Federal .380 ACP 99gr HST in Clear Ballistics Gel.

[5pins]

Test Gun: Ruger LCP
Barrel length: 2.75 inches.
Ammunition: Federal .380 ACP 99gr HST.
Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel.
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Five shot velocity average: 967fps
Gel Temperature 70 degrees.

https://generalcartridge.wordpress.com/2020/01/31/federal-380-acp-99gr-hst-in-clear-ballistics-gel/

 

[2damnold4this]

Wow, that's not bad at all, especially for .380.

 

[sparkyv]

Agreed, not bad at all for a .380.

 

[cslinger]

For .380 that’s damn respectable for a hollow point.

 

[TruthTellers]

Can't really ask for more from a .380 out of such a short barrel.

Luckygunner did shoot this in their .380 tests years ago, but it was from a Glock 42 (a longer barrel) yet the velocity average was under 900 fps. You got almost 75 fps more with a shorter barrel... that makes no sense, but as Paul Harrell says, "not all chronographs agree with each other... certain environmental factors... you be the judge."

I'm not sure if Federal has changed the powder used to get higher velocity or if there was something funky about the Glock 42 Lucky Gunner used.

Either way, we have more data and it's making me wonder. I can't write the .380 HST off anymore, but I need to see more from others before it convinces me that it's worth trusting a hollow point in .380 vs a solid bullet like Inceptor or Lehigh.

 

[TBM900]

Can't really ask for more from a .380 out of such a short barrel.

I can
That is terrible penetration
Expansion doesn't make up for poor penetration

 

[TruthTellers]

I can
That is terrible penetration
Expansion doesn't make up for poor penetration

I agree, but you're saying 11.5 inches of penetration is unaccepable from a pocket pistol? I mean, I'd agree if we were talking about a full size 1911 or Glock, but this isn't that.

You call 11.5 inches in bare gel, 13-15 inches in heavy clothed gel terrible? I have seen MUCH worse.

 

[TBM900]

you're saying 11.5 inches of penetration is unaccepable from a pocket pistol?

Yes

You call 11.5 inches in bare gel, 13-15 inches in heavy clothed gel terrible?

Yes

 

[TruthTellers]

Yes


Yes

Okay.

IMO, you're wrong, it's fine.

 

[Hal]

You got almost 75 fps more with a shorter barrel... that makes no sense

Just as an FYI - I've seen far great velocity spread - even when the same ammunition was used, on the same day, out of different chambers in an excellent revolver.
75 fps is nothing. Go to ballistics by the inch and peruse the data there.

 

[JERRYS.]

looks like a good load!

 

[roadrash]

That is penetration comparable to most standard pressure .45 acp defensive loads fired from compact pistols, along with perfect expansion in bare gel and denim.
I am skeptical.

 

[TBM900]

Okay.

IMO, you're wrong, it's fine.

I'll trust my 40+ years in LE, my 50+ years hunting, and my 60+ years on a working ranch, over "You're wrong".

 

[JohnKSa]

0.5" under the FBI spec for bare gel for .380ACP out of a sub-3" barrel with really good expansion isn't all that bad. Especially when it meets the spec in clothed gel.

I can see why some people might choose other options; but saying it's "terrible" seems a bit extreme.

If anything, it's so good it's hard to believe. Both the velocity and expansion are much better than Luckygunner's results. I'm with roadrash in being somewhat skeptical.

I'll trust my 40+ years in LE, my 50+ years hunting, and my 60+ years on a working ranch...

How many times in that "150+ years" did the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration turn out to be critically important?

 

[Sharkbite]

How many times in that "150+ years" did the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration turn out to be critically important?

At least once...1986 in Miami.

 

[TBM900]

How many times in that "150+ years" did the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration turn out to be critically important?

Where did I assert any such thing....

 

[JohnKSa]

At least once...1986 in Miami.

