New Hornady pistol duty ammo line

This stuff looks promising;

http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2011/11/04/hornady-critical-duty-ammunition/?utm_source=BlueSheepdog+Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=fe5d1582e7-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

November 4th, 2011

Hornady Critical Duty AmmunitionHornady announced a new line of law enforcement ammunition called Critical Duty. This new ammo was designed to meet the specific requirements of police use. Critical Duty ammunition will be available in two 9mm loads and one .40 S&W load initially.

The Hornady Critical Duty ammunition uses a new bullet design that incorporates elements from previous company designs to perform well in the FBI ammunition testing protocol. The bullets use the Flex Tip technology, which is a polymer filled hollowpoint. The Flex Tip prevents the hollowpoint from being filled when passing through clothing or another barrier, yet it also helps expansion when striking the target.

Hornady also uses an InterLock band to hold the bullet jacket to the core, rather than using a chemical bonding process used by many other manufacturers. The benefit to the Critical Duty line of ammunition is that Hornady can use a heavier, antimony-rich core rather than a soft, pure (or close to pure) lead typically used with bonded bullets.

Critical Duty ammunition use low-flash powders and nickel cases.

The initial loads will be:

9mm: 135 grains @ 1010 fps, 305 ft-lbs
9mm +P:  135 grains @ 1110 fps, 369 ft-lbs
.40 S&W:  175 grains @ 1010 fps, 396 ft-lbs

Hornady Critical Duty AmmoAs mentioned previously, the Critical Duty ammo was designed to perform well in the FBI testing protocol. The protocol is an arbitrary set of standards developed by the FBI to measure ammunition performance. While I do not think the protocol is proportionally reflective of law enforcement shootings, it does provide a standard by which two ammunition designs can be compared.

Hornady states the FlexLock bullets in the Critical Duty line perform very well in the FBI protocols. This is good from a static testing standpoint, but actual performance in the street remains to be seen. There have been some rounds that performed very well on duty, but failed to meet the standards of the FBI protocol.

Likewise, I’m sure the reverse is true. I’m cautiously optimistic about the performance of this ammunition, but will not be swapping any of my ammo over to it yet.

[Note: I am a firm believer that shot placement trumps bullet design. Rapidly putting multiple rounds into vital areas is more likely to stop a fight than the choice of Federal vs. Speer vs. Winchester vs. Hornady. However, there are clearly some designs that perform better than others. So, given my druthers, I’d rather rapidly put multiple good hollowpoints into a target than the same number of cheap FMJs.]

My understanding is that the FBI made specs for worst case shooting angles and intermediate barriers. Not all shootings are worst case so you can often get by with lesser bullets.

FBI spec ammo is all about stacking the deck in your favor.

Todd, note that the part you quoted wasn’t from me, that was from the cut-and-paste I did from the article.

After many years of seeing bullets from OISs and comparing them to the FBI tests I have a lot of faith in the test protocol.

I have yet to locate a bullet that does well on the FBI protocol tests that has in aggregate performed poorly in OIS incidents…

Thanks for the heads up, these look interesting.

That said given that 124gr +P gold dots are relatively inexpensive (~55 cents/round online) I don’t know if I have a lot of reason to switch away to something more spendy and untested. the gold dot has been with the NYPD and countless other departments for many years, I kind a figure no sense changing horses mid race so to speak…

Will this qualify as a NJ-friendly load?

It should since the Hornady Critical Defense does. My info for that is directly from the NJSP Firearms unit, in writing.

I concur.

Good,if it works as needed.It will be one more good load we have. I’ll wait for some go/no go testing from Doc Roberts before I buy any,if he gets a chance to test them.

Agreed. More quality choices is always a good thing for us. If anything, the added competition can work to keep current prices low.

I’ll reserve judgement until I see Doc’s tests.

I can’t recall seeing any problems with the ballistics testing that the major ammo manufacturers publish. I wouldn’t say you need to wait on DocGKR to test a load if there is enough other testing published to make an informed choice.

Just a general counterpoint for anyone reading that doesn’t know what the FBI standards are for, didn’t mean to direct it at you.

Well,that's a good point Todd,but here we go back to 'trust,but verify." I know that in the past ammo companies offered good reports on their ammo,but they were also indeed advertising their product and sometimes street results weren't quite spectacular.
 I think they are more honest with their test reporting these days,but I don't believe DocGKR is in anybody's pocket and I trust his testing more than anyone else's. :)

I’m not talking about “knock down power” advertising, but the actual gel testing that you can find on some of the LE products.

http://www.hornadyle.com/_img/hornady_tap_report.pdf

http://le.atk.com/pdf/223RifleDataBook.pdf

Understood Todd,that’s also what I’m referring to. I consider Doc’s more or less independant testing to be the more dependable,as well as any FBI gel test results,as there is no stake in the company or the sucess or failure of the round/rounds being tested.

Any new updates on the performance of this 135 gr load?

No mention of it here

How does the 9mm 135 gr Critical Duty compare to a 124gr Gold Dot?

I am also interested to see how this round performs, although I have my doubts that it will sway me away from The Barnes 115gr XPB or Speer 124gr GDHP

According to this amateur ballistics test it looks like a good performer. But it doesnt to anything to make me move away from my gold dots though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZFZFmBKa0

I saw what appeared to be some credible 3rd party testing done (calibrated 10% gel) on Critical Duty. For the life of me I can’t find it now…my Google-fu is failing.

Anyway, it looked like Critical Duty corrected Critical Defense’s penetration shortcomings, but the expansion was mediocre at best.

Agreeing with you, it’s nothing that’s going to take me away from Gold Dots or Ranger-Ts.

That was actually a really good youtube video. Don’t see that often. Thanks for the link.

Here is the 40SW Critical Duty gel test from the same video producer.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjrenK4N_qY&feature=relmfu

Not too bad - but not enough to make me dump all of the Gold Dots that I’ve got stashed.