# Interesting little article on .380 "mouse-guns"



## KenpoTex (Jan 24, 2010)

http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2074&cid=4

While I don't believe it says so in the article, I have it from another source that the Rohrbaugh was the only one to make it through the 100 rounds (approx.) without malfunctioning.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 24, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2074&cid=4
> 
> While I don't believe it says so in the article, I have it from another source that the Rohrbaugh was the only one to make it through the 100 rounds (approx.) without malfunctioning.


 
Me personally, I wouldn't go to one over my hammerless snubbie.

I can't justify trading up near-total reliability and the ability if needed to let go all 5 shots still in a pocket with no trouble, in favor of a serious power drop ( .38+P to .380 does make a differece even with today's ammo) and maybe two more rounds capacity in a gun that due to its role( backup) I wouldn't carry a reload for anyway.......


----------



## Carol (Jan 24, 2010)

Very interesting.   I wouldn't mind trying a few of those out myself.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2010)

The 'best' concealed carry gun is the one you have with you.  If you don't carry it, it's of no use.  All firearms are compromises, none are perfect.  But the (often conflicting) goals for CCW use are:

1) Concealable.
2) Power (enough to stop someone).
3) Size/weight (people tend to get tired of carrying 5 pound lumps of steel).
4) Reliability in a high-stress situation.

The problem with concealed carry is that the weapons themselves are often unsuited for concealment (a legal requirement in most states which issue CCW licenses, if it can be seen, it's not legal).  As well, small semi-automatics are either chambered in an inefficient cartridge that may not be a one-shot stop round, or they suffer from problems with feeding or extracting (or both).  Small revolvers are less prone to mechanical problems, but they are not flat, and can 'print' through a holster, thus making them not concealed.

Larger people may not have as much of a problem, but in the summertime, it can be a problem for everyone who wishes to carry concealed.

One possible solution is the modern derringer, sexed up as a double-action design.  American Derringer, in Waco, TX, offers the DA38 in either .38 Special or .40 S&W.

There are other modern derringer manufacturers, but they all make Single-Action designs as far as I am aware.  However, they offer a variety of chamberings, even .45 Long Colt / .410 shotgun.  Being SA, they have to be cocked before each shot, of course.  And hammers can catch on clothing during draw.

Derringers are a challenge to shoot - small size and medium-to-big caliber ensures big kick.  The barrels are short and accuracy is not good in general.  However, they are classically 'belly guns'.  Given that the circumstances in which a person might use a concealed weapon in self-defense tend to be short range, this might not be a major drawback.  They're also two-shot, not five, six, or a magazine of whatever size.  So you've got two shots to get the job done; or carry two of the things (yeah, right).

I'm not suggesting that derringers are the right answer to concealed carry.  But I believe that there is currently a niche that is not being well exploited.  Modern semi-automatics are getting better, no doubt.  More reliable, lighter.  Wheelguns have always been terrific, but their nature means they won't be 'flat' in a pocket or holster.  Derringers might offer an interesting alternative, perhaps for hot summer days when you are dressing light but don't want to go out unarmed.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

Ken,

I've owned several .380s and .32s.

The Kel-Tec P3AT and P32 I've used alot. They are ok. Yes a break in period and even then you will find some that won't work. Mine do and I still have them (if they didn't I wouldn't keep 'em.) BUT, they are not 500 round zero jam Glocks. If I shot 50 rounds out of them they got cleaned!

I have a Bersa .380. Got it for $238 bucks. Fully nickle and looked like zero wear. Even the mag was nickled.

Now in the first 40 or so rounds I had alot of failures to chamber. But after that it just chugged along. And now that my Lee Turrent press as a turrent in .380 set up, I can crank out .380s CHEAP!

But the Bersa is not really one of those micro-.380s.

I've had several Walther PPK and PPK/S pistols jam a bunch. Even a SIG 230 gave me fits. HSc's in .32 not work well.

For last ditch defense, firing only 7 or 8 rounds, they will work ok.

