What do you think about the .380 as a defense round?

[Toecutter]

you'd have a hard time finding a volenteer to stand in front of a 380 to prove it's not effective.

 

[Uzi]

I like carrying a 380, I have a few. The diamondback 380 is SO freaking tiny, but they won't tolerate anything other than premium ammo and can be hard to shoot rapidly accurately because it's so small. My walther pk380 has very little recoil and is very reliable. it'll shoot anything and you can rapid fire it like a 22lr pistol. The consistency and reputation of 9mm is so good and you can find guns so close to the same size where I kind of prefer it for future purchases, but I'm not one of those idiots that think the 380 is useless or ineffective. The 380 on the ankle is really nice for me, and something else in the waistband is what I prefer. I will say though as a single carry gun, shooting a small enough 380acp is equivalent to shooting a compact 45acp when it comes to control and muzzle rise. Any caliber is better than no caliber at all.

 

[Marine Cpl]

you'd have a hard time finding a volenteer to stand in front of a 380 to prove it's not effective.

That's not the point. A .25 Acp can kill you even if it doesn't hit vitals eventually through blood loss if not treated.

My point is that you need the right ammo that will penetrate enough to reach vitals whether you do so with one of the few .380 hollow points that do so or a FMJ.

To do otherwise and carry any old hollow point round is a false sense of security. You carry to end a threat. To do so you carry bullets that reach vitals.

The FBI Miami shootout proved that. They used a more powerful 9mm Winchester Silvertip that expanded beautifully but stopped one inch from the perps heart. The perp continued shooting resulting in a number of agents being killed.

Had they used a bullet that penetrated enough to his heart, he would have died and the others might have lived.

The same scenario applies to anyone. The last thing you want is to have someone continue shooting at you after being hit square in the chest with the round not going deep enough.

All the facts of that shootout are available for anyone to see.

If you google tests of that 9mm Silvertip after the fact, they fail to reach the required 12 inch minimum. So why would you carry a bullet in a smaller caliber that penetrates even less than that Silvertip?

I'm not knocking the caliber. I'm knocking those who don't carry the right bullet if they do so in a hollow point format. The caliber is fine with the right hollow point or FMJ.

 

[GOPerfect]

In todays gun world, there is almost no need to go smaller than a 9mm handgun. For nearly all 380's that are pocket small, there is a 9mm of the same gun on the market.

9mm is better in every way than a .380. This is not to said to start a caliber war. Sure, all calibers can kill/stop the threat. But why settle for a smaller round if you don't need to?

 

[Uzi]

In todays gun world, there is almost no need to go smaller than a 9mm handgun. For nearly all 380's that are pocket small, there is a 9mm of the same gun on the market.

9mm is better in every way than a .380. This is not to said to start a caliber war. Sure, all calibers can kill/stop the threat. But why settle for a smaller round if you don't need to?

To own a model to enjoy shooting for fun, personal interest. Also including but not limited to, looks, ergonomics, usability, control, comfort, collection, mobility. Something that can defend yourself and very well may at least delay a threat so you can get the fuck away from the situation. You don't need to kill someone to stop a threat, and that means any gun and or caliber.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Something that can defend yourself and very well may at least delay a threat so you can get the fuck away from the situation. You don't need to kill someone to stop a threat, and that means any gun and or caliber.

No. You shoot to kill or you risk yourself or others around you. That threat may not stop until he dies as proof in Miami.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Here is the 9mm Silvertip that failed the 12 inch test minium and also fell short of penetrating vitals in real life.

And here is crap. 380 ammo that fails penetration even worse.

And here is good .380 ammo that performs beautifully. Even better than the 9mm did above.

Given that there is tested ammo that performs well, why would anyone carry something that performs poorly from above?

 

[Darth]

you'd have a hard time finding a volenteer to stand in front of a 380 to prove it's not effective.

As much has I think Will has extrapolated data a little too far in all these threads, I will say that I have never agreed with this argument.

I dont want someone to cut a particularly harsh fart in my face either, and would not volunteer for it, but that has no bearing on wether or not a round has the effectiveness needed to perform the task at hand.

