By ShootingTheBull410

Unless you’ve been in a sensory-deprivation tank for the last 72 hours, you’ve probably heard of G2 Research’s new G2 RIP 9mm bullet. Thanks to a dramatic video and some compelling performance claims, word of G2 Research’s new “wonder bullet” has spread through the blogosphere like gonorrhea at an 18th-century naval port. We at TTAG have been inundated with requests about it. On my ShootingTheBull410 YouTube channel and blog, I’ve been flooded with requests. People are obviously impressed by what the video is showing them, and they want to know — is it for real? Is this really and truly the last bullet you’ll ever need? . . .

Well, that’s what their marketing says anyway. Those are big words, certainly. And there’s plenty of skepticism out there too. After all, in the ammo world it seems like a new “wonder bullet” comes along every year or two. Was it really that long ago that LeMas, RBCD, ExtremeShock, DRT, and Liberty first burst on the scene?  How many “wonder bullets” are there, and  — will wonders never cease? Probably not. Not as long as the gun community has such a rabid appetite for them.

We’ve tried to get G2 Research to send us some to review. So far, no response. I’ve tried to buy some myself and haven’t gotten through to them. Their authorized retailer, Dixie Ammo Dump has no mention of it and their phone recording says something on the order of, “If you’re calling about G2RIP ammo, hang up, go to and look for it there. If you don’t see it, we’re out of stock. When we get some, you’ll see it there.”  I called their regional distributor and was told that it will be sold nationally through,,, and None of them have it in stock yet.

So no, we can’t test it for you… yet. But we will.

Until then, are there any observations we can make?  Sure — a couple. First, I am quite optimistic about one aspect of it — it’s a fully CNC-machined bullet, and that means that it’s using an advanced technology over the traditional “melt some lead and pour it in a mold” technique of bullet manufacturing. I believe that newer technology can lead to new performance and, possibly, to better performance.

I also believe that machining bullets can potentially result in new types of performance that we never could have gotten from pouring lead. As an example, let’s look at TTAG’s 2013 Ammo Of The Year, Lehigh Defense’s Maximum Expansion in .45 Colt. This is a bullet that expands to nearly 2″ in diameter, and the petals fold flat. It’s a terrifying round, and it exists because it’s 100% CNC-machined. It’s computer-designed and manufactured to strict tolerances by being machined completely out of copper. The designers can engineer it to do things that would simply be impossible from poured lead. They changed what we can expect from bullet performance, through design and technology.

So — is it possible that G2 Research has done the same thing? Have they created a bullet that can outperform traditional ammo, by using technology and machining? Possibly.

I’m not one of the naysayers or skeptics who instantly dismiss new offerings. Instead, I’m an analyst who likes to put claims to the test. Someone who likes to actually discover what the true performance is, and publish those results. I am very interested in putting this stuff to the test using standard testing protocols as developed by the International Wound Ballistic Association, using standardized flesh simulants. And I’d really like to see what happens when one of these bullets impacts an organic flesh simulant. It’s that — and only that — which will tell us whether we’re looking at something really “new” here.

In the meantime, is there anything else we can determine from what the G2 Research team has shared with us? Sure — at least one of their claims is 100% balderdash. They say in their video that their ammo acts like “a hole saw” when ripping through barriers. That’s utterly absurd.

It looks like a hole saw, yes, but act like one? Consider this — a normal 9mm handgun barrel’s rifling delivers one rotation in about 10″ of travel. G2 says that their ammo travels at 1,265 feet per second. That means that when it hits a barrier, it’s not going to sit there spinning and sawing through that barrier — it’s going to have traveled about a foot past the barrier before it’s even completed one rotation! That ain’t a hole saw.

They say it’s great at “effectively ripping through obstacles.” Nonsense — it will smash through obstacles, just like every other bullet does. Note: I’m not saying it won’t go through obstacles and still perform; it may very well do that.  What I’m saying is that the claim or representation that it’s “like a hole saw” and that it will “rip through obstacles” is over-hyped marketingspeak, and it’s unfortunate that they’re stretching to make such claims.

I have to say, it’s this type of over-the-top promotion that makes me cautious or, yes, even skeptical about the product. I’m not even getting into the claims about the “acoustic wave” and other such questionable statements. And why do they show their bullets being fired from full-auto pistols? Is it to have the viewer somehow believe that this ammo makes their gun full-auto? That’s some dramatic imagery, yes, but it makes no sense. None of us are using full-auto pistols, so why show it with no explanation?

