View Single Post
Old March 16, 2013, 02:30 AM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2007
Posts: 293
Is the 380 Still Going Strong?

Everyone knows just a little while back the 380 cal was all the craze and the pistol to have for concealed carry. I believe it all started with the Ruger LCP, then all the others followed. I was just wondering if most of you that bought one of the little 380's still carry them, or at least as much as you did. The reason I am asking this question is there have been so many manufacturers producing 9mm's that are just as small or as close to it as you can get to the little 380's. I was one of the ones that jumped on the 380 craze Ruger LCP) and like the little pistol. However after I bought my Kahr CM-9 I have stopped carrying the 380 for now anyway. The CM-9 is a great little pistol, but still not as comfortable to carry as the little LCP. I have always had and still do have a problem with what ammo to use in the LCP for the very best defensive round. Some said since it was not known as a great defense round I should use just round nose ammo for deeper penetration, others said any good hollow point. Some "experienced" shooters said they wouldn't even carry a 380. So I really didn't know what ammo would be best. I did get a box of "Buffalo Bore+P but Ruger does not recommend any +P ammo for the LCP. I have decided I am going to carry it this summer for obvious reasons but still I am not sure what would be the very best ammo to load it with. I did shoot some of the Buffalo Bore out of it just to make sure it functioned ok with it and it did, with considerable more recoil, but I do think it's one of the most powerful rounds you can carry in a 380. I would never target shoot with it, because I am almost certain it would put a lot of unreasonable wear on the pistol. What is you guy's take on the 380 in general, and the use of a + P round just for defense or should I abide by Ruger and stay away from the use + P which I will most likely do anyway. Thanks.
thinktwice is offline  
Page generated in 0.03299 seconds with 7 queries