Hornady Critical Defense reviews

[szhttm]

Originally Posted by Thomas83

All good points and even though this is a 9mm thread here are a couple pics of a .40 CD that went through a simulated standard wall you would find in your home and into some gelatine. I was able to only recover the one round. The two next to it however were captured in a plywood target. My inital impression was "COOL !" then it sunk in that it did not do what it was supposed to, and that was mushroom. Not going to buy these again. Sorry.

Just keep in mind that the CD (Critical Defense) rounds were not designed as a good "barrier" penetrator and to still perform as good hollow point ammo. Hornady has stated this before. From what I understand about this round, it was designed around self-defense where no barriers (except for some clothing) would be in the way. A lot of other manufacturers also have similar type ammo.

These rounds were designed around "the market need" for a less penetrating round for individuals who for whatever reason (good or bad, researched or not researched, educated themselves on different ammo options or not) decided that they would rather use a less penetrating round versus a round that is designed to penetrate barriers and work well. That is also why Hornady came our with CriticalDuty because they are "suppose" to be better barrier penetrators and work as expected. I am still waiting on third-party/independent testing of the Critical Duty rounds myself...



Good Luck And Be Safe!!!

[Snaphook]

I always enjoy the ammo experts who post a video of this bullet or that bullet didn't expand when it went through 3 boards of plywood or 1" of pine followed by 6 water jugs. Then they pull the bullet out and say "shhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeit, this stuff sucks". Great evaluation, so by watching it I now know that if I am attacked by 3 plywood boards or 8 water jugs what round NOT to use.

I've not seen a single legitimate study that suggests the Hornady CD bullet is not one of the best available for self defense. And the studies that show others ammo as better and don't list the CD were done before the CD was even on the market. If someone has evidence that it performed poorly I'd like to see it, and not uncle Jethro's example of how it reacts to plywood, water jugs, or wet phone books.

I think there are several very good self defense loads. I used to use the Winchester PDX but it caused the one and only FTF in my XDm 45 (after testing about 100 rounds). I switched to CD rounds and have fired over 200 rounds in both my 45 and my carry 9mm with zero issues. It's very accurate, and I've seen nothing to suggest that it's not a terrific defense round. It is also the round of choice of many LE officers I know and shoot with. If someone has serious evidence otherwise I'd love to see it so I can switch.

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Snaphook

I always enjoy the ammo experts who post a video of this bullet or that bullet didn't expand when it went through 3 boards of plywood or 1" of pine followed by 6 water jugs. Then they pull the bullet out and say "shhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeit, this stuff sucks". Great evaluation, so by watching it I now know that if I am attacked by 3 plywood boards or 8 water jugs what round NOT to use.

I've not seen a single legitimate study that suggests the Hornady CD bullet is not one of the best available for self defense. And the studies that show others ammo as better and don't list the CD were done before the CD was even on the market. If someone has evidence that it performed poorly I'd like to see it, and not uncle Jethro's example of how it reacts to plywood, water jugs, or wet phone books.

I think there are several very good self defense loads. I used to use the Winchester PDX but it caused the one and only FTF in my XDm 45 (after testing about 100 rounds). I switched to CD rounds and have fired over 200 rounds in both my 45 and my carry 9mm with zero issues. It's very accurate, and I've seen nothing to suggest that it's not a terrific defense round. It is also the round of choice of many LE officers I know and shoot with. If someone has serious evidence otherwise I'd love to see it so I can switch.

It underpenetrates, and does not live up to Hornady's claims...

And speaking of what Hornady says about the ammo, those LEO's that you know who are using it?

Yeah--terrible choice--even more than those that use it for carry. And Hornady actually says they are a terrible choice...

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

There's a reason LEO's that actually know about terminal performance stick with rounds that pass FBI protocol (which Critical Defense was designed specifically NOT to do).

In fact, I have yet to see a single independent, scientific test (Utoob Kommandoes with their homebrew "Buhliztiks Jel", water jugs, newsprint and Sunday roasts are not scientific tests) where Critical Defense actually will pass the 12" mark in bare gel, or heavily clothed gel...which means it fails miserably as a defensive round.

Show me a legitimate study where it passes FBI protocol (Hornady's advertisements notwithstanding).

[Snaphook]

Originally Posted by Cuda66

It underpenetrates, and does not live up to Hornady's claims...

And speaking of what Hornady says about the ammo, those LEO's that you know who are using it?

Yeah--terrible choice--even more than those that use it for carry. And Hornady actually says they are a terrible choice...



There's a reason LEO's that actually know about terminal performance stick with rounds that pass FBI protocol (which Critical Defense was designed specifically NOT to do).