Their claims about energy don’t make sense either. They list a weight of 96 grains, and a velocity of 1265 feet per second with “muzzle energy” at “490”.  They don’t say 490 what. We’re left to assume that they’re talking about foot-pounds. of energy, like every other ammo manufacturer quotes. However, using the standard formula for kinetic energy, 96 grains at 1265 fps yields just 341 ft/lbs, nowhere near the 490 they claim. So — is it a mistake? Or are they perhaps trying to quote their energy figures in, say, joules? I don’t know.

[ed: G2 has since updated their site, claiming muzzle energy of 370]

They say “it is a projectile like no other in history.” Forgive me, but poppycock. I will say that it certainly doesn’t look like any other projectile, that’s for sure. But to say it’s like no other? Er, might want to fact-check that one… The G2 RIP cartridge is a CNC machined projectile that has a solid base with machined petals that break off, causing multiple wound paths in the temporary cavity. The solid base continues forward to cause deep penetration. Sounds just like the Lehigh Defense Controlled Fracturing bullet. Or the Cutting Edge Personal Home Defense. In fact, except for the detaching base, it’s not even really all that different from the Winchester PDX1 12-gauge segmenting slug, is it?

So why aren’t we all using Lehigh or Cutting Edge ammo as “the last round we ever needed?” Perhaps it’s because neither of those companies launched their ammo with such an over-the-top campaign. And there’s no denying that video has been very effective in ginning up interest in the G2 Research product. As of the time of writing this, it’s gotten nearly a million views on YouTube.

So, yeah…their marketing turns me off. But it’s also what’s (apparently) selling every round they can make, so I don’t know that I can fault them for that. But what I can say is this — we here at The Truth About Guns like to get down to the truth about guns. And ammo. And we plan on doing so.

We will get ahold of some of this G2RIP ammo and we will test it professionally. Then we’ll report back truthfully and honestly about what it really, truly does. It may turn out that we end up verifying each and every one of the claims in their video. Or we may end up disproving their claims. Or somewhere in between. In the end, the only thing that matters is how the ammo actually performs. Is it better than what we’ve had? Is it an advancement in personal defense or law enforcement ammo? Or is it, yet again, another “wonder bullet” in a long line of wonder bullets?

We’ll find out. And we’ll let you know. Just as soon as we can get some.

Recommended For You

104 Responses to Cutting Through the G2 RIP Hype

    • In retrospect (I wrote that a day or so ago, so I’ve had a little more time to ponder it) I think that perhaps the purpose behind showing the fully-auto pistols is to overcome concerns about whether it will feed reliably. If so, I wish they would have made mention to clarify that. In any case, reliable feeding has always been an issue with hollowpoints; some guns just can’t feed Hornady polymer-tipped ammo because the friction of the polymer tip just causes misfeeds; I’ve never had that problem, all my pistols feed the Hornady rounds fine, but I recognize that reliable feeding is really a relationship between a particular pistol and the particular ammo.

      I will try the G2 RIP ammo through several 9mm pistols as a way to spot-check feeding reliability, but for true answers on feeding we’ll need a much larger sampling size than my own selection of pistols can deliver. We will only know if there’s a problem with feeding once thousands of people have had an opportunity to try this ammo in hundreds or thousands of pistols, so that we have a large-enough sampling pool to be able to draw valid conclusions from.

      • I’ll admit, I’m (slightly) interested in seeing what you guys come up with, if for no other reason than to put some objective data and observation up against company claims. And, I have confidence you guys will do it right.

        Or simply, just do it for science.

        • yo i dont really understand these fancy terms, i watched fps russias video, bought the ammo, saw that it fuxshitup and im happy.
          my grammar sux but i guess its better than regular cowboy outlaw language skills from 18th century.

      • That was my take on the full auto stuff. Just showing reliable cycling. …and maybe controllability (I’d assume it’s fairly low recoil due to the light weight).

      • I loved the article, but must take exception to your statement…

        “It looks like a hole saw, yes, but act like one? Consider this — a normal 9mm handgun barrel’s rifling delivers one rotation in about 10″ of travel. G2 says that their ammo travels at 1,265 feet per second. That means that when it hits a barrier, it’s not going to sit there spinning and sawing through that barrier — it’s going to have traveled about a foot past the barrier before it’s even completed one rotation! That ain’t a hole saw.”

        A 1:10 twist equals a 1.2 multiple (12/10) x 1,265 fps for a rotation of 1,518 revolutions per sec x 60 equals a 91,080 RPM imparted on the projectile.

