1911Forum banner

Problem with Hornady Critical Defense

77726 82
I bought 4 boxes of the new Hornady Critical Defense ammo in 9mm. Yesterday I got a chance to try it out and what a disappointment!! One out of every 3 rounds was a misfire. The hammer left pronounced indentations on the primers but the rounds were duds. Some I even put back in and tried again with the same result. Now I had two hammer indentations on the primer but no fire! :barf:
Today I went to the range and with the same gun (Kahr CW9) I fired my normal carry round, Speer Gold Dot 124 gr. with not a single misfire. Then I ran 50 rounds of Federal American Eagle hard ball with again, not a single misfire.
I'm going to contact Hornady for a refund but needless to say, I would never carry their Critical Defense round.
61 - 80 of 83 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
Such as?

I keep hearing about XTP,s plugging up with clothing, but with the exception Power Ball, Hydro shocks and other similar made bullets they are all made about the same, a big open cavity to plug with clothing. I would think the Gold Dots and the Barns copper bullets would be about the same.
Denny
Actually, they're not by a long shot.

XTPs tend to plug up because the hollowpoint is relatively small, and given the shape of the bullet and cavity overall, along with the jacket design, it is very good at capturing material and failing to expand, especially through clothing or other soft matter. Winchester civilian SXTs from the 90s (NOT the Ranger load) had the same issue.

Also, the Hydrashoks also show a propensity to plug and fail to expand through heavy clothing.

The Barnes bullets, HST, Gold Dots, etc. all solve this by changing the profile of the bullet, and also changing the size and shape of the hollowpoint itself, making it less apt to plug and fail to expand.

The other, bigger issues with XTP than the issues they show with plugging up, which has been shown in repeated testing with heavy clothing, is that they tend to fragment easily if they encounter a hard barrier. This is a problem because if the bullet hits some intermediate hard barrier and fragments, it loses much of its ballistic integrity, and therefore a great deal of its terminal effectiveness as a projectile against a threat.

The XTP line is an excellent choice of bullet for hunting where heavy clothing and intermediate barriers are unlikely to pose much of an issue.

However, given that there are other available designs in the field of reloading that are far superior both in the size of expanded projectile and in their ability to behave consistently without failure, the XTP is not my first choice for a hollowpoint to reload for the stated tasks.

The Barnes XPB/TacXP projectile, were I reloading for self defense or hunting, shows far more consistent expansion and expansion to a larger diameter, and has no documented problems of failure to expand with any intermediate barriers short of steel car doors which crush the hollowpoint walls flat, turning the bullet into a slightly enlarged wadcutter, showing 18+" of penetration on the other side.

Hydrashoks are not reliable enough for me to even consider suggesting them to anyone. As stated already, they show a similar propensity to plug and fail to expand, and also have issues dealing with hard barriers and heavy clothing. The HST, Federal's replacement projectile for the Hydrashok line, does far better by increasing the size of the hollowpoint and changing how the projectile breaks down and expands to improve on both reliability and consistent expanded diameter. This is another good choice, although these are only available as loaded ammunition.

While I cannot explain the exact differences between the designs (since I didn't engineer the bullets and don't have an exact breakdown other than casual observation of the projectiles), I can attest to the performance of the projectiles named in the Ballistics info stickie through hundreds of my own tests, thousands of tests done by Doc Roberts, who compiled the list quoted there, and thousands upon thousands of real world shootings where recovered projectiles confirm the findings of testing. There are plenty of decent reviews of functionality including gel test videos, workshops, and seminars replete with visual data and labs that corroborate the data.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I went to the range last night and took 150 rounds of Federal 230gr. FMJ and a 20 pack of critical defense just to see how my Kimber liked them.

Weapon of choice: Kimber Ultra Crimson Carry II

The gun ate the Federals like m&m's and just kept asking for more. I went through 70 rounds of the Federal and then loaded a mag of CD. Then came the big disappointment. In 20 rounds of the CD I had 2 issues. The first mag prematurely locked the slide before feeding the final round. This may have been my fault due to possibly releasing my grip strength a little. The second mag had the same problem but had 3 rounds remaining in the mag.

