DoubleTap Ammo in the XD

[otaku]

Just curious, has anyone used any of the high velocity DoubleTap ammo in their XDs before?

http://www.doubletapammo.com

Specifically, I am looking at the 165gr .45 ACP that they claim has a 1325fps out of a 5" barrelled 1911.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...roducts_id=146

These loads just seem so much more high powered (there seem to be very few factory ammo loads for .45 ACP much higher than 900-1000fps). Just wondering if anyone's ever used it and if anyone thinks it would cause any problems in the XDs.

Thanks.

[buddy10mm]

Did you check out the reviews on the website? I notice that Roger Sroka claims to have fired them through his 4" XD. I think Doubletap engineers their loads to be safe in any factory chambered firearm.

[otaku]

yeah, I did see that review and it looks promising! Was just wondering if anyone else had any opinions.

It seems like a great option for carry. It's relatively cheap for carry ammo and seems to show some of the fastest muzzle velocities I've seen for .45 out there...of course, over penetration could become a factor with it, though...

[Trovan]

What would be the benefit of double tap over a normal hollow point round? Faster out of the barrel doesn't account for much. And you get a lot of un-burned powder out of a shorter barrel.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by Trovan

What would be the benefit of double tap over a normal hollow point round? Faster out of the barrel doesn't account for much. And you get a lot of un-burned powder out of a shorter barrel.

Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity (squared)

Since velocity is squared, it is generally accepted that lower mass, higher velocity rounds are more deadly for defense applications. they also tend to penmetrate thick clothing better than slower, more massive rounds.

[the_gunman1]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity (squared)

Since velocity is squared, it is generally accepted that lower mass, higher velocity rounds are more deadly for defense applications. they also tend to penmetrate thick clothing better than slower, more massive rounds.

I wouln't worry tomuch about that. The .45ACP wont have any problem penetrating anything a human being would be wearing with the exception of a bullet proof vest regardless of bullet weight. Well not the pre frang loads but any HP or FMJ.

[Chewie146]

I used the 135 grain .40 S&W out of my 4" XD. They weren't tack drivers, but they put some velocity out there. I never chronographed them, but they were hot. They're good enough, but frankly, I'd just stick with something popular. I just get golden sabers and XTPs now.

[dashotgun]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity (squared)

Since velocity is squared, it is generally accepted that lower mass, higher velocity rounds are more deadly for defense applications. they also tend to penmetrate thick clothing better than slower, more massive rounds.

while true unless the round is going to be exceed the speed of sound in tissue it won't cause cavitation and a secondary wound cavity so that the extra energy does little significant extra tissue damage beyond the primary wound cavity. i.e. unless you hit a vital structure a near miss with more energy it not going to change the results.
This is not true when talking about higher energy rounds which is why the 5.56 round made sense it was lighter then the nato round it replaced but had a much higher velocity increasing the overall engery.
5.56 can injure tissue and even break bones even though the bullet did not penetrate them it is the shock wave. You do not get cavitation effects in a pistol caliber untill you step up to a fast velocity 44 mag.

[jnclement]

If it sounds too good to be true.......................

[GlockConvert]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity (squared)

Since velocity is squared, it is generally accepted that lower mass, higher velocity rounds are more deadly for defense applications. they also tend to penmetrate thick clothing better than slower, more massive rounds.

generally accepted by whom? Most of the modern ballistic studies that I have read (Fackler...), as well as the ancedotal evidence doesn't support that contention. At pistol velocities, rounds disable by penetration and expansion. Energy plays little role. I want about 15 inches of penetration and as much expansion as I can get. Ranger SXTs work pretty good for that.