[Ed Straker]

1-shot killer
This 5.56mm round has all the stopping power you need — but you can't use it. Here's why:
By John G. Roos
Special to the Times
Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them.
In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.
He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.
"It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," Thomas said.
Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and controversial — bullet.
The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is "nonstandard" and hasn't passed the military's approval process.
"The way I explain what happened to people who weren't there is … this stuff was like hitting somebody with a miniature explosive round," he said, even though the ammo does not have an explosive tip. "Nobody believed that this guy died from a butt shot."
The bullet Thomas fired was an armor-piercing, limited-penetration round manufactured by RBCD of San Antonio.
A new process
APLP ammo is manufactured using a so-called "blended-metal" process, said Stan Bulmer, president of sales and manufacturing for Le Mas Ltd. of Little Rock, Ark. Le Mas is the distributor of RBCD ammo.
Various bullet types made by RBCD are designed for different effects, Bulmer said.
The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist's clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating "untreatable wounds."
Le Mas gave Thomas a small number of APLP rounds after he contacted the company.
After driving off their attackers, Thomas and his colleagues quickly searched the downed enemy fighter for items of intelligence value. They also took time to examine the wound.
"There's absolutely no comparison, whatever, none," to other wounds he has seen from 5.56mm ammo, Thomas said in a telephone interview while on home leave in Florida.
He said he feels qualified to assess a bullet's effects, having trained as a special-operations medic and having shot people with various types of ammo, including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops.
Thomas was the only member of the four-man group who had RBCD ammo. He said that after the group returned to base, they and other members of his group snatched up the remaining rounds.
"They were fighting over it," he said. "At the end of the day, each of us took five rounds. That's all we had left."
Congress wants tests
Last year's defense budget included $1.05 million for testing blended-metal bullets, Bulmer said. Fourteen months into the 24-month period during which those research and development-testing funds must be spent, the military has not purchased a single bullet from Le Mas.
Publicly, at least, military officials say RBCD ammo is no more effective than other types now in use and, under certain conditions, doesn't even perform as well. Those conclusions are derived from a series of tests conducted a few years ago in which RBCD ammo's effects were observed in ballistic gelatin, the standard means for testing bullets.
Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Gary Roberts, a recognized ballistics expert and member of the International Wound Ballistics Association, conducted the gelatin tests in March 2002.
According to his findings, "Claims that RBCD bullet terminal performance can vary depending on target thickness, size or mass were not shown to have merit, as bullet performance remained consistent irrespective of gelatin block size."
Roberts found that in gelatin, a 9mm, 60-grain slug exhibited "tissue damage comparable to that of other nonexpanding 9mm bullets and is less than that of standard 9mm [jacketed hollow point] designs, since the RBCD bullet does not create as much tissue damage due to its smaller recovered diameter."
A .45-caliber bullet "offered average terminal performance in bare and denim-clad gelatin, similar to that noted with the 9mm bullet. ... The RBCD bullets do not appear to be a true frangible design, as significant mass is retained after striking a target."
Not surprisingly, Roberts' assessment remains a major impediment to getting RBCD ammo into military hands. Considering his standing in the ballistics community, his findings are accepted as gospel by many influential members of the special-operations community.
But Bulmer insists that tests in ballistic gelatin fail to demonstrate RBCD ammo's actual performance because the gelatin is chilled to 36 degrees. Their bullets seem to shatter most effectively only when they strike warmer targets, such as live tissue. Bulmer said tests using live animals clearly would show its effects. Despite his appeals for such testing, and the funds set aside by Congress to conduct new tests, the military refuses.
Bulmer said authority to spend the testing funds initially went to U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which delegated testing responsibility to the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Queries to the command confirmed that it was aware of the testing requirement but had not decided when, or if, the tests will be conducted.
Bill Skipper, president and CEO of the American Business Development Group, is a lobbyist representing Le Mas on Capitol Hill. "When I heard of the ballistic characteristics of this ammo, as a retired military officer, I realized it has to stay in the good guys' hands," he said, adding that SOCom's reluctance to test it is "irresponsible."
"This is an issue of national security," he said.
Some supporters of RBCD ammunition suggest SOCom officials may be reluctant to test the ammo because it threatens "in-house" weapons and ammunition programs underway at the command.
Special-operations forces long have sought a more potent standard round than the 5.56mm, which lacks the punch needed during the long-distance engagements that frequently occur in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response, SOCom is working with weapons and ammunition manufacturers to develop a new round and new upper receivers for M4 and M16 rifles.
The command apparently has narrowed its search to a 6.8-by-43mm round.
Indication of industries' involvement in this effort was seen in October during the annual Association of the U.S. Army exhibition in Washington.
If Le Mas' 5.56mm APLP round delivers the performance SOCom is seeking in the new 6.8mm ammo — and Bulmer insists it does — the rationale and the potentially lucrative contracts for producing a new ammo type and modifying thousands of weapons used by special-operations forces would disappear.
Thomas said he isn't familiar with the reasons that might keep RBCD ammo from getting a realistic test within the military.
"The politics, that's above my pay grade," he said. "All I really care about is that I have the best-performing weapon, optics, communications, medical equipment, etc. I'm taking Le Mas ammo with me when I return to Iraq, and I've already promised lots of this ammo to my buddies who were there that day and to their friends."
When military officials in the United States got wind that Thomas had used the round, he quickly found himself in the midst of an online debate in which an unnamed officer, who mistakenly assumed Thomas was in the service, threatened him with a court martial for using the nonstandard ammo.
Although Thomas was impressed by RBCD ammo's performance, he feels it should not be the standard ammunition issued to all U.S. forces.
"The first thing I say when I talk to people about Le Mas' ammo is, make sure that 22-year-old infantrymen don't get a hold of this, because if they have an accident ... if they have a negligent discharge, that person is dead. It doesn't matter how much body armor you have on.
"This is purely for putting into bad guys. For general inventory, absolutely not. For special operations, I wouldn't carry anything else."
A video clip on RBCD ammo that was shot at the annual Armed Forces Journal Shootout at Blackwater is online at www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets.
John G. Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal.
http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php

[manhattan23]

I just finished reading Enemies Foreign and Domestic by Matthew Bracken. In the book someone is shot by a round described as similar to the above ammunition. I had thought it was poppycock..now I'm not sure.

-M

[OF]

Matt Bracken is a member and frequent contributor here, and Dr. Gary Roberts can be found at THR's sister forum: www.tacticalforums.com in the Terminal Ballistics section.

- Gabe

[OF]

For more insight on this issue, there is significant discussion on the lightfighter.net forums here (http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=9046084761&m=9846055883&p=1) (you must register to read it).

Good stuff!

- Gabe

[manhattan23]

I had read the lightfighter thread a few weeks ago before it degenerated. I must say that the behavior of the people selling this ammo as described in the thread is not confidence building. Nevertheless, even geniuses can be total jerks sometime. Perhaps this is the one kind of wonder ammo that cannot be properly simulated in ballistic gelatin. Unfortunately for them, the onus is theirs to prove their claims.

