www.hipowersandhandguns.com

A Comparison of 9x18mm Makarov, .380 ACP, and .38 Special (2" barrel)

By Stephen Camp
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com

A common topic centers on which is best: 9mm Mak, .380 ACP, or the .38 Snub. Though ballistically in the same general ballpark, each round brings with it certain advantages as well as negatives. Let's take a look at what we might expect from these or similar loads.

9x18mm: Rare in the US until the mass importation of the Makarov pistol, the round is now common among shooters. Its ballistic payload is similar to a top end, maximum effort .380 ACP. One load approaches that of the 9x19mm, but only when the latter is being fired from a short (3") barrel. LVE Brown Bear 115-gr. JHP usually hits between about 1020 ft/sec and 1050 ft/sec depending upon the particular Makarov it's being fired from. Federal 115-gr. JHP from a short 9mm is usually less than 100 ft/sec faster as that load is not optimized for shorter barrels. There are many other loads in which the 9mm uniformly walks away from the Mak's capabilities.

In normal trim, it's generally accepted that the 9x18mm throws a 95-gr. 0.363" diameter bullet about 1050 ft/sec.

Foreign-made 9x18mm ammunition is very inexpensive and allows for considerable shooting. It is much less costly than the ballistically similar .380 ACP and slightly more powerful.

.380 ACP: Dimensionally, this is a scaled down .45 ACP from those round's creator, John M. Browning. Like the Makarov, it is most often fired from blow back semiautomatics though a few pistols so chambered have used the locked breech common to higher-pressure rounds like the 9x19mm.

Typical performance from the "traditional size" .380 ACP like the Walther PPK is a 95-gr. bullet at 950 ft/sec. Add approximately 100 ft/sec for +P 90-gr. bullets from the same size pistols.

Note: The really compact .380's currently available were not used in this report. Velocities generally suffer significantly when fired from barrels less than about 3.25". If you use one of the small .380 ACP pistols, you may need to go to +P rounds to insure that the velocity is enough to actually obtain expansion. Having seen JHP ammo expand very nicely from the Makarov/Bersa/Walther sized .380's and act like ball when fired from some of the really compact .380 pistols, I personally prefer the standard size pistols in this caliber. Others may truly need to go with the smaller, but might want to be sure that their ammunition is capable of expansion. There's no guarantee of it with any of them, but I think we're right on the edge with some loads in the smaller pistols.

Some very nice pistols are offered today in .380 ACP (9x17mm, 9mm Corto, 9mm Kurz). Ammunition is more costly, but the selection of high performance JHP ammo is more readily available. Such can be had from American makers like Remington, Winchester, Federal, Corbon, and Hornady. Speer offers their excellent Gold Dot in this caliber as well.

All of this will be more expensive than the foreign JHP is available in 9x18mm Makarov. Like I said, there's "good" and "bad" with each of these calibers.

.38 Special (2" barrel): Still popular, the velocity for most bullets fired will be in the same range as either the Makarov round or the .380 ACP. The difference is that the .38 Special will toss slugs of slightly greater weight at these speeds. Expansion is similar to the other two, but penetration is almost always a bit deeper.

There are many JHP loads in various bullet weights readily available in this caliber. None are as inexpensive as the 9x18mm's. With its heavier bullet capability, the .38 snub's recoil goes up significantly for most folks when compared to the .380 or 9mm Makarov.

Actual Velocities: The velocity figures that follow are all based on 10-shot strings of fire. The listed handgun is what the ammo was fired from.

Both the .380 (left) and 9mm Makarov use 95-gr. FMJ in most FMJ loads. There are exceptions, but this seems to be normal for them in their traditional non-expanding loads.

The CZ83 and Makarov were used for velocity information as both have almost the same length barrels.

.380 ACP (CZ-83 w/3.8" bbl): Average Velocity (ft/sec)

Standard Deviation and

Extreme Spreads are listed in ft/sec.

Glaser 70-gr. Safety Slug(Silver) 1299 (ES: 116/SD: 44)

Magtech Guardian Gold +P

85-gr. JHP 1075 (ES: 33/SD: 10)

Federal 90-gr. JHP 1017 (ES: 48, SD: 17)

Federal 90 gr Hydrashok 1036 (ES: 80, SD: 23)

Hornady 90-gr. XTP 933 (ES: 42, SD: 14)

Corbon 90-gr. JHP +P 1083 (ES: 45, SD: 17)

Magtech 95-gr. FMJ 964 (ES: 29, SD: 10)

Remington UMC 95-gr. FMJ 970 (ES: 32, SD: 9)

Remington 102-gr. Golden Saber 928 (ES: 70, SD: 22)

9x18mm Makarov (Makarov w/3.83" bbl):

Barnaul Tiger 95-gr. JHP 1062 (ES: 41, SD: 14)

Barnaul 95-gr. JHP 1051 (ES: 26, SD: 8)

LVE Brown Bear 115-gr. JHP 1018 (ES: 32, SD: 10)

Hornady 95-gr. XTP 979 (ES: 82, SD: 24)

Corbon 95-gr. JHP +P 1121 (ES: 24, SD: 8)

The highest velocity shown for either caliber is from Corbon with their 90-gr. in .380 at 1083 ft/sec compared to their now discontinued 95-gr. Makarov JHP at 1121 ft/sec. 95-gr. .380 loads from Magtech and Remington UMC hit around 970 ft/sec while the Makarov speeds with the same weight bullet hits between 1000 and 1100 ft/sec with the exception of the Hornady XTP. It is clearly in .380 ACP velocity range, but 46 ft/sec faster than the same company's .380 ACP. We can see that the Makarov has a slight edge on the .380 ACP, but it is not a 9x19mm as some folks have claimed.

To prove that, here are some velocity figures from a Glock 26 9mm. It has a 3.46" barrel.

9x19mm from Glock 26:

Corbon 124-gr. XTP 1229(ES: 40 ft/sec)

Glaser 80-gr. Silver Pre-frag 1514 (Not available)

Federal 124-gr. Nyclad HP 1063 (Not available)

Triton 115-gr. Hi Vel JHP +P 1280 (Not available)

Triton 125-gr. Hi Vel JHP +P 1245 (Not available)

Fiocchi 115-gr. FMJ 1180 (ES: 57/SD: 21)

PMP 115-gr. FMJ 1046 (ES: 38/SD: 15)

Winchester USA 115-gr. FMJ 1097 (ES: 87/SD: 40)

Federal 115-gr. JHP 1111 (ES: 34/SD: 13)

Hornady 124-gr. "CQ" Tap (XPT) 1100 (ES: 38/SD: 16)

Winchester RA9TA 127-gr. +P+

JHP 1246 (ES: 33/SD: 13)

Corbon 125-gr. +P JHP (Sierra) 1188 (ES: 43/SD: 17)

Aguila 65-gr. "IQ" HP 1517 (ES: 64/SD: 23)

It is pretty evident that neither the .380 nor the Makarov can compete with the high-pressure 9x19mm. As very compact 9mm pistols now exists, some question the rationale for the Mak and .380 as well as the .38 Special snub. Whether the "wisest" move or not, many folks simply prefer either the caliber or the firearm as sales in both the .380 and .38 remain high and Makarov fans are legion.