        Based on the above calculations, it will actually spin 1,518 times in that 10″ distance. I am not defending the hole saw claim, but can’t let the “one rotation” statement slide by.

        “Here is a simple formula for calculating bullet RPM:”

        “MV x (12/twist rate in inches) x 60 = Bullet RPM

        Quick Version: MV X 720/Twist Rate = RPM

        Example One: In a 1:12″ twist barrel the bullet will make one complete revolution for every 12″ (or 1 foot) it travels through the bore. This makes the RPM calculation very easy. With a velocity of 3000 feet per second (FPS), in a 1:12″ twist barrel, the bullet will spin 3000 revolutions per SECOND (because it is traveling exactly one foot, and thereby making one complete revolution, in 1/3000 of a second). To convert to RPM, simply multiply by 60 since there are 60 seconds in a minute. Thus, at 3000 FPS, a bullet will be spinning at 3000 x 60, or 180,000 RPM, when it leaves the barrel.

        Example Two: What about a faster twist rate, say a 1:8″ twist? We know the bullet will be spinning faster than in Example One, but how much faster? Using the formula, this is simple to calculate. Assuming the same MV of 3000 FPS, the bullet makes 12/8 or 1.5 revolutions for each 12″ or one foot it travels in the bore. Accordingly, the RPM is 3000 x (12/8) x 60, or 270,000 RPM.”

        • He didnt argue that. He said it will spin once in 10″, not once in one second.
          What he said is completely correct. It will not saw thru a barrier, it will just punch thru it, as its not spinning 98,000 times in the diatance between the barrier, its barely spinning at all in that distance, which was his point.

        • aceofwands ….. Using the velocity of 1,265 feet per second you get 15,180 inches per second. Therefore to travel ten inches would take 0.00065876 seconds (10 / 15,180). And using the number of 1,518 revolutions per second, in 10 inches the bullet would revolve 0.00065876 X 1,518 = 1 revolution.

        • “Based on the above calculations, it will actually spin 1,518 times in that 10″ distance.” This is wrong. It will spin once. Just as he said. Velocity has nothing to do with it.

      • I’d like to see:

        1) The same round chambered over and over.
        2) the same round put through many press checks

        Measured response should be bullet deformation, # of feeding probs, accuracy.

        Hook it up Bull!

        • When the RIP round goes through a window or even a metal barrier, the trocars get jammed and the round doesn’t even mushroom. I mean, it’s still going to penetrate the target, but it’s no more invasive than any other round after going through a barrier.

        • They’re different from the Black Talons in every possible way. The Black Talon (still sold today as the Winchester Ranger-T) is a highly effective conventional hollowpoint round; only real difference is that the petals fold out to sharp points. The Black Talon stays all together in one piece, expands to a large diameter, and penetrates deeply.

          Whereas with the G2 RIP, it’s a controlled fragmentation round. It’s designed to have (about) half the weight break off right away, fragmenting into the temporary stretch cavity. Only the core is left over to penetrate deeper.

      • Is there a centerfire round you or anyone _would_ like to be shot with?

        Rhetorical question, of course, but just because it looks mean doesn’t mean it will work, and it certainly doesn’t somehow reduce the effectiveness of existing bullets, which function quite well.

        I await testing results, though, because initial skepticism aside, I would love to see new designs that improve real world performance.

    • I’m wondering if the idea behind having the full auto pistol in their ad is to show that they DO infact feed well. I was skeptical of this bullet from the first time I saw this video and thought “oh it won’t feed” and had wondered about its force being that it is pure copper and copper doesn’t have the density like lead does.

  1. I kept reading G2R’s URL as G2 RAMMO. That just made the video and product sound more over the top than they already are. I lol’d.

  2. The only thing the ‘full auto’ demonstration might be showing is that the rounds feed reliably in spite of the ‘hole saw’ snout on them. Talk about grasping…

  3. I dare you to post a link to the youtube vcideo on MDA’s website and/or FB page. I wanna get Shannon’s panties in a bunch . . . 🙂

  4. Feeding problems, nasty bite on loading a heavy spring mag, overpriced for what you get, and probably darn expensive.

    I have shot some expensive ammo that was supposed to be end all. The only thing they ended up is going through my wallet like a hole saw. I stopped buying these wonder bullets after pulling them from medium to large game I took. Only in almost idea conditions does the bullet act in the way they were intended. Otherwise they work about 30% of what they are supposed to. Save your money and practice more. Volume of fire in the right spot will overcome a stingy shot by a wonderbullet.