Statements such as:

"We've been called idiots, charlatans, and liars," Bulmer said. "The truth is, with some of this technology we just can't explain why it does what it does, but it does it. The more we test it, as guys who aren't pros at this, we find it as hard to believe as you probably do."

do not engender confidence.

Either way, it probably won't be legal for those not in law enforcement.

-M

[clubsoda22]

Wonderammo. They test it in clay blocks on their websight to make it look more impressive because the clay will hold the temporary cavity whereas gelatin will not. Because of it's velocity, RBCD has a big temporary cavity, which causes the clay block to explode. When they show the hydrashock being shot into the block there appears to be less damage. This is not the case, Temporary cavity is not what kills your opponent, permanant cavity is. The permanant cavity from RBCD is relatively small.

[Bigjake]

impressive .22

[OF]

It's always fun watching Dr. Roberts utterly dismember someone on a thread somewhere. The guy is unstoppable and types a mean post.

If you're going to pipe up and present yourself as having or doing something important in the ammunition and wound ballistics field, you'd better have your stuff wired tight before Gary Roberts gets wind of you. :)

- Gabe

[clubsoda22]

Fine, what's so scarry?

http://www.ammolab.com/RBCD%2045acp%202%20copy.jpg

I'll ask dave (the owner of ammolab) what he thinks, theres gotta be a reason why his gunshop doesn't stock RBCD uber-ammo. I'll ask him when i go pick up some stuff from him tomorrow.

[Double Maduro]

"Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating "untreatable wounds."


This will never be approved for military use. The reason we use the ammo we do is because the ammo has been approved by those who determine what is legal in war. This goes back a long time and I don't see it changing.

DM

[clubsoda22]

you know, we never signed that treaty.

[Double Maduro]

Yeah, but would you want them to use it against us?

DM

[Leatherneck]

Doublemaduro hit the nail on the head. Ammunition has to be found to be legal for war under international legal standards before it can be procured and issued. The Black Hills 77 gr Mk 262 Mod 1 has been approved for use by SF troops to replace the M855 in their Mk12 rifles and M4 carbines. SOCOM is pursuing development of a new 6.8 x 43mm 115 gr OTM bullet, and it sounds like the competition is heating up. I would imagine the stakes are high. :D

TC
TFL Survivor

[444]

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htweap.htm

December 1, 2003: While the U.S. Special Forces are experimenting with a 6.8mm round for their rifles (M-16s and M-4s), they are also looking into new types of rounds for their 5.56mm weapons. One of the more effective new developments is the APLP (armor piercing, limited penetration) round. Made with a blended-metal process, the 60 grain bullet will penetrate metal or other hard objects, but when it hits a warm body, it fragments rapidly. The effect is similar to an explosive round, and turns a non-fatal wound into a kill. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has so far resisted adopting the round, largely because tests on gelatin did not show the explosive wounding effect. But tests on warm, but dead, animals, show the effect. And a former SEAL, working for a contractor in Iraq, got into a firefight with Iraqis and hit one in the butt with an APLP round, and killed the Iraqi. The former SEAL was had medic training and was able to examine the dead Iraqi and verified the dramatic effect of the APLP round. This bullet is not recommended for regular troops, because any incident of friendly fire would likely be fatal. But for commandos, it would probably be used exclusively, for these men get into battles where every shot counts. Normally, armor piercing bullets go right through people, doing less damage than non-AP bullets, which are designed to break up when they hit something and increase the damage.

[Mark Tyson]

Armor piercing limited penetration sounds like an oxymoron to me. Call me skeptical but I still remember the furor over the black rhino. Can anyone tell me how this wonderbullet supposedly treats soft tissue different from armor?

[444]

Heat

[Double Maduro]

HEAT?

Let's see, have you ever picked up a spent bullet? One that may have bounced back and landed close to you? I guaranty that when it hits a target it is much hotter than the 98.6 of a human body. I don't think the differance between the heat of a body and say a tank sitting in the hot dessert sun would favor the human body being hotter. Does this mean it won't penetrate engine blocks?

Must be physics. These are laws that cannot be broken.

I still believe that we will never use it in battle because it would make it much easier for the enemy to use nasty things on us. That is what the conventions of war are all about. There are some things that are too bad to be used against other people because we don't want them used against us.

DM

[Balog]

Hey, I've got a new design. It's a .22lr that'll penetrate the armor on a Bradley and blow a hole the size of a watermelon through a man! Not only that, but it won't overpenetrate the walls of a house! It does this through super secret alien technology! That and a drop of mercury in the tip! I can't demonstrate it, but trust me, all the elite units use it. Just shoot someone in the foot and they'll be dead!

So stoopid it's funny.

[Blain]

if they have a negligent discharge, that person is dead. It doesn't matter how much body armor you have on.


Is that so? :rolleyes:

[BluesBear]

I believe the blended metal round is an RBCD product.

Ask JeffOTMG about it, he's a distributor.

[Balog]

Bill Skipper, president and CEO of the American Business Development Group, is a lobbyist representing Le Mas on Capitol Hill. "When I heard of the ballistic characteristics of this ammo, as a retired military officer, I realized it has to stay in the good guys' hands," he said, adding that SOCom's reluctance to test it is "irresponsible."
"This is an issue of national security," he said.


Gotta love that. Yeah buddy, a new type of ammo is a big threat to our national security.

[MrAcheson]

I think one of the big reasons people are having so much trouble explaining RBCD ammo is because we don't really know how it works.

I am willing to bet that heat has very little to do with the end behavior of the bullet. Why? Because the impact happens so fast that very little heat transfer can really go on between the body and the bullet. My bet is that the kicker for bullet breakup has much more to do with the kind of stress the bullet experiences on impact. Solids and fluids react differently to impact and produce different types of stress and pressure. The human body is basically a bunch of fluids held together by membranes so if you shoot a jug of water or even soft clay you may trip the effect, but a kevlar or a cinder block will not.

Why does heat seem to matter? Because temperature effects the properties of the impact medium. Cold meat and hot meat feel different, cold meat is stiffer and more "solid" (to put it in layman's terms).

[Jeff OTMG]

Hi guys! Where to begin, first thing is that I have not gone to the lightfighter.net forums because you do have to register to read it. One thing that I want to point out is that Ben Thomas is not with the U.S. Military. He is a security consultant and was a consultant for the Australian Olympic security. He can use anything he wants. I am not so sure not just due to signing of the Geneva Convention or Hague Accord whether this even qualifies for coverage. We are no longer battling the Iraqi military, these are terrorists not soldiers so they may not be protected by those agreements anyway.

manhattan23, the ammo that Lemas Ltd sells is not for sale to the public due to its' armor penetrating capability. All LE and govt sales go through Lemas, even for foreign governments. Fortunately RBCD has loads that do meet with BATF approval. They did not allow the sale of a 4400 fps .308 load and do not permit us to surpass the armor penetration ability of conventional handgun ammo.

