RBCD and a Frozen Cantaloupe

[RonGoode]

I was feeling froggy today so I partially froze a cantaloupe until it was very firm, took it out to the woods with my .380 and 4 RBCDs. I was only about 2 yards away but when I hit it, it just about blew it in half. It tore a large enough to destroy about 45 % of it. My next shot cut a nazel orange in half. Not a very scientific test but it was interesting.

 

[Dave R]

Yes, interesting. I hear those RCBD loads are great for transmitting energy, but not so good at penetration. ..

Thanks for posting the results of your cantalope test.

 

[Robertesq1]

I shot a whitetail opening day and hit its spine wounding the animal. Instead of using my rifle to finish him I used my carry .380 with RCBD in chamber with a neck shot. The shot did not kill the animal and I needed a second shot with my plain vanilla .380 Hydroshock which did put the animal down. When cleaning the deer I found the RCBD slug lodged in the deer's spine unable to penetrate the discs and the hydroshock round had broken the spine. I know bullets react in unusual ways and this was no scientific test, but it made me a little less likely to keep RCBD in my chamber.

 

[griz]

Is RBCD the one that claims their bullets will penetrate more, expand more, and damage more, but only in living tissue? Color me skeptical. I was going to offer some wet newsprint for a comparison test*, but if it would be invalid because of temperature it would be a waste.

*Dramatic results in a single test don't mean much. You have to compare the results to another brand, a known performer, or some other standard to know anything.

 

[Robertesq1]

Well this was living tissue and the differece between RCBD and Hydroshock in a side-by-side compairison left my sceptical. Again, it was only a single compairison and not statistically significant, but the view of the RCBD slug unable to penetrate the spine along side the hydroshock which did was worth reporting to the members here.

 

[griz]

Sorry Robertesq1, I wasn't trying to be critical of you point at all. I was refering to the website (I believe it is the maker of this ammo) that makes many claims but offers no comparisons and refutes crtical testing by saying the ammo only preforms well on live targets. In fact I thought your comparison was a good one.

 

[Robertesq1]

Griz:

I did not take your post as critical in any way shape or form and was only adding a comment. These boards are great for sharing this type of info among enthuisiasts and I always appreciate comments from others and I was only clarfying.

Best, Rob