someone has to come up with a number on how much is too much bullets to hoard?Maui dog open a dialogue on that will yah

This is America!  Everyone should get to say for themselves how much is enough! 

Unless you're a Liberal, and then you try to force your rules on the rest of us.   

 

...
What if the perp does not die and sustains massively crippling injuries for the rest of his life?
Do you not think the perp, or the family, would hesitate for a milisecond to sue you?
The plaintiff would obtain the info on your RIP bullet and immediately paint you as a bloodthirsty gun nut.
It would be really tough to defend yourself in court.

I still don't get it. If you shoot anyone and they survive, you will probably sued irrespective of whether you used a hollow point or lead SWC cast by ypur own hands.  Defense of self and defense of others  are both defenses in a situation where you are accused of committing an intentional tort against another. If you defense a claim of an intentional tort, you don't even get to the issue of damages.

Believe the point Old Fart and I are trying to convey it's best to use commercial ammo designed for LE or HD. Kinda like it's not best to use your handloaded ammunition. Reasoning behind that? Your handloads may be less powerful and less lethal, but more accurate maybe? + for victim...
Most of us have served on jury duty. The plaintiff's attorney will try to sway Jury in their favor. Name "RIP", graphic videos may be enough to effect verdict. Must be something to it. Winchester changed product name and advertisements for black talons. Still side on being conservative, for HD & CCW use.
Best to run that past your attorney if you have firearms for HD.
If you do it's something real to look into your insurance & well being. Personally know of 3 home invasions (relative & friends) in Honolulu. In all three deadly force could have been a real option if home owners had a firearm. One ended in a justified homicide (purp killed).
Here on the forum you can talk and voice your opinions. Great sharing everybody's views and perspective on subject is what this is all about.
Might not agree but that's your right.
If plaintiff showed up in a wheelchair and said look what that gun nut did to me. Ask yourself honestly would have wanted to use that "RIP" ammo.
Think it's all hype, not good hype.
Sorry for long read, but this topic of HD ammo hits home.

I still don't get it. If you shoot anyone and they survive, you will probably sued irrespective of whether you used a hollow point or lead SWC cast by ypur own hands.  Defense of self and defense of others  are both defenses in a situation where you are accused of committing an intentional tort against another. If you defense a claim of an intentional tort, you don't even get to the issue of damages.

===============
I'm not a lawyer or anything like that. I'm jus' a good ole country boy blessed with a little common sense.
Here is why I say what I say:

1- I seem to recall reading an article written decades ago by somebody of some authority (I can't remember who) and one of the recommendations was to use the same types of guns and ammo that your local pd uses.

2- Just the name, "RIP" bullet casts a shadow of negativity upon you and your intentions.
Are you familiar with the “Black Talon” story?

3- Attorneys can be really shitty about these little things like your choice of bullets. Let me relate a little anecdote.
Approximately 20 years ago I was asked by a prominent defense attorney to testify as an expert witness in a somewhat famous murder trial.
I was hired to examine the ballistic evidence and dispute the prosecutor's claims. It seemed like an easy job.
When I examined the evidence, it was immediately obvious to me that the prosecutor was right. The evidence clearly supported the prosecutor.
Of course, when I presented my report to the defense, I was quickly dismissed before I stepped into the courtroom.
My point is that attorneys will explore every detail to prove or disprove something. This was not "Perry Mason" or "Law and Order". This was "fo'real".
To this day, the perp remains in jail and the defense attorney is still practicing. I see him on tv every once in a while.

4- I don't think the RIP bullet has any track record of success does it?


5-Truth-about-guns test review:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/daniel-zimmerman/g2-researchs-rip-ammo-ballistic-testing-phase-one/
Among other things, the author had a failure to feed and really questions the marketing hype put forth by the manufacturer.

6- The cost of verifying reliable fit, feed and function would be astronomical for ordinary folks. Actual practice sessions would be out of the question.
Unless you are incredibly wealthy.

In conclusion, you may disagree with my reasoning and I do sort of understand what you are saying.
But in the end, we are all adults and free to make our own decisions.

