So if I consider my Pico to be relatively easy to shoot with controllable recoil, I'm in disagreement with 100% of smart people.

Good to know.

I've read the FAQs, but not the actual Roberts/Fackler report.  Do you know where I could find it?

I know that ".380 isn't recommended" but I'm trying to figure out exactly why.  Is there a certain amount of crushed tissue volume that equates to "acceptable" levels.  Everything I have seen indicates .380 FMJ penetrates more than enough to meet the FBI standards.  So the difference is wound channel size and the resulting tissue damage.  I know that larger bullets/expansion is better as long as penetration is adequate. But I don't know what the magic amount of damage is that makes a round acceptable.

Theoretically it's velocity that makes the difference. Though there are some .380 rounds that are in striking distance of 9mm velocity. The other factor is bullet weight, .380 is around 90 grains on average whereas 9mm starts at 115 and goes up to 147 grains. So the analogy that comes to mind is imagine a train traveling at 55mph and a car traveling at 55mph, it takes more effort to stop the train than the car because the train is stopping a substantially larger weight.

Doesn't mean that a hot .380 can't and won't kill. It absolutely will and could do so with nearly the same efficiency as the 9mm.

Other things play into velocities as well like barrel length and what not, but someone with more knowledge in ballistics can chime in on that.

I get that the rounds are different and that 9mm is better.  No question in my mind.  A 9mm hollowpoint that expands and penetrates sufficiently is undoubtedly better. The question is, what makes a round with sufficient penetration (the only actual number I am aware of) inadequate.

This has been posted often, but if you haven't seen it, it may save you some money if you want to shoot .380.
It is a defensive ammo comparison done of many manufacturers ammo offerings, aprox 30 I believe.
The guy does a great job.
https://youtu.be/GNtPHYwcDts

Here, he reopened the test to try this round and compare it to the winner of the previous test trials.

https://youtu.be/LczfeWK9lHw

For me its inadequate because it lacks the mass to continue to penatrate after striking a bone, a car door etc.

In a perfect world it would be fine.

Serious answer.. is that there are many variables no matter the caliber, clothing, velocity, bullet design..etc etc.
Regarding ammo:
My own personal opinion is that type/design of  bullet is the most important, but that may go out the window when a barrier is involved.
Close behind in my opinion is velocity.
But at the same time, bullet and velocity be damned...it's shot placement.

Sorry if it sounds like I can't make up my mind, but it is all of em.

Ive shot a pico and would not consider it easy to shoot. It doesnt hurt or anything. It is just so small and I only have medium hands.

Could you post some videos of drills where your Pico is keeping up with a full size gun?

I have a kahr cw9 that's pretty comfortable and controlable but compared to a compact or full sized its woefully outclassed. Especially at distances past 15 yards

I don't need another debate in this thread, but I am going to consider this a friendly challenge
I will start another thread when I get time with some barriers and then water jugs, (I don't have nor want to mess with the gel)
I will use my 2 carry loads and the BB load you referenced earlier.
It won't happen right away but in a few weeks.
I think it will be fun.

I need to try my 1860 tomorrow

Shit yea. Prove me wrong. Seriously. If that hard cast Bb load preforms I want to get a beretta 84. 13 rounds in that thing would be fun.

Could you compare it to the BB 9mm hardcast outdoorsman load too?

I might be able to do some 9mm testing if we can agree on the sheetmetal, distance to milk jugs etc

Do it..man.
I will post video with my 42 sometime this weekend, see if I can get good times with it, will compare to my 19 also.

Thanks for making me buy BB hardcast ammo.

I thought that the 12-18 inch penetration requirement encompassed the concerns about bone.  Might be wrong.  I know a .380FMJ won't penetrate as far as a 9mm FMJ but do you have some resource that indicates it will penetrate less than a 9mm hollowpoint?

I have  P238 that is wonderful to shoot.  As nice as a polymer full size 9mm.

The links I left above show some 380 fmj, doing 20-23" in ballistic gel.

Could you post some videos shooting drills with it? Especially compared to a full sized or a compact? Including accuracy?

Through gel, they do fine. I just dont believe they have enough mass to continue after barriers. The fbi protocol is just not 12-18" through gel.

RWM will do some testing in the next couple weeks. If it stacks up, Ill eat crow.

