A Word of Caution About Hornady Critical Defense FTX Ammunition

[benzy2]

Lets just all agree that we all different individuals. There is no perfect single option for every situation. I know people who, by choice/occupation put themselves in a much higher risk than the average joe. I also know people who live in BFE where, in the history of the county, there to date hasn't been a murder. As said many times, being prepared is good, no doubt about it. That said, choosing a handgun at all is a compromise. We ALL have to pick our compromise.

If you believe in many of the scenarios listed, or believe there is a legitimate threat that these situations arise, prepare and carry for them. If you feel many of these scenarios aren't going to happen, or have odds of happening that are too low, don't worry about it. Again, it is all a compromise.

For me, in the area I live, knowing the history of the area, my biggest threat in a face to face stick up at work. The number of armed incidents, outside of hunting accidents, so far, have all been in a retail store demanding cash/merchandise. For me, in this situation, I have to worry about over-penetration. I can't shoot through most any barriers as I won't know if I am shooting at a threat or a customer.

I know of truck drivers who have to drive through the hood at 3am. I wouldn't carry the same way for both situations. Certainly the odds of a given threat are different in each of these situations, and picking the same ammo, caliber, handgun, doesn't make much sense.

When comparing ballistic gel results, as useful or not as they may be, the CD ammo in .380 is towards the better side of JHP ammo. It expands reliably and penetrates farther than most .380 jhp. Not farther than all, but better than many. It does not penetrate as far as FMJ, but as said, it expands very consistently. Other good options exist, but nothing that stands worlds above it. Most of the praise I have seen for CD ammo has been in the .380 where there were one or two stand outs from the rest of the dismally performing JHP.

In the end, prepare for what you worry about and sleep easy. I sleep at night just fine knowing I leave the house with CD in my LCP. I also sleep at night just fine knowing I have gold dot in the 1911. Both options are used for different situations, or at least expected situations. In the end, we all have to draw our limit as to what we feel has great enough odds to justify preparing ourselves. It is a personal line drawn in the sand. I have no problems where you draw yours. It is yours to draw. Even if I have flawed logic, I have drawn my line after weighing the pros and cons. This, like most internet debates, changes very little to the believers and non-believers.

 

[alfack]

You don't have flawed logic. Nobody can predict what a self-defense situation will turn out to be. You already have the main advantage covered by owning and carrying a pistol with some cartridge that will go bang every time. The rest is just mental masturbation.

 

[Manco]

Problem is, this spokesman is not wrong. At least not entirely.

If there is even one example that disproves what he said, then he is entirely wrong--and he is, therefore his statement is a disservice to our community. Representatives of manufacturers should be more careful about what they say in public.

Once again, a civilian will use a gun under different circumstances than an LEO.

While there is no doubt in my mind that different probabilities are involved, there is also no doubt that the same set of capabilities are required nevertheless. If Critical Defense had certain characteristics and advantages over other ammunition that are sufficiently compelling for civilians to more than offset its limitations, then I wouldn't fault anybody for using it, but frankly I don't see what these advantages are. The arguments in defense of Critical Defense usually focus on the total lack of need for penetrating barriers, but I disagree and would rather be better prepared than make so many bold assumptions about what I may or may not need to do. The bottom line is that I'll only do what I have to do in order to preserve my life and the lives of my family, and nothing illegal unless I am forced to choose between possibly going to jail and dying or burying members of my family. Such a topic should not even be brought up by some company's marketing executive.

An LEO has a duty to confront armed lawbreakers in order to neutralize the threat they represent to the general public.

But they do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person being attacked, while I have a duty to defend myself from attackers who may be determined to kill me. In one case, the LEO must force the confrontation, and in the other it's the perpetrator who does so, but the result and the requirements regarding equipment are the same no what matter what some guy selling ammunition says.

An armed citizen has almost the opposite duty: the duty to retreat, if possible, and to use lethal force only when his own life, or the life of an innocent third party is directly threatened.

