RBCD Ammo controversy

[10thmtn]

Here's a test of different 9mm ammo, including RBCD. Note the shallow penetration (8") and 2" wide fragmentation. Large, shallow wound - exactly what you would expect to see:

GoldenLoki.com

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Tubby45]

Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock"

by Michael Courtney, PhD, Ballistics Testing Group
and Amy Courtney, PhD, United States Military Academy

The entire paper is very understandable and is well worth reading. Some interesting quotes:

From another forum written by Dr. Williams:

"DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits.

Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."

[HowardCohodas]

It's been reported that Coral Gables PD did had a testing and evaluation process before selecting the RBCD ammo. I'm perusing if a report was written and if it is available.

[HowardCohodas]

From another forum written by Dr. Williams:

"DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits.

Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."

I have not read all the references that Dr. Courtney cited so I can't comment on Dr. Roberts and Dr. Williams evaluations of Courtney's interpretation.

I am suspicious of reporting that resorts to ad hominem attacks ("his work is junk science"), rather than a specific analysis of specific positions on a specific point of disagreement. In spite of Dr. Williams assurance that I can spend my time more productively, I still want to see for myself if Dr. Courtney's work is valid.

[Tubby45]

Have at it.

Sometimes there's no better way to describe something than raw words.

[Majorlk]

I am suspicious of reporting that resorts to ad hominem attacks ("his work is junk science"), ...

An ad hominem attack is an attack on a person, not on his/her work. Since the comment was about the work - "his work is junk science" - it was not an ad hominem attack.

[Randy]

Courtney is a name I recognize. Agreed - junk science.

Randy

[vn6869]

Can I presume RBCD Ammo is all smoke and mirrors?

[OD*]

Can I presume RBCD Ammo is all smoke and mirrors?

That would be a good bet.

[bodhisattvya]

Jim Cirillo of NYPD Stakeout Unit was one of the individuals involved in the concept behind RBCD ammo. Everything I have read of Mr. Cirillo, he was a great study of ballistics & the lethality of carry ammo. If Jim Cirillo was attached to its inception, I believe RBCD to be more than "smoke & mirrors."

[OD*]

Jim Cirillo helped lend a hand in developing RBCD ammo...

Can you point me to where I may read up on that? (besides RBCD's website)

[Randy]

Also, as an "industry professional" he would have some credibility if he contacts the Coral Gables PD to see what due-diligence they performed in making this choice.

Any word on this yet? I can call if not.

Randy

[shooterX]

Can you point me to where I may read up on that? (besides RBCD's website)

Yeah I'd like proof of this also.

[Texas Yankee]

I don't know about any of RBCD's claims and don't really care what Le Mas has said. I just want to know do they work. So I tested 9 mm RBCD, Corbon DPX and Glaser silver on pork roasts. The Corbon expanded well and penetrated at least 17 inches, a couple went through. Even with full expansion the diameter of the hole isn't the big, well less than an inch. The glasers produced holes that were about 5-8 inches deep and at the widest point about 2 inches in diameter. There were a couple of BBs that penetrated to about 10 inches. The RBCD produced a cone that was about 5 inches wide and about 7 inches deep with additional minor penetration out to 8-10 inches. The holes were very similar to the ones in the pictures in the article.

Was my test scientific? Nope. Should you rely on it? Nope. Do the test yourself. But from seeing it, I have to believe most BGs are going to be shocked by a hole 5 inches wide in them even if only 7 inches deep and I have to believe you are going to get a whole lot of bleeding from that kind of hole.

Glasers have been found effective against unarmored BGs. I have to believe from what I saw that RBCDs would be more effective.

So for my in house defence, I use three rounds of RBCDs with Corbon DPX
filling the magazine.

[ExSoldier]

I load RBCD in all my back up mags and Mag Safe in my primary (in the gun) mags. Why RBCD? I have a very good friend, retired as a senior officer in Special Operations who once told me that SOCOM buys the stuff by the pallet and he personally would never go with anything else when it's HIS neck on the line. I have heard this from other operators as well. I have heard a lot of folks on this form and on others offer a lot of negative comments on RBCD but I'll keep my own counsel. A lot of folks like to point to the famous BOX-O-TRUTH results but I never put any stock in gallon jugs of water simulating flesh. I can't stand that "test site." For grins I have also purchased RBCD in .223 and 454 Casull. I also have them in both 9mm and 45ACP and I'll probably buy some more boxes in both those calibers.