But like Andy said, I do prefer my 642 if I have to have a small gun. Otherwise a Glock 26 or better.

Deaf


----------



## Skpotamus (Jan 25, 2010)

I've never been a big fan of the tiny guns like those.  I've seen WAY too many come back with problems at the gun shops I worked at.  

If I had to carry really small and wanted to stick with an automatic (I carry a ruger LCR as a pocket gun) I'd probably look really hard at the Kahr PM9.  My wife carries one everyday.  It took an initial break in period of about 300 rounds to get it 100% reliable, but since then it's ate over 2,000 rounds without a malfunction.  

Specs vs the Kahr 380:
Length PM9 = 5.3 in   380 = 4.9 inches 
height  PM9 = 4.0 in,  380 = 3.9 in
width   PM9 =.90 in,   380 = .75 in.  

The biggest difference in size between them is 0.4 inches.  Less than a half inch in length.  Capacity is the same between the guns, or you can carry a plus one extension on the 9mm (not available for the 380).  


YMMV


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 25, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Ken,
> 
> Yes a break in period and even then you will find some that won't work.



Personally, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the gun companies leave the final "finishing" to the consumer.  IMO, there should be no need for a break-in period or a "fluff-n-buff" or any of the other crap people have to do to get these things to actually run (assuming you didn't end up with one of the many that will never work right).

I don't expect that they'll ever make one that will digest thousands of rounds w/o cleaning like a Glock will do.  However, it would seem that after 100+ years of semi-auto production, someone would figure out how to produce a model that will consistently function.

</rant off>


----------



## lklawson (Jan 25, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> Personally, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the gun companies leave the final "finishing" to the consumer.  IMO, there should be no need for a break-in period or a "fluff-n-buff" or any of the other crap people have to do to get these things to actually run (assuming you didn't end up with one of the many that will never work right).


It's funny, but the more I read around, the more I find that just about every pistol has an official/semi-official statement from the manufacturer that they require a break-in (aka "shoot-in") period of between 50 and 200 rounds.

The Kel-Tec's "fluff 'n buff" is really all that is, a manual "break in" for mating parts together and "wearing away" factory artifacts without having to invest as many rounds.

I keep hearing stories of so-n-so's Sig or Glock or whatever that "was a jam-o-matic for the first 50 rounds and then perfect ever since."  Which is pretty much an identical story to what I see on ktorg, and even the same for "cheap" Hi-Points.



> I don't expect that they'll ever make one that will digest thousands of rounds w/o cleaning like a Glock will do.


FWIW, I've seen more than one person on ktorg claim they only clean their pistol every 500 or 1000 rounds.

It's also worth noting (for comparison) that Hi-Point's "official" policy is to NOT BOTHER cleaning their pistols.  Just brush out the bbl and bore and maybe do a more thorough job after a couple thousand rounds.  I found this hard to believe so I started doing some research and it seems to be true.  There's a crap load of Hi-Point fans who claim, after an initial break in period, their pistols have ran flawlessly with next to no maintenance, even after upwards of 5,000 rounds (one fella was claiming 10,000 rounds with nothing more than locking back the slide and running a bore-snake through every once in a while).  What's more, this seems to be supported by the various gun rags out there.  They all seem to grudgingly like Hi-Points, while hating them as ugly.  I though Taffin's was the most amusing.



> However, it would seem that after 100+ years of semi-auto production, someone would figure out how to produce a model that will consistently function.
> 
> </rant off>


Try a Hi-Point?   

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Skpotamus (Jan 25, 2010)

Most manufacturers do have some type of break in period, oddly, the more expensive teh gun, the longer the break in.  The Kahr my wife had was around 300 rounds, enough to get her used to the gun enough to carry, and get her some malfunction clearing practice (something I have to setup in my glocks to get to do).  The Kimber TLE I had wouldn't get through a whole magazine without failing to feed, 500 rounds later it had the same problem, Kimber told me to run at least 1k thru it before sending it back in.  My father in law bought a Kimber Warrior Elite, a 1300 pistol, same deal.  

