Have any of you shot the Hornady Critical Duty or Critical Defense out of the Shield 9mm? What round do you carry in the winter to deal with heavier and thicker clothing?

I have Speer Gold Dots 124 and 124+p now to shoot out of my Shield 9mm.

I carry Hornady Critical Defense spring, summer, winter, fall, in my shield 9mm. Shoots great through anything people would wear.

Critical Duty was designed to pass all FBI protocols for barrier penetration, while maintaining minimum standards for expansion and body penetration. I prefer the shallower penetration of the critical defense load.

The loads your currently using (especially the +P version) is one of the top 9mm rounds for defense use. I'd also recommend either the Federal 147gr. HST or Winchester 147gr. Ranger T. Dale

__________________
"Long live the S&W 3rd. Gen.!"

I concur with the last post.

I have an M&P9 FS but I carry Gold Dot 124gr +P. My other choice is also Fed 147gr HST. They are both carried by police departments and have been "field proven". The Critical Duty does defeat all FBI barrier tests but use against live subjects is unknown, AFAIK.

The one I tried worked very well with these two excellent 9mm premium defense loads:

1. Federal 9BPLE (115 grain JHP +P+)
2. Winchester Ranger 127 grain JHP +P+

I think it would be pretty hard to find a load that has a better track record as a "stopper" than either of these. Both worked perfectly in the 9mm Shield.

I've been using 147 grn Win Ranger in M&P's

__________________
M&P .40, M&P 9c & Shield 45

It may have worked for you, but are you aware that Smith & Wesson says in their manual that +P+ must not be used? Apparently, since there's no standard, the pressure can vary significantly with dangerous results. Are they being overly cautious, or is their warning to be taken seriously?

What about te pdx-1s? I've used them (and their predecessors) for a while and have always liked them regardless of caliber

I know they say good 147gr does fine even at such slow speeds, like 825-900fps (and I'm a HUGE fan of 147gr out of 4+ inches barrels), but for the Shield I'm using 124gr Federal HST. I may go to all 147s just so I can buy one ammo for the Shield and G19: if so, it would be HST or Ranger-T

Personally, I have a few cardinal rules of ammo:
a) I don't buy any ammo unless it comes in 50rd boxes; the 20rd ammo is priced at a ridiculous premium in the hopes people will pay it and assume it's the best--but at the moment, you can still get equal or superior stuff for less (Winchester ranger, federal HST, Speer GD, etc.). Hornady is hot at the moment, and seems to do well--so if I found 25 for $15-$16 I might get it...if I couldn't 50 get HST for $26-$30.
b) I don't use +P ammo For CCW because I don't think the extra speed offsets the slower follow-up shots. If I had time and money to practice with a bunch, maybe I'd use them; at SD ranges of 3-8 feet, I just don't think the extra fps (how much is it in a 3" barrel) will matter much.

That said, in .380, it's gotten hard to get 50rd boxes and/or testing has shown that some of the best rounds (CD and GD) only come in 20-25rd boxes. Thankfully, there are so many 9mm buyers, the price-scam hasn't been fully embraced by all makers (though it seems everyone is testing the waters).

Gold dots are excellent in any variety. One of the best sites I've seen for ammo testing is tnoutdoors9.
Critical duty in 9mm did very well.

Since bad guys like the dark I decided to check my ammo in low light conditions
The Critical Defence had very low flash, I was able to identify the target & get quick follow up shots - the rest not so good , the other brands I was blinded by the flash or I had to wait till the flash to dissipated before a second shot.
FYI

Critical Duty is not designed for compact pistols. From Hornady's site:

"In addition, Critical DUTY® loads are “full power loads” designed to function full-size handgun slides. Although designed to work flawlessly in ALL handguns, these loads are NOT optimized for short barreled, concealed carry style handguns;"

The difference between Critical DUTY® & Critical DEFENSE® - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc

What your using now will work just fine, if your set on using Hornady's then use the Critical defense in your Shield.

I have Critical Defense as my load in my 1st Shield - the one I carry daily. Finding the ammo locally is tough, though.

After running some thru the guns, I don't have enough left over for both guns. My second Shield has 124gr Gold Dots (non +p). They shot fine as well, and were accurate.

