Nasty bullet
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
57 comments displayed.
#22
-
ukulisti (08/27/2015) [-]
Too bad that's illegal to use.
Hooray, more dangerous ammo for nignogs to use.
Hooray, more dangerous ammo for nignogs to use.
#107 to #48
-
darkjustifier (08/28/2015) [-] shooting yourself with smaller rounds makes you immune to larger rounds
#51 to #2
-
anon (08/27/2015) [-]
It's the most efficient way to troll on /k/. Autismos on both sides of the isle who know nothing about ballistics waste their lives arguing with each other for hours on end despite the fact that they know that they're being had.
For an actual opinion, it does exactly what is advertised. The core of the bullet penetrates to the necessary depths to land a CNS hit, and the petals do cause severe damage to a 3-4 inch region in the chest. However, for a large percentage of hits, the petals are largely pointless due to their relatively short penetration depth. Consequently, you don't get the benefits that you would expect from a round that's 3x the cost of the competition.
A lot of people on /k/ have no idea what they're talking about, and unfortunately, this often shifts the /k/ opinion on things in the wrong direction. Just start a thread on hydrostatic shock and watch retards deny basic physics.
For an actual opinion, it does exactly what is advertised. The core of the bullet penetrates to the necessary depths to land a CNS hit, and the petals do cause severe damage to a 3-4 inch region in the chest. However, for a large percentage of hits, the petals are largely pointless due to their relatively short penetration depth. Consequently, you don't get the benefits that you would expect from a round that's 3x the cost of the competition.
A lot of people on /k/ have no idea what they're talking about, and unfortunately, this often shifts the /k/ opinion on things in the wrong direction. Just start a thread on hydrostatic shock and watch retards deny basic physics.
#28 to #2
-
baldraun (08/27/2015) [-] Primarily 8/k/ user here. Even before we all left halfchan, everybody knew this was a piece of **** gimmick round. Their stupid shape doesn't let them cycle properly and leaves your gun prone to jamming, not to mention the ballistic performance on any front except cool factor is absolute **** .
Also they kept ******** up the boards with viral marketing and threads just dedicated to "wow how kewl is thus round guise?" sort of **** .
0/10 would not bang.
Also they kept ******** up the boards with viral marketing and threads just dedicated to "wow how kewl is thus round guise?" sort of **** .
0/10 would not bang.
#23
-
thechosentroll (08/27/2015) [-] >Human flesh not on the list of things it can go through
Yeah, real useful bullet, then.
Yeah, real useful bullet, then.
#6 to #3
-
trostell (08/27/2015) [-] Oh, you mean like how you use the miniguns we already have? That fire rounds that are significantly cheaper and infinitely easier to make? If you need vehicle-mounted " **** you", not only can the miniguns be mounted there, but so can automatic grenade launchers. The bullets are overcomplicated to such an extreme degree, it's pointless. You can do the same job with other things. For instance, the M26 M.A.S.S. is a thing. It's literally a tiny shotgun that fits under a standard AR-15 pattern rifle. There's the old "Masterkey system" which is, again, a shotgun mounted under a rifle. If you want a shotgun in a more compact package, there's plenty of .45 Long Colt revolvers that fire .410 shotgun shells.
It's solving a problem that didn't exist, AND had already been solved for much cheaper!
It's solving a problem that didn't exist, AND had already been solved for much cheaper!
#38 to #36
-
trostell (08/27/2015) [-] Oh, let's just have any sort of feed failure with that "miracle bullet" up there, and now you have bullet shards jamming up your gun in a way that requires disassembly to correct. RIP rounds are just...not useful. Did Germany in World War 2 not teach any lessons about over-engineering your equipment?
#62 to #38
-
anon (08/27/2015) [-]
The complexity of the mini gun was why he had the ND. True story. He shot it over the heads of the base brass that were having a bar-b-q a few hundred meters away and out toward a major highway. He nearly killed a guy on top of a 7-ton that was setting up his turret for the night. You can't un-brrrrrrrrrt yourself! The CO **** himself. He was at the cook-out. Then he lost his mind on all of us.
#145 to #62
-
trostell (08/28/2015) [-] Still, considering how poorly designed RIP rounds are, AND over-engineered...there's no way you could use them reliably with any firearm designed with more conventional ammo in mind. Try firing RIP rounds out of anything but a shotgun, and you'll **** something up really quick. Mostly your own gun. Miniguns aren't perfect, but they're more reliable than an untested round where you can see problems arising before they're even loaded and fired. First off, the fragments will probably lose all aerodynamic stability upon firing because they break apart too early. If, by some miracle, they stay intact until impact, then the individual fragments lose almost all of their energy by being too damn small. RIP rounds end up achieving the same effect of a few layers of kevlar by their design, spreading the impact across a much wider area with literally no increase in power. It's the difference between a large pipe and a piece of rebar. They weigh roughly the same, and swung with equal force, the guy with with a pipe is more likely to survive.
#7 to #6
-
crispykingpin ONLINE (08/27/2015) [-] There can never be enough ways for me to shoot **** .
#144 to #133
-
trostell (08/28/2015) [-] And you get better bang for your buck with hollowpoint or frangible rounds. Any sort of failure with that RIP round will either **** up your gun to the point it's garbage, or jam it in such a way you'd need to take it apart to clear it. Either way, you've done ****** up your gun. Something that just doesn't happen that often, and NEVER to the same extent, with the cheaper, older ammo types.
#24
-
ricaboo (08/27/2015) [-] This seems nice and everything, but it's at best marginally more effective than any type of deforming hunting round.
The reason research into this field is basically nonexistent to the point that some doofus in his garage making the news by machining the bullet in this fashion is something called the Geneva convention.
In the rules of engagement agreed to by every country, it clearly states that deforming munitions cannot be used in warfare, same deal with chemical weapons and other wonderful ******** like white phosphorus.
TL DR: never gonna be used to shoot anything other than deer and black gentlemen.
The reason research into this field is basically nonexistent to the point that some doofus in his garage making the news by machining the bullet in this fashion is something called the Geneva convention.
In the rules of engagement agreed to by every country, it clearly states that deforming munitions cannot be used in warfare, same deal with chemical weapons and other wonderful ******** like white phosphorus.
TL DR: never gonna be used to shoot anything other than deer and black gentlemen.
#77
-
thewordoftruth (08/28/2015) [-] i actually own a bunch of these. i absolutely love this round. it makes my little .380 hit like a 357 mag. its a great round and definitely worth the little extra you pay.
#100 to #81
-
thewordoftruth (08/28/2015) [-] im aware... i own both... it was a metaphorical comparison with a bit of embellishment.. the r.i.p. rounds are however considered a +p round so therefore have more powder than a normal round.
#61
-
geofalke (08/27/2015) [-] a lot of comments here seem to think that this is designed to kill the crook better than a normal hollow point.
that's not the idea.
the idea is to retain the approximate penetration of a normal hollow-point bullet as far as heavy clothing goes, but to reduce over penetration of flesh. a normal hollow-point deforms when it hits it's target, but it for the most part remains whole, keeping a large part of energy and potentially overpenetrating the target if it doesn't hit bone increasing the chance of hitting someone else.
this bullet is designed to do the exact opposite. it will penetrated heavy clothes but not body armor and flesh, but instead of mushrooming and continuing, it fragments and disperses inside the body, transferring almost all of its energy and in most circumstances completely removing the possibility of overpenetrating and hitting someone else.
tldr; it's not overkill, it's exact kill
pic related: hollow point over penetrating ballistic gell
that's not the idea.
the idea is to retain the approximate penetration of a normal hollow-point bullet as far as heavy clothing goes, but to reduce over penetration of flesh. a normal hollow-point deforms when it hits it's target, but it for the most part remains whole, keeping a large part of energy and potentially overpenetrating the target if it doesn't hit bone increasing the chance of hitting someone else.
this bullet is designed to do the exact opposite. it will penetrated heavy clothes but not body armor and flesh, but instead of mushrooming and continuing, it fragments and disperses inside the body, transferring almost all of its energy and in most circumstances completely removing the possibility of overpenetrating and hitting someone else.
tldr; it's not overkill, it's exact kill
pic related: hollow point over penetrating ballistic gell
#114 to #87
-
geofalke (08/28/2015) [-] you're right, the gif above shows a .308 hollow point penetrating 12" of ballistic gel.
however if you really wanted to refute my point about the RIP ammo, you'd have done a bit more digging.
