Is this an adequte defensive round?  I am looking for pocket pistol for when I can't carry my Glock IWB, and the 380s are quit a bit smaller than the 9mms.  My biggest concern is penetration.  There are a couple of rounds that penetrate 11+ inches of gelatin, which is almost good enough.  Most commercial rounds do much worse.

Let me ask you a question..........

Can you shoot accurately?

Would you want to get hit by a .380 round from say no more that 20 feet?

Anywhere in your body........

Especially center mass............

I carry a 5 shot snubby, 38SPL LSWCHP +P. IMO, its not how big the bullet is, but where it lands. Two 22lr to the chest will change anyones mind. In the winter, when heavy clothing is worn, switch to the hottest FMJ rounds you can find. This will increase your odds of adequate penetration.

Edited to add: Scott! Go do some work! Or at least put the TV stand together!

I think you'll find that most everyone will tell you, "No. It's not enough."

I think everybody who tells you this is correct.  I think a Kahr 9mm will be the lowest I would go as a backup gun.

A .22 short will kill someone if the shot is place right, but I want something that can be placed about anywhere and do a fair job at tearing stuff up.  

I voted marginal, but...

go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too.

Once I receive my CCW from my county sheriff in Minnesota, I plan to carry a .380.  The reason I chose this caliber is because of it's small size, and decent capacity.  I have a Grendel P-12 that holds 10 + 1 and weighs about a pound fully loaded.  Would I prefer a .45?  Yes, of course, but the size of the weapon for everyday carry certainly weighs in.

Tom
Socialist Republic of Minnesota  (SROM)

In a previous, similar thread, several members said .380 is definitely not adequate for self-defense.  However, in another thread some of those same members considered an AR more than adequate for hunting deer.  So, which is it shot placement or energy?

There are really too many variables to give a definitive answer here.  You’ve already hit on one variable – ammo.  I think under the right circumstances a .380 can be adequate.  Then again, under the right circumstances a .22 can be adequate.  

FWIW, I carry a Sig P230 (.380) in warmer weather because it’s easier to conceal than most of my other handguns.  I often choose which gun I’m going to carry on a particular day based on ease of concealment and comfort.

Its better than a sharp stick in the eye...

Well maybe.

Well, we know that a Walther PPK, 7.65 mil has a delivery like brick through a plate glass window, so a .380 ought to be at least as good.

You wouldn't argue with "M," would you?

Is 380 enough gun?

It depends.  Are the mice you're hunting healthy or weak?  

I don't think anything short of .50 BMG will give you a reliable "one shot stop", but you do what you can with what you got.  A .380 will probably get someone's attention.

id take one a shot in the chest with a .380 as long as i could return shot for shot with a .45

Quoted: In a previous, similar thread, several members said .380 is definitely not adequate for self-defense.  However, in another thread some of those same members considered an AR more than adequate for hunting deer.  So, which is it shot placement or energy? There are really too many variables to give a definitive answer here.  You’ve already hit on one variable – ammo.  I think under the right circumstances a .380 can be adequate.  Then again, under the right circumstances a .22 can be adequate.   FWIW, I carry a Sig P230 (.380) in warmer weather because it’s easier to conceal than most of my other handguns.  I often choose which gun I’m going to carry on a particular day based on ease of concealment and comfort.

there is a huge difference between hunting and self-defense.  unless you are talking about hunting dangerous game in which case common wisdom is to carry whatever your arms will hold!

i would honestly rather carry no gun or a knife than anything less than a 9mm.  anything less than 9mm to me is a better deterrant than actual defensive weapon.

I'd say it's good enough, considering you're looking for a pocket pistol/back-up gun.  go with the Kel-Tec P-3AT.  there's a review at THR here: Kel-Tec's P-3AT:  A Review.  It's a 6+1 .380ACP Pocket pistol which is only marginally larger than a P32.

