Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Weapons and Tactics' started by immanurse, Apr 15, 2018.
I'm rather with Clint on this one.
Plus I do not, have not owned a .380
I believe if you require more power, start with a bigger round.
I really need to watch that vid. Keep seeing it posted and I've never watched it.
So ballistics gel should only be a rough guide. I like looking at ballistics gel for rifles but also look up their performance on coyotes, hogs, deer, etc.
Handguns are less likely to have a real world test other than stated performance by LE. That is personally why I use Speer Gold Dots as my carry and HD load. Good track record from LE. I use Underwood loadings of those.
Anyway to the video. He later tested a Underwood loading of the xtp and it had 3 failures to expand with denim. Minor variances in fps shouldn't lead to that big of difference on performance, so it brings into question why it had those failings and the previous tests. In general Xtp doesn't really expand much so it's not surprising it does well in .380 in gel.
Different gels, mix rates, temperature of the gel, etc makes a big difference.
So if that's the round you want to go with choose the most reliable manufacture. Look up reviews on the manufacturer.
Here's another interesting vid. The Lehigh defender is interesting.
.380 doesnt have enough weight to penetrate worth a damn in ANY JHP configuration. You're better off just shooting ball ammo. Why bother with probably penetration issue if the expanded projectile is basically still the same diameter? If it doesnt expand for shit anyway, why bother?
I have an LCP II, it's a great gun when you need to carry something really light. I use Federal Hydra-Shoks in it (I believe they're 95 grain in .380). Being an older design, they don't expand as well as modern ammo. In a .380 that's okay, as the issue with most .380 is that it doesn't penetrate enough. So I'm okay with less expansion with a gain in penetration.