This is a discussion on The Myth that .380acp is ineffective for personal defense. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Duhhh! Sorry, that should have said .380ACP, 95 Grain JHP – never get old, it just ain't hardly worth it...good eye, guy. Thanks for catchin' ...
Sorry, that should have said .380ACP, 95 Grain JHP – never get old, it just ain't hardly worth it...good eye, guy.
Thanks for catchin' that...smile!
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson
I think most if not all would agree that should a self defense situation occur, you are going to fight with whatever you have with you at the time. Whatever is threatening you at the moment is not going to take a time out on the field to allow you to go home to arm yourself appropriately. The fight is now and if you are unarmed, then you will be at the mercy of your attacker(s)! Not a pleasant thought for anyone.
I wished I had a crystal ball that could foretell the future, and if I saw that I would be attacked on a certain day and at a certain time, I would be some place else. Since this is not reality, I choose to carry a handgun concealed should trouble arise that I couldn't talk my way out, of or get away from it altogether.
Yes I believe you should carry the most effective handgun(s) that you can, but doing so comes with a price. Generally a more powerful handgun is bigger, heavier and less comfortable to carry. Just the law of physics. You will have to decide what is best for you. What would work for me may not work for you and vice versa. Just remember that Clint Eastwood took off that big .44 when he was done shooting a scene as Dirty Harry. Movies are fun, reality - not so much.
To my way of thinking I would rather be armed with a .380 pistol then unarmed and begging for my life from some miscreant!
God bless our troops!
A non-combat event is a non-combat event.
A defender holding in hand to clenched fists, golf club or whatever else who is able by _posturing_ to dissuade an attacker has by result not actually entered combat. Same applies to using verbal and non-verbal cues and commands to indicated 'Stop' and 'Do not bother me!'.
Lets say a study indicates that seventy five percent of women who say 'No I'm not interested' are then able to prevent a rape before it happens; Does that count in the big math as related to actual rape?
Nope. Great for those people, but as toward the not at all small number other twenty five percent...As much is no consolation.
The discussion is toward use of force by way of .380, as in to be fired as per combat application.
That is wholly different than simply having the gun on person unused if even handled for threat reference.
As to caliber checking by the threat, that too is inconsequential to the specifics of the discussion.
It was not which caliber is more scary seeming or is the .380 ACP barrel hole and gun in sizing intimidating enough to carry.
There have been those threads before...But this one in specific is not that, at least not thus far.
But that too is not the question; Be armed with a .380 or choose nothing at all.
Of course being armed with a .380 (or _something_) is better than empty hands, hopes for mercy and prayers to God/Allah/Jehovah/Phil N. Theblank.
The discussion though is toward minimums (!) as related to combat self defense use; Is the .380 an acceptable as into be shoot a person (not show it to them) functional so as to stop an attacker.
With no other choices available I would bet it all and the kitchen sink that not anyone on the whole of this forum would pass on a .380.
But in the real world there are in fact very many other options available, above (i.e. 9x19mm, .38 Special, .357 , .40 S&W and .45 ACP as common combat/defense calibers)...and below (i.e. 32 ACP, .22 Magnum/WMR, .22LR and I have even seen folk argue toward .17HMR in a Kimber 1911).
So the thread has been about minimums,not choosing to pass on .380 at the risk of otherwise being wholly unarmed altogether.
Wild Bill Hickok killed Tutt with a single shot to the heart at 75 yards with an Colt 1851 .36 Navy. The bullet is a 36 caliber (.375-.380-inch) round lead ball weighs 86 grains and, at a velocity of 1,000 feet per second, not too different than a .380ACP.
Old Wild Bill was a hell of a shot, eh?
As I previously said, "to a vital spot"...that's the key with any caliber, as we all know.
I like that example...I need to study-up more on his history...yep!
Boy-howdy, you really said that good, and I totally concur!Quote from crazy4guns: "To my way of thinking I would rather be armed with a .380 pistol then unarmed and begging for my life from some miscreant!"
"Guns, in the right hands, save innocent lives...Richard"
A Colt 1851 .36 Navy...The same gun depicted in Clint Eastwood fiction flicks
Image Source - http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/...topic=4347.165
Much of the western tales make no sense at all as related to _physics_.
A small lead ball pushed by blackpowder from a gun with no sights (or just a front bead) being able to be fired with _extreme_ precision across what is for any handgun even a modern ammunition one quite a distance (seventy five yards!!!) to make a precise not njust combat hit but one that is purposeful as to a persons heart...And that single lead ball projectile was not blown off course by air movement (!) even as it was a non rifled round projectile being fired from a smooth bore barrel OR a round projectile being fired from a rifled barrel whihc we well know again by physics and modern guns does not work at all toward accuracy in general muchless fine accuracy.
For more on that see the Box of Truth as this was well covered years ago, never mind what has been known by hunters for nearly 40 yrs. now with firing shot through a sabot (rifled) barrel.
Had you said 75 feet (25 yards) I'd maybe then buy it...Maybe.
But 75 yards, sorry even if it did happen that would be a miracle shot at best.
