Clearly most defensive situations will involve a shooting distance of probably no more than 5 yards, and my guess is that it is more likely to be at little as 1 to 2 yards more often than not. At this close distance, is there much of a difference in effectiveness of the 38 special round fired from a 2 inch barrel revolver such as a S&W J frame versus a 380 acp round fired from a 3 inch barrel semi auto like the Ruger LCP? If effectiveness is very similar, then the choice would be based upon number of rounds available, ease of carry, and perceived reliability of the two different type guns.
Comparative effectiveness of 380 acp and 38 special
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
30-30remchester
New member
The problem with these kinds of inquires is, most everyone has an opinion but few if any have actual facts or field experences (me included). If only experenced people answered threads they would be vastly shorter. That being said, your question intrests me as well. I hunt a little and have used both guns mentioned to test bullets and penatration in recently dead big game animals. I have shot completely through both sides of a muled deer buck with winter pelt using a Ruger LCP and Cor-Bon DPX ammo. I also stopped 2 Buffalo Bore 95 grn fmj in the neck bone of the same deer. I have shot a few antelope with the 380 Acp with the DPX and Remingtons Golden Sabres. I also tested a snub nosed 38 special using Cor-Bon 110 grn DPX,s on a recently dead antelope. So far I have enough experence to be dangerous. A few of anything is not enough to rely on. However it is a start.
thibaultfelix40
New member
For me the choice is easy, I like revolvers, especially J frames, autos ain't my thing.
I'll say that the most effective 380 HP is better than the least effective 38 Sp round nose. The most effective 38 Sp is far beyond the capability of the 380 with any bullet. I've shot both in similar test media and there is simply no comparison even considering the lower performance of the 2" barrel 38.
The 380 is surprising in what it can offer in the small packages it's usually found but there is just no magic formula to make it equal the potential of the 38 Sp.
The 380 is surprising in what it can offer in the small packages it's usually found but there is just no magic formula to make it equal the potential of the 38 Sp.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Keep in mind that revolver barrel length is measured to the front face of the cylinder, while semi-auto barrel length is measured to the breech face and includes the chamber. There isn't really much difference in effective length between a 2" revolver and a 3" semi-auto.
I think, as previous posts have said, the .38 round has more to offer. That said, neither are magic bullets (nothing is!), but both tend to be considered part of the family of effective self-defense rounds. I would worry more about which gun you like more, shoot better, and trust in terms of reliability. I wouldn't hesitate to carry either.
hardworker
New member
They're not offensive weapons, they're defensive. In that role I wouldn't worry about ballistics as much as I'd worry about whether I liked revolver or semi better.
Deaf Smith
New member
Vito,
As for power the .38 Special wins hands down.
If one is to argue with which is better one should look at the platforms used to launch the round.
Do that and you will find a good .380, medium size, is easier to shoot than a comparable sized .38 special.
if I had to pick between a Bersa CC .380 and a S&W 642, I'd pick the .38, but that's cause I shoot revolvers so much. I think quite highly of the Bersa .380!
Deaf
As for power the .38 Special wins hands down.
If one is to argue with which is better one should look at the platforms used to launch the round.
Do that and you will find a good .380, medium size, is easier to shoot than a comparable sized .38 special.
if I had to pick between a Bersa CC .380 and a S&W 642, I'd pick the .38, but that's cause I shoot revolvers so much. I think quite highly of the Bersa .380!
Deaf
Kreyzhorse
New member
+1. A .38 is a much better option than a .380 all things being equal.
With that said, I understand that a .380 Ruger LCP can go places that a .38 j-frame won't as I own both a Ruger and Airweight. A .380 is better than nothing but a .38 is better than a .380.
BerettaBuckeye
New member
I think the .38 Special benefits from some really aggressive hollowpoint designs due to the fact that it doesn't have to "feed" like the .380 in a semi-auto . I always thought that the good .38 Special rounds seemed to perform better that they really should ( on paper )and I figured it was due to the bullet designs. That's just my personal theory though
MikeNice81
New member
If you can handle .38spl+p in a snub nose revolver it has more potential. If not then you are really looking at two sides of the same coin in many instances.
I think the .380 ACP is not as good in either a small revolver, or pistol as the same handgun in .38 spl.
from the 'Jello shooters' DocGKR
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19914
I'll take the .38 Special please. Thank you.
