Is it worth it to convert a .380 to 9mm Makarov?
- Thread starter SHOOT1SAM
- Start date
- Status
toivo
Member
I bought one of those conversion barrels for my Glock 42. Haven't tried it yet. I'm guessing that 9x18 would be pretty snappy in an LCP. Probably not worth it because any gain in power would be offset by a loss of controllability.
Mizar
Member
Judging by the reports that little pistol has trouble withstanding even the .380 ACP diet, so converting it to fire the more powerful 9x18 round might not be a very good idea. Not to mention that the 9x18 base is about .018 wider than the .380, so you can run into problems fitting it to the breechface, extractor and the magazine.`
P.S. From strictly defensive point of view, it's best to leave the gun in stock configuration in the original caliber it was designed for.
P.S. From strictly defensive point of view, it's best to leave the gun in stock configuration in the original caliber it was designed for.
Last edited:
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,307
In a word: "No".
railroader
Member
That barrel is for a Ruger LC380 not a LCP. The LC380 is based on the LC9 which should handle the makarov round fine.
I have a Glock 42 and gave it a lot of thought. I decided against it because the small amount of an increase in diameter, in the 9x18, is more than countered by the wide bullet selection in 9x17. I still have my Makarov, because my daughter likes it.
I like to standardize on calibers, I mostly shoot 9x17. I decided against the 9x18 because most of the pistols in that caliber are blowback. As it stands, my only blowback pistol is the Makarov.
I like to standardize on calibers, I mostly shoot 9x17. I decided against the 9x18 because most of the pistols in that caliber are blowback. As it stands, my only blowback pistol is the Makarov.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Please dont.
Carl N. Brown
Member
9mm Makarov (9x18mm) is intermediate in power between .380 ACP (9x17mm) and 9mm Luger (9x19mm).
First thing you notice about a 9mm PM Pistol Makarov is how stiff the recoil spring is.
Barrel-only conversion of a .380 ACP to 9mm Makarov to my way of thinking would require a stiffer recoil spring even tho' the .380 Ruger is a locked breech gun and probably could take the pressure. I think the recoil would aggravate my arthritis.
First thing you notice about a 9mm PM Pistol Makarov is how stiff the recoil spring is.
Barrel-only conversion of a .380 ACP to 9mm Makarov to my way of thinking would require a stiffer recoil spring even tho' the .380 Ruger is a locked breech gun and probably could take the pressure. I think the recoil would aggravate my arthritis.
Monac
Member
My guess would be that ammunition/bullet makers have not developed expanding, defensive bullets for the 9mm Makarov to the same extent as for the 380 ACP. This would give 380 ACP an edge in actual effectiveness, despite having somewhat less kinetic energy than 9mm Makarov.
Monac
Member
I am surprised to hear that, mjsdwash, because I thought a lot of 9mm Makarov ammunition was steel cased. I know some US companies tooled up and made brass-cased 9mm Makarov, but I thought they had stopped. I don't know anything about handloading, though, so could you say why 9mm Makarov is easier to reload than 380 ACP?
krs
Member
I'd go the other way if ever changing caliber in the mousers.
I mean most of those pistols are much more manageable and pleasant as .32's. This from owner of both calibers in mouseguns and both .380 and MAKs in pistols with more weight.
I mean most of those pistols are much more manageable and pleasant as .32's. This from owner of both calibers in mouseguns and both .380 and MAKs in pistols with more weight.
FL-NC
Member
No.
There is big difference between 1350fps and 1050fps to 1100fps (95gr slug) so lets not bring in 9x19 when we compare 9x17 vs 9x18. The 9x18 isn't even true 9mm.
Another problem is it is very hard to find Hornady XTP loads for 9x18. This is strange as both Underwood and Buffalo Bore load that bullet so it must still be made.
Last edited:
mgmorden
Member
Only if you consider 12 an "intermediate" number between 10 and 20. It may be between the two, but it's certainly not as if it's splitting the difference.