Quoted: Quoted: In a previous, similar thread, several members said .380 is definitely not adequate for self-defense.  However, in another thread some of those same members considered an AR more than adequate for hunting deer.  So, which is it shot placement or energy? There are really too many variables to give a definitive answer here.  You’ve already hit on one variable – ammo.  I think under the right circumstances a .380 can be adequate.  Then again, under the right circumstances a .22 can be adequate.   FWIW, I carry a Sig P230 (.380) in warmer weather because it’s easier to conceal than most of my other handguns.  I often choose which gun I’m going to carry on a particular day based on ease of concealment and comfort. there is a huge difference between hunting and self-defense.  unless you are talking about hunting dangerous game in which case common wisdom is to carry whatever your arms will hold! i would honestly rather carry no gun or a knife than anything less than a 9mm.  anything less than 9mm to me is a better deterrant than actual defensive weapon.

So you are or are not saying a 9x18 inadequate?

9 kurz = yes
9 luger = no

A slingshot has better penetration than a .380!

Handgun rounds by nature are anemic.  Nothing shy of a 44 mag is what I would consider adequate for man sized game, but unfortunately such pieces aren't exactly practical for carry or follow up shots.  A 380 will do the job if placed right.  Larger calibers (9mm and bigger) generally employ browning type designs which have a higher bore axis and barrels which are not fixed.  I find the small, handy, blowback designs of many 380's to be very shootable.  If you can shoot it well, a 380 is plenty.  I would definitely aim high though...

9mm Mak is neither a 9mm kurz or a 9mm Luger.

So?

9mm mak lies between 380 (9mm kurtz) and 9x19mm (9mm luger/parabelum) in power.  This fact coupled with the great value/quality of the nicer makerovs make at an excellent choice.

Before there were Glocks, Maks went BOOM everytime.

Quoted: go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too.

Mak's are nice guns no doubt. Mine is a SUPER STRAIGHT SHOOTER. But I classify mine in the plinker, snake killer category.

I personally would  carry nothing less than a .40 or 45acp. I guess I'm just from the old school. Recently a 40 convert....shhhh don't tell anyone.

I had a friend who unfortunately had to defend himself with his firearm. The criminal fled from the scene only to expire several hours later. Shot was placed center mass with .380acp

Yes, the .380 is adequate, but I would want a little more power. The 9X18 is better still, but If I had a choice, I'd pass on both of them.

Quoted: Quoted: go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too. Mak's are nice guns no doubt. Mine is a SUPER STRAIGHT SHOOTER. But I classify mine in the plinker, snake killer category. I personally would  carry nothing less than a .40 or 45acp. I guess I'm just from the old school. Recently a 40 convert....shhhh don't tell anyone.

10's of thousands of DEAD commies suggest 9x18's can do the deed...Not everyone was shot in the back of the head.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too. Mak's are nice guns no doubt. Mine is a SUPER STRAIGHT SHOOTER. But I classify mine in the plinker, snake killer category. I personally would  carry nothing less than a .40 or 45acp. I guess I'm just from the old school. Recently a 40 convert....shhhh don't tell anyone. 10's of thousands of DEAD commies suggest 9x18's can do the deed...Not everyone was shot in the back of the head.

I agree, It is an adequate round, but shot placement being more key than with say .357 with 125gr HP's loaded to the maximum. Or any other more powerful rounds.

I wouldn't feel naked while carrying one, but I do think there are much better calibers available.

First off any caliber will Kill. Killing is not the objective of CCW. Defending ones self with the ability to STOP an attacker from all further aggressive action is the objective. I believe that anything smaller than a 9mm is just a false sense of security.

Would I prefer a .45? Yes, of course, but the size of the weapon for everyday carry certainly weighs in

Try checking out a Sig 245, Colt Defender, Kahr PM9, S&W J frame in .38. Serious guns for serious Concealed Carry.

Like Lumpy196 said not to long ago, "No one ever wished for a smaller gun in a gun fight."

Ultimately It's your butt, your choice.

