Has anyone done any testing with .380 defense loads?

D

Dogger

New member
I have a P232 that I want to match with a good defense round. I haven't done any testing. Would like to find a round that expands and penetrates to at least 12 inches through several layers of clothing. Is this wishing too much for the .380? If so, I will probably just go with ball ammo. My short list of candidates is the 102 grain Golden Saber, the Speer Gold Dots loaded by Georgia Arms, or the Federal Hydrashok. Is there a better load out there? Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Dogger (edited January 03, 2000).]
 
Had coffee with a few er nurses while at a local hospital. If you can do the same, you will get some interesting opinions on bullett wounds. I was surprised.
 
I did not find FirearmsTactical to be very informative. I saw no written articles on .380 performance, just some outdated stuff about various loads on their ammunition site.
 
I once fired a 90gr .380 Speer GoldDot into a block of modeling clay covered in a plastic bag. It penetrated the very dense clay about 8 or 9 inches and made a tapered cavity a little smaller than a tennis ball in the center. The recovered bullet was torn into more pieces than I could count. I was surprised at the destructiveness of the load. On the other hand, when firing a 155gr .40S&W GoldDot, the clay didn't stand a chance. The first one penetrated about 13 inches and made a cavity that I could have fit a football in. The second shot, now that the bag was destroyed, simply decimated the clay block and small bits of it rained down for several seconds. The recovered bullet had all but 2 of the "petals" torn right off the back, but was mostly intact. Not exactly scientific testing, but educational nonetheless. I carry and very much like my Sig 232, but the Kahr .40's aren't much bigger and almost as nice... Some day I'll try other calibers and loads. When I do, I'll report the results here on TFL.
 
First of all the "stopping power" thing is bogus and voodoo science at best. Marshall has NEVER offered one ounce of backup, verification, or any form of peer review. I can go into detail, but if anyone has any real world experience in such matters, you soon spot a BS artist. A single shooting may have 500+ pages of material to cover and even then you can seldom form a conclusion. Also the information is often cloudy, and all but impossible to obtain.
Back to the .380. What we can go by is actual ER and OR experience. The .380 is indeed a minimum choice, but it is viable for a number of reasons. Low recoil and the high pointability of most .380's make them very good at shot placement which is a BIG issue.
Often you can find a full 9mm gun in the same size gun as the .380, so why not go 9mm? It depends on YOUR exact needs and YOUR exact circumstances. Yes, you can go an AMT Backup and it is a palm size gun. You can also go to a Taurus and it is a twin of their 9mm. No matter the choice you won't wish for a smaller gun if you get into trouble.
 
I personally haven't done any testing, but I think any of the three loads you mentioned as well as the Cor-Bon will get the job done.
To the best of my knowledge all three of the loads are the best thing each manufacturer makes. This might be a little costly but you might want to buy a box of each and find out which one feeds the best.
I have a .380, that's almost paid for, but when I get it I will most likely use the Golden Sabers as a defense load, I use those in my 9mm and 45. A LEO friend of mine carries those when off duty, so I figure they're good.
I don't think you need to trade your .380 for a 9mm, like it's been mentioned. I assume you realize you're not packing as much power, and realize shot placement will become a more critical issue.
If confronted, and if possible, I would not aim for center of mass as is often suggested. A center of mass hit usually means center of torso, and that will msot likely result in a gut shot, and will probably miss vital organs. I'm not sure if there is a proper term for this, but I would aim for a triangular area from the breast bone to the shoulders. A shot in this area would give you a better chance to hit vital organs.
I hope this helps.

------------------
As to marksmanship, it is not what you once did, rather it is what you can do on demand.
 
