Sub-Compact Small Caliber Firearms « Personal Defense Network Forum

Personal Defense Network Forum » Handguns

Sub-Compact Small Caliber Firearms

(56 posts)

Rob Pincus

Managing Editor
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 59

A lot of the buzz at the first day of SHOT show was about small frame sub-caliber firearms. Earlier this year, we released a training DVD in the Personal Firearms Defense Video series on this very topic.

Now, offerings from Kahr, S&W and others have joined the Kel-tec and Ruger offerings.

Personally, while I appreciate the firearms and have carried .380s and .32s in the past, I have preferred to go no smaller than a snub .38 revolver most of the time. Has anyone here on the forums chosen to carry a slim ultra compact as a primary defensive tool?

-RJP

# Posted 2 years ago
GrantCunningham

Senior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63

Rob, are you seeing any uber-compact 9mm guns? You'd think, given the success of the Rohrbaugh, that manufacturers would be scrambling for that market. Instead, we're seeing the rise of the .380 - any thoughts as to why?

-=[ Grant ]=-

-=[ Grant ]=-

Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com

# Posted 2 years ago
WayneRiddle

Junior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 7

I'm with you Rob, the smallest I go is a .38 snub. My preference is my Glock 23.

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

From my experience, I have found that, while the "mouse guns" are quite popular, they are also awkward/uncomfortable/punishing to shoot. So much so that most people simply will not train with them enough to become truly proficient with them.

It is just my opinion, but I think they serve a better role as a back up gun, and should be trained with as such.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
CharlesRives

Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 18

I've only got one mousegun (a kel-tec P3AT). It only gets carried when I'm jogging or running (or now that I'm a little older, plodding or limping) during hot weather where weight and size are at a premium. Otherwise, I rarely find someplace that the .380 can go but a .38 special can't.

# Posted 2 years ago
Rob Pincus

Managing Editor
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 59

Hey guys, we talked about this extensively on Armed American Radio last night. While the new guns are much easier to shoot and operate, I agree that they aren't the best choice as a primary defensive tool. One question posed by Mark Walters was "Are the manufacturers doing a disservice to the consumer by pushing these guns ?"

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

That is an interesting question, Rob. I would guess it's kinda like a "which came first" situation; did the consumer demand for smaller handguns come first, or did manufacturers "create" a demand by pushing the smaller weapons? One thing is for sure; the popularity of smaller, lighter handguns has certainly exploded for one reason or another.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
GrantCunningham

Senior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63

The market sees some value in the things, otherwise they wouldn't sell. I did a lot of product development in my corporate days, and from experience I can say that no amount of marketing (of which the gun companies do very little) will sell a product until the consumer is convinced that it has value to him/her.

The question, then, is what value is being seen?

Admittedly, a good proportion of these guns are being sold at the retail counter as being "perfect for the little lady." I've written about this many times: there exists a Neanderthal sub-culture manning gun counters, people who equate women with being weak, stupid creatures. The woman is told that the .380 is all she can handle, and she believes it. I suspect the many sales occur in just that manner. The solution is to teach the sales clerks that women are people, too, and not all of them are as inferior as they might believe.

Another percentage is sold on convenience. They appeal to those who don't want to make any wardrobe or lifestyle changes in order to be armed.

Still, that doesn't completely explain they popularity of the sub-calibers, particularly amongst men. There is something else at work, and the more I think about it - as crazy as it may be - the more I think it's correct.

Allow me to illustrate: I know a woman who insists on carrying a Taurus 58, which is a .380 literally the size and weight of a Glock 19. This is a lady who has worked behind a gun counter; she and her husband are avid shooters; he casts bullets and reloads; I've watched her handle .41 Magnums with no problem. She is no shrinking violet, being above average in stature. Still she insists on carrying that Taurus!

I've asked her why she doesn't get a Glock 19, which would be no bigger or heavier but would carry a more effective cartridge. "I like my gun!", she exclaims, and no amount of inquiry sheds light on WHY she likes it.

Why would she make that conscious choice? I believe that she is part of a large population that wants desperately to protect themselves, that knows a firearm is the only way to achieve parity with an attacker, but doesn't want to be responsible for killing someone - even a criminal. The .380 is, I suspect, seen by them as big enough to stop an attacker from harming them, but not so powerful as to carry the certainty of death.

