Double Tap Velocity (Please read carefully before responding)

W

Webleymkv

New member
I've recently read conflicting reports on various forums about Double Tap's advertised vs. actual velocities. Opinions seem to be split on the issue. Now, I've explained before, particularly in S&W lock threads, why I don't consider forum posts in-and-of themselves to be entirely dependable sources of information. Because of this, I've been searching for other information about DT's velocities with little luck. Here's what I've found so far:

I found a YouTube video where it was supposedly shown that DT's .38 Super 115grn Barnes XPB loading did not live up to its advertised velocity. Unfortunately, the way the video was shot would make it rather easy to fake the chronograph results should the maker so desire. Also, the person who made the video had only made two YouTube videos and both were criticizing the same DT loading. This leads me to believe that the maker of the video might have an axe to grind with DT and therefore I cannot assume that his videos are accurate and/or truthful.

I found a Gunblast article about a Glock 20 in which DT ammo was chronographed. The velocities reported in the article were very similar to those claimed by DT (less than 50fps different).

Another Gunblast article reviewed a S&W 610 revolver. DT's velocities there were significantly slower than advertised, but the difference in platform (DT tests with Glocks) could conceivably account for the descrepancies (polygonal vs. cut rifling and lack vs. presence of a barrel-to-cylinder gap). Because of these differences, I can't really count this article as a good comparison tool.

Finally, I found a review from Guns Magazine on a S&W 629 Stealth Hunter. In this review, DT's velocities did not meet those advertised, but ammunition from Buffalo Bore and Speer didn't meet their advertised velocities either. This leads me to believe that the discrepancies in this article are probably caused by either the gun or testing setup.

Now, Buffalo Bore advertises similar velocities in several caliber and I don't seem to see the same complaints about them. It seems to me that if Buffalo Bore can achieve such velocities, there really isn't any reason that Double Tap couldn't do the same thing.

My question is this: does anyone have any verifiable information about Double Taps actual velocities as opposed to those they advertise? What I mean by verifiable information is that from a source with a real name who could be held accountable for his or her claims rather than some anonymous person who goes by a handle on an internet forum or YouTube. What I'm looking for here are sources like articles from well-known writers or official ammunition tests from well-known organizations other than Double Tap like IWBA.
 
Get a chrono and test it yourself. You might find that playing with your chrono is even more fun than playing with your gun. :)
 
My question is this: does anyone have any verifiable information about Double Taps actual velocities as opposed to those they advertise? What I mean by verifiable information is that from a source with a real name who could be held accountable for his or her claims rather than some anonymous person who goes by a handle on an internet forum or YouTube. What I'm looking for here are sources like articles from well-known writers or official ammunition tests from well-known organizations other than Double Tap like IWBA.
Click to expand...

I have found plenty of reasons over the years to doubt "published" sources as well.

I trust Stephen A. Camp's results for several reasons: 1) I've known him (via correspondence) for some time; 2) His results are always close to mine; and 3) He often does comparative testing over time to minimize the variables.

Most "published" authors don't bother with even minimal controls. That is, they use only one chronograph, they don't reveal if they are testing indoors vs. outdoors, etc. I think we're kidding ourselves if we assume that someone is using the proper methods and controls absent proof.

Different lots of primers definitely affect velocity.
 
Aren't advertised velocities usually the results of tests through SAAMI test barrels? I would think it would be pretty rare that your results are the same as the manufacturer's results.
 
Aren't advertised velocities usually the results of tests through SAAMI test barrels? I would think it would be pretty rare that your results are the same as the manufacturer's results.
Click to expand...

If the manufacturer or reloading manual doesn't disclose the model used, you should probably assume that this is the case. Over the years, this practice is becoming less common, but I believe that it is still the "norm" for factory ammo.
 
Get a chrono and test it yourself.
Click to expand...

+1 to that suggestion.

That being said, I have chronographed DT ammo (in various bullet weights) in .38, .357, .40, .45 and 9mm calibers. IIRC ALL of their loadings EXCEPT for their .38 125gr gold dot loading (~2007-2008 production) were within ~50 fps of the stated velocity in handguns with similar barrel lengths.

