Bodyguard 2.0 sights / ammo questions

[tarheel13]

I wish someone would do a ballistics test with it to see how it performs versus its Underwood equivalent (which also runs well in my 2.0).
Frank

If you send "Tools and Targets" a box of the TS XD and a box of the Underwood equivalent, he might do a gel test and publish the video. He frequently mentions that he is doing a comparative test because someone sent him the ammo. I don't think he will promise in advance to do the test and he might just keep the ammo. But he will probably do the test.
Since the TS XD seems to be available only in bulk, you will need to document the source of the TS XD rounds you send so he will know what he's got. Also, I don't think you can send ammo through the USPS so ask Tools and Targets in advance how to send it.

Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: Tools&Targets P.O. Box 1096 Collinsville, VA 24078

Tools&Targets

Gun Stuff! Ballistic Gel Testing, Quick Firearm and Ammo Reviews, and Lots of Fun on My Private Steel Target Range! *No firearms or ammunition are offered for sale in any of the videos on this channel. There are no links provided to sites where firearms or ammunition are available for sale.* *I...

www.youtube.com

 

[Cheyenne WYO]

Target Sports (my go-to ammo supplier) has their own XD equivalent that works well in my BG 2.0, for quite a bit less $ than the name brand versions. I wish someone would do a ballistics test with it to see how it performs versus its Underwood equivalent (which also runs well in my 2.0). On paper, the TS version's muzzle velocity and energy numbers are a fair amount less than Underwood's, but pretty equivalent to some of its HP competitors, like Hornady Critical Defense and Federal Hydra-Shok. Here's a link to the TS version (I hope hot links are allowed, and no, I have no affiliation with TS, other than being a satisfied customer): https://www.targetsportsusa.com/tar...-grain-solid-copper-380xd-tsusa-p-114060.aspx


Frank

If I knew it worked, I wouldn't mind spending $250 for 500. But, I doubt it will work in my guns. The muzzle velocity is stated as 1050 fps, and we can guess that velocity out of a 2.75 inch barrel will be lower, maybe much lower.

I had chronographed Lehigh's factory version of the 68 grain XD ammo out of a Sig P365-380 at a 10 shot average of 1075 fps (lowest of 1020), and the ammo would not cycle consistently in either my Sig or a Glock 42 because the ammo was not hot enough. The cases that did eject barely got out of the gun, and some ejected cases got stuck in the ejection port and caused malfunctions.

Underwood's standard pressure version of 68 grain XD chronographed as follows: Sig P365-380 (5 shots), avg. 1273, extreme spread 74; Glock 42 (10 shots), avg. 1244, ES 143; S&W Bodyguard 2.0 (5 shots), avg. 1175, ES 145 (lowest shot 1075). Those are working in the Sig, Glock, and the BG 2.0 that has been shot a lot, but I've had trouble in the newer one that probably has under 100 rounds downrange.

I'd try a box, but not case. YMMV.

 

[tarheel13]

I had chronographed Lehigh's factory version of the 68 grain XD ammo out of a Sig P365-380 at a 10 shot average of 1075 fps (lowest of 1020), and the ammo would not cycle consistently in either my Sig or a Glock 42 because the ammo was not hot enough. The cases that did eject barely got out of the gun, and some ejected cases got stuck in the ejection port and caused malfunctions.

I'm no expert on this but I suspect it's not just about the ammo being "hot". The low bullet weight means the projectile is moving fast and does not spend as much time in the barrel building up back pressure. Sometimes a heavier round cycles better without having a high muzzle velocity.

 

[Cheyenne WYO]

I'm no expert on this but I suspect it's not just about the ammo being "hot". The low bullet weight means the projectile is moving fast and does not spend as much time in the barrel building up back pressure. Sometimes a heavier round cycles better without having a high muzzle velocity.

Could be. One other thing that occurred to me after I posted is that the Sig P365-380 and Glock 42 have more mass in their slides than the BG 2.0, so the slides may provide more resistance to cycling. Also, the Sig is made on a 9mm P365 frame and may require the slide to move farther back to cycle the gun than one built around the .380 cartridge.

 

[Deke Thornton]

Target Sports (my go-to ammo supplier) has their own XD equivalent that works well in my BG 2.0, for quite a bit less $ than the name brand versions. I wish someone would do a ballistics test with it to see how it performs versus its Underwood equivalent (which also runs well in my 2.0). On paper, the TS version's muzzle velocity and energy numbers are a fair amount less than Underwood's, but pretty equivalent to some of its HP competitors, like Hornady Critical Defense and Federal Hydra-Shok. Here's a link to the TS version (I hope hot links are allowed, and no, I have no affiliation with TS, other than being a satisfied customer): https://www.targetsportsusa.com/tar...-grain-solid-copper-380xd-tsusa-p-114060.aspx


Frank

I'd give that a shot (bah-dum-pah!), but there is no possible way I'll ever need 500 rounds of .380 XD, and even at that price it's still too expensive to use as range ammo.

 

[pinefd]

Some great responses regarding the Lehigh and Target Sports XD ammo...much appreciated! I agree with regard to not wanting to invest in a whole case of the TS ammo without knowing whether it works for you or not. I'm in the same boat since I ran out of the supply of the TS ammo that I had, and while I know that it runs in all of the .380 guns I've tried it in, I don't want to invest that much $ without knowing if it's a good self defense choice or not. Likewise, although a great idea, I won't be sending any to "Tools and Targets", as @tarheel13 suggested, because I don't have any left to send. So for now, I'll stick with the Underwood ammo that I'm pretty well stocked up on, which I know is a good SD ammo.


Frank

 

[Cheyenne WYO]

I’d split a case with someone who lives in my area.

 

[halfmoonclip]

With the goalpost width rear sight, a consistent sight picture if difficult to maintain. It's really tough to keep the front sight up and even with those widely spaced ears.
I've gone to a BG1.0 rear sight, which is a much better fit for the BG2.0 front.
Moon