I have shot Critical Defense, 124gr Hydrashok, 124gr Golddot and 147 gr WWB JHP thru both of my 9mm Shields with no issues at all.

I agree. I like the gold dots much better than the hornady rounds. I think the HST's would be a good choice also but gold dots are much easier for me to find so that's what I prefer.

__________________
M&P 9 because 'Merica.

Plenty of great 9mm loads out there. Speer being one of the finest. But in the Hornady family, I really like the Critical Defense and shoot it quite often in many guns/cals.
I wouldn't use the Critical Duty in any weapon which I might pull out in a home defense situation for fear of over penetration thru walls, etc. So, IMO, the Critical Duty doesn't offer enough benefit to overcome what I see as a dangerous detriment.

Yes, I am well aware, as are the MANY agencies that spec and use +P+ ammo. The factory warning is of no concern to me, but by all means, if it concerns you, find a less powerful round, or go to a bigger caliber.

I like the 124 grain PDX1s and they worked well also. I am just not sure they have been out long enough to have a proven track record.

I carry 147HST rounds in my FS9. I run 75-100 thru the weapon a month. I buy they mailorder as i haven't seen them in Sac. They still come in 50rd boxes, and run about 25$/box.

They do neat stuff to watermelons with about any jacket i can put on it.

__________________
Greg
M&P9 & M&P22

I carry 147HST rounds in my FS9. I run 75-100 thru the weapon a month. I buy they mailorder as i haven't seen them in Sac. They still come in 50rd boxes, and run about 25$/box.

They do neat stuff to watermelons with about any jacket i can put on it.

__________________
Greg
M&P9 & M&P22

Like mentioned by Aahzz...do NOT use Hornady's Duty ammo on compact or subcompacts. It is for full size only. I accidentally bought the critical DUTY instead if critical DEFENSE a few days ago. My Shield has trouble racking the round. Smooth as butter in my FS M&P .40.

Most of the time I use Federal Premium Personal Defense JHP's for home protection/SD.

Thanks. I will stay with my 147 HST . I think that will do the job without needing to push the limits of the gun.

I've browsed a lot of websites through the past few years, and I've seen too many Hornady Critical Defense primer issues to ever trust my life with that round. There was yet another complaint about this on this very site earlier this week.

I have no comment on Critical Duty. It's seen less use.

I'd choose something from Federal, Speer, or the Winchester Ranger-T line.

Here are some links about the primer issues... just a few I pulled off of the web in a hurry. By no means all of the links available:


Hornady Critical Defense ... What happened here? - The Firing Line Forums

Problem with Hornady Critical Defense - 1911Forum

Hornady Critical Defense ammo - Page 3

Hornady Critical Defense Defective Ammo

Hornady Critical Defense - bad luck/experience [Archive] - Glock Talk

And from this very forum:

9mm 115gr Critical Defense issue


If you really want to try Critical Duty, sgammo.com sometimes has it available at a good price.

I carry for my FS9 and my SR9c HST 124gr+p or HST 147gr. I've used Gold Dot, Golden Sabre, Hornady Critical Defense and WWB JHP but think both HSTare the best IMO (one lighter but fast and the other heavier but slow) do the same job for me.

Good info at this link on recommended loads from Dr Gary K Roberts.

Thoughts on Service Pistols, along with Duty and Self-Defense Ammo Recommendations - M4Carbine.net Forums

BLUF: Your Gold Dot +P 124 gr load does well in testing against FBI standards and has a good record of use in actual encounters.

I use Federal P9HST2 147 grain standard pressure HST (not HydraShok) in all my 9mm carry/HD guns, regardless of barrel length (5.3" G34 down to 3" Kahr PM9). Would be just as happy with CorBon DPX, Speer Gold Dots or Win Rangers in apppropriate bullet weights, or anything else on Doc Roberts' list.

Hey guys, just thought I'd chime in with my experience.

I picked up a shield in 9mm a few weeks ago. First time out, shot a bunch of plain reloads. It was flawless through 200rnds. So busted out some of my defense loads to make sure it ran reliably through the shield. Loaded it up with some +p Critical Duty and got a jam on the second round. (These run perfect in my G19). Clear it out and try again... Got another jam a few rounds later. What is happening is the Critical Duty has that insert in the tip and it catches the feed ramp and sticks like a good pair of shoes on the gym floor.

