June 12, 2003, 08:05 AM
Anyone know of a RBCD Ammunition website? I personally don't know much about this product. I have read that it is ultra high performance stuff, any comments pro or con would be appreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about "RBCD Ammo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 12, 2003, 09:47 AM
here are a couple:


here are some more:

here is their site:

June 12, 2003, 09:58 AM
Hi YZGUY, Have you ever tried this ammo in one of your KT P32 or P11? John W.

June 12, 2003, 01:08 PM
At $2 a round it gets pretty expensive to function test your guns for it. Besides, testing on Ammolab and by Doc Roberts on Tactical Forums was pretty lackluster.

FWIW, of all the fragible ammo out there, the Glaser Silver seems to be the best choice for limited penetration scenarios like home defense.

Jim March
June 12, 2003, 01:49 PM
Another vote here for Glaser Silvers, in most cases. If your caliber and barrel length has a LOT of velocity to play with, like a 6" barrel 357 or a 4"+ 44Maggie, the Glaser Blues have merit.

"Silver" means larger lead shot, while "blues" have smaller. The plastic nosecones are color-coded to allow instant ID.

The Magsafe Defenders are pretty good too - they use a large steel shot. They have a "souped up monster" for 38snubbies that'll pull 1,600fps from a 2" barrel :D.

I recommend no more than two or three frangibles "first at bat", to be following by good 38+P hollowpoints of some sort.

June 12, 2003, 04:01 PM
nope.... I don't have a place around I can shoot stuff and see what happends (indoor ranges tend to frown on that!!).

If I find a place that I can play with stuff in the future, I may try it out if for nothing else than to satisfy my own couriosity... but as was mentioned before, function testing it would get VERY expensive if I ever wanted to carry it...

June 12, 2003, 08:45 PM
I think that www.ammolab.com has done some testing... here: www.ammolab.com/rbcd%2045.htm

June 13, 2003, 04:56 AM
RBCD is $37 per box of 20, much cheaper than MagSafe or Glaser. In my experience it is also more reliable and it operates at standard pressures. Joe Zambone blew up many guns developing some MagSafe loads. I question the throughness of Ammolab testing since they only fired 3 rounds. Of course they are not too happy with RBCD since they had to buy it rather than have it given to them.

June 13, 2003, 09:23 AM
oh also you might want to check out this thread over at KTOG:


(BTW the member ouroboro is a KT gunsmith)

Shawn Dodson
June 14, 2003, 01:28 AM
I question the throughness of Ammolab testing since they only fired 3 rounds. Well you're quite welcome to prove AmmoLab wrong by performing your own tests and publishing the results for everyone to see. Of course they are not too happy with RBCD since they had to buy it rather than have it given to them.A tester that has to purchase ammunition, instead of it being supplied for free from the manufacturer, is going to have more credibility to me. There is no conflict of interest. The tester is not beholden to the manufacturer, is an independent voice, and is less likely to present a biased position so as to not offend the manufacturer lest it affect the freebies. A refreshing change from the good ol' boy network so common in the gun industry. Only fair to let everyone know since I have been a supporter of this ammo on this forum. Your honesty is appreciated. At least we know where you're coming from.


June 14, 2003, 02:59 PM
I think he was referring to the fact that many other ammo companies gave them ammo, but RBCD did not, so the tester may have been more critical of them because they had to buy them, and a bit easier on the "free ones".

The part I have a problem with in the ammo lab testing is if they fired 3 rounds, and the first 2 did not expand, they only tell you about the one that did. The fact that 2 out of three did not expand is of major importance to me, and the rest of the data is second to that and without this of no use to me....

June 14, 2003, 04:29 PM
I am and have been a huge fan of RBCD since I first discovered it.

For ammolab to make any claim about any ammo with a test consisting of three rounds completely blows ammolabs creditability with me. It is well known in gun circles that the ammolab people were frosted about having to pay for the ammo they used and to give them any creditability is at best (IMNSHO)shallow.

There are numerous examples of one shot stops on both this forum and over on TFL on charging hogs and large dogs with RBCD. How about a single shot stop on a 200 pound hog with a single 9mm round? Police and especially Federal Agencys are using the ammo.

The destructive capability of this ammo is far beyond the effect of any pre fragged ammo like mag safe. Not knocking mag safe, it is just a different ammo.

I have heard this reliability argument before. Who here has fired 200+ rounds of mag safe through your weapon to verify functionality?? The RBCD has the shape and profile of a regular hardball round. I have never experienced a feeding failure in my .380's, 9mm's, .40's or .45's.

Try to ammo out yourself on a soft target. You will be absolutely shocked at the results. The explosive effect of the ammo when fired from a Colt Pony in .380 will put a fist size hole in a ham.

Check out the product at www.rbcd.net.

I am ordering a box of their 30.06 for this hunting season.

June 14, 2003, 06:55 PM
Yes I put 200 rounds of Golden Sabers through my P-11 before I carried them.... No it did not cost me more the price of my pistol...

