Has anyone gone from a small .38 to a small .380 for primary CCW?

[Erich]

A friend and I had a discussion yesterday about the relative merits of small .380s (PPKs, etc.) and small .38s (J-frames, D-frames). Clearly, each type of gun has its pluses (the small .380s reload faster, carry a bit more ammo, have single-action follow-up shots; the small .38s hit harder, draw faster from a pocket holster, are probably more reliable). But we got to wondering:

Has anyone here changed carry method from a small .38 revolver to a small .380 semiauto? If so, what were the guns in question, the carry loads used, the carry methods used, and the rationale for your change?

Thanks and happy Easter!
erich

 

[bradvanhorn]

Actually I changed from a S&W 638 (38spl) to a Kel-Tec P-11 (9mm). The Kel-Tec is easier for me to conceal, and carries twice as much ammo. I also have a Kel-Tec P-3AT (380acp), but I reserve that weapon for unbearably hot days when I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Nevertheless, I still prefer to carry my Kimber Custom CDP, and will try to carry that gun if I can comfortably conceal it given the weather and my choice of clothes.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

My Gov 380 with Rem 102's fits smoother in my Suit Coat jacket pocket then a Detective's Special. Remember, it is about dressing around the gun and not forcing the gun into the dress code. In this case, a Suit and Tie was required, therefore a Jacket, and considering the area, I had to drop to a 380.

 

[Texas Gun Runner]

I see nothing wrong with changing from a .38 to a .380, considering the ease of carrying reloads and speed of reloading, but have you considered a subcompact 9mm, such as the new Para-Ordnance Hawg 9mm? Granted, it's not as slim as a Walther PPK or PPKS, but it could also be a viable option.

 

[Bear Gulch]

They perform comparably in a rough manner. Why not move to a 9?

 

[denfoote]

For in town carry, I hoof a KT P3AT.
I live in a small rural town and really don't see the need to carry anything larger!!

However, everywhere else, gets the G26!!!

 

[MrMurphy]

I had a S&W 649 .38 (non +P) and went to a Bersa .380 for my "barber-shop-and-library visit" gun i.e Non Big Gun days.

My Glock 30 was/is still my primary piece and now my only piece.

The Bersa went to a friend's sister as her carry gun.

The change was because the older 649 wouldn't take +Ps.

If I ever get another pocket piece (going into Air Force Security Forces, won't be able to CCW much) it'll be a +P capable S&W 642 .38 since the small wheelgun is still superior as a pocket piece (the Bersa was a slim belt gun).

 

[Zeke Menuar]

I have not gone directly from a snubby to a 380 auto. I carried a Rossi M677 357 on and off for 3 years. Nothing wrong with the gun. The guy behind the gun could hit anything with it. Traded it off in 2001? and went to a LW Commander for full time carry. I traded for a CZ-83 last summer. That is my secondary and/or lazy-man's carry gun. Heavier than a snubby but just as easy to hide and holds much more ammo. The LW Commander is still my primary CCW gun. Much as I like revolvers as a piece of gun engineering, I prefer autos for carry and self defense.

That being said, I would still like an old school round butt 3" J-frame. I guess I'll never learn.

That is my opinion, your opinion may vary.

ZM

 

[38snapcaps]

As a matter of fact, I just did!

I carried a Bersa .380 for a year. I talked myself into a S&W snub .38. After a year I sold it and went back to the Bersa.

Here's why:
The Bersa is slimmer, easier to IWB carry.

The Bersa has more bullets.

I found I could shoot the .380 much faster on the draw and subsequent shots.

I shoot the Bersa more accurately, even out to fifty feet, couldn't hit anything with the snub beyond ten feet.

The Bersa is very comfortable to shoot for extended periods, two or three boxes are fun and easy on the hand. The snub started to hurt halfway thru the first box and by the end the cylinder latch and the grip was scuffing my thumb raw. I can't see carrying a gun I can't practice with without aspirin and bandaids.

The Bersa is so easy to clean. The snub has too many holes to clean and in general its a dirty shooting gun. I know that's not real critical but if one dreads the cleaning it discourages shooting it, for me anyway.

The double action trigger with the Bersa was smoother and lighter. The single action action is very nice.

 

[bubbygator]

Whether I pickup my P3AT or my S&W 422 is purely a matter of choice to fit whatever clothes I may be wearing. I feel comfortable with either.

 

[Erich]

Thanks for the info, everyone.

There was never any consideration of my friend or I doing this - I mostly carry a G26, myself - we were just wondering if anyone had and why. 38snapcaps, thank you in particular for your reply.

 

[Jim PHL]

I just did the opposite, going from a P3AT to a M37. Tho mine was apparently more reliable than many who've posted KT problems, it was actually the ammo rather than the platform that made me change. I know neither the .380 or .38 spl. is ideal and I carry my .45 when I am dressed for "belt carry", but I prefer the 125/135/158 gr JHP's and +P capability of the wheelie vs. the 95 gr. .380 I was carrying in the Kel-Tec

 

[Kevinch]

I sold one of these:

then bought & began to carry one of these:



Actually, my Mustang is a Pocketlite but this is close enough...

I like my Taurus .38 Special - it was accurate for a little snub & I shot it well - but it was just too bulky, & slightly heavy, more me to carry in a deep cover mode. The Mustang slips easily into a pocket and I carry it much more than I did the little Taurus.

Of course, neither one is an ideal carry caliber in my mind. But for those times when a larger weapon is not an option, I like the Pocketlite. Too bad Colt decided to stop production!

