.380=9mm?

General Firearms Terminal Ballistic Information
1

I was thinking, as so often is a precourser to getting myself in trouble, about what I have learned thus far to be truths accepted with regards to terminal performance of handgun projectiles.

At handgun velocities, TC is said to be meaningless. What matters is “tissue crushed”.

A round-nose projectile will create a permanent cavity roughly 66% the diameter of the bullet.

A JHP, once expanded, 80-85% or so, depending on the JHP and how “sharp” the edges are.

Penetration past 12" is minimal, with 14-18" being ideal.

Wound tracks in GSW victims from JHP’s and FMJ’s look identical to ME’s.

Ergo, a .380 with a trunjacted nose, should be more viable than the 9mm FMJ loading. As long as no windshields or car-doors are involved. (Further, one would not be able to tell if a GSW had been caused by an FMJ .380, or a 9mm 124gr GDHP +P, by examining the wound). Therefor, as long as no barriers are to be encountered, the NYPD of yesteryear would have gotten identical results from a .380 as from their 9mm FMJ loadings.

Obviously this information is not a reflection of what happens in the real-world, but I cannot LOGICALLY disprove it, either, as the .380 penetrats over 16" in gel http://www.brassfetcher.com/95gr%20Federal%20American%20Eagle%20FMJ%20and%2095gr%20Winchester%20’WWB’%20truncated%20cone.html
and is the same diameter as the 9mm FMJ, and indeed has the advantage of the truncated nose/larger meplat.

How then can we say that energy and TC do not matter, at least a little?

Or is the .380 truly the equal of the 9mm when both are loaded with FMJ’s and neither car-doors or windshields are to be encountered?

2

In a soft tissue shot, with no intermediate barriers and no bone involvement, the .380 ACP wound would be indistinguishable from a 9 mm FMJ one. Flat point/truncated cone construction is highly overrated–you really need to have a full wadcutter profile before the flat front advantages comes much into play, as noted in Dr. Fackler’s discussion on the subject that was previously posted.

Once you start talking about 9 mm JHP there is NO comparison with .380 ACP. Personally, I won’t willingly use a .380 ACP.

3

But on an un-obstructed shot (by unobstructed, I mean no cheap make-shift body armor, no walls, no windshields), the .380 FMJ is just as good a choice as the 9mm that the M9 is chambered in which is being used in the sand-box?

4

Read what I wrote again: “In a soft tissue shot, with no intermediate barriers and no bone involvement, the .380 ACP wound would be indistinguishable from a 9 mm FMJ one.”

9 mm M882 ball has one of the worst reputations for effectiveness of any 9 mm ammo…

And again, I would NEVER willingly carry a .380 ACP, as it is NOT as good as a 9 mm given the above noted limitations.

5

9 mm M882 ball has one of the worst reputations for effectiveness of any 9 mm ammo

Does that “any 9MM ammo” part of your statement include all 9MM bullet designs or are you saying that M882 is less effective than some other types of 9MM FMJ ?

6

What I am saying is that M882 is not the equal of typical U.S. ammo intended for LE use…M882 offers typical 9mm FMJ terminal performance.

7

One thing that stands out in Doc’s statement is “no bone involvement”.