Also I would want to heavily test this ammo in my pistol because it is FAR more different than my practice round (it is VERY light), to make sure it cycled correctly. I have heard a couple of reports that the RBCD ammo has caused the ONLY malfunctions in a couple of guns.

here is a pic by a person I believe to be 100% credible of an 9mm RBCD shot into jello from a P-11:

more tests can be found here:

Penetration 8.0
Expansion 2.1

quote from his site:
expansion is actually area of dispersion
2" wide, 5" deep area was completely pulverized

While that is impressive, the real damage only goes about 5 inches, and the max penetration is only 8. What happened to all the penetration people who say that the P-32 is not enough to use HP's because you only get about 8 inches of penetration? I realize that the RBCD is much more devastating in that 8 inches, but the fact still remains that if you don't get to anything to stop them it is no good. Eventually dieing does not help us....

I'm not totally against it, but would be much more impressed if it held together for a couple of inches and made the diameter of damage a bit smaller, but deeper (same energy, just split up a bit different).

June 15, 2003, 02:05 PM
I shot a box of 20 through my P32 and got 19 out of 20 to feed perfectly. Had one FTF but since my P32 was a very early one, the addition of stiffer recoil springs probably would have prevented it. It was accurate, and the recoil very brisk and NO rimlocks.

It is not anything like the other pre-fragmented rounds; it is patented and consists of a highly compressed multi-metal powder in a matrix. There are two layers: the point of the projectile looks and rubs like graphite and there is another layer underneath and the whole thing is encased in a thin metal jacket, all but the tip. They are properly called "TFSP's" (totally fragmenting soft points)
I read the entire patent report on them and as a layman still could not figure out how they were put together!

Critics talk about lack of penetration but the stuff can be scientifically tinkered with to give as much or as little penetration as is necessary for the application. As far as stopping power, when you can blow a hole in a target big enough to put your foot through, that's gets the recipient into big-time immediate damage control. I have no qualms about this stuff doing the job.

As research and development improves this ammo, I still think it is the defense ammo of the future.....IMHO.

June 15, 2003, 03:41 PM
Would someone tell me just which federal & state agencies are using this ammo?

I've heard this claim but have seen no way to verify it...:scrutiny:

June 15, 2003, 07:41 PM
RBCD 10mm ammo.

Shot at clay blocks, the 10mm/77gn TFSP @ 2420fps/1015fpe left some unbelievably huge blown-out cavities - literally gaping craters - as shown in an article Cirillo wrote a while back. I'd like to run some thru my 10mms.

Has the 77gn 10mm load ever been tested in standard ballistic gelatin?

RBCD's 10mm platinum ammo produced the highest energy rating, while their 90gn .45acp, @ 2036fps/828fpe, runs a distant second.

With that level of fpe produced, you wonder how much of the BG would even be left after a COM hit?

That's why I'm curious whether RBCD's devastating performance on clay blocks was ever duplicated in gelatin.

June 16, 2003, 01:05 AM
you want to know why they use clay?? because the results LOOK much worse than they do in Gel... Gel acts a little like human tissue in that it will expand some and go back into shape, clay on the other hand does not. The RBCD ammo does stretch out a much larger area than most other rounds, but in flesh (and gel) much of that area will snap back into place and not be affected much.

While still impressive, I think the results would be about half if seen in gel as opposed to Clay....

I would still want to test it myself on a few different things and one of these days may get around to it.

June 16, 2003, 03:13 AM
Clay was used because it is easier to see the results. I don't think it was because it looks worse, since the competitor's load is fired into the same size block right next to it. As was stated, the gel blows up, but snaps back. You will be glad to know that all the loads have been fired into gelatin blocks while being filmed with a high speed digital video camera. The same camera NASA is using to do research on the space shuttle damage. The video was due out this summer, but due to Roscoe's recent death the release will be delayed, but when it comes out there will be some gel shots for everyone.

Jim March
June 16, 2003, 02:08 PM
Well the good thing about frangibles is "there's no such thing as too hot" - the faster you drive 'em, the better they work, period.

I have no doubt at all that 10mm RBCDs will be nasty. The 44Mag will border on "death ray".

It's in the 32ACPs, 38snubbies and such that I have concerns about lack of penetration.

Shawn Dodson
June 16, 2003, 03:01 PM
Clay was used because it is easier to see the results. I don't think it was because it looks worse, since the competitor's load is fired into the same size block right next to it. Clay preserves the maximum temporary cavity. It exaggerates the wounding effects of bullets designed to quickly transfer energy to the target. You will be glad to know that all the loads have been fired into gelatin blocks while being filmed with a high speed digital video camera. In my opinion, high speed cinematography is more smoke and mirrors intended to exaggerate the wounding effects of handgun cartridge temporary cavitation.

June 16, 2003, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the picture and link yzguy. Very useful page.

June 16, 2003, 08:30 PM
I'm with Jim. The high-tech ammo makes tons of sense in big-??? guns. I wish I got to toy with some in my Model 29 before I sold it.

Jim March
June 17, 2003, 02:45 AM
The ultimate would be to drive a carved nylon 40grain double-ended wadcutter out of a 454Casull at around 4,000fps :p.

Hit some moron with that at "across the room" range and dear God, it'd be like "cleanup on aisle one, somebody get a MOP!"

It'd look like he swallowed half a stick o' TNT.

June 17, 2003, 07:43 AM
Does over 2,000 FPS and 500+ lbs of energy raise your eyebrows? Yikes. That's what an RBCD 9mm generates.

Let's go over this "penetration" thingie again. The idea in self defense is to get the perp to "stop" assaulting you. I'm certainly no expert but I tend to think that one RBCD round hitting at C.O.M. and blowing a hole big enough to put your fist through would certainly tend to "stop" even a very determined perp and get him into immediate and serious damage control assessment, giving you, the victim, a chance to clear the area immediately or put another couple of whopper holes in said perp!

