Not your typical .380 vs 9 vs 40 thread

[SSGSAD]

All very good points. I just purchased a shield 40 performance center and have been carrying it here lately. I had a dream last night that I shot a home intruder 7 times with my p238 and he kept going so I went and got my 229 in 40 and put 12 through him, much to my surprise he got back up and I put a mag through my glock 22 into him and he was still moving around. I ended up getting my S&W 36 in 38 and that finished him off. Moral of the story would be this has been bothering me since I carry my P238 a lot more often based on how easy it is to pocket carry and maybe not make a post before bed time.

Have you seen the movie, about the Miami Dade Shootout,

or read the article by Mas Ayoob, about the aftermath .....

He talks about the number of shots fired, the hits,

the damage caused by the hits .....

This shootout, is the one that caused the FBI, to deem

the 9mm, not worthy, and "why" the .40, was adopted .....

and our own BBI, has a thread about a number of shootings .....

All very good information ....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If it were the book of IRS tax codes maybe

That'd probably stop a 30mm DU round...

 

[t-squared]

Right. SOME of the standards used by the FBI, which means it's not the standards used by the FBI. That's the disconnect. Auto glass test isn't just about auto glass, it's also shown to be a great analog for bone strikes. It shows how easily the jacket shreds or separates, which happens in human bodies regularly and reduces penetration as it sheds mass.

But let's ignore that. Even if you buy into his tests, the .380 XTP is still an unreliable expander in ballistics gel.

[video=youtube;QhmJoIWEb0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmJoIWEb0I[/video]

As opposed to the extremely consistent 9mm HST

[video=youtube;-lGqdMdbir0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lGqdMdbir0 [/video]

Which goes back to:

Get a bone strike, and these rounds aren't going to make the minimum. That's a big thing to give up for the maybe-it-expands of the XTP. Which is why I would still use hotter ball ammo even if I were to base my decision off these videos.

If you actually care about the FBI protocols and need a small gun, buy a 9mm, load it with HST, call it a day. It's passing all the protocols from micro to service length barrels. If you don't, I'd still run .38 wadcutters over a .380 of any kind, but if I had to run a .380 I'm sticking with ball.

I've been to the terminal ballistics classes (both Basic Investigator and Homicide), I've read the text books, I've seen the meat results on the street, I've talked to the shooters and the survivors. I'm not an expert, but I've listened to those who are. There is more to this than just shooting a block of goo, measuring the result, and deciding "yup, it's good". Especially when you only do part of the goo tests.

So the Underwood loads using XTPs had crappy expansion through denim....he found other loads that worked better...with the same bullet. If you and I could purchase the bullets that Federal uses in their HST loads I'm sure we could head over to our turret presses and both make up a TON of different loads where the bullets sucked performance wise.

BTW, I want to thank you for sharing the knowledge you've gained through your work on this forum. Yourself and a few others give a TON of info on here that you don't have to. I've learned way more than I could ever repay from your posts concerning ballistics and self defense...although it oftentimes doesn't come across that way!

And more importantly, I hope nobody on here has to see for real how good any self defense rounds work.

Now...off to drink beer on the deck and enjoy this awesome weather!

 

[JAL]

Have you seen the movie, about the Miami Dade Shootout,

or read the article by Mas Ayoob, about the aftermath .....

He talks about the number of shots fired, the hits,

the damage caused by the hits .....

This shootout, is the one that caused the FBI, to deem

the 9mm, not worthy, and "why" the .40, was adopted .....

and our own BBI, has a thread about a number of shootings .....

All very good information ....

An excellent discussion on this event is in this video by Paul Harrell . . .

