RBCD’s products, 45 ACP at 2030 FPS, no joke

[Ozzieman]

http://www.rbcd.net/Personal%20Defense-%20Ammo.htm

Has any one tried any of RBCD’s products?
They have a 45 ACP in 90 GR that is making 2030 FPS with 820 Foot pounds.
And a 9mm 50 GR that is pushing 2300FPS at 590 foot pounds. These I would like to try in my Beretta Storm carbine.
Thanks for your input.

[David the Gnome]

I think I'd rather have the 230gr bullet traveling at standard velocities personally.

[Dragon55]

Small bullets with lots of powder will go very fast.

[B. Lahey]

All hype. No advantages over regular ammo, but some serious drawbacks.

You say "no joke", but these loads really are a joke. They are just varmint bullets painted black or regular lead projectiles with a half plastic core.

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888

[Silvanus]

They are crap for self defence...:barf:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot38.htm

[Ozzieman]

That’s wonderful sharing your personal feelings which are meaningless in relation to the question. I was looking for some input from some one that has tried there products, and no I am not planning on using them for personal defense, thank you.

[Sevens]

If they lightened it from 90 grains to 30 grains, and ramped the speed up to 3,000 FPS, would it be even more interesting?

No personal feelings-- just more entertaining discussion fodder.

[Ozzieman]

If they lightened it from 90 grains to 30 grains, and ramped the speed up to 3,000 FPS

Yes and in a carbine like I said in my original post it might be interesting if it worked, and it’s why I asked.

[Sevens]

At less than half the bullet weight, my first question is whether or not it would actually cycle the action of your carbine. I don't have a storm carbine, but I do have a KT Sub-2k and it's an unlocked breech, straight blowback operation. I have serious doubts about the ability for these to even operate my rifle.

And you can't blame someone for bringing up "self defense", the whole page you linked is centered around defense use, so much so that it's right in the link address!

I clicked a bit on the site and was wholly unimpressed with the presentation. And I didn't try hard, but I couldn't find much description as to the construction of the bullet. If it is indeed a plastic sabot type of projectile, then I would have to refer to any/all evidence I've yet seen of these in use-- which is to say, yeah... a waste of time and money.

My impression is that these folks just love the mathematical formula that results in muzzle "energy." It seems that they need to get all the projectiles used in every caliber down to a svelte 20 or 25 grains. Afterall, the best way to ridiculously ramp up muzzle "energy" is to ramp up the muzzle velocity with reckless abandon with regards to everything else that actually matters in a modern cartridge. If they manage to build a plastic sabot that will hold a .177 cal air rifle pellet, I'll bet they can get that "bullet" down to about 8.0 grains. Out of a .50 BMG, maybe they can get 8000 FPS!

[B. Lahey]

That’s wonderful sharing your personal feelings which are meaningless in relation to the question. I was looking for some input from some one that has tried there products

Then you obviously didn't click the link I provided, did you?

It's a comprehensive scientific write-up of the ammo by one of the most respected ballistics authorities on the planet. He tested it, and he says it sucks in every way possible.

But I guess you weren't really looking for input from somebody that has tried the product, you wanted input from somebody who tried the product and liked it, to validate your ridiculous preconceived notions about this worthless ammo.

Sorry I couldn't help you. No sane and rational person could recommend that ammo for any purpose if they bothered to look at the facts involved.

[Bill DeShivs]

The FBI's "recommended 12 inches of penetration" is something that has set modern bullet design back 40 years!
First, this recommendation is for law enforcement officers who must put themselves in harm's way, not civillians who carry for defense.
Second, this "study" was a CYA study for the FBI after the Miami shootout. 12 " of penetration is not necessary at all. IF a couple of the rounds fired in that shootout penetrated 12", then the outcome MAY have been different.
The 12" figure comes from a hypothetical situation where a bullet entered an extended arm on a frontal shot. How do they know that an arm bone wouldn't deflect the bullet from it's course?
The Box of Truth is an interesting exercise in ammunition comparison, but all it will tell you is what bullet to use if you are attacked by water jugs.
The perpetuation of the "12 inch myth" by the B.O.T. and others is a disservice. The FBI study is but one small tool in the study of terminal ballistics, it's NOT the definitive one. Please try to understand it and take it in the proper context.

