Hornady Critical Duty

[JAD]

At this point I only have advertising, Hornady data, and my own accuracy and reliability experience to go on -- but I really like the 9x19 load and am intrigued by the new .45. Has anyone (especially doc) gathered independent data or formed an opinion on this stuff yet?

[Sparks2112]

At this point I only have advertising, Hornady data, and my own accuracy and reliability experience to go on -- but I really like the 9x19 load and am intrigued by the new .45. Has anyone (especially doc) gathered independent data or formed an opinion on this stuff yet?

I know for a fact he's got some of the 9 and 40 to test, don't know if he's gotten to it yet though.

[JHC]

At this point I only have advertising, Hornady data, and my own accuracy and reliability experience to go on -- but I really like the 9x19 load and am intrigued by the new .45. Has anyone (especially doc) gathered independent data or formed an opinion on this stuff yet?

I saw DocGKR give it some kudo's somewhere recently in a specific loading as decent. Yes it was re .38 special loads. I'm curious about the other too.

[phil_in_cs]

At Southnarc's VCAST this last weekend, one of the students fired this outward through the front windshield of one of the test cars. The jacket peeled off, cutting the students hand, and the remaining fragments missed the the IPSC target 3 yards ahead of the bumper. We repeated the test with a different point of aim, and the round again fragmented on the glass and the larger chuck of lead hit the target about 3 feet above and right of the point of aim (at 3 yards)

If you want to say that instant fragmentation is your goal, this round accomplished that. If you need some penetration before expansion, I don't know how well it worked.

[BigT]

At Southnarc's VCAST this last weekend, one of the students fired this outward through the front windshield of one of the test cars. The jacket peeled off, cutting the students hand, and the remaining fragments missed the the IPSC target 3 yards ahead of the bumper. We repeated the test with a different point of aim, and the round again fragmented on the glass and the larger chuck of lead hit the target about 3 feet above and right of the point of aim (at 3 yards)If you want to say that instant fragmentation is your goal, this round accomplished that. If you need some penetration before expansion, I don't know how well it worked.Was that Critical Defence or Critical Duty?

[jlw]

I have video from a ballistics demo performed last week on our range. I'll try to get it posted ASAP. Also, I did a write up of another demo on here a while back.

[phil_in_cs]

Was that Critical Defence or Critical Duty?

That I will have to go find out. Was thinking it was the Duty but I will confirm.

[Chuck Haggard]

The Defense loadings would be very prone to fragmenting when going through windshield glass. The Duty loadings were made to pass the FBI testing, which means they would be made to work well on the auto glass tests.

The info from Hornady looks pretty good. I haven't known them to cook their tests. Nowadays it's too easy to figure out and you end up being found out as snake oil salesmen.

In the 9mm I find the +P loading interesting.


Shooting out through the windshiled;

In my experience this is tough work for ANY bullet. I have seen 124gr +P and 230gr Gold Dot yaw and completely miss an IPSC target at 7 yards after going through the glass. Best bet is to either use the car as a weapon or start shooting through the hole from the first round if possible. Once the glass is punched the area around the bullet hole is far easier for the bullet to get through intact and to the target.

Shooting through the windshield is very dangerous for the shooter and should only be done in the very gravest extreme in real life. Things we can't control without PPE include glass in the eyes or glass dust inhaled into the lungs.

[NETim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DdDl6mbcGtc

[JAD]

I saw DocGKR give it some kudo's somewhere recently in a specific loading as decent. Yes it was re .38 special loads. I'm curious about the other too.

Hornady fell into a common marketing trap by naming two completely different products similarly. Critical Defense is uninspiring, but Critical Duty has a really, really likeable bullet if you're a penetration fan like me. Duty is available only in 9x19, 9x19+P, 40 S&W, and newly .45ACP+p. By contrast, critical defense is available for your Taurus Judge. I'm sure you're relieved.

[JHC]

Hornady fell into a common marketing trap by naming two completely different products similarly. Critical Defense is uninspiring, but Critical Duty has a really, really likeable bullet if you're a penetration fan like me. Duty is available only in 9x19, 9x19+P, 40 S&W, and newly .45ACP+p. By contrast, critical defense is available for your Taurus Judge. I'm sure you're relieved.

My??? My???? :D

[Chuck Haggard]

The Defense is pretty decent ammo for snubs and .380s, not too impressive for the larger calibers, although I think it fills a nitch for a lower recoil loading for some folks.

[JAD]

The Defense is pretty decent ammo for snubs and .380s, not too impressive for the larger calibers, although I think it fills a nitch for a lower recoil loading for some folks.

I would disagree a lot. The problem with snubs and .380s... well, a problem with snubs and .380s is that they underpenetrate. These underpenetrate morely.

[Chuck Haggard]

Not wanting to quibble over what is "enough", I'll say that a bullet that expands some and gets to 11" is enough to make me comfortable in the context of a pocket pistol.

I carry 110gr DPX and 135gr Gold Dots in my 642s, but not everyone can handle that level of recoil.

The non-+P Defense load tests rather well in the 4LD testing Doc has completed. I think it is the best of the low recoil JHPs available now.

As an aside, I have used two of these on downed injured deer, sideways through the rib shots. I have yet to recover a bullet as both resulted in full penetration of very large deer and loss of the bullet into the dirt deep enough it was a PITA to find the bullet, being dark out at both times I had the opportunity to do so.

[Tamara]

By contrast, critical defense is available for your Taurus Judge. I'm sure you're relieved.

Someone accused me of owning a Taurus Judge once. Once.