 

[Shane333]

I just want to clear something up. The belief that, "the small .38s hit harder," is incorrect. Short barreled .38 revolvers give you no advantage in knockdown power over the average .380. With the longer barrels (4 inches or longer), the .38 is more powerful than the .380.

With that in mind, there are obvious advantages in using the .380 over the .38 snubby. As mentioned there is concealability, faster reloads, more capacity, etc.

I guess I find it amusing that some people will criticise the stopping power of .380s while packing a short barreled .38 that has the same power with lower ammo capacity.

The real question should be:
Considering they share almost the exact same "stopping power", why wouldn't you consider switching from the small .38s to the .380?

 

[38snapcaps]

Shane you reminded of me something I should add to this discussion:

One day at work I found a bunch of electrical box covers in a dumpster. They were about three inches or so in diameter, even came with a little hole for hanging on a target board. I used them for CCW practice.

Interestingly, from twenty feet or less, a .380 put the same dent in the metal as did a .38. Interestingly a .22lr made the same depth of dent, only not as large in diameter.

 

[Shane333]

Very interesting, 38snapcaps. That sounds like a fun and interesting barnyard ballistics test to try.

I don't mean to talk down the potential power of the .38. Like I said, with 4 inch barrels, the .38 does have more power than the .380. It's just that the short barreled .38 revolvers negate that advantage in potential power. The .38 bullet may weigh more, but it needs barrel length to get good velocity.

 

[Erich]

Shane, I disagree that short-barrelled .38 spls are the equivalent or less powerful than .380s. I know that Marshall and Sanow proponed your idea in the late '80s, but it just doesn't jibe with the shootings I've seen (I've worked on over 100 cases in which people were killed by handguns). .38 specials, even out of short barrels, seem to penetrate much more effectively and reliably in the shootings I've seen. Makes sense, considering the physics of mass.

Naturally, you should believe whatever you want, but I've actually asked the question that I want to ask in this thread. If you want to start your own thread to ask your own "the real question," feel free to have at it.

 

[Shane333]

Didn't mean to step on your toes, Erich.

For the record, I had no idea that Marshall and Sanow proponed such an idea already. My comments came from personally studying the cartridge energy tables provided by several current manufacturers of self defense ammunition.

(edited to remove comments made because of bruised pride)

 

[MICHAEL T]

I have also when from snub 38 to 380. Mainly my PPK/S or Mustang . Ease of concealment and the fact I shoot the small auto much better than a snub.Are my 2 main reasons for change.

 

[Trebor]

I went the other way. I went from a 9x18 Mak to a 3" barreled S&W M-65 loaded with 158 +P LSWCHP. Granted, the 65 isn't exactly a "snub," but it conceals as well as the Mak did. If I have to wear a holster anyway, I might as well go with a slightly bigger gun. I never could do pocket carry.

 

[MillCreek]

With a wide variety of carry pieces resting comfortably in my gun safe, I can say there are certain situations and dress code requirements that will allow me to conceal nothing larger than my AMT DAO Backup in .380. Although I have some slightly smaller carry pieces in .22 LR and .25, the Backup is the smallest I have that is suitable for pocket carry. So I can say there are some times that I will opt to carry .380 as a primary piece rather than a .38.

 

[BluesBear]

My comments came from personally studying the cartridge energy tables provided by several current manufacturers of self defense ammunition.

Energy tables are all well and good if you enjoy light reading. I stop short of calling it fiction even though a large portion of it is.

Having spent many years in the ammunition business I have studyed factory tables closely. I admit I still read them just as I have for almost 40 years. Only now I know HOW to read them.

Why would any ammunition manufacturer would skew the statistics in their favor? What possible motive could they have?
Ft/lbs on a chart can be interesting reading but in the real world it's almost meaningless. Energy tables are based TOTALLY on bullet weight AND velocity.
They don't take into consideration several VERY important factors such as oh, um, lemme see...

Bullet Diameter

Bullet Shape

Bullet Construction

If wounding capability was based on energy tables (or electrical box covers) we'd all be carrying Glaser Safety Slugs or RBCD.

Based solely on energy tables a 160gr hollow point at 1000fps hits just as hard as a 160gr solid at 1000fps. And it doesn't matter if it's solid lead, solid copper or solidified feline excrement.

There have been several "tables" and "formulas" devised throughout the years that attempt to quantify the ineffable.
The old Taylor Knock-out Formula and the Fuller Power factor are just two that come to mind.
The Taylor K-O is by far the oldest that I know of. It isn't perfect since it was created to compare the solid bullets used in the first half of the 20th Century on dangerous big game. But at least it takes into consideration the diameter of the bullet.


Speaking of TOES...
Here's A Simple Test

From a height of five feet;
Drop a two pound total weight water balloon directly on your big toe.
Drop a two pound total weight glass mason jar full of water directly on your big toe.

Get back with me later on the pain ratio.



Yes the often biased, sometimes skewed energy tables published by the ammo makers make for interesting reading.

But then Michael Moore makes "interesting" movies too.

Feel free to believe either.

 

[Erich]

Shane, I'm sorry if I came across like a tool. I was having a bad day before lunch.

 

[Shane333]

Actually, I'm sorry I let my ego get the better of me. The fact that I use a CZ83 with Remington GoldenSabers for self defense reveals my bias.

Real world examples speak volumes about hard facts. I didn't realize before that you had personal experience in this area.

 

[Erich]

I might have some knowledge, but I'm not the authority on anything.

Anyway, no hard feelings I hope . . . none on this end.