PDA

View Full Version : Extreme Shock Ammo, The World's Most Advanced Ammunition?



Marswolf
01-01-2004, 07:55 AM
Anyone familiar with Extreme Shock ammunition?

There is a company in Clintwood, Virginia which manufactures anti-personnel ammunition called "Extreme Shock". You can check out their site at http://www.extremeshockusa.com/. They make ammo for use on airplanes (Air Freedom Rounds), as well as more standard hollow-point type (NyTrillium Handgun Ammunition) rounds. A couple of other rifle and subsonic rounds too. They are apparently frangable. These people used to be called (may still be) Mullins Ammunition. I actually have a few of their 9mm "Fang Face" rounds, but haven't tested them yet.

My question to you is, have any of you either used or have knowledge of this stuff? We are planning to do some ammo tests in the Spring, and are gathering info on exotic rounds. Annecdotes are welcome, as well as test references.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

safestop
01-01-2004, 11:52 AM
Anyone familiar with Extreme Shock ammunition?

There is a company in Clintwood, Virginia which manufactures anti-personnel ammunition called "Extreme Shock". You can check out their site at http://www.extremeshockusa.com/. They make ammo for use on airplanes (Air Freedom Rounds), as well as more standard hollow-point type (NyTrillium Handgun Ammunition) rounds. A couple of other rifle and subsonic rounds too. They are apparently frangable. These people used to be called (may still be) Mullins Ammunition. I actually have a few of their 9mm "Fang Face" rounds, but haven't tested them yet.

My question to you is, have any of you either used or have knowledge of this stuff? We are planning to do some ammo tests in the Spring, and are gathering info on exotic rounds. Annecdotes are welcome, as well as test references.

Thanks for any help you can provide.
Sir,
I have not tested the ammo that you areasking about. I can say that you might be very pleased to go to the Ammolab.com forum and do a search of the forum for answers to your questions.
David DeFabio ( a ballistic expert) tests a lot of ammo and posts his findings.
Dr. Gary Roberts is another well known expert on ballistics and can give you some insite on his findings on ammo.
My direction on ammo is what I manufactuor, since this is not the place to discuss that I would be happy to discuss further if you want to send me a private e-mail. Either way would like to see the results of your tests.
safestop@comcast.net.
Good luck
Fuzzy

Anthony
01-01-2004, 11:58 AM
Interesting site.
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. I would like to hear what anyone has to say. - David DiFabio, - any comments/info ?

Regards,
Anthony.

Anthony
01-01-2004, 01:00 PM
Is that a real site?

Or a hype site for a new movie coming out of Hollyweird?




Cameron

My thoughts exactly Cameron. BUT, I'll give anyone/anything a chance. Another attempt at the search for the 'Holly Grail' - sorry, - 'Magic Bullet' ? :D

I await the good input that we've become acustomed to on this Forum, before making judgement. But I have my doubts that this company are producing anything better than what the other companies out there are already capable of/producing.

Regards,
Anthony.

V42
01-01-2004, 01:21 PM
The ammo is overhyped B.S., much as you would expect from the advertisement. Check the following link:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000283.html

MTS
01-01-2004, 02:15 PM
The ammo is overhyped B.S., much as you would expect from the advertisement. Check the following link:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000283.html

But the "CDI" factor on them is high.:rolleyes:

Marswolf
01-02-2004, 04:42 AM
Thanks for the responses. There may be more here than it at first appears. Maybe not. That's what I'm trying to find out.

I did check out Ammolab but couldn't find anything about Extreme Shock or Mullins on that site. Ditto with every other site I checked. Thanks V42, I missed the mention on Tactical Forums.

I've been down this road before with RBCD/LeMas. You all know that story. Exchanged some email with Stan Bulmer. Bulmer, needless to say, would never explain the BMT round's physics to me in writing, and I wouldn't call him to get his sales pitch on the phone. I prefer to have correspondence in writing. That way there are no misunderstandings. I notice the LeMas site now requires a secret decoder ring to get in.

