380 stopping power? Multiple shot considerations?

you guys and your "stopping power" and "one shot stop percentage" non-sense is embarrassing.

You guys need to brush up on ballistic physics and the human anatomy.
 
Am I doing the math correctly there?
Click to expand...
Multiple shots improve the chances of stopping the attacker, but not nearly as much as that calculation implies. For one thing, I don't believe that the assumption of statistical independence is valid and it would be required for that calculation to be correct. The biggest problem is that handgun bullets don't usually break an attacker down. In other words, most "stopped" attackers give up or flee after being shot because they don't want to be shot more, NOT because they can't continue attacking.

So a person who isn't stopped by one shot is, in my opinion, more likely to not be stopped by the second shot. If he didn't give up after the first shot it's a lot more likely that he'll be one of the few that will actually have to be incapacitated before he'll give up. So a failure to stop with the first shot probably means that the next shot is more likely to be a failure to stop than one would otherwise expect because the attacker has already demonstrated a reluctance to give up. That doesn't mesh well with the concept of statistical independence.

Second, while the M&S one shot stop percentages, with some (sweeping & serious) caveats and conditions can, in my opinion, be used to very roughly compare the relative merit of self-defense cartridges, they should not be considered actual predictions of how likely a shot would be to put down an attacker. They certainly shouldn't be used the context of multiple shots given that the data collection methods specifically focused on scenarios involving only a single shot.
What I haven't seen is discussions that assume multiple shots with a 380.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, if a defender feels the need to shoot more than once with a .380, I believe the odds are very good he'll probably also feel the need to shoot multiple times with a 9mm or one of the other common self-defense calibers.
 
I'm confortable with my 380 as a SD by itself. Mine is with me every day even if it's just a backup. The only thing I don't like is how snappy it is and how small in my hand. Sometimes, depending on the day, it feels hard to grip but I'm practiced with it and therefore trust it.

To the OP: With a good SD round it's certainly capable in my eyes. I guess we can talk all we want, only a real world situation would tell us the truth. Hopefully it would never come to that but I would trust it to get me out of a bad situation. Practive your double taps and see if you feel comfortable with it. Only you can decide what you are comfortable with.
 
I'm talking about stopping power -that is the shot disrupts the system so that the animal immediately stops !
380 , a dog shot 5 times before it stopped .Couldn't get closer as it was very steep and very deep snow .Checked the next day and it had moved and was still alive.
Squirrel , shot just behind the diaphram , ran off 15'.
Woodchucks ,some made it back to their holes. Chucks are tough even with a 9mm [early days before fancy jhps ] I had chucks run back to their holes. The 45acp would stop a chuck so I could get a second shot if necessary.
In any case I had a few 380s and gave them up after these experiences figuring my life was worth something.It's not a game ,if you loose you're dead.Get a good cartridge, training and practice.
 
Your main goal in a lethal force event...

Your main goal in a critical event is to draw & fire to STOP the threat(s) with the LEAST amount of lethal force needed.
Multiple shots of a pocket size or small caliber as a standard practice or tactic is a big mistake IMO.
You should by training or regular practice carry a large caliber sidearm that can stop a violent subject with only a few shots.
I watched a video clip of a tactics instructor who at CQB range taught that you should draw a pocket pistol or small frame handgun then empty the weapon into the subject's head & face.
I could see a # of flaws or problems with this tactic in a real lethal force event.
Clyde
 
Whoever had the Clint Smith quote said it best. Shoot until the threat is GONE 100% or your guns empty. I figure Id fire about 3-5 in a SD situation based on adrenaline but who knows.
 
This is why you can't simply buy the best pistol, spend your time "target" shooting, and consider yourself prepared for self-defense.

You need to go to a range that allows rapid fire and other battle drills such as:

Hammers
Double Tap
Failure to Stop

Shooting slow, at various distances, and measuring groups is not helpful in the self-defense situation. If you can't take a class, buy a good defense shooting book, and go to a range that allows rapid fire and practice.

I am lucky that one of the two ranges I go to allows rapid fire and is frequented by LE. Watching and shooting with them really took my defensive shooting to a new level. Smoking Glocks is the norm there...
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about stopping power -that is the shot disrupts the system so that the animal immediately stops !
Click to expand...
You won't find any handgun bullet that will do that 100% of the time. Hence the problem with defining "stopping power."
 
Hence the problem with defining "stopping power."
Click to expand...

there's no such thing as stopping power and similar non sense.

There's only how much a bullet penetrates, and what does it hit.

All this forum does is regurgitate BS information.
 
Coffeeguns:

Any caliber under 38 Special or 9mm Lugar is inadequate for self defence. The object in self defence is to in mobilize the assailant as quickly as possible. It does no good to kill the assailant if he kills you before he dies. However, even with an adequate caliber follow up shots are desirable.


Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retored
 
I havent read all posts before me. In my opinion your argument in the OP is flawed. You are asking what if we assume multiple shots with 380, then is it better? Yes, when compared to a single anything. However, all things being equal if you are going to compare three .380" holes then you need to be comparing three 9mm holes or three .45" holes.

If one were to train to fire multiple 380 rounds why would that same individual not shoot multiples of anything they shot?
 
Actually, the .380 is a 9mm bullet.
Click to expand...

True, but less zip than a 9mm due to smaller casing/lighter powder load. So you would not have the velocity of a 9mm on your side.

That having been said, I have complete faith in my .380 to do what I need it to do in a defense situation.

And as a general rule of thumb, as others have stated, you fire until the threat has ended or you run dry. If the latter happens prior to the former, beat feet.

But as in all caliber discussions - shot placement. if you can't penetrate chest cavity, maybe try for the throat or something squishy.
 
yes, putting more shots into an attacker increases the chances of stopping them, but i figure that if i'm within 3 yards of my attacker and i have enough time to get 3 shots off with a .380, i'll have time to get off 3 shots with my .45

consider this though...

there's a guy in prison for life in WV because a guy tried to rob him (maybe he broke into his house, i don't remember) and they said he shot him too many times

i don't know what type of gun he was using, if it was a shotgun and he shot him 5 times, it was probably excessive

i don't know if he actually stopped shooting the guy when the guy stopped trying to attack and the authorities just thought it was excessive

but it goes to show you that putting multiple rounds into an attacker can lead to more trouble even after the attacker has been successfully stopped
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, I wouldn't be worried about that if you fire all 3 shots in rapid succession. The problem is when you fire 2 shots, the guy is lying on the floor bleeding not posing any threat, and then you fire 1 more shot just cause you're mad.

The issue is whether you continued firing after the threat had ceased. If you fire all 3 shots in 1-2 seconds, there's no way you could reasonably assess whether the threat had ceased between shots 1 and 3.
 
I havent read all posts before me. In my opinion your argument in the OP is flawed. You are asking what if we assume multiple shots with 380, then is it better? Yes, when compared to a single anything. However, all things being equal if you are going to compare three .380" holes then you need to be comparing three 9mm holes or three .45" holes.

If one were to train to fire multiple 380 rounds why would that same individual not shoot multiples of anything they shot?
Click to expand...

The thing is that in real life, some people are much more likely to carry a 380 than a 9mm, or at least I am, because of size/weight differences. Ya, I know, there are people who don't mind carrying a full size 1911 in their waist bans, but I'm not one of them. I have a Kahr PM9 and I even found that a bit large for some types of dress.

For me, I'll admit that I'm unlikely to have a gun on me above 380, at least during the summer. So the question for me then becomes, "is it worth it at all to carry a 380?"

Conventional wisdom states that it's better to have any gun than to be unarmed. I don't agree with that. I think if you try to kill someone with an inadequate firearm that only pisses them off, all you do is increase the odds that you'll be killed. I think that once I start shooting someone, I can expect that he'll do everything he can to kill me before I kill him...so I want to make sure if I take it to that level, my bullets will incapacitate him before he can do anything to me.

If, in fact, the 380 is as underpowered as many claimed it is, then I'm concerned it's a "just make the attacker mad" caliber.

So I'm asking the multiple shot 380 question to figure out if 3 shots with a 380 confidently brings it out of the "just make the attacker mad" territory. Can you confidently assume that 80%+ of the time, 3 shots will incapacitate a human before they can harm you? That's what I'm asking, because I doubt it would be 80%+ with just 1 380 shot.
 
Well I have asked on the internet boards for years. For proof!! Not hearsay That a guy,who has taken 2 hits COM with a 380. That went on to seriously hurt or kill the shooter . Iam sure it has happened but no one has ever showed a real case . Other than bubba best friend 3rd cousin shot guy 7 times with a 380 and then got his butt whipped.

I have carried a 380 for years and have faith it will work if I do my part.

As for shooting a animal and trying to say results same on people . Lots of deer take 30/06 , 270, 30/30 44 mag/. Their good hits But deer travel several yds be for going down A animal reacts different than people.
 
Hypothetically, I wouldn't be worried about that if you fire all 3 shots in rapid succession. The problem is when you fire 2 shots, the guy is lying on the floor bleeding not posing any threat, and then you fire 1 more shot just cause you're mad.

