I know the light weight, thinness and low price are attractive, but I don’t think I can keep my mouth shut about the anemic nature of the round.
Better than a poke in the eye?
Actually a good poke in the eye might reset an attackers OODA loop to a greater degree initially than a shot in the gut with a .380. Of course I can’t prove that but getting poked in the eye hurts like a Mother F’er
How about, if it meets his needs in a way other options would not, or if he can carry a .380 at times or in places where he couldn’t carry anything else, you try: “Cool, can I shoot it?”
No one is denying that the .380 is a compromise, but the constant hammering around here is just getting silly. Plenty of LE agencies, particularly in Europe, have successfully fielded .380 pistols for decades at a time. There are many LE agencies here in the U.S. that issue or authorize them for off-duty, backup, and UC work.
My LCP is:
[ul]
[li]easier to conceal than my j-frame.
[/li][li]easier to shoot accurately at speed.
[/li][li]dramatically faster to reload (especially compared to a speed strip).
[/li][li]higher capacity.
[/li][li]Closer in form & function to the semiauto pistol I carry as a primary every day.
[/li][/ul]
The fact that it gives up an inch of penetration or doesn’t do as well through automobile glass is an acceptable compromise to many, including myself, in return for those benefits.
I agree and have recently come to the conclusion that the only true “pocket carry” gun that doesn’t print on me is a .380. Speaking to the European police comments, is it true that European .380 ammo is also loaded hotter than it’s American counter part?
Average penetration of a .380acp JHP that expandes to 9mm levels is only 7-8" in bare gel. Against a windshield you’re looking at about half that level of penetration.
It’s all about the sectional density of the bullet and the .380 is piss poor:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/toc.htm
The European agencies that used the .380 used FMJ. So, this penetration problem was not an issue since the rounded non-deforming loads would penetrate up to 18" in gel. You just sacrifice a better wound channel that you would get with a JHP which gives you a larger hole and a waddcutter frontal area.
I use a .380 when I believe the likelyhood of running into trouble is very low, or I need a BUG that is under 20oz to stick in an ankle holster. It would NOT be my first choice for any other situation. If you can avoid using the .380, I suggest that you do so.
I guess I shouldn’t choose an average .380 JHP that expands to 9mm levels, then.
Come to think of it, I try not to choose an average 9mm JHP that expands to 9mm levels, either.
Hard to do when many of the major manufacturers design their .380s to do so:
Winchester Ranger Talon 90gr:
Bare Gel: 7.6" / .65"
Speer Gold Dot 90gr:
Bare Gel: 8.2" / .61"
Federal Hi-Shok 90gr:
Bare Gel: 7.4" / .64"
Throw in some ribs, and other internal bone structure and you’re looking at even worse resutls. Low sectional density and momentum were major problems for the Dr. Lane FBI testing in 1993, and the follow up research done by the Canadians in 1994 in regard to internal bone penetration.
The IWBA testing of the Hornady XTP 90gr is still the only confirmed .380acp loading that I’ve seen that comes closer to the 12" penetration minimum by reducing its level of expansion:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/380acp/hor380-90xtp-b85.htm
Good luck finding a .380 JHP that is designed to achieve good penetration other than the Hornady load. Dr. Roberts tested some of the .380 Hornady Critical Defense stuff and it once again failed to reach a 10" penetration level. I wouldn’t trust Brass Fetcher’s testing as it seems that just about all of their results contradict FBI, the IWBA, and Dr. Robert’s testing which I KNOW for sure is done properly. The .380 is a dead end cartridge when it comes to using JHP in my opinion.
Duncan MacPherson’s book “Bullet Penetration” is very insightful regarding sectional density and proper gel testing which I believe the vast majority of online testing guys do not follow. This is why we see major discrepancies between the FBI protocol testers(FBI, IWBA, and Dr. Roberts) versus the online testers.
All that being said, I often carry a Sig P232 as a BUG with Win RTs simply because I am required to use agency ammo and a S&W J-Frame is not allowed. Given the choice, I would not carry .380. If I had to and could pick my own ammo, I would opt for the Hornady XTP or FMJ.
It’s kinda like the burger king add with the guy with small hands…
.380’s are better than a .22 back up… but then do you want a tiny pistol lost in your boot? man up carry a sig .45… great gun!
tell em to buy a 9mm. there is some tiny ones that are suprisingly easy to shoot (G26), and ammo selection/availablity should also be a factor. 9mm is everywhere
= zero value to the thread.
I am also considering an LCP for those times when I can’t carry a pistol. If it weren’t for the cost of .380 ammo.
i guess my point i failed to make is i would trust a G26 far more than any other tiny 9mm, let alone a .380…ive shot 26s that have outshot full size pistols, with hot ammo to boot.
Hello my name is Spence and I too am an anemic round carrier.
Tell the guy he made a great decision. Having gun is plan A.
I have and carry various Glocks (26,19) and on occasion a 642. But that P3AT is always with me.
It’s true that the .380 is anemic. It’s also true that mouseguns are notoriously hard to shoot well under stress.
BUT, as much as it pains me to agree with Todd:
If it’s a choice between having nothing or having my LCP (which I rarely carry) I will gladly take my LCP. Why? Because while the .380’s terminal ballistics may not set the world ablaze, it is still capable of turning an opponent into a corpse. It’s a lot better than a sharp stick and harsh language.
I have a friend who was carrying a Ruger .380 as his primary because people convinced him he couldn’t carry anything bigger. He, being new to the use of firearms for daily carry, listened to the “experts”. Then he showed up at my house and I handed him an RCS phantom IWB holster for the Glock and put a G17 in it and took him to a mirror. Even on his little frame (about 5’7", 140 pounds…IF THAT) the G17 almost disappeared. Then I showed him the G19 and the G26.
He now owns my G26 and my RCS phantom holster.
The moral of this story is this: If the LCP is really the best he can do, so be it. It’s better than nothing. If you think he can upgrade, don’t tell him…show him. Show up with some guy food and some guns and some holsters and let him try different options to figure out what might work for him. Once the guy figures out he can pack something more substantial than the LCP most of the time he might be willing to do it and keep the LCP as a backup or as a primary of last resort.
does it make a difference if it’s a primary or a back up?
If you’re putting it in your sock as a hold out peice it’s one thing. if it’s gonna be your bedroom gun, it’s a different kind of thing.
it really IS better than nothing.
kahr PM9 or a G26 is obviously a better and bulkier choice…
what i’d tell him? make sure he learns to make a lot of hits fast with it.
What to say to a friend considering a .380?
I would tell him to consider carrying a large tactical folder or some pepper spray as a backup just in case his mouse didn’t get the job done. Its better than nothing.
Tell him to seek training, and to practice, practice, practice. Software trumps hardware and shot placement is supreme.
.380 is better than nothing but with all of the small 9mm out there I still see very little reason for .380 other than as an absolutely last ditch noise maker.