Ok you just said out loud what I've been thinking this whole time. The MINIMUM for the FBI test is 12" of penetration, meaning they would prefer more than that. Now granted I'm a fairly thin guy, but I'm pretty thick in the chest area, and I seriously doubt I'm 12" thick. Why would they want the round to potentially go through the target, and possibly hitting someone else?
I'm no doctor, but I'd say going through denim, a piece of meat/rib cage, and then 4 1/2" in ballistics gel is going to hit most vital organs.
But one of the things I was wanting to ask in follow-up was that a lot of people I'm seeing are using FMJ's in their .380s to get better penetration. Is that necessary?
Now in answer to this i believe the reason be hind the penetration is that it opens a larger wound cavity causing more bleeding. Dont get me wrong i am not kknocking on .380 but from a medical standpoint it comes down to 2 things temporary and permanent cavitation. Im sure you are familiar with both of the concepts so i wont get too deep into that, but what im trying to say is yes 4in past the ribcage will hit most vitals bit the cavitation caused is relativly small as compared to the more elongated cavitation of a heavier round with more penetration. All that being said to answer the question.....its a matter of personal opinion.....i have this conversation with my father-in-law constantly. He carries a sig p236 .380 and i carry a sig p250 .40s&w
Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
Originally Posted by Kennydale
Originally Posted by AndeyHall
I consider his statement at the end of the video about using FMJ's over hollow points to be just bad advice.
On what basis do you claim it is bad advice? His advice was based on the .380 JHP round under-penetrating by a full 3" below the FBI standards of 12" that he cited, while the ball ammo penetrated 19". I suppose it could be argued that 19" is over-penetration, and could possibly hurt someone behind your target, but my take was that he was testing to determine the tissue damage potential of the target he was aiming at, and that's all.
Also, a penetration test such as the guy conducted is pretty raw, and devoid of the variables that would be present in almost any gunfight with a human being. Are they wearing a leather jacket? Are they ducking behind furniture or other obstacles? Point being, ballistic gel gives a very basic base-line, and that's all, and real humans present many variables that would nearly always reduce the amount of penetration you get from a given round.
I kind of instinctively prefer JHP, but it's a ballistics-dependent equation. If the round I'm considering carrying doesn't have a good ballistics profile, and another round of the same caliber does, I'm going with the best profile I can buy rather than having to buy another caliber weapon in order to get the ballistics I am comfortable with. Which, when it gets right down to it, is why I don't carry a .380 to begin with. That's not a knock on anyone who does, just a statement of fact based on my own preferences and knowledge of ballistics.
No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...
I carry a sig p232 and love it's accuracy. Was wondering and amazed at the stats on the chart, unless I'm reading it wrong? That the 9mm and .45 have a lower score as to "one shot stopping power?" What would cause that I wonder??
I 'm sure all the people killed or hospitalized after being shot by a .380 would say it was more than adequate. That being said, shot placement and multiple shots are the rule of the day in any defensive situation. Shoot till the threat is neutralized.
Carry what works for you. I prefer to try to stay alive with a .45, and with 1500+ rounds through it, I'm used to it. It's like a favorite coat; it just feels good, IWB, or OWB. Besides, my wife says it rattles the windows at the local indoor range.
Springfield XD-S; the little engine that could...
Is a .380 good enough? Your attacker will find out.