A Word of Caution About Hornady Critical Defense FTX Ammunition

[Shawn Dodson]

According to Steve Johnson, Hornady Marketing Communications Manager, the Critical Defense line of handgun ammunition:

...is not designed to shoot through glass, is not designed to shoot through a car door, and is not designed to shoot through a wall. If you have to shoot through something like that in a personal defense situation you're probably going to jail.

NRA's American Guardian TV

Thus if you CCW and need to shoot from the inside of your car, through glass or sheetmetal, then you cannot rely on Hornady Critical Defense handgun ammo to perform. If you're stopped at the side of the road changing a flat tire and you're attacked, you cannot rely on Hornady Critical Defense handgun ammo to shoot through glass and sheetmetal, if that's what it takes, to stop the attack.

If you use Hornady Critical Defense handgun ammo for home defense you cannot rely on it to perform if you have shoot through the corner of a wall or through sheetrock near a doorjam, if that's what it takes, to stop an attacker who's partially exposed.

Hornady Critical Defense handgun ammo is not designed to shoot through anything other than clothing. It's not tested against anything other than bare gelatin and clothing. Performance against commonly encountered light barrier materials is untested and unknown. Therefore if your self-defense requirements include the capability to shoot through commonly encountered light barrier materials then Hornady Critical Defense handgun ammo is not your best choice.

 

[Mightee1]

I never would have thought that such a highly regarded HD round would have such pitfalls. I am willing to bet that testing was performed, but it performed so poorly, that they needed to justify 'what the bullet was designed to do'. These bullets are meant to dump as much of their energy as quickly as possible causing the biggest, meanest hole in a human assailant. The auto glass thing is not such a big deal (at least to me). The first shot could break the glass and the second (3rd, 4th, and 5th too) go into the BG. The sheet metal and drywall thing, on the other hand, could be a dealbreaker. There is a very real possibility that situations such as these could occur while defending your own life.

 

[buck460XVR]

Just more proof that there is no "magic" bullet, whether it be for hunting or Self Defense. No bullet on the market today will perform flawlessly in all SD/HD scenarios. Not real enlightenment to those that know their firearms and their limitations. More proof that one must rely more on accuracy, proficiency and confidence with their weapon as well as being aware of their surroundings so as not to become a victim that needs to ''shoot their way out".

In most civilian SD/HD scenarios, the Hornady Critical Defense ammo will work well. I assume that's what it is designed for. Close range, face to face, split second justifiable shoots made with low power weapons. Not two hour L.A. shootouts involving body armor with attackers and defenders using multiple types of cover.

 

[Water-Man]

I'll continue to use Federal HST!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The auto glass thing is not such a big deal (at least to me). The first shot could break the glass and the second (3rd, 4th, and 5th too) go into the BG.

Windshield glass is a difficult barrier for handgun bullets.

Ironically at least one TV commercial for Hornady Critical Defense handgun ammo depicts a couple stopped on the side of a road, in a remote location, changing out a flat tire. In a scenario such as this you might have had to shoot through a raised trunk lid, glass hatchback, or through the sheetmetal of an open car door.

I am willing to bet that testing was performed, but it performed so poorly, that they needed to justify 'what the bullet was designed to do'.

That could possibly be the case. A more plausible explanation is the misguided idea that a private citizen doesn't need the same terminal performance as law enforcement - as exemplified by Hornady's belief that if a private citizen has to shoot through glass, car doors or walls that he or she is probably committing some kind of criminal act.

The human target presents the same challenges to private citizens as it does to law enforcement. Is a law enforcement officer more likely to have to shoot through glass, sheetmetal or walls than a private citzen? Probably. But because the odds are greater for law enforcement to encounter these kinds of situations does not mean that the odds are zero for a private citizen.

Personal defense ammo designed especially for "private citizens" is a niche market. Perhaps it's somehow more socially appealing for a private citizen to use ammunition with less terminal performance capability compared to "more powerful" law enforcement ammunition?

