TexasCHLforum.com

I recently had a gunsmith (a very good one) to tell me that though people poo the .380, it uses a short barrel more ~efficiently~ than any other caliber. I know we have all seen ballistic tests, but how would you go about proving or disproving his claim?

First off, I would ask the gunsmith to define "efficiently." Otherwise, I'm

C-dub wrote:First off, I would ask the gunsmith to define "efficiently." Otherwise, I'm

Think it'll involve "energy dump"?

I would respect his opinion as just that, his opinion.......... many people including myself do not share it. Although I consider the 380 as the minimum caliber that should be carried it is much better than nothing at all.

Maybe it does use the short barrel more efficiently than a larger caliber... a 3" .45 barrel is shorter, relative to diameter, than a 3" .380. But using is more efficiently doesn't mean anything more than a number, that is largely irrelevant to the person being shot. As you see, there is no education behind that reasoning. ...lol

To test his theory- you could shoot a 5" and a 3" in each caliber, and see which retains more velocity in the shorter barrel, by percentage.

And just because it's efficient (if it is) doesn't mean the .380 is not anemic, or a good choice for SD. (which is why I'm dropping my .380's out of the carry rotation.) Just my opinion... and no, I don't want to get shot by it. I would just prefer to have a larger caliber if I ever need to stop someone immediately.

I also started thinking about the velocity thing. I'm wondering if he means that a .380 attains a higher percentage of its possible velocity from a 3" barrel than the higher calibers.

C-dub wrote:I also started thinking about the velocity thing. I'm wondering if he means that a .380 attains a higher percentage of its possible velocity from a 3" barrel than the higher calibers.

That's how I interpreted it.

flechero wrote: I would just prefer to have a larger caliber if I ever need to stop someone immediately.

Me too! The caliber I want for that job has the same digits just different order. It starts with a 3 and ends with an 8 with a big goose egg in the middle.

I came across several articles on this subject and most of them came to the same conclusion, but without actual empirical data. Efficiency is not the same as effectiveness.

MoJo wrote:

flechero wrote: I would just prefer to have a larger caliber if I ever need to stop someone immediately.

Me too! The caliber I want for that job has the same digits just different order. It starts with a 3 and ends with an 8 with a big goose egg in the middle.

Not to develop a caliber war...but my understanding is that the newer designed .380 is on par with the 38 special plus P. I could understand going up to a 40, 45 from it.

wgoforth wrote:

MoJo wrote:

flechero wrote: I would just prefer to have a larger caliber if I ever need to stop someone immediately.

Me too! The caliber I want for that job has the same digits just different order. It starts with a 3 and ends with an 8 with a big goose egg in the middle.

Not to develop a caliber war...but my understanding is that the newer designed .380 is on par with the 38 special plus P. I could understand going up to a 40, 45 from it.

No pistol I meant a .308. A rifle round in a rifle. Pistols are for convenience and to fight your way back to the rifle or shotgun you shouldn't have left behind in the first place.

MoJo wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

MoJo wrote:

flechero wrote: I would just prefer to have a larger caliber if I ever need to stop someone immediately.

Me too! The caliber I want for that job has the same digits just different order. It starts with a 3 and ends with an 8 with a big goose egg in the middle.

Not to develop a caliber war...but my understanding is that the newer designed .380 is on par with the 38 special plus P. I could understand going up to a 40, 45 from it.

No pistol I meant a .308. A rifle round in a rifle. Pistols are for convenience and to fight your way back to the rifle or shotgun you shouldn't have left behind in the first place.

Now THAT I certainly agree with...as does Clint Smith!

wgoforth wrote:I recently had a gunsmith (a very good one) to tell me that though people poo the .380, it uses a short barrel more ~efficiently~ than any other caliber. I know we have all seen ballistic tests, but how would you go about proving or disproving his claim?

Efficiency is the inverse ratio of the energy put in to a system versus the energy out.

Let's say you have a .380 round that gets 1000 ft-lb with a 2 inch barrel and 1500 ft-lb with a 4 inch barrel. That means you get a 33% increase in muzzle energy from a 2 inch increase in barrel length. You could compare that data with similar data from a .45ACP. It could be that the % increase of the .380 is more, but that doesn't have a correlation with effectiveness of the round. In other words, the efficiency of the .380 might be better, but who cares.

The efficiency of a Prius is better than an Indy car, but the Prius won't win the race.

wgoforth wrote:

C-dub wrote:I also started thinking about the velocity thing. I'm wondering if he means that a .380 attains a higher percentage of its possible velocity from a 3" barrel than the higher calibers.

That's how I interpreted it.

I dont think that James Bond will buy into this?