Well, a came away with a few observations/lessons.
1) The Hornady Critical Defense seemed to dump it's energy more quickly upon impact. It did not penetrate quite as deep, but I would expect that, because it expended it's energy quicker than the Winchester.
2) The Hornady Critical Defense expanded more uniformly, and actually "pealed back" more so than the Winchester.
3) The cavity on the Federal Hyda-Shok clogged, and did not expand. A friend of mine fired it, and he missed low, so it penetrated the drum. It proved that hollow points do not perform as they should, when the cavity becomes clogged. I actually am going to do the same test with the Hornady Critical Defense, as the polymer insert is supposed to stop this from happening.
4) Bullet weight and barrel length is not as much of a factor as many claim. Now, I know that both bullets were not the same construction, different powder, etc. Hornady claims that the Critical Defense is designed for short barrel pistols.
I know this was not a "scientific test". I know that there are many more factors when it comes to how bullets perform when used in self defense. I still learned a lot from the test, and look forward to doing more in the future. I do however, feel confident using both rounds in my self defense handguns. We have more testing planned for the future.
That is consistent penetration with all the other tests I've seen using milk jugs. 147gr gets into 4th jug, and 124gr stops in 3rd jug. I've not seen any size HST that failed to mushroom perfectly in milk jugs though.
Hey I recognize that pile of dirt. Always cool to see exploding milk jugs.
Hydra-Shok was kind of notoriousl for clogging and not expanding. Good to see the Critical Defense doing as it should. I think Critical Defense is a fine load for a lot of the small to mid sized personal defense guns on the market right now.
Thanks for a very nice presentation. I recently switched from Hydra-Shok to Critical Defense. Seeing this kind of testing increases my confidence in the decision.