 

[Marine Cpl]

As much has I think Will has extrapolated data a little too far in all these threads, I will say that I have never agreed with this argument.

I dont want someone to cut a particularly harsh fart in my face either, and would not volunteer for it, but that has no bearing on wether or not a round has the effectiveness needed to perform the task at hand.

Why a little too far? Is it not correct?

 

[Darth]

Why a little too far? Is it not correct?

The data, may be correct, but the conclusions are yours, and I feel, personally, a bit harsh.

I just saw an article recently that said most .25ACP victims died from injuries.

Not sure I believe that. Need to look it up.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The data, may be correct, but the conclusions are yours, and I feel, personally, a bit harsh.

I just saw an article recently that said most .25ACP victims died from injuries.

Not sure I believe that. Need to look it up.

I don't see any harshness. I'm just explaining the facts I found. They basically penetrate enough or they don't.

 

[spat]

A .22lr is worlds better than a .45 you left home because it was too big.

A .380 isn't as good as a a 9mm, but everything is a compromise. If it wasn't my EDC would be a ma deuce.....

 

[Bananabandit]

If 380 was more available and same price, id use it. But 9mm is all around better. My kahr cm9 is freaking tiny.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Get penetration squared away first, then go for as much expansion as the first requirement allows. Personally for a tiny little deep concealment gun I would consider a .32, a Seecamp perhaps. Even the .380 can be punishing in such guns.

Just for fun a while back, I picked up an NAA .32. Talk about a tiny ass gun that goes bang! I did pick up some Winchester HP ammo made just for it.

I plan to take it back to the range to see what kind of penetration it gets.

One thing I like is the availability of an extended 10 round mag for it. It makes it very easy to hold, and yet it is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Very cool gun when concealment is a big issue.

 

[Phazer]

My 380 always gives two in the chest and one in the head ( if needed). It has been trained to do that since the 90s

Your pistols are well trained.

 

[Uzi]

No. You shoot to kill or you risk yourself or others around you. That threat may not stop until he dies as proof in Miami.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The world outside of the military and police is different. The purpose of a self defensive weapon, commonly using the 380 acp caliber for civilians, is too "defend yourself" to eliminate a threat. If the attacker dies quickly, then the bullet and placement worked well, but There is nothing about law that says "shoot to kill" for civilians, Or blast at someone until they're dead looking like Swiss cheese or just don't do anything at all. A civilian is NOT responsible for the further actions of an attacker if they were justified by deterring a deadly assault. It's the other peoples responsibility, to also be ready to protect themselves in a situation too. This is why they say, everyone is an individual and should be carrying to protect themselves and their families. It's not about being a selfish a-hole, but civilian concealed carry means you protect yourself to live another day, not shoot only to kill an attacker, that's incorrect. It also doesn't take on the duties and role of a police officer. I should also add for an example, see how well stabbing an attacker 10 times in the face and neck would help you out in court too, after they stopped moving as much because you wanted to just make sure they were DEAD dead. You eliminate a threat, you get the hell away from the situation if possible, whether you're by yourself or with others. If they died while it happened, it should be justified and that's fine. Making sure someone is dead before you stop shooting might end up working against you after it's all said and done. That's just the way it works in society, people will want to put you in prison, so you have to show them you don't belong there. Prove that making sure they were dead and loading up that second magazine was necessary. You can try to be a hero too and save other lives like in a hollywood film with your little concealed carry gun, and of course you can choose to make sure the person is dead, but frankly, it opens up more complications. The protocol in which you're carrying should be well thought out and addressed. I'd rather carry something else as a primary, so If I get a hit, I hopefully don't need to continue shooting. My 380 is a back up, shit would be SO bad at that point where I probably have cover, but nowhere to move and it's a shootout situation, Not something like a mugging or deadly assault attempt. I don't believe I will get caught in an active shootout like that most likely, but but there is a reason why it's no longer my primary gun.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The world outside of the military and police is different. The purpose of a self defensive weapon, commonly using the 380 acp caliber for civilians, is too "defend yourself" to eliminate a threat. If the attacker dies quickly, then the bullet and placement worked well, but There is nothing about law that says "shoot to kill" for civilians, Or blast at someone until they're dead looking like Swiss cheese or just don't do anything at all. A civilian is NOT responsible for the further actions of an attacker if they were justified by deterring a deadly assault. It's the other peoples responsibility, to also be ready to protect themselves in a situation too. This is why they say, everyone is an individual and should be carrying to protect themselves and their families. It's not about being a selfish a-hole, but civilian concealed carry means you protect yourself to live another day, not shoot only to kill an attacker, that's incorrect. It also doesn't take on the duties and role of a police officer. I should also add for an example, see how well stabbing an attacker 10 times in the face and neck would help you out in court too, after they stopped moving as much because you wanted to just make sure they were DEAD dead. You eliminate a threat, you get the hell away from the situation if possible, whether you're by yourself or with others. If they died while it happened, it should be justified and that's fine. Making sure someone is dead before you stop shooting might end up working against you after it's all said and done. That's just the way it works in society, people will want to put you in prison, so you have to show them you don't belong there. Prove that making sure they were dead and loading up that second magazine was necessary. You can try to be a hero too and save other lives like in a hollywood film with your little concealed carry gun, and of course you can choose to make sure the person is dead, but frankly, it opens up more complications. The protocol in which you're carrying should be well thought out and addressed. I'd rather carry something else as a primary, so If I get a hit, I hopefully don't need to continue shooting. My 380 is a back up, shit would be SO bad at that point where I probably have cover, but nowhere to move and it's a shootout situation, Not something like a mugging or deadly assault attempt. I don't believe I will get caught in an active shootout like that most likely, but but there is a reason why it's no longer my primary gun.

