New pocket spoon, way lighter!

[matthewb0051]

^^^

Hence why in the rest of the world the .380 is known as the 9mm Kurz or short

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by masraum

I believe .380, 9mm, .38, and .357 are technically all essentially the same "size" (diameter). The difference is the cartridge, power and weight. .380 and 9mm are both really close to the same physical size. I believe the main difference is the pressure generated behind the bullet. A quick google seems to indicate that it's roughly 21k psi vs 34k psi (obviously, there will be differences between loads, then there's the whole +p+ and all of that stuff).

9mm spoons are generally larger than 380 spoons despite the cartridges being almost the same size. I assume that a big part of that is that there's more metal required to control nearly 75% more pressure.

The autoloaders all use .355" diameter bullets, where the revolvers use .357"-.358" diameter.

SAAMI - the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute - is the agreed upon "governing body" that establishes safe working pressures for all ammunition sold in the United States. While not "legally binding", since it's only a trade association, most manufacturers follow their guidelines. There are some "specialty" manufacturers that do, in very specific cases, vastly exceed those guidelines.

Examples would be 19th century calibers such as the .45-70 and .45 Colt, originally loaded in some notably weak firearms (the Trapdoor Springfield and Peacemaker). We have modern firearms that will accept much higher pressures, such as the Marlin 1895, Ruger #1, Ruger Blackhawk, and the like. When loading for these modern arms, we can as much as double, if not triple, the "power" of these old calibers.

Autoloaders are a different animal. There are no "modern" designs capable of that level of performance increase over the guns that originally housed any of their common calibers. There is no "modern" 9mm, nor .45 ACP, .380, or any of those that will accept notably higher pressures than they developed over a century ago.

This is almost entirely due to the nature of their operation. All utilize some form of "blowback" or "delayed blowback" mechanism to cycle the slide. Very low pressure rounds can use a simple "blowback", wherein the slide begins to move rearward and separate from the barrel immediately upon firing. Higher pressure rounds demand a "delayed blowback", wherein the barrel and slide stay together during the initial rearward movement. The link on the 1911 provides this function, allowing the barrel and slide to remain locked together, and the chamber "sealed", for about 1/10" to 1/8" of their initial rearward travel.

This "delayed blowback" is designed to allow pressure to drop to a safe level before the cartridge case begins to expose behind the barrel, so that it remains fully encased, and supported by the chamber. Allowing it to begin to extract from the chamber too soon will result in ruptured cases and hot, escaping gasses, endangering the shooter and anyone next to him.

It is because of this design element that we cannot substantially raise the operating pressures of the traditional autoloading calibers. Doing so would result in pressure remaining too high when the barrel/slide separation happens, rupturing cases and endangering shooters. This will also increase slide velocity, resulting in increased wear or even damage to the pistol.

There are modern autoloaders, such as the Desert Eagle, that use rifle like gas operating systems that accept markedly higher pressures, but these things tend to be huge, and thereby pretty much ruled out of this discussion.

So, don't be fooled by these modern "+P" or "+P+" autoloader rounds. They cannot offer much. Not much more than a good deal of marketing hype, anyway. On paper, sure, they appear to offer a worthwhile increase in performance. They often fool the numbers by using lighter bullets at higher velocities, what I believe is a marked step in the wrong direction with these little calibers. Penetration drops even more, in calibers that are inadequate in that regard to begin with.

That, and most importantly, the short barrels on these micro compacts are simply too short to even realize the advertised velocity increases. These advertised increases in velocity are measured in full sized pistols, with 4"-5" barrels. It's pretty deceptive, really, bordering on dishonest. Don't think for a minute that some little 2"-3" barrel will see much a gain, if any at all.

If you are going to insist on carrying these things, you owe it to yourselves to fully understand their limitations, and the limitations you might impose through poor ammo choices. Use the heaviest non-expanding bullet you can find. Use a flat nose, or "truncated cone" design if you can find it. You want to stack everything up towards maximum penetration, because these things ain't got much to begin with. Do not hinder penetration by using some fancy hollow point. Beyond that, +P, and +P+ is a waste of time in these things.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The autoloaders all use .355" diameter bullets, where the revolvers use .357"-.358" diameter.

SAAMI - the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute - is the agreed upon "governing body" that establishes safe working pressures for all ammunition sold in the United States. While not "legally binding", since it's only a trade association, most manufacturers follow their guidelines. There are some "specialty" manufacturers that do, in very specific cases, vastly exceed those guidelines.

< snipped for brevity >

If you are going to insist on carrying these things, you owe it to yourselves to fully understand their limitations, and the limitations you might impose through poor ammo choices. Use the heaviest non-expanding bullet you can find. Use a flat nose, or "truncated cone" design if you can find it. You want to stack everything up towards maximum penetration, because these things ain't got much to begin with. Do not hinder penetration by using some fancy hollow point. Beyond that, +P, and +P+ is a waste of time in these things.

Based on several old threads and primarily your posts, I do have 147gr flat nose FMJ or truncated cone rounds.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by masraum

Based on several old threads and primarily your posts, I do have 147gr flat nose FMJ or truncated cone rounds.

Now we're talkin'. That's exactly what you need in these little guns. Hands down the most effective ammo available for them.

So effective, remember, that when the Germans developed and issued it during WWI, the Allies were convinced they must have been in violation by using soft or hollow point ammo. The wounds suffered by the men hit with these things were that much more severe than those hit with round nose FMJ. The Allies subsequently ordered that any German caught with the stuff be summarily executed, on the spot.

[Tim Hancock]

I used 147 TC bullets exclusively when reloading for IDPA competition with my 9mm Glock. However I did it for a different reason being discussed here. I ran a barely legal combination of powder vs heavy bullet weight which resulted in a less snappy recoil to be able to get back on sights quicker for rapid firing. Very noticeable difference between my 147 reloads and factory Winchester white box 115 rounds.