Having been seriously injured more than once in my lifetime, that sort of trauma has a paralyzing effect on the recipient. Have you ever taken a good blow to the kneecap? Instant bodily paralysis. Creating a gaping C.O.M. wound, I feel, would have a similar result.

Just another laymen's opinion that I feel has a bit of truth in it somewhere.

June 17, 2003, 11:15 AM
Clay was used because it is easier to see the results. I don't think it was because it looks worse, since the competitor's load is fired into the same size block right next to it.
I was trying to say that clay looks worse (or better) for the RBCD ammo because of the way it works. A normal HP does not "explode" (for lack of a better term) like the RBCD does. A HP just expands so there is not as much of a violent disturbance. My point is that using clay misrepresents the differences between the HP's and the RBCD because human tissue will rebound quite a bit, and clay does not, so the RBCD hole in clay is misleading (because much of that area if it were tissue would be virtually unharmed) where as all of the area from the HP bullet in the clay would be damaged.

So they basically used the material that will make their product look the best while making their competitors look the worst. Prior to this I had not even heard of anyone using clay for testing (not saying I looked, I just had not heard of it). Gel is supposed to at least roughly imitate flesh, what is clay supposed to imitate? what useful information do we get from shooting clay??

You will be glad to know that all the loads have been fired into gelatin blocks while being filmed with a high speed digital video camera.Sorry but I don't care about the high speed shot of how much the gel expanded (the shot that will surely be released because it looks the worst) what I want is more of what I posted, a still shot of the results AFTER it came back to rest.

Again I'm not saying I'm against it, just kinda skeptical. Because of the problems I have heard of it causing, gunsmiths recommending against using it, tremendous cost of testing, and all the hype only showing the Temporary results, not the permanent ones.

Shawn Dodson
June 17, 2003, 11:48 AM
How about 3000 fps and 2000 fpe?

I have video of a crackhead who was shot in the body by a police sniper with a 55gr .223 bullet, at less than 20 yards, who was able to immediately afterward shoot and kill a SWAT officer, work the action of his pump shotgun, and shoot a second SWAT officer before he was finally stopped.

In my book, the "penetration thingie" is just as important as the shot placement thingie. The purpose of both is to ensure a bullet hits vitals. Good shot placement does no good if a bullet stops short of vitals. Likewise, good (adequate) penetration does no good if a bullet passes by vitals.

June 17, 2003, 08:43 PM
RBCD was originally designed for urban warfare where the bad guys were protected by light armor and cinderblock. The military/LEO version of RBCD is unreal. The problem was that it could not be sold to civilians because it was classified as AP. There is no lead in the military/LEO version.

What's neat about RBCD is that they can control penetration by their metal mix. What they did with the civilian version is increase its mass by using dense but softer metal in their mix, that reduced the bullet's ability to punch through body armor, retained the ability to punch through hard objects like doors, but still allowed enough velocity to expand in tissue.

If you are a penetration uber alles kind of guy, RBCD seems to be tailor made for you, especially if you want to stay with standard pressure rounds.

June 18, 2003, 12:54 AM
George, the Tactical line is the LEO line, but the bullet weights are down about 10 gr. That is due to the removal of tungsten in the 'blend' . They get the velocity, but the lighter slug, maybe softer as well, is not considered armor penetrating so BATF approved the sale to the general public.

June 18, 2003, 10:13 PM
Again, I ask...

Would someone tell me just which federal & state agencies are using this ammo?

June 18, 2003, 10:21 PM
seeker_two, much of the info is not available due to non-disclosure agreements with the govt. For example, there are a couple of versions, urban assault and penetrator, of overrun .223 ammo available right now to the three distributors that is in 500 round packages, non-commercial, it is from a DOD contract overrun, but no more info is available than that. You can call DOD and ask them what they do with it, but nobody will tell me.

You read the posting on the world record sniper shot in Afghanistan by a Canadian sniper, the ammo was supplied by the Americans, but that was 'field trial' ammo provided to the military for testing, not an order.

You can read this aritcle in AFJI about the Air Marshall ammo:
It is only available on a federal govt purchase order from Washington. A local LE agency nor regional federal agency may order it.

Israel got 10,000 rounds late last year and the Mexican govt is the primary user of .38 Super. There was a shooting buy the U.S. Customs service San Diego office, but you will have to make the phone calls to track down the info. I found out through a border patrol officer in El Paso.

June 19, 2003, 09:24 AM
Thanks Jeff. That gives it a little more credibility for me...

June 19, 2003, 04:29 PM
that still does not help me much... sure that is great that LEO's, military or what ever are using the supped up version, but what, I can only get the tamed down version?? that kinda sucks....

also kinda makes me wonder which version they are doing all their advertising testing with....