    • I just checked ammo website. $44.00 for 20. A bit pricy for my taste. Reviews will have to be exceptionally favorable to get me to spend that,

    • I was seeing prices online as $44 for 20. I’ll choose other, more tested ammunition for a cheaper price. Hah, BTinAfghan beat me to it.

    • Hmm. Indeed it does. Well, that’s a change; as of the time I wrote that article, it most definitely said 490.

      Even so, 370 still doesn’t add up; using the standard formula for kinetic energy, that mass and speed should be delivering 341 ft/lbs.

      I’m not all that concerned about the KE number anyway; kinetic energy isn’t what causes wounds, it’s mechanical stress on flesh that causes wounds, and bullet design is more important than the energy applied to the bullet. I’m more concerned with evaluating its terminal performance on flesh (or, well, to be fair, a flesh simulant).

        • KE doesn’t determine penetration with hollowpoints, any more than horsepower determines speed. KE can be used to make generalizations about penetration with a solid bullet or a lead sphere, sure, but when you start talking about fragmenting bullets or expanding bullets, KE is only one part of a much more complex situation, and lower-KE bullets can easily penetrate much deeper than higher-KE bullets do.

          If a bullet expends more of its KE towards expansion than another bullet does, penetration will be severely affected. If a bullet expends its KE on fragmenting, the fragmenting bullet won’t penetrate nearly as much as a non-fragmenting round.

          KE represents the capacity to do work, and higher KE means more work can be done, but if it’s not the right TYPE of work, it won’t lead to the type of results you want for effective terminal performance. Having a lot of KE is like having a lot of cash in your wallet — you can spend it wisely, or you can blow it. It’s not about how much you have, it’s about how you use it.

  5. I’m very curious also. I believe that the ammo could work similarly to advertised. Copper ammunition (like the Lehigh Defense) can do some amazing things.

    I have two predictions:

    1. The ammo will be $2 / round or more – so you’re still gonna *need* practice ammo or reloads. This will never be the last bullet you’ll ever need unless you have an ammunition budget bigger than your mortgage.

    2. The ammo will perform, but not nearly as pretty as advertised.
    Then again, it might get clogged with denim. We’ll see.

    • My guess is it performs about as it appears to in the gel in the video. In other words, leaves a cluster of painful fragments about 3 – 5 inches in as it deposits the larger portion of it’s energy and then leaves a plug nearly the ballistic equivalent of a fast moving .25 to do the rest of the travel, which it will do in a straight and narrow path, leaving it’s effectiveness entirely up to shot placement of the .25 leftover since the gimmicks break off too shallow to kill.

      • Which leaves you with what we already have as a the most reliable method of gauging how well ANY single bullet will work on any given individual….

        Every one say it with me…

        Shot placement…

        • Shot placement is important. In fact, it’s vital — a .22 in the brain stem will be much more effective than a .308 in the thigh. However, bullet design can compensate for, or even negate, great shot placement. As an example — the Lehigh Maximum Expansion in .45 Colt expands to nearly 2″ across… that means that your point of aim could be off by as much as 1.5″, but the bullet might make up for that and deliver a hit anyway. On the other hand, if you had a bullet that super-expanded so much that it only penetrates 3″ at the most, then that bullet could defeat even the very best shot placement; if you aimed perfectly at the heart and that bullet hit square on where it was supposed to, but it expanded so big that it only penetrates 3″, then it won’t stop your attacker even with ideal shot placement.

          Shot placement is important, but a perfectly placed shot with a lousy bullet design won’t do you much good. The bullet’s terminal performance is still a very important factor.

  6. I look forward to your review. Until I see that I remain skeptical as this is the one place that will actually review it professionally and report on it honestly. Can’t wait, if I could score some I’d send it to you…..Did not see any at Cabela’s today.

  7. This is an all-copper, self-fracturing bullet. All-copper means it’s going to be light-for-caliber to begin with. Then it’s going to immediately shed a bunch of weight as soon as it gets into tissue.

    People get bound up about “muzzle energy” and ammo manufacturers love to quote their velocity/energy figures, but what matters the instant the projectile touches flesh is momentum -the difficulty in slowing down or deflecting an object onto a new path. Energy is one-half Mass times the square of Velocity (1/2m*v^2), but momentum is just Mass times Velocity (m*v). Mass, specifically a bullet’s *retained mass*, matters a lot in determining how far a bullet will keep trucking through resisting medium and whether or not striking a hard object at an angle (like a rib) will cause it to change its vector.

