User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 10:02:17 AM EDT
Looking through the FAQ for data on the Hornady 135gr critical duty but not finding anything. Curious as to it’s performance vs HST 147 etc. anyone have a link I might be missing? Thx
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 10:04:54 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 10:36:49 AM EDT
[#2]
I have both in stock. Someone want to send me a chrono and some gel to test?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 10:45:54 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MCBallpeen: Link Thx! Also interesting to see the 124 and 127 ranger t rounds not all expanding. Wouldn’t expect to see that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 11:50:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Hornady round is on the FBI contract and the HST load isn't. I still carry 147gr HST though
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 12:01:39 PM EDT
[#5]
I have done a shit ton of ballistic gel testing out of a Glock 43x, a Glock 19 and a Glock 17
The most consistent performers were the HST 124gr standard pressure.....15-18" through all sorts of pre gel media Underwood 90gr +P Xtreme Defender.....17" Corbon DPX 115gr +P barnes bullet.....16" Critical Duty 135+P performed best out of the G17 full size |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 12:05:51 PM EDT
[#6]
The Hornady 135 +P breezes through the FBI testing, as it was specifically designed to do so. The HST does not. It depends on what’s important to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 12:48:18 PM EDT
[#7]
DPS troopers and DPS special agents around here are using the Critical Duty 135 +P
I always follow their lead |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2023 6:08:53 PM EDT
[#8]
I know there is a lot of credit given to the FBI list and testing. I have seen a ton of OIS with Speer Gold Dot and HST 124 - regular and +P to see them work well when the shooter does their job.
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/9/2023 9:40:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: Thx! Also interesting to see the 124 and 127 ranger t rounds not all expanding. Wouldn’t expect to see that. If you have followed the 127 grain +P+ you should know they have a dismal record in SYNTHETIC and ORGANIC gel. HOWEVER, their use on the street is another story................ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2023 10:02:58 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MCBallpeen: If you have followed the 127 grain +P+ you should know they have a dismal record in SYNTHETIC and ORGANIC gel. HOWEVER, their use on the street is another story................ EXACTLY what I experienced when I did ballistic gel testing with that round...dismal |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/9/2023 7:27:19 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 9:04:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dave_Williams: The Hornady 135 +P breezes through the FBI testing, as it was specifically designed to do so. The HST does not. It depends on what’s important to you. Did something change with the FBI tests? HST has always passed and been one of the best LE loads. The Hornady load maximized penetration over expansion. HST has been tweaked over the years and now penetrates more and expands less then the older loads (which I prefer). |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 9:59:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MCBallpeen]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joglee: Meh, clear gel is trash. You won't get an argument from me on that point. HOWEVER, it does provide a repeatable media to test various ammo companies expansive capabilities. It should NEVER be used as the end all / be all in judging a cartridge's performance, but merely ONE tool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:29:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote History
Originally Posted By Dave_Williams: The Hornady 135 +P breezes through the FBI testing, as it was specifically designed to do so. The HST does not. It depends on what’s important to you. Did something change with the FBI tests? HST has always passed and been one of the best LE loads. The Hornady load maximized penetration over expansion. HST has been tweaked over the years and now penetrates more and expands less then the older loads (which I prefer). In the testing I have seen, HST did not pass all the tests. Not enough penetration. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/11/2023 9:28:15 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dave_Williams: Quote History Originally Posted By Dave_Williams: The Hornady 135 +P breezes through the FBI testing, as it was specifically designed to do so. The HST does not. It depends on what’s important to you. Did something change with the FBI tests? HST has always passed and been one of the best LE loads. The Hornady load maximized penetration over expansion. HST has been tweaked over the years and now penetrates more and expands less then the older loads (which I prefer). In the testing I have seen, HST did not pass all the tests. Not enough penetration. Question: How much penetration do you need? If you maximize penetration over expansion, then even ball rounds will work for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2023 9:49:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: Also interesting to see the 124 and 127 ranger t rounds not all expanding. Wouldn’t expect to see that. Clear Ballistic gel is not the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing. .... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2023 7:33:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MCBallpeen: Question: How much penetration do you need? If you maximize penetration over expansion, then even ball rounds will work for you. The LE community abandoned the 40SW en mass and now duty loads are being tweaked for maximum penetration over expansion. What are these Hornady rounds expanding to? .45-.50"? I'm not saying the Hornady load is bad. It's probably very good. I'm just nervous about all the focus on one aspect of performance: penetration. It just feels like we are compensating for something... ...as itchy nervously onloads the HST from his mags and loads up 147 FMJTC to be ahead of the pack... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2023 7:35:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistic gel is not the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing. .... Lucky Gunner managed to pull off some "miracles" using clear jell...for example, they managed to get .380auto HST 99gr to fail to expand at all while every other test showed that it over expanded and penetrated only 10". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2023 8:33:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistic gel is not the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing. .... I’ve gathered that. Is there testing I can reference for Hornady 135+p in the proper gel? |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 10:06:59 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: I’ve gathered that. Is there testing I can reference for Hornady 135+p in the proper gel? You might care to search You Tube....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 11:12:42 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: I’ve gathered that. Is there testing I can reference for Hornady 135+p in the proper gel? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: Originally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistic gel is not the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing. .... I’ve gathered that. Is there testing I can reference for Hornady 135+p in the proper gel? Clear Ballistics shills and pot roast retards are a poor source for valid scientific terminal ballistic data. Here's data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics . . . 9 mm Hornady 135 gr +P Critical Duty at 1185 fps: BG: Pen = 17.9, RD = 0.52, RL = 0.50, RW = 135.6 4LD: Pen = 18.1, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.53, RW = 134.1 AG: Pen = 15.5, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.44, RW = 123.0 ... |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 12:35:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistics shills and pot roast retards are a poor source for valid scientific terminal ballistic data. Here's data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics . . . 9 mm Hornady 135 gr +P Critical Duty at 1185 fps: BG: Pen = 17.9, RD = 0.52, RL = 0.50, RW = 135.6 4LD: Pen = 18.1, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.53, RW = 134.1 AG: Pen = 15.5, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.44, RW = 123.0 ... Thank you for sharing that! I was going to ask if you had any data on this loads performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 4:43:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistics shills and pot roast retards are a poor source for valid scientific terminal ballistic data. Here's data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics . . . 9 mm Hornady 135 gr +P Critical Duty at 1185 fps: BG: Pen = 17.9, RD = 0.52, RL = 0.50, RW = 135.6 4LD: Pen = 18.1, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.53, RW = 134.1 AG: Pen = 15.5, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.44, RW = 123.0 ... Thanks for posting! Assume this is the Doc’s testing? Haven’t seen him post here in forever. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 4:50:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: Thanks for posting! Assume this is the Doc’s testing? Haven’t seen him post here in forever. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LE6920: Originally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistics shills and pot roast retards are a poor source for valid scientific terminal ballistic data. Here's data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics . . . 9 mm Hornady 135 gr +P Critical Duty at 1185 fps: BG: Pen = 17.9, RD = 0.52, RL = 0.50, RW = 135.6 4LD: Pen = 18.1, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.53, RW = 134.1 AG: Pen = 15.5, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.44, RW = 123.0 ... Thanks for posting! Assume this is the Doc’s testing? Haven’t seen him post here in forever. Of course it's from Doc! Due to the fucktards that have infested this site I doubt he'll be sharing his data on this site again. ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 10:50:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistics shills and pot roast retards are a poor source for valid scientific terminal ballistic data. Here's data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics . . . 9 mm Hornady 135 gr +P Critical Duty at 1185 fps: BG: Pen = 17.9, RD = 0.52, RL = 0.50, RW = 135.6 4LD: Pen = 18.1, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.53, RW = 134.1 AG: Pen = 15.5, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.44, RW = 123.0 ... Velocity is 1185 for a 135gr load?!?! Thats pretty amazingly awesome! Are they using 10" barrels? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2023 4:19:37 PM EDT
[#26]
Hornady LE website has all there gel testing through calibrated gel testing including the 135gr +p there website has the video of the 135+p being tested in all the various barriers as well.
