|02-17-2010, 06:22 PM||#1|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Hornady TAP (Tactical Application Police)
Lots of folks are using this ammo, but I'd be very interested to know if anybody's department has endorsed or actually issues Hornady TAP.
|02-21-2010, 06:00 PM||#3|
Join Date: Aug 2006
I'm really interested in the 223 stuff. I recently did several test with the TAP line and was really impressed with the performance of the 55 grain throughout the testing. Most officers that I've talked with said that the 55 was what they used. I'm working toward getting my department on board, but needed some "extra" pushing in that direction. If I can verify that OTHER departments are using it, it would help.
| || |
|02-22-2010, 08:50 AM||#4|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Down by the river
I just got their catalog on these new bullets and I really like their idea if for nothing else helping the bullet fly better. The tips sure make the projectile more streamlined and should have better ballistic stats because of it.
Let us know what you find out; I'm still using Gold Dots since the FBI did testing on that bullet and is very accepted for it's effectiveness.
|04-11-2010, 12:26 PM||#5|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Final Results 223 Rem/5.56 TAP
My initial problem was that I wanted a .223 Rem/5.56 round that would have plenty of performance on “threat”….deliver the required energy TO the “threat” while possibly having to penetrate some sort of barrier. However, it couldn‘t have too much penetration performance if a barrier was not present, struck nothing but the “threat”, but not continue THROUGH the “threat” and penetrate a wall, travel down the block and hit my neighbor walking his dog……you get the picture.
Prior to posting the original question on the forum, I'd contacted Hornady directly in November 09‘. They are EXTREMELY helpful, and do provide "T&E" packets to verified LE and MILITARY agencies. Of all the various LEOs I’ve talked with, the 55gr TAP was what they preferred…..but nobody could verify their individual agency “endorsing” or “shall issue/carry” this particular ammo. The Military personnel I've spoken with report utilizing a much heavier projectile. And, Hornady cannot verify that any particular agency uses their products other than to say that their distributors sell a lot of it!
Over an entire weekend, I set up several test on my range that would test/compare overall accuracy, penetration and reliability in a standard 16" carbine. The only TAP that I did NOT test (and didn't receive in the T&E pack) was the 40gr. Speaking with the Hornady Rep., after I discussed what performance characteristics I was particularly looking for, we decided that a test of the highly "explosive" 40gr was a waste of time…..and after seeing my results, I totally agree.
I would like to note that throughout all of my various test, the Hornady TAP maintained very close POA vs POI with any other ammunition that I zeroed with. This was especially important as most folks "practice" with the cheapest ball ammo they can find and then carry (check zero) the "good stuff". The Hornady stayed w/in 1moa of the ball ammo at 100yds…….and dead on at 25 yards.
On the Hornady site, you can view all of the testing data from various test they conducted. I found all of it to be very consistent with my own results. Very impressive results, but there is nothing like seeing real results with YOUR barriers, YOUR glass, etc.
I tested at what I considered real CQB distances. Accuracy, automotive glass (90 degree and 45 degree angles), automotive windshield, wall barrier (standard 2X4, double 5/8 rock, 4" compressed insulation), vehicle door, etc. were tested from 25 yards in to 6' from muzzle. Throughout all of these test, ALL the TAP line performed well above expectations. The automotive glass test were conducted at 25 yards, with a clean white target placed behind at appropriate distance to simulate a vehicle occupant. A small "dot" was drawn on each target as an aiming point to see exactly how much deflection each round had. On each test, although the projectiles showed deformation and what appeared to be some jacket/core separation, the POA vs POI on each target was w/in 1/2". Again, very impressive!