[DasFriek]

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19888

On another forum i am a member we would call that "EPIC FAIL!"
E=mc2 Einstien wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

On paper it doesnt work exactly as it states with bullets,at least not to me.To get energy you need mass,alot more than you need speed.
If you start ramping speed you get higher E,but with bullets it doesnt have the same effect as ramping the mass.

I finished high school and some EE work,so im not physicist and most likley misspelled it.
The only reason i see to ever go with lower grains on a bullet is to reduce recoil.Reduced recoil with a lighter and faster bullet will give you higher E on paper,but in reality you can even feel its not true since the reduced felt recoil says otherwise.

[B. Lahey]

E=mc2 Einstien wrote

The problem is more simple than physics. The problem is that RBCD simply makes up the numbers they use and lies about the composition of their projectiles, how they perform, and everything else.

Pure fiction doesn't have to worry about the laws of nature, it is whatever the writer decides it should be.

Why bother designing something original when it's so much easier to spraypaint somebody else's varmint bullet, load it, and call it the ultimate breakthrough for superduper whiz-bang whosiwhatsis?

Or you can make a bullet out of lead with a plastic ball in it and say its "blended metal" with platinum and all sorts of scientific-sounding lies and distortions, make up some numbers, write some advertising, and be done.

Welcome to the weird world of RBCD.

[JohnKSa]

a lighter and faster bullet will give you higher E on paper,but in reality you can even feel its not true since the reduced felt recoil says otherwise.

That's because energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared but recoil is proportional to momentum which is proportional to mass times velocity.

In other words, recoil will tell you if you've changed momentum but it's not a good way to tell anything about energy.

Kinetic energy and momentum are two scientific properties of moving objects. Both tell you something about that that moving object and what they tell you is not in question--you don't get to decide whether or not the calculations are meaninful or whether or not they overemphasize or underemphasize something. Science can prove experimentally and mathematically that what kinetic energy and momentum tell you about a projectile is reality and not simply someone's opinion.

The problem comes NOT in calculating kinetic energy or momentum but rather in INTERPRETING what they tell you about a bullet.

Kinetic energy is the POTENTIAL of a bullet to do work/cause damage. Whether or not the bullet lives up to that potential depends on a LOT of things. Things like: (Does it hit something important? Does it use all its energy damaging that important thing or is a lot of the energy wasted doing useless things like penetrating intermediate barriers or empty air behind the important thing? etc.).

Momemtem tells you how hard it will be to stop a bullet. It relates to penetration, but again, there are a lot of things that can complicate the relationship between penetration and momentum.

NEITHER one of them tells you everything you need to know about a bullet's performance but together they and other parameters relating to a bullet will give you a fairly good way to compare the POTENTIAL of a bullet to do what you want it to do.

[Silvanus]

That’s wonderful sharing your personal feelings which are meaningless in relation to the question. I was looking for some input from some one that has tried there products, and no I am not planning on using them for personal defense, thank you.

I didn't "share my personal feelings". I have never used that ammo since I've never even seen it in any gunshops where I live. I provided a link to a website that showed a reasonably well made test of the particular ammo you asked about that showed it's pretty much useless for any serious application. And I don't believe you want to buy it just to punch holes in paper, it's a little too expensive for that.

Perhaps you should just have stated the purpose of your use of this ammo? It's only logical to assume you'll use them for self defence, since that's what they've been designed for.

Civilian Ammunition ..Personal Defense ..Home Security

[JohnKSa]

Ok, seems like this one has been beaten to death...