Yeah, everything I have seen seems to indicate .380 FMJ is a sufficient penetrator.  A real marginal caliber is .32 which just breaks 12 inches in FMJ....   But that is a different can of worms.  

Ive bought quite a few for my .45 colts. Ive never seen such perfect devastation in animals untill I started loading my own. Very accurate stuff. I really want to get some hardcast for my 9s and 40s

Can't believe I'm gonna pay shipping on 1 box of ammo so you can enjoy sauteed crow.

Absolutely.  I'm very interested.

Old ass data?  Umm... don't even know how to respond to that.  You mean like.. relativity? quantum mechanics? Newtonian physics?  

What changed is the bullet design of the 9mm.  A heavy contribution was the science and theory of terminal ballistics.  Do you think these things are a question of what's in fashion?

I would expect something like the Glock 42 to be easier to shoot than something like a Ruger LCP.  With it's dimensions and weight, the locked breach should make it easy to shoot.  Though a blowback, my Walther PP is easy too because of size and weight.  Thing is, neither is more concealable than a small 9mm.  So like I said in my original comment: they are obviated by small 9mm's.  Meaning they meet no real need and there is no reason to carry one over a small 9mm.  Try running a Ruger LCP against your Glock 19 in your test.  At least that would be interesting.

Also I think there is some confusion on .380 and gel from your post.  A non-expanding FMJ .380 will penetrate in gel just fine.  Making a nice neat .355 hole.  Show me a round that consistently expands and penetrates 12".  That's what required.. not FMJ's.

Recoil:  The Pico is a locked breach.  

edit: with apologies.. some snarky comments removed.

Not sure the recoil reduction from locked breach makes it any easier to hit with though.  Only fired one but the trigger was this heavy, long DAO affair and the sights almost unusable.  Possibly I'm thinking of another pistol.  Berreta Pico, tiny, soft frame, colors?

I load mine (LCP .380) with a PDX1 in the chamber and the rest as FMJ... I guess according to the ARFCOM elite I'm all sorts of wrong.

There have been lots of papers.  Dr Fackler did his stuff including mapping the expected results given gel tests to actual cadavers while working through why we have the criteria we do for FBI protocols.  Roberts did his own research and as far as I know they didn't publish together.  Roberts (search DOCGKR) is not bashful about promoting his views.  Here is some Fackler stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler

When you're dealing with a shooting you would almost have to take a hit and be able to analyze, 'for that specific hit what would the difference in incapacitation time be for these different scenarios'.  And you can't do that.  You can only simulate to get comparisons.  And when you simulate, combined with data from analyzing biological data (animals, cadavers), you get a model.  That's what the 12" penetration, expanded round thing is all about.  Is 11" enough?  10"?  .4" vs .6" expansion?  What we're being told is that statistically.. it isn't.  And that is what you make your best laid plans on.

We're actually close to getting a round that consistently penetrates and expands enough for the .380 based on bullet design.  Not quite there yet though.  Don't know what that bit about 15"-20" gel was earlier in the thread or what that has to do with anything.  Wasn't a hollowpoint.

Easy for you to say.. just wait until the kid down the street has his Dad's Sheridan and wants your bike.

I guess my point is that the one truly measurable standard we have for handgun effectiveness is penetration.  Coming in second is "sufficient" expansion.  I haven't seen any numbers on what makes an "effective" size hole.  Bigger is absolutely better...but when is a hole too small to be effective?  I guess I just want to know how a cartridge, capable of sufficient penetration, can be definitively called underpowered without it being an opinion.  I think it can certainly be called less effective based on the data.

And, while most folks are carrying LCPs, I can tell you that a P238, just a smidge bigger than a LCP, is soft shooting and very controllable.  The P938 in 9mm is observably harder to shoot well and quickly.  In a very small, concealable, and usable package a .380 has its niche.

Everything is about compromise between size/concealment, power, and controllability.  When opinions come into play it is easy for someone to talk themselves into carrying something bigger or smaller, and that's fine.

"old ass data"
You said it was 20-30yrs old, that is old data.

"What changed is the bullet design of the 9mm."
Agree, bullet designs and that does not just apply to 9mm, 380 can benefit from this as well.