[video=youtube;iv8cByaVyNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv8cByaVyNQ[/video]

He draws nearly the same conclusions as I did after not watching the TV movie (it's a dramatic movie, not a documentary) but reading the detailed report on what occurred. The FBI gets great kudos for their detailed fact finding which has extremely few errors and those are inconsequential. The conclusions and recommendations, however, were politically driven and worthless. The FBI did not want its macho, testosterone dripping "Untouchables" image tarnished. It was blamed on being out-gunned, and that's where the FBI's report goes off the rails. They weren't out-gunned, they were grossly out-classed tactically by one, yes just one, of the two bank robbers. He knew how to use cover and concealment effectively in a firefight and very nearly defeated the FBI agents in detail with disciplined and highly accurate fire. The other bank robber was hors de combat at the beginning of the firefight after getting one bird shot round out of his shotgun that didn't cause any wounds of any significance on any of the FBI agents.

If ONLY they'd had bigger caliber handguns. NOT. Count the number of rounds fired by FBI agents in the actual FBI report. It's absolutely staggering. Then count the number of hits on the two bank robbers. It's positively abysmal. They're lucky they didn't kill innocent bystanders with the fusillade they unleashed into that neighborhood. For those with revolvers, their reloads were loose ammunition jingling around in their pockets. No speed loaders, moon clips or speed strips. As if their marksmanship wasn't bad enough, they weren't engaging the two bank robbers as a cohesive team. At best a couple pairs of partners were working together. Then back up the time line to examine how they rushed into an ad hoc felony traffic stop and completely ignored what they already knew about the two suspects: ruthless killers who had no problem engaging in a firefight or killing anyone in their path. They had demonstrated that already in their auto thefts and armored car robberies. The FBI botched this take down and they botched it badly. It had nothing to do with handgun calibers. If they'd been armed with .40 S&W pistols the outcome would have been the same with even more rounds hurled down range from the agents.

Footnote:
There was no lack of courage and valor among the agents in the incident, and the loss of two of them was tragic. The bulk of the failures that day were systemic and cultural within the FBI, going up the FBI's chain of command to their acts and omissions that occurred long before that day in Dade County. Citing that incident as justifying the need for hand held howitzers is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

John

 

[88E30M50]

Good video!

 

[ajeandy]

Guns are dangerous. Plenty of people have been killed with a .22.

9mm is more powerful. .380 has a lot less recoil in the right gun. Say...Glock 42 vs Glock 43.

Each has it's place imo.

Personally prefer accuracy over power. I could empty a G42 with ease super tight grouping while I would struggle to do the same with the G43.

Lots of preference involved.

This is all concealed carry single stack small framed related...For home...bigger guns, bigger calibers...

Lots of theorycraft here. Best advice...carry something that is reliable and you are proficient with. Work on being situationally aware and don't put yourself in a bad situation if possible.

 

[bigretic]

I'm running these in my 42 fwiw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXlYcabJ3lY

 

[ajeandy]

I'm running these in my 42 fwiw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXlYcabJ3lY

Interesting, reliable? I read that the round wouldn't eject from the g42.

 

[Daggy]

The caliber is just one part of the equation, the gun you use matters. Personally I can see myself liking a compact double stack .380 as opposed to 9mm, but there are very few quality double stack .380 pistols around.

 

[NIFT]

1. There is no round of ammunition for the .380 that meets all seven FBI terminal ballistic protocols.
2. Totally counter-intuitive: the best defensive/carry round for the .380 is a good FMJ, such as the Speer Lawman. Expanding hollow points fail to penetrate adequately, and penetration is more important than expansion. The FMJ sacrifices expansion to obtain adequate penetration.
3. I will take a .380 every day of the week over, "Please don't hurt me!" However, the .380 will not be my choice, if I have the choice.
4. Where the bullet hits and what anatomical structures it interrupts is far more important; however, that is a training issue and ammunition choice is a technology issue. They are independent; therefore, it makes no sense to introduce one when discussing the other. (one does not change ammunition/bullets because of a change in training and vice versa)

If you want the definitive analysis of the April 11, 1986 FBI Miami shootout, this is the source:
[h=1]Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight by W. French Anderson[/h]http://www.paladin-press.com/product/Forensic-Analysis-of-the-April-11-1986-FBI-Firefight/Bullets_and_Ballistics

All other public sources of information on that event are inferior to what is contained in that book. If fact, for many years, the book was restricted from public circulation.

