Critical Duty?

[harryset]

Why do I see so many comments, around the net, flaming Hornady Critical Duty, Critical Defense, ammunition?

[mr.paul]

Sucks to be popular. Duty is in my nines.

[linksep]

Probably because there are a lot of home expansion tests where people are shocked and disappointed at the expansion relative to other premium ammo. See this thread as an example:
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html ... 0&t=125604

[mmcnx2]

Marketing is all it is. If you use the same bullet weight shot through the same materials Critical will perform as good or better. Now you can setup a test that favors one round over another and marketing companies are very good at that. My suggestion is get some ballistics gel, put a layer of typical clothing material in front of it and shoot away. Also don't forget to try it shooting through a heavy coat, through glass or sheet metal. When you're done compare the cumulative results not any one but all of them, then decide. The issue is the round need to perform under a variety of conditions because you don't get to pick when you will need it.

[igofast]

Lucky Gunner did a pretty comprehensive test on self defense ammo in various calibers here:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-de ... tic-tests/

Doesn't seem like a great value to me.

[Seismic Sam]

One big difference between the two: Critical DEFENSE is for the civilian market, and doesn't necessarily pass the whole group of FBI penetration tests. Critical DUTY is real cop ammo, and has been specifically designed to pass every last one of the FBI tests, which are pretty challenging. I have the 9mm Critical Duty for my BUG (17+1 BUL Cherokee with full size grip polymer frame and 3.5" BBL steel slide), and the bullet weight is 135 grains, which is an odd weight. I figure they had to use that weight to pass the FBI tests. The recoil is supposed to be pretty stiff, but seeing as I am the 800 lb reloading troll who only shoots 50 cal stuff most of the time, I don't worry about it.

[harryset]

Thanks for the informative replies.

[igofast]

One big difference between the two: Critical DEFENSE is for the civilian market, and doesn't necessarily pass the whole group of FBI penetration tests. Critical DUTY is real cop ammo, and has been specifically designed to pass every last one of the FBI tests, which are pretty challenging. I have the 9mm Critical Duty for my BUG (17+1 BUL Cherokee with full size grip polymer frame and 3.5" BBL steel slide), and the bullet weight is 135 grains, which is an odd weight. I figure they had to use that weight to pass the FBI tests.

Not according to their site:

http://www.hornady.com/support/critical ... al-defense

Critical Defense is for short barreled pistols and Duty is for full size.

The recoil is supposed to be pretty stiff, but seeing as I am the 800 lb reloading troll who only shoots 50 cal stuff most of the time, I don't worry about it.

This makes me think that you haven't tested it. I shouldn't have to tell the reloading troll that they really need to verify their ammo works in their firearm.

[andrewP]

Critical Defense is for short barreled pistols and Duty is for full size.

I know you're quoting their site, but at least some of the verbiage there about Critical Defense being suitable for short barreled guns revolves around recoil characteristics rather than terminal performance. What's considered "short barrel," anyway? Standard pressure Critical Duty chronoed 1014 FPS avg (+4 from advertised velocity) out of my Walther P99c (3.5" barrel), with 8 FPS standard deviation (10 shots fired). I don't find its recoil to be objectionable in that gun; obviously your mileage may vary. If it's making its advertised velocity out of a 3.5 inch barrel, I imagine it would still at least be adequate out of a 3 inch, and I don't know of a whole lot of 9mm guns under 3 inches.

[grimbeaver]

What's considered "short barrel," anyway?

The only answer I've ever found to that question is on the Speer site for their short barrel 22mag and 38Spl they mention 2" barrels. With the Speer ammo at least the key item in the short barrel rounds seems to be a low flash powder.

[UnaStamus]

Critical Defense and Critical Duty use two different bullet designs that have different intended purposes. Critical duty uses a lock-base design that is similar to what Federal uses for the HST. While it is not bonded, it has a similar performance characteristic by preventing jacket separation and core fragmentation, which means that you maintain bullet mass. Retained bullet mass is a major part of the equation when it comes to terminal performance characteristics relating to penetration depth. Due to the design of the Critical Duty Flexlock bullets, each bullet requires a minimum impact velocity in order to perform properly to intended/desired terminal performance specifications. If Critical Duty is fired out of a short barrel pistol, it cannot achieve sufficient velocity to perform adequately downrange. The minimum barrel length for most calibers is around 4". If for instance you own Glocks, the G19/23 is the smallest gun you can use Critical Duty in.