Hi Points.... man, they musta changed a lot from when we were selling them in the gun shop I worked at.  We had so many of those come back with problems it wasn't even funny.  Enough so that our shop quit selling them because we were sending so many back.  

I wonder how many of the people doing the write ups on them have actually shot that many rounds through one?


----------



## lklawson (Jan 25, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Most manufacturers do have some type of break in period, oddly, the more expensive teh gun, the longer the break in.  The Kahr my wife had was around 300 rounds, enough to get her used to the gun enough to carry, and get her some malfunction clearing practice (something I have to setup in my glocks to get to do).  The Kimber TLE I had wouldn't get through a whole magazine without failing to feed, 500 rounds later it had the same problem, Kimber told me to run at least 1k thru it before sending it back in.  My father in law bought a Kimber Warrior Elite, a 1300 pistol, same deal.


Yeah, it's weird, ain't it?



> Hi Points.... man, they musta changed a lot from when we were selling them in the gun shop I worked at.  We had so many of those come back with problems it wasn't even funny.  Enough so that our shop quit selling them because we were sending so many back.


I don't find that surprising at all.  A bit of research turned up that all of Hi-Points are blowback design.  The 9's.  The 40's.  The 45's.  All of them.  Blowbacks are more sensitive to limp-wristing than most other auto designs and the price-point ensures the target market is disproportionately heavy with novice shooters who will limp-wrist without ever hearing the term.

It's also worth mentioning to prospective buyers of the pocket 380s (and the pocket 9's) that such light guns are also more vulnerable to limp-wristing.  While I doubt that the article authors were guilty of such an offense, I have ZERO doubt that many of the FTF malfunctions that us rank-n-fine guys have with these pocket-rockets is due to limp-wristing.



> I wonder how many of the people doing the write ups on them have actually shot that many rounds through one?


Beats me.  <shrug>

I was so intrigued that I decided to buy one for a project.  (I'll post details and pics when I'm done.)  When I took it to the range for the break-in, it digested everything well but especially liked the 147 gr. Rangers that my PF9 absolutely gags on.  The only rounds it *wouldn't* eat reliably were the "gunshow special" reloads that I've complained about before because *NOTHING* seems to eat them reliably.

I'm expecting to move the PF9 to pasture soon.  I just bought a P11 on auction and expect it to be delivered this week.  Slide will need refinished as it's got too much holster wear but it seems to be an otherwise low-mileage gun (carried a bunch, shot a little).

I'm also waiting eagerly for the smith at my LGS to finish duracoating my CZ52 so I can have that back in service.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 25, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> Personally, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the gun companies leave the final "finishing" to the consumer. IMO, there should be no need for a break-in period or a "fluff-n-buff" or any of the other crap people have to do to get these things to actually run (assuming you didn't end up with one of the many that will never work right).
> 
> I don't expect that they'll ever make one that will digest thousands of rounds w/o cleaning like a Glock will do. However, it would seem that after 100+ years of semi-auto production, someone would figure out how to produce a model that will consistently function.
> 
> </rant off>


 
And that is why smart people get Glocks. Like Tommy Lee Jones said, "works every time".

Deaf


----------



## lklawson (Jan 26, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> And that is why smart people get Glocks. Like Tommy Lee Jones said, "works every time".


I visited the Glock forum once and saw a bunch of complaints of FTF's and other issues.  Particularly with new guns.  IMS, a lot of the advice was to give it a break in period.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 26, 2010)

.380's are notorious for malfunctions; however, if you get a decent one they're great for concealment and close range encounters.

I have a Keltec w/ wallet holster and never had one issue with it.


----------



## Carol (Jan 26, 2010)

Anyone have a favorite for one of these little guys?  

I'm in the market for something very small at the moment.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 26, 2010)

Carol said:


> Anyone have a favorite for one of these little guys?
> 
> I'm in the market for something very small at the moment.


