best .380 defense ammo
- Thread starter jae011
- Start date
- Status
earlthegoat2
Member
Everyone loves trying to convince themselves of how adequate the 380 is for defense.
earlthegoat2
Member
You know what I mean.
I never said I needed the convincing.
I never said I needed the convincing.
Frozen North
Member
I don't buy into the "tests" done by youtube commandos. It seems like there is such a slant on the opinions, they are not worth listening too. One guy says that gold dots don't open, the next guy says they are the best ever. I was researching my ammo choice (win ranger T) and found several reports of them not opening and several more swearing that they were the top dog.
Gold dots always opened for me, despite the negative rap.
Hornady in any form was a poor performer.
Corbon was too expensive to put 150 rounds down range so I didn't bother with it.
Ranger T ammo had extremely low muzzle flash (this is a big thing to me), it expanded every time, those 'talon' hooks look gnarly, and the water jugs popped instead of just sitting there.
You gotta shoot the stuff to make an educated decision.
Gold dots always opened for me, despite the negative rap.
Hornady in any form was a poor performer.
Corbon was too expensive to put 150 rounds down range so I didn't bother with it.
Ranger T ammo had extremely low muzzle flash (this is a big thing to me), it expanded every time, those 'talon' hooks look gnarly, and the water jugs popped instead of just sitting there.
You gotta shoot the stuff to make an educated decision.
Hypnogator
Member
Usetawas. No longer state of the art due to it being easily clogged with clothing. DPXs penetrate better than most JHPs, don't clog.
Earl,people carry these lightweight and slim little pistols because they are SO easy to conceal in practically any mode of dress and can be quite lethal when the chips are down.
Sure we should all lug around a big old honking 45 ACP but from my experience that would not be so practical on a daily basis.
Sure we should all lug around a big old honking 45 ACP but from my experience that would not be so practical on a daily basis.
earlthegoat2
Member
I know why people have them and it is good they do. Im not volunteering to be shot by any of these rounds.
Hypnogator,
Here's one of the better tests that I've seen regarding the 380. Granted it's gelatin but it's the closest that you're going to get without actually shooting people.
Summary of .380ACP ammunition effectiveness against bare and clothed gelatin from Brassfetcher.com:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP ammunition performance in ballistic gelatin.pdf
As you can see, the Hydrashok is the only HP that reaches the FBI minimum at 12 inches, and that's in the summer clothing test.
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
I have found that this argument can go either way. There are pros and cons for all bullets. Since, in my mind, it doesn't matter, I just use whatever factory loads I happen to have in the gun, as long as the loads all shoot well, there really isn't any difference -- what one bullet lacks, the other makes up for and vice-versa!
For that reason, sometimes I will rotate bullets in a defense gun (HP, FMJ, HP, FMJ, etc).
For that reason, sometimes I will rotate bullets in a defense gun (HP, FMJ, HP, FMJ, etc).
Loosedhorse
member
That's true--but brings up the question of whether private citizens should adopt the FBI minimums, especially in calibers that the FBI does not issue.
Perhaps I missed it but no one has yet mentioned that ability to run in your pistol is far more important than terminal ballistics, especially in a small caliber where multiple shots are even more likely than usual. Whatever my "preferred" load, if it didn't cycle my pistol reliably, I'd go on to either another ammo or another pistol. (And that pistol just might be in a larger caliber!
)I have seen some pretty good results from Winchesters PDX1 in the .380. Seems to get between 8"-10" and opens reliably into the .60" + range. For hotter than hell out, cant stand the idea of carrying IWB in summer clothes, it seems like a good choice. My LCP loves them and my local dealer stocks them.
Anyone have any info on the PDX1 line in .380?
-Drew
Anyone have any info on the PDX1 line in .380?
-Drew
The Ranger-T load only gets somewhat less than 8" of penetration in tests, however. If you're comfortable with that, then fine, but from everything I've been able to glean from reading about real shootings, bullets tend to penetrate less in real life than in lab tests (even when using calibrated ballistic gelatin).
How various loads perform when shooting bad guys specifically is what most of us are interested in, though, and conditions vary widely in the relatively few samples we have to work with.
The FBI standard for penetration depth is based on maximizing the effectiveness of handgun calibers, so I think that it applies equally to civilians and LEOs. It does NOT take into account the various barriers tested by the FBI test protocols whatsoever, if that's what anybody is thinking. In other words, they're not saying that a bullet needs to penetrate at least 12" so that it can penetrate certain barriers and still be effective--they're saying that whether there is a barrier of any kind or not a bullet must penetrate at least 12" into flesh to be considered sufficiently effective for defensive use. Furthermore, they say that up to 18" is preferred over 12"--the latter is really a bare minimum as opposed to the ideal penetration depth.
This has nothing to do with the minimum penetration standard, which applies to any bullet of any caliber that does not have sufficient energy to cause significant wounding through kinetic energy (and may well apply to more powerful calibers to some degree as well). It's all about what bullets do to people, not what the FBI happens to issue, although obviously they will follow their own standards and guidelines when choosing their duty load.
Frozen North
Member
I think that reliable cycling is much more important than what it does to Jell-O in someones tests.... You gotta shoot the stuff.
380 is barely adequate, no whiz bang ammo is gonna change that. Reliable cycling, excessive recoil and crazy muzzle flash in micro compact pistols are the main issue IMHO. If you only worry about what bullet is gonna blast the biggest hole, you are missing the big picture.
You gotta shoot the stuff to make an educated decision. .380 pistols can be very unforgiving of a poor ammo choice.