I also noticed that Critical Duty doesn't seem to load/rack into place and I have to sometimes slam the slide forward to seat the first round.

I also have a bunch of Critical Defense and tried that. Even though they have a similar tip, they seem to feed reliably. Now the problem that surfaced with the Critical Defense loads that popped up is I had several fail to fire rounds in the 25 round box I brought with me. Striker left an imprint in the primer but no bang. A second strike on those rounds worked and sent them down range. Again, my G19 fires these same rounds every time. Maybe the Glock stikes harder? i don't know... I do know that I'm more accurate with the Shield than I am with my G19... It's just more picky with ammo. I'm using some 124g new jhp rounds from Freedommunitions. The shield eats those up without fail in a few hundred rounds.

So for me, no Hornady rounds in my Shield at all.

I'd stick with the Gold Dots, but if you must change, critical duty would be what I'd go to. I'm not a fan of the "light and fast" rounds, at least not when it's questionable whether the round is going to get adequate penetration and with the critical defense, I think there is a very big question mark.

I took my Shield 9mm out for the 1st time a couple of days ago. I put almost 100 rounds through mine with no problems. Shot Federal 115 grain FMJ with no problems, and I put 2 magazines of Speer Gold Dots 124 grain hollow points with no problems too. I might go back next week and put another 200 rounds through it since I didn't get to shoot it as much as I wanted to last time. I have some Gold Dots 124+p that I'm going to fire next time too. I'm going to use the Gold Dots as my defense round.

I am new to shooting and the gun seemed to run perfectly, but the operator needs more practice. Shots were little high but most were left of center and a little high & low. First time shooting a 9mm and really shooting at all, so more practice is needed. Didn't have any shots right of center. Going to get some better targets next time so I can better see where I am hitting and adjust.

Shooting to the left is very common, especially in new right handed, right eye dominant shooters. I had super tight groups as a newbie (guess in a natural), but my group was also a tad left of center. You'll learn to compensate.

Critical Duty worked fine in my 9mm Shield. I'll probably eventually switch to Federal HST though.

S&W manual doesn't say not to use +P but it kind of warns against it. It says +P generates pressures in excess of the pressures associated with standard ammo. Such pressures may affect the wear characteristics or exceed the margin of safety. Use of +P ammo may result in the need for more frequent service. (page 11 in the Shield manual)

That's fine.... I have a life time warranty through my lgs on my shield. Heck, they fix guns of mine that I bought from other dealers for free. That keeps me going back for all future purchases

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Can you tell us how many rounds of it you have fired through your Shield?

I don't have a large budget to test ammo with, but I can report that I have fired 20 rounds of Critical Duty +P and 12 rounds of Critical Duty standard through my Shield, with no issues.

Altogether I've fired over 300 rounds (everything from 115gr +P Corbons to 147 grain Remington target ammo), and so far have had no failures of any kind with the gun.

I'm currently carrying the Critical Duty because I like the idea of having the extra barrier penetration capability. The Shield is my out and about gun, not a nightstand gun. I'm really impressed with those Flexlock 135 gr bullets.

While Hornady has had some quality control issues recently, their product research and development seems to be pulling ahead of the competition. I've had good experience with their Leverevolution ammo in my Marlin 1894.

There is also a video on Youtube of a guy testing the standard, non +P Critical Duty 9mm ammo out of a Glock 26 sub compact and getting some interesting results. He shoots through two pieces of drywall and gets 17 inches of penetration in his test gel, however the bullet fails to fully expand.

But it works. they are just trying to cover their *** probably

Hornady Critical Duty 9mm 135 Grain FlexLock Denim and Gel Test - Standard and +P - YouTube

that being said, I've had issues with it from my M&P
Hornady critical duty .40 fails to chamber - YouTube

and this is the response I got from hornady

I will admit I used the 'slide lock' to release the slide, and it's not reccomended, but it's the only round that I have that issue with. so take it for fwiw

I really had high hopes for this round, but i'm not sure anymore. I still have it in the MP40. my 9mm has Speer gold dots. but I'm thinking about moving over to 147gr bullets for enhanced penetration (closer to .40-45 penetration)

if you have the credentials, budspolicesupply has them for 23 bux per 50. I just bought 2 boxes.