 

[bigretic]

Interesting, reliable? I read that the round wouldn't eject from the g42.

I did not have any issues in my test run. When i get some more i will try the other 42 i have and see what the results are.

 

[gglass]

I currently use Hornady Critical Defense in my .380 pistols, and do trust it to do what it is intended to do when needed.

There are many types and brands of ammo out there, but for this exercise I will focus on one brand/type where the tests were conducted by LuckyGunner Labs.

If I am to compare the same brand/type (Critical Defense) ammo in the 3 calibers mentioned in this thread, I see the following results in the LuckyGunner testing.

I do find it interesting that the Critical Defense .380 expands properly, penetrates to FBI standards and even slightly outperforms its heavier and more more powerful 9mm brother. It even holds up well to the .45 ACP version, since that caliber of Critical Defense seems to be an inconsistent expander, and does not penetrate any further than the Critical Defense .380 when it does expand.

I choose the Critical Defense .380 ammo for my self-defense weapons in that caliber, since it always seems to do very well in tests like those done by LuckyGunner. However, I would not choose Critical Defense in 9mm, .40 S&W or .45ACP since the same brand/type ammo in those calibers does not seem to do very well compared to other ammo types like Gold Dot, HST or SXT.

As BBI pointed out, these tests to not take into account glass or bone barriers/deflection, or real-life meat observations, so I will concede that people in his profession know quite a bit more than I when it comes to handgun stopping power.

 

[NIFT]

I currently use Hornady Critical Defense in my .380 pistols, and do trust it to do what it is intended to do when needed.

There are many types and brands of ammo out there, but for this exercise I will focus on one brand/type where the tests were conducted by LuckyGunner Labs.

If I am to compare the same brand/type (Critical Defense) ammo in the 3 calibers mentioned in this thread, I see the following results in the LuckyGunner testing.

I do find it interesting that the Critical Defense .380 expands properly, penetrates to FBI standards and even slightly outperforms its heavier and more more powerful 9mm brother. It even holds up well to the .45 ACP version, since that caliber of Critical Defense seems to be an inconsistent expander, and does not penetrate any further than the Critical Defense .380 when it does expand.

I choose the Critical Defense .380 ammo for my self-defense weapons in that caliber, since it always seems to do very well in tests like those done by LuckyGunner. However, I would not choose Critical Defense in 9mm, .40 S&W or .45ACP since the same brand/type ammo in those calibers does not seem to do very well compared to other ammo types like Gold Dot, HST or SXT.

As BBI pointed out, these tests to not take into account glass or bone barriers/deflection, or real-life meat observations, so I will concede that people in his profession know quite a bit more than I when it comes to handgun stopping power.

Lucky Gunner did some great tests using synthetic, clear ballistic gelatin, and comparing results among various calibers, manufacturers, and bullets, can be instructive.

However, synthetic, clear gelatin has not been validated against actual autopsy data; whereas properly prepared organic gelatin has. As I examined Lucky Gunner's results and compared them to data obtained on the same caliber, manufacturer, and bullet a pattern emerged: Lucky Gunner's penetration data was consistently higher (more penetration) as compared to organic gelatin. Therefore, I caution people not to use the FBI's 12" minimum penetration when observing synthetic (clear) gelatin. My unscientific data comparisons seem to indicate synthetic gelatin would need about 14" to 15" to approximate the FBI's 12" minimum penetration in organic gelatin.

Clear gel is enormously easier to use than organic gelatin. This last May 2, at the Indiana SWAT Officers Association Conference, I participated in a terminal ballistic workshop using organic gelatin. The lengths Hornady went to in using correctly calibrated organic gelatin blocks was incredible, but the results were very accurate and could be compared against other similar tests using properly prepared organic gelatin.

