G2 Research – RIP Fragmenting Ammo – RIPOUT Hunting Rounds & Less Expensive Carry Rounds – SHOT Show 2017

“George”, supra., makes some legitimate points – “self-defense” in a number of states obliges you to only use such force as is necessary to stop an attack. If merely pulling a gun causes the would be malefactor to cease his importunities and to flee, you cannot then shoot him (it matters not whether you use ball/FMJ ammunition or an “enhanced lethality” bullet, such as G2’s “RIP” round – once he ceases to be a threat, he’s “off limits”, and your liability is the same regardless of ammo choice). However, he is wrong to suggest that the mere use of an “enhanced lethality round” will lead to your being prosecuted and/or sued, because I am allowed, in all but the most restrictive states (those, like California, which are about one step away from requiring that you offer your rapist a cigarette when he’s done), to use such force (including choice of ammunition) as you believe is necessary to stop the attack. Given the limitations of standard 9mm rounds and, particularly, the 9mm Kurz (aka .380 ACP), one can make a perfectly compelling argument for the use of these types of defensive rounds (particularly when used in a subcompact pistol with very limited ammo capacity). As far as the utility of the round, I find that the Browning BXP and G2’s “RIP” rounds add significant capacity to the .380 platforms and makes them capable of actually stopping an attack, rather than merely irritating your assailant. Penetration is quite adequate through the most likely clothing layers (and, where penetration is significantly adversely affected it allows a counter-argument to any suit based on your concern that you chose your ammunition with the intention of avoiding any round which might “over-penetrate” and injure people other than the attacker/intended target; e.g., “Seriously, Your Honor, ‘military type rounds’ *, like the FMJ, are designed to penetrate, and I didn’t want to put a hole right through a fellow human being, even a robber, and I certainly did not want to be firing rounds which might actually go right through the bad guy and hit some kid standing behind him…” – put simply, a half-way competent lawyer can take any potential legal claim and turn it into a compelling defense, so just hire a lawyer who knows what he/she is doing). I keep multiple magazines for my Concealed Carry weapons – some with FMJ, some with Hornady XTP, one with mixed FMJ and XTP rounds, and a couple with a mix of XTP and either BXP or RIP rounds (the XTP having slightly better penetration at the expense of potential lethality). Cold days, with muggers bundled up in heavy clothing may find me packing mostly FMJ or an FMJ and XTP mix, to ensure penetration through multiple layers of heavy/heavier clothing. Hot summer days are likely to see me carrying bullets which trade off penetration for effective stopping power and I’ve little concern, if I’m ever called on to defend those choices, that I would have overmuch difficulty doing so.

(* Note how the FMJ round which “George” thinks is less “objectionable” or “provocative” can, itself, be recharacterized as an outrageous choice of ammo – it’s no longer just an ordinary bullet, it’s now a “MILITARY type round!” Oh my, sounds scary, doesn’t it? Why are you, a private citizen, carrying “MILITARY” ammunition around? Are you some insane killer just waiting for some panhandler to ask you for money so you can go all “Rambo” on him? Meanwhile, these horrible “enhanced lethality” rounds are recharacterized as the “humane choice” – they’re designed for “limited penetration”, they are meant to not “drill a hole right through a fellow human” or to go right through a door (or a person) and kill a child. If you are going to worry about how your ammo is characterized by some lawyer, just remember that both sides’ lawyers get to play that game).