On the flip side, you have the Critical Defense FTX. Hornady designed the FTX first as a carry/personal defense round that could adequately expand through all barriers without fear of clogging a cavity. Agencies wanted a similar design/performance capability, but the Critical Defense FTX consistently fails every FBI penetration test for all duty calibers, with the exception of the .45ACP bare gelatin test. The instant that the bullet hits a barrier, it then fails penetration depth. This is the other problem, with the FTX having insufficient performance through intermediate barriers like dry wall and wood (residential interior doors), and hard barriers like auto glass and sheet metal steel (car doors).
The Critical Defense FTX bullet does not have a locked-base type jacket, and it will fragment through hard barriers. The design was specifically for lower velocity penetration and expansion to allow use in very short barrel guns that you commonly see used for CCW/PTC and BUG use. Adding additional barrel length and velocity does not do anything to bolster the FTX load, since it uses a different powder and charge that is designed for short barrel performance.

The "hate" on the Hornady line, and more specifically with the Critical Duty line, is relating to how much of a niche bullet it is. The Hornady XTP JHP was a solid performer in the older generation of JHP bullets. It could be used in a myriad of uses and could perform in various roles. The Flexlock and FTX bullets are more task-specific and cannot do double-duty like other loads can. The major dislike behind the Critical Duty Flexlock is related to the poor short barrel performance. While it performs very well out of a Glock 17 or G34, it does not perform well out of a 26 or 43. You wind up having to buy multiple bullets to match the gun. For LE agencies, this is inconvenient, inefficient and is not cost effective.
There is also some dislike because the bullets have relatively little expansion diameter when compared to other competing loads like the HST that open up extremely wide.

To look at this another way, look at what Federal offers. The HST performs the same in both long barrels and short, and the cavity is designed to not clog. The Federal Tactical Bonded JHP has the same features, but performs better through hard barriers like auto glass. Conversely, it does not open up to as wide of a diameter as the HST.
My agency issues the Federal LE9T5 135gr +P Tactical Bonded JHP for 9mm. We use it for both duty and backup guns. We use the 180gr Tactical Bonded for .40 and 230gr +P Tactical Bonded for .45, and those loads are also available for BUG use. It is far more efficient to only have to buy one type of ammunition for each caliber rather than two for each caliber. This is applicable not only to LE, but to the average gun owner when ammunition becomes hard to source.

Originally Hornady did not explain the difference between the two loads, and it put a bad taste in peoples' mouths. If you look on the website now, they explain what the loads are for and what guns they are meant to be shot out of. This was not always the case.

From a ballistics perspective, the Critical Duty is a pretty good load. Not the best, but definitely a solid performer. The Critical Defense FTX has been a bit more contentious.

Sidebar:
For some of us who have dealt with Hornady's LE division and their reps, we have a reason to be somewhat skeptical with them. From a behind-the-scenes perspective, I can say that they have engaged in some sketchy marketing practices by tricking LE agencies into buying substandard ammunition by giving misleading or false information in order to bolster ammunition sales. For some of us, this is another reason for the hate.

[mmcnx2]

Sidebar:
For some of us who have dealt with Hornady's LE division and their reps, we have a reason to be somewhat skeptical with them. From a behind-the-scenes perspective, I can say that they have engaged in some sketchy marketing practices by tricking LE agencies into buying substandard ammunition by giving misleading or false information in order to bolster ammunition sales. For some of us, this is another reason for the hate.

Sketchy, misleading, false - such as?

[andrewP]

The major dislike behind the Critical Duty Flexlock is related to the poor short barrel performance. While it performs very well out of a Glock 17 or G34, it does not perform well out of a 26 or 43.

Interesting. That suggests either that my Walther has a "fast" barrel, since at 3.5 inches, it's the same length as a G26, or that Critical Duty does not perform well at its advertised velocity of 1010 FPS. What velocity did you typically see out of the various Glocks in testing? As a civilian, I'm not terribly concerned with barrier penetration, but if the round won't consistently expand at that velocity, then I should look into finding some Gold Dot or HST to replace it with. (Or possibly the +P version of Critical Duty, I suppose.)

[Hmac]

Interesting indeed. Is Critical Defense an adequate load as a personal defense tool in a 3" CCW gun if we remove barrier penetration as an important criterion?

[UnaStamus]

Sketchy, misleading, false - such as?

