Anyone feel these calibers are adequate for 90 to 150 pound deer?

You can kill deer all day with a .22 lr. My question is why would you with so many available alternatives. For the area I hunt I would call them completely inadequate and using them a stunt.

I did not mean that in a confrontational or demeaning way but I would not even try.

-Z

At point-blank range, right between-the-eyes ... ... maybe.

If I am ever attacked by one, I'll put that sucker down fast with my P-380.


I understand your point but even your 45 Super isn't that great of a deer round compared to a 30-06. As I said, everything is a compromise.

Check with Shrapnel, if he still posts here.

I recall a pic of him with a dead deer and a .380.

If you hunt deer with one you deserve a slap upside the head! Now if you finish off a wounded one with a shot to the back of the head that's a different story.

Haven't used a 380, but a 45 ACP with a 185 Barnes TAC-XP at 1200 fps done a fine job on a small 5pt meat buck last fall, 18 yard shot in the left shoulder, little buck took off carrying that left leg, trotted about 30 yards, stopped, and fell over.

Bullet exited the ribs on the offside too, surprised the heck outta me.

Gunner

This thread is not about deer hunting with a 380. It's a carry over of another thread to prove that the 380 is not an effective self defense round.

To the OP
If you don't mind, can you tell us how old you are. No offence intended and it's just to satisfy my own curiosity and theories.

Ok now I understand. As for comparing a deer versus a person that makes no sense. People are wimps compared to deer. A deer will run off with a leg blown off, a guy will fall to the ground screaming in pain with a broken finger!

I know the OP and he is probably older than you. He is making a valid point IMHO. If it's inadequate for a 90-lb deer, how will it be adequate against a 200+ pound man, jacked up on drugs? Food for thought, nothing more, nothing less.

I understand the point and couldn't agree more. The whole time we have been discussing this, I have always said that a larger caliber has better stopping power. Anyone who argued differently would just be stupid. My whole point is that the 380 isn't totally useless and a full sized 1911 isn't always the best handgun in every situation. There are a lot of times, that a full sized gun just can't and won't be carried.


The age question is not meant to disparage at all, no matter the age. I am 45 and have carried for 20 years.I've gone through a lot of different size guns and right now I'm down to a Kahr P-380 and Glock 36 which gives me options while still being concealable.

Since the OP prefers a full size 1911,which is a wonderful weapon, I'm just wondering if age has any correlation to that choice. Is he young enough that he chooses that because he sees it as the most recommended by the handgun gurus or is he old enough that he chooses it from personal experience and a lack of confidence in small calibers based on older ammo ballistics?

On the other hand, am I confident in the 380 because of a lack of experience and because I live in a low crime area? Do I place too much confidence in improved ammo claims because of my age.

I would prefer to have a 12 gauge for self defense but would sooner have a 32 on me than a 12 in the truck!

I am 62 years old and will be 63 in January and I have killed a hell od a lot of game with both a handgun and a rifle.

I have a wealth of experience in this area and if you would like to talk to me then simply PM me and I will give you a phone number.

The 380 and 32 are no more adequate for deer than they are as a primary self defense pistol. woeful under powered for the role. The distance through the shoulder of a deer is shorted than the distance threw the right shoulder of a 200 plus pound determined attacker. National average is 80% of shots fired are misses in the life or death encounter. The smallish pistols that the 380 and 32 are chambered in are not easy to precisely places ones shot coupled with the very limited power they are not what I would ever stake my life on

There are a number of bullets for the 45 ACP that work very well on deer andf hogs. I know this because I have killed them with the 45

Whitworth, I'm not a fan of the .380, but in answer to your question, one would think you'd be getting a lot closer to the human antagonist than you would to the deer. There isn't so much difference between the .380 and the 9mm or the .38 Special to make me stand up and advocate one over the other in every situation.

I will say, all the technical arguments aside, accurate energy delivered on target is the most important factor in selecting a defensive round. The 10mm (which I don't own) is probably the best semi-auto round for self defense, but my choice is, was and will always be the .45acp. One only needs to shoot it on reactive targets side by side with the .380 or 9mm to see that even with shorter barrels, it delivers more mass/energy and that's the key.

Still, even a drugged up hood will drop to a .380 delivered to the bridge of the nose or a couple to the sternum.

I would rather have my 45 on me and that is what I use as long as I can have a firearm I am going to have one that is adequate

The rather smallish pistols that are chambered in the 380 make such shot placement much more difficult in my experience

I prefer the 45 Super to even the 10mm

First, I never argued that a 380 should be a primary carry gun.

Second, Do you carry your full size 45 everywhere, every time? I tried several different carry systems for several years and couldn't.

Third, I switched to a Glock 36 because I could carry it 80-90% of the time. For all other times. I carry a P-380.

I would rather have the 380 in my front pocket, than the Glock in my truck.

Fourth, I live in an incredibly safe town. If I lived in a larger city, I would likely find a way to carry the Glock 100% of the time. It would just be inconvenient in that I would have to change my summer attire.

