Compact Pistol Impact

from: The Tactical Wire

During a symposium on compact pistols for defense at Gunsite Academy, we had the opportunity to conduct a ballistics lab. We used ballistic gelatin and a chronograph to give us an idea of the impact of a select line of loads actually fired from the little guns with which we trained.

The ballistic gel was 'clothed;' the first with denim from old blue jeans, the second was two layers of cotton from a used concealment vest, and the third was covered with an down-insulated vest. The loads were all Remington. In 9mm, we tried the Golden Saber124 grain +P out of a Ruger LC9. The SIG P238 was fired with Golden Saber 102 grain and the .38 Special +P was fired from the M&P340 in the form of the 125 grain Golden Saber.

Maximum depth of penetration was recorded with 9mm at around 15" through denim. The least was with the 102 grain .380, which yielded 9-10 inches. The .38 +P gave about one foot of penetration. The bullets all looked like they were taken for an ad campaign; the classic peeled back expansion. There was evidence of jacket loosening from the cores. These were not law enforcement bonded bullets; those things are necessary only if it's likely you need to breech auto glass to make a hit.

Conversely, the slowest load was the .38 out of the 1 7/8" barrel of the M&P340, with the 125 grain +P scoring around 825 FPS. The .380 out of the short SIG P238 was around 860 fps. The 9mm, in the Ruger LCP, went over the Shooting Chrony at 1090 fps.

What does this limited testing tell us? Well, for one thing clothing barriers aren't the issue we thought they could be - for the Remington Golden Saber projectiles at least. Comparing the three loads we're seeing similar performance between calibers. The issues more properly combined into this: Which gun is the most shootable? It has to be gunhandling friendly while being reliable.We'll examine characteristics of small guns next time.

- Rich Grassi

Table: Comparative caliber performance from small guns:

______________________________________________________________

Editor's comments:

What can we glean from the above article?  The .380ACP shouldn't even be considered for personal defense.  As all these shots were taken from a straight-on position, which we must consider the "best of all shots" we might possibly be presented, and the .380 failed to penetrate enough to reach a minimum of 12", it should be eliminated from consideration as a first line defense pistol. 

The .38 Special reached the bare minimum.  Out of a snub, even a +P .38 is not a powerful load.

Only the 9mm+P showed good performance in gelatin, but the final comments in the article point toward the problem you'll encounter--unpleasant recoil and handling difficulties with a small pistol. 

For those of you questioning my sanity here, you must look at ballistic gelatin testing and overall penetration from a realistic perspective.  Gelatin presents us with an ideal situation--penetration in a muscle simulator.  It doesn't allow for rounds that strike bone, much less intervening objects, which can skew the results.  But most importantly it doesn't allow for the fact that in a REAL LIFE gunfight, the participants will all be moving, meaning your target will be difficult to hit as he moves and you will have a harder time shooting as you move.  Think what this will do for your shot placement.  A round that has minimum penetration is not what you want to choose here as your bullets are as likely to strike extremities as they are center mass.  They may be called on to traverse arms or legs or great lengths of torso in order to reach vitals.  This is not the time to be playing around with little guns that are hard to handle, shooting minimal calibers with low penetrating cartridges.

We Americans are much too focused on how small a gun we can carry to be comfy and far too unconcerned about what sort of gun we need to actually protect ourselves should a situation arise where a gun is required. 

--Mark Freburg

_________________________________________________________________

News Editor's Comments:

Let me say up front that these are all just my opinions so I don't have to say it next to each statement below. 

I see this article as being part of the massive editorial response to the popularity of carrying dinky pocket guns for self defense. People want to read about them so magazines and internet outlets publish articles about them. I thought this one was better than most because it at least presented some evidence that allows the performance of some of the more popular small calibers to be compared. Unfortunately, the level of shooting knowledge shared by most of the people eager to read about these guns is not high enough to understand what this article really said.

I believe people think that if small pocket guns (or anything else) can get so popular it must be because they are a good idea. Hollywood, as usual, is no help putting out nonsense like the line in an old James Bond movie describing the power of a .380 as being "like a brick through a plate glass window". We would all probably be shocked by the number of people who make life-affecting decisions based on some incorrect thing they saw in a movie. And, I'm sorry to say, people who should know better (people who these readers are looking to for advice) aren't telling them "the rest of the story" anywhere near often enough.

Is 10 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin enough? Is 15? Is 20? Is 48? The answer of course is "it depends" on everything Mark mentioned and more. We could "what if" until a .22 short was all we needed or a .338 Lapua magnum rifle wasn't big enough. How many remember Jerry talking about a perp being hit in the forehead with a .40 S&W duty round that just flattened out and didn't penetrate the skull? A couple of decades ago a Montana game warden was attacked by a huge grizzly he was releasing from a culvert trap in the back of a pickup and he killed it with six rounds from his 4" S&W .357 magnum revolver. Who would have believed either event possible if they weren't both witnessed facts?

Anything can happen, but some things are waaaay more likely to happen than others. So, we each have to draw our own line, set our own limit for the minimum amount of power we are willing to bet our life on.

As corny as it sounds, I agree with Clint Smith when he says guns are supposed to be comforting, not comfortable. Carrying a gun that is too small to save your life because "you have to suit your style of dress" or because "it's more comfortable in the summertime" is pure self-delusion and a total waste of time. Period. None of the guns in this article were in small enough calibers to fall into the traditional mouse gun category in the strictest sense but the penetration comparisons showed me evidence supporting what has been said many times here on the forum. The lowest power level acceptible for self defense is reached by some hot .38 special loads and several 9mm loads when the right bullet is used for both. I agree with Mark and I see this article as one more reason for me to consider the .380 as too weak for me to ever count on.

-- Allan Tarvid