Thoughts on .380 JHP?

[Shorts]

12" of penetration for any caliber.

Ah ok. I guess that makes sense. Otherwise a .45 is so deadly it only has to poke the skin to get the job done

 

[subseashooter]

Ah ok. I guess that makes sense. Otherwise a .45 is so deadly it only has to poke the skin to get the job done

You are starting to sound like a gun-grabber there, Shorts! "You even LOOK AT a Barrett 50BMG and your head will explode!!!"

 

[ShootingTheBull]

I'd be more than happy to donate some DRT .380 ammo for testing. I have played with it some, and it resides in my and several friends carry guns, sure would be nice to see what it actually does....

Thanks for the offer! I haven't tested any frangibles, but I did find where Bruce at Pocket Guns & Gear did a test of the DRT 380. I wish that he would have conducted multiple shots so we could know if the core penetration was a normal and expected result, or if it was an anomaly of that one shot.

In general I'm not a fan of fragmenting bullets, I prefer a big heavy bullet that cuts a big wide hole and travels deeply (funny to be discussing this on a thread of 380 ammo!) The fragmenting bullets make nasty horrible wounds but they're usually shallow; they probably hurt like hell but don't actually result in an incapacitating hit. If the DRT is able to deliver both those horrible shallow wounds, AND deliver deep penetration with the bullet core, consistently, well, that would indeed be interesting to know!

 

[ShootingTheBull]

I'm new here and don't want to make waves but why would anyone choose a .380 when there are 9mm and even .40s that are not much bigger..

I've seen the responses and I think people have basically answered this, but -- sometimes, the gun you want is in a .380. I agree with you that the more powerful the round, usually the sounder the choice; it's why my daily carry is an XDS in .45. But sometimes you want something small and light and easily pocketable, and sometimes you don't have much money (the TCP cost $199, brand new. $199!)

If you watch the videos, you'll see that right up front I acknowledge that the .380 is considered a marginal caliber, some say it's effective, some say it isn't. I personally think it can be effective, and (with the right ammo) could be very effective. At least, that's what I'm attempting to find. It may not exist... but it may. I'd just like to know.

Granted it's better than no gun but in those furious few seconds you may not be lucky enough for the bullet placement required to stop a threat

What you say here is basically true. Shot placement is obviously the key factor in stopping a threat, but in the heat of battle shot placement seems to go out the window, and you may be left relying on the bullet to do the job more than your ability to place the bullet. That's why, although I agree placement is paramount, I also believe that the bullet has to do the job. If you can perfectly place the bullet right at the attacker's heart, but the bullet only penetrates 4" and stops short of the heart, well -- placement didn't help you in that case, did it? You have to have placement, but your ammo has to also be able to deliver adequate performance.

That's why I'm looking for a round that can do the job in .380. To me, as said before, .380 sits near a crossroads of too-much penetration with FMJ's, and too little with (most) hollowpoints. But it's the overpenetration with FMJ's that gives me hope -- it shows that the caliber can deliver enough power, if we can just find a hollowpoint that expands mildly enough we might hit a great combination of penetration, concealability, and price.

If you can afford it, and can find one that you like, and can find one that's the size you like, a pocket 9 is usually a better choice; the 9mm is a substantially more powerful round than the .380. I happen to really like the P938, although acknowledge that it is longer, wider, and heavier than the TCP, so -- whether it is your or my preference, there are people who have, use, and want to use the .380, and that's okay. If I can find a round that works well with the TCP, I have to tell you -- I think it'd be one of the best deals in all of firearms. It's tiny, it's incredibly easy to shoot, it's very very accurate for a micro-pistol (I was ringing the 50-yard gong with it shot after shot!) and it's $199. If there's a round that provides consistent terminal performance for it, I think it would be a very attractive package for those seeking an inexpensive and/or highly concealable pistol.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

I carry in .380 because I like my PPK/S.

And that is a great reason. If you like the pistol, and you will practice with it, and are comfortable with it, those are all huge advantages towards that pistol.

And the P238 that several of my friends carry is GREAT for those with weaker hands.

It most definitely is. My wife cannot rack the slide on most pistols, but finds her P938 almost effortless. It really makes a difference!