But, this Extreme Shock ammunition appears to be different than the RBCD/LeMas fantasy round. While some of their sales and marketing techniques look a bit questionable (a lot like LeMas), this may or may not be claiming to be a magic round. It is not a low mass, high speed round. Note also that Extreme Shock does include a ballistic gelatin test and other standard data on the site. On the other hand, their packaging include the comment, "The first controlled fragmentation smart round, the bullet fragments in reverse proportion to the hardness of the target." Now what does that mean? That sounds a lot like the RBCD/LeMas BMT ammunition claims.

Extreme Shock "Tungsten-NyTrillium" ammunition is more like a conventional hollowpoint projectile with fragmentable (frangible?) characteristics. At least that's the best I can figure out through all of the hype.

This round is available and testable at this point. I'm trying to find out if anyone else already has experience or insight before we do our own tests. I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. At some point I do plan to contact the manufacturer, if this looks like a promising round. They are within a two hour drive of our location.

Incidentally, the phone number shown on some of their online literature is incorrect. Their area code changed from 540 to 276 a couple of years ago.

Safestop, if you have some ammunition we should look at, drop me a note at marswolf(at)usmilitarysociety.org.

V42
01-02-2004, 06:26 AM
I have no idea why you are interested in this overhyped crap.

First, their claim that elite US military units are using this stuff is bullshit.

The advertisement is the type of stuff that gives mallninjas chubbys.

That alone should be enough to get you steer clear.

From the link I provided regard Extreme shock's performance in Gelatin dy Docgkr:

"From a Glock 17 the 9 mm 85 gr “Air Freedom” load offered:
Bare Gelatin: vel=1598 f/s, pen=3.9” to 5.5”, small fragments
Denim: vel=1596 f/s, pen=14.6”, rd=0.42”, rl=0.48”, rw=56.6 gr
Wall: vel=1587 f/s, pen=6.7”, small fragments

From a 1911 the .45 ACP 185 gr “Nytrillium Fragmentable JHP"
Bare Gelatin: vel=1117 f/s, pen=5.5” to 9.0”, small fragments
Denim: vel=1120 f/s, pen=9.3” to 12.2”, small fragments
Wall: vel=1110 f/s, pen=20+”, rd=0.42”, rl=0.57, rw=181.1 gr"

John Silver
01-02-2004, 06:41 AM
The advertisement is the type of stuff that gives mallninjas chubbys.


:eek:

Man, I'm going to have to remember that one.

Marswolf
01-03-2004, 03:44 AM
Yep, I read the gelatin analysis on the other thread. RBCD doesn't seem to have that info.

We are sorta talking apples and oranges. Extreme Shock (Mullins) has four different rounds. I'm mostly interested in the handgun and standard rifle ammo. The airplane and subsonic rounds are specialty items. It only took me a couple of phone calls to find out the subsonic round is actually in very limited use by Special Forces. That claim is true.

Extreme Shock appears to have the opposite problem of RBCD. The Extreme Shock projectile seems to come apart rather quickly. Certainly not an AP round. Probably not what you want to carry on the street, but maybe a decent inside-the-house round?

I'll know more when we do the "shoot the water" jug tests.

JUST KIDDING.

We don't do water jugs. :D

jacketch
01-03-2004, 07:57 AM
The advertisement is the type of stuff that gives mallninjas chubbys.


True, but remember that's an Xtreme chubby :eek:

V42
01-03-2004, 11:27 AM
Marswolf,

Why not ask the people on Tactical forums about the Extreme Shok, as they seem to have some hands on experience testing it and commenting as to whether it is in use by Special Forces or not?

Marswolf
01-04-2004, 04:32 AM
Hi guys, thanks for the posts.

V42, thanks for the suggestion. But as I stated, I was able to reach someone who confirmed that at least one SF group does indeed use their subsonic ammunition. Not as big a deal as it sounds, and not the ammo I'm interested in. I can certainly understand useage of subsonic rounds in very limited situations, although I really don't yet see any advantage of Extreme Shock ammo as opposed to other manufactured rounds, except in training - which is the useage confirmed. I thought the pronouncements on Tactical Forums that SF does not use the Extreme Shock ammo to be - interesting. Proving the negative is always a difficult task and not often undertaken by the wise. ;) The anecdote from swatbwana was very useful. Again, thanks for the reference.