Yup this is America everybody can shoot whatever pleases them. Ain't no expert but know how tramatic it is for the victim and having to deal with legal drama. Just trying to protect yourself.
Thank you for your post and insight.
Mahalo

I personally don't like this round.

Not because of legal backlash... But because it just seems silly and gimmicky. And the opposite of what you want to happen for a handgun caliber.

We've spent decades designing bullets that reliably expand, penetrate and retain their weight for a reason. This throws all that out the window for flashiness' sake.

===============
I'm not a lawyer or anything like that. I'm jus' a good ole country boy blessed with a little common sense.
Here is why I say what I say:

1- I seem to recall reading an article written decades ago by somebody of some authority (I can't remember who) and one of the recommendations was to use the same types of guns and ammo that your local pd uses.

2- Just the name, "RIP" bullet casts a shadow of negativity upon you and your intentions.
Are you familiar with the “Black Talon” story?

3- Attorneys can be really shitty about these little things like your choice of bullets. Let me relate a little anecdote.
Approximately 20 years ago I was asked by a prominent defense attorney to testify as an expert witness in a somewhat famous murder trial.
I was hired to examine the ballistic evidence and dispute the prosecutor's claims. It seemed like an easy job.
When I examined the evidence, it was immediately obvious to me that the prosecutor was right. The evidence clearly supported the prosecutor.
Of course, when I presented my report to the defense, I was quickly dismissed before I stepped into the courtroom.
My point is that attorneys will explore every detail to prove or disprove something. This was not "Perry Mason" or "Law and Order". This was "fo'real".
To this day, the perp remains in jail and the defense attorney is still practicing. I see him on tv every once in a while.

4- I don't think the RIP bullet has any track record of success does it?


5-Truth-about-guns test review:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/daniel-zimmerman/g2-researchs-rip-ammo-ballistic-testing-phase-one/
Among other things, the author had a failure to feed and really questions the marketing hype put forth by the manufacturer.

6- The cost of verifying reliable fit, feed and function would be astronomical for ordinary folks. Actual practice sessions would be out of the question.
Unless you are incredibly wealthy.

In conclusion, you may disagree with my reasoning and I do sort of understand what you are saying.
But in the end, we are all adults and free to make our own decisions.

Dear Venerable Flatulence.

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't disagreeing inasmuch as I was trying to understand the logic behind and argument that I was aware of even before you mentioned it. Just never heard the arguments that supported the conclusion. If there's any play to be made on use of such destructive ammo, it would have to be (at least in my mind), that the the act was not done in self defense and that the shooter went to great lengths of picking ammunition which would cause (arguably maliciously) the severest of injuries. This may be a factor that weighs against the claim of self defense or defense of others was employed. Sort of like shooting a bazooka at a convenience store robber. While the elements of self defense of one self or others may exist, justifying the use of deadly force, the use of a device which results in complete annilhilation of disintegration of the alleged perpetrator may cast aspersion on the shooter's claim that he was simply defending himself or someone else.

The problem is lawyers and political correctness.

There is no "logic" behind this train of thought. It is fear of being prosecuted for your actions whether or not you were justified in taking them.

In a self defense situation where one is forced to shoot someone in order to protect themselves or others we are instructed to say "I shot to stop the threat" in order to keep from being prosecuted for having an intent to kill.

This is politically correct BS. The second thing my Father and Grandfather taught me about firearms, after "the gun is always loaded" was "don't point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill". Nobody, in any sort of firearms training I've ever heard of including the police, is taught to shoot to wound or brandish to intimidate.  We are taught to shoot to kill. If the target is shot and survives or stops before being shot that's all well and good, nobody in their right mind should have a desire to kill another human being. That does not, however, remove the intent.

If you have a firearm pointed at someone, finger on the trigger, you had better be prepared for the eventuality that that person will likely die as a result of your actions. If not, then the weapon shouldn't have been brought out to begin with. The choice of ammunition is moot, it's simply a matter of efficiency.