There is definitely a place in this world for the .380, not everyone is a 25 year old body building cop that doesn't mind a 78# recoil spring.

There is definitely a place for it. It no longer is the ONLY choice for those wanting a pocket pistol, but it does still remain a valid choice. If all other things were equal, I think we'd all prefer to go with a 9mm over a .380, but all other things are not equal, and that's why the different calibers exist. They will be the right choice for someone.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

StB, we seem to have the best good luck finding it on the shelf at Cabela's. I recall being able to grab a box each visit. So I will try to swing by this week and if if they've some I'll grab a box for you too.

That'd be fantastic, and very kind! If you're able to do so, let me know and I'll gladly reimburse you!

We don't have Cabela's over this way (Woodlands, north of Houston). I only have Gander Mountain and Academy as local chains, and neither of them have had a lick of .380 on their shelves in probably six months. Well, I lie -- Academy did have a few boxes of Remington Ultimate Home Defense .380 last week, but literally that's the only .380 on the shelves I've seen in six months...

 

[ShootingTheBull]

I would just like to see a decent overview of the whys of using gelatin vs so many other, less-accurate testing methods. So many people pop up and say "well, that's a piece of gelatin, and people aren't made of that!" Folks can miss the point so completely sometimes, hahah.

Gotcha. I think a lot of people just have no idea what gelatin actually is -- if they did, they might think twice before making a big plate of it. Gelatin mimics flesh so well because ... gelatin actually *is* flesh! It's boiled up skin and ligaments and tendons and cartilage and all that stuff... add a little sugar to it and you have a tasty dessert... yum...

But yes, your suggestions are noted and I'll put my thinking cap on and see if I can come up with an instructional that is brief but informative and hopefully can dispel the myths that are brought out so often about "well, I've never been attacked by a block of Jell-O", etc!

Repeatable and sound medium is absolutely necessary. If a test's results aren't relevant and repeatable, they're worthless. But you already understand that.

Yep, although I wish it was more commonly understood. There's SO MUCH testing information out there, but you can't correlate it because people use different mediums. ClearBallistics gel seems to be catching on; that's one reason I wanted to do a review/test of it, to see if it's a viable medium. It seems to be highly correlated to ballistics gel, and what I really appreciate about it is -- there's pretty much no room for error! You can't mix it wrong, because there's no mixing at all. It doesn't care about temperature much, so you won't spoil a block by leaving it at room temperature. There's no generic version, so you won't run into a test where someone claims they were using ballistic gel, only to find out later that it was a homemade concoction using Knox unflavored gelatin, etc...

So ClearBallistic's medium being a known, repeatable, not-screw-uppable test medium, seems like a really good option for the amateur/backyard bullet tester/lower-budget professional who doesn't have the budget or storage facilities for the genuine organic stuff. I think ClearBallistics might become the standard for independent testers, and I think that would be a move forward for all of us, because it standardizes the medium.

One of my next videos will explore water testing -- water is one of those things that can be either extremely accurate (if done right) or basically pointless (if done wrong). It's inexpensive so it's popular, and done right it can be almost as informative as genuine ballistics gelatin. But done wrong, it's nigh unto pointless. I've got some of that video shot, but maybe I'll work in some general ballistics gel info into that one.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions!

 

[ShootingTheBull]

The same people will say the .380 does not have sufficient velocity to expand a hollow point bullet so why bother. Your "friend" is speaking from 20 year old information. Modern bullets are FAR better than those of 20 years ago.

There is much truth in what you say! That's something that makes the whole conversation difficult -- there are people who have been at this a long time, and they have formed solid opinions (based, likely, on good info at the time), but who haven't kept pace with the changes that are occurring. The Remington UMC that I just tested, failed to expand at all, even though the bullets were moving at a really decent pace (834 to 922 fps). It is my understanding that those bullets were designed for 9mm, and would expand at 9mm velocities, but at 380 velocities they fail to expand. So some people may have first-hand experience with the UMC's when they first came out, and have come to the conclusion that "380's don't expand" -- and maybe they were right, back then. But obviously not today. Look at the expansion on those .380 PDX1's and Ranger-T's and Golden Sabers that I posted -- they have TERRIFIC expansion! Not enough penetration, but huge expansion.

