380 stopping power? Multiple shot considerations?

[Magnum Wheel Man]

some animals stop right away too... I've shot rabbits before with a .410 & couldn't find one bb that appeared to enter the rabbit... it looked like it died of fright ???

that mind set is how most humans woould react as well... but induce some hard drug use, a "jone'sen" junkie or a ton of adreniline... & you could very easily see what might look like "bullet proof man" someone so "disconected" from their body or so numb, that they may act long after they are really dead

[anonimoose]

Just want to echo what others have said -- I think we overblow the importance of caliber, when what really matters is having a firearm, the proper training, and a defensive mindset. In the overwhelming majority of cases, simply having (and being prepared to use) a firearm will deter an attack. Consider: Dr. Gary Keck's (pro-CCW) research showed that less than 47% actually pointed their firearms at the criminal, less than a quarter (22%) actually fired, less than 15% fired intending to hit someone (the other 7% were warning shots), and less than 8% actually hit their targets. In other words, your odds are less than 1/10 that "caliber" will actually be a factor in a defensive engagement. The other 90% of the game, so to speak, is having a firearm, proper training, and a defensive mindset.

But that's even assuming you get into a gunfight. If we step back further...according to the FBI, there were 1,318,398 violent crimes in 2009 (out of 307,006,550 Americans). Let's assume for a moment that every single one of those victims had a firearm (if only that were true). Taking into account Dr. Keck's research and making some statistical assumptions (8% of 1,318,398 of 307,006,550), you come to the rough analysis/conclusion that in 2009, caliber "mattered" (or would have mattered) for only 0.0343% of all Americans. Of course, this isn't even taking demographics into account. Are you male or female? How old are you? Are you a member of a minority group? What is your socioeconomic status? Do you live in an urban, suburban, or rural area? Your chances of encountering violent crime dramatically increases (or drops) depending on who you are, where you live and what you do.

Compare that to auto accidents -- 6,420,000 auto accidents in 2005, in which 2,900,000 Americans were injured and another 42,636 killed. Can we agree that it's far, far, far more likely that the average CCW permit-holder will get into a serious car accident tonight than will engage in a gun fight with a gaggle of 6'5" drugged up crazies? Well then why don't we get into "caliber wars" about our vehicles -- comparing crash test ratings and consumer reports and the efficacy of this car's safety features over the merits of that one in some sort of hypothetical worst-case scenario accident?

Do you see what I mean? In the long run, the caliber wars are a bit silly since they matter (on average in any given calendar year) for only 0.03% of us. Don't get me wrong -- most of us are firearms enthusiasts on a firearms forum, so it's fun to debate this or that, but I think most of us would also agree that all handgun calibers suck. Some just suck less. What we should focus on is having a firearm, the proper training, and a defensive mindset.

(Thankfully, most thoughtful/wise/experienced forum users repeat this mantra to new TFLers who post "HI! I just got my CCW. SO EXCITED! I am looking for the perfect gun in the perfect caliber. What should I get? Also, is it true that there is a place in a man's head that, if you shoot it, it will blow up?")

[daliff89]

you're right about the junkies and whatnot, but from my experience where i'm at, they're usually not high when they commit the crime, they're committing the crime so they can go get high

it's definitely possible that you can walk around after getting hit with a .44 magnum, but that doesn't mean it's just as likely as walking around after getting hit with a .22LR

people seem to be saying that just because these things CAN happen, they WILL happen

just because a .22 CAN stop someone with one shot, if the shot is placed perfectly, that doesn't mean it WILL

and it doesn't mean that a bigger projectile won't do more to stop the subject with one shot than the .22 did

people like to think of worst-case scenarios, and about the most worst-case you can get (besides your weapon malfunctioning or you missing) is you only get one shot to stop the attacker

if you're only going to get one shot on the attacker, why not make it the biggest projectile you can? if i only have time to throw one rock at a person that i know i'm going to hit in the head, i'm going to pick up the largest rock i can find....

[Seaman]

Ahoy Magnum Wheel Man ---

re 380 cartridge

"how did you come to this conclusion ???" [Magnum Wheel Man]

By testing ammo thru various media: pork ribs, clothing, leather, various woods, metals, washing machine, etc. Yes I know the scientific methodolgy is questionable.

