For ccw?  neither one.

Yeah, I'd have to agree that there is a bit of a misconception being passed around here. I also don't understand the overpenetration argument - I thought the data here showed quite clearly that the only way to avoid that is not to shoot when someone is downrange as even a 9mm is going to "overpenetrate".

The .44 and my preference the .41 do shoot quite well out of the large guns but that would be more reasonable for open carry. .41 was fully intended to be the ultimate man-stopper when it was developed. It wasn't just a game round. Unfortunately they pushed the numbers up and it was perceived as a handful (just like the 10mm IIRC).





The pinned one is still my dad's

I have both. My concealed carry in a spingfield xds in .45 and my woods gun is a s & w .44 mag. The S&W delivers a whole ton more damage (which is why i trust nothing else to bears) whereas my XDS is more mangeable in a "multiple round" firing situation and specifically against the potential situation of protecting myself against other humans. I love and use both, why choose just one?

Sorry, I try to avoid the data thing here, since it's often mis interpreted and people tend to push their own preferences that are based on authoritarian arguments without a great deal of consideration of the limitations of the data or the real word results or other factors.  In general the data people use here is just is not worth fighting about due to reliability and validity issues that people would rather ignore, and due to a lack of validation whether it actually works.  

There are some questions you have to ask about data and standards before you can apply them:

1) How relevant is a given standard to my purposes?

In terms of what's out there for test data, a few the better .380 loads will get 12"-14" penetration in 10% ballistic gelatin, and most of the rest of the 90 and 100 grain hollow points will go 10"  or so.

That however leads us to an issue of relevance.   Many people here and else where put a great deal of faith in that 12" penetration requirement, but fail to consider that it's based on law enforcement tactical requirements which are much more offensive in nature that most local laws will allow in a defensive shoot.  More specifically it's based on the failure of the previous theory that was based on the size of the temporary wound cavity a bullet created.  It involved a million dollar government study, high speed cameras etc, and the Relative Incapacitation Index, that essentially reward bullets with massive expansion for maximum energy dump in minimum time.  In the real world it led to spectacular failures and officer deaths.  So they went back to the drawing board and the FBI adopted the 12" minimum standard based on a study by Martin Fackler and based on the angles and barriers that were often involved in police shootings.      

The question is how well that applies to civilian shoots and on average I's say pretty well.  However there is an area where it runs off the rails. Personally my view is that if someone is presenting an imminent threat to me, the over whelming odds are he will be presenting a frontal or front quartering shot to me where 10" will actually be adequate penetration, particularly with no barriers involved.  In contrast, a law enforcement officer shooting at a fleeing felon is far more likely to encounter different target aspects and barriers where a full 12" (and realistically more) penetration is needed.  The problem is that some of those same  odd angle and barrier related shots when made by a civilian applying deadly force in a strictly defensive shoot could be problematic to defend if it appears the 'assailant" was in fact trying to leave when you shot him. That begs the question of how important things like windshield/barrier penetration are to a civilian shooter. Not as much as it does to an LEO.

2) What other factors need to be considered and balanced?

Now for me a .380 is strictly a back up and I carry a .45ACP and still shoot a (former) FBI round with demonstrated performance on all the FBI standards, so with the question above I'm not advocating a low standard round, or saying there is not some value in applying a high standard.

In fact I think Martin Fackler got much of it right in the aftermath of the temporary wound cavity theory's stunning failure in the law enforcement community.  I am however suggesting  that a shooter needs to consider the other factors and trade offs involved.  

Even if a .38 special is superior to the .380, does it matter in the bigger picture?   It's something else again to say that a marginal increase in performance of one load over another is significant enough for me to accept the limitations imposed by a .38 Special revolver (5 shots and a slow reload) over a .380 offering three more rounds in the gun to start with and 1-2 very quick 7 round reloads on my belt.  When you look at it that way, and in the context of the penetration standard itself, a lot more rounds delivered in a  lot less time , even with only 10" of penetration rather than 12" starts to look more like a very acceptable trade off.

Others however may think differently and may put all their money on the 12" minimum penetration standard, regardless of the costs in other areas.  And that's ok, they are free to do so, I'd just like them to make a truly informed and well thought out choice and understand there are costs involved for gain they've chosen.