Overall I was very disappointed in the Critical Defense rounds but those are the only 2 issues I've had so far in the 350 rounds down the tube in my new Kimber.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
Well, I guess it's time for a change:rolleyes:...I like the new Federal Premium Guard Dog Home Defense 9mm and .45ACP
Guard dog ammunition is a warmed over version of the original EFMJ made by Federal. It works, after a fashion, and is better than ball.

However, it's still not as good as a good old-fashioned wadcutter or hollowpoint.

Seriously, these gimmick designs do nothing well but take your money, and cost more than just buying 50 decent hollowpoints that are KNOWN to work.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
This thread gets a 5 star...for its hypothesis value. Do we actualy have any ballistic engineers on board here or we just got a whole thread of speculation and a few isolated incidences ? Has Hornady recalled ALL of this ammo or is it still being sold under a big pretend scheme that it might work if you hold your tongue just right. You'd think they might just have "some enjunears that could fix this there problem", at that "small time Horndeny Co." :biglaugh: I know our expert says so-lol
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
This thread gets a 5 star...for its hypothesis value. Do we actualy have any ballistic engineers on board here or we just got a whole thread of speculation and a few isolated incidences ? Has Hornady recalled ALL of this ammo or is it still being sold under a big pretend scheme that it might work if you hold your tongue just right. You'd think they might just have "some enjunears that could fix this there problem", at that "small time Horndeny Co." :biglaugh: I know our expert says so-lol
I am an engineering student (night classes to get my degree in it.)

That said, however, There is nothing wrong with Hornady's critical defense design from that perspective. It does have specific issues penetrating hard barriers, but they state that from the factory, and it is a known quantity, even to the point that hornady's engineers designed it that way. As to the failures of the cartridges overall, yes, Hornady can and most likely will fix the problem with the primers. That's not the issue from my perspective. My perspective, and general caution with these bullets, aside from the blatant fact that the design is stated not to be able to pass certain tests i feel are necessary of a defense round, is directly related to the fact that the rounds have had stated, proven failures across lots and production runs. they are not "a few, isolated incidents", but enough across enough different lots that until that has been remedied and we have a track record of reliability to go on, I don't believe that it's worth trusting. Why buy a round with a spotty track record and an unproven reliability in the field to use for situations where absolute reliability and performance are needed? Why bother taking the risk when other, proven designs are available and less expensive? I'm all for creating better/new designs that improve on the bullet's ability to perform, but until those new designs have shown success and reliable operation, they're still a gamble. In some areas, new techniques or technologies are readily good to embrace on the bleeding edge, but where my life is at stake, I'll wait for a thorough shakedown of the product before I invest my money and trust.

Hornady's XTP design has had the stated flaws for at least 15-20 years, or so the testing and real world data/recovered bullets show. In that time, Hornady has done little to address the failures of the bullet or modify its design, despite sufficient evidence of the faults available with ready testing and field use.

Hornady is, was, has been, and will continue to be an excellent company for reloading materials and quality ammunition that cater to the hunting community. Their handgun loads are extremely good for hunting purposes, as they were originally intended by design.

They are decent design to use for self defense within the scope of what they do, but have stated issues with their design, and drawbacks which have been corrected in other types of projectiles designed to overcome certain barriers and continue to be lethal.

The blatant fact of the matter is that what is useful for hunting is not entirely the same as what is useful for self defense, because with hunting, penetration is greater than expansion, and the animal wears no clothes nor uses no barriers or cover; the hunter has time to place his shot for optimal damage to central body structures, and the animal usually poses no immediate threat (and selection of an appropriate caliber with greater velocities/penetration capabilities for those game you hunt with a handgun that DO pose an immediate threat is viable).

Humans, because of the unique circumstances/challenges they pose in a case for self defense (or even offense if we're talking about combat or certain law enforcement scenarios) require some considerations that are unique, and thus need to be accounted for with designs that resolve those particular concerns, and still do the necessary amount of damage to the body to physically incapacitate the threat should the escalation of violence reach a point where such is necessary.