 

[JAL]

This is the final episode from Shooting the Bull's extensive .380 ACP "Self Defense" ammunition testing and summarizes his conclusions about all of them.

[video=youtube;GNtPHYwcDts]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts[/video]

Episodes detailing his testing of each one he talks about preceded it. His YouTube page has the entire series is in a Playlist.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgNSGOEQko_MjOCGyqlMTiM2njdQQRbdg

I've got several 25 rd. boxes of the 90 grain Fiocchi Extrema XTP HP on the way. One of them will be used to test feed reliability in a Sig Sauer P238. If it feeds well I'm planning on replacing the Magtech 94 grain JHP with them (a cartridge he didn't test). The various XTP HP bubbled to the top, but some did a little better than others. He rated the Fiocchi #2, but it was very nearly the same in performance as his "winner."

The FBI's terminal ballistics protocols may be among the best available standards, but I'm unconvinced they're not without some significant flaws. I'm troubled by the protocols having been created because one 9mm bullet, after passing through an upper arm, penetrated a chest cavity to within an inch of the heart. As a consequence, the testing is heavily driven by having sufficient penetration that would have made that one projectile a heart stopping kill shot. It's a "deal breaker" criterion. It's as if the failure of the entire felony stop attempt in the 1986 Dade Shootout, with the deaths of two FBI agents and wounding of five more were the direct result of just this one bullet (out of how many dozens?) that didn't travel an inch further (plus enough more to stop the heart).

What about all the other dozens of bullets and shotgun rounds fired? Where did they go? What about the stakeout strategy; was it a sound one with a plan on what to do if they spotted the suspects? What about the ad hoc felony stop decision made on the spur of the moment? What about the seeming disregard for behavioral profiles of the two suspects based on their actions and modus operandi during the car thefts, bank and armored car robberies . . . that could predict their response when cornered by law enforcement? What about completely ineffective revolver reloading? (Remember: three agents had 9mm pistols.) What about tactical team effort, or lack thereof, by all the agents on scene together? That one 9mm bullet not penetrating far enough is a Red Herring. A football game isn't lost because the field goal kicker misses a field goal attempt with one second left on the game clock when his team is two points down. It's lost by everything the team did or failed to do during the preceding 59 minutes and 59 seconds that resulted in being two points down with only a second left on the clock.

John

 

[BehindBlueI's]

However, synthetic, clear gelatin has not been validated against actual autopsy data... My unscientific data comparisons seem to indicate synthetic gelatin would need about 14" to 15" to approximate the FBI's 12" minimum penetration in organic gelatin.

There is no consistent ratio. You'll find pistol rounds almost always go further in clear gel, but how much further isn't consistent enough to have any sort of conversion formula. Clear gel is, at this point, for entertainment purposes only.

The FBI's terminal ballistics protocols may be among the best available standards, but I'm unconvinced they're not without some significant flaws. I'm troubled by the protocols having been created because one 9mm bullet, after passing through an upper arm, penetrated a chest cavity to within an inch of the heart. As a consequence, the testing is heavily driven by having sufficient penetration that would have made that one projectile a heart stopping kill shot. It's a "deal breaker" criterion. It's as if the failure of the entire felony stop attempt in the 1986 Dade Shootout, with the deaths of two FBI agents and wounding of five more were the direct result of just this one bullet (out of how many dozens?) that didn't travel an inch further (plus enough more to stop the heart).

What about all the other dozens of bullets and shotgun rounds fired? Where did they go? What about the stakeout strategy

Tactics and misses have nothing to do with internal ballistics. You can argue the impetus behind the testing all day, but the terminal ballistics results that came from it are tough to argue with. The biggest lesson from Dade was "bring rifles", but that doesn't mean the other lessons learned are flawed or useless.

