.380 vs .38 Special

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

For all the Cartridge Vs. Cartridge BS, you have to do what you are comfortable with.

The Sig P232 is an amazing gun. Probably the best single stack 380 ever, though the original Walther 'PP' would give it a hard run for its money.

"Large" 380 Vs. 38 snubby, per BBTI:
*****
cart - 380acp / 38spl
barrel - 3.6" / 2"
Bullet - 85gr / 135
Velcty - 920 / 920
enrgy - 160lb / 250lb

Both of those figure sets are for Speer 'Gold Dot' hollow points. The 38 clearly makes more power thanks to its much heavier bullet ... but when run the figures again with 'hot' ammunition for both pistols, you see a dramatic reversal. The 38 snubby just doesn't have the barrel length to take advantage of the extra powder, and the velocity suffers dramatically in comparison.

In fact, even with a slightly heavier bullet, the 38 looses the power game when stoked with hot ammo. According to the 'real weapon' velocities from BBTI, it would take a revolver with a 4" barrel just to match the energy figures produced from weapons like the Bersa Thunder or the Walther PPK.

Basically, it's a trade off. The two platforms are close enough in overall performance that the one which prevails depends on what ammunition is being used in the gun.

I would keep both platforms, because they are both great platforms. The only think I would do in your shoes OP, it trade the Bersa in towards a Sig 232 - the Bersa is a good gun, but the Sig is a better version of the same thing.

No matter how you slice it, having a S&W snubby AND a Sig compact pistol is a very good think

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

HARDLY! The sub-compact pistols are lucky to make 800fps with standard 230gr loads. Even with defensive ammunition the can barely get there.

THAT MEANS THAT THE MIGHTY 45 IS MAKING LESS THAN 300 FOOT POUNDS FROM A COMPACT BARREL IN MANY LOADINGS.

Compare to +P 380 that can make 250 foot pounds from a real world gun, and the difference is certainly nothing like double the power - more like +14%.

I know this is the internet, but shall we stop reading info off of the cartridge box, and start using data that at least approximates reality?

 

[Kliegl]

Also, why is a 3.6 inch barreled .380 being compared against a 2 inch 38 and not a 3 or 4 inch?

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

A) I DID compare a 4" 38 to the 380 above - and the 380 can still equal it in some situations.

B) Because the OP is talking about comparing a 3.6" 380 and a 2" 38spl

Why are people not reading the thread before they post?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

If you are going to talk numbers only:::
Using Remington numbers for both, not the designer stuff. It's all shot from a 4" barrel according to Remington.

Remington Home Defense:
.380 Auto 102gr bullet, MV 940 fps, ME 200 ft/lbs
.38 Special +P 125gr bullet, MV 975 fps, ME 264 ft/lbs

Remington Golden Saber:
.380 Auto 102gr bullet, MV 940 fps, ME 200 ft/lbs
.38 Special +P 125gr bullet, MV 975 fps, ME 264 ft/lbs

Remington Express:
.380 Auto 88gr bullet, MV 990 fps, ME 191 ft/lbs
.380 Auto 95gr bullet, MV 955 fps, ME 190 ft/lbs
.38 Special 110gr bullet, MV 995 fps, ME 242 ft/lbs
.38 Special 125gr bullet, MV 945 fps, ME 248 ft/lbs
.38 Special +P 158gr bullet, MV 890 fps, ME 278 ft/lbs

If you are going only by numbers the .38 Special wins hands down for energy produced. I've always been a fan of heavier bullets because they usually do a better job than lighter ones. When carrying a .38 Special I like a 158gr bullet over a 110gr or 125gr bullet. I do however like the short barrel 135gr GDHP load from Speer in a J frame.

 

[Kliegl]

Maple City, I read the thread, I always do, but I am still entitled to question bad decisions/data.

 

[wnycollector]

Also, why is a 3.6 inch barreled .380 being compared against a 2 inch 38 and not a 3 or 4 inch?

I think because a J frame and a P232 are very similar in length, width and height. When I compared to my aluminum Beretta 84 to my steel S&W M36 I was shocked how close in size and loaded weight both guns were. I really like the 13+1 .380 vs my 5 shot J frame.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Frankly, Scarlet, I don't care WHEN a post was started, or who resurrects it, as long as it's still interesting and pertinent. Why does it matter how old it is, as long as the guns in question have not become obsolete?

 

[DBR]

RE the barrel lengths:
The barrel length of a semi auto includes the chamber. The barrel length of a revolver DOES NOT include the cylinder.

A J frame with a 1 7/8" barrel measured the same as a 380 auto would have approx a 3 3/8" barrel.

The 380 was designed for a 4" barrel (as measured for a semi auto) the 38spl was originally designed for about a 6" barrel (as measured for revolvers). The 380 is at least within its design parameters in small guns. The 38spl is not.