Just like not all hammers are created equal or are optimal for every job, not every bullet is likewise equal or optimal for every situation. Choose according to the application.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Since Posts in this section of the forum are usually lopsided or one sided at best, with the usual experts chiming in that everything they say is "fact" and "How dare you question the resident experts" (thats knowledge and experience can be truly verified by NONE)...that I thought it only fair to see just what this company (Hornady) had to say about all the unfounded opinions posted on here that sometimes borders on slander. Disclaimer: I don't happen to use Hornady ammo but not for any reason other than I get my ammo issued for free and our contract is with another quality Manufacturer but I also wanted to find out the real truth for my own curiosity. Below is the reply I got after inquiring about this thread and its claims to Hornady....


The poster has an opinion about what he or she finds desirable for personal protection ammunition, and that is their prerogative, and we respect that. However, to dissuade people from Hornady Critical Defense ammunition for personal protection / concealed carry is a mistake. The design of the Critical Defense FTX bullet was built around the fact that personal protection situations are often very close, and in most instances do not require the person protecting themselves to engage anything THROUGH a barrier of any form. When people shoot through barriers, it’s often a true “gun fight”, and most commonly associated with law enforcement officers who have to engage “bad guys” using vehicles for cover.



Critical Defense and the FTX bullets loaded in those rounds are optimized and purpose built to perform better and more consistently in personal protection situations than any other rounds on the market today. Critical Defense is not recommended as a true “duty” round for law enforcement, as no concern was given to design the Critical Defense FTX bullets to deliver FBI protocol barrier performance levels. It was designed for personal protection situations, and is the best product on the market for that application.



Additionally, other manufacturers have done a great job of NOT showing the public at large that their hollow point bullets often clog with material, even through meager heavy clothing, thus rendering them a NON-expanding FMJ. This bullet, once clogged, will usually travel well over 20” in gelatin therefore NOT imparting all useable energy within the target and potentially traveling down range unaccounted for.



Aside from the actual bullet design of the Critical Defense FTX, there are many other features that combine to make Hornady Critical Defense ammunition the most advanced and reliable concealed carry / personal protection ammunition available on the market today.



Here’s the url for the product overview that helps explain how it all works, and showcases some of the “dirty little secrets” about conventional hollow points in personal protection situations - http://www.youtube.com/hornadymanufacturing#p/u/16/L-DAqo_FcXg



As to the comments about “failures across lots and production runs”, that is unfounded. Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that everything on the internet is the “truth” or even representative quite frankly. Conversely, we have received more than a few testimonials from people that have employed Critical Defense ammunition in personal protection situations where their life was truly in danger from an armed assailant. All have reported favorable results, but results that we do not feel are in good taste to post or exploit as you can only imagine the final outcome of the assailant/s.



Regards,



Neil Davies

Marketing Director

Hornady Mfg Co.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
Since Posts in this section of the forum are usually lopsided or one sided at best, with the usual experts chiming in that everything they say is "fact" and "How dare you question the resident experts" (thats knowledge and experience can be truly verified by NONE)...that I thought it only fair to see just what this company (Hornady) had to say about all the unfounded opinions posted on here that sometimes borders on slander. Disclaimer: I don't happen to use Hornady ammo but not for any reason other than I get my ammo issued for free and our contract is with another quality Manufacturer but I also wanted to find out the real truth for my own curiosity. Below is the reply I got after inquiring about this thread and its claims to Hornady....


The poster has an opinion about what he or she finds desirable for personal protection ammunition, and that is their prerogative, and we respect that. However, to dissuade people from Hornady Critical Defense ammunition for personal protection / concealed carry is a mistake. The design of the Critical Defense FTX bullet was built around the fact that personal protection situations are often very close, and in most instances do not require the person protecting themselves to engage anything THROUGH a barrier of any form. When people shoot through barriers, it’s often a true “gun fight”, and most commonly associated with law enforcement officers who have to engage “bad guys” using vehicles for cover.



Critical Defense and the FTX bullets loaded in those rounds are optimized and purpose built to perform better and more consistently in personal protection situations than any other rounds on the market today. Critical Defense is not recommended as a true “duty” round for law enforcement, as no concern was given to design the Critical Defense FTX bullets to deliver FBI protocol barrier performance levels. It was designed for personal protection situations, and is the best product on the market for that application.