Historically the .380 has done a fine job as a personal defensive round. Along with the 2" .38 it was the round of choice for CCW throughout most of the 20th Century here in the U.S., and served as a military and police caliber for much of Europe with great success.  

380 is fine
through a MAC-11A1

well im 140 lbs and i carry a .45 in the texas summer heat.

It is better than nothing, but i'd get a .45

Quoted: Quoted: go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too. ...I personally would  carry nothing less than a .40 or 45acp... I had a friend who unfortunately had to defend himself with his firearm. The criminal fled from the scene only to expire several hours later. Shot was placed center mass with .380acp

I think you have been watching too many movies.  This is what handguns do.  Unless you shoot someone in the head or spine, they are going aren't going to expire for several hour.  Handguns poke little holes people bleed through.  If you only shoot them once center of mass with any handgun, they will probably flee and die later.

Two in the chest one in the head...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too. ...I personally would  carry nothing less than a .40 or 45acp... I had a friend who unfortunately had to defend himself with his firearm. The criminal fled from the scene only to expire several hours later. Shot was placed center mass with .380acp I think you have been watching too many movies.  This is what handguns do.  Unless you shoot someone in the head or spine, they are going aren't going to expire for several hour.  Handguns poke little holes people bleed through.  If you only shoot them once center of mass with any handgun, they will probably flee and die later. Two in the chest one in the head...

So you are telling me that a .380 has the same stopping power as some of the other bigger rounds? Then why don't PD's use them as standard issue weapons? They are certainly lighter and recoil is easier to manage. I deduct by your argument that Since handguns poke little holes that people bleed through all calibers are created equal?, I'll bet you carry a 22lr.

You carry what you like, Some of us know better.

Your 2 in the chest and 1 in the head argument is a good one,and a good way to train,  but UNFORTUNATELY things don't always work this way in a real firefight. In fact, rarely do they ever. I'll bet you can count on one hand the number of people you have heard of being killed thet were double tapped in the chest and one in the head in the past 10 years. You might train this way and be an excellent shot. But rounds have a way of not finding their mark especially under the stress of a life/Death situation where the other man is firing at you.

You carry your .22 and I carry the biggest thing I feel comfortable carrying.

Each to his own I guess

I'm off to watch another Dirty Harry Movie

Only girls and homo's carry anything smaller than a 9mm.

There is no such thing as "enough gun" short of a deathray that kills instantly any person of any size or strength no matter where you hit them.

A handgun is a weapon of compromise. If you know there is going to be a fight, you bring a good rifle and plenty of spare ammo.

Since it is not practical for most of us to go about our daily lives with an AR strapped across our chests, we are left to carry a handgun.

Since the handgun is a weapon of compromise, it makes sense to compromise as little as possible. Thus the affinity for big, heavy hitting calibers: They come closest to the power of a rifle.

If you live in a place where the temp never gets below 70 degrees and everyone runs around in shorts and T-Shirts all the time, then concealing a bigger handgun is more difficult.

The problem with the .380 is that there are so many good 9mm pistols out there that are just about the same size as a .380 (The Kahr guns come to mind as they are smaller than a PPK) that it makes no sense to carry the weaker caliber.

Will the .380 do the job? It certainly is capable of killing people, but it is severely limited. The .380 will have problems penetrating heavy layers of winter clothing and the like. Even a lot of 9mm loads will have the same trouble.

The .380, however, has not proven to be an effective man stopper on the street. The high powered 9mm loads have performed very well in actual shootings. A lot of good 9mm loads closely replicate the ballistics of the legendary .357 magnum loaded with 125 grain jacketed hollowpoints that has performed so well over the years. The .380 does not have any loads that come close.

The .380 is better than nothing, and in certain platforms (like the new NAA gun) makes a whole lot of sense, but for most primary tasks there are better options.

It is not always practical to carry a full sized 1911 or Beretta 92. I will be the first to admit that. But when choosing a gun to fill in as a compromise, cram as much power and as much ammo into it as you can.

