ARX AMMUNITION

[yukonjasper]

What are the thoughts on this ammo for personal defense.
https://www.inceptorammo.com/inceptor-product/preferred-defense/

Reviews appear to be positive.

Any personal experience or informed opinions?

[Rip Van Winkle]

I've never used it, but anytime a "new" SD ammo comes out and the description states, "The (fill in the blank)® is a revolutionary bullet in every sense of the word", I get suspicious.

[LarryFlew]

Looks like a copy of Black Hills Honey Badger ammo

[Bearcatrp]

I would wait for real world opinions before buying. Just advertising for now.

[Holland&Holland]

Looks like a copy of Black Hills Honey Badger ammo

I thought honey badger copied them actually? I seem to recall this one being first. But I could be wrong.

[crbutler]

Thoughts?

For self defense handgun

If it isn’t Federal (ATK), Winchester, or previously Remington, and used by a local LEO agency, traditionally I pass. Lately, I’d add Hornady to the list, but given the games they pulled with hunting ammo (years ago) I don’t trust them compared to the others.

In a day of scarcity, if you can find it, use it.

So, since I have some federal hydrashok stuff around, I’m not interested. If you’re out, it’s better than using your pistol as a piss poor club.

[yukonjasper]

Thoughts?

For self defense handgun

If it isn’t Federal (ATK), Winchester, or previously Remington, and used by a local LEO agency, traditionally I pass. Lately, I’d add Hornady to the list, but given the games they pulled with hunting ammo (years ago) I don’t trust them compared to the others.

In a day of scarcity, if you can find it, use it.

So, since I have some federal hydrashok stuff around, I’m not interested. If you’re out, it’s better than using your pistol as a piss poor club.

Scarcity is my motivation. Thanks for the thoughts.

[Holland&Holland]

Didn't Ruger brand some of this a few years back?

[grimbeaver]

Didn't Ruger brand some of this a few years back?

Yep they did.

I tried some of the regular Inceptor brand stuff in my Springfield XDS 9mm. Had a FTE. First time I've ever had a malfunction with that gun. It normally eats whatever I feed it without issue. I set the ammo aside.

[UnaStamus]

Long post, but Cliff’s Notes: They’re snake oil.

Otherwise, read on..

The ARX is another iteration of the high velocity/light-for-caliber bullet concept that keeps making the rounds in the gun world. Every time a company produces it and it is actually tested, none of their claims can be verified using modern validated testing protocols. So what happens is that about every year or other year a company decides to reinvent the wheel for ammunition and do the same retread that has previously failed in hopes of fooling people into buying their ammo. Then you get people extolling how awesome their ammo is by shooting things like watermelons or water jugs, even though those have zero applicability to ballistic performance. Or, they shoot ballistic gelatin and display photos of the performance and claim it demonstrates excellent results when those results have been proven to be incorrect, improperly done/interpreted or irrelevant.

What you need to know about pistol ballistics can be summed up in the following points:

- Pistol bullets do not carry enough velocity to wound through kinetic energy (KE) deposit into the body. KE deposit is commonly seen in the temporary stretch cavity, which you will see in ballistic gelatin testing. In order for KE deposit to wound, it must transfer enough energy into soft tissue to stretch the tissue beyond its elastic limit and actually substantially tear that tissue. Different types of soft tissues have different levels of elasticity, but generally the amount of energy needed is unable to be produced in a pistol cartridge due to limitations of velocity and bullet weight. This is because pistol casings typically do not have sufficient capacity to hold enough gunpowder to generate the needed velocity with the specific bullet weight (the exceptions being for larger pistol cartridges like say a .44 Mag or larger, with lighter bullets and high charge weights).

- Because KE deposit is not a major wounding factor for pistol bullets, pistol bullets only wound through permanent crush cavity, which is the wound channel that the projectile creates through the body. Generally speaking, if the bullet doesn’t strike it, it’s not damaged. This is why you see small holes throughout for pistol bullets when they go through the body. In contrast with rifle rounds, KE deposit does make a difference which is why you see small entrance wounds and massive exit wounds (if you see any at all) when they strike soft tissue/bodies.

- Pistol bullets must penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs in order to achieve physiological incapacitation (i.e. exsanguination or disruption of the central nervous system). The FBI BRF has established minimum and maximum recommended penetration depths to ensure optimal bullet performance. This is done in calibrated ballistic gelatin with the range being 12-18” of penetration depth.

- Pistol bullets are notorious for over-penetrating and exiting the body. In fact, there is empirical data that shows that pistol bullets have a much higher incidence of over-penetration than rifle or shotgun projectiles. This is with data primarily derived from US LE shootings and various studies of civilian homicides/shootings, and compiled by the FBI BRF.

- Penetration depth is affected by the KE that the bullet carries, but also by the bullet design itself. FMJs have the highest incidence of over-penetration, which I can personally verify. JHPs have varied penetration depths depending on the design. Fragmenting bullets have the least penetration. While people are often very risk-averse to the concept of over-penetration, statistically the most dangerous penetration concern relates to under-penetration. Under-penetration means you may not reach vital organs, which means you don’t stop the threat. Conversely, collateral injury from bullet over-penetration after exiting the body is such a statistical minority that it’s generally unlikely to occur in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

- JHPs are good for wounding because they expand and create a much larger wound channel. This wound channel is often twice the diameter of the base of the bullet. The larger the wound channel, the more the damage, the higher the likelihood of incapacitation.