    As a practical example, lots of police departments got all hot and bothered in the late 90s over the new .357 SIG roung – here was a semi-auto round that got the same *Energy* performance as a .357 Magnum! Obviously that’s way better than the .40s they’d been using, right? But then there came a number of anecdotes where light, high-Energy, 115 grain .357 SIGs were bounced off of car windshields. Sure the bullets had way more *energy* than needed to punch through autoglass, but they were so light weight that a barrier was able to change their direction of travel easily and they never got a chance to deliver that energy. Most departments using .357 SIG switched back to 180 grain .40 S&W.

    Here in the G2 you have something that starts out with the mass of a .380 and instantly sheds, what, 25% of that mass when it hits skin? Regardless of what it does in pure gelatin, that “deep penetrating core” (essentially a low-weight FMJ) is going to change direction the instant it encounters bone -whether rib, clavicle, or ulna. Most of the “wounding” is going to come from the tiny, fractured spines, which are going to spread immediately and slow down quickly. Note how the gel pictures they showed are of blocks they fired dozens of rounds into to make the wound tracks look more impressive.

    This thing is going to result in some very *painful* wounds, but most of that wounding is going to be shallow rather than deep and debilitating. It does however sound like it can murder your wallet very effectively.

    • No. Momentum is NOT what matters. Energy is. Energy is what is dissipated on impact. Energy is required for doing work and the “work” is displacing and destroying tissue.

      A simple experiment would show this nicely: take two bullets, one with half the mass but twice the velocity of the other (thus identical momenta since p=mv). Think they’ll do the same damage? The bullet that’s half the weight but twice the velocity will carry twice the energy (Ek=1/2mv^2). The energy goes into the target…where it does twice the work. Q.E.D. (And also why energy of bullets is published, not momentum).

      • But energy doesn’t do damage. Energy is the potential to do work, but what matters is what work gets done, not how much energy there is behind that work. Take an example of two shotgun shells; one is an ounce of #7.5 birdshot rated at 1300 fps, and the other is a low-recoil shotgun slug, one ounce of lead, rated at 1300 fps. Those two shotgun shells will launch projectiles that (collectively) have identical energy, but — the amount of damage they do will be extremely different.

        Terminal ballistic testing has consistently shown that the heavier (and inherently slower) projectiles are more effective at penetrating deeply than faster, lighter projectiles are.

        • Invalid argument. The difference between a slug and bird shot has more to do with dispersal of the energy due to differences in design — solid chunk vs. many little tiny pieces (still nothing to do with momentum).

        • While it may not answer the energy vs. momentum question, the birdshot vs. slug example is precisely what we’re dealing with here. If half the weight of the projectile is in the “penetrator” (assume 48gr) and the other half is in the petals that shear off, what you have is basically a solid copper 48gr projectile and 8-9 projectiles that are the rest of the mass (5-6 gr each).

          Yes, the energy will be dissipated quickly by the multiple projectiles, but somewhat superficially and the petals would have to be going a LOT faster to carry energy through a ribcage. The penetrator is in essence a solid-copper .22 Magnum, based on velocity and weight. I wouldn’t want to get shot with a .22 Mag, but at $2 a pill I’m thinking I’m far less likely to be shot by a RIP than a standard handgun projectile.

          To stop a fight with a handgun you need to hit the CNS or lacerate a vital blood vessel. The first task is operator-dependent and pretty much any 9mm round that makes a CNS hit will stop a fight. The second task requires penetration. While multiple projectiles increase the odds of hitting a vital vessel and inflicting an incapacitating wound, the light weight of the petals would seem to limit the penetration. At first glance the “nasty superficial wound” seems the most likely outcome. Anything you hit with a standard 9mm round would be just as holey as one you manage to hit with the penetrator…only the 9mm JHP should be a lot bigger than .355 when it hits.

          Now, a superficial painful wound can stop a fight on its own, but that depends on the psyche of the person being shot, their neurotransmitter levels and a host of other factors. There is just no way we have found (yet) to make a handgun a death-ray, and nothing about this round suggests to me that this is any real improvement over a well-designed, deep-penetrating JHP. It will probably dump all of its energy in the target, but we already have bullets that do that — and the energy from any handgun will never approach the energy from a rifle bullet. How and where along the bullet track that energy gets dumped is the critical thing in wound ballistics, and it will take a lot more testing (and a lot more use) to determine if this is same-song-different-verse or something truly innovative.

          I’m leaning toward SSDV at this point.

