The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 31, 2020, 04:55 PM   #1
5pins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 1998
Location: WV
Posts: 249
Federal .380 ACP 99gr HST in Clear Ballistics Gel.



Test Gun: Ruger LCP
Barrel length: 2.75 inches.
Ammunition: Federal .380 ACP 99gr HST.
Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel.
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Five shot velocity average: 967fps
Gel Temperature 70 degrees.

https://generalcartridge.wordpress.c...allistics-gel/
__________________
www.general-cartridge.com
5pins is offline  
Old January 31, 2020, 05:57 PM   #2
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,451
Wow, that's not bad at all, especially for .380.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 10:55 AM   #3
sparkyv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2015
Location: Deepinnaheartta,Texas
Posts: 256
Agreed, not bad at all for a .380.
__________________
μολὼν λαβέ
NRA Life Member
sparkyv is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 11:56 AM   #4
cslinger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,788
For .380 that’s damn respectable for a hollow point.
__________________
"Is there anyway I can write my local gun store off on my taxes as dependents?"
cslinger is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 04:45 PM   #5
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,301
Can't really ask for more from a .380 out of such a short barrel.

Luckygunner did shoot this in their .380 tests years ago, but it was from a Glock 42 (a longer barrel) yet the velocity average was under 900 fps. You got almost 75 fps more with a shorter barrel... that makes no sense, but as Paul Harrell says, "not all chronographs agree with each other... certain environmental factors... you be the judge."

I'm not sure if Federal has changed the powder used to get higher velocity or if there was something funky about the Glock 42 Lucky Gunner used.

Either way, we have more data and it's making me wonder. I can't write the .380 HST off anymore, but I need to see more from others before it convinces me that it's worth trusting a hollow point in .380 vs a solid bullet like Inceptor or Lehigh.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 05:41 PM   #6
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers View Post
Can't really ask for more from a .380 out of such a short barrel.
I can
That is terrible penetration
Expansion doesn't make up for poor penetration
__________________
Playboy billionaire
Retired Colonial Marine
1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit
TBM900 is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 06:45 PM   #7
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBM900 View Post
I can
That is terrible penetration
Expansion doesn't make up for poor penetration
I agree, but you're saying 11.5 inches of penetration is unaccepable from a pocket pistol? I mean, I'd agree if we were talking about a full size 1911 or Glock, but this isn't that.

You call 11.5 inches in bare gel, 13-15 inches in heavy clothed gel terrible? I have seen MUCH worse.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 07:11 PM   #8
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers View Post
you're saying 11.5 inches of penetration is unaccepable from a pocket pistol?
Yes

Quote:
You call 11.5 inches in bare gel, 13-15 inches in heavy clothed gel terrible?
Yes
__________________
Playboy billionaire
Retired Colonial Marine
1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit
TBM900 is offline  
Old February 1, 2020, 10:18 PM   #9
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBM900 View Post
Yes


Yes
Okay.

IMO, you're wrong, it's fine.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 05:28 AM   #10
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
You got almost 75 fps more with a shorter barrel... that makes no sense
Just as an FYI - I've seen far great velocity spread - even when the same ammunition was used, on the same day, out of different chambers in an excellent revolver.
75 fps is nothing. Go to ballistics by the inch and peruse the data there.
Hal is online now  
Old February 2, 2020, 06:10 AM   #11
JERRYS.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,757
looks like a good load!
JERRYS. is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 06:44 AM   #12
roadrash
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2005
Posts: 366
That is penetration comparable to most standard pressure .45 acp defensive loads fired from compact pistols, along with perfect expansion in bare gel and denim.
I am skeptical.
roadrash is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 01:31 PM   #13
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers View Post
Okay.

IMO, you're wrong, it's fine.
I'll trust my 40+ years in LE, my 50+ years hunting, and my 60+ years on a working ranch, over "You're wrong".
__________________
Playboy billionaire
Retired Colonial Marine
1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit
TBM900 is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 09:30 PM   #14
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
0.5" under the FBI spec for bare gel for .380ACP out of a sub-3" barrel with really good expansion isn't all that bad. Especially when it meets the spec in clothed gel.

