Hornady Critical Defense .223

Kris Walters

Amateur
Quantified Performance
I watched this video this morning and can not help but wonder why they are showing off 7"-11" of penetration for a defensive rifle load. Am I missing some thing here? Is this performance desirable in any situation?

 

Sunshine_Shooter

Established
I guess if your main concern with using a rifle as a home defense gun is the threat of over-penetration, an ammo marketed as being a chronic under-penetrator would be appealing.
 

MojoNixon

Established
I haven’t had the opportunity to search, but is there a Critical Duty .223 load? If so does it penetrate better?
 

Sunshine_Shooter

Established
Thanks. I have no real desire to use Hornady as my defensive load. I just couldn’t recall seeing any Critical Duty rifle loads.

Look for Hornady TAP 5.56. Not sure why they didn't continue using their 'Critical Defense' name, but that's what you're looking for. It seems to be pretty solid and well-regarded in the circles I frequent, in multiple grain weights.
 

MojoNixon

Established
Look for Hornady TAP 5.56. Not sure why they didn't continue using their 'Critical Defense' name, but that's what you're looking for. It seems to be pretty solid and well-regarded in the circles I frequent, in multiple grain weights.
Thanks. For now I’m pretty heavily invested in Federal 62 gr Fusion. But I do keep my options open for change if it’s warranted. After a hog hunt early next year it may be warranted due to a depleted stockpile.
 

Arete

Regular Member
There are still a lot of people who are scared of overpenetration from .223/5.56mm . . . despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary . . . and who do not understand wound ballistics and rapid incapacitation . . . seems this product is "aimed" at them.
 

Kris Walters

Amateur
Quantified Performance
There are still a lot of people who are scared of overpenetration from .223/5.56mm . . . despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary . . . and who do not understand wound ballistics and rapid incapacitation . . . seems this product is "aimed" at them.
That is what I was thinking but, I had to see if I was missing a legitimate use for performance like this.
 

Matt Landfair

Matt Six Actual
Staff member
Administrator
Ballistics gel is a testing medium. It helps an established standard and provides a consistent testing method [when properly prepared). It is not representing penetrating 7"-11" of person. It is showing it is not reaching the desired target penetration for duty/self defense use.
 

Mike_IA

Regular Member
A low penetration rapid expanding round may be desirable depending on situation. It is not suitable for general patrol use because it’s lack of barrier performance.
 

Kris Walters

Amateur
Quantified Performance
Ballistics gel is a testing medium. It helps an established standard and provides a consistent testing method [when properly prepared). It is not representing penetrating 7"-11" of person. It is showing it is not reaching the desired target penetration for duty/self defense use.
Matt I understand that living targets have alot more variables then gel, bone is a good example. As it stands with out real wolrd data and the way ammo is marketed gel tests are a metric for performance. I'm just wondering if what is essentially varmit bullet performance has any real duty/defensive value or is their markting department putting bad info out to the public.
 

Mike_IA

Regular Member
There are specific situations like PSD in crowds, or CQB in colonias/ sheetmetal shacks where any projectile leaving the intended target could cause injury to innocents or team mates. That’s why there are also low penetration 308 and precision rounds. It’s a very specific purpose built round for a very specific set of circumstances.

I know what the round is for but don’t have any because like 95% of the LE/mil/civy world I don’t fit those criteria for needs.
 

DocGKR

Dr.Ballistics
Staff member
Moderator
"I watched this video this morning and can not help but wonder why they are showing off 7"-11" of penetration for a defensive rifle load. Am I missing some thing here? Is this performance desirable in any situation?"

No. The anatomy and physiology of a felonious violent aggressor does not change whether they are confronted by LE or a civilian.

"Ballistics gel is a testing medium. It helps an established standard and provides a consistent testing method [when properly prepared). It is not representing penetrating 7"-11" of person."

In most properly conducted post-mortem evaluations, there is indeed a rough 1:1 ratio between gel and torso tissue––for example, Gene Wolberg's study of nearly 150 SDPD OIS incidents showed the majority of the 9mm 147 gr bullets fired by officers had penetrated about 13" and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. While there was a greater range of results in human tissue than in gel, the averages where nearly identical. Several other agencies with strong, scientifically based ammunition terminal performance testing programs have conducted similar reviews of their shooting incidents with much the same results––there is an extremely strong correlation between properly conducted and interpreted 10% ordnance gelatin laboratory studies and the physiological effects of projectiles in actual shooting incidents.
 
Top