- James Bond depends on .380 ACP, even as he and his adventures are pure fiction
P.S. - For common man reference the width of a standardized full size NCAA soccer field, line to line, shall be no greater than 80 yards and no less than 65 yards...With a suggested "optimum" sizing of 75 yards wide.
Source - http://www.athleticfieldmarker.com/soccerfield
Now unless Bill Hickock was real world some sort of shooting prodigy akin to say modern and _actually substantiated_ shooters Bob Munden or Jerry Miculek, then well okay. But he wouldn't be relevant to this conversation either, as they aren't, because of the fact that he is far outside of averages as being a shooter AND that in kind his ability to deploy a given firearm by type and chambering to a given net effect is also irrelevant toward real world capabilities and function of the those who are not one among the less than 1%.
Cowboy flicks and so called history books are fun to red for entertainment, but we can't in modern times with any degree of seriousness look back to those for direction nor provision of data when it comes to use of modern arms for purpose of real combat rather than criminals shooting at criminals from ridiculous and even wholly unbelievable ranges, as for who knows what reasons that per those time history often had nothing at all to do with defense as opposed to drunkenness and bravado.
I have to disagree with you. In the original post is about the frustration by the OP over the nonsense that the gunshow guy was feeding the woman.
Totally false information by the gun show guy. Based on Kleck, it didn't matter what caliber of gun was used, 75% of the attacks were stopped by the production of a gun. As stated in my first post in this thread, the purpose in a self defense situation, and the way that I teach my classes is your goal is to "stop the threat".I heard it again today at a gun show, a woman was looking to buy a concealed carry weapon, and the salesman was telling her not to even look at the .380acp's because they where ineffective for defense, and she'd probably be safer using a BB-gun or pepper spray!
The correct repsonse should have been the guy is trying to make an upsale so please leave him alone. As I have previously stated if the guy thought .380's were useless, they should not have been occupying space on his table.The guy literally told me to shut-up, because I didn't know what I was talking about, he teaches gun safety classes, and he's an expert!
The OP then went on to give some energy data from information he had which clearly showed that the .380 has 34 times as much energy as a BB gun. If 18% makes that much difference to folks between a .38 sp and a .380, then certainly 34 times the energy makes a difference between a BB gun and a .380, since the gun show salesman said she would be safer with the BB gun.
If this thread was about which caliber was most effective, or what is the minimum effective round we are willing to carry I could stand on your side, but since that isn't what the original post is about, we will have to disagree on this one.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
#'s 4 U
Per the Marshall/Sanow Handgun Stopping Power study based on street results:
.32 ACP WW 60 gr. STHP: 61 shootings, 36 one-shot stops, 59%
.380 ACP WW 85 gr STHP: 59 shootings, 32 one-shot stops, 54%
.38 special, 2" bbl, WW 125 gr JHP +P: 41 shootings, 23 one-shot stops, 56%. Many carry a .38 snub and would consider this round "adequate".
There are other loads listed but these are most similar. How "definitive" their study is has been argued ad nauseam so let's not go there. But their work does give a frame of reference based on something more than conjecture.
Many factors are at play in determining the outcome of a shooting. The difference between the foregoing 3 rounds is probably inconsequential.
Dead at hospital doesn't equal stopping the attack before lethal damage is done to the victim. I tend to question discussions about cartridges by people who didn't actually see the gun that was used. In the case of the nurses/dr's, aren't they most concerned about fixing whatever damage they can find regardless of what gun was used? How many went straight to the morgue? - I see over and over again people making baseless assumptions about stuff they don't know and then those assumptions accepted as fact. I want the attacker stopped b/c he physically can't fight anymore, not b/c he chooses not to b/c he suddenly realizes he's been shot - I'm just not gonna rely on or hope for that, and not gonna choose my carry gun based on that. WRT the guy not wanting to sell a .380, he's reasoning wasn't valid, buy he still may have done her a favor. .380 ammo is about the most expensive out there, about even with .45 ACP and those small guns the .380 is typically chambered in are hard for the novice to shoot well - small sight radius and harder to hold onto (especially during recoil) due to size and weight - same goes for those airweights. People assume smaller bullet means less felt recoil w/o taking into account the size/weight of the gun. That said, I'd carry a .380 if I couldn't find a way to pull off something bigger - but I'd count on pulling the trigger a lot more. Thanks for the BB tip to whoever added that.
You can read more about Wild Bill here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bill_Hickok
and the 1851 revolver here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1851_Navy_Revolver
Well givent he fact that there are as many 9mm offerings that are the same size as their .380 counterparts, i will carry a 9mm first. That being said, I have seen the post mortem results of a .380 first hand and up close. It will do the job. The ammo selection is getting much better, and I would not feel unprotected with a .380.
Friends don't let friends be MALL NINJAS.
I am just as nice as anyone lets me be and can be just as mean as anyone makes me. - Quoted from Terryger, New member to our forum.
http://statpages.org/ctab2x2.html and you will see that they are not statistically significant. That is, from the numbers presented you can't say with 95% certainty that one is better than the other.