So, yes, we all have to be aware that technology advances, and that what may have been inadequate before may actually be adequate or even quite good today. Or not -- because you also have to keep your "marketing" radar up. As said before, the only .380 I've seen recently on the shelves was Remington Ultimate Home Defense. I almost shelled out the $24-ish for a box to test, too, before actually looking into it. Turns out that it's exactly the same bullet, same load, same ballistics, same everything as Golden Sabers, just a new box and a new price tag. Sigh.

Sometimes there are new advancements, sometimes it's hype; only way to know is to actually test it...

 

[ShootingTheBull]

I know that the .380 is not my .45 but if I'm wearing shorts because its 100 degrees out, any BGs are unlikely to be wearing heavy carharts with heavy denim liner zipped into it.

This is the kind of comment that I love. It brings practicality into the discussion. One of the more common comments I hear about why someone would choose the .380 is along these lines -- that it is a pocket pistol for when you're wearing lighter clothing and a bigger pistol wouldn't conceal well. To then point out that if your clothing choice is going to be light, the bad guy's clothing is also likely to be light, is a great connection to make.

Besides my pistol any pistol any caliber is just to get me to my truck where the fight stoppers live.

I think it was Clint Smith who said "The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down."

We should all recognize that all handguns are compromises. No handgun is going to be a guaranteed fight-stopper. The statistics say that 6 out of 7 handgun shooting victims survive! 6 out of 7. Pistols can be effective fightstoppers, but not frequently for their lethality; there are many reasons a fight stops, not the least of which is that the other guy simply doesn't want to get shot! If you want a high degree of lethality, a long-barrel rifle will give you that. But sometimes we can't carry a long-barreled rifle (okay, most times, almost always) and so we compromise by carrying a pistol. Any pistol is a compromise, you just have to balance the various factors to where you come to a place you're comfortable. Caliber, price, size, shootability, capacity, barrel length, weight, they're all factors.

As someone on here basically said, the .380 that you can shoot well is a lot more likely to be effective than the .40 that you can't control. A .380 that's loaded with ammo that can do its part, and can deliver results when you do your part, would be a perfectly reasonable choice.

Mass a second thought I do have a P938 that fits any where my P238 fits, so why not carry it instead? I shoot the P238 better! That could make a difference.

Again, the gun you practice with, the one that you shoot best, the one that cycles reliably and you can always count on, that's what you want to have by your side. Just make sure that it can deliver the results you need -- and that's why I'm going to the effort to test .380 ammo, to find the best combination of penetration, expansion, and reliable performance. If there was no such round, if the .380 could never be counted on, then yeah, no matter how good the pistol is in other ways, I'd dump it. But I think there's enough power inherent in the cartridge that a good combination can be found.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

This may be dumb but why is 10 inches bad?
When you're sitting there with the block, that's half way through you, from the side. Seems like if that was a front facing shot that would be plenty of penetration without producing an exit?

I only ask this in the interest of learning.

It's not that 10 inches is "bad" -- in fact, I'd dare say that a lot of folks would be content with 10 inches.

But don't confuse 10" of gel penetration with 10 inches of torso thickness -- they're not intended to be the same thing!

Here's the thing -- some of the best minds in the business got together to evaluate handgun performance and come up with some standards that would result in effective ammo performance. A disastrous shootout in Miami resulted in calls to find out what went wrong, and how to prevent it occurring again. The results are published in the FBI report "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness". You can read the entire report at firearmstactical.com, just google "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness".

So here's what we're looking at -- ballistics gel is designed to mimic the properties of human tissue, and a bullet's penetration in ballistics gel should be comparable to how the bullet would have penetrated through muscle tissue in a human being. Ballistics gel is made from boiled-up animal tissue (hide, ligaments, tendons, etc) that is then distilled down to a powder (gelatin powder) and then mixed at a precise ratio and under precise conditions to result in a product (ballistic gel) that mimics the properties of flesh (to such forces as resistance, shear, stress, and tearing). Mainly because it is flesh, just boiled and mixed together to make one big homogenous block. It's not exactly the same thing as flesh (you can easily tear off a chunk, for example) but as far as its response to a bullet, it is an excellent and highly accurate simulant.