clubsoda22, you are partially correct. RBCD has a HUGE temporary stretch cavity. This is due to velocity. Velocity is what has always made rifle ammo effective. Look at the .223. A .22 caliber 55 gr bullet. If it was a handgun round we wouldn't consider it. Suddenly when you drive it to 3000 fps it becomes good. This is where RBCD is different. Never before has a handgun been capable of inflicting hydrostatic shock to its' target. We have handgun rounds at 3000 fps and a .45 ACP available to the public at nearly 2400 fps. Guess what? You shoot that .223 out of a little 11" Car-15 and you only get around 2600 fps. .451 80gr at 2400 fps or .223 55gr at 2600 fps? How about a .40 cal 77gr at nearly 2500 fps? That is that RBCD 10mm. The reason we use clay? Because it is easier to shoot pictures of a clay block before and after than and one gallon jug of water and it was cheaper than jello. Later Roscoe did go out and shoot jello and you can see the photos here:
http://www.rbcd.net/gelatin%20photos.html
Whether or not he followed the FBI guidelines, I don't know, but I doubt it because there is no thermometer nor .177 caliber steel BB in the gelatin blocks shown in the photos. Without that BB the gelatin blocks are not calibrated and no better than shooting water bottles or wet newspaper. Dave doesn't like it because he couldn't get the ammo for free, that is my speculation. The ammo he did get is generations old (I can tell by looking at the boxes and the ballistics). I also did not see any gelatin blocks with an imbedded BB for RBCD ammo.

Gabe, sounds like Gary Roberts shouts down his detractors like the anti-gunners do.

Double Maduro, don't worry, they can't get it. We won't sell it to them.

444, interesting that what you post shows APLP at 60 gr, my boxes are plainly marked 40gr. That is unless RBCD is loading for the 6.8 mm.

Mark Tyson, no I don't know how it penetrates hard barriers yet disrupts in a watery medium, but it does and wonderfully so. You should see the handgun ammo against auto glass.

Balog, you may be closer than you think. I was on the phone with the Detroit Arsenal yesterday in Warren, Mi. They make the M1 Abrams tank and nobody knows what is going on yet.

MrAcheson, you may be right. RBCD may work on a range of densities, optimally in warm meat, least in a sheet of cold steel.

This is specualtion on my part, BUT judging by the information in the article I am going to guess that this was part of the State Department contract, possibly some of the overrun as I have a box of this type myself at home.

There were two types and this one would be the 'Urban Tactical APLP'. It fires a 40 gr bullet at nearly 4000 fps. The other is the 'Urban Tactical/CQB' with the same ballistics, but without the armor penetrating capability. The difference is in the construction of the slug, the base material is thinner and the side material is slightly thinner on the CQB version. The APLP was tested with the standard 55gr and 62gr SS109 rounds fired at a steel plate with one of the famous RBCD clay blocks behind it. The 55gr slug splattered on the steel plate, the SS109 penetrated the plate and zipped right through the clay block, the RBCD penetrated the steel plate and blew the clay block up.

What is scary is the velocity. This guy was using an M4 with a 14.5" barrel. Even the 55gr ammo isn't making 3000 fps, more like 2800 if that. The RBCD is zipping along MUCH faster.

The slugs are designed to upset in meat yet still have intermediate barrier penetration. I don't know how heat has anything to do with it, but in the handgun line if you shoot one roast cold and one roast that has been warmed up to 80 or 90 degrees the results are much more dramatic in the warm meet. I was talking to a guy this weekend who spoke with one of the ME's in Ft. Worth who was impressed with it. He said that it makes sense, but that we are still losing the effect of blood pressure that a living creature would have.

Some things to remember here:
1. For most people, myself included, making statements about a rounds effectiveness is opinion and nothing more. The next time someone tells you which bullet is best, ask them how many people they have killed with it. Me? Zero.

2. Thomas, a former SEAL, with first hand experience said, "he feels qualified to assess a bullet's effects, having trained as a special-operations medic and having shot people with various types of ammo, including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops.

3. "The way I explain what happened to people who weren't there is … this stuff was like hitting somebody with a miniature explosive round."

4. "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," "a wound that typically is not fatal."

5. "this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly." and "Nobody believed that this guy died from a butt shot."

6. They also took time to examine the wound. "There's absolutely no comparison, whatever, none," to other wounds he has seen from 5.56mm ammo.

I think that one problem might be that Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Gary Roberts may be a bit jealous of the Ben Thomas' of the world, which the guys at Lemas Ltd fall into by the way. Apparently Gary Roberts and Lemas Ltd have been going at it for awhile. Here is a link to a rebuttal on the Lemas website:
http://www.lemasltd.com/1Shot/bDrGKrebuttal.htm

I don't know Gary Roberts, never met him. So I have never asked him what ammo he has shot people with and what the effect was. From what I have heard, he shoots bowls of jello. If you are interested in the only approved method for shooting gelatin blocks here is the mixing, storage, and shooting procedure developed by the FBI.
http://www.vyse.com/gelatin_for_ballistic_testing.htm

Even with all that, I am not to sure that gelatin can be considered to be an adequate test media for RBCD.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Does it bother anyone that we're hiring corporate surrogate mercenaries who are able to use illegal weapons? Just asking.

[rayjay]

They're not mercs, they are "independent contractors" :D And they are very well paid too. By whom should be the question:scrutiny:

[Nightcrawler]

I think it's understandable that we're all skeptical. I mean, claims about an apparent smart bullet, that penetrates armor, cover, and concealment, yet violently fragments/explodes in human tissue only are a little hard to swallow.

See, it's a tradeoff. A bullet that fragments will have a harder time punching through barriers, especially thick things like logs or layered walls.

At the same time, a hard armor piercing bullet isn't going to be designed to deform at all, thus not wounding anymore than a plain-jane FMJ rifle round (which, for most people, is bad enough).

Yet here comes RCBD, saying that they've got a wonderbullet that penetrates through everything except people, and yet they can't explain why it works.

You have to admit, it seems funny.

It would be interesting if it were all true, though.

[BluesBear]

Back in the 1950s and 1960s plywood was used to test penetration and clay was used to test expansion. Newsprint and phonebooks were used to test both. No one seemed to mind. It was a good way to compare performance.

Did it represent what happened when the bullet hit tissue? Nope. and no one said it did. it was just comparison.

Then came ballistic gelatin. All of a sudden everything else was obsolete?

Gelatin is a good way to SEE penetration and expansion. But it ain't meat. It ain't human. It ain't animal. But it is transparent enough that you can the action as it happens. If gelatin is such a perfect test medium why are they now making it wear blue jeans?

As for temporay stretch cavity damage...

Does anyone think that a 2" or 3" temporary cavity would be devastating?

Does anyone think that a 8"-10" tempory cavity would NOT do some major damage? Would not some blood vessels be broken? Would not some tissue be stretched past the point of tearing?

When we are finally attacked by 14" thick alien mutants made of Jell-O and wearing Levi's 501s then we will all be ready for them because we know exacty what damage we can do. But would they still die? Jell-O has no blood vessels or bones or nerves...

There is no such thing as a magic bullet.
There is no such thing as a magic gun.
There is no such thing as a magic test medium.

You can't build a house with a butcher knife and you can't cut a steak with a hammer.

