What is your preferred. 380 defensive/carry round?

R

RegularJoeGunGuy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2023
Messages
86
Location
No longer important
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Okay, so, I'm curious. If you choose to carry a pocket pistol (or mouse gun) in .380 acp, what is your preferred defensive/carry round. I've gone back & forth between a simple fmj ball round (round nose, not flat nose) and Hornady's 90 grain critical defense round (with the red tip). All of the gel testing I've seen for other rounds have the JHP's not expanding and acting like an FMJ due to either a lack of velocity to cause the hollow point not to expand or the hollow point becoming plugged with denim or other barrier material. .

I'd like to hear other opinions and/or options for .380 rounds used for defense. Please note that I generally prefer a good expanding 9mm or .357 round over .380 during 95% of the time. However, there are limited occasions where carrying the diminutive pocket pistol is needed/preferred.

So, your thoughts......? And, thanks for playing along ;)
 
Last edited:
Been awhile since I've looked through info on this, but I typically refer to LuckyGunner’s ballistics testing results. It doesn’t seem to have changed in awhile, so my choice of Hornady 90gr Critical Defense still looks decent.
 
Common defensive handgun calibers physically incapacitate people in either one or two ways. First, central nervous system hit, equals auto shutdown. The second is by hypovolemic shock, the loss of blood.

To achieve either of those two, you need three things. First, present the handgun properly and quickly.

Second, shot placement. If you do not put the bullet in area where those two means of incapacitation occur, then no physical stoppage will happen.

The third is penetration. A properly placed bullet must achieve enough penetration to reach the central nervous system or the major organs and blood vessels to cause hypovolemic shock.

Notice I said physically incapacitate. There is another way defensive handgun calibers stop a bad people. That is psychological, some people continue to fight as if they haven’t even been shot. Others get shot in the pinky toe and because they believe they should fall over, they do.

Given that everyone who is shot reacts differently. We cannot depend on psychological stoppage and we must be prepared for the physical stoppage.
 
Average Joe said:
Common defensive handgun calibers physically incapacitate people in either one or two ways. First, central nervous system hit, equals auto shutdown. The second is by hypovolemic shock, the loss of blood.

To achieve either of those two, you need three things. First, present the handgun properly and quickly.

Second, shot placement. If you do not put the bullet in area where those two means of incapacitation occur, then no physical stoppage will happen.

The third is penetration. A properly placed bullet must achieve enough penetration to reach the central nervous system or the major organs and blood vessels to cause hypovolemic shock.

Notice I said physically incapacitate. There is another way defensive handgun calibers stop a bad people. That is psychological, some people continue to fight as if they haven’t even been shot. Others get shot in the pinky toe and because they believe they should fall over, they do.

Given that everyone who is shot reacts differently. We cannot depend on psychological stoppage and we must be prepared for the physical stoppage.
Click to expand...
There's a third way that a defensive Handgun caliber can incapacitate. Bone break. I've personally investigated three self defense shooting situations where the attacker was stopped (incapacitated) by hits to the spine (1 case) & pelvic bone (2 cases). They may not be the standard for target choices, but they are possibilities. Just an FYI.
 
For any pocket semi-auto shooting a bullet below 100 grains, I just grab ball. My priorities are reliable function and POA/POI. Small guns with short barrels (i.e. short slide travel and high slide velocity) need all the help they can get.
 
@RegularJoeGunGuy, you are somewhat correct. Bone breakage, outside of the vertebrae, is more psychological as it is really pain compliance. For example, you can shoot someone in the pelvic girdle and they still be an active threat.

While they not be able to physically move the lower extremities to chase you. Their upper extremities are still functional and with the proper mindset, they are still very dangerous. Or the person can succumb to the pain and quit actively fighting.

Outside of hitting and breaking the vertebrae, which affects the central nervous system. The only other means bone breakage could be considered a physical stop is if both hands or arms hit and the hands cannot physically move. Other than that scenario, bone breakage is still just a psychological response to pain.
 