      • Energy of bullets is published because it’s something manufacturers have control over to differentiate their product from the competitor (a 180 grain bullet is a 180 grain bullet). The only *work* that gets done by a pistol-type bullet passing through a living target is A) pushing through tissue, which even a low-power FMJ round has plenty of energy to do, and B) doing the hydraulic work of bending metal on an expanding bullet, which costs significantly more. You don’t need a terribly large amount of energy to do both. More energy than that just results in overpenetration, not geometrically-worse wounding with a channel the size of a coffee can.

        If what you’re saying is true, then an over-pressure loading of the 23 grain FN 5.7 would be the most deadly, damaging handgun projectile ever seen – and it’s not.

        Of course, every time caliber comparison discussions come up, someone will say “shot placement is what really matters”. Well, if mass is low enough, as soon as the projectile hits a solid barrier (bone) it’s not going to be following the vector you originally gave it anymore!

        You need a certain window of energy in order for your projectile to do what you want it to; but more doesn’t necessarily earn you anything. All of the common calibers have energy profiles that fit within that window. Retained mass determines whether the projectile is going to keep doing what you told it to do, and do it long enough to matter, while passing through varying densities of fibrous and calcified tissue. Bullet weight matters. A lot.

        • So that 62gr bullet moving at 2600 fps out of a rifle does about the same damage as a 115gr bullet moving at 1300 fps out of a pistol? Uh, yeah, no.

          Heavier bullets are useful for carrying energy over longer distances (since momentum does affect losses from drag).

        • And now you’re arguing apples to oranges. From your last three comments posted above and below though, it’s obvious that you actually do know you’re making fallacious arguments, but you’re trying to troll.

  8. Assuming this ammo does everything they say it does, I have two problems with it:

    1) They claim it defeats “all known barriers”. That may make a great duty round, but I don’t want ammo specifically designed to penetrate barriers if I’m gonna use it for home defense where a miss sends a round flying into your own home! Granted we are talking about bullets here, but still.

    2) Who wants to go to court after successfully defending yourself and then have to deal with the prosecution pointing out to the jury that you killed the perp with something called “RIP”? Would much rather carry something with a more neutral name.

      • Harold Fish versus the state of Arizona. He defended himself from an attacker with a 10mm Auto pistol and the prosecution argued (successfully in the initial trial) that use of such a “terrible” bullet constituted intent to do harm before he was attacked. It was eventually reversed. For a while there, it was advised that you needed to go to your local police department and find out what ammunition they issued, then *only* use that so you were not vulnerable to claims of using an ‘overkill’ round.

        Didn’t go to trial, but Winchester also removed the “Black Talon” (now “Ranger T-series”) branding because it sounded too “dangerous” and there was a media kerfuffle about surgeons cutting themselves on the petals while digging them out of wounded perps.

        • And the name of that 10mm bullet argued in Fish v. Arizona was what? You didn’t say.

          I’m well aware of Black Talons, but the name change was due to a fear of loss of sales or a ban of those “armor piercing cop killers”, not because of actual caselaw.

        • Now you’re just being obtuse. 10 mm Auto is acknowledged as amongst the most powerful semiauto cartidges mass produced. That was all it took for prosecution to argue “the defendant was just looking for an excuse to shoot someone”. The “RIP” round, even just as a 9 mm, has that in spades; the court argument practically writes itself.

        • Ah, so it was because of the 10mm’s power and not that it had a scary name.

          Well then this “R.I.P.” round should be just fine since it’s just a little ol’ 9mm.

  9. I’ve said it elsewhere – if they have designed a reliable breakaway fletchette system that can feed reliably, well that’s just awesome, but that detaching slug looks to have some over-penetration issues that would preclude using it as a defense round, particularly for a public carry weapon.

    • Overpenetration arguments are also a joke. It assumes a defensive shooter will land all bullets on target.

      What’s the overpenetration ability of ALL self defense rounds when they miss the bad guy completely? Overpenetrate air much? Or is every TTAGer such a top shot that they won’t miss ever while fighting for their life?

      Head on over to the box of truth to see how easily even lowly rounds penetrate multiple layers of sheet rock.

        • When I got to Ft Lewis, the first time we went to a .50cal range there were guys trying to tell me the guns were so powerful that a near miss would still kill you, as the shock wave from the bullet was still enough to remove your arm.

          I then asked why we were shooting them at paper targets stuck onto canvas backers, and only seeing .50″ holes at close range, and nobody had an answer. Lots of confused looks, though.

