380 ACP Bullet Gel Test- pic heavy

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:04 pm

Had a little time, so I whipped up a batch of gelatin to shoot some various 380 rounds into for a comparison. My choices were limited to a factory load of a 90 gr. Corbon JHP, a handloaded Remington 102 gr. Golden Sabre, and a handloaded cast bullet from the Ranch Dog mold that weighs 103 gr. cast from clip on wheelweights and air cooled, and powder coated, nothing fancy.

I covered the 6x6x12 inch block of gel with a single layer of an old moving blanket, it's a fairly thick material that's sort of like flannel or felt, only substantially thicker. That should simulate a jacket and shirt fairly closely.

I had set up my chrono to capture velocitys, but the sun was at a low angle and I didn't get consistent readings, so I won't include them here now, but I will reshoot for speed at a later time. I can say that the Corbon load is hot, and I loaded both of mine to max book data with Unique. I shot the block from a distance of about 6 feet.

First up was the Ranch Dog cast bullet. It had no trouble fully penetrating the entire block and both layers of the blanket (front and back of the block). It then punched into about a half inch of the dry phone book I had backing the gel block, and bounced back through the blanket again into the block headed the opposite direction!

The Corbon and the Golden Sabre were both retained inside the gel, and penetrated to a depth of 8" and 9" respectively.

Not surprisingly, the cast bullet plowed a straight line, with a fairly small wound channel that was pretty much the same the length of the block.
The Golden Sabre, and the Corbon JHP both appeared to rapidly expand, and violently. The Golden Sabre shown in the middle, had a somewhat larger wound cavity than the Corbon, and it shed some lead fragments around the 2-3 inch mark.

As expected, the cast bullet retained all it's original weight.

The Golden Sabre lost the largest percentage of weight, but still very acceptable 95.6 gr. from the original 102.

The 90 gr. Corbon also held on to most of it's weight, only loosing 0.6 gr.

The cast bullet riveted a tad, growing to .375"

The Golden Sabre had the most expansion, which goes along with the largest wound cavity.

The Corbon was right behind the Remington bullet though with good expansion to .645"

So there you have it, you can take it for what it's worth. I'd like to include a few more bullets in the testing later on, but this at least gives me an idea as to the 380's performance, or lack of, depending on your opinion of the 380 as a defensive round. This isn't scientific by any means, I just enjoy playing around with it and hope you enjoyed reading it.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:19 pm

Head shots.

Of course, lack of penetration is exactly why the FRG Polezi gave up their .32s and went to 9mm...

(Love that Walther BTW...)

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Thanks, Ted. Interesting.

plowboy 45 · Post by **plowboy 45** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:49 pm

Thanks very interesting

new pig hunter · Post by **new pig hunter** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:42 pm

I have that same pistol so I am all ears as to all testing and results and thoughts and opinions.

Cheers,

Carl

Mac in Mo · Post by **Mac in Mo** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:18 pm

Good post Ted. I have always pretty much ignored the .380. The talk of it on here lately has really caught my attention. Keep it coming.

Thanks, Kevin

1894c · Post by **1894c** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:59 am

Ted-- really like your Walther PPK too (owned one years ago)...very cool test and info...but for me the .380acp (.9mm short/Kurtz) is a little on the light side for self defense, especially if winter clothing is encountered...I feel the same about 5-shot J-frame revolver types...but that's just my lousy cranky back-east opinion... :)

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:59 am

Thank you for taking the time.

gamekeeper · Post by **gamekeeper** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:21 am

I enjoyed your post, here in the UK I can only read about modern handguns....

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:29 am

game keeper wrote:I enjoyed your post, here in the UK I can only read about modern handguns....

Or get very good at hiding them...

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:41 am

Good post Ted.

I've only recently been understanding calibrating the gel to make each test truly comparable. Have you looked into that? I understand it isn't too hard but involves a couple more steps. Calibrated tests have the BB shown in the pictures. When properly set up and used at the correct temps, the gel will take a bb at a prescribed velocity and it will penetrate a certain depth range, ensuring the test will be directly comparable to other gel tests as to penetration depths and bullet performance.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:43 am

I have read about calibrating the gel but I've not gone to the trouble. I mix it by weight, the same every time and keep it at the same temperature, so that's close enough for me.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:56 pm

Ted, I've been reading a lot about the powder coating and was wondering, do you know how those bullets would do if they were cast from very soft lead? I don't think I've seen that addressed.

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:56 pm

Thanks for posting Ted, I find it very helpful. I have a .32NAA, which is a .380 necked down to .32, makes for a nice summer carry and back up to my .45 ACP.
Please keep posting.

Steve

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:57 pm

Rusty wrote:Ted, I've been reading a lot about the powder coating and was wondering, do you know how those bullets would do if they were cast from very soft lead? I don't think I've seen that addressed.

Very good idea, I was thinking the powder coat would act like a jacket.

Steve

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:01 pm

SteveR,
Have you done simular tests with your .32 NAA?
I have a Llama parts gun with a piece of extra slide, I am going to do a longslide Llama in .32 NAA.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:14 pm

plenty of penetration with the cast. that's so useful and interesting. it makes the cast load the only option for wife's gun.

