Are Double Tap Velocities Exaggerated?

Not open for further replies.


Dec 24, 2002
I was prepared to purchase some Double Tap 125gr JHP for my M&P40c with Storm Lake .357 Sig barrel (a caliber I don't plan to load for in the near future). I am looking for a speedy load for hiking with the family and would like to put this Storm Lake barrel to use.

As always, I did some precursory research on the item as I usually do before placing an order.
I found some disturbing reports of chronograph results from consumers that were nearly 200 fps below the advertised velocities in some cases. Some additional research lead me to a series of YouTube videos from a fellow that goes by the name "drsjr1969" who fires various 10mm loads through his G20 and videos the chronograph results shot for shot.

He tests several loads and just about all are shooting slower than advertised, though what really concerns me is that the Double Tap box indicates the velocities listed are from a 4.6" barrel. Isn't that the same length as a G20?

155gr JHP Double Tap ammunition that was advertised on the box as having 1475 FPS from a Glock 20 actually yielded 1282 FPS from this pistol, while the 165gr DT Golden Saber load was listed as 1425 FPS from the G20 was actually chrono'ed at 1240 FPS.

So, I continued shopping and found Buffalo Bore also offers a "Heavy, low flash" .357 Sig load listing a 125gr JHP at 1450 FPS.
This drsjr1969 also tested Buffalo Bore and the 10mm he tested of their was advertised as a 180gr JHP at 1350 FPS and the actual velocity he recorded averaged out (from 5 rounds) to 1327 FPS.

I now plan on purchasing my .357 Sig "trail/hiking" ammunition from Buffalo Bore.

Here's my question: Are the substantial discrepancies in advertised and actual velocities a known issue with Double Tap or is there something else going on here?

Here's the link to one of the videos I am referring to, though he has many others: Sending various 10mm loads over chrono
I've heard much of the same reports. My personal experiance mirrors them. I've chronoed their 124+p 9mm and 125+p 38 loads the 9mm was 75-100fps slow. The 38 load was really slow they claim 1100 and 3 of the 5 I chronoed were under 900 from a 4" gun that's usually a ringer that gives good velocity.

Tried a box of their .45, it fed nice, shot good groups and was consistently 135-150fps shy of their listed numbers, even out of a full sized 1911 and a CZ97. Let's just say they must have the tightest barrels known to man in their test gun.

Switched to Winchester PDX1 in .45 and kept on trucking with Buffalo Bore .38 +p in my 19 and 642.

Buffalo Bore seems to be able to eek the absolute max out of a revolver round, much more-so than their semi-auto fodder, but at least their numbers have been low-balled every time I've run their stuff over a chronograph.
Yes. DT's velocities are hyped. This has been known for several years and their core customers that have been there since they hit the forums are now leaving them because of it.

DT started off doing very well but is now a joke. The bullet switching issue was the biggest black eye. Dozens of forum guys swore them off after that stunt.

What McNett (founder/owner of DT) needs to do is shrink the catalog, market real numbers, focus on core products.
It's funny how many videos are out there comparing the ammo velocity of Double Taps and other manufacturers. Some of those numbers are off a bit, but Double Tap takes the crown from being the biggest Liers.

Yet I still see on forums where shooters talking about taking their 10mm "Double Tap 135gr @ 1300fps" out as a back up round. I see Double Taps' 10mm as a long and expensive .40 caliber. After all, there is hardly no difference in performance between the two, unless you compare Double Taps' 10mm to Double Taps' .40s&w.
Velocity sells ammo.

And the add copy guys at every ammo company know that very well!

You can't trust none of them as far as you can bowl them.
That's what inexpensive chronographs are for.

Or, just don't worry about it in the first place.
100 FPS one way or the other isn't going to make one bit of difference anyway if you put the bullets where they need to go.

IMO: You would be better off with just about any brand SD ammo you can afford to shoot a lot of in practice.
Not $1.00 a pop speciality ammo you can't afford to shoot.

I was wondering why there was such a wide discrepency of advertised velocity between DT and BB offerings... and Georgia Arms. Now I know. I won't be buying any DT.
My chronograph tests of DT ammo has all been disappointing. By the same token the two BB loads I've run through the Sky Screens were almost exactly spot on the advertised velocity. YMMV!

Of course there are going to be some discrepencies in bullet velocity compared to manufacturer's claims whether the numbers are up or down from their claim.

It's just that Double Taps' numbers are always on the "Down" side of the spectrum by about 100fps.

100 FPS one way or the other isn't going to make one bit of difference anyway if you put the bullets where they need to go.

If it "isn't going to make one bit of difference", then print the correct numbers on the box and see how well they sell.

Sorry I'm so Anti Double Tap. I just hate companies that lie to customers for their business.
The only DT loads that were close (~50fps) to their claimed velocity are their .357 loadings (125, 158 and 180gr) and their old 165gr .40 S&W Gold Dot. Their .40 S&W 200gr load and .38+P loads were VERY disappointing.

One company that deserves a pat on the back for accurately stating their velocities is Mastercast. I have shot almost every one of the calibers and bullet type/weights they offer and their velocity was either spot on or better than advertised.
Last edited:
The DT 10 mm and .44 mag ammo I bought in 2007 yielded measured velocities within 40 fps of advertised velocities. Small variation in velocity from shot to shot, use of low flash powder, 100% reliable and unsurpassed in accuracy. I haven't purchased any ammo from DT lately.

Most of the complaints I have read concern current 10 mm DT loads. I have observed tests of 9 mm and .40 S&W DT ammo made in 2011 which came within 30 fps of advertised figures.

