When Does a .380 Beat a 9mm? Good article

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russell, my main carry is 9mm and I control it perfectly fine in rapid fire. But that's a G26 or a Beretta Px4 SC. I also have a Beretta Pico that handles just fine in rapid fire and is about as accurate at 15' - 21' as the Px4SC.

Make the 9mm the same size as the Pico? I'd never handle 9mm recoil in that size of a pistol with any kind of follow up potential and sometimes I really need to have a pistol in my pocket and know it wont print...I'd love to always dress for my Px4 SC but sometimes I get caught where that just cant' happen and the Pico is the biggest gun I can carry without printing.

That's my point. If I could get a 9mm that size it would do me no good...I couldn't hit squat with it. I'll take the .380 Pico and still have 100 gr. .356 bullets running at about 1000 fps and getting me enough punch to get the job done instead of insisting on 9mm.

VooDoo
I shoot a Glock 17 which is easy. I also shoot a 9mm Shield. Not as easy at first, but it is now. Any smaller? I dont want or need anything smaller. For someone that does I guess I see the logic. I'm sure the Shield in .40 isnt as easy. My Every day is often a .45, Glock 30S.

.380 components are too small for this aging shooter to deal with! lol
 
Here are two examples that I have used for carry. I switched to the 9mm because, with these two guns, the size difference is negligible. The KelTec P3AT is slightly smaller but I don't really like the "feel" of that gun anymore. Virtually identical in size. Equal capacity. Equally reliable.


Diamondback DB9

Caliber: 9x19MM
Length: 5.60”
Height: 4.00”
Width: 0.80”
Barrel Length: 3.00”
Distance Between Sights: 4.25”
Weight (unloaded): 11 oz
Trigger Pull: ≈5.5#
Magazine Capacity: 6+1 Rds
UPC: 815875011217

S&W Bodyguard

380 ACP
Length 5.25"
Height 4.1"
Width .75"
Barrel Length 2.75"
Weight (unloaded)11.85 oz

I used the Bodyguard for quite a while and found it to be very reliable after 200 rounds or so. I DO NOT like the laser activation and never really got used to it. The DB9 has replaced it for pocket carry. The ONLY disadvantage of the DB9 is that it is slightly longer. It is only slightly heavier, unnoticeable, when loaded and fits in my jean pockets as well as the 380. I had one stovepipe in the first 50 rounds with ball ammo and two over the next 200 rounds. Since then I have had zero issues through approximately 500 more rounds, mostly FMJ.
With both guns I can easily run through 2-3 mags during a range session without a problem. They are both "snappy" but manageable after some practice. I prefer the trigger on the DB9 as it is much smoother and lighter than the BG.
I have other 380 and 9mm pocket guns but the DB9 is the best I have owned thus far. I am looking at a Kimber Solo right now that I may give a run.
Ignore the battery that I used to cover the SN on the DB.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141219_100550230_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20141219_100550230_HDR.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 17
Posted by jrdolall:
With both guns I can easily run through 2-3 mags during a range session without a problem. They are both "snappy" but manageable after some practice.
How do they compare for putting four rounds into an area the size of an upper chest at around five yards in a second or a second and a half?
 
I am not a big "speed" shooter as I prefer to hurry through the first two shots and then be more deliberate. I'm not saying that's better than 4-5 but it is what works best for me.
I shoot between 7 and 10 yards at paper targets I print online so they are 8.5"x11" and I have no problem with either one hitting reliably at that distance. I really can't tell much difference in the perceived recoil between these two. I am probably closer to three-four seconds for 4 shots. Of course that is standing still with an unarmed target in front of me.
 
Posted by jrdolall:
I am probably closer to three-four seconds for 4 shots. Of course that is standing still with an unarmed target in front of me.
Have you considered how much ground a charging assailant with a contact weapon moving at, say, 15 fps (a reasonable average, I think) would cover in three or four seconds?

That's why I asked about four shots in a second.
 
Of course.
I have considered virtually every conceivable scenario.
If two shots don't stop an attacker then four shots probably won't.
If I want to get off more ACCURATE shots in 2 seconds then I better have a different type of gun.
 
I am probably closer to three-four seconds for 4 shots. Of course that is standing still with an unarmed target in front of me.