3) What are the risks of failure versus the guarantees of failure?

A bigger issue with small hollow point rounds at lower velocities (.380 or a snub nosed .38 Spl) is often the 4 layer denim test and over penetration due to a failure for the hollow point to expand.  They will occasionally plug on a 4 layer denim test, so when they work they work really well, but if they plug, they basically become an FMJ.

The other side of that argument however is that if you shoot FMJs all the time, you'll always get FMJ performance and never get decent expansion. So by choice, you go from perhaps a 10% or 20% "failure" rate to a 100% failure rate. That's often accepted and balanced by the belief that at least 12" of penetration is essential and that through and through wounds are better than larger permanent wound channels only 10" deep.  

That's actually a bit of a throwback to traditional law enforcement ammo standard as the traditional police load of a .38 caliber 158 gr RN at 700-750 fps had good penetration as it almost never expanded unless it hit bone.   It however also had a reputation of not being very effective in stopping criminals -they'd often expire, but not until long after the shooting was over so it cost a lot of officers their lives. It's also oddly enough fairly similar to the post Fackler and post FBI penetration standard where the FBI's recommended subsonic 147 grain 9mm load would produce through and through wounds - but often with little expansion and little effect, just like the traditional .38 caliber 158 gr RN.  A real bummer at the time.    

Consequently, the FMJ is just not high on my list to carry in a .380 or anything else.  Even a bad hollow point that fails to expand half the time and only penetrates 10" when it does, is probably going to be at least twice as good as an FMJ as it's a combination of penetration and wound channel that seems to be associated with greater effectiveness - not just one or the other.  Your opinion may vary.    

4) Statistical rReliability and Validity.  

Data wise the problems most people fail to consider are statistical reliability (how repeatable are the results) and validity (how well do the test results correlate to the real world).  

You can do a test with a single bullet shooting into 4 layers of denim and ballistic gelatin and then claim success or failure based on what you get on that one test.   The odds are high however that your conclusions may be wrong.  Do a search on YouTube and you'll see lots of fairly rigorous and scientific looking tests with a sample of one round in calibrated ballistic gelatin.  That says a lot about that one particular bullet, but unfortunately, that's not nearly good enough to determine average performance and the expected range of performance for a given round as a whole.

For example you may test one round and have a "success" and cite that single success as evidence of excellent expansion and penetration for that round - when the next 99 would have failed had you done 99 more trials.  In that case, you were exceptionally lucky but now your conclusions are wrong.   Similarly, you could have been exceptionally unlucky and had a single failure and condemn the round when the next 99 may have performed perfectly.  It's an extreme example, but you can see where this is going.

Tests with a five round sample are better, but again a round with a 1 in 10 (10%) failure rate still has a 1 in 2 chance of performing perfectly in a 5 shot test and that would lead to the incorrect assignment of a 100% reliability rate for a round that is only 90% reliable.  In the same vein, that same round (with what is realistically a pretty good 90% success rate) also has a 1 in 2 chance of having that 1 in 10 failure during the 5 test rounds and thus incorrectly looking twice as bad (only 80% successful).  Worse, that will make it look lower performing when compared to other rounds with similar failure rates that just happened to luck into  a 100% success rates in the 5 round test, resulting in an incorrect rank ordering of rounds.   The same potential variation and sampling issues apply to penetration depth.  One shot that penetrates 12 inches tells me very little about the odds of the next shot going 10" , 12" 14" etc.  I just don't know based on small samples with no or very limited standard deviation data.

That's my major beef with some of the data and 'tests" people refer to here.  Until the sample starts to get into the 25-30 round range, it's not something you can assign much significance to as you have no real idea how repeatable the results are or the range over which you can expect the observed performance to fall.

Even once you've established the reliability of the results in a 4 layer denim and gelatin test, the validity is still limited by the fact you are shooting at 4 layers of denim at a 90 degree impact angle and are shooting ballistic gelatin with no bones, differences in tissue densities, etc.  It's not always clear how well that data correlates to the real world, but usually it's not at a level most scientists would call "high".  Unfortunately, even when the correlation is low people are unaware of or choose to ignore the challenges to the validity of the data and instead choose to accept it as something authoritative, and worthy of using to make decisions.  