For SD use, I think RCModel is correct in saying the performance of current DT ammo is adequate. IMO, maximum velocity 10 mm loads are useful for hunting and defense against large animals, but offer no real advantages over loads with 100 to 200 fps lower velocities in most SD situations. The .40 S&W has the reputation of being effective in most SD situations. The measured velocities which current DT 10mm ammo actually delivers is about 150 to 200 fps faster than .40 S&W loads and about 100 to 200 FPS slower than DT advertised velocities. Current DT 10 mm ammo should give a worthwhile increase in velocity over .40 S&W loads which will probably result in increased expansion compared to .40 S&W, accompanied with a fairly small increase in recoil and penetration. For SD use, the moderate velocity level of current 10 mm DT ammo is probably better (for most shooters in most situations) than the overhyped advertised maximum velocities would be.

It has long been fairly common for factory ammo from the major US ammo makers to give velocities which are around 30 to 60 fps lower than advertised velocities from test barrels. Well informed shooters know that velocities for all brands of ammunition can vary quite a bit from one gun to the next.

But the extreme under performance of current DT 10 mm ammo goes way beyond the normal variations most shooters experience with most factory ammo. DT is flushing their previously well earned reputation down the toilet. They should revise their advertised velocities pronto.
Last edited:
Several reasons that advertised velocities only rarely reflect what happens in the real world with real guns...not the least of which being that no two guns will deliver the same performance with a given cartridge.

Mostly, I think, it's because the ammo producers know that the greater percentage of shooters place too much store in velocity and energy figures....or "Paper Ballistics" as it's come to be known.

I once knew a guy who read Marshal and Sanow's book, and decided that the .357 125 JHP was the way to fly. He went through several hundreds of dollars in ammunition before he found a lot of Federal that clocked 1450 fps from his Model advertised...while the rest of the also-rans only managed a piddling average of 1390-1410... and that just wouldn't do. Even at that, he fretted over the ones in the "good" lot that were on the low end of the average...and how high the odds were that his carry gun contained one or more of those "weak" rounds.

Much ado por nada, methinks.
The 10mm Auto I bought a couple of years ago clocked almost exactly to the published velocities in both my Glock 20 and S&W 1006. But, things change and I've heard/read that's no longer the case.
1911... The reason "I" won't buy DT isn't because of velocity figures alone. :) It's because I won't support companies with unscrupulous tactics such as false advertising which treat consumers like fools. To add insult to injury, or rather vice versa, they charge more for their product than honest companies such as BB and GA. I'll not give DT one thin dime... not ever. I've bought from GA and will probably buy from BB.
Double Tap advertises their 10mm 200 gr ammo at 1300 fps. My chronograph says 1315. That is close enough for me.

Be careful about posted velocities from other folks guns. I've more experience with rifles than handguns but have seen 2 different rifles with barrels of equal length show 100 fps difference with ammo fired from the same box. Seen 20" barrels from 1 gun shoot faster than 22" barrels from another gun while shooting the same ammo. I'm sure handgun velocities can vary quite a bit as well.

Just because someone's gun does not shoot at published velocities does not necessarily mean there is a problem with the ammo. All guns will show different velocities.
it would seem that when DT first came out with their 10mm ammo and so forth they put out the top speeds that they claimed.

however, since they got their foot in the door, it seems that after a few years they have reduced the velocity of their ammo (to save money?) but still sell it as the higher end stuff.

in 10mm the only real players are Buffalo Bore and Swamp Fox, everything else is mid powered or less.
DT also switched bullets without notifying their customers they were paying for Gold Dots but getting Montana Golds. Defense bullet swapped out for a competition bullet. That was the final straw for many DT customers that have been supporting them from day 1.
1911Tuner said:
several reasons that advertised velocities only rarely reflect what happens in the real world with real guns...not the least of which being that no two guns will deliver the same performance with a given cartridge.

That's a completely different issue than double tap falling 200-300 hundred fps short of it's advertised velocities.
Intercooler told me I was being mentioned here so I thought I'd read what was going on and say "Hi".

As far as my testing is concerned I believe it is the most accurate ammo to ammo comparison you will find simply because all were tested from the same stock Glock 20 and chronograph.
The argument that one gun shoots different fps than another doesn't matter since all my recorded velocities came from the same barrel.
So, when one ammo maker hits its mark and another doesn't there is no blaming of the gun or chronograph.
Double Tap advertises their 10mm 200 gr ammo at 1300 fps. My chronograph says 1315. That is close enough for me.

Just because someone's gun does not shoot at published velocities does not necessarily mean there is a problem with the ammo. All guns will show different velocities.

There are videos out there (just videos, so believe them if you will) where the shooter measures velocity of many different manufacturers ammo using the same chrono. If that chrono is off on the conservative side, then that is the case with all ammo tested.

If your test shows DT claims to be true, would your chrono also show BB and SF ammo being 100 - 200fps faster then their claim?
Videos of several brands shot over the same chronograph from the same gun in same trip to the range clear things up pretty well. I haven't read of a rebuttal or explanation from Mike McNett about what people are seeing v.s. how his boxes are labeled. If anyone has read his take on this, please provide a link.

Some apparently lie directly, others won't specify what platform was used to achieve specified speeds. I would like to know the test platforms Winchester and Reed Ammo use to get their numbers.

On the other hand, Buffalo Bore's website states they spec their 10mm ammo with a 5" barreled 1911. Yet, results from a Glock 20 are close. So BB is conservative when it comes to labeling speeds on boxes.

Swampfox Ammo posts chronograph videos of the products they sell. That's a good way to present your ammo.
Not open for further replies.