 

[Presto]

I've had this ammo in my personal .45 ever since it was available. I have shot it through several layers of dense clothing, and it has performed consistently perfect. Now, I'm not trying to step on toes or anything. This is just the way that I feel, flawed as my logic may be. I have never shot at anything that I coudn't see, and I don't think I ever will. I understand where a policeman might be forced into shooting someone behind a barrier, but I could not bring myself to do it. I have no idea what else might be behind it with the bad guy. If it is inside my house, I have loved ones that could be back there. If I am in a car, the whole rest of the world could be behind that door or trunk lid. Another thing is that I am far more likely to have a run in with someone with a coupel extra layers of clothing on that I am to have to shoot at someone behind something. Like I said, this may be different to how most folks think, but it's the way I feel about it. I will continue to use the Hornady Critical Defence stuff until I'm convinced that it will not work for my needs or something that I think will work better comes along.

 

[christcorp]

Very well said Presto. If you're shooting THROUGH glass or sheet metal, then you are no longer in a "Self Defense" posture. People can try and rationalize the what-ifs all they want, but you're not going to convince anyone.

1) Self Defense is NOT the same thing as Home defense. Different guns and/or rounds for different purposes. I.e. I probably would never use a pocket gun for Home Defense, but I would for Self Defense. Same with the ammunition.
2) In Self Defense situations, the bad guys chose you because they believed you to be an easy mark for robbery, rape, car jacking, etc... They would NOT be trying to rob you or whatever, if they knew you were carrying a gun. If they knew you had a gun, they pass you by for an easier mark. And if you pull a gun out on them, they aren't going to stick around.
3) You're NOT going to get into a "Shoot-Out" in a self defense scenario. You're not going to be hiding behind a car door and returning fire on someone hiding behind a dumpster. Again, the bad guys does not believe you even have a gun. If they did, you wouldn't be his victim. So producing a weapon changes the dynamics.
4. When police are involved in shootings, it's not because the bad guy tried to rob or rape the police officer, and the officer is defending themselves. The bad guy, in their own rationalization, is actually feeling defensive in nature because of the police officer's presence. If you don't understand the difference between the environment of a bad guy's offensive attack on a victim and a bad guy's reaction to a police officer, then there's no explaining it to you.

So, as for the Critical Defense round, it is a fantastic round for what it's designed for. Mainly, SELF DEFENSE. If I'm in my car, and someone is trying to break in, and I shoot a round through the side window at 1-2 feet away, I don't care what the hell round I have; that's not a pretty sight. And assuming the bad guy didn't leave when I pulled the weapon out, maybe he didn't see it, he will definitely change his attitude after the first round. But this isn't hollywood. Self Defense scenarios are a lot more basic and simpler than some people want to admit. They want to believe they are under the same risk scenarios that a police officer is. They aren't, but there's no educating these people. They aren't going to change their mind. They still think they need a 15-18 round magazine and 2 more for backup. That it's possible that it could be them against a gang of 5 in a shoot-out on the street. Well, if you're also a gang member, that's possible. Then again, it wouldn't be a "Self-Defense" scenario. And I'm definitely all for gang members shooting each other. Maybe they'll all die.

But Self Defense and Home Defense are different things. I wouldn't use the critical defense ammo for home use. I have different clothes for different purposes; I drive different cars/trucks for different purposes; and I have different ammo for different purposes. Critical Defense Hornady rounds are great for self defense when you're outside of your home. In the home, I have different rounds depending on the caliber of the gun I'm using. #4 buck for shotgun; 230 grain Golden Sabers for my P220; Hornady XTP for my 9mm makarov; Powerball for my 9mm luger; Hydra-Shok for my 357 magnum revolver.

 

[RedAlert]

I think in the original post, the statement:

"If you have to shoot through something like that in a personal defense situation you're probably going to jail."

The author was mentioning the possibility that if a barrier exists, the law might consider that your life is not immediately threatened and thus have no legal right to shoot the BG. We all know that the law is interpreted in different ways at different times. For sure there will be times you need to shoot through glass, steel, etc.

Ralph

 

[Zak Smith]

The author was mentioning the possibility that if a barrier exists,

If the barrier can be shot through, it is by definition concealment, not cover, and thus an armed assailant is by definition still a threat.

 

[Manco]

I wonder if this is just a CYA thing taken too far in the words that were said.

