Skip to comments.AMMO TEST: Hornady Critical Duty .45 ACP +P 220 gr JHP (video only)
Posted on 07/11/2013 1:55:56 PM PDT by servo1969
Review and test of the .45 ACP +P Hornady Critical Duty 220 gr JHP. I'm using the SIM-TEST block (plus 4 layers of denim), and shooting both an XDS 3.3 and Colt 1911 Government for chronograph velocities and the test shots. The SIM-TEST block is calibrated to be comparable with 10% ordinance gel.
Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tnoutdoors9
CAMERA: Sony HDR-PJ650, 60p, 28 mbps, 1920 x 1080 HD. RENDERING: Sony Vegas Pro 12, MP4, 60p, 32 bit, 20 mbps.
Tnoutdoors9 is one of my favorite youtube gunners. Watch his .30 carbine @ 300 yards video sometime...pretty impressive stuff. He also appears to be a 10mm fan which resonates with me...
I have two mags of Hornady and two of Winchester JXP230grn
heh ... for my P220s I have opted for large quantities of adequate (known to load and fire every time) ammo, mostly ball, over fewer rounds I am loathe to even fire on the range due to cost.
I get it why these loads and bullets are ‘better,’ just not happy to pony up for them.
FYI, anyone reading should probably prefer “Critical Defense” by hornady, as the “Duty” ammo isn’t designed for the typical needs of concealed carry (expansion at limited velocities in short barrelled guns).
I carry “Critical Defense” daily.
Same here. Winchester white box, and I shoot them like I’m spending pre’64 Kennedy halves.
Carbine? /you mean ... an M-1 Carbine? at 300 yards?
That’s exactly what I mean. Open sights, too!
300 yards with an M-1 is doable. If it’s a Garand, that is. With the War Baby is truly impressive.
One of my friends (cough) has a few boxes of .45 Black Talons.
Wonder how they stack up vs. CD hollow points?
After sighting in the irons at 100 on my FN SCAR-17, I bumped the BDC dial to 300 and fired a careful 5 shot group at the 300 yard line, from a bench, using a bipod. I was shocked to find a 3.5" group downrange with only MagTech M80 Ball ammo !
And of course you've done it multiple times with a WWII surplus M1 Carbine, since that's what we're talking about here.
My comment was intended to help educate the younger red-dot and expensive scope crowd who don't know how good irons can be. No offense intended.
That said, an M1 Carbine is neither of the above, and even though the stock GI irons are graduated out to 300, I would wager that the vast majority of people who've ever tried one at that distance would be impressed with the results of the video in question...which actually kind of reinforces your point about irons being adequate when somebody knows what they're doing, and in this case, he certainly does. Your analogy to an AK is not a bad one considering the inherent accuracy of the two designs (I might even give the M1 an edge), but it's also probably worth considering that with a 100 yard zero, at 300 yards, the drop of a .30 Carbine round (~48") is almost exactly double that of a 7.62x39 (~24").
That modernized AK with an aluminum C-More is my favorite rifle. Originally I just got it to learn the platform while shooting 3-gun matches.
I have a lot more trigger time with the M1 Carbine than the Kalashnikov family, but would submit that they both vary widely in production quality from cobbled together parts kits to heavily 'smithed and accurized examples. Most collectors of the WWII surps will extol the virtues of one maker over another, but even if you can find an "all original" chances are your looking at least a few parts that came from different contractors and were slapped together at the factory that stamped it. I've either owned, fired or at least known of both dogs and diamonds from most of the WWII manufacturers. A lot of the post-war civilian production versions were garbage. Right now, I only own two - a WWII Inland and a recent Auto-Ord which I've tricked out. The inland will generally give me 3-4" at 100 yards, but the bore is somewhat worn. The Auto-Ord (which I have a Sig red dot on) will, with Prvi Partizan ammo, which it seems to prefer, generally get me right around 2" at 100 yards a little under on a good day, a little over on bad one - which I could most likely tighten up with another sight as the Sig has a 4 mil dot.
That last pattern in the video at 300 yd was mighty good, although it was with a solid bench rest rather than conventional prone position. I think probably there was a pretty good drop at that distance.
That was a pretty nice looking piece in the video. I really liked the dark oiled color of the wood if that Inland carbine. Someone has taken good care of it. I sold my own Carbine last year--desperate for cash. Wish I hadn't, but . . .
(1) You'll note that the rear sight, as seen by pausing the video, is the well-made original sight, not the cheap bent-metal version issued later on. Maybe the later ones were also rougher than this Inland one?
(2) Taking particular note, you will see that the rear site had to be drifted way to the left to make up for either a bent barrel, or a receiver not accurately threaded to line up the axis of the bore with the axis of the bolt. With the rear sight centered, it would sight in way to the right. My carbine was like that, too.
(3) With the sight path set in the midst of a heavy woods, there probably would be much less cross-breeze. IMHO, from old times the carbine was not as accurate in gusting winds as the M1 Rifle. (Later on, as a rifleman I qualified Expert with it also. It shot better in the open range than the carbine.) Perhaps this factor was helpful in getting a good pattern?
(4) The carbine was a much better and cheaper weapon than the .45 pistol for truck drivers, officers, cooks, rear echelon clerks, etc. with not enough time to train recruits in the niceties of pistol shooting. Yet even mortar and MG gunners still needed both hands to carry and set up crew-served weapons, so they were armed with the 1911A1 and protected by riflemen. Training for marksmanship with the carbine was pretty much the same as for the rifle or BAR, so one could be sent to the line with enough skill for a real weapon.