Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/25/2006 8:14:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2006 8:05:32 AM EST by 1lostinspace]
I bought some for my 45 and 9mm and it worked really good it made holes in stuff that regular bullets would not penetrate (metal) when I tested it on beef it made a mess but appeared not to penetrate really deep. It make a huge hole in the meat.
At 2 dollars a round it's hard to test and see if it feeds right.

Right now for HD I use a 12 Gauge Home defender with Winchester 000 buck
and for back up a Glock 21 with Ranger 230 gr +P JHP
Does anyone know if this stuff (RBCD) is good in 5.56mm?


Please don't comment on the ammo unless you have shot or tested it your self not hear say.
To all the guys ready to bash me please don't I am not saying this ammo is my choice in HD I just want to know what real people testing this ammo think.


rbcd.net/gelatin%20photos.html
www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/9mm/gel9.htm
www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/9mm/xrbcd2.jpg
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 9:04:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 9:09:02 PM EST by Keiler]
Hi 1lostinspace,

before the bashing begins (since you've asked a big bad no no question! ) I'd like to point you to some threads containing info on the subject.

look at this thread:
Exotic Ammo Review.

If you're not into reading, somewhat of a consensus is that most stuff listed there is way too expensive, is advertised in a Über-Tactical-Ninja style while doing nothing more than punching big but very shallow holes, sometimes even failing to do anything else a Speer Golddot or Hydrashok couldn't.

Box of Truth has tested Extreme Shock ammo. Fun to read!

Get yourself some ammo listed here:
Better performing self defense loads and you're on the safe side. All ammos listed there are no BS performing loads, and more important, are actually affordable so you can train and test for reliability.

Regards,
Matt

P.S.
somehow I overread your last sentence. Anyway I hope you dont take it the wrong way...
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 11:41:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Keiler:
Hi 1lostinspace,

before the bashing begins (since you've asked a big bad no no question! ) I'd like to point you to some threads containing info on the subject.

look at this thread:
Exotic Ammo Review.

If you're not into reading, somewhat of a consensus is that most stuff listed there is way too expensive, is advertised in a Über-Tactical-Ninja style while doing nothing more than punching big but very shallow holes, sometimes even failing to do anything else a Speer Golddot or Hydrashok couldn't.

Box of Truth has tested Extreme Shock ammo. Fun to read!

Get yourself some ammo listed here:
Better performing self defense loads and you're on the safe side. All ammos listed there are no BS performing loads, and more important, are actually affordable so you can train and test for reliability.

Regards,
Matt

P.S.
somehow I overread your last sentence. Anyway I hope you dont take it the wrong way...



The only thing that I saw wrong with it was that it did not penetrate as deep as I wanted it. I have to have at least 12". I have to tell you watermelons beef and pork blew up! I don't know enough about this ammo to trust my life on it.
I know that the 230 Winchester's ranger +P 230 gr is street proven and we all know that 000 is a bit of an overkill.
For my rifle I use 75 gr TAP or 64 gr Power Points. also 1 mag of m855
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 5:57:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 6:12:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2006 6:14:35 AM EST by FMJ]
I just got done reading a article in on of my Mags Specail weapons

mostly about this 9mm 60gr round passing threw Steel plates and A1 Aluminum armor plate, Level 2 body armor


I guess if you need to kill someone wearing a Lv 2 vest then go for it


BTW isnt there already 9mm ammo that will do this ? KTW

I do know it does poorly in GEL testing

wich they Also stated in the article. and also adding that gel isnt 98.6 degrees


Its up to you ?


Im not beliver

and have no need for any type of this ammo

75gr Black Hills of Hornady 75gr TAP in 223 or 5.56 in my AR15
and Ranger 127+P+JHP in 9mm and 180 gr JHP in 40SW

For now


BTW I didnt Vote
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 6:24:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2006 6:28:45 AM EST by thebigruss]

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
The only thing that I saw wrong with it was that it did not penetrate as deep as I wanted it. I have to have at least 12". I have to tell you watermelons beef and pork blew up! I don't know enough about this ammo to trust my life on it.
I know that the 230 Winchester's ranger +P 230 gr is street proven and we all know that 000 is a bit of an overkill.
For my rifle I use 75 gr TAP or 64 gr Power Points. also 1 mag of m855


Stan Bulmer (LeMas, RBCD ammo pusher) would absolutely love to meet you, my friend. You're exactly what he's looking for in a customer: someone easily swayed by irrelevant yet impressive visuals of exploding shanks of flesh and food products.

