R.I.P.: "The Last Round You'll Ever Need"

[Virgil Showlion]

...coming to the guns of law enforcers and self-defenders near you.



and described here ( by me):

Toward the beginning of the year, the company G2 Research released a new bullet, called the R.I.P., for reasons that will appear obvious when you view the videos below, and it has taken the ammunition market by storm. So much so, that folks are STILL trying to find out where to buy some, and to date, no newer ammunition has outdone it!

Here are the specifics of the 9 mm version, as reported earlier this year in an article published on Conservative Infidel:

* 16″ Penetration
* Up to 6″ diameter spread
* 96 gr projectile
* 2″ grouping at 25 yrds
* 1265 FPS / 490 Muzzle Energy
* 9 Separate Wound Channels
* Precision Machined
* Solid Copper / Lead Free
* Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing

The concept of a bullet drilling through obstacles and subsequently splitting into thirty tiny piranhas that seek out a target's internal organs and feast until exploding into toxic shrapnel used to be one of those "how far will they take it" jokes, but evidently ammunition manufacturers didn't get the memo.

And while I'm mildly reassured by the many YouTube comments indicating the "defeats all known barriers" claim is bunkum, I find myself in an EVT-esque state of wondering at what point American society shifted from wanting to simply disable a thief or mugger to wanting to positively guarantee his death as he cowers behind the sheet metal cabinet in the corner of the garage.

Do so many people want ammunition that will surely kill anyone they shoot at under any circumstance?

Do so many police officers want ammunition that will surely kill anyone they shoot at under any circumstance?

Why not go all the way and tip these things with neurotoxin so that even somebody grazed by a bullet has a 0% probability of survival? That's an earnest question. If we've completely rejected the notion of firearms as a means of disablement rather than a means of guaranteeing death, why not close the "only grazed him" loophole as well?

These technologies aren't about making people safer. This is insanity.

[billisonboard]

 Glad we are progressing so far above the savages that used to occupy this land. 

Counting coup, or striking an enemy, was the highest honor earned by warriors participating in the intertribal wars of the Great Plains. Native peoples recognized precise systems of graduated war honors, and usually the greatest exploit was counting coup. Key to a man's success in Plains combat was demonstrating his own courage by proving superiority over his opponent and, in a competitive sense, over his own comrades. Killing was part of war, but showing courage in the process was more important for individual status. This was best accomplished by risking one's life in charging the enemy on foot or horseback to get close enough to touch or strike him with the hand, a weapon, or a "coupstick."

...

Counting coup carried over into the battles against American troops. For example, the Northern Cheyenne warrior Wooden Leg related how, as a young man at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, he and his friend Little Bird chased a soldier across the river, counting coup on him with their whips and grabbing his carbine. They did not kill him, said Wooden Leg, because after counting coup it did not seem particularly brave, and besides, it would waste bullets. 
COUNTING COUP

[mmhmm]

I couldn't agree more, Virgil Showlion. This is most definitely insanity. There is no need for something like this. The only possible use for it I can think of would be for a sharpshooter on a SWAT team confronted with a crazed killer about to murder a hostage. Even that's difficult for me to accept.

[sesfw]

The only possible use for it I can think of would be for a sharpshooter on a SWAT team confronted with a crazed killer about to murder a hostage. Even that's difficult for me to accept.

This reminded me of the episode several years when the Somali terrorists stopped the ship and took the captain. It was Seal sharp-shooters that took those guys out and saved the captain.

[djAdvocate]

the militarization of the police continues.  Jefferson's worst nightmare unfolds.

[EVT1]

I can see the lawsuit already.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 17, 2014 14:35:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I can see the lawsuit already.

You hope.

Apparently law enforcement is buying these things like they're going out of style. Presumably that means they're legal ammunition.

How do you plan on suing the state for deaths sustained in the course of hostile police engagement with legal ammunition? The obvious defense argument is "If using RIP bullets to maximize police safety is considered hazardous, why are police officers authorized to use them? Surely such authorization indemnifies officers against causing the kinds of injuries these bullets are known to cause."

It's a good argument. Why would officers be authorized to use such ammunition if using it constituted a tort? It makes no sense.