Let me state what should be OBVIOUS;

First of all, animals are wired differently than humans and do not respond to pain in the same way as humans. To stop an animal you have to disrupt his CNS or lower his BP � nothing more and nothing less.

Secondly, animals are incapable of psychological or emotional responses. You can�t scare him into compliance or cessation of action.

I guess I could write a paragraph or two to elaborate on those two points as they relate to the differences between self-defense against humans versus animals � but that should be redundant.

It�s amazing what people can reveal about what they don�t know, but I suspect this foolish argument will continue.

So, is a .32 or .380 adequate to kill deer? Under the right circumstances - of course it is.

jwp475..... what is the difference between the 45 super and the 45 acp with +P ammo?

Thanks Roy

First off I do not buy that deer are tougher to stop than humans so no that is not obvious, second a drug up individual is proven to be extremely difficult to stop.

41magfan adequate means under any and all conditions not special primo conditions

About a hundred FPS or so


The Underwood 230 grain Bonded hollow points that I have chrono'ed out of my 1911 at 1130 FPS

The answer to number is yes. I also live in what one would describe as a safe area, none the less we had an idiot a few years ago shoot people with a 12 gauge as he drove up the highway.

I also had my 45 that day as well one never ever knows what they will encounter

I've shot exactly one deer with a .380, which it sounds like is one more than everyone else in this thread combined.

It was a 100#ish doe that tried to jump a wrought iron fence and got hamstrung. I shot her once, directly on too of her head from about three inches away. The bullet fully mushroomed, penetrated the skull, brain and tongue. I recovered it inside the hide below the bottom jaw. So I know a 90 grain Hydrashok will penetrate a skull and about two inches of soft tissue, from contact distance. Take it for what it's worth to you.

Really? How many people have you seen run with a leg shot off? How many people have you seen run 100yds after being shot through the lungs with a 30/06 Ballistic Tip?

I would love to carry my .45 1911 everywhere but it's just not practical to carry all the time as it's just to big to conceal with all clothing. In those cases I carry either a 9mm HK P7 or if an even smaller gun is needed to carry to remain concealed I will carry my Seacamp .32acp. The .32 is by no means my first choice but it's better carrying a little gun than no gun. If you don't think a 32 (especially with top quality ammo) is dangerous would you like to be shot with one?

You can read about people on the battle field continue to fight with horrendous wounds and multiple wounds.

An animal can't shoot you after being wounded but a violent advisory can. IN the famous FBI shoot out in Miami Pratt was hit early in the fire fight by agent Jerry Dove in the right biceps the bullet exited the biceps and entered the chest cavity in line with the heart but did not have enough penetration to reach the heart. Doctors claim that had the bullet reached the heart 30 to 40 seconds is the most that Partt could have continued to remain up right. Even though the wound was a non survivable wound (took out an artery in the bicep) and no FBI agent was hit at this time. Pratt continued to fight another 4 1/2 minutes killing to agents and wounding 4

Agent Dove was shooting a 9mm +P 115 grain Silver Tips, A 380 is even close to this and this was way short on penetration

Medal Of Honor Recipient


*MAXAM, LARRY LEONARD

Rank and Organization: Corporal, U.S. Marine Corps, Company D, 1st Battalion, 4th Marines, 3d Marine Division (Rein), FMF
Place and Date: Cam Lo District, Quang Tri province, Republic of Vietnam, 2 February 1968
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a fire team leader with Company D. The Cam Lo District Headquarters came under extremely heavy rocket, artillery, mortar, and recoilless rifle fire from a numerically superior enemy force, destroying a portion of the defensive perimeter. Cpl. Maxam, observing the enemy massing for an assault into the compound across the remaining defensive wire, instructed his assistant fire team leader to take charge of the fire team, and unhesitatingly proceeded to the weakened section of the perimeter. Completely exposed to the concentrated enemy fire, he sustained multiple fragmentation wounds from exploding grenades as he ran to an abandoned machine gun position. Reaching the emplacement, he grasped the machine gun and commenced to deliver effective fire on the advancing enemy. As the enemy directed maximum firepower against the determined marine, Cpl. Maxam's position received a direct hit from a rocket propelled grenade, knocking him backwards and inflicting severe fragmentation wounds to his face and right eye. Although momentarily stunned and in intense pain, Cpl. Maxam courageously resumed his firing position and subsequently was struck again by small-arms fire. With resolute determination, he gallantly continued to deliver intense machine gun fire, causing the enemy to retreat through the defensive wire to positions of cover. In a desperate attempt to silence his weapon, the North Vietnamese threw hand grenades and directed recoilless rifle fire against him inflicting 2 additional wounds. Too weak to reload his machine gun, Cpl. Maxam fell to a prone position and valiantly continued to deliver effective fire with his rifle. After 11/2 hours, during which he was hit repeatedly by fragments from exploding grenades and concentrated small-arms fire, he succumbed to his wounds, having successfully defended nearly half of the perimeter single-handedly. Cpl. Maxam's aggressive fighting spirit, inspiring valor and selfless devotion to duty reflected great credit upon himself and the Marine Corps and upheld the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.[font:Arial Black][/font]


I don't believe that any deer ever created could deliver that amount of devastation that Cpl Leonard did despite multiple wounds

For years, the gun I carried was a vintage Beretta 25 ACP pistol, my only small handgun.