In fact, I have yet to see a single independent, scientific test (Utoob Kommandoes with their homebrew "Buhliztiks Jel", water jugs, newsprint and Sunday roasts are not scientific tests) where Critical Defense actually will pass the 12" mark in bare gel, or heavily clothed gel...which means it fails miserably as a defensive round.

Show me a legitimate study where it passes FBI protocol (Hornady's advertisements notwithstanding).

I understand your measuring stick is the FBI protocol. Mine isn't.

I don't want it to penetrate a lot of the things that the FBI requires because I'm not in the FBI, nor will my shooting situations ever mirror those faced by an FBI agent. I would most likely surprise an intruder in my house (filled with my kids) and shoot him 10+ times. Seeing as this is a high stress situation and I've never done it before I MAY MISS with a round or two eventhough I am a very good shot. CD seems to fit that bill.

You are asking me to provide a study to prove it is acceptable, while the only studies that I have ever seen that suggest it is not is uncle goober on youtube. Do you have evidence it is NOT an acceptable round beyond the Hornady statement that I happen to agree with? Do you have FBI comparison tests that showed how it would perform poorly against other rounds? A test that it was actually involved in where it did bad?

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Snaphook

I understand your measuring stick is the FBI protocol. Mine isn't.

I don't want it to penetrate a lot of the things that the FBI requires because I'm not in the FBI, nor will my shooting situations ever mirror those faced by an FBI agent. I would most likely surprise an intruder in my house (filled with my kids) and shoot him 10+ times. Seeing as this is a high stress situation and I've never done it before I MAY MISS with a round or two eventhough I am a very good shot. CD seems to fit that bill.

You are asking me to provide a study to prove it is acceptable, while the only studies that I have ever seen that suggest it is not is uncle goober on youtube. Do you have evidence it is NOT an acceptable round beyond the Hornady statement that I happen to agree with? Do you have FBI comparison tests that showed how it would perform poorly against other rounds? A test that it was actually involved in where it did bad?

This is just the first among many...

<b>.38spl: Hornady FTX vs. Speer 135gr GDHP vs. CorBon 110gr DPX</b>



.38spl; HCD is on right. Failed to expand in clothed gelatin. Test performed by Dr. Gary Roberts (one of the foremost terminal ballisitcs experts in the US) under scientific protocol (properly calibrated gel, etc). Note that in bare gel, it barely made 12" when it expanded.

As for the rest--a round that will not perform, and will not get to that 12"+ mark will have a good chance of not getting to vitals. This means you have to shoot more beofre your assailant stops. In a dynamic shoot, the more times you pull the trigger means the greater chance that you will miss--and a miss is a hell of a lot mroe dangerous in a house full of children than one that might, maybe possibly, but statistics show won't fully penetrate a torso with enough velocity to be dangerous on the other side.

(good read on overpenetration, and why you really shouldn't worry about it: The Presumptive Hazards of Over-Penetration - M4Carbine.net Forums )

Now--before you say that 12" is way more than most people are thick, remember that life is not like a silhouette target; odds are good that you will have an oblique angle shot, or have to go through an arm first, or both--just to get to the shallow vitals. The deep vitals--that is, those good bits that when damaged make people stop right quick--require a lot more.

[Snaphook]

Originally Posted by Cuda66

This is just the first among many...

<b>.38spl: Hornady FTX vs. Speer 135gr GDHP vs. CorBon 110gr DPX</b>



.38spl; HCD is on right. Failed to expand in clothed gelatin. Test performed by Dr. Gary Roberts (one of the foremost terminal ballisitcs experts in the US) under scientific protocol (properly calibrated gel, etc). Note that in bare gel, it barely made 12" when it expanded.

As for the rest--a round that will not perform, and will not get to that 12"+ mark will have a good chance of not getting to vitals. This means you have to shoot more beofre your assailant stops. In a dynamic shoot, the more times you pull the trigger means the greater chance that you will miss--and a miss is a hell of a lot mroe dangerous in a house full of children than one that might, maybe possibly, but statistics show won't fully penetrate a torso with enough velocity to be dangerous on the other side.

(good read on overpenetration, and why you really shouldn't worry about it: The Presumptive Hazards of Over-Penetration - M4Carbine.net Forums )

Now--before you say that 12" is way more than most people are thick, remember that life is not like a silhouette target; odds are good that you will have an oblique angle shot, or have to go through an arm first, or both--just to get to the shallow vitals. The deep vitals--that is, those good bits that when damaged make people stop right quick--require a lot more.

Actually, if you look at the last series of pictures using the Hornady at standard pressure they worked the best of all the rounds tested. Look at the expansion and retention, they look perfect. The test was also with a 1 7/8" J frame 38 and once he used standard pressure or plus P the results were outstanding. Therefore the only conclusion from this particular test is don't use sub standard velocity CD rounds in 38. I won't.

