Hornady Critical Defense

[Loosedhorse]

This is the same company that sells .223 and 5.56 ammo that fails to meet FBI standards for penetration to SWAT teams.

Is this criticism or praise of Hornady?

Does Hornady force SWAT teams to buy that ammo? Does the FBI require the same penetration for rifle ammo as handgun ammo?

I can certainly see that a SWAT team (which might envision officers in different rooms of the same house or apartment) might want a limited-penetration rifle round. If so, and Hornady supplies it...Hornady fails?

They were offering ammo that didn't perform as well because they don't believe we need it.

Hornady also offers TAP FPD, TAP CQ, and now Critical Duty. Sounds like the only thing they don't believe in is giving us just one choice.

 

[JustinJ]

I think it wise to carry rounds common in LE. From a legal standpoint it is hard for a prosecution to argue you are blood crazed gun nut with "deadly ammo designed to kill" if you shoot what cops shoot.

 

[allaroundhunter]

I think it wise to carry rounds common in LE. From a legal standpoint it is hard for a prosecution to argue you are blood crazed gun nut with "deadly ammo designed to kill" if you shoot what cops shoot.

Lucky for us it is generally good ammo too

 

[NM Mountainman]

I agree with the critics who say the current design sometimes has problems with expanding too soon and too much when the bullet encounters a hard barrier such as a car door or a windshield. Such problems may be inherent with this kind of design.

A careful review of ballistic gelatin tests of ammo commonly used by LE agencies (Gold Dot, for instance) will reveal that hollow point ammo commonly varies in penetration and expansion when the HP bullet must first pass through a barrier or through clothing.

The use of a well designed expander plug (there have been many designs over the years) can overcome the problem of poor expansion with HP bullets due to the HP becoming clogged with debris from clothing or other barriers.

The use of expanders (soft and rigid, made of many kinds of materials in a wide variety of designs) was thoroughly researched in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. There is an amazing variety of thoroughly tested bullet designs which have been explored and tested. Some have been patented. Many are specialized designs for a particular purpose. Others work well but are expensive to manufacture. Many designs are proprietary and are not well known or generally available.

Bullet designers and engineers are currently able to tailor a bullet's performance in such a way as to give optimal performance under a wide variety of conditions. But no design can offer optimal performance under all conditions.

Hornady Critical Defense ammo is based on thoroughly proven design principles and testing. Like all bullets, they will perform better under some conditions than under others. If there is a problem with inadequate penetration after expansion, then it can and will be corrected by making adjustments in the size and shape of the bullet cavity, thickness of the jacket, notches and grooves in the jacket, etc. The result will still be a bullet which will perform better under some conditions than others.

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I think a hard cast Keith style bullet loaded hot from Buffalo Bore or anyone else is the way to go. That way you don't have to worry about barriers or clogged HP's. Cast bullets are faster too because of the reduced friction to the barrel.

This style of bullet has taken out lots of mean creatures, from tough hogs, to strait up bears. I think it's good enough for the average bad guy.

HP's are useful but over rated IMHO.

 

[Pyro]

HP's are useful but over rated (IMHO)

Useful, yes.
Overrated, well that's sort of a grey area. Most Keith style bullets are made for lever action rifles and revolver, not semi-automatic handguns. They also tend to recoil hard, so rapid-on-target-shooting is made more difficult. The bullets also penetrate very deep...usually too deep and out the back. Will they work? That matters on shot placement like anything else. I would prefer to see my bullets stay in the attacker than shoot out his back and down the street. Shooting pigs in the country and shooting an attacker in an urban environment are two different situations.

 

[MikeNice]

Is this criticism or praise of Hornady?

Criticism. The point of carrying a .223 or 5.56 in to a situation is improved performance over pistol calibers. That isn't really what you get. There is a nice temporary cavity but no major difference in performance.

A lot of the departments that were carrying the Hornady rounds have went to other manufacturers. There was a swat shooting that showed the Hornady rifle rounds were being out performed by Speer Gold Dot .40S&W.

I was a little harsh on Hornady. I just don't believe you should tell people you make the most lethal bullet on Earth, then give them something that under-performs a pistol round.

