Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Caliber Corner (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Hornady Critical Duty (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1469719)

UtahBassKicker 02-04-2013 20:51

Hornady Critical Duty
 
I just bought a box of Hornady Critical Duty 175 grain 40 S&W for my 23 for home defense. Is this a good choice? Never have shot this particular round before, any input out there?

4949shooter 02-05-2013 04:31

Here is a good test from TNoutdoors:


Kentguy 02-05-2013 06:45

UtahBassKicker,

+1 on tnoutdoors videos - good test information.

I have tested the "Critical Duty" in 9mm and have found them to be an outstanding home/self defense round. They are the next step up from their "Critical Defense" (FTX bullets). I suspect the .40 caliber version will be no exception.

I now use Hornady's Custom ammunition with their XTP HP bullets for my home and CCW, but for the winter months I switch to their Critical Defense rounds (the FTX bullet). I have toyed with the idea of switching to the Critical Duty but have not as of yet.

The design of the FTX & Critical Duty is to act some-what like a RN FMJ type of bullet which will pass more smoothly through outer layers without that material becoming lodged in the HP cavity and expand and keep going. Which is good for an assailant wearing heavier clothing.

IMHO for a home/self defense round these are a very good choice.

Good luck and stay safe out there

M 7 02-05-2013 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19950268)
I just bought a box of Hornady Critical Duty 175 grain 40 S&W for my 23 for home defense. Is this a good choice? Never have shot this particular round before, any input out there?

There are some gelatin tests here

At the bottom of the page, just hit the SEE DETAILS link below the picture of the cartridge you are interested in.

UtahBassKicker 02-05-2013 18:49

Awesome info, thanks guys. Looks like I made a pretty good choice.

SCmasterblaster 02-06-2013 11:18

Great video- thanks.

WinterWizard 02-06-2013 15:40

If only I could find the new 220gr +P .45 ACP version. I would definitely pick up about 60 rounds and check it out.

Merkavaboy 02-06-2013 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19950268)
I just bought a box of Hornady Critical Duty 175 grain 40 S&W for my 23 for home defense. Is this a good choice? Never have shot this particular round before, any input out there?

IMO it's a poor choice to use any unproven ammo for SD. And Critical Duty/Critical Defense is just that: Unproven.

UtahBassKicker 02-06-2013 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkavaboy (Post 19956942)
IMO it's a poor choice to use any unproven ammo for SD. And Critical Duty/Critical Defense is just that: Unproven.

So how does an ammo get proven? It's passed every ballistics test that I can find?

GLOCK19FTW 02-06-2013 17:04

I use the Hornady Critical Defense (FTX) for my defense rounds.

Never shot them, but MAN do they look like they could do some damage!

M 7 02-06-2013 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19957052)
So how does an ammo get proven? It's passed every ballistics test that I can find?

10% ballistic gelatin is a homogenous test medium that duplicates the average density of human tissues including bone, but that is all that it is- a test medium that allows an "apples-to-apples" comparison of two or more rounds against one another. The same can be said of water, too, which is also used as a ballistic test medium.

JHPs that pass the FBI test protocols, as a general class, tend to do very well on the street.

In spite of this, there are those who simply refuse to see the value in carefully controlled gelatin testing. (e.g., the FBI test protocols)

UtahBassKicker 02-06-2013 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by M 7 (Post 19957296)
10% ballistic gelatin is a homogenous test medium that duplicates the average density of human tissues including bone, but that is all that it is- a test medium that allows an "apples-to-apples" comparison of two or more rounds against one another. The same can be said of water, too, which is also used as a ballistic test medium.

JHPs that pass the FBI test protocols, as a general class, tend to do very well on the street.

In spite of this, there are those who simply refuse to see the value in carefully controlled gelatin testing. (e.g., the FBI test protocols)

So for these guys it needs to actually kill some people before it's "proven"? I hope I never have to find out if this ammo is "proven".

M 7 02-06-2013 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19957710)
So for these guys it needs to actually kill some people before it's "proven"?

For some folks, yes, that is the case.

There have been a couple of attempts (namely by Marshall & Sanow and by Ellifritz) to collect and analyze data taken from shootings in the field, but they have been shown to suffer from tremendously flawed methodologies and are generally seen as being less than valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19957710)
I hope I never have to find out if this ammo is "proven".

Me, too.

WinterWizard 02-07-2013 00:17

By the time something is "proven" in the field, it is outdated.

Merkavaboy 02-08-2013 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19957052)
So how does an ammo get proven? It's passed every ballistics test that I can find?

It gets proven on the streets where lives are at stake and where it COUNTS, not in some FBI labratory or in someone's back yard. If your ammunition fails to immediately incapacitate your attacker because of poor bullet design, you may not live to regret your choice of SD ammo.

If people want to bet their lives on some newly designed bullet that has absolutely no known/reported usage on the street in actual SD shootings, feel free to be Hornady's guinea pigs. I'll stick with loads/bullet designs that have actual history of doing a good job of stopping actual human beings hell-bent on death and destruction.