An odd conclusion? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

-=[ Grant ]=-

-=[ Grant ]=-

Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

Grant - I certainly agree with your assertion that, in a lot of cases, these "micro guns" are touted as being "lady friendly" due to the small size and relatively small calibers. I've helped a number of women who were trying to decide on a defensive handgun and were considering one of these pocket pistols. Usually, after they've had a chance to handle and manipulate a more substantial pistol in comparison to one of the "micro" guns, they are convinced that the "micro" gun is neither easier to operate, or easier to shoot.

In my opinion, the only truly legitimate positive attribute these little guns possess is their ability to be deeply concealed with almost any style of dress. You could conceivably conceal a LCP or P3AT (or other similar sized gun) while wearing nothing but a pair of swimming trunks and some flip-flops. This attribute also makes them ideal for the roll of a back-up-gun under certain circumstances where a larger pistol just isn't an option. To this point, I have personally had no use for them other than as a training tool and a visual aid in the classroom. Of course, that could change at some point in the future.

As to your "odd conclusion", well, it's certainly an interesting concept. I am more inclined to think that someone like your acquaintance "sticks to her guns" (no pun intended) on the .380 because, A) she has convinced herself that she is right and won't be persuaded otherwise no matter how logical the argument is, and B) because, as a whole, gun people are a stubborn and opinionated lot who are sometimes less than rational when making justifications to support their equipment and hardware decisions. Other than that, I would have to defer to your greater real-world experience on the matter. It may be that you have hit the nail on the head with your conclusion.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
CharlesRives

Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 18

Stopping power is a whole can of worms but I can't help but wonder if the last ten year's developments in bullet technology are going to result in a (MORE) effective mousegun.

The ammunition companies are sure touting their improvements in bullet design (while oddly and simultaneously lowering their muzzle velocities.) I wonder how much of that is just hype or if there's hope that a small caliber may at some time provide effectiveness.

Personnaly, when I do carry a small caliber pistol, I operate under the assumption that I'll have to empty the gun and then use empty hands or some other tool to finish the fight.

# Posted 2 years ago
Rob Pincus

Managing Editor
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 59

Great points, guys. This is exactly the type of informed discussion that I was hoping for here at PDN.

-RJP

# Posted 2 years ago
WayneRiddle

Junior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 7

As for technology in bullets make mouse guns more effective, this would in turn make the larger calipers more effective too. I want to go with the most effective option I can.

# Posted 2 years ago
GrantCunningham

Senior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63

The performance envelope of the .380ACP cartridge is such that we're just not going to see dramatic improvements no matter what's done. I've said this many times over the years, and it bears repeating: there is no such thing as a magic bullet, and nothing is going to vault the .380 into the next tier of performance.

The manufacturers may be able to make some marginal improvements in the cartridge (and I'm all for that), but the combination of low sectional density, modest velocities, and light bullets is a limitation that can't be overcome while staying within SAAMI specifications.

-=[ Grant ]=-

-=[ Grant ]=-

Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

There is some new technology that is being extensively tested and appears to hold some promise for defensive ammo of most any caliber. At last report, several major manufacturers are very interested in developing this technology further. You can check it out at http://www.hypercavbullets.com/index.htm

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
GrantCunningham

Senior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63

Oh, gosh, another magic bullet!

Let's step back and look at the realities involved. In order to effect physiological incapacitation in an attacker, a bullet has to do two things: 1) It has to get to something the body finds important, and 2) it has to do damage to that thing when it arrives. The more immediately important the "thing", and the more rapid and significant the damage, the sooner the target ceases to be a threat.

The issue with the .380 is simply that it often fails at one or both of those tasks. In ball ammo loadings it will occasionally penetrate to reach vitals, but just doesn't do a whole lot when it gets there. The available hollowpoint loads would seem to solve that problem, but the cartridge doesn't have enough power to push that bullet to where the important things reside often enough.

Making a bullet for the .380 which expands early actually compounds the problem. The increased frontal area uses more of the bullet's kinetic energy to push through the target, which translates to shallower penetration - it doesn't get to anything important. (This is also the issue with the various "boutique" ammo brands that carry extremely light bullets at extremely high velocities.)

I think a comment about the HyperCav itself is in order. The impetus for this new design comes from an accidental wound the inventor suffered from a .357 Hydra-Shock round. The bullet did not expand in his leg, which he took to be a product defect, and he designed the HC to remedy what he saw as a failure. What he didn't take into account is that the deficiencies of the Hydra-Shock design are well known, and have been for at least 15 years. During that time we've seen a large number of new bullet designs which perform far more reliably than the H-S ever did. It is old technology, and designing something to work better than it does is a little like designing a new portable music player, today, to correct the failings of a Sony Walkman cassette player!