The only way to get rid of this ammo is to ban its use entirely, and that comes with its own set of problems and roadblocks.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 17, 2014 8:40:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...coming to the guns of law enforcers and self-defenders near you.



and described here ( by me):

Toward the beginning of the year, the company G2 Research released a new bullet, called the R.I.P., for reasons that will appear obvious when you view the videos below, and it has taken the ammunition market by storm. So much so, that folks are STILL trying to find out where to buy some, and to date, no newer ammunition has outdone it!

Here are the specifics of the 9 mm version, as reported earlier this year in an article published on Conservative Infidel:

* 16″ Penetration
* Up to 6″ diameter spread
* 96 gr projectile
* 2″ grouping at 25 yrds
* 1265 FPS / 490 Muzzle Energy
* 9 Separate Wound Channels
* Precision Machined
* Solid Copper / Lead Free
* Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing

The concept of a bullet drilling through obstacles and subsequently splitting into thirty tiny piranhas that seek out a target's internal organs and feast until exploding into toxic shrapnel used to be one of those "how far will they take it" jokes, but evidently ammunition manufacturers didn't get the memo.

And while I'm mildly reassured by the many YouTube comments indicating the "defeats all known barriers" claim is bunkum, I find myself in an EVT-esque state of wondering at what point American society shifted from wanting to simply disable a thief or mugger to wanting to positively guarantee his death as he cowers behind the sheet metal cabinet in the corner of the garage.

Do so many people want ammunition that will surely kill anyone they shoot at under any circumstance?

Do so many police officers want ammunition that will surely kill anyone they shoot at under any circumstance?

Why not go all the way and tip these things with neurotoxin so that even somebody grazed by a bullet has a 0% probability of survival? That's an earnest question. If we've completely rejected the notion of firearms as a means of disablement rather than a means of guaranteeing death, why not close the "only grazed him" loophole as well?

These technologies aren't about making people safer. This is insanity.

I'm not staking out a position, I just want to clarify something in the OP here- are you saying that there exists some notion of firearms as a means of disablement?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the concept of "shoot to wound" doesn't exist, but it's largely rejected as a sound means of self-defense.  If you take any course on using firearms, they will tell you to aim for the center of mass- you are more likely to hit, and more likely to kill your target.  Trainers discourage aiming for extremities, or shooting to wound.  They will tell you that the rules are very simple- don't intruduce a firearm you don't intend to use, and don't use a firearm unless you intend to kill.  In otherwords, the minute a weapon is brandished, the assumption is-- has to be-- that you intend to kill someone.

Not saying I like these things- but I can imagine a much more subdued police force if the SWAT Teams raiding people's pot gardens had to face this threat.  Might help re-order the priorities.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 17, 2014 14:56:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Nov 17, 2014 8:40:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...coming to the guns of law enforcers and self-defenders near you.



and described here ( by me):

Toward the beginning of the year, the company G2 Research released a new bullet, called the R.I.P., for reasons that will appear obvious when you view the videos below, and it has taken the ammunition market by storm. So much so, that folks are STILL trying to find out where to buy some, and to date, no newer ammunition has outdone it!

Here are the specifics of the 9 mm version, as reported earlier this year in an article published on Conservative Infidel:

* 16″ Penetration
* Up to 6″ diameter spread
* 96 gr projectile
* 2″ grouping at 25 yrds
* 1265 FPS / 490 Muzzle Energy
* 9 Separate Wound Channels
* Precision Machined
* Solid Copper / Lead Free
* Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing

The concept of a bullet drilling through obstacles and subsequently splitting into thirty tiny piranhas that seek out a target's internal organs and feast until exploding into toxic shrapnel used to be one of those "how far will they take it" jokes, but evidently ammunition manufacturers didn't get the memo.

And while I'm mildly reassured by the many YouTube comments indicating the "defeats all known barriers" claim is bunkum, I find myself in an EVT-esque state of wondering at what point American society shifted from wanting to simply disable a thief or mugger to wanting to positively guarantee his death as he cowers behind the sheet metal cabinet in the corner of the garage.

Do so many people want ammunition that will surely kill anyone they shoot at under any circumstance?

Do so many police officers want ammunition that will surely kill anyone they shoot at under any circumstance?

Why not go all the way and tip these things with neurotoxin so that even somebody grazed by a bullet has a 0% probability of survival? That's an earnest question. If we've completely rejected the notion of firearms as a means of disablement rather than a means of guaranteeing death, why not close the "only grazed him" loophole as well?