Merkavaboy 02-08-2013 04:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by M 7 (Post 19957296)
10% ballistic gelatin is a homogenous test medium that duplicates the average density of human tissues including bone, but that is all that it is- a test medium that allows an "apples-to-apples" comparison of two or more rounds against one another. The same can be said of water, too, which is also used as a ballistic test medium.

JHPs that pass the FBI test protocols, as a general class, tend to do very well on the street.

In spite of this, there are those who simply refuse to see the value in carefully controlled gelatin testing. (e.g., the FBI test protocols)

So, it seems that you believe that every living, breathing human being on this planet, past, present or future, is made up of 10% Kind & Knox or Vyse ballistic gello? Or that maybe blocks of ballistic gello is made up of a multitude of human tissues like skin, fat, muscle, tendons and sinew, blood, bones and everything else that makes up the human body?

No Virginia, ballistic gel, nor ANYTHING ELSE, can actually come even close to ever simulating a living breathing human being. You and people like you have been guzzling the FBI's Kool-Aid for decades and you still don't understand basic truths that are so self evident; blocks of ballistic gello do not and can not simulate, let alone duplicate, human tissue. Period. End of argument.

vinniej123 02-08-2013 04:26

When you are comparing damage done by a "proven" round to that of a new round, in the very same substance, how can you then say the test is meaningless? If you don't like the round, don't use it. I as well as others here are using the FBI data to try and decide what we want to use.

Besides, shot placement is king anyway.

SCmasterblaster 02-08-2013 07:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinniej123 (Post 19963044)
When you are comparing damage done by a "proven" round to that of a new round, in the very same substance, how can you then say the test is meaningless? If you don't like the round, don't use it. I as well as others here are using the FBI data to try and decide what we want to use.

Besides, shot placement is king anyway.

True. One can get by with FMJRN ammo if one's shot placement is good.

M 7 02-08-2013 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkavaboy (Post 19963034)
Quote:

Originally Posted by M 7 (Post 19957296)
10% ballistic gelatin is a homogenous test medium that duplicates the average density of human tissues including bone, but that is all that it is- a test medium that allows an "apples-to-apples" comparison of two or more rounds against one another. The same can be said of water, too, which is also used as a ballistic test medium.

JHPs that pass the FBI test protocols, as a general class, tend to do very well on the street.

So, it seems that you believe that every living, breathing human being on this planet, past, present or future, is made up of 10% Kind & Knox or Vyse ballistic gello? Or that maybe blocks of ballistic gello is made up of a multitude of human tissues like skin, fat, muscle, tendons and sinew, blood, bones and everything else that makes up the human body?

No Virginia, ballistic gel, nor ANYTHING ELSE, can actually come even close to ever simulating a living breathing human being. You and people like you have been guzzling the FBI's Kool-Aid for decades and you still don't understand basic truths that are so self evident; blocks of ballistic gello do not and can not simulate, let alone duplicate, human tissue. Period. End of argument.

Since I said nothing of the sort, I'd suggest re-reading what I posted for greater clarity, but since you quoted me, I suspect that reading comprehension is the more serious issue before you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M 7 (Post 19957296)
In spite of this, there are those who simply refuse to see the value in carefully controlled gelatin testing. (e.g., the FBI test protocols)

Thank you ever so much for proving my point, and in spades at that! :thumbsup:

In glaring contrast to your apparent belief that you are a veritable fountain of knowledge, your response above is the perfect example of the "straw-man argument" defined below-

Quote:

A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate when one side attacks a position not held by the other side (the strawman) and then acts as though the other side's position has been refuted.

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

Kudos! At least you did that right. :thumbsup:

SCmasterblaster 02-08-2013 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinterWizard (Post 19958760)
By the time something is "proven" in the field, it is outdated.

So true. Look at how long the 9mm lasted after the Miami FBI Shootout.

UtahBassKicker 02-08-2013 08:33

Thanks for the input. I apologize if I stirred the pot in anyway, I was just looking for some info. I feel confident in this round and believe it will do the job if needed. I do appreciate and respect everyone's opinion in this thread. Thanks again for the input, opinions, and info.

SCmasterblaster 02-08-2013 08:38

The best test of anti-personnel ammo is on the street. And the Marshall-Sanow collection of data is the best thing going.

Merkavaboy 02-08-2013 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinniej123 (Post 19963044)
When you are comparing damage done by a "proven" round to that of a new round, in the very same substance, how can you then say the test is meaningless? If you don't like the round, don't use it. I as well as others here are using the FBI data to try and decide what we want to use.

Besides, shot placement is king anyway.

Bullets dug out of human beings rarely if ever look like the picture perfect expanded bullets cut out of ballistic gel. Shooting bullets into gel cannot indicate how that same bullet will react in human flesh and blood nor can it indicate how quickly it will incapacitate a human being. Two examples:

1) The 9x19mm 115JHP+P+ and the 357Mag 125JHP have been used in Law Enforcement service for numerous decades and have seen a lot of use on all kinds of people and under all kinds of situations. Both these loads have an extensive proven street record of putting BG's down immediately and with very few shots being needed. And yet the FBI (and their followers) continue to disregard these loads as being "worthy" of use because they fail the FBI's 12" minimum penetration in gel. Hmm. Damn effective on the streets under various conditions; doesn't meet or exceed minimum qualifications in ballistic gel. Works on street; not in gel. Figure that one out yourself...

