LCP defense ammo?

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

An "underpenetrating" round that only goes in 8" into the body cavity is entirely sufficient if it does what it's supposed to do. Projectiles are designed to penetrate and cause damage. Were not talking rubber bullets and bean bags designed to cause somone to re-thimk their decision.

Most people stop what they are doing if someone points a gun at them. If not, most of the rest stop when they get shot-no one wants to get shot again.

Even if you shoot someone with FMJ, as long as the round hits a vital spot, they will go down. If the hit is not in a vital spot and they actually don't mind being shot again, I doubt if a hollow point would make any difference.

That said, I try to carry expanding ammunition when I can.

Huh? If a round under penetrates, by definition it did NOT do what it was supposed to do. Do they have a psychological component yes. Should we be depending on that to stop a threat, no.

Most people are not a threat and we should not be counting on a threat to act like most people.

[wild cat mccane]

Vista's white paper on the DEEP line including 380

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AaLbxBneLsmzu2

Grr. I hate linking like that.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Vista's white paper on the DEEP line including 380

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AaLbxBneLsmzu2

Grr. I hate linking like that.

Good paper. Had not read it. but very insightful into the design theory.

[fastbolt]

Just from my own perspective, I don't try to boot-strap my LCP's into anything other then the 'minimum adequate' .380ACP's they are.

Personally, I also don't look to hold the ammo I use in my .380 retirement weapons up to the same standards represented in the FBI testing protocols for duty ammunition. I only carry them for lower/reduced threat risk assessment conditions, anyway. I recognize their inherent reduced 'performance' potential.

I still remember the brief discussion I had with Gary Roberts some years ago, when we met on an agency range. I respect his opinions, but I don't necessarily always share all of them. (Not uncommon within the LE training field, as not everyone always agrees with everyone else. )

I remember the look on Mas' face when he asked what I was carrying when I met him for dinner one day, and I answered an LCP. My comment was more or less that it matters where you put the hits, and I didn't feel like belting on a bigger gun that day. He politely chuckled.

I think I only have a single 50rd box of the Winchester .380 T-Series left over from when I bought some when I retired. Nowadays I generally use either Rem 102gr BJHP or Speer 90gr GDHP. They feed fine in my LCP's. They shoot well for POA/POI out of my pair of LCP's, in my hands. If they deform or expand? Well, there's virtually always a trade off of one sort or another to be found in the world of practical ballistics.

Basically, suit yourself. Not everyone is always going to agree with everyone else. At my former agency we eventually put into policy that the smallest caliber weapon authorized for on-duty use as a backup, or for off-duty, was a .380ACP ... and only JHP's were authorized. (The .25 & .32 aficionados were not pleased.)

FWIW, it might be interesting to see how/if the policy has changed due to the introduction of .30 Super Carry, as that smaller caliber seems to rest on a "ballistic capability" ladder rung between .380 and 9mm (albeit closer to 9mm).

Life goes on.

[Shadow9mm]

My agency has a list of approved firearms brands, approved cartridges, only HP ammo, and specific bullet weights by cartridge, so nothing crazy light or crazy heavy.

My philosophy is simply. I prefer to have reason for and behind the things I do and choices I make. I have no problem explaining those reasons. Or listening to other peoples reasons, that is how we learn.

I feel the 380 is a capable cartridge, but based on the standards I expect it to meet, or at least get awful close to, bullet selection is paramount. I know everyone does not feel the need for those standards, and I don't expect them to. But if one is looking to select a bullet in 380 for defensive use, and it can meet those standards, all the better.

[Mosin44az]

Thanks again for all the info. Some serious knowledge here. From posts above it sounds like Norma velocity on the box is exaggerated. So might not blow the slide off the LCP as I feared.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Vista's white paper on the DEEP line including 380

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AaLbxBneLsmzu2

Grr. I hate linking like that.

Yeah, they're doing exactly the right thing, for a .380 HP. Design for reliable but lesser total expansion diameter. Then the bullet doesn't deploy as large of a "drag chute" that works against penetration.

I'm personally still a little paranoid about failure of 380 HP's to penetrate, and will stick with my high-velocity copper solids for now, but I might eventually convince myself these are the way to go.

[wild cat mccane]

Robert's thoughts are on ar15.com under Best Self Defense Ammo and is fantastic.

That said, 380 DEEP approaches 9mm HST performance. That isnt something others do. It isnt priced any worse either.

Gold Saber is one of the five magic rounds in 9mm and seems to work in the lcp. But HST is the magic round in 9mm but isnt great in 380, it is actually not good.

Meh. How much hp 380 does one need? I hope DEEP gets noticed. It is the best in my mind, passing up Bull's tests of Hornady.

Federal killed of Robert's number one shotgun buck shot load, FlightControl #1. I loved that stuff. Same penetration as 00, but 30% more surface area. Wow!

It does require us to purchase to keep rounds alive. I hope people start checking into DEEP. It is a magic configuration unlike any other 380 jhp. It corrects what was wrong with old Federal Hydra with a post vs new spire post. Just amazing stuff.