The duty to retreat is not in effect legally everywhere in the country, and not inside one's home in most of the country. That's because when one retreats one can be shot in the back by a determined attacker or an accomplice. In such cases, the attacker may take cover but continue to press the attack by firing at me, and if he's taking cover behind some furniture or an appliance, then I'll shoot him right through it in order to preserve my own life if I have to, and therefore I want ammunition that is designed for this capability. Many others agree with this reasoning, hence the warning about Critical Defense ammunition given in the original post.

It's a well known fact that most shootings are over with only a few rounds expended (which is why 5 shot j frame revolvers remain such a viable self defense choice). As a civilian, you have to clearly identify a threat as serious enough to justify using lethal force, and generally, this is only going to happen when a bad guy approaches and confronts you (e.g. attempted mugging, attempted rape, etc.). Would be muggers and rapists don't generally stand several meters meters away, behind cover, draw down on you, and demand that you hand over all your money, or lie down and submit to being raped.

I realize what the odds of a civilian ending up in a shootout are in the general case, but what if somebody wanted to kill me for reasons that they fabricated in their own drug-induced paranoid delusions? And I'm not convinced that the odds in the general case are quite as low as you believe they are, either, as I've seen several videos of shootouts between store owners/clerks and robbers who took cover and kept shooting back because they were either afraid to make a run for the door or simply reacted as though they were in a movie or TV show (I saw one TV show in early 2001 that depicted a terrorist group trying to fly a jetliner into the World Trade Center--I guess life does imitate art sometimes).

I've been a cop for ten years, and a detective for seven, and I've never seen such an assault take place.

I'm sure you're well aware that most cops won't have to fire their weapons in the line of duty in their entire careers, but obviously many do, and they'd better have equipment that does what they require of it just in case. I'm not saying that one could or should prepare for absolutely every possibility, but I've seen or heard about enough cases in which civilians needed the same capabilities in their ammo as cops, so that's what I want, too, just in case I need it.

Almost invariably, the violent assaults on citizens that I've investigated involve the suspect approaching to within arm's length of the victim, even when the suspect uses a gun. The lone exceptions to this I am aware of are all gang-related: drive bys and other murders and attempted murders, and the suspect was targeted because he was a rival thug who had offended the suspect in some way, or was a rival drug dealer and the suspect decided to eliminate his competition.

I've already described my personal reason for being in danger, and I'm no gang member, drug dealer, or thug of any kind. And I've offered other examples of why civilians will sometimes need to shoot through barriers, in addition. The sheer level of denial on the part of some is quite frankly strange.

Law abiding citizens just don't get targeted in this way. That's not to say it could never happen. But it really is highly unlikely.

With the understanding that it is relatively unlikely, as nobody here has denied, there is no harm in pointing out that there is ammunition from other manufacturers that provide additional capabilities with no sacrifice in their basic capabilities.

And since it's just not realistically possibly to arm yourself against every possible threat that could happen, you arm yourself against what you are most likely to face, and try to be as flexible and adaptable as you can.

I don't think that I'm giving up anything by using superior ammunition, and I see no reason to strive for minimum capability instead of using something better.

So an armed citizen really is unlikely to have to shoot through barriers, into vehicles, etc., and to what extent he may ever have to do so, critical defense ammo will likely perform well enough in that role.

Be that as it may, other manufacturers have test results to demonstrate what their ammo can do, while Hornady has some salesman making a cheesy CYA statement telling people they don't need more capable ammunition, just settle for theirs, which does not cost less. Yeah, real compelling stuff.

But if you chase down and shoot fleeing suspects, or suspects who barricade themselves behind cover, you likely will go to jail,

Alright, so I won't shoot anybody who is running away, already out of action, or merely hiding behind cover, then--that's good advice. But if they take cover and continue to shoot at me inside my own home, where I have no legal duty to retreat, then I am going to stop them even if I have to shoot through their cover (or rather concealment, as there isn't much real cover in a typical residence).

and thugs who attack honest citizens normally do so up close, where critical defense ammo is designed to perform.

Does it perform significantly better than other types of ammunition that test well in barrier penetration?