That's why the military has both howitzers and handguns.
One size does NOT fit all.
Quit expecting it to.

[Harry Tuttle]

i wonder if you put a drop of Miltec on the round, if it works better
:scrutiny:

[RikWriter]

Does it bother anyone that we're hiring corporate surrogate mercenaries who are able to use illegal weapons? Just asking.

No, because for one thing the ammo isn't illegal and neither are the weapons.

[Double Maduro]

JeffOTMG,

You said:

"Double Maduro, don't worry, they can't get it. We won't sell it to them."

Gee where have I heard this before?

Maybe about every military and defense secret ever?

They don't have engineers that can figure this out?

They will never capture a round and examine it?

If it is an effective weapon it will be copied and improved upon.

Besides, it will never be approved for war if any and all wounds prove fatal. Especially if the wounds are as horrific as stated.

DM

[Sean Smith]

The military will never adopt it for general use, even if it somehow works as advertised. The U.S. military has traditionally followed a very strict interpretation of the Hague Conventions when it comes to the laws of land warfare, regardless of its status as a signatory of the original 1910 treaty.

You can find exceptions, sure. But the U.S. military has almost always taken the legal stance that Article 23 prohibits the use of all small-arms ammo designed to expand or fragment on impact with the human body to increase injury to the same. The usually noted exceptions are for counter-terrorism (since they aren't fighting regular soldiers, the restrictions don't apply) and snipers (who use a "hollow-point" 168gr BTHP that doesn't seem to wound any more than the FMJ equivalent).

"In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden... To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

Vague as all get-out, no doubt. But again, the traditional U.S. military legal take on it is that almost anything but full metal jacket small arms ammunition is a no-no for that reason.

Does it bother anyone that we're hiring corporate surrogate mercenaries who are able to use illegal weapons? Just asking.

Cite the law, please. The guys in quesiton would fall outside the purview of most interpretations of the Laws of Land Warfare, by the way, so the Hague limitations (and protections, for that matter) wouldn't apply to them.

[RikWriter]

Gee where have I heard this before?
Maybe about every military and defense secret ever?

They don't have engineers that can figure this out?

They will never capture a round and examine it?

If it is an effective weapon it will be copied and improved upon.


Then I suppose we should just stop trying to develop new and better weapons, right? Because bad guys might get them? :rolleyes:

[Double Maduro]

RikWriter,

I am in a bad mood today, your bad luck.

you said,

"Then I suppose we should just stop trying to develop new and better weapons, right? Because bad guys might get them?"

Where in the world did I say to stop research? How stupid. What I said was that if you think we can keep a small arms technology from the enemy you are mistaken.

I guess I wasn't in as bad a mood as I thought, lol

DM

[Nightcrawler]

I wouldn't worry so much about it. I'm still not convinced that the rounds perform as advertised. And why should I be? No one can explain how they work, and their description seems to fly in the face of common sense and the laws of physics. And from what I've read on this thread, even the makers of the ammunition say they don't know.

"We don't know how it works, we can't prove it works, but buy some from us."

I'm not trying to bash RCBD here, but that's what it seems like they're saying.

[sasnofear]

if hollow pts arn't aproved for military use, then i seriously dont see this stuff getting used

[Shawn Dodson]

BluesBear writes: Gelatin is a good way to SEE penetration and expansion. But it ain't meat. It ain't human. It ain't animal. I refer you to "The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation," by Martin L. Fackler, published in Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Number 4, 1994, pp. 12-19. The article compares performance in gelatin to several shootings: The test of the wound profiles' validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we could expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile's course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage pattern correlations of remarkably close approximatation to the wound profiles.

If gelatin is such a perfect test medium why are they now making it wear blue jeans? If ya wanna understand how bullets perform in soft tissues after passing through heavy clothing you gotta have a heavy clothing standard, don't ya?

Jeff OTMG writes: I don't know Gary Roberts, never met him. So I have never asked him what ammo he has shot people with and what the effect was. From what I have heard, he shoots bowls of jello. IIRC, Roberts' was a member of a sheriff's tactical unit. He also works closely with many other LE tactical units.

The questions beg to be asked:

What is your experience in this field?

How many people have you and Bulmer shot?

From what I understand you guys shoot blocks of pottery clay and hunks of aged meat?

[Malone LaVeigh]

The guys in quesiton would fall outside the purview of most interpretations of the Laws of Land WarfareThat was my point. The US, or maybe it's corporate constituents, seem to be able to hire mercenaries who don't answer to the same laws as our military. To me, that sets a disturbing precedence. No, I can't cite the laws, I was just reacting to what several posters had said.

If this is OT, we could take it to another thread if anyone's interested.

[MrAcheson]

Sorry Shawn, but ballistic gelatin is far from perfect. I have seen you re-explain someone else's gelatin results enough times to have drawn the proper conclusion about that. A lot of your site's content is explaining the faulty work of other sites' ballistic testing after all. Gelatin has properties which are good enough that the terminal ballistics of hollowpoint and ball are similar to observed behaviors in people.

But gelatin is not meat. We both know that it isn't. Its a pretty good ballistic simulant and its the current standard in wound ballistics, but frankly its hardly perfect. Gelatin is a continuum, people aren't. Gelatin's elastic properties are different from actual soft tissue as well (hence all the temporary cavities that aren't in gelatin). Is it possible that RBCD's terminal behavior is different in gelatin than people/animals? Yes it is entirely possible.

Frankly all the word from people who have use it to kill has been good to amazing. Animals get hit and drop. People get hit and drop. In the lab the results aren't very good. Which either means the success is hype or the lab work is missing something. Right now I don't know which because there isn't enough real world evidence from hunting/self-defense yet. But there will be eventually and then one party is probably going to have some explaining to do.

[griz]

I'm still on the skeptical side. Note the article says the round will not penetrate drywall, which is not meat and no warmer than room temperature. Also they compare the effects in tissue to military FMJ rounds. I suspect a plain vanilla soft point, even though it makes no claims to great penetration, might have similar devestaing effets in tissue.

[RikWriter]

RikWriter,

I am in a bad mood today, your bad luck

Oh darn. :rolleyes:

you said,

"Then I suppose we should just stop trying to develop new and better weapons, right? Because bad guys might get them?"

Where in the world did I say to stop research? How stupid. What I said was that if you think we can keep a small arms technology from the enemy you are mistaken.


Not forever, but when there are only a few rounds available in the whole world and your enemy is using weapons and ammo cached for decades, yeah, I think you can keep it from them in the short term.

[Jeff OTMG]

I think that you will find many of the private security personel are there to protect the individuals from contract companies who are there to help rebuild the infrastructure. They are not acting under direction of the U.S. Military, but do coordinate with them.

Double Maduro, you state 'They don't have engineers that can figure this out?'
Actually they probably don't. The machinery to make the bullets was never intended for that purpose and then it was modified. When they moved the machinery a year or so ago to a secure facility they wrapped them up in tarps before they were jacked up and lifted onto the transporters. At the new facility they were set in place and everyone had to leave before they could be unwrapped and set back up.

