Effect of artificial constraints on firearms development?

Not sure on the 380 as a platform for FA in a handgun - and here's my thought process on it:

1) the 380/9mmK (in an HG platform) has almost always been designed as a blowback action instead of a locked action because of the operating pressures. The Colt/Browning 1903 being a notable exception.

2) I find BB action FA's to be more difficult to control than a locked/delayed action FA - subtle for sure, but the two BB FA's I've fired just climbed wicked fast on me vs the roller lock I fired. The AR was a rifle so I can't really compare it vs a subgun.

3) Two manufactured FA pistols (the Beretta and the Glock) both suffer from the same issue of control - Glock had the optional stock and Beretta tried the front grip and a 3rd burst. Both proved to be a handful.

4) Micro Uzi. *insert gonk face*

Hopefully you can see some of my thought pattern on the topic. For sure it would get more rounds out of the gun, but the real question is would it get more rounds on target - and I just can't answer that. It smacks of the same round-about thought process of the 410 revolvers IMO, and the "less finesse in aiming required" accentuates it.

I think if anything, manufacturers have had to become MORE creative to fit into the constraints of the arbitrary restrictions such as non-military calibers, advancements in polymer designs, striker designs, etc. Look at all the goofiness that has come about to AR's just to fit with the knee jerk legislation. Designers will adapt, and they'll continue to create.

I personally feel I have plenty of options under existing artificial and arbitrary restrictions to effectively and efficiently address a dangerous threat.  Instead of a full auto .380, maybe just carry a more effective caliber in the first place?  

Would HE rounds be viable out of a weapon intended for up close and personal defense? Don't explosive rounds generally have a fusing mechanism to prevent them from going off too close to the shooter? A .380 wouldn't carry much RDX/PETN or whatever, but for a pistol intended to be used between point blank range and 5 yards or so, I could see unintended consequences. If the danger close for such a bullet is 25 feet, it would be a moot point - - I don't know anybody who would advocate spraying .380 explosive bullets at a person who is 30 ft away, and closer than that means you don't get the benefits of the HE.

I really think the prohibition on silencers and MGs is destroying most effective and practical designs. Gemtech and B&T both have mini suppressors for the Glock 42 that make it about the same length as a full sized. I think that would be absolutely a great carry gun with a very low report. I think something similar could be worked on with the integrally suppressed Russian weapons and make them for the civilian market. Fixed barrel 9mm is possible with in shrouded barrel suppressed gun. However, with the current climate who's going to carry a NFA item? Or how about a slide that is baffled on a semi auto with a ported barrel making about 1.5" thick? Berettas are 1.5" thick. There are endless possibilities.

Likewise, what about integrally suppressed hunting rifles? IMO the prinicle of home defense is a suppressed rifle. How about something on the line of the MP5k for $1200? Or honeybadgers for $900? I'm talking full auto.

So yes, current laws are stiffing the best tools for the job.

Looks mildly effective.

Do want.

See, that's what I suspected. That's in the ballpark for average range in a defensive shoot with a handgun. I'm thinking if you put that burst in your assailant the attack would probably be over right then and there. The tissue damage from concentrated fire on that one small area.....