The issue is whether you continued firing after the threat had ceased. If you fire all 3 shots in 1-2 seconds, there's no way you could reasonably assess whether the threat had ceased between shots 1 and 3.
Click to expand...

you're right.. in theory

but all that has to happen is that one person questioning you has to think that you did something wrong

a guy has an unloaded .22 on him and you shot him 6 times with a .357 magnum and there were no witnesses, it might look suspicious.......of course, it might be the truth that the guy said "my gun is loaded and I'm going to kill you if you don't give me your wallet" and that it actually took 6 shots to get him to stop pointing his .22 at you, but that doesn't change that the guy still didn't have any bullets

Detective: "Sir, you shot this man 6 times?"
You "Yes sir, I did."
Detective: "Why did you shoot him so many times?"
You: "Because he wouldn't stop."
Detective: "His gun is two feet away from him, when did he drop it?"
You: "Sir I don't really know, I was too scared to notice."

most LEOs (the ones i know at least) are trained to approach all situations with skepticism, so if there's something that says you weren't perfectly calm and did what you HAD to do, they're going to explore the possibility that you didn't really HAVE to do it

in the law, as in much of the rest of life, it's not about what actually happens, it's about how those events are perceived that's what really matters
 
If, in fact, the 380 is as underpowered as many claimed it is, then I'm concerned it's a "just make the attacker mad" caliber.
Click to expand...
There are no "just make the attacker mad" calibers.

Any of them has the potential to be effective under the proper circumstances.

And any of them can fail to stop an attacker.

If all you can carry is a .380 then carry a .380. I'd take a .22 over nothing if those were my only choices. If nothing else, poking a number of holes in an attacker before you have to go hand-to-hand surely won't hurt your odds of coming out on top.
I think if you try to kill someone with an inadequate firearm that only pisses them off, all you do is increase the odds that you'll be killed.
Click to expand...
First of all, there are no laws that make it legal to "try to kill someone". You're only allowed to use deadly force under certain carefully defined circumstances to stop a criminal who is committing certain carefully defined felonies or is immediately about to commit said felonies when you can see no reasonable alternative other than the use of deadly force.

If the legal requirements are met and the attacker happens to die as a result of your application of deadly force then that's ok. The law recognizes that as a possible and acceptable outcome. But the right use deadly force is focused exclusively on crime prevention and the defense of the innocent, not on "trying to kill".

If there's a reasonable choice to shoot or not to shoot as your scenario implies then you have no business shooting. Deadly force is a last resort.

And if you're really in a valid deadly force scenario then it's ridiculous to talk about how shooting someone might just make them mad. In a do or die scenario you don't worry about making an attacker mad. If you could talk your way out of it or run you would have already taken that option.
 
First of all, there are no laws that make it legal to "try to kill someone". You're only allowed to use deadly force under certain carefully defined circumstances to stop a criminal who is committing certain carefully defined felonies or is immediately about to commit said felonies when you can see no reasonable alternative other than the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

Can of worms.

When certain criteria are met, you are authorized to shoot and kill another human being. Shoot to kill? Shoot and kill? Kill your attacker? Use deadly force? Shoot to stop knowing that death may result? Lot's of different ways to refer to the same act.


The laws in my state refer to the lawful killing of a human being within strict parameters.

Suggesting that no laws make it legal to kill a human being when states laws outline the conditions that make it justifiable to just that, is a bit sticky.:cool:
 
When certain criteria are met, you are authorized to shoot and kill another human being.
Click to expand...
No, when certain criteria are met, you are authorized to shoot another human being to prevent him from carrying out a certain class of violent crimes when there is no other reasonable option available to you. If he dies that's acceptable, but I know of no laws that explicitly give someone permission to kill another person--that authorize a person to kill legally. The laws allow the use of deadly force with the understanding that death MAY result, they aren't about authorizing citizens to kill.

The reason they don't is because whether the attacker lives or dies is irrelevant to the point of self-defense. If he is uninjured but stops the attack then the goal is accomplished. If he dies but kills the defender first then the goal is not accomplished. Either way, his long term prognosis is irrelevant.
The laws in my state refer to the lawful killing of a human being within strict parameters.
Click to expand...
Certainly, a death resulting from the lawful use of deadly force would be a lawful killing. That's not the same thing as saying that the law gives permission to kill. It merely recognizes that death is a possible outcome and notes that if that is the case the death is justified/justifiable.

To understand the distinction, it might help to think about accidental deaths. Some accidental deaths are criminal and can result in the prosecution of those involved. Some are not considered criminal and those involved would not be prosecuted. In the latter case, the law allows those involved to go free--but that's NOT the same thing as saying that the law gives people permission to kill others accidentally. It merely acknowledges that not all accidental deaths involve criminal wrongdoing and that in those cases no prosecution is warranted.

At any rate, the first point is that if the OP is truly in a situation where he feels like shooting the attacker might just make him mad and therefore chooses not to, then deadly force should not be used. Not because it might make the attacker mad but rather because if NOT shooting is really a reasonable option then deadly force is not justified.

The second point is that if the OP is really "trying to kill someone" then he's operating outside the bounds of the deadly force laws. The goal of those laws is the prevention/cessation of certain violent crimes that are imminent or in progress, it's not the death of the attacker.

The third point is that the difference between stopping and killing can be an important distinction from a tactical standpoint. For example, while many people might feel that shooting someone in the head is the best way to kill him, most instructors agree that shooting an attacker center of mass is the best way to stop him with a handgun given the difficulties of hitting a small target and the issues associated with the deflection of handgun bullets off the skull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top