BTW, I don't have to shoot their ammo to know it's worthless.

ETA: If everybody had to personally buy and test RBCD ammo before they could speak out on it virtues (or lack thereof) then Stan Bulmer could retire early as a very wealthy man without ever having proven the worth of his wares.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 7:44:52 AM EST
I voted for the, "It didnt work as advertised" choice, but I would've liked to have voted for "I prefer the RPG", and "I am a Taliban trying to mislead you" simply because at the moment of voting I found those two choices slightly humorous. However, the more I type, the less funny thayhave becaome. Shame on you for putting those two choices in poll. Heathen!
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 7:55:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
I voted for the, "It didnt work as advertised" choice, but I would've liked to have voted for "I prefer the RPG", and "I am a Taliban trying to mislead you" simply because at the moment of voting I found those two choices slightly humorous. However, the more I type, the less funny thayhave becaome. Shame on you for putting those two choices in poll. Heathen!



You never know
I took my RPG deer hunting last season and started a few fires, not to mention it kind of over cooked the meat!
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 7:56:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Did you actually READ the Exotic Ammo FAQ?


Yes I did.

I have tested it and I can tell you it does penetrate steel and it does blow stuff up, just not enough penetration for me.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 8:00:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebigruss:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
The only thing that I saw wrong with it was that it did not penetrate as deep as I wanted it. I have to have at least 12". I have to tell you watermelons beef and pork blew up! I don't know enough about this ammo to trust my life on it.
I know that the 230 Winchester's ranger +P 230 gr is street proven and we all know that 000 is a bit of an overkill.
For my rifle I use 75 gr TAP or 64 gr Power Points. also 1 mag of m855


Stan Bulmer (LeMas, RBCD ammo pusher) would absolutely love to meet you, my friend. You're exactly what he's looking for in a customer: someone easily swayed by irrelevant yet impressive visuals of exploding shanks of flesh and food products.

BTW, I don't have to shoot their ammo to know it's worthless.

ETA: If everybody had to personally buy and test RBCD ammo before they could speak out on it virtues (or lack thereof) then Stan Bulmer could retire early as a very wealthy man without ever having proven the worth of his wares.



Oh yeah make me out to be the idiot thanks.
I know how things work and I can tell you that this ammo does penetrate and does blow up in soft targets. It lacks penetration I would not trust my life on it.
Now if it penetrated even 10" I would take it. It seems that it will penetrate about 6" at most but believe me it destroys the tissue.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 8:24:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
Oh yeah make me out to be the idiot thanks.


Didn't need any help from me.



I know how things work and I can tell you that this ammo does penetrate and does blow up in soft targets. It lacks penetration I would not trust my life on it.
Now if it penetrated even 10" I would take it. It seems that it will penetrate about 6" at most but believe me it destroys the tissue.


Ah... did you draw that last conclusion from your highly controlled, repeatable, and scientific medium of pot roast and watermelon?

The 6" penetration is the key. The bullets are very light and fast, and they make a very impressive superficial wound, but that isn't what incapacitates the bad guys reliably. About the best you could usually hope for would be the guy freaking out after looking at the wound it made and fainting.

Doc Roberts is right about this ammo... it's snake-oil and to be avoided both because of the high price and lack of effectiveness.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 9:03:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 9:23:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:

Box of Truth has tested Extreme Shock ammo. Fun to read!



that was entertaining
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 11:33:12 AM EST
You paid for that ammo????
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:19:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
I voted for the, "It didnt work as advertised" choice, but I would've liked to have voted for "I prefer the RPG", and "I am a Taliban trying to mislead you" simply because at the moment of voting I found those two choices slightly humorous. However, the more I type, the less funny thayhave becaome. Shame on you for putting those two choices in poll. Heathen!