June 19, 2003, 11:45 PM
seeker_two, to be fair the info I gave you still isn't worth any more than something Massad Ayoob writes in a magazine. The only way that you will be able to determine who uses what is to travel around and see for yourself. I have not been to the Kidon facility in Israel, but that is where the 10,000 rounds of ammo went. Last RBCD knew was that it went to Kelly AFB in San Antonio. The best way to discover this for yourself is to go to the Blackwater training facility in Va. A bunch of guys from a bunch of different groups and organizations go there to hang out and train. That is where the test was done in that AFJI article on the meteor round. Truthfully you don't know about the stuff I write nor the stuff written in the magazine articles by Ayoob or anyone else without checking it yourself.

yzguy, the stuff on the website is all the commercial stuff. Due to the non-disclosure agreements they can't publicize the LEO and govt loads. You are not getting a 'tamed down version', the only difference in the Tactical line for example is that the slugs come in 10 or 11 gr lighter than the LE loads because the tungsten was removed from the mix. That removed the ability of the ammo to penetrate body armor and BATF could approve it for sale. The velocities between the commercial and LE/govt loads is relatively the same. That is with the 'conventional' RBCD ammo. There is 'special' ammo made in both rifle and pistol calibers. It is designed for specific applications and was developed and manufactured for specific contracts. The 'Meteor' is one of those. The only thing that you will publicly see mentioning the 'Meteor' is that article. RBCD was/is working on developing a civilian version of the Meteor, but I have no idea how that will work since the velocity is what makes it special, but also what allows it to penetrate armor.

Shawn Dodson
June 20, 2003, 02:41 AM
That is where the test was done in that AFJI article on the meteor round. One: The AFJ article presents blatant falsehoods regarding the wounding effects of RBCD handgun ammunition.

Two: The credibility of the "Blackwater staff" to judge effectiveness of RBCD, based on shots into pottery clay, is questionable indeed.

June 20, 2003, 10:06 AM
One: The AFJ article presents blatant falsehoods regarding the wounding effects of RBCD handgun ammunition. Care to expand on that?

yzguy, the stuff on the website is all the commercial stuff. maybe so, but I still want to do my own testing with it first (and right now can't because I don't have a place to shoot stuff). That and the high cost will keep me from it for a while.

one of these days I may do some of my own testing with it....

Kentucky Rifle
June 20, 2003, 11:07 AM
Every pistol I carry, with the exception of my revolvers chambered for .32 H&R Magnum, is stoked with RBCD. My two .32 mag revolvers are loaded with alternating rounds of Magsafe and Federal Hi-Shok hollow points. My new Taurus Multi Alloy, ported .38 Special snub seems to like RBCD's very much.


June 20, 2003, 09:35 PM

The "potting clay" used was specified by the DOJ (they specify a specific brand) in their test protocol. RBCD wasn't given a choice. When conducting a test with the feds, you follow their specifications. They have been using clay as a test medium in ballistic trials for years; as a body substitute. The reason is that it can be clothed and they have years of comparative data. It does not have to be mixed at under 140 degrees, and the temp of the clay at the time of the test is not as critical as jello. I have no doubt that they realize that it is not the ideal substance, but it does allow them to compare years of data without a problem. As to private labs, they like 2--HP White and some outfit in the mid-west.

By the way, I don't understand your objections to RBCD. I thought you liked penetration.

By the way, what happened to the IWBA? Are they now defunct?

June 22, 2003, 01:38 AM
Blackwater has some pretty good guys working there. They must, look who goes to them for training. They are also suppliers to many U.S. govt operations. They are the ones who got the RBCD ammo to Afghanistan and sent a DC8 full of stuff (including some IOR Valdada scopes with neat custom reticles) to Afghanistan back in Feb this year. I know a former SBS guy (SBS is Special Boat Service, less known than the SAS, it is the Navy SEAL equivalent in the British Royal Marines), Bill Davison, who now has a school in Texas, TacPro, and he speaks very highly of them. I have known Bill for a few years now, since before he moved to the U.S., and he has taught counter terrorism schools around the world including the DFW Airport police and Dallas SWAT team. (Due to posse commitatis (sp?) U.S. military is not allowed to train domestic law enforcement, so they bring in specialists from overseas military for training.) Bill was even on a History Channel special on terrorism, though his face was blacked out, you could still tell it was him by his voice. I have been there when he spoke to Gary and some of the other Blackwater guys. They have all 'been there, done that'. More so, they have shot more people and seen more people shot than any bunch of folks I have ever hung out with. When they start talking shop, I tend to listen when they have an opinion about what would be a good choice in weapons and ammunition.

June 22, 2003, 10:31 AM
Jeff OTMG - First let me say thank you for the reports you do about the SHOT show. I respect your straight forward writting, so far everything I read by you has been very informative and accurate.

That is why I was somewhat surprised when I read you write "U.S. military is not allowed to train domestic law enforcement, so they bring in specialists from overseas military for training" :confused:

This is simply NOT the case. The US military, specifically the US Army has been active for many years training local, state, and federal law enforcement officers in various operational techniques. The "POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385) allows this. However not allowed by Posse Comitatus is the direct action of the military in LEO operations, at least here in the good 'ol USA :D

As an example. Its ok for the Army (soldiers) to train LEO's how to exectute an entry on a drug warrant. Its NOT ok for the soldier trainers to take part of executing the actual warrant. In other words they can't be the door kickers.

You also wrote in another post "You can read this (ref. RBCD ammo) aritcle in AFJI about the Air Marshall ammo". I presume that the term "Air Marshal ammo" is only a marketing gimmick?

Are you implying that Federal Civil Aviation Specialists, aka Air Marshall's, actually use this ammo as a duty load?

Lastly to bring my post back on track. Isn't RBCD the company that a year or so ago advertised "armor piercing frangible ammunition"?