David, really good to hear from you. While we certainly don't have your experience in ballistics testing, we do have some practical experience with wound ballistics. I think that makes us properly skeptical about ammunition claims, and led to our intention to test a number of rounds. We are primarily interested in application of hardware (bullets in this case) to real-world use. In short, whether given ammunition will rapidly incapacitate (i.e. kill) a targeted individual.

In dealing with LeMas, I offered to buy the BMT rounds from them. Indeed, I told them I preferred to do so. What I would not do was deal in verbal, rather than written, conversations with Stan Bulmer. I can obtain their BMT ammunition through an intermediate source, if necessary.

I have not contacted Mullins yet. I wanted to get some preliminary information before doing so. Your comments have been very useful.

I don't understand your rationale in not publishing test results of certain "business products". I would think that classification would include virtually all manufactured ammunition. But I'm not privy to the information which led to that decision. I imagine there was ample reason for that determination. One certainly has to be wary of claims by a manufacturer who does not want test results of its products published.

We do plan to make that information available.

Marswolf
01-05-2004, 05:32 AM
David, thanks again for your thoughts. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it isn't our intention to reinvent the wheel. If we can find adequate information from other reliable sources, we don't need to do the tests again. I was not aware that Dr. Roberts had released test results on Extreme Shock ammunition. We are still in the literature gathering phase of our research.

I do apologize for my rather flippant remark about "practical experience with wound ballistics". However, in our admittedly overly focused view, incapacitation really does mean the ability to kill an enemy. A bullet is an implement (tool or instrument) in doing that work. If he can't shoot back at us, he is of course incapacitated. But, we can't shoot to wound.

While nothing has been finalized in our test procedure as of this date, certainly the central test will (would) be gelatin penetration. We are admittedly examining the literature to determine if other tests might also provide valid data. We also will examine incident reports to see if there is a close correlation between the gelatin data for a round and real-world incapacitation information. You might think of it as a reexamination of test procedures and conclusions. We are very interested in others data, but will have to draw our own conclusions about efficacy of the rounds.

We, of course, don't sell "snake bullets" or any other kind of bullets, but we do want to objectively determine their actual worth for ourselves. Our training, as well as practical experience, reminds us that reliance on authority is not just a logical fallacy, but frequently can be a deadly mistake. Both you and I can name some questionable studies done with authority but based upon faulty precepts. A manufacturers reluctance to have data published about their product is probably a good indication of a problem, but I can't honestly conclude that until I actually do the testing. We don't think remaining silent about bogus claims, if any, is useful to our community.

Cameron, I can't tell you which group uses them. Sorry. However I can tell you my train of thought which led to my calls.

1) Why would you use subsonic ammunition as opposed to more lethal rounds?

2) What military applications are their for that useage?

3) What military units might be engaged in such an action?

Sorry to sound so cloak-and-dagger. From what I do know, I don't think I would tout this mysterious SF connection if I was Mullins. The lack of lead content probably has more to do with its selection than the "lethality of the Extreme Shock round [which] is beyond description." There appears to be a lot less of interest in this association with SF units than than is suggested.

- James Shannon Elder

Marswolf
01-06-2004, 03:14 AM
David,

Thanks for the offer of assistance. I have never talked to Doctor Roberts. Any assistance, such as contact information, in obtaining the data concerning Extreme Shock will be appreciated.

Your comments about the SF useage of the ammunition have raised some additional questions for me too. Unless Mullins is supplying the ammunition gratis for test purposes, someone has to be paying for some rather high-dollar rounds. I had a sufficient conversation to convince me Extreme Shock is, or has been, used but I was never clear on why they used it. I need to do some more checking.

Tweak
01-25-2004, 06:10 PM
I notice the LeMas site now requires a secret decoder ring to get in.


The HTML for that page shows the window for entering a password is bogus. They're scum and not particularly bright ones.

Marswolf
01-26-2004, 03:11 AM
:D

Well, in fairness to intelligence, I believe LeMas would realize by now there isn't any coding on the page to allow anyone to enter their site. I would think that if they have no visitors from the Military or LE circles in a month or so, they would try to find out why. Probably a ploy to keep terrorists from finding out how to make a round that will zoom through vehicle armor then "explode" in a chuck roast on the inside. ;)

For anyone who hasn't seen the dissection of the "Blended Metal Technology" rounds, check out http://www.ammolab.com/EMS-RBCD.htm. There is even less in the BMT round than I expected.