"...how do you know that...2 shots from a .380 will not do the job..." [Magnum Wheel Man]

I know that in tests, the 380 has done far less damage to media than 9mm para or 38 spl. For example, a 380 bullet penetrated one and one-half spruce 2x4s, the 9mm para penetrated more than five 2x4s.

Penetration to vital body part stops the deadly attacker.

The 9mm para has significantly more power and the 38 spl is a heavier slug. Fact is most nations use the 9mm para as their choice of handgun battle round and the 38 spl has a record of being a good stopper, many Americans watched live as Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald with a snub-nose 38 spl Colt, 158 slug, and years later watched the evening news when the Saigon police chief shot a Viet Cong with a S&W 38 spl. Both one shot stops, both men collapsed immediately, Oswald was dead within hours and the Viet Cong died immediately at the scene.

There is also the example of a Mississippi woman who was shot thru the head (brain) with a 380, thru and thru, she called the police for help and when they arrived she made them tea (while holding a towel to her head).

Bottom line, I don't have a lot of confidence in the 380 cartridge, especially against a determined attacker.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

thanks for the explaination...

my expirience has been shooting live critters around the farm with my CCW weapons... & even a 45 ACP isn't 100% on critters as little as an oppossum when shot COM

so while I can understand that you questioning the 380... I really question any handgun I carry, & I carry much bigger more powerful rounds than 9mm... ( actually my carry battery ranges from a NAA mini to my full sized 10mm or 45 Colt revolver with 6-8 guns / cartridges in between... 45 Colt snubbie on my belt )

I even question 12 ga slugs as a one shot stop, after witnessing my buddy shooting a deer from about 25 ft... the slug hit a rib going in & litterally blew a basket ball sized hole in the off side... blood shot out everywhere for a circle around 25 ft... yet the deer ran almost a mile up a pretty steep hill before it finally laid down

so I have to believe that any gun is going to stop 90% or better of the threats, & be prepared for failure to stop with any gun I have that day... & just hope it's not my day to die

I think too many people have too much confidence in their carry gun... shooting paper... trying to kill animals with a handgun give one reason to question just about any handgun caliber

[Nnobby45]

No, when certain criteria are met, you are authorized to shoot another human being to prevent him from carrying out a certain class of violent crimes when there is no other reasonable option available to you. If he dies that's acceptable, but I know of no laws that explicitly give someone permission to kill another person--that authorize a person to kill legally. The laws allow the use of deadly force with the understanding that death MAY result, they aren't about authorizing citizens to kill.

Now you know why I said can of worms.

Nevada Revised Statue

1. For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses, while lawfully in his residence or in transient lodging, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or another person lawfully in the residence or transient lodging if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary or invasion of the home and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary or invasion of the home was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary or invasion of the home may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Now I'm no lawyer-- never studied law a day in my life--but making force lawful that's "intended to cause death" sure sounds like a right to intentionally kill another human being within the context of the statue in my state. Sounds rather specific to me and clear that just the presence of an intruder in your home meets the criteria re: reasonable fear.

NOTE: the law is similar outside of one's residence within the context of different, more strict, criteria.

[JohnKSa]

That's an interesting (and fairly unique as far as I can tell) wording, and I'll keep it in mind for future discussions. While it doesn't come flat out and say that the defender is "authorized to kill", it certainly does say that he's authorized to use "force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury" which is close to the same thing.

It does give residents of your state a little extra leeway in that it prevents the prosecutor from trying to show an improper state of mind by claiming that the defender's actions were intended to cause death, not just focused on defense. I like the additional protection from the legal perspective but, that said, it's still important to keep the proper goal in mind from a tactical standpoint even when the specific wording of a particular law might blur the distinction. In other words, if a defender focuses on the goal of stopping the attacker and on defense he's very likely going to make wiser decisions from a tactical standpoint than if he focuses on trying to kill the attacker.

For example, being properly focused on defense completely eliminates the desire to pursue which would be encouraged by the misconception that the goal is to kill the attacker. As we all know, pursuit of the attacker can lead to both legal and tactical problems for a defender.

And in the specific example posited by the OP, the proper focus would help the defender understand that if he's dithering about whether or not to shoot someone that it's very likely that it's because deadly force is not justified. If a person really needs to use deadly force, it's highly unlikely that he'll be concerned about the wisdom of shooting his attacker--if he really needs to use deadly force, he'll be out of other reasonable options.