Based on their strong penetration and expansion performance in the Lucky Gunner ammo tests (Handgun Self-Defense Ammunition - Ballistic Testing Data), I bought four boxes of Barnes TAC-XPD +P 115g 9mm SD rounds on sale at Cabela's. Two weeks ago, I took a box of them to the range to test with my Shield. I fired them back-to-back with Gold Dot 124 standard pressure rounds to compare functioning and accuracy. Both brands functioned perfectly, but there was a big difference in accuracy.
I test for accuracy by counting the percentage of shots that hit the 4" by 4" square in the center of a Birchwood-Casey 12" by 12" target at 15 yards. I fired 34 Gold Dots, using a two handed stance with slow, deliberate fire. Eighteen hit the square, for a 53% hit rate. I repeated this with 20 TAC-XPDS, but only five hit the square, for a disappointingly low 25% hit rate.
Thinking that the short-barreled Shield wasn't a good match for TAC-XPDs, yesterday I took my SIG P320 9mm Compact to the range to repeat the test. The results were better for the TAC-XPDs with the longer-barreled and more accurate SIG. Seven out of 15 hit the square for a 47% hit rate. Despite the TAC-XPD's improvement with the SIG, the Gold Dots were still superior, as ten out of 15 hit the square for a 67% hit rate.
Because the TAC-XPDs appear to be a well-engineered round, I wondered if it was me, and not them. However there is a least one other guy who has had a similar experience, and he's written about it here:
Ammo Review: Barnes 9 mm +P 115gr. TAC-XPD - The Truth About Guns
I know none of this small-sample research is very scientific, but based what I've seen so far, the TAC-XPDs will likely do best with long barrels at short ranges.
Anyone else have any experience with these?
I test for accuracy by counting the percentage of shots that hit the 4" by 4" square in the center of a Birchwood-Casey 12" by 12" target at 15 yards. I fired 34 Gold Dots, using a two handed stance with slow, deliberate fire. Eighteen hit the square, for a 53% hit rate. I repeated this with 20 TAC-XPDS, but only five hit the square, for a disappointingly low 25% hit rate.
Thinking that the short-barreled Shield wasn't a good match for TAC-XPDs, yesterday I took my SIG P320 9mm Compact to the range to repeat the test. The results were better for the TAC-XPDs with the longer-barreled and more accurate SIG. Seven out of 15 hit the square for a 47% hit rate. Despite the TAC-XPD's improvement with the SIG, the Gold Dots were still superior, as ten out of 15 hit the square for a 67% hit rate.
Because the TAC-XPDs appear to be a well-engineered round, I wondered if it was me, and not them. However there is a least one other guy who has had a similar experience, and he's written about it here:
Ammo Review: Barnes 9 mm +P 115gr. TAC-XPD - The Truth About Guns
I know none of this small-sample research is very scientific, but based what I've seen so far, the TAC-XPDs will likely do best with long barrels at short ranges.
Anyone else have any experience with these?