Why? I'm glad you asked.
In all the ballistics tests I've seen, .380 JHP ammo typically under-penetrates. It can do well, but seldom gets beyond the 8-10" level. While this may be adequate in many cases it shows one of the cartridge's major faults. It takes a FMJ to penetrate adequately. Even then, the .380 FMJ barely makes the threshold in many cases. At least you need not worry about over-penetration!
The .38 Special out of a 2-inch barrel has rarely been accused of being a barn-burner either. Most of today's +P ammo, when used in a 2-inch revolver, simply pushes the energy level back up to that of a good standard velocity .38 Special round from a 4-inch revolver. Some of it does better than that. But most of the premium .38 JHP loads penetrate well, reaching 12-16 inches, even with a short barrel.
Another advantage of the .38 is the ability to use lead wadcutters for defense. Bullets with a profile like a beer can cut a clean, round hole that promotes bleeding and can allow the introduction of air where it shouldn't be. For a few years in the late 60's and early 70's, it was popular to handload hollowbase wadcutters backwards, with the huge cavity forward. Driving these flying ashtrays at 750-800 fps, they displayed impressive mushrooming in test media. Soft swaged lead wadcutters tended to fragment off the "skirt" area around the cavity though. Hard cast bullets tended to open slower and still expand to impressively.
The .38 in the Bodyguard or Centennial style can be fired through a coat pocket without snagging. Not easy to do with any small pistol.
Why? I'm glad you asked.
In all the ballistics tests I've seen, .380 JHP ammo typically under-penetrates. It can do well, but seldom gets beyond the 8-10" level. While this may be adequate in many cases it shows one of the cartridge's major faults. It takes a FMJ to penetrate adequately. Even then, the .380 FMJ barely makes the threshold in many cases. At least you need not worry about over-penetration!
The .38 Special out of a 2-inch barrel has rarely been accused of being a barn-burner either. Most of today's +P ammo, when used in a 2-inch revolver, simply pushes the energy level back up to that of a good standard velocity .38 Special round from a 4-inch revolver. Some of it does better than that. But most of the premium .38 JHP loads penetrate well, reaching 12-16 inches, even with a short barrel.
Another advantage of the .38 is the ability to use lead wadcutters for defense. Bullets with a profile like a beer can cut a clean, round hole that promotes bleeding and can allow the introduction of air where it shouldn't be. For a few years in the late 60's and early 70's, it was popular to handload hollowbase wadcutters backwards, with the huge cavity forward. Driving these flying ashtrays at 750-800 fps, they displayed impressive mushrooming in test media. Soft swaged lead wadcutters tended to fragment off the "skirt" area around the cavity though. Hard cast bullets tended to open slower and still expand to impressively.
The .38 in the Bodyguard or Centennial style can be fired through a coat pocket without snagging. Not easy to do with any small pistol.
Walklightly
Moderator
For sale .380acp
.380acp has come a long way, so has .38spl. +p is a +p.
But, remember, a .38spl is a .357, and a .380acp is a 9mm. LOL
.380acp has come a long way, so has .38spl. +p is a +p.
But, remember, a .38spl is a .357, and a .380acp is a 9mm. LOL
I chronographed the following two loads and obtained the following:
S&W 638 2'' Winchester 130 gr. +p @ 848 fps / 207# KE
S&W 638 2'' Winchester 110 Silvertip @ 821 fps / 165# KE
Ruger LCP Winchester 95 gr. Ranger T @ 876 fps / 162# KE
For the 38 snub to have significantly more KE (about 20%) than the 380 the user will likely need to load with +P
With standard ammunition in the 38 snub the difference compared to a 380 is marginal.
I can place my shots quicker with the 380 than the 38 snub, so that's what I carry in my pocket.
S&W 638 2'' Winchester 130 gr. +p @ 848 fps / 207# KE
S&W 638 2'' Winchester 110 Silvertip @ 821 fps / 165# KE
Ruger LCP Winchester 95 gr. Ranger T @ 876 fps / 162# KE
For the 38 snub to have significantly more KE (about 20%) than the 380 the user will likely need to load with +P
With standard ammunition in the 38 snub the difference compared to a 380 is marginal.
I can place my shots quicker with the 380 than the 38 snub, so that's what I carry in my pocket.