You never know
I took my RPG deer hunting last season and started a few fires, not to mention it kind of over cooked the meat!


You are not funny.

This thread has two speeds: slow and you.

*beep*

Take me to a Volkswagon dealer
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:28:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
I voted for the, "It didnt work as advertised" choice, but I would've liked to have voted for "I prefer the RPG", and "I am a Taliban trying to mislead you" simply because at the moment of voting I found those two choices slightly humorous. However, the more I type, the less funny thayhave becaome. Shame on you for putting those two choices in poll. Heathen!



You never know
I took my RPG deer hunting last season and started a few fires, not to mention it kind of over cooked the meat!


You are not funny.

This thread has two speeds: slow and you.

*beep*

Take me to a Volkswagon dealer


I am sorry I dont ammuse you
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:31:56 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 2:01:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
ENOUGH PERSONAL BAITING, EVERYONE.


I guess this was a bad thread.
So anyways I guess I will stick with my 5.56 TAP 75 gr
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 2:53:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 10:39:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zhukov:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
ENOUGH PERSONAL BAITING, EVERYONE.


I guess this was a bad thread.
So anyways I guess I will stick with my 5.56 TAP 75 gr


Seriously dude - high velocities will do a number on steel, and it will fragment explosively to give you a large, shallow wound cavity. That's the claim to fame of most exotic ammo types. If you can guarantee a perfect shot, then it ought to work. I would plan on a worst-case scenario though and get a proven ammo type.


Dude you have never shoot the stuff so your just repeating what your told?
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 3:32:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 3:41:26 AM EST by Zhukov]
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:53:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebigruss:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
The only thing that I saw wrong with it was that it did not penetrate as deep as I wanted it. I have to have at least 12". I have to tell you watermelons beef and pork blew up! I don't know enough about this ammo to trust my life on it.
I know that the 230 Winchester's ranger +P 230 gr is street proven and we all know that 000 is a bit of an overkill.
For my rifle I use 75 gr TAP or 64 gr Power Points. also 1 mag of m855

Stan Bulmer (LeMas, RBCD ammo pusher) would absolutely love to meet you, my friend. You're exactly what he's looking for in a customer: someone easily swayed by irrelevant yet impressive visuals of exploding shanks of flesh and food products.

BTW, I don't have to shoot their ammo to know it's worthless.

ETA: If everybody had to personally buy and test RBCD ammo before they could speak out on it virtues (or lack thereof) then Stan Bulmer could retire early as a very wealthy man without ever having proven the worth of his wares.

Remember all, the claim with some of this newer ammo is that calibrated bal gel doesn't simulate human tissue effectively enough, because of the temperature differential between gel and human tissue (the claim being that 98.6 is required for optimal performance of the bullet). If this is the case, then the onus should be on the claimant to provide alternate acceptable testing methods (since they are the ones deviating from the standard).

One method I can think of would be [for them] to engineer some gel which (when heated to 98.6) would produce similar results* as off-the-shelf calibrated ballistic gelatin (at room/ambient temperature). But the onus is, and should be, on them to do this.

I honestly don't think the results would be any/much different than the results already obtained by folks like O_P, DocGKR, and others, but if they were interested in proving their wares and claims through verifiable, repeated testing protocols, then this might be one way to do so.


* by "produce similar results," I mean "same penetration, expansion, etc in both types of gel using a variety of ammo types, to include their own ammo, as well as a multitude of top-shelf (and other) commercially-available ammo"
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 5:55:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
Remember all, the claim with some of this newer ammo is that calibrated bal gel doesn't simulate human tissue effectively enough, because of the temperature differential between gel and human tissue (the claim being that 98.6 is required for optimal performance of the bullet). If this is the case, then the onus should be on the claimant to provide alternate acceptable testing methods (since they are the ones deviating from the standard).

One method I can think of would be [for them] to engineer some gel which (when heated to 98.6) would produce similar results* as off-the-shelf calibrated ballistic gelatin (at room/ambient temperature). But the onus is, and should be, on them to do this.