Hornady also offers TAP FPD, TAP CQ, and now Critical Duty.

Tap CQ is not for civilians. When I asked a Hornady distributor for a list of retail locations in my area I was advised that I could only purchase it through my department's distribution channel. I informed them that I could actually order it from Ammo to Go and SG Ammo. They told me that such purchases are not legal. (That is a lie.) Then they told me that those companies are "probably selling reboxed civilian ammo."

Hornady has said over and over again that Critical Defense ammo is made for civilians because civilians do not need the same ammo as police officers. If we find ourselves in any situation other than the "typical" 21 feet and two shots scenario we are going to jail.

I've just become fed up with Hornady over time. Their extreme hyperbole in their marketing efforts and condescending attitude towards civilians really irks me.

Add to that the fact that I have personally had Critical Defense ammo fail to fire due to bum primers. Trying to deal with them on that issue was a nightmare until it came out that me and my friend worked for a PD. Then they wanted to give us any other pistol ammo of our choice and pay shipping to send the dud ammo back.

Then in a later unscientific test - ran by me and a friend - Hornady Custom failed to expand or penetrate on a competitive level with Golden Sabers or Winchester Ranger Bonded. There expansion was similar to Speer Gold Dot but they achieved nearly 7" less of penetration. Their Custom line performs very similar to the older Winchester Silver Tip ammo. They will do the job if you find yourself in a best case STHF situation. However, they aren't designed to achieve what most experts consider to be the minimum requirements for self defense or personal duty ammo.

I guess that is my biggest complaint with Hornady. I have no confidence in them. Their bullets do not perform to the hype. They often perform to standards from 30 years ago. Hornady seems to be boxing ammo better suited for avoiding liability law suits than protecting people in many cases.

XTP bullets that are hand loaded are great. I have seen a 124gr+P 9mm from a Beretta CX4 take down a deer in spectacular fashion. Their boxed ammo comes up short though and they are far from honest about it's limitations.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Criticism. The point of carrying a .223 or 5.56 in to a situation is improved performance over pistol calibers. That isn't really what you get. There is a nice temporary cavity but no major difference in performance.

You are incorrect, because you are only counting penetration as "performance". In high-velocity rifle rounds, temporary cavity is a significant wounding mechanism.

In .223, Fackler (at least) requires that the cavity be combined with bullet fragmentation, and the light HPs that Hornady uses are optimized for fragmentation:

So, Hornady is doing exactly what Fackler recommends to make the temporary cavity the chief wounding mechanism of a .223 round. Thus I believe your dismissing the "temporary cavity" as the key part of the performance of these rounds is in error, according to Fackler.

But enough theory: perhaps you can point me to the SWAT teams that purchased Hornady rifle ammo, and suffered as a result of its "poor performance"? And of course Hornady also offers "heavy" bullet loadings in 5.56 and .223--so again, SWAT can choose what it wants.

I've just become fed up with Hornady over time.

I can understand that, and you're right to bring that up: it may be reason enough for some to avoid Hornady's ammo.

But your experiences should not color your perception of the actual performance of its products, like .223 limited penetration rounds. By the way, lots of ammo companies sell LE-only ammo (that only becomes available to non-LEOs if there are over-runs or if a PD sells its dated surplus).

And although Hornady doesn't directly sell TAP CQ to non-LEOs, their TAP FPD lists (for example) a .40 180 gr XTP @ 950 fps--do you expect inadequate performance from that?

Like I said, no one's forcing SWAT teams to buy Hornady; no one's forcing non-LEOs to buy Critical Defense instead of TAP FPD.

Well: no one except NJ legislators.

 

[MikeNice]

There is an FBI investigation floating around on the net. Basically it says that Hornady 55gr and 72gr .223 did not meet FBI requirements for terminal performance.

According to Hornady's LE literature the 180gr TAP does not perform to FBI requirements. A few of their rounds do meet the minimum. However, that is out of 4.5" or longer barells. Their performance out of shorter length barells is questionable. To me that is a big turn off. If a bullet barely meets the standard in a 4.5" gun what will it do in a 3.5" CCH?

Winchester sells their PDX-1 to the public, Remington sells their Golden Saber ammo to the public, and Speer sells their Gold Dot to the public. It isn't so much about them not selling TAP CQ to the public. My issue is with the fact that they lied and tried to disperage honest businesses. I also hate the way they are so condescending to the consumer handgun market.

I would not use Hornady factory ammo. I've had Critical Defense with dud primers. Plus, in my informal testing of Custom ammo it has came up 50% - 70% shorter in penetration than Golden Saber, Winchester Ranger Bonded, Speer Gold Dot, Federal Tactical Hydra Shok, and other brands. It also gives up 10% - 20% in the expansion department. It isn't even close to being "the most lethal bullet in the world."

 

[Strykervet]

Sound like the top sheriff from florida back around '86. Said on tv , stop shoot when your gun goes click. back then revolvers and single stack gun out at 6 and 10 rounds too. Reality today. Stop shooting when there is not fight in the bg anymore. OR some da will work hard to fry your butt and if he they don't is because you spent your bank account on good help and will be gone for many years. HA. You remenber back when most sheriff officers still carried 357mags and .44 mags or 1911 single stacks and could shoot them. Before the days of collage educated leos that don't hunt and are not gun guys. Now up to they have 20 round mags and don't shoot nearly as well on a whole!!

Dude, you might be having a stroke.

 

[silversport]

interesting discussion...another reason I tend to stick with ammunition vetted in the LEO community (usually from the big 3)...if it fails for them in practice or in the field, you hear about it pretty fast...

Bill

 

[Loosedhorse]

Basically it says that Hornady 55gr and 72gr .223 did not meet FBI requirements for terminal performance.

Pardon my ignorance: where does the FBI list its performance requirements of .223 ammo?

I know that, for handgun ammo, the FBI requires penetration between 12 and 18 inches; in bare gelatin and in gelatin with 7 different barrier conditions.

For .223, I find nothing about FBI requirements. BTW, the lower penetration of .223 rounds (compared to "duty" handgun rounds), rather than being considered a "deficiency," is usually claimed that is a tactical advantage over handgun rounds.

I did find this from a non-FBI source:

The critical minimum velocity for obtaining maximum terminal performance from .223 Remington/5.56mm ammunition is approximately 2700 fps.

The quote addresses "optimal performance", not minimal and maximal values (as for handgun bulet penetration); and does not seem to be the "official" position of the FBI.

Hornady-LE lists 8 loads in .223 and 5.56. Only the 75 grain loads do not reach 2700 out of a 16-in barrel. I usually think of 75 gr loads as long-distance accuracy rounds; I'm not sure how often they would be selected for rifles with 16-in barrels.

I note that Winchester-LE does not offer a .223 or 5.56 75 gr. They list 3060fps for a 69 gr bullet, without specifying the barrel length.

A few of their rounds do meet the minimum. However, that is out of 4.5" or longer barells.

I should be surprised that standards designed for duty guns were tested using duty guns?

If a bullet barely meets the standard in a 4.5" gun what will it do in a 3.5" CCH?

Very likely: it will penetrate more.

Winchester sells their PDX-1 to the public

Ah: the very same company that started this "LE-only" ammo business with Black Talon, and continued it with the Ranger-LE line.

I've had Critical Defense with dud primers.

Important problem. But it might not be just the ammo. Hornady lists its primer "all fire" strike depth as 0.017 inches. To the extent gun produces a strike depth more shallow than that, you may/will get misfires. It absolutely may mean that Hornady is NOT the ammo for your gun; it may not however mean that the ammo would misfire in a different gun.

I think we're all used to the idea that some ammo has "hard" primers, some "soft." Perhaps Hornady falls into the hard primer category.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Ah, I did find this. I don't know if it is "official," but it lists two Hornady .223 rounds as a "best choice" unless you have a 1:12 twist barrel, or unless you will be shooting through "intermediate barriers, particularly vehicle glass."

I don't plan to shoot through vehicle glass; but maybe someday I might have to. My prefered HD rifle round is from Hornady: the .308 110 gr TAP. I wonder how that would do against vehicle glass.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

For .223, I find nothing about FBI requirements.

The FBI's terminal performance requirements for rifle ammunition is identical to its requirements for pistol ammunition.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks.

Well, as I said, that's odd; since the main mechanism of wounding, according to Fackler, for .223 is completely different from that of handgun calibers.

 

[MikeNice]

I should be surprised that standards designed for duty guns were tested using duty guns?

Nope. However, A lot of departments are now also assigning compact or sub-compact guns as duty guns. That means a lot of "duty guns" do not fit the traditional idea of a duty gun. My department currently issues three different sizes of gun. Each one has a different length barell. Even with the coming switch to S&W we will have some officers carrying compact guns with 3.5" barells.

Losing 1" of barell length means losing velocity. That usually tends to lead to less desirable performance. I have never read where anyone claimed a shorter barell with less velocity penetrates more. Maybe that is my ignorance.

FBI Data

Don't pull that link up at work. It has some very graphic autopsy photos on the page. In the later part however it explicitly states that Hornady 55gr and 73gr do not satisfy FBI standards for terminal performance.

Important problem. But it might not be just the ammo.

I tried the ammo in multiple guns. It would not fire from any gun.

Ah: the very same company that started this "LE-only" ammo business with Black Talon, and continued it with the Ranger-LE line.

However, they will sell you the same PDX ammo they sell to the FBI.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Losing 1" of barell length means losing velocity. That usually tends to lead to less desirable performance.

Depends on what you mean by desirable performance.

It is not unusual to find that the same expanding bullet, traveling at greater velocity, will penetrate less than if it had been traveling more slowly. Mechanism appears to be greater expansion (and/or fragmentation) at the higher speed, with subsequent greater tissue resistence (and/or less retained weight).

I've seen it happen with hunting bullets, same load fired at different distances; the farther shot (going slower when it hit) penetrated more. And our old pals Hornady show their 110 gr .38 FTX penetrating just about 12"; the 110 .38 +P, maybe 10.5.

Once the velocity falls sufficiently so that little or no expansion takes place, we would expect that lower velocity means less penetration.

it explicitly states that Hornady 55gr and 73gr do not satisfy FBI standards

I appreciate the link. It does not give details, so again I suspect that the deficiency concerns penetration of auto glass: a big deal for LE, not so big a deal for some of us.

The slideshow you link contains an odd claim: "The performance of the .223 TAP ammunition, although consistent with manufacturer’s claims, did not perform terminally as this Police Department expected." I am not sure why the PD's expectations were different than the manufacturer's claims.

The slideshow also notes: "He was finally taken down after receiving rounds from an M-4 .223, with Hornady Tap 55 gr ballistic tip rounds and Hornady Tap 72 gr. Hollow Points...The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage." Not sure what there is to complain about.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Well, as I said, that's odd; since the main mechanism of wounding, according to Fackler, for .223 is completely different from that of handgun calibers.

Still gotta penetrate deeply enough to reach and damage vitals critical to immediate survival.

The human body is the same regardless of whether the bad guy is shot by a handgun, rifle or shotgun.

Barrier-blind bonded and solid copper bullets don't shed lead fragments like conventional copper-jacketed lead core expanding bullets.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Still gotta penetrate deeply enough to reach and damage vitals critical to immediate survival.

Do you? Can you?

If the main wounding mechanism of the .223 is temporary cavity plus fragmentation; then you seem to have a choice: delay the bullet "upset" (which should both delay the temp. cavity so it occurs deeper, and penetration of the round is increased), or have it occur quickly (penetration will suffer). Each scenario has its problems: with delayed upset, in some cases the bullet wiil be through the target/aggressor before significant cavitation has occured, greatly lessing the rounds effect.

Barrier-blind bonded and solid copper bullets don't shed lead fragments like conventional copper-jacketed lead core expanding bullets.

If Fackler is correct, the lack of fragmentation will eliminate much of the wounding power of this round (he was not impressed with .223 cavitation alone). Interesting price to pay for the metric of "penetration." Sounds like putting all your money on black, and spinning the wheel.

It seems we may be ignoring what .223 is good at, and trying to make it do something it's not good at. I guess, after a few years, we'll know if this was the right call, both for military and civilian uses.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Interesting price to pay for the metric of "penetration."

There are conventional non-bonded copper-jacketed lead core 5.56/.223 bullets available that do meet minimum penetration requirements when light barrier materials are not an issue.

Mk318 is probably the best of both worlds - the unbonded lead core fragments substantially and the thick solid copper base penetrates.

 

[MikeNice]

Depends on what you mean by desirable performance.

I mean at least FBI minimum optimal performance. Sure you might get it with the shorter barell by giving up expansion. The truth is most Hornady bullets don't expand as well as the other magor brands. So, should I look for an even smaller hole just to get in the ball park with penetration? That is not a desirable result in my book.

The slideshow also notes: "He was finally taken down after receiving rounds from an M-4 .223, with Hornady Tap 55 gr ballistic tip rounds and Hornady Tap 72 gr. Hollow Points...The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage." Not sure what there is to complain about.

That quote comes from the inacurate NTOA post that initiated the FBI investigation. That claim is questionable at best. It did obviously break the hip, heel, and foot.

What stopped him was the 180gr Speer Gold Dot that shattered his right arm. That caused him to drop his weapon. Even then the officer's had to "fight" to handcuff him.

The slideshow you link contains an odd claim: "The performance of the .223 TAP ammunition, although consistent with manufacturer’s claims, did not perform terminally as this Police Department expected." I am not sure why the PD's expectations were different than the manufacturer's claims.

That baffled me as well. It seems weird that the department's expectations where different than the printed information that hornady gives out. Having dealt with a Hornady distributor trying to get our PD to switch I can hazard a guess.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That quote comes from the inacurate NTOA post that initiated the FBI investigation.

Well, if I read this slideshow right, the initial ME report said that 13 of 16 .223s exited. The later "facts"--determined how?--say 11 .223s hit, all over-penetrating. Did the .223 rounds NOT collapse the lung and puncture the aorta, as initially reported?

I thought it was just the case that sometimes hits (even with a .223, even with a .40) don't stop an attacker. And in fact, that seems to be the exact conclusion the authors of the slideshow come to:

• Determined individuals can sustain many gunshot wounds in areas that produce great pain and continue to fight a long time, even without the aid of drugs or alcohol.
• Shot placement is everything in a gunfight and always the key to stopping a threat effectively.

I agree 100%. But I don't read in these words the condemnation of Hornady ammo that you apparently do.

Note that all (or most?) .223 rounds over-penetrated the suspect, so there was no problem with penetration. If the suspect was facing the officers (presenting the thinnest possible chest thickness, on a thin subject), it is hard to believe any other rounds would have done differently, except maybe varmint rounds.

BTW, the autopsy photos show the suspect's chest relatively free of.223 bullet wounds (reportedly 107 shots were fired by officers)--should we suppose that this had anything to do with the suspects continuing to fight?

Wasn't it Col. Cooper who told us that .223 is a "poodle-shooter"? I am relatively sure that military-issue 5.56 NATO rounds meet the 14-in penetration criterion, but in the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan we got back a lot of reports of .223 ineffectiveness, causing some forces to get out their old M-14s, and others to look at 6.8 more closely.

 

[ok642]

Since early 2010, I have been using Hornady Critical Defense in .380, 9mm 38 and 357. I have never had any issues with this ammo. It feeds reliably, fires every time, muzzle flash and recoil hardly noticeable, expands well and is very accurate. It is also readily available at Bass Pro, Gander Mountain, Sportsman's Warehouse, Cabela's, Academy Sports etc. I like Hornady and use it in all my guns. That doesn't mean there aren't other good rounds available, but Hornady works well for its intended use.

If you go to Wincehster's Facebook Page you will read complaints from consumers who have had issues with various products failing to fire etc. The truth is, any brand of ammo will have issues from time to time. That is why you practice clearing a malfunction and why our magazines hold multiple rounds. HOrnady makes good stuff and I have no problems recommending it or carrying it for personal defense.

 

[PT92]

I still after two months of looking cannot find any of their critical "duty" ammo in stock anywhere...?

-Cheers

 

[Loosedhorse]

^^I read in G&A that Critical Duty will be available to non-LE, but they are filling their LE contracts first.