A gunfight is going to happen on the worst day of your life. Murhpy will be all over your behind and life in general will just suck royally. You want to go into that situation with every advantage you can possibly take with you.

So if you can afford to get a better pistol (Like the Sig P239, the Kahr guns, etc...) then by all means do so, as your life may one day hang on the difference.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: go the next step up...9x18 Makarov.  You can get a nice ccw cheap too. ...I personally would  carry nothing less than a .40 or 45acp... I had a friend who unfortunately had to defend himself with his firearm. The criminal fled from the scene only to expire several hours later. Shot was placed center mass with .380acp I think you have been watching too many movies.  This is what handguns do.  Unless you shoot someone in the head or spine, they are going aren't going to expire for several hour.  Handguns poke little holes people bleed through.  If you only shoot them once center of mass with any handgun, they will probably flee and die later. Two in the chest one in the head...

your skills are awesome!

i bet that in all honesty one would be lucky to expect to get one or two hits anywhere on someones body from a seven round magazine.  you can blah blah blah on about shot placement on paper, but aim for a moving target capable of ducking, taking cover and moving evasively, much less returning fire and that is without even considering your own involuntary response to stress (shaky hands, blurred or tunnel vision, inability to focus, loss of fine motor skills, etc.) if you think that shot placement is important you are technically correct, but anyone foolish to think that they will respond appropriately under duress is either fooling themselves or has never drilled before.  

if im asking for a 2/7 hit probability than im going for the biggest bullet i can find that still penetrates reliably. i am personally not a big fan of the 9mm (any variety) but would carry one mainly for the large capacity/small size which would maximize my hit probability. anything smaller than that IMHO negates the advantage of the smaller caliber as they usually do not have a capacity that exceeds or even equals some of the compact nines (with hicaps of course).

I leave for vacation tomorrow, at times I have to be near seedy areas, so I was going to take a .380, and put it down for a 6 shot revolver .38 spec, loaded with +P rounds, I just felt if I needed to shoot a asshole, I might as well do it right.

9mm is as low as I go on the caliber size and that's only in special circumstances.  Normally, it's .40S&W or .45ACP for me.

However, if you feel comfortable with .380, enjoy your tiny bullets...

Hmmm, my post seems to have stirred up some controversy.  I never said that all handgun rounds are equal in power, merely that all are anemic.  If you consider their place on the "power chain of being" they all rank quite poorly.

Energy out of a handgun:
22 LR             105 ft/lbs
32 ACP           125 ft/lbs
380 ACP         195 ft/lbs
9mm (115 gr)  380 ft/lbs              
9mm (147 gr)  320 ft/lbs
45 ACP           355 ft/lbs

All these cartridges look pretty feeble to me compared too...

223 Rem         1280 ft/lbs
308 Win           2560 ft/lbs
300 WinMag    3570 ft/lbs

Considering the fact that 223 is considered marginal for deer size game, let alone dangerous game (such as a human attacker) I would say that all handgun cartridges are insufficient.  

You simply have to aim and hope for the best.  In reality the differences between a 380 and 45 are fairly small compared to importance of shot placement.  I would take a small 380 over a small 9mm any day simply because I find many 380's to be very handy and pointable.  Three shots from a 380 placed well are a million times better than 3 45 or 9mm slugs placed poorly.  While a fullsize 45 or hicap fullsize 9mm would be my weapon of choice they are sometimes too big to carry.

If you think that any handgun caliber is a death ray, you are sadly mistaken; they all poke little holes you bleed out of.  Some poke slightly bigger holes than others, but none hit hard enough to reliably stop a person without luck and EXCELLENT placement.

Someone brought up the question of what caliber I carry.  The answer is none, I possess a nice benchmade knife, the head on my shoulders and some good shoes for running.  They haven't failed me yet...