Regardless, I too would now recommend against this ammunition for the same reasons that Shawn gave (who are we to argue with a company representative speaking ill of his own product?). The ammunition that I use, 180 grain .40 S&W Ranger Bonded (PDX1), was thoroughly tested against a variety of barriers and performed well against them, even automobile windshields, delivering enough penetration (in gelatin) after penetrating the barriers to inflict lethal wounds, which gives me more confidence in its effectiveness. Other modern ammunition such as HST and Gold Dot also perform well enough from what I've seen of them. And none of them would make me more inclined to do anything that would send me to jail.

 

[mljdeckard]

I have said from the moment I saw them advertised, I don't think that CD ammo offers more or less advantage than any other premium JHP ammo. They are trying to convince us that other ammo designers assumed that the people who get shot in defensive shootings are naked. I don't believe that they are significantly less likely to fail to expand than my HSTs.

There certainly exists the possibility that you may shoot through a barrier to hit a target to defend yourself. If you are stuck in traffic, and someone tries to force your door open, you can't drive away. In your home, someone may hide around a corner. Unusual and impossible are two different things. If we only plan for what is LIKELY to happen, we wouldn't arm ourselves at all.

 

[win71]

Zak

I'm having trouble understanding the benefit of your excellent legal definition of "concealment" and "cover" as it relates to THREAT.
I'm not sure where one would stand with both the powers that be ( police ) or the triers of fact ( Jury ) while trying to explain how you had a blind shoot-out through an exterior, apparently solid wall.

Whether or not that is what the OP had in mind is unclear.

Anyway, I use the Hornaday's in a Dick special. My self defense fear is generally face to face at close range.

At one time the duty weapon of one large highway department was 38 special using +p+ 110 gr. hollow points. Designed, of course, for human targets unshielded at face to face range and up to 10-15 yards. That is generally where the majority of the shootouts take place on traffic stops. These rounds usually would not pass through a slopped windshield and sometimes had difficulty passing through doors. This ammunition was used in the 70's and most vehicles had at least some amount of steel in the bodies.

It was fairly good ammunition in it's day for what it was designed for. Face to face shootings inflicting as much damage as possible while keeping the spent lead in the bad guys body. Hornaday has come up with something better, especially since +p+ and lightweight snub nosed revolvers don't do well together. It is no doubt good in all the calibers produced.

 

[JTQ]

I've had this ammo in my personal .45 ever since it was available.

How long has the .45ACP version been available? It wasn't part of the initial release.

 

[M2 Carbine]

According to Steve Johnson, Hornady Marketing Communications Manager, the Critical Defense line of handgun ammunition:
Quote:
...is not designed to shoot through glass, is not designed to shoot through a car door, and is not designed to shoot through a wall. If you have to shoot through something like that in a personal defense situation you're probably going to jail.

So Hornady's Marketing Communications Manager feels he is qualified to give legal advice?

If that's the quality of his legal advice, Steve had better stick to being a Marketing Communications Manager, what ever the heck that is.

 

[Manco]

Very well said Presto. If you're shooting THROUGH glass or sheet metal, then you are no longer in a "Self Defense" posture. People can try and rationalize the what-ifs all they want, but you're not going to convince anyone.

What if somebody were shooting at you through the windows and doors of your house? Would you not return fire if the indications were clear that the bad guy was behind a window or door (e.g. holes appearing in your door from outside)? That very thing happened earlier this year in a town right next to mine, so I'm not just playing the "what if" game here. Criminals have also occasionally plowed their cars (probably just stolen) through stores and homes as part of an extreme smash & grab tactic, and you'd want to be able to stop the driver of a deadly weapon (i.e. the car) in such cases, as well as anybody who might want to run you over for whatever reason. The latter happened to an off-duty cop in another neighboring town as a result of a road rage incident, and the same thing could potentially happen to anybody.

1) Self Defense is NOT the same thing as Home defense. Different guns and/or rounds for different purposes. I.e. I probably would never use a pocket gun for Home Defense, but I would for Self Defense. Same with the ammunition.

It could be very similar, as pointed out above.

2) In Self Defense situations, the bad guys chose you because they believed you to be an easy mark for robbery, rape, car jacking, etc... They would NOT be trying to rob you or whatever, if they knew you were carrying a gun. If they knew you had a gun, they pass you by for an easier mark. And if you pull a gun out on them, they aren't going to stick around.

