Walklightly
Moderator
Heavier is better?
Can you shoot a swchp 158g +P, or a GDHP 135g +P out of a .380?
Can you shoot a swchp 158g +P, or a GDHP 135g +P out of a .380?
Comparative effectiveness of 380 acp and 38 special
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
Shotgun693
New member
I don't care how many shooting you've been in or how many shootings you've worked, some other guy knows better because he read a magazine article or shot a paper target.
cougar gt-e
New member
And if you couple experienced with objective and impartial the numberof replies would be very short! Would even exclude me, so..... 'bye!
Walklightly
Moderator
I think you got my point.
The heaviest bullet for a .380 is a 105g afaik. TBS, the heaviest 9mm (.355), that I've seen is a .158G.
TBS, a .380acp loaded with a 158g.......
So is the .38 Spl. actually more powerful than the .380 acp?
When we look at commercial loads we find a good many decent loads for the .380 in the 95 gr. range which do around 950 fps (some a bit more or less) from a 3.75" barrel with a variety of bullet shapes and types generating about 190 ft pds of energy.
Remington claims to have a 102 gr. jhp round that does 940 fps with 200 ft pds of energy.
From shorter barrels the figures above would be less. The figures above are about where the 380 acp tops out. We can get lighter loads to go a bit faster but they lack the punch of the slightly heavier rounds.
Now with the .38 Spl. we can the same velocity but with a heavier 125 gr. bullet or slightly less with a 158gr. bullet. This means, in both cases a heavier punch. We can load a lighter 110 gr. pill in the 38Spl. and surpass the speed of the .380. Or we can load the 38Spl. with a 200 gr. LSWC at 800 fps.
In the same way that the 9mm is a more powerful round than the .380 (aka 9mm short) so is the 38Spl. more powerful than the .380 as well.
This is simply true.
A fella can argue that many shoot faster and more accurately with a small semi in .380 than a J frame S&W. That is often the case. It may mean that for that shooter the small .380 is the more effective gun. But the .380 is still a less powerful round.
The rounds are not comparable in their effects on small game. At 25 or 50 yards the .380 lacks the velocity and energy that the 38Spl. has, much less beyond that.
Whether one round, any round, is more "effective" than another is up to the shooter and the application planned. In general you take the most powerful round that you can shoot well from a platform that you can handle well. This will vary some from person to person. One size does not fit all here.
tipoc
When we look at commercial loads we find a good many decent loads for the .380 in the 95 gr. range which do around 950 fps (some a bit more or less) from a 3.75" barrel with a variety of bullet shapes and types generating about 190 ft pds of energy.
Remington claims to have a 102 gr. jhp round that does 940 fps with 200 ft pds of energy.
From shorter barrels the figures above would be less. The figures above are about where the 380 acp tops out. We can get lighter loads to go a bit faster but they lack the punch of the slightly heavier rounds.
Now with the .38 Spl. we can the same velocity but with a heavier 125 gr. bullet or slightly less with a 158gr. bullet. This means, in both cases a heavier punch. We can load a lighter 110 gr. pill in the 38Spl. and surpass the speed of the .380. Or we can load the 38Spl. with a 200 gr. LSWC at 800 fps.
In the same way that the 9mm is a more powerful round than the .380 (aka 9mm short) so is the 38Spl. more powerful than the .380 as well.
This is simply true.
A fella can argue that many shoot faster and more accurately with a small semi in .380 than a J frame S&W. That is often the case. It may mean that for that shooter the small .380 is the more effective gun. But the .380 is still a less powerful round.
The rounds are not comparable in their effects on small game. At 25 or 50 yards the .380 lacks the velocity and energy that the 38Spl. has, much less beyond that.
Whether one round, any round, is more "effective" than another is up to the shooter and the application planned. In general you take the most powerful round that you can shoot well from a platform that you can handle well. This will vary some from person to person. One size does not fit all here.
tipoc
Okay, this argument got the better of me so I started looking.
Source: Ballisticsbytheinch.com
While far from perfect, this is a handy guide to the relative comparisons of cartridges to barrel lengths and it's in a tidy, useful form.