In more recent years I have acquired more handguns than I have fingers and toes to shoot them with - and very recently I found myself involved in a situation where I felt it prudent to be armed - So I bought a pocket holster for my Ruger LCR which happened to be handy . I even wondered about myself NOT taking my CZ 40P, or something more appropriate at the time - but I didn't.

As things turned out - there was no need for a handgun - and I even forgot it was in the cargo pocket of the old trousers I was wearing. No real point to be made here - but a gun is still a gun, regardless of caliber.

Both of those are pretty stupid arguments.

I haven't seen people react the same way to being shot as deer but I don't live in a state where between me and my kids we get to shoot 20 people a year, so that's not a fair comparison.

And I don't think 9 volt batteries are particularly dangerous, but I wouldn't like to lick one at the moment. "Dangerous" and "hurt" are relative. So take the argument in context and spare us the ridiculousness.

In the late 80�s, in north Louisiana, I double-lunged a spike deer with a .243. It ran about 50 yards leaving a good trail of blood. When I got to it, there was some breath streaming from its nostrils. Being a city boy by birth, my backup gun that day was a relatively new Seecamp .32 ACP filled with the recommended 60 grain Winchester Silvertips. Rather than put a .243 through the neck, I decided to do a coup de grace with the Seecamp. I held the gun about 2 inches away from the neck and shot. It was instantaneously lights out for the deer. When I skinned the deer, I found a nice round lead-colored circle that matched precisely the mouth profile of the hollow point. There were pieces of metal on the outside of the spinal cord and embedded in the hide. The bullet did not penetrate the vertebrae at all. I guess a .243 to the lungs plus a non-penetrating .32 to the neck works. That day, I decided that the .32 ACP was not a viable solution to any self defense situation.

I used to have a little Belgian made Browning .380 auto that was a cop's backup gun originally. I never shot a deer with it, but I put holes in several sharks up to maybe 200 pounds at boat side with it. Also shot a couple of alligator gar with it, but it would not penetrate the skull of a 120 pounder I caught. Carried it in a shoulder holster while surf fishing at night after getting in a scary situation one night without a gun (no sharks involved), and had it with me several other times when it made me feel a little safer. It fit in my front pocket and was completely concealed. Never had to fire it for defense, which is the best kind of defense gun.

I simply asked if anyone personally knew of a situation where a 380 had failed to preserve them after they had been accosted by a criminal. No one is arguing that the 380 is as good as a 45, if possible I would rather have a 45 in a pinch but sometimes you cannot carry a big gun.

How many of those woulds were created by an expanding bullet that went through both lungs? Being wounded and fighting on is a whole lot different than a shot through the lungs and heart and living 30 seconds to a minute and being able to run in that time. How much blood can a deer lose versus how much can a person lose? People are frail creatures compared to most all wild animals.

I hadn't seen the other thread and didn't know this was a spinoff.

Gunner

No it is not different in the 30 to 40 seconds a determined adversary can shoot and kill you is the point. 30 to 40 seconds if the heart is taken out, other lethal wounds can take much longer. Pratt remained upright and killed 2 FBI agents and wounded 4 after sustaining non survivable wound because the bullet simply did not penetrate enough to reach the heart after severing an main vein

I have one pheasant downed with a Baby Browning 25 ACP whilst shot out of my best bud's Father's '64 VW Bug in high school on Victoria Island in the Sacramento Delta. A 20 or so yard shot and DRT. Probably doesn't qualify?

Sure it does, Ed.

I dunno, how much?

I finished a deer with a head shot from a 38 smith titanium with a 2 inch barrel, shooting federal hydroshocks in the mid 90's, I was not impressed with it. I cannot see how a .380 could be any worse.

The idea of the pocket guns (Mouse Guns) is an alternative to being unarmed. So with that in mind, let�s take a poll�

For all of those who would choose being unarmed to carrying a .32 or .380 ACP, please chime in.

We are talking apples and oranges.

If I get up opening day of deer season, look in my gun safe, and pick out an LCP to use deer hunting, then I am a fool.
If a deer comes into my yard and tries to harm me, he is going to feel the full fury of a 380 and probably will not live to tell about it.

If I leave my LCP at home because it might not be effective against all drug crazed criminals or soldiers in the heat of battle, then I am again a fool. If I am going to play Charles Bronson and go out looking for trouble, I am going to take something bigger than a 380.

Is a 380 likely to be useful in most unexpected encounters with bad guys? Probably.

Is there anything I can easily carry concealed that will be effective in all possible situations? No.


It reminds me of the woman who asked the guard armed with a handgun at a school function if he was expecting trouble. He replied that if he was expecting trouble he would have brought his shotgun.


We are discussing extreme situations and should not be. You can never cover all bases in all the extreme situations that are possible. There is also a big difference between going out looking to kill something and trying to get yourself out of a situation that has been unexpectedly thrust upon you.