"Meaning they meet no real need and there is no reason to carry one over a small 9mm"
Disagree, I own several Pistols, there is a difference in 42 vs 43 vs 19 as far as being concealed and comfort (at least to me)

"Also I think there is some confusion on .380 and gel from your post.  A non-expanding FMJ .380 will penetrate in gel just fine.  Making a nice neat .355 hole.  Show me a round that consistently expands and penetrates 12".  That's what required.. not FMJ's."
Agree, he was asking about fmj penetration and I referenced where he could see real video data on gel penetration.
In the video I linked the tester will show you some rounds that will do what you ask about expansion and penetration, give it a look, it's real testing with gel and multi layer denim.
He also covers the ammo that didn't make the cut (more ammo failed than passed)

See, we don't completely disagree..just 50%

I've been carrying for about 30 years. I have pointed my gun at someone with bad intentions twice. Neither time did I have to shoot them and neither time did they ask what caliber it was, they left me alone upon seeing my gun pointed at them.
30 years is a lot of carrying and very little defensive  use. I carry my .45acp less and less and my .380 more and more.

Not to side track the 380 deal, but you have a valid point on opinions.
I urge anyone to do what I do and buy various ammos and do your own informal testing, hunt with pistols and cut open in the field to see trauma and the end results.
Shoot barriers and such, it's actually a lot of fun, but most of all try to educate yourself and form your own educated opinions.

I started with 22rimfire for benchrest years ago and must have over 40-50 different types of 22 ammo, and yes they shoot different.
The various groupings got me interested in velocity, weight and such so I just started trying various tests that are totally unscientific, but got to see some interesting results.
That led to pistols, and I will stand up for the right .380 pistol and load, these are not the weaklings of years ago.
It is not 9mm, 357 sig, 40 s&w, or 10mm, but it will work if you do your homework..(my humble and biased opinion)

There's another ongoing thread discussing the .32acp as a viable self defense round.  While it isn't good it meets the first requirement of a self defense round.  If you can conceal it you can bring a gun to the gun fight.  A good .380 SD round today is better than the .38 spl  lead 158rn of 50 years ago that all the cops used to carry and felt comfortable with carrying.  A lot of things are relative and so is this discussion.

If all pistol bullets suck, does (insert favorite caliber/bullet here) suck less to make it so much worthwhile than FMJ .380"?  To put it another way:

If all pistol bullets suck, does .380" suck so much more than other available pistol calibers/loads as to be completely useless?

".380" FMJ won't stop an assailant; you should carry 230 grn .45" ACP +P+."

Ok, but will 230 grn .45" ACP +P+ stop an assailant?

As near as I can understand, no single pistol bullet can cause enough damage to immediately stop an attack absent a CNS hit or a lucky shot in a particular part of the heart when it happens to be full of blood.

All a pistol bullet is really, is a pretty long, very small knife.  If we're going to stop our assailant, we've either got to poke him a lot w/ tiny knives, or poke one of those knives into his brainpan.  Is a .45" HP a better tiny knife than .380" FMJ?  Yes.  But .45" HP is still a tiny knife.

Where did I say I can keep up with a full size with a Pico?

I can outshoot my Pico with my M9 with my eyes closed. The Pico is not even close to what I'd consider "hard to shoot" though. If I can quickly put shots where I want them on the target and it's not killing my wrist from recoil, I don't think that qualifies as "hard." Not as fast as a full frame, no, but not hard by any means.


Sorry if I came off snarky myself. Not trying to start a tiff with you; that kind of stupid nonsense is why I stay out of shithole that is GD.  Just disagree that .380 pocket pistols are all hard to shoot. I will agree that MOST are and that's why I've never bought one till more recently. I've found the Pico very controllable and not a pain to shoot at all.

Maybe you just shot the original version of the Pico. Beretta addressed complaints about the really heavy trigger and extreme springs on the guide rod with a revised version recently, and that's the one I picked up and have been using. The double recoil spring was changed to one, and the trigger pull was lightened by 3-4 pounds.

Mine's one like this one. Revised model with the lasermax frame.

In bold:
I didn't see this till this morning, already ordered ammo, spent $75 last night in the name of arfcom science.

I changed one thing when I ordered ammo last night, got Underwood instead of BB.
Underwood has the same 100gr hardcast load, with same mv and energy posted in specs, also got a +p load with the xtp bullet.
XTP bullet came out on top in the last video testing of gel I watched and linked above.
100gr hardcast .380
xtp +p 90gr

Here is what I have on hand that I have shot, we will have a small variety of different loads and bullets to try.
Probably just be easier to box this stuff up along with some cash for materials and ship it to Old Painless, tell him what we want..