For now, our tests are on hold for several reasons. The published literature already has most of the information we need. Looks like BMT is a dud, but we still may do Extreme Shock to see how quickly it fragments, since I still haven't found any published literature testing the round. Looks now like fragmentation will probably be too quick to be any more useful than a Glaser Safety Slug.

Marswolf
06-11-2004, 10:29 PM
Since there seemed to be a bit of question about SF use of the Extreme Shock round, I thought I'd do a quick update.

I mentioned earlier my conversation which confirmed the use of subsonic rounds for training by Special Forces. Additional conversation indicated the rounds were used because of lack of lead content and reduction of damage to targets.

I was able to confirm this face-to-face with an Extreme Shock factory rep yesterday. The company also continues to work with LE and government agencies to seek specification of their ammo and make improvements.

45GAP will be out soon, if anyone cares.

Back over to HK94.com. ;)

aerochris
06-12-2004, 12:18 PM
I know you are more interested in ballistics but I bought a box of Extreme Shock for my HK Expert .45ACP. I really wanted the rounds to work well because I had paid a lot of money for them and I liked the way they look. When I shot them, my gun jammed every second or third shot. I never shot more than two consecutive rounds without a jam.

We shot it into some wet newspaper and it fragmented pretty well but that really doesn't do me any good if I can only get one or two shots off.

Thank you,

Chris

Marswolf
06-12-2004, 03:48 PM
Actually, I'm interested in how well it works.

Jamming would definitely be a problem.

I get the feeling they are preparing me for shallow penetration. I'm going over the new info they gave me.

Marswolf
06-22-2004, 05:09 AM
I received a call yesterday from Jeff Mullins of Extreme Shock. He's sending some rounds for us to test.

No problem with publishing our results. We will do that on-line when we are finished.

He did want to confirm that we understand something of the dynamics of the round and will not exclusively do gelatin testing. He also understands that we will include gelatin testing as part of the study.

fal3
06-23-2004, 09:32 AM
This may not have been a totally scientific test on this ammo, but here is what we found. We were checking for the potential for collateral injuries in the event of having to use defensive measures during a church service.

Having reconstructed the identical wall materials that exist in our church (for the test target), we tried a variety of hollow points, including the CorBon self-defense rounds. Wall was 5/8" sheetrock on both sides, with 4" insulation batting mounted on 2 x 4's at 18" centers.

Calibers tested: 9mm and .40.
Distance: 10 feet.

Test results:

Hollow points: all penetrated both sides without fragmenting.

Cor Bon: broken into two pieces on 2 out of 10 shots. The other eight went straight through without fragmenting.

Extreme ammo, AFR:
1 shot broke into several pieces (20), after penetrating the first layer of sheet rock.
8 shots broke into several pieces (15-22) after penetrating the second layer of sheetrock.
1 shot broke into several pieces (8) after penetrating the second layer of sheetrock, but one of those pieces was equal to a .22 round.

OUR CONCLUSION WAS that out of the ammo we tested, the Extreme AFR was closest to the results we wanted, but it certainly was not close to the advertised capabilities. None of the test shots involved hitting the 2 x 4's, so SHOULD have yielded similar results. There was a definite lack of consistency in the AFR results.

If Air Marshals are using it, it may be questionable as to the results. Which is structurally more acceptable at 30K feet--one hole through the fusilage, or twenty small holes distributed within a 12" area ?

Steve Camp
06-23-2004, 10:09 AM
If Air Marshals are using it, it may be questionable as to the results. Which is structurally more acceptable at 30K feet--one hole through the fusilage, or twenty small holes distributed within a 12" area ?

