# 380 ammo choice



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

After watching Shooting the Bull 410 and tnoutdoors I decided my .380 will use the Hydrashoks and Corbons for self defense. What are some loads that this forum uses and why? Anyone ever get 12" of penetration out of the .380 or is there another magic number that you relie on?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I use Remington JHPs, only because _Gun Tests_ Magazine ran a series of careful comparative tests, a few years ago.
Since I have no facility at which to do a careful set of tests for myself, I decided to use the cartridge they recommended.

The Remington JHPs feed unerringly and hit where I point 'em.
Will they effectively disable an attacker? I dunno-I've never been in a position to find out.

You may be able to access _Gun Tests_'s back-issue files via the web.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

I don't have a .380 but I have heard of some people using regular ball ammo as a self defense round to get better penetration.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

shaolin said:


> After watching Shooting the Bull 410 and tnoutdoors I decided my .380 will use the Hydrashoks and Corbons for self defense. What are some loads that this forum uses and why? Anyone ever get 12" of penetration out of the .380 or is there another magic number that you relie on?


I have seen several reviews in which standard ball ammunition got better penetration than JHP. That really doesn't make sense to me, but you can't argue with the figures. I would use ball. Honestly, none of it is going to make you feel good if shot with it, but if you want best penetration, ball seems to get it done better.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

I have shot lots of different brands of 380 and for me, Remington delivers the best overall reliability. I don't think I've ever had an ftf with one. Seems to cycle the guns better. Dirty, but I clean my guns often so that part doesn't matter to me. Just seems to be more dependable overall.


----------



## WhiskeyBravo (May 26, 2014)

FMJ only in my 380s


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

Unless you can find where somebody tested all the ammo under _the exact same testing method_, your guess is as good as anybody else's as to 'what works best'.

I have two 380's and if I were to select one for CCW, it would choose the JHP which was 100% reliable as the first priority. I wouldn't automatically reject ball either. Either way you don't don't have a lot of energy to play with.

Then I would practice my bullet placement skills A LOT. The smaller the caliber, the better you better be a bullet placement.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

Spike12 said:


> Unless you can find where somebody tested all the ammo under _the exact same testing method_, your guess is as good as anybody else's as to 'what works best'.
> 
> I have two 380's and if I were to select one for CCW, it would choose the JHP which was 100% reliable as the first priority. I wouldn't automatically reject ball either. Either way you don't don't have a lot of energy to play with.
> 
> Then I would practice my bullet placement skills A LOT. The smaller the caliber, the better you better be a bullet placement.


As far as testing goes I found that Shootingthebull 410 on youtube and tnoutdoors to have tested the .380. As far as energy the Underwood .380 ammo hits at Muzzle Velocity: 1200 fps
Muzzle Energy: 288 ft. lbs. and as far as optimal penetration the winner of the 12" to 18" is the precision one ammo. I see the .380 as a belly weapon for shooting in a situation 7 yards or less and face to face.
I don't expect it to go through barriers like it's bigger brothers. I have decided to use the Hydra Shoks and Hornady XTP bullets with the Remington 102 grain HD round in the spare mag.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

shaolin said:


> As far as testing goes I found that Shootingthebull 410 on youtube and tnoutdoors to have tested the .380. As far as energy the Underwood .380 ammo hits at Muzzle Velocity: 1200 fps
> Muzzle Energy: 288 ft. lbs. and as far as optimal penetration the winner of the 12" to 18" is the precision one ammo. *I see the .380 as a belly weapon *for shooting in a situation 7 yards or less and face to face.
> I don't expect it to go through barriers like it's bigger brothers. I have decided to use the Hydra Shoks and Hornady XTP bullets with the Remington 102 grain HD round in the spare mag.


James Bond doesn't use it for a belly weapon! :anim_lol:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Spike12 said:


> Unless you can find where somebody tested all the ammo under _the exact same testing method_, your guess is as good as anybody else's as to 'what works best'...


_Gun Tests_ Magazine runs well-designed, useful tests. Their tests fit your criterion. I am willing to trust their published results.


----------



## Tenmagnet (Apr 17, 2014)

rustygun said:


> I don't have a .380 but I have heard of some people using regular ball ammo as a self defense round to get better penetration.


Thats what I do, love .380. FMJs all day


----------



## Tenmagnet (Apr 17, 2014)

shaolin said:


> I see the .380 as a belly weapon for shooting in a situation 7 yards or less and face to face.
> I don't expect it to go through barriers like it's bigger brothers.


