Comments on: Fragmenting .50 BMG Ammo

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:29:30 +0000

It doesn’t work. Pure marketing hype.

By: DrStrangegun

DrStrangegun — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:30:38 +0000

Something like this that actually works would be incredible for interdiction and hostage situations…

That is, if it actually works. The marketing and hype make me trust extreme-shock about as far as I can hit something with a BP NAA mini-revolver.

By: Dom

Dom — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:08:57 +0000

This is the company that brought us “anti-terrorism munitions,” right? Because terrorists are impervious to normal bullets. Among said munitions? The “Fang Face” round. “Explosive entry” indeed.

A buddy and I spent about 20 minutes laughing at their other website (http://www.extremeshockusa.com/cgistore/store.cgi?page=/new/product_info.html&setup=1). It reads like an energy drink commercial. Or maybe a parody of one, like Powerthirst.

I’m pretty sure Linoge nailed it – their products are almost entirely solutions looking for a problem. Who really needs ammunition this complex – er, “advanced?” Some of the special-purpose frangibles probably have a place, that market could use more competition. But I’m pretty sure the existing technology for what to shoot at terrorists is more than adequate.

By: EmptorMaven

EmptorMaven — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:39:29 +0000

Let’s see: they claim that Extreme Shock ammunition:

1. Does not deform on impact with non-liquid targets.
2. Fully fragments on contact with a liquid target.

Sounds like ideal anti-personnel terminal ballistics, but it strains credibility to believe a solid, pointed bullet could behave that way in anything other than carefully orchestrated demonstrations.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:35:34 +0000

Erf. If all of that energy gets expended on a single, solitary target… yeah, that target is going away.

It does seem like a solution in search of a problem, though.

Oh, and thanks for indicating that we have not signed the Hague Convention… I hate it when that argument comes up .

By: 22lr

22lr — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:16:35 +0000

Dang and I thought regular FMJ .50 cal rounds were expensive.

By: Kyle Huff

Kyle Huff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:36:41 +0000

OK, found it. 675 grains.

By: Kyle Huff

Kyle Huff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:34:35 +0000

O.M.F.G.
0% mass retention.
How many grains?

By: Tom Stone

Tom Stone — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:11:15 +0000

When you hit someone with one of these it will be messy.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:59:37 +0000

If the marketing on their website is to be believed, the technology sounds like a great defensive round for home handguns. Anyone with experience? I’d certainly appreciate a 9mm round that didn’t care for sheetrock but likes soft tissues of the bad guy.

Not much on their SHOTSHOCK shotgun ammo, anyone know of a description?

By: Matt Groom

Matt Groom — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:07:39 +0000

I don’t get it, a .50 BMG round that’s intended to be less lethal? I think that if overpenetration is a concern, then .50 BMG is NOT an option. Anyone who thinks it is is…well, trying to sell expensive, exotic ammo.