Terminal ballistics is not an opinion. It's the result of research and review by a lot of smart people and it's out there for scrutiny.  It's held up well for a long time.  You can choose to ignore or gloss over it but you can't say it's wrong and you can't say it's an opinion.  Some more light reading: http://www.brassfetcher.com/Suggested%20Reading/Suggested%20Reading.html

If you want a 'it must be expanded to .55" and no smaller or we all die" you probably won't find it.  Your .380 expanding to say .5" and penetrating 10" is inadequate though.

As for what you can handle and shoot.. I know tiny .380's are hard to shoot.  I know big locked breech ones are not.  Even my blowback Walther PP, being rather portly, is easy to hit with too.  However I understand it's limits and I practice with a J frame smith and wesson with a laser.  Not the easiest gun to shoot but works well with practice.  Suspect the same is true of the Sig 938.  Practice with the 22lr add on (how cool is that?) and soft loads as you work up to control SD 9mm rounds.  Won't be a fun gun to shoot like your 238, but that's not the job.  You can learn to shoot a J frame or small 9mm well and IMHO, you should.

The longer a scientific theory withstands the scrutiny and rigor of mapping to what it describes, the more valid it is.  Not less.

Not sure you understand that terminal ballistics is science...not some internet opinion.  Here's a list I provided to the other gentleman to get you started:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Suggested%20Reading/Suggested%20Reading.html

I'm not saying all your info is bad, all I'm saying is it is older data.
I did give you an example that you asked for earlier in the thread.
You wanted to see the proper penetration and expansion for a 380, did you view that, cause more than 1 modern load can do it.
That is all I am trying to get at, when I give you a specific example, you seem to ignore it, you keep going back to research data.
I'm willing to put my ammo, my time and my money towards doing some arfcom testing, what are you willing to do ?

haven't read all 8 pages here but since there are so many sub compact 9mm's now, that are the same size as a 380, i'd go the g43 or shield route. hell, even the 45 shield is a tiny package.

Unfortunately, all of the links on that page are dead...

The problem is you are taking 25 year old research (that I haven't seen, but would love to) and said it proves your opinion that .380 is "underpowered".  I have no doubts that this research indicates that .380 is less powerful and less effective than 9mm, .40, .45, etc.  And, as such, it is not a good round choice for police carrying full-size pistols.  However, less powerful does not equate to "underpowered".  Less effective doesn't equate to "ineffective".  That is the whole point.  You have claimed that an effective round must penetrate to 12 inches (FBI standard = fact = good) and "expand".  But how much must it expand?  What is the "minimum" diameter for an "effective" round and how did you come to that conclusion?  Numbers  and sources please, otherwise it is just an opinion to me and anyone else reading this.  Much like the people who claim that 9mm is ineffective because it doesn't expand as big as a .45 ACP HP penetrating to the same depth.  It is not ineffective, but less effective.  Additionally, there are apparently several .380 HP bullets out there than both expand and penetrate deep enough.  Which I didn't know.  My faith currently is in FMJs for penetration as so many HPs don't penetrate enough...but with enough proof and testing that might change.

Regarding the ability of people to shoot firearms...yes.   You can train to be effective with just about anything.  But I can guarantee you that someone who has the time to train to be able to effectively handle a micro 9mm will, with the same time and effort, still shoot faster with a .380 of the same size.  It is physics.  A P238 is not a "big, locked breach" gun.  It is a small locked breach gun, smaller than a J-frame.  Just a little bigger than an LCP.  Nowhere near the size of a PP or PPK.  It is both tiny and easy to shoot.  A J-Frame, which you are currently recommending, runs into the same issues that you warned about regarding the tiny LCPs...it is really hard to shoot well.  I think there is a place for a gun that is just as small, has a higher capacity, real sights, lighter recoil and shoots a round capable of sufficient penetration.

I understand that everyone has an opinion.  Twenty to thirty years ago the general consensus of the FBI was that 9mm was not effective for, I suspect, all of the reasons you have laid out against the .380.  My opinion, based on years of interneting, reading everything I can find, and watching tons of slow motion gel vidoes (which may be worth exactly what I paid for them) is that shot placement is king, penetration is queen, and expansion is the heir apparent.  Hitting the target with a round that can get to the vitals is what makes a gun adequate for self defense.  Doing so with a round that makes a nice big hole is better.  But don't give up the ability to quickly hit the target where you need to for the potential to create a bigger hole.

