BushyGuy
Member
Corbon 90 gr +P JHP
best .380 defense ammo
- Thread starter jae011
- Start date
- Status
Lord Palmerston
Member
If you use .380 for personal defense, bullet placement should be your primary concern, rather than reliable expansion, over or underpenetration and so on. That said, almost any factory ammo manufactured in the USA (COR BON, Speer, Federal, Remington, Hornady, Winchester, etc,) and some made in Europe (Fiocchi, GECO, Nobel...) will do the job. Bear in mind that there is always a certain risk of ricocheting if you load FMJ rounds though.
But this is true of any handgun caliber, and the topic of this thread is ammo. Where .380 ACP comes into play is in deciding what type of ammo to use in order to maximize its effectiveness, but even then the same criteria for wounding factors apply, regardless of caliber.
They'll do the job slightly differently, though, which is the topic of this thread.
Well, most JHPs I've seen behave pretty much like FMJs unless they encounter something soft and wet.
jae011
Member
it seems like ones who are advocates of fmj for defense rounds in .380 dont give the round much credit to start with
Loosedhorse
member
If "the job" is stopping the attack, it's binary: they'll do the job or they won't. If the attack continues, do we care that the load failed slightly differently?
Big if. Again, valid for whom? The FBI designed its recommendations for a specific (and captive) audience.
What we know for sure is that the standards are arbitrary. 12 in is "acceptable," even though 18 is "preferred"? 11 3/4 is unacceptably below minimum? Hey, I get that if you're making a recommendation, you have to pick some value--I'm just not sure why their opinon should inspire a "Word of G-d" reverence.
So, the FBI recommendation for 25 ACP is...?
Fair enough. But most carrying a .380 are probably choosing it for concealment, contemplating use against an attacker who will likely begin a 180 as soon as he sees any firearm.
If a .380 carrier told me he was concerned about determined attackers, perhaps I'd do him a bigger favor by suggesting .40 rather than that he switch from a 90 to a 95 grain .380?
schnarrgj
Member
http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP%20ammunition%20performance%20in%20ballistic%20gelatin.pdfhttp://
This is a very interesting article. I use the CorBon DPX. I understand the FBI requirements, I understand what a handgun is capable of doing. Having seen many GSWs the 380 is what both my wife and I carry the most.
This is a very interesting article. I use the CorBon DPX. I understand the FBI requirements, I understand what a handgun is capable of doing. Having seen many GSWs the 380 is what both my wife and I carry the most.
Either that or we like to have some penetration margin, and honestly that's a tall order for .380 ACP with expanding rounds. Others prefer more limited penetration, so JHPs work fine for them.
That's not how probability works, though. Loads that perform differently may very well have different probabilities of success. With a marginal caliber such as .380 ACP, some of us believe that deeper penetration makes its probability of success greater than using expanding bullets, while others believe that the opposite is true (or prefer to limit penetration for other reasons entirely, such as safety for bystanders).
What these probabilities actually are is extremely difficult to quantify, which is why they're being debated in relative terms (i.e. which is the higher of the two, or in other words more effective?), but regardless you can't just say that it's "binary" and thereby imply that both probabilities are 50%! That's what you're doing whether you realize it or not. It's like rolling a six-sided die and saying that it will either come up as 3 or not, so it's "binary," when the actual probabilities of these two outcomes are 17% for 3 and 83% for not 3, which is quite a difference.
Nobody is captive and nobody has to agree with their findings. My point was simply that their penetration standard is independent of caliber--not entirely independent of purpose, though, and I've addressed this issue already in previous posts. Whether you agree with them or not, the FBI says that a bullet needs to penetrate at least 12" and preferably up to 18" in order to maximize its wounding potential. This is based solely on the size of the human body while at the same time taking into account things such as odd angles and the possibility of needing to penetrate an arm (not uncommon when the bad guy is shooting back) or leg in order to reach vital organs. Caliber is only a factor when we're choosing which load to use--some calibers need FMJ rounds to meet the FBI standard, while others can use JHP rounds. If you don't care for this standard, then use your own standard and choose a load based on that.
At some level they have to be, that's true, but they're not entirely arbitrary because they are based on human physiology, as described above. It wasn't my intention to debate the FBI standard, however, just to point out that it's a widely accepted standard that is as applicable to .380 ACP as it is to any other pistol caliber.
I would surmise that 18" covers virtually every strange angle at which a bullet may strike a typical human body and still reach the vital organs, including limbs that may get in the way. 12" is more arbitrary and probably covers the vast majority of cases while reducing the hazard of overpenetration. I bet that it's just enough to penetrate an arm and still reach the heart from the side, which is what infamously failed to happen in one instance during the Miami shootout. In my opinion, that is a reasonable minimum to aim for, although like the FBI, I prefer 18" to cover all the bases.
It's nothing like that at all--I'm just saying that whatever its validity, it is not based on caliber. In addition, I would have come up with similar numbers based on my own explanations above, but while nobody cares about what I say, they may (and often do) listen when the FBI speaks from their own experience. Their approach to the issue appears to match mine, which is convenient for me most of the time.
