Double Taps still phony?

[intercooler]

Well Peter lets focus on one gun yes? Make it your test mule and if that dt goes low in every bullet type but all the others test out fine. There's your sign!

 

[Feanor]

I carry Buffalo Bore's 180gr hardcast GC heavy .357 magnum load in a 3" S&W 686, this revolver is what I rely on in the bush, the 180 BB GC routinely chronos right at the 1300fps level(about 700 fpe)on my Pach II. This is exactly what BB claims it to be.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I did test DT in my 10mm's and it ran +/- what was advertised. It just depended on if I shot it out of the 610, my Heavyweight monolith or the EAA Witness. Good stuff and it worked out of my guns on my chrono.

How has it worked for your guns over your chrono?

 

[intercooler]

It's all been posted here already. My 10mm and .357 data plus just go to Midway.com and look at all the reviews for DoubleTap ammo. Tons of info there.

 

[ironhead7544]

Speer did a test using six identical 6 inch .357 Magnum revolvers. Speeds varied 200 fps with some loads.
Also, you can get a bad box from any maker.

 

[intercooler]

Revolvers are a little different. I still can't get his numbers in a revolver! I'm still searching for a Chrony video of it making claims

 

[intercooler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nNXtvBhneM

.38 Super

 

[Eric's Big Head]

Why would you even care? If not, are you going to make a purchase? You've made it perfectly clear throughout this thread what you think of them and what you think of those that do like them. I've learned one thing for sure in this thread. Your handle seems to fit you to a tee.

I was interested in a particular round that only Double Tap produces currently.

I'm not bashing Double Tap since they already had (still) a bad reputation earned by cheating numbers, I was curious to whether they changed and did the right thing make making the products live up to their name or change the labeling to match consumers' tests OR they still hype up their numbers?

What I am bashing now is the nonsence used to defend one round but that same excuse does not seem to be effecting many other competitors' products thesame way.

It's like saying CAR A and CAR B both have a 150mph top speed. Cunsumers test show CAR A tops out at 120mph and CAR B tops out at 155mph when both cars are tested side-by-side at the same time.
Some of your defences sound like :

CAR A may have been traveling uphill
both cars are tested side-by-side at the same time
Wind plays a factor
both cars are tested side-by-side at the same time
barometric pressure
both cars are tested side-by-side at the same time
Humidity
both cars are tested side-by-side at the same time
One barrel is different from another barel (sorry, not barrel, I meant test track)
both cars are tested side-by-side at the same time

 

[TimboKhan]

Honestly, this is an issue that I don't care about, because velocity in and of itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me. 1500 fps or 1100 fps aren't going to decide a gunfight, or more as is more likely, punch paper any differently. I confess I don't know the minimum velocity it takes a .45 or a 9mm to punch through a bad guy convincingly, but I suspect it is much lower than any of the "standard" velocities listed. Also, bullet design means more to me than speed, which is why I routinely carry hydra-shoks. I know there are "better" bullets out there, but hydra-shoks are a proven design that work so I use them.

What I do care about is consistency. I don't care if something is 200 fps slower as long as it is consistently 200 fps slower. Again, I load hydrashoks because I am rarely more than 50 fps +/- off from box to box, and that isn't enough to get my panties in a wad. 200 fps over or under is.

With all that being said, I do feel like if a particular brand of ammo advertises a particular velocity, then that should be a relatively accurate and consistent metric. Relative being maybe 100 fps either way. It really has more to do with being able to deliver on claims to me, so while in many ways this argument means nothing to me, the basic tenet of getting what your paying for does ring a bell with me.

 

[intercooler]

That's where at least in this case you don't really want your 10mm to be watered to .40... just shoot the .40 then. Same for someone loading a +P and you are paying for that designation only to have it be no better or stronger than regular.

 

[Eric's Big Head]

Jmr40? Brickeye?

Where'd you guys go?

 

[ATLDave]

I have no dog in this fight and no independent knowledge, but it sounds to me as if DT's issues may be inconsistency. Some report good chrono results, others bad results. For those reporting bad results, comparisons with other brands would seem to eliminate "slow barrels" or atmospheric conditions or chrono calibrations as issues. It looks as though DT has released some batches that are below spec in terms of velocity, and some that are in/near/on spec. If that were the case, the good news would be that it does not indicate that DT are intentionally misleading people with their published numbers; the bad news would be that they appear to have some QC issues. At least that's what I would think based on the information in this thread, assuming that all THR'ers are being honest.

 

[wild cat mccane]

You are still consistently ignoring that the hollow point bullet design is more important than feet per second...in a HOLLOW POINT.

You haven't even addressed or shown any proof that you know anything about the needed FPS to successfully activate each make of hollow point used in the different bullet companies you are supporting and railing against.

Quite frankly, if a Gold Dot opens up and expands to .7" with only 900 fps, but a Buffalo Bore bullet goes 1300 fps with a generic bullet...I still don't care if it goes 1300 fps because you left out that generic bullets don't expand well under any fps.

 

[Snowdog]

This is the reason I held off on the purchase of 200gr SWC .40S&W that I planned to employ in my Steyr M40 for trail use. The numbers looked great, but with a little research I found many complaints from those that actually ran them over their chronographs.

Every single report I could find where the DT advertised velocities were compared to the numbers from personal chronographs, the numbers were way low. I figured a couple bad lots made it out the doors. I guess this is a problem with the 10mm too.

 

[Eric's Big Head]

You are still consistently ignoring that the hollow point bullet design is more important than feet per second...in a HOLLOW POINT.

Then Double tap should state that on their package.

Instead of Double Tap's 155 gr that are labeled with a 1400fps,
It should be labeled Double Tap's 155 gr @ 1150fps with superior hollow points

I'm not argueing whether their choice of hollow points are good or bad. You're just bringing up something off topic.

 

[intercooler]

Wild I was still waiting for your data


I don't care to reinvent the wheel. Tons of videos on YouTube of DT HP's being tested in wax, gel, metal, dirt, etc... None of the packaging gives expansion data. It does however mention muzzle velocity and energy which doesn't meet up.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Wait. Excuse me? you were waiting for my data?

You guys are worrying about advertised FPS as if FPS is important. You are already in the premium self defense range. FPS at this point is the mosquito bite of a difference.

That may sound outrages but you are dickering over an inter-quartile range spread of 100fps in the good self defense range.

That's great for you, but you are missing that a Gold Dot is going to perform superior in that lower FPS range than a generic hollow point in the higher FPS range.

Like talking to a dumb wall.

 

[intercooler]

Why yes of course! Please lay on us your vast hollow point data. We got the FPS/Energy covered.

Gold Dot =?
Barnes =?
Nosler =?
XTP =?

Got you started on a list there. Please fill in with expansion numbers, media and retained weights. Thanks for the info!

 

[wild cat mccane]

I asked you for this, since in a HOLLOW POINT this is all that matters.

Dear lord, you just stole my point and are acting like your original post has relevancy.

Are they wrong on their advertisement? Possibly. Does this make their HOLLOW POINT inferior? Not sufficient. You haven't proved they preform less as a HOLLOW POINT than say Buffalo Boar that may not have lied on FPS but does perform worse with a generic HOLLOW POINT bullet.

Have you done this? NO.

Essentially what you meant to/should have been testing all along is a gel expansion test.

 

[intercooler]

That wasn't what this thread and intent was. Who has the most premium hollow point. It was about the claims and you got off on DT HP being supreme. Get back on topic man!

As this thread pertains it isn't about HP. Just drop that portion. It could be about Hard Cast for all purposes. Many places use the same HP's and get the numbers so let that go.

 

[Eric's Big Head]

You guys are worrying about advertised FPS as if FPS is important. You are already in the premium self defense range. FPS at this point is the mosquito bite of a difference

No sir, YOU keep straying off topic. I started this thread to see if the numbers that Double Tap prints on their package is STILL exagerated or not.

If FPS does not matter so much, Double Tap should have no issue lowering their printed numbers the realm of reality. Seriously? 155gr at 1400 fps when tests rates it at 1150 fps?!?!

 

[wild cat mccane]

But if the DT is combined with a superior bullet than those with a 300 increase in FPS over the DT, is the faster bullet always better?

No.

So I agree they could be off, though your test questions a statistical population sample like no tomorrow.

The point is you are claiming the Double Tap bullet is less of a bullet. No. They FPS may be off, but the intended effect can still be GREATER than that of a faster moving bullet.

And then we had the claim that DT did a bullet switcharoo first. No. That was Buffalo Bore. They don't tell you this other than a picture and still have the same data up from the Gold Dots.

 

[intercooler]

Cliff Notes: Shuck and Jive LOL

Move on to the real life claimed ammos!

 

[Eric's Big Head]

But if the DT is combined with a superior bullet than those with a 300 increase in FPS over the DT, is the faster bullet always better?

No.

So I agree they could be off

That's all that matter in this thread. That fact that Double Tap are still lying to their customers about their pruduct or not.

If you want to focus on the bullet type, start your own thread.

 

[Loosedhorse]

go to Midway.com and look at all the reviews for DoubleTap ammo. Tons of info there.

Midway lists DTs 135 10mm as 4.5/5 stars. The two guys who didn't like it didn't like the bulged cases (1 review) and primers unseating (1 review ), which no one else experienced (and no one here has mentioned)--neither sounds like a problem of under-powered ammo, though.

The only chrono mentioned was 1542 for 5 shots (1600 claimed). Seems within gun differences.

As for chronos, can also depend on the set up. First screen too close can make the numbers look bad.