Often it's just a case of saying "it's not perfect but it's better than nothing", but unfortunately that often is just not true.  The RII studies in the 1970's that I mentioned above produced faulty conclusions based on a faulty theory - and it set back law enforcement ammunition development by at least a decade.  Even worse, it cost a lot of LEO lives.   Obviously, it's even worse for us when we're talking about a 1 round or 5 round test where the data is not even reliable, before we even consider validity.

5) There are different types of data:  Laboratory Data and Experiential Data.

We've been talking about laboratory data in the above gelatin tests as they are artificial tests that can be done under controlled conditions in the laboratory.  They have the advantage of being readily repeatable and they allow us to control for various variables in a consistent manner.  With adequate trials, and control of variables, they can be extremely reliable. They are also 100% valid if you're facing denim wearing assailants made of ballistic gelatin.  Unfortunately the validity falls off once you leave the lab and actual validity testing occurs in the field. In the failed RII study and the 12" minimum penetration standard we've been talking about actual failures and potential failures in validity. Large temporary wound cavities did not actually stop bad guys and great penetrating but poorly expanding 9mm 147 gr Hollow points did not stop bad guys real well either, so those particular theories were based on great data that was very reliable, but it had fairly low validity.

That's where experiential data (data collected on actual experience) comes in to play.  That has downsides as well. First what you are really dealing with are a series of individual case studies and you need a lot of data before the patterns of what works and what does not start to emerge.   For example, you will find experiential data (Marshall and Sanow) based on actual shoots where any given .22LR round will produce a one shot stop 20%-30% of the time.  Now, that alone can lead to some faulty assumptions about the effectiveness of the .22LR as a defense round, and without knowing the number of shoots and other factors involved it can be misleading.  

On the other hand when paired with information on where the 20-30% of the shots were placed it can begin to suggest the potential importance of other things like the value of bullet placement, the possibility of "psychological" versus physiological stops, etc.

More usefully, when you start to compare it with the one shot stop performance of other rounds that are in the 80%-90% range, you start to also see the serious limitations of a .22 LR for self defense.

Now, even with the long used and more or less gold standard performance (even if it's long in the tooth) Federal .45 ACP 230 gr Hydra-Shok with it's 94% one shot stop numbers you still have to consider other factors outside of just raw bullet performance.  People often just simply fall down because they've been shot ad are conditioned to think people who get shot fall down.   Other people get shot and don't even realize it at the time.  It also still matters where people get shot.  

6) So now what?

That's all just lead in to the understanding of the value of a combined model that includes both laboratory data for theory development, and field data on real shoots to try to validate the model.

In that regard I've attached a link to a Chuck Hawks page.  Before the flames start flying, I'm doing this for the sole purpose that he has some 10% ordinance gelatin penetration information on the same page as some experiential data from Marshall and Sanow based on reviews of records of actual shoots.  I'm not citing him as a prime source, I'm just referencing his table as it combines laboratory and experiential data reasonably well for a number of specific loads. The major exception I take with the table is that the one stop shot data is related to the load, but not to the test barrel data - that only relates to the MV, ME and penetration information.

So what that means is that when you see a particular load in a .38 Special in a 2" barrel and a corresponding one shot stop rate, it's not related to barrel length at all, the barrel length is just related to the laboratory data.  Since we are talking about a large number of police shoots in the data set where the data was recorded in reports, the odds are the .38 special barrels were longer than 2" a majority of the time, or at least a large percentage of the time.  Thus the results may not track well with a 2" .38 special.  However when looking at the .380 data, the maximum barrel length will be about 4" so the results will probably relate well to a 3.6 or 3.9" .380 as almost no shoots will have occurred with a barrel greater than 4". I have yet to see a 14" .380 ACP Contender barrel.  

