Ruger LCP .380 Hornady critical defense expansion and penetration

[shortthrow50]

I carry .45 smith and wesson cheifs special in winter but i need this little guy for summer when i cant conceal the .45. was bored and figured i would go out in my barn and shoot some chicken with ruger lcp to see how well the critical defense ammo performs. Wrapped up as tightly 2 pounds of old chicken and I shot at about 10 yards. bullets continued half way through sand bag. Bullets had picture perfect expansion creating a pretty nasty wound channel. Not making any statements, like i said just bored and thought i would share. heres video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy3UY...ature=youtu.be

[TGS]

The Hornady ammo would be a good choice but their QC is a bit shoddy. I've bought two boxes of Critical Defense in 2 separate calibers, 1 year apart, and each box of 25 had problems.....mainly unseated primers and partially jacketed bullets. A quick google search should bring up plenty of other peoples' bad experiences as well.

In addition, they ended up having to send multiple batches of bullets to a specific lab for terminal ballistics testing because the rounds also had QC problems.

There's other good choices in .380 that will expand and still get 10-12" penetration in ordnance gelatin, like Federal Hydra-Shok, Remington GS, and both DoupleTap's and Buffalo Bore's Barnes SCHP, and they all have excellent QC. Given that, I'm not spending any more money on Hornady.

[pokerguy005]

The Hornady ammo would be a good choice but their QC is a bit shoddy. I've bought two boxes of Critical Defense in 2 separate calibers, 1 year apart, and each box of 25 had problems.....mainly unseated primers and partially jacketed bullets. A quick google search should bring up plenty of other peoples' bad experiences as well.

In addition, they ended up having to send multiple batches of bullets to a specific lab for terminal ballistics testing because the rounds also had QC problems.

There's other good choices in .380 that will expand and still get 10-12" penetration in ordnance gelatin, like Federal Hydra-Shok, Remington GS, and both DoupleTap's and Buffalo Bore's Barnes SCHP, and they all have excellent QC. Given that, I'm not spending any more money on Hornady.

I have shot probably 500 rounds of Hornady Critical Defense through my Ruger LCP, Kahr CM9, Glock 19 and Springfield Loaded Lightweight Champion and had zero issues with the round. Thats in .380, 9mm and .45 ACP all flawless. Of course I cant speak to the expansion and penetration...but all went BANG. I have no issue using them for for concealed carry or home defense ammo.

[shortthrow50]

The Hornady ammo would be a good choice but their QC is a bit shoddy. I've bought two boxes of Critical Defense in 2 separate calibers, 1 year apart, and each box of 25 had problems.....mainly unseated primers and partially jacketed bullets. A quick google search should bring up plenty of other peoples' bad experiences as well.

In addition, they ended up having to send multiple batches of bullets to a specific lab for terminal ballistics testing because the rounds also had QC problems.

There's other good choices in .380 that will expand and still get 10-12" penetration in ordnance gelatin, like Federal Hydra-Shok, Remington GS, and both DoupleTap's and Buffalo Bore's Barnes SCHP, and they all have excellent QC. Given that, I'm not spending any more money on Hornady.

i appreciate the feed back. i mean that too. But i shoot alot of hornady out of various guns. the reason why is becuase I have never had any performance issues at all of any sort. I have to stick with a brand that has never let me down personally. The only recalls i know of right now with hornady is a bad batch of .500sw

[mrnyman]

Before i read the warning from Magsafe i fired some Magsafes in my LCP when i just got it, i fired it into 1 gallon jugs full of water at about 10ft away , well the magsafes blew up the jugs like a bomb went off in them but at the bottom of the jugs i would find the jackets all blew into bits and pieces, they were accurate too , but since i read the warning from Magsafe not to shoot their ammo from a Keltec, i since switched to Winchester silvertips, they are right on the money , accurate and expands well . So that is what i i now carry in my LCP.

[Valorius]

Hornady Critical defense in .380 doesn't even get 10" penetration in bare gel tests does it? From a Ruger LCP's short 2.7" barrel i doubt this round will even hit 900 fps. Probably more like 850fps. And waaaaay under 200fpe of energy. Very unimpressive performance IMO.

I do know that it's unbonded bullet is not tested against barriers of any kind. Zero consideration is placed on that.