But humans aren't homogenous. We're made of all sorts of different densities -- lungs are basically empty, bones are comparatively dense, then there are super-stretchy tissues like intestines and not-stretchy tissues like the liver... we're not homogenous. So ballistic gel isn't designed to exactly mimic the human BODY, it's designed to mimic a relatively homogenous tissue such as muscle tissue.

So here's a key differentiating factor, that a lot of people don't seem to understand -- shooting into ballistic gel isn't designed to mimic shooting into a human body. Shooting into ballistic gel is designed to create a repeatable, standardized testing method that replicates the average performance of a bullet through a body, but does so in a way that is predictable and directly comparable. Because shooting into a body is one of the most unpredictable things we can do. There are so many variables, it's nearly impossible to account for them all! Whether a bullet tumbles or not, whether it expands or not, whether it strikes a bone or not, whether it strikes that bone head-on and passes right through, or it strikes the side of a rib and is deflected; whether it strikes a critical organ or whether it sails straight through, whether it cuts an artery or only passes through a lung, and on and on and on... there's no way to predict what will happen.

So we don't try. What we do, is we try to come up with a relative ranking of power of bullets through a homogenous medium of flesh. I know people that get their panties in a bunch about "jello shots" because "it's not a body" but that's not the point -- what it is, is a way of saying "if you shot this bullet into muscle tissue, this is the results you'd get." And then you can directly compare the results to what you'd get with another bullet. If one expands more and penetrates deeper, then you can unequivocally say "this bullet would produce more damage in a human body than that one."

So -- does 10" of ballistic gel penetration mean 10" of penetration through a chest? Not necessarily. Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the shot. And it depends on the chest -- if we're shooting a 130-pound waif supermodel, who is literally skin and bones, that 10" bullet might pass clean through her. If we're shooting a professional bodybuilder who's all muscle, the bullet might stop well short of hitting his vitals. If we're shooting a 300-lb barbecue aficionado who's 80% body fat, the bullet might penetrate further through his chest than it would in the bodybuilder's. We don't know.

But what we DO know, is that if the bullet is able to go through 12" of ballistic gel, it will also be able to punch through pretty much all of their chests and reach their vitals. And that's what counts. Think of it as a relative power ranking, because, well, really, that's what it is -- a more powerful bullet could push through more inches of gel. And, accordingly, no matter what tissue it hits in the body, it would be able to push through more of it, than a less-powerful bullet would be able to, if that less-powerful bullet were to have hit in exactly the same spot on a genetically-identical body.

So it's not about the chest thickness, it's about however much tissue the bullet can penetrate through, regardless of what type of tissue it encounters (bone, lung, bowel, muscle, fat, etc).

The 12" penetration figure the FBI arrived at is also a MINIMUM. They would actually prefer to see about 14-15". The acceptable range for them is 12" to 18" of penetration; if it penetrates over 18" then it would probably exit most bodies and therefore be not as efficient in delivering a wound, and also pose a threat to whatever/whoever is behind the target. If it penetrates less than 12", then it may not possess enough energy to reach the vital organs and cause an immediate incapacitation of the target.

Now, keep in mind -- a 10" bullet may hurt like hell, it may cause a lot of bleeding, it may make the person who got shot drop their weapon and say "no more!" That all may happen. But it may not. They may be feeling no pain, they may be on drugs or feeling so much adrenaline that they don't actually recognize that they've been shot, they may continue attacking even after having been shot. That 10" bullet may actually kill them eventually, too. But in self defense, we're not trying to kill our attacker, we're trying to STOP our attacker. And the only way to force a quick stop is to either hit the central nervous system (brain/upper spine) or damage the circulatory system such that it causes a big bleed-out and thus loss of blood pressure, which will deprive the brain of oxygen and cause them to fall unconscious. That's the goal -- stop the attacker from continuing their attack. Sometimes just seeing a gun in your hand would cause an attacker to stop. Sometimes seeing a gun pointed at them would cause them to stop. Sometimes feeling the pain of a bullet hitting them would cause them to stop immediately. But all of those rely on the attacker WANTING to stop. And, frankly, sometimes they don't want to stop, and you have to force them to stop. The only way to force them to stop is to take away their ability to attack -- either through a CNS hit, or through rendering them unconscious or dead.

