .380 Golden Saber completely failed to expand due to denim clogging the JHP cavity. It is also worthy of mention that the .38 test gun was a standard 1 7/8" barrel S&W 438 while the .380 test gun was the Bersa Thunder 380 Plus. The Bersa is substantially larger and has quite a bit longer barrel (3.5") than the popular pocket .380's which seem to be all the rage these days.
 
That all may be true Webleymkv, but even with that said I would still rather have the extra capacity, smaller size, and ability to reload faster with the .380. While I carried a model 60 and then a 640 everyday for probably 4 years, I just have no use for them anymore when I can carry a small 8 shot 9mm just as easy as a J frame and shoot it better. If I need smaller than the 9mm, I throw a .380 in my pocket, and that doesn't feel like im lugging around a potato like a J frame.
 
The vaunted "hollow point" design being used in the .380 ACP is a big mistake! Penetration is what is both desired and needed. A slow-moving, lightweight .355" bullet, using a hollow point bullet will quickly shed velocity and rob the projectile of the penetration needed to accomplish the task at hand.

The use of FMJ bullets is, and always should be, highly recommended in these sub-caliber, lightweight handguns. The shorter barrels of the "mini-pistol" breed simply amplify this necessity.

Scott
 
A hollow point in one of those teeny 380s wouldn't be going fast enough to expand so it would act like a FMJ. From my experiences, they need 1000 fps min. at impact to expand.
 
380

It is easy for me. My Summer carry is a Sig .380 230, SS. 7+1 in the piece and a quick 7 round re-load. I mix FMJ and HP's in the mags. In Winter the carry gun is a Browning BDM 9MM.
 
The greater mag cap and faster clip reload of the the .380 give it tremendously more firepower than the revo and stopping power is the same or less with .38 vs .380
 
The greater mag cap and faster clip reload of the the .380 give it tremendously more firepower than the revo and stopping power is the same or less with .38 vs .380
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with respect to the stopping power being the same. With .38 brass and a suitable strong .38 firearm, I can reload it to pretty near .357 power. With a .380, you can load it to perhaps low .38 power levels. The case length of the .380 is 0.680". The case length for the .38 special is 1.155". That allows the .38 to have quite a bit more powder capacity than the .380. Plus, the .38 has a slightly greater diameter case which would increase the powder capacity even more. If you look at the Wiki page, the kinetic energy figures are pretty close (with the .38 special being a few ft-lbs more), but for low powered rounds like this, penetration is more of an issue than energy and as such, sectional density comes into play. Momentum and sectional density is more of a determination of penetration than kinetic energy.

There is only 0.04" difference in the OAL of the .38 and .357. That's really not much. As such, with a suitably strong .38, you could load it to .357 power levels. I believe it was Ruger who offered one model in both .38 and .357 with the only difference being that the .38 was chambered slightly shorter so that .357 brass would not fit in it. Otherwise, the frame and cylinder were the same strength. As such, you could take .38 brass and load it to .357 pressure and power levels.

Power-wise, the .38 has more potential for the handloader. For reloading during a defense encounter, perhaps the .380 has an advantage there though unless you are one of those who can do lightning fast speedloader reloads with revolvers.

Not all of us can be this fast though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw
 
I have to disagree with respect to the stopping power being the same. With .38 brass and a suitable strong .38 firearm, I can reload it to pretty near .357 power.
Click to expand...
I don't think the OP sounded particularly interested in experimenting and loading his own ammo to (possibly) dangerous levels.
With a .380, you can load it to perhaps low .38 power levels.
Click to expand...
Not true. You can buy off-the-shelf (albeit +P) .380 that tromps most 38 Special and approaches 9mm.

I understand you are loyal to your caliber, and 38 Special is a fine round, but just because it looks a lot bigger doesn't mean it is much (if any) better.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top