.38 Special (S&W Model 642 w/1 7/8" barrel):

Remington 158-gr. +P LSWCHP 800 (ES: 27, SD: 12)

Federal 125-gr. Nyclad HP (Std. Pressure) 836 (ES: 30, SD: 12)

Corbon 115-gr. +P+ JHP 1188 (ES:39,SD: 13)

PMC 125-gr. +P "Starfire" JHP 859 (ES:29, SD: 13)

Though not having the highest velocity with most loads, the short .38 snub throws heavier bullets speeds similar to the .380 and Makarov rounds. With the now-discontinued Corbon +P+ round, the snub actually attained speeds better than some standard pressure 9mm loads from service size pistols.

It is evident that based strictly on ballistic capabilities none of the cartridges mentioned are as potent as 9mm, .40, or .45 ACP and that they normally operate in the range of 800 to 1100 ft/sec with some exceptions.

Penetration & Expansion:

I cannot afford the tariff to use 10% ballistic gelatin nor do I have the capabilities of keeping it at a constant temperature so that tests are repeatable and uniform. While it is the "gold standard" for bullet testing, I use water and wet pack tests. I define "wet pack" as super-saturated newsprint that has soaked 24-hrs and been allowed to drain for 30 minutes before shooting. It does limit penetration compared to gelatin. How much depends upon the velocity range of the bullet. For 9mm bullets in the 1100 to 1300 ft/sec range, multiplying wet pack penetration by 1.52 to 1.54 seems to give about the same penetration depths in gelatin. In the .380/9mm Makarov, multiplying the penetration in wet pack by about 2.3 seems to give ballpark gelatin penetration figures for similar velocities, but lower velocities as out of shorter guns will not be the same. The reason is that some of the bullets have a lower threshold velocity for expanding and if it's not met, they penetrate more. I have not yet had the chance to see how much expansion retards penetration with the really short autos. Expansion is very similar in both media. JHP's fired into water frequently fragment a bit more than in wet pack and shed their jackets much more readily as the water gets between the jacket and the bullet easier.

Penetration depths listed for each load is based on a three-shot average. The "estimated penetration" figures are what I think they'll do in tissue assuming no major bones are hit. Both depths are given in inches.

9mm Makarov Ammunition: Wet Pack Penetration: Estimated Penetration:

Brown Bear 115-gr. JHP 3.8 8.7

Hornady 95-gr. XTP 4.1 9.4

Tiger 95-gr. JHP 3.5 8.0

Corbon 95-gr. JHP +P 3.9 9.0

I do not have .380 penetration figures at this time in wet pack in numbers large enough to "trust," but I suspect strongly that they will be extremely similar to those for the Makarov round as both are so similar ballistically.

In bare 10% gelatin, most .380 JHP's penetrate from about 8 to 10".

Here are three 9x18mm Mak Hornady XTP bullets. The one at the top right was fired into water while the other two were recovered from wet pack. The expanded bullets averaged 0.55 x 0.54 x 0.32" tall and weighed an average of 93 grains, losing 2 grains when expanding.

9x18mm Brown Bear 115-gr. JHP's averaged the greatest expanded well and recovered bullets averaged 113-gr. in weight. Dimensions: 0.61 x 0.60 x 0.36" tall.

It seems reasonable to assume that we can count on roughly this depth of penetration with expanding bullets in either caliber. In .38 Special, when fired from a snub, expanding bullets penetrate from a low of about 9" to roughly 12", depending upon maker and bullet weight. If they don't expand, penetration is significantly greater…as is the case with the .380 and 9x18mm. Some folks prefer to use FMJ in these smaller auto calibers or solid SWC in the .38 snub to achieve what they considered adequate penetration. I'm happy with penetration of 10 to 12 inches with the snub or the other calibers under discussion.

Barnaul Tiger 95-gr. 9x18mm exhibited some fragmentation and penetrated an average of 3.5" in wet pack. Recovered dimensions averaged 0.64 x 0.65 x 0.31" tall. The average recovered bullet weight was 94 grains when the bullet did not fragment.

To me, the .380 and 9mm Mak are lacking in penetration for other than frontal, unobstructed shots with the .38 Special 158-gr. LSWCHP +P being but adequate. For me, that's enough of a reason to go with the revolver over the .380/9mm Mak genre of pistols. I will keep testing and checking and re-evaluating as nothing remains static. I'd like to see Corbon bring out their PowRball in both .380 and 9x18mm Makarov if it can be done with the velocity these rounds can provide. I'd like to see the round increase penetration a bit to say 10 or 12".

Corbon 95-gr. 9x18mm always exhibited expansion and fragmentation. In fact, its recovered bullet diameters were smaller as much of the bullet broke off while passing through the test medium be it water or wet pack. Average recovered weight was 69 grains. Average expanded diameter: 0.49 x 0.53 x 0.34" tall.

Should we find an expanding bullet for either the .380 or the 9x18 that reliably expands and hits in that penetration range, I'd most likely go to it from the .38 snub.

Corbon no longer produces the .38 Special 115-gr. +P+ load shown here. It used a Sierra 115-gr. 9mm JHP and hit velocities of nearly 1200 ft/sec from this Model 642. I do think that this load would cause excessive wear to the revolver and might split the forcing cone. I shoot it but rarely.

This remains my current load of choice in the .38 snub. It's Remington 158-gr. LSWCHP +P. You can see that it meets or exceeds the expanded 9mm Makarov diameters and it penetrates a bit more. Better loads will inevitably be on the way and one might be Speer's 130-gr. Gold Dot +P in this caliber. I've not yet had the opportunity to test it.

In most private citizen lethal force scenarios, the fight is close range and face to face. In such situations where shots can be made to the upper torso without obstructions, any of the calibers under discussion are probably fine. If a little more penetration is required, the .38 Special with the 158-grain expanding bullet wins.

The Revolver by Stephen Camp

The Revolver: Obsolete or Enduring?