I honestly don't think the results would be any/much different than the results already obtained by folks like O_P, DocGKR, and others, but if they were interested in proving their wares and claims through verifiable, repeated testing protocols, then this might be one way to do so.


* by "produce similar results," I mean "same penetration, expansion, etc in both types of gel using a variety of ammo types, to include their own ammo, as well as a multitude of top-shelf (and other) commercially-available ammo"


Therein lies the problem. You won't find Stan Bulmer and friends developing such a standard testing medium because it would prove his ammo isn't worth the scrap metal it's made of. It's much easier to convince people to buy into your BS if you don't provide them a method of proving you wrong.

RBCD magic bullets defy all laws of physics according to Stan. If you were to take one of his projectiles, measure the temperature with some sort of internal probe and jam it into a 98.6 F piece of flesh, you would find the amount of time it takes to change it's temperature due to conductive heat transfer would be on the order of several minutes. Now, tell me how a moving bullet that is only in contact with that same flesh for a thousandth of a second can possibly be affected enough to change it's physical properties so drastically?

Not to mention what if you shoot the person on a winter day vs. a summer day? The bullet in the barrel isn't always going to be the same temperature before firing, so on a nice cold day his bullets won't work? Of course Stan would probably say that after firing the bullet its temp is always the same; conviently something that is impossible to measure on a bullet in flight, but doesn't make much sense anyway.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:09:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebigruss:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
Remember all, the claim with some of this newer ammo is that calibrated bal gel doesn't simulate human tissue effectively enough, because of the temperature differential between gel and human tissue (the claim being that 98.6 is required for optimal performance of the bullet). If this is the case, then the onus should be on the claimant to provide alternate acceptable testing methods (since they are the ones deviating from the standard).

One method I can think of would be [for them] to engineer some gel which (when heated to 98.6) would produce similar results* as off-the-shelf calibrated ballistic gelatin (at room/ambient temperature). But the onus is, and should be, on them to do this.

I honestly don't think the results would be any/much different than the results already obtained by folks like O_P, DocGKR, and others, but if they were interested in proving their wares and claims through verifiable, repeated testing protocols, then this might be one way to do so.


* by "produce similar results," I mean "same penetration, expansion, etc in both types of gel using a variety of ammo types, to include their own ammo, as well as a multitude of top-shelf (and other) commercially-available ammo"

Therein lies the problem. You won't find Stan Bulmer and friends developing such a standard testing medium because it would prove his ammo isn't worth the scrap metal it's made of. It's much easier to convince people to buy into your BS if you don't provide them a method of proving you wrong.

RBCD magic bullets defy all laws of physics according to Stan. If you were to take one of his projectiles, measure the temperature with some sort of internal probe and jam it into a 98.6 F piece of flesh, you would find the amount of time it takes to change it's temperature due to conductive heat transfer would be on the order of several minutes. Now, tell me how a moving bullet that is only in contact with that same flesh for a thousandth of a second can possibly be affected enough to change it's physical properties so drastically?

Not to mention what if you shoot the person on a winter day vs. a summer day? The bullet in the barrel isn't always going to be the same temperature before firing, so on a nice cold day his bullets won't work? Of course Stan would probably say that after firing the bullet its temp is always the same; conviently something that is impossible to measure on a bullet in flight, but doesn't make much sense anyway.

Yes, my main point was that the onus would/should be on *them* to develop any alternative testing methods/protocols, which I know they are <understatement>reluctant</understatement> to do since they (last I read/heard/understood) wouldn't even disseminate the particulars of the conditions they "tested" under whilst filming their promotional videos.

On a sidenote, however.......... the measurement of temperature of a bullet in flight. Interesting. I've got a buddy (PhD in Elec. Engineering) who is looking for something novel to work on for his PhD in Physics.

They already have laser thermometers, so I'd *imagine* it'd just be a case of getting something like that to work "pulsed" (for wont of a better word) like some of those ultra high-speed cameras.

