Nine rounds of .380 vs five rounds of .38

[849ACSO]

Quote:
Seen revolvers lock up twice......

And how many times have you seen a semi auto malfunction? Either shooter, out gun and ammo induced?

The revolver is inherently more reliable. It only has to fire to function. The semi auto has to feed, fire, extract, and eject. For steps for each trigger pull, more to go wrong.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 849ACSO:

The revolver is inherently more reliable. It only has to fire to function.

It will quit doing that when the cylinder is empty, which could happen before many semi autos run out. Could be bad.

The semi auto has to feed, fire, extract, and eject. For steps for each trigger pull, more to go wrong.

The trigger of the revolver has to pull the hammer and compress its spring, turn and index the cylinder, and release the sear. That takes work--force times distance--and it causes the gun to move.

That is particularly an issue with the Smith J-frame, because of the geometry of the mechanism, and it makes the gun difficult to shoot rapidly and well.

Most semi-autos take a lot less work to fire repeatedly--or more accurately, most of the work is accomplished when the slide moves rearward.

 

[DirtyHarold]

Personally, I CC both semi auto and revolver. Both, because I dont think one is better than the other.

For my specific CC guns
Revolver: less shots but as close to malfunction resistant as it gets, and with full power 357 I am pretty much carrying the most powerful loads you can reasonably CC (NO, there is no 44 Mag that I believe I could reasonably CC)

Semi-auto: much higher cap but yes more likely to malfunction and less punch per bullet. not that my 40 needs any more punch, unless I'm in the woods where there is a potential for black bear--which I sometimes am.

 

[fastbolt]

Another one of these perennial threads.

I voted .38 Spl. That's me.

I own more than half a dozen J-frame snubs and a pair of LCP .380 pistols. I carry whichever is most suitable for the day's activities and circumstances. That's me.

I train, qualify and practice with both. That's me.

What should someone else choose to carry if only comparing those 2 "minimal" calibers?

Dunno. I'd want to see that person demonstrate their abilities using each, in a variety of basic to fast-paced and demanding drills, and discussing carry method preferences and needs. Might have a recommendation afterward.

FWIW, I've seen my fair share of skilled folks who could use little .38 Spl snubs and .380 pistols better than other folks who carried "full-size fighting handguns", but the folks carrying the larger guns still thought they were somehow "better prepared". Misplaced confidence? Perhaps.

As an armorer for a variety of pistols, and S&W revolvers, I have a passing familiarity with the advantages and disadvantages of each from a maintenance and operation perspective.

As a LE firearms instructor, who also spent 10 years volunteering to work with private citizen shooters (CCW licensees), I have a passing familiarity with how some folks are willing, and others unwilling, to invest more time and effort into meeting more than some "adequate" level of demonstrated skill.

Rather than obsess about (or casually dismiss) the importance of gun/caliber choice, I'd like to see more folks carefully consider whether they had enough knowledge, training, experience and the ability to make good decisions under stress ... than just rely upon some admired or popular choice of gun/caliber/ammunition.

Knowing what to do, why to do it, when to do it, how to do it and being able to decide to do it (in sufficient time)? Potentially more complicated and risky than just choosing some gun/caliber combination.

Not everyone is necessarily going to be as well served by one particular decision as the next person.

Everyone is going to have to face the likelihood of having to try and live with their choices, and the consequences of their choices.

I'll continue to carry either a .38 Spl J-frame (including using +P in a pair of M&P 340's, even though they're chambered for Magnum) or a LCP .380, depending on circumstances and my assessment of practicality versus potential risk factors ... or one of my larger 9's, .40's or .45's, if the assessment makes me consider the little .38/.380's are less appropriate choices for the circumstances.

I'll continue to use all of them for practice, quals & training as long as I'm able to do so.

Suit yourself, for the reason(s) that seems most prudent and reasonable. Try not to fool yourself and think gun/caliber choices will somehow mitigate lack of attention to maintaining sufficient knowledge (laws, tactics, maintenance, etc), training, practice or mindset.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by fastbolt:

Rather than obsess about (or casually dismiss) the importance of gun/caliber choice, I'd like to see more folks carefully consider whether they had enough knowledge, training, experience and the ability to make good decisions under stress ... than just rely upon some admired or popular choice of gun/caliber/ammunition.

Knowing what to do, why to do it, when to do it, how to do it and being able to decide to do it (in sufficient time)? Potentially more complicated and risky than just choosing some gun/caliber combination.