You also state, 'it will never be approved for war if any and all wounds prove fatal.' I believe that you are absolutely correct here and Sean Smith agrees as well. RBCD should not meet the criteria agreed to by that Hague Accord, BUT the conflicts that we are currently in do not meet the criteria for holding to the Geneva Convention nor the Hague Accord. This is also why we have prisoners locked up in Cuba with no contact with the outside world. When we were fighting the Iraqi Army that was one thing, this is different.

Shawn asks:
What is your experience in this field?
Ans: Just been around guns for 40 years, use to train LE in firearms back in the 1970's with my dad, that was when we shot the PPC course to qualify. The target didn't even give any points for a head shot. I think it was called a B27. Everyone had revolvers back then, there was a DA course of fire from 25 yards in and a SA course from 50 and 60 yards. Got my FFL in the 1980's and started working as a consultant as well. No money in the gun industry and most of the pay there has been in the form of freebies. Ballistics? I use to shoot wet phone books, newspaper, watermelons, and jugs of water. Does that count?

How many people have you and Bulmer shot?
Ans: Well I already answered that in my post.
"1. For most people, myself included, making statements about a rounds effectiveness is opinion and nothing more. The next time someone tells you which bullet is best, ask them how many people they have killed with it. Me? Zero."

From what I understand you guys shoot blocks of pottery clay and hunks of aged meat?
I have never personally shot a block of clay or a piece of meat. Don't know if it was pottery clay or not, my understanding was that it was NIJ ballistic clay, they use it to measure the backface deformation when testing ballistic armor.

Can't speak for Bulmer, I have never met the man, nor have I ever spoken with him on the phone. If you asked him who I was I doubt that he could even tell you that I was an RBCD distributor. The only reason I know who he is is because all the government contracts go through Lemas.

So Roberts was a SWAT guy, still don't know how many people he shot or with what bullet.

As good as gelatin has been there one thing that it is missing and that is blood pressure. I don't think it has veins, arteries, or capillaries either. Up until now only rifles have been able to achieve the velocities of RBCD. I don't know why, but I have not seen any tests of rifle ammo on gelatin blocks. I think that an open mind might be in order here. There are new developments.

It all comes down to this for me. You can shoot all the bowls of Jello, blocks of clay, jugs of water, or budles of newspaper, but when I hear:
'a former SEAL, with first hand experience said, "he feels qualified to assess a bullet's effects, having trained as a special-operations medic and having shot people with various types of ammo, including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops. There's absolutely no comparison, whatever, none," to other wounds he has seen from 5.56mm ammo.

That says it all.

griz, I assure you that RBCD penetrates dry wall. The article says SEVERAL LAYERS. If you put four walls up, 8 layers of sheet rock, that might stop RBCD, but it will blow through one wall, 2 layers.

I did find out today that this won't be the last we will hear of RBCD in Iraq or Afghanistan. The news will come out in either Jan or Feb of next year. There is RBCD all over the place and the news is good. Keep an eye on Army Times and Armed Forces Journal International.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But gelatin is not meat. We both know that it isn't. Its a pretty good ballistic simulant and its the current standard in wound ballistics, but frankly its hardly perfect. Gelatin is a continuum, people aren't. Gelatin's elastic properties are different from actual soft tissue as well (hence all the temporary cavities that aren't in gelatin). Is it possible that RBCD's terminal behavior is different in gelatin than people/animals? Yes it is entirely possible.

The problem with this is that wound ballistics research with gelatin was developed by shooting live animals and then shooting gelatin until gelatin was tuned to the point it was a reliable ballistic simulant. That is what science is all about - to be able to accurately predict results and set up a process where others can reproduce your work to verify it.

Now we have somebody claiming that they have a round that works on live animals; but doesn't work on gelatin. It sounds pretty strange to me; but let's assume it is true for the purposes of this argument.

If it is true, all LeMas has to do to prove doubters wrong is use the exact same live-animal testing protocol that was used to develop ballistic gelatin research. This is a protocol that is well established and that even the critics of this ammo agree is valid. Since the target is a live animal, whether gelatin is a good ballistic simulant for this particular type of ammo is irrelevant.

To my knowledge, LeMas has not done this type of laboratory testing of their ammo. Since JeffOTMG has some knowledge of this, perhaps he could shed some light on whether such testing has been done?

[MrAcheson]

The problem with this is that wound ballistics research with gelatin was developed by shooting live animals and then shooting gelatin until gelatin was tuned to the point it was a reliable ballistic simulant.

Yeah but this sort of methodology only works if you are testing the something fundamentally similar. It is a completely empirically derived simulant. Thats not bad, its definitely better than nothing, and it works well for what it tests. However thats the kicker, you can only guarantee it works well for what it was formulated to test. Anything else is risky because you are extrapolating instead of interpolating. Might work, might not.

Now, RBCD's terminal behavior and mechanics are definitely different from FMJ or JHP. It doesn't mushroom or deform like more conventional bullets, it seems to fracture and cause damage that way . This is a completely different damage propogation mechanism. Similarly it has been demonstrated that it only behaves this way under a given set of conditions which appear to work in warm tissue, but may or may not work in gelatin.

So will gelatin testing work? Sorry but just because it has worked before is not good enough. Since in vivo results seem to be conflicting with gelatin, the gelatin folks really do need to show the specific validity of their methodology as well. "This is how we have always done it" has caused too many screw ups for it to be a valid justification of a methodology.

Note the "as well" because I'm getting to that.

If it is true, all LeMas has to do to prove doubters wrong is use the exact same live-animal testing protocol that was used to develop ballistic gelatin research. This is a protocol that is well established and that even the critics of this ammo agree is valid. Since the target is a live animal, whether gelatin is a good ballistic simulant for this particular type of ammo is irrelevant.

Exactly. If RBCD and its distributors want to prove that their ammo works they need to do live testing. This will prove/disprove both the capability of their ammo and the validity/invalidity of gelatin testing for it. The problem here is that live testing is very expensive. It may take a while (and some outside financial backing) to do this.

[Shawn Dodson]

The bottom line is...

RBCD/LeMas is not going anywhere in the U.S. military until its terminal performance characteristics are fully understood at the engineering level.

It may indeed perform as described, and if it does, I'm all for it. But for now, in the absence of valid data all we're doing is speculating.

It doesn't surprise me the least that a high-velocity, light-weight rifle bullet, such as the APLP, is capable of producing a temporary cavity large enough to cause substantial tissue damage. For example, extremity wounds produced by an intact, 7.62 M80 FMJ bullet as it yaws, can be pretty gruesome in appearance.

The primary wounding mechanism of APLP is temporary cavitation.

MrAcheson writes: Now, RBCD's terminal behavior and mechanics are definitely different from FMJ or JHP. It doesn't mushroom or deform like more conventional bullets, it seems to fracture and cause damage that way . This is a completely different damage propogation mechanism. It doesn’t appear to be any different than M193 or M855 in terminal performance, which yaw and fragment, depending on velocity. So will gelatin testing work? Sorry but just because it has worked before is not good enough. Since in vivo results seem to be conflicting with gelatin, the gelatin folks really do need to show the specific validity of their methodology as well. "This is how we have always done it" has caused too many screw ups for it to be a valid justification of a methodology. I’m unconvinced APLP performs differently in gelatin than it does in flesh. It's not unusual for soft tissue disruption to appear more graphic than the same disruption observed in ordnance gelatin.