If not RBCD would anyone know who this company is or was. And yes I did mean "Armor piercing frangible". Supossedly they had developed ammunition that was both AP and frangible at the same time.


June 22, 2003, 01:41 PM
22rf, glad you like the SHOT show reports. Sometimes it isn't as accurate as I would like it to be, but I just write what I hear.

It was my understanding that in 1993 (?) Clinton did allow a change to PC that did permit training of domestic LE by U.S. military personel, as well as the use of military equipment for the use against the 'war on drugs'. That was how the Branch Davidian thing happened. BATF claimed that there was a meth lab since one of the members had a prior drug conviction so they didn't have to pay for the equipment and training received from Ft Hood. 1385 states that the military is not permitted to 'execute the laws' except 'under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress' and drugs are the exception. Blackwater trains both LE and U.S. military personel and in all instances THAT I AM AWARE OF (doesn't mean it hasn't happened) training of LE is done by foreign military or private citizens, granted that they are former military personel. Bill is not the only Brit that I know who has trained LE here in the U.S. over the years. If you know of an instance that I am NOT aware of where active duty U.S. military have trained local LE, where drugs are not involved, then I would like to hear about it. We have many LE on this board, maybe some of them were trained and would speak up.

The Air Marshall load was developed under contract for the U.S. Marshall's Service. The govt paid for the development costs. RBCD did not go out and develop it on their own and now the cost for producing the 'Meteor' is $5 per round. That is cost, not what it sells for. Due to contractual obligations associated with the load development, it is only available on a federal departmental PO and cannot be sold to LE nor to a local federal agency office. Since the load was developed, I do not know what agencies have submitted PO's for the ammunition, RBCD won't tell me due to the non-disclosure agreement, but it was developed and given to the U.S. Marshall's for Air Marshall duty. Whether it has been issued or will be issued is a question for the U.S. Marshall's, not me. My only contact was a pilot in the service, but left about 3 years ago to fly for the FAA so I can't ask him to check it out. Judging by its' design and performance it would seem ideally suited for such duty.

As for the armor piercing frangible ammo, read this page of the AFJ article:
Seems as though they are only refering to rifle caliber ammo, though the San Diego shooting involved shooting through the rear door of a Suburban, the rear seat, and front seat, before killing the driver. The handgun ammo still performs after penetrating barriers like sheet rock, glass, or a car door, but I don't really consider that to be 'armor penetrating'. If you were referring to handgun ammo, as with the near 3000 fps Meteor ammo or tungsten laced LE loads which are armor penetrating, it is not be available to us since the sale of armor penetrating handgun ammo is illegal.

Shawn Dodson
June 23, 2003, 03:27 PM
yzguys asks: Care to expand on that?

Sure: Tests of the unique ammunition have demonstrated that when a BMT round strikes soft tissue in a chest cavity, the resulting hydrostatic shock is so severe it destroys brain tissue mass... Based on what I know, this claim is outlandish, impossible and untrue.

...a heart or lung shot against a large animal, such as a deer (and, presumably, a human), consistently causes the animal to drop the instant it's struck. (After receiving a fatal shot to the chest from standard ammunition types, a deer's reflexes often propel the animal a short distance after being struck.) Assuming they're referring to rifle ammo, the location of the temporary cavity in relation to the spine is the primary reason why animals drop like a sack of potatoes. Slight variations in shot placement, even hits that appear similar, can affect reaction. Hence RBCD's alleged superior terminal effect compared to conventional ammunition may have more to do with shot placement than the ammunition itself.

At that point, the ammo disintegrates with violent force, leaving hundreds of minute particles embedded throughout the impact area. ...the bullets come apart in micron-size particles. Rifle bullets or handgun bullets? Recovered RBCD handgun bullets do not match this description.

GeorgeH asks:

1. The "potting clay" used was specified by the DOJ (they specify a specific brand)...

2. I don't understand your objections to RBCD.

3. ...what happened to the IWBA?


1. Are you referring to Roma Plastilina clay? If yes, it is an oil based modeling clay specified for use in body armor certification testing. It is not the same as water-based pottery clay.

I'm unaware of a DOJ spec water-based clay ballistic test medium. Perhaps you can refer me to the DOJ document where this specification is presented?

2. With regard to RBCD handgun ammunition, I have a problem with their claims and marketing. For example, from the RBCD web site: Cavities produced are permanent cavities not temporary stretch cavities. In my opinion this is either an intentional exaggeration or the testers are unqualified to interpret ordnance gelatin test results. The situation in which RBCD handgun bullets produce a "permanent cavity" equal to or exceeding the temporary cavity produced by conventional rifle bullets is exceptionally difficult to believe. The problem for me is RBCD's credibility and it appears to me that RBCD is stretching the truth.

3. I'm not a spokesperson for IWBA. I suggest you contact them and find out for yourself.


June 24, 2003, 12:14 AM
Looks like 22rimfire was right about LE training by U.S. Military. Check http://www.ftleonardwood.com/

'Fort Leonard Wood is now the proud home of the U.S. Army Military Police School which provides training to all branches of the military as well as government agencies and U.S. allies in areas of law enforcement, field tactics, human rights, Counter-Terrorism, Family Advocacy, Counter-Drug Operations and Force Protection. '

June 24, 2003, 10:04 AM
yeah, I still don't know.... the claims have been out there in some cases...

it could be good stuff, but it is hard to believe anything when some of these claims are made.

one of these days I may look at them a bit more. (maybe by then the price will come down)

August 8, 2003, 02:09 AM
Blackwater training facility in Va

i thought Blackwater was in NC

i recently found out about RBCD ammo and saw the video. it was very cool. and notice when they shoot the .40 RBCD round the clay explodes and hits the camera and knocks the guy out of his chair and you can hear him getting up. terribly funny.