My last tests were the ones that "sold" me. I constructed a hydro barrier. I used 1 gallon bags, built a test platform that was constructed of 2X8s with a slot cut in the front to slide in a 1/4" piece of plywood. The plywood is to simulate a bone or heavy clothing. Some of you may remember similar "water trap" testing from many years back where a 1" pine board was used at the front. I felt that 1" was a little too thick and elected to use the 1/4" plywood to best simulate a bone or heavy clothing. This is the type of test platform that was preferred if you couldn't lay hands on ballistic gelatin many years ago and, was better than the old phone book technique which gave different results. I don‘t know of any type of animal body that has the internal consistency of a thick phone book. However, with this type of bag/water testing, you can stack the bags in place and afterward, review the damage to each bag in sequence and somewhat determine what the projectile did. How/when it began to fragment or deform, direction traveled, etc. I've seen some that used 1 gallon milk jugs. Depending on what information you are seeking......depends on how big of a water trap you need to build. If you wanted to entirely "trap" the projectile, you'd need a pretty large trap....depending on the caliber of round you were firing. The 1 gallon bag system worked fine for what I needed to find out. I performed two test, the first of which was quite a lot......about 12" to 13" thick. The last was 8" to 9" thick. Wasn’t scientific and held to exacting tolerance, but it worked.
NOTE: This was slow, extensive testing. The body is a closed "container" in relation to most critters (both 2 and 4 legged), and has apparent resistance to internal pressure. To simulate this as best as possible, I constructed this test platform out of 2X material on the bottom and both sides. I left the top open for insertion of the bags and also to give the pressure SOMEWHERE TO GO.....or so I thought. On each test.......without fail.......EXPLOSION! Both sides blown 15' away. Had to re-construct between each test. Might keep that in mind before setting out to test. Takes a little time to screw new sides in place and put the thing back together. This testing took a loooong time!
The 55gr TAP, fired at a "point blank" distance, was able to be STOPPED in my 8" to 9" of water test. WOW! Total destruction of the test barrier, but ZERO penetration onto a clean white target placed behind. All other rounds tested DID have complete penetration and impact on the backing target behind the platform. Some actually continued on through to penetrate the wall mock-up that I'd placed directly behind the clean target. You may worry about the 55gr TAPs ability to penetrate barriers and get TO the “threat“……as I did. So, seeing that it could be stopped in the 8” to 9” of water, I performed a barrier test to put my mind at ease. I shot THROUGH the wall mock-up with a truck door placed directly behind the wall. This door was situated so that the projectile would impact the double-thick sections of the truck door……if it made it through at least one side. The 55gr TAP quite impressively defeated both the wall and the truck door. Complete penetration through both!
So……..”I” have settled on the Hornady 55gr TAP round for offense/defense at CQB distance….although I usually prefer something a little heavier. These were MY test, conducted with MY weapon system for MY reasons. Your or other individual results may vary (and probably will). I conducted these test for work related reasons and tailored the actual test to best mimic the areas of particular concern that I was faced with. Over penetration may not be a concern for some folks and I’d readily suggest the heavier TAP rounds. Their performance was outstanding also….right in line with the 55gr performance, but just wouldn’t stop in 8” to 9” of water!
But…….don’t take my word for it. Conduct you own test. However, I’m sure that the Hornady TAP won’t disappoint!
|Search tags for this page|
hornady 55 gr urban tap,
hornady tactical application police,
hornady tactical application police 223,
hornady tap 223 55gr review,
hornady tap 223 review,
hornady tap police,
hornady tap tactical application police,
hornady tap urban 223 55gr review,
hornady tap urban review
Click on a term to search for related topics.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Remington 700 police or Tikka T3 Tactical||JHP||Precision Rifles||6||04-11-2006 01:05 PM|
|Application of Nitride finish questions PLEASE HELP||hammerdown||Firearm Finishes||0||03-27-2006 01:26 AM|
|Hornady TAP||sprmedic69||Ammunition||1||02-07-2005 06:14 AM|
|My GWH was confiscated by the police, the greedy police....||Andrew Reed||Holsters and Belts||13||08-29-2002 07:27 PM|