Yet people are frequently cautioned against .380 FMJ based on it's alleged overpenetration.
Why isn't the .380 considered a viable self defense round by many, but the .38 special is?
I think probably tradition, and history. Lots of people, particularly younger ones, look at the guns of today, and the ammo performance of today and think that's the way it's always been.
I can assure you, it abso-frackin-lutely WAS NOT!
Up until the later 60s, with a few notable exceptions, factory handgun ammo basically came in two flavors. Lead bullets in revolver rounds and FMJ bullets in semi auto pistol rounds.
Most of the gun writers of the day felt the .38 Special to be superior to the 9mm Luger, for both defense and hunting. Head and shoulders above the .380acp. And. they weren't wrong.
A lead bullet .38 Special could deform and even sometimes expand. They seldom did, but they could, while the FMJ 9mm bullets NEVER DID.
There was no +p, or +p+, unless you handloaded it. There were (almost) no expanding bullets in the popular handgun calibers, unless you handloaded them. Super Vel came out and proved to the buying public that JHP pistols bullets could work. In short order, the big ammo companies began offering JHP bullets. Then spent the next half century trying to get them to work reliably and after they generally got that, trying to get them to work better.
Today, they do work better than they did.
As a defensive round, I would absolutely put .38 special ahead of .380. As part of a defensive package which includes the gun used and ammo capacity, I don't think that today it is clearly superior.
There's a guy who posts on The Smith & Wesson Forum who calls himself Triathloncoach. He said the same thingThe Ruger LCP came out in 2008 and since then has sold millions. Now the Ruger 10-12 rd MAX just recently came out. I do not think I have ever walked into a LG and NOT seen a LCP. 13 years later and still selling.
What is interesting is to see some people that have bashed the cartridge now actually buying a Max. Same as many that were all for 40 cal now EDC 9mm.
Things change. Are the ammunition manufactures not paying attention. Or do you think that they will continue to develop a better 380 which in 5 years alone has improved.
Ruger launched the Max. They know how to make a profit. I will bet other fiream manufactures will follow suite.
A Sig 365 Max? A Sig the same size of the Max and low weight of just 10oz come along?
.380 is a very viable self defense round. Today’s self defense ammo is excellent.
I don't agree that the 9mm Makarov (9x18) is more terminally effective than the .380 ACP (9x17). I own pistols in both calibers. Ammo for the 9mm Mak is even harder to find than for .380. Muzzle energy for common .380 rounds ranges from 200 to 300 ft-lbs. Unless you get into hot loads such as Buffalo Bore, the 9mm mak also tops out at around 300 ft-lbs.JustJake said:The 9mm Makarov (9x18) is more terminally effective than the .380/9x17. And it can be housed in any platform the .380 comes in, along with the same mag capacity, e.g., the CZ 82 9mmMak ----> CZ 83 .380.
You can fire .38 Special through revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum, but the .38 Special came first and revolvers chambered in .38 Special can't fire .357 Magnum. In fact, that was the reason the .357 Magnum was made longer -- in order to prevent people firing the higher pressure round through guns that weren't made to handle that pressure.adamBomb said:So thinking back, and I can only go back to when I was 18 or so in the late 90s, there weren't many good 380 options. It just seemed like a caliber for mouse guns that you used for backup. That stigma still carries through today when people look at 380. And 38 special, which I only fired through my revolvers just felt like a somewhat lesser option than .357 since the guns could fire both. Since .357 was like a freaking canon, I think I always just assumed 38sp was just a smaller version more like a 9mm. Never even would have thought to compare it to .380.
The .380 is a 9mm it's just 9mm short. I carry it now and again, I also carry a 22mag revolver. They all will work if needed.
I would not know a thing about the Smith and Wesson forum as I do not belong to it. Nor do I know anything about coaching a triathlon. But then again, your comment is not suppose to be about the topic. Not the first time you have done this for sure. It gets old. If you have a opinion about the topic then just post it.There's a guy who posts on The Smith & Wesson Forum who calls himself Triathloncoach. He said the same thing
And both are comparable to .38 Special. According to the Wikipedia page on .38 Special, muzzle energy starts at 235 ft-lbs and tops out at 266 ft-lbs for +P
HighValleyRanch said:Well, Wekipedia is wrong. I'm getting more that 400 ft lbs with BB out of my 3" LCRX .38 special +P with 158 grain hardcast. As I posted earlier in another thread, I'm getting the same power out of this load as a midload armscor .358 magnum.
Not my handloads. BB is Buffalobore, and I am sure that Underwoods and some other commercial companies are available with similar loads.
Everyone wants to use watered down .38 special loads as the criterial, i.e like Paul Harrel to proprogate the myth of weak .38 special.