Additionally, other manufacturers have done a great job of NOT showing the public at large that their hollow point bullets often clog with material, even through meager heavy clothing, thus rendering them a NON-expanding FMJ. This bullet, once clogged, will usually travel well over 20” in gelatin therefore NOT imparting all useable energy within the target and potentially traveling down range unaccounted for.



Aside from the actual bullet design of the Critical Defense FTX, there are many other features that combine to make Hornady Critical Defense ammunition the most advanced and reliable concealed carry / personal protection ammunition available on the market today.



Here’s the url for the product overview that helps explain how it all works, and showcases some of the “dirty little secrets” about conventional hollow points in personal protection situations - http://www.youtube.com/hornadymanufacturing#p/u/16/L-DAqo_FcXg



As to the comments about “failures across lots and production runs”, that is unfounded. Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that everything on the internet is the “truth” or even representative quite frankly. Conversely, we have received more than a few testimonials from people that have employed Critical Defense ammunition in personal protection situations where their life was truly in danger from an armed assailant. All have reported favorable results, but results that we do not feel are in good taste to post or exploit as you can only imagine the final outcome of the assailant/s.



Regards,



Neil Davies

Marketing Director

Hornady Mfg Co.
So, the marketing director tells you that he has received "several cases of favorable results", but won't publish them. How is this any different than others who have done testing or observed faults reporting their failures?

I have no dog in this hunt. I'm not an ammunition manufacturer, nor do I get any kind of reward (save for maybe the pleasure of helping others and sharing knowledge while giving me an excuse to obsess over a topic that interests me), so, I could care less whether an ammunition is "good" or "Bad".

My purpose in repeating what I stated about the critical defense is precisely as stated: There are reports of failures that are documented in both published articles and on internet forums. Does this make them valid or not? I don't know. Nor am I in charge of Hornady's QC, so it makes little difference.

My recommendation is purely based on the fact that there exist *reports* of failures, that would make me want to at least test the ammunition more thoroughly than I might another type of ammunition before I carried it, or choose another product that works equally well and is less expensive, unless I had a particular reason to need this particular design.

I wrote of a concern I had, that this ammunition has reports of failure to ignite, and that I would want to be damn sure the ammo worked before I used it and trusted my life to it, which I feel is only fair, considering I have only one life to give, and I'd rather not give it up because my carry ammo didn't work or caused a malfunction.

On the topic of expertise, I can't help but feel that you're taking a swipe at me, so without resorting to petty or childish retorts, I'll simply say this:

I'm not an expert. i can take photographs of stacks of medical charts and files, boxes of them in fact, that I have copies of that I have reviewed. I can list the names of dozens of Law Enforcement and Medical personnel I've asked questions of (with their permission, of course). I can show you pictures of the gel blocks from the next batch of testing I do.

i've spent probably 7 years or so studying the subject, reading books on forensics and ballistics and all that. I've looked at it from every angle I can, and consider myself to be a well-read novice at best. I know what I know.

Anything I've written is founded on the works of my own study, and roots from knowledge espoused by such people as Dr. Gary Roberts, Dr. Martin Fackler, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, etc. All of those people are well documented, and their published works are available to read and are vetted by various agencies and recognized by various organizations, and you can research them yourself, read what htey have to say, and see what you think.

However, all of this penny-ante one-upsmanship or snide backbiting serves no purpose, nor does having these discussions. All it boils down to is a set of hard, reliable facts that you can get from any source, and SHOULD get from your own experience, because they're quite logical:

  • Handguns are poor choices for self defense. Bring a rifle.
  • The only way to ***guarantee*** the threat is stopped is to do enough damage to the body to physically incapacitate it, either through blood loss or damage to the central nervous system.
  • Lots of holes are better than fewer holes, bigger holes are better than smaller holes, and more big holes are better than fewer big holes.
  • Holes in center of mass trump holes in extremeties.
  • The head is a diffuclt target to hit under stress. Shoot for the upper chest.
  • Hollowpoints, when they work, make bigger holes than ball, and when they don't work, are no different than ball.
  • No matter what the design or technology or hype, they're *all* chunks of metal being flung at really fast speeds tearing through a squishy target and letting the fluids out.