Last edited:
Average Joe said:
@RegularJoeGunGuy, you are somewhat correct. Bone breakage, outside of the vertebrae, is more psychological as it is really pain compliance. For example, you can shoot someone in the pelvic girdle and they still be an active threat.

While they not be able to physically move the lower extremities to chase you. Their upper extremities are still functional and with the proper mindset, they are still very dangerous. Or the person can succumb to the pain and quit actively fighting.

Outside of hitting and breaking the vertebrae, which affects the central nervous system. The only other means bone breakage could be considered a physical stop is if both hands or arms hit and the hands cannot physically move. Other than that scenario, bone breakage is still just a psychological response to pain.
Click to expand...
If the attacker had their pelvis broken by a bullet and they were no longer able to pursue their victim with a knife, as was the situation, with one of my cases. They may have suffered some pain, which probably caused them to reexamine some life choices, but they were quite physically stopped (because their ability to walk/run ceased). That was a physical stop. No question about it. I do see your point about the spine & the central nervous system. So you were almost correct.
 
RegularJoeGunGuy said:
If the attacker had their pelvis broken by a bullet and they were no longer able to pursue their victim with a knife, as was the situation, with one of my cases. They may have suffered some pain, which probably caused them to reexamine some life choices, but they were quite physically stopped (because their ability to walk/run ceased). That was a physical stop. No question about it. I do see your point about the spine & the central nervous system. So you were almost correct.
Click to expand...
If the bad guy had a gun would he not still been a threat?
 
Maybe. But he didn't. So he wasn't. And he was quite physically stopped by the inability to move beyond where he dropped.

For the sake of brevity and getting back to the point of my original thread, I'll say that we're entering the realm of semantics, and I'll agree to disagree with the idea that the dumbass in question was psychologically vs physically stopped ;) Thanks.
 
Last edited:
RegularJoeGunGuy said:
Maybe. But he didn't. So he wasn't. And he was quite physically stopped by the inability to move beyond where he dropped.

For the sake of brevity and getting back to the point of my original thread, I'll say that we're entering the realm of semantics, and I'll agree to disagree with the idea that the dumbass in question was psychologically vs physically stopped ;) Thanks.
Click to expand...
I understand that you are considering this a win as a physical stop. But I agree to disagree, as I believe in your example, the guy was stopped by his life choices prior to the encounter. The choice he made in weapons limited his ability to continue. Not necessarily that he was physically unable, had he been armed with a different weapon.

My comments have all been geared towards an equal playing field. Good guy vs bad guy with the same weapon systems and physical capabilities and how the body physically reacts to being shot. Not stops based upon other factors such as the the bad guys life choices in weapons that limits their capabilities.

We were not in the same page from the beginning regarding what we each consider to be a physical stop. So it appears we are both right just in different scenarios. We now return your regularly scheduled program 🤣.

Which .380 ammo do you prefer?
 
This Buffalo Bore round, cause you need to penetrate with such a small round and not expand and never hit an organ

380 Auto +P Pistol & Handgun Ammunition

380 Auto +P Field Proven pistol and handgun ammo. Maximum firepower bullets. Best ammunition for pistols and handguns for sale. Buffalo Bore. Strictly big bore. Strictly Business.
www.buffalobore.com
 
Last edited:
If its something off the local shelf I'd 100% go XTP. I've seen a lot of penetration tests on youtube and sometimes rounds like hst, critical defense, etc only penetrate 8-9 inches. XTP trades expansion for penetration for around 12-14" in the same test. It's a compromise with a 380 but I'd value the penetration more in that round.
 
RegularJoeGunGuy said:
The extreme defender version looks like a contender to replace my current choice of Hornady Critical Defense 90 gr. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I like the Underwood Extreme Defender. I trust them in virtually any caliber and have had zero issues with them (i.e. no FTF/FTE) in any caliber with any pistol. Although they are considered “standard pressure”, they tend to be “hotter” than run-of-the-mill standard pressure rounds. I mention this as it may come as a bit of a surprise when you fire one.
 
I've been carrying the new Federal Hydrashok Deep or XTPs.

Just because with 380 penetration is particularly important, and I'm still not completely sold on the xtreme defender style bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom