What's new
By:

RIP bullets

There's that little kid in all of us that's like "OMG, That's so awesome! MOAR DESTRUCTIVE! MUCH PAIN! HOLY SHATTER!"

But once I got over that, all I can conjure is "meh"
 
There are basically two types of uber scary ammo. The kind that can penetrate body armor and the kind that expands rapidly as to make the biggest hole and leave all of it's energy in it's target. I've heard arguments from anti-gun folks that both kinds of ammo should be made illegal because the first is obviously aimed at killing cops and the second is obviously aimed at killing cops.

In reality, when fired from a pistol neither marketing claim is particularly true. The armor piercing rounds might get marginally better penetration than target ammo and the hyper-expanding ammo might expand very marginally more than target ammo. I'd bet that the ammo type will actually make a difference in less than 1% of shootings.

When fired from a rifle at higher velocities both types are more effective at doing what they claim to do. But pretty much any run of the mill ammo at rifle velocities will be deadly. Your typical hunting rifle round will penetrate armor.

FWIW, the police typically use the hollow point type (expanding) ammo in their pistols and the military uses exclusively "ball" ammo which is just full metal jacket round nosed ammo. For the police ammo, the expanding ammo will be slightly less likely to maintain deadly velocities after going through a person or a wall or whatever else and will deposit more of it's force in the first target it hits. For the military ammo, it isn't any sort of super high-tech armor pricing round, but the full metal jacket keeps it from expanding as rapidly and makes it more likely to still incapacitate a human target who is behind cover, but additionally it is more likely to pass through a person and therefore be slightly less lethal. It requires more enemy resources to care for an injured soldier than a dead one.
 
Gameface said:
There are basically two types of uber scary ammo. The kind that can penetrate body armor and the kind that expands rapidly as to make the biggest hole and leave all of it's energy in it's target. I've heard arguments from anti-gun folks that both kinds of ammo should be made illegal because the first is obviously aimed at killing cops and the second is obviously aimed at killing cops.

In reality, when fired from a pistol neither marketing claim is particularly true. The armor piercing rounds might get marginally better penetration than target ammo and the hyper-expanding ammo might expand very marginally more than target ammo. I'd bet that the ammo type will actually make a difference in less than 1% of shootings.

When fired from a rifle at higher velocities both types are more effective at doing what they claim to do. But pretty much any run of the mill ammo at rifle velocities will be deadly. Your typical hunting rifle round will penetrate armor.

FWIW, the police typically use the hollow point type (expanding) ammo in their pistols and the military uses exclusively "ball" ammo which is just full metal jacket round nosed ammo. For the police ammo, the expanding ammo will be slightly less likely to maintain deadly velocities after going through a person or a wall or whatever else and will deposit more of it's force in the first target it hits. For the military ammo, it isn't any sort of super high-tech armor pricing round, but the full metal jacket keeps it from expanding as rapidly and makes it more likely to still incapacitate a human target who is behind cover, but additionally it is more likely to pass through a person and therefore be slightly less lethal. It requires more enemy resources to care for an injured soldier than a dead one.
Click to expand...


tl;dr

the article pretty much says this but in short, this is mostly just a bunch of hyped up marketing aimed at dumb people who want extra deadly bullets
 
I got around to watching that RIP promo video. Funny stuff. I'd be interested in a critical review of that ammo. My guess is that it is less effective than normal ammo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGH7cDFw7c

It's almost like a parody video it's so over the top stupid.
 
Found a critical review. Here's the summary:

Lastly, the whole thing just reeks of SEO-optimized clown shoe mall-ninja fantasy nonsense.

Here’s the Gun Nuts Verdict on the G2R 9mm R.I.P. (Rapidly Invasive Projectile): It’s an overpriced gimmick round that doesn’t anything that can’t be done better with something else. Don’t waste your time and money with this nonsense. If you want deep penetration, shoot FMJ. If you want a massive, ugly, shallow wound use a Glaser. If you want a round designed to actually stop fights, use Winchester Ranger, or Federal HST, or Speer Gold Dots.
Click to expand...

https://www.gunnuts.net/2014/01/27/rip-ammo-radically-invasive-projectile/
 
Bulletz should be rubber imo
 
I don't see the big deal with these...

If they're an inferior product and they can still sell them, then it's excellent marketing.

If people buy them, realize they don't work and don't buy them again...then what are they out of? Some money? Big deal.

If people continually buy them, then it's their own fault if the product is ineffective. Perhaps they should quit being stupid.

This is like people saying McDonalds shouldn't make hamburgers because I can get a better one at In'N'Out. Just leave my guns and I alone dammit.
 
Hantlers said:
I don't see the big deal with these...