When you compare the .38 special loads and the .380 ACP loads, the differences in experiential data are minimal.  Excluding the glaser loads (which have their own issues) with very shallow penetration), the .380 loads have one stop shot percentages that range from 51% to 69% while the .38 special loads have one stop percentages ranging from 52% to 83%. Again,  that's with a high percentage of barrels longer than 2", so the relevance to 2" barrels is questionable and the strictly 2" one stop percentages would probably be lower given lower velocity and penetration.

Consequently, when looking at the combination of lab data and field data, I am pretty comfortable with my choice of a 7 +1 .380 semi-auto for back up over a 5 shot 2" revolver in .38 Special, as the greater number of shots in the weapon and the far faster reloads will more than offset any performance differences that exist, even with a 4" or 6" .38, let alone a 2" .38.
       
Combined data

Challenge not accepted.





Revolvers are inferior to semi-automatics for pretty much everything.





The only relevance revolvers have are nostalgia, handling very powerful ammunition, and competition.





It's comical how much of a disadvantage revolvers have versus semi-autos.
Per OP.





CCW shootouts seem to be mostly based around how many rounds you can send the badguys way.  More ammo, more chances to win.





Magnum rounds don't get their velocity until 4"+ of barrel.  4" or less might as well load .44 special.






 

I do need to point out one other issue with the Marshall and Sanow data in the link I posted above that I should have mentioned as it's not obvious unless you've actually read Marshall and Sanow's book Handgun Stopping Power.  

There is a statistical bias in that Marshall and Sanow only looked at shoots with a) a single shot and b) a hit to the torso.   For obvious reasons, multiple gun shots screw up a one shot stop analysis so it makes sense to exclude them.  However the downside of that approach is that by excluding multiple hit shootings, you are also introducing a systematic bias that excludes certain types of shoots and hits where the initial hit did not stop the assailant.  In effect, all the shoots involved one hit and one hit only that either resulted in the person being incapacitated or retreating.  What it excludes are the shoots with presumably more determined assailants who did not retreat and had to be shot multiple times to get suitable incapacitation.    

That bias will tend to inflate the success rate of all the rounds in the table, which means even a round like the .45 ACP 230 gr Hydra-Shock with a  one shot stop percentage of ninety something, won't do nearly that well in a normal sample of real world shoots where multiple shots are needed.

What the data does do is give you a fairly good apples to apples comparison of bullet performance in shoots where only one hit was made - but don't try to over generalize the results and think one shot with a high percentage bullet will be enough.  Personally, I'll keep shooting until the assailant is down or until I'm at slide lock, even with a .45.

You were correct, all the way up until the last line.



That's where you jumped the shark.

I don't know why the op only wanted to compare 45acp and 44 mag. 45 colt is very close balistically  to 45acp. In a revolver, I'm much prefer the 45 colt to acp.

 

Courtesy of BBTI.
Magnum rounds in under 4" barrels are a lot of flash and bang for nothing.  .38 Special and .357 Mag are similar.






In fact, looking at it, the delta in velocity doesn't really take off until you get into 5-6"+ barrels.





So...  not so much jumping the shark, as going based of of some pretty in depth research done.
Plus, in a short barrel, .44 special has less recoil than standard pressure 9mm, which means FAST follow up shots.



But, I guess you'd have to have shot .44 special in a .44 magnum to appreciate that.
 

I'm not sure what muzzle energy has to do with this, at all.



Did you mean to post a muzzle velocity chart?









I have fired a few .44 rounds, from barrels from 3-6 inches.



More than a few, in fact. By my rough calculations here at the desk, I've fired about 2 five gallon buckets full of wheel weights out of my .357s and .44s, in all manner of loads, from mousefart to Elmer Keith loads in both.  

I put up the charts of muzzle energy since the bullet weight does not increase with barrel length, but velocity does, they still give a good visual representation of what is happening.   Much easier than a text list of lengths and velocity.    
If you've shot that much ammo, what made you think I "Jumped the shark" about my statement of velocities in under 4" barrels?  If you were shooting such a wide range of loads, what was your chronograph saying with hot vs weak loads out of a 3" barrel?



 

Energy is directly correlated with velocity, but is really more relevant as it takes into account the mass of the bullet. You couldn't compare across rounds within a chart or between charts on velocity only.