<strokes_chin />
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:10:18 AM EST

Hell I dont even count on my Black Hills 75 and MK262 to Frag

or even my Ranger ammo

Nothing is 100%
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 8:44:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebigruss:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
Remember all, the claim with some of this newer ammo is that calibrated bal gel doesn't simulate human tissue effectively enough, because of the temperature differential between gel and human tissue (the claim being that 98.6 is required for optimal performance of the bullet). If this is the case, then the onus should be on the claimant to provide alternate acceptable testing methods (since they are the ones deviating from the standard).

One method I can think of would be [for them] to engineer some gel which (when heated to 98.6) would produce similar results* as off-the-shelf calibrated ballistic gelatin (at room/ambient temperature). But the onus is, and should be, on them to do this.

I honestly don't think the results would be any/much different than the results already obtained by folks like O_P, DocGKR, and others, but if they were interested in proving their wares and claims through verifiable, repeated testing protocols, then this might be one way to do so.


* by "produce similar results," I mean "same penetration, expansion, etc in both types of gel using a variety of ammo types, to include their own ammo, as well as a multitude of top-shelf (and other) commercially-available ammo"


Therein lies the problem. You won't find Stan Bulmer and friends developing such a standard testing medium because it would prove his ammo isn't worth the scrap metal it's made of. It's much easier to convince people to buy into your BS if you don't provide them a method of proving you wrong.

RBCD magic bullets defy all laws of physics according to Stan. If you were to take one of his projectiles, measure the temperature with some sort of internal probe and jam it into a 98.6 F piece of flesh, you would find the amount of time it takes to change it's temperature due to conductive heat transfer would be on the order of several minutes. Now, tell me how a moving bullet that is only in contact with that same flesh for a thousandth of a second can possibly be affected enough to change it's physical properties so drastically?

Not to mention what if you shoot the person on a winter day vs. a summer day? The bullet in the barrel isn't always going to be the same temperature before firing, so on a nice cold day his bullets won't work? Of course Stan would probably say that after firing the bullet its temp is always the same; conviently something that is impossible to measure on a bullet in flight, but doesn't make much sense anyway.




Hmmm thats a good point but why does it penetrate metal and not fragment I have shot it through pieces of metal and no fragmentation of any kind but when I shoot it into a water melon it blows it up and there are fragments everywhere.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 9:00:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 9:02:22 AM EST by Zhukov]
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 9:01:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 9:03:14 AM EST by thebigruss]

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
Hmmm thats a good point but why does it penetrate metal and not fragment I have shot it through pieces of metal and no fragmentation of any kind but when I shoot it into a water melon it blows it up and there are fragments everywhere.


Simple: elasticity. Take any soft-point varmint round and it'll do the same exact thing.

Air isn't very dense, so the rounds stabilize and travel longer distances without losing much velocity. Water, flesh, watermelons, etc. all have significantly higher density, but lots of elasticity or fluid movement, therefore the rounds can expand and fragment easily while dumping energy into the medium. Solids have high density but almost no elasticity, therefore the rounds dump energy, but resist expansion and fragmentation depending on the thickness of the solid. If it's thick enough all the kinetic energy is converted to heat and the round becomes almost liquid and breaks up. If the solid is thin enough it'll go right through intact. Higher velocity typically means greater penetration through solids but greater fragmentation in liquids and elastic mediums such as flesh.


ETA: Dammit, Zhukov, you beat me to it and I think you explained it better too!
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:41:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 10:44:48 AM EST by 1lostinspace]

Originally Posted By Zhukov:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:

Hmmm thats a good point but why does it penetrate metal and not fragment I have shot it through pieces of metal and no fragmentation of any kind but when I shoot it into a water melon it blows it up and there are fragments everywhere.


If you had read the Exotic Ammo FAQ, then you would have come to the part where I point out that HYPER VELOCITY ammunition will really do a number on steel. The anecdotal evidence I gave was of me shooting hardened steel plates at 100 yards with .308 M80 ball (tiny dent) and with a .22-250 (major gauge). Now the .308 is obviously a much hardier bullet than the lightweight .22-250 varmint bullet, but did much less damage. Steel "flows" at certain pressures (I'm an EE, not a ME, so my thermodynamics is weak), and those pressures are generated with hyper velocity bullets. Look at the crater left in steel when a bullet penetrates - it's very analogous to a splash made in water as the steel is literally liquefied.