Rem 102 gr Golden Saber....... 9.4" bare 10% gel

CCI 90 gr Gold Dot ........................8.0"

Fed 90 gr JHP.................................14.4"

Horn 90 gr XTP HP....................... 11.8"

MagSafe Maximum +P+ 52gr.... 11.0"

.380 ACP Full Metal Jacket..........16.0"-18.0"

I believe these numbers are correct. I took them from " Street Stoppers". Remember that hollow points penetrate DEEPER after passing through clothing and many common obstacles due to the cavity plugging up with debris. There is nothing magical about 12 inches of penetration. A non or off duty LEO will have a greater chance of a frontal shot. Aim slightly higher than traditional COM and keep shooting until the threat(s) is (are) neutralized.

[This message has been edited by JackNKoch (edited January 14, 2000).]
 
I've heard, or read around here, that with a .380 one should use FMJ since over-penetration is not an issue.

Thoughts??
 
First of all Street Stoppers has been pretty much blown out as a full fraud and I'm being kind. Several scientists and medical experts took it to task and the authors have to this date failed to provide one verifiable piece of data or allowed peer review. It is pure "trust me" journalism and a bad job at that.
As for a FMJ, in a .380 or any gun penetration is indeed rarely a serious issue. Since most shots (92% miss rate by police at 21 feet or less) I'd worry more about hitting the target so you don't have stray slugs wandering around the environment which are a far greater risk.
 
Who, why, or how has Street Stoppers been proven a fraud?
I've read time and time againg how Marshal's (and others) statistics are a bunch of crap. How is this so? I want to know.
I haven't read the books in question, and neither has some of the people bitching I'd be willing to bet. I have looked through them, and taken them for what I think they are wourth, A GENERAL REFERENCE.
I think half the problem is that few, if any, of the people complaining about these statistics, don't know anything about statistics. How many of those people complaining have taken a statistics course, or two in college?
I have, and I'll probably have another one or two before I finish, which is why I believe the numbers. Reguardless of where of where not this data came from.
Could the problem be that no one else had tried to compile this kind of data, and everyone else is just pissed they didn't think to do it first?

------------------
As to marksmanship, it is not what you once did, rather it is what you can do on demand.



[This message has been edited by six 4 sure (edited January 12, 2000).]
 
Dogger:

I just recently tested Hornady .380 90gr XTP-JHP. Using a Beretta 85 (3 3/4" bbl) I obtained a ten round velocity of 1013 fps. Penetration in bare gelatin was 10.9" and penetration in denim covered gelatin was 13.7". All bullets shot into bare gealtin fragmented. All bullets, except one, shot into denim covered gealtin expanded. Failure analysis of the one bullet that didn't expand concluded that a lower than normal velocity (975 fps) probably affected terminal performance.

The Hornady load is what's loaded in my wife's Beretta handgun. It's about the best performing cartridge that I know of in .380 ACP and this barrel length.

If your SIG P232 shares the same 3 3/4" barrel length, then this is the load I recommend.

leapfrog and six 4 sure:

Much of Sanow's gelatin data is faulty because he performed testing in uncalibrated gelatin. If you have a copy of M&S books, look at the photographs of gelatin blocks that have had bullets fired into them. You'll notice that many of the gelatin blocks are missing a calibration BB, which is evidence that he didn't calibrate his gelatin before testing. In addition, Sanow doesn't test enough samples to provide "average performance" data. He usually tests only one or two cartridges out of a single handgun in bare gelatin only. This is not enough of a sampling to provide good insight at a cartridge's overall performance.

Marshall's "street results" data doesn't show what he claims it to show. The samplings of "real life shootings" he presents as proof of cartridge performance lack any type of statistical analysis which evaluates or determines the certainty of accuracy. When such a statistical analysis is performed by others to evaluate the accuracy of his methods, it shows that his data does not represent what he claims they represent. The plus or minus precentage of error is so large that his "findings" are utterly worthless.

In addition, a new analysis of Marshall's data reveals indications of intentional data manipulation and outright false data.