However, the .44 mag has two rounds doing 2x the energy (600 vs 300) than the special out of a 3" barrel. All of them are doing at least 25% better. I'm not saying it is worth the recoil, but the special is doing less than a 9mm while the mag. is whopping some ass.

arrel length
18"	1558	1540	1643	1341
17"	1590	1563	1629	1354
16"	1552	1532	1619	1377
15"	1564	1550	1645	1361
14"	1541	1506	1623	1358
13"	1549	1495	1608	1341
12"	1514	1474	1579	1353
11"	1497	1472	1584	1315
10"	1501	1467	1571	1319
9"	1438	1447	1535	1278
8"	1433	1387	1497	1282
7"	1385	1385	1462	1251
6"	1321	1320	1380	1197
5"	1270	1301	1367	1170
4"	1150	1250	1251	1099
3"	1015	1095	1095	964
2"	952	951	944	833

 

44 spcl

barrel length
18"	1353	1286
17"	1377	1339
16"	1338	1307
15"	1339	1315
14"	1327	1298
13"	1351	1290
12"	1314	1234
11"	1289	1250
10"	1296	1263
9"	1224	1215
8"	1237	1210
7"	1184	1146
6"	1133	1098
5"	1102	1084
4"	1013	972
3"	906	859
2"	854	713

 

I cut down the quote tree to make it easier to read.



You said:







This is patently false. I have managed to load a 158 grain LSWC to over 1300 fps from a 3.5 inch .357 Magnum. I have 265 grain LSWCs that have gone well over 1100 from a three inch barrel in .44 Magnum.  



That's hardly "Special" territory for either round.

Ugh, close as I could get and didn't give the bullet weights.





http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44special.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html
 

They also don't take into account the idea that a handloader could use different powders in order to take advantage of shorter or longer barrels. Most handloaders do.

I think you're missing my point and trying to turn this in to a hand loader pissing match.





Look at the context of the OP.  That's where I'm coming from.
 

The majority of shooters don't handload.





ETA- and lots of people that concealed carry prefer factory loads both for perceived liability issues.





 

Your points in red are correct. And were not mentioned or implied in your original (incorrect) statement.

Thanks Dakota for that thoughtful reply.  

This has been a really good thread.

Second book detailed mutilple rounds fired and if I remember correctly didn't change much.  I'll see if I can find it.


CD

That would be nice to see.


 

I don't get this debate on .44 mag vs. special at all. Sure the mag keeps accelerating with a longer barrel (I only actually load and shoot them for my lever gun and use .41 in revolvers). The statement was that there was no point in shooting the mag out of a short barrel, but the chart that was posted to back it up shows two factory mag. loads (not hand loads) that are doing DOUBLE the energy of the best special load shown in only a 3" barrel (for both).

Energy is not doing much, if any good in handgun rounds.

I agree.  Energy transfer was essentially the premiss of the Relative Incapacitation Index with the theory that a large temporary wound channel increased stopping power, but that was not proven to be the case in the field.

Momentum (mass times velocity, rather than mass times velocity squared) is probably a better indicator if you have to have an indicator based on velocity, and momentum dates way back to the Hatcher ratings, which had some support from cadaver testing and field reports.  But again, more momentum generally equates to more penetration and penetration without reliable expansion is also a bit of a dead end - something that was factored to some degree into the Hatcher ratings.    

IMHO, I think the .45 ACP, .45 Colt and .44 Special all produce about the same effects (more or less) at social distances as a .44 Magnum, the .44 magnum is just more likely to over penetrate and exit the assailant, increasing the risk of collateral casualties.  And, the recoil of a .44 mag in a concealable revolver works in opposition to getting more rounds on target in less time with good accuracy.  Which is a nice way of saying that making your choice and placing your bets solely on the effects of a single bullet's performance is a mistake as you'd be far better off with three well placed 44 special bullets in the same time frame it took you to shoot two less well placed .44 mag bullets, or for that matter four .45 ACP bullets.

----      

I see the real advantage of the .44 Magnum (and the .45 Colt when loaded to .44 Magnum levels) to be in a long barreled pistol intended for hunting at longer ranges, a situation where the .44 mag will retain more velocity at 150-200 yards, depending on the load, than the .44 Special has at the muzzle.  