I don't know if many of us can get four shots off in one second, as Kleanbore proposes in his reply -- but his point is valid. And before you fire those four shots, you've got to get the gun out and pointed at the bad guy. Time is critical and you'll probably never have enough of it -- unless you get a lot of warning!

I mentioned something similar earlier (where, using an AirSoft Glock) several friends and I tried an exercise. Someone standing motionless 25 feet away may, just running, get to you before you can unholster and fire if you both start on the same signal Even four shots in a second may not be fast enough in such situations. You may have ONLY seconds to ready your weapon and bring it into play.

If you're by yourself (i.e., don't have a child or companion to worry about) you may free to move back or to the side if your surroundings allow it, and if your opponent is armed, he may already be firing or swinging or ready to stab -- and attending to THAT risk will likely slow things down a bit. A home defense situation may give you more time -- if your weapon is handy. Running away is a good option in some cases, if only so that you can get to your weapon without being hurt.
 
Posted by jrdolall:
If two shots don't stop an attacker then four shots probably won't.
Do you have a basis for believing that?

Take an anatomy book and randomly place one, two, three, and four points on the upper chest. Analyze which ones may have struck something vital and which ones might not. Remember, the body is not a water jug. Two shots in the same lung may not help you at all.

And spread them out a bit, and add in an arm hit or a miss. Likely to happen, don't you think?

If I want to get off more ACCURATE shots in 2 seconds then I better have a different type of gun.
Remember that your goal is a balance of speed and precision.
 
Posted by Walt Sherrill:
If you're by yourself (i.e., don't have a child or companion to worry about) you may free to move back or to the side if your surroundings allow it,...
The I.C.E. PDN Combat Focus Shooting drills teach drawing while moving laterally at right angles to the initial direction of the threat.

Your point is well taken that you may not be able to do that.
 
Do you have a basis for believing that?
Have you determined that 4 is the magic number? Why not 6-10? The law of averages says that the more shots you put on target the better chance you have of hitting something vital. I understand that. I can put that many on target with a 22 mag or a 1911 in under two seconds but those don't fit in my pocket.
I have decided that in MY case the 2 quick shots works best. What works best for others may not work best for me. Every pistol choice is a compromise. Pick the compromise with which you feel the most comfortable.
 
Posted by jrdolall:
Have you determined that 4 is the magic number?
Not at all.

I can shoot four very quickly--and more afterward, if four do not cut it and if I am still standing.

Why not 6-10? The law of averages says that the more shots you put on target the better chance you have of hitting something vital. I understand that.
Yep. And it may well take six or more.

As it happens, I carry a firearm with 7+1, and if eight do not work I'll have to go to the backup, if I can.

I have decided that in MY case the 2 quick shots works best.
Best in what way? On what basis did you make that decision? What gives you confidence that that strategy is likely to effect a stop timely? Do you really think that two shots landing in what would in effect be random locations on a torso are very likely to hit anything vital?

Every pistol choice is a compromise.
Yes indeed. Until recently, I carried a pistol with a capacity of 10+1. But it had a frame mounted safety. I did not like the idea of leaving the safety disengaged because it did not have a grip safety, and I decided that having a separate step to perform introduced unnecessary risk. So I compromised--accepting lower capacity and getting a grip safety.

Pick the compromise with which you feel the most comfortable.
Feeling "comfortable" may not help at all, if it is not based on an informed judgment. I personally do not "feel comfortable" with my firearm or my skill. The stakes are just too high.

But we were talking about a balance of speed and precision. I do not see how anyone would conclude that firing four shots in an interval in which an attacker could cover fort to sixty feet would represent a viable strategy.

Until recently, most of us learned what we have learned from good instructors who teach defensive responses, rather than shooing per se. This is one that I recommend; the 2015 tour schedule is on the web now. Those who could do so engaged in FoF training with simunitions.

Now there's something new--simulation facilities. I haven't tried one yet, but I've seen them, and they look great. They can test everything from shoot/no-shoot decisions, whether speed of draw is good enough and the balance of speed and precision.

What they do not do yet is measure success in stopping. Just go back to my anatomy text exercise and play with that analysis.
 
Here are two examples that I have used for carry. I switched to the 9mm because, with these two guns, the size difference is negligible. The KelTec P3AT is slightly smaller but I don't really like the "feel" of that gun anymore. Virtually identical in size. Equal capacity. Equally reliable.
.