If you are relying on your weapon to render them unconscious/unable to move/dead, then you need a bullet that can penetrate deeply enough to hit those vital organs and force their physiology to shut down. The FBI testing came to the conclusions that a bullet needed the ability to penetrate through 12" of gel in order to have the minimum amount of power necessary to (with proper placement) force the attacker to stop attacking.

Furthermore -- and this is a key thing that many people don't seem to factor in -- you won't always have a clean shot at the attacker's chest. In fact, you frequently won't have that clean shot. There will or may be barriers in the way. I don't know how many times I've seen video of attackers and defenders just stand pointed at each other in classic Isosceles stances, trading chest shots, but I don't think it's too frequent! The most common barriers you'll encounter are clothing, and other limbs. For example -- if the attacker decides to shoot at you sideways, you may find yourself having to shoot through their arm or shoulder to even get to their chest -- and that arm might be three or four inches thick or even more. Or, a more likely scenario, what if you and the attacker are staring each other down in Isosceles stances -- in order to hit his chest, you'll likely have to shoot through his forearm. At an angle. So the bullet might have to penetrate the outer layer of skin, traverse five or six inches through a forearm, and then push through the inside layer of forearm skin before it can even get to his chest. That's going to eat up a tremendous amount of the bullet's energy.

The point of all this is -- you don't know what your shooting scenario is going to be, other than that we can all pretty much assume it's not going to be textbook perfect! It's very unlikely that if you're involved in a defensive shooting, that you'll be standing with a two-handed isosceles grip pointed at a defender who's perfectly open to you, like a silhouette target. You'll be moving, they'll be moving, there'll be arms and clothing in the way, and you don't know what angle you may hit the target at.

In order to account for all those variables, and to make sure that the bullet would have enough energy to do its job in any of the reasonably foreseeable scenarios, the FBI decided that 12" of gel penetration would be the minimum power level their ammunition should deliver.

(man, this post ended up so long, it's probably as long as the whole FBI report, you should just read that anyway!)

 

[ShootingTheBull]

Ah ok. I guess that makes sense. Otherwise a .45 is so deadly it only has to poke the skin to get the job done

Nice.

To answer these questions combined -- penetration is the major factor, but the second major factor is bullet diameter. Once the bullet reaches the desired depth, the next question is -- will it actually hit anything? And why would a .45 hollowpoint be better than a .22 FMJ?

The answer just comes down to probabilities. A .22 FMJ could indeed cause a critical hit and an immediate shutdown of the attacker, if it were to hit the central nervous system. But how likely is that? A .22 is a tiny little bullet, about 1/5" wide. A .45 hollowpoint, on the other hand, can be massive. A Federal HST bullet from a Glock .45 traveled 13.25" in ballistics gel, and expanded to over an inch at its widest point. It's just terrifyingly huge, a big nasty sharp bladed thing that is, in terms of area, is about 20 times larger than the .22. So the .22 might penetrate deeply, but might slip between, say, the spinal cord and an artery, hitting neither, whereas the big expanded .45 bullet, fired to the exact same point, might smash into the spinal cord and cut a huge chunk out of the artery on either side of it.

People say placement is everything, but it isn't. Placement is important, but penetration is equally important; a well-placed shot that doesn't penetrate deeply enough is no more effective than a deeply-penetrating shot that isn't well placed. Bullet size helps overcome placement; the bigger the expanded bullet is, the less critical placement will be, because the bigger bullet will hit what it's aimed at and also chew through whatever's above, below, and next to it.

That's another reason shotguns are so incredibly lethal -- with multiple wound channels over a (comparatively) large spread, they greatly increase the likelihood that you'll hit something vital.

(I know the caliber reference was made in jest, I'm just laying out the rest of the info so it's all in one place). Obviously you can also get 9mm, 40, and 44 bullets that expand to big diameters too, so it isn't something that's exclusive to the .45!