-=[ Grant ]=-

-=[ Grant ]=-

Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

Grant - I think you need to step back a minute and really think about what this technology seeks to do before you condemn it and write it off as a gimmick. In reality, it doesn't promise to do anything more than what high-quality, well-designed hollow points of today already do, it simply seeks to do it more often and more reliably. Even with modern bullet design, expansion is never a guarantee. This technology is being developed to increase the odds of expansion, therefore lowering the odds of complete pass-through and thus lowering the tactical liability that is inherent in bullets that go downrange beyond an attacker. Any energy that doesn't stay in the attacker is wasted energy. While I tend to agree with you that it can't compensate for the lack of penetration from inherently low-powered cartridges, it may be able to make higher-powered loadings more reliable and less likely to over-penetrate.

Every piece of equipment we select is simply a choice for what we hope/believe is an incremental gain. It is the reason you choose a revolver over a semi-auto; in your view, it provides you with an incremental gain for the role you choose to use it for. These people never claimed the Hypercav to be a "magic bullet", they only claimed that the technology may improve the Failure To Open ratio of hollow point ammunition. Only time and testing will tell, but it looks to me like it could hold some promise.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
GrantCunningham

Senior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63

Since this thread is about sub-caliber weapons and ammunition, the bulk of my comments reflected the topic at hand: the HyperCav isn't going to help the .380, or any other "mousegun" cartridge, even if it does what it says it does.

As to the merits of the design in general, they have yet to be proven. Such "revolutionary" bullets show up with boring regularity, only to disappear quickly when their touted advantages fail to materialize. I've watched it happen with at least a half-dozen different bullet designs, and from that I've learned to be skeptical until solid, un-hyped data is available.

When there is actually a product on the market, preferably from a recognized manufacturer with good quality control, then we can discuss the performance (or lack thereof.) Until then it's supposition and speculation, and should be treated as such.

It's in our best interest to instead concentrate on how to best use what we have. In order to do that, we need to understand how our bullets work, and how that affects their application in a real violent encounter.

Knowing, for instance, that the mousegun's cartridge lacks the ability to get to something the body finds important, and is unlikely to do significant damage to that thing even if it gets there, how should we train to maximize the system's performance? Do our tactics change when our primary gun goes down and we're forced to transition to the small caliber backup piece?

-=[ Grant ]=-

-=[ Grant ]=-

Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

My post was in reply to your paragraph regarding the Hypercav and the .357 Magnum Hydra-Shock projectile. That seems to be where we got off of the topic of "mouse guns".

Anyway, I believe you are right. Taking into account the things we know are a given about mouse guns, it makes sense to address the differences between those and larger, more powerful handguns, especially as they apply to tactics and training. There are differences in everything from access and presentation, to how we utilize the sights on the gun. And it's a given that as our projectile becomes smaller and carries less energy, shot placement becomes even more critical.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
They1

New Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1

Hi guys,
I just learned of this forum, and so far, it seems like there is some 'resposible thoughts' being shared. Refreshing.

One poster has referred to the "Hypercav" bullets.

I am the inventor. So perhaps I can answer any questions you may have.

A few points I can address now;

HC has been tested by one manufacturer already.
Another is beginning test-sets as you read this.
Brassfetcher (www.brassfetcher.com) will be conducting totally independent tests this Friday, besides what we've already done to date.

Massad Ayoob will be recieving sample ammo of his choice, modifyed to HC specs, for his review. (He got a sample from me at SHOT Show.)

Overall, Hypercav was very well recieved at SHOT. The projects' development is on-going of course, but to date all results have been positive.

As the OP has accuratly mentioned, HC is NOT the "magic bullet". The only 'perfect' bullet is the bullet that is never fired in anger, or in self defense.

Hypercav is only designed to make ANY Hollow Point bullet function as designed, over a wider range of in-field conditions.

Due to confidientiality issues, I cannot post test results with respect to the individual manufacturers. However, I can and will post results from Brassfetcher as they come available.

BTW: as a side-note, we have had some interesting results with an HC mod .380 test.
We loaded a 115gr SPGD JHP-HC on a .380 case, with a powder charge of 2.9gr of 231.
We got 9~10" of penetration, expanded, fired through an LCP.

Again, tests are on-going. We're working on rifle rounds now. One company is sending Copper ammo, and another is sending their Frangibles to see if there is any benefit to porting that class of ammo.