.380 ACP
A look at the chart shows a 3-inch barrel producing between 148 and 183 ft-lbs of energy for common loads and Buffalo Bore loads producing up to 263 ft-lbs. I selected a 3-inch barrel as a close fit to what many .380's will be fired from.
.38 Special
The chart shows only a few loads from 110gr to 135gr and none are designated as a +P load. Using the 2-inch data (emulating most J-frames) we see that energy ranges from 111 to 171 ft-lbs. If we add in published figures for three Buffalo Bore loads¹ the top energy range jumps to 343 ft-lbs.
Things certainly do change when it's an apples to apples comparison. Using data for the 3-inch barrel, common ammo ranges from 177 to 296 ft-lbs. Adding Buffalo Bore again pushes the top performer to 434 ft-lbs.
Conclusion:
When comparing a .380 ACP fired from a 3" or 3.5" barrel to a .38 Special (not +P rated) the .380 ACP compares favorably². When the barrel length of the .38 Special reachs 3 inches, the .38 Special starts where the .380 ends.
¹ Buffalo Bore .38 Special loads selected were the 20H, 20B, and 20C
² Most people, however, will likely select a +P load for their .38 Special which may dramatically change these comparisons.
Source: Ballisticsbytheinch.com
While far from perfect, this is a handy guide to the relative comparisons of cartridges to barrel lengths and it's in a tidy, useful form.
.380 ACP
A look at the chart shows a 3-inch barrel producing between 148 and 183 ft-lbs of energy for common loads and Buffalo Bore loads producing up to 263 ft-lbs. I selected a 3-inch barrel as a close fit to what many .380's will be fired from.
.38 Special
The chart shows only a few loads from 110gr to 135gr and none are designated as a +P load. Using the 2-inch data (emulating most J-frames) we see that energy ranges from 111 to 171 ft-lbs. If we add in published figures for three Buffalo Bore loads¹ the top energy range jumps to 343 ft-lbs.
Things certainly do change when it's an apples to apples comparison. Using data for the 3-inch barrel, common ammo ranges from 177 to 296 ft-lbs. Adding Buffalo Bore again pushes the top performer to 434 ft-lbs.
Conclusion:
When comparing a .380 ACP fired from a 3" or 3.5" barrel to a .38 Special (not +P rated) the .380 ACP compares favorably². When the barrel length of the .38 Special reachs 3 inches, the .38 Special starts where the .380 ends.
¹ Buffalo Bore .38 Special loads selected were the 20H, 20B, and 20C
² Most people, however, will likely select a +P load for their .38 Special which may dramatically change these comparisons.
Therealkoop
New member
How are you measuring barrel length? Arnt revolvers and autoloaders measured from different locations or did you take that into consideration already?
autoloader = total barrel length
revolver = barrel forward of "the gap"
autoloader = total barrel length
revolver = barrel forward of "the gap"
Those differences are taken into consideration in standard ballistics charts.
They are taken into consideration in the source I usually use which is Bob Forker's book "Ammo and Ballistics".
You can see how Ballistics by the inch does it here...
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/380auto.html
and here...
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html
As Bill pointed out there is overlap in the more powerful loads of the .380 from short barrels and lighter loads of the .38 in non plus P loads from short barrels. A check and compareson of the 2 rounds for some commercial loads can be done by going here...
http://www.midwayusa.com/find?&newcategorydimensionid=10037
select a caliber and in each case look at the technical specs.
tipoc
They are taken into consideration in the source I usually use which is Bob Forker's book "Ammo and Ballistics".
You can see how Ballistics by the inch does it here...
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/380auto.html
and here...
