Has anyone done any testing with .380 defense loads?

When it comes to gathering data on performance of ammunition in REAL shootings here is how it works.
The sources of information have to come from the following sources.

1. Eyewitness testimony. This is the WORST kind possible. Two people seeing the exact same thing will give wide ranging information from correct to false. It has little value in courts anymore because of "false memory recall" among others. Do you think the sister of the killed will give you an accurate testimony on what happened?

2. Physical evidence. You don't find police looking to see if ammo was a reload or even what brand it was. It is rare that a brand name is mention in any report nor the weight or type of bullet. It is of no legal use. At the best you will find, "bullet recovered was a nonremarkable (FMJ) projectile of approximately 112 grains weight." Or perhaps, "bullet recovered was a badly deformed slug of about 9mm in size." It could be a .380 or a Makarov round. Nobody cares at this point.

3. Medical reports. They are accurate and scientific but doctors don't care about the bullet. The medical discription will seldom comment on the wound other than mentioning it is from a shotgun or maybe a "high velocity" type bullet etc. they don't get into hollowpoints and FMJ. It is not germaine to the medical needs of the patient.

4. Autopsy reports. Again not much here. I can quote some if you like from actual reports. You'll be badly disappointed.

5. Forensics. This is about where some information comes to light. They will say the empting casing was a Winchester 9mm for example. That's about it. No concerns over reloads etc. Not relavent to a criminal case. They will try to identify he projectile to the gun and go into some detail on the discription of rifling marks but little on the bullet. Nobody cares. Again I have many actual forensic reports and it just isn't there for a variety of reasons.

A "average" shooting case will have about 500+ pages of reports, records and documents to review. IF you get the best of all worlds it is often hard to form a conclusion as to how a bullet performed. Marshal claims in one presentation 11,000+ actual reports in his data base which he allows NOBODY to review nor does he let on how he comes to his conclusions. All "trust me" stuff. If he has that many you do the math of 500+ pages times 11,000 shootings. A small warehouse me thinks.
Also police have about 1500+ shootings per year in this country. Police departments are VERY VERY secretive about the inside details and data privacy also protects most states from revealing much of anything and medical records are VERY private. I only get them from lawyers in most cases.
If Marshal got EVERY case it would take 10+ years to gather that much data. Anything beyond that is getting into ancient history.
Never mind the creditability of the "one shot stoppers" he invented on a cold day in Detroit. Had the guy said he had an educated OPINION I would buy it. As for his "study" it holds as much water as old socks. The math doesn't work. Does it?
Few shooters have a clue as to how this information is gathered and that most won't tell you what you need nor want to know. After 40+ years all I have is OPINION because there aren't enough facts out there to do anything else.
 
I've already posted my opinion on Fenderal Hyrda shocks before.. but in case you haven't seen it...
[Link to invalid post]

Its not a comparison of one load vs another.. but its a real shoot.

Dr.Rob
 
Jeff Cooper opines that, with a thoracic cavity hit, the 45 gets the job done "nineteen times out of twenty or perhaps a little bit more." (Taken from the 4th edition of "Combat Handgunnery" by Chuck Taylor.) Where does this 95%+ success rate come from? Cooper's review of historic and technical data, and his own experience. Whether or not I agree with his numbers, I believe his method is sound. Marshall and Sanow also took a historic look at what has worked in the PAST. In the August 1979 issue of Soldier Of Fortune, in an article entitled, "Handgun Stopping Power Revisited," Taylor wrote:

"...I, for one, choose to believe in what actually happens when people shoot each other on the street or battlefield, rather than some test conducted out of context."

Once we have a sizeable and accurate database of previous results, a correlation between bullet performance in living tissue and ballistic gelatin is achievable. It does not take much of a leap of faith for me to believe this information can be used as an indicator to suggest the advisability of a given load for self-defense, law enforcement, combat, or even hunting. Taylor has this to say of Martin Fackler:

"Perhaps the reason Col. Fackler's observations tend to coincide more closely with historic observation than those of some of his colleagues is because he also shoots hogs and then compares bullet performance on them with that obtained in ballistic gelatin, thus creating a corollary."

Now, as to the matter of "stopping power" I once again quote from "Combat Handgunnery".

"Handgun performance--e.g., stopping power--is the very heart of self-defense shooting..."

"...in the five handgun fights in which I used a 45 ACP, I won all five with a single shot each, using--you guessed it--230-grain ball ammo. My opponents collapsed so quickly upon being hit that I didn't even have the chance to fire a quick second shot. Five center hits, five one-shot stops."

