Hornady and Sig 380 perform okay in Lucky Gunner clear gel tests, but not so well in others found on youtube.
Here is an example using manufacturer testing:
https://winchesterle.com/-/media/Pr...gun-Bullet-Barrier-Testing-Protocol_2016.ashx
380 Ranger T series expands but penetrates less than 8 inches in gel or heavy clothed gel.
That is inferior performance compared to the Ranger 9mm loads in the same tests.
What does not (should not) constitute performance comparison between 380 versus whatever?
Lethality. That something is lethal (like the flu) doesn't automatically infer quickly incapacitating and quickly incapacitating is important for SD ammo.
"Wouldn't want to / Nobody volunteer to get shot by it" is not (or shouldn't be) a criteria used for selecting ammo.
Is 380
"better than nothing"? Sure it is; but, I try to not use
"better than nothing" like it is a lofty goal.
What might help us select ammo with better ASAP potential? Desirable criteria are at least 12'' penetration
and consistent expansion.
I have a LCP 380 and begrudgingly carry it when it is the "best I can do" holstered in gym shorts pocket; its loaded with Hydra Shok Deep.
I've seen testing from a LCP where the 380 Hydra-Shok deep penetrated 15-16'' and expanded to .49 in heavy clothed gel. (acceptable performance)
Why did I say "begrudgingly" about carrying 380? Because I'd rather have a Sig 365 in pocket but its too big/heavy for gym shorts; 380 in that case is
"best I can do" .
Other than gym shorts pocket, I'm carrying at least 9mm.
Try to carry a handgun you would want to defend yourself with anywhere,
everywhere.