Take it for what it is. it's me speaking from what I know and have observed, either in testing, or in real life situations. It is not universal truth, it is not irrefutable, and it is not absolute. I'm right until someone else finds facts or data that proves my thinking wrong, and then I adapt and change my thinking to fit the new data.

As sherlock holmes observed: Shape the theory to fit the facts, watson...
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
i would also point out that Mr. Davies, while not commenting on actual experiences, does state pretty plainly that the round is not designed to penetrate certain barriers, which I don't personally find desirable in my opinion.

In point of fact, use of these soft-rubber expanding hollowpoints is a *good* idea. Anything that maximizes the reliability of expansion.

Yes, hollowpoints do clog with heavy clothing (although probably not as much as Mr. Davies would have us believe, but it is irrefutable fact that they do, in fact, fail to expand sometimes), so the only way to prevent that is to use some sort of positive wedge. Perfect that in such a way that it works, but still penetrates needed barriers, then it works 100% and I'll agree that it's a better option.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,663 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
+1


Too many other great choices to mess with this ammo. :)

Get proven SD ammo like, Speer Gold Dot, Federal HST, Golden Saber Bonded.

Here's a link you need to read.

Read this http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
That is a good indirect point (linking to outside source) and one that should be brought front and center...Don't take any one source, from the Intranut, as fact or fiction, and base your intellegence and your life on.

Everybody thats been to different ammo & gun websites should know and see the trends that evolve when you get popular posters that go from contributing to discussions to taking the topic over and taking it upon themselves to try and edjucate the masses to "their line of thinking". Learning from history, why we study it, tells me not to believe everything I read on the internet and have an open mind studying from multiple sources to base my own conclusions on. If I don't, just like in past history, I'm no safer or smarter than than the guys that stood in line for koolaide down in Guyana.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
That is a good indirect point (linking to outside source) and one that should be brought front and center...Don't take any one source, from the Intranut, as fact or fiction, and base your intellegence and your life on.

Everybody thats been to different ammo & gun websites should know and see the trends that evolve when you get popular posters that go from contributing to discussions to taking the topic over and taking it upon themselves to try and edjucate the masses to "their line of thinking". Learning from history, why we study it, tells me not to believe everything I read on the internet and have an open mind studying from multiple sources to base my own conclusions on. If I don't, just like in past history, I'm no safer or smarter than than the guys that stood in line for koolaide down in Guyana.
Well, I don't mean to take over any discussion. I wish only to share what I have. If that's not welcomed, then I'll stop.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
That is a good indirect point (linking to outside source) and one that should be brought front and center...Don't take any one source, from the Intranut, as fact or fiction, and base your intellegence and your life on.

Everybody thats been to different ammo & gun websites should know and see the trends that evolve when you get popular posters that go from contributing to discussions to taking the topic over and taking it upon themselves to try and edjucate the masses to "their line of thinking". Learning from history, why we study it, tells me not to believe everything I read on the internet and have an open mind studying from multiple sources to base my own conclusions on. If I don't, just like in past history, I'm no safer or smarter than than the guys that stood in line for koolaide down in Guyana.
While I don't always agree with DK he is very knowledgable regarding pistol bullet performance. He bases his comments on data from respected industry researchers. This data comes from laboratory testing and medical reports of actual shooting incidents. If you want to know what brand or brands of ammunition is best for a particular caliber DK will give you a list of brands based on their performance using FBI protocol. I do not always agree with the notion that civilian SD ammo must meet all of the FBI's requirements. Hence the statement by the Hornady Marketing Director. They didn't design the ammo to fulfill all of the FBI's criteria. They designed it for what Hornady perceives the need of civilian SD shooters to be. They don't see the need for their bullets to be shot through auto glass, auto sheetmetal, etc. It is good to have a choice if you worry about over penetration. What DK is showing is despite the snappy marketing name for the ammo, it may not be what the end user wants in the way of performance. I don't think being able to pass all of the FBI's requirements makes it the best ammo for each and every person. But if you are going to buy ammo that fits a certain performance niche then it would be best to know the ammo's limitations. It is also vital to know if there are any ignition problems with SD ammo, especially if he ammo is advertised with the name Critical Defense. I think it is critical that ammo goes bang when you pull the trigger.