That might happen, or they might panic and shoot you. And what if their goal is not to rob you but to kill you? Granted, not everybody faces such a situation, but many people do (usually from people they know rather than random criminals, but that makes no difference to the bullets).

3) You're NOT going to get into a "Shoot-Out" in a self defense scenario. You're not going to be hiding behind a car door and returning fire on someone hiding behind a dumpster. Again, the bad guys does not believe you even have a gun. If they did, you wouldn't be his victim. So producing a weapon changes the dynamics.

Lots of assumptions here. Obviously you have never been the target of somebody who is determined to kill you, or is at least making threats. I have been and still am, which is my punishment for spending six years trying to help an old friend overcome his addiction to pain medication. He suddenly relapsed after being clean for a long time and turned paranoid, ranting about me bugging his telephone, "redirecting" his web browser , and crawling in his attic and under his floors in the middle of the night (his mother's house, where he lives now, is on a concrete slab! :banghead: ). I broke all ties with him when he suddenly, at least from my point of view, went nuts right in my own home and started shoving my family around, and this has pissed him off even more. If he wanted to kill me, as he said he would if I didn't stop doing all those things that I never did (including crawling under his floor), then I'm not going to use some pansy round that can't even penetrate light barriers to defend myself with, even in my own home. As far as I'm concerned, self-defense, home-defense, and LEO use are all the same with regard to ammunition capabilities.

4. When police are involved in shootings, it's not because the bad guy tried to rob or rape the police officer, and the officer is defending themselves. The bad guy, in their own rationalization, is actually feeling defensive in nature because of the police officer's presence. If you don't understand the difference between the environment of a bad guy's offensive attack on a victim and a bad guy's reaction to a police officer, then there's no explaining it to you.

Sure, a robber or burglar will sooner run away from an armed citizen than cops who are determined to apprehend him, but what about homicidal maniacs who may be just as determined to kill somebody? It doesn't have to be something like my case, it could be a jealous ex who can't let somebody go and feels spurned, sort of like OJ Simpson, for instance, except with a gun possibly.

I'm glad that you apparently don't have any known sources of such danger, but then again, there is always the danger that is unknown.

So, as for the Critical Defense round, it is a fantastic round for what it's designed for. Mainly, SELF DEFENSE.

Eh, there are other rounds that are just as good or better in addition to being more versatile.

If I'm in my car, and someone is trying to break in, and I shoot a round through the side window at 1-2 feet away, I don't care what the hell round I have; that's not a pretty sight. And assuming the bad guy didn't leave when I pulled the weapon out, maybe he didn't see it, he will definitely change his attitude after the first round. But this isn't hollywood. Self Defense scenarios are a lot more basic and simpler than some people want to admit. They want to believe they are under the same risk scenarios that a police officer is. They aren't, but there's no educating these people. They aren't going to change their mind.

Are you willing to change your mind, or do I just need further education on why my life would not be in danger from using ammo with inferior performance? Tell me why I'll never have to deal with a determined attacker, just random criminals who will always run away when I pull a gun on them.

They still think they need a 15-18 round magazine and 2 more for backup. That it's possible that it could be them against a gang of 5 in a shoot-out on the street.

Many home invasions involve more than one bad guy--it's not uncommon at all.

Well, if you're also a gang member, that's possible.

The only thing I've ever done wrong was trying to do good deeds for others. I'm a lot more careful about naive, dumb stuff like that now, based on experience--sad but true.

Then again, it wouldn't be a "Self-Defense" scenario. And I'm definitely all for gang members shooting each other. Maybe they'll all die.

Or maybe they'll drive by good citizens trying to clean up their disgusting vandalism, and take shots at them. That was a big story around here earlier this year, with the guy who shot back at them posting about the experience on forums including this one. I hope that he uses ammo that can penetrate light barriers--citizens justifiably killing gang members is a good thing, too.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Shooting through a barrier (concealment) does not imply that you're shooting blindly through it. For example you may have to maneuver on foot around a car and shoot through car parts (raised hood, raised trunk lid, open door, fender, tire, tempered or laminated glass) to hit the vital area of an attacker, directly behind the barrier, to stop the attack.