These technologies aren't about making people safer. This is insanity.

I'm not staking out a position, I just want to clarify something in the OP here- are you saying that there exists some notion of firearms as a means of disablement?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the concept of "shoot to wound" doesn't exist, but it's largely rejected as a sound means of self-defense.  If you take any course on using firearms, they will tell you to aim for the center of mass- you are more likely to hit, and more likely to kill your target.  Trainers discourage aiming for extremities, or shooting to wound.  They will tell you that the rules are very simple- don't intruduce a firearm you don't intend to use, and don't use a firearm unless you intend to kill.  In otherwords, the minute a weapon is brandished, the assumption is-- has to be-- that you intend to kill someone.

Not saying I like these things- but I can imagine a much more subdued police force if the SWAT Teams raiding people's pot gardens had to face this threat.  Might help re-order the priorities.  

I have no problem with people using higher-caliber firearms and aiming for the center of mass.

When I say "disable", I mean to stop: to definitively neutralize a threat.

This ammunition isn't about neutralizing threats, it's about making absolutely sure that anybody who's been neutralized is either dead or guaranteed to die. It penetrates cover. It apparently does more damage than a hollow point round, which is already absurdly lethal. There is absolutely no need for this kind of weapon. As I say, they might as well tip the bullets with neurotoxin, because they're obviously past caring whether anyone hit with one of these things can make it to the ER or not.

[mollyanna58]

Not saying I like these things- but I can imagine a much more subdued police force if the SWAT Teams raiding people's pot gardens had to face this threat. Might help re-order the priorities.

I'm not sure I understand you.  "More subdued"?  I'd think a SWAT team, which is already ramped up, would be even more likely to shoot first and empty their ammo if they thought they were facing someone with these bullets.

[billisonboard]

Looks like the attempt is to ensure there isn't an open casket funeral.

[wyouser]

For use with sky marshalls where trials of would be terrorist/hijackers are not desired? IE no use of Guantonimo and no years wasted housing said suspects while waiting for a place inside the US where they could be tried? (tongue in cheek...and all puns intended)

[Deleted]

Probably they need to have it else it is so hard to kill five years old children.

[mroped]

They should be banned just like the "dum-dum" rounds were. While conceived with a good intent(like cornering the ammo market!) it is far to dangerous. Who's to say that this rounds will be used "just in case..." To me they look more dangerous than the armoir piercing rounds or controlled explosive rounds. 
since they already have a promo video that means they have all necessary legal approvals but I believe in the video they say "patent pending approval" which I'm not entirely positive on what it means at this point.
and yes, there is a "disable the opponent- preserve life" policy in place and is specific for NATO. That's why M16 was more or less created or maybe that was the selling point?!
it was believed that if you disabled one there will be 2 people necessary to remove/carry the wounded individual which theoretically makes sense! Practically...not so much!
Warssaw Treaty didn't see it that way that's why they stuck with the 7.62 ( or 30-06)rounds versus the .225 of the M16. A 7.62 it obliterates the target on impact- bigger round, lower speed, lower rotation rate.
And now this shrapnel/buck shot bullet? That's a big jump from "preserve life"
and while well intended I have the certainty that the wrong people will get their hands on

[Tennesseer]

Nov 17, 2014 18:22:52 GMT -5 mroped said:

They should be banned just like the "dum-dum" rounds were. While conceived with a good intent(like cornering the ammo market!) it is far to dangerous. Who's to say that this rounds will be used "just in case..." To me they look more dangerous than the armoir piercing rounds or controlled explosive rounds. 
since they already have a promo video that means they have all necessary legal approvals but I believe in the video they say "patent pending approval" which I'm not entirely positive on what it means at this point.
and yes, there is a "disable the opponent- preserve life" policy in place and is specific for NATO. That's why M16 was more or less created or maybe that was the selling point?!
it was believed that if you disabled one there will be 2 people necessary to remove/carry the wounded individual which theoretically makes sense! Practically...not so much!
Warssaw Treaty didn't see it that way that's why they stuck with the 7.62 ( or 30-06)rounds versus the .225 of the M16. A 7.62 it obliterates the target on impact- bigger round, lower speed, lower rotation rate.
And now this shrapnel/buck shot bullet? That's a big jump from "preserve life"
and while well intended I have the certainty that the wrong people will get their hands on

By chance are you married to Oped? If yes, welcome. If not, welcome anyway.