Summary -- choosing a pistol and ammo is a symphony of compromises. You have to find a pistol that you can afford, that's convenient to carry, that you can shoot well, that functions reliably, and choose ammo that penetrates deeply, and that once penetration is accomplished it also expands to the biggest diameter you can get. And then you have to practice practice practice so that you have the best chance of delivering shots with the most effective placement, if you are unfortunate enough to ever be called on to use it.

And all these choices are individual. Some may say the 9mm isn't effective, but it was what Zimmerman needed to stop a deadly attack. Some may say the .380 isn't effective, but there are lots of people in cemeteries and hospitals who would disagree. Some may say the .22 isn't effective, but it's probably killed more people than all other rounds. Any bullet can be effective, if it's placed well and penetrates deep enough. That said, you will usually find that the service calibers (9, 357, 40, 44, 45, 10mm) can all be pretty much counted on to have enough power that, if you can find a gun you like and you can shoot well in any of the above calibers, you will be able to find ammo that will be able to deliver satisfactory penetration to deliver an incapacitating blow.

 

[M. Sage]

This may be dumb but why is 10 inches bad?
When you're sitting there with the block, that's half way through you, from the side. Seems like if that was a front facing shot that would be plenty of penetration without producing an exit?

I only ask this in the interest of learning.

Ballistics gelatin simulates muscle tissue specifically. There are tissues that are less dense like lungs and many that are more dense or more elastic like bone and skin (turns out skin often "catches" bullets as they try to exit). After studying the performance of certain loads in real-life shootings and correlating that information to gelatin tests, the FBI came up with the 12-16" penetration standard. The Internation Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) was an group created by MDs who were experts in gun shot wounds, and their standard was 12.5-14", though they acknowledged that penetration depths as low as 8" could be considered marginal but "usually acceptable" (underlined by them, not me).

I can see it now; some people are going to go, "aha! Usually acceptable! I knew that 12" number was bunk!" Yeah, do you want to carry something that's "usually" going to work? "My gun usually fires when I want it to... I'll carry it." "My gun usually hits point of aim... good enough for me!" "My gun usually doesn't jam... reliable!" I don't think so.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

I ... must ... shut ... up ... have posted too much already in this thread ... but ...

I can see it now; some people are going to go, "aha! Usually acceptable! I knew that 12" number was bunk!"

You are very right, there is a fascinating behavior many (most? all?) of us experience when researching or reading reviews. In a nutshell, it says that when we are looking something up, we are NOT looking to learn about it -- instead, we're looking for CONFIRMATION that what we already believe is true!

Which is why two different people can read the same review and come to completely opposite conclusions. If someone has already bought a .380, and 10" is all the penetration that they can get from it... well... they are more likely to read reviews and latching upon claims such as M.Sage highlighted above.

Basically, nobody wants to find out that they've made a "wrong" choice, and so they'll grab onto whatever supporting information they can find to comfort themselves that they made the right choice. It's human nature. But being aware of it lets you take ahold of that behavior and not deceive yourself.

Is 10" enough? Maybe, maybe not. In the right circumstances 10" is definitely enough, but in a gunfight you won't be able to pick your circumstances. That's why we'd like to get 12" or more. 12" is probably going to be enough. And 14" is better still. 14" is about ideal, and a manufacturer who develops a bullet that easily penetrates more than 14" can then spend their resources fine-tuning the expansion of the bullet to slow it down such that it stops at about 14". The most expansion you can get, while still traveling 14", is pretty much the pinnacle of self-defense ammo design as far as today's thinking goes. Who knows what scientific discoveries and further ballistics research will reveal about what we should prioritize tomorrow?

 

[TreyG-20]

It's not that 10 inches is "bad" -- in fact, I'd dare say that a lot of folks would be content with 10 inches.

But don't confuse 10" of gel penetration with 10 inches of torso thickness -- they're not intended to be the same thing!

Here's the thing -- some of the best minds in the business got together to evaluate handgun performance and come up with some standards that would result in effective ammo performance. A disastrous shootout in Miami resulted in calls to find out what went wrong, and how to prevent it occurring again. The results are published in the FBI report "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness". You can read the entire report at firearmstactical.com, just google "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness".