[BLR]

At this point I only have advertising, Hornady data, and my own accuracy and reliability experience to go on -- but I really like the 9x19 load and am intrigued by the new .45. Has anyone (especially doc) gathered independent data or formed an opinion on this stuff yet?

I understand they have issues feeding in many 1911s, especially so if the polymer plug is sitting proud of the nose a bit.

That said, IMHO, it's tough to actually beat the XTP from a cup and core standpoint. Though people I respect seem to like the all copper Barnes bullets.

[Tamara]

That said, IMHO, it's tough to actually beat the XTP from a cup and core standpoint.

WUT? :confused:

[BLR]

WUT? :confused:

Huh?

[Tamara]

Huh?

XTP was kinda "meh" even when it was new and swoopy, which was... what? Twenty-something years ago?

JHP ammunition had been completely revolutionized since then.

[BLR]

XTP was kinda "meh" even when it was new and swoopy, which was... what? Twenty-something years ago?

JHP ammunition had been completely revolutionized since then.

XTPs feed second to none. They are also one of the most accurate pistol bullets available. They penetrate deeply, as designed.

In so far as a cup and core bullet being completely revolutionized, how so? I don't believe a simple "post," a la Hydroshock, to be revolutionary since, from a hydraulic perspective it does absolutely nothing. Are you referring to bonded bullets? Not really trying to argue one way or another, but I don't consider changing cup or core hardness/softness "revolutionary."

[Tamara]

XTPs feed second to none. They are also one of the most accurate pistol bullets available. They penetrate deeply, as designed.

In so far as a cup and core bullet being completely revolutionized, how so? I don't believe a simple "post," a la Hydroshock, to be revolutionary since, from a hydraulic perspective it does absolutely nothing.

Why would I be referring to the Hydra-Shok, a design which is, after all, pretty much contemporaneous with the XTP?

Both projectiles are roughly two generations behind the current state-of-the-art in JHPs.

[BLR]

Why would I be referring to the Hydra-Shok, a design which is, after all, pretty much contemporaneous with the XTP?

Both projectiles are roughly two generations behind the current state-of-the-art in JHPs.

So, what are you referring too?

[BLR]

Let me clarify my position some.

If you look at a hollow point, any hollow point, the mechanics and general construction are all very consistent. Some have little pointy "petals," some have brass jackets and some copper, some jackets are drawn and some are electroplated. They all use simple induced hydraulic pressure to open them up, peeling back the "petals" to increase permanent wound channel size and retard penetration. Jacket and core hardness (or lack thereof) determine penetration. Altering penetration depth (a direct function of expansion diameter and rate - meaning is expansion linear? Is it parabolic? Is it more complex?) doesn't make a design "revolutionary."

Now, the Glaser Safety slug is definitely "revolutionary," though that should not necessarily imply "better."

Bonding the jacket to the core is an advance, to be sure. Though that is not new technology by any stretch.

[Tamara]

I am fairly well read on the topics of bullet construction and terminal ballistic effects, yes.

The revolution to which I refer is in the effectiveness of performance rather than some great leap forward in materials or manufacturing technology. To make an analogy, combustion chambers in Otto-cycle engines are still a confined space between a piston crown and the cylinder head with some valves to let the fuel-air mixture in and the combustion byproducts out, and yet vast strides in efficiency have been made in the last several decades, thanks in part to the introduction of computer modeling into what had before largely been a field dominated by the SWAG.

In the early 90s, reliable, controlled expansion after passing through a variety of barriers was very much a hit-or-miss kind of thing. Bullet performance has evolved since then, even though still working with the basic technology of a lead core encased in a copper alloy jacket.

For instance, Tom Burczynski, designer of the Hydra-Shok bullet you referenced, has since gone on to design the Starfire and now Federal's HS2, a highly-recommended (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4337-Service-Caliber-Handgun-Duty-and-Self-Defense-Ammo) projectile that demonstrates reliable expansion through a variety of intermediate barriers while resisting the shedding of the jacket or large chunks of the core.

Seriously, talking about XTPs versus Hydra-Shoks versus Glasers is like debating the qualities of 8 Track versus LP. It demonstrates a lack of current knowledge in the field one is debating, like whether electroless nickel or bluing is the most corrosion resistant finish for a firearm.

[JAD]

There is an implication in Hornady's literature that the Critical Duty bullet is Interlocked, where the XTP isn't (quite). There is an implication (hence my post -- I'm trying to get some meat on these bones) that this is a significantly different bullet in terminal performance. I do know that:
a) They are choosing odd weights, and I should pull some of the 135g 9mm loads I have at home to see if the bullet is as long as a 147. That could be because of the polymer (don't think so) or they could be running more copper (seems more likely)
b) They drive the /bejesus/ out of it to get it to expand -- the .45 load looks unpleasant

Bill, you mentioned feeding issues in 1911s -- was this the .45 ACP +P 220 grain load? That's /real/ new, and I'd be surprised if there's a lot of field data.

[JAD]

Oh, and why am I asking, when there's plenty of other proven stuff out there (I usually run RA9BA and RA45B)? Because I have a hipower that /loves/ the 135 grain load, is why.

[Senor Esteban]

Was that Critical Defence or Critical Duty?


Critical Duty.
Actually, in retrospect, it wasn't that bad compared to a lot of other rounds, it just wasn't that good overall. The target was probably closer to six yards in front of the hood. I shot 147 grain and 124 grain +P HST out of the same Glock 26, and they did not fare much better in terms of point of impact. I was surprised that my support hand was slightly cut by pieces of the bullet jacket from the Critical Duty. Would not want to have caught that splashback in my eye ( I was wearing eye protection).
Senor Esteban