re: Ammo Write Up: Liberty Civil Defense Ammo

quote:

---

can you really give me two reasons for this? or maybe you negafgts have no real reasons for dismissing new products..

---

I can offer a few:

A. USCCA is hardly an authoritative source of information on defensive weapons or SD ammo.

B. "Moist modeling clay" is an asinine test medium, as evidenced by the fact that the rest of the free world uses 10% ordnance ballistic gelatin for testing the terminal ballistics of SD ammo.

C. The last ammo maker who used modeling clay as a test medium was RBCD, a spectacularly ineffective round in virtually all calibers.

D. I do not know of a single major US law enforcement agency that issues frangible ammo. They probably have a clue.

E. From another test site: "No, I would personally never carry this as a defensive load as it is incapable of meeting minimum penetration depths according to all of the testing I have seen."

F. The FBI test protocol requires a minimum of 12" penetration in 10% ballistic gelatin. The Liberty ammo doesn't come close to meeting that spec.

G. Doc GKR, who is generally accepted as the world's foremost authority on terminal ballistics of SD ammo tells us this: "With the exception of the Barnes 115 gr XPB all copper projectile, in general, most 9 mm 115 gr loads have demonstrated greater inconsistency, insufficient penetration, poor intermediate barrier capability, and failure to expand in denim testing than other 9mm bullets. For those individuals wanting to use lighter weight, supersonic 9 mm’s, I think a better alternative than the vast majority of 115 gr loads is to use the slightly heavier 124 to 127 gr bullets or the Barnes 115 gr all copper bullet”