The DT 125gr gold dot claims 1100fps in a 1.875" J frame but, it NEVER broke 1000fps...even with a 5" M10! IIRC the load average ~900fps out of my two J frames (M638 and M36).

So, is the DT .38 a lemon, I think not. At 900fps is still a pretty decent loading that is very similar to Speers "short barrel" +P .38 loading. The speer load is about $20/20 rounds whereas DT sells 50 rounds for $36:cool:

I carry remington 158gr LSWCHP's in my .38's, but I pocket carry a speed loader filled with the the DT .38's. The VERY soft lead of the LSWCHP's has a nasty habit of rubbing off on the inside of the pocket, but the jacketed DT load just shrugs off the abrasion!
 
After having shot firearms most of my life, I learned a little something last fall while working up some loads for my rifle.

I was using a powder that most said "wouldn't work", but I foiund load data for it, and had the powder already, so I tried it.

As it turned out, it was the most accurate load I've ever found for this particular rifle.

But...

One morning while testing for accuracy, I started shooting at about 8:00. The tmep was mild, but not really "hot", and I was amazed at the consistency of velocities.

The first 5 shot group measured just over 1/2", and the velocities were all within about 15 fps of each other.

I walked down to check the target and let the barrel cool, and then shot another 5 shot group. That group went into right at 1/2", and the velocities were again all within about 15 fps.

I walked down to check the target again, and let the barrel cool before shooting another group.

This time I loaded the rifle with one cartridge that was out on the bench in the sun, and the rest were from the plastic ammo box that had a lid to shield them from the sun. This group went into just under 1/2", and the velocities were all within about 15 fps exept one. That one shot was around 80 fps faster than the rest, and was the one "flier" I had in the group that wasn't touching the other bullet holes in the target.

The day was getting warmer, but I walked down and checked the target again before shooting another 5 shot group.

This group ended up with all bullet holes clustered into one ragged hole, and the velocities shown on the Chrono were all within about 8 fps of each other. Twice the velocity was duplicated, with one shot's velocity between the two.

Ok, so the strange part? Each shot string's velocities were the most consistent I've ever seen, but the collective velocities of each shot string increaded each time I shot. From the first to the last, the difference in the collective string's velocity was about 50 fps, shot over a period of about 45 minutes. In that time, the outside temperature had risen about 15 degrees, and I attribute that to the variance.

There are a lot of factors that can and do affect velocities. The best thing you can do, if you're truly concerned about it, is to take the above advice and get a chronograph. That'll show you exactly what your ammo of choice will do in your firearm.

All else is just assumption and heresay.

Daryl
 
Actual velocity will depend on many factors. Altitude being a significant one. Temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, etc. also play a part.

I do not know DT's test setup but IIRC they are at an alt. of over 4K ft. Can someone verify? This can have a significant impact on velocity dependant on how and where the measurement is taken.

Good read here.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/31.cfm
 
My question is this: does anyone have any verifiable information about Double Taps actual velocities as opposed to those they advertise? What I mean by verifiable information is that from a source with a real name who could be held accountable for his or her claims rather than some anonymous person who goes by a handle on an internet forum or YouTube. What I'm looking for here are sources like articles from well-known writers or official ammunition tests from well-known organizations other than Double Tap like IWBA.
Click to expand...

And so just how are you going to hold the person accountable?

Aren't advertised velocities usually the results of tests through SAAMI test barrels?
Click to expand...

That, and from barrels that are a specific length given the caliber. If the barrel in which the ammo is being reviewed is shorter than the test barrel standard, then velocities will be off, but likely plenty accurate for the shorter barrel.

Older, heavily used barrels likely are not going to achieve their full potential either, returning lower velocities.

As Daryl notes, there are a lot of factors that affect velocities.
 
Quote:
My question is this: does anyone have any verifiable information about Double Taps actual velocities as opposed to those they advertise? What I mean by verifiable information is that from a source with a real name who could be held accountable for his or her claims rather than some anonymous person who goes by a handle on an internet forum or YouTube. What I'm looking for here are sources like articles from well-known writers or official ammunition tests from well-known organizations other than Double Tap like IWBA.

And so just how are you going to hold the person accountable?
Click to expand...