I've seen people claim that bullet only penetrated 8". My analysis of the autopsy photographs and Platt's size suggests penetration was at least 3" more than that and that it would have penetrated at least 13" in gel once the unshored exit through the skin of his upper arm and the re-entry to his body (both while expanded) are taken into account. Anyway, while it's true that another tiny bit of penetration would have shortened the firefight, it's highly unlikely that the difference was the half inch between 11.5" and 12". Some would have you believe it was the difference between 8" and 8.5", but it's more likely that it was the difference between 13" and 13.5", or between 12.75 and 13.25" or something like that.

Where did I assert any such thing....

I'm sorry; I assumed you were going with the standard of penetration embraced by essentially all of U.S. Law enforcement which states that 12" of penetration is acceptable for expanding handgun ammunition intended for "antipersonnel" use.

Do you have your own personal penetration standard for self-defense ammunition? How did you arrive at it?

 

[TBM900]

My analysis of the autopsy photographs...

My reading of the actual PME showed that the bullet traveled through 16" of bad guy.

and that it would have penetrated at least 13" in gel

Bad guy and gel are not analogous.

it's highly unlikely that the difference was the half inch between 11.5" and 12". Some would have you believe it was the difference between 8" and 8.5", but it's more likely that it was the difference between 13" and 13.5", between 14.25" and 14.75" or something like that

What if the shooter was on a treadmill?
If they were both on treadmills, would the 0.5" be negated or multiplied?

I'm sorry, I assumed you were going with the standard of penetration embraced by essentially all of U.S. Law enforcement which states that 12" of penetration is acceptable for expanding handgun ammunition intended for "antipersonnel" use.

I didn't say a word about any (arguably arbitrary) "standard"

Do you have your own personal penetration standard for self-defense ammunition?

Yup

How did you arrive at it?

Real world experience.

 

[JohnKSa]

My reading of the actual PME showed that the bullet traveled through 16" of bad guy.

Very interesting. As I said, I've had people with some level of credibility try to convince me that it only went 8" which made no sense at all from the autopsy photos. I appreciate your input--very useful information.

What if the shooter was on a treadmill?

I was answering a comment (not from you) that stated the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration made a critical difference in the outcome of the 1986 FBI shooting. You and I both agree that there was no bullet that penetrated only 11.5" but that would have made a critical difference if it had penetrated 12.0". Are you just going to disagree with everything I say for the sake of disagreeing even when we actually agree?

Bad guy and gel are not analogous.

And yet you're saying a round is "terrible" based on gel penetration figures. Either they mean something or they don't.

I didn't say a word about any (arguably arbitrary) "standard".

Please note that I said my comment (which you quoted) was based on my assuming something, not on something you said. Again, if we disagree, it's worthwhile to address the disagreement. If we don't disagree, why try to make it seem like we do?

Yup.

Ok, then your previous comments make a lot of sense in that light.

However, I think you can see why your personal standard of what is "terrible" penetration might not be widely held given that it apparently (I'm still assuming because you haven't said yet what your personal standard is) doesn't agree at all with the (arguably arbitary) standard that is essentially universally accepted by U.S. LE.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

However, I think you can see why your personal standard of what is "terrible" penetration might not be widely held given that it apparently (I'm still assuming because you haven't said yet what your personal standard is) doesn't agree at all with the (arguably arbitary) standard that is essentially universally accepted by U.S. LE.

Most standards are arbitrary.

Most highways in the northeastern U.S. have speed limits of 65 MPH. Most people drive them at 70, 75, or 80 MPH, and there aren't all that any accidents considering the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limits. But they want a speed limit, and they chose 65 because ... reasons. It's a standard, and it's arbitrary.

I work in the building industry. Building construction is based on codes and standards, just about all of which are arbitrary. For example, a particular class of occupancy might allow a maximum travel distance to an exit of 100 feet. If it was 105 feet, would everyone die in a fire? Would anyone die in a fire? It probably would make any difference, but they needed a number and they settled on 100 feet.

Snow loads. Different regions of the country use different numbers for roof snow loads and for wind loads. Who says 30 PSF is THE accurate number for a particular region? 35 would obviously be safer. How much less safe would 25 PSF be? If a region were to change from 30 PDF to 25 PSF, would all the new buildings collapse? Probably not. They needed a number, and they picked 30. It's a standard, and it's arbitrary.

That's the nature of standards. Basically, they're all arbitrary.