Can I just throw my 2 cents in here a second?  

I understand the desire to carry the best round for the job.  But at some point I personally have to draw a line.  Because there's never going to be a perfect scenario.  The other thing that has me in a dilemma lately is that our state just recently got CCW.  And I didn't have carry ammo stacked deep.  I always kept a box of 9mm of good ammo for HD.  And I should've bought more.  But it's not something I would shoot regularly.  Practice ammo for me is FMJ.  So now ammo is vaporware and all I have is a box of  carry ammo in 9mm and .38 and the rest is fmj.  And the caliber I have most of is .45 and I don't have a .45 that I can carry.  I do have a big ole XD tactical.  But  that thing is huge.  LOL.  

At some point, something is better than nothing.  And I have never been one to think, well if I have just have FMJ, it will get me killed.  I'd rather have it, than nothing at all.  In any caliber.  Luckily it's not ALL that I have right now. But it's mostly what I have.  


So I guess this might be a good question.  If all you had was 124 grain FMJ, mixed with some 147 grainers fmj in 9mm.  And some 230 grain FMJ for your .45.  What would you want? 13-15 rounds of 9mm or 8-9 rounds of .45?  Depending on pistol.  But the premise being a double stack 9 verses a single stack .45.

I don't think for me it would matter much either way.  But I'm just curious what some of you have to say about that.

Sorry to sidetrack this thread OP.  

JJREA,

 I would choose whatever you are most comfortable and profeicent with.  IF you have the same type holster for the guns and equally profiecent, my preference today would be the .45.  However, tomorrow I might fell that the 9mm is better.  No clear cut answer.


CD

Thank you.  I'll keep working on that.

Actually, I was kind of hoping to get your input on this here:

threadaboutrevolvershooting

Seeins how you are a shooting instructor and such.  Thanks for sticking with this site and giving us your input.

When I was doing investigations I had an acquaintance who was a Thoracic surgeon (chest cutter) who learned his trade in South Africa and in some urban ERs and over the course of his career had treated about 1500 gunshot wounds when I met him.  He was good at his trade and commented once that the most lethal round he ever encountered was the 230 gr .45 ACP.

Now, you have to consider his perspective - he works on patients who actually survive the shoot long enough to transported to the hospital and into the OR.  Consequently, i took that as a strong endorsement for hollow points (less likely to live that long) and for the 9mm FMJ as more holes in the average shoot equals more compromised systems and again an assailant who is less likely to survive long enough to reach the ER.  That suggests the potential for a quicker stop with a 9mm than a .45 with FMJs.

So, with the choice you give with only FMJs on the table,and assuming I shoot both the .45 and the 9mm equally well, I'd take a double stack 9mm.

-----

With that said, it's bullet placement that matters.    

A size isn't an issue with big guns if you get the right holster and dress around them. I know a girl that carries an XDM 9 as her daily carry, would never tell.



If all you have is FMJ, then capacity is what matters most. 13-15 rounds is a LOT more chances to make a CNS hit than 8-9.



The same could be said about JHP as well but I digress...





 

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter!  
 

I'm finally home and able to reference the data directly.  This is from Mashall and Sanow's Handgun Stopping Power, the same work referenced earlier and the one that contributed to data on the Chuck Hawks table.

They have a chapter on short barreled ballistics where they do sort out the data on 1.9" to 3.5" length .38s.  The things to remember here is that it is a 1992 book and hollow points have improved substantially in the last 20 years and tend to expand much more reliably. That's important as they address the lack of expansion in ballistic gelatin in most .380 ACP and .38 special loads of the time and noted only a small number of .38 +P loads that expanded reliably as well.

However, the one stop shot percentages based on field data are interesting.