        • There was a case of a 30mm GAU-8 being discharged on the ground and killing two people, one from the near miss. Course now we’re talking 1.2 cal and not a wimpy .50 cal

    • You shove it up their ass and rotate, and when it comes out … eventually… it drags the intestines out with itself?

  10. Count me among the skeptics. If it’s only 96 grains and designed to have all the petals break off when it hits something, the only thing it’s likely to be good at is NOT penetrating barriers — just like any frangible bullet.

    Still, interested to see what happens in testing. I’m willing to be proven wrong.

  11. I took a look at the .45 colt max expansion and rather than buy a box to satisfy my curiosity I went down to my shop and chucked up a chunk of 1/2″ copper bar and going by the pictures on their website I made 3 that looked rather close and loaded them up and single loaded them in my 1873 Winchester clone. I loaded them to 1600 fps from a 20″ barrel and they were tumbling by the time they passed the chrono screens..
    Now I may have the design all wrong going from website photos so it may be all my hack version but I only got three widely spaced keyholes on a 4’x4′ sheet of paper at 25 feet… Given that this is designed to be belly gun ammo intended for arms reach / contact to perhaps 6 ft combat distance I don’t think it is a wonder bullet
    When it comes to wackie ammo designs there are lots and lots of them
    The Springfield armory (the real one in Springfield Mass.)did extensive research into fletchet rounds in the 60s and 70s and nothing but a 12 gage round came of it if memory serves then there were the Remington 30-06 /.22 sabot rounds they put the .22 pill out at over 4000 fps……. The list is endless I doubt there will ever be a wonder bullit until someone makes a real version of the autopilot bullit from the almost human tv show.

    • I did an accuracy test on the Maximum Expansion rounds; they perform much better than what you describe about your homemade rounds. At 7 yards they punched clean holes, no keyholing, and a 5-yard group of 1.375″. Not target precision accuracy, but certainly reasonable in the context of what it’s designed to do.

      • That makes sense my attempt was a fast hack and the web site did not exactly provide dimensioned shop prints . I had hoped to look at wat they did to a stack of wet phone books but my hack versions were not stable enough to test…. I do wonder how they would do from a rifle though the real ones I mean….

        I wonder if any one will ever make fletchett ammo that works in a one dart at a time sense at very very high velocity…. I recall reading about some sabot dart tests (think of a scaled down 120mm tank round. They used a smooth bore rolling block in 50/70 for the cartridge and tungsten for the dart which I think was about .17 this was back in the early 70s… But accuracy was poor and I think the pressures had to be kept low for the sake of the brass and the action.

        Perhaps it is time for someone to do this for real with a modern action high pressure belted brass and perhaps that fancy electronic rifle targeting system

        How about it build a real .9mm? 8,000 to 10,000 fps should be a good starting point

  12. I’ll stick to DoubleTap’s 200-grain loads for my M&P .40, thanks.

    I know those will strike a lot deeper and a lot harder than light-for-caliber 9MM.

  13. CNC every round? For what that would cost and what money I carry, if robbed I think I’d rather turn over the money than pay for that round!

    Have to give them credit for great video production.

  14. If the cops are going to use this then I might try it. As others have said & would hate to go to court & hear how I sawed a nice big hole through the darling, Randy

  15. Their Teaser video sounds a lot like the teaser for the Calico Light Weapon Systems pistol caliber carbines (and SMGs for LEOs).
    THE gun that was going to revolutionize the industry…
    We all see how well that went right?
    After all everyone ones a calico….

  16. Hm.

    Given the marketing hype I’d be reluctant to carry these as a self-defense round.

    As my ccw instructor pointed out, the intent isn’t to kill someone, it’s to end an attack.

    Carrying ammo with this type of marketing, or zombie-branded anything, is just grist for a lawsuit after the fact, from either the attacker or his next of kin. Especially in lawsuit happy states or those with weak self defense laws.

  17. Ive been carrying Liberty Ammo Halo or civilian defense since it 1st came out.
    As 410 said its on par design wise with many of the new pure copper rounds.
    This G2 reminds me of I think it was called the Kawser “Pin Grabber” or something to that effect.
    It was a lead projectile mainly sold as a round for bowling pin shoots. It was supposed to be the last bullet you would need to kill a bowling pin. It wasn’t around for very long.
    Didn’t quite work out that way.

    This new round if it does indeed split into 8 pedals going in all directions.
    Might it have the risk of hitting 2 for the price of one???
    With the other being a totally innocent bystander??
    I have to see it tested before making a judgment for myself.
    Till then its Liberty for me.

