Kahr CW.380 XTP or Hydrashock?

[garyb]

FMJ is fine if you're sure of your BACKSTOP. It will blow through your target losing little energy and go through whatever's behind the target... and FMJ tumbles and ricochets a good distance.

Unless you hit something REALLY VITAL, the target may not even know he's hit.

Modern well-designed hollow points generally stay in the target BG and transfer all of their energy to the BG, usually doing more damage than a "slippery" FMJ that just passed through.

FMJ for every occasion is NOT a good idea.

JMHO.


Wynn

I'm agreeing with you on that Wynn! I believe a some expansion is better than a whole lot of over penetration. I've seen what expansion does on deer and what penetration without expansion does. I'll go with more expansion any day. JMHO2

[sw66hiviz]

I don't get it. If one is going to get a .380 then search for a hot round such as the BB +P, why not just use a 9mm?

[rjt123]

Kahr CW.380 XTP or Hydrashock?

I don't get it. If one is going to get a .380 then search for a hot round such as the BB +P, why not just use a 9mm?

.380s are carried, generally, for the small size of the firearm. Basically, it's much easier to carry/conceal a .380 than a 9mm. Having made the choice to carry a .380, folks are trying to pick the ammunition that will do the best job of stopping a BG with a somewhat anemic cartridge. So a hot round is desired to overcome some of the built-in shortcomings of the .380 cartridge. Or something like that.

[kwh]

Shooting tests really show strange things happening in the world of short barrel guns. In the .380 tests it was not unusual to find a lower velocity round to be superior in performance. The better bullets Cor-Bon, Gold Dot Buffalo Bore etc.which are great in longer barrels did not meet the minimum standards of both penetration and expansion in the Kahr P 380 The Hydra-Shock and XTP were the only two consistant performers in all the tests. My belief is one should select the most effective round in whatever firearm is being used. Rifle pistol or shotgun. If tests are available to help your selectiion rather than theory , why not use them? However as we all know the most effective round is worthless if it does not feed well. My question is: With all the knowledge and experience we have on board.does anyone know if Federals ( .380.Hydrashock) feed better than Hornadys(XTP) in the Kahr. This is more than just a point of interest, these rounds are expensive and I was hoping to save a little time and money. Of course I will test for proper function. I also have a CW9 edc a CW45 a Ruger SP101 and S&W .357 Mag Model 19.

[garyb]

I don't get it. If one is going to get a .380 then search for a hot round such as the BB +P, why not just use a 9mm?

Good question. I purchased a 380 for my wife because she could not work the slide on all the 9's we looked at (and we looked at a bunch). She found the S&W380BG and fell in love with it. She could work the slide easily. She liked the compactness for when she walks alone on our deserted country roads. She feels safer carrying it . She shoots it well. It was at a good price point. Everything gelled for her to get that 380....so that's how the story goes. I would have rather seen her get a 9 or a 40, but she carries the 380 and we both feel confident that it will protect her if needed. My daughter has a 40 Ruger for home defense, but for daily carry she also relies on the S&W BG380. Some folks prefer the compactness of the 380. I guess I would respond by saying, "Why not get a 380 if you'll carry it vs not having any gun?"....realizing that some folks will respond by saying they would rather not have a gun if it was going to be a 380. Personal preference.

[berettabone]

I think people put too much emphasis on ballistics tests. They are usually done under controlled conditions, of which, will most likely never be the same as the conditions under which you have to use your firearm. I owned a carried a BG. Sold It. Not because there was anything wrong with it. It was a great little firearm for what it was. Great for carry. I found that it liked Rem. 102 gr. jhp's. It was sold because of accuracy and it didn't quite fit my mitts like I would have liked it to. Most people wouldn't want to be shot or shot at, with anything, much less what caliber is being used. Like some have said, carrying .380 is better than not carrying at all. No matter what ammo you use, I am sure that at short distances, the .380 will do what it was designed for. Personally, I use Fed. HST'S for all of my firearms. I don't own any .380's anymore, but when I did, I really didn't feel under gunned. The caliber has it's place. I would concentrate more on what works and is reliable, than whether it's speed is 1000fps, or 1100 fps, and whether it expands to a half inch, or five eighth's. When in doubt, empty the mag................I am sure it will be sufficient for what it's intended for.

[Rubb]

FWIW...I carried Fed hyd shock and a spare mag of FMJ's before switching to all FMJ's...Hundreds fed and fired through my P3AT.

[warbird1]

Thanks. Did well in tests by MouseGun but the FTX failed some of the penetration tests by Shootingthe Bull410.

Critical Defense is designed not to over penetrate. If barrier penetration is desired then Hornady makes the Critical Duty although I'm not sure if it is available in .380. I use the new Barnes ammo in my LCP. Barnes TAC-XPD.

[warbird1]

I think people put too much emphasis on ballistics tests. They are usually done under controlled conditions, of which, will most likely never be the same as the conditions under which you have to use your firearm. I owned a carried a BG. Sold It. Not because there was anything wrong with it. It was a great little firearm for what it was. Great for carry. I found that it liked Rem. 102 gr. jhp's. It was sold because of accuracy and it didn't quite fit my mitts like I would have liked it to. Most people wouldn't want to be shot or shot at, with anything, much less what caliber is being used. Like some have said, carrying .380 is better than not carrying at all. No matter what ammo you use, I am sure that at short distances, the .380 will do what it was designed for. Personally, I use Fed. HST'S for all of my firearms. I don't own any .380's anymore, but when I did, I really didn't feel under gunned. The caliber has it's place. I would concentrate more on what works and is reliable, than whether it's speed is 1000fps, or 1100 fps, and whether it expands to a half inch, or five eighth's. When in doubt, empty the mag................I am sure it will be sufficient for what it's intended for.