They list them in .380 and .38/.38+P tables but I've combined them into a rank order and codes them in blue for .38 and in black for .380:

Win 158 gr LHP .38 +P, 66.66%, 789 fps
Fed 158 gr LHP .38 +P, 65.78%, 783 fps
Rem 158 gr LHP .38 +P, 65.71%, 781 fps
Fed 90 gr JHP, .380, 63.82%, 1003 fps
Fed 125 gr JHP .38 +P, 62.22%, 819 fps
Rem 125 gr S-JHP .38 +P, 60.86%, 845 fps
PPS 54 gr BHP, .380, 57.14%, 1142 fps
CCI 125 gr JHP .38 +P, 57.14%, 822 fps
Win 125 gr JHP .38 +P, 56.09%, 816 fps
Rem 88 gr JHP, .380, 54.84%, 1001 fps
Win 85 gr STHP, .380, 54.23%, 985 fps
CCI 88 gr JHP, .380, 53.33.84%, 933 fps
Fed 125 gr JSP .38 +P, 52.94%, 878 fps
Horn 90 gr JHP, .380, 52.63%, 985 fps
Rem 95 gr S-JHP .38+P, 51.80%, 1023 fps
Fed 95 gr FMJ, .380, 51.25%, 925 fps
Win 110 gr JHP .38 +P, 50.68%, 924 fps
Fed 158 gr SWC .38, 49.43%, 652 fps
Fed 158 gr RNL .38, 48.96%, 599 fps

There are more .38 +P loads overall, which reflects the usage and data set, and the best 3 loads are all 158 gr ,38 +P loads bit also, the worst 3 loads are either .38 or .38+P, and all three of those performed worse than a Fed 95 gr .380 ACP.

Also the best .380 load is less than 3 percentage points behind the best three .38+P loads and the range over all is pretty close with the .38+P and .380 loads intermixed with the
one stop shot percentage.

What's changed in 20 years is hollow point reliability, but both .380 and .38 +P loads have probably benefitted equally, and all the .380 loads are faster than the fastest .38+P load.

In total, there was just not a significant difference between a .380ACP and the .38+P in a 2" barrel in terms of field performance in actual shoots.    

Handgun Stopping Power is a good read and covers a great deal of past research, and even with the limitations that are encountered, it's well worth the money not only for the field data and performance conclusions, but also for the other coverage of short barrels, non hollow point options, etc and how they impact field performance.

The Marshal and Sanow stuff has been so thoroughly debunked I'm amazed the name comes up any more.
 

 It's critics have a habit of over generalizing the results beyond what is intended, and then blaming Marshall and Sanow for the discrepancies they then see.

For example, they'll criticize the high one stop numbers, but ignore the author's statements that about the effects of mental conditioning to fall down when shot and the perception of being shot rather than actual physical effects - something that is present in probably half the actual "one shot stops".

Similarly, the critics will focus on the systematic bias in only studying shoots with one hit, something the authors are well aware of, but ignore that as well as the valid points the authors were trying to make and the comparative value between calibers.  In effect, the critics presume the authors are saying more than they in fact are, and then use the critics own over extension of the results to discredit the authors.  

If you've actually read it, I'd welcome your opinion.  However I've found most of the internet critics have never read it at all and are just parroting something some one else said on the internet.  Or, they've read it but lack enough statistical and research back ground to recognize the limits of the study and the limitations the authors impose on their own data.

Often it just comes down to those that prefer pseudo science with a 1 round or 5 round sample, in more or less calibrated ballistic gelatin - studies that are neither reliable nor validated by field data -and the internet is full of little demi-gods who gather a crowd around them by posting scientific looking pseudo science and pontificating on what it means and making recommendations - right up until the crowd they gather gets large enough to attract attention and at that point they often get sued and the posts disappear.

Finally, if you spend a few years around academia pursuing a masters degree  or Ph.D, or spend time in government contracting where researchers all seem to have a private agenda or profit motive, you'll discover just how much political infighting, back stabbing and general ill will exists that is separate from the actual science.      

DakotaFAL,

Sorry, but can't seem to find either one of my "Handgun Stopping Power" books by Marshall and Sanow at the moment for the multiple round stops.


CD

I've got another thing to throw out.  I remember at some point there might have been a general belief that most self defense shootings were over in a small number of rounds. Regardless of what firearms were used.  I'm pretty sure I've read it in Gun mags.  So....  I know what that might be worth.  But is there any validity to that?  The only thing I have to go by is that in most of those stories in the NRA mag, "It could happen to you" or whatever it's called.  Typically those shootings are done and over with rather quickly.  And of course some aren't even shootings but an assailant flees before shots are fired.  But I don't think I've ever read one that showed several rounds fired.  

