But why doesn't the .380 make it into the service caliber pistol class?
I doubt you have forgotten this from the last time we had this discussion, but I'll answer again anyway.
It doesn't because it can't expand significantly and still pass the FBI penetration tests. That's a threshold that's required to make it into the service pistol caliber class that the .380ACP can't pass.
You have argued that neither energy or bullet weight or diameter make any difference in bullet performance.
No, I haven't argued that at all.
I have argued that within the service pistol caliber class, the differences in terminal ballistics can't be shown to have a practically significant effect on real world shootings. If you believe this is not correct, please present the evidence that contradicts this statement. You and I both know that it doesn't exist.
Terminal ballistics differences CAN certainly be shown to have a practically significant effect on real world shootings if they are big enough--it's just that the evidence says that within the service pistol caliber class it doesn't.
If power, energy, momentum don't matter then what are you left with to make a decision on?
If you want to make your decision from amongst the service pistol calibers based on that, then do it. But don't pretend that your decision is based on something that makes a practical difference in real-world shootings because there's no evidence to support such an assertion.
Is there proof that the 380 is not useful in "real world gunfights?"
Nope, but it is penetration limited when used with expanding ammunition which is a significant handicap given that a minimum amount of penetration is required to reliably disable humans. That doesn't mean it's not useful, just that it can't do what the service pistol calibers can in one very important respect, and the limitations of the cartridge and the guns it is chambered in don't allow increasing any of the terminal ballistic parameters sufficiently to overcome that limitation.
The reason the .380 is not a service caliber round is that it lacks the power of the 9mm and other service calibers.
The reason that the .380ACP is not a service caliber round is that it is penetration limited when used with expanding ammunition. Period.
(NOTE--REFER BACK TO THE PRECEDING SENTENCE AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY.)
So the difference between the 380 and the 9mm is power.
See the sentence above.
Similarly when the FBI and the Army want a
...
enforcement this is a settled matter. John insists that it is not settled.
1. Even when the FBI was making their change away from 9mm, their expert essentially admitted that it wasn't possible to find differences in real-world shootings due to terminal ballistics differences in the service pistol calibers. Why do you think that the FBI was so willing to go back to the 9mm as soon as they were satisfied it would reliably meet their penetration threshold with expanding ammunition?
2. What I insist on is evidence.
I have solid evidence of what picking a .40S&W over a 9mm will cost in terms of speed and accuracy, capacity, training costs, weapons wear, etc.
I want to know that it BUYS me.
I don't want to know about penetration, momentum and energy and wound channel volume because we all know that all the service pistol calibers provide enough of all of those things to get the job done.
What I want to know is: How much faster a bigger caliber in the class will stop fights and how many fewer shots it will take to get the job done? If anyone could show any difference at all, then I could take that difference and weigh it against the benefits of NOT switching to see which option makes the most sense.
But I can't do that. And neither can anyone else because in all of the study that's been done, all of the analysis, all of the statistics collected and calculated and plotted, in all of the thousands of shootings examined, no one has been able to show that there's a practically significant difference. It's not that they say they can show a difference that's small, they can't conclusively show any difference at all.
So why would I trade away obvious real world benefits for something that nobody can even prove exists? Why would anyone?
Before you ask me the same question about the .380ACP two or three more times, why not answer the two questions above, or prove that the paragraph above them is untrue?