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick Considering the fact that 223 is considered marginal for deer size game, let alone dangerous game (such as a human attacker) I would say that all handgun cartridges are insufficient.

The .223 is marginal for human attackers? WTF?
Tell that to the families of the poor souls that were taken out by the Beltway snipers.

ALL handgun cartriges are insufficient? I have taken several deer, with .45acp and .357 mag, that would disagree with you if they could. All one shot stops into the chest cavity. Have even witnessed one buck taken with a 9mm.

Yes handgun cartriges are anemic Compared to rifle rounds, But I have yet to meet the man who could consistantly handle a .300 win mag fired from a hand cannon.

I just can't stay away from those  Dirty Harry Death ray Gun Movies.

Quoted: Originally Posted By sk8brdnick Considering the fact that 223 is considered marginal for deer size game, let alone dangerous game (such as a human attacker) I would say that all handgun cartridges are insufficient.   The .223 is marginal for human attackers? WTF? Tell that to the families of the poor souls that were taken out by the Beltway snipers. ALL handgun cartriges are insufficient? I have taken several deer, with .45acp and .357 mag, that would disagree with you if they could. All one shot stops into the chest cavity. Have even witnessed one buck taken with a 9mm. Yes handgun cartriges are anemic Compared to rifle rounds, But I have yet to meet the man who could consistantly handle a .300 win mag fired from a hand cannon. I just can't stay away from those  Dirty Harry Death ray Gun Movies.

The examples you cite are anecdotal, not scientific.  If you have taken deer with a single shot from a handgun, then it was due to good shot placement.  Even with good shot placement how often did it take more than one shot?  I don't see what this proves other than you are a good shot, but don't hunt with enough gun for your game.  A single shot from a 22LR will kill a deer if you place it right, that doesn't make it a man stopper.  

The beltway sniper illustrates that 223 is perfectly capable of killing people (the military wouldn't have selected it if it wouldn't).  If you want try to pass off anecdotes as science, there are just as many cases of people getting peppered by 223 and fighting on.

My point is that handguns are compromise weapons which fire compromise cartridges.  It may or may not stop a determined attacker.  How your aim is more important than your cartridge selection.  A 380 will work, a 45 will work slightly better but use a long gun if you can.  Plan on the worst and hope for the best...

Of course a .380 is good enough.  It is all about how and where you shoot.  Most of these guys are living the "tactical" wet dream.... where only a huge gun with a massive amount ammo will suffice (ah and don't forget the tactical reloads, nightsights, tactical flashlights, body armor, and AR-15's in the trunk......).   Sure a bigger gun is better, but I wouldn't let that stress me out.  You want to "take a .380 to chest?"  ok........

Personally, I don't advise anything short of a full auto Mac-10 with a silencer for self defense.  Most states don't allow a Class III gun for CCW, so you might as well save some money and convert one illegally.  Don't worry about doing the time, focus on being tactical.  Keep at least a half dozen 32 round mags under your coat.  Having a backup gun that uses the same caliber of ammo is also nice.  In this case the standard Mac-10 uses .45 ACP.  So you should obtain a high - cap Glock 21, H&K Tac, or Para Ord to use as backup.  Get at least four backup mags for this gun as well (mag extensions are a must).  Keep a folding knife and an asp in your pocket as well, along with some mace (you never know). Wear body armor (at least level III, although Level IV is much better).  Keep a helmet and an M-16 in the trunk ( just convert that AR while you are at it).  Nightvision is a must, as are flares and smoke grenades.  You might want to make a few pipebombs while you are at it.  Those can come in handy.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE DUMB: The second half of this post is not meant to be taken seriously.

Job one is to stop. If you feel comfortable carrying a 380,22lr....you will feel comfortable only if you never need to defend your very life.

9mm Versus .380 ACP For Self-Defense

By Dick Metcalf, Technical Editor, Shooting Times.

and,


Compared: The 9mm Makarov and .380 ACP

Hey!  I carry a .25, and I'm not a girl or a homo.