By Stephen Camp

Some of us have read articles either in print or at gun forums concerning the revolver's being obsolete. Usually, this is in the context of defense use with focus being on:

1. Limited number of shots compared to the semiautomatic

2. Ease of reloading the automatic

While both sides have their supporters and detractors, what is the truth? Is the revolver obsolete?

Let's start off by addressing the two most-often-asked questions above.

"Firepower:" This term is frequently used by folks disparaging the revolver's full load of ammunition. In centerfire calibers, most revolvers hold 6 rounds. A couple of makers have models out holding one to two more shots, but the norm is six. Comparable size semiautomatics can hold up to ten with currently produced magazines and more if the user has Pre-Ban original capacity magazines. In the smaller handguns, the centerfire revolver's load is usually 5 cartridges. The compact automatics hold at least that many and usually more. It appears to me that with regard to capacity, the semiautomatic pistols "win."

If having the greatest number of shots possible in a particular handgun is of paramount importance to you, the only way to go is automatic. While having a large number of shots at your instant command is not a bad thing by any means, I do think that possibly too much emphasis is placed on it by people not anticipating having to raid a crack house or fight terrorist cells with but a handgun. My reasons are these:

1. The average private citizen lethal force scenario usually deals with one or two aggressors.

2. A significant percentage of those lawfully carrying defensive handguns are not practiced enough to get

off but one or two shots under this kind of stress.

3. Unless really, really quick and competent like Jerry Miculek, most of us will run out of time before all our ammunition is expended should our attackers be armed.

Am I saying that a 5-shot Chief's Special is better than a fully loaded 1911 or just as good? No, but I am saying that in many situations the 5 or 6-shot revolver will easily handle the situation in competent hands.

All is not lost simply because one's using a wheelgun rather than an auto. If we are facing 6 armed terrorists, a high-capacity automatic would certainly be preferable to a snub, but odds are that we'd lose that battle regardless of handgun used…or at least not come out unscathed! On the other hand, if our immediate concern is a street punk with a knife or pistol and maybe another, either revolver or auto is likely to serve well if our personal determination and skills are up to the task.

This .357 magnum S&W Model 27 was carried by many FBI agents in decades past. It is large for but six-round "firepower," but has proven itself capable in many fights. Would it be my first choice in facing several attackers? Probably not, but for the majority of situations involving private citizens, it would "solve" the problem(s).

This six-shot S&W Model 19 "Combat Magnum" was a very frequently carried .357 by US police for many, many years.

Limited to but five rounds before reloading, many lawful concealed carriers prefer something with more shots. There's nothing wrong with that, but this is my primary daily carry gun. It goes with me 24/7. I practice with this handgun frequently. Its somewhat limited capacity is a concern to me, but a minor one. For the situations I'm likely to encounter, I must be able to solve the problem in the first few seconds or be beyond caring. While it does not have the capacity of some similar size pistols, it does offer features I find most attractive and useful.

Reloading: It's been my observation that a moderately practiced shooter can reload his automatic quicker than a heavily practiced revolver shooter. There are exceptions like the great Jerry Miculek, but in general reloading speed is almost always shorter with the automatic, assuming equal levels of training and practice.

Does this mean that the revolver has to be slow to reload? No, but relative to the automatic is often is. The average practiced revolver shooter will probably not be able to match the speed at which a similarly practiced shooter can reload his semiautomatic. With the tactical reload where one reloads from behind cover and retains ammunition not fired, the time frame can narrow, but it's my view that the automatic still holds the edge.

So how does this play out with the average citizen lawfully carrying concealed? Surprisingly, it won't make any difference at all with more than a few! The reason is simple; many simply do not even carry a reload! In monitoring and asking questions of previous Texas Concealed Handgun licensees, this is what I hear over and over again. Sad.

For those who do carry an extra reload for their revolver, most will do so with either Bianchi's "speed strip" or a speed loader. I've tried both and sometimes carry both for 10 extra shots. I find the speed loader to be just as easy to carry as the speed strip and faster to use when reloading a completely empty cylinder. The speed strip is better for tactical reloads in which less than five are being loaded. I am not as quick in reloading my revolver as with the auto, but neither is it slow. In most situations a private citizen might face, it is probably not going to be an issue, but I prefer to be able to reload in case it is. Still, in this area of concern, the automatic wins.

This 1911 with extra magazines will be easier to reload quickly than a similar size revolver in most hands.

I am not making light of the importance of having enough shots for the unexpected and this can certainly happen, but as is the case with most things, we plan for that which is most likely. In a desert community, I doubt that few would pay extra for flood insurance, but there's nothing that says the flood of the century might not occur. Such can happen in the realm of personal defense, too.

Neither am I placing low value on being able to reload quickly. What I am saying is that these might not be the only issues upon which to make a decision.

Let me present some thoughts and observations.

Some years ago, I was at the firing range and an older fellow arrived with his single-action revolvers, which were Colts and a "clone" or two. It turns out he was an SASS competitor. He did some extremely accurate and extremely fast shooting…in 5-round strings! I mean fast. Using a two-hand hold and thumbing the hammer back with the off-hand thumb, he could truly make that thing sound like a practiced IPSC shooter and his customized 1911! He was getting the hits, too. Being both surprised and somewhat in awe, I struck up a conversation with this gentleman and learned that while the loads were not heavy, neither were they as light as most SASS loads. He was shooting handloaded ammunition with 255-grain cast semiwadcutters loaded to right at 800 ft/sec from his 4 5/8" barrel single-actions. Reloading was extremely slow compared to even the double-action revolver and a speed loader, but I truly believe that had he been toting the single-action for protection, his skill at arms with that piece was more than sufficient to deal with 99% of what he might face as a private citizen. This assumes the use of both hands. I've no doubt that he'd have been slower using but one hand, but will bet that he might just be able to hold his own there, too!

While I emphatically do NOT recommend the single-action revolver for most folks, in practiced hands this old gun remains capable of some surprisingly fast work. I am NOT skilled in their use, but have seen several folks who are. Unless reloading becomes a major part of their survival scenario, they are normally well armed! I would not be as I'm not quick enough in manipulating the single-action to fire.

Before and after this meeting with the older gentleman and his single-actions, I've seen some remarkably fast and accurate shooting done with them, but none to the degree of the incident just mentioned. (For what it's worth, the single-action shooter discussed carried a slightly modified Colt Commander in .38 Super for his personal defense gun. Anyone care to guess if he could shoot it well?)

The revolver is an older design than the automatic, but I'm not convinced at all that it's "obsolete" as some have suggested. Really, it depends upon your view of what the handgun should do. Mine is that it:

1. Be reliable

2. Be accurate

3. Hold at least a sufficient number of rounds for most situations

4. Be durable

In short, what I ask of any handgun is that it reliably fire and be both intrinsically and practically accurate enough for me to get the hits and hold enough rounds for most situations. I also expect it to be tough enough for long term use and practice. The anvil and the hammer can be found in much the same configurations they were in the 1800's though manufacturing methods and materials have changed. Both are used today. I see a strong parallel with the revolver.