  18. My initial throughts: With regard to bullet weight, why would you want a round that encourages, and advertises, jacket separation?

  19. 2 weeks after SHOT SHOW where every manufacturer, re-seller, blogger, and gun celebrity is craving attention, we have an upstart wonder bullet “spread through the blogosphere like gonorrhea at an 18th-century naval port”.

    My question, is this perfectly timed promotion or just pure luck? So many blog posts (beyond TTAG) the last few days are still SHOT Show remembrances. The G2 RIP ammo has moved us past the show. What are you most likely to mention to your gun buddies at the local gun show this weekend? The new ammo – hee hee!

    Again, is this perfect planning or plain luck? If I had a small startup company with a new product ready to market a year from now, should I try to create the first big story in the lull after SHOT Show? Just wondering . . . .

  20. I just don’t see those trocars penetrating enough to do serious damage. Still looks like a nasty round, especially if you take it to the gut or throat.

  21. Reminds me of the Aquilla 6o grain HP which had three petals break off and a separate base.
    How much does it cost to machine each bullet? For me to consider this ammo it has to be under $1 per round.
    I believe a modern bullet needs penetration through car bodies and glass and good expansion.
    How about a hollow point with a solid metal insert instead of polymer?
    Or a FMJ that penetrates then tumbles to reveal a hollow point that expands.
    Any new ammo has to be affordable.

  22. “So, yeah…their marketing turns me off. But it’s also what’s (apparently) selling every round they can make, so I don’t know that I can fault them for that.”

    Their strategy seems to be to sell as much ammo as possible before the reviews get out and people don’t want to buy it anymore.

    • That’s pretty much the way movies are marketed nowadays — create a frenzy to get everyone into the theater on opening weekend, because once the reviews come out, people may not want to see it anymore.

      Needless to say, I’m the kind of guy who skips opening weekend… I figure if the audience and critic reviews all agree it’s worth seeing, it’ll still be worth seeing on Tuesday. Except there’ll be smaller crowds and the tickets will cost less. 🙂

  23. Reminds me of the Black Talon craze in the mid 90’s. They were the be all end all LE round, until they weren’t.

  24. I think we are at the point where tried and proven conventional JHP ammo is really “good enough” – just look at gel tests of Federal HST.

    • Federal HST is simply brilliant.

      My angle on this would be — conventional ammo has gotten vastly better in the last 20 years. Things are so much better than they used to be. HST, for example, is a great design and performs very well in all calibers and barrel lengths that I’ve tested it in.

      Is it possible that there could be something better than HST? Of course it is. Someday it will be surpassed, just like it surpassed the venerable Hydra Shok. Is today that day, and is G2 RIP the ammo that will surpass it? Only testing will let us know. We’ll find out. Until then, keep your HSTs and your Gold Dots and your Rangers, as they’re all good. It’s not like everything in your pistol suddenly became “bad” overnight — it’s vastly better than anything the lead round nose we used for decades, or the first-generation hollowpoints! It’s good stuff. The only reason to even consider changing, would be if something truly much better came along. There’s no rush. What you’ve got now is good. So I would advise waiting for independent verification before worrying that something else is “better”.

      Remember, there are a LOT of cowboys in the ground because of lead round nose bullets… and what we’ve got today is vastly, vastly better than those, so … there’s no rush…

  25. We’ve all benefitted from the many historical intersections of ingenuity and entrepreneurship which have delivered to us countless advances in bullets, powders, and firearms themselves. This could well be another, or at least the CNC approach in general could be, and twenty-five years from now we’ll all giggle about how this commonplace, standard design was once considered cutting edge and controversial. (Think GLOCK circa 1988.)

    So I’ll let all the early adopters, equipment reviewers, naysayers and salivaters alike have their fun, have their say, and I’ll see how it all shakes out in the end. The exotic and novelty stuff is fun to talk about and maybe even play around with; but let’s not lose sight of the fact that firearms within their primary purpose are deadly serious business. I’m not responding to a bump in the night with something as yet unproven to be more than an interesting idea and a marketing gimmick.

  26. Truth About Guns? Love ya’ll! Keep up the great work! Can’t wait to hear your rendition on this ammo.

  27. someone’s mad they are poor and a liberal. the truth asbout guns is that the 5 strictest areas of the us for gun control, ny, nj, illinois, and california, and Washington DC, also have the 5 highest gun violence rates….so kick facts, not some obama’s not a monkey propaganda….

    America knows Obama’s a monkey, get with the times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *