A Word of Caution About Hornady Critical Defense FTX Ammunition

[REAPER4206969]

Obstacles are variable in nature....a dumpster can be of different thicknesses, glass can be at different angles, etc. This is why he's saying what he's saying....defensive ammo is designed around shooting people, not dumpers, sofas or old Chevys.

Modern ammo is designed around shooting through barriers and the FBI tests take into account differing angles of automotive safety glass.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The opening post is no different for any other JHP round, so I don't really see the point.

 

[Southern Rebel]

Sometimes I think we have listened to too many speeches made by the gun control crowd. In terms of naive assumptions based on little or no personal experience, this thread contains as many as most any gun control speaker could regurgitate in such a limited space.

The fortunate real fact is that we can read all the opinions, digest them - and still go and choose whatever ammunition best fits our own naive assumptions. In that case, I will stick with my 357 SIG ammo with blissful belief that I can shoot thru automotive glass and sheet metal. After all, I MIGHT be accosted by a slow drive-by shooter and I sure don't want to die from a lack of shooting back - but that's just me..............

 

[REAPER4206969]

The opening post is no different for any other JHP round,

Incorrect.

 

[Billy Shears]

There are no disadvantages to charging your handgun with top tier JHP loads.

Actually, there might be. For example, if you are carrying one of those J frame .357 magnums loaded with magnum loads, because you think you may need the power to go through barriers that you are, frankly, unlikely to encounter as a citizen carrying concealed, the disadvantage you are saddling yourself with is reduced control from firing a very powerful, hard kicking round out of a very lightweight gun. And because such guns are so hard kicking, they tend to be carried a lot, and shot very seldom, which may provide you with a further disadvantage in reduced proficiency from lack of practice -- when guns are actually physically punishing to shoot, they tend not to be shot. It was exactly this problem that critical defense ammo was developed to ameliorate.

The current offerings meet, or exceed the 12" minimum penetration requirement through all common intermediate barriers with good expansion and near 100% weight retention.

As I said, any good JHP ammo from a reputable maker should serve you as well as anything, given a sensible choice of firearm. But a word of caution about these possible scenarios of shooting through barriers, into vehicles, etc. Remember that as a citizen, you will have to justify anything you do in court. There may be scenarios where you might have to shoot into a vehicle, or at a suspect behind a barrier, but they are unlikely. Citizens are expected to take any avenue of escape that presents itself, and if the suspect is behind a barrier, or in a vehicle, and if you have a way to get outta Dodge and you don't take it, choosing instead to exchange fire... Well, be prepared for the legal aftermath.

 

[Shadow 7D]

actually, my thought in shooting pigs was go dig the round out, and see what did or didn't work

 

[mothermopar]

Another reason why I'll stick with good old hollowpoints... Gold Dots, golden sabres, winchester pdx1, federal hydroshocks, etc.

All of these new deal SELF DEFENSE rounds are nothing more than gimmicks, IMO, for the average citizen protecting his family and home.

If anyone thinks that in a SD/HD situation, you will NOT have to shoot through something, then you're likely smoking something that's illegal. ANY deadly force encounter is going to throw monkey wrenches into your supposed plan... you may indeed need to shoot through a damned wall if your armed assailant is shooting at you through one!!! Then you can take your new frangible, non-over-penetrating ammo and bury it in the same coffin that you may find yourself in.

All this over penetration crap is just that. Crap. Use whats been proven and use something that can get as close as possible to 'doing it all'.

For over a century, many a turd and large game was shot dead, stone killed... with a single, round, lead ball fired at sub-sonic speeds. Not to mention the number of scum that were put down with plain old lead bullets from a bunch of Colt 45 revolvers... or the number of enemies that met their fate on the receiving end of FMJ rounds in our nations' wars. Also not to mention the numbers of street thugs that have fallen to the proven effectiveness of regular HP ammunition.

Can SOMEONE please refer me to some research that shows some statistically valid findings that over penetration killed a good guy?!?! Where a bullet shot by one, hit and went through another, then hit an innocent and hurt them badly or killed them?!?! Examples of these events?!?! PM me with the link.

Lets talk reality, because if you plan on shooting someone, you should be able to hit them and know your backstop. Assess your risks and act accordingly. If you're not confident about hitting your target you need to train more instead of relying upon technology to cover your shortcomings.

Yeah, even the best may miss, but lessen your chances with practice... because if this newest, greatest ammo doesn't penetrate enough, even through some kind of barrier, you're screwed and you're putting you and your family at greater risk... that risk being a known offender who's already in your house!

 

[Sgt_R]

Actually, there might be. For example, if you are carrying one of those J frame .357 magnums loaded with magnum loads, because you think you may need the power to go through barriers that you are, frankly, unlikely to encounter as a citizen carrying concealed, the disadvantage you are saddling yourself with is reduced control from firing a very powerful, hard kicking round out of a very lightweight gun. And because such guns are so hard kicking, they tend to be carried a lot, and shot very seldom, which may provide you with a further disadvantage in reduced proficiency from lack of practice -- when guns are actually physically punishing to shoot, they tend not to be shot. It was exactly this problem that critical defense ammo was developed to ameliorate.

I'd guess that most folks who carry a .357 mag J-frame practice with .38 sp ammo, and that the rest wouldn't practice anyway. I certainly don't fire more than a cylinder or two of my carry ammo when I go to the range, it's too expensive for that.

R

 

[Billy Shears]

I'd guess that most folks who carry a .357 mag J-frame practice with .38 sp ammo

I've always thought this was a bad idea. Back in the '70s, some agencies experienced problems with officers who carried .357s, but practiced and qualified with .38s on the range. The problems were that they're ability to achieve hits in actual gunfights suffered, because they simply never trained themselves to cope adequately with the extra blast and kick of the full house .357s, and it negatively affected their ability to shoot under stress. People who carry these featherweight revolvers today with hot ammo, and practice with the milder stuff are setting themselves up to experience the same problem if they ever have to fire their guns in anger.

I agree, real carry ammo is expensive. But for most JHPs, there is a practice load out there in FMJ or round nose lead or something, with a bullet of similar weight, travelling at similar velocity, and so should have similar blast and recoil. And handloaders can load their own if all else fails.

 

[Manco]

I'm still scratching my head at the people who have convinced themselves that a major ammunition manufacturer somehow found itself unable to do what both itself and its competitors have been doing successfully for decades -- make JHPs that meet the FBI protocols -- and then simply decided to market the failed product anyway, lying about what is was for to cover their incompetence.

Maybe the fact that one of their head marketing guys went so far as to basically call civilians who needed to do anything more than what their product offers criminals has made some people feel less than charitable toward them. They could have made the same argument as you did in the rest of your post, and that would have been fine, but they went a lot farther than that, and it's pretty insulting no matter what their reasons really are, as well as just plain wrong for many people and self-defense in general, which some of us have been arguing.

Billy: Very Well Said. There is definitely too much of the "Oprah Syndrome" going on. Basically, all the people who take what Oprah says and make it their own beliefs, because they trust her. Like MANY voters who never looked at an issue on their own ever.

Nonsense, I take information and suggestions from different sources, but always make up my own mind in the end, and I'm sure the same is true for most of those participating in this thread. Ad hominem attacks work both ways--maybe "Oprah" is Hornady's marketers and you trust them too much. See? They are the last resort of a failed argument.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Incorrect.

Really?!?

 

[Billy Shears]

Maybe the fact that one of their head marketing guys went so far as to basically call civilians who needed to do anything more than what their product offers criminals has made some people feel less than charitable toward them.

Perhaps it would help me to see the exact quote. What precisely did he say?

 

[ohwell]

Doesnt penetrate enough? new latest and greatest? you really need to get more information and maybe test some of the stuff yourselves than just go by what some expert says in a forum. I have tried the CD ammo it is good

 

[Manco]

I've always thought this was a bad idea. Back in the '70s, some agencies experienced problems with officers who carried .357s, but practiced and qualified with .38s on the range. The problems were that they're ability to achieve hits in actual gunfights suffered, because they simply never trained themselves to cope adequately with the extra blast and kick of the full house .357s, and it negatively affected their ability to shoot under stress. People who carry these featherweight revolvers today with hot ammo, and practice with the milder stuff are setting themselves up to experience the same problem if they ever have to fire their guns in anger.

I agree with regard to .357 Magnum versus .38 Special, although based on what I've seen and heard, it appears that most people who carry .357 Magnum revolvers load them with .38 Special+P for self-defense rather than .357 Magnum rounds, making the jump from practice to actual use less pronounced (and similar to what much of the 9mm crowd does). Personally, I avoid +P ammo altogether, and always train with rounds that are very similar in blast and recoil to my self-defense rounds, but I suppose that a slight difference wouldn't matter much, as perceptions are often altered during potentially deadly incidents anyway.

Perhaps it would help me to see the exact quote. What precisely did he say?

It's my interpretation of the quote in the original post. He said that Critical Defense is not designed to do this, this, and this, and if you tried to do those things then you're probably going to jail. Such a comment made flippantly on a forum would not be taken so seriously, but it's an official comment from a major manufacturer that apparently tries to explain why the product doesn't do some things that their competitors do. Frankly, it sounds more like an excuse to me, and even condescending in a way, telling people what they will or won't have to do in order to defend themselves with firearms.

If you happen to agree, then I suppose it would seem to be a harmless statement of fact, but obviously many of us disagree with regard to what a justifiable case of self-defense can entail. He did say "probably" but that's no excuse for his lame attempt at marketing a product. They should fire him and hire you for that--I don't agree with at least half of what you said about Critical Defense, but it was pretty well explained, in any case.

 

[REAPER4206969]

Really?!?

Yes. The current generation of bonded bullets are specifically designed to penetrate barriers while still offering near 100% weight retention and penetration. You know why they are designed this way? Because people have an odd habit of hiding behind things when you shoot at them. You people really have to get rid of these misconceptions you have about self defense.

Next time you go somewhere, look around you at all the people in or around automobiles, buildings, heavy vegetation, Etc. The odds of you needing to shoot through an intermediate barrier are high, and with these gimmick loads (Magsafe/Glasers/Extremeshock/Critical Defense/Etc.) you're turning damn near everything into cover. With top tier JHP loads, much of that is nothing more than concealment.

 

[Billy Shears]

It's my interpretation of the quote in the original post. He said that Critical Defense is not designed to do this, this, and this, and if you tried to do those things then you're probably going to jail. Such a comment made flippantly on a forum would not be taken so seriously, but it's an official comment from a major manufacturer that apparently tries to explain why the product doesn't do some things that their competitors do.

Problem is, this spokesman is not wrong. At least not entirely. Once again, a civilian will use a gun under different circumstances than an LEO. An LEO has a duty to confront armed lawbreakers in order to neutralize the threat they represent to the general public. 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.

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

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. 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.

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. But if you chase down and shoot fleeing suspects, or suspects who barricade themselves behind cover, you likely will go to jail, and thugs who attack honest citizens normally do so up close, where critical defense ammo is designed to perform.

Frankly, it sounds more like an excuse to me, and even condescending in a way, telling people what they will or won't have to do in order to defend themselves with firearms.

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.

 

[JohnBT]

"Law abiding citizens just don't get targeted in this way. That's not to say it could never happen."

Exactly, be prepared. Because it could happen. My father was state trooper and his first cousin was a county sheriff for almost 30 years. Stuff happens and anybody could end up in the middle of it.

John
Downtown Richmond, Virginia
(We used to be high, top 5, on the national homocide list)

 

[Shawn Dodson]

An armed citizen has almost the opposite duty: the duty to retreat, if possible...

Not in my state of Florida. I can defend the ground I stand on if I have a right to be there. I can shoot carjackers. I can shoot home intruders.