PSH

.380 is the bomb bomb, I could shoot a face on a target like Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. People can only shoot 7 years with them because they don't practice. I've seen guys take out BGs with 380s only


----------



## jdw68 (Nov 5, 2011)

I like speer gold dot, because I've seen multi tests and they usually do well. The speer gold dot doesn't expand as much, usually barely a half inch, but does sometimes penetrate a full 12 inches. I have seen several tests were the hydrashocks also do very well, but have just stuck with the gold dots. The corbon dpx seems to be inconsistent. I've seen gel tests where they looked awesome and other tests where they opened up to wide and only penetrated 6-7 inches. I would think that a full metal jacket round would actually penetrate a little more than I would like, but that's just me.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

Your right that the FMJ will penetrate more but I am afraid that it will go through a person and hit someone else. I know that penetration is #1 on the list of proper bullet performance and in bear country that is what I use.
I do respect Gun Test Magazine. To the other person yes I don't practice with the .380acp enough because that is not what I carry on a daily basis but 95% of shootings occur in this range. I carry a S&W 3913 or Shield in the 9mm and inside the 15 yard range mostly because that is where most shootings occur. I am able to hit out to 25 yards but I am not pin point accurate with that range. I can always use more practice as we all need to stay on top of the game.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Tenmagnet said:


> ...People can only shoot 7 years with them because they don't practice...


"Yards," I hope?
I hate to think that I've only about five years left with my nice little pistol.



Tenmagnet said:


> I've seen guys take out BGs with 380s only


Where, prey tell?


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

Gun Test mag has made some tests, I agree. It's been a long time since my subscription ran out. I dropped them because of their comparison of 60 year old guns of storied back grounds then concluded that since one of these old timers shot better than the other that they all must be better. Not exactly the best published logic I've seen.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I have looked at all the tests myself. I found that the same rounds did somewhat differently in some tests. I looked at a lot of articles, and many homemade tests online. Plus, many, many youtube vids.

I initially tried Golden Sabers, but my Ruger LCP will doesn't like them. After looking at all the tests, I decided I was happy with the performance of 380 hydrashok. That's why I went with them. They feed fine in my LCP (I've shot 2 boxes to be sure). The recoil on the Hydrashok is lighter than normal FMJ too.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

I agree on the Hydra Shoks for the 380. they seem to work well when they do expand they stay about 12.5" mark and in the clothing test they go about 15.2 inches in gel. It is a better choice than a FMJ. The XTP bullets work well too and depending on the brand who loads them they work better than the Hydra Shok.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

shaolin said:


> I agree on the Hydra Shoks for the 380. they seem to work well when they do expand they stay about 12.5" mark and in the clothing test they go about 15.2 inches in gel. It is a better choice than a FMJ. The XTP bullets work well too and depending on the brand who loads them they work better than the Hydra Shok.


I also saw that the Federal Hydrashok works well. Has anyone heard of and/or used the Precision One round? It got the best reviews that I've seen and was curious. This round is currently sold out on their website.


----------



## WhiskeyBravo (May 26, 2014)

Have fun!....


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> I also saw that the Federal Hydrashok works well. Has anyone heard of and/or used the Precision One round? It got the best reviews that I've seen and was curious. This round is currently sold out on their website.


percision one is a XTP bullet so you might try one from Underwood as they send their bullet out blazing at 1200 fps.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

shaolin said:


> percision one is a XTP bullet so you might try one from Underwood as they send their bullet out blazing at 1200 fps.


OK. I saw good reviews for the Precision One performance, but have read horrible reviews about the company's service.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

I carry a .380 when I have to. It is a all steel Sig P238 loaded with Buffalo Barnes +P 80 grain all copper. I am not at all frightened by +P like some people are and if I ever need to use my .380 I won't wonder if it is going to expand. The all copper bullets perform great in all calibers as long as the speed is there. The 100grain +P FMJ Buffalo Bore .380 will penetrate 32" if that is what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.


Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

jdw68 said:


> I like speer gold dot, because I've seen multi tests and they usually do well. The speer gold dot doesn't expand as much, usually barely a half inch, but does sometimes penetrate a full 12 inches. I have seen several tests were the hydrashocks also do very well, but have just stuck with the gold dots. The corbon dpx seems to be inconsistent. I've seen gel tests where they looked awesome and other tests where they opened up to wide and only penetrated 6-7 inches. I would think that a full metal jacket round would actually penetrate a little more than I would like, but that's just me.