I had the same problem, I emailed them about this, and got the following reply

My brother in-law works in the ATF forensics division, specializing in firearms and ballistics. He told me that of all the autopsy's he's looked at the Speer Gold Dots are one of the most effective rounds, doing horrendous internal damage.

Did he say if one grain of 9mm Speer Gold Dots were more effective than another? I bought a box of 124 and 124+p Gold Dots. Thought about getting a box of the 147 grain too.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first I thought the Hornady Critical Defense when it first came out was the hottest thing since sliced bread but now I have serious doubts it will be my CCW ammo. Only have one box left and won't be buying any more when I use that at the range. Hornady primer failure in a very few cases makes me not want to even take a chance on it in my 9mm Sig229R or my M&P 9 Shield. I will keep using Speer Gold Dot and Federal LE HST in my Shield with Winchester PDX1 in my Sig. Won't be using any +P in my Shield either but do use it my Sig which is just a larger/heavier gun and I think better able to handle +P ammo. IMHO +P isn't worth the advantage in the smaller/lighter Shield although I suppose you can use it on a limited basis but the Shield takes a real beating using it and could limit the life of a Shield.

__________________
44 Garrett Defender Ammo 4 me.

Unfortunately he didn't say. Next time I talk with him I'll try to get into a bit more specifics.

For me personally, I have to think even the standard 124 gr Gold Dots will be quite sufficient... and is what I plan on using.

I carry and have shot the critical duty with my 9 shield.
cycled perfect.
I didnt shoot to many as they cost a poop load.

Handgun Stopping Power (Page 2)

That was a waste of a read. Of the 23 9mm loads tested, only one was 147gr, and that was a subsonic load.

The following quote from the above-cited article was strangely out of place (possibly taken out of context) in a discussion on handgun ammo:

"With regard to bullet weight alone, Finn Aagaard, a much respected gunwriter and very experienced big game hunter once wrote, “Given sufficient penetration, what does any additional bullet weight add to killing power? Nothing, absolutely nothing.”"

The criteria for bagging big game is very different than that of stopping a human threat. Animals with heavy thicker hides, denser/larger bones, more protective structure require considerably more penatration than does a thin skinned, more vulnerable human target. Many hunters actually prefer a bullet that creates an exit wound, as two holes means more blood trail to follow.

All things being relatively equal, a heavier bullet will penetrate more reliably. With the latest generation of hollowpoint bullet designs (Ranger T, Federal HST, Gold Dots, etc.), bullets of all weights are now consistently expanding at much slower velocities than was previously the case. These newer bullet designs are being fine tuned to penetrate sufficiently and stay within specified LE penetration criteria. It no longer necessarily follows that a heavier round will overpenetrate.

The author also tell us: "This leaves us with the more logical approach of basing stopping power on terminal performance—what occurs after bullet impact—not external ballistics. Impact velocity, bullet expansion and actual penetration would seem to be the pragmatic guide to the determination of effectiveness."

The FBI tells us that there are two mechanisms of injury: 1) Crush Mechanism, which is the hole the bullet makes passing through tissue. 2) Stretch Mechanism, which is the temporary cavity. The latter is a comparatively minor factor with handgun rounds.

I believe the author is reaching to make his point by telling us: "And then there’s impact velocity. When you combine high impact velocity with expansion, wound cavities get very large." We are still tallking about handgun rounds (out of short barrels) and the difference a few more FPS makes between lighter and heavier bullets (in a given caliber) is not as dramatic as is implied. Hanguns are still marginal stoppers when compared to rifles. Fortunately, modern handgun rounds suck far less than they once did.

The author ignores the advances of the latest generation of bullet designs by telling us: "The problem is that deep penetration without expansion is notorious for slow incapacitation." Choose any of the current generation of hollow point bullet designs and you will get "sufficient penetration" with pretty remarkable (compared to earlier generations) bullet expansion. So much so, that the arguments (for and against) between 9/40/45 are shifting more to the platform choice and ammunition capacity than the caliber choice. Major service caliber handguns suck more equally now.