About 2 months ago I finished off a Blacktail deer hit by a car.

1 shot at the base of the skull from about 6" with a .380 shooting 90 grain Speer Gold Dots.

Instant death. The eyes were "bugged" out of the sockets. More hydrostatic shock than I expected.

I was impressed with the "lights out" instant kill.

For up close the .380 will "get 'er done"

Virgil B.

Charles Bronson used a .32 S&W Long revolver for most of the first "Death Wish" movie. It seemed to be quite a cannon. And James Bond used to shoot down helicopters and snipe bad guys from 200 yards away with a .22 LR, while carrying his 7.65mm PPK that had a "delivery like a brick through a plate glass window".

They were experts before the internet.

Isn't Hollywood a wonderful source of good information about guns!

So if you wouldn't use a gun for self defense that wouldn't reliably kill a deer what are you carrying? A 44Mag, 500S&W, 460S&W? Because you beloved 45acp or 357 is not exactly a deer killer and in the hunting word they would both be considered the bare minimum.

This is total and complete BS. If you think that with the correct bullets that a 45 ACP and a 357 is not adequate for deer then you or sadly mistaken. I have taken a few deer and a lot of hogs with the 357 mag and the 45 ACP and every one that I killed thought they were perfectly adequate

BULL! They may kill a deer or hog at close range but they are the bare minimum for deer sized game. Standard rule of thumb is 1000 ft/lbs for deer and neither of those comes close. People have killed deer with 22lr's but I wouldn't call them adequate for deer would you? It seems when it comes to hogs people pull out all kinds of odd stuff to shoot them with that they wouldn't consider to shoot a deer with and that aren't even legal to shoot a deer with in a lot of states.

More BS you nor anyone else can rate lethality with FPE complete and utter nonsense


This is the exit of a 300 win mag in a bull elks rib cage the 180 grain bullet impacted with about 2600 FPS impact velocity which calculates to 2700 FPE




This is the exit in the same elk's rib cage of a 440 grain flat point hard cast bullet at 950 FPS muzzle velocity which calculates to 888 FPE




The the 300 win had 1812 FP more energy yet produced the smaller wound channel

So much for needing X amount of energy


I can assure you from experience the a proper bullet through the rib cage of a deer from a 45 ACP makes the lungs into jell-o and if one did not know better would swear that the damage was caused be a 30-06

Hunting isn't self defense. Hunters can choose their shots.

Give me time and distance to put both hands on the gun, and lighting to see the target, and I'd feel completely confident taking a deer - or a Trayvon - with a .22 auto.

Put a Trayvon on top of me on a dark street with my glasses knocked off, and blood in my eyes, and only one hand free because the other one's trying to guard my face from being split open any further and hell yes I want a bigger gun.

There's a least bad compromise of concealability, followup split time, etc. to be found, and for me at least it isn't a large frame revolver. But it isn't a 380 either.

I like a slim semi auto such as a full size 1911 in 45 caliber

Who's thumb? Energy is a poor indicator of lethality.

I don't know about a rule of thumb, but many if not most states have minimum requirements for firearms used to hunt big game, and those requirements are based on the kinetic energy of the bullet fired.

I would gladly use a .25-06 rifle to hunt deer, but would consider it a poor choice for a self defense weapon, so what does this prove?

None of the calibers mentioned in this thread are even legal deer cartridges in north dakota. 380 or 45acp. What are your game &fish dpartments thinking? 22LR?

Anyone Deer Hunt With 380 Or 32 ACP?

All the time! But the little Diamondback 380 looks a little odd with the EER rail-mounted Leupold on board.

DMc

I know the OP and he is probably older than you. He is making a valid point IMHO. If it's inadequate for a 90-lb deer, how will it be adequate against a 200+ pound man, jacked up on drugs? Food for thought, nothing more, nothing less. [/quote] Exactly, that's a good point and why I don't carry one of those peashooter mini-gun's........Hb

I agree they are better than nothing for self defense. But are they even legal for deer hunting where you guys are? Yes I've HEARD 22 lr works for deer. Just can't imagine a guy not having a deer rifle.

I have shot and or seen enough critters cleaned to know for fact, two pictures of two different wounds, from two different bullets, doesn't, (to put it bluntly) equate to squat in the real world.

You aren't gonna like that, but the truth doesn't always = feel good.

Why?? If that was all I had in a survival situation then I would use what was at hand. Would I even think it was adequate for the job at hand NO.

Was there some ballistic geliten in that elk that you could see the wound channel or are you just going by the hole? Pushing a 2x4 through it's lungs will make a bigger hole than the 300 but have a much smaller wound channel.

You are kidding right? I guess you forgot about the internal organs. If you had ever used a handgun to take an animal we would not be having this discussion. You are basing your position on reading BS in some magazine and your only kills if you have any are with a rifle. I am not speculating I have killed deer and hogs with a 45 ACP. My cousin killed a 150 pound boar last year with his 45 ACP from 60 yards. Yes the 230 grain bullet penetrated through the grizzle plate and took out the lungs, try that with a 380


If one has a bigger hole then how is the wound channel smaller? That is a real head scratcher. Bigger is now smaller? WOW who'd a thunk it

Reelman -- gotta respond to this. ME is a terribly measure of lethality, but a perfect marketing tool to sell ammo. I don't know many handgun hunters (and I know quite a few) who place any stock in ME. It is a meaningless number that determines nothing from a terminal standpoint.

