Or, if you want acceptable terminal performance for self defense where intermediate barriers are not a concern, and you would also like using it for regular range/target shooting use with pretty darn good accuracy, then Black Hills mk262 (5.56 77gr SMK) or one of its clones that is less expensive and more available would be a good choice, such as the IMI Razor Core 77gr SMK
So a bullet penetrating 7" and 10" into your chest with rapid expansion won’t kill you.
Some of you are missing the whole point of it not over penetrating.
A bullet that penetrates 7" or 10" into ballistics gel is insufficient penetration if your goal is to select ammunition that penetrates deep enough to reach vital organs in real world situations and reliably stop an attacker.
Pardon for offtopic, are you aware of the email Steve Hornady sent to his employees in 2021? Nothing to do with product quality, it is excellent, but you may want to look it up before you open your wallet to buy the product.
So here is where I see a benefit to different ammunition in the same magazine. Load the top half of the magazine with the 7” penetration ammunition. If it doesn’t stop the threat for whatever reason, the following rounds could be ones that penetrate further.
For some reason, people on this forum caution against the practice. To me it seems logical but I’m not a lawyer…
Anything that penetrates enough to reliably stop an attacker will go through multiple interior walls. Pistol bullets included. Shotgun buckshot included.
And there is not always a direct correlation between penetration in ballistics gel or in an attacker, and penetration through walls while remaining dangerous on the other side.
One of the great things about a 5.56/.223 is that the light, fast bullet dumps energy and loses momentum quickly, yawing and tumbling and breaking up, when it strikes barriers. This is one thing that makes .223 such a good choice for home defense or SWAT team urban use alike
I don’t personally see the logic in intentionally loading ammo you know is a poor choice at stopping an attacker under the theory that you’ll be able to fire 10-15 rounds of rifle ammo before you really need to stop them
Also, to see the whole picture, we would need to see drywall penetration tests of the 7/10" ballistic gel penetration options…with gel on the other side to see how dangerous it was back there…vs say the 77gr OTM or the Federal Fusion in the same dynamic…and see what the difference in damage to an ‘innocent bystander’ on the other side of the wall was.
And just thinking out loud…how many cases do any of us here know about where a justified home defense shoot over penetrated a wall and injured someone on the other side, vs how many justified home defense gun uses can we dredge up?
My understanding of this is the Vmax is a varmit/small game ammo. Used to hunt coyote as an example, the Vmax hits with a lot of velocity and the bullet will fragment inside the animal, causing lots of bleeding with numerous, small wound channels.
The Critical Defense round is designed to penetrate clothing and limit expansion until it hits soft tissue. It is also designed to resist over penatration, thus making it a bit safer to fire indoors. This is also why this round has less velocity.
To me, the two are designed to acomplish much different tasks. A Vmax would likely be less effective than the Critical Defense for home defense, especially if the intruder was wearing heavy winter clothing. This is open to much interpretation of course. I like the Critical Defense line and am concerned about the tested lack of penetration.