• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
what is up with the love of .380 in pa??
#21
39Flathead;170345 Wrote:Problem with a .380 mousegun and a new shooter is that it is probably going to scare them off due to the snappy recoil and the common problem of getting bitten by the slide.

My ex-gf wanted a handgun to keep in the house but also to carry when she felt the need.
I let her try a few of my guns and then borrowed a couple for her to try and she decided on the SR9C after initially wanting a .380 because "someone" told her it was a good choice for "women".


They have that new full sized .380 too. I haven't shot it, but it would be a good house gun for a woman, I assume.

.380 pocket guns are rough to shoot. I just like them because I hate having a bulge....I'm a very minimalist, comfortable person and really don't even like carrying. But if I'm carrying, I want it small.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
  Reply
#22
RugerGirl;170344 Wrote:You can do serious damage with a .22 at close range. You would have to have a pretty serious bad guy to ignore being shot by one, especially if surprised by a woman. The exception would be some dude on LSD which is a whole 'nother level, anyway.

If that pastor's wife in Indiana had had a German Shepherd and a .22, she would probably be alive today.

.380 is even better, and it goes up from there. But I know I sure wouldn't stand in front of a .22 being shot. That's just me.

[Image: Wat8.jpg?1315930535]
[Image: picsay-1358258813.jpg]
  Reply
#23
I feel just as comfortable carrying my Walther P22 as I do my 1911. As far as guns chambered for .380 go, there are plenty of companies that offer guns chambered for 9mm that are just as small and flat as any .380 is. I feel comfortable carrying a .380, I just never cared for the ridiculous recoil that came along with it; I used to own a Keltec P3AT, which absolutely hurt to shoot, compared to my PSA-25 (a Baby Browning clone), my Walther, or even my 1911


Carry what you're comfortable carrying and shooting, I say.
Unbanned since September 2012.
  Reply
#24
Yep, .25's were once around and still might be. Our forefathers weren't too sophisticated. The calibers are based on fractional equivalents:
7/32" = .21875" or .22 cal. rounded up.
1/4" = .25", or .25 cal
5/16" = .31875" or .32 cal. rounded up.
3/8" = .375" or .38 cal. rounded up.
7/16" = .4375" or .44 cal. rounded up.
1/2" = .50" or .50 cal.

There are some exceptions, .308, .223, both military, but then that's the military. .300 WinMag, etc... But mostly are "performance" rounds made specifically for their ballistics characteristics rather than to fit a particular weapon. I never understood why they called the .357 magnum, not the .38 magnum, since one is referencing the shell casing diameter, the other the bullet diameter, both the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
  Reply
#25
DeadEye;170359 Wrote:Yep, .25's were once around and still might be. Our forefathers weren't too sophisticated. The calibers are based on fractional equivalents:
7/32" = .21875" or .22 cal. rounded up.
1/4" = .25", or .25 cal
5/16" = .31875" or .32 cal. rounded up.
3/8" = .375" or .38 cal. rounded up.
7/16" = .4375" or .44 cal. rounded up.
1/2" = .50" or .50 cal.

There are some exceptions, .308, .223, both military, but then that's the military. .300 WinMag, etc... But mostly are "performance" rounds made specifically for their ballistics characteristics rather than to fit a particular weapon. I never understood why they called the .357 magnum, not the .38 magnum, since one is referencing the shell casing diameter, the other the bullet diameter, both the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7.62X51 and 5.56X45 is military.
Shrug

As for the .357 name, .38 magnum would have probably caused people to load factory .357 Smith and Wesson magnum ammo into .38's or they would have tried loading .38 Mag data into .38 special cases resulting in kaboomed guns.
By calling it something entirely different, this confusion was probably avoided, that and 357 "sounds" more powerful than 38, marketing maybe?
Some people need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936976021/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_bs5jwbZH1GAZF

  Reply
#26
(11-16-2015, 07:05 PM)39Flathead Wrote:
DeadEye;170359 Wrote:Yep, .25's were once around and still might be. Our forefathers weren't too sophisticated. The calibers are based on fractional equivalents:
7/32" = .21875" or .22 cal. rounded up.
1/4" = .25", or .25 cal
5/16" = .31875" or .32 cal. rounded up.
3/8" = .375" or .38 cal. rounded up.
7/16" = .4375" or .44 cal. rounded up.
1/2" = .50" or .50 cal.

There are some exceptions, .308, .223, both military, but then that's the military. .300 WinMag, etc... But mostly are "performance" rounds made specifically for their ballistics characteristics rather than to fit a particular weapon. I never understood why they called the .357 magnum, not the .38 magnum, since one is referencing the shell casing diameter, the other the bullet diameter, both the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7.62X51 and 5.56X45 is military.
Shrug

As for the .357 name, .38 magnum would have probably caused people to load factory .357 Smith and Wesson magnum ammo into .38's or they would have tried loading .38 Mag data into .38 special cases resulting in kaboomed guns.
By calling it something entirely different, this confusion was probably avoided, that and 357 "sounds" more powerful than 38, marketing maybe?

7.62 and 5.56 are military, but are also METRIC equivalents of .308 and .223, respectively. Our Forefathers thought in fractions.

Why do they call a .22 magnum such, instead of a .224 magnum?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
  Reply
#27
Huh?

I'm not really following you, sorry.

Why is the .223 Remington not the .224 Remington?
Some people need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936976021/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_bs5jwbZH1GAZF

  Reply
#28
39Flathead;170399 Wrote:Huh?

I'm not really following you, sorry.

Why is the .223 Remington not the .224 Remington?

Wildcat cartridges for the most part have used 224 or 22 in the name of their rounds that by going to the 223 in naming it would not of been loaded to hot . I have heard of rugar and weatherby both having a .224 cartridge . I do not know loaded data or ballistic charts for them but I heard of them. it was more to do with separating from the rest of the 22 Wildcats that have made it into production then anything else.
psycosteve, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Oct 2015.
  Reply
#29
Apropos of the subject, here's a really weird 1911; 85% size, polymer frame, in .380ACP.

NRA Gun of the Week: Browning Mini 1911 in .380
gascolator, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2012.
  Reply
#30
(11-17-2015, 11:50 PM)39Flathead Wrote: Huh?

I'm not really following you, sorry.

Why is the .223 Remington not the .224 Remington?

The .22 magnum is actually .224 in bullet diameter. So, one would expect that if you kept with naming convention, either a .357 magnum (bullet diameter of a .38) ought to be called a .38 magnum, or the .22 magnum should be called a .224 magnum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SAF Life Member
DeadEye, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.
  Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Love my new P238 RugerGirl 2 536 07-08-2015, 12:05 PM
Last Post: RugerGirl
  New upgrades to S&W Bodyguard 380 Philadelphia Patriot 3 1,672 02-02-2014, 02:20 PM
Last Post: Leverdoug
  Glock 25 and 28 (.380 auto) LEO only? acosenza2 5 1,246 01-01-2013, 03:53 PM
Last Post: Valorius



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)