So long as it meets the needs of its users, the revolver will not be obsolete.

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

Is the Single-Action Automatic Obsolete?

By Stephen Camp

I have a friend who chides those of us using Hi Powers and other single-action automatics as "living in the past" and playfully encourages us to "move into the 21^st century" with our pistols, referring to his well-used Glock 17. Now, he's just kidding because he knows that "we" are wedded to these pistols, but others are not and advise that the single-action automatic's day has passed. They remark that it was perhaps "cutting edge" many decades ago, but that better semiautomatic pistols exist now.

Are they right?

Springfield Armory's XD 9 is an example of "new technology" handguns with its lightweight polymer frame, rust resistant finish on steel parts and manner of barrel lockup.

Glock pistols are now several years "old," but continue to sell very well I'm told. These were considered very "cutting edge" nearly two decades ago. They command a large section of the American police market today. They are extremely reliable pistols and simple to use.

The SIG-Sauer P220 is shown with an even more "obsolete" handgun, the snub revolver. The SIG-Sauer P-Series handguns are newer designs than the single-action autos and some can be had in double-action-only. In that regard, they do match the single-action in having but one trigger pull to master. The P220 is most often seen with an aluminum alloy frame and stamped steel slide with a solid steel breech face as an insert. It is now available in all stainless steel and with a light rail. The DA/SA auto has been around for the better part of a century now, but is still newer than the single-action. Is it really superior?

In some ways, I do believe that some of the newer designs are better, but by how much can be more theoretical than real. One area might be reliability.

Most of the time, the newer pistols can be counted upon to feed about any available JHP ammunition on the market right out of the box. In the past, pistols like the Browning Hi Power was not unknown to choke on certain types of hollow points. Current Hi Powers no longer use the old classic humped feed ramp and in many examples I've shot long term, they feed and function fine with about any ammunition one cares to use. Likewise, the 1911's of year's past would frequently fail to feed much besides "ball" ammunition. These days, they come "throated" and most will feed most JHP ammunition, particularly if it has a rounded ogive. We do see complaints concerning some guns not reliably feeding some rounds and about as many about the slide not locking open on the last shot or locking open too soon. There are many reasons for this and most can be fixed pretty easily. I think one reason for these problems with the 1911 pistols in particular is that a myriad of makers produce them and there are many, many companies being used to make small parts. In this there will be dimensional variations and the 1911 design doesn't seem to tolerate that too well. However, with those that work reliably, they can be extremely effective pistols.

In a time when fewer folks shoot and where administrators are concerned with lawsuits anytime a service handgun is fired, the newer designs have found a home. This is understandable. One's perception of what is "safe" or "dangerous" is that person's reality, at least for that moment. If they opt never to investigate or delve a bit deeper, they can easily make wrong assumptions as to fact. Some opine that the cocked and locked automatic looks "too aggressive." One cannot argue with emotion.

It's been my experience that the single-action automatic carried cocked and locked is not unsafe. It is less tolerant of unsafe gun handling than a pistol with a longer, heavier double-action, but with proper handling, the mechanically sound single-action automatic will not fire until intended. (It's interesting to note that there's a rather large contingent of shooters who consider the Glock unsafe and cite numerous negligent discharges to back up this view. I think the Glock is "safe," but like the single-action it is not forgiving of unsafe handling.)

With regard to manufacturing methods, the older, single-action designs might be considered obsolete or at least not as "cost effective" compared to the newer guns.

I've proven to myself at least that the easiest pistol with which to get quick and accurate hits remains the single-action automatic. I've noticed on many occasions in tactical training that when some pretty fast shooting, particularly involving distance was required, the officers using DA/SA automatics preferred to start with their pistol cocked, if possible. The single-action auto is designed to start off cocked and allows the use of a safety up until it is being brought to bear on the target. The Glock does offer a fairly short trigger-pull compared to other newer pistols, but even it does not have the short reset of the 1911. I have never been able to shoot any semiautomatic at distances of 50 yards and farther better than an accurate single-action.

While some really don't like the double-action first shot and single-action transition thereafter, I've not found it to be as "bad" as some. However, it is not as "easy" as with the single-action.

It is interesting to note that here in the earliest years of the 21^st century, some of the "high speed - low drag" police and military units having a choice go with the "ancient" 1911, albeit with features not available on the original guns and this is sometimes an overlooked point. You see, the single-actions have not just been frozen in time. Their actions and manuals of arms may have remained the same, but features have been added and refined to make them very capable of dealing with about anything a handgun might be called upon to "handle." Colt, Kimber, Springfield Armory, STI, and others continue to refine the 1911 single-action as it approaches 100 years of age.

This STI .45 is obviously based on the 1911 design. However, this NOT the 1911 of decades past and this one's proven utterly reliable. With its light, crisp trigger pull and extreme intrinsic accuracy, this pistol design remains the very best defensive handgun available to many very accomplished shooters. For those preferring fixed sights, they are available from the company.

Not as popular in the US as the 1911, the Browning Hi Power is now available in several configurations having extended, ambidextrous thumb safeties and easy to see high-visibility fixed sights. The slide on this Practical model is what Browning calls "matte." It's a corrosion resistant finish as is the hard chrome frame. These pistols as well as the Mk III and Standard, shoot very well and are extremely reliable. In this century, I'd prefer to use one of these or a 1911 in a fight if required to use but a handgun.

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against many of the newer designs, but I emphatically do not believe that the single-action auto is obsolete; not if getting bullets where you want them in a short period of time is the goal. Training with them is essential, but in skilled hands, the single-action automatic can do miraculous things.

If you prefer the DA/SA, Glock, P-7, or other handgun type to the single-action, I have no problem with it at all. People sometimes simply prefer other than single-actions and some are given no choice by mandates from bosses to agencies, but I do think that simply bypassing the single-action because it's "obsolete" is a mistake.

It's not.

Not by a long shot.

Superb Information By Stephen Camp

SIG-Sauer P-220 Chronograph Results

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com

That the .45 ACP is a popular self-defense cartridge in the US is an understatement. It is probably the "yardstick" by which other defensive cartridges are measured. Most popular is probably the full-size 1911 having a 5" barrel, but smaller handguns are frequently used.

Some people are just not comfortable with cocked and locked carry and a frequent choice for them is the SIG-Sauer P-220 pistol. This is a conventional DA/SA pistol complete with a decocker. This single-stack pistol is carried hammer down with the first shot being fired by either a double-action trigger pull or by manually cocking the pistol.

