Talk:.380 ACP/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cartridge Specifications problem

I was going to edit this, but ran into a problem. When I view the page, it shows bullet diameter as .984in (25mm). That's ridiculously large, and wrong. It's the same bullet diameter as a 9mm parabellum, which is .355in. However, when I went to edit the page, it showed that the bullet diameter already was .355in, which is correct. So I didn't make the edit. Can anyone else figure out what's wrong with the specs box? Bullet diameter needs to be changed from .984 to .355 inches. Thanks. Aaron Baker 74.131.17.79 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Need of gender specific wording?

I have removed two words that are unnecessary in a informational article. This line Even so, it remains a viable self defense cartridge for use in compact pistols, particularly for women or those who have a lower tolerance or ability to fire a pistol with a large amount of recoil. I have changed to read Even so, it remains a viable self defense cartridge for use in compact pistols, particularly for those who have a lower tolerance or ability to fire a pistol with a large amount of recoil. Reasoning is that it's unnecessary to single out women, since any woman who does have difficulty with firearms would logically be included as one of those who have a lower tolerance or ability to fire a pistol with a large amount of recoil. GameJunkieJim 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It says, specificially, "women OR those who have a lower tolerance...". I happen to know the english language well enough to know what that simple word means. Women, who are smaller than men by way of statistics, will have proportionately smaller frames and, therefore, require proportionately smaller weapons. It so happens that when you examine the average difference between a man and woman, the .380 roughly represents said reduction with regards to power of the cartridge and size of the weapon vs. the standard 9mm pistol cartridge.--Asams10 05:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's your argument for having that in there, then you might as well have Women or Midgets or Children or skinny guys. That's a strawman argument to promote sexism. "Women OR" is unnecessary, since small framed women are included in those that have a lower tolerance. To single them out is unnecessary, and non-encyclopaediac. Keep to the facts. Some women are perfectly capable of firing 9mm or even larger caliber weaponry. However, we aren't going to get anywhere like this, I've contacted an administrator to mediate. GameJunkieJim 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're being hypersensative to the fact that women are different. Hey, it's a fact. Women do, indeed, average smaller. Children should not generally carry self-defense weapons. And, hey, Mister Bigot, they prefer the term, "Little People." If you're so hyper-sensative about not pointing out anatomical differences between men and women, why use a derogatory term like that? I don't buy it.--Asams10 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few people with dwarfism also think the term "Little People" is derogatory, but that was the point in me using it. And you don't have a need to even use the term, since women, like men, come in many different shapes and sizes. GameJunkieJim 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my opinion

gamejunkie's right. Since some women can handle the recoil, you can't logically say the whole group can't handle it. Just make it neutral.Mike 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some women can handle recoil, some men cannot. In general, though, women are smaller than men. Gun companies gear advertisement campaigns towards women. They spend millions of dollars developing smaller framed pistols, revolvers, and firearms. Heck, Smith & Wesson, one of the most politically correct gun manufacturers around, offered a line called the "LadySmith" with smaller grips and fashionable styling. Beyond that, I never said that the entire group couldn't handle recoil. You're making a logical fallacy. You're arguing that since the wording says some, it means all. You can't argue that the text is saying one thing and that that thing is bad when the text doesn't say what you say it says. --Asams10 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, you cannot use a generalization in a factual content page. The sentence has no need of being used in that way, and with the deletion of 2 words, becomes completely neutral. The act of Smith & Wesson creating a gun as a fashion accessory actually tends to discredit your claim that they were acting politically correctly, so again I must say that adding a generalization like that to a page which is supposed to be factual is irresponsible. Wikipedia is meant to be used professionally, that doesn't mean that you run a business or are a talent agent, it means that the Wiki Pages should have only responsible, mature and Neutral Point of View information, and the act of mentioning women where unnecessary is not responsible, mature, or neutral. GameJunkieJim 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So, is it your opinion that humans are gender neutral? Are generalizations not allowed on Wikipedia? I don't think it's sexist at all to point out that the GENERAL tastes of women and men differ for FACTUAL reasons. I feel like I'm engaging in a discussion with you for reasons unrelated to this article and you know what I mean. I will leave the discussion to you and continue to revert any attempt to omit this fact for the sake of political correctness and a personal vendetta you have agaist me for the Heckler & Koch MP7 article.--Asams10 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If any of you can find a source (advert, promo, review, etc) that says the handgun is more suited/designed for women, then it should not be reverted. Otherwise, it remains unsubstantiated. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it looks like you're the only ones who don't know that Gun Companies are designing and marketing towards women:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

--Asams10 00:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, way to be uncivil to the poor admin who is here on request to mediate a dispute. Looking for specific mentions of this .380 ACP being specifically marketed towards women. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