This is one case where I think you are overreacting. He's merely pointing out the likeliest threat, and he's right about it being the likeliest. He's also right about shooting through barriers and into vehicles being something that a private citizen may have a hard time justifying in court, to a jury of ordinary citizens who don't know much about guns, or tactics, and will wonder why you, the shooter, didn't take an avenue of escape, opting instead to continue the confrontation.

If there were a way to escape without having to fire any shots or be fired upon or otherwise harmed, then that's what any reasonable, sensible person would do. That goes without saying. What we're talking about here is what different bullets will do, which assumes that shooting is for some reason unavoidable, otherwise we might as well suggest the use of blanks or even an empty gun for the most common cases of all. If I can't get away and somebody is shooting at me from behind cover, then I'll do what I need to do in order to survive--I'd rather face a jury to explain why I had to shoot somebody who was trying to kill me in my own home than face the inside of the lid of my casket before my time.

Once again, though, you are smarter to prepare for the more likely threat.

Why not prepare for more if it doesn't cost anything in capability or money?

If you are carrying a small, lightweight concealed handgun (the most common type), and you stoke it with the hottest ammo you can get your hands on because you think you're going to have to shoot through all kinds of barriers or into vehicles, you are, in effect, saddling yourself with a less controllable handgun, that will decrease your ability to successfully to defend yourself against a threat that you, as an armed citizen, are far more likely to face: an attacker standing right in front of you with a weapon.

The more capable ammo that I use isn't any hotter or more difficult to shoot than Hornady's. It's about bullet design and what a manufacturer is willing to stand behind, not super-hot loads.

 

[Manco]

I saw the remarks and thought, "if you can't fix it, feature it"

Exactly. In my business (software), the relevant adage is "It's not a bug--it's a feature!"

Billy, you are so correct. But unfortunately, there will always be those that will try and visualize the most horrible situation possible. And they will arm themselves accordingly.

But in terms of load selection, given the same caliber (in my case a common service caliber), I give up nothing in choosing more capable and therefore better ammunition (not any hotter, just a different bullet design). Your argument is predicated on people having to sacrifice something important for the common case in order to handle the worst-case scenarios, but this assumption is false, which invalidates your entire argument according to basic logic.

 

[zxcvbob]

I saw one TV show in early 2001 that depicted a terrorist group trying to fly a jetliner into the World Trade Center--I guess life does imitate art sometimes.

The pilot episode (no pun intended) of "The Lone Gunmen". Great show; it should have lasted for a couple of seasons.

 

[Billy Shears]

If there is even one example that disproves what he said, then he is entirely wrong--and he is, therefore his statement is a disservice to our community. Representatives of manufacturers should be more careful about what they say in public.

No, he is not entirely wrong. Something that applies 90% of the time is not categorically negated by the 10% of exceptions to the rule. That's not how it works.

While there is no doubt in my mind that different probabilities are involved, there is also no doubt that the same set of capabilities are required nevertheless. If Critical Defense had certain characteristics and advantages over other ammunition that are sufficiently compelling for civilians to more than offset its limitations, then I wouldn't fault anybody for using it, but frankly I don't see what these advantages are.

Then it appears you are overlooking some of the claims made on its behalf. As I understand it, Critical Defense Ammo was aimed very specifically at the concealed carry market, which means it is primarily intended for use in small, lightweight pistols. It's being introduced in all calibers, because it seems to be the expected thing that any new line of ammunition will be offered in all currently popular calibers, right up to the magnums. But even so, it's aimed at the compact, concealed handguns, and the most popular calibers in that category seem to be .380ACP, .38 Special, and 9mm (for short barreled, compact nines, like the Kahr Mk9, for example). These guns all have shorter barrels, reducing velocity and increasing flash, and the .380 and .38, being such old cartridges, have a particular need for effective ammo that does not operate at high chamber pressures (and it's no coincidence, I am certain, that exactly these two calibers were the very first in which this ammo was introduced). There are a LOT of older guns in these chamberings out there, still being carried, like pre-1972 Colt Detective Specials, for example, that aren't rated for +P ammo. But people who own and carry these guns still want effective ammo for self defense to use in them. Critical Defense ammo was aimed squarely at this market, where there simply isn't room to ramp pressure levels and velocities up too high, and it's meant still to provide very consistent, very reliable expansion, and still have enough penetration for any encounter an armed citizen is likely to face.