Carry on, gentlemen!

Here's one of mine:



Deer rifle? Nah, deer revolver!

Sorry Whitworth. I should have added "Or a handgun chambered in a more capable cartridge." I am not against deer hunting with a handgun, but I do think the minimum caliber requirements are there for a good reason. North dakota requires at least a 357 magnum for deer hunting. The cartridge length requirements even disqualify the 45acp.

But often times the minimums seem more or less arbitrary and they were determined by those with a complete lack of understanding. That is one of the reasons I put little faith in there really being something behind minimum standards. When I start hearing ME minimums I cannot help but to react negatively as I have seen nothing less significant in determining lethality.

WTF are you talking about, even a visual aid can't help some

Shows how little the law maker knew that drafted the requirement. I have taken deer and hogs with both a 357 mag and a 45 ACP when loaded properly both are perfectly adequate and do an excellent job in the terminal department. I prefer the 45, but when I started in the late 60's I thought that the 357 was head and shoulders above the 45 ACP because of FPE advantage of the 357. Over several decades of taking game with a handgun I came to realize that they 45 ACP does not take a back seat to the 357

Actually, in the grand scheme of things, this was a pretty valid comparison. How do you figure it isn't?

IMO energy is a big factor but you need to use common sense also. A FMJ 308 has a ton of ME but it doesn't transfer much of the energy because there is not expansion so it zips right through with most of it's energy going into the ground. A 45acp has much less energy but will most likely deliver all it's energy into the animal as it won't pass through. But now take a properly designed 308 bullet and see the terminal results.

I think the point of this thread is that a 32 or 380 is not a good self defense round. And while anyone with half a brain would prefer something much larger for self defense but carrying a 1911 is not always a viable option and I would prefer to carry a 32 or 380 (or even a 22) as opposed to carrying nothing at all.

Again, muzzle energy is a meaningless figure that is calculated and not measured.

There are 2 types of collisions "elastic" and "inelastic" a bullet strike is an "inelastic" collision most of the kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy, some to sound, etc only a small untraceable amount of energy is transferred. Momentum is always transferred. The amount of frontal area of the bullet for the amount of "crushed tissue" the amount of hydraulic pressure (a function of velocity) and the amount of direct applied force are what creates the wound channel.


Kinetic energy is not measurable as this clearly illustrates

It is for me and I see no reason that it would not be for anyone else if they wanted a viable weapon

Exactly. Energy is a result of calculating bullet weight and muzzle velocity. It does not take into consideration the shape or construction of a bullet, nor the diameter or frontal area. A 440 grain WFNGC travelling @ 1,200 fps from a 500 JRH revolver will do significantly more damage than a 668 grain FMJ travelling @ 3,000 fps from a 50 BMG even though the latter has 10 times the energy.



I, too, have a deer rifle but it hasn't seen light in over 2 decades:

Lovin' the shortgun...

I would rather rather not kid myself by caring 380 or 32, if I am allowed to have a pistol then I am going to have a REAL pistol period end of story

The reason one carries a pistol is for extreme cases. Any confrontation that has a lethal potential is an extreme case and that is why we arm ourselves in the first place. Therefore a pistol that houses and shoots and adequate cartridge is the proper choice

Case closed

If one thinks that it takes 1,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy to reliably kill deer then let us examine this number. Let's even pretend that we are talking about a 200 pound deer a rather large one. Then 200 divided into 1,000 means that is 5 FPE per pound of body weight. Now we are after an Alaskan Moose that can easily weight 2000 pounds or more but let us pretend that the moose weighs 1,500 pounds then using 5 FPE per pound of body weight means that 7,500 FPE is required. A 12,000 pound bull elephant would require 60,000 FPE. Now we are beginning to see the silliness of using FPE as a measure of lethality



Apparently these animals could not read such so called experts and did not know that they were not supposed to die with such a small amount of energy










Only 1 shot was required for them to give up the ghost WOW who'ed a thunk it, if they read such silly assed so called experts that measure lethality with FPE

Case not closed.

I carry a variety of weapons based on what I am likely to encounter.

I have a 44 Mag with me on the farm all the time because of what I am likely to encounter in the woods. I load it differently during different seasons since I am less likely to run into snakes during the winter. I also usually have an AR in the Jeep and a Mini 30 and an 870 in the tractor because one firearm can not cover all bases and all extremes.

I have a 45 ACP in my truck because I do not have to worry about concealment on my body.

I slip a Bodyguard with laser in my pocket at night around the house when I am piddling around outside because there are quite a few rabid animals around.

I put a SS 357 snubby in my tackle box.