Today, I chronographed ammunition with bullet weights varying from 165 to 230 grains and including both standard and +P ammunition. A couple of newer defense loads were included and one was fired into water for informal expansion testing.

Going against popular opinion these days, I do not share a fondness for the super compact .45 ACP handguns available today. The low-pressure .45 sets no velocity records out of the traditional 5" barrel for which it was designed and shortening the barrel can drastically reduce velocity. This seems to be the case more with .45 ACP than the higher pressure 9mm.

Most of the data seen these days is from the 5" barrel. I will compare some of the loads from the SIG-Sauer's 4.25" with those of the 3/4" longer 1911 Government Model barrel. (SIG-Sauer lists the barrel as being 4.4" long, but measuring from the muzzle to the rear of chamber measures 4.25." Perhaps they included the hood as part of the total barrel length?)

This is neither a "range report" as I've already done one on this pistol that's available on several sites such as www.pistolsmith.com or www.1911forum.com. Neither is it one of the "Critical Look" articles exclusive to this site although one is probably coming. It is simply a report on the measured velocities of some common defensive rounds from the SIG-Sauer pistol and some informal expansion testing with some observations on certain newer rounds from both the P-220 and the full-size 1911.

The Pistol: Today's shooting was done with a stock P-220 .45 ACP that I purchased several years ago. It has been "customized" only by the adding of a small strip of skateboard tape to the front strap.

Ammunition: Testing was done with the following ammunition and the average velocities shown are based on 10 shots fired approximately 10' from the chronograph screens

Ammo Average Velocity (Ft/sec) Extreme Spread/Std. Deviation (Ft/sec)

Corbon 165-gr

PowRball +P 1189 33/13

Remington UMC 185-gr

MC "Flat Nose" 949 58/18

Federal Classic 185-gr

JHP (45C) 944 22/7

Taurus 185-gr Hex HP bullet 926 19/7

Corbon 200-gr JHP +P 975 34/12

Winchester Ranger 230-gr

RA45T JHP 857 10/4

Federal Classic 230-gr JHP

(45D) 839 25/8

Speer 230-gr Gold Dot

Hollow Point 823 31/10

Remington 230-gr Golden

Saber BJHP 822 34/13

Federal 230-gr HydraShok 871 42/14

Winchester 230-gr Subsonic

JHP (XSUB45A) 834 23/10

Winchester USA 230-gr FMJ 771 17/7

Comparison to Velocities from 5" 1911:

Ammo SIG-Sauer P-220 w/4.4" bbl (Ft/sec) 1911 5" (Ft/sec)

Corbon 165-gr.

PowRball +P 1189 1220

Corbon 200-gr

JHP +P 975 1019

Remington 230-gr

Golden Saber BJHP 822 847

Federal 230-gr Hydrashok 871 870

Speer 230-gr Gold Dot

Hollow Point 816 823

Winchester 230-gr Subsonic

JHP 834 845

Winchester 230-gr RA45T 857 841

It appears that .45 ACP velocity remains essentially the same in the slightly shorter P-220 barrel as with the 5" 1911. If the barrel is reduced by an inch or so more as in the case of the really compact 1911 pistols sold today, velocity drops significantly. For this reason I do not care to go below the 4 1/4" inch barrel as is found on the 1911 Commander and the P-220.

Winchester's "Deep Penetrating" 230-gr. JHP bearing the "Subsonic" logo is not the same round as their law enforcement only RA45T.

Of the seven compared loads, 5 are faster in the longer barrel, even if by but 1 ft/sec in one case! Two are faster in the SIG-Sauer barrel, but none are extreme in velocity differences.

One of the newer defensive rounds on the market are Corbon's 165-gr. "PowRball." This is somewhat similar to Federal's "Expanding Full Metal Jacket," but seems to penetrate and expand more consistently in both bare gelatin and 10% ballistic gelatin after passing through various barriers like plywood and the 4-layers of denim that's become a "necessary" standard.

The expanded bullet on the left is a .45 ACP 165-gr PowRball recovered from the "scientific mud expansion test." The one on the right was fired from a 5" 1911 into water. It expanded to a smaller diameter than the one from mud and its jacket did separate from the bullet. There was no jacket separation in the bullet recovered from mud. Even though the bullet on the right impacted at higher velocity, the one on the left shows greater expansion. I suspect that part of this is actually deformation on top of expansion and believe that the bullet on the right probably better represents what to expect in "soft targets."

Another new round is from Taurus, a company usually associated with firearm manufacturing. It is a solid copper bullet with a large hollow point. In 10% gelatin tests, the bullet has performed well. As is noted in the previous ammunition velocity tables, it is not particularly fast.

This is Taurus' entry into expanding handgun ammunition for the .45 ACP.

Fired into water, the hex head bullet impacted at an average velocity of 926 ft/sec.

I was not particularly impressed with the 185 grain Taurus Hex Head hollow point when fired into water. The recovered bullet weighed 184.2 grains. Expanded diameter was 0.60 x 0.64."

All of the ammunition fired today was capable of very good accuracy. Groups shown below were fired at 15 yards off-hand and there is considerable human error involved in each 5-shot group. Inferences as to which load is most accurate should not be made.

Any of the loads shown here are more accurate than can be held in defensive situations. None are "inaccurate."

Once again, we see that all of the ammunition shot for groups is more than adequately accurate for self-protection, be they at the low or high end of the bullet weight range.

Remington's 230 grain Golden Saber grouped very well…when I did my part. The shot on the left was not the gun or the ammunition's fault.

Of the ammunition fired today, were I picking a load for personal protection, my first choice would be Winchester's RA45T followed by the Corbon 165 grain PowRball. If I couldn't get either of those, I'd probably go with either the Golden Saber or the Hydrashok even though the latter is considered "poor" by some as it routinely fails the 4-layers of denim test. Whether it does or not, it is still at least forty-five caliber and perhaps the felon won't be wrapped in four layers of denim…if any!

Though discontinued, the Corbon 200-gr JHP +P remains a favorite load in the P-220. It uses the old Speer "Flying Ashtray" JHP and this round does expand and sometimes fragment in tissue. At least it has in animals I've shot with it. Recalcitrant in feeding with some pistols, it worked flawlessly in the P-220.

Though an "old technology" bullet and one that's been replaced with Speer's Gold Dot, I believe this to still be a very decent defense round. It has proven extremely accurate out of the P-220 after several hundred rounds. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for "serious" purposes, but do believe that there are better choices. That more dependable bullets do exist don't automatically make the older loads ineffective.