In addition to incidents reported in the NRA's "The Armed Citizen" column, there are a couple of good books by Robert A. Waters: "The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm" and "Guns Save Lives: True Stories of Americans Defending Their Lives With Firearms". I performed technical review of "Guns Save Lives" for Mr. Waters.

If it can happen, it will happen, to somebody, somewhere, sometime.

 

[Billy Shears]

"Law abiding citizens just don't get targeted in this way. That's not to say it could never happen."

Exactly, be prepared. Because it could happen. My father was state trooper and his first cousin was a county sheriff for almost 30 years. Stuff happens and anybody could end up in the middle of it.

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

Frankly, if you are armed with the typical concealed handgun -- a small and light one, of limited capacity -- and your opponent is some distance away, and behind cover, you are highly advised to get out of that situation if you possibly can, rather than shooting it out, for tactical, not just legal reasons: your weapon, no matter what kind of ammo you've got, is not really the best thing to meet such a situation with. Remember, your typical small, concealable weapon is meant primarily for up close and personal work, and your ammo choice should reflect this. If you think you need to arm yourself against something even uglier, you really ought to carry a bigger, more powerful gun.

 

[zxcvbob]

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

 

[christcorp]

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. So with that in mind, the worst case scenario "In Public"; not home defense; that I can think of is:

Car Jacker pulls you out of your car at the light. But your 12 month old baby is in the back seat in a car seat. So you have to fire through the windows to stop the car jacker, turned kidnapper. He swerves the car and parks against the curb. He opens the door and hides behind it and is shooting at you. You aren't leaving your child without a fight, so you have to return fire and shoot throught the car door while you are hiding behind a dumpster. And of course, because the odds of hitting the criminal is low, being he's behind the car door, you need to make sure that you have 3-4 extra 15 round magazines on you to keep the fight going.

That's about the worst scenario I can think of where you CAN'T/WON'T run away. I guess the scenario is valid. I guess we could play this scenario game all day. And if this is the scenario; of SIMILAR; that you believe is likely to happen to you, then you really should have that 357/44 magnum revolver; or possibly a 10mm semi. Stagger load your revolver or 15 round magazine with Buffalo-Bore Hot fmj and some Corbon/Rem/Fed HP.

Me personally, I don't believe that the likely scenarios that will affect me are as dramatic or colorful. I believe that self defense in public; not home defense; will not involve barriers. They will involve 1-3 inviduals, most likely 1. S/He will be within 10 feet. S/He will try and corner me into a situation and demand my wallet. Or, if it's a car jacker type of criminal, they will try and open the door when I'm at a traffic light or getting into my car. Again, an individual or two, no barriers, and close range defense. That's the scenarios I envision possible against me. But I guess some people might want to prepare for the first one I described.

 

[ghitch75]

if someone tries to run over me i'm goin' to put 8 in the windshield.....i know a 230gr bullet isn't a match with 3000lb bullet(a car) but i'll make them wish they hadn't tried it!!!!.....yes Hornady TAP FPD 230GR 45 AUTO +P will go right through a windshield @ 15y....go find a junk car and try it....

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Remember, your typical small, concealable weapon is meant primarily for up close and personal work, and your ammo choice should reflect this.

When I lived in Washington State I carried a Glock 19 loaded with Remington 147gr Golden Saber. I switched to Speer 124gr +P Gold Dot simply because 124gr FMJ bullets are cheaper to purchase as handloading components for training ammo.

Here in Florida I essentially retired my Glock 19 and carry a Kahr PM9. I load it with the same Speer 124gr +P Gold Dot cartridge for CCW and handload 124gr FMJ training ammo to the same velocity.

If it weren’t for cost savings I’d still be using 147gr.

 

[Warhawk83]

If you have to shoot into a car that is trying to run you over...it's a very real threat.You're supposed to TRY to get out of the way or just let them run over you because there is sheet metal,glass, and rubber between you and them?

I think that would be a hard fought case on the behalf of the prosecution if the DA would even agree to file charges. Not likely in my opinion.


I use Winchester PDX-1.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887