The arguments in defense of Critical Defense usually focus on the total lack of need for penetrating barriers, but I disagree and would rather be better prepared than make so many bold assumptions about what I may or may not need to do. The bottom line is that I'll only do what I have to do in order to preserve my life and the lives of my family, and nothing illegal unless I am forced to choose between possibly going to jail and dying or burying members of my family. Such a topic should not even be brought up by some company's marketing executive.

See above.

But they do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person being attacked, while I have a duty to defend myself from attackers who may be determined to kill me. In one case, the LEO must force the confrontation, and in the other it's the perpetrator who does so, but the result and the requirements regarding equipment are the same no what matter what some guy selling ammunition says.

No, they're not. They're really not. A cop who pursues a suspect into a dark building, and then finds the suspect ducking behind cover and then turning to face him and shoot it out, is facing a different set of tactical circumstances than the armed citizen who has a suspect walk up to him and pull out a knife or a gun within arm's reach. The cop who has to chase a suspect on foot or in a vehicle is facing a set of circumstances that an armed citizen, who will never do these things, is highly unlikely ever to have to face, and he has a need for greater barrier penetration that a citizen is far, far less likely ever to need. The cop also carries a bigger gun, with a longer barrel and/or more powerful cartridge, higher magazine capacity, and more spare ammo than a citizen carrying concealed does, and is thus better equipped to face these circumstances if they arise.

My department issues me a Glock 17 with 2 spare magazines. I feel reasonably comfortable with that armament. I would NOT feel adequately armed patrolling the streets with a .38 Chiefs Special, or a Ruger LCP (with maybe enough ammo for one reload) as my primary armament -- but that's exactly what a lot of citizens carry.

With the understanding that it is relatively unlikely, as nobody here has denied, there is no harm in pointing out that there is ammunition from other manufacturers that provide additional capabilities with no sacrifice in their basic capabilities.

See above.

I don't think that I'm giving up anything by using superior ammunition, and I see no reason to strive for minimum capability instead of using something better.

See above.

Be that as it may, other manufacturers have test results to demonstrate what their ammo can do, while Hornady has some salesman making a cheesy CYA statement telling people they don't need more capable ammunition, just settle for theirs, which does not cost less. Yeah, real compelling stuff.

See above.

Alright, so I won't shoot anybody who is running away, already out of action, or merely hiding behind cover, then--that's good advice. But if they take cover and continue to shoot at me inside my own home, where I have no legal duty to retreat, then I am going to stop them even if I have to shoot through their cover (or rather concealment, as there isn't much real cover in a typical residence).

Inside your own home, light weight and concealability are not a factor, so why would you be using the same LCP or Chiefs Special or other small gun that you might be carrying concealed on the street? The whole point of those guns is that they are small, light, and concealable, so you can take them with you almost anywhere, and less power and ammo capacity, as well as poorer controllability is the price you pay for that ability to take it anywhere. Inside your house, you don't have to make that compromise, and nothing stops you from using a bigger, more controllable, more powerful and more effective gun. Remember, Critical Defense Ammo is aimed squarely at small concealable handguns. For larger ones, it's not the optimum choice. It's not meant to be the end all and be all of JHP ammo, it's meant for a specific purpose.

Does it perform significantly better than other types of ammunition that test well in barrier penetration?

Hornady is claiming that it offers more reliable and consistent expansion in smaller guns and out of shorter barrels, in standard pressure loads suitable to compact guns.

If there were a way to escape without having to fire any shots or be fired upon or otherwise harmed, then that's what any reasonable, sensible person would do. That goes without saying. What we're talking about here is what different bullets will do, which assumes that shooting is for some reason unavoidable, otherwise we might as well suggest the use of blanks or even an empty gun for the most common cases of all. If I can't get away and somebody is shooting at me from behind cover, then I'll do what I need to do in order to survive--I'd rather face a jury to explain why I had to shoot somebody who was trying to kill me in my own home than face the inside of the lid of my casket before my time.

See above. This ammo is not aimed at home defense, it's aimed at concealed carry.

Why not prepare for more if it doesn't cost anything in capability or money?

See above. This ammo is tailored to a specific type of firearm, a point you seem to have missed.

The more capable ammo that I use isn't any hotter or more difficult to shoot than Hornady's. It's about bullet design and what a manufacturer is willing to stand behind, not super-hot loads.

See above. I think this ammo appears to do what it was intended to do quite well.

 

[christcorp]

Thank you Billy. I was going to reply to manco with his question that I believe that I a person sacrifices certain things depending on the ammo they choose. (Sorry, I didn't want to quote every sentence to this point). But you explained it perfectly Billy. For the ammo you choose, there will be some pros and cons. There is no perfect round out there. The critical defense ammo is designed for Self Defense, out of the house, close distances, criminals who wear clothing, (Most do), and with no barriers to hide behind. This probably represents 90% or at least arguably the overwhelming vast majority of self defense scenarios. Thus, it's a very good choice. Especially for the small concealable guns that many people use. But if you want to prepare for the more extreme scenarios, and use such ammo accordingly, then you may be compromising accuracy, expansion, or whatever. Just like if you choose the critical defense ammo, you might be compromising those situations where you need to slide of the roof of your car, dive behind the garbage dumpster, and return fire in a shootout with a gang. Everything is a compromise.

 

[gwlammers]

I don't know if it has been brought up, but just because Hornaday has stated that their critical defense round is not designed to shoot through glass or walls does not immediately mean that all other self defense rounds are.

Maybe others will fail also?

 

[rscalzo]

What if somebody were shooting at you through the windows and doors of your house

There is no parallel between a auto windshield and standard residential glass.

 

[christcorp]

There is no parallel between a auto windshield and standard residential glass.

Also, there's no parallel to self defense "Outside of the house" and home defense. (Or for those people stuck on semantics, self defense "Inside the House".

The ammo that I have in my guns for "Defense" inside my house, is nowhere near the same ammo I put in my carry weapons. For carrying, it's usually, (Depending on the gun), PowerBall, Critical Defense, Buffalo Bore, and Silver Bear. These are used in my Walther 32acp, CZ-82 9mm makarov, AMT 380 backup, and my SigSauer P220 45acp. (Each gun is for a different use when carrying). And I use bullet weights of 75-95 for the first 3, and 185 grain for the 45acp.

In the home, I lean towards Federal Hydra-Shok (158 grain 357 magnum), Remington Golden Saber (230 grain 45acp), Gold Dots (147 grain 9mm); and of course #4 Buck for the 870 12 gauge.

Totally different bullets for different purposes. In the house, I prefer the larger heavier bullets. I want total destruction. I want to go through any barrier between the criminal and me. I don't have to worry about children in the other room and I'm not worried about the neighbors. If I pull the trigger, the purpose is to kill the person. End of it, not negotiable or debatable. However, in public or outside of my house, the purpose is to simply stop the threat. if I can leave before pulling the gun out, I will. If for some reason I pull the trigger, death is acceptable. But it's not the main objective. I want the threat to stop. If the person runs away hunched over with a bullet in his gut, that's fine. If the mere presence of the gun scared him away, that's fine.

Point is, the situation and the criminal are totally different between home defense and self defense (Outside of the home). Outside, you are being chosen by the criminal because they are betting that you will not be too much resistance. If they even thought you had a gun, they wouldn't even consider coming after you. There's too many easier targets out there. For home defense, the criminal knows you're on home turf. They aren't expecting you to be there; or if you are, to be stealth enough for a quick entry. They accept the fact that if they encounter you, that you will most likely try and defend yourself. Totally different scenarios with different purposes for the weapons. (Tools). Therefor, different ammunition is called for.