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Snaphook

Actually, if you look at the last series of pictures using the Hornady at standard pressure they worked the best of all the rounds tested. Look at the expansion and retention, they look perfect. The test was also with a 1 7/8" J frame 38 and once he used standard pressure or plus P the results were outstanding. Therefore the only conclusion from this particular test is don't use sub standard velocity CD rounds in 38. I won't.

And how are you going to know that they AREN'T substandard? How do you know that Hornady, after being notified of the issues, didn't hand-cook a batch just for the test?

FWIW, that was not the only time issues like this have happened. There have been several reports of batches of CD having FTF rates due to bad primers. Not just in .38, either.

Personally, I wouldn't base my decision (not even a tiny bit) on a self defense load by what the manufacturer says about it.

Anyway--you asked for a test that showed it to be unacceptible. There you have it.

[Thomas83]

Originally Posted by szhttm

Just keep in mind that the CD (Critical Defense) rounds were not designed as a good "barrier" penetrator and to still perform as good hollow point ammo. Hornady has stated this before. From what I understand about this round, it was designed around self-defense where no barriers (except for some clothing) would be in the way. A lot of other manufacturers also have similar type ammo.

These rounds were designed around "the market need" for a less penetrating round for individuals who for whatever reason (good or bad, researched or not researched, educated themselves on different ammo options or not) decided that they would rather use a less penetrating round versus a round that is designed to penetrate barriers and work well. That is also why Hornady came our with CriticalDuty because they are "suppose" to be better barrier penetrators and work as expected. I am still waiting on third-party/independent testing of the Critical Duty rounds myself...



Good Luck And Be Safe!!!

True, the critical defense is not designed to go through hard barriers like walls or window glass, which is a good thing if a large percentage of rounds miss their attacker? I believe it boils down to if you can hit your target or not. If you can then great if not then keep practicing.

Originally Posted by Snaphook

I always enjoy the ammo experts who post a video of this bullet or that bullet didn't expand when it went through 3 boards of plywood or 1" of pine followed by 6 water jugs. Then they pull the bullet out and say "shhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeit, this stuff sucks". Great evaluation, so by watching it I now know that if I am attacked by 3 plywood boards or 8 water jugs what round NOT to use.

I've not seen a single legitimate study that suggests the Hornady CD bullet is not one of the best available for self defense. And the studies that show others ammo as better and don't list the CD were done before the CD was even on the market. If someone has evidence that it performed poorly I'd like to see it, and not uncle Jethro's example of how it reacts to plywood, water jugs, or wet phone books.

I think there are several very good self defense loads. I used to use the Winchester PDX but it caused the one and only FTF in my XDm 45 (after testing about 100 rounds). I switched to CD rounds and have fired over 200 rounds in both my 45 and my carry 9mm with zero issues. It's very accurate, and I've seen nothing to suggest that it's not a terrific defense round. It is also the round of choice of many LE officers I know and shoot with. If someone has serious evidence otherwise I'd love to see it so I can switch.

I've fired over 5k rounds through my XD and have not had any FTE, only two FTF probably due to a bad primer as I tried to fire that round in a couple different weapons and it would not go off. Like stated above, does it really matter what you like? I think the gun doesn't care and it only matters that you hit your target.

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Thomas83

True, the critical defense is not designed to go through hard barriers like walls or window glass, which is a good thing if a large percentage of rounds miss their attacker? I believe it boils down to if you can hit your target or not. If you can then great if not then keep practicing.




I've fired over 5k rounds through my XD and have not had any FTE, only two FTF probably due to a bad primer as I tried to fire that round in a couple different weapons and it would not go off. Like stated above, does it really matter what you like? I think the gun doesn't care and it only matters that you hit your target.

Yes, it does kinda matter. A round on target does you no good if it won't penetrate deep enough to cause a stopping wound.

Just ask FBI Agents Grogan and Dove.

[john_bud]

Originally Posted by Thomas83

True, the critical defense is not designed to go through hard barriers like walls or window glass, which is a good thing if a large percentage of rounds miss their attacker? I believe it boils down to if you can hit your target or not. If you can then great if not then keep practicing.



.

Actually, your statement is incorrect. The rounds WILL penetrate hard barriers. Glass, drywall, even 2x4's won't stop them. If you don't believe ... shoot a window glass and see how well it penetrates! Heck, stack up 35 of them in a row and watch them all shatter.

What the rounds DON'T do is penetrate a hard barrier AND still expand reliably. Quality rounds like Gold Dot, Ranger etc, will penetrate a hard barrier AND still reliably expand. CD will hit a barrier, close up and NOT expand. That's the issue.

If you want something that won't endanger people on the other side of a sheet rock wall or window glass, you are pretty much stuck with a Tazer or other NL option.