Sounds like all the right arguments to switch to a 40 S&W :cool:
 
I think I have just had an epiphany of sorts in this thread...I could never understand why folks felt that if one can carry a .380, they could carry a 9mm or even a .40 or .45 of the same size and be better served.

My position is to ask why? I simply cannot perform with a teeny 9mm and get the requisite fast, accurate follow ups that fit my standard...my standard is to be able to *move!* and still accurately deliver 3X per second to a 4" group at 21'. I can do that with a heavier, larger 9mm but not with a teeny tiny pocket rocket and feel I'm better off triple tapping Mr. Badguy while moving laterally to cover with a .380 at the same 3X per second/4'@21' standard.

It never occurred to me that some folks are satisfied with and consider "rapid, accurate follow ups" as delivering <4 rounds over 4 seconds. It never occurred to me that when I'm thinking fast is a triple tap in less than a second many feel that 3X per second is "super human" and well beyond reasonable expectations. I have a new perspective.

VooDoo
 
Best in what way? On what basis did you make that decision? What gives you confidence that that strategy is likely to effect a stop timely? Do you really think that two shots landing in what would in effect be random locations on a torso are very likely to hit anything vital?
Perhaps I should highlight the word "MY". Oh wait! I did that.
Your arguments are completely valid. More shots, fired more rapidly and placed properly are more effective than fewer shots, fired slowly and hitting "random locations on a torso". I imagine that you can also add larger, faster projectiles, along with the other criteria, is even better. I am not sure what point you are making since we both agree that more is better.
MY point is that for ME I am accurate and fast with my first two shots using a pocket gun (BG or DB9). If I do my job and the ammo does its job then that's the best I can expect to do with THESE guns. If I strap on a full size 9 then I can fire more rapidly but I don't like to carry a full size gun so I carry a pocket gun most of the time.
Your anatomy text is useless in that it is patently obvious. It's like saying that a shotgun is better than a 22 pistol for shooting a moving clay pigeon. I know people that can shoot a moving target with a pistol fairly regularly but none of them are better with the pistol on clays than they are with a shotgun. As I mentioned earlier, if 2 isn't enough then why is 4 enough when you can have 15? Can you expect to put 6-8 shots on target within 1 1/2 seconds with a full size? I can't at least not consistently.

I shoot standing still facing the target to simulate....nothing. I move laterally or backwards as I unholster and then put two rounds into the target. Occasionally I move towards the target or at an angle because I try to simulate possibilities. I can put the first two shots "on target" virtually every time. If that doesn't work for me then I guess the FBI will have to study my case rather than the guy who fires 4 shots.
 
I've already mentioned my move from pocket carry to IWB for even the small guns. (I have always used pocket holsters -- with the P3AT and LCP I carried, and with the bigger (almost) pocket guns like the PF9.)

Pocket carry is certainly more convenient, but I've come to believe it is much slower than IWB or belt slide carry, and that just adds time delays when time is already your enemy.

If you have (or have access to) a timer like those used in the gun games, the next time you go to the range have someone time just how long it takes you to bring a pocket gun into play. Listen for the beep and then present your weapon (to shooting level) and fire one shot. Do it as you would were you walking down the street -- not with your hand in your pocket.

I think you (and others here who do use pocket carry) will be surprised -- and possibly disheartened by how much time is needed to get that first shot off. (And since you've got the time, see how long it takes for you to do it, while hitting a nearby target with 2 rounds or 4 rounds, etc.)

A lot of fantasies about what a oersin can and might do often gets put to rest with this exercise...
 
Last edited:
Please go out and test the .380 round before you buy or carry one. It's been said that with modern ammunition, all center fire handgun ammunition is sufficient; that the new designs are almost equal inefficiency, one caliber vs. another. That is so not true. Nothing you can stuff into a .380 case will propel a bullet with enough energy that it is sufficient or efficient.

I've said it here before more than once. I have tested and tested the .380. The best one I came up with was the factory 100 grain hard cast, which is still vastly inefficient. You can't compare a .380 to a 9mm or anything else.