Yes...nobody likes to leak.

[jocko]

380 ammo in the last 10 years has grown by leaps and bounds. I would not feel that undergunned carrying a 380. I did for many years before my PMJ9 was born,although they were kelteks POS guns at the time. I really thinkback then but onehas to give somecredit tokeltekc. They pioneered the 32 and380'sback then and basicaly got allthe big namesinto the game, and when the big names came on board, they broght quality thatIMOkeltek just didn'tseem to interested in at the time. George Kelgreen was a genius . Do many of u rememberthe grendal 380 that I beieve loaded from the top in a stripper type clip. way ahead of its timeback then. He went bankrupt back then to.

[kwh]

Just ordered XTP's from Precision One ammo at $27.99/50.

[muggsy]

FMJ is fine if you're sure of your BACKSTOP. It will blow through your target losing little energy and go through whatever's behind the target... and FMJ tumbles and ricochets a good distance.

Unless you hit something REALLY VITAL, the target may not even know he's hit.

Modern well-designed hollow points generally stay in the target BG and transfer all of their energy to the BG, usually doing more damage than a "slippery" FMJ that just passed through.

FMJ for every occasion is NOT a good idea.

JMHO.

Wynn

Wynn, if you are ever in a SHTF situation I doubt seriously that you are going to be concerned about a backstop. Your only concern will be in placing as many hits as possible on your assailant. In all probability, you're going to empty your gun. People have been struck by multiple rounds of .45 ACP and didn't realize that they were hit. Four layers of denim and ballistic gel don't shoot back.

[booger switch]

Just ordered XTP's from Precision One ammo at $27.99/50.

I was planning on ordering a couple hundred rounds myself but I see they are sold out. Serves me right for procrastinating.

Please post a range report with these when you can.

[garyb]

I think people put too much emphasis on ballistics tests. They are usually done under controlled conditions, of which, will most likely never be the same as the conditions under which you have to use your firearm. I owned a carried a BG. Sold It. Not because there was anything wrong with it. It was a great little firearm for what it was. Great for carry. I found that it liked Rem. 102 gr. jhp's. It was sold because of accuracy and it didn't quite fit my mitts like I would have liked it to. Most people wouldn't want to be shot or shot at, with anything, much less what caliber is being used. Like some have said, carrying .380 is better than not carrying at all. No matter what ammo you use, I am sure that at short distances, the .380 will do what it was designed for. Personally, I use Fed. HST'S for all of my firearms. I don't own any .380's anymore, but when I did, I really didn't feel under gunned. The caliber has it's place. I would concentrate more on what works and is reliable, than whether it's speed is 1000fps, or 1100 fps, and whether it expands to a half inch, or five eighth's. When in doubt, empty the mag................I am sure it will be sufficient for what it's intended for.

I agree. The ballistic tests are a good repeatable reference. However, it is not reality. It does not include bone and various tissue (muscle, lung, blood filled organs, etc...). There is simply not a good reliable way to simulate a human, nor what any bullet will interact with along the way through different angles, thicknesses, etc.... There are too many variables in reality. These gel tests are just that...simulated tests to make some sort of a comparison. That same bullet that did not expand on the denim or gel, might perform totally different after it goes through a rib or sternum or skull. That same bullet that over or under penetrated on the gel, may react differently through bone, muscle, blood filled organs and varying angles and thicknesses. I'm just saying that there is no absolute way to tell until use it.


I've had similar experiences shooting deer. I won't get into caliber issues because that starts a war. However, some ammo perform very well and others don't, but you can't necessarily go exclusively by the ballistics or tests. They are merely a reference simulation.

[booger switch]

10% ballistic gel is by far the best test medium we have, but obviously it is not perfect. I don't see people volunteering to be test media themselves. The gel is a uniform density fluid (to simulate the average density of the human body), while the human body is comprised of fluids of varying densities, as well as solids (bone).

The FBI decided on a range of 12 to 18 inches penetration in gel to be an acceptible equivalent range of penetration in human tissue. Most skulls will be fully penetrated with less than 12 inches of penetration, much less 18. Most people's abdomen's will be fully penetrated with 12 inches of actual penetration from front to back.

One thing I rarely see mentioned about the 12 to 18 inch penetration range is this is based on statistics. Specifically, it is based on a normal distribution (bell curve) with a desired mean penetration of 15 inches (most people only focus on 12 inches). That means if you get a mean penetration of 15 inches with a sample size larger than 30, then you can expect around 98% of these rounds will penetrate between 12 to 18 inches in the gel.

If your round has a mean penetration of 12 inches in the gel, using a sample size larger than 30, then you can expect 50% of these rounds to underpenetrate...

The bottom line is gel testing is a very good predictor of what a bullet will do in a human body, but it would be wise to select a round that frequently penetrates 15 inches instead of 12 inches. Stear clear of anything that typically penetrates less than 12 inches.