I can see why some people might choose other options; but saying it's "terrible" seems a bit extreme.

If anything, it's so good it's hard to believe. Both the velocity and expansion are much better than Luckygunner's results. I'm with roadrash in being somewhat skeptical.
Quote:
I'll trust my 40+ years in LE, my 50+ years hunting, and my 60+ years on a working ranch...
How many times in that "150+ years" did the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration turn out to be critically important?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 09:48 PM   #15
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,432
Quote:
How many times in that "150+ years" did the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration turn out to be critically important?
At least once...1986 in Miami.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 09:49 PM   #16
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
How many times in that "150+ years" did the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration turn out to be critically important?

Where did I assert any such thing....
__________________
Playboy billionaire
Retired Colonial Marine
1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit
TBM900 is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 10:29 PM   #17
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
Quote:
At least once...1986 in Miami.
I've seen people claim that bullet only penetrated 8". My analysis of the autopsy photographs and Platt's size suggests penetration was at least 3" more than that and that it would have penetrated at least 13" in gel once the unshored exit through the skin of his upper arm and the re-entry to his body (both while expanded) are taken into account. Anyway, while it's true that another tiny bit of penetration would have shortened the firefight, it's highly unlikely that the difference was the half inch between 11.5" and 12". Some would have you believe it was the difference between 8" and 8.5", but it's more likely that it was the difference between 13" and 13.5", or between 12.75 and 13.25" or something like that.
Quote:
Where did I assert any such thing....
I'm sorry; I assumed you were going with the standard of penetration embraced by essentially all of U.S. Law enforcement which states that 12" of penetration is acceptable for expanding handgun ammunition intended for "antipersonnel" use.

Do you have your own personal penetration standard for self-defense ammunition? How did you arrive at it?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 2, 2020, 10:43 PM   #18
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
My analysis of the autopsy photographs...
My reading of the actual PME showed that the bullet traveled through 16" of bad guy.

Quote:
and that it would have penetrated at least 13" in gel
Bad guy and gel are not analogous.

Quote:
it's highly unlikely that the difference was the half inch between 11.5" and 12". Some would have you believe it was the difference between 8" and 8.5", but it's more likely that it was the difference between 13" and 13.5", between 14.25" and 14.75" or something like that
What if the shooter was on a treadmill?
If they were both on treadmills, would the 0.5" be negated or multiplied?


Quote:
I'm sorry, I assumed you were going with the standard of penetration embraced by essentially all of U.S. Law enforcement which states that 12" of penetration is acceptable for expanding handgun ammunition intended for "antipersonnel" use.
I didn't say a word about any (arguably arbitrary) "standard"

Quote:
Do you have your own personal penetration standard for self-defense ammunition?
Yup

Quote:
How did you arrive at it?
Real world experience.
__________________
Playboy billionaire
Retired Colonial Marine
1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit
TBM900 is offline  
Old February 3, 2020, 12:41 AM   #19
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,117
Quote:
My reading of the actual PME showed that the bullet traveled through 16" of bad guy.
Very interesting. As I said, I've had people with some level of credibility try to convince me that it only went 8" which made no sense at all from the autopsy photos. I appreciate your input--very useful information.
Quote:
What if the shooter was on a treadmill?
I was answering a comment (not from you) that stated the difference between 11.5" and 12.0" of penetration made a critical difference in the outcome of the 1986 FBI shooting. You and I both agree that there was no bullet that penetrated only 11.5" but that would have made a critical difference if it had penetrated 12.0". Are you just going to disagree with everything I say for the sake of disagreeing even when we actually agree?
Quote:
Bad guy and gel are not analogous.
And yet you're saying a round is "terrible" based on gel penetration figures. Either they mean something or they don't.
Quote:
I didn't say a word about any (arguably arbitrary) "standard".
Please note that I said my comment (which you quoted) was based on my assuming something, not on something you said. Again, if we disagree, it's worthwhile to address the disagreement. If we don't disagree, why try to make it seem like we do?
Quote:
Yup.
Ok, then your previous comments make a lot of sense in that light.