Deepwoods
Member
Federal Personal Defense
Tom Nash did some testing on the Federal Personal Denfense Hydra-shok 90 gr. It clocked at 582 fps and he states he got penetration of 12" in balistic gel. (go to FIRING LINE search Tom Nash for the whole test results). I tried them in my LCP and never got a hiccup. I carry the little 380 as a front pocket piece with a in pocket holster. In the truck and when getting out in the woods I pack my Taurus 357 seven shot titanium, kicks like hell, but I can keep it on a 8" pie plate at 25 yrds (off a rest).
Tom Nash did some testing on the Federal Personal Denfense Hydra-shok 90 gr. It clocked at 582 fps and he states he got penetration of 12" in balistic gel. (go to FIRING LINE search Tom Nash for the whole test results). I tried them in my LCP and never got a hiccup. I carry the little 380 as a front pocket piece with a in pocket holster. In the truck and when getting out in the woods I pack my Taurus 357 seven shot titanium, kicks like hell, but I can keep it on a 8" pie plate at 25 yrds (off a rest).
jae011
Member
I understand the thought behind using fmj due to better penetration and that jhp in .380 may or may not expand.It seems it would be better though if there is a chance of some expansion versus having to hit vital organs for fmj to be effective. Im not saying being hit with fmj is not effective but some expansion is better than none.
May try these.I just use Remington Express JHP's.
Several good ones out there.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ5IkL7f2gs
Several good ones out there.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ5IkL7f2gs
unobrownsfan
Member
Another vote for Buffalo Bore FMJ flat nose.
Loosedhorse
member
You miss the point.Manco said:
Folks carrying a .380 have (by that selection alone) already told us that they are not bound by the FBI standards on what weapon to carry---why should we assume that they will then reverse themselves and be bound by the FBI standards on ammo selection?
Private citizens are probably correct to assume (although nothing's certain) their fight will look different than an FBI fight, as their gun represents a last-ditch defense toward an attacker who is likely closing distance. They are also right to assume that any over-penetrative pass-through causing injury of an innocent will involve more liability for them personally than for an FBI agent, and is more likely to involve a member of their family; so a bias toward lower penetration is understandable.
In other words, one can demand a 12 inch (or 18 inch, to avoid the "bare minimum") depth penetration for a carry load, just like one can demand that 9 or .38 is the bare minumum for a defensive caliber. But not everyone will follow that, and some will have considered reasons for making that compromise.
And +1, Frozen North.
Woo-hoo! Free pass to dish out preemptive vigilante justice in the name of science!
Or not.
Well, yes, of course!
But after reliability in importance comes terminal ballistics, and while "Jell-O" can only tell us so much, it's one of the few limited tools we have that can tell us anything at all.Myself, I'm more concerned about getting adequate penetration with .380 ACP, given good reliability. Fortunately, the best penetrating rounds tend to be the most reliable as well--if I used .380 ACP I'd probably go with FMJ rounds. The few fancy JHPs that barely reach the minimum standard for penetration do so by barely expanding, so in my view what's the point? We might as well go with really good penetration and excellent reliability instead.
Verifying the reliability of a specific defensive load is a necessity with any caliber, in my opinion. Perhaps more so for .380 ACP, but I'd treat all calibers the same in this regard anyway. I guess that's why I took it for granted in this discussion.
On the other hand, "some" expansion may not help a lot and could hurt more if it compromises penetration too much. With non-expanding bullets, at least we could be reasonably assured of adequate--even excellent--penetration.
I guess I must have, and I think that you may be missing my point, too.
Well, if the FBI's penetration standards are valid ones (I think so) and .380 ACP can meet those standards despite its limitations (I think so), then why not use them as guidelines to help maximize the effectiveness of one's personal defense weapon? I think the latter is what many if not most people would like to do regardless of their choice of caliber.
I think that you're assuming a lot by suggesting or implying that those who choose .380 ACP disagree with the FBI's standard. Some may disagree, and they can do whatever they want because nobody is "bound" to follow any standard. But there are many valid and unrelated reasons to choose a .380 ACP weapon, and this does not in any way imply that the FBI standard does not apply the way it would to any caliber, nor that users of .380 ACP weapons do not wish to meet the standard if possible--an individual may or may not, regardless of caliber.
It's understandable, but I disagree with the choice for a variety of reasons, which I probably won't go deeply into here because it's a whole rather involved topic unto itself. All I'll say is that I think the purpose of the FBI's penetration standard is to stop a fight as quickly as possible by making each hit count as much as possible, thereby limiting the amount of damage done by both sides. The main difference between civilians and LEOs is that the latter are more likely to be involved in shootouts, while the former will usually be able to repel bad guys even with totally ineffective bullets (or blanks, for that matter...sometimes even an unloaded gun will work). That said, those who wish to be able to stop a determined attacker (it happens--civilians are murdered out of rage or hatred all the time) would be better served, in my opinion, by ammunition that meets the FBI's penetration standard for LEO use (or comes as close to it as possible, given a caliber's limitations); those who don't care about that can use anything they want.
Last edited:
Maine is full of skinners.
You could shoot at pretty much anybody who doesn't clearly (clearly, if they just slightly resemble it you're probably in the clear) suffer from Down's Syndrome and is wearing thickish glasses or anyone 20 and older who looks truly suspect and be just about guaranteed to be doing a favor to the children of the area.
You could shoot at pretty much anybody who doesn't clearly (clearly, if they just slightly resemble it you're probably in the clear) suffer from Down's Syndrome and is wearing thickish glasses or anyone 20 and older who looks truly suspect and be just about guaranteed to be doing a favor to the children of the area.
- Status
Similar threads