Does DK share his voluminous information? Yup. Is he passionate about bullet performance and ballistics? Yup. Is he a Koolaide drinker? Only if Drs. Fackler and Roberts make the Koolaide. Are his answers repetitive? Yes, but that is only because the same "What is the best ammo for my (insert gun name)?" questions appear weekly, if not daily. Don't get me wrong. DK and I have butted heads over hardcast WFN bullet performance and the anecdotal evidence for the basis of my opinions. HOWEVER, because of his research info (which I respect) I have switched from 230 gr truncated cone ammo to Barnes 185 gr TAC-X bulleted ammo (Corbon) for SD use against 2 legged varmints. I still like wide meplat cast bullets for big 4 legged varmints.

There is a lot of disinformation on the internet. A lot of gunshop legends continue to make their rounds here and on other gun forums. The one I like the best for the 45 is "If 45 ACP ball ammo was good enough for 2 world wars then it is good enough for me!" Fmj ball ammo was used in 2 world wars because it was all soldiers were allowed to use. Not only that but hollowpoints have really just reached their present state of technology in the last few years. It took 2 FBI agents getting killed and 5 agents wounded in 1986 to stimulate the research for the best bullet for law enforcement use. Fortunately, the ammo developed for LE use is also available to the public. Many civilians assume that the best ammo for LE use is also the best for their needs. With that in mind DK uses the FBI criteria and the data of Drs. Roberts and Fackler as the basis for his opinions. I will state without reservation that DK has been very helpful to many newbie 1911 owners by providing useful ballistic data regarding SD ammo.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Not going to get into the deep engineering questions that got brought up here just going to state that in my experiences with Hornady Critical Defense

380 Auto 90 gr Critical Defense®
SKU: 90080
In my Ruger LCP 300 rounds no malfunctions including the firearm

38 Special +P 110 gr Critical Defense®
SKU: 90311
In my S&W 442 400 rounds no malfunctions including the firearm (revolver)

45 Auto 185 gr Critical Defense®
SKU: 90900
In my Springfield XDM 500 rounds no malfunctions including the firearm
I mostly use the XDM as a home defense firearm altho I do carry it somedays

45 Auto+P 230 gr HP XTP® TAP® FPD™
SKU: 90958
Yes I know its not in the Critical Defense lineup but still wanted to post it cuz it is what I carry in my TRP and is pretty much the same thing without the orange thingy lol and heavier
In my Springfield TRP 300 rounds no malfunctions including the firearm

I went thru that amount of ammo per firearm before I decided it was good enough to be relied upon as my carry ammo. Now everytime I go to the range I fire 1-2 boxes of my carry ammo thru each firearm starting with the rounds that have been in the firearm during carry, still have had no malfunctions with any firearm or round.

For target/range ammo I use Winchester

Winchester USA Centerfire Pistol Ammunition 45 ACP FMJ 230 GR Q4170
In both my Springfield XDM and TRP
Somewhere between 1-2k rounds thru each

Winchester USA Centerfire Pistol Ammunition 380 ACP FMJ 95 GR Q4206
In my Ruger LCP
Around 500 rounds thru

Winchester USA Centerfire Pistol Ammunition 38 Special FMJ 130 GR Q4171
In my S&W 442
Around 500 rounds thru

Yes I know this has nothing to do with Winchester I just felt that as I was saying my experiences with carry ammo in each firearm I should let you know what else has been thru each firearm without a problem.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
This is good to know. I am planning on doing my own test but I'm waiting for my new mainspring housing from midway (out of stock until 10/26), I wanted to get rid of the ILS in my RO, I want the gun to be exactly the way its going to be for Conceal Carry before testing.
Denny
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,272 Posts
The biggest problem I see is that Critical Defense still specifically engineers the round to NOT perform against certain types of barriers and so forth, and they do not test it against a full, rigorous set of tests.

So, what happens when you need this ammunition to perform against a situation where the round is A) untested, and/or B) is designed NOT to work?
 
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top