Copper bullets like the Barnes XPB, TSX and TTSX perform well. Copper bullets that have very small fingers that act like fragmenting flechettes will always have poor performance. Loss of mass causes loss of momentum and energy, thus reducing penetration. In the case of the RIP, this is guaranteed to happen. This is also not to mention that the gelatin testing being done does not appear to be done to the appropriate FBI/IWBA standard with appropriate calibration documentation.
Additionally, copper petals are prone to sheering off when they pass through hard barriers like auto glass or sheet metal (car doors). Barnes had to specially design the 50gr TSX that they supply exclusively to Black Hills Ammo with thicker petals so that it would not sheer off when passing through those barriers. Reason being is that Black Hills wanted a LE specific cartridge for SBR use that reliably functioned through hard barriers. If the petals sheer off, the projectile will act like a FMJ and either over penetrate or under penetrate. Either way, the permanent crush cavity is reduced drastically.
The RIP ammo is everything that ammo should not be. Makes me wonder how much money they threw at Craig Sawyer to come onboard for testing. I'm guessing a lot. Can't wait to see this ammo fall flat on it's face, just like every other ammo that pops up when someone thinks they can reinvent the wheel. Liberty Ammo does the same thing, and so do several others. It's cyclical: A company comes out with a "revolutionary" idea that they thought up and implement with no scientific backing, it does okay for a while because of hype, then it fails. Then several years later, another company thinks they can pull it off and do it better because the market wasn't ready for it THEN but it is now. OR, another company comes up with the idea and doesn't realize it's been done and failed. Either way, it's snake oil perpetuating snake oil.
Truth be told, these companies do make decent money off of the unsuspecting and hype-believers. Brilliant marketing in some respects...
crbutler wrote:If you look at the comment of the guy that you are calling an expert, he states he's a dentist.
Not that I disagree with what he said.
However, this concept looks remarkably like the CEB Raptor bullets that on some hunting forums are being touted as the "only bullet you will ever need" (those are intended for DG hunting) with the only real difference being the porportion of the base solid shank and the fragmenting portions; and the picture that was shown is remarkably like what one sees from a Berger bullet that is being touted as great for hunting as well. (also rifle, which is again a horse of a different color than handgun bullets and their energy.) Its possible that after tweaking the round that it may well work fine, especially after the greenies make us shoot only nonlead containing projectiles.
To add to what was posted above...
He is a dentist, but that's what he puts as a joke because internet forum posters who think they know everything because they watched a YouTube channel (like TNoutdoors or Brassfetcher) for 20 minutes like to make claims that DocGKR doesn't know what he's talking about because he's just a dentist and always discounts temporary cavitation for pistol rounds as being inconsequential. Nobody bothers to research his background before they challenge him. Those of us that know him get the joke behind the "Just a dentist" line.
Dr. Gary Roberts is considered to be one of the foremost wound ballistic experts in the world. He has worked with other notables like Dr. Martin Fackler and FBI SSA Buford Boone, just to name a couple. Several popular duty/defense pistol and rifle loads on the market today were developed with his direct input. Top name manufacturers pay him as a consultant.
He got into ballistics way back when nobody knew a damn thing about it, and he's been learning ever since. He has training in human physiology and biological responses, which is where the medical qualification meets the ballistic side.
Because he's been in the game for so long, he's helped develop a lot of testing criteria that is used today by modern manufacturers, military, government and LE organizations. He also does guest speaking at major conferences. The last documents I got from him were from the NTOA Sniper Conference. He regularly puts out a lot of his restricted data to LE so that we can stay current on documentation and compiled data. He has more access to ballistic data than most people, so he winds up being the guy that everyone turns to. He is also a great guy to know. He knows his stuff and is always willing to talk. I had a situation a couple years back with some ammunition testing, and he answered my email and called me up on my cell within a couple hours. He is more than willing to lend a helping hand to get the right information out there where it matters. Most experts won't do that unless you cut them a check first.