There is no need for semantics. This perfectly describes the desired effect, no matter what one calls it. A termination of hostilities? Now we should move on to the mechanisms of collapse.
From Dennis Tobin, M.D., they are:
1. A major support bone in the leg or pelvis is broken, leading to a fall without alteration of brain function.
2. Psychological trauma may cause the person to " freeze up" or fall.
3. Voluntary collapse occurs because the person senses subjectively a severe trauma and decides to terminate the fight, hoping the officer won't shoot him again.
4. Involuntary collapse beyond the person's control can possibly be explained via the mechanism of "neural shock." This is the mechanism we hope our ammo causes.
5. Vascular shock due to low blood pressure. While blood loss, both internal and external, is the most common cause of incapacition, it is also very time consuming. Even a shot literally exploding the heart with no pressure supplying the brain with blood allows continued brain function for at least 10 to 12 seconds before loss of consciousness.
6. Brain or spinal cord injury. The fastest and most reliable way to stop a person is to get the bullet into the cranial vault, inside the skull.

What explains Taylor's results? I think 1 & 5 can be immediately ruled out. It is unlikely the spine was hit significantly, if at all, in all five shootings to be the major precipitator. So, if 6 is eliminated, we are down to three possible options. Since only one shot each is fired, I believe a psychosomatic response, hence 2, can be excluded. 3 also, due to the rapid occurence (Although I guess a combination of 2 & 3 could have transpired. If 5 then occured, it is irrelevant ). What is left is a wild card. The "sensory overload" phenomenon? This last option deserves serious discussion, IMHO.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pluspinc:
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. [/quote]


Look at a Kahr MK 9 for a 9mm the size of a .380. They also make a .40 Cal about the same size.
I've had an MK 9 for about two years now. One sweet pistol...and +P rated!
The only downside is that it's bit too heavy (21oz.) for a pocket holster (drags your trousers down). For pocket work, I use a Taurus 85 MultiAlloy .38Spl.(13.5oz.) or a Beretta Tomcat .32ACP(also around 13.0oz
 
though it is true one can be criticize marshall/sanow, what better proof is there?

i am not defending their statisics, i am merely stating that not many of us (including myself) have ever been in a close-quarters shootout.

there are so many variables involved it's almost impossible to predict stopping power. a .22 or .25 to the head could prove just as deadly as a point blank 12 GA 00 buck, depending upon conditions. common sense dictates.

at least it gives a broad outline of what to expect, but it is by no means written in stone. i know that i do not have the resources to conduct such an experiment, how many of us do? i do not know the motivation behind the study, nor do i know parties, don't have the time. welcome to feedback from anyone that knows more, i mean that sincerely, thanks......Scott
 
one thing i do know, glaser blue point out of a beretta 84 hi-cap will tear the hell out of a phone book! hahaha!.....Scott
 
I've visited the Firearms Tactical Institute over the years and it is where I go for objective information. It is also where my former LEO instructors go. There is a wealth of relavent information to be found there. Or, read the gun rag authors and be confident in their stories- regardless of the evidence proving them to be unscientific and all to often fictitious.

Erik
 
JackNkoch,
Was that in the Military or police work?

------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
 
JackNKoch:

Good observations about the FBI's results!

The invalid 9mm 147gr penetration results obtained by Sanow were all shot into bare ordnance gelatin. Sanow consistently observed 17+ inches of penetration when other researchers, who are known to have calibrated their gelatin, were observing 13-14 inches.

Same is true for the .357 Magnum Federal 125gr JHP. Sanow observed 13-14 inches penetration in bare gelatin while everyone else was observing about 10 inches. In fact, Sanow stated that he determined the best penetration depth for optimum stopping power to be "exactly 13.3 inches" because that's what he measured for this cartridge.

In the early 1990's Sanow didn't calibrate his gelatin at all (apparently through ignorance), and when he finally realized that he had to calibrate his gelatin he failed to report any of his calibration data so that his results could be validated.

Despite these mistakes, Sanow has yet to acknowledge them or correct them. Instead he's remained silent and allowed his faulty work to continue to mislead others.

Dahlstrom's and Prowley's report is a publication of the Canadian government. It isn't subject to copyright protection. What Dahlstrom and Prowley are furious about is that Marshall & Sanow altered their report.

Fackler correlated his findings not only with bullets shot into live anesthetized hogs, but with actual shootings of human beings as well. I believe his results were correlated with somewhere between 100-300 shootings. While Fackler was a military trauma surgeon, just a portion of his work involved military ammunition. He researched (and continues to study) commercial handgun, rifle and shotgun ammunition.

The professional wound ballistics community also consists of people like Gene Wolberg, a criminologist with San Diego Police, who's studied well over 100 SDPD shootings involving the 9mm 147gr subsonic (the department's issue ammo) and found that it performed the same in a human body as it does in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin.

What organ(s) the bullet penetrates and damages is the single most important factor in reliably stopping a determined attacker, and this is a function of shot placement and bullet penetration. This fact has been proven on the street as well as the battlefield.