XH
(Admiteddly, it's my backup-backup gun behind the 9mm and the .45, but still, I carry it...h=85%

Quoted: Only girls and homo's carry anything smaller than a 9mm.

Quoted: Hmmm, my post seems to have stirred up some controversy.  I never said that all handgun rounds are equal in power, merely that all are anemic.  If you consider their place on the "power chain of being" they all rank quite poorly. Energy out of a handgun: 22 LR             105 ft/lbs 32 ACP           125 ft/lbs 380 ACP         195 ft/lbs 9mm (115 gr)  380 ft/lbs               9mm (147 gr)  320 ft/lbs 45 ACP           355 ft/lbs All these cartridges look pretty feeble to me compared too... 223 Rem         1280 ft/lbs 308 Win           2560 ft/lbs 300 WinMag    3570 ft/lbs Considering the fact that 223 is considered marginal for deer size game, let alone dangerous game (such as a human attacker) I would say that all handgun cartridges are insufficient.   You simply have to aim and hope for the best.  In reality the differences between a 380 and 45 are fairly small compared to importance of shot placement.  I would take a small 380 over a small 9mm any day simply because I find many 380's to be very handy and pointable.  Three shots from a 380 placed well are a million times better than 3 45 or 9mm slugs placed poorly.  While a fullsize 45 or hicap fullsize 9mm would be my weapon of choice they are sometimes too big to carry. If you think that any handgun caliber is a death ray, you are sadly mistaken; they all poke little holes you bleed out of.  Some poke slightly bigger holes than others, but none hit hard enough to reliably stop a person without luck and EXCELLENT placement. Someone brought up the question of what caliber I carry.  The answer is none, I possess a nice benchmade knife, the head on my shoulders and some good shoes for running.  They haven't failed me yet...

again, you are incorrect.

wounding ability/stopping power whatever you call it is not and will never be a direct function of muzzle energy! things like a bullets retained weight, penetration depth, shot cavity size, expanded size, etc. etc. etc. are all important as well.  this explains the strange phenomena of things such as a rifle round passing through a torso without causing major disruption and a pistol round expanding and causing major trauma and blood loss.  even using your quoted numbers and your own theory (even thought he ammo i use is 370 ft/lbs)the .45 has a more than %75 greater muzzle energy and a nearly %20 greater frontal cross section.  how is that for baseless numerical quotation?

have you ever seen the penetration or deformation capabilites of the .380? they are seriously weak.

that and that alone should be reason enough to look for a larger caliber, not because of the "holes they punch" but for the more reliable and greater ability for expansion (more than double a .380), not to mention their ability to penetrate almost twice as far.

as for the spurious argument about rifle calibers, it is a rediculous argument for a few reasons.

when you say that the .223 is marginal for deer sized game- this is wrong on many counts.  a proper load is all that is needed to adequately put away deer sized game with a .224 caliber bullet.  however you are still talking about something with the ability to expand no larger than the original dimensions of a .45 caliber bullet. the reason a .30 cal is so lethal is twofold, the increased velocity for greater penetration and the larger mass bullets which allow for greater expansion and thereby wounding potential.

yes, shot placement is critical, no one in their right mind would deny that...
but diverting our attention to something as rediculous as comparin muzzle energy of pistols and rifles is just a smokerscreen attempt to deflect attention away from the facts at hand.

the .380 is a poor choice for personal protection unless it is the largest caliber one can conceal.

I prefer to carry my Walther PPK in .380.  Of course, that's what James Bond uses too.

Any gun beats a knife, unless maybe it's a one shot .22 derringer against a PCP-crazed 7' tall machete wielding speed freak.  Unfortunately there is a tendency among gun folk to concentrate on this worst case scenario, when the majority of conflicts tend toward the other extreme.  

Though the anointed tactical elite will surely screech at the thought, the simple fact is that many times the mere sight of a gun and the attitude that you're not afraid to use it will stop the threat.  It worked for my dad and grandfather, and they dealt with some rough characters in their day.