The problem with saying "well, for a little more size and recoil you can carry X round" is that argument can be applied to any pistol out there.  Just go a little bigger than that J-Frame and you have a Shield.  A little bigger than the Shield is an XD9SC.  And that isn't all that much smaller than a Glock 19....  And so it goes, right up to full-size pistols.  With concealed carry it is all about compromise in size, weight, caliber, capacity, and controllability.  People have to decide how much they are willing to compromise.  Some carry full-size guns.  I carried a full size 1911 for about two years in a mag-capacity restricted state.  You have decided that a .38 is as small as you want to go.  That's fine.  But it doesn't make a .380 an "ineffective" round...simply an inferior option.  Just like a .38 is inferior to a 9mm which is inferior to a 10mm, which is inferior to .44 Mag...  

Inferior can still be adequate, which is, I believe, what the OP was asking.

But by all means, show me some studies that contradict my ideas.  I'm always open to changing my mind.

This was why I stopped carrying spare mags on my person (back when I CCW'ed).  I kept plenty in my truck but on my person, I figured if I ever couldnt get the job done with 15+1 rounds of 9mm 147gr HST, I should just GTFO of there.  Or more likely I'd already be dead before even running out of that first mag, making backup mags pointless...  

I occasionally carried a Shield or  a G26 but 80% of the time or more I AIWB'ed a G19.  Plenty of barrel length and capacity for anything I might run into but in all reality the main reason I prefered to CCW it was because it was a comfier gun to hold and I felt more accurate with it than the G26.

Sorry for the dead links page.  However, doing a simple cut and paste into Google using one of the titles you get:

http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

If you want to understand why 12" penetration in gel with and expanding round (38 special Gold Dot is often used as the baseline for minimum expansion) you'll have to educate yourself.  You've received all the starting point information you need to proceed.  It's the work of Dr. Fackler and DocGKR you're looking for.  There is broad concurrence based on their work that.380 is inadequate including every credible testing outlet I've seen.  You know.. all these places doing gel testing didn't make up their test criteria or the protocol.

And again.. this isn't my opinion.  This is as factual as theory and modeling allows.

I think its laughable when people forget how a couple UNARMED Americans took down an AK 47 wielding terrorist on a train in France and now all of a sudden a g19 isnt enough

I like to make sure I have a reload primarily for malfunctions

2 of those unarmed Americans were service members. One was Air Force, the other was National Guard.

That sort of thing doesn't happen very often.

Here is another ammo test that does 12-18" for the 380.
I have never shot any of the poly bullets, might get some later to test.
This guy does good reviews and goes over pros and cons.
One positive we have today in the internet is that people will do their own testing and post results, kinda like mythbusters.
Some of it is good stuff.

Polycase 380 ammo test

you sure about that?

Well since there has been some debate as to whether some loads will make it or not, we are gonna do some testing as I said earlier.
The great news is that 10MM_, a fellow arfcomer and shooter of all kinds of things will be conducting gel testing on several 380 loads.
He will do his own thread for that, check out his credentials with this link.
The Wound Channel

This will take place at a later date so check back here for an update.
There will also be another thread where myself and 03RN are gonna do some comparison shooting 380 vs 9mm vs 10mm..etc etc
Will not be hardcore scientific, but we will look at penetration levels of various materials.

Awesome!

They were on vacation iirc.

No it doesn't. I don't crash my car or burn down my house very often either but I wear my seatbelt and have  a couple fire extinguishers in the house, infact there is one in my truck as well

Being prepared doesn't equate wannabe hero status

Maybe someone already mentioned it but, shootingthebull.com reviewed a ton of .380 loads in FBI gel. The only thing that reliably reached 12" and expanded consistently was Hornady's XTP, and 2 other company's loads using the Hornady XTP bullet.

Yes sir, I posted it, his reviews and testing were really good and cut out the stuff that you shouldn't waste money on.
Check out the other link I left where he reopened the testing for another load.

2 of the loads that will be tested have the XTP's in em
Both of those are Underwood, standard 90gr and 90gr+P.