Originally Posted by Packard

I know that .380 rounds have come a long way. And I know that very small 9mm weapons warn against using +P ammo.

But in like sized weapons, which would you choose? A 9mm standard pressure or .380 plus P?

Contrast for example the Diamond Back 9mm which warns against +P ammo, and the Sig Sauer P380 which allows + P but in .380 ammo.

(I would take the 9mm personally).

Sig Sauer P380? is that like a cross between a Sig P238 and a Kahr P380?

There is no SAAMI Spec for "380+P" and as such no manufacturer will allow for it's use in their manual. What Sig does say in the P238 manual is this:

2. The use of reloaded, “remanufactured” hand-loaded, or other non-standard ammunition voids all warranties. Reloading is a science and improperly loaded ammunition can be extremely dangerous. Severe damage to the firearm and serious injury to the shooter or to others may result. Always use ammunition that complies with the industry performance standards established by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc. (SAAMI) of the United States or ammunition manufactured to military specifications.

So that right there tells me that Sig is against using .380 ammunition carrying a +P designation.

While some of the 9mm guns come close in size, the .380s are still smaller and some of the micro 9mm offerings don't have the best rep for reliability. So far I stick with the tiny .380s. A Kahr MK9 has been on my list for a while, but I can never find one to get my hands on locally.

I believe Buffalo Bore advertises a +P in .380 ACP. It certainly is a hotter loaded .380 when you look at the numbers. I know there is no spec for +P in .380, but some are most certainly hotter than others.

Originally Posted by berettatoter

I believe Buffalo Bore advertises a +P in .380 ACP. It certainly is a hotter loaded .380 when you look at the numbers. I know there is no spec for +P in .380, but some are most certainly hotter than others.

That's kind of the point.

This study suggests that from a self-defense/incapacitation perspective, .380 vs 9mm is pretty much a wash: An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

I therefore lean toward .380 in similarly sized pocket guns because I can handle it better than 9mm for follow-up shots.

Originally Posted by Jed Henson

This study suggests that from a self-defense/incapacitation perspective, .380 vs 9mm is pretty much a wash: An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

I therefore lean toward .380 in similarly sized pocket guns because I can handle it better than 9mm for follow-up shots.

That's a good read, I know the author and it should be noted that in that study a large amount of the 9mm shootings were with FMJ. But I'm with you on the smaller .380s being easier to handle than the 9mm guns of small dimension.

One other thing to look at is the 9mm data. A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner. One can reasonable expect that FMJ ammo will not stop as well as a state of the art expanding bullet. I personally believe that the 9mm is a better stopper than the numbers here indicate, but you can make that decision for yourself based on the data presented.

Originally Posted by Packard

...[I]n like sized weapons, which would you choose? A 9mm standard pressure or .380 plus P?....

I'd choose a standard-pressure .45 ACP.

Of course, there's a guy on the forum who calls himself 870ShellShucker, and he wants to carry a short-barrel .44 Magnum. Can't beat that!

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

I'd choose a standard-pressure .45 ACP.

Of course, there's a guy on the forum who calls himself 870ShellShucker, and he wants to carry a short-barrel .44 Magnum. Can't beat that!

Yes, stuff one in your front pocket and stand at the bar and lick your eyebrows; you'll be very popular with both the women and the men.

However there may be so much grabbing going on that you might have difficulty accessing your weapon.


I realize that you are being amusing. But to the point: If you wanted a weapon that would conceal well in a pants pocket, a small 9mm or a .380?

The Kel-tec 9mm weighs 12 ounces and current production is reputed to be very reliable. The Kel-tec .380 is about 8 ounces. Most of the rest of the .380s are about 9 to 10 ounces.

So which would you choose. A tiny 9mm, or a small .380?

Originally Posted by Packard

If you wanted a weapon that would conceal well in a pants pocket, a small 9mm or a .380?

why not the Davis D38? 2 shot derringer in .38 special.....

Packard, my dear, my .45 is indeed small enough to carry in my front pocket, and that's exactly where I carry it (in a Robert Mika pocket holster).

It's 5.75"x 3.75"x 1", and it fires six rounds very quickly. Drawback: it weighs 28 ounces, fully loaded. (Jean's P3AT measures 5.25"x 3.5"x 0.75".)

Oh, yes...and my wife says that my tongue is entirely satisfactory.

Originally Posted by TedDeBearFrmHell

why not the Davis D38? 2 shot derringer in .38 special.....

1. I haven't heard from them lately; I thought they were out of business.

2. I've owned derringers before (High Standard .22 magnum) and the two shot capacity does not give me a warm and cozy feeling.

3. As I recall they are about 12 ounces--the same as a Kel-Tec single stack 9mm. And the Kel-Tec carries more ammo and can be reloaded much faster.

Originally Posted by Packard

1. I haven't heard from them lately; I thought they were out of business.

2. I've owned derringers before (High Standard .22 magnum) and the two shot capacity does not give me a warm and cozy feeling.

3. As I recall they are about 12 ounces--the same as a Kel-Tec single stack 9mm. And the Kel-Tec carries more ammo and can be reloaded much faster.

1) when a company goes out of business their products do not cease to exist, many times you can find one of their used items for sale......

2) if you want warm and cozy, try flannel footy jammies..... a .38 special isnt a .22 mag

3) 2 sure shots from a .38 derringer seems like a better idea than maybe one shot from a jamomatic....

Ted, Jean's Kel-Tec P3AT is anything but a "jam-o-matic." It's both reliable and sufficiently accurate to be worthy of her faith in it.
I think that Rohrbaugh .380 and 9mm pistols, though very expensive, are also quite reliable, as are Seecamps.

(I have to admit that Jean's P3AT did need some sandpapering, particularly on its trigger, to make it comfortable to shoot. Also, I polished its ramp and chamber.)

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

Ted, Jean's Kel-Tec P3AT is anything but a "jam-o-matic." It's both reliable and sufficiently accurate to be worthy of her faith in it.
I think that Rohrbaugh .380 and 9mm pistols, though very expensive, are also quite reliable, as are Seecamps.

(I have to admit that Jean's P3AT did need some sandpapering, particularly on its trigger, to make it comfortable to shoot. Also, I polished its ramp and chamber.)

* exceptions made for jean's keltech with trigger, ramp and throat job....

@ Steve M1911A1

You're a hoot my friend

I personally like the 9mm round over .380 ... +P or not.

Early Kel-Tecs were plagued by problems; the current production is reported to be very reliable.

My derringer would misfire about 5 times from each box of 50. That often meant that I was only carrying one useable round.

I would not call a Kel-tec a "jam-o-matic"; it lacks a sense of class, however. A few good weapons lack the feeling of a fine piece of machinery. Glock comes to mind. It works great and it works all the time, but put it next to a Smith and Wesson revolver and the revolver speaks quality of manufacturing and materials; the Glock feels cheap.

The Kel-tec is another one. The Ruger feels better, but the initial production was not that good either according to reports.

i realize that my keltech bias goes back decades to when i was selling kelgrens grendels ...... guess i need to give georges guns another try.....

maybe not