Hey, you know... I highly doubt a single pistol round penetrating a commercial aircraft cabin at 30,000 ft MSL is going to do sheeitt to the structural integrity of the aircraft, let alone if the round fragments and makes 20 small holes within a square foot area. Without even performing a dynamic analysis or even a static finite element analysis of the fuselage with lots of little holes and the pressurized atmosphere venting through the holes to the outside... think about this: anyone remember back in the 1980s when the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner with a guided missile? Anyone also recall an event, in the same time period, where a Soviet SU-15 interceptor shot a different airliner with a 23mm cannon? The shell impacted the airliner fuselage near the wing, if memory serves. At least one passenger, if not more, was killed when the 23mm shell exploded upon impact with the fuselage. A large hole was torn in the fuselage (like multiple square feet -- I think you could walk through it)... but the airliner was able to safely land. Anyone also recall the B737 that had the top of the fuselage rip off during a short flight from one Hawaiian island to another? Yet the plane landed even though it looked like a sardine can had been opened. A single pistol round (most probably) ain't gonna do squat. You could probably empty an MP5 through the fuselage and you are not going to lose the aircraft (unless, perhaps, by accident, you just happened to sever ALL critical hydraulic lines (multiple backups) and/or ALL of something else critical to the flight control system.)

Now if you want to minimize overpenetration in building wall materials... that is fine... but I would not buy into any kind of agency X uses such and such a round because it will not bring down a commercial aircraft -- phooey... a FMJ or JHP pistol round ain't gonna bring a commercial a/c down anyhow.

FWIW. Sorry... /rant=off

Al Lipscomb
06-23-2004, 10:14 AM
This has been hashed over a number of times. All cabins leak a little. The amount of additional air that is going to leak out after a few pistol rounds make holes is not going to bother the compressors.

V42
06-23-2004, 10:16 AM
If Air Marshals are using it, it may be questionable as to the results. Which is structurally more acceptable at 30K feet--one hole through the fusilage, or twenty small holes distributed within a 12" area ?

1. Who says that Air Marshalls are using it? That claim is internet scuttlebutt. They are using Speer Gold Dot.

2, It has been established that a few bullet sized holes in the fusalage (SP) are not going to do to an airplane what fiction suggests.

3. The fact that it doesn't feed reliably in some otherwise modern guns and is so expensive that firing the minimum number of rounds to ensure reliability (200 rounds) is prohibitive does not speak well for the ammos practicality.

This extreme shot with its brash claims strikes me as just the type of stuff that gives a gunstore commando a chubby.

Steve Camp
06-23-2004, 10:22 AM
...gives a gunstore commando a chubby...

LOL :D :eek:

Hasher
06-23-2004, 10:42 AM
Probably gives one to the OBG's as well.

Hasher

Marswolf
06-23-2004, 04:48 PM
Well, maybe the Extreme Shock folks lied to me. But I don't think my Special Forces buddies did.

Sorry if I made an incorrect assumption, David. I apologize if I have done so. I'm normally pretty careful about deducing things.

Snakeater
01-25-2005, 01:12 PM
Has anyone tried AccuTec USA "Ultra-Frangible" ?

I believe it's manufactured by Kilgore Ammunition Products
of Toone, TN. A division of Kilgore Flare Company??

Thanks,
S.

banzai7
01-25-2005, 04:27 PM
wow. I too just checked out the site hk94.com. No thanks. I'll stay here.

As for this magic ammo..........when I carry my .45, I still carry hardball. I must be the oldest 34 y/o dinosaur ever !!!

Young9mmGunner
01-26-2005, 07:16 AM
Yeah I had a conversation along similar lines.
I am conviced the Navy Seals have forgone the usual ammunition, and a currently using, to good effect, wadded paper balls...


Yeah i hear those eye injuries are really painful :D

Treyarch
04-05-2005, 07:30 PM
As for this magic ammo..........when I carry my .45, I still carry hardball. I must be the oldest 34 y/o dinosaur ever !!!

That was a 1911 you carried?

I thought you used a .75 calibur smoothbore muzzle loading flintlock charged by blackpowder...

banzai7
04-06-2005, 08:02 AM
No, that's the 'house gun'. Smart A$$ !!!

mlhoward
04-06-2005, 10:55 AM
I thought you used a .75 calibur smoothbore muzzle loading flintlock charged by blackpowder...
A buck and ball loaded .75 Brown Bess would put a serious hurt on somebody at close range. And you get a bonus smokescreen!

banzai7
04-06-2005, 12:15 PM
Good. My Rhidgeback likes smoked jerky !!!