Justify the .380's continued existance - please-

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hal

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,314
Location
N.E. Ohio
title says it all.

I have an old .380 F.I.E. Wonderful gun (for a cheapo POS), 100% reliable w/any ammo - ball or JHP. It's a sentimental favorite, and destined to be a hand-me-down to my son one day. In regards to that, I'm not slamming the .380 ok?

All I'm asking, is for someone,,,anyone,,to give me one thing,,just one,,that the .380 does that a 9mm compact doesn't do better/cheaper/with less felt recoil....
 
The .380 can be chambered in smaller and lighter firearms than the 9mm can, like the Kel-Tec P3AT. That's why it will likely to be around for quite a while, because people will continue to push the envelope with firearms designs, and, like Kel-Tec, make smaller and smaller firearms using older cartridges.

The Rohrbaugh may put the lie to this, but I do believe it is heavier than the Kel-Tec P3AT, and, at this point, it's still vaporware, I don't believe that any have shipped yet.
 
It can be used by civilians in countries like mine where we can not use 9mm.

It also allows for an easier manufacturing of pistols (blowback is easier than locked breech) so they are less expensive and allow more people to get armed.

Just my $0.02
 
IMO, its niche nowadays is in the very small pocket autos, e.g., the Seecamp (recently introduced in .380, same external dimensions as the .32), the NAA Guardian, etc. The latest compact autos in 9mm and .40 are only a little bit larger, however. I do have one .380 myself, a Beretta 86, but this is a large gun for the cartridge, being the same height and length as a Glock 19. I bought it more as a curiosity because of its unusual design; it has a tip-up barrel and gives you the choice of carry with the hammer down in double action mode, with or without the ambidextrous thumb safety engaged, or "cocked and locked". It is a fun shooter, but I would rather rely on the above-mentioned Glock for self defense.
 
The answer is quite obvious - there are no compact nines as small as some of the .380's.
And the "felt recoil" question is moot! That is about locked breeches, and there are .380's with a locked breech and low felt recoil.

Keith
 
I have a Browning 380 BDA. It allows my wife to use a better ccartridge than a 22LR. Health issues do not allow her to use a 9MM anymore. The Browning BDA reduces the reciol of the smaller 380's. Byron
 
All I'm asking, is for someone,,,anyone,,to give me one thing,,just one,,that the .380 does that a 9mm compact doesn't do better/cheaper/with less felt recoil....
Click to expand...
It's a matter of marketing intertia. As long as there are a bunch of .380 pistols out there, .380 ACP ammo will continue to be made. As long as there is .380 ACP ammo available, somebody will continue to sell .380 ACP pistols.

But I think what you're getting at is "why would anybody buy a .380 pistol when a .32 is equivalent with a few advantages and a 9mm MAK or Luger is superior with just a few size disadvantages?"

That's the question I'm rasslin' trying to justify a P-3AT as an intermediary between my P-32 and the upcoming Rohrbaugh. So far, it seems that there are a bunch of good .32 ACP factory ammo choices, but the .380 choices are limited. That makes sense from the perspective that most .380s are blowback designs, and therefore touchy about "off pressure" loads. JMO....
 
But I think what you're getting at is "why would anybody buy a .380 pistol when a .32 is equivalent with a few advantages and a 9mm MAK or Luger is superior with just a few size disadvantages?"
Click to expand...

A .32 isn't equivalent to a .380. And a 9mm will not fit in your pocket - unless you're a Mr. Greenjeans with enormous pockets!

The .380 is popular because of CCW laws. No CCW - no reason for the .380 in todays world. It simply fills a tactical niche, period.

They are small enough to fit in a jeans pocket. The caliber is "sufficient". And (with a locked breech) they are comfortable to shoot accurately and quickly. Nothing else has those qualities. A .38 snubby comes closest, but that gun prints easier, kicks harder and (at least in the +P loadings) makes a fireball at the muzzle that may see you effectively blinded after the first shot in poor light.

Keith
 
Well, Keith, I don't want to get into any religious arguments here, and that's all the "bigger hole is better" discussions end up being.

.380 ACP cartridge chambering seems to have something in common with .45 ACP, and that is a pressure ceiling that manufacturers just don't seem to want to exceed. That ends up with little attention being paid to improving the performance of factory loads. The .32 ACP is also originally a low pressure cartridge, but there are a plethora of "hotter" loads available seemingly because manufacturers seem willing to push the envelope.

If the .380 terminal ballistics ended up being midway between the hotter 9mm Luger and the hotter .32 ACP rounds, I'd be happy with them. But they're not. As I'm finding out, a hot .32 ACP load beats the snot out of a typical .380 load.