|
|
|
|
FJI
|
Posted: 11/26/2023 11:26:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DOE]
[#27]
CD 135gr +P works fine.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/27/2023 3:25:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Hornady LE website has all there gel testing through calibrated gel testing including the 135gr +p there website has the video of the 135+p being tested in all the various barriers as well. Although they do post test results on their website they seem to be offf. The data Molon shared on the 135gr +P from Doc is different from Hornadys same with the 75gr TAP hornadys test show only 10 inches of penetration but in Docs it exceeds the 12 inch minimum and has always been considered a fantastic load. Also noticed that none of their critical defense loads meet the minimum. Take manufacturers data with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2023 11:04:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gunnie357]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hyrum-22: Although they do post test results on their website they seem to be offf. The data Molon shared on the 135gr +P from Doc is different from Hornadys same with the 75gr TAP hornadys test show only 10 inches of penetration but in Docs it exceeds the 12 inch minimum and has always been considered a fantastic load. Also noticed that none of their critical defense loads meet the minimum. Take manufacturers data with a grain of salt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hyrum-22: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Hornady LE website has all there gel testing through calibrated gel testing including the 135gr +p there website has the video of the 135+p being tested in all the various barriers as well. Although they do post test results on their website they seem to be offf. The data Molon shared on the 135gr +P from Doc is different from Hornadys same with the 75gr TAP hornadys test show only 10 inches of penetration but in Docs it exceeds the 12 inch minimum and has always been considered a fantastic load. Also noticed that none of their critical defense loads meet the minimum. Take manufacturers data with a grain of salt. Theirs is off and two different tests showed different results are different things. Change any one metric in the test and results change. There loading in 135+P CD is with a 4” barrel. There loading in critical defense is tested through a 3” barreled 9mm giving just shy of 12” in a pocket gun is likely not end of the world. Other tests with the same load and a similar gun show it doing better than minimums. Same with there test of 75gr TAP one test in one 16” gun isn’t indicative of every guns performance it’s often touted as excellent in SBRs and it’s also considerably slower in them resulting in greater penetration. Id also think it odd for them to pad the numbers to show one is great and another that’s an excellent seller is no good if there going to pad the numbers for one it would stand to reason they’d do that with everything. Maybe they didn’t. I do take it with a grain of salt and you can see many different tests that show critical duty performing well in full size handguns you can also see it performing poorly in small handguns and tests showing critical defense performing well in them. Its also not the only load to do so, the beauty imo of the FBI standardized testing protocols is everyone wants to meet them. They do so in different ways and perform better or worse in the various areas because of those changes. Then everyone can look at the various results and see which they consider to be best for their needs. The other blessing as a result of these standards is we have a plethora of solid performing loadings in most calibers to choose from. I’d happily carry any number of modern loadings in 9mm and have. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2023 11:22:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Of course it's from Doc! Due to the fucktards that have infested this site I doubt he'll be sharing his data on this site again. ... Sad he’s a valuable resource that put a ton of good information out. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 12:51:18 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Theirs is off and two different tests showed different results are different things. Change any one metric in the test and results change. There loading in 135+P CD is with a 4” barrel. There loading in critical defense is tested through a 3” barreled 9mm giving just shy of 12” in a pocket gun is likely not end of the world. Other tests with the same load and a similar gun show it doing better than minimums. Same with there test of 75gr TAP one test in one 16” gun isn’t indicative of every guns performance it’s often touted as excellent in SBRs and it’s also considerably slower in them resulting in greater penetration. Id also think it odd for them to pad the numbers to show one is great and another that’s an excellent seller is no good if there going to pad the numbers for one it would stand to reason they’d do that with everything. Maybe they didn’t. I do take it with a grain of salt and you can see many different tests that show critical duty performing well in full size handguns you can also see it performing poorly in small handguns and tests showing critical defense performing well in them. Its also not the only load to do so, the beauty imo of the FBI standardized testing protocols is everyone wants to meet them. They do so in different ways and perform better or worse in the various areas because of those changes. Then everyone can look at the various results and see which they consider to be best for their needs. The other blessing as a result of these standards is we have a plethora of solid performing loadings in most calibers to choose from. I’d happily carry any number of modern loadings in 9mm and have. Glad I wasn’t the only one to notice the inconsistency. I am just surprised at the lack of good data given by ammo manufacturers then again gotta make money. I like Critical Duty because it passes the FBI protocols and can be found just about anywhere and is typically not that expensive just wish we could all