On the reviews I saw the Speer GDs expanded best, but had dismal penetration. As for JHPs go, the best reviews I have seen are Precision One, Hydra Shok, & Hornady Custom. Every FMJ over penetrated, which also surprised me.


----------



## borris (Oct 28, 2012)

*380 s*



GCBHM said:


> On the reviews I saw the Speer GDs expanded best, but had dismal penetration. As for JHPs go, the best reviews I have seen are Precision One, Hydra Shok, & Hornady Custom. Every FMJ over penetrated, which also surprised me.


 Every One Seems To Be Hung Up On Penetration , I Would Rather Have 6 To 9 Inches Penetration And More "Tissue Damage" ! As That Is What Gets The Job Done More Shock "Moe-Gooder" Done Deal :smt033


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Nothing wrong with wanting what you want! But I don't think "penetration" is about how far a bullet will go through a body. Its more a term used by experts to determine reliable, consistent bullet performance.

Bullet Effectiveness ? what?s the big deal about 12? penetration anyway? | Shooting The Bull

Excerpt: "So here's a question that people seem to get confused over - does 10″ of ballistic gel penetration mean 10″ of penetration through a chest? Not necessarily. Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the shot. And it depends on the chest - if our attacker is a 105-pound waif supermodel, who is literally skin and bones, that 10″-gel-penetrating bullet might pass clean through her. If we're being attacked by a professional bodybuilder with a 52″ chest that's all muscle, the bullet might stop well short of hitting his vitals. If we're being attacked by a 350-lb barbecue-and-gravy aficionado with a 52″ chest that's all fat, the bullet might penetrate further through his chest than it would in the bodybuilder's, but still stop well short of his vitals. We don't know what our actual shooting scenario will be, until we're in it.

But what we DO know, is that if the bullet is able to go through 12″ of ballistic gel, it will also be able to punch through pretty much all of their chests and reach their vitals. And that's what counts. Think of it as a relative power ranking, because, well, really, that's what it is - a more powerful bullet could push through more inches of gel. And, accordingly, no matter what tissue it hits in the body, it would be able to push through more of it, than a less-powerful bullet would be able to, if that less-powerful bullet were to have hit in exactly the same spot on a genetically-identical body.

So the penetration question is not about the chest thickness, it's about however much tissue the bullet can penetrate through, regardless of what type of tissue it encounters (bone, lung, bowel, muscle, fat, etc). The 12″ minimum takes account of factors such as having to shoot through bones, and at odd angles. It's all already factored in."


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp-content/files/FBI-Analysis-on-PA-Police-Shootout.pdf


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp-content/files/FBI-Analysis-on-PA-Police-Shootout.pdf


Seems this pretty much proves the theory that shot placement is paramount. I don't think anyone would argue that the .40 is an effective round, but given the circumstances, which can never be predicted, we clearly see that it was not effective here.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

shaolin said:


> What are some loads that this forum uses and why?


Remington Golden Sabre JHP's for me. One of the consistently best bullets out there according to all tests.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

I shoot my Sig P238 .380 really good and only carry it when nothing else will conceal with what I am wearing. A round to the ear, nose, or eye would be the best shot with it. If the .380 fails to expand so what? Then it will perform as FMJ if it is a good hot load. My favorite carry is the .357 Sig in full power loads. It has proven to have great penetration and still expand. As a side note to go with the link above most LE that use the .40 S&W carry either 155 or 165 grain loads because it has worked better in actual shootings.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

Scorpion8 said:


> Remington Golden Sabre JHP's for me. One of the consistently best bullets out there according to all tests.


Have you seen the new Black Belt Bullet? It is a Golden Sabre with a belt to keep the jacket from separating and will cost less than bonded bullets. It passes all of the FBI test with the 124 grain load. 
You should get some when they are made available to the public.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

shaolin said:


> Have you seen the new Black Belt Bullet? It is a Golden Sabre with a belt to keep the jacket from separating and will cost less than bonded bullets. It passes all of the FBI test with the 124 grain load.
> You should get some when they are made available to the public.


Um, I believe that this is a 9mm load, not for the .380 ACP. Right?


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Um, I believe that this is a 9mm load, not for the .380 ACP. Right?


yes your right it's the 9mm


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

shaolin said:


> Have you seen the new Black Belt Bullet?


Yes! Those will be in my home 9mm's when available.


----------