BTW, my P-11 fits in my jeans pocket just fine in a Kydex holster, but I greatly prefer a P-32/P-3AT sized pocket pistol because of their ease of draw. Even when wearing slacks with bigger pockets, I prefer the smaller pocket pistols because they're not so obtrusive even though the P-11 doesn't print. It's bulk is enough that I'm constantly aware of it. (Also, BTW, the Rohrbaugh R-9 is a full 9mm Luger in a package that's the same size as a P-32....)

I'm going to expand my investigation to compare the "Puncture Power" of a hot 9mm Luger round to a hot .32 ACP load from similarly short barreled mouse guns. My guess is that it will come out right where I wish the .380 would be -- between the optimal .32 ACP and the optimal 9mm Luger compact pistol (KT P-11, IMO). If so, the Rohrbaugh will be a winner as "what a .380 pocket pistol should be."

I've had two PPK .380s move through my safe, and they were equivalent to my P-32 in useful power and equivalent to my P-11 in size. IOW, all the disadvantages of a P-32 along with all the disadvantages of a P-11, but what I want is something closer to the power of a P-11 and the size of a P-32. Without comparing them side-by-side, it doesn't appear that the P-3AT or any other .380 is going to fill the bill. Simply put, that's why I'm excited about the Rohrbaugh. It smells like it will fit that bill.... :D
 
As I'm finding out, a hot .32 ACP load beats the snot out of a typical .380 load.
Click to expand...

Well, you may be on to something. I'm unaware of any .32 loads that have more energy/power than a good .380 - But, I stand ready to be convinced.

A .380 is a pretty light pill - 95 or 100 grains... It's hard to imagine how a 60 grain .32 could beat that unless you had a dramatic increase in velocity. Maybe there is something out there that I'm unaware of.

Keith
 
Oh, I missed your point about size.

I don't know how big a P-3AT is either. I've never seen one and you have to "heft" a gun to see what's up - maybe slip it in your pocket and try it for size.

The PPK sized pistols are too big for pocket carry. I've owned several and I like them, but they are too big.

The Mustang Pocketlite is a true pocket pistol. It does fit in your pocket and they are easy and fun to shoot accurately. And that locked breech is a real big deal - you have to compare .380's of similar size with and without a locked breech to appreciate what that means. You can shoot a locked breech faster and much more accurately than you can a blowback.

And that's been a lot of the problem with the .380 over the years. The caliber was originally in a fairly large gun - the PP, etc. When they scaled them down for pocket carry, most of them stuck with that blowback operation and that fact makes a lot of them miserable to shoot - and difficult to shoot rapid and accurate groups. And let's face it, when you are shooting a marginal caliber you'd better be able to get a bunch of rounds out quickly and accurately!

Keith
 
The P-3AT is the same size and weight as a P-32. Its bigger bore further disadvantages the gun's short barrel length, however. On paper and in the marketing world, it seems like the natural evolution of the P-32 class pocket pistol. My inquiries seem to be leading to "'taint necessarily so...."

No definitive conclusions yet, though.
 
Fit into an NAA Guardian.

Oh, wait... I hear Glock is coming out with a new 9MM to fit in smaller framed guns... 9MMGAP.
You could use that instead!
:D
 
I don't know how big a P-32 is either...

Here's a link to a ballistics table for the .32 Silvertip.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/32acp/win32-60st-b3032.htm

Out of a 2.4" Tomcat, it gets 800 fps and 7" of penetration. Expansion was zero when fired through denim, but penetration doubled to 14". Not bad, really. Actually, better than I'd have thought...

And here is a link to some .380 data:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/380acp.htm

Penetration, velocity and expansion is better than the .32, but it's still no great mankiller!

Keith
 
The problem with that data, Keith, is the barrel lengths. Shorten it to 2.7" as in a pocket pistol, any you'll see the velocity, and hence the FPE, go down considerably.

That's true for any cartridge for a barrel length shorter than optimum. Powder burned after the bullet leaves the muzzle is essentially wasted, and the optimum barrel length for most every pistol cartridge is longer than comes on the pistol.

Puncture Power and penetration are functions of the bullet cross sectional area, weight, and velocity. The smaller cross section bullet will use its kinetic energy (within the handgun envelope) more efficiently than a larger one. IOW, a .32 slug can often puncture better than a .38 one even though the .32 has less FPE. Terminal performance is a function of how much energy is left after the target is punctured. To illustrate, try slicing a tomato with a dull knife. Once you've brreached the skin, things are comparable to using a sharp knife, but what a difference in power required to puncture!

It's a common mistake to use ammo performance data taken during long barrel tests and apply it to your short barrel pistol. Apples and oranges.

Go to http://www.kel-tec.org for P-32 and P-3AT dimensions, but you'll have to get one in your hands to see what the specs translate to.
 