When it comes to size, there are certain ergonomic requirements to handguns. They must be large enough to grip and hang onto when firing, so they can only be so small.  If you can carry a Baby Browning .25, a P32 isn't much bigger.  And a P3AT will not be much bigger than that.  

One reaches the point of diminishing returns right around the KelTec P11. Anything bigger tends to need a holster and thus a fairly large amount of hassle.  Anything smaller will fit into a pocket, and since that makes it easier to carry, you'll likely have one of the "belly guns" on you when you need it.

<WARNING: ANECDOTE TO FOLLOW>
A regular on rec.guns had somebody attack him with a samurai sword once.  Since he couldn't get to his 92FS, which was on his desk several feet away, he had to resort to his pocket .25, which he emptied into his attacker's face while the aforementioned sword was in his guts.  The .25 did the job, the guy was killed pretty much immediately.

So I will say, .380 is enough for a last-ditch defense gun.  I wouldn't want to rely on it the majority of the time.  The problem is that most .380's aren't sufficiently small enough to preclude carrying a larger caliber.

Quoted: I had a friend who unfortunately had to defend himself with his firearm. The criminal fled from the scene only to expire several hours later. Shot was placed center mass with .380acp

This is a good example of some "tactical" thinking.   The poster above seems uneasy with the results of the .380, namely that it did not immediately cause the perp to assume room temperature.

But the fact is that the .380 did the job.  It stopped the threat.  The criminal fled, albeit with a bullet in his torso.  

It seems that too many folks tend to forget that we are not in the military.  We do not have a mandate to kill, only to defend ourselves and family (and in some cases, property).

Just my two cents.

Quoted: Hey!  I carry a .25, and I'm not a girl or a homo.

James Bond carried a .25 too until M made him upgrade to a .32.  And he's no homo.

Quoted: I prefer to carry my Walther PPK in .380.  Of course, that's what James Bond uses too.

Except that his is a .32.

Quoted: again, you are incorrect. wounding ability/stopping power whatever you call it is not and will never be a direct function of muzzle energy! things like a bullets retained weight, penetration depth, shot cavity size, expanded size, etc. etc. etc. are all important as well.  this explains the strange phenomena of things such as a rifle round passing through a torso without causing major disruption and a pistol round expanding and causing major trauma and blood loss.  even using your quoted numbers and your own theory (even thought he ammo i use is 370 ft/lbs)the .45 has a more than %75 greater muzzle energy and a nearly %20 greater frontal cross section.  how is that for baseless numerical quotation? have you ever seen the penetration or deformation capabilites of the .380? they are seriously weak. as for the spurious argument about rifle calibers, it is a rediculous argument for a few reasons. when you say that the .223 is marginal for deer sized game- this is wrong on many counts.  a proper load is all that is needed to adequately put away deer sized game with a .224 caliber bullet.  however you are still talking about something with the ability to expand no larger than the original dimensions of a .45 caliber bullet. the reason a .30 cal is so lethal is twofold, the increased velocity for greater penetration and the larger mass bullets which allow for greater expansion and thereby wounding potential.

My point was not that the 380 is the best choice in calibers, merely that it is a viable option.  You are right in ascerting that it is seriously weak, but so are handguns in general.  Any handgun with much wallop at all becomes a poor tactical choice because recoil is unmanageable.

Sometimes you just can't conceal a mp5 and you have to carry something smaller.  Though it's not ideal, it will do the job.  You are kidding yourself if you think that a 3" barreled 45 is an ideal weapon.  Compromises, compromises...

As for 223 being marginal for deer, I stick by my claim.  It all depends on what part of the country you live in and how big deer are there.  There is a reason that many states forbid hunting of deer with 22 cal rifles.  In your neck of the woods it may be perfectly adequate but in many places its on the small side.  Funny that the same person who advocates giant guns for hunting people defends use of tiny guns on deer...