The two forces responsible for bullet deformation are shear forces and inertial forces, which properly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin accurately reproduces as a realistic soft tissue simulant. The shear forces exerted on a penetrating bullet by various soft tissue densities are trivial compared to inertial forces. Shear forces become a factor at velocities below 600 fps. At velocities above 600 fps, inertial forces are the primary cause of bullet upset. If RBCD and its distributors want to prove that their ammo works they need to do live testing. Concur.

[444]

"If it is true, all LeMas has to do to prove doubters wrong is use the exact same live-animal testing protocol that was used to develop ballistic gelatin research. This is a protocol that is well established and that even the critics of this ammo agree is valid. Since the target is a live animal, whether gelatin is a good ballistic simulant for this particular type of ammo is irrelevant."

It appears that they skipped the theoretical stage and are testing on a different medium in Iraq.

[Balog]

It appears that they skipped the theoretical stage and are testing on a different medium in Iraq.

Based on one unsubstantiated report made by a guy trying to sell the product. Good "test data." :barf:

[444]

I just read on the API list that Jim Crillo is touting these RBCD bullets. If true, the plot thickens.

"Based on one unsubstantiated report made by a guy trying to sell the product. Good "test data."

No, it sounded in one of Jeff's previous posts that there is a lot more going on than this one guy. And that one guy wasn't selling anything but his own services - not ammo.

[MN_Strelok]

I just read on the API list that Jim Crillo is touting these RBCD bullets. If true, the plot thickens.

This is true. I had one of his classes a few months back, and he was definitely keen on them. But, if I'm not mistaken he has an interest in the company. (He talked about a couple ammo producers though, and I can't remember for sure which one he was involved with.)

Anyway, back to lurking for me.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It appears that they skipped the theoretical stage and are testing on a different medium in Iraq.

I've seen a few deer killed with a .22 and yet everyone keeps telling me that it isn't a good idea to hunt with one based on my firsthand experience. I've also heard of people being shot where the bullet freakishly travels under the helmet along the skull and exits the other side of the helmet without ever penetrating the skull and despite the real-deal experience of the people who have seen and reported that, nobody will let me shoot them in the head. If there has been no scientific testing of live animals then there has been a stage skipped here but it isn't the "theoretical" one, it is the "scientifically reproducable results" stage.

In this article, those who favor the LeMas round are arguing that they have a round that is very effective that they want to get into the hands of those who are fighting.

They say that this has not happened because their round does not perform well in the gelatin tests used to predict real world performance. They claim that their round performs differently in gelatin then it does in live tissue and that further, the people pushing the gelatin standard have a bias against them because they favor a different solution.

But there is a catch here that favors LeMas - these same people who have opposed their ammo have already endorsed a certain protocol for live-animal testing as scientifically valid. They have laid out the exact procedures that need to be followed. If APLP ammo does indeed perform differently in live tissue, then here is a live-animal test their opponents have already endorsed and that is accepted as scientifically valid by the whole community.

If LeMas has done that test then they can show the results to support their claims and the data from those tests would be a lot more useful in convincing skeptics than the anecdotal evidence mentioned in this story (no matter how experienced the source of that anecdotal evidence). If LeMas has not done that test, then I have to question why they can afford a lobbyist to push their ammo on Capitol Hill but can't afford to test it in a way where others can reproduce the results and verify that APLP ammo works as advertised.

[Blain]

manhattan23, the ammo that Lemas Ltd sells is not for sale to the public due to its' armor penetrating capability.


Rifle ammo is armor penetrating by design. Besides, AP rifle ammo is NOT Illegal. AP pistol ammo is!! What's the deal?


How is the recoil on these hyper velocity rounds?

[BeLikeTrey]

Maybe this IS their idea of live testing. Send some to a conflict zone and get the reports ;)

[Jeff OTMG]

Blain, you are correct when referring to rifle ammo (except that BATF has prohibitted the sale of some RBCD rifle ammo for this very reason), BUT the testing that manhattan23 was referring to only involved RBCD handgun ammo and that concern was what I was responding to. RBCD has a number of lines of ammo and many of those have handgun loads that will blow through even Threat Level III and IIIa armor with velocities approaching or exceeding 3000 fps from a handgun.

Ben Thomas, the shooter in Iraq, is in no way associated with RBCD. He is a former associate of Stan Bulmer of Lemas. They may have even served side by side.

Jim Cirillo is a 2% owner, formerly 6%, of non-voting shares of RBCD stock.

[BluesBear]

IINM, Jim Cirillo designed the Safe-Stop ammo and also has an interest in Village Metalworks, the company that is now producing it.

[Blain]

So you produce .308 ammo as well? How effective is that compared to the .223?

[Jeff OTMG]

The .223 is 37-40gr slugs at 3900-4000 fps. The .308 is 112 or 124 gr at 3600+ fps using the same limited penetration blended metal. There is a .308 at 4400 fps, but BATF does not permit the sale of the ammo due to its' ability to blow through Level IV ceramic plate. 4000 fps seems to me the threshold for the 110+ grains bullets so even the .300 Win Mag is loaded under 4000 fps. You have to go to a .300 Rem Ultra Mag to break 4000 fps, even the .30/.378 doesn't hit 4400 fps.

[kernal_panic]

This story we are being fed about heat inside the target causing the bullet to fragment is pure bullsh*t. if heat caused this bullet to fragment the bullet would blow up inside the rifles flash supressor. I cannot belive people are actually stupid enough that they think they can feed this line to anyone who has 1/2 of a brain. That bullet when it exits the barrel and during flight is alot hotter than the human body.

Its called Friction.

You see your wonder slug here accelerates from 0-4000 fps in the space of 14-20 inches. 4000 fps is over mach3 almost mach4 (mach 1 is a bit over 1100 fps at sea level) the friction in the rifle barrel is going to heat that slug up quite a bit. not to mention the hot gas thats forcing it down said barrel. now we hit air. remember the bullet is traveling at 4000 fps but its slowing down. why is it slowing down? Friction with the air. the sr-71 blackbird's skin reachs 600 F at 80,000 feet at that speed. your bullet is traveling in much more dense air than the airplane and is under greater fricition with the air.

so we have friciton with the barrel and friction with the air to heat the bullet but the measily 98.6 degrees of the human body can somehow make this bullet fragment. What do these people think we are? 2nd graders?

and whats the air temp right now in IRAQ? I was in texas this past summer it was 101 degrees the day i left. Someone walking around with ammo like that in his rifle would not have much to shoot because if it were true his bullets would come unglued without even FIRING IT!

If there is any reason these bullet fragment its do to velocity, bullet constuction (how strong is this bullets material) and friction within the target. I don't need to be a scientist or an engineer to know if i shoot someone with a bullet of weak material at high velocity that its going to fragment when it hits a high friction medium like Abdulla's ???.