Too many people think that criminals are mostly irrational and insane individuals with no concept of right/wrong or rationalizing of their actions. That they don't consider the pro/con to their actions. This belief is common among those who believe in only the very worst scenarios that they could encounter. The truth is, if you are ever unfortunate to encounter a criminal committing a crime against you, they have though out in detail their procedures and the pros/con to their actions. That's why the mere presence of a gun diffuses more than 90% of all personal crimes. The criminal did not see that one coming. They NEVER would have chosen you if they knew you had a gun. The remaining 5% is usually handled by the first shot. Whether you hit anything or not, it shows you aren't bluffing. For the less than 1% where actually shooting the criminal is required, I am quite happy with my choices for defense. If they aren't good enough, I will improvise on the spots. For the fraction of less than 1% where the crazed person chases me in their car for miles and tries to run me off the road, I'll adapt and improvise. For the same fraction of the time when I've been pinned behind a dumpster and have to have a shootout with a gang, I'll adapt and improve. Which means, for the more than 99.9% of the time when the crime is outdoors, where barriers aren't in the way, and I'm not in a shootout and diving over cars, I'll trust the critical defense and powerBall rounds. For that less than 1% of the time, I'll adapt and improvise.

If you're wondering why I have 2 different purposes, that's simple. In public, on the street, in an alley, etc... the criminal doesn't know me. If he gets away, I'll probably never see him again and he'll probably never see me. He doesn't know who I am. If he breaks into my house, he knows exactly who I am. He knows where I live. If he gets away, he can stalk and come back again some day. If I injure him and he leaves, he knows where to come back to. If he is captured and goes to court, he still knows where I live. He's been there. Especially if he is found not guilty for whatever reason. However, in my house, if I kill him, there is ONLY my word against a corps. I'll take those chances any day. In public, even if he is captured, I am in much better shape than if he was in my house. Outside; stop the thread. Inside; death. There will not be any debate or discussion in a court room.

 

[Billy Shears]

I don't know if it has been brought up, but just because Hornaday has stated that their critical defense round is not designed to shoot through glass or walls does not immediately mean that all other self defense rounds are.

Maybe others will fail also?

Absolutely they will. My department still issues the 9mm (while most of the cities around here have gone to .40S&W, and the VA State PD uses .357SIG). Today, we're using the 124gr. Speer Gold Dot as the issue ammo. When I came out of the academy 10 years ago, the department issued a Federal 147gr. subsonic 9mm load. The first sergeant I had when I was a brand new rookie, about a year before I worked for him, fired three rounds at a suspect through the windshield of his car, only one penetrated the glass, and it had so little energy left, it only inflicted a superficial wound. And the 147gr. 9mm load had been developed specifically for the FBI's use, and met all the FBI protocols. So it's absolutely the case that other ammo may also fail to penetrate barriers.

A lot of people forget handguns are really not that powerful. The only reason we carry them is because it's not practical to tote rifles and shotguns around when we need to be armed.

 

[Mr.Davis]

This thread is totally useless without the full context of the statements from Steve Johnson of Hornady.

 

[CoastieShep]

Which brings up my original thoughts that simple is better. Less to go wrong.

 

[valorius]

I prefer ammo with the ability to perform through various barriers.

For my HK P7, in a work configuration, i carry 2 mags of Corbon 100gr+P Powrball (12"+ gel penetration through all FBI testing barrier media as well as .357 magnum velocity and power levels, plus a rounded nose for maximum feeding reliability), and a 3rd mag of 147gr+P Doubletap flat point FMJ. 40"+ penetration in gel (the round is marketed as a trail defense load, probably the ultimate such factory load offered in 9mm), and the ability to punch through pretty much any reasonable barrier around.

I have Corbon 80gr+P DPX solid copper HP ammo in my .380 LCP. It gives as much barrier capability as any expanding ammo i'm likely to find in that caliber. I'll be buying some 100gr+P Buffalo Bore hard cast lead flat nose ammo too. I'll keep one mag loaded with each type, since i carry a backup mag for my LCP in the watch pocket of my jeans.

I go for a lot of drives in rural areas and spend some time up the mtns. I like having the deep penetrating loads for use against 4 legged critters, should the need arise (something a lot of people put very little thought into). My state has yotes, black bears, mtn lions, and probably most common and dangerous of all, pit bulls. Lots and lots of those where i live.

