This is a discussion on A Word of Caution about Hornady’s Critical Defense Handgun Ammunition - by Shawn Do within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; There might be some instances where what Keltyke's post says could play an important part in a shooting incident. "A. The ABILITY to inflict serious ...
There might be some instances where what Keltyke's post says could play an important part in a shooting incident.
"A. The ABILITY to inflict serious bodily injury. He is armed or reasonably appears to be armed.
B. The OPPORTUNITY to inflict serious bodily harm. He is positioned to harm you with his weapon, and,
C. The INTENT (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy - to do you serious or fatal physical harm.
There's a fine legal line as to whether someone on the other side of a closed, locked door or wall actually - at that moment - has all three of these criteria."
OMO and IANAL
You have to follow the entirety of the thread.
Read OV's whole posting which you quoted...He is therein clear toward his view.
As well notice that statement is in quotes AND it is quoted as from the item being discussed overall as from the link provided by the OP.
Reading the whole thread is relevant to all, and in doing so your question in specific would be well answered as it has been addressed multiple times up to where OV made his own post as against that quoted statements view.
The posting specifically states as much and even goes so far as to provide a follow me link for same purpose.
Additionally I had last year posted a detailed thread providing multiple professional level reviews and barrier testing sources, including various grades of _sheet metal_ as well as auto glass (side/rear and double glazed windshield) toward a range of specifically law enforcement marketed 'duty grade' ammunition including Corbon brand 'DPX' (Barnes XPB projectile).Originally Posted by The Article
These predate the release of 'Critical Defense' by Hornady and it was the Corbon DPX which by multiple (all!) testing was found to be best at penetrating hard objects while retaining mass (98+%!).
testing has been done across the entire product range from .380 ACP (a cartridge it is well known here that I am generally not a fan of), to .38 Special, 9MM and .45 ACP.
Unfortunately with the recent site 'update' all of that data from that post and any others going back through history are no longer available to be found .
Very frustrating (!).
A query of the site via Google only brings me to THIS reference toward same.
I'd spent a considerable amount of time compiling the information for that post and am now not interested in duplicating the effort (IIRC it took me some 2 hrs. to compile & draft for posting).
I hate to say this because well lots of folks on the internet say/imply this and hope not to be challenged; But I'd have to right now ask you to simply take my word for it that Corbon DPX in specific can penetrate common thickness materials such as automotive sheet metal, retain it's mass, and retain energy thereafter enough so as to penetrate human flesh to a degree of high wounding if not stopping capability.
Or better yet do as I and many others have done, whihc is to do your own homework toward any one of the products available on the market as applicable here. Yes it will take time and effort/energy to accomplish, but then how much is your life worth to you in time & effort/energy?
Barriers being defined as; Automotive glass (side, rear and glazed safety glass windshield), sheet metal (including automotive doors), residential drywall, as well as soft armor including multiple layers of clothing (denim and leather) along with the basic minimum being human fat (most Americans are overweight and a significant amount are obese!) as well as muscle.
Someone should buzz Bumper and let him know the site search is now effectively inoperable as there are a ton of formerly very good reference threads such as this one here and postings there in that now have been lost post forum software update.
While Hornady CD is _not_ of the same caliber as other common and well known & independently reviewed 'duty grade' ammunition (again See DocGKR among many other sources available) per the manufacturers own statements about it's product by design, it's intended use/application and market orientation is easily confused by potential buyers as based again on the many threads past about this specific product.
Myself from the start I have wondered why it is that Hornady is even selling this product considering how many _civilian_ occurrences there have been toward persons shooting through exterior/security doors to prevent home invasions (!) as well as persons shooting through interior/decorator doors upon being invaded/attacked within their home...And knowing that very many people use handguns to defend their home.
Nevermind those who carry, as this product is also marketed to, who as well often enough find them self shooting through their own auto door (multi-layer sheetmetal) and in several cases of the past 24 months through their own windshield from the drivers seat outward so as to stop an attacker....As in lawful and justifiable defense of them self against an imminent threat.
Contrary to the view and stated opinion by the folks at Hornady in relation to their 'Critical Defense' product.
Personally, as in by my own opinion, I do not at all understand why anyone would select this specific brand/make ammunition ahead of conventional 'duty grade' product, be it for HD use or _civilian_ carry.
Why handicap yourself if there is no NJ style law/statute in ones state requiring as much?
In the past, prior to the site update just over a week ago, there had been _many_ threads and discussions on this including posting of reviewe toward all manner of product by persons other than myself.
As a whole those findings and overall position came to largely mirror that of the the analysis provided by DocGKR, who himself among other things is by profession a tester of ammunition for combat aka 'duty' use.
I don't often keep Hornady’s CD Ammo loaded, but last weekend was a good example of when I did. I was camping, had two firearms handy. In my snub I used Hornady’s CD for two legs (was worried about over penetration given the number of people around me in tents, etc). Sometimes you need a nail, sometimes a screw, sometimes either will work. Consider all options, use what is best.
The FBI tests are so that ammunition can be evaluated objectively on a 1:1 basis against itself under controlled conditions to see how it fits an individual user's requirements.
Yes, ammunition which passes the test happens to do well on the street, but passing the FBI test is not a direct causation of street performance - it's a correlation.
If round X & Y both pass the test, but X goes on average 16 inches with more recoil and slower shot to shot times, and round Y does an average of 12.5 inches with significantly faster times shot to shot, and better controllability, you can make a decision based on an objective terminal ballistics and personal shootability.
No info about how the bullet will do in the tests?
We are back to unscientific testing on the weekends with milk jugs, hams in old clothing, how it does in street performance (anicdotal, and without more information extremely misleading) and how it feels in the hand when you shoot it.
Choices need data.
Data needs filters.
Filters need to be objective.
The same reasoning you would apply to which martial art to use...and the reason many people tend to gravitate to boxing, judo, bjj, muai-thai (kick boxers, don't kill me for misspelling your art...) & mma.
Because in each of those arts, it's incredibly hard to BS your way through, and they are easily verifiable to work.
High end combat sports and ammo sales both involve a lot of money...and they both pretty much demand repeatable, on-demand-demonstrative performance.
testing to a narrow focus, non-industry standard?
Sounds a lot like a guy claiming Dim-Mak to be the answer to BJJ based on what he learned in the dojo. What would you tell him?
"Show you can repeatedly give a good accounting of yourself to various MMA guys and we will talk after that. Till then, I'm going to continue to roll & box..."
Further penetration of a human being, all other conditions being same be it ammo mfr., caliber, projectile type (JHP, FMJ, waddcutter, etc.), projectile construction material (lead, copper jacketed lead, or copper) and clothing per given season is very much going to be dependent on the specifics of the human being as has been shot.
What size jacket/shirt/bra do they wear as measured at the chest circumference?
How fat or lean are they, without any regard to physical build?
How large or small are they, as related to physical build?
How hydrated or dehydrated (American walking around norm) are they?
At what angle of penetration did the projectile strike the human being?
What part of the human being did the projectile strike (torso center, torso lower abdomen, torso side, torso sternum, torso chest/breast, torso upper chest, torso neck/clavicle, shoulder, arm or thigh)?
What length was the barrel of the gun that fired the projectile...Which very much affects and even determines energy as well as ability for a given projectile design to properly/optimally expand upon striking flesh.
Did the projectile expand, or not.
Human beings come in all manner of different sizes, body shapes, density by manner of body fat, muscle and degree of hydration (total body water) as well as type of clothing they might wear per a given season, location and public style.
Image source - http://www.dfas.mil/careers/acareera...omminvolv.html
What might buzz right through one person as shot may be retained within the body of another, never mind that one might be stopped in the immediate while another (either!) might continue their fight as a threat regardless of how or where they were shot aside from having their CNS destroyed.
Real world results civilian, police and military as well as with hunters too toward game animals have shown this to be true and especially difficult to bet on as a given.
- Janq is currently 173 lbs. at 7% bodyfat and 60% TBW (BIA), nominal
Most people mischaractarize the objection to critical defense as "Oh, no...I need to be able to shoot through stuff..." like a tactical ninja.