If someone goes by their real name and gains a reputation for being full of bovine manure, they can't get away from their reputation very easily. Because of this, people are more apt to be honest when they aren't anonymous. An anonymous internet poster, however, can spew whatever equine feces he likes and if he discredits himself, he needs only move to another forum or re-register under a different handle.
 
The brother of the owner of double tap indicated to me that the velocities are real chronograph readings. He wasn't sure what equipment he used or how many rounds were shot to get an average. DT recently bought (a year or so ago) the casting equipment from a defunct commercial caster, he told me the name but I don't recall what it was, so I guess any cast loads they offer will be their bullet. I don't know if they offer any cast loads because I don't buy factory pistol bullets that aren't rimfires. Sounds like an enthusiastic firearms family and if his brother is any example I doubt his velocities are exaggerated. All of the above can be ignored if DT's owners name is not McNett.
 
If someone goes by their real name and gains a reputation for being full of bovine manure, they can't get away from their reputation very easily. Because of this, people are more apt to be honest when they aren't anonymous. An anonymous internet poster, however, can spew whatever equine feces he likes and if he discredits himself, he needs only move to another forum or re-register under a different handle.
Click to expand...
I understand where you are coming from, however I find it a little hypacritical unless your real name is webley mark the 5th.
I don't have a link to any verifyable data,But I assure you that this is the only handle I have and use it on many different boards.
the only DT loads I have personaly chronoed are the 9mm 124+p and the 38+p I had pretty much the same results with the 38s that wnycollector had.the 9mm were well short also but within fudge factor I have since switched both loadings for LE marked 50 round boxes of actual Speer ammo as they chrono about the same velocitys from my guns.
 
I can't give you specific info on the company you're asking about, but I've chronographed a bunch of factory loads over the years.

There are so many variables involved, as several have mentioned above, that anytime I find numbers around 50 FPS plus or minus of what the company claims for their velocities, I consider it close enough.
If it's within 50 or so, I don't call 'em liars. :)

Many still do their velocity testing with pressure barrels, which will almost always differ from what you'll get through your own gun.
Elevation, barrel length, temperature, and distance from muzzle to screens all affect the results and can cause readings to vary either high or low compared to what the factory figures state.

I can say Buffalo Bore has consistently come the closest to my results.

I can also say that I don't worry about anything more than "minimal" controls when I chronograph for publication. I use one chrono because I own one chrono & I'm not about to either buy another one or extend time & costs in duplicating & averaging out results between two units.
I figure, with all of the variables listed above, that my results are for limited general use in showing approximately what readers can expect with the gun & loads shown. Their own gun, location, and shooting conditions will vary, but shouldn't be wildly off.

I'm not a test lab. I run five representative test rounds though a chronograph at ten feet & I try to stay consistent at distance & altitude, but I do it year round & sometimes it may be 25 degrees, other times it may be 95 degrees out there. Could I get a better sampling by running ten rounds through the screens? Sure, but it usually won't be drastically different. Could I get a better sampling by running ten loads each through two chronographs? Sure, but it uses up more time, ammo, and money, and if I were to wait an hour & repeat the chrono testing with 20 more rounds I'd get a different set of figures anyway.
I see little point in trying to conduct chronographing under ideal lab conditions & make no pretense that I do.

The figures you see in the popular gun mags are there as general references, only apply to the test conditions during that session, and are not intended to be certifiable or to be taken as absolute gospel across the nation.

Also as noted above, I can take a given load, set it out exposed on the bench for 30 minutes & test it at 8:00 AM in January, test it again out of the same box at 3:00 PM in July after letting it sit exposed on the bench for 30 minutes, and I can raise the velocities by anywhere from 50 to 100 FPS.
I can come close to doing the same by merely switching from a 2-inch barrel to a 6-inch barrel with the same loads.

Denis
 
There are a lot of unique characteristic of individuals firearms that can affect velocity. If a given factory load gets within 50 fps of advertised velocity in the gun(s) I'm using it in, it's a win in my book. If DT ammo got close to that, the load suited me and the price was what I want to pay, I wouldn't let a few fps put me off of it.