They have a tendency to misrepresent test data to sell their product. While this is not necessarily surprising for any company trying to sell their own product, it is dick move.
With relation to their rifle ammo, they will give two different versions of sales pitch. The TAP Urban ammunition is literally varmint ammo (just like Federal TRU is varmint ammo). Hornady will talk up how "safe" TAP Urban is because it doesn't over-penetrate, and it has devastating effects with the fragmentation. This is despite the fact that all of their TAP Urban fails FBI protocols and Hornady likes to tout their adherence to FBI BRF protocol.
The other and more pressing issue relates to their .223 62gr TAP Barrier load. They convinced a metro agency to switch to TAP Barrier from Federal Tactical Bonded LE223T1 55gr BJSP (TBBC) stating that the 62gr TAP Barrier performed the same at half the price. They shot Ballistic gelatin that was overheated and not calibrated, which would give a skewed result. They did not provide a test for the competing Federal ammunition that the agency currently used.
The first iteration of the TAP Barrier bullet was designed at the request of DoE Nuclear Security who were looking for a round to punch through steel car doors and to a lesser degree, auto glass. The problem is that the bullet fragmented and had substandard performance compared to the Federal Bonded option. The Federal 55gr and 62gr TBBC are the best bullets on the market for bonded performance, which is why FBI HRT, LAPD SWAT and several other agencies use it.

Hornady has had several problems with their ammunition with relation to LE use. The TAP Barrier has a substantial amount of exposed lead on the tip of the bullet. The competing JSP options from Federal, Speer and Winchester do not. This is because exposed lead on the nose of the bullet deposits on the feed ramps of an AR15. The lead builds up and will cause a failure to feed malfunction at some point depending on various conditions like how warm it is or how the feed ramps were cleaned.

Then there is the primer issue, where they have been having dead primers. This is somewhat contentious, but in short, if you chamber a Hornady round, you will get a small dimple in the primer from the floating firing pin of the AR15. This is nothing new for the AR15, we all know this. The problem is that 99.9% of the time, LE officers wind up removing the round from the chamber after the incident because they never used it. Officers were then putting the rounds back into the mags and then reusing them. There was a shooting incident a couple years ago where an officer had multiple dead primers/failures to fire from Hornady ammo. The cartridges had been previously chambered at least once. Now, this is a known issue with all ammo, and it's good practice that once you dent a primer from chambering, that round should be separated and thrown into a "practice ammo" pile and not reused for duty. The failure was replicated in testing by a SWAT team by using rounds that had dented primers from as little as one chambering. It's been determined that it requires a denting of the primer, and some time afterwards for the primer material to become inert.
Conversely, Federal, Speer, Winchester and Black Hills have not had the same issue to this degree because they use military grade primers that are far tougher and more robust. Failures have been replicated, but nowhere near to the degree that they have with Hornady ammo. The prevailing explanation is that Hornady uses lighter and more sensitive match primers as opposed to military grade primers that the other companies use.

There was more to this story, but that's the general gist of it without divulging too many details about who was involved and why.

Now, Hornady has managed to rework their 62gr Barrier JSP and it performs much better now that it did initially during the first iteration. There was enough complaining that I suspect they had no choice but to change the bullet. Where it is now is better than where it was.

The demonstration by the Hornady rep was all flash and they basically shot some stuff and basically said "look how great it is". It was a buyer beware thing for the admin, as they didn't know their left from right with relation to ballistics, but the firearms division was circumvented for this and would have provided some dissenting views had they been included.

To a lot of people, it might seem arbitrary, but when you're revamping and updating a firearms program and an ammunition company comes in unsolicited because they found out from a LE distributor that you ordered more ammo from Federal, and then they stick their wang in the punch bowl, you tend to get a sour taste in your mouth.

Interesting indeed. Is Critical Defense an adequate load as a personal defense tool in a 3" CCW gun if we remove barrier penetration as an important criterion?

For the most part, yes. The .38spl and .357mag options from Critical Defense are actually better performers than their semi-auto counterparts from the looks of the gelatin tests. The concern is not so much with head or torso shots, but with oblique shots or shooting through really heavy clothing like Carhart jackets and whatnot.
Doc Roberts has made mention that it's pretty hard to get .38spl ammo to perform well regardless and he recommends .357 over the .38 for that reason. This is why my agency mandates that backup revolvers have to be .357mag. Of course, we all know that regardless, something carried is always better than nothing carried.