It's about reliable data. It's about objectivity over marketing. It's about being treated like an adult instead of marketed to.
Tell me what the bullet will do under test conditions shown to have a high correlative relation to effectiveness.
Don't tell me I don't need to know, that I will never be in that situation or all I need is 'this'.
You make the product and tell me what it will do. Let me make the decission as to what I need.
I would have less issue with Critical Defense if hornady did the FBI tests, showed that it aced bare gel & heavy clothing, then kicked ass on IWBA 4 layer denim - but as to wood, glass and metal it failed (as defined by not doing 12 inches) but still didn't completely suck because it went 'x' inches deep which 'still isn't too bad for a clothing focused round.'
I wouldn't buy it, but I'd have less of a 'critical look' at it when I am not given information and left with "you don't need to know".
I don't need to know?
You don't need my money.
FBI Ballistic test Protocol:
Briefly, the performance standards are simple. A handgun bullet must consistently penetrate a minimum of 12 inches of tissue in order to reliably penetrate vital organs within the human target regardless of the angle of impact or intervening obstacles such as arms, clothing, glass, etc.
There is no mention of expansion in the test protocol.
I still hold the opinion that bullets of equal weight and similar design (not some compressed pellet or fragmenting odd balls) that move out of a firearm with the same speed should show close to equal penetration once they pass a barrier. Granted some may expand more than others as they pass through the barrier and this would affect penetration. This is where similar design applies.
Is there any data for the CD round (other than its ability to expand once it passes through clothing) that shows it will penetrate any less or any more than hollow point that do not have the plug?
I have no interest in the Hornady line but just putting a little plastic into what is basically an XTP bullet does not seem to earn it all the negative press, at least not without some actual equal situation tests with other defense rounds. The CD seems to have the velocity and muzzle energy on a par with most other highly rated rounds, so if the plug magically causes the bullet to lose its ballistics I'd like to know about it.
I have carried it for EDC and felt fine. Once it gets used up at the range I switch to another maker, now Winchester. After they go downrange I will go to whatever I can a few hundred rounds of without breaking the bank.
I didn't know who DocGKR is or why he should be regarded as any more credible on ammo performance than my son's second grade teacher. As a result of your post I now know who he is and why I should care what he says. The thing just read to me like gratuitous assertions.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
Oh I did not understand your view/question prior MCP.
I don't blame you at _all_ for not knowing who is 'DocGKR' and for that matter doubting his validity.
Run a query on him as he's well known in industry (.MIL) and has been very open about his real world identity.
I'd had same thought as you years ago when I too first came to be referred,by another, to him on a given subject.
Aside from him though singular I did on my own and would encourage you or anyone to seek out _other_ sources secondary to validate/invalidate his own findings and assertions by way of comparison.
There are very many sources of same out there and they aren't hard to locate either with testing being done in a critical and scientific manner, as rather than anecdotal I shot a deer once with <fill in the blank projectile> and by that I can say <through non-scientific BSery assumption> that defensive handgun ammo and projectiles made by the same company are suck/awesome!
Do your own homework...Due diligence.
Learn the truth for your own desires and mind.
"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." - Benjamin Franklin, A wise guy ; )
The paper behind the current theory of terminal balistics is: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
Yes, the primary wounding mechanism is penetration - however, the methodology results in an ability to compare a particular ammuniton to another in an objective way.
Respectfully, you are putting subjective evaluation of a given round based on who made it, what it's velocity & weight numbers are and what it looks like above the absence of hard data.
I'll wait for someone to blow up some properly prepared and calibrated jello.
Agree with it or not...
The FBI test protocol and method has been the de facto standard for small arms ammunition as related to subjective performance analysis for some 30 yrs. among government, industry and military.
Law enforcement on a national level typically follows the FBIs lead, along with that of the MA State Police (the oldest and largest such police force in the US) who themself use the FBI testing protocol as their standard.
Civilians and gun rags on the other hand; They commonly will use most anything from watermelons, pumpkins and coconuts (!)...To random selection trees as well as boards of wood, phonebooks and wet newspaper.