So here's what we're looking at -- ballistics gel is designed to mimic the properties of human tissue, and a bullet's penetration in ballistics gel should be comparable to how the bullet would have penetrated through muscle tissue in a human being. Ballistics gel is made from boiled-up animal tissue (hide, ligaments, tendons, etc) that is then distilled down to a powder (gelatin powder) and then mixed at a precise ratio and under precise conditions to result in a product (ballistic gel) that mimics the properties of flesh (to such forces as resistance, shear, stress, and tearing). Mainly because it is flesh, just boiled and mixed together to make one big homogenous block. It's not exactly the same thing as flesh (you can easily tear off a chunk, for example) but as far as its response to a bullet, it is an excellent and highly accurate simulant.

But humans aren't homogenous. We're made of all sorts of different densities -- lungs are basically empty, bones are comparatively dense, then there are super-stretchy tissues like intestines and not-stretchy tissues like the liver... we're not homogenous. So ballistic gel isn't designed to exactly mimic the human BODY, it's designed to mimic a relatively homogenous tissue such as muscle tissue.

So here's a key differentiating factor, that a lot of people don't seem to understand -- shooting into ballistic gel isn't designed to mimic shooting into a human body. Shooting into ballistic gel is designed to create a repeatable, standardized testing method that replicates the average performance of a bullet through a body, but does so in a way that is predictable and directly comparable. Because shooting into a body is one of the most unpredictable things we can do. There are so many variables, it's nearly impossible to account for them all! Whether a bullet tumbles or not, whether it expands or not, whether it strikes a bone or not, whether it strikes that bone head-on and passes right through, or it strikes the side of a rib and is deflected; whether it strikes a critical organ or whether it sails straight through, whether it cuts an artery or only passes through a lung, and on and on and on... there's no way to predict what will happen.

So we don't try. What we do, is we try to come up with a relative ranking of power of bullets through a homogenous medium of flesh. I know people that get their panties in a bunch about "jello shots" because "it's not a body" but that's not the point -- what it is, is a way of saying "if you shot this bullet into muscle tissue, this is the results you'd get." And then you can directly compare the results to what you'd get with another bullet. If one expands more and penetrates deeper, then you can unequivocally say "this bullet would produce more damage in a human body than that one."

So -- does 10" of ballistic gel penetration mean 10" of penetration through a chest? Not necessarily. Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the shot. And it depends on the chest -- if we're shooting a 130-pound waif supermodel, who is literally skin and bones, that 10" bullet might pass clean through her. If we're shooting a professional bodybuilder who's all muscle, the bullet might stop well short of hitting his vitals. If we're shooting a 300-lb barbecue aficionado who's 80% body fat, the bullet might penetrate further through his chest than it would in the bodybuilder's. We don't know.

But what we DO know, is that if the bullet is able to go through 12" of ballistic gel, it will also be able to punch through pretty much all of their chests and reach their vitals. And that's what counts. Think of it as a relative power ranking, because, well, really, that's what it is -- a more powerful bullet could push through more inches of gel. And, accordingly, no matter what tissue it hits in the body, it would be able to push through more of it, than a less-powerful bullet would be able to, if that less-powerful bullet were to have hit in exactly the same spot on a genetically-identical body.

So it's not about the chest thickness, it's about however much tissue the bullet can penetrate through, regardless of what type of tissue it encounters (bone, lung, bowel, muscle, fat, etc).

The 12" penetration figure the FBI arrived at is also a MINIMUM. They would actually prefer to see about 14-15". The acceptable range for them is 12" to 18" of penetration; if it penetrates over 18" then it would probably exit most bodies and therefore be not as efficient in delivering a wound, and also pose a threat to whatever/whoever is behind the target. If it penetrates less than 12", then it may not possess enough energy to reach the vital organs and cause an immediate incapacitation of the target.