With that said, IMHO 9mm Makarov isn't enough of an improvement over .380 to make it worth changing over. And since the barrel in question is for the LC380 and not the LCP, if you want extra power you'd be better off just buying an LC9 instead.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The opening post on .380 to 9mm Mak is about "Forget the cost, would it be worth it to make the conversion, from a defensive ccw point-of-view, in terms of terminal ballistics??"
Lone Wolf's major selling point for their $140 conversion barrel is you can use cheap combloc steel cased 9mm Makarov ammo in your familiar Glock 42 or Ruger LC380 without paying $400 for a new gun. To me that's the only selling point for the conversion, cheap target practice: you can save more than the cost of a conversion barrel in cheaper ammo in one season.
Common off the shelf loadings are:
.380 ACP, Federal Cart. Co., 95gr FMJ, 980 fps, 203 ft/lb.
9mm Makarov, C.I.P. standard, 95gr FMJ, 1050 fps, 231 ft/lb.
9mm Luger, Federal Cart. Co., 115gr FMJ, 1180 fps, 355 ft/lb.
Looking at energy standard ammo commonly available in commerce on a scale of 9mm Luger = 20, .380 is an 11.4, 9mm Makarov is a 13.
Lone Wolf's lesser selling point is that there are defensive loads for 9mm Makarov that are better than standard .380 or 9mm Mak. That gets into the fact there are also defensive loads for .380 better than standard 9mm Mak. 9mm Luger still tops them.
BTW the LC380 is the 380 version of Ruger's LC9 9mm, it is not the LCP which is a smaller pistol. Ruger makes a 9mm Luger LC9 Conversion Kit for the LC380 if one wants mild 380 for practice and 9mm for carry in the same gun. https://ruger.com/micros/LC9Conversion/index.html
Lone Wolf's major selling point for their $140 conversion barrel is you can use cheap combloc steel cased 9mm Makarov ammo in your familiar Glock 42 or Ruger LC380 without paying $400 for a new gun. To me that's the only selling point for the conversion, cheap target practice: you can save more than the cost of a conversion barrel in cheaper ammo in one season.
Common off the shelf loadings are:
.380 ACP, Federal Cart. Co., 95gr FMJ, 980 fps, 203 ft/lb.
9mm Makarov, C.I.P. standard, 95gr FMJ, 1050 fps, 231 ft/lb.
9mm Luger, Federal Cart. Co., 115gr FMJ, 1180 fps, 355 ft/lb.
Looking at energy standard ammo commonly available in commerce on a scale of 9mm Luger = 20, .380 is an 11.4, 9mm Makarov is a 13.
Lone Wolf's lesser selling point is that there are defensive loads for 9mm Makarov that are better than standard .380 or 9mm Mak. That gets into the fact there are also defensive loads for .380 better than standard 9mm Mak. 9mm Luger still tops them.
BTW the LC380 is the 380 version of Ruger's LC9 9mm, it is not the LCP which is a smaller pistol. Ruger makes a 9mm Luger LC9 Conversion Kit for the LC380 if one wants mild 380 for practice and 9mm for carry in the same gun. https://ruger.com/micros/LC9Conversion/index.html
jimherb
Member
No.
Don Dayacetah
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2018
- Messages
- 94
I wouldn't do it, but that's just me.
I would actually be more interested in 32naa barrels for common 9x17 pistols. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I decided against the 9x18 barrel; however, my wife and daughter are both turned off by the recoil of even the 9x17 pistols. I though the Walther PK380 would work well, but my daughter just didn't like it. I think it is, physically, too big.
32naa just seems to be an interesting cartridge for the 9x17 pistols.
32naa just seems to be an interesting cartridge for the 9x17 pistols.
CZ9shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,117
Hmmm.... the wife and I have tried several 380 pistol over the past five years or so. The PK is far and away the softest recoiling one we have dealt with.
- Status