[mroped]

Would there be any repercussions if I admit to that?

[Artemis Windsong]

I overheard a conversation where, out deer hunting, a guy decided to use a Federal bullet in his gun rather than his hunting loads.  He hit the neck, killed the deer and the bullet fragmented ruining half the deer meat.

These bullets G2 RIPs are a danger to our military, police and security people.  Some things should never have been invented.  They will be in the wrong hands too quickly.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 17, 2014 21:42:39 GMT -5 mroped said:

Would there be any repercussions if I admit to that?

Not from me.

[mmhmm]

Nov 17, 2014 21:42:39 GMT -5 mroped said:

Would there be any repercussions if I admit to that?

LOL! Absolutely not!  Welcome aboard! 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Again, I need more time to think about this issue and to study it. My inclination is to support the continued legality of these kinds of weapons which is rooted in my growing concern over the militarization of the police.

Basically, SWAT- once a limited use tactic reserved for bank robberies and kidnappings- is now used to raid businesses for financial documents, and people's homes for suspected drug possession. There are now over 100 no-knock raids per day in the United States, and people have fewer and fewer legal options with which to respond to the abuse of their rights, the taking of their property, and deprivation of their liberty.

I'm increasingly concerned that the militarization of the police, the local and state police dependence upon the federal government, and the increased frequency of operations which are the result of incestuous relationships between local law enforcement and federal agencies are all an end-run around the Constitution, and present a need for what you might call the deployment of creative, and deadly responses by individual citizens, and organized groups of citizens in self defense against the state.

If I said to you that standing up for yourself against an illegal, or erroneous SWAT raid-- responding with deadly force to the invasion of your home by such a raid-- is suicide, you would no doubt agree.

That's a problem, if you ask me.

I don't want anyone killed, but if one party has to fear death by another-- I prefer the police worry more about us, than we have to worry about them.

Citizens with drone-mounted tear gas, and utilize infrared and night vision technology, and a firearm system equipped with these rounds would be ideal. <sarcasm>. Or is it?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 18, 2014 15:41:04 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I must be a special kind of sick, because my first reaction as I watched the video was cool!

However, applying the benefit of rational thought I can see that it is a totally over the top and nasty piece of ammo.

did you play with explosives when you were a kid? 

[Tennesseer]

Did Eric Frein hack someone's Proboards' account?

[Deleted]

I want some.

[EVT1]

I looked into some of this and so far it is more marketing and gimmickry than an actual effective round- at least according to Mr. Zimmerman   And if anyone knows about shooting people- it's a Zimmerman.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/daniel-zimmerman/g2-researchs-rip-ammo-ballistic-testing-phase-one/

     I could say a lot about this – such as that it’s irresponsible, or even offensive to the very essence of self defense (which is about stopping an attack, not about killing the attacker). If a prosecutor could prove that you intended and set about to kill an attacker, your claim of self defense might just go out the window. Will marketing like this help your case? Depending on your lawyers, the prosecutor, and whether it’s a criminal or civil suit, it may or may not matter. But I can certainly say that this over-the-top presentation makes me appreciate the restraint and more responsible branding of, oh, for example, Hornady’s Critical Defense.

     Second, it’s a scary looking round. While we can contest the claim that it’s “like no other projectile the world has ever seen”, I won’t deny that it certainly looks like no other projectile the world has ever seen. It’s downright intimidating. Maybe a little scary. Vicious even. Of course, when it comes to bullets (as with everything else), looks aren’t everything. Or, well, really, anything. It’s performance that matters.

     Third, it’s expen$ive. It will run you $50 for 20 rounds — that’s $2.50 per bullet. The performance better be magnificent to justify the price tag. You can buy four or five quality 9mm defensive rounds for the cost of each G2 R.I.P. round.

     Fourth, you have to wonder if it will it feed. Sometimes guns have issues feeding hollowpoint rounds, and I personally have heard reports of the polymer tip in Hornadys causing problems. How will the sharpened, jagged edges of R.I.P.s affect reliable feeding?

The truth revealed   All about the bucks.