I generally carry the Bodyguard around town during the summer because NC has some strange carry laws and I want to be able to slip it in and out of my pocket easily. I wear a Colt Commander in a IWB holster during the winter. It does not hide very well with light cloths with my body shape.

All extreme cases are not equal. Some are more extreme than others. If you wanted to be protected against almost all extreme cases, then you would need high powered belt fed full automatics and several friend similarly armed. That would even fail you sometimes. A 45 will, indeed, take care of a few more extremes than will a 380. I like the extra firepower when it is convenient. The 380, however, will take care of enough situations to be worthwhile under a lot of conditions.

The 380 is about as useless as a handgun gets I have shot them and they are to be used for fun anything more is a serious mistake they lack frontal area and penetration to be counted on in a lethal confrontation. Yep the case is closed pure and simple as that. If you can handle a serious pistol then there is no reason to carry a 380 as your primary weapon none what so ever

Open the thread "How effective Is The 380" and read DcRockets post very informative.

I started to write something but it would do no good. You are 100% correct. Now can we move on to something else?

WAY too big for deer. Just right for elephant and cape buff, though. Give it a try and let us know how it works out.

A New York state resident deer hunter could legally give that a try; can you believe it? Here's the implement description for handguns used for big game according to that bunch of geniuses: "HANDGUN- ANY CENTERFIRE PISTOL OR REVOLVER. BARREL LENGTH MAY NOT EXCEED 16 INCHES. NOTE: NONRESIDENTS MAY NOT USE HANDGUNS TO HUNT IN NEW YORK". So according to them I could use a 25 ACP, cause it's a centerfire. Back in 2011 I used a 9mm on my buck in a shotgun/handgun zone but that was just to finish him off after I knocked him down with my 870 12 ga. A couple 9mm's to the back of the head/neck area from about 6-8 inches away did the trick nicely. I didn't want to have to finish things with another 12 ga. sabot because 12 ga. sabots are about $2. per round and I'm a cheapskate. At that range the 9mm Luger cartridge worked pretty good and gave me a good story to recount. I did it for one of my late uncles and I was using the Luger handgun he brought home from Germany in 1945. Couple years before he passed away in 2001 we talked about doing something like that and I finally got to do it.

The case is far from closed.

You speak from your experiences or from the experiences related to you by others. If a 45 suits you in all situations, all power to you. I am glad you found something that makes you comfortable.

I speak from my experiences and from the experiences that have been related to me by others. I like a 45 or something bigger but am comfortable carrying a smaller weapon in a variety of situations.

To each his own.

I hope that your condemnation of the smaller chamberings will not convince people who would have a difficult time using a 45 to go unarmed if they can only handle a 380.

Minnesota as well. Any centerfire over .22 cal last I checked.

I do not care what you carry but the fact is they are very anemic and are not adequate and that is not opinion that is fact

\

Of course a 380 is anemic compared to bigger chamberings. A 45 ACP is fairly anemic compared to the 44 Mag I carry in the woods. A 44 Magnum is fairly anemic compared to a 500 S&W. It is all relative.

I hope you do not convince people to go unarmed just because they are not comfortable carrying the same type of weapon you do.

edit: "Not adequate" is opinion and not fact since there is no absolute measure of what must be accomplished with the firearm. A single shot shooting 22 shorts is quite adequate in some situations while a 45 ACP is terribly lacking in others.

You are missing the point the 380 is anemic to the point of not being adequate to defend yourself or your loved ones from a determined attacker

Have you ever shot an animal with one in the hunting fields? I think not judging by your posts.

No not adequate is a fact and not an opinion, you not accepting the fact does not make the fact invalid. It is also a fact that an inadequate firearm is better than no firearm. A 357 mag is not an adequate revolver for protection against big Alaska grizzly/Brown bears but I know of one case where it stopped and attack after being shot in the mouth the bear simply walked away. 2 weeks latter fish and game had no located the bear.

The 45 ACP loaded properly is not inadequate in the scenario that this thread is discussing but the 380 definitely is inadequate to argue otherwise is simply ridiculous

From 22's to 380's (and everything in-between) these enemic and useless calibers have been used very effectively (even predominantly) by the worst and untrained vile elements of our society to wreak havoc and mayhem for decades.

That's no reason for a prudent person to do so likewise - but if someone really objects to my carrying a 22, 32, or 380 ... SHOVE IT!

I carry what I want - when I want - and why I want.
I am also very comfortable NOT carrying 24/7.
I also quit sleeping with a loaded gun. (mostly)

Like I have posted numerous times I personally do not care what you or anyone else carries or does not carry, but facts are facts when it comes to an adequate cartridge. Period

You are still going back to the false premise that shooting a deer in a hunting situation is the same as defending yourself against some undetermined level of aggressive behavior by one or several humans. Those are two different scenarios that do not overlap very much. Your saying that they are the same does not make them so. The purpose of the deer hunting firearm is to kill quickly. The purpose of a defensive weapon is to stop the aggression. Those are two completely different things.

Why in the world would I want to try to shoot Bambi with a 380 or a 45 ACP when I have so many much better chamberings available. I have put down wounded deer with a 9mm and a 22 but would certainly not choose either one as my main hunting arm.