Though this Federal 230-gr Hydrashok was fired from a 1911 into water, results would probably be similar from the P-220 as it actually displayed an average velocity within 1 ft/sec of the 1911's.

These two .45 ACP Winchester Ranger "T" (RA45T) hollow points were fired into water from a five-inch 1911. As the average velocity of the P-220 and that gun are less than 20 ft/sec different, I strongly believe that identical expansion characteristics can be expected.

In today's shooting, there were no malfunctions of any kind. I was pleased that at 15 yards, there was also no great change in POI vs. POA. With the exception of the Winchester 230-gr "Subsonic" JHP, which I've never been able to get to reliably expand in anything or the 230-gr ball, I'd feel pretty well protected using any of this ammunition in a P-220 or Commander, but would not go to shorter barrels with any of it except the PowRball. It's reported to work fine from the shorter barreled pistols. Winchester's +P version of the law enforcement load shot today is said to work well in them, too.

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

38 Special or 380 ACP?

By Stephen Camp

Despite there being more potent handguns available in similar size packages, these two calibers continue to take a significant portion of the defensive handgun market share. As both remain popular, we see debate on a regular basis concerning which is the "best."

John M. Browning's .380 ACP cartridge continues to be popular with those using the caliber for self-protection. I've not yet tried the Guardian ammunition as it's relatively new, but the fact that ammunition makers are bringing out new loads for this "underpowered" round speaks to its continued popularity.

Ditto the .38 Special round! The same company brought out a +P load recently. Reportedly, this one did pretty well in some of the 10% gelatin/4-layers of denim expansion and penetration tests. I have not yet shot any of it, but will in the near future.

Though more recent additions exist, S&W continues to produce snub .38's as it has for decades. Newer guns are made of titanium and/or scandium. The one shown above is the older aluminum alloy frame from their "Airweight" series.

For most of the last century and still popular today, Walther PP-Series pistols have been popular. The top one is a .380 and the one at the bottom's chambered for .32 ACP.

A more recent addition to the .380 line up is Bersa's "Thunder 380." If these .380 pistols were not selling, new models would not be invested in and produced.

Rightly or wrongly, both calibers seem to remain popular. Which is best between these two calibers?

The answer depends primarily on a couple of things:

1. Which caliber do you think is the more potent "stopper"?

2. Which type handgun do you prefer, revolver or automatic?

As I see it, the .380 might be a little short on penetration when JHP ammunition is used and it expands. It seems that the average penetration depth for most JHP's in this caliber is about 7 to 9 inches in ballistic gelatin. For a frontal, face-to-face shot, this might very well be sufficient, but for an angled shot or one passing through an arm first, it very well might not. It seems that there's just not enough bullet weight at .380 velocities to push the expanded slug deeply enough. While there certainly are felons who'll "stop" simply because they are shot, there are also those who will not unless they're physically unable to continue.

In conventional JHP, .380 bullets weigh from 85 to 102 grains.

From a snub .38 Special, HP bullets weigh from about 95 to 158 grains. These can be had with gilding metal jackets or pure lead in some cases. Where the .380, depending upon barrel length, will throw 90-grain JHP's at about 950 to 1100 ft/sec, the .38 will hit similar velocity levels with 110 grain bullets and approximately 800 ft/sec + with the 158-gr +P loads. These do offer more penetration in 10% ballistic gelatin when they expand. Both are capable of through-and-through penetration in a human torso if they do not.

Neither is a powerhouse ballistically and most opine that either is about as low on the ladder as one should go for a viable defensive handgun. I agree. Unless there's some compelling special reason, I personally will not go below either .380 or .38 Special for self-protection.

Those favoring the automatic will cite that it holds more rounds and that today's pistols are reliable. Reloading via loaded magazines is also both easier and quicker with the automatic. The fact that the .38 will have more recoil is also mentioned. The revolver team cites round-to-round performance and the historical reliability of the revolver, particularly when compared to the small automatics.

If limited to the choice of the .38 vs.380, I prefer the snub revolver. This is simply because I believe the thirty-eight offers a little more ballistically than does the little automatic round. I do agree that with some pistols, the .380 is easier to shoot well and it is quicker to reload, but I try and make up for this in frequent practice, including reloads.

Neither is optimal and both might be considered at least adequate for self-protection, but either must be shot accurately to stop an aggressor.

If you're pondering this choice and simply cannot get the hits with the snub and cannot find the time for instruction and practice, you might find the .380 an easier pistol to shoot. (I'm not speaking of the really small ones, but those the size of the Walther, Bersa, or even CZ .380's.) If you go this route, I believe that you're at the absolute lower limit of "protection power."

Frankly, either is probably best as a back up gun, but like so many, my orbits are tame and I find the snub .38 my primary defensive handgun. If you opt for this too, I strongly suggest practice.

Either gun can serve, but I'll cast my lot with the .38 Special.

Stephen Camp Article

The Enduring Snubnose

By Stephen Camp

Almost since handguns hit the scene there has been an effort to reduce their size for carrying and concealment purposes. Examples would include the small derringers and pepperbox handguns that settled many a dispute over who actually won a hand of poker. The Peacemaker had its barrel shortened and ejector rod removed and was sold as the "Sheriff's Model" if memory serves.

The trend continued into the 20^th century as well. John M. Browning and others were designing and companies making various "pocket" automatics that sold like hotcakes.

During the last century, another pocket gun came on the scene and remains popular to this day; it is the snubnose revolver. Initially, about the only quality snubs were made by Colt and Smith & Wesson, but these days, we find primarily S&W, Ruger, and Taurus dominating that market niche with Rossi and Charter Arms trailing.

Why is this so? Why does the "antiquated" snub continue to garner a sizeable share of the concealed carry market when the more "advanced" compact automatics are so available? Once the province of the .32 and .380 ACP, very small pistols chambered in 9mm and forty are readily available. Either of these ballistically surpass the .38 Special out of a short barrel and most hold more than the 5 (six at most) shots offered by the revolver.

The Colt Agent was an attempt to further reduce the weight and already small size of Colt's immensely popular Detective Special. This revolver has an aluminum frame and the grip has been shortened a fraction of an inch from that of the aluminum-framed Cobra or all steel Detective Special. These revolvers competed against not only the popular S&W K-frame Model 10 and 12, but their diminutive J-frame models like the Model 36, 37, 38, etc., as well as those versions with aluminum "Airweight" frames. Not much larger than the J-frame, the Colt Detective Special et al, held 6 shots like the K-frames and this was touted as an advantage in the old Colt ads.

