My friend Aim4myhead sent me a note saying, "Have you ever tested RBCD Platinum Plus Ammunition?  I have some and think it is great stuff.  If I sent you some, would you test it?"

I said, "Sure.  But I will only report what I observe.  If it doesn't do so well, that's what I will say."

He replied, "No problem.  Just tell the truth about what you see.  I believe it will be impressive.  You will also notice very little recoil with this ammo."

He graciously sent me some rounds to test.  They were:  

.32 APC - 37 grains, rated at 1815 fps velocity

9mm - 60 grains, rated at 2010 fps

.40 S&W - 77 grains, rated at 2100 fps

.45 ACP - 90 grains, rated at 2036 fps

This ammo is said to be "Ultra High Performance Center Fire Pistol Ammo, Blended Metal Technology, Ultra High Velocity/Energy, Low Recoil, Superior Stopping Power, Nonricochetting"

That's a mouth full!

These folks obviously believe in the "light weight, high velocity" school of thought regarding ammo effectiveness.  Let's see what we can find out.

We will be shooting the rounds into the Waterbox O' Truth.  Previous tests have shown that the most effective ammo must penetrate at least 4 water jugs to reach the 12 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin that is required by the FBI tests for effective ammunition.  24 inches of water will equal approximately 12 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin or human flesh.

First, we will try the .32 ACP in my P-32 Keltec.  The water jugs will have a layer of blue jean material in the front to simulate clothing.



It made an impressive spray of water!  The bullet penetrated  through one jug and stopped in the second, for around 9 inches into water, or 4.5 inches into BG.



Notice that the second jug had the jacket, the small plastic nose plug, and some BBs in it.

The round left a "smokestack" in my P-32, so we decided to try another round to test feeding.



It fired just fine, but the next one in the magazine jammed due to "rim lock", a problem common with short cartridges in the .32 ACP.  A lot of testing would be required to establish "confidence" in feeding.  With the high cost of this ammo, that would not be likely with most shooters.

Let's try a 9mm out of my Springfield XD-9.



Again, the water spray was very impressive.  Not only did I and the gun get wet, but Tman and the camera also got drenched.



It penetrated 2 jugs for a BG penetration of 6 inches.  Only half the penetration recommended by the FBI.



The jacket and other pieces were in the second jug.

How about the .40 S&W out of my Glock 22.



It penetrated into the second jug and broke into pieces.



Then a round of the .45 ACP out of a 1911.



It penetrated 2 jugs with a piece of lead making it into the third jug.



Lessons Learned:

1.  As is usual with light/fast bullets, these rounds made spectacular explosions on the first water jug.  But then they fail to penetrate much farther.

Might these rounds work?  Sure, they might.

But why trust "might", when bullets are available that will meet the 12 inch minimum penetration standard?

2.  Recoil was indeed light, due to light bullets.

3.  All rounds, except for the .32 ACP, functioned just fine.

4.  If I didn't know much about bullet performance, the violent explosive effects on the first water jug would be very impressive.  But I know that penetration is also required and these rounds do not meet the 12 inch minimum penetration standard.

5.  It's hot on a July morning down in southeast Texas.  But it's still fun to shoot stuff.

Thanks to my friend Aim4myhead for the ammo to test, and thanks to Tman for the water-hauling help.

Quoted: So....over-penetration was not a problem then....

Nothing gets by you.  

Quoted: Quoted: These BOT threads are entertaining - i sure hope people here aren't choosing their self-defense cartriges based on these unscientific tests....   ....O_P isn't trying to compete with the IWBA here. It just happens that his results pretty much follow what you see in IWBA tests. IWBA tests on RCBD "blended metal" ammo has shown that it offers very shallow penetration.... Pretty much what O_P is showing here.

Yep.

I don't know what Rampant_Colt finds objectionable about these tests.  They may not be as scientifically perfect as IWBA or some other professional testing lab, but my general results are in line with other testers.

If I ever had significantly different results from professional labs, I would be very concerned about my results.  But I don't see that happening.

Quoted: Quoted: The round left a "smokestack" in my P-32, so we decided to try another round to test feeding. Same thing as a "stovepipe"???

Yep.  I've heard them called both.

Basically an empty cartridge case caught in the ejection port, sticking up like a smokestack or stovepipe.

Quoted: the only objection i have is that you need a disclaimer stating that these are for informational purposes only....

What else would a post on AR15.com be for?  I sure ain't making any money off of this stuff.

As far as your comment "i sure hope people here aren't choosing their self-defense cartridges based on these unscientific tests....", I don't understand your objection at all.

I certainly would base my ammo selection on these tests, because they show that this ammo does not meet the minimum penetration requirements.

$10,000 of additional testing would not change that problem.

Quoted: Quoted: These BOT threads are entertaining - i sure hope people here aren't choosing their self-defense cartridges based on these unscientific tests....   Maybe you should read this from his website: The Box O' Truth - Disclaimer Some negative comments require me to make some clarifications regarding the Box O' Truth experiments.   I am not a high dollar laboratory. I use "poor-boy" test methods.   While I try to maintain some scientific soundness in my tests, they are certainly not "scientifically perfect".   To have "scientifically perfect" tests would involve many, many controls and repeatability issues. I have neither the time, money, nor inclination to do such tests.   I am shooting things, taking pictures, and recording what I see. I do this for both my enjoyment and entertainment and for my friends.   I am not trying to "prove" anything. I'm just having fun and recording what I observe.   I am not recommending any brand or caliber of ammo based upon my observations.   If you disagree with what I observe, fine with me. But this is my site.   It's fun to shoot stuff.   Do not try to copy these types of experiments yourself. If you are injured, it is your sole responsibility and I will not be held responsible for any damage or injuries.

Dilbert_556 is correct.  That's right off the site.

However, some people misunderstand that to mean that my tests are meaningless.  They are not.

As stated before, my results tend to agree with professional lab results.  If they did not, I would wonder why.

"Poor-boy" tests do not mean "worthless" tests.

Quoted: You guys are slipping.  Hey O_P is that an XD or an XP 9?   "Let's try a 9mm out of my Springfield XP."

Just checking to be sure you were paying attention.

(Fixed, thanks.)

Quoted: I certainly don't think that!

Oh, I knew you didn't.

I would trust an honest man with no monetery interests in any specific product doing down to earth "this is what it does" tests any day. Please don't let people like Rampant_Colt or other people like him discourage you from continuing the Box-O-Truth.

If I let the complainers bother me too much, I'd have quit about 85 tests ago.

Quoted: wipe that brown stuff off of your nose, it makes you look foolish img405.imageshack.us/img405/1899/jerkoffeg0.gif

I got an idea partner, go troll somewhere else.

Thanks.