[wild cat mccane]

I want Lehigh solid copper bullets to be the ''it'' too. But i am not sure the damage happens at the right place. Jhp ends big. My mind, Lehigh rotation would be less effective at the end where velocity ends.

I have a few boxes, but not convinced on them.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I want Lehigh solid copper bullets to be the ''it'' too. But i am not sure the damage happens at the right place. Jhp ends big. My mind, Lehigh rotation would be less effective at the end where velocity ends.

I have a few boxes, but not convinced on them.

Its not the rotation. Its the flutes channeling material and shooting it out the side. Kind of like a snow plough.

Heres an interesting video though, that has made me question the design. In this case it appears to be tumbling. But it does create a better cavity than ball ammo. https://youtu.be/sxRqYPpDCZU

[Mosin44az]

On initial test, the Norma malfed on 2 of the first 5 shots in my old LCP, which is of course not good. Worked fine in the Max, and recoil wasn’t particularly sharp either. So not the super hot load they advertise on the box. Which IS good.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Huh? If a round under penetrates, by definition it did NOT do what it was supposed to do. Do they have a psychological component yes. Should we be depending on that to stop a threat, no.

Most people are not a threat and we should not be counting on a threat to act like most people.

Your argument is based on the current FBI Service Pistol spec.

... which, in turn, is based on a worst case scenario Lateral thoracic shot. (Miami shoot-out - through an automobile window, upper arm+lateral thorax, with three clothing stages)


This might be replicated in a civilian defensive situation by an assailant charging you wound up with a baseball bat.

Other than that, a thorax is ~ 8.5" thick, including front and back ribs.

... and both pelvic girdle and snot locker considerably less.


If an assailant was charging me wound up with a baseball bat intent on grievous bodily harm or death?

He would be catching .45 ACP/230 gr. rounds - first in the pelvic girdle to stop, and then in the snot locker if the threat continued.


So, given that, what is my choice for .380 ACP defensive ammo?

A mag of Winchester 95 gr. PDX1, because it reliably expands to 0.62" and penetrates 8.5"+, backed up with a mag of Winchester 95 gr. FMJ/FP, in case there are any barrier issues.

Red

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Its not the rotation. Its the flutes channeling material and shooting it out the side. Kind of like a snow plough.

Heres an interesting video though, that has made me question the design. In this case it appears to be tumbling. But it does create a better cavity than ball ammo. https://youtu.be/sxRqYPpDCZU

Have not seen any indication that it has any marked advantage in permanent wound channel over FMJ/FP.




Red

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

An "underpenetrating" round that only goes in 8" into the body cavity is entirely sufficient … .

A bullet that penetrates 8 in from a frontal shot does not underpenetrate. Eight inches of penetration into the chest from the front is plenty to reach vital tissues of all but the most massive land whales (who likely don't have the mobility to assault you anyway).

What is desireable is a round that will penetrate adequately from a suboptimal angle, e.g., from the side. If a reasonably large person is 24-in wide from outer arm to outer arm, 12 in penetration would be nice to reach the center of mass of vital tissues within the chest cavity, but something less than half way through will still reach one lung.

Don't confuse gel penetration with actual penetration into a body. As the professor who founded the Statistics Department at my alma mater was fond of pointing out: All models are wrong (after all, they are simplifications of reality), but some models are useful. Standardized gel penetration testing is useful in selecting effective handgun rounds for wounding. The International Wound Ballistics Association — comprised of experts in the field of human terminal ballistics — observed that those handgun round that produced at least 12.5 in of penetration in standard, calibrated bare gel, and at least 13.0 in of penetration in such gel preceeded by four layers of heavy denim, were capable of penetrating deeply enough into a human to cause effective wounding.

I don't buy the FBI's undocumented modification of the IWBA criteria — to 12.0 to 18.0 in — because I don't know their rationale. I'll stick with the documented opinion of the experts. I believe the FBI's upper penetration criterion arises from the assumption that more penetration than that in gel will likely pass through a human. In comparing permanent wound channel volumes between rounds — depth of penetration in inches is multiplied by cross-sectional area of the expanded bullet in in^2 — I've seen the FBI cap the depth penetration at 18.0 in for bullets penetrating further.

I don't care about the FBI's barrier penetration testing. If I'm concerned about penetrating barriers I'll carry a magazine with FMJs, or candy stripe a mag.

And, I'm not concerned about overpenetration. Any bullet I fire that strikes my assaillant and passes through him will have little remaining energy with which to wound another. And, I wouldn't fire if an innocent bystander were in the target background. Besides, even the FBI reports that the hottest gunfighters they field miss their target 70% of the time with each trigger pull. Their poor gunfighters miss at a rate of 80%. When I began reading gun magazines in the early '80s, the average LEO gunfight miss rate was reported to be 83%. Each missed shot has all its energy. Thus, anyone willing to use a firearm in defense better wed himself to the rule of knowing he's not jeopardizing anyone downrange of his target before pulling the trigger.