To me the Barnes Solid Copper HP is by far the best bullet in the market right now for .380, and Hornady doesn't load those.

I use Buffalo Barnes .380+P 80gr SCHP at 1125+ fps from a Ruger LCP. It is FAR more powerful than the critical defense load, and it will get over 11" penetration in gel.

And it's a barrier blind load too.

.380 Critical Defense is mediocre performing standard pressure ammo, at best. When given it's inflated price tag, i see absolutely zero reason whatsoever why anyone would buy it....besides the fancy name.

According to Steve Johnson, Hornady Marketing Communications Manager, the Critical Defense line of handgun ammunition: "...is not designed to shoot through glass, is not designed to shoot through a car door, and is not designed to shoot through a wall. "

Based on that, it was also not designed to be bought by me.

[abner13]

Shooting some old chickens probably give a more realistic picture of what to expect. I've never put much stock into expanded bullets shot into gelatin. Always thought they best served the advertising department. Gelatin is consistant throughtout and always shot at square on. Real life shootungs are rarely square on and the human body is not consistant in it density and resistance. Ya got skin , fat , fluids , muscle , flesh , bone , cartlidge , sinew and organs of varying toughness.

[Valorius]

I saw a test that tried to show what you're saying. It shot a .380 critical defense through a set of beef ribs, then into a block of gel behind it.

The bullet penetrated just 1.5" of gel after being shot through the rack of ribs.

Very mediocre performance IMO.

[Grumpa72]

So, if you are attacked by a REALLY skinny guy (with a chest no wider than your chicken), wrapped in duct tape, we can assume that he will be well ventilated!

Good post.

[TGS]

First, I want to write that I know the OP didn't intend for this simple, fun event to be taken as legitimate testing of a bullets effectiveness. However, there's some things with the following comments I feel need to be addressed.

I've never put much stock into expanded bullets shot into gelatin. Always thought they best served the advertising department.

Ordnance gelatin testing was not developed by manufacturers to market their product.

It was developed by independent science labs starting in the 1960's. It really came to life with the IWBA teamed up alongside the FBI to start figuring out what works, because what they thought should work before kept not working. The 1986 FBI Miami shootout was a big impetus for this to happen.

Shooting some old chickens probably give a more realistic picture of what to expect.Gelatin is consistant throughtout and always shot at square on. Real life shootungs are rarely square on and the human body is not consistant in it density and resistance. Ya got skin , fat , fluids , muscle , flesh , bone , cartlidge , sinew and organs of varying toughness.

Shooting chicken breasts is no more accurate. Most of that stuff you mentioned isn't present in a slice of chicken breast, either.

Also, ordnance gelatin isn't suppose to be a direct comparison to shooting a human. What it does do as a tissue simulation, however, is take into account all the different tissues you'll find in the human body and present a medium of them. So it has correlation, but getting 12" in get doesn't necessarily mean the bullet will get 12" in human flesh. That is not the point of the test. Most people don't understand this.

The minimum of 12" that the IWBA came up with isn't just a random number. It's a number that reflects what you said, that in most shootings the shot is rarely straight on; there's usually an arm in front, or the bullet is entering at an angle. The 12" minimum refers to meeting these dynamics. 10" would probably work and is considered marginal by the IWBA, but 12" assures that the bullet will penetrate deep enough to reach the vitals in most situations of imperfect shootings.

For some odd reason, since 1987, the methodologies used by the IWBA and FBI for developing bullets performance have played out pretty well and are supported by OIS data. People dedicate their life to this stuff, as a full time job, and have the education and experience needed to do so. If any Joe Blow with zero background, training, education or experience with terminal ballistics thinks they can do better than the eminently qualified professionals who've developed this stuff, simply because they don't want to believe them and write them off, well.......okay. I've got some awesome oceanfront property in AZ for that person. Just know that virtually ALL bullet development since the late 80's has been in reaction to the IWBA standards....because it's legit, and works.

If anyone would like to read more:

IWBA Testing Protocol

A Complete Run-down on Ballistic Gel

Dr. Robert's Terminal Ballistic corner on M4carbine.net: This is an excellent resource of various info on terminal ballistics from one of the members of the IWBA, and is also a firearms and tactics instructor for his county's SWAT team (he's a reserve LEO). We're lucky that he's so active with the civilian shooting community.