If they're an inferior product and they can still sell them, then it's excellent marketing.

If people buy them, realize they don't work and don't buy them again...then what are they out of? Some money? Big deal.

If people continually buy them, then it's their own fault if the product is ineffective. Perhaps they should quit being stupid.

This is like people saying McDonalds shouldn't make hamburgers because I can get a better one at In'N'Out. Just leave my guns and I alone dammit.
Click to expand...

They cost about $12 a bullet made from a solid rod of copper and then CNC machined.

But the idea that they wouldn't work... They'll "work" just fine. There's a lot of silly debate about the ballistic qualities of this round or that round but in all cases a chunk of metal is propelled in a relatively predictable direction at speeds great enough to severely damage living things, often resulting in death. And even if they were remarkably ineffective, how many people have multiple shootouts with other people which would allow them to gauge how good these bullets are at killing things? Not to mention that the legitimate use of firearms in anything other than warfare is to stop the threat. That can usually be accomplished by just making the threat aware that if they don't stop they'll get shot. In the minority of cases where that fails once shot, even by an inadequate round, the threat usually has a change of heart and stops. If you're dealing with the ultra extreme minority of situations in which a person having taken rounds to the body continues to be a threat, well, that's why there's more than one bullet in most guns.
 
Gameface said:
They cost about $12 a bullet made from a solid rod of copper and then CNC machined.

But the idea that they wouldn't work... They'll "work" just fine. There's a lot of silly debate about the ballistic qualities of this round or that round but in all cases a chunk of metal is propelled in a relatively predictable direction at speeds great enough to severely damage living things, often resulting in death. And even if they were remarkably ineffective, how many people have multiple shootouts with other people which would allow them to gauge how good these bullets are at killing things? Not to mention that the legitimate use of firearms in anything other than warfare is to stop the threat. That can usually be accomplished by just making the threat aware that if they don't stop they'll get shot. In the minority of cases where that fails once shot, even by an inadequate round, the threat usually has a change of heart and stops. If you're dealing with the ultra extreme minority of situations in which a person having taken rounds to the body continues to be a threat, well, that's why there's more than one bullet in most guns.
Click to expand...

I understand they'll work...perhaps I should have used "effective" instead.

But hey, if people wanna spend $12/bullet on the things, then more power to 'em. Personally, I would never buy any ammo that costs that much, but I just don't see the problem with these things. I think the original article was stupid (and pointless), to be honest.
 
Gameface said:
There are basically two types of uber scary ammo. The kind that can penetrate body armor and the kind that expands rapidly as to make the biggest hole and leave all of it's energy in it's target. I've heard arguments from anti-gun folks that both kinds of ammo should be made illegal because the first is obviously aimed at killing cops and the second is obviously aimed at killing cops.

In reality, when fired from a pistol neither marketing claim is particularly true. The armor piercing rounds might get marginally better penetration than target ammo and the hyper-expanding ammo might expand very marginally more than target ammo. I'd bet that the ammo type will actually make a difference in less than 1% of shootings.

When fired from a rifle at higher velocities both types are more effective at doing what they claim to do. But pretty much any run of the mill ammo at rifle velocities will be deadly. Your typical hunting rifle round will penetrate armor.

FWIW, the police typically use the hollow point type (expanding) ammo in their pistols and the military uses exclusively "ball" ammo which is just full metal jacket round nosed ammo. For the police ammo, the expanding ammo will be slightly less likely to maintain deadly velocities after going through a person or a wall or whatever else and will deposit more of it's force in the first target it hits. For the military ammo, it isn't any sort of super high-tech armor pricing round, but the full metal jacket keeps it from expanding as rapidly and makes it more likely to still incapacitate a human target who is behind cover, but additionally it is more likely to pass through a person and therefore be slightly less lethal. It requires more enemy resources to care for an injured soldier than a dead one.
Click to expand...

If my memory serves me correctly

The military uses Full metal jacket ammo because we have signed international treaties that we will use that ammo. I believe it was in response to all of the amputees following ww1. The policy wasn't instituted for the cynical reasons you suggest just saying. Too lazy to find a link right now.
 
heyhey said:
If my memory serves me correctly

The military uses Full metal jacket ammo because we have signed international treaties that we will use that ammo. I believe it was in response to all of the amputees following ww1. The policy wasn't instituted for the cynical reasons you suggest just saying. Too lazy to find a link right now.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're right. Our use of ball ammo is definitely dictated by treaty with NATO. All of NATO uses interchangeable ammo. The explanation I got was that it made supplying one another more convenient in tactical situations, but also that our ammo wasn't designed to "kill" as often and would take a soldier out of the fight without killing them. Not as cynical as I put it, sure, but not untrue, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top