Over Hype'd Ammo Ad's

I just found this and found the tag line too bloody funny to miss sharing. I mean, I would be embarrassed to have a box of that lying round as shooting ammo.

So any other funny/over the top cartridge boxes, posters, or even eBay posts?

Correct, you as a knowldedgeable man would be embarassed maybe but do not for get that 99% of the expected customers and gun owners have their knowledge from action movies. Those expect exactly such an ammo box following the line of miracle cleaning detergents or useless other stuff that just has to be advertised in bright (and overdone) colors. Likely the marketing manager of this ammo company was working before in one of the mentioned businesses.

“Anti Terrorist Munitions”, yea, as if a civilian in the US has ever seen a terrorist…

I have a pile of “Match Grade Anti-Bandit” rocks in my backyard, very useful for repelling bandit squirrel raids. I’m sure I could find a few neighbors who would buy them…if labeled correctly.

Let’s not forget Dynamic Research Technologies and their “DRT” / (dead right there!) loads. A copper-jacketed copper/tin frangible core load with a little aluminum cap at front int he hollow point. Their website claims that this ammo “has been used by special government agencies for over 10 years” which I think technically means frangible ammo in general, but they are clearly trying to have people think that their DRT ammo has been used that long, much in the same way that Extreme Shock would claim that “warfighters” have been using their ammo to kill terrorists. DRT’s graphics:

Many of the online reviews claim that the accuracy and terminal effectiveness of the DRT is no greater than typical hollow points, so the price is sort of out of whack.

And there’s an oldie but goodie, the Omnishock load. Takes “Just one shock!”:

This load found itself on the BATF’s restriction list for pistol AP ammo, which is silly, but some of them did have steel screw cores. The core and jacket would often separate, resulting in a failure of the desired projectile expansion.

Then there’s the Devastator ammo which has gone through many transformations and distributors. “It’s Awesome! It’s Powerful! It’s the Ultimate in Self-Defense ammo!”:

Sold by the likes of Hi-Vel, Hitechammotogo, AA-OK, and Firequest.

There is also A-Merc’s A.D.E. or “Alpha Delayed Expansion” ammo which sounds pretty awesome, and it does come in a spam can, but these were just low quality HP loads that were coated in a chrome-looking substance:

There’s also the somewhat more respectable loads like Glaser Safety slugs & Magsafe loads, which some people say are really awesome, and others say work as well as typical hollow points. I think those loads are more devastating at close range anyway. Hey, if they’re good enough for Sylvester Stallone to use, they must be ok?:

IMFDB shows an image of a clip loaded with Glasers as he is cleaning his gun:

Perhaps the “Extreme Shock” ammunition’s Anti-Terrorist effect comes from the projectile’s material rather than mechanical effect…“Tungsten-NyTrilium” may be to terrorists like kryptonite is to Superman? It certainly sounds impressive.


That DRT box does catch the eye. Strange how the folks I usually shoot with look nothing like the two pictured there. Maybe if I use that product they will?


You guys should not pooh-pooh these specialty cartridges. Two weeks ago I was attacked by a rogue 2 x 12 ponderosa pine board and my Omnishock delivered the goods exactly as pictured on the box.

Please, Ladies and Gentlemen of the IAA Forum, let’s not start going down this road of bashing different types of ammunition based on what the packaging looks like or what the manufacturers claim their ammo will or will not do.

I see this type of product bashing all the time on every firearms forum that I visit. It gets very old reading the same Sophmoric comments such as “Only Mall Ninjas use ES”, and “One hit from an ES round to your pinky-finder will cause you to turn into a pile of goo”, and other such comments that remind me of childhood taunts that we used to utter; “I know you are, but what am I?”.

I would like to see this forum’s members conduct themselves in a more professional and technical manner than the average Internet gun forum member. I understand that the IAA is a public forum that anyone can access and sign up and become a member, but I’m hoping that we can maintain a modicum of legitamacy about what this forum is about.

And please don’t take this posting as bashing any forum member. I greatly enjoy the technical aspect of what people collect and I love the great pictures that get posted, especially packages like the original poster and DK have posted on this thread, especially since I collect such “exotic” handgun ammo that was all the rage back in the 1980’s and 90’s. It’s just that I’m hoping that we can avoid the childish comments that always seem to acompany the posting of a topic that involves such ammo.

With Respect and Best Regards to ALL of you who share our common interest in collecting cartridges and accessories of all types,

Leon G.

Inflated claims for the performance of ammunition goes way back to the middle ages when silver bullets were engraved with religious symbols and were blessed by a priest.
My mind goes immediately to the various patent bullets around 90 years ago or so which promised much but delivered little.
Or the early hype about the .357 mag “designed to penetrate the engine block of a car”.
Actually, some of the worst hype in the last twenty years or so has involved air pellets but there have been so many others, teflon coated lead bullets, and plastic one piece shotgun wads to name but two. All these super shock bullets are just the latest.