I believe that there are several reasons for the long and continuing "life" of the snub. Some might be pretty obvious while others are more subtle. If the perspective buyer of a defensive handgun is choosing a snub as his primary defensive weapon to the exclusion of others, he's almost certainly "into protection," but not really "into guns." It's a safe bet that most of us believe that there are certainly better primary defense handguns with which to deal with the majority of self-protection scenarios. "Thirty-eight special" has name recognition and most are aware that it was the predominant police service cartridge in the US for many decades. This person may not be aware of what a 9mm or .40 actually are. This description does not fit all buyers of snubs of course, but will describe some. Others will appreciate the simplicity of use while some will like the fact that it is small, not realizing that more practice and skill is required to use the little thing effectively. Some, not locked into the idea of revolver only, will look at the .38 Special cartridge next to a .380 or 9mm and because it's larger assume that it just must be more "powerful".

A substantial number of the snubs are sold as backup or secondary concealed weapons for those very serious about self-protection or in law enforcement. In this role, I think the snub comes into its own and remains an extremely good choice.

This S&W Model 642 fired the discontinued Corbon 115-gr +P+ JHP at an average velocity of 1188 ft/sec. Current Corbon 110-gr JHP +P hit almost exactly the same average velocity from the little gun. With most factory loads, 9mm standard pressure ammo will soundly beat any of the +P thirty-eight's out of the snub. This does show that there are exceptions to every rule. I do not carry this load, as I believe it too "hot" for the J-frame's thin forcing cone. (It is "memorable" to shoot, too!)

The snub is often recommended as a gun for the non-shooter who wants a self-defense handgun; I think that's partially wrong. While I do agree with the revolver part of the suggestion, I believe that the ability to get decent hits with the snub is proportionately more difficult than the difference in barrel lengths between the 3 or 4" revolver. It has been my observation that the small snubs require practice in order to be effectively used. For the neophyte, the increased recoil of the little gun can be detrimental as well.

Yet, the small snubs continue to sell.

No longer in police service, my orbits are extremely tame and my lifestyle, low-risk. Yet, I have seen "what is out there," and insist on being armed 24/7. I've tried several handguns for this role and after several years of "experimenting," have settled on the S&W J-frame, almost always a Model 642. It is the right size and weight for pocket carry and an extra speed loader in my pocket offers a total of ten rounds and carries easier than a spare magazine for an automatic. Though I much prefer the looks of a blued revolver, the stainless steel is more practical here in Texas where we have two versions of hot weather: summer and super-summer! Five shots has nothing to spare and is less than I prefer between reloads, but it is probably sufficient for unexpected encounters of the worst kind that I'm likely to face.

These two loads are my first choices for self-protection in my J-frame snubs. On the left is the now discontinued standard pressure Federal 125-gr Nyclad hollow point. On the right is Remington's 158-gr +P lead semiwadcutter hollow point. The Federal load is more pleasant to shoot and averages nearly 900 ft/sec from my Model 042, and a bit slower from my stainless one. Likewise, the Remington round averages about 838 ft/sec from the blue 042 and 800 ft/sec from the 642. Neither is a powerhouse, but with placement does offer at least viable terminal ballistics. The snub is a compromise in my opinion. We sacrifice some "firepower" for convenience in a gun that is so capable of always "being there."

I find the convenience and reliability of this revolver to meet my perceived needs for daily wear around the house and in my low-risk activity. It is on my person from when I get up until I go to retire for bed and then, it is near by. Is it the perfect defense gun? Certainly not, but there are niches it fills better for me than any other handgun I've tried.

The majority of handgun shooters that I'm acquainted with own at least one thirty-eight snub and while the small 9mm's like the Glock 26 or Kahr series have made inroads into the BUG market, something keeps the little snubnoses selling, too. I suggest it is their simplicity, proven design, "style recognition," and reliability. For someone willing to invest the time in quality practice, I think they'll meet most of the deadly force scenarios that the private citizen might encounter. Actually, I usually bet my life on it, as the snub is all I'll have the majority of the time. I do not believe that it meets all requirements that a defensive handgun might be called upon to meet and if a person's interested in but one handgun to do this, I respectfully suggest that it be either a service type automatic or 4" K-frame revolver. I'd pick either over the snub if I knew a fight was imminent and forced to use a handgun.

While snubs are available in the larger revolvers like this S&W Model 19, I think they make more sense in the smaller size revolvers. This K-frame .357 is too large for pocket carry unlike the J's, and when carried on a belt, the 4" gun is about as easy to carry while offering superior ballistics and longer sight radius.

The little snub guns filled a perceived need or niche in the handgun market, particularly as more and more states pass concealed carry laws for their citizens. I think we'll see the gun in some form or another for many years to come. S&W and Taurus offer a myriad of models in this type revolver and today, one can buy an all-steel or aluminum-framed snub or go with the newer titanium or scandium revolvers.

For the person not really "into shooting," but wanting to cover all bases for a defensive battery of handguns, these two S&W revolvers would be a very viable choice in my opinion.

The snub .38 is a compromise as is the case with many things in life. With some understanding of what it can realistically do combined with quality practice, I think it offers quite a bit for folks concerned with personal safety.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com

Printed with Permission

Teddy
http://www.actionsbyt.com

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

SIG-Sauer P-220 Chronograph Results

By Stephen Camp

That the .45 ACP is a popular self-defense cartridge in the US is an understatement. It is probably the "yardstick" by which other defensive cartridges are measured. Most popular is probably the full-size 1911 having a 5" barrel, but smaller handguns are frequently used.

Some people are just not comfortable with cocked and locked carry and a frequent choice for them is the SIG-Sauer P-220 pistol. This is a conventional DA/SA pistol complete with a decocker. This single-stack pistol is carried hammer down with the first shot being fired by either a double-action trigger pull or by manually cocking the pistol.

Today, I chronographed ammunition with bullet weights varying from 165 to 230 grains and including both standard and +P ammunition. A couple of newer defense loads were included and one was fired into water for informal expansion testing.

Going against popular opinion these days, I do not share a fondness for the super compact .45 ACP handguns available today. The low-pressure .45 sets no velocity records out of the traditional 5" barrel for which it was designed and shortening the barrel can drastically reduce velocity. This seems to be the case more with .45 ACP than the higher pressure 9mm.

Most of the data seen these days is from the 5" barrel. I will compare some of the loads from the SIG-Sauer's 4.25" with those of the 3/4" longer 1911 Government Model barrel. (SIG-Sauer lists the barrel as being 4.4" long, but measuring from the muzzle to the rear of chamber measures 4.25." Perhaps they included the hood as part of the total barrel length?)