I'd love to see the comparison to the 147 gr fmjfp she carries, would you like me to send a few?

In my waterjug tests, not the same thing BUT able to compare like to like, the load we use penetrated to about the same place as the 9mm gold dots we carry. I'm curious about the gel comparison. Looks like you could use a 2-block train for that one.

Grizz

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:30 pm

Mescalero wrote:SteveR,
Have you done simular tests with your .32 NAA?
I have a Llama parts gun with a piece of extra slide, I am going to do a longslide Llama in .32 NAA.

No, but it would be interesting to see the results.
I would love to see how that shoots with the longer barrel. I have the NAA with the short barrel, I bet yours would run upwards of 2000 fps, with the 60gr Hornady XTP.

Steve

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:34 pm

I don't think that fast, but what I was looking for is the consistency of shooting from a locked link design.
My model is an older one with a real link, no rib on top of the slide.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:11 pm

Rusty wrote:Ted, I've been reading a lot about the powder coating and was wondering, do you know how those bullets would do if they were cast from very soft lead? I don't think I've seen that addressed.

I haven't cast these 380 bullets from anything but wheelweights. I have played quite a bit with 45acp cast hollow points with various alloys trying to find a good balance between expansion and penetration, along with varying the depth of the hollow point. From what I've seen I think you could push powder coated soft lead as fast as you wanted to from a pistol cartridge.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:07 am

I was thinking that a soft lead bullet covered with powdercoat would be about as close as you could get to the old Nyclad rounds and they were said to be excellent stoppers.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:20 am

That's what I was after with the 45acp hollow points. I thought the flat nose design of these 380 bullets would be better hard, but it might be worth a try to cast some soft and see what they do.

3leggedturtle · Post by **3leggedturtle** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:03 am

Great report and tests. Did Imiss which one you would prefer for carrying? Seeing that Walther reminds of all the gunshows back in 70's when I was young and broke.

MacEntyre · Post by **MacEntyre** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:05 pm

Great information!

I don't have to worry about the performance of 380 relative to other options... I have enough 380 ammo to last the rest of my life, and a Colt Pony Pcketlite. I don't sell Colts, so I will use this little gem whenever it is appropriate, not matter what might be better for self defense.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:26 pm

3leggedturtle wrote:Great report and tests. Did Imiss which one you would prefer for carrying? Seeing that Walther reminds of all the gunshows back in 70's when I was young and broke.

I think this small demonstration shows what a lot of people already say, the 380 is about as small a caliber as I'd be comfortable with for defense against a ner-do-well. That being said, I'm still going to carry my 45 when practical, but when I'm carrying the 380 I would be fine with any of those loads, but I favor the Golden Sabre just because of the heavier starting weight and the impressive wound cavity. I know some folks like more penetration, but let's face it, most of us are not cops on the street. My loads don't necessarily have to pass the FBI standard. If and when I need my gun, I probably won't be needing to shoot through a car door or a sheet rock wall. More than likely is going to be up close and personal, with a good chance of bystanders around, or I'll be inside my dwelling. Neither of which would I want a bullet that's like the energizer bunny and just keeps going and going. If I can ever get a hold of some Speer Gold Dots I will certainly try them too. They have become the standard to which all others are compared, imo.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:55 pm

Thank you for taking the time and energy to do this.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:57 am

Thank you for sharing this info!

samb · Post by **samb** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:14 am

Thanks for the write and test. Really enjoyed reading it.

BrentD · Post by **BrentD** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:34 am

Interesting post. I would love to see what you get from a much softer lead bullet though. Something like 20:1 or 30:1 lead:tin mix.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:08 am

Can I send you a few of the Win white box flat points? I've seen them in meat but I'd like to see them in the same conditions as your other tests.

EdinCT · Post by **EdinCT** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Ted, Thanks for posting. I to have switched from 1911 to a S&W J frame in warmer weather. In CT you have to worry about upsetting the sheeple, so concealed is important to me.
Goes to show while maybe not ideal these are much better than a sharp stick.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:01 pm

Tycer wrote:Can I send you a few of the Win white box flat points? I've seen them in meat but I'd like to see them in the same conditions as your other tests.

Sure. I'm trying to get some Gold Dots to try and I'll also cast some of the lead bullets softer for the next round.

BrentD · Post by **BrentD** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:12 pm

I look forward to hearing about those soft lead bullets. I've got a .380 that would be better off with lead than with the modern bullet I think.

horsesoldier03 · Post by **horsesoldier03** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:50 pm

Great info. I would be curious to see how a .38 spc snubnose compares to the .380.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:14 pm

horsesoldier03 wrote:Great info. I would be curious to see how a .38 spc snubnose compares to the .380.

Substantially better. Heavier bullet running faster. The meat tests I've done give the 38 much better penetration with hollowpoints and cast.

GonnePhishin · Post by **GonnePhishin** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:18 pm

Thanks for the data and pictures, which are quite impressive. I've never heard of powder coating lead bullets, however.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:33 pm

Tycer,
What gun were you shooting .380 out of?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:16 am

Uncle Buck, if you look over on the castboolits forums you see more about powder coating than you can read in a week.