All my testing was done because I desperately wanted to carry one, due to it's size and ease of carry. We can site some occurrences where it saved someone's life. We can talk about the one-stop-shot ballistics that show the 380 is at least in the running. But the reality is, a .380 is not a thing to carry around believing it will get you out of whatever trouble you imagine you might encounter.

Just please test it. Use gelatin, water jugs, denim, wet phonebooks, goats, or whatever. Just please take a look at what it will not and cannot do.
 
All my testing was done because I desperately wanted to carry one, due to it's size and ease of carry. We can site some occurrences where it saved someone's life. We can talk about the one-stop-shot ballistics that show the 380 is at least in the running. But the reality is, a .380 is not a thing to carry around believing it will get you out of whatever trouble you imagine you might encounter.

You have some valid points. However, ALL handguns are a compromise on firearms which are better...or worse. Their performance characteristics are, in fact, "relative" to each other.

For any handgun round out there, someone can name something else that's better. Same goes for long guns.

We make the choices we do based on whatever balance of characteristics we feel are important to us, for whatever reasons we choose. Hopefully, we're making EDUCATED choices, but still...we make them.

And the reality is that the .380 may, indeed, be the thing to carry around believing it will get you out of whatever trouble you imagine you might encounter.

Why?

Because even though the self-aware, autonomous Bolo Mark XXXIII 32,000 ton planetary siege unit with three 200 cm Hellbores and sixteen 30 cm Hellbore infinite repeaters might be the ideal amount of firepower to handle anything I could possibly encounter, the fact remains that it can't fit in my pocket like a .380 can in the places I have to go.

(Exaggeration for humorous point, of course. ;) )

If I can't carry a Bolo, then I'll carry what I can.


I think this is the ultimate point to take away when considering ANY firearm...everything's a balance and a compromise, and what works for you or I may not work for another.


SIDE NOTE:

Among the several phrases I really dislike when talking about firearms is the phrase "one-shot-stop". I rank it right up there with "stopping power" and any number of other catchy phrases that have come about over the years that, in my opinion, really have no real meaning outside of things like sales hype and such. No offense meant in this thread ('cause we are discussing some valid points here), just how I look at such phrases.
 
Posted by short barrel:

It's been said that with modern ammunition, all center fire handgun ammunition is sufficient; that the new designs are almost equal inefficiency, one caliber vs. another.

I don't think i've ever heard that from a credible source. In fact, Grant Cunningham, the author of the article linked in the OP refers, to the near equivalence of the "major" calibers, and acknowledges that the .380 falls short:

In Ellifritz’s studies, the “major” calibers are pretty darned close to each other in terms of actual performance. Close enough, in fact, that they are in a statistical dead heat. The .380, on the other hand, is definitely not the performer that the bigger cartridges are. But the little .380 is still remarkably effective and a whole lot better than anything smaller. ...

Is the .380 half as good as the 9mm? If the data is accurate, it’s actually better than that.

That is so not true.
Right.

Nothing you can stuff into a .380 case will propel a bullet with enough energy that it is sufficient or efficient.
That will depend on circumstance--on what the assailant is wearing, on the direction from which you hit him, on whether you first hit an arm, on the attacker's physical and psychological condition....; Cunningham acknowledges that it is inferior to the others in terms of penetration, but he opines that it's not that bad, and he points out that it does have advantages in terms of recoil in very small guns.

I've said it here before more than once. I have tested and tested the .380. The best one I came up with was the factory 100 grain hard cast, which is still vastly inefficient. You can't compare a .380 to a 9mm or anything else.

All my testing was done because I desperately wanted to carry one, due to it's size and ease of carry.
Thanks for the input.

We can site some occurrences where it saved someone's life. We can talk about the one-stop-shot ballistics that show the 380 is at least in the running.
Yes, people do seem to like to do that.

But the reality is, a .380 is not a thing to carry around believing it will get you out of whatever trouble you imagine you might encounter.
The fact of the matter is, if I ever have to draw and shoot, I am not under the impression that my 9MM will necessarily suffice, or that any other pistol would do so.

First, I have to detect and recognize threat in time. Then I have to draw quickly enough to handle the situation. You can bet that he will not be standing still, or I will most likely have no business shooting at him.