RBCD penetrates IIA level vests. if you want the penetrating ability of RBCD but you're a little iffy on it's expansion then carry alternating rounds of it and standard JHP and get both

August 8, 2003, 12:57 PM
i think 22 luvr had a good point in that our purpose is to STOP people... and while penetration allows this, so might massive but shallower wound channels, because of pain effects.

personally, it seems to me that if one is into carrying multiple types of ammo in the same gun, this would be a good starter round or two followed by deeper penetrating JHP.

also, for people like me who live in apartment buildings where we have to seriously consider the dangers of overpenetration, and how to maximize damage and or stopping effect in an underpenetrating round.

August 8, 2003, 01:42 PM
Well the RBCD debate rages on.

Most of you that make doubtful statements about the ammo simply have not tried or tested it on anything.

You doubt is based on unfounded opinion.

I would simply recommend that you spring for a box, take it and a ham or some other suitable hunk of meat out to a suitable and safe area and shoot the meat.

I had carried the ammo for a couple of years but never tested it on anything. I took RBCD at their word that it was what they claimed.

Then I read some first hand reports from actual users. Two against wild hogs (both dropped in their tracks with a single 9mm shot), one from a police officer who zapped a bull mastif (dropped the dog dead with one shot from a 9mm) and another from a poster (who is a credible poster) who tested the ammo on a ham and found that .380 in RBCD makes the .380 viable as a personal defense round as determined by the fist sized hole blasted in the ham. The hole by the way was not a stretch cavity but a hole. The ammo behaves very differently from traditional hollow point ammo.

So a few weeks ago I sprung for a canned ham, went out to the National Forest and zapped it with a 9mm RBCD round out of a S&W j frame revolver. If you conduct this test yourself you will be amazed at the result. The hole was not a stretch cavity, it was a fist sized hole.

The RBCD penetrates then explodes. It is unlike any hollow point in that the RBCD uses its velocity to drive its behavior. As it sheds velocity the secondary function of the explosive action of the nose material occurs. The explosive action of the nose material is driven by a ball that is behind the nose material. This makes it very reliable as there is no need for a hollow point to pressurize the rest of the bullet to get an expansion.

Before you offer or continue to offer an unqualified opinion, give the ammo a real world try and then come back here and tell us about your first hand experience.

In my opinion, now based on my personal observation, nothing else even comes close for a defense or carry round. And just to ice the cake it operates at standard pressures making second shots as easy as standard ammo and it is very lightweight so your carry piece does not take on another personality when you load it:D

August 8, 2003, 09:12 PM
I personally favor the Aguila IQ. The aluminum alloy bullet breaks into 3-4 fragments that will penetrate better than the loads that turn to dust. It's not loaded +P because it will penetrate body armor in higher velocities. In it's standard load it will penetrate cars (all of it) and 3/4 inch bulletproof glass. If you prefer good old fashioned lead in a high tech bullet, triton Quik-Shok are comparible in velocity and weight to corbon however the terminal ballistics are more like the aguila with the bullet fragmenting into a few pieces. Doesn't have the same penetration through cover though.

Sean Smith
August 8, 2003, 11:16 PM
Have fun with your low-grade (but expensive!) gimmickery. :D

August 9, 2003, 12:27 AM
low grade? in what way. I fired a box out of my gun, it wasn't dirty, and my taurus put them all within one neat cluster in the 10 ring. It's nice to be able to do that against a target behind a windshield, or a brick wall.

So, you still use hardball or what? Pack 158 grain semi wad cutters in your .38 service revolver? Get with the modern technology, man! :D :D :D

Sean Smith
August 9, 2003, 09:48 AM
No, I use technology that is actually demonstrated to work in real life, not contrived clay-shooting "demonstrations." ;)

August 9, 2003, 02:27 PM
I've got question on RBCD ammo.

Why does is the 357 sig 60 grain load listed at well over 400FPS faster than the same weight 357 magnum load:confused:

Shawn Dodson
August 9, 2003, 06:09 PM
Coltdriver writes: Most of you that make doubtful statements about the ammo simply have not tried or tested it on anything.

You doubt is based on unfounded opinion. More RBCD baloney for ya:


August 12, 2003, 04:36 AM
rebbryan, my mistake, you are correct. Many of the demo's are in northern Va. for various govt. groups. When I spoke to the people there and when Roscoe was going for a demo it was usually in Va. and I was confused. The Blackwater training facility is in NC.

Blueduck, I don't know for sure, but I could guess at a couple of things. First is that the .357 Mag is VERY dependent upon barrel length for velocity. When I bought a S&W 940 2" 9mm revolver, S&W had not come out with the .357 J-frame yet so I chrono'd the 9mm rounds against various .357 Mag loads out of my 3" Mod 65. The standard for the 9mm was the 115gr Corbon and the only load faster from the .357 was the 125 JHP loads and those were only faster by 100 fps or so. The 9mm and .357 SIG rounds are much more powder efficient than a .357 Mag.
Second, I don't know what the SAAMI pressure standards are for either round, but if it is higher for the .357 SIG then that could account for some of the higher velocities.