This is neither a "range report" as I've already done one on this pistol that's available on several sites such as www.pistolsmith.com or www.1911forum.com. Neither is it one of the "Critical Look" articles exclusive to this site although one is probably coming. It is simply a report on the measured velocities of some common defensive rounds from the SIG-Sauer pistol and some informal expansion testing with some observations on certain newer rounds from both the P-220 and the full-size 1911.

The Pistol: Today's shooting was done with a stock P-220 .45 ACP that I purchased several years ago. It has been "customized" only by the adding of a small strip of skateboard tape to the front strap.

Ammunition: Testing was done with the following ammunition and the average velocities shown are based on 10 shots fired approximately 10' from the chronograph screens

Ammo Average Velocity (Ft/sec) Extreme Spread/Std. Deviation (Ft/sec)

Corbon 165-gr

PowRball +P 1189 33/13

Remington UMC 185-gr

MC "Flat Nose" 949 58/18

Federal Classic 185-gr

JHP (45C) 944 22/7

Taurus 185-gr Hex HP bullet 926 19/7

Corbon 200-gr JHP +P 975 34/12

Winchester Ranger 230-gr

RA45T JHP 857 10/4

Federal Classic 230-gr JHP

(45D) 839 25/8

Speer 230-gr Gold Dot

Hollow Point 823 31/10

Remington 230-gr Golden

Saber BJHP 822 34/13

Federal 230-gr HydraShok 871 42/14

Winchester 230-gr Subsonic

JHP (XSUB45A) 834 23/10

Winchester USA 230-gr FMJ 771 17/7

Comparison to Velocities from 5" 1911:

Ammo SIG-Sauer P-220 w/4.4" bbl (Ft/sec) 1911 5" (Ft/sec)

Corbon 165-gr.

PowRball +P 1189 1220

Corbon 200-gr

JHP +P 975 1019

Remington 230-gr

Golden Saber BJHP 822 847

Federal 230-gr Hydrashok 871 870

Speer 230-gr Gold Dot

Hollow Point 816 823

Winchester 230-gr Subsonic

JHP 834 845

Winchester 230-gr RA45T 857 841

It appears that .45 ACP velocity remains essentially the same in the slightly shorter P-220 barrel as with the 5" 1911. If the barrel is reduced by an inch or so more as in the case of the really compact 1911 pistols sold today, velocity drops significantly. For this reason I do not care to go below the 4 1/4" inch barrel as is found on the 1911 Commander and the P-220.

Winchester's "Deep Penetrating" 230-gr. JHP bearing the "Subsonic" logo is not the same round as their law enforcement only RA45T.

Of the seven compared loads, 5 are faster in the longer barrel, even if by but 1 ft/sec in one case! Two are faster in the SIG-Sauer barrel, but none are extreme in velocity differences.

One of the newer defensive rounds on the market are Corbon's 165-gr. "PowRball." This is somewhat similar to Federal's "Expanding Full Metal Jacket," but seems to penetrate and expand more consistently in both bare gelatin and 10% ballistic gelatin after passing through various barriers like plywood and the 4-layers of denim that's become a "necessary" standard.

The expanded bullet on the left is a .45 ACP 165-gr PowRball recovered from the "scientific mud expansion test." The one on the right was fired from a 5" 1911 into water. It expanded to a smaller diameter than the one from mud and its jacket did separate from the bullet. There was no jacket separation in the bullet recovered from mud. Even though the bullet on the right impacted at higher velocity, the one on the left shows greater expansion. I suspect that part of this is actually deformation on top of expansion and believe that the bullet on the right probably better represents what to expect in "soft targets."

Another new round is from Taurus, a company usually associated with firearm manufacturing. It is a solid copper bullet with a large hollow point. In 10% gelatin tests, the bullet has performed well. As is noted in the previous ammunition velocity tables, it is not particularly fast.

This is Taurus' entry into expanding handgun ammunition for the .45 ACP.

Fired into water, the hex head bullet impacted at an average velocity of 926 ft/sec.

I was not particularly impressed with the 185 grain Taurus Hex Head hollow point when fired into water. The recovered bullet weighed 184.2 grains. Expanded diameter was 0.60 x 0.64."

All of the ammunition fired today was capable of very good accuracy. Groups shown below were fired at 15 yards off-hand and there is considerable human error involved in each 5-shot group. Inferences as to which load is most accurate should not be made.

Any of the loads shown here are more accurate than can be held in defensive situations. None are "inaccurate."

Once again, we see that all of the ammunition shot for groups is more than adequately accurate for self-protection, be they at the low or high end of the bullet weight range.

Remington's 230 grain Golden Saber grouped very well…when I did my part. The shot on the left was not the gun or the ammunition's fault.

Of the ammunition fired today, were I picking a load for personal protection, my first choice would be Winchester's RA45T followed by the Corbon 165 grain PowRball. If I couldn't get either of those, I'd probably go with either the Golden Saber or the Hydrashok even though the latter is considered "poor" by some as it routinely fails the 4-layers of denim test. Whether it does or not, it is still at least forty-five caliber and perhaps the felon won't be wrapped in four layers of denim…if any!

Though discontinued, the Corbon 200-gr JHP +P remains a favorite load in the P-220. It uses the old Speer "Flying Ashtray" JHP and this round does expand and sometimes fragment in tissue. At least it has in animals I've shot with it. Recalcitrant in feeding with some pistols, it worked flawlessly in the P-220.

Though an "old technology" bullet and one that's been replaced with Speer's Gold Dot, I believe this to still be a very decent defense round. It has proven extremely accurate out of the P-220 after several hundred rounds. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for "serious" purposes, but do believe that there are better choices. That more dependable bullets do exist don't automatically make the older loads ineffective.

Though this Federal 230-gr Hydrashok was fired from a 1911 into water, results would probably be similar from the P-220 as it actually displayed an average velocity within 1 ft/sec of the 1911's.

These two .45 ACP Winchester Ranger "T" (RA45T) hollow points were fired into water from a five-inch 1911. As the average velocity of the P-220 and that gun are less than 20 ft/sec different, I strongly believe that identical expansion characteristics can be expected.

In today's shooting, there were no malfunctions of any kind. I was pleased that at 15 yards, there was also no great change in POI vs. POA. With the exception of the Winchester 230-gr "Subsonic" JHP, which I've never been able to get to reliably expand in anything or the 230-gr ball, I'd feel pretty well protected using any of this ammunition in a P-220 or Commander, but would not go to shorter barrels with any of it except the PowRball. It's reported to work fine from the shorter barreled pistols. Winchester's +P version of the law enforcement load shot today is said to work well in them, too.

.........................................................................................................

FOR MY ARCHIVES GO TO

http://actionsbytx.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-favorite-pocket-handgun.html


Teddy