I posted the following in another thread on Shield ammo choices, but I think it is worth reposting here. This is an email reply from a ballistics professional addressing a question about bullet weight selections in short barreled handguns.

For a dose of reality, watch the following 30+ minute YouTube video of a presentation on handgun wounds, by a Doc that sees them up close and personal on a regular basis.

Note: Video is VERY GRAPHIC and may not be work appropriate.

I wasn't able to access the first page of the American Rifleman article (linked above) earlier, but have been able to do so now.

See: Handgun Stopping Power: Sizing Up Your Options

Having now read this brief article in full, I have to say this is one of the worst written pieces on the subject in recent memory. It is litered with references to Marshall & Sanow's work, which are not just (as the author states), "shrouded in controversy", the has been DISCREDITED* by the wound ballistics community.

*Cite: Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time

See also: Undeniable Evidence

The author tries to support a conclusion on his 'pain theory' of stopping power, by referencing the likewise discredited "Strasbourg Tests" on goats -- test which have been commonly considered a hoax*.

*Cite: Martin L. Fackler, M.D.: "The 'Strasbourg Tests:' Another Gunwriter/Bullet Salesman Fraud?" Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 10-11; 1994.

[synopsis from Firearms Tactical Institute web site]

Dr. Martin Fackler, IWBA president, reviews the authorless "Strasbourg Tests," a purported study of the reaction of several hundred live unanesthetized "human-sized" goats that were allegedly shot to test the "one-shot stopping power" of various handgun cartridges. Fackler explains the many incongruities, inconsistencies and absurdities which lead him (and most other wound ballistics experts) to conclude that the "Strasbourg Tests" are a hoax.

didn't even read the article. I have almost no use for anyone's opinion on this stuff. I'll take the data. don't care about weight or velocity either. Tell me how wide and how long the hole is coming out of my size barrel and I'll figure it out from there. It's data, take it for what it's worth. lot of ammo makers are throwing out all kinds of explanations about why their stuff is awesome in short barrels, I believe none of it until you show me.

You're certainly entitled to simplify your search efforts as you like, but if the data from the article you posted a link to is your Cliff's Notes on wound ballistics, I believe that you're very poorly informed. When it comes to selecting ammo, ignorance is never bliss. [Which is not meant to imply that I think you are ignorant.]

If you are shooting 9mm, the virtual abscence of any data on 147gr. rounds makes the data presented pretty much worthless for purposes of comparison. No Ranger T or Federal HST (except for one 230gr. .45 load) data was another notable oversight as these are benchmark loads for hangun ammo. I found it curious to see Glaser, Wilson Combat, Lehigh Multi-Projectile and even last generation Hydra-Shock, favored over much better current ammo choices. The author also chooses to test the same ammo in different length barrels, yet fails to share what "short barrel" or "medium barrrel" lengths were used to create his data.

When you say, "I'll take the data.", you are assuming the data you are drawing your conclusions from are accurate. In this case, the author tell us that he used ballastic gelatin, but not whether it was calibrated, or if mutliple shots were taken in each block. Looking at the Gold Dot 124gr. +P 9mm penatration recorded as 16.5" you would assume this was an over penetrating round. If you look at more scientific data, such as that which was prepared by ATK*, you would see they came up with an acceptable 11.78" of penetration. You'll also notice that ATK uses the more useful and common measurement of expansion (measured diameter) rather than the author's "expansion factor". Cr@p data = worthless conclusion.

*Cite: http://le.atk.com/pdf/GoldDotPoster.pdf

You also tell us, "I don't care about weight or velocity either." Okay, but they are relevant factors when you are considering the best load for your anticiapated needs. In this case, not caring about weight in 9mm means you have no meaningful comparison to viable (maybe better) 147gr. options. Your simplified approach to considering ammo leaves out what the bullet might have to do (go through), before you get to the "how wide and how long the hole is" part of the equation. Look at the ATK data (linked above) and you will find see how variable things become when barriers are considered.

If you're interested in more useful recommendations with no homework required, you would do well to follow Doc Roberts' advice found here: Thoughts on Service Pistols, along with Duty and Self-Defense Ammo Recommendations - M4Carbine.net Forums