In short, all we're doing is giving the air that is normally trapped in the cavity a place to go, making the air/tissue exchange more efficient.

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

Thank you for the information, They1. I appreciate you taking the time to chime in here. I certainly wish you nothing but success and I know most everyone would welcome any improvements that can be made to the personal protection ammunition we bet our lives on each day.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
CharlesRives

Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 18

I agree that "magic bullets" won't turn mouseguns into service pistols. Bullet improvements might make mouseguns BETTER but it's hard to foresee them ever becoming particularly good. And,while stopping power is much more dependant upon placement than ballistics, mouseguns are difficult to use to gain good placement with.

I think that mouseguns will have a place as a certain level of backup gun or as a small niche. That niche might be:
- Guns that can be concealed when and where the other choice is to carry no gun at all and something that you can have with you that when nothing else is available and
- Something that you can use from outside of baseball bat range . . . even if it's not very good.

I also think that a lot of people who buy these fire them a few times, find out that they aren't any fun to shoot and are difficult to hit with and put them in a safe never to see daylight again.

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

Charles - That is something I have noticed as well. I've had a number of guys come through our NRA Personal Protection courses who say they normally carry one of the "mouse guns" for daily carry, but then they show up with their Glock, XD, or S&W revolver to take the class. You ask them why, and they usually say something like, "I don't think I could spend a day training with that little gun".

I would like to think if I was going to carry a mouse gun, that I would put in some good training time with it to learn the peculiarities that go along with using/carrying it, and have a regular practice schedule with it, just like I do with the handgun I carry now. As Mr. Tony Blauer pointed out in Part 1 of The Ten Commandments of Street Survival, Commandment number one is "Thou Shalt Not Not Train". Seems to me that anything less would be placing yourself at an immediate and unnecessary handicap.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
midnight61

New Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 3

I must admit that I was one of those who neglected to integrate my LCP in my training when I first acquired it. I did run through the required 200+ rounds to break it in and considered it a backup to my primary. After that I pretty much added it to my morning regiment (wallet, keys, etc...) before leaving the house and never gave it much thought for the rest of the day. What I needed to realize was that my primary was only with me 95% of the time while the LCP was 100% due to certain work situations. I now make it a part of all my training & range time, despite the odd looks I might sometimes get (I'm 6'3" 255lbs).
Great Forum, thanks for all the info.
Jimmy

# Posted 2 years ago
Ping

New Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 4

I have carried my Ruger LCP that I bought for my wife. But I feel under calibered if I was to deal with a dynamic critical incident. I do not understand why, but my gut instinct tells me to carry my Glock 30SF, .45 ACP, daily.

I would rather be able to deal a decisive blow in a matter of seconds than a credible round of shots/magazines in a matter of minutes to down the adversary to defend my family.

# Posted 2 years ago
CharlesRives

Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 18

Grant, I think you really hit upon the right question. "Do our tactics change when our primary gun goes down and we're forced to transition to the small caliber backup piece (and I'll add) or when the small caliber pistol is the ONLY available firearm option because of some particular (perhaps extreme) circumstance?"

In answer, sort of. I think that the small caliber pistol might be best used in a transitory fashion. That is, either you might use it to pop a few small bullets into your adversary to help create an opening while you either (a) charge in to stomp him to the ground and maybe gain an effective contact-distance shot or (b)sprint for your life. Both of these options mean that we're going to have to keep ourselves fit and ready to fight without relying very much on the gun. I said sort of because these might be the same tactics that we need to prepare to use with larger handguns too.

# Posted 2 years ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

There are just so many variables that can come into play during a dynamic critical incident. A near contact shot to the nose, for example, with an LCP is almost certain to take our attacker down and out almost immediately. A shot to the pelvis from the same gun, on the other hand, may leave him/her with plenty of fight still to come. Take these same two possible scenarios but add a 230 grn. .45 ACP hollow point to the equation, and we may be looking at a nearly immediate end to the hostilities in both cases. But there are no guarantees of what shot(s) we may be afforded when we add an armed, aggressive, perhaps drugged attacker to the mix.

To me, the most obvious thing we have to first address in our training is the physical size of these little guns. They are so small that they simply cannot be handled and manipulated with the same dexterity-poor skills that one can deploy a larger handgun with. It takes a lot less dexterity to pick up and strike something with a baseball bat, for example, than it does to pick up and strike something with a Tinker Toy. If we haven't addressed this size issue and the unique handling and presentation techniques that go with it in our training, will we even be able to utilize the gun when we need it most, much less use it efficiently?