- When bullets fragment, they lose their energy into the tissue that they hit and they cease to penetrate. As such, these bullet fragments commonly do not penetrate deep enough to reliably strike vital organs. Bullets that are designed to fragment fail all FBI BRF and IWBA testing protocols relating to minimum penetration depths. Bullets that are not designed to fragment but do (specifically OTM/BTHP match bullets) can pass ballistic testing protocols for soft tissue, but not through barrier testing. When it comes to pistol bullets where penetration depth and wound channel are key to threat stoppage, it’s prudent to avoid any bullet that will fragment. This is why bullets like the G2 RIP have been found to be substandard and don’t meet their advertised claims.

- Barrier-blind bullets are projectiles that can be fired through various common barriers like heavy clothing or auto glass and still perform in the body in an acceptable manner to stop a threat. For pistols, these come in the form of bonded bullets (Speer Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger Bonded/PDX-1 Bonded), lock-base bullets (Federal HST, Hornady Critical Duty/Defense), or copper monolithic (Barnes XPB). For personal defense/duty, you want a JHP bullet with a barrier-blind design. Not only do they penetrate sufficiently, they are the most consistent and predictable in their performance and you have the most amount of data behind them to justify their usage for personal protection.

- The best rule of thumb is to use a bullet design that is commonly used by police. There is no guesswork as to how the loads may or may not work, because all the research has been done for you and major manufacturers like Vista Outdoor (Federal/Speer), Hornady and Winchester have done their research and data collection and their projectiles have been used in actual shootings and the results of that have been collected by not only the manufacturer, but also by the FBI BRF and other groups. Some agencies also collect this information and catalog how rounds perform and base their future ammo selection off of their own results from performance (obviously taking into account factors like shot placement).

- Any time you need to decipher whether a new ammo company is legitimate, all you have to do is read the website and see if they have a bunch of technical jargon, overly complex scientific explanations, and long-winded explanations of their development or testing processes. Extra points if they call any of their processes “revolutionary” or “proprietary”. You may also see a lack of ballistic testing that conforms to FBI BRF or IWBA protocols. If you see any of this, they’re basically just trying to impress people and trick them into believing their claims to buy their product. Don’t fall for it.

- Ammunition reviews are always questionable and you have to view them with skepticism. You have to consider the source of the reviews and ask whether you actually have a review from an authority in ballistics who is using validated testing protocols. You also have to know how to interpret the data. In many situations, the data can be misrepresented or misinterpreted.



And finally, here’s the one piece of logic that you have to consider above all else:

- Bullet development is expensive, and it requires a lot of testing. This includes independent testing to verify. In many instances, a new bullet design may have millions of dollars in R&D into the design and implementation of the round. There are companies like Vista Outdoor and Hornady who do in fact have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on this R&D. They also have the money and clout to attract and pay for top engineers and ballistics experts, who develop everything from the bullet itself to the powder used. This is something that a small start-up isn’t going to be able to do. They don’t have the capital or resources to build the better bullet mouse trap, as it were. If a major multi-million or BILLION dollar company like Federal or Hornady haven’t been able to make the bullet/cartridge, there is ZERO likelihood that a no-name company with a shoestring budget will somehow crack the code to make that one holy grail cartridge.

[yukonjasper]

Sigh.......
Thank you for the information.

[Holland&Holland]

Nice write up.

[crbutler]

Unfortunately, I don’t think the major ammo players really are that involved in new concept ammo.

That’s more a government thing.

Steel shot was started being researched in the 30’s if I recall correctly. The government wanted to have an alternative that far back (which shows steel shot was not driven solely by lead poisoning concerns…)

Soft point jacketed bullets were designed by the Brits in a quest for more lethality in colonial wars.

Various penetrators were designed as battlefield needs changed.

In essence, the R&D is paid for by governments after a need is discovered. Most of the research into improving handgun ammo is from the USG, dealing with law enforcement issues.

I saw some new 9mm from federal on the shelf. 70 grain bullet. It’s their new lead free stuff. The ultra high speed light bullet is probably being pushed pretty hard by the USG because that’s the only way you can make lead free ammo that isn’t AP, and has some element of stopping power.

There are trade offs all over the place. Why certain ones are used generally have a logic behind it, even if it’s not quite what you think it is.

[grimbeaver]

As the old saying goes if it ain't broke don't fix it. They can come up with new fangled bullets all they want but the vast majority will have no interest unless it actually solves a genuine problem that they have with their existing ammo.

That said it would be great if this ammo was viable because a full magazine weighs quite a bit less. However since I can't trust it I'm not going to carry it.

[Holland&Holland]

As the old saying goes if it ain't broke don't fix it. They can come up with new fangled bullets all they want but the vast majority will have no interest unless it actually solves a genuine problem that they have with their existing ammo.

That said it would be great if this ammo was viable because a full magazine weighs quite a bit less. However since I can't trust it I'm not going to carry it.

Projectiles have advanced quite a bit actually. Some are just better than others. If you want to carry a lead round nose then by all means do so.