All things considered, I'd carry FMJs in any .380 pocket pistol. Some very few brands can be shown to penetrate adequately while expanding reliably, but often various testers report different results. Tests are also highly dependent on barrel length. If your barrel is shorter than the barrel of the test pistol your rounds may not expand, in which case you are better off carrying cheaper FMJs. If your barrel is longer you may get greater expansion, to a degree where penetration is inadequate, in which case you are better off with FMJs, as penetration über alles in the handgun defense game.

[Carmady]

Here's a video comparing Norma MHP .380 to Hornady CD and Sig Elite Performance HP.

The chrony tests show the Norma has about a 200fps advantage over the other brands.

How was the expansion? Watch the video, and "You be the judge."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEwDN...qfMKDoR4AaABAg

[Mosin44az]

Heh not good performance for the MHP in that Paul Harrell video, and he had a couple of malfs as well. Thought Norma was supposed to be a good brand. At least it was cheap.

[Willie Lowman]

Critical Defense is the only expanding .380 ammo I have found that will penetrate more than 8 inches or so.

Tests with it in gel have shown 11 to 12 inches of penetration with expansion through 4 layers of denim.

I carry a 9mm with +P HST. If for some reason I had to go to a .380, Critical Defense would be my choice for ammo.

[WmMunny]

I love these "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" threads. They are so entertaining.

But since the outcome yardtick in an actual self-defense encounter is generally shot placement/hits in critical zone, you'd probably be better served heading over to the range and burning a few boxes of much less expensive ammo...

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by WmMunny

I love these "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" threads. They are so entertaining.

But since the outcome yardtick in an actual self-defense encounter is generally shot placement/hits in critical zone, you'd probably be better served heading over to the range and burning a few boxes of much less expensive ammo...

Or you can test the JHP for function, then train mostly with FMJ, and carry the JHP, like most people I know do. I don’t think anyone on this thread is advocating for people to shoot JHP exclusively.

[wild cat mccane]

9mm HST reaches 18" in gel. After 20 years, I'd think we'd have heard HST is over penetrating.

I think the point that gel and human don't equate to equal distance is exactly right.

I'm advocating for DEEP, but it's still within 2" of penetration of Hornady. I bet DEEP expands more reliably looking at the bullet, but if expanded, those perfectly fine numbers for FBI or not.

Even the "civilian" marketed 9mm Federal Punch that uses a cheaper crappier lead but same copper jacket as HST is only reaching 14" in gel but fully expanded. That's only 2-4" off the HST gel tests.

[Red Devil]

A Navy Mk.2/USMC "Ka-Bar" fighting knife and current M9 Bayonet have a 7" blade.

The M3 Fighting knife and M4-M7 Bayonet have a 6-3/4" blade.

... because that length will reach the vitals.




Red

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

A Navy Mk.2/USMC "Ka-Bar" fighting knife and current M9 Bayonet have a 7" blade.

The M3 Fighting knife and M4-M7 Bayonet have a 6-3/4" blade.

... because that length will reach the vitals.




Red

Or, perhaps, its because longer knives and bayonets were not practical in the field. And because they were bending barrels. Thus the military profile barrel with the thicker front portion.

Dont forget to look at historical bayonets. Many were 12in or longer.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Or, perhaps, its because longer knives and bayonets were not practical in the field. And because they were bending barrels. Thus the military profile barrel with the thicker front portion.

Dont forget to look at historical bayonets. Many were 12in or longer.

So, it's your contention that, for the past Eighty(80) years, the US Military, through Three wars and several major conflicts, has been fielding fighting knives and bayonets to the troops in the field and in harm's way...

... that were spec'ed for practicality and barrel bending... and not deadly combat with a determined enemy?


Fascinating.

You should look into that more.




Red.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

So, it's your contention that, for the past Eighty(80) years, the US Military, through Three wars and several major conflicts, has been fielding fighting knives and bayonets to the troops in the field and in harm's way...

... that were spec'ed for practicality and barrel bending... and not deadly combat with a determined enemy?


Fascinating.

You should look into that more.




Red.

No its my contention that bayonets, for all practical purposes, have been obsolete for some time due to modern weapons development. And that the military designed a utility and fighting knife that could also be used as a bayonet as that only has to do with the design of the guard and locking mechanism in the handle.

To be honest I find the idea of comparing bayonets to bullets in relation to penetration seems to be apples to oranges. Bullets and sharp object function in very different ways. But while we are down this road, if we are to look at this, we should be looking at the time periods where bayonets were in common use as bayonets. For example the 18th to 19th century, in which they were in the 14 to 20 inch range. https://worldbayonets.com/Bayonet_Id...202%2F10%20in. Which is fairly in line the the FBI current standard of 12-18 inches of penetration.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I carry ball in all my autoloaders. Reliability is number one, then shot placement then penetration. Ball does all this well and you don't need it juiced up to go through your target so you can fire faster and poke more holes.