.380 Ball Ammo Questions + Reviews; Other .380 Ammo Types

[GCA321321]

So I am watching a video on the Miltiary Arms Channel via Youtube and the guy is conducting a ballistics test comparing .380 hollow points vs .380 ball ammo vs. 9mm ammo. The ball ammo he is using is PMC Bronze and it performs quite well.

My question is what are ball rounds? What are some other ball round brands? Any recommendations for or against ball rounds in .380 for personal protection? Thanks!


Testing the .380 for Self Defense - YouTube

 

[billybob44]

My question is what are ball rounds

"Ball" ammo refers to the shape of the bullet. Usually the tip is 'Round', like a "Ball".

Generally these are jacketed if factory loaded ammo.

A handloader can load Round Nose bullets in jacketed, plated, or lead, and refer it to "Ball" ammo.

Hope this helps..Bill.

 

[rockhopper46038]

There was a thread a few months back that made a very good case for using ball ammo in a .380 for SD over using HP ammo. I'm inclined to change myself, but haven't completely been convinced yet.

 

[GCA321321]

Helpful. Thanks! So what language should I be looking for on a box of .380 ammo which would indicate it contains ball rounds?

 

[billybob44]

Helpful. Thanks! So what language should I be looking for on a box of .380 ammo which would indicate it contains ball rounds?

FMJ, Metal Case, Round Nose, Ball...Probably in the order listed..Bill

 

[GCA321321]

FMJ, Metal Case, Round Nose, Ball...Probably in the order listed..Bill

Thanks Bill!

 

[Giddaltti]

I too have been reading and like the results of the RN ammo. However it appears you gain penetration yet the channel cavity appears to be a bit narrower. Keeping in mind the .380 is a close quarter firearm I'm more impressed with a full copper hollow point. I'm really like Barnes or Corbon ammo.

 

[cosermann]

Ball ammo is FMJ [1]. It has nothing to do with the shape/profile of the bullet (example: M193 & M855 are also ball ammunition even though the bullets are "pointy."). That's the modern definition anyway. There's some history of ball referring to different things.

The thing with .380 ACP is that, given current technology, hollow point ammunition, if it expands, does not typically penetrate a minimum of 12" into ballistic gel tissue simulant.

With respect to handgun wounding, while expansion is nice, penetration is necessary to reliably reach vital structures in the human body [2], and it seems that we currently have to choose one or the other (either expansion or penetration) with .380 loads (unless you're willing to settle for less penetration).

FMJ/Ball does penetrate more - hence the interest many have in this ammunition for defensive purposes in .380 acp caliber handguns.


[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet
[2] - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

 

[billybob44]

Apples+Oranges..

"1]. It has nothing to do with the shape/profile of the bullet (example: M193 & M855 are also ball ammunition even though the bullets are "pointy.")."

Cose, have you ever seen any HANDGUN Factory ammo with the "Ball" label that was NOT round nose, like a 'Ball'??

I always Love to Learn...Bill.

 

[cosermann]

Cose, have you ever seen any HANDGUN Factory ammo with the "Ball" label that was NOT round nose, like a 'Ball'??

It hasn't had anything to do with the projectile shape since muzzle loading days. Which is why I qualified it by saying, "That's the modern definition anyway. There's some history of ball referring to different things."

 

[snorko]

I've recently been shooting Buffalo Bore STANDARD pressure hard cast flat nose lead in my LCP and it has shown itself to be reliable, accurate and manageable. I intentionally went with the non-+p load as I wanted it to be controllable out of the tiny LCP.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=216

 

[cosermann]

There's also the sense of "standard" included in the term "ball," as in standard round, or standard military load.

Musket, "balls," were also called "rounds," (also originally referring to shape) although that term has also changed meaning a bit over the years.

 

[GCA321321]

Awesome. Thanks for the input cosermann! I will have to do some experimenting (as often as I am able to find ammo, of course).

 

[45fan]

Before jumping on the FMJ bandwagon, look into the reasoning for the FBI requirements, and WHY they look for a minimum 13" penetration. The likelihood of finding yourself in a self-defense shooting situation alone is pretty slim, but add to that the chance that you will legitimately be shooting through a car door or window, or an extremity of the assailant, and you have a better chance of hitting the lottery. Many experts have agreed that in many, if not nearly all self defense situations, 10" of penetration is more than enough to incapacitate an assailant reliably. Just take a ruler, and stick it next to your rib cage, and see how deep it is. Chances are that 4-6" would hit lung tissue or even the heart. Even angling the shot, 10" would put you smack in the middle of the boiler room. My personal preference would be a 1/2" hole into the heart, as opposed to the .355 hole that a FMJ would poke. Combine that with the extra .15" (approximately) in diameter, and it could mean the difference between narrowly missing a vital part, or clipping it and causing catastrophic damage and bleeding. Im sure anyone who has shot a target has split a ring between the 9 and 10, and in self defense, that extra .15 could mean the difference between going home to the wife, or meeting a coroner.

 

[cosermann]

... add to that the chance that you will ... be shooting ... an extremity of the assailant, and you have a better chance of hitting the lottery. Many experts have agreed that in many, if not nearly all self defense situations, 10" of penetration is more than enough to incapacitate an assailant reliably.. .