Checking my ballistic charts I see that the .357 SIG round was fired from a 4.02" barrel while the .357 Mag was fired from a 2.19" barrel. I am going with my first guess on this one as the major reason.

August 12, 2003, 04:48 AM
Coltdriver, you might get a kick out of these 'test' shots.

This is a 10lb roast beef being hit by a 10mm RBCD

and a 9mm hitting a 4 lb roast:

more good meat photos here:

August 12, 2003, 07:54 AM
WHOA!!! :what::what:

Where did the meat go???? :D :D

August 12, 2003, 08:10 PM
Where's the beef?


Geez, Jeff. Was that 10mm in the photo RBCD's 77gn TFSP @ 2420fps/1015fpe?

Good grief was that devastating. There ain't no beef left, just a bloody crater.

Where can 10mm fans get a case or three? :)


August 12, 2003, 10:30 PM
I'm afraid the "meat tests" don't provide a suitable test medium either... If you take a ten-pound hunk of steak, and shoot it, you're shooting into a very dense medium that does NOT equate to the human body. Sure, the RBCD results in meat are impressive: but what about on humans, with their mixture of hard and soft tissue, bone, air space, internal organs, etc.? I would be much more interested in seeing an animal shot with this round, and then have a forensic pathologist dissect the bullet wound. That would show the variations in bullet performance against different kinds of tissue, bone, etc.

Ballistic gelatin testing is not the same as "real-world" combat, but it has been shown to have a pretty good correlation to actual, real-world bullet performance. For a distributor to claim that they don't accept ballistic gelatin results, and stage their own tests on unrealistic targets, is not convincing.

August 13, 2003, 12:22 AM
agtman, that is the only 10mm load that RBCD makes as far as I know. You would have to contact the guys at that website to find out for sure. I do not know them, but they are the distributors for the LE versions of RBCD. The LE loads are the same velocities as the civilian versions, but the LE slugs have tungsten added to the mix which allows vest penetration which is why they are not available to us.

Check out their website, they have lots of neat photos in each link.

There is no accurate test medium. Gelatin, clay, meat (beef? pork?), wax, wet newpaper, wet cement, wet plaster, or water all leave something to be desired. The problem with many of them is the non-elasticity of the test medium, like the clay, but the inelastic medium do make it easier to see the cavity and I don't think that anyone would claim that something that punches a hole through a clay block would be more effective that a load that blew half the block away, opened the remainder into a relatively flat sheet, and knocks the remainder off the stand. The catch is to pick one medium and stay consistant. Meat is not a bad approximation of a human thigh, but do we really want to know how well it does against a thigh? I still think that 10mm shot is IMPRESSIVE! That is a 10 pound roast!!! Do you know how big that is? That is bigger than the roasts I buy at Sam's. The big problem with the RBCD gelatin tests is that at 15 feet half of the 8"x8" block tends to disappear which is why the gelatin shots on the RBCD website were fired at 30 feet. In the RBCD video, I have a copy if anyone wants to see it, any gelatin block being fired at with above .38 Special caliber is strapped down to the table because they were getting blown off.

For the guys that don't like RBCD, that's fine. You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the only loads that I have seen that approximate the wounds of RBCD in clay, gelatin, or meat are the Glasers and MagSafes. Unfortunately those loads lack penetration, which is great if you are in an apartment, but a poor choice if you are shooting at someone through a car windshield. Then again, how often do we do that?

Here is a shot of the Speer 185gr Gold Dot in .45 ACP after passing through 4 layers of denim, a 4.5 pound roast:

Now the RBCD .45 ACP through four layers of denim, a 4.5 pound roast:

Be sure to check out the .223 shots as well!!!!

They do have this comment on one page:
"Shown above, starting top left clockwise, these single shots were taken with a 9mm pistol, 9mm pistol, 5.56 rifle, and 7.62 rifle. All shots produce instant incapacitation. At your request a master vhs tape of the live fire will be provided, for verification of the authenticity of all extracted photos contained in this report."

So you wanted live animal shots, they have them. My guess is that they are not available to just anyone and are probably only available to govt agencies, but if you want a video of animals being shot I suggest you go ahead and make your own.

August 14, 2003, 01:15 AM
i was just checkin jeff cuz that's the only training site in my area that i know of and got a little worried when you said virginia :p

those photos are amazing. any way you can make a copy of that video and send it to me or know where to get one? i know A LOT of people who wanna see it. it looks like they put m80's in the clay blocks when they shoot em

August 14, 2003, 02:50 AM
rebbryan, I have a few copies of the video and I can loan you one, just be sure to send it back. If you are not in one of my states I can't sell you the ammo, but you can order it from RBCD. Email me your address and I will send you off a video. I have seen the old version of the video that was only clay shots, but this one has gelatine shots as well from what I understand. (I will get to see the video this weekend)

August 15, 2003, 12:39 AM

You might want to search TFL for a post by a user with "deputy" in his name. He essentially eviscerated an attacking 250# feral hog with a 9mm RBCD round. Needless to say, the hog dropped instantly, and hogs are some of the toughest targets to take down with a handgun....

Maybe somebody here knows exactly where the thread is, but I'll bet it can be found by searching for Blackhawk, RBCD, hog, and deputy* because I remember posting to it. Amazing story!