Not everyone is necessarily going to be as well served by one particular decision as the next person.

Everyone is going to have to face the likelihood of having to try and live with their choices, and the consequences of their choices.

Well put.

 

[Guv]

I picked the 38 because I would rather have 5 rounds of +P 38 than 9 of .380. Besides, can't I put a decent grip on my "J" frame since we are talking about a 9 round .380? If I am in a situation where I think 5 won't be enough, or a night stand gun, then I'll go to a 9mm or a 40,

 

[j102]

Between the two, I prefer the 38spl.
With so many small 9mm handguns out there, I don't see myself ever carrying a 380acp handgun.
The 380acp would be a good choice for many people for valid reasons. Not for me.

 

[j102]

These are my two choices: a Ruger LCR 357, and a Sig P290RS in 9mm.
By the way, the Sig takes 8 rounds magazines, and even with that is a small size 9mm handgun. It is shown here with the 6 rounds magazine.

 

[DirtyHarold]

I still think that just the fact you have nearly twice as many rounds justifies the 380, but thats still just my opinion.

That being said, I think I'll be the first to say this in this thread...if a situation arises the 38 in your pocket is better than the 380 left at home (or vice versa)

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Guv:

If I am in a situation where I think 5 won't be enough, or a night stand gun, then I'll go to a 9mm or a 40,

How could you ever predict?

 

[Guv]

How can you predict you may need more than 5 rounds?
I also don't see the need of a small .380 when there are so many small 9mm's, as some others have said.

 

[baddarryl]

THIS:

With so many small 9mm handguns out there, I don't see myself ever carrying a 380acp handgun.

 

[gvaldeg1]

Use Buffalo Bore 90 gr +P JHPs and you'll have a decided edge over 38 SPL +Ps. That's what I carry in my 8 ounce 380.

 

[45_auto]

How could you ever predict?

The same way you would predict that 9 rounds of .380 wouldn't be enough, or 34 rounds of 9mm wouldn't be enough, or 60 rounds of .223 wouldn't be enough, or 200 rounds of .308 wouldn't be enough, or 2000 rounds of .50 BMG wouldn't be enough, or one atom bomb wouldn't be enough, etc, etc.

You evaluate the situation based on your training, knowledge and the best information available and arm yourself appropriately.

 

[mavracer]

How could you ever predict?

It's easy if you know what to look for

 

[drobs]

Has anyone mentioned none of the above yet...

I like 15rds of 9mm with a 17rd back up mag.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

It's easy [to predict that 5 won't be enough] if you know what to look for.

Perhaps you could share with us some tips on what to look for to predict whether, in the very unlikely event that one may need to use deadly force, one might have to fire more than five shots to end a violent criminal attack timely.

I presume that you are not serious.

 

[mavracer]

Perhaps you could share with us some tips on what to look for to predict whether, in the very unlikely event that one may need to use deadly force, one might have to fire more than five shots to end a violent criminal attack timely.

If my situational awareness is so bad you can't identify what or where a high threat area might be, I'd question whether I should be on the staff of a forum devoted to firearms and lawful uses like self defense.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

If my situational awareness is so bad you can't identify what or where a high threat area might be, I'd question whether I should be on the staff of a forum devoted to firearms and lawful uses like self defense.

I'm sure you noted that I referred to "very unlikely event that one may need to use deadly force". That likelihood will vary, and one may well be able assess it, at least to some extent.

But that's not the question at all, is it?

The question was one of how to predict whether "one might have to fire more than five shots to end a violent criminal attack timely", should an attack occur.

That would depend upon on how many shots will be fired at an assailant before it is evident that the number has been sufficient, and upon how many of them there are who will choose to persist; I would not count on less than two.

The first will be influenced by several variables, including how many shots hit the target(s), which ones enter where and at what angles, and in what order and with what rapidity; and a bunch of stuff about the psychological and physiological condition of the attacker(s).

It should be patently obvious that none of that will have anything to do with "where a high threat area will be".

Do not confuse what kind of tools one would need to defend against a couple of violent criminal actors with anything about the nature of the neighborhood in which one might encounter them.

 

[Pond James Pond]

If my situational awareness is so bad you can't identify what or where a high threat area might be, I'd question whether I should be on the staff of a forum devoted to firearms and lawful uses like self defense.

The risk with that perception is in thinking that one is only at risk in a high risk area.

By their very nature, low-risk areas still have an element of risk.

And part of the problem with risk is we don't quite know if, when or how it will strike. We can only suppose.