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.
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...