Okay, so you are saying that it is acceptable to use a round that doesn't penetrate enough to kill if an armed mugger, active mall shooter, ect is actually shooting at you with intent to kill you?

So if you wound him and he gets off additional shots that hit you or others around you, that is okay because you don't shoot to kill?

I see what you are trying to say but perhaps you are mistaking what I'm trying to say.

Yes we aren't cops but if God forbid we encounter a situation where someone is shooting back at us, the only way to stop him is to drop him. A wounded man with intent to kill you is not going to stop and put down his gun to let you run away. He will get off another shot or a number of shots.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

My understanding is that under NYS 35 (use of deadly force), we are not allowed to "shoot to kill".

We ARE allowed to shoot to neutralize the deadly threat opposing us.

So, if the asshole has already robbed us and is running away with his back to us,... we can't shoot him in the back.

But if someone is using deadly force against us (be it a gun, knife, or anything else) in a deadly manner, we can shoot "until the threat has been neutralized" in order to stop the threat, but we cannot "shoot with the intent to kill".

So, after a DGU, I will remain silent, except to ask to speak to my lawyer, or to ask to be taken to the hospital for medical assistance as I feel as though I am having a heart attack,

And,

My statement with my lawyer present will most likely be something like: "He attacked me, and so I shot him until I was certain he was no longer a threat to me...",

And NOT: "I shot that motherfucker, and just to make sure he was dead, I put a few extra rounds in his head..."

 

[PinkPanther]

It's better than nothing. It's all about shot placement and penetration.

 

[Phauxtoe]

PERFECT!
with the Correct ammo!

 

[GOPerfect]

In the Military, on my job or walking the street like the rest of America; I will hoot to stop the threat, the threat is stopped when the Piece if Shit cannot move again!

 

[spat]

The data, may be correct, but the conclusions are yours, and I feel, personally, a bit harsh.

I just saw an article recently that said most .25ACP victims died from injuries.

Not sure I believe that. Need to look it up.

Lethality is overrated, I care not whether he is still breathing in an hour, I care if he is still a threat 5 seconds after he is hit.

My understanding is that under NYS 35 (use of deadly force), we are not allowed to "shoot to kill".

We ARE allowed to shoot to neutralize the deadly threat opposing us.

So, if the asshole has already robbed us and is running away with his back to us,... we can't shoot him in the back.

But if someone is using deadly force against us (be it a gun, knife, or anything else) in a deadly manner, we can shoot "until the threat has been neutralized" in order to stop the threat, but we cannot "shoot with the intent to kill".