So lightweight, high-velocity bullets have an advantage in penetrating steel to some degree. You don't need RBCD though - even Winchester White box varmint stuff will do the same thing in the .22-250 I have experience with.

The same bullet will perform as any other lightweight bullet when striking tissue that's thicker than a steel plate. As any other bullet, it will begin to yaw, and when the yaw angle approaches 90 degrees, it will fragment. Hence, your watermelon blows up.

The mechanisms for blowing up a watermelon and penetrating a steel plate of moderate thickness are completely dissimilar.

[Edited to add] Either property - while impressive in its own right - doesn't make a good bullet design for defensive use when taken as the sum of the parts.



you are wrong when I tested RBCD it did not deform in any way to where FMJ clearly was effected by the metal.

Again you have never tested it your self you are just going from hear say.
I can tell you first hand that the RBCD bullets retains it shape when shot into metal and when it hits a soft water based target it fragments I have seen it with my own eyes.

Also the LAW enforcement version more then meets the standard penetration of 12" with full fragmentation.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:44:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 10:49:23 AM EST by Zhukov]
<Cut the crap out - Zhukov>
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:45:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 10:49:40 AM EST by Zhukov]




oh ok so I must have been dreaming when I tested it.
Dude buy some and test it dont just run your mouth.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:50:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 10:58:31 AM EST by Zhukov]
<Quit trolling. Next time, it gets bumped up the chain of command. - Zhukov>

You've been proven wrong in this thread.

Your boy, Stan Bulmer his LeMas and RBCD ammo has been proven wrong.


And here's where yours and Stan Bulmer's ideas on what works come to a screeching halt!
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:53:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:54:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 10:59:21 AM EST by Zhukov]

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
You've been proven wrong in this thread.

Your boy, Stan Bulmer his LeMas and RBCD ammo has been proven wrong.




you would never talk to me like that face to face.
Anyways I know what I saw you can have your opinion .

<same applies to you - no personal attacks. - Zhukov>

also I dont this Stan Bulmer person all I know is what I tested.
I am not saying that their ammo is the best I am just telling you what I saw.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:57:33 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 11:15:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
you are wrong when I tested RBCD it did not deform in any way to where FMJ clearly was effected by the metal.


Dude, he's agreeing with you. Either you enjoy arguing or your reading comprehension is nonexistent.



Again you have never tested it your self you are just going from hear say.
I can tell you first hand that the RBCD bullets retains it shape when shot into metal and when it hits a soft water based target it fragments I have seen it with my own eyes.


Holy crap, what's with you and this hang up about someone having to personally test a round before you'll believe them? If Doc Roberts comes in here and tells you this from his own mouth will you finally shut up? Sheesh...



Also the LAW enforcement version more then meets the standard penetration of 12" with full fragmentation.


Where did you hear this last part? So far no properly calibrated ballistics gel testing has proven this. If you're taking the manufacturer at their word you're a fool. You should only trust test results from a non-biased third party that uses proven testing methods.

I'm really beginning to wonder if you're actually here to learn or just espouse nonsense.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 11:29:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
You've been proven wrong in this thread.

Your boy, Stan Bulmer his LeMas and RBCD ammo has been proven wrong.

you would never talk to me like that face to face.
Anyways I know what I saw you can have your opinion .

<same applies to you - no personal attacks. - Zhukov>

also I dont this Stan Bulmer person all I know is what I tested.
I am not saying that their ammo is the best I am just telling you what I saw.

While I'm not claiming he was any kind of generally-accepted ballistics expert, my granddaddy always told me "Son, believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear."

To answer your assertion re: not knowing who Stan Bulmer is, he is a major player in the world of LeMas/RBCD/BMT ammo. When an earlier poster off-handedly mentioned snake oil salesmen, that is whom he was referring to.
  • http://www.defensereview.com/article577.html

    FTR, I don't agree with their findings here, as (IMO) they rely too heavily (i.e. almost exclusively) on uncontrolled, non-repeatable competition/demo shoots at Blackwater facility.