My opinion: These guys are snake oil salesmen.

[Gmac]

:D Methinks this has the odoriferous emanations of bovine excrement!!!!

[Obiwan]

I don't care if it actually explodes after striking, they still cannot guarantee one-shot-kills.

Maybe curare tipped ammo...yeah..that's the ticket!!!

And the temperature sensitivity statement simply reeks:barf:

[BluesBear]

Chill people.

It's not that warm tissue MAKES the bullet perform but rather that warm tissue ALLOWS the bullet to perform.

Am I the only one here who has ever carved meat? Muscle mass, human tissue whatever you want to call it, it is just MEAT !

Cold meat is more diffucult to carve than warm meat.

Take your beloved hydro-slots or gold spots or STPs or sliver-pips or mudsafes or whatever you prefer to shoot and go out and blow up your water filled milk jugs. Then freeze them and see what happens. After all it's still nothing but H²O ain't it? :rolleyes:

Go out and blow away a canned ham or two. You'll see a big difference to one at room temperature and one at refrigerator temperatures.

Even that holy grail ballistic gelatin has to be within a certain temperature range to be viable. That's why you seldom see any Jell-O testing done outdoors. Jell-O has such a small window of acceptable temperatures where it can be used.

Now I am NOT endorsing anyones bullets. I am not saying this one works and that one doesn't. What I am saying is that ALL bullets will behave differently in different temperatured mediums because the DENSITY of the medium WILL change, with a change in temperatures.

[Jeff OTMG]

I don't think that the heat is what does it. If you shoot a gallon jug of cold water or a gallon jug of hot water the results would be the same. If heat were a factor there would be a difference. I believe that it has to do with density. Warm meat is a more optimum density of medium that cold meat. The clay that is shot in the demos is not warmed up to the best of my knowledge. It is at whatever temperature that it was in San Antonio that day.

I guess that fortunately for the company, the Ben Thomas' of the world, the real 'been there done that' guys, seem to like oil from snakes. Unless Iraqis have their stomaches located in there ???, the assessment seems to be that it works pretty well from someone who has shot numerous people with different types of .223 ammo.

If I wanted to know how to drive a car fast, getting in and out of corners, I would ask a race car driver, not someone who studied race cars and race tracks and told me how to do it.

[Preacherman]

FWIW, Dr. Fackler spoke at length about BMT bullets in a recent review. It's been posted in the Rifle Forum in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=53483). I tend to concur with his opinion in this case (though not others).

Also, if anyone makes any outrageous-sounding claims about anything (gun-related or not), see this article (http://www.bobpark.com/Articles/SevenSigns.htm). Very good information about how to spot the signs of a false claim. Does anyone recognize any similarities with LeMas' marketing tactics? :rolleyes:

[Art Eatman]

I've never shot any people, but I've "autopsied" over 50 dead deer. Add in skinning coyotes and observing the remains of jackrabbits and feral cats and feral dogs. Depending on the critter, I've used .222, .223, .22-250, .220 Swift, .243, .25-'06, .270 and .30-'06.

""It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," Thomas said."

Sounds like typical behavior of any high-velocity bullet that gets deflected from the entry meat and into easily-destroyed tissue. Also, any somewhat frangible bullet that hits bone will create even more of a "hand grenade" effect. Angles vary, of course, but to get to the stomach from a buttock means getting past the pelvis; possibly through it?

:), Art

[Obiwan]

Good stuff Peter....always the voice of reason;)

I think those that would discredit gelatin testing need to make that case first before simply discounting it.

For better, or worse, gelatin testing is the accepted method for evaluating bullet design and effectiveness.

If there is a better , more applicable and repeatable test out there....prove it...then proceed to step 2.

[Obiwan]

Some really good commentary....

With a high degree of civility

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=670&page=1&pp=10

[Jeff OTMG]

I just read the Fackler article. He is making comments on ammo that he has never tested. At least he does not refer to any testing he did in the article. He is only commenting on this article in the August 2001 edition of AFJI:
http://www.afji.com/AFJI/Mags/2001/August/MeteorRound.htm

His comments are based on past experience and he only refers to handgun rounds that RBCD made over 2 years ago. That was many generations earlier that what is available today. Also the shot in Iraq that this thread is about was a .223 APLP round that was just developed this year. In fact if Fackler had done the review more recently he would have referenced the AFJI article from 2002 as well:
http://www.afji.com/AFJI/Mags/2002/August/shootout.html
or 2003 which is not available on the internet yet. So his review was of an article not of the ammo.

Also Absolut quotes some person named Troy at AR15.com

1. You can't buy it; the manufacturer won't sell it to you.

Maybe not, but I sold a box of it at the last Indy 1500 gun show. It is available to the distributors and to the public through them.

2. It was tested by Dr. Roberts for the military, and it failed to meet the performance requirements.

I do not know if Roberts tested the APLP and Troy does not give a link to the test so I don't know if his statement is true or not.

4. The manufacturer further refuses to let anyone else test their ammo.

That would be a little difficult since the ammo is for sale. How would they keep people from testing with it once it was purchased? I assure you that you do not have to sign a release saying that you won't test with the ammo when you buy it. If he wants to test it then have at it.

5. The former SEAL describes a wound that could have easily been made by M193, M855, and especially Mk262 ammunition. Their standard ammo, M855, is by far the poorest performer, though, and most likely represents his baseline for comparison.

I don't know where he gets that from. Maybe he didn't read it carefully enough.
'including the standard-issue green tip and the Black Hills Mk 262, favored by spec-ops troops. There's absolutely no comparison, whatever, none,' to other wounds he has seen from other 5.56mm ammo.

6. Our elite soldiers from the SEALs, Delta, Force Recon, and so on are without question among the best operators in the world. However, the fact that they are highly trained and experienced in using their weapons does NOT make them experts on terminal ballistics.

Ben Thomas says, that 'he feels qualified to assess a bullet's effects, having trained as a special-operations medic' He doesn't claim to be a ballistics expert, but he does claim to have examined the wounds of numerous shooting victims. What are Troy's qualifications? Are they better than Ben Thomas'?

Art, I don't disagree with you on the velocity principle accept that Thomas has seen other wounds from other .223 rounds and the others were not nearly as devastating. In his words, 'there is no comparison'. Actually from the description in the article and your mention of the pelvis I would speculate that the slug blew up and took half of the pelvis out with it creating numerous secondary missles and the bone fragments are actually what chewed up the guys stomach.

[Nightcrawler]

Jeff, my question to you is this. Have YOU seen this ammunition demonstrated or tested? 'Cause no one here has.

[Jeff OTMG]

As far as 'testing' goes, all I have seen was the aftermath of the APLP against a steel plate. The 55gr FMJ simply splattered on the plate. The SS109 (green tip stuff, don't know what the military designation is) punched a little hole completely through the plate and the clay block behind it. The APLP punched a hole through the plate and blew open the clay block, as we have seen RBCD do to clay blocks in the past. Much of the shooting RBCD does is at Camp Bullis in northern San Antonio.