 

[jackg]

I would just like to remind everyone that these words were spoken by a company representative and to me that accounts for a lot of what he said. Mr. Steve Johnson will NEVER advocate for anything other than the specified performance of the products he sells and if you expect any thing more you're wrong. It's likely he gets briefings from their legal dept. on a daily basis about what's going on in the industry so he's aware. Mr. johnson didn't get where he is by using words foolishly.
So while everyone seems to be putting words in his mouth, go back & read what he said, it's all about CYA.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

In Self Defense situations, the bad guys chose you because...

• He or she is mentally disturbed, not acting rationally and has chosen to attack you for no apparent reason
• He or she is emotionally disturbed, not acting rationally, and is attempting to do you great harm
• You may have stepped on a street thug's shoe, he "overreacts" and attacks you using deadly violence in the parking lot where you parked your car
• You may have unwittingly cut off somebody in traffic and the person escalates the situation with violence
• A drunk or tweaker attacks you with deadly violence for any irrational reason
• A group of thugs, some of who may be armed, who've been drinking and partying decide to take you on in the parking lot just for kicks

Perhaps the greatest misconception is the expectation that everyone you will encounter has a rational mental state.

Cheers!

 

[Manco]

The auto glass thing is not such a big deal (at least to me). The first shot could break the glass and the second (3rd, 4th, and 5th too) go into the BG.

Windshields are reinforced and won't simply shatter, so unless the BG holds still and you can put your bullets through the same hole, you'll need each bullet to penetrate both the windshield and BG. Since they're also angled, the larger and heavier the bullet, the less it will deflect. .45 ACP deflects only a little and .40 S&W not much more, but light 9mm bullets may deflect enough to turn some perfectly-centered shots into misses. It's not a huge concern for most people, but should be pointed out.

Other auto glass is generally tempered, so it's hard but will shatter into a million pieces when struck by a bullet (unless it's laminated by a tinting film, for example, but that's not a strong barrier anyway).

Just more proof that there is no "magic" bullet, whether it be for hunting or Self Defense.

True, but there are better ones available that come closer to the ideal, and a few that get at least 12" of penetration even through auto glass.

Shooting through a barrier (concealment) does not imply that you're shooting blindly through it. For example you may have to maneuver on foot around a car and shoot through car parts (raised hood, raised trunk lid, open door, fender, tire, tempered or laminated glass) to hit the vital area of an attacker, directly behind the barrier, to stop the attack.

That's true, the human mind is very capable of accurately and instantaneously estimating how an attacker's body will be positioned behind a barrier in a dynamic situation.

 

[IMTHDUKE]

christcorp

Very well stated and I agree 110%

 

[Zak Smith]

I'm having trouble understanding the benefit of your excellent legal definition of "concealment" and "cover" as it relates to THREAT.
I'm not sure where one would stand with both the powers that be ( police ) or the triers of fact ( Jury ) while trying to explain how you had a blind shoot-out through an exterior, apparently solid wall.

Some parts of the assailant behind concealment is not a "blind shoot-out".

I'd rather be carrying ammo that makes more things into concealment that would be cover if I were carrying worse ammo.

 

[Sgt_R]

Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty of reasons I might be justified in taking a shot through a barrier material, particularly glass, in self defense or in defense of another persons life. I'm surprised that there are so many people in this thread arguing that it could absolutely, never, ever happen.

R

 

[Manco]

Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty of reasons I might be justified in taking a shot through a barrier material, particularly glass, in self defense or in defense of another persons life. I'm surprised that there are so many people in this thread arguing that it could absolutely, never, ever happen.

And they won't accept our valid reasons, either, instead calling the rest of us obstinate. In my view, arguments that certain things--especially broad classes of things--can NEVER happen bear a heavy burden of proof and are easily disproved with examples from real life, as in this case.

 

[Bovice]

Maybe you should carry FMJs in your backup magazine. All about the preparedness, right? You shouldn't have barrier issues with that.

 

[Presto]

JTQ,

You are correct about the Hornady CD ammo not being out for too long. My local gun shop had the stuff in stock faster than any of the online retailers that I have seen. I bought it at the first opportunity that I had, tested the stuff enough to be confident it it's abilities, and loaded up my gun with it. It has been carried in that gun ever since. I don't remember the date that I picked it up, but it has been a few months ago.