I think the difference here from all the immature forums when it comes to poking fun at ammo marketing is that we go beyond just Extreme Shock. E.S. is the only thing that other forums can think of criticizing. The other ammo types here and their non-traditional marketing are a study in over-the-top graphics and verbiage that are a part of ammo history. I embrace it as a slice of the specialty ammo pie that I collect. And I think we have no fear here of becoming anything close to the absurdity of some other internet gun forums that will remain unmentioned. The other guys who get a little funny in here, I think, are close to the line but not over it and they help keep things light.

Leon–Not to worry. The Forum Police (Me!!) are watching. I read EVERY post. I assure you, as some in the past have found out, if it strays TOO far, I will clamp down on it. I have complete control and can delete or modify ANY post.

The Gamo Performance Ballistic Alloy ad’s are very well written. 25% more speed. Sounds Awesome! But wait, there’s more.

Someone forgot to mention that the projo is lighter. Doing the math, an 8 grn projo (I just found a list of airgun pellets and figured the average projo weight was approx 8.26 grns) travelling at 1000fps is at 17.77 foot pounds of energy.

A PBA projo is 5.4 grains. Assuming the 25% increase is correct and not fudged in the interest of marketing it is travelling at 1250fps thus at 18.74 foot pounds of energy.

5% energy difference.

The price of 100 rounds of PBA pellets is NZ$21.99. The price of 250 rounds of Gamo Pro-Magnum pellets is NZ$13.99. (Prices from NZ Gun City Website) For 100rnds of pellets it is 330% more for the PBA. 330% more money for 5% energy gain.

I know that the figures don’t show every thing but I’m sticking away from PBA. Especially when you consider that I can run 150rnds of .22LR for the same price.

Found info on the ES ammo on Box o’ Truth. Kinda interesting

Some may have noticed that I posted earlier about being offended by some of the comments made in regard to those of us who have a sense of humor. I deleted it because it occured to me that the Forum is no place to air our petty grievances.

GOOD GRIEF!!! Let’s stop using childish references to other members and to other gun and shooting forums, of which I am very likely a member.



One of the greatest thing that I enjoy about both the IAA Journal and the forum is it’s dedication to presenting factual and technical information about cartridges and related items; who made what item, when it was made/developed, it’s construction, what it’s purpose was, how it worked (or didn’t work), etc. This is where the IAA is outstanding and stands out above all other forums.

My previous post was a plea to all forum members to do their very best to continue to lead the way in providing a source of outstanding factual, technical and historical information about our hobby and interest in all types of munitions and associated accessories.

I am not against humorious postings, but I would like to see us steer clear of those types of postings that I continue to see on nearly all other gun related forums; those posts that are both childish and denigrating based merely on personal bias of the company’s packaging and/or performance claims.

And by avoiding such styles of postings, I believe this simple act will help to maintain the integrity of the IAA forum as being a serious and legitimate source of factual and technical information regarding our hobby.

So if I offended you, or anyone else, then my apologies, as that was not my intentions.

  1. Thank God for IAA and it’s continued efforts towards civilized, professional online conduct.

  2. The DRT ad pictured has the Mandrell sisters as models…as in the ‘country-music Mandrells’. I can’t recall the names of the 2 pictured however.

  3. Re: DRT…if memory serves, Gary Roberts tests showed that .223 DRT does indeed capitalize on bullet construction for specific terminal effect, but that the 9mm version did nothing special. Other similar products have shown in some military tests to have merit (barrier penetration), while others have been shown to be little more than dressed-up commercial components.

  4. Meanwhile, companies like SSA, Hirtenberger, RUAG, and ATK continually refine existing technologies and push the envelope with new ones…sans the “OxyClean” ad campaigns.

The military and police here stateside, even Tier 1 units, are more open with ammunition information (and have a lot less to choose from on an operational basis) than many folks might think.


Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’re talking about cartridges. It’s not like we are defending our Mother’s sacred honor. (Which reminds me of an old Graucho Marx joke, but there evidently is no place for jokes on this Forum so I wouldn’t dare tell it.)



Thanks for your two postings. The IAA Forum was established for the serious discussion of ammunition related collecting and research and things related to the IAA and it’s objectives, and to introduce more people to the IAA. It was not intended as a social network to exchange jokes, opinions unrelated to ammunition, rants on any subject, or any of the million or more other things that can be found on the internet.

I have no objection to humor, but it’s role is pretty limited on this Forum, in my opinion. Ron Merchant, and others, do a good job of keeping the threads in this forum pretty much on track.

I have consistently heard the comment that the technical content of the Forum has dropped off considerably (my thanks to Ray M and the others who continue to provide excellent information for the serious student of ammunition). The other complaint is that we as a group don’t do a great job of answering questions. John Moss has carried much of the load here, and I will confess that I see topics where I could contribute but am away from my collection and don’t have the immediate answer, or are otherwise occupied and never get around to contributing.

I lot of talent on this Forum and it is the contribution of this talent that gives the Forum value, just like the IAA Journal with it’s great articles, all provided by members and other contributors.

Thanks to all of you for what you have contributed to the IAA Forum over the past years. Keep up the good work and lets all try to bring it to a new level.