I had a good example yesterday when one of the students for my CCW class showed up with a LCP he wanted to use for the semi-auto portion of the live-fire test. As I watched him fire his rounds, I noticed he had to take a moment to re-acquire a firm grip on the gun after each shot. He simply could not maintain the grip from one shot to the next, which means that in a dynamic critical incident, his follow-up shots will either take longer to get off as he re-acquires it, or they will be less and less accurate with each subsequent shot as the shooter ignores his failing grip and tries to "stay ahead of the curve", so to speak. I also noted that after each full magazine, he would say something, "Man, that is a handful!", or "Boy, that really beats you up!". He was pretty much wore out when he was done with it, and he only fired a total of 35 rounds through it. Ironically, when I had him use one of our Ruger GP100's loaded with .38 Spl. FMJ's to complete the revolver portion of the live-fire test, he couldn't say enough about how "easy" it was to shoot and handle.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 2 years ago
GrantCunningham

Senior Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63

I think you've nailed it. The issue isn't the lack of effectiveness; it's that their small size and design makes them difficult to use to their potential.

The little .32 caliber guns - the Kel-Tecs, Seecamps, and the like - aren't too bad to control. They can be hard to hit anything with, however.

The .380 versions are another matter entirely. They're still difficult to shoot well, but now they're even difficult to hang onto!

General rule of thumb: the smaller the gun relative to the caliber, the more you need to practice.

-=[ Grant ]=-

-=[ Grant ]=-

Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com

# Posted 2 years ago
Demo

New Member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 2

I joined this forum to respond to the dinasour hatred of the .380ACP. Particulary due to Mr. Grants comments.

Today's technology provides .380ACP rounds that penetrate 22" (Buffalo Bore). Put that round in a Sig Sauer P238 "pocket pistol" and you've got serious capability 100% of the time.

Grant's generalized comments regarding .380 pistols accuracy or shootability showcase a bias opinion.

I'd carry a Barret 50 BMG if I could; however my P238 .380ACP is with me all day everyday.

Looking for range results? Visit http://www.armstalk.com I've posted plenty of pics. I own, carry, and shoot 45ACP Sigs as well; however I'm here to tell you I'm just as accurate and "dynamic" with the Sig P238 as I am with my P220.

# Posted 1 year ago
cshoff

Preferred Member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 108

Demo - I won't pretend to speak for Grant, but the bottom line is that the Maximum Acceptable Pressure for a .380 ACP cartridge is about 21,500 psi. That is it's limiting factor. You can do all you want with bullet design and gun design, but you can't safely exceed that pressure. There is no big "mystery" as to why it will never perform as well as it's larger, more powerful counterparts.

As to the accuracy of the cartridge, well, it's a fact that most of us will never be able to use all of the inherent accuracy in any gun/ammunition combination more than a small percentage of the time. Add to that the stress and chaos of a dynamic critical incident, and we're lucky to hit center mass when it counts. Trying to perform under those conditions with a gun that has a very high power to weight ratio, and fits our shooting hand marginally at best, it's pretty easy to see just how illusive the reality of actual accuracy really can be.

Chris S.

NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor

# Posted 1 year ago
Demo

New Member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 2

Thank you for the reply cshoff.

I will agree that a Kel Tec or something of that size is not exactly the most accurate pistol. That being said most people who choose to carry a high percentage of the time simply can't have their larger frame pistols on them at work. Even a Kel Tec in the pocket is much better than a 45. in the safe at home.

Personaly I carry (as I mentioned) a P238. Unless your a grizzly, in which case I need to take down my posts, it'll fit your hand just fine and the sights are just as big as the P220 sights.

You've pulled out the dynamic, critical, action packed adventure performance line so allow me to quote directly from Buffalo Bore' site then I'll be outta here.

"This 380 Auto+P ammo will better all American made 380 Auto ammo by 150 fps to 200 fps in all bullet weights we make. This is a serious improvement in this typically anemic cartridge. This 380 auto+P ammo is more powerful than the typical 38SPL ammo made by most American ammo makers and you'll get 7 shots of it in a small/flat/light weight 380 versus 5 shots out of a bulkier 38 SPL J frame revolver. Additionally, with the 380 you'll get much faster reloads and the little magazines are flatter than a speed-loader used for a J frame."

# Posted 1 year ago