RBCD Ammo controversy - Page 5

shooterX · July 14th, 2009, 02:42 PM

If he provides you with the information you requested, please share it with us. I have pulled this ammo from my firearms as previously stated, however, I am very interested in hearing more about the article in your OP.

OD · July 14th, 2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy

Who is DocGKR?

Randy

Dr. Gary K. Roberts, D.D.S., LCdr. USNR, he's one of the nations foremost wound ballistics experts.

HowardCohodas · July 16th, 2009, 12:12 AM

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:

Quote:

Debates between bullets that are “light and fast” vs. “slow and heavy” often refer to “hydrostatic shock," which describes remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets in addition to tissue crushed by direct bullet impact. Considerable evidence shows that “hydrostatic shock" can produce remote neural damage and rapid incapacitation.

Quote:

Recommendations

The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12” in ballistic gelatin.[8] Maximizing ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment. Understanding the potential benefits of remote ballistic pressure wave effects leads us to favor loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy.

With a handgun, no wounding mechanism can be relied on to produce incapacitation 100% of the time within the short span of most gunfights. Selecting a good self-defense load is only a small part of surviving a gunfight. You have to hit an attacker to hurt him, and you need a good plan for surviving until your hits take effect. Get good training, practice regularly, learn to use cover, and pray that you will never have a lethal force encounter armed only with a handgun.

10thmtn · July 16th, 2009, 07:28 AM

Hi Howard - I read that article a while back. The most interesting thing to me is that while what they call a "pressure wave" can contribute to terminal effect, they still recommend the primary consideration be: hitting your target; and a minimum of 12" penetration.

The issue is that ammo like RBCD does not meet the 12" standard.

"Pressure wave" is also not the same thing as "hydrostatic shock." The latter refers to permanent wounds caused by the temporary stretch cavity (the tissue gets stretched too far and/or too fast) - generally happens only with rifle bullet-type energy levels.

"Pressure wave" refers to a wave that travels through the large arteries around the heart (so, shot placement in the upper chest is key) to the brain. IIRC, it only has enough energy to cause damage for about 18" or so, so hitting someone in the femoral artery in the leg isn't going to do it. The hits need to be near the heart.

Any bullet that stops inside the target will transfer all its energy, whether that happens via fragmentation or expansion.

The authors (to their credit) agree that "pressure wave" doesn't always happen, and doesn't always work to stop the threat - thus their recommendations.

In the end, this is a very fascinating discussion of terminal ballistics. But, it doesn't really change anything - hit your target in the high chest, and use a bullet with at least 12" penetration (that will hopefully stop inside the target).

shooterX · July 16th, 2009, 12:48 PM

I think the safest thing to do is use ammo that has been proven, both by testing and real world use, the makers of RBCD, from my own research, haven't provided enough data, or any, to suport their claims.

10thmtn · July 19th, 2009, 09:21 AM

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

Tubby45 · July 22nd, 2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

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 · July 22nd, 2009, 10:05 PM

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 · July 22nd, 2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby45

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 · July 23rd, 2009, 01:05 PM

Have at it.

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

July 16th, 2009, 07:28 AM	#44
10thmtn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Posts: 661	Hi Howard - I read that article a while back. The most interesting thing to me is that while what they call a "pressure wave" can contribute to terminal effect, they still recommend the primary consideration be: hitting your target; and a minimum of 12" penetration. The issue is that ammo like RBCD does not meet the 12" standard. "Pressure wave" is also not the same thing as "hydrostatic shock." The latter refers to permanent wounds caused by the temporary stretch cavity (the tissue gets stretched too far and/or too fast) - generally happens only with rifle bullet-type energy levels. "Pressure wave" refers to a wave that travels through the large arteries around the heart (so, shot placement in the upper chest is key) to the brain. IIRC, it only has enough energy to cause damage for about 18" or so, so hitting someone in the femoral artery in the leg isn't going to do it. The hits need to be near the heart. Any bullet that stops inside the target will transfer all its energy, whether that happens via fragmentation or expansion. The authors (to their credit) agree that "pressure wave" doesn't always happen, and doesn't always work to stop the threat - thus their recommendations. In the end, this is a very fascinating discussion of terminal ballistics. But, it doesn't really change anything - hit your target in the high chest, and use a bullet with at least 12" penetration (that will hopefully stop inside the target). __________________ The People ARE the Militia, and have a DUTY (not just a right) to be both armed and proficient in the use of said arms. Ex-Army officer; Hurricane Andrew Relief, FL, 1992; Operation Restore Hope, Somalia, 1993 NRA Life Member; Range Safety Officer Glock 26, CT Laserguard, Smartcarry

July 19th, 2009, 09:21 AM	#46
10thmtn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Posts: 661	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 __________________ The People ARE the Militia, and have a DUTY (not just a right) to be both armed and proficient in the use of said arms. Ex-Army officer; Hurricane Andrew Relief, FL, 1992; Operation Restore Hope, Somalia, 1993 NRA Life Member; Range Safety Officer Glock 26, CT Laserguard, Smartcarry

July 22nd, 2009, 10:05 PM	#48
HowardCohodas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Canton, OH Posts: 852	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. __________________ Howard *I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop!!*

July 23rd, 2009, 01:05 PM	#50
Tubby45 VIP Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Making suppressors Posts: 2,406	Have at it. Sometimes there's no better way to describe something than raw words. __________________ Freakshow Manufacturing LLC Ammunition- Retail, Wholesale, Law Enforcement

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 14th, 2009, 02:42 PM	#41
shooterX Distinguished Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,567	If he provides you with the information you requested, please share it with us. I have pulled this ammo from my firearms as previously stated, however, I am very interested in hearing more about the article in your OP.

July 16th, 2009, 12:48 PM	#45
shooterX Distinguished Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,567	I think the safest thing to do is use ammo that has been proven, both by testing and real world use, the makers of RBCD, from my own research, haven't provided enough data, or any, to suport their claims.