     I’m not going to say that the G2 R.I.P. is junk. It does have the capability to penetrate deep enough to cause an incapacitating hit if your aim is good enough to put it on target. It’s not like some of the other gimmick rounds that woefully underpenetrate. But that said, the only thing it really brings to the table that’s new (a big shallow surface wound) is done at the expense of delivering destruction where you want and need it – by putting the biggest possible bullet deep within the body. That’s a poor tradeoff

Buy the Zombie killers

[EVT1]

Nov 18, 2014 16:12:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 18, 2014 15:41:04 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I must be a special kind of sick, because my first reaction as I watched the video was cool!

However, applying the benefit of rational thought I can see that it is a totally over the top and nasty piece of ammo.

did you play with explosives when you were a kid? 

I did   I would be in jail as a terrorist bomb maker for the stuff we had fun with.  Molotovs- check, Napalm- check, Muriatic acid bombs- check, pipe bombs- check, gas soaked tennis ball cannon- check.  Had the Anarchist's Cookbook in 6th grade.  What scares me is some kid is going to get caught up in this- everyone I knew liked fire and explosions as a kid- and I guess we are felons too since we blew apart a couple of mailboxes- all this between 4th grade and high school.  Had a lot of fun- had a lot of fun shooting guns too- lived by the woods and was allowed to run and gun at will.  Never forget we got some tracer rounds and were shooting holes in the sewer drain pipes- friends dad had a lot of old ammo from Vietnam and let us have it.  It never hit me until much later the horror of what guns do to people- as it was never presented that way- it was presented as a means to hunt- so I will never be anti-gun- but very much anti-asshole that thinks they can shoot first- as the threads I posted on the matter- that so many people think that killing people is justified based on minor crap- the kind of assholes that would buy a round like this.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 18, 2014 22:21:48 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Nov 18, 2014 16:12:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

did you play with explosives when you were a kid? 

... the kind of assholes that would buy a round like this.

...from the guy who owns an arsenal and cooks firebombs, acid bombs, and napalm in his garage as a hobby?

[OldCoyote]

Nov 19, 2014 7:41:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Nov 18, 2014 16:12:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

did you play with explosives when you were a kid? 

I did actually.

Fires, zip guns, little bombs. 

Many of them were powered with ground up match powder.  You would be amazed how powerful that stuff is.  Makes for a very difficult to control charge in a zip gun though.

If we did the same thing today many of us would be in jail.

[OldCoyote]

I see some kids today being charged under the present terrorist laws for the same thing that we may have done,  I would say is an over reaction.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 18, 2014 15:41:04 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I must be a special kind of sick, because my first reaction as I watched the video was cool!

However, applying the benefit of rational thought I can see that it is a totally over the top and nasty piece of ammo.

Yeah, I had the same initial reaction. It does seem over-the-top, nasty- and all of that.  

However, applying the benefit of rational thought I can see that the knee-jerk impulse to utilize violence to prevent the manufacture, sale, possession, and use of yet another item we find distasteful might very well be worse than the imagined harm that would supposedly come from the product itself; and the result of a ban- if you truly believe your initial emotional reaction to the product to be fact-based- might actually be counterproductive.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but if you're truly concerned about things like this, there's plenty of evidence that ignoring it will have a stronger effect on its distribution and use than any "ban" would.  I frankly hadn't heard of this until it was posted here- and I spend plenty of time at www.cheaperthandirt.com ; www.ar15.com ; www.basspro.com and other sites looking up information, and buying products and services related to firearms.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 19, 2014 8:52:56 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I see some kids today being charged under the present terrorist laws for the same thing that we may have done,  I would say is an over reaction.

I'm pretty sure there's a potato in orbit that I put there, and I shattered a nieghbor's garage windows from the propellent which was a mixture of kerosene and gasoline.  I jammed those old metal beer cans together, soldered, and duct taped them together at the seams, punched a small hold at the base for a fuse, poured the fuel mixture in, jammed the potato into the homemade cannon, dug a hole to place the cannon in in the event of a failure so I wouldn't eat shrapnel.  It wasn't terribly elaborate for its day- I wasn't even mediocre at it compared to other kid's contraptions.  

At first, I thought the potato was disintegrated- because I'd seen many other potatoes leave these cannons, but then I saw it way the hell up over the tree tops still going.  My real guess is that it landed in the school yard.