An interesting statement.....

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Periodically I receive an e-mail from Firearms News that will contain links to several articles. Today's offering included, "The Best Two .380 Carry Loads" by James Tarr.

Early on in the article he states, "Today's .380 loads perform better than the 9mm loads of 30 years ago, and that's not gun writer opinion, that's documented fact....." and continues on to say that when the FBI load testing protocols were initiated that no existing .380 loads could pass.

Now, he claims, there is one (and possibly more), specifically the Federal 90 gr. Tactical HST loaded to 1,030 fps.

If so, I'll be looking for a couple of boxes of "wonder ammo". Does anyone in the CB Brotherhood have any experience with this Federal load yet? .380s can be handy to pack under some circumstances.

I thought that maybe the "...better than the 9mm loads of 30 years ago...." might be kind of a stretch....what say you?

DG

[Winger Ed.]

I thought that maybe the "...better than the 9mm loads of 30 years ago...." might be kind of a stretch....what say you?

DG

I'd wonder what they were comparing it to.
If it's bulk packed, 'affordable' factory stuff, I'd think its true.
If they are comparing it to some of the high end self defense, 'little box', and expensive loads---
I'd say probably not, or the new stuff is so close it'd be hard to notice the difference.

[rintinglen]

I'm calling shenanigans on that.

30 years ago was 1991. Remington, Winchester and Speer had hollow point loads that would expand, that ran 90 or 95 grain bullets at 1300 fps+ as well as 124 grain loads that had more energy at 100 yards than the afore mentioned 380 load has at the muzzle. My duty load was the Winchester Silver Tip, 115 grain JHP at 1150 fps in those days, and I dare say I would be more content with that than any 380 load. Especially in a micro pistol like an LCP or Colt Mustang, the little guy just can't carry the weight the big guy can. I would be willing to wager that the 380 "BULLISTICS" quoted are from a 3.4" or longer barrel, not a 2.7-2.8" compact.

I'd have won that bet. Federal uses a 3.75" barrel, according to their website.

Typical gun writer/Blogger exaggeration.

Now if he had said 50 years ago, or even 40, I'd be inclined to give him a pass.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Yes, that's a bit of exaggeration, I think. The 9mm of the '90s era was pretty lethal. Somewhere back there Gold Dot, Starfire, and Fed. Hydra-Shok started to appear; and as noted, the Silvertip wasn't a slouch.

289482

DG

[Mk42gunner]

Sure would be nice to know what barrel length the .380 with that performance had. If it was one of the micro carry guns such as the Keltec or Ruger LCP series with the ~2.7" barrel that is one thing, but if it takes one of the longer 3.4 or so inch barrels that is another thing entirely.

In my personal opinion, I think the modern .380 ACP is best in the pocket holster sized pistols. If you need to carry a .380 in belt mounted holster, you may as well go to a 9mm for the extra power and shootability. That extra half to three quarters of an inch makes a big difference in pocket carry.

Of course just about any reliable pistol is going to be better than a big stick.

Robert

[FergusonTO35]

Ammo makers still use test barrel lengths from decades ago for the most part. As in 4" for the .380 and 6" or even 8-3/8" for the .38 Special. In other words, those results are valid if you are shooting an FN model 1910 or a K-38. I'm not a fan of flyweight hollowpoints no matter how fast they are driven. If the thing does expand, the lack of sectional density is going to really put the brakes on penetration or it's going to fragment. If it doesn't expand, you aren't gaining anything over FMJ. I do carry a .380 more than any other round, however I'm realistic about what the round is capable of. I also chronograph my loads and practice frequently. The .380's strengths are that it has mild recoil for good accuracy and quick follow up shots and it comes in some very small and easy to carry guns. I carry plated or lead solids in my .380's because I want them to penetrate and hit something important, which is what any defensive load should do first and foremost.

[jakharath]

A few years ago I converted my 45acp carry ammo from Federal Hydra-Shoks to HSTs. The Hydras were purchased back in the 90's... Bought 50 round boxes of HST's at a decent price.

[nhithaca]

I never had owned either a 9mm or 380 until a couple of years ago. Now own two 9s and a single 380. Have found that Winchester is now using a true flat point FMC in both rounds for their "white" box or "military issue" ammo and while over penetration with the 9 will still exist, with the 380 it looks to be that the slight change in bullet shape will help its stopping power. Kind of like the difference between a 38Sp's true round nose and flat round nose bullet shapes. No feed issues at all in both the 9s and while the 380 (DAO AMT) is pretty finicky the Winchester load works best out of the different brands I've tried. The factories keep tweaking the bullet designs, trying to meet everyone's expectations. Tough to make everyone happy all the time.

[jason280]

Delusional.

.380 ammo is getting better, but its still a bit behind 9mm ammo...even 9mm ammo from the '90s.

[RoyEllis]

I would sure like to see his "super .380 ammo" beat out my carefully hoarded stash of Winchester Black Talon from it's release in 1991. Actually, I'd be willing to bet some cash on it!