Shots to the hands and arms are very common in such situations. Way over 50% last I read.There seems to be a natural focus on an opponent's weapon, so shots often follow in that direction with resulting hits to the hands and arms. (It's also why reaction hand practice and 1-hand manipulations should be a part of defensive handgun training, btw.)

If you could share some references for the experts agreeing that 10" of penetration is enough, that would be great. I'm genuinely interested in seeing those.

If this were only about probability none of us would carry. It's about the impact/consequence of failure.

 

[45fan]

How to select the best ammo for a defensive handgun

Here is one like that I found. Seems many others are still very stuck one parroting the FBI numbers, and not doing any further research on their own. I can understand your point on probabilities, and not carrying, but by that reasoning, we would all be packing shotguns, lol.

I guess the shots to extremities being so common was something that I was unaware of, and I suppose that I should take that into consideration in my choice as well.

All of this is really fairly inconsequential for me, as the pocket .380 is relegated to the pistol I toss in my pocket when I go out for the mail, or as a back up. VERY seldom is it the pistol I carry beyond my drive. If I am headed out to the city, I tend to stick with 9mm and bigger, leaving the .380 to backup duty, or situations where discretion would be to my benefit.(Going so far as to carry my normal carry gun to the hotel, and fall back to the BUG when going to a work related conference inside said hotel where carry could adversely affect my employment). Its all a gamble, and all we can do is try to have the best hand when when called.

 

[Tydeeh22]

i recently chronographed a few various types of .380 ammunition.. all were FMJ

PPU 95 grain (prvi Partisan) @ 1000 FPS
PMC 90 grain @ 925 FPS
Remington nickle cased brass @ 850 FPS

the loads i made were in line with the PPU.

all subjects fired from a Kel-tec P3at @ 70 degree temperature and 1 foot from the chrono.

i requested, i can dig up the hard material on numbers..

 

[cosermann]

How to select the best ammo for a defensive handgun

Here is one like that I found. Seems many others are still very stuck one parroting the FBI numbers, and not doing any further research on their own...

Been to that web site many years ago. It's interesting that this site is cited as an example while others are "stuck . . parroting the FBI." Actually, it's this site that was "stuck" parroting the ideas of Marshall and Sanow as recently as June 2003. See here for the June 21, 2003 version of the page:

Selection of best ammunition for a defensive handgun

You'll notice that the handgun ammunition page from 6/03 is essentially a regurgitation of Marshall and Sanow-esque ammunition recommendations slanted toward light-for-caliber bullets at higher velocities - complete with bogus "stopping power" percentages.

Sometime the following year, the author of the site must have come across more recent wound ballistic information, because language on penetration was added to the site (and carries through to today). What's weird, is that the recommended ammo info did NOT change (but should have, if his criteria changed).

So, I wouldn't put any more stock in those recommendations as I would Marshall & Sanow (or Chuck Hawks, et al.). Even though the author gives lip service to penetration, he invents an "absolute minimum" penetration threshold of 6-8" - undoubtedly because many of the recommended loads don't meet the 12" standard (which he calls the "preferred minimum"). So there's kind of an odd syncretism/juxtaposition of handgun ammo ideas expressed on that site with little explanation of why that's the case.

Compare his list to something like this list that does reflect current modern wounding theory:
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo

Very different lists, and different for a reason.

 

[Giddaltti]

When you consider the skin is less than an inch thick and vital organs say another inch or two behind, the .380 looks pretty good with regards to penetration. Its a close quarter firearm, effective why else would it still be around or carred as back up. Lets not get hung on statistics alone, follow up and shot placement are equally important. FMJ .355x3 is seriouse hurt!

 

[cosermann]

When you consider the skin is less than an inch thick and vital organs say another inch or two behind, the .380 looks pretty good .... Lets not get hung on statistics alone, follow up and shot placement are equally important. FMJ .355x3 is seriouse hurt!

Three inches? A thoracic cavity/heartline shot can involve clothing, skin, a couple/few inches of muscle tissue, some bone - and we're STILL not to the heart. BrassFetcher estimates that 82% of the circulatory system is protected by the rib cage at 0 deg. (this varies by angle). 3" may not even penetrate my bicep to clip the bracial artery to say nothing of the human torso. 3" simply cannot be counted on to force a determined attacker to stop at a high enough probability for my comfort level.

But, as you point out the 380 in FMJ can be expected to penetrate pretty well. Even through heavy clothing you should expect about 15" in gel and it has enough oomph to get through a bit of bone too.

The human body isn't homogeneous. What needs to be shot through varies by angle and circumstance. The idea of a 12" minimum is intended to give some leeway and account for various circumstances.

In any given case 6" of penetration may do the job. In any given case merely yelling at someone or slapping them in the face, threatening to call 911, giving them a snoot full of OC, or simply displaying a firearm may get the job done. People decide to stop what they're doing for many reasons. However, a determined attacker will have to be forced to stop his action, and this may have to be done under less than ideal circumstances (low light, lots of movement, heavy clothing, weird angles, etc.). This is why I prefer a bit more penetration.

That's really all I'm saying. .380 acp in FMJ trim meets this fuzzy 12" standard. .380 HP/JHP, if it expands much, does not. Different people have different risk tolerance and acceptable minimums. If one is happy with 8-10" of penetration, then a modern HP like the DPX, Gold Dot, or Ranger might be just the ticket. 8-10" of penetration is certainly nothing to sneeze at. I just prefer more.