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html
As Bill pointed out there is overlap in the more powerful loads of the .380 from short barrels and lighter loads of the .38 in non plus P loads from short barrels. A check and compareson of the 2 rounds for some commercial loads can be done by going here...
http://www.midwayusa.com/find?&newcategorydimensionid=10037
select a caliber and in each case look at the technical specs.
tipoc
In looking at various gelatin tests, it appears that the run-of-the-mill standard pressure .38 Special loadings such as Winchester Silvertip, Federal Hydra-Shok, and Federal NyClad are typically able to penetrate slightly more and/or expand slightly larger than comparable .380 JHP loadings. Energy is quite similar between the two cartridges although .38 Special typically uses a bit heavier bullet (110-125gr seems to be the most popular for standard pressure HP's). Overall, I'd say that a standard pressure .38 and a .380 are fairly comparable because both have trouble expanding reliably while still penetrating to 12" or more.
When you factor .38 Special +P into the equation, however, the .38 is clearly the superior performer. Excellent loadings such as Speer 135gr Short Barrel Gold Dot, Winchester 130gr PDX1, and Remington 158gr LSWCHP can expand very reliably and still consistently meet the 12" minimum even from a snubnose. The better .38 Spl +P loadings actually display performance more comparable to that of the better standard pressure 9mm loadings, particularly when the .38 is used with heavier bullets.
When you factor .38 Special +P into the equation, however, the .38 is clearly the superior performer. Excellent loadings such as Speer 135gr Short Barrel Gold Dot, Winchester 130gr PDX1, and Remington 158gr LSWCHP can expand very reliably and still consistently meet the 12" minimum even from a snubnose. The better .38 Spl +P loadings actually display performance more comparable to that of the better standard pressure 9mm loadings, particularly when the .38 is used with heavier bullets.
Therealkoop said:
Barrel length between the auto and revolver is a moot point and a red herring at best. Adjusting for minor differences in measurement means nothing. What is important is the end result of real-world ballistics from typically used arms.
It's unimportant that the Beretta/Bersa/Browning has a 3.5" barrel as measured from the breechface and the actual rifled barrel is only 2.5" long (.380 OAL is .994"). Or that the revolver's cylinder gap reduces velocity compared to the solid barrel in the pistol. It's not important that a "two-inch barrel" moniker varies from 1⅞" to 2⅛" depending on model and year of manufacture. In general, the .38 Special tends to out-perform the .380 ACP in comparable cartridge performance (i.e. +P vs. +P).
valleyforge.1777
New member
I don't remember his name, but one of the German generals who participated in the plot to kill Hitler was in the process of having the Gestapo bust down his door and he shot himself TWICE in the heart with a .380 The Gestapo took him to a local hospital where they operated and saved the guy's life and then he relatively quickly recovered. He was then put on trial and ultimately executed by the Gestapo for his role in the conspiracy. While I am sorry that he got caught, and even more sorry that the plot itself was not successful, I have always been amazed at the relative non-lethality of the .380
He took 2 shots TO THE HEART, at point blank range (maximum muzzle velocity) and even though it was decades before they had modern concepts of shock trauma, the guy still survived (well, he survived the gunshots, but did not survive being executed by the Nazi's). That speaks really powerfully to the suitability or lack thereof of the .380 for self-defense where the need is to rapidly stop an attacker before he can hurt or kill you.
He took 2 shots TO THE HEART, at point blank range (maximum muzzle velocity) and even though it was decades before they had modern concepts of shock trauma, the guy still survived (well, he survived the gunshots, but did not survive being executed by the Nazi's). That speaks really powerfully to the suitability or lack thereof of the .380 for self-defense where the need is to rapidly stop an attacker before he can hurt or kill you.
Pretty much.
Bond had the PPK, not the PPK/s.
The PPK/s was/is a PP frame with a PPK slide.
The PPK didn't meet the import rules after 1968 so the PPK/s was born.
Bond's PPK was also chambered for the .32 acp, not the .380.
Ian Flemming also considered the Smith and Wesson Model 10 .38 spl "big and powerful".
Anyhow - nit picking aside, I always wanted a "Bond" gun too. I lucked ionto a used PPK/s in .380 for $495 used but unfired. I fired 50 rounds through it and didn't like it. I sold it for - $495.00.
Pretty gun,,,but,,,it chewed the crap out o the back of my hand.
Walklightly
Moderator
.38spl is a revolver round.
.380 is a acp.
.380 is a acp.