So, the FBI recommendation for 25 ACP is...?
Oh-ho, you're a barrel of laughs today!
So what do they need ammo for?
Ah, so here is another area in which our perspectives differ--given adequate penetration, I don't think there is a big difference in effectiveness between any of the common pistol calibers.
Shot placement and penetration reign supreme for all of them. I'm not saying that there is no difference, but their probabilities differ by only a few percentage points because all pistol bullets are small in comparison to the human body.Loosedhorse
member
Actually, in an attack, that's exactly now it'll work: success or failure. I grant you trial-by-armchair is different...
No, I didn't imply that, although it could be (dopeyly) inferred. And spare us all the implication that we need a pedantic primer on the probability of dice, huh? In the overall determinants of gunfight outcome (from awareness, use of cover, accuracy, number of shots fired, caliber choice, etc.) how much influence do you think a 95 gr FMJ vs a 90 gr HP has?
So, FBI agents are free to choose whatever they want, no matter FBI regs?
It was my intention to debate whether we do well to generalize them to private, defensive users. I understand the stance of "the FBI says so," but I also understand the stance of those who wish to decide for themselves.
To an extent, sure. Also based on assumptions--that may not apply as often to us--about angle of entry, intermediate barriers--and then a lot of arbitrary decisions (like 12 inch min, instead of 10, instead of 18).
To the extent that we conclude that the penetration of one of Agent Dove's bullets was the key factor in that disaster--or even a major factor--IMHO we do a disservice to those agents injured and killed that day. But, sure, if you're planning on doing felony car stops against .223-armed bank robbers, go for penetrative handgun rounds.
Interesting that, when a counter-example reveals the invalidity of you're "the recs cover all calibers" approach, you decide to be dismissive.
.223s are even smaller!
You are correct, we differ. But I appreciate the careful discussion. Thanks.
Actually, in an attack, that's exactly now it'll work: success or failure. I grant you trial-by-armchair is different...
No, I didn't imply that, although it could be (dopeyly) inferred.
There was nothing else to infer. So what were you trying to say? Please spell it out for dopey people like me.
You also said that it doesn't matter why a round fails, just that it failed. I think that such a statement pretty much speaks for itself....
The arguments that you made indicated a need. If you didn't need it, then why did you say what you did? Note that this probably seems ruder than I actually intend, but I'm not sure how else to say it.
In the big picture, it is but one consideration of many. That said, in a shooting incident, if the deeper-penetrating round actually reaches and damages vital tissues that another round would not have reached, given identical shot placement, then the choice of ammo can have a profound influence.
Although it varies from case to case, on a relative scale I would say that load selection is more important overall than caliber selection. Even so, naturally load selection is especially critical in less powerful calibers since there is less momentum and energy to work with. FMJ rounds penetrate significantly deeper, but trade off expansion. Since they behave differently from JHP rounds, it is likely that they differ in overall effectiveness, as well. This is perhaps more true for .380 ACP than more powerful calibers in the big picture because most JHP loads in this caliber only achieve around 8" of penetration, which is starting to get pretty shallow (which is subjective, I realize) for the typical size of the intended target.
With the odd exception, I think it's a safe bet that most of us here are not FBI agents, although even they can choose whatever they want for their personal firearms.
Regarding the intended audience of the FBI report that recommended 12-18 inches of penetration, it was all of law enforcement, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no applicability for civilian use. The goal of the penetration standard specifically is to maximize terminal effectiveness of pistol shots, regardless of the audience they had in mind. For civilians who wish to do the same, here is what the FBI thinks, take it or leave it. And for civilians who wish to maximize bystander safety instead, do whatever you think is best.
So do I, but meaning no offense, the way you presented your case opened the door for all kinds of confusing and distracting arguments from both sides.
All of which I have already gladly acknowledged.
None of us can predict how the target will move in a real shooting, so I think that this is broadly applicable.
If I haven't stated this before (I thought I did), then I'll state it now--the well-known FBI penetration standard has nothing to do with penetrating barriers. It only concerns how far they think a bullet needs to penetrate through a human body in order to maximize its wounding potential (and this implies through-penetration--just barely). Regardless of whether barriers must be penetrated along the way or not, they're saying that 12-18 inches of penetration into flesh is required--these numbers are NOT influenced by barriers whatsoever.
Barriers don't enter the picture at all until we consider the FBI test protocols for ammunition, which is a separate matter. What they do is place each of a specified set of barriers (which includes simulated clothing and no barrier at all) in front of a block of calibrated ballistic gelatin, shoot through each barrier separately, and record the resulting penetration depth that corresponds to each barrier. What they look for in a duty load for their own agents is 12-18 inches--the same numbers as always--of penetration into gelatin for every single barrier that was penetrated during the test.
Those who do not care about barrier penetration can completely ignore most of the data, and focus their attention on the results for bare gelatin and/or simulated clothing alone, for which the penetration standard is still the very same 12-18 inches. Maybe you didn't mean the following, but in general I keep seeing the notion that the 12-18 inches figure somehow takes barriers into account, but that is simply not the case at all. Nor does it have anything to do with the FBI's choice of caliber, which was done by different people within the FBI for whatever reasons you can imagine.
