[M 7]

Originally Posted by SCmasterblaster

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

Marshall & Sanow's analysis of that collection of data has been thoroughly debunked by a few independent sources:

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan

Sanow Strikes (Out) Again by Duncan MacPherson

Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense by M. Fackler, M.D., and C. E. Peters

[Thumpernator]

Just make sure your gun can handle +P loads if you're using Critical Duty. My S&W M&P Shield is not, so I have the Critical Defense in my magazines.

[vinniej123]

Originally Posted by Merkavaboy

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.

Like you said, a shot in the right place "aka shot placement" does the job, not any magic bullet. :banghead:


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[vinniej123]

Originally Posted by M 7

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.

Yet I still managed to get sucked in some how. You think I would know better.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[vinniej123]

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker

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?

I chose the critical defense for my 23. It was a toss up, but they had defense in stock no duty.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[M 7]

Originally Posted by vinniej123

Yet I still managed to get sucked in some how. You think I would know better.

Happens to the best of us...

[SCmasterblaster]

Originally Posted by M 7

Marshall & Sanow's analysis of that collection of data has been thoroughly debunked by a few independent sources:

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan

Sanow Strikes (Out) Again by Duncan MacPherson

Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense by M. Fackler, M.D., and C. E. Peters

I guess that there will always be critics.

[M 7]

Originally Posted by SCmasterblaster

I guess that there will always be critics.

Unless you can find a procedural flaw in those analyses, it's more than criticism simply for the sake of criticism.


M&S's work is terribly flawed -some would say fatally so- and there is no getting around it. The statistical analysis (which is no more complicated than that found in a college level course in introductory stats) shows that M&S tampered with their data.


Believe whatever you like- matters not one iota to me.

[SCmasterblaster]

Originally Posted by M 7

Unless you can find a procedural flaw in those analyses, it's more than criticism simply for the sake of criticism.


M&S's work is terribly flawed -some would say fatally so- and there is no getting around it. The statistical analysis (which is no more complicated than that found in a college level course in introductory stats) shows that M&S tampered with their data.


Believe whatever you like- matters not one iota to me.

Chill out, brother. I have never read M&S.

[M 7]

Originally Posted by SCmasterblaster

Chill out, brother. I have never read M&S.

Perhaps you mistook what I said as being "heated"- it wasn't. That's why I had the after what I typed.

[unit1069]

Originally Posted by Thumpernator

Just make sure your gun can handle +P loads if you're using Critical Duty. My S&W M&P Shield is not, so I have the Critical Defense in my magazines.

The S&W Shield isn't rated for +P ammunition?

[Iceman cHucK]

This thread is about Critical Duty. My 9mm P226 MK25 handles the CD 135+P with perfect reliability. Not so with the new 45 CriticalDuty 220+P in my FNP45 and FNX45; had a couple of feeding hangups on the feed ramp. Worked OK in my G21Gen4 but does not chamber "smoothly" in all three pistols. This round is hot and recoil is substantial. I've decided for now NOT to use the 45 CriticalDuty for carry, due to concerns over feed reliability. I've got plenty of other choices that work for me. In conclusion, I was disappointed in the new CriticalDuty 220+P after a long wait to get it!
I'm thru testing new ammo! I'll stick to the loads that have worked for me from now on! It will be interesting to see what other "beta testers" find out. Lesson is to always try your carry ammo before betting your life on it.

[Kentguy]

Iceman Chuck "...I'll stick to the loads that have worked for me from now on!... Lesson is to always try your carry ammo before betting your life on it"



Everyone will always have their favorite ammo for this reason or that, but you hit the nail right on the head "...stick to the loads that have worked for me..."

It's YOUR gun being shot by YOU not someone else. All the statistics in the world are just guidelines for you to make your own decision about (as you so correctly put it) "... betting your life on it."

There is little doubt in my mind, based on my own tests, that if you choose the "Critical Duty" line of ammo as your primary home/self defense ammunition, you have made an excellent choice. This cartridge will quickly and thoroughly dispatch any bad guys, thugs, or what have you that threaten you or your family.

[SCmasterblaster]

Originally Posted by M 7

Perhaps you mistook what I said as being "heated"- it wasn't. That's why I had the after what I typed.

OK

[Gaston Glock]

I carry Hornady CD in 9mm

GG

[Stlbrian]

Originally Posted by UtahBassKicker

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?

According to the manufacturer critical duty is designed to operate in a full sized handgun.

Critical defense meanwhile is specifically designed for shorter barreled CCW style weapons, such as the G23 that you and I carry.

http://www.hornady.com/support/criti...itical-defense

I took the word of the folks that make the round and settled on the critical defense for mine.

[FLIPPER 348]

Originally Posted by Merkavaboy

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.

....only you seem to be arguing

[jhc37013]

Originally Posted by WinterWizard

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

I was very excited to find two boxes at a LGS and shot all of them through my G30SF and XDs. I don't know how they do in gelatin and don't care because the round was very snappy, recoil never bothered me until I tried this round and follow up shots came slow, best word I can describe this round is violent. I did not expect that and not sure why it's like that because the specs are on par with other +p ammo, I guess specs never tell it all.

I will stick with PDX1 and TAP FPD.

[SCmasterblaster]

Originally Posted by WinterWizard

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

That's right. The 9x19 round took decades to be acceptable, and only one failure to make it obsolete (The great Miami shootout)