At big matches, the officials would randomly check some competitors bullet weight vs velocity of same loads through a chrono.

[Jeff Higgins]

I remember that, Tim - "making major" became the goal of all of the 9mm shooters. The .38 Super was another option many pursued. It was possible to reduce recoil a bit more with those lighter bullet, higher pressure rounds because there was still enough gas pressure at the porting to make a real difference. The "jet affect" of that gas pressure is a larger component of their recoil, as compared to the low pressure, heavy bullet .45 ACP. I remember the 9 x 23 gained quite a following as well.

For those of you who have never shot IPSC - International Practical Shooting Conference - this was Col Cooper and company's original "action shooting" or "practical pistol shooting" competition. It was meant to serve as training and practice for your real world defensive sidearm. As such, the good Colonal determined that competitors should be using calibers with which we actually could defend ourselves, loaded to appropriate power levels. Being the huge proponent of the .45 ACP that he was, he derived a formula of bullet weight and velocity that heavily favored that round over others. Rounds that met that minimum were considered "major" calibers, those that did not were not. Those that did not "make major" only scored, what, 80% of the value of the hit? In other words, if you score a 10, you only got eight points. It made it impossible to win with anything that did not "make major".

The end result, of course, was driven by the typical "gamesmanship" inherent in all competitive sports. Guys went about trying to elevate these "sub caliber" rounds to "major". Many were loaded to dangerously high pressures in their efforts to do so. Some guys actually got injured as their over stressed guns failed. The worst, initially, was that old .38 Super - the original chambers left the cases unsupported at the bottom rear, due to the shape of the feed ramp. I saw guys blow the magazines right out the bottom of their pistols, splinter the grips, and wind up in the ER.

The real advantage was that these light bullet, high velocity, high pressure rounds had that high pressure that made their muzzle brakes work better. And, well, lighter bullets at the same energy level recoil less anyway, so another advantage. Back on target quicker...

So, yeah, "practical pistols" soon turned into "race guns". The initial spirit of it was lost - practice with your carry arm. Modern "race gun":

[Tim Hancock]

IDPA competition in the class I shot (SSP) used basically stock guns in 9mm. No race guns like IPSC. Almost everyone that was any good was using the heavier bullet combination. Nearly everyone was using the same powder at the time.... Titegroup

Every once in awhile I practiced with Winchester white box 115 and the 115 factory lods were definitely snappier. I competed for only a couple years and probably ran about 15,000 rounds thru my Glock in that timeframe along with lots of dry firing in my shop at night.

Very good training for self defense often with drawing from concealment and shooting center mass and sometimes head shots from a few feet away up to about 20 yards. Often the stages required at least one mag swap. Most of the time 2 to the body slicing the pie from concealment but sometimes 2 body and 1 headshot was the requirement.

To this day drawing my Glock and getting front sight on target then firing is as natural as breathing.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

To this day drawing my Glock and getting front sight on target then firing is as natural as breathing.

Imagine how good you would be if you used a CZ 75 SP-01.

[Jeff Higgins]

We never had IDPA around here, it was all IPSC. Does IDPA use any kind of a "power factor"? It's cool that it sounds like you shot against other guns of the same caliber in the same class. Did that prevent the kind of nonsense we saw in IPSC, with the dangerously over-loaded ammo wrecking guns and hurting shooters? If so, it sounds like a better rule set.

My Peacemakers are "that gun" for me - an extension of my hand. Like I mentioned earlier, however, now having the opportunity to see what really happens out there, I no longer carry them in "social" settings. I'm glad I never actually had to rely on one, even against one guy. Someone was watching over me...

I wound up trying some of the local Coboy Action competitions. I came away sorely disappointed. This is one competition that could really, really use some sort of realism in how they load their ammo. There is no "power factor", and no requirement to match the nominal ballistics of the rounds being used. I've heard their loads referred to as "bunny fart" loads. Super, super light bullets that were never loaded in any of their popular calibers, even round ball loads in the cartridge guns. Super, super low velocities as well. Imagine a .45 Colt loaded with a round ball (147 grains) loaded down to about 300 fps. What a disgrace and embarrassment - no cowboy would be caught dead (or actually they would...) with such a load. I had no chance with my standard 250 grain, 900 fps loads. Buncha goddamned pussies...

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We never had IDPA around here, it was all IPSC. Does IDPA use any kind of a "power factor"? It's cool that it sounds like you shot against other guns of the same caliber in the same class. Did that prevent the kind of nonsense we saw in IPSC, with the dangerously over-loaded ammo wrecking guns and hurting shooters? If so, it sounds like a better rule set.

Yes, IDPA enforces power factors. Measured velocity vs bullet weight.

https://www.ccidpa.org/idpa-power.html

In the most popular class SSP, Glock 34's ruled.

[vonsmog]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I think you can get a magazine extension that gives you a little more grip on the Ruger.

Picked up an extra factory clip off of Ebay that holds 7 rounds instead of 6 and extends the grip a bit. Will have to try it out once we get some warmer weather. Hopefully this weekend if it does not rain too much I can get in some target practice.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by vonsmog

Picked up an extra factory clip off of Ebay that holds 7 rounds instead of 6 and extends the grip a bit. Will have to try it out once we get some warmer weather. Hopefully this weekend if it does not rain too much I can get in some target practice.

1st thing, that weapon takes a magazine, not a clip

[Jeff Higgins]

I read that in a magazine once...

[matthewb0051]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

1st thing, that weapon takes a magazine, not a clip

I think clips are used in South Central or some other hood.

[vonsmog]

Painted on some glow in the dark paint on the sites. Figured I might need them if I ever have to use it at night.