August 15, 2003, 11:00 PM
email sent, thanks jeff. all i need now is a .50 cal rifle and the new RBCD .50 BMG ammo to blow me up some deer :neener:

August 15, 2003, 11:03 PM
Jeff, do you have a website ? How do we go about buying this ammo from you ?

Andrew Wyatt
August 16, 2003, 12:45 AM
next time i ever have steaks attack me i'll know what ammo to use.

I like my ammo to actually reach internal organs when i shoot sometthing. expansion is just gravy.

Shawn Dodson
August 16, 2003, 04:10 PM
There is no accurate test medium.

I believe differently. Of test media, only properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin has been shown to be a realistic soft tissue simulant.

The catch is to pick one medium and stay consistant.

No, the catch is to use a realistic soft tissue simulant of adequate size to capture all the wounding effects of the cartridge under test. Unrealistic test media provide unrealistic results.

Meat is not a bad approximation of a human thigh, but do we really want to know how well it does against a thigh?

Unless it is freshly killed meat the results are not the same because the muscle tissue is aged, dried out, not as elastic and is more easily damaged.

For the guys that don't like RBCD, that's fine. You can come up with all the excuses you want, but the only loads that I have seen that approximate the wounds of RBCD in clay, gelatin, or meat are the Glasers and MagSafes.

It’s not that I “don’t like” RBCD, it's just that all the test “data” I’ve seen so far from RBCD/LeMas is invalid, in addition to absurd claims about its performance by people who have a financial interest.

August 16, 2003, 10:06 PM
Jeff OTMG,

I had not revisited this thread for a while. What a picture! Of course you know there is no relationship between cow meat and human meat :what:

If that pic does not make a believer out of anyone, then further discussion is pretty much a waste of bandwidth.

I wrapped my canned ham in a towel so it did not disentigrate the entire ham but it did make paste out of most of it. Shoulda brought a camera.

Well the debate rages on. All I know is what I have seen my self and what I have heard from others, mostly over at TFL, who related first hand experiences like the hog and the dog stories.

I will have an opportunity to try it out on some live game this year. RBCD makes a hunting round for 30 06 that produces spectacular results. Because it can be "tuned" to fragment at varying depths the hunting rounds get far inside and explode. No such thing as a shoulder blade shot disentigrating the hollow point before it can create terminal damage.

A fellow here in Colorado zapped an elk last year with an RBCD round and it fell dead right there. He said that in cleaning it the heart lung mass was pulverized into an unrecognizeable goo.

I will be out with my 06 in the late rifle season (November). I am going to bring a camera so I will take pictures and post results. With nearly 400,000 elk in Colorado I am pretty sure I can bag one. I have a herd of over 100 that visits my back yard all winter. Course, I am going down the road a ways to a place I have scouted since last winter.

Until then all I can say is what would we do without different opinions on this board?? It never gets boring around here:D

August 16, 2003, 11:00 PM
He said that in cleaning it the heart lung mass was pulverized into an unrecognizeable goo.

i've heard the same

August 18, 2003, 04:26 AM
444, you are in Nevada, one of my states. You don't have to order from me, you can just call up RBCD off the www.rbcd.net website and order it. They will ship it right out to you. I would be VERY interested to know what you think of it. Email me or PM me and let me know what you get.

WARNING: For you guys thinking about hunting with a .50 BMG. YES, I MEAN YOU rebbryan!!! There was a guy in Colorado about two years ago who used a .50 BMG on an elk. He shot it head on. The entire elk was bloodshot, the rump and even the back strap. He evened threatened to sue Roscoe for the $12,000 that his hunt cost him. There was no usable meat. There is a .50 BMG load at about 6000 fps and exceeding 15000 fpe. Think about what that would do to a poor little deer. A .220 Swift or .22-250 is pushing it to do 4000 fps. A half inch wide bullet at 50% higher velocity is devestating.

Well Coltdriver, I guess you will feel well protected if you are ever attacked by a towel wrapped canned ham.

Shawn, I agree that the jello is close, but we try for shots at COM. There are ribs, lungs, heart, muscle between the ribs, and the sternum itself. None of those has the same density between them and I don't know that they have the same density as gelatin and if they do it certainly isn't uniform for 12"-16" like a block of gelatin. Maybe if they took some pork ribs and placed it in front of the jello then fired two shots, one through a rib and one between the ribs, that would be close.

Shawn Dodson
August 19, 2003, 08:46 PM
There are ribs, lungs, heart, muscle between the ribs, and the sternum itself. None of those has the same density between them and I don't know that they have the same density as gelatin and if they do it certainly isn't uniform for 12"-16" like a block of gelatin. The shear forces of various soft tissues, and their resistance to bullet penetration, is inconsequential compared to the inertial forces involved. Hence the argument that gelatin is homogenous and cannot accurately simulate the inhomogeneities of the human body is false. At velocities above 500 fps, except for bone and lung tissues, the shear forces presented by various soft tissues make no practical difference with regard to projectile terminal mechanical performance. Heavy bone tissue usually increases projectile deformation and decreases penetration. Whereas lung tissue usually decreases projectile deformation and increases penetration (but not by much).

Maybe if they took some pork ribs and placed it in front of the jello then fired two shots, one through a rib and one between the ribs, that would be close. Tests as you suggest as well as autopsy examination show that the effect of human rib bone on terminal performance is insignificant.

If you enjoyed reading about "RBCD Ammo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!