Yeah, I noted the differing barrel lengths. The shortest .380 tested had a 3" barrel, while the .32 was tested in a 2.4" barrel.

I was surprised at the penetration of the .32! Not too shabby - and much better than I'd have thought.

Still, I suspect the .380 would still outperform the .32 even with the same barrel lengths. It's a matter of weight - 60 grains vs 100 grains.

Keith
 
:neener: The .380 exists for one reason, the majority of the shooting public think it's milder than a 9mm and makes a perfect gun for carry or their wife/girlfriend. If they really know it was the anemic short brother to the 9mm parabellum it might just die out.
 
I note you are from IL, and therefore don't carry a concealed weapon.

I would probably think the same if I didn't carry, but I do. And when you do you find this issue about comfort, concealment and power comes up. We'd all like to pack a .45 all day, but it's a pain in the rear - literally! Some people are committed enough to make that work. Others (like me) look for a compromise that we can drop in our pockets and forget about.

And so; the endless .380/.32/.38 snubby debate continues...

Keith
 
What's the old saying, "people like 1911s because it chambers the .45 acp and people like 9mm because it's chambered in Hi-Powers"...or something like that. As of yet there are few 9mm pistols that are the size of most .380 pistols. They may, in fact, supplant the .380 but right now I can see that many people would choose an all steel Sig 232 or Walther PPK/S over a smaller but just as heavy and striker-fired Kahr MK9, or the equivalent PM9 or P9 and especially over the polymer/aluminum/steel Kel-Tec P-11. Some folks would prefer an alloy 232 over the equally light Kel-Tec simply on the basis of perceived quality and reliability. Just a matter of taste, perceived quality, and relative power for the perceived need. The small Glocks are larger, thicker, and even a bit heavier than even a steel Sig 232. Some folks like hammer-fired guns and don't find a blowback .380 to be hard recoiling or hard to shoot. I have looked and looked and have yet found the small or micro 9 that pleases me to the extent that I really want one. I'm in a non-carry state but it doesn't stop me from having preferences. Sometimes, it is just the platform, e.g. I find few handguns as pleasing to own and shoot as my CZ83 which is simply a superb pistol and I'm just not so sure an 11-14 round .380 like the CZ and it's 3.8 inch barrel gives up much over a micro 9 with a 3 inch barrel holding 6 or 7 rounds. I agree the small 9 may one day completely eclipse the .380, but it has not done so yet, any more than the .32 has disappeared. Just MO. Oh, and fixed barrel blowback .380s are often darned accurate. And, lastly, as a postscript, anyone who finds the .380 outmoded should simply not buy one and if enough people feel that way it will die out. If folks like it for whatever reason ithe .380 will survive, both the cartridge and the pistols which chamber it. Pretty simple.
 
The .380

Much maligned as feeble, the scaled-down .45 ACP actually isn't
that bad. True, you would want something heavier to face down
a band of marauding gang-bangers...but how often do we have
that situation? The .380 was/is intended to be deployed as a
last-ditch, do or die means of saving old skinny...and this will
probably happen at arm's length or less. At powder-burning
ranges, 7 or 8 quick rounds of .380 ball in the groin area would be
a pretty effective deterrent, I would think.

The single best example of why the .380 should remain with us
was offered a few years ago by Beretta, with their neat little DA
tip-up barreled pistol...Cougar, I believe. That would allow the
folks with painful arthritis or limited hand strength to load the
pistol without having to struggle with the slide and/or lowering
the hammer on a hot chamber. The little pistol allows this segment
of our society to have a defensive pistol that's small, user-friendly,
and is roughly the equivalent of the standard .38 Special LRN
loading with more rounds available and less felt recoil than a
5-shot revolver. Throw in the fact that it's less bulky to boot,
and you have yourself a definite winner, even if it is limited
in power. I sure wouldn't want to corner a 90-pound, nervous lady
who had one in her hand. Nossir!

Since it IS a little weak, I would opt for ball ammo to fully utilize what
penetration is available, and depend on close-range, multiple hits in
a soft area to do the job. That's really what the cartridge was meant for.

I like the .380 ACP...It fills a niche that needs filling...especially in the
Cougar platform.

Just my 2% of a buck...

Tuner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tallball
  • Locked
Four 380's
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
KSDeputy
K
nwilliams
  • Locked
CZ83 your thoughts....
Replies
13
Views
2K
gazpacho
G
Tallball
  • Locked
Comparing Four 380's
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
MachIVshooter
MachIVshooter
U
  • Locked
Walther PPK/S .380, Self Defense Gun??
Replies
18
Views
8K
jerryd
jerryd
horge
  • Locked
Help! Small Hands, Smaller Budget : Llama Micromax .380?
Replies
8
Views
1K
horge
horge
Back
Top