2) Eugene Wolberg and his testing of the 9x19mm Win 147JHP in ballistic gel and comparison to actual shootings. In his study Wolberg concluded that 10% ballistic gel equalled human tissue. Major flaw in his tests: He had the San Diego Coroner's office CHERRY PICK the shootings that he used in his study in order to prove his theory as valid! Wolberg EXCLUDED any and all shootings that would have voided his theory. Even the esteemed dentist DocGKR admitted to the cherry picking event on a thread in the Beretta Forum some years ago.

But Hey, if people want to blindly believe that ballistic gel = human tissue and vise versa, have fun.

And in regards to "shot placement", that is a complete fantasy. Even "highly trained" LEO's across this nation can't "place their shots", and rely more on firing numerous rounds to incapacitate the BG's than shot placement. Think the average untrained civilian is going to do better under the adrenaline dump of Fight or Flight? Do or Die? Even top competition shooters who burn up tens of thousands of rounds every year in training will drop a round or two during competitions. In personal SD shootings, one aims for center mass or what ever portion of the BG's body is exposed and you hope that the bullet(s) strike where it will incapacitate the BG's action the quickest. If shot placement was truely KING, then there would be no reason for deadly force because every cop and armed citizen would easily be able to literally shoot the gun or knife out of the attacker's hands or other such nonsense. Skill with a SD firearm is needed to be able to get the bullets on target, but it's pure fantasy to believe that your average, and even the above average, gun carrier has the skills to surgically place their shots on a moving target while under a physical life threatening attack and at the same time experiencing their base human instinct of fight or flight.

SCmasterblaster 02-08-2013 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkavaboy (Post 19963801)
Bullets dug out of human beings rarely if ever look like the picture perfect expanded bullets cut out of ballistic gel. Shooting bullets into gel cannot indicate how that same bullet will react in human flesh and blood nor can it indicate how quickly it will incapacitate a human being. Two examples:

1) The 9x19mm 115JHP+P+ and the 357Mag 125JHP have been used in Law Enforcement service for numerous decades and have seen a lot of use on all kinds of people and under all kinds of situations. Both these loads have an extensive proven street record of putting BG's down immediately and with very few shots being needed. And yet the FBI (and their followers) continue to disregard these loads as being "worthy" of use because they fail the FBI's 12" minimum penetration in gel. Hmm. Damn effective on the streets under various conditions; doesn't meet or exceed minimum qualifications in ballistic gel. Works on street; not in gel. Figure that one out yourself...

2) Eugene Wolberg and his testing of the 9x19mm Win 147JHP in ballistic gel and comparison to actual shootings. In his study Wolberg concluded that 10% ballistic gel equalled human tissue. Major flaw in his tests: He had the San Diego Coroner's office CHERRY PICK the shootings that he used in his study in order to prove his theory as valid! Wolberg EXCLUDED any and all shootings that would have voided his theory. Even the esteemed dentist DocGKR admitted to the cherry picking event on a thread in the Beretta Forum some years ago.

But Hey, if people want to blindly believe that ballistic gel = human tissue and vise versa, have fun.

And in regards to "shot placement", that is a complete fantasy. Even "highly trained" LEO's across this nation can't "place their shots", and rely more on firing numerous rounds to incapacitate the BG's than shot placement. Think the average untrained civilian is going to do better under the adrenaline dump of Fight or Flight? Do or Die? Even top competition shooters who burn up tens of thousands of rounds every year in training will drop a round or two during competitions. In personal SD shootings, one aims for center mass or what ever portion of the BG's body is exposed and you hope that the bullet(s) strike where it will incapacitate the BG's action the quickest. If shot placement was truely KING, then there would be no reason for deadly force because every cop and armed citizen would easily be able to literally shoot the gun or knife out of the attacker's hands or other such nonsense. Skill with a SD firearm is needed to be able to get the bullets on target, but it's pure fantasy to believe that your average, and even the above average, gun carrier has the skills to surgically place their shots on a moving target while under a physical life threatening attack and at the same time experiencing their base human instinct of fight or flight.


This is why I carry the WW 9mm 115gr JHP +p+ load with confidence in my G17.

M 7 02-08-2013 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker (Post 19963561)
Thanks for the input. I apologize if I stirred the pot in anyway, I was just looking for some info. I feel confident in this round and believe it will do the job if needed. I do appreciate and respect everyone's opinion in this thread. Thanks again for the input, opinions, and info.

Don't worry about it. :)

The topic is always a heated one and emotionally-driven arguments that rely upon subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) insult to support the poor advice being dispensed seems to predominate here as evidenced by a few of the responses.

Fortunately, such behavior is easy to spot and ignore.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:33.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.