------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com
 
Dogger:
Having owned a P230 and now a P232, I have kept this article for a few years: from Shooting Times/November 1995, p55-58. All the tests were done from Ransom Rest w/ a P230 at 25 yards.
Penetration & Expansion Results:
(inches) wallboard water
Fed 90 gr Hydra-Shok 12 37
Fed 90 gr JHP Hi-Shok 12.5 67
Hornady 90 gr JHP/XTP 10.5 44.5
Remington 102gr G.Saber 11 34
Winchester 85 gr S'tip 7.5 35.5
The writer has a lot of data re accuracy and veolocity also. Send a fax #, and I'll fax a few pages of the article -- don't have the entire article anymore.
 
When it's hot, I carry my Colt Mustang Pocketlite .380. I have it loaded with alternating rounds of Glaser Blue's and Federal Hydra-Shok PD's. It's beside me, here on the desk. Nice little pistol. Very light, accurate, very low recoil. My wife is getting a Sig P-232. I feel pretty well armed when I carry the Mustang, but I do feel better when I strap on the Glock 27.

Will

------------------
Mendacity is the system we live in.
 
Hello, Shawn Dodson.

Appendix A of "Street Stoppers" lists the penetration depth of the .380 Hornady 90 gr XTP HP at 11.8. I assumed this refered to inches of bare 10% gel. Upon further examination, however, this is not specified. This may be manufacturer data or may come from Sanow's own testing. This is still very close to the 10.9-13.7 inches found in your own testing. A SIG P230 was listed in Appendix B of "Handgun Stopping Power" (no info given in "Street Stoppers") as the test weapon for .380 ACP velocity. Velocity for the Hornady round is given at 1000 fps. Once again, your testing is very close averaging 1013 fps for ten shots. You are more of an expert than I am concerning ballistic gelatin apparently. In this particular case though, complaining about any differences in data seems trivial. Is the calibration always needed? For example: If a large block of gelatin were cut into smaller portions, woundn't calibrating just one of those portions represent the consistency of the remaining sections, assuming proper storage and handling?

I cannot shed any light on criticisms that data was intentionally manipulated or falsified by Marshall or Sanow. Although I do believe the concept of what the authors did or attempted to do to be logical. They are their own worst critics in many ways, IMHO. In chapter 25 of "Street Stoppers" concerning shotgun and rifle results this is said of their .223 results,

"The authors are fully aware that the two top offerings results of 100 percent are troubling. Nothing, of course, is 100 percent in the real world. We're convinced that as we get more results, we will come across failures. However, we feel committed to report accurately on the data we have. We, like all collectors of data, are dependent on our sources."

I would recommend both "Street Stoppers" and especially "Handgun Stopping Power" for the wealth of information they contain other than the One Shot Stop percentages. Tactical Penetration, Point of Aim, Ordnace Gelatin, Review of Stopping Power Theories, Navy/Crane 9mm Ammo Tests, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ammo Tests, Secret Service Ammo Tests, and Gunfights and Ammo: The Big Picture being a sample of chapter titles. Other authors, besides Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow, are represented as well.

I find no fault with your recommendation of the Hornady XTP for business use. Please keep posting your experiences with ballistics testing on this forum. :)
 
JackNKoch:

Yes, ordnance gelatin must be calibrated to obtain valid data. The accepted protocol is to calibrate each gelatin block immediately prior to use. This ensures the gelatin will produce penetration and expansion results similar to expected terminal performance in live soft tissue. If the gelatin block sits out for too long and warms or if the gelatin solution is too diluted or too concentrated these defects won't be detected and the data obtained during testing will be faulty.

Yes, Sanow's .380 penetration data is similar to what I measured. But there are many other loads he tested that produced wildly inaccurate results as compared to the findings of other, more reputable, ballistics researchers. For instance, Sanow measured over 17 inches of penetration for the 9mm 147gr subsonic when several other researchers were measuring about 13-14 inches penetration. Same is true with .357 Magnum 125gr JHP. Sanow's defective uncalibrated gelatin produced faulty data. Although Sanow's penetration data for the .380 ACP 90gr Hornady cartridge is indeed similar to mine, you at least have a reference to compare his results against, but you don't have this same luxury to validate any of his other data, which may or may not be faulty.