...And I gave you 6 references. The anti-gun crowd, the NRA, and the Gun industry all agree that firearms are being designed and marketed towards women. The NRA brags, the Anti-gun crowd cries foul, and the Industry keeps designing and marketing guns with smaller frames. Did you read the references? The whole premise seems to me to be absurd that GameJunkieJim in particular would look through the articles I've edited in the recent past and jump on an edit by another user. I'm defending the premise that gun manufacturers realize there is an anatomical and affective difference between men and women in general and they've therefore set about designing and marketing these guns towards women. It's a no-brainer. I Googled "Lady Smith" and referenced six articles from the first three pages that supported this. I've got over 20 years experience marketing guns myself. It's a fact. It's supported. It should stay.--Asams10 06:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

6 references, none of which directly mentions this .380 catridge. "Lady Smith" is a gun, not a catridge, is it? This remains inferential unless you can provide specific references stating that this catridge is designed for women... In this case, at most you can say "Lady Smith, a handgun designed for women, uses this catridge, blahblahblah."

In any case, threatening to end discussion and resume revert warring is generally frowned upon. If you feel someone has a personal vendetta against you, take it to WP:RFC. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference, in context is not about .380 cartridges but the weapons designed for them. While you might consider it patronizing, and I agree it might be a bit heated, the facts remain that the .380 is a VERY popular caliber among women for the reasons stated. This is simple to understand for anybody in the business. I cannot fathom anybody denying it for any reason other than to get my dander up. I'm frankly shaking my head as I type this. It's like arguing whether leather companies design purses for women or not for fear that women might take offense!--Asams10 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the whole "women" part as it's not even necessary for the sentence to be accurate. IMHO, the sentence is still accurate with it removed, and has the added bonus of not offending anyone. (^_^) ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's edited back again. I'll not remove it again until the admin makes a judgement. GameJunkieJim 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to avoid conflict if you can... ;D Though the other editor seems to have quite an animosity towards you. Whether that's justified I cannot say, but it does make dispute resolution quite difficult. I won't make a "judgment" saying who is wrong and who is right. I'm mainly here to get people to cool down and resolve their differences amicably. Quite a task given the Asams10's rather patronising remarks right off the bat. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done.I think it's my name the issue is with, apparently Gamers and Women are not his favorite things... GameJunkieJim 03:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, he seems to have misinterpreted my calling him on his sexism as a homosexual attack. Just for the record, I have never, and will never attack ANYONE on the grounds of their sexual orientation, race, gender, creed, or personal or political beliefs. I will, however, make my distaste known for blatant acts of sexism or bigotry towards any of those groups. Asams10 has clearly singled out women here where it is unecessary, and I called him on it. Any other reference he makes is his own issue. GameJunkieJim 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality check

I've reread my coments and cannot find a single sexist thing I've said. I have, however, endured a lambasting and series of accusations for this alleged offense. I'd like for somebody to point out the exact words, phrase, sentence, or paragraph which is offensive and explain how it violates any rules? As a bit of a pre-emptions, all physicians would be bigots if nobody could point out differneces between men and women. --Asams10 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the paragraph at the top? I'll let you go look.GameJunkieJim 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

??? I guess I'm missing it. Again, please back up what you say by pointing out specifics. --Asams10 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For instance, you should say something like this: This statement was made by user GameJunkieJim: "If that's your argument for having that in there, then you might as well have Women or Midgets or Children or skinny guys." Said statement uses the pejorative term "Midget" and this term offends me and is generally offensive to all people. I therefore believe that he should be officially wanred that such action is unacceptable.

Now, in your case you would say something to the effect of: Asams10 said, "Women are generally smaller than men" and I feel that this means that Asams10 is a sexist because he thinks women and men are different. There. Try it.--Asams10 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct reference to women in article

Asams10, no one here is disputing the fact that, in general, women are smaller than men. That actually has nothing at all to do with the main concern here: that the following sentence unecessarily includes a specific mention of women.

Even so, it remains a viable self defense cartridge for use in compact pistols, particularly for women, small-framed people, or those who have a lower tolerance for a pistol with a large amount of recoil.

The whole point of an encyclopedic article is to be as accurate as possible, and to not include any extraneous information (information that is unnecessary to make the point of a particular sentence or paragraph or article). Changing the sentence above to the the following would resolve the concern expressed by those who think it unnecessarily refers to women, yet would still be an accurate statement that would still indirectly refer to women of small stature:

Even so, it remains a viable self defense cartridge for use in compact pistols, particularly for small-framed people or those who have a lower tolerance for a pistol with a large amount of recoil.