have access to the 50 round boxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 3:21:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hyrum-22: Glad I wasn’t the only one to notice the inconsistency. I am just surprised at the lack of good data given by ammo manufacturers then again gotta make money. I like Critical Duty because it passes the FBI protocols and can be found just about anywhere and is typically not that expensive just wish we could all have access to the 50 round boxes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hyrum-22: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Theirs is off and two different tests showed different results are different things. Change any one metric in the test and results change. There loading in 135+P CD is with a 4” barrel. There loading in critical defense is tested through a 3” barreled 9mm giving just shy of 12” in a pocket gun is likely not end of the world. Other tests with the same load and a similar gun show it doing better than minimums. Same with there test of 75gr TAP one test in one 16” gun isn’t indicative of every guns performance it’s often touted as excellent in SBRs and it’s also considerably slower in them resulting in greater penetration. Id also think it odd for them to pad the numbers to show one is great and another that’s an excellent seller is no good if there going to pad the numbers for one it would stand to reason they’d do that with everything. Maybe they didn’t. I do take it with a grain of salt and you can see many different tests that show critical duty performing well in full size handguns you can also see it performing poorly in small handguns and tests showing critical defense performing well in them. Its also not the only load to do so, the beauty imo of the FBI standardized testing protocols is everyone wants to meet them. They do so in different ways and perform better or worse in the various areas because of those changes. Then everyone can look at the various results and see which they consider to be best for their needs. The other blessing as a result of these standards is we have a plethora of solid performing loadings in most calibers to choose from. I’d happily carry any number of modern loadings in 9mm and have. Glad I wasn’t the only one to notice the inconsistency. I am just surprised at the lack of good data given by ammo manufacturers then again gotta make money. I like Critical Duty because it passes the FBI protocols and can be found just about anywhere and is typically not that expensive just wish we could all have access to the 50 round boxes. Typically the fifty round boxes are available through online retailers like SGammo. The tests that black hills lab did for one of the gun writers, forgive me I don’t recall which, showed similar results to Hornady’s published data they were using a BHP so a 4.5” barrel. I personally have no problem with there test data. It’s easy enough to look at other sources to see if there similar. Imo it’s a very consistent loading in its design parameters. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/30/2023 12:28:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MCBallpeen: If you have followed the 127 grain +P+ you should know they have a dismal record in SYNTHETIC and ORGANIC gel. HOWEVER, their use on the street is another story................ But this is the internets. Leave your real world result out of this! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 9:16:00 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MCBallpeen: Link Clear Ballistics gel is not the scientific standard for terminal ballistic testing and the claim that it meets the FBI specifications is flat out false. ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 9:27:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Molon]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MCBallpeen: If you have followed the 127 grain +P+ you should know they have a dismal record in SYNTHETIC and ORGANIC gel. HOWEVER, their use on the street is another story................ Terminal ballistic testing of Winchester's Ranger 127 grain +P+ ammunition conducted by an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics following the scientific standard of properly prepared and validated 10% ordnance gel showed the Ranger 127 grain +P+ load met the FBI standard for penetration in both bare gel and in the IWBA four layer denim test. However, due to the increased recoil and excessive muzzle blast of this 127 grain +P+ load without any gains in terminal performance compared to modern top tier loads, you'll be hard pressed to find many major law enforcement agencies still using this load. ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 9:39:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rheinmetall792: But this is the internets. Leave your real world result out of this! Do you know what a 147 grain HST that's been removed from a human that was shot in the real world looks like? It looks just like a 147 grain HST that was tested using the IWBA's four layer denim test following the scientific standard of properly prepared and validated 10% ordnance gel and the penetration in the human that was shot in the real world was nearly the same as the penetration seen in the gel tests. .. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 3:39:42 PM EDT
[#37]
@Molon, I always look forward / appreciate your input!
Sometimes new info, sometimes reaffirming, thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 5:53:01 PM EDT
[#38]
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUB6LWvgMNyUIBCO0STQNs8Q21jv3p2jL&si=AuX0mCU2h6nZmqg6
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 6:14:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUB6LWvgMNyUIBCO0STQNs8Q21jv3p2jL&si=AuX0mCU2h6nZmqg6 Nice! ... |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 6:16:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUB6LWvgMNyUIBCO0STQNs8Q21jv3p2jL&si=AuX0mCU2h6nZmqg6 Interesting, not to mention consistent. Thanks |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 6:42:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Any idea how poa / poi compares to 124gr range ammo, S&B, Magtec etc.