To the extent that we conclude that the penetration of one of Agent Dove's bullets was the key factor in that disaster--or even a major factor--IMHO we do a disservice to those agents injured and killed that day. But, sure, if you're planning on doing felony car stops against .223-armed bank robbers, go for penetrative handgun rounds.
The Miami shootout made the FBI realize that they weren't getting all they could out of their handguns. The penetration standard they recommended as a result is only one narrowly-focused aspect of the huge fallout resulting from this incident, but it is perhaps the one aspect that has the broadest applicability. All the other crap that surrounds the shootout such as the blame game and the change of caliber are irrelevant to this discussion, as we're talking about pistol ammo as opposed to tactics.
Wow...I was NOT being dismissive at all--I honestly believed that you were joking around with that question, and I thought it was funny, that's all.
So you seriously wanted me to answer that question (even though it was originally followed by a smiley)?Alright, the simple answer is that the FBI does not have different penetration standards for different calibers, just like I've been saying all along. Penetration is more important than bullet diameter anyway, so why would they? See for yourself (page 11):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
They're all small, although centerfire rifle rounds shot out of rifles are generally far more energetic and may wound in additional ways. While the FBI still tends to apply the same penetration standard to rifle rounds, the standard was really created with pistol rounds (that do virtually all of their damage via direct contact) in mind.
Loosedhorse
member
I don't think I presented it that way, but perception is sometimes more important than intention. I apologize.
Yes, to the defender engaged in a fight for his life, I think the round's effect will seem binary--stopped the fight or didn't--and the reason for the failure (e.g., wrong caliber vs wrong load) won't matter much to the defender (or his family) if he dies as a result. Clearer?
I would respectfully disagree. To me, an emphasis on better tactics has the broadest applicability, and upgrading from handguns to long guns when the situation requires is next.
Enter what picture? They are a potential part of any encounter; even a forearm is a pretty important barrier for a bullet headed COM--or doesn't that count?
Again, nothing I said implied such a need, although you inferred it. I certainly could infer whatever remedial education needs for you that I please, but I'd rather assume that you know what you're talking about--even when you express it imperfectly--and that we just have different opinions based on what data we emphasize and how we interpert that data.
Isn't that the High Road thing to do?
Last edited:
fasttheo
Member
I currently carry Remington Golden Saber, but I really like the Hornady XTP round, I found it to be accurate and a flawless feeder in my PPK/S. I would recommend either round based on my own shooting experience, I can't speak for the many expansion/penetration tests out there, as many of them seem contradictory, especially in regard to the GS. Personally, I would feel comfortable with either the Golden Saber or the Hornady XTP as a carry round. Good luck.
trickyasafox
Member
For the money I'd take magtech. I tried a few out of a ruger LCP in an expansion test I did on my blog.
if anyone cares, replace the ** with it
http://gunzandsh**.blogspot.com/2011/02/380-ruger-lcp-shootout.html
if anyone cares, replace the ** with it
http://gunzandsh**.blogspot.com/2011/02/380-ruger-lcp-shootout.html
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Remington's 102 grain "Golden Sabre" JHP's~! 
griff383
Member
The winchester PDX-1s shoot just fine outta my LCP and at 7 yards they are all on the paper, with most in 6 inch circle. Its no howitzer but Ill take the 380 over a stick and whistle and the hope that someone responds to my girl like screams.
This aspect has always been clear, but the natural implication that the effectiveness of the rounds that one uses doesn't matter is rather questionable. You can't say one without implying the other, and in this case the implication happens to be far more relevant to the topic of this thread.
I had civilians in mind, who are less likely to get into shootouts.
The context is the FBI penetration standard, which only takes into account the human body and the various parts thereof (no external barriers). My point was that the standard is still applicable even when people don't care about penetrating barriers. We don't have to abide by it, of course, but if we do then it does not assume any barriers outside of the body.
It is part of the human body, so it does count as far as the FBI penetration standard is concerned. External barriers (i.e. not part of the body), however, are a separate matter entirely.
I fully assumed that you (or anybody here) are aware of basic probability, and I'm sorry if you felt offended (i.e. inferred a deliberate insult where there was none) by my use of an analogy to illustrate a point I was trying to make. Then again, what you said made so little sense in the context of this thread that in hindsight what I should have done was let it speak for itself (even at the risk of appearing to agree with it).
Don't get lost
Do not get lost in the hum drum of the "I know best", all it will do it put you at the lower end of adequate! For hells sake the FBI vs whatever is enough to give you a "STUPID" episode. WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do not get lost in the hum drum of the "I know best", all it will do it put you at the lower end of adequate! For hells sake the FBI vs whatever is enough to give you a "STUPID" episode. WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr_B
member
For most situations when I need to switch to a small .380 pistol, I just go with FMJ. If its serving as a BUG for a larger gun, I use the critical defense ammo. It won't cycle well in all my .380's though.
Don't you place certain expectations on the terminal effects of the loads you use?
- Status
Similar threads