  • http://www.stopanimaltests.com/pdfs/COMPLAINT_WASHINGTON_PROOFED.pdf

    "John Hamilton and Stan Bulmer appear to be Le Mas Ltd.’s sole employees"
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 11:49:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:




oh ok so I must have been dreaming when I tested it.
Dude buy some and test it dont just run your mouth.


Why would anybody waste their hard earned money on these nonsense rounds? The issue has been covered ad nauseum (as many have pointed out) on many gun boards, over many years, and it has been determined that NONE of these exotic rounds live up to the hype. They are nothing but an overpriced novelty marketed to those who know no better.

I don't need to actually spend $10 to determine that "Dragon's Breath" is more like "Sparkler Cough". In that situation, I'd be a fool for having to "see it for myself". The great benefit of the dissemination of reliable information is that we can learn from the mistakes of others without making them ourselves.

Savvy?


Link Posted: 10/27/2006 12:00:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 12:04:18 PM EST by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By liles1977:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:


oh ok so I must have been dreaming when I tested it.
Dude buy some and test it dont just run your mouth.

Why would anybody waste their hard earned money on these nonsense rounds? The issue has been covered ad nauseum (as many have pointed out) on many gun boards, over many years, and it has been determined that NONE of these exotic rounds live up to the hype. They are nothing but an overpriced novelty marketed to those who know no better.

I don't need to actually spend $10 to determine that "Dragon's Breath" is more like "Sparkler Cough". In that situation, I'd be a fool for having to "see it for myself". The great benefit of the dissemination of reliable information is that we can learn from the mistakes of others without making them ourselves.

Savvy?

Good point. Science as we know it today is the product of centuries worth of scholarly communication, in which we rely heavily on the prior work of others who have come/tested/BTDT before us. This model works best (or at all) when conforming to generally agreed-upon (i.e. "standardized") testing protocols/conventions (e.g. the scientific method, and [subsequently] peer review).

If the only way we could *know* anything would be to experiment ourselves, we'd still be riding horses and firing blunderbusses.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 12:04:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 2:06:06 PM EST by liles1977]

Originally Posted By thebigruss:
Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
you are wrong when I tested RBCD it did not deform in any way to where FMJ clearly was effected by the metal.



Dude, he's agreeing with you. Either you enjoy arguing or your reading comprehension is nonexistent.


Both. He's actually brought this topic up before, just under a different username (and a slightly different couching of the issue).

keltechSu16CA-RBCD

AND

IS THIS THE MAJIC BULLET ?

AND

BEST 45 ACP ROUND


ETA -

For those without archive access:


Originally Posted By KeltechSu16Ca:

I have used it first hand and I can tell you it will penetrate hard metal objects and then explode into water based.

I have used both 9mm and 45 with amazing results.
I am not sure how it will perform in real life but testing it on beef it makes a real mess.

Now there are a lot of people that will tell you this ammo sucks but I guarantee you they have never shot it. Just giving you their prejudice opinion.Look at what the real experts are saying

www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2005_side1rbcd.net/gelatin%20photos.html

www.stevespages.com/page8f9mmluger.html


Link Posted: 10/27/2006 1:11:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 1:15:54 PM EST by 1lostinspace]

Originally Posted By Zhukov:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
you are wrong when I tested RBCD it did not deform in any way to where FMJ clearly was effected by the metal.


How did you recover the bullet? The bullet did not deform in any way after shooting through what exactly?


Again you have never tested it your self you are just going from hear say.
I can tell you first hand that the RBCD bullets retains it shape when shot into metal and when it hits a soft water based target it fragments I have seen it with my own eyes.


I told you before - I don't need to test it myself as I will take the word of experts in the field on what the capabilities of this ammo are according to stadardized testing methods.


Also the LAW enforcement version more then meets the standard penetration of 12" with full fragmentation.