Hornady Critical defense have never really impressed me, i don't see anything special about it at all other than the plug in the nose, which Corbon Powrball also has. And whereas Corbon powrball is extremely high velocity/high energy ammo, Critical defense gets extremely ordinary velocity/energy readings in all it's varieties.

I fail to see the upside that this so called Critical Defense ammo offers over any of it's competitors, but if it is not designed to penetrate hard barriers, well, one can clearly see it's downside.

Absolutely they will. My department still issues the 9mm (while most of the cities around here have gone to .40S&W, and the VA State PD uses .357SIG). Today, we're using the 124gr. Speer Gold Dot as the issue ammo. When I came out of the academy 10 years ago, the department issued a Federal 147gr. subsonic 9mm load. The first sergeant I had when I was a brand new rookie, about a year before I worked for him, fired three rounds at a suspect through the windshield of his car, only one penetrated the glass, and it had so little energy left, it only inflicted a superficial wound. And the 147gr. 9mm load had been developed specifically for the FBI's use, and met all the FBI protocols. So it's absolutely the case that other ammo may also fail to penetrate barriers.

The subsonic 147gr loads of that era were all designed for use in SMG's- particularly suppressed SMGs, not pistols. Take the 147gr+P Corbon Sierra JHP round that came a few years later, cruising along at 1100fps out of a 4" bbl, and it would have given your Sgt much better results. That particular round, when it was introduced, was one of the very few JHP's in 9mm or .357 mag that would blow clean through a Harddrive platter array (we shoot wierd things at my family's mountain retreat. )

Nowadays, a good variety of rounds in all the service calibers do well in the FBI barriers tests. This includes 9mm.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Maybe if Hornady didn't load these down to virtually gutless levels, they might have a better chance of punching through a couple of pieces of sheet metal. I love Hornady bullet designs, but the Critical Defense loadings are ballistically underwhelming.

 

[MAC USMC]

Those who have experienced gun battles, whether in military or law enforcement, learn quickly about making appropriate adjustments and/or modifications which enhance survival.

There is no perfect cartridge or weapon for every scenario. There is no perfect technique, manuever, tactic or procedure which fits every situation. There is no firearms training methodology which is foolproof and covers every need. To assume otherwise is to be foolhardy. It is unwise to develop a mind-set that "one-size-fits-all" when your life and that of others is on the line.

To some a .22 is sufficient for their needs while others swear by a .44 magnum. They might both be correct or incorrect based on numerous factors.

An open mind is absolutely necessary when delving into firearms equipment, tactics, training and survival issues. Adapt, improvise and survive is a good operational theme, but even that does not always guarantee success out in the real world of armed conflict.

 

[christcorp]

Personally, I know the difference between personal self defense, and Home defense. And when carrying a pistol for personal self defense, I want a round that I know will CONSISTENTLY expand. Even through heavy clothing on my target. The Critical Defense ammo will do that. It will also continue to penetrate, with the 9mm, 357, 38, 40, and 45 all still maintaining a penetration of 11-13". And that's THROUGH heavy clothing too. I'm also not paranoid that I'm going to get into a "Gun Fight" on the streets. I believe that "Lethal Weapon" and "Die Hard" are just movies. I won't be sliding across the hood of a car, shooting behind dumpster, or shooting at a car that is driving straight towards me.

There is no doubt in my mind that hornady's critical defense round do a great job for personal self defense. I might agree that at home, you might want to shoot through walls and refrigerators. The critical defense can't really do that. Then again, it was made for self defense, not home defense. But if a person really thinks that they will be shooting through glass, and that the hornady can't do it, then don't buy it. The most extreme scenario I can imagine, and that's really pushing it, would be shooting through a car door window. And even if the critical defense won't expand properly after going through the window, the worst it might do is act more like a FMJ. The bullet sure in hell isn't going to "BOUNCE" off the glass. And no matter what, the window sure in hell isn't going to be there for the second shot; so the point becomes moot. But if you think you could be in a "Gun Fight" and not just a self defense scenario, and you might need to shoot through windshields as cars come aiming at you, then I suggest buying hard cast buffalo-bore ammo. It will do everything you want, as well as a great job on people.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

This thread is totally useless without the full context of the statements from Steve Johnson of Hornady.