I have a KT P32.  It's small.  It's light.  It shoots straight and reliably.  But .32 is considered dredging the bottom for SD.  Generally considered to be light on the penetration so I keep it loaded with FMJs which typically don't have any problem making the FBI minimum penetration (it's still a .32" hole though).

I have a KT PF9.  It's only marginally larger than the P32 and spits out the much more powerful 9mm.  But it's rough on the hand.  Conceals *VERY *well.

I have also just bought a KT P11.  It's a smidge shorter in the length and height than the PF9 but is about 1/16" wider in the grip.  I think this is negligible, but that's just me. However, the 10/12+1 magazines make it a lot heavier to carry than the 7+1 PF9.  I'll let you know how it shoots after I've tested it.

From all I've heard the .380s sting pretty good when firing too.  This is believable to me.  My PA-63 in 9x18 Makarov is an aluminum framed (light) beast and, like the PF9, it becomes uncomfortable to shoot after 4-6 mags.

Another consideration is the general expense and availability of .380 ammo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 26, 2010)

Carol said:


> Anyone have a favorite for one of these little guys?
> 
> I'm in the market for something very small at the moment.


 
If you must have the .380, go with a Sig P232( it's pricey, all SIGs are, but you get what you pay for).

If you must have the .32, go with the Seecamp LWS32( although I believe that as of this writing there's a 380 the same size as the .32 for sale in all states but mine, so if you can find that, get that).


----------



## seasoned (Jan 26, 2010)

Carol said:


> Anyone have a favorite for one of these little guys?
> 
> I'm in the market for something very small at the moment.


For the time being I am running with my Walther's PPK/S .380. I had it tucked away and was using my SW 640 for carry, which kicks hard. I know I am giving up some, but it feels so good, and carries very well.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 26, 2010)

seasoned said:


> For the time being I am running with my Walther's PPK/S .380. I had it tucked away and was using my SW 640 for carry, which kicks hard. I know I am giving up some, but it feels so good, and carries very well.


 

Just be aware( if you aren't already) that if you carry it off safe, it ceases to be drop-safe.

My backup gun is carried so as to be accessible to my left hand, and so the PPK having a right side safety only was a deal breaker in my particular case. YMMV.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 27, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2074&cid=4


BTW, it's worth mentioning that there seems to be something of a bias in this article.

Consider this: the Ruger LCP is, essentially, a rip-off of the Kel-Tec P3AT design.  Visually, they're nearly identical.  Internally, you can't *quite* interchange parts (though some enterprising home/hobby smiths have done so).

The author(s) hate the look of the P3AT, claiming that it has too many corners and such, but think the LCP is "handsome."  They say that both the LCP and the P3AT malfunctioned with various kinds of ammo.  Of the P3AT, they state:
"the P3AT is prone to malfunction with several kinds of ammunition. I suspect that the Kel-Tec needs a great deal of breaking-in before it goes into service."​While the LCP's malfunctions are:
"There were no problems then, but a new array of different loads resulted in some jams. I must conclude that the LCP is a bit ammunition-sensitive and you have to pick your loads carefully to keep it running."​So the the KT needs "a great deal of breaking in" but with the LCP it's just "a bit ammunition-sensitive," that's all.  

And they claim that the LCP was the pocket .380 that "ignited such intense popularity in tiny .380s."  What?  I remember when the P3AT came out and there was a massive landslide of press and purchasing.  LGS's couldn't keep them in stock and the press said things like "game changer" and "truly innovative" and such.  But then the LCP does a carbon copy and *IT *is the one that "ignited intense popularity"????

The guys over on ktorg are having a fit over the story.    It's rather amusing to watch, actually.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## zDom (Jan 28, 2010)

The other day I a friend of mine (here on the forums but I forget his screen name) was saying you need to be careful with "mouse guns" 

if you shoot someone with one they might find out and get mad!


----------