So, after a DGU, I will remain silent, except to ask to speak to my lawyer, or to ask to be taken to the hospital for medical assistance as I feel as though I am having a heart attack,

And,

My statement with my lawyer present will most likely be something like: "He attacked me, and so I shot him until I was certain he was no longer a threat to me...",

And NOT: "I shot that motherfucker, and just to make sure he was dead, I put a few extra rounds in his head..."

Coincidentally, the points on a human that will stop them quickest tend to also be the most fatal.

If that weren't the case, defensive tactics could be very different.

 

[spat]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The world outside of the military and police is different. The purpose of a self defensive weapon, commonly using the 380 acp caliber for civilians, is too "defend yourself" to eliminate a threat. If the attacker dies quickly, then the bullet and placement worked well, but There is nothing about law that says "shoot to kill" for civilians, Or blast at someone until they're dead looking like Swiss cheese or just don't do anything at all. A civilian is NOT responsible for the further actions of an attacker if they were justified by deterring a deadly assault. It's the other peoples responsibility, to also be ready to protect themselves in a situation too. This is why they say, everyone is an individual and should be carrying to protect themselves and their families. It's not about being a selfish a-hole, but civilian concealed carry means you protect yourself to live another day, not shoot only to kill an attacker, that's incorrect. It also doesn't take on the duties and role of a police officer. I should also add for an example, see how well stabbing an attacker 10 times in the face and neck would help you out in court too, after they stopped moving as much because you wanted to just make sure they were DEAD dead. You eliminate a threat, you get the hell away from the situation if possible, whether you're by yourself or with others. If they died while it happened, it should be justified and that's fine. Making sure someone is dead before you stop shooting might end up working against you after it's all said and done. That's just the way it works in society, people will want to put you in prison, so you have to show them you don't belong there. Prove that making sure they were dead and loading up that second magazine was necessary. You can try to be a hero too and save other lives like in a hollywood film with your little concealed carry gun, and of course you can choose to make sure the person is dead, but frankly, it opens up more complications. The protocol in which you're carrying should be well thought out and addressed. I'd rather carry something else as a primary, so If I get a hit, I hopefully don't need to continue shooting. My 380 is a back up, shit would be SO bad at that point where I probably have cover, but nowhere to move and it's a shootout situation, Not something like a mugging or deadly assault attempt. I don't believe I will get caught in an active shootout like that most likely, but but there is a reason why it's no longer my primary gun.

The world of the police, and the world of the rest of us is *supposed* to be the same as far as deadly force is concerned.
In practice, cops get a lot more leeway. Really though, your status as an LEO should make no difference when it comes to *deadly* force.

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

to every thing there is a season...I own two .380's, a Colt Mustang and a PPK/S. I rarely carry either. It's more the platform than the round though.The .380 acp has been around for quite some time and has protected a lot of people. The guys I grew up with who were NYPD were pretty evenly split on their back up or off duty pieces between .380 PPK's and "J" frame .38's. I prefer to carry a "J" frame in .38 sp to anything else. I believe revolvers to be more reliable than any semi-auto. When I have to dress up with the bride for fancy affairs however, I go with the smallest gun I own, a Guardian in .32acp. ...and a time to every purpose...

 

[meketrefe]

I sold the small 9mm SIG and I use the shield for small carry.
It is a bit larger but it is lighter than the SIG and it fits in my jeans front pocket.
But the main reason is because it is a joy to shoot. I am a lot more accurate with it.
I am going to buy another one just because I like it so much. It has been very reliable too.
I find myself carrying the glock+357SIG a lot less, specially after the BS safe act.
The shield also fits inside my tuxedo with a small pocket holster.

 

[Uzi]

First I'm sorry the thread has derailed temporarily and momentarily again. Continuing from the responses, The point was overlooked and not understood, that's okay. Lets try again...

I'm NOT saying it's BAD to kill the attacker first of all. If you kill the attacker in the line of defense, that's fine. If you have NO other options but to continue shooting otherwise you will most likely die, then that is what you must do, absolutely. No argument there!