THAT was the full context!

The most extreme scenario I can imagine, and that's really pushing it, would be shooting through a car door window. And even if the critical defense won't expand properly after going through the window, the worst it might do is act more like a FMJ. The bullet sure in hell isn't going to "BOUNCE" off the glass. And no matter what, the window sure in hell isn't going to be there for the second shot; so the point becomes moot.

You're speculating. There currently is no data to show how Critical Defense actually performs in this situation. It is a complete mystery. It may perform very well or it may perform similar to CorBon Pow'Rball and penetrate 4" after passing through automotive sheet metal. It very well COULD bounce off automotive laminated windshield glass, which doesn't shatter like the tempered glass used elsewhere.

The bottom line is terminal performance of Hornady Critical Defense ammo in situations in which the defender may have to shoot through concealment to save a life is UNKNOWN.

I suspect it does not perform well based on Hornady's official caveat.

 

[valorius]

Personally, I know the difference between personal self defense, and Home defense. And when carrying a pistol for personal self defense, I want a round that I know will CONSISTENTLY expand. Even through heavy clothing on my target. The Critical Defense ammo will do that. It will also continue to penetrate, with the 9mm, 357, 38, 40, and 45 all still maintaining a penetration of 11-13". And that's THROUGH heavy clothing too

Let's take a look at just one of the competing rounds out there, the one that is most similar actually, since it is the only other one with a nose cap...

Corbon Powrball 9mm 100gr+P does the same things Critical Defense does while also penetrating 12" through most, if not all FBI test media, including glass, while achieving anywhere from near .60" to .60"+ expansion through most barrier types.

What's more, Powrball is solidly into "reduced recoil" .357 magnum ballistics territory, as opposed to 9mm critical defense, which is little better than standard pressure .38spl ammo in the energy department.

When weighed and measured against 9mm Powrball, it is my opinion that the Hornady Critical Defense load comes up woefully lacking.

I would select any of the following loads over Critical Defense, in pretty much any caliber that both are offered in:

Corbon DPX+P
Corbon Powrball+P
Corbon "classic" Sierra+P
Doubletap+P (available with several proven bullet designs)
Speer Gold Dot+P or +P+
Federal 9BPLE+P+
Triton Sierra+P
Federal HST+P
Winchester Ranger/Talon+P
And in a non fluted chamber weapon, Buffalo Bore+P (this stuff is so hot the brass fire-forms to the contours of the flutes in my HK P7 chamber and totally locks the gun up!)

I carry a 9mm, so i am particularly interested in that caliber, and in 9mm any of the rounds i just listed will transform your 9mm, in essence, into a semi-automatic .357 magnum. All of them blow the doors off the critical defense load ballistically, while also having proven bullet designs as well.

Frankly, given the excellent choices of ammo on the market today, i find Critical Defense to be one of the most anemic and least promising, at least on paper. On paper, in 9mm, i think the Doubletap 124gr+P Gold Dot ammo at 1310fps and 490fpe of energy looks like it's probably the best overall round in 9mm according to what i look for in ammo.

I have to order some of that stuff.

 

[theinfidel]

Ammo shortage at Sportsman's Warehouse

Why can't these fools keep 9mm hollow points in stock? They didn't even have a bronze brush for my new $700 handgun.:banghead:

 

[1911 guy]

Started reading this thread and it made my head hurt.
Quote:
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.

Take that opinion to people who've been involved in incidents involving shooting at other people and being shot at. Then you'll know where to stick that opinion. When shootings go down, whether police, military or civilian involved, things get all pear shaped. Your perfect world goes right down the crapper and you do the best with what you've got.

 

[IMTHDUKE]

No perfect round for all occasions, but the Sig 357 at 1200fps is going go penetrate.

 

[Spats McGee]

Let's lay this one back to rest, shall we?