Says who? What proof do you have? You think I'm going to take Bulmer's word on this?



you dont have to or take my word.
We tested it with a piece of metal nothing special or super hard.
Here is what happen
45fmj 230 white box winchester did not penetrate
45 ranger +p Hp failed
45 golden saber 185 gr failed
90 gr RBCD penetrated metal and entered the cardboard box behind it leaving an equal size whole going out.

look I am not saying this ammo is the best I choose Winchester 230 gr ranger
all I am telling you is that it penetrated!


I am done with this I really don't care anymore I will just stick with my
ranger ammo


Sorry to waste every ones time.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:59:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 8:49:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 8:50:35 PM EST by 1lostinspace]

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
1lostinspace:

Let's try this the other way around. We agree that RBCD will penetrate mild steel due to its high velocity, while "standard" ammo will not. End of discussion.

You did start this thread obviously trying to make a point. What is that point? Is it simply that RBCD makes holes in steel while standard ammo doesn't? Is it that RBCD will violently fragment and make a shallow wound cavity? If so, then no problem - we'll consider this the end of discussion.

Otherwise you might want clarify what you're trying to get at and we might get a little further.


Ok so here what ammo I have 64 gr PP Winchester ranger 64 gr SP federal Law enforcement
55 gr IMI HP 60 gr TAP 75 Gr TAP and M855

I know tap is the best but I only have 28 rounds I don't want to spend a fortune using TAP
I am looking for something that will perform good at 200 yards
I figure if I am using my rifle all hell has broke loose and I am firring at zombies or Koreans or Taliban what ever.

I am zeroed in at 200 yrds with m855 what do you think I should go with?
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 4:59:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 5:04:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
You won't be taking too many shots in a 200+ yard scenario - especially with a .223. You'd be better off evading. If you really need that kind of performance, step up to .308.

Even a 75/77gr loaded to 5.56 velocities will stop fragmenting around 200 yards, and a lightweight varmint bullet like the RBCD/LeMas will lose velocity much faster and won't fragment anywhere near that range if that's what you were hoping for. Remember that velocity is key, and lightweight bullets lose velocity much faster than heavy bullets.


it's still moving at over 2000 fps I have shot my IMI HP into water at 200 and it fragmented
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:18:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 5:08:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By liles1977:
Both. He's actually brought this topic up before, just under a different username (and a slightly different couching of the issue).

keltechSu16CA-RBCD

AND

IS THIS THE MAJIC BULLET ?

AND

BEST 45 ACP ROUND


ETA -

For those without archive access:


Originally Posted By KeltechSu16Ca:

I have used it first hand and I can tell you it will penetrate hard metal objects and then explode into water based.

I have used both 9mm and 45 with amazing results.
I am not sure how it will perform in real life but testing it on beef it makes a real mess.

Now there are a lot of people that will tell you this ammo sucks but I guarantee you they have never shot it. Just giving you their prejudice opinion.Look at what the real experts are saying

www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2005_side1rbcd.net/gelatin%20photos.html

www.stevespages.com/page8f9mmluger.html




Dude, that was some uber pwnage there. Reading those posts felt like deja vu all over again.

Hey, lostinspace, a.k.a. KeltechSu16Ca, what do you have to say to this?
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 5:11:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zhukov:

Originally Posted By 1lostinspace:
it's still moving at over 2000 fps I have shot my IMI HP into water at 200 and it fragmented


Once again - that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. You must have gotten some special run to get it to fragment at that distance...


Maybe he's not talking about a match HPBT, but a functional HP. In that case I guess fragmentation is possible at 200, but would have lousy penetration. I'm not familiar with the round he's talking about.
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 5:53:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 7:21:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
1lostinspace:

Let's try this the other way around. We agree that RBCD will penetrate mild steel due to its high velocity, while "standard" ammo will not. End of discussion.

You did start this thread obviously trying to make a point. What is that point? Is it simply that RBCD makes holes in steel while standard ammo doesn't? Is it that RBCD will violently fragment and make a shallow wound cavity? If so, then no problem - we'll consider this the end of discussion.

Otherwise you might want clarify what you're trying to get at and we might get a little further.




I agree !!


Hi Jackers wearing a level 2 Vest

what is this ammo main purpose
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 6:53:10 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top