Does performance really drop off from a 4" barrel ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 7:41:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D-der: Any idea how poa / poi compares to 124gr range ammo, S&B, Magtec etc. Does performance really drop off from a 4" barrel ? Poa/poi is close enough that it really doesn’t matter we run various 115/124gr training ammo and 135+p as duty ammo. No data on how short it’ll perform well. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 8:17:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Poa/poi is close enough that it really doesn’t matter we run various 115/124gr training ammo and 135+p as duty ammo. No data on how short it’ll perform well. Thanks, Seems worth picking some up if opportunity comes along... Just incase HST runs low. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 9:06:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gunnie357]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D-der: Thanks, Seems worth picking some up if opportunity comes along... Just incase HST runs low. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D-der: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Poa/poi is close enough that it really doesn’t matter we run various 115/124gr training ammo and 135+p as duty ammo. No data on how short it’ll perform well. Thanks, Seems worth picking some up if opportunity comes along... Just incase HST runs low. HST is an excellent bullet I’d not hesitate to run it in the slightest. ETA: Come to think of it I loaded quite a bit of it in 38 Super I believe @03RN did so in either 38 or 357 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 9:11:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUB6LWvgMNyUIBCO0STQNs8Q21jv3p2jL&si=AuX0mCU2h6nZmqg6 Good videos. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 1:08:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: HST is an excellent bullet I’d not hesitate to run it in the slightest. ETA: Come to think of it I loaded quite a bit of it in 38 Super I believe @03RN did so in either 38 or 357 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By D-der: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Poa/poi is close enough that it really doesn’t matter we run various 115/124gr training ammo and 135+p as duty ammo. No data on how short it’ll perform well. Thanks, Seems worth picking some up if opportunity comes along... Just incase HST runs low. HST is an excellent bullet I’d not hesitate to run it in the slightest. ETA: Come to think of it I loaded quite a bit of it in 38 Super I believe @03RN did so in either 38 or 357 Yup. 147gr at 1275fps or 910fps |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 4:20:10 PM EDT
[#47]
I watched pretty much all of this guys testing- Shootingthebull410 on Youtube. He hasn't posted in 4 years, but he has a lot of ammo tests...and he used 10% ballistics gel, not ClearBallistics. I believe the Critical Duty needs a full-size gun to work properly. If that's what you're using, then cool.
I carry 124/147 grain HST in my P365.  Ammo Quest 9mm: Hornady Critical Duty +P tested in ballistic gelatin test review |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 12/9/2023 9:07:27 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
FJI
|
Posted: 12/23/2023 1:51:49 PM EDT
[#49]
So, Hornady LE came and presented their ammo for review. For this thread, after shooting Critical Duty 135 +P thru all six FBI protocol tests in front of us, I'm impressed. They shot it side by side with our current issued ammo, Speer GD 124 +P and then Fed 147 HST from duty guns like Glock G47/G19 to short barrel off duty guns like P365 and G48. Quite impressed. Bullet does what's it's designed for. Speer GD failed 1. LE rep stated that Speer is usually neck and neck with them. Recently in the past several demos, they failed at least 1 of 6. They changed something in the way they made bullets. ??? Performance, availability and lead times made it a no brainer for CD 135 +P.
According to LE rep, the optimum twist rate for 9mm to function with Critical Duty was 1/10. Many other agencies were also in attendance. Here's an interesting tidbit... Stacatoe's have a 1/16 twist and does not perform 100% from their demos/info. There's a XX percentage of failure to hit the FBI minimum depth. Luckily, someone brought their Duo P along for test fire. Exactly like what they said. Failed two of the six - failed to go deep. Rounds hit at a slight angle which caused the bullet not to fully open as designed. Seems a majority of 2011s are in the 1/16 twist like SA Prodigy. Good news is that they will tweak the weight to work in guns for 1/16 twist. Don't know when that will be released. 6 ARC was impressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2024 11:56:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: Clear Ballistics shills and pot roast retards are a poor source for valid scientific terminal ballistic data. Here's data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics . . . 9 mm Hornady 135 gr +P Critical Duty at 1185 fps: BG: Pen = 17.9, RD = 0.52, RL = 0.50, RW = 135.6 4LD: Pen = 18.1, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.53, RW = 134.1 AG: Pen = 15.5, RD = 0.48, RL = 0.44, RW = 123.0 ... Is there a colsolidated list of test results from Doc anywhere? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