I don't know if that general belief, or if there was a study that showed that.  If that was more around the time that revolvers and single stacks were more prevalent.  Which would explain that.  But I wonder if it's not still the case, or never was.  I just know it has been touted before.  

The other thing that I don't get is that you DakotaFAL and a couple of others are saying revolvers are outdated and slow.  Yet so many of the CCW type handguns that are popular lately are single stacks.  To me it seems the gap between a J frame and single stack .380 or 9mm is not as disparaging as you make it out to be.  Obviously a few more bullets are just that.  But if someone is comfortable with a revolver, or it is the only thing on hand, I still have to believe it's better than nothing type of a thing.  Yeah, probably better as a BUG.  But then again, any of these smaller pocket autos that are so popular lately really are.  

I'm not sure what my point is other than that the handgun I have to carry right now is my Colt DS.  That's what I got.  And I'm comfortable with it.  Because it's a whole lot better than walking around with nothing.  I think.  I carry 18 rounds.  In my mind that's not too shabby.  

Of course I would be better armed with something that carries more rounds.  But revolvers have their upsides.  Right now my Dad and Mom have both purchased J frames for Conceal Carry and if we're ever out together and something went down, we all at least carry the same ammo.  Hehehehe  And then there's my wife.  Every time I take her shooting the only thing she seems to understand, or can work, is a revolver.  And if I ever had to hand her something, it would be nice to have something she can actually work.  She can't work any slide of any auto I have.  Yeah, if I got her to work out and train more, maybe she could do these things.  But when I've stuck my DS in her hand she can shoot a torso at 5 yards and stay on it.  So........  It's what I have to work with.  I've been debating on getting a .22 revolver for her to practice more and myself too.  So we can master that DA pull.  LOL.  And then possibly getting a 4" for home defense for her.  I like my M9 for that.  

Anyways....  just some thoughts.  This has been a great discussion though. I have been appreciating it very much.  

The issue with revolvers versus a single stack automatic is not the initial capacity but rather the reload time.    

But I also agree that it probably won't matter in most scenarios.   My impression from what I've read over the years is that of the criminals that get shot, about half realize they have been shot, don't want to get shot twice, stop the attack or home invasion and start retreating.  So for the (probably) most common CCW or home defense shoots that happen you have a full frontal shot at 10 ft or less with no barriers in between the shooter and criminal, where a 5 shot .38 Spl is probably going to be adequate.

I'm all for anyone carrying something they are comfortable with, and more importantly something they can shoot well and practice with often because proficiency with a less optimum revolver or pistol is better than carrying a "perfect" weapon that you can't employ well.  

The rest is just personal, and I feel more comfortable carrying a pistol with the ability to reload quickly - without have to have Jerry Miculek skills and speed.

Yeah I got you.  My goal is to find something that falls inbetween my DS and my M9 for a regular carry piece.  I live in a pretty safe neighborhood and am not on the road a lot.  But when I travel farther away or to more lively areas, I think I want something more.  Although before we had CCW I kept a big auto in the car anyways.

The stuff is so thoroughly discredited it's not worth discussing.
 

So you're suggesting what in it's place?

It's easy to discredit research, especially if you're offering nothing in it's place.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/



http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm



http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
I don't have to discredit anything, the top people the the field of terminal ballistics already have.



 

That makes my point nicely.

Your first link demonstrates one of the types of questionable internet sources I've discussed with reliability and validity issues.
Your second link represents the laboratory studies camp that opposes case studies and field data on general principle.
Your third link is a little confusing however as it represents information (published in 1989) that cites the work of the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistics Panel that Evan Marshall actually sat on.  Plus it's also published by the fine folks that recommended the 147 gr 9mm round, a round that was not known for any great degree of effectiveness, so it's very dated and it's not really anti Mashall and Sanow either.

ROFL, So people like Doc G Roberts and Martin Fackler are "Questionable" internet and laboratory sources?

 








 

How do you train for CCW with revolvers?