Now, what I I'm saying is, Stopping a threat should NOT mean making sure the attacker is dead as a priority. Were you given orders by your concealed carry team on the earpiece? It's not an action movie where you run guns blazing and kill all the bad guys. Generally speaking, what are your fucking plans anyways? To hopefully take more fire, hmm...maybe STICK AROUND for a while, you know...enjoy the weather and scenery? and HOPE you don't get stabbed or shot to death eventually? It means stopping the threat and defending yourself, for whatever that initials to get yourself AWAY from danger. You're trying to get AWAY from danger. AWAAAAY from danger. Danger...bad. Given the opportunity to retreat safely, you SHOULD do so. You DO want to avoid shooting if you can. If you're in a crowded place where your gunfire is responsible for a shootout causing other victims because you used poor judgment to continue spreading fire because you just want to kill the attacker rather than get away, you're now in the wrong.. Oh.. and not too bright either. If someone's trying to mug you in the street and he tries stabbing you or something, and you pull your weapon and clip him in the leg (shot placement maybe by accident or whatever) and he's not moving anymore, A. do you create distance and get the fuck away to safety, or B. do you stick around and shoot him in the head just to make sure he's dead? Too many hot shots thinking they have it all planned out because they have a gun, except when reality hits, their muscle memory doesn't react in the same way their keyboards do. "I shoot to kill" Give me a fuckin' break for Christ sake.....

 

[Bananabandit]

It's better than nothing. It's all about shot placement and penetration.

My wife tells me that everyday.

 

[spat]

First I'm sorry the thread has derailed temporarily and momentarily again. Continuing from the responses, The point was overlooked and not understood, that's okay. Lets try again...

I'm NOT saying it's BAD to kill the attacker first of all. If you kill the attacker in the line of defense, that's fine. If you have NO other options but to continue shooting otherwise you will most likely die, then that is what you must do, absolutely. No argument there!

Now, what I I'm saying is, Stopping a threat should NOT mean making sure the attacker is dead as a priority. Were you given orders by your concealed carry team on the earpiece? It's not an action movie where you run guns blazing and kill all the bad guys. Generally speaking, what are your fucking plans anyways? To hopefully take more fire, hmm...maybe STICK AROUND for a while, you know...enjoy the weather and scenery? and HOPE you don't get stabbed or shot to death eventually? It means stopping the threat and defending yourself, for whatever that initials to get yourself AWAY from danger. You're trying to get AWAY from danger. AWAAAAY from danger. Danger...bad. Given the opportunity to retreat safely, you SHOULD do so. You DO want to avoid shooting if you can. If you're in a crowded place where your gunfire is responsible for a shootout causing other victims because you used poor judgment to continue spreading fire because you just want to kill the attacker rather than get away, you're now in the wrong.. Oh.. and not too bright either. If someone's trying to mug you in the street and he tries stabbing you or something, and you pull your weapon and clip him in the leg (shot placement maybe by accident or whatever) and he's not moving anymore, A. do you create distance and get the fuck away to safety, or B. do you stick around and shoot him in the head just to make sure he's dead? Too many hot shots thinking they have it all planned out because they have a gun, except when reality hits, their muscle memory doesn't react in the same way their keyboards do. "I shoot to kill" Give me a fuckin' break for Christ sake.....

Only assassins shoot to kill, everybody else, including police and even military shoot to stop. You just don't compromise your ability to stop them quickly by trying to stop them without killing them.

Stopping someone immediately (even if you don't care about killing them in the process) is actually much harder than just killing them.

OTOH, if I'm ever in a self defense situation, I'm not going to wait to see if my assailant is no longer a threat before firing the next round, I'll keep firing until they aren't. I'm also not going to stand still. So, if my first round happens to hit him in the leg, there's going to be another heading toward his center of mass before I would even know if the first was effective or not, and I'll be retreating the whole time anyway. All things being equal anyway, I somehow doubt that any given situation will work out this way. Generally if the avenue of retreat was available I would have taken it and avoided fight in the first place.

 

[rpf427]

This can be argued to the end of time. Bottom line is its gets the job done.

 

[spat]

This can be argued to the end of time. Bottom line is its gets the job done.

Hey, it's a gun discussion not politics, so that's something