Then, if shooting remains necessary after the draw, I have to shoot fast enough and well enough to stop the subject, who will most likely be moving fast. If a psychological stop does not occur, I have to hit something vital. I've had enough training to know that that will be less a factor of "good shooting" and marksmanship, and more a factor of how a balance of speed and precision will result in effective locations of hits in a stochastic (random) manner.

I have not, however, had so much training that I am not worried about the outcome. No, I do not walk around believing that my firearm will get me out of whatever trouble I imagine I might encounter. Rather, I will try my best for avoidance. The firearm is there only as a last resort.

And should the need ever arise, it will be in a good holster--OWB when I can dress for it, and IWB (same deign) if necessary.

Walt Sherrill made reason for that very clear:

Pocket carry is certainly more convenient, but I've come to believe it is much slower than IWB or belt slide carry, and that just adds time delays when time is already your enemy.

If you have (or have access to) a timer like those used in the gun games, the next time you go to the range have someone time just how long it takes you to bring a pocket gun into play. Listen for the beep and then present your weapon (to shooting level) and fire one shot. Do it as you would were you walking down the street -- not with your hand in your pocket.

I think you (and others here who do use pocket carry) will be surprised -- and possibly disheartened by how much time is needed to get that first shot off. (And since you've got the time, see how long it takes for you to do it, while hitting a nearby target with 2 rounds or 4 rounds, etc.)

Anyone who avails himself or herself of a good defensive pistol shooting course will notice immediately that the equipment requirements rule out pocket guns and pocket carry, though there are sessions for back-up guns here and there.

A number of people I know started out carrying guns in their pockets; some said they had to in their professions. They all happened to choose .380s.

It didn't take them very long to change their minds--and their equipment.
 
Re: the comparative performance of various centerfire rounds and the more common rounds:

Here's a quick summary of the the Ellifritz data. As you can see the .380 does perform well in several categories: as well as .45 in % of hits that were fatal, requiring fewer rounds to incapacitate, beating the .45, 9mm, and .40 for one-shot stops... The one stat that cannot be ignored is that the .380 has a lower % NOT incapacitated...

There are other reasons to be wary of making broad generalizations based on this data:

1) We don't know what sort of guns fired the .380 rounds. Because barrel length is critical in maximizing performance in the smaller calibers, and I would expect the new Remington 1911-380 or a Beretta 84 to greatly outperform a Kel-tec P3AT or Ruger LCP, for example.

2) the number of cases analyzed for the smaller calibers (not all are shown above ) are much lower than the samples used for other calibers. Someone with statistical savvy would have to tell us whether valid projections can be made from such limited data.

CenterfireComparisons-EllifritzStudy_zps9585e525.jpg
 
Anyone have an idea of how long a barrel would be needed to get the maximum velocity out of most .380 loadings before increases drop to less than 40fps?
 
^ don't know about other ammo but BB tests with real guns and this is what I care about.

100gr. HARD cast bullet with a flat nose. It is traveling over 1,150 fps out of my 3.75 inch BDA (Browning Double Action). We've used a flash suppressed powder for all three of our 380 auto loads so that you wont be blinded by your own gunfire if you have to shoot in the dark

1. BDA-3.75 inch barrel--- 1160 fps
 
FWIW, I don't put much stock in the Ellifritz data. There are far too many variables; many details about the shootings were not recorded; and considering the number of variables, the data sample is far too small.

Change the point of impact by a centimeter or two, or the angle of entry by a few degrees, and the effectiveness of a bullet can change markedly.
 
^ don't know about other ammo but BB tests with real guns and this is what I care about.

Coincidently I have 95gr BB loaded in my G42. I have heard, but will try anyway, that the G42 is not as functionally reliable with 100gr. cast. My question about velocity in my previous post is prompted by curiosity of how much can be gotten out of a .380 in a reasonably long pistol barrel. Just so you don't think BB invented the heaviest badass cast bullets loads out there for a .380; I want you to know that thirty-five years ago I frequently shot Lee design 121gr cast handloads in my B84 that would knock over lolipop targets that lighter .380 bullets would not. Those 121s would just barely fit in a .380 case with room for a max charge of powder. Good thing the B84 chamber was a little loose because the case swelled a little when seating the bullet.
 
^ I'm guessing that Lee mold is not available anymore? 121gr .380 load would be interesting to say the least, maybe even a real magic bullet;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top