http://shopwilsoncombat.com/45-ACP-P...5-160-TACXP-C/
What is this stuff like ballistically? Any gel tests available of a 160 gr. .45ACP round?
I imagine it feeds well in 1911s, considering who carries it.
http://shopwilsoncombat.com/45-ACP-P...5-160-TACXP-C/
What is this stuff like ballistically? Any gel tests available of a 160 gr. .45ACP round?
I imagine it feeds well in 1911s, considering who carries it.
Originally Posted by montanadave
It has his name on it and he uses it so I would think it functions well. At three times the price of HST 230gr.+P it should be the best .45 ACP round available.
Bet it ain't, though...
.
Doc says that Barnes bullets generally do well. Here's Barnes' gel test on that bullet. I don't know anything about WC's loading of it.
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Bal...0gr_TAC-XP.pdf
"I don't want to be lorded over by a Bible thumping theocrat any more than a frappa-lappa-mocha chino sipping hoplophobic statist."-FredM
Penetration Comparison of Barnes 160gr. shown and Gold Dot 230gr.
Gel. Barnes 11.70" Gold Dot 13.10"
Cloth Barnes 11.05" Gold Dot 13.60"
Steel Barnes 14.20" Gold Dot 19.45"
Wallboard Barnes 9.85" Gold Dot 16.80"
Plywood Barnes 11.85" Gold Dot 21.95"
Safety Glass Barnes 13.75" Gold Dot 13.10"
So if you want reduced penetration, go with the 160’s. I'll stick with 230’s.
The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.
The reduced penetration might be worth it if it has dramatically less recoil, muzzle flash, and noise. I'll buy a box, and try it out. Thanks, guys.
Personally, I've found that the Black Hills loading of the Barnes 185gr has very low recoil, and the bullet performs a bit better in testing than its little brother. Definitely worth trying a box to see if it does what you need without going down to the 160gr.
"I don't want to be lorded over by a Bible thumping theocrat any more than a frappa-lappa-mocha chino sipping hoplophobic statist."-FredM
I'll be interested to hear your observations.
However… As to muzzle flash, both WW SXT and Federal HST .45 "duty" rounds use treated canister powder which has practically no muzzle flash. Remington has missed the boat here… the several Golden Saber loads I've shot had a bright flash, which reminded of dim light training with Remington 125gr .357s back in the day; those lit up the entire outdooor range.
Noise? Perhaps Ive been desensitized, but I'll confess to not noticing any difference in noise between full-patch .45s, .40s, or 9mm.
We can be pretty sure that the Wilson 160gr loads will have less recoil than 230gr offerings… but is the reduced penetration worth it? Why not drop down to a known 9mm performer if less recoil is desired?
Sorry, not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm not seeing exactly what this 160gr load is FOR; except maybe for someone who insists (for whatever reason) on a .45 but cannot handle 230gr recoil anymore?
.
If he's to be believed, WilsonCombatRep over at the 1911forum claims Bill Wilson has taken a "lot of" hogs with the 160gr .45 ACP load.
Looking at Barnes' load data for the 160gr and their testing, the penetration is a couple inches shy of the 185gr.
Generally speaking, the Barnes bullets seem to work well, my experiences have shown that they're excellent projectiles. I'd always go with the heavier projectile.
Reply With Quote