This does not mean the 38spl won't work out of short barreled guns. It just means it is not very efficient.

If a heavy bullet is desired then the 38spl is first choice. If best size vs performance is the choice then the 380 has the edge IMO.

ADDED: the velocity and energy figures posted by ArchAngelCD for the 38spl are not from comparable barrel lengths. Remember they are not measured the same way. Take about 100fps off his figures and recalculate the differences. With respect to energy levels they are trivial.

I agree that in short barrels heavier bullets tend to lose less than lighter bullets if only because they have less powder to burn.

 

[Kliegl]

I would call baloney on counting a chamber for one and not the other. Physics doesn't work that way.

 

[DBR]

I am only stating what is. Yes, a revolver has a vented barrel but the venting doesn't change the fact that measured from the breach face you have to include the cylinder length to get comparable barrel lengths between revolver and semi auto.

 

[valnar]

Everybody modern .38sp revolver can handle +P loads. I wouldn't even use a standard .38sp cartridge for self-defense. That should make the disparity even greater.

 

[1911Tuner]

Although long considered to be a pipsqueak barely suitable for killing rats, the .380 ACP isn't a joke, and perfectly capable of ruining your entire day, as is the old standard .38 Special RNL offering. The .38 standard pressure 158 SWC ramps it up a bit, but it may be hard to find.

Due to the lack of bullet mass, penetration is compromised, and the .380 is probably at its best with FMJ ammunition. Energy figures don't mean much if the bullet stops in fat and muscle.

Comparing it to the .38 Special is a little unfair. Advantage goes to the .38 on penetration alone because it can be loaded with much heavier bullets than the .380 cartridge.

Like the ever-popular snub-nosed .38 revolver, the small .380 Auto isn't a sidearm that one would take to a gunfight, but it was never meant to be. As a personal, last-ditch life-saving tool, it has a lot to offer...but it's not a "combat" weapon and it's not a target pistol. Its venue is for one of those frantic "Up to your Kiester in Komodos" moments at breath-sniffin' distances...and in that role, it'll do.

 

[savit260]

I would call baloney on counting a chamber for one and not the other. Physics doesn't work that way.

Call baloney all you like, but that's exactly how the manufacturers measure barrel length.

On a revolver it's measured from the forcing cone to the muzzle, and on a auto loader it's from the back of the chamber to the muzzle.

A 3 1/2" barrel auto loader is in the same size class as a 2" snub.

I'd be willing to bet that a 95 gr bullet loaded in a 2" snub would post very similar results as a factory 95gr .380 load out of a 3 1/2" barrel.

 

[Kliegl]

I don't particularly care how a gun manufacturer measures a barrel. It is what it is.

The only data I would care about is how gun X, with a barrel however you want to measure it, stacks up against gun Y, when cartridges of known powder and bullet grain are shot through it and chronographed. There's data that matters, and there's data that doesn't.

 

[BSA1]

Being a C&R holder my pocket caliber is 9 X 18 as I get good deals on surplus guns. My current line of thought places penetration over expansion so I load them with FMJ. Plus the better feeding relibility of ball ammo. When winter coming heavy outerwear will be common in my area.

Like other posters if your Bersa works 100% why trade it?

 

[antiquus]

BBTI measures and publishes all barrel length data the same way - measured from the back of the chamber. So for a .38 2" snubbie, read BBTI's data for a 3" barrel.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Maple City, I read the thread, I always do, but I am still entitled to question bad decisions/data.

Yes you are ... and that may have been what you intended to type, but what you actually did type sure looks to be a question which flies in the face of this threads premise. In a typed medium like this, I think you can understand how I reached my conclusion. To make matters worse, drive by posting is a huge problem on internet forums in general. Sorry for the miscommunication.

If you want to talk about bad data, lets pick on ArchAngel in post #30 - comparing only +P 38s to standard pressure 380s. That is classic apples to oranges, and it confuses a lot of people who read these threads expecting good information.

I'm not trying to defame AA's character, I'm sure hes a great guy... but that comparison is just not a valid one. When you compare 38+P to 380+P in the same barrel length, again you see equivalent numbers.

BBTI measures and publishes all barrel length data the same way - measured from the back of the chamber. So for a .38 2" snubbie, read BBTI's data for a 3" barrel.

Not entirely true. BBTI also lists numbers from real weapons. That is the data I have been using to make my comparisons.

Buffalo Bore lists their 380+P 100gr @ 1,160 from a real weapon with a 3.75" tube, not a 4" test barrel. That is closely in line with 38spl +P numbers, and actually exceeds the energy of the 125gr 38 load.

I'm not making the claim that 380 is better. I am making the claim that 380acp and 38spl are functionally equivalent when ammunition of like kind are used. There is a lot of evidence to support that, and it is already present in this thread.