Against a dedicated opponent, the only thing that is going to stop them is a CNS hit or enough blood loss. Against a non-dedicated opponent, a blank gun will probably cause them to run. Most of you will get non-dedicated opponents, if you ever get an opponent at all, so ammo selection won't really matter. God forbid you do get a dedicated one, though, and you've got something that won't penetrate to vital organs, glances off the skull and ribs if it hits at the wrong angle, and makes small wounds that don't bleed much.

 

[GrinderCB]

This thread got wayyy technical very quickly, but I'll weigh in anyway. Is it possible that with bullet technology and all the unusual designs we've seen the past few years that smaller bullets are able to harness lower energy more efficiently in order to have better knock-down power than the same caliber ten or twenty years ago? I haven't yet bought any, but I've seen plenty of ads showing bullets with strange fluting and other designs. I'm no ballistics expert, but it seems to me that knock-down is based on expansion immediately on impact, as opposed to expansion deep within. Also, hasn't metals technology improved lately so that gun companies can make smaller guns that are more powerful than those years ago? I saw a review recently of a Ruger LCRx where they called out the extreme fluting of the cylinder and noted that .38sp revolvers used to have bulkier parts.

 

[hemicharger]

This thread got wayyy technical very quickly, but I'll weigh in anyway. Is it possible that with bullet technology and all the unusual designs we've seen the past few years that smaller bullets are able to harness lower energy more efficiently in order to have better knock-down power than the same caliber ten or twenty years ago? I haven't yet bought any, but I've seen plenty of ads showing bullets with strange fluting and other designs. I'm no ballistics expert, but it seems to me that knock-down is based on expansion immediately on impact, as opposed to expansion deep within. Also, hasn't metals technology improved lately so that gun companies can make smaller guns that are more powerful than those years ago? I saw a review recently of a Ruger LCRx where they called out the extreme fluting of the cylinder and noted that .38sp revolvers used to have bulkier parts.

In your own words, please describe "knock down power".

 

[GrinderCB]

In your own words, please describe "knock down power".

Non-technical term, the ability to knock down an attacker or slow his forward progress.

 

[Bigtanker]

 

[NIFT]

Originally Posted by NIFT However, synthetic, clear gelatin has not been validated against actual autopsy data... My unscientific data comparisons seem to indicate synthetic gelatin would need about 14" to 15" to approximate the FBI's 12" minimum penetration in organic gelatin.

There is no consistent ratio. You'll find pistol rounds almost always go further in clear gel, but how much further isn't consistent enough to have any sort of conversion formula. Clear gel is, at this point, for entertainment purposes only.

Never said there was any consistent ratio, only that (and we agree) clear, synthetic ballistic gelatin demonstrates more penetration than properly prepared and calibrated organic gelatin; therefore, it is a mistake to use the FBI's 12" minimum to evaluate terminal performance in synthetic gelatin, which may have more than just entertainment value, but it is not a valid medium for terminal ballistic testing. Not only that, but few people understand terminal performance and what conclusions can be drawn by gelatin (properly prepared and calibrated) testing.


Tactics and misses have nothing to do with internal [I assume you mean terminal] ballistics. You can argue the impetus behind the testing all day, but the terminal ballistics results that came from it are tough to argue with. The biggest lesson from Dade was "bring rifles", but that doesn't mean the other lessons learned are flawed or useless.

Against a dedicated opponent, the only thing that is going to stop them is a CNS hit or enough blood loss. Against a non-dedicated opponent, a blank gun will probably cause them to run. Most of you will get non-dedicated opponents, if you ever get an opponent at all, so ammo selection won't really matter. God forbid you do get a dedicated one, though, and you've got something that won't penetrate to vital organs, glances off the skull and ribs if it hits at the wrong angle, and makes small wounds that don't bleed much.

Spot on. This is one of the things most folks fail to comprehend: tactics (training) and terminal bullet performance (technology) are independent and should not be intermingled. I have never seen or heard of anyone advocating changing tactics as a result of a different bullet in a handgun's cartridge, and I have never seen or heard of anyone advocating changing a handgun cartridge's bullet as a modification in tactics. Those two are independent.