As for the M&S review of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ammo Tests, the people who conducted these tests (Dahlstrom and Powley) have condemned the inaccurate manner and misinterpretation of results that M&S reported in their book "Street Stoppers".

Similar criticism has been leveled at M&S's "reworking of the numbers" of the Navy/Crane 9mm Ammo Tests to "prove" that the 115gr +P+ cartridge was superior to the 147gr that the Navy researchers selected.

As for the Secret Sevice Ammo Tests, these tests were conducted in 1972. In light of the changes in ammunition design and performance since then, this chapter is pointless.

In the early 1990's, Sanow wrote an article that was published in Law & Order magazine critical of the 9mm 147gr subsonic. (Actually this same article was also published in SIG Arms Quarterly and Handguns magazine -- and a couple of others IIRC -- but with different titles.) As "proof" to support his claims he cited about a dozen law enforcement shootings involving this cartridge in which he alleged that the bullet was a failure. Several law enforcement firearms instructors were so alarmed at the information that Sanow presented in his Law & Order magazine article that they contacted every one of the law enforcement agencies Sanow cited and learned that he'd intentionally misrepresented the facts of the shootings. These officers (Sgt. Steve Campbell, Firearms Training Unit Supervisor, Louisiana State Police; Sgt. Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster, Amarillo, Texas, PD; and Sgt. William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit) presented their findings to the editor of Law & Order magazine, Bruce Cameron, who published their findings in the Letters department (p. 89-90, November 1992). As a result, Mr. Cameron retracted Sanow's article, apologized to his readers for publishing "...information has proven to be in error.", and vowed never again to publish an article by Sanow.

The current issue of Wound Ballistics Review (Volume 4, Number 2) contains two analyses of Marshall's data which presents compelling evidence of intentional fraud and misrepresentation ("Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time" by Maarten van Maanen, and "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story" by Duncan MacPherson). These devastating analyses were recently featured in Street Survival Newsline # 419 (11/16/99), which is published by Calibre Press ( www.calibrepress.com ). Defenders of M&S -- who've never reviewed these analyses -- are willing to write-off these disturbing findings as simple errors in arithmetic, which they are not.

------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com



[This message has been edited by Shawn Dodson (edited January 13, 2000).]
 
Shawn Dodson:

Thank you for responding. You seem to have some personal knowledge I lack or are very well read on this topic. I, OTOH, am still confused as to some of the controversy surrounding Marshall, Sanow, and a few other oft cited figures.

From visiting the Firearms Tactical Institute's website, I was able to acquire some FBI ammunition tests data. 3 different 147 grain 9mm Parabellum loads penetrated over 17 inches of BARE gelatin. 7 of the 13 gel results listed for this weight of JHP (when fired from a handgun) produced penetration in excess of 17 inches in CLOTHED gelatin. In "Street Stoppers" penetration, for the subsonics, ranges from 13.7 to 18 inches depending on the exact load or generation. There is considerable overlap in the .357 Magnum data, also, including the 125 gr JHP. There appears to be some "room for error", anyway. I want to see everyone kept honest, but in this circumstance there should be little dissension.

Much criticism is leveled at the RELIABILITY (cycle, feed, eject...)aspect of the Navy/Crane 9mm ammo tests in "Street Stoppers". This, no doubt. rubbed some the wrong way. Although M/S refer favorably to the RCMP ammo tests, it appears they reprinted an UNCOPYRIGHTED technical report without first obtaining permission from the authors, Dahlstrom and Prowley. :mad: I'm sure their royalty checks are in the mail. ;)

Perhaps I misrepresent the findings of M/S on occasion. If so, I apologize. I therefore recommend reading the books/articles and deciding for oneself. Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow are not the last word in wound ballistics, I do think their work includes merits which should be openly discussed, nonetheless. BTW, does Chuck Taylor or anybody besides Fackler, Marshall, and Sanow get mentioned in "stopping power" debates anymore? Maybe in the future I'll post TRSP numbers as well as OSS percentages. ;)

[This message has been edited by JackNKoch (edited January 14, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top