All other variables -- whether they're sensory overload, neural shock, emotional fainting or whatever you want to call them -- don't matter because they're unreliable. They don't occur in EVERY shooting. If they don't occur in every shooting, we can't rely upon them to produce incapacitation. This is why the professional wound ballistics community ignores variables like energy transfer. If an attacker is drunk, high on drugs, emotionally disturbed or very determined to complete his deadly mission before he's stopped, the only thing you can count on 100 percent of the time is for your bullet(s) to pass through a major blood distribution organ to cause rapid fatal hemorrhage or to severely damage a central nervous system structure by passing through it.

Shooting an attacker in the torso and expecting him to immediately collapse is an unrealistic expectation. If it happens, great! If it doesn't, the only mechanism you can rely on is blood loss in quantity to produce unconsciousness, and that will take time. It's a simple fact of life that many people have trouble accepting.

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



[This message has been edited by Shawn Dodson (edited January 16, 2000).]
 
Good post. I have sat in front of experience instructors who claim if you are hit in the finger with a .45 it will spin you around and they are serious.
To date that is no scientific base for any way to figure out performance of a handgun bullet. NONE.
We are left with experience which is alway suspect. 6 out of 6 is not hard to buy with a .45 FMJ. I have NO problem with that. But it we went with 1,000 shootings with a .45 and FMJ would be be at 1,000 "one shot stops?" I doubt it. So where would we be? Also you are dealing with targets that are unique to each other and unique conditions.
Like trying to claim redheads are better in bed than blondes (you know that olde debate) and prove it with your own experience. With three men in a room the debate would be interesting but I'm sure wouldn't result in a solid unified opinion.
The shooting world is filled with the "one time" school that take a single incident and try to use it as a foundation to support or debunk a theory.
Wil Rogers once said, " all I know is what I know." If some gun rag writers would take that advice we'd be much better off. At this time their montra is "junk science only I know about."
Cooper does have some experience and I sure respect it, but like so many he just spits out those numbers with no verification or sources. 19 out of 20? I might buy it. But he gets stuck there because it "sounds good."
After all these years he'd think that would get larger in numeric value. Like 44 out of 435. I think if he and others kept going they sure change their tunes and the results.
In the mean time I stop and think that when I've been in trouble I've never wished I had a smaller gun.

------------------
Specialists in the use and training of lethal force.
 
swatman:

I can only guess. That was part of my point. I enjoy reading Cooper in Guns & Ammo but otherwise have little knowledge of his writings.

Shawn Dodson:

You are correct. Energy transfer, sensory overload, neural shock, temporary cavity effect, or whateveryoucallit, is unreliable for the reasons you list (at least from most handguns). The same can be said for the psychological trauma, mental precondition, pain tolerance, or determination of an attacker. Debating the INFREQUENCY of "neural shock" and arguing the EXISTENCE of such an effect are very different, obviously. I would hope that all readers of this forum are aware of the importance of shot placement, regardless of load or caliber. Large initial bullet diameter combined with complete penetration of the target is unquestionably the simplest (if not most efficient) method of assuring optimal permanent crush cavity. A central nervous system hit is the quickest and most reliable stopper. However, vascular shock is the most common incapacitator. Blood pressure loss takes far to much time to be an instantaneous cause of collapse, though. (A good reason to keep shooting until the threat goes down and to utilize distance and cover.) Do not assume an OSS occurence.

Now that the aforementioned facts have been repeated. It needs to be noted that instant one-shot-stops do happen inexplicably. So often in fact, that shooters have come to demand/expect such performance. J. Henry FitzGerald published his book "Shooting" in 1930. Here are some quotes taken from section 32.

"In using a revolver for protection every second counts. A bullet from a light caliber gun may eventually stop a man, but will it stop him before he can shoot you?"

"...where speed, accuracy, and the hitting power of his revolver is the only thing that will save his life. His bullet must disable his opponent instantly to the extent that he will not be able to shoot back."

"It is true that extreme accuracy and the small caliber bullets will cause this result, but ninety per cent of the man's shooting to protect his life is at night and a hit in any part of the body is very accurate shooting when sights cannot be seen."

"It must be taken into consideration that some men will carry off more lead than others."

"Either by accurately placing the shots and instantly disabling the opponent with the small caliber revolvers, or by using the large caliber arms that greatly increase the man's chances, can the desired result be accomplished."

Despite the insistence of rapid incapacitation, FitzGerald shows remarkable latitude in cartridge suitability. Although preferring .41 caliber and larger he states, "Personally I do not believe that any bullet with less than one hundred and fifty pounds' muzzle energy is heavy enough for protective or police purposes." FitzGerald also quotes Colonel Chandler, who at the time was first Superintendent of the New York State Troopers, as saying: "If you shoot a man with a .45 Colt and he doesn't go down, just walk around back of him and see what is holding him up." And this was before the television era. Kinda makes one rethink the psychosomatic theory. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top