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:13 pm

.

Very interesting, Ted - thanks for posting your report.

It's especially relevant to me, since I yesterday bought a pristine Browning Model 1955 .380 pocket pistol from a local funshop, that I want to CCW in deep cover, since it's so nice & thin.

.

BrentD · Post by **BrentD** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:23 pm

that Browning looks a lot like my old Remington 51

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:01 pm

Mescalero wrote:Tycer,
What gun were you shooting .380 out of?

P3AT and either a snub Smith 36 or 60 for the 38s. I've had really great luck with this little piece of plastic and metal P3AT. The only FTFs I've ever had were with reloads and those were either bulged or over crimped.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:53 pm

I am not familiar with that gun, what type of action?

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:15 pm

Mescalero:

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... =1&t=57522

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:52 pm

Pete44ru wrote:.

Very interesting, Ted - thanks for posting your report.

It's especially relevant to me, since I yesterday bought a pristine Browning Model 1955 .380 pocket pistol from a local funshop, that I want to CCW in deep cover, since it's so nice & thin.

.

Now that is one sweet 380!

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:13 pm

My friend Keith had one of those when we were young, there is an interesting quirk to these actions.
I have to think about it for a while.
Not suitable subject matter for open debate.

Bill in Oregon · Post by **Bill in Oregon** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:45 am

Pete, that Browning is absolutely immaculate. Nice find!
Ted, really looking forward to your results with powder-coated soft-cast boolits.
I have to try this powder coating thing ...

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:32 am

BrentD wrote:I look forward to hearing about those soft lead bullets. I've got a .380 that would be better off with lead than with the modern bullet I think.

Finally got around to trying soft lead bullets. I cast them from stick on wheel weights, and powder coated them like the others. Same power and charge weight as before too. I thought before I bothered with mixing up a batch of gel, I'd check and make sure the accuracy was acceptable. I'm not too demanding of the smallish gun, but want to make sure a center mass hit was likely at 25 yards. A fired 5 rounds from a sandbag rest at 25 yards. There was 1 hole in the target, not just the 8x11 paper, the entire backing cardboard piece that was about 3'x4'.

Since the first part of this report, that Walther was sold and replaced with a G42. While the little Glock shoots harder clip on wheel weight bullets quite well, apparently the polygonal rifling is not compatable with the very soft lead.

So that idea of soft lead is obviously scrapped for me.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:56 pm

TedH wrote:
BrentD wrote:I look forward to hearing about those soft lead bullets. I've got a .380 that would be better off with lead than with the modern bullet I think.
Finally got around to trying soft lead bullets. I cast them from stick on wheel weights, and powder coated them like the others. Same power and charge weight as before too. I thought before I bothered with mixing up a batch of gel, I'd check and make sure the accuracy was acceptable. I'm not too demanding of the smallish gun, but want to make sure a center mass hit was likely at 25 yards. A fired 5 rounds from a sandbag rest at 25 yards. There was 1 hole in the target, not just the 8x11 paper, the entire backing cardboard piece that was about 3'x4'.

Since the first part of this report, that Walther was sold and replaced with a G42. While the little Glock shoots harder clip on wheel weight bullets quite well, apparently the polygonal rifling is not compatable with the very soft lead.

So that idea of soft lead is obviously scrapped for me.

Wow....Not in any way doubting your reporting, but that just don't sound right.....Were there signs leading in the rifling? Do you think that making them oversized would help?

Paladin · Post by **Paladin** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:53 pm

[/quote]Sure. I'm trying to get some Gold Dots to try and I'll also cast some of the lead bullets softer for the next round.[/quote]

I have a few boxes of Gold Dot .380 from when they were issue in the safe how many do you need to test.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:04 pm

BlaineG wrote:
TedH wrote:
BrentD wrote:I look forward to hearing about those soft lead bullets. I've got a .380 that would be better off with lead than with the modern bullet I think.
Finally got around to trying soft lead bullets. I cast them from stick on wheel weights, and powder coated them like the others. Same power and charge weight as before too. I thought before I bothered with mixing up a batch of gel, I'd check and make sure the accuracy was acceptable. I'm not too demanding of the smallish gun, but want to make sure a center mass hit was likely at 25 yards. A fired 5 rounds from a sandbag rest at 25 yards. There was 1 hole in the target, not just the 8x11 paper, the entire backing cardboard piece that was about 3'x4'.

Since the first part of this report, that Walther was sold and replaced with a G42. While the little Glock shoots harder clip on wheel weight bullets quite well, apparently the polygonal rifling is not compatable with the very soft lead.

So that idea of soft lead is obviously scrapped for me.
Wow....Not in any way doubting your reporting, but that just don't sound right.....Were there signs leading in the rifling? Do you think that making them oversized would help?

No trace of lead. I had just cleaned the barrel before shooting those 5. I'm pretty dumbfounded myself. It may help to make them a little larger, but my mold drops them at .357", and I was only sizing to .356", so I don't think .001" will make that much difference.