Now, keep in mind -- a 10" bullet may hurt like hell, it may cause a lot of bleeding, it may make the person who got shot drop their weapon and say "no more!" That all may happen. But it may not. They may be feeling no pain, they may be on drugs or feeling so much adrenaline that they don't actually recognize that they've been shot, they may continue attacking even after having been shot. That 10" bullet may actually kill them eventually, too. But in self defense, we're not trying to kill our attacker, we're trying to STOP our attacker. And the only way to force a quick stop is to either hit the central nervous system (brain/upper spine) or damage the circulatory system such that it causes a big bleed-out and thus loss of blood pressure, which will deprive the brain of oxygen and cause them to fall unconscious. That's the goal -- stop the attacker from continuing their attack. Sometimes just seeing a gun in your hand would cause an attacker to stop. Sometimes seeing a gun pointed at them would cause them to stop. Sometimes feeling the pain of a bullet hitting them would cause them to stop immediately. But all of those rely on the attacker WANTING to stop. And, frankly, sometimes they don't want to stop, and you have to force them to stop. The only way to force them to stop is to take away their ability to attack -- either through a CNS hit, or through rendering them unconscious or dead.

If you are relying on your weapon to render them unconscious/unable to move/dead, then you need a bullet that can penetrate deeply enough to hit those vital organs and force their physiology to shut down. The FBI testing came to the conclusions that a bullet needed the ability to penetrate through 12" of gel in order to have the minimum amount of power necessary to (with proper placement) force the attacker to stop attacking.

Furthermore -- and this is a key thing that many people don't seem to factor in -- you won't always have a clean shot at the attacker's chest. In fact, you frequently won't have that clean shot. There will or may be barriers in the way. I don't know how many times I've seen video of attackers and defenders just stand pointed at each other in classic Isosceles stances, trading chest shots, but I don't think it's too frequent! The most common barriers you'll encounter are clothing, and other limbs. For example -- if the attacker decides to shoot at you sideways, you may find yourself having to shoot through their arm or shoulder to even get to their chest -- and that arm might be three or four inches thick or even more. Or, a more likely scenario, what if you and the attacker are staring each other down in Isosceles stances -- in order to hit his chest, you'll likely have to shoot through his forearm. At an angle. So the bullet might have to penetrate the outer layer of skin, traverse five or six inches through a forearm, and then push through the inside layer of forearm skin before it can even get to his chest. That's going to eat up a tremendous amount of the bullet's energy.

The point of all this is -- you don't know what your shooting scenario is going to be, other than that we can all pretty much assume it's not going to be textbook perfect! It's very unlikely that if you're involved in a defensive shooting, that you'll be standing with a two-handed isosceles grip pointed at a defender who's perfectly open to you, like a silhouette target. You'll be moving, they'll be moving, there'll be arms and clothing in the way, and you don't know what angle you may hit the target at.

In order to account for all those variables, and to make sure that the bullet would have enough energy to do its job in any of the reasonably foreseeable scenarios, the FBI decided that 12" of gel penetration would be the minimum power level their ammunition should deliver.

(man, this post ended up so long, it's probably as long as the whole FBI report, you should just read that anyway!)

Great post. Great video. Looking forward to more. Subscribed.

 

[subseashooter]

Great post. Great video. Looking forward to more. Subscribed.

Ditto. Looking forward to more results and information.

I love and will always keep my .380s, but this is uber interesting, whichever way it turns....

 

[Heinz Bar]

STB, do you have any info on a Walther PK380? With a longer barrel than the TCP I assume that it would generate a higher muzzle velocity. Would that make some of your tested rounds more effective? Wife loves hers and want to find the right load.

Thanks, love your videos.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

Don't have any Walthers, no. But BallisticsByTheInch.com has tested the TCP and the Walther over a chrono and found about a 100 fps increase for the Walther, so ... No matter what I find in the TCP, I think you can expect even better performance from the Walther.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

For those interested, the latest installment is up; this time a test of the Federal Hydra Shok.

 

[Shorts]

StB, I went by Cabela's yesterday and they were out of all .380s. They did have overpriced .223/5.56 and 45acp though. So, sorry I couldn't help you out there with that but I'll keep my eyes peeled.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

Hey, thanks for looking! I may (emphasis on MAY) have found a box at a grossly overpriced online seller; they claim it's in stock, but -- after waiting six weeks for it the last time I ordered (and also "in stock"), I have my doubts. But maybe this new seller will be more legit...