The FBI minimum requirement for defensive ammo penetration is 12". well and dandy, right?
however reading the stats and penetration values on various defensive hollow point ammunition types for different calibers of handguns, a few things pop up.
the average penetration of .45 hollow points is anywhere from 14.5" to about 16".
for 9mm it's about 12" to 13".
great right?
it is. however not every shot is a clean center mass hit with the perp standing face to face with you at 15 yards like a shooting range target for a clean hit. in the circumstances that these bullets are typically used you're moving, he's moving, they're right on top of you, you don't have time to aim and they're at an awkward angle. so the bullet might hit his torso, it might hit his arm, his shoulder, his leg, ect. needless to say those other parts are nowhere near as fleshy as a torso and wouldn't stop the hollowpoint from just blasting through.
while there aren't a lot of cases where a hollow point blasts through and hits/kills a bystander, but it does happen from time to time.
pic .45 penetrating 13.9" of ballistic gel
however if you really wanted to refute my point about the RIP ammo, you'd have done a bit more digging.
The FBI minimum requirement for defensive ammo penetration is 12". well and dandy, right?
however reading the stats and penetration values on various defensive hollow point ammunition types for different calibers of handguns, a few things pop up.
the average penetration of .45 hollow points is anywhere from 14.5" to about 16".
for 9mm it's about 12" to 13".
great right?
it is. however not every shot is a clean center mass hit with the perp standing face to face with you at 15 yards like a shooting range target for a clean hit. in the circumstances that these bullets are typically used you're moving, he's moving, they're right on top of you, you don't have time to aim and they're at an awkward angle. so the bullet might hit his torso, it might hit his arm, his shoulder, his leg, ect. needless to say those other parts are nowhere near as fleshy as a torso and wouldn't stop the hollowpoint from just blasting through.
while there aren't a lot of cases where a hollow point blasts through and hits/kills a bystander, but it does happen from time to time.
pic .45 penetrating 13.9" of ballistic gel
#40
-
anon (08/27/2015) [-]
Even if it was as advertised....
I feel as though it would be overkill.... I mean, if I'm shooting anyone, it's going to be in defense of myself, family or property. I don't necessarily need to UTTERLY DESTROY THE ASSAILANTS INSIDES... I feel like that would get me some sort of manslaughter charge.
I feel as though it would be overkill.... I mean, if I'm shooting anyone, it's going to be in defense of myself, family or property. I don't necessarily need to UTTERLY DESTROY THE ASSAILANTS INSIDES... I feel like that would get me some sort of manslaughter charge.
#66
-
tigreman (08/27/2015) [-] "good for law enforcement"
Well if I was a criminal and I saw my partner in crime get a fist-sized hole put into his chest with a single pistol round I would calmly place myself in a prison cell. So yeah, that makes sense.
Well if I was a criminal and I saw my partner in crime get a fist-sized hole put into his chest with a single pistol round I would calmly place myself in a prison cell. So yeah, that makes sense.
#41
-
atomicjojo (08/27/2015) [-]
these suck, they have very little impact power what-so-ever. in defense, what matters most is that impact. this will just cause your target to bleed, slowly, with plenty of time to finish doing whatever you were trying to stop them from doing before seeking medical help. they are mostly hollow, which accounts for so much of their low weight. these are for tacticool mallninjas who don't know **** about guns and sell to gimmick-loving idiots.
#19
-
smithclone (08/27/2015) [-] 
A review of the G2 RIP round. This guy trolls quite a bit, but he does make some valid points. Worth the 7 minutes watch. There's also a part 2.
Bottom line: the idea is better than the actual thing, and you're better off using a conventional hollow point.
A review of the G2 RIP round. This guy trolls quite a bit, but he does make some valid points. Worth the 7 minutes watch. There's also a part 2. Bottom line: the idea is better than the actual thing, and you're better off using a conventional hollow point.
#99
-
mossblomma ONLINE (08/28/2015) [-]
Would be so much more impressed if they created a non-lethal type of weapon that could compete with lethal ones in taking down targets reliably.
#151 to #112
-
mossblomma ONLINE (08/28/2015) [-]
Non-lethal weaponry and less-than-lethal weaponry are the same thing, they have a lot of names, those are two of them - you're taking my use of non-lethal literally, not considering that it's a term applied to weapons. Also, i said "created", as in "doesn't exist yet", which means that it might very well be as close to true non-lethal as possible.
