B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
A thought?
Maybe this IS their idea of live testing. Send some to a conflict zone and get the reports
Maybe this IS their idea of live testing. Send some to a conflict zone and get the reports
1-shot killer
- Thread starter Ed Straker
- Start date
- Status
Jeff OTMG
Member
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.
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
member
IINM, Jim Cirillo designed the Safe-Stop ammo and also has an interest in Village Metalworks, the company that is now producing it.
Jeff OTMG
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2003
- Messages
- 275
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.
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
Member
Methinks this has the odoriferous emanations of bovine excrement!!!!
BluesBear
member
Get a grip on reality.
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?
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.
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?
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
Member
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.
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
Member
FWIW, Dr. Fackler spoke at length about BMT bullets in a recent review. It's been posted in the Rifle Forum in this thread. 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. Very good information about how to spot the signs of a false claim. Does anyone recognize any similarities with LeMas' marketing tactics?
Also, if anyone makes any outrageous-sounding claims about anything (gun-related or not), see this article. Very good information about how to spot the signs of a false claim. Does anyone recognize any similarities with LeMas' marketing tactics?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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
""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?
, ArtGood 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.
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.
Some really good commentary....
With a high degree of civility
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=670&page=1&pp=10
With a high degree of civility
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=670&page=1&pp=10
Jeff OTMG
Member
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.
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
Member
Jeff, my question to you is this. Have YOU seen this ammunition demonstrated or tested? 'Cause no one here has.
Jeff OTMG
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Moderator In Memoriam
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. )
, Art
) 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.
), ArtJeff OTMG
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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)
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,125
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
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status