Let me ask you something. Would you advance aggressively on a person holding a 380 or even a 22 pointed at you? If your answer is "no", then the 22 is adequate in that situation.

Would you and ten of your armed fellow gang members charge aggressively at a single person holding a 45? If the answer is "yes", then a 45 is inadequate in that situation. Would the fact that it is a 45 and not a 380 make any difference to you and your gang members?

We could "what if" all day long and find plenty of situations in which the 380 is adequate and others in which the 45 is not. We could also find a bunch in which the 380 is not adequate and many in which the 45 works quite well. Making the blanket statement that a 380 is inadequate and that a 45 is adequate is unrealistic.


I am certainly not suggesting that a 380 is as capable of killing a human quickly in as many situations as is a 45 ACP. Many times, however, stopping an aggression does not require the sudden death of the aggressor. Having in hand a smaller, handier, more concealable, and lower powered weapon is generally much better than having no weapon at all.

As long as the REPLY button exist ....................

Hint: A train with no wheels can't be put back on the tracks.

First off I do not have a false premise although it appears that you do. Have you even read Docrockets post that I quoted? It certainly appears not. If a firearm is not adequate for deer it dam sure is not adequate to protect ones life against a determined attacker that may weigh twice as much and need even more penetration to reach the vitals.

Since test handgun round and or bullets on humans is illegal and rightly so doing so in the hunting fields and the use of properly calibrated ordnance gelatin is an excellent alternative.

Have you ever taken an animal with a handgun? Judging by your post I think not


Once again I met a man that was shot with a 380 and the bullet bounced out and landed on his outstretched hand, he still has the bullet. If this is what you want to use by all means I could care less, but to argue that the 380 is an adequate caliber is beyond reason

The context of this thread the 45 is definitely adequate and the 380 is not, you trying to bring in scenarios that are outside the realm of CCW carry and personnel defense on a normal basis is silly at best and the 380 is inadequate for such use , that is fact that has been proven over and over

Don't you love the "reply" button when you have noting else to do in the morning. It can be quite entertaining to see what sort of stuff rears its head on these forums.

Deer hunting and self defense are quite different. They overlap very very little. What firearm is good for one is not necessarily good for the other. If you do not realize that, then any further discussion is purely for entertainment value.


I do have a question or two.
Did the man shot with the 380 actually advance aggressively on someone holding a 380 pointed at him?

As asked above, would you advance on someone holding a 380 pointed at you? This is not a silly question.

Yep they are different, but have similarities as well both are flesh and blood both need penetration and wound channel, the 3800 offers little of either in both scenarios.


Again you failed to answer my question "if you have ever taken any game with a handgun". It depends on the circumstance as to me advancing on someone with a 380 or any other firearm for that matter.


No matter how you spin it the 380 is not an adequate cartridge for deer hunting or self defense

I have shot unwounded deer and hogs with a handgun. I did read DocRocket's message.

If the situations exists in which you failed to advance on someone holding a 380 on you, then the 380 is perfectly adequate that time. If the situation exists in which you would advance on someone holding a 45 on you, then a 45 is inadequate at that time.

Adequate means in the event of a determined attacker and you must fire , not a cherry picked instance in which you did not fire. Plus the fact that to pull a gun is almost always a good way to get charged with "brandishing". All of the classes that I have attended stated that if you pulled your CCW you better need to use it. One must be in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death and if you have time to hold someone at gun point you probably were not in immediate danger.

WOW, just WOW then

Had a guy in a ccw class once really bad mouthing a .380 and telling others in the class how you were better off not carrying than to carry a .380 ! I had enough and asked him if he really wanted to prove his point and sure enough he said hell yea !! so I asked him to stand at 15 yards and I would shoot him , he declined and never said another word the rest of the day

You must be easily impressed. I actually can read and comprehend the written word. I also have actually spent some time in the field with a variety of weapons over the last 60+ years. That is not all that unusual among the people on this forum.

Did all those classes you took tell you the difference between intentionally going out to kill something and trying to stop some aggressive behavior. You hunt to kill while you arm yourself defensively to stop someone. Stopping someone may involve killing but does not have to do so. Perhaps we should recall the term "neutralize" that was used when I was in the Army many years ago. Something such as a can of bear spray or even wasp spray can be quite effective neutralizing an attacker without killing him. You do not go deer hunting to neutralize the deer. You go out to kill the deer very quickly. Apples and oranges.

interestingly as I have noted before in my years of hunting the guy that comes up with blood on the ground but no deer always shows up the next year with a magnum to fix his problem. just sayin...

I have killed deer with firearms from a 357 Magnum to a 375 H&H Magnum. I have used a 257 Roberts for the last several years with perfect results. Size is not always the most important factor.

The best chance to stop or neutralize a determined attacker is with an adequate cartridge not anemic 380.

