380ACP and 38SPL Compared

G

Gunmeister

New member
This data was collected from the Cor-Bon websight (www.cor-bon.com). It was quite interesting and a surprise to me.

380ACP 90gr from 2.5" bbl travels at 1050 fps with energy at 220ft lbs
38SPL+P 110gr from 1.875" bbl travels at 1050 fps with energy at 269ft lbs

I found this to be interesting because the actual rifled portion of the barrels are pretty much equal and the performance of each was basically the same. I have always mistakenly believed that the 38SPL was far more powerful (hate that word) than the 380ACP. If the 38SPL had not been a +P load, I believe they'd be equal. The fact that the 38SPL bullet was 20grains heavier comes into play also. Granted, longer barrels in each caliber would have produced different results.
This leads me to believe that really short barrel 380ACP and 38SPL revolvers and semi autos are relatively weak and leave a lot to be desired with regard to one shot stopping ability. Short barrels just can't produce the pressure needed to get the projectile moving-------just a point to ponder.
 
I believe you are understating the effect of the heavier slug fired by the .38 spl in your comparison, which is 22% heavier than that of the .380 cartridge. All things being equal, when one considers two projectiles of roughly comparable sectional density at the same velocity, the heavier one will penetrate more deeply. That is, also, giving somewhat short shrift to the .38 bullet, which should have a better sectional density, as it is a heavier bullet with a smaller diameter.
 
I believe you are understating the effect of the heavier slug fired by the .38 spl in your comparison, which is 22% heavier than that of the .380 cartridge.
Click to expand...

Energy isn't the sole measure to a rounds effectiveness.
 
Gunmeister said:
This leads me to believe that really short barrel 380ACP and 38SPL revolvers and semi autos are relatively weak and leave a lot to be desired with regard to one shot stopping ability. Short barrels just can't produce the pressure needed to get the projectile moving-------just a point to ponder.
Click to expand...

The barrel has little to do with "producing pressure". Differences in cartridge chamber pressure and powder burn rate have greater effects than barrel length. A full power 125gr .357 Magnum bullet is hitting the forcing cone going faster than a 125gr +P .38 Spl. slug is leaving the muzzle of a 4" revolver.

Also, one big advantage of the older, black-powder derived, long revolver cases is their COAL tolerance and ability to use heavy bullets. How fast will a .380 launch a 135gr. projectile? How 'bout a 158?
 
Energy isn't the sole measure to a rounds effectiveness.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I suggested it was. In fact, I didn't even mention energy, as I believe it is entirely irrelevant when discussing the vast majority of handgun cartridges.
 
I couldn't see the data from the link you gave.
According to what I've seen 1050fps for a .380 is at the very top of the range.

This is what Hodgdon has for the 90gr .380

90 GR. HDY JHP Winchester AutoComp 4.1gr 893fps 11,200 CUP 4.5gr 1012fps 15,000 CUP
That's their fastest but the average is about 900 for the higher recommended loads

This is the .38 special (not +p) on the Hodgdon site

110 GR. HDY XTP Hodgdon HS-6 7.0gr 1071fps 14,500 CUP 7.8gr 1178fps 17,000 CUP
That also is the fastest round for that bullet weight, but the average is over 1000fps on the top side.

imho what you saw was an advertisement rather than solid data.

I have no problem with the .380 auto. I wouldn't mind owning one. But it maxes out at about 2000CUP less than the standard .38 special. So in the long run the two rounds won't average out.The difference is even greater with .38 +p ammo.
 
The comparison you give is interesting and still shows the .38 to have more energy. The real comparison would also take into consideration versatility. The .380 simply can't handle the variety of weights the .38 can. These discussions can get silly at times when comparing cartidges on the lower end of the spectrum, but I would rather have the .38 Special loaded with Buffalo Bore 158 grain lead gas checked hollowpoints. Even a +P handload with a 158 grain hardcasr SWC. I never did like the 110 loads.
 
The jello tells the tale as well as anything can in a clinical setting. Is there a .380 Auto cartridge that can to what a standard pressure .38 Special LSWCHP can do in gelatin? If there is, I'll start packing an LCP.
 
In the book Stopping Power by Evan Marshall, based on a couple hundered actual shootings with each caliber, hollow point bullets (in each) and +p loads in the 38 snub, with a solid torso hit the 38 snub and 380 both produce basically the same results in actual shootings about 65-70% "one shot stops" with the better loads.
 
CDW4ME said:
In the book Stopping Power by Evan Marshall,
Click to expand...

At the risk of touching off a tedious and repetitive debate, I'll simply state that I'm very cautions about applying the "OSS" conclusions to my personal round selection. I certainly include them in my calculations, but I weight that consideration accordingly as I also understand that they are based on bad math, bad science, and anecdotal evidence.
 
Energy isn't the sole measure to a rounds effectiveness.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I suggested it was. In fact, I didn't even mention energy, as I believe it is entirely irrelevant when discussing the vast majority of handgun cartridges.
Click to expand...
An observation on energy: While it only represents a given loading's potential, and any wounding effect from direct energy transfer (i.e. shock effect, etc.) is most probably not a measurable factor in most handgun cartridges, I think it overstates the issue to say that energy is entirely irrelevant.

The gun is, after all, an energy weapon. It transfers energy from the powder, via the bullet, into the target. Whatever energy the bullet carries into the target is what powers it to do it's work. Depending on their mass, cross section, sectional density, and construction (form and materials), some bullets are more efficient than others in transferring their energy to and into the target than others. While energy is just one factor among several, it is where it all begins, and must not be undervalued.
 
I would imagine that if you are on the receiving end, the difference in energy is pretty irrelevant - particularly if you are hit in the heart or nose (soft part of the skull and a direct route to the medulla oblongata). It will result in a fatal wound... IMNSHO.
 
I agree, the numbers might change in longer barrels. The pressure will stay the same regardless of barrel length, but how much of it gets used is the difference. They say "all things being equal..." and the shorter barrels seem to make it closer to true.

I read an article in a magazine a while back that showed the performance of a .357 and a +p.38spl being close to the same in a 2" or less barreled snub. Energy on delivery was close to the same, but the felt recoil was much less in the .38. Similar ballistics, with greater control? I used a Taurus stainless snub at the time, and switched to the +p.38 because of this. The recoil was sure easier, glad I never had to find out the other part.

If these numbers are right, I guess I am surprised as well. The .380, and even the Makarov might not be that bad of an idea. Unless you really like the snub revolvers, that is.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that if you are on the receiving end, the difference in energy is pretty irrelevant - particularly if you are hit in the heart or nose (soft part of the skull and a direct route to the medulla oblongata). It will result in a fatal wound... IMNSHO.
Click to expand...

The difference in energy between two cartridges (in this example .380 ACP and .38 Spl.) may prove inconsequential in a finite number of specific shots, but then again, it may make the difference between success and failure in a finite number of others. But this was not my point.

My point was in response was to a definitive statement that energy itself (not any specific difference in energy) is "entirely irellevant." That point was that it is physically impossible for energy to be entirely irrelevant, as ballistics entails the transfer of energy over distances. It certainly can be reduced to one factor among several, but it cannot be eliminated from the equation. To do so would be to state, quite literally, that a bullet that carried zero ft-lbs. of energy can still have a terminal effect. I think we can all see the impossibility of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top