All being completely variable in density, material type and manner of installation too resulting in wholly unscientific (but widely touted) results even as shot round for round in a given session.
Edit @ 3:20 PM:
Detailed information on the FBI testing protocol in full as via a european ammunition manufacturer and specialty small arms developer.
A review of 'Critical Defense' ammunition in caliber .380 ACP
I have no re-collection of having seen/read this article before today.A Critical Choice
Hornady's newest has the right mix of power and penetration.
By Patrick Sweeney
"In bare gelatin, the Hornady Critical Defense .380 load showed excellent penetration for its power level and perfect expansion."
We don't all carry big guns. If you spend any time at all packing after getting your carry permit, you quickly learn that packing a big gun can be a literal pain in the back.
If you've followed the progress of bullet design to any extent, you'll have some recollection of the FBI tests. Beginning in the mid-late 1980s, the FBI turned itself into the bullet-testing arm of law enforcement. Basically, the FBI added barrier penetration-- light and heavy clothing, sheet metal, auto glass and marine plywood--to the International Wound Ballistics Association bullet-testing ballistic gelatin protocol.
The FBI also insisted on deep penetration; anything less than a foot was deemed insufficient--for law enforcement needs, that is. For the rest of us, the need to shoot through auto glass, sheet metal and plywood are probably not as great. However, there is one aspect of the FBI test that is of importance: performance through clothing. An attacker in the winter might well be wearing multiple layers of clothing, layers that can clog a hollowpoint and decrease or prevent its expansion.
...Hornady considered what most of us really carry and designed a line of ammunition for those guns often on our belts and the performance we'll most likely need: reliability, accuracy, relatively low recoil and full expansion in gelatin after clothing.
Hornady specifically designed the Critical Defense line for .380, 9mm, .38 Special and .357 Magnum, the calibers we're more likely to be carrying. The bullet is intended to perform well in gelatin--clothing or no--but auto glass, metal and plywood performance are not as good. That's the price you pay for an easy-to-shoot load that works well in the non-law enforcement world.
I fired .380 and 9mm Critical Defense through combined heavy clothing and down vest material, into gelatin and found that it performed pretty well.
The .380 load fell short of the FBI minimum, which is 12 inches of gelatin with full expansion. The Critical Defense out of a Ruger LCP managed "only" nine to 10 inches of penetration. But again, this is designed for civilian needs, not law enforcement, and compared to other .380 loads, this is darned good.
Other current hollowpoints out of .380s often fail to reliably expand, or the hollowpoints clog with cloth and act as full-metal-jacket bullets. And it's only recently that the idea of a .380 bullet expanding reliably would even be considered as hollowpoint .380 ammo from even a decade ago won't expand at all in bare gelatin, let alone in the heavy clothing test. Short barrels make expansion even less likely...
Source - http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunitio...choice_200903/
What as stated above though makes sense...
Swapping optimal/maximal performance which would include having the horsepower (energy by way of increased velocity) to penetrate solid objects in exchange for decreased felt and actual recoil (energy by way of reduced velocity) allowing for greater shooter comfort.
There is a market for such type ammunition, although I won't put name to it so as to not insult or hurt any persons/groups feelings.
We're all shooters to some type and degree.
While clearly those in specific who are in law enforcement of some manner AND/OR those civilians who desire/prefer maximal/optimal power level ammunition AND who can well handle the increased recoil, THEN options such as Critical Defense would not likely be at the top of their options list if even on it at all.
To borrow an analogy from the shooting sports as related to ammunition power factor;
Duty grade FBI protocol passing ammo = 'Major'
Critical Defense = 'Minor'
- Janq carrys and keeps a full size handgun fed 'major' power level type ammo
I used a stack of old real estate magazines as targets, shooting with Hornady Critical Defense .45, 185gr last week. I realize they are untested with various hard barriers....but they did pretty well against the magazines. There were about 20 magazines...about 1" thick each....shrink wrapped very tightly. The critical defense penetrated about 6-7 of them before it stopped but the 5 magazines following had significant damage too. That's pretty good for something not designed to penetrate solid surfaces.