You continue to miss the point so I am not convinced of your comprehending abilities

Dispatching wounded game that that can not escape can easily be accomplished with a 22 short behind the ear

A center fire rifle is certainly adequate for deer or self defense

Bullet selection is also a key as well as correct shot placement with an adequate cartridge. Once one has an adequate cartridge larger does not equate to better

I think you misread my statement about killing game animals with a handgun. Notice the word is UNWOUNDED and not wounded. I have, indeed, finished off a few with a handgun but have also shot some that had not previously been shot with another weapon.

Then try the 380 on unwounded deer and get back to us on its adequacy. Let us know about the inadequate penetration and the under whelming wound channel

I can't wait for the full report

Would you stand at 15 yards and let me shoot you with a BB gun? I doubt it, but that does make the BB gun an adequate self defense weapon

not saying it is the best choice ut wayyyyyyyyy bettr than nothing , IF you think you might be headed into a spot of trouble by all means pack something with a bit more punch or better yet avoid the sitation

Why in the world would I want to do something as stupid as that? I have more respect for a deer than that. As stated before, going out to try to kill a deer has almost no relationship to trying to neutralize an aggressive human. To think they are the same is to ignore reality. What is suitable for one may not be suitable for the other. Apples and oranges.

Have you ever been in a situation in which the presence of a handgun stopped an aggressive attacker?


edit:Have you ever been shot at 15 yards by a BB gun? I have been and am here to tell about it. I doubt I would be here if it had been a 380 or even a 22. Not a good argument.

1- Exactly

2- yes it does yet you fail to see that

3-No, you are the one ignoring reality. If the weapon doesn't have the penetration, nor sufficient wound channel size to use on deer, then it also is lacking drastically lack as a defensive weapon. Of course I know they are not exactly the same, defending ones life is much more important and thus the need for an adequate weapon

4-Yes I have, but the particulars are not anyone business

If I needed to kill a deer and could get within 10 feet, I would have no problems killing them with my Kahr P-380.My dad killed ton of deer with a 22 during the depression.I don't choose to hunt with a 380 because I have better guns for that. If I had to hide my gun in my front pocket while deer hunting and knew I could be arrested if anyone could see it, then I might deer hunt with my 380.

No one is saying the 380 is as effective as a larger caliber. They are saying they have weighed all options and chosen to compromise in order to carry one 100% of the time while doing so easily and comfortably.

You compromise your safety every day you get out of bed in some manner. That's OK because that's life. I think people who do roofing are crazy. It's just life and everyone makes choices based on their own experience. There is not just one right choice.

Give it a try and get back us with the results

I will if you know a good place where I can get within pratical defensive distance.

If you shoot any person, judged by you to be a determined attacker or not, at the distance I shoot most deer (50-100 yards) you will be in prison instead of on here arguing.

Distance doesn't determine if the shoot is good or not it is the circumstances. If someone is trying to or is shooting at you from 50 to 100 yards and you return fire and nail them, the shoot is justified. Where do you guys come up with some of this crap?

We live in reality, not a fantasy where we have to defend against a shooter 50-100 yards away.


PS
I'm just having fun brother, please don't take any of this personal. I think a 45 is a great choice, just not the only choice appropriate for every circumstance.

We are not discuss every circumstance just self defense and deer both of which it works perfectly with proper ammo


Do you want me to produce actual case when people have been forced to engage from 50 to 100 yards? They do exist you know

They may exist but they would be so extremely unlikely as to be beyond the realm of a viable argument for weapon choice.

I tend to disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g1n8cmwhIY

I communicated with the Editor of the local newspaper right after this happened as he had been on the scene following this incident.

He reported to me that the distance MAY have been 160 FEET, but likely shorter than that by his estimate.

I'm extremely glad this citizen chose to intervene, but it's not a credible example to make a long-range point.

But it is a good example of BS being propagated until it is accepted as the truth.

Since we were talking between 50 and 100 yards and 150 feet is 50 yards I'd say that this qualifies

You do realize that 3 feet is 1 yard correct? 160 feet is 53 and 1/3 yards. even if a tad shorter this video proves the point

You're right - it's more than close enough for purposes of this discussion.

Tell us a story about killin' something big with a big bore handgun - I'm bored with all this .380 stuff.

Thanks!

Then you had better start carrying a Contender with a good scope in a real deer caliber, if you are going to be engaging shooters at 100 yards. Personally, if I thought there was a good chance of that, I would just stay home.

I can engage adequately at 100 with my handgun, this I know and have proven many times over in the game fields. I have no need for a contender or scope on my handgun, if I want a large cumbersome weapon with a scope I will use one of my rifles

I hope you are with me if anyone cuts down on us from 100 yards out. Maybe you can keep him pinned down while I get away.

Seriously, I just see attack possibilities at very short range, like contact to 20 feet. I don't even contemplate being attacked at long range and if it does happen, I'm not likely to need a handgun because I have been targeted by someone with the intent and ability to kill me with the first shot.

The vast majority of people will never ever need a weapon for a self defense situation. People carry for the unexpected chance that they might need one. Better to have over trained than under trained is my motto. Practicing longer shots maks the short ones a piece of cake

Starting to look like none of us have ever deer hunted with a .380 or .32 ACP. Which is no surprise. That's what I figured the case would be.