Can you see how the second phrasing works just as well? There's no need to directly refer to women as the sentence includes any small-framed person (or person who is unable to handle large amounts of recoil), regardless of gender. Is this acceptable to you? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoε} 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say, suggest, infer, or otherwise state that one cannot refer to women in an article? Among firearms manufacturers and retailers in the United States, the .380 ACP is regarded as an ideal self-protection caliber for women. It is a fact that deserves mention and has encyclopedic significance. I would love for a few people who regularly edit firearms related articles to chime in on this one. Are people in the firearms business sexist because they make and market ammunition and firearms to women? Why is it necessary to remove a reference to women in this article? It does not infer anything negative about women. I'm defending this as a matter of principle. Removing the reference is censorship, plain and simple, no matter what cloak of political correctness one hides behind.--Asams10 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's implied that Wikipedia pages be NPOV. I think a better question would be why do you insist on singling out women when it is not necessary to do so? GameJunkieJim 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained why the article contains a reference to women. It was you who wanted to remove it. It's not POV and I have references to show that the poster of the info (remember, here, not me... I'm just defending them) was not just inventing the information. The burden of proof is on you to show that this reference is POV with your own references that the gun industry does not make and market .380 pistols to women specifically. It perplexes me that you would take offense to that when the entire gun industry and the anti-gun 'industry' agree that this is the case.--Asams10 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have just been hoitsed by your own pertard. This article is not about any guns marketed to women. It is about a simple cartridge, and a woman's gun is not the only application for it. Therefore, the inclusion of women is unnecessary. I have no doubt that the Firearms industry markets to women, but it has no relevance to the article. I would not complain if I saw women mentioned on the S&W Ladysmith page, as it pertains to the article, but it does NOT pertain here. It's an ammunition page, and ammunition is not gender specific. GameJunkieJim 03:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The .380 cartridge allows for guns to be designed smaller than 9mm by virtue of its size and power. Sorry again that this was not my addition. That information is childs-play to gun designers... again, a no-brainer. Perhaps that can be added to the article by way of clarification. Does that settle it?--Asams10 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the .380 itself designed for women? No, it is not. The debate stands. You still can address those specific women indirectly, by mentioning that it is suitable for smaller framed people (Note the use of the word 'people' and not 'women') GameJunkieJim 03:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons people might want a low-recoil cartridge. However I don't see this as relevant. I attmpted compromise language which says that .380 is a popular defense cartridge for folks who want low recoil, without attempting to speculate about WHY they want low recoil. I also removed the bit about compact pistols- a very small pistol chambered in .380 can still have significant recoil. Friday (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Friday. I think (hope?) your edit should be satisfactory to both parties in this dispute. Hopefully this will be the end of this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Asams10 and GameJunkieJim: Do not revert the main page one more time or you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. This revert war is getting ridiculous. Neither of you appear willing to compromise. I strongly suggest that neither of you edit the main page until this matter is settled. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I can accept the current iteration of the page. Although the image has been removed. However this version is perfectly NPOV and I can accept it as is. GameJunkieJim 02:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the imaage a couple days ago, but forgot to post here about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What's it called?

Is it called "Three Eight Oh" or "Three Eighty"? And could the answer to that question please be added to the top of the article? --BillyTFried 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Three Eighty." I've never heard it any other way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.72.85 (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Loser versus Looser

One means that you are a loser - no good. The other means you need looser pants - I've gained weight. In this article, it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.54.180 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Guns listed, is it necessary?

Why are guns being listed under this round. It doesn't seem relevant to know what kind of guns fire this particular round since no other calibers seem to mention it. Is this round really that rare?

If so please add this gun. Hi Point Model CF-380. If not then lets axe the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickjh2005 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Love the Chart

yup. love it. those are details that i have not found on any other ammo page. if whoever created it did more i would love checkin them out. kudosPrimergrey (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

.22 Fat? Never heard that as a name for .380 ACP, and there's no source.

Can anyone verify that as a name? Even in a Google search, the ONLY reference that came up was for the Wikipedia page for .380 ACP. This leads me to believe that this is an unverifiable- and therefore unofficial- name for .380 ACP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.241.154 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

US Bias

There is a very heavy US bias in the popular weapons section, mentioning concealed carry without mentioning the US is pretty poor form. I know it is linked to the concealed carry page but is the US the only place in the world with concealed carry? Also listing US specific weapon availability but no mention of other countries. C'mon editors this isn't US Wikipedia it's English language Wikipedia, end the bias.49.197.169.55 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Change pic?

Suggest we change the pic from the Hi-Point to one of the actual cartridge. Anyone have one?

I removed the Yugoslavian 9mm short cartridge pic b/c there must be an issue in what they consider such versus what non-Former Warsaw Pact nations describe as such; the pics were 9x18mm Makarov rounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, the text says 'not to be confused with the .38 ACP', but the photo is clearly of a 23mm round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.218.217 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)