However, I think you can see why your personal standard of what is "terrible" penetration might not be widely held given that it apparently (I'm still assuming because you haven't said yet what your personal standard is) doesn't agree at all with the (arguably arbitary) standard that is essentially universally accepted by U.S. LE.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 3, 2020, 01:10 AM   #20
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
However, I think you can see why your personal standard of what is "terrible" penetration might not be widely held given that it apparently (I'm still assuming because you haven't said yet what your personal standard is) doesn't agree at all with the (arguably arbitary) standard that is essentially universally accepted by U.S. LE.
Most standards are arbitrary.

Most highways in the northeastern U.S. have speed limits of 65 MPH. Most people drive them at 70, 75, or 80 MPH, and there aren't all that any accidents considering the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limits. But they want a speed limit, and they chose 65 because ... reasons. It's a standard, and it's arbitrary.

I work in the building industry. Building construction is based on codes and standards, just about all of which are arbitrary. For example, a particular class of occupancy might allow a maximum travel distance to an exit of 100 feet. If it was 105 feet, would everyone die in a fire? Would anyone die in a fire? It probably would make any difference, but they needed a number and they settled on 100 feet.

Snow loads. Different regions of the country use different numbers for roof snow loads and for wind loads. Who says 30 PSF is THE accurate number for a particular region? 35 would obviously be safer. How much less safe would 25 PSF be? If a region were to change from 30 PDF to 25 PSF, would all the new buildings collapse? Probably not. They needed a number, and they picked 30. It's a standard, and it's arbitrary.

That's the nature of standards. Basically, they're all arbitrary.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 3, 2020, 02:35 AM   #21
zoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2019
Posts: 190
I use to worry about the efficacy of .380 for self defense back four or more decades ago because it seemed I could sometimes have created more penetration spittin darts through a straw.

Now with modern ammo and current pistol reliability factors, I'm tickled pink with .380 keeping in mind the tactical limitations of the round. Just like I do with every other firearm type and caliber.
zoo is offline  
Old February 3, 2020, 09:32 AM   #22
mk70ss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,252
Blah, blah, blah,........if you like and carry a .380 pistol, this looks like a pretty decent load for it. If you don’t like or carry a .380 pistol, then it does not apply to you. You people get way too worked up over your biases for or against a certain caliber or load.
__________________
Say when.....
mk70ss is offline  
Old February 4, 2020, 08:35 PM   #23
zoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2019
Posts: 190
Quote:
You people get way too worked up over your biases for or against a certain caliber or load.
Mk70ss,

Well yes and no. I sometimes tire of the relentless admonitions from occasional yahoos at the range when I'm shooting a .380. They will all of a sudden appear and stand on their soapbox and announce "I would never carry anything under a 9 mm."

In one such case during a penis measuring contest a dude proceeded to tell me how his leg wound in Vietnam from a 7.62x39 AK round was worse than my arm wound from a .45 Mac-10 round. I pointed out that he was still walking around just fine on his leg and I was clearly shooting well with my arm!

Sometimes folks just start pumping their jaws over the dumbest things.
zoo is offline  
Old February 5, 2020, 07:50 AM   #24
Carmady
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: on the lam
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
In one such case during a penis measuring contest a dude proceeded to tell me how his leg wound in Vietnam from a 7.62x39 AK round was worse than my arm wound from a .45 Mac-10 round.
That's pathetic. Some people take every opportunity possible to one-up someone else. They're like the guy who goes peeling out when the stop light turns green, and think "Yeah boy, I really showed him," but he's the only one who was racing. Moron.
Carmady is offline  
Old February 5, 2020, 08:24 AM   #25
wild cat mccane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 1,729
I clicked on the XTP 380 test.

Looks a bit different than the shootingthebull results. On this site, the HST is the clear winner. The XTP didn't expand at in with denim.
wild cat mccane is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10108 seconds with 10 queries