I spoke to David, who makes the slugs and loads the ammo, after noticing that the bullet weights were the same and he said that the difference was that the outside wall is slightly thicker on the APLP and the base is made thicker and harder than on the 'anti-personel' CQB version. Nearly all of the ammo went to Lemas Ltd in Ark. to fulfill the govt PO that they had. The left overs are being sold to distributors on request.

I have one box each of the Urban Tactical(APLP) and Urban Tactical/CQB from the overrun.

[444]

Like many, I too am skeptical of the frequent claims of miricle bullets. We seem to get a new one every six months or so. But, that being said, I wouldn't presume that we currently know everything there is to know about bullet design and I certainly don't believe we have reached the pinnacle of bullet design or bullet testing. I think there are going to be plenty of bullets designed in the future that are vastly superior to what we are using today. In my own lifetime, I have seen bullets make quantum leaps in design and effectiveness. Police have gone from .38 Special in a round nose configuration for example. Hunting bullets and bullets intended for persona defense have made huge strides in just the last 10 years. Many credit Super-Vel with being a pioneer in handgun bullet effectiveness.
Whether this is one of them, I don't know. But I am not going to discount it out of hand (on what basis could I discount it ?). I have never seen a round of this ammunition, and don't personally know anyone that has: let alone shot any living thing with it. So, I can't make any kind of an informed judgement on it. However, I do make some observations. This story has been reported in some pretty reliable media sources like The Army Times, so I am going to assume the story is true. According to the article, a guy with far more experience than most, in actual combat (using the same weapon in the same caliber), reports that he is amazed at this bullets performance on an actual human target. The article also points out that other members of his team, who also have far more experience in actual combat than I will ever have (hopefully) were equally impressed. To me, this speaks volumes. Laboratory results are fine, simulated testing is fine, but sometimes these theoretical results don't match real results. Again, I don't know if this is the case here, but I think it is at least worth some thought. I realize that one reported kill doesn't tell the whole story of this rounds performance. I also realize that a bunch of people sitting at their computer can't realistically discount it's performance either considering they have no experience with it at all.
One thing that I find amusing about the whole thing is that when discussing bullet effectiveness, there is always a significant number of people who claim that you can never obtain realistic results through lab testing. That testing in a lab never really duplicates real world conditions. Then we have a bullet that is being reported to be highly effective in the field and people complain that it doesn't perform effectively in the lab.
I guess you can't win. Or maybe this goes back to the old adage: You can please some of the people some of the time.........................................
I am also thankful that down through the pages of history, many people didnt' listen to the experts who told them something couldn't be done, and did it anyway.

[Art Eatman]

Jeff, with "The .223 is 37-40gr slugs at 3900-4000 fps.", I'd say it's just like a .22-250 or a Swift. (Ain't modern powders wondrous? :) ) So, I'd expect exactly the sort of performance spoken of in the opening post. It sounds just like what I've seen on "midships" hits on jackrabbits and coyotes: A half-acre of "yuck".

(In the FWIW department, the MV is equal to a pre-WW II loading for a .22 Savage Hi-Power, per Phil Sharpe. :D )

:), Art

[Jeff OTMG]

Art, RBCD actually has some .223 at 4400 fps, but because people insist on putting them in an AR they won't be sold to the public. They work nicely in a bolt gun or in the Robinson M96, to safely use in an AR requires a modification of the gas system.

I also hesitate to call what RBCD uses 'powder'. It is a propellant. A dry propellant in the general commercial loadongs, but it isn't a powder in 'special' loads.

[griz]

Well you've got me curious now. I would call gun powder a propellant. Propellant is more of a function than a physical description. What is the stuff inside the case if it isn't gunpowder?

[Jeff OTMG]

It begins life as a liquid propellent. The commercial loads use a dry form. They were doing load development for a special pupose .50 BMG. The case will hold something like 3.5 oz of the liquid, but the load finally settled on was 1 oz. The fireball from the 3.5 oz load was 20 feet out each side of the muzzle break and 45 feet down range. They were concerned that the 'blast funnel', which is made of plywood, would ignite. The 1oz load is still a liquid, but it has a thickener added making it nearly as thick as tar. The propellent can range in consistency from flowing readily like water, to molasses, to paste, to dry. It depends on what the purpose of the load is. With 1 oz of propellent the .50 BMG exceeded 10,000 fps, and yes it is a sabot. The pressure wave is deadly. Some of the .45 ACP shells have been loaded as well, but are not at safe pressure to shoot in any autoloader.

[NukemJim]

Actually almost all modern propellants start out as a liquid using solvents such as ether and alcohol ( Reference: Understanding Firearm Ballistics by R Rinker Pg 24)

With 1 oz of propellent the .50 BMG exceeded 10,000 fps, and yes it is a sabot. The pressure wave is deadly.

I'm sorry but "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"

Many claims have been made.

Little evidence has been shown.

I do not KNOW either way. But my personal Bovine Excrement Detector is just about pegged on this one.

NukemJim

PS I would not mind being wrong about this. If the round functions as good as this and gives our armed forces a little edge I would be delighted. Shocked but delighted.

[Double Maduro]

Ok,

Heres the deal. Somebody send me a Barrett and some of this wonder ammo and I will test it and post the results.

Oh, yeah, better send me a chronograph too.

One last thing, I get to keep all of the test equipment.

I don't know what all the fuss is about this ammo. No one on the board will get to try it, except maybe Skunk.

DM

[griz]

Are you SURE the 50 cal case will hold 3.5 ounces of this liquid?
I just filled a case with water and my admitedly crude measurement was .7 ounces. I know there are fluids heavier than water, but five times ? I'm afraid I'm not a believer.

[Jeff OTMG]

NukemJim, don't know how the powder is made. I do know that nitrocellulose or gun cotton, is simply nitric acid allowed to react with cotton, nitrating it. Nitrocellulose is a component in Hercules Bullseye pistol powder. That is not a liquid propellent though.

RBCD nor I, owe you nothing regarding "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". You want evidence? Contact the company and enter into a contactual agreement to develop a load for you. You want access to paperwork? Pay for it. You believe what you want, but the ammo is not available to the public and I guess that I should just reserve my comments to the ammo that is widely available from now on rather than try to let you guys in on some of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. I try to do that with www.shotshowreports.com as well, all I report is what I am told.

As far as velocity goes there is a Meteor .50 BMG at 9600 fps, the stuff they sell to the public is 6000 fps. That is on the site:
http://www.rbcd.net/Personal%20Defense%20Ammo.htm
Meteor rifle and handgun ammo is not available to the public. What is so hard to believe about 400 extra fps over the Meteor? We have a gun here in Austin that they were getting over 14000 fps 5 years ago. It is a light gas accelerator. Go head and call BS on that too, I am sure with your degree in mechanical engineering you could get a job with them and you could show them what they are doing wrong. Just one question. How do you suppose someone will come up with a way to make a projectile for a rail gun and not have it fall apart when it is fired? It take development.

griz, no I am not sure. That is why I said, 'The case will hold something like 3.5 oz of the liquid'. I was not there and the guy that told me was not sure. I don't even know if he was talking fluid or weight when he was referring to ounces. Again, I only report what I hear.