If were talking 150-200 fps, for a rifle load intended for 300+ yard shooting, I would consider that enough to make me hunt another load. With most handguns however I place more value on selecting the proper bullet for the job. We are basically knocking holes through things and it don't take a lot of velocity to do that.

Any load that produces 950-1000 fps will shoot also flat enough for handgun-size targets inside 100 paces, assuming the shooter has sense enough to properly zero that handgun- and the initiative to become intimately familiar with the gun and load.

I don't know the owners of DT but I have known Sundles at Buffalo Bore, via the internet, for some time. His handgun ammo is pricey but he does test it in various models appropriate to each particular cartridge;. I trust his velocity reporting, with the caveat mentioned in the top paragraph of this post.

*Denis, I read your post after posting mine.... it seems we have arrived at similar conclusions.
 
I have shot DT in .357, .44 Special and .44M and, while I haven't crono'd them, have found them to be very good quality. They will give you the barrel length, they use, but those are under ideal circumstances.
I don't get caught up in factories ratings, if it is good ammo, and DT and BB are, use it and don't worry about 50-100 fps here or there.
 
Check out the results posted at Ballistics By the Inch http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com

If they don't have your specific ammo tested you can contact them and ask if they will run a test series for that ammo.

They are one of the few sources of indepentent testing results easily available.

stay safe.

skidmark
 
Quote:
If someone goes by their real name and gains a reputation for being full of bovine manure, they can't get away from their reputation very easily. Because of this, people are more apt to be honest when they aren't anonymous. An anonymous internet poster, however, can spew whatever equine feces he likes and if he discredits himself, he needs only move to another forum or re-register under a different handle.
I understand where you are coming from, however I find it a little hypacritical unless your real name is webley mark the 5th.
I don't have a link to any verifyable data,But I assure you that this is the only handle I have and use it on many different boards.
the only DT loads I have personaly chronoed are the 9mm 124+p and the 38+p I had pretty much the same results with the 38s that wnycollector had.the 9mm were well short also but within fudge factor I have since switched both loadings for LE marked 50 round boxes of actual Speer ammo as they chrono about the same velocitys from my guns.
Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily disputing your results, I was more replying to Double Naught Spy's post. I don't really think I'm being hypocritical unless I go about making wild claims with nothing to back them up, something I try not to do. I always try, whenever possible, to post links or cite sources so that people know I'm not just pulling things out of my posterior. Also, the handle is supposed to be read as "Webley Mark Five" as in one of these:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/pdf/2009-5/20095914463-webley.pdf
 
My experience over a long period of time....

Is that when you chronograph loads, and look at published figures, you shouldn't get hung up on relaitvely minor differences in velocity.

There are so many factors involved that published velocities (both from the maker, and in the handloading manuals) should be considered guidelines, not rules.

Besides the differences in temp, altitude, humidity, etc. there are also differences between the guns used, and your gun(s). It is possible to have a large difference between velocities even with virtually identical guns.

I have seen 100fps difference between three different .357s, all shooting the same ammo, and all with the same (nominal) barrel length! This isn't common, (the spread is usually less) but clearly not impossible.

Differences in barrels, mean different velocities. ITs that simple. Some barrels are "tighter" than others, and this affects velocity, but not always the way you might think.

Older, heavily used barrels likely are not going to achieve their full potential either, returning lower velocities.
Click to expand...

Actually, in my experience, this is not automatically true. Sometimes, older "heavily used" barrels actually shoot faster than newer "tight" barrels. Where they usually fall behind, if they do, is in the accuracy dept.

You would think that a new (tight) barrel will shoot faster, because it seals gas better, but the highest velocities don not always come from these barrels. It seems bullet friction may play a significant role here, as well. Sometimes, a "looser" barrel will turn in a higher reading for fps.

There doesn't seem to be any way to tell by looking, only by shooting, and each barrel seems to be a law unto itself. And so does each load, in any specific gun.

I see threads and posts all the time asking about a mere handful of fps difference, between published data, or even between cartridges. Take my word for it, IMHO (and experience) this is NOTHING. 50fps or even 100 may just be the difference between